Surprise, surprise

This is no surprise in a way. Truth will out. It had to catch up with the IPCC eventually. Will it be front page news ? Should be. This critical report, although sugar coated, is at least getting an airing in the British Press.

A review of the practices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been conducted in response to intense criticism of the body, whose reports are used by governments to inform policy decisions on global warming….Conducted by a committee of representatives from the world’s leading scientific bodies, the analysis is expected to recommend a number of changes to the way the IPCC compiles and checks its extensive 1,000 page reports. [Telegraph]

There is comment in the Financial Post from one of the critics on the flawed process.

One excerpt on just one of the serious flaws:

After the publication of the AR4 I found that important text had been altered or deleted after the close of the review process, and the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 had fabricated evidence (on Page 244 of the Working Group I Report), by claiming that statistical evidence in two published, peer-reviewed articles on surface data contamination was statistically insignificant, when the articles show no such thing. The paragraph was inserted after the close of peer review and was never subject to external scrutiny. That Lead Authors are able to insert evidence and rewrite the text after the close of review makes a mockery of the idea that the IPCC reports are peer reviewed, and undermines the claim that they contain the consensus of experts.

Given the amount of money that it is proposed we as a society pay for emissions “mitigation”, we would hope they would make sure the IPCC got it right.


Comments are closed.