{"id":424006,"date":"2010-03-12T07:45:28","date_gmt":"2010-03-12T12:45:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonplanet.com\/?p=36589"},"modified":"2010-03-12T07:45:28","modified_gmt":"2010-03-12T12:45:28","slug":"climategate-the-ipcc%e2%80%99s-whitewash-%e2%80%98review%e2%80%99-is-the-agw-camp%e2%80%99s-biggest-mistake-yet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/424006","title":{"rendered":"Climategate: the IPCC\u2019s whitewash \u2018review\u2019 is the AGW camp\u2019s biggest mistake yet"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gerald Warner
\nLondon Telegraph<\/a><\/a>
\nMarch<\/a> 12, 2010<\/p>\n

It looks as if the tottering IPCC has just made its biggest mistake yet. Twenty-four hours after the announcement of an \u201cindependent\u201d inquiry into certain aspects of its activities it is possible to make a considered assessment of its significance. By any reasoned analysis, it is not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent.<\/p>\n

First, who appointed this review body? Those two iconic standard bearers of climate science<\/a> objectivity, UN<\/a> Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC head (still!) Rajendra Pachauri<\/a>. There is nothing like being judge in your own cause \u2013 it secures a less damaging verdict. Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that \u201c100 billion tons\u201d of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time<\/a> the previous year. Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC\u2019s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers<\/a> as \u201cvoodoo science\u201d.<\/p>\n

Then there is the review\u2019s terms of reference. It has four remits: to analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN<\/a> agencies; to review use of non-peer reviewed sources and data quality control; to assess how procedures handle \u201cthe full range of scientific views; and to review IPCC communications with the public and the media<\/a>. So, most of its activity will relate to reorganisation of the IPCC\u2019s propaganda operation and how it can be beefed up.<\/p>\n

Nowhere are there proposals for it to revisit, in depth, the IPCC\u2019s 3,000-page 2007 report and repudiate the vast range of inaccuracies and downright fabrications it contains. Instead, the review panel has to report by August so that its meaningless conclusions on a variety of irrelevant issues can be used to sanitise the IPCC\u2019s next report, to be prepared at a meeting in October.<\/p>\n

Full article here<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Possibly Related Posts:<\/h3>\n