Rose-tinted spectacles - by Richard... Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Rose-tinted spectacles - by Richard... Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Having barely covered the ebb and flow of the controversy over "Glaciergate",The Daily Telegraph today weighs in with a lead editorial demanding: "Climate change: give us science we can trust".

Nonetheless, the trigger for this sudden concern is indeed the Himalayan glacier story, on the back of which we are blithely informed that: "The IPCC quickly admitted the error ... ".

The temptation, at this point is to stop reading. This is not information – it is disinformation. Followers of the saga know well that, through the whole process of constructing the passage on melting glaciers, the IPCC ignored reviewers' comments and we are all aware of Pachauri's arrogant dismissal of Raina's contrary view last December as "voodoo science".

Only after the "mistake" had been comprehensively outed by Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Timesdid the IPCC finally react, and then grudgingly, dismissing it – as the DT leader records - " ... as an aberration carried on just one page of a report thousands of pages long."

The leader, however, then notes that the weekend brought further disclosures that claims in the report blaming rising temperatures for an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods had not been properly reviewed by other scientists. 

But then we get a bizarre assertion, that: "It is true that the first people to apologise for these errors and to promise to rectify them were the IPCC scientists themselves ... ". Last I hear (on a live link with NDTV to New Delhi) was Pachauri dismissing this report – as he so often does – as "lies", declaring that the IPCC would make a statement on it later this week, which it has yet to do.

Nevertheless, the Daily Telegraph – through rose-tinted glasses so dense that vision can hardly be possible – tells us that these scientists "... understand how important it is for the credibility of their case that the evidence on which it is based is copper-bottomed," then telling us: "it becomes difficult to resist the blandishments of the sceptics if a purportedly scientific document cannot be wholly relied on."

There betrayed is a curious mindset. If the IPCC documents could be "wholly relied on", then the sceptics would melt away. But it is the increasing evidence that the IPCC it itself a political organisation relying on junk science that sustains the sceptic movement. Desperately, theTelegraph seems to want to cling to its belief in global warming, and wants the IPCC to produce the documents to support that belief.

It thus offers the view that: "The most charitable interpretation is that the drafters were sloppy" - an extremely charitable view - then offering its recipe for improvements.

First, when the fifth IPCC report is prepared for publication, it says, any errors must be fully acknowledged and others removed. In addition, the report should contain contrarian evidence produced by scientists to demonstrate that this is a serious document, not a holy writ. 

Second, it says. the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, should step down. This will please environmentalists since he was appointed after the uber-sceptic George W Bush objected to his predecessor, Dr Robert Watson; but Dr Pachauri no longer carries the credibility that is required to take this hugely important debate forward.

We could not disagree with the idea of removing Pachauri, but what the paper evades is the idea that the IPCC itself – like its chairman – is fundamentally corrupt and completely beyond redemption. What is startling is the belief that any body spawned by the UN – of "food for oil fame" - could be anything other than corrupt.

However, so closely identified with the IPCC is Pachauri that his enforced departure would not only confirm his lack of credibility but fatally damage the IPCC itself. In a sense, the "environmentalists" are engaging in damage limitation. But the damage is already too severe. The whole edifice must go, and with it Pachauri and his begging bowl.

PACHAURI THREAD

Print ready

You think - by Richard...

How typical it is for the BBC to enter theGlaciergate fray, giving a subtly distorted and one-sided account of events, without mentioning the "conflict of interest" issues that have been highlighted by this blog and subsequently by a number of MSM outlets.

As I have observed before, censorship and distortion is manifest most strongly in what organs like the BBC don't say, as much as what they do. 

Thus, all we get from the Beeb is a travesty of the "state of the art" in their supposed summary, where they state: "Some commentators maintain that these developments, taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines (sic) the credibility of climate science."

Having presented this shallow pastiche, they then give the floor to the chairman of the IPCC, with this laughably distorted narrative, on the issue of his resignation:

But a defiant Dr Pachauri said: "I want to tell the sceptics... who see me as the face and the voice of the science of climate change, I am in no mood to oblige them; I am going to remain as chairman of the IPCC for my entire term."

What Pachauri has not yet come to terms with is that he is "dead man walking". It is not a question of whether, but when he is drummed out – although some would like to see him stay in place to deliver AR5, thereby ensuring it completely lacks credibility.

In fact, if AR5 is to have any credibility at all, Pachauri must go, which is precisely the argument of Richard Tol and others in Der Spiegel yesterday – a view shared by many warmists.

That said, as evidence mounts, the only rational view of AR4 is that it is fatally flawed. Pointing that out, Watts up with that picks up on "Amazongate" and such is the great value of such posts that we see a commentator picking up an error in my original piece.

Frankly, I am too tired to address it now – I don't know what this relentless grind is doing to Pachauri (although I can guess), but it is also taking its toll this end. However, we are in this for the long haul, and will do whatever it takes to bring this charlatan down (a man, for all his bluster, has walked away from his initial threats of taking action against me.) 

Nevertheless, the correct version of events is even more damning than my initial analysis, but it will take a little work to write up the detail, so I will post that later today. And then Pachauri will be one step closer to oblivion.

He may think he is going to remain in office, but then so did Nixon.

PACHAURI THREAD