Son of Climategate, Post #4
At the end of Post #3 I asked, "Where is the U.S. media?
Courtesy of one of our readers, the answer is: Making excuses for the IPCC. He forwarded this Washington Post story from this morning with the headline, "U.N. climate panel chief: Error shouldn't derail global warming efforts in India." It goes on to quote IPCC head Pachauri, "chairman of the Nobel-Prize-winning panel" about the "mistake." Note it is mistake, singular.
Because these posts are rather long, I'd like to summarize them for you. As you know, the IPCC holds itself out as the epitome of objective, peer-reviewed science.
The first three posts have shown that the IPCC has stated, as scientific fact, non-peer reviewed materials from political advocacy groups on two occasions, in spite of being warned that the information was not scientifically correct. We also learned that the incorrect claim about glaciers (why some are calling this 'glaciergate') was intentionally used to influence political decision makers.
Second, we learned that Dr. Pachauri has considerable business and financial interests in this matter.
Third, we received independent verification that Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.'s long-standing claim about the IPCC completely distorting his research is correct. The research determined that 'global warming' is not causing greater meteorological disasters. The IPCC not only misstated the conclusion of the research, but created a graph (no one seems to know where the graph came from) purporting to show 'global warming' = more disasters. The IPCC claimed the graph was from the original research paper but neither that graph, nor anything like that graph, was part of the original paper.
Finally, we have seen that the pro-global warming group at NASA has "scrubbed" the glacier claim from its website without further explanation.
So, I have to be amused when the Post refers to "error" in the singular and does not provide any of this other context in its reporting.
Courtesy of one of our readers, the answer is: Making excuses for the IPCC. He forwarded this Washington Post story from this morning with the headline, "U.N. climate panel chief: Error shouldn't derail global warming efforts in India." It goes on to quote IPCC head Pachauri, "chairman of the Nobel-Prize-winning panel" about the "mistake." Note it is mistake, singular.
Because these posts are rather long, I'd like to summarize them for you. As you know, the IPCC holds itself out as the epitome of objective, peer-reviewed science.
The first three posts have shown that the IPCC has stated, as scientific fact, non-peer reviewed materials from political advocacy groups on two occasions, in spite of being warned that the information was not scientifically correct. We also learned that the incorrect claim about glaciers (why some are calling this 'glaciergate') was intentionally used to influence political decision makers.
Second, we learned that Dr. Pachauri has considerable business and financial interests in this matter.
Third, we received independent verification that Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.'s long-standing claim about the IPCC completely distorting his research is correct. The research determined that 'global warming' is not causing greater meteorological disasters. The IPCC not only misstated the conclusion of the research, but created a graph (no one seems to know where the graph came from) purporting to show 'global warming' = more disasters. The IPCC claimed the graph was from the original research paper but neither that graph, nor anything like that graph, was part of the original paper.
Finally, we have seen that the pro-global warming group at NASA has "scrubbed" the glacier claim from its website without further explanation.
So, I have to be amused when the Post refers to "error" in the singular and does not provide any of this other context in its reporting.
That is hilarious. My favorite is, "We can wait another 30 years, another warming trend will come along!"
ReplyDeleteAs I was watching, I was thinking that we need to get Mel Brooks on this.