Dr. Pachauri has been cleared of any financial wrongdoing recently by an independent review of conflict of interest allegations involving his alleged involvement with companies which have a direct financial stake in climate policy. He also expressed support for the Inter Academy Council’s recommendation to institute a conflict of interest policy. However, he continued to defend his links to industry and other stakeholders, which may raise at least the appearance of a conflict of interest if those stakeholders are aligned on only one side of the major issues or have something to gain from the IPCC’s global warming findings. This may be another good reason for Dr. Pachauri to step down now.
3. Lack of Transparency – The Inter Academy Council criticized the IPCC’s “lack of transparency in several stages of the IPCC assessment process, including scoping and the selection of authors and reviewers, as well as in the selection of scientific and technical information considered in the chapters.” The Council recommended that “due consideration” be given to “properly documented alternative views.”
The Inter Academy Council also criticized the IPCC’s “slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment.”
At the IPCC press briefing, Dr. Pachauri and his colleagues continued to behave in a manner that discounted any alternative views on the robustness of the science underlying climate change. They claimed that their work is based on “clearly robust evidence that man-made drivers are responsible for climate change in the last fifty years,” which purportedly independent scientific reviews of the IPCC’s findings have since upheld. However, they omitted to mention or downplayed the scientific analyses that have questioned the IPCC’s core assumptions and evidence – for example studies of variations in the Earth’s global absorption and reflection of sunlight which some scientists believe is the critical component of the global climate. The IPCC’s report gave short shrift to this theory as too uncertain to be reliable, even though it has been backed up by substantial empirical evidence.
Dr. Pachauri only acknowledged what he called small errors in the IPCC report, including the incorrect projection of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers. He is still in denial that the Himalayan error was only the tip of the ice glacier, so to speak. At their press briefing, the IPCC chairman and his colleagues ducked my questions regarding much larger failures going to the heart of their report, such as the failure of the IPCC computer models to predict the lowering of global temperatures during the last decade or to explain spikes in global warming prior to the Industrial Age.
4. Advocacy Rather Than Unbiased Analysis – The Inter Academy Council noted that the IPCC had not responded adequately to “complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC’s mandate to be ‘policy relevant, not policy prescriptive’ in their public comments.” The Council warned that “Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility.”
I asked Dr. Pachauri about his own advocacy of dramatic government action to combat the IPCC’s finding of dangerous man-made global warming, reminding him of his quote back in 2007 when he said that the IPCC fourth assessment report was meant to “shock people [and] governments into taking more serious action.” Dr. Pachauri defended his remark, saying that any “sensible person” who read the IPCC’s report would be shocked. That may be true, but raises the question of whether the report was written and its data manipulated in such a way as to induce the desired shock reaction. The underlying question is whether any sensible person, after reading the Inter Academy Council’s critique, can trust what the IPCC has to say about global warming without truly independent verification.
In sum, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change needs to go back to the drawing board. It must entirely revamp its structure and processes before anyone can take what it says seriously. Cap and trade, carbon taxes or other comparable policy prescriptions, based on the IPCC’s fear-mongering crisis advocacy, will wreck our economy and are likely to make little difference in affecting climate change.
Taxing the air we breathe, that must be the pinnacle for revenue crazed governments.
Control on all carbon creation, their nose is in every action of man.
I think you missed a story about Climategate there….FPM never got back to tell us what became of this scandal. You just change tact and question something else.
Ah now we are playing your game, sucks dont it : )
It has taken us a while to learn the ways of the dark side but we are getting there.
No I kid, the reality is the science is BS, thats all.
huh? Sorry, the cult speak is wasted on me…just move along davarino.
He's saying you're the pot calling the kettle black. Is that simple enough for you?
Noone has mentioned the biggest conflict of interest – if there is no climate emergency, then there is no reason to keep funding the IPCC, and Pachauri et al will have to find new jobs.
I suspect any bureaucracy has a tendency to produce recommendations which avoid endangering their own funding. I've only heard of one or two rare cases when Quangos voted to disband themselves.
Its good the hammer has come down on the IPCC and about time. We need an end to the climate wackos.
Who knew that this universal Ponzi scheme was fueled by those age-old corruptables: power,greed,money and prestige? Sometimes what is new is really the old.
The problem here is enemy identification. They are attacking on multiple fronts from behind the cover of legitimate causes. They are on both sides of aisle; the Bush's are part of it. Its despicable. We still have time; but probably not much time.
The question is to what extreme will they go to prevent backsliding on their agenda. They are on the verge of a major foothold and the November election is going to be their Waterloo. Every loyal American needs to be on the alert for suspicious behaviour and activity to anticipate false flag events.
God Bless America!!!!