This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Posts appear Monday & Wednesday.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
I awoke this morning to the pleasant news that this blog has been nominated for a ‘Weblog of the Year’ award (scroll down to the very bottom of this page).
He says I’ve “worked very very hard this year on the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].” I’m much obliged.
In January 2013, I revealed that three internal IPCC data sticks were in my possession via a whistleblower. Even though the IPCC had foolishly relied on a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) publication for a key finding in its 2007 report, those data sticks make it clear it has still taken no precautions to keep activists at arms length.
The data sticks also showed that 1/3 of the Review Editors in the IPCC’s Working Group 2 had apparently not bothered to a write a required report. Material on the data sticks that wasn’t intended to become public – ever – further illustrates the degree to which IPCC scientists are mere cogs in the IPCC report-writing machine.
The individuals who will be eternally identified as the authors of Chapter 4 of the Working Group 2 report (due to be released at the end of this month), actually have so little authority they aren’t able to change the final word in their chapter title from systems to ecosystems.
External reviewers told them the current title is confusing. But the data sticks say that before they could make such a change, IPCC authors would have to petition multiple lawyers of the IPCC bureaucracy. Really.
In February 2013, I revealed that the institute led by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has a financial relationship with the WWF – another reason why IPCC reports are irredeemably tainted (see here and here).
In March 2013, I shone a light on how inaccurate info about the IPCC gets disseminated by government bodies. In a post titled Australia Misleads the World About the IPCC, I reported that that country’s Climate Commission was falsely describing IPCC personnel as “leading climate scientists” when many of them are nothing of the sort.
Since then, the Climate Commission has been abolished and its website has been taken offline. The false claims that sparked my coverage are, however, archived here.
In July, I observed that a UN body was guilty of the same thing – distributing a press release that falsely described a gathering of IPCC-affiliated economists, policy wonks, and bureaucrats as “climate scientists.”
In August, I listed 17 reasons why IPCC chairman Pachauri is an embarrassing train-wreck of a leader. After Pachauri’s “extraordinary work” was praised by US Secretary of State John Kerry, I posed the rhetorical question: What Would a Bad Job Look Like?
In September, just before part 1 of the IPCC’s brand new report was released, I described the exasperating disconnect between how the IPCC routinely gets described – and cold, hard reality. Additional analysis concerning the new report:
In November, I publicized a leak of the IPCC’s Working Group 2 Summary for Policymakers (it will be officially released on March 31st). The following day, that leak was covered on the front page of the New York Times. The Associated Press and Germany’s Der Spiegel also reported on it, albeit superficially (see here and here).
What I witnessed in Warsaw continues to trouble me:
The IPCC is an important and influential international body. Generally speaking, the journalism about it has been lightweight, cursory, and fawning. I’ve been working hard to change that.
Please consider casting a vote for this blog at the bottom of this page.