It’s not exactly the same feeling Rajendra Pachauri must have felt from the adoration of worshipers as he took the stage to share the Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore, but the Wall Street Journal gave him and his IPCC some press today. In fact, they placed the story right smack on the front page, in the article entitled, Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel.
Here’s a short excerpt:
The IPCC has faced withering criticism. Emails hacked from a U.K. climate lab and posted online late last year appear to show scientists trying to squelch researchers who disagreed with their conclusion that humans are largely responsible for climate change. And last month, the IPCC admitted its celebrated 2007 report contained an error: a false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The IPCC report got the date from a World Wildlife Fund report.
Even some who agree with the IPCC conclusion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change say the IPCC has morphed from a scientific analyst to a political actor. “It’s very much an advocacy organization that’s couched in the role of advice,” says Roger Pielke, a University of Colorado political scientist. He says many IPCC participants want “to compel action” instead of “just summarizing science.”
To restore its credibility, the IPCC will focus on enforcing rules already on the books, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and other officials said in interviews. Scientific claims must be checked with several experts before being published. IPCC reports must reflect disagreements when consensus can’t be reached. And people who write reports must refrain from advocating specific environmental actions—a political line the IPCC isn’t supposed to cross.
Of course, WSJ readers are likely more skeptical (and intelligent) than readers of most other news publications, but even so, the accompanying readers’ poll showed vast numbers of people are now seeing the whole scheme as a fraud. The poll asked readers to grade the IPCC on how good of a job they were doing. At the time we read it, with about 650 votes in, 82% had given them an F.
Is that an F for fail or an F for fraud?
Possibly related posts: