Free Markets, Free People

IPCC: stay out of politics and concentrate on science

Essentially, that’s the unvarnished version of what an independent commission recommended the UN’s IPCC do from now on – stay out of politics and concentrate on getting the science right.

UN climate change experts have been accused of making ‘imprecise and vague’ statements and over-egging the evidence.

A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.

The probe, by representatives of the Royal Society and foreign scientific academies, took a thinly-veiled swipe at Rajendra Pachauri, the panel’s chairman for the past eight years.

As anyone who has been keeping up with the scandal among the IPCC and warmist “science” crowd in general, the report last issued by the UN’s climate commission has been under heavy and increasing fire from many directions.  This is the latest in the saga.  The investigative panel also make it clear that they’re of the opinion that Pachauri is not the guy they believe should be in charge of the IPCC.

Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor and chair of the committee that conducted the review, said that a report by an IPCC working group "contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence."

Professor Shapiro said the IPCC’s response to errors when they were subsequently revealed was "slow and inadequate."

Asked about the Himalayan glaciers error, Professor Shapiro said, "At least in our judgment, it came from just not paying close enough attention to what [peer] reviewers said about that example."

He added that there was concern about the U.N. climate panel’s lack of a conflict of interest policy, as is standard in most Government departments and international bodies.

The report called for development of a "rigorous conflict of interest policy" and made detailed suggestions on what should be disclosed.

Among those disclosures recommended are any financial and other ties to groups with an interest in the outcome of such a report (Pachauri has previously acted as an adviser to green energy companies).

The main finding, as noted above, was that despite all the claims to the contrary, many of the findings published with a “high confidence” were not peer reviewed or, if they were, the process was badly flawed.  Consequently, many of the findings were found to be erroneous.

That’s not to say that the panel found the overall IPCC report to be fraudulent – on the contrary – it claims to support the basic findings. And I’d be interested to know the panel’s leanings before their investigation.  Nevertheless it does find the present report’s errors to have badly “dented the credibility of the process”.

The panel also made a recommendation that the head of the IPCC be professionally qualified to do the necessary job:

‘Because the IPCC chair is both the leader and the face of the organisation, he or she must have strong credentials (including high professional standing in an area covered by IPCC assessments), international stature, a broad vision, strong leadership skills, considerable management experience at a senior level, and experience relevant to the assessment task.’

Pachauri’s background is mechanical engineering and he served with the Indian railway system before entering academia.  Few objective observers would his credentials as adequate for the job.  However Pachauri has no plans to step down.  This is another example of what putting an unqualified individual in high office will get  you.

We’ll see how this plays out, but remember that the IPCC report is something by which countries set their environmental policies.  If Pachauri stays on, with his credibility tarnished, a very good case exists for questioning the validity of the report (given this episode).  My guess is pressure is going to mount to oust him and replace him with a scientist at least associated with the field under investigation.

Frankly  I hope he stays on.  In my estimation, he perfectly represents why the warmist movement – and that’s what it is – continues to lose its audience and fewer and fewer people believe what they’re trying to sell.  And, afterall, he’s at least as qualified as Al Gore.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to IPCC: stay out of politics and concentrate on science

  • And, afterall, he’s at least as qualified as Al Gore.

    Oh, don’t insult Pachauri!  Gore flunked DIVINITY SCHOOL, for crying out loud!  The Indian thug is WAY more qualified, and it probably is only due to his third-world origins that he has not done quite as well at fleecing the world as has Gore.
    Lessee…will a UN panel stay out of politics and focus on science…???  Look for pig aviators first.

  • Shut up, the science is settled.

  • I thought the recommendation, that the IPCC have a board with a few non-scientists, was a real hoot.
    Most members of the IPCC are already not scientists, engineers or anything even vaguely connected with science.

  • McQPachauri’s background is mechanical engineering and he served with the Indian railway system before entering academia…  This is another example of what putting an unqualified individual in high office will get  you.

    Yes and no.  I suggest that an ME certainly COULD do the job of running the IPCC because (as I understand it) the job does not involve doing or even reviewing original research, but rather in ensuring the the general process is open and honest.  For example, I am not a climatologist, but I know enough about science to understand that articles from hiking magazines are not exactly great evidence for changes in glacier size.

    The big problem with Pachauri – and probably with MOST “climatologists” – is that they not only suffer from groupthink but also that they are profitting from their work.  Grants, prestige, bigger offices… all these can be yours if you will only agree with the orthodoxy that AGW / climate change is real!  And if you don’t, then the gates of academic celebration and advancement shall be forever barred against you!  Your name will become a byword not only for poor scientific ability, but for malice and hatred of your entire planet!  Make your choice.

    McQThat’s not to say that the panel found the overall IPCC report to be fraudulent – on the contrary – it claims to support the basic findings.

    HOW???  If many of the findings were found to be erroneous, how can ANYBODY claim that the basic findings are valid???  I agree with McQ: it would indeed be interesting to know the panel members’ leanings prior to the investigation.  My guess is that most or all of them believe in AGW / climate change, and the fact that the evidence for it is “dented” hasn’t changed their minds one bit.

    • My guess is that they don’t believe in it at all, they are being paid by the people who stand to profit big time on the global warming scam.

    • Guys!!  Remember; this is not science, but religion.  These are not observable phenomenon, but articles of faith.  Computer models that predict climate 100 years out are prophesy.
      AND, you get to make a LOT of money and tell others what to do, AND impose Collectivism on the world!

    • Duh man!  It’s fake but accurate….cripes….how hard is this?   You conservative whackjobs just don’t understand science do you!

  • Where’s Erb on this?  He loved to hold up this report as being proof positive that we had to DO SOMETHING NOW!


    • Erb spins like a top. He’s quite happy to pronounce his view correct, damn the facts. He will continue to push this nonsense, probably harder now than ever, since it is on the defensive now.

      He’s worse than Obama, talking down the Surge even after it obviously worked. And then taking credit for the improvements in Iraq, without giving any credit to Bush or the Surge.

  • I think any engineer (real ones like electrical, chemical, civil, etc…, not train engineers) could do a good job at heading the commission. Engineers deal with reality because the consequences of mistakes can be fatal.