IPCC scientists routinely evaluate their own work. What could possibly go wrong?
As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.
An organization headed by a senior IPCC official (Working Group 3 Vice-Chair, Carlo Carraro) has ranked TERI, an organization headed by the IPCC’s chairman, first in the world.
The review committee examining the IPCC process has recommended that “rigorous conflict of interest” policies be adopted. Hallelujah.
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
A powerful bureaucracy bullies, berates, isolates & intimidates a lone critic.
Some discoveries are easy to measure and easy to verify. But much of science is about groping in the dark.
History’s most momentous climate decision was based on research so preliminary it wasn’t published in a scientific journal until seven months later.
Strip away the pseudoscience and you’ll find one thing: politics. People attempting, via international treaties, to constrain human lives. For the sake of Mother Gaia.
Organizers of a climate conference co-sponsored by the UK Supreme Court won’t reveal who attended, how much the event cost, or how many participants had their airfare paid by the United Nations.
A UN official delivers a speech. An account of that speech is written up to look like a news story. It gets published on a website funded by the UN. Casual readers are unlikely to appreciate that this is 100% spin.
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
On the basis of a politically-massaged summary and a stack of press advisories, the media has blasted IPCC talking points around the world.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
A Canadian province brags about becoming North America’s first carbon neutral government in 2010. But its own Auditor General says this “is not accurate.”
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
The author of a 2007 book on climate change failed to mention his own IPCC involvement while pointing to that body as an authority. This is called an undisclosed conflict-of-interest.
How can claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is objective be taken seriously when one of its authors has been arrested at an anti-coal protest?
How many more reports highlighting the IPCC’s flaws will it take before politicians draw the obvious conclusions? How many additional scandals must surface before political leaders realize that this body doesn’t deserve their trust?
My book has a new title – and will be available in September.
When did it become acceptable to pen violent fantasies about people with whom you disagree? When did it become OK to talk – luridly and out loud – about their death?
When a cycling group told its members they were going to hear from a Nobel laureate, it didn’t explain that climate modeler Philip Duffy’s contribution to a decade-old IPCC report was limited – and tainted by conflict-of-interest.
Before the IPCC was even founded, the Worldwatch Institute had already declared that global warming was caused by fossil fuels. Surely that makes the IPCC chairman’s decision to fraternize with this activist organization a bit awkward.
What do IPCC insiders really think of chairman Rajendra Pachauri?
The InterAcademy Council has been promising since August to release documents associated with an investigation of the IPCC’s policies and procedures. There’s still no sign of them.
It’s difficult to read Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion book and not conclude that something is terribly amiss – in the world of science, in scientific publishing, and within the bowels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Delegates to a four-day Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting chose not to replace chairman Rajendra Pachauri with someone more credible and professional. Journalists beware: nothing this man says should be taken at face value.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
A report released this week blows smoking holes through just about everything the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been telling us.
As the author of two books about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I am well placed to evaluate its 2013-2014 Assessment Report (aka AR5 – which stands for … Continue reading
Drug trial results are closely scrutinized. Corporate financial statements are routinely audited. Yet science academy bureaucrats – and a lot of others who should have known better – have advised us to blindly trust IPCC reports.