Feb
Climategate lands on WSJ’s front page
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:
He can shake hands at his book signing tour full time.
Doesn’t Dr Pachauri head the SNAFU team at the IPCC ?
If not, I think someone should hand him a badge he can wear with pride, and no little justification.
Public Relations 101: reach out to your more reasonable critics with an admission that “things could have been done better and will be from here on” In other words the HAL9000 line about “I’m feeling much better now Dave” To late. The transgressions against science, reason, and political liberty already committed were to great for anything less than public humiliation and dismissal. Not to mention the fact that the essential scam continues unchecked. The WSJ article and most other msm attempts to summarize climategate read like a detailed explanation of a Pointilist painting. They described lots of dots but fail to see the picture. The fraudulant discipline of Natural Science known as “climate change” must be deconstructed down to it’s core. The priests must be defrocked and their political paymasters must be exposed to public scrutiny. Those reaching out now to help them salvage something from the wreckage are making a serious mistake. The case isn’t settled in the public square and we may not get a better opportunity later.
Oversimplify? Are they serious. Let’s look at the facts.
AR4 – The Physical Science Basis = 1204 pages
AR4 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability = 1018 pages
AR4 – Mitigation = 861 pages
AR4 – Summary for Policymakers = 113 pages
That’s a neat little pile of 3196 pages.