In Berlin this week, environmental activists were allowed to attend a four-day meeting that journalists were denied access to. This is normal IPCC procedure.
In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case.
Manipulation of a Summary document makes the UN’s climate panel look like an overly-protective, hysterical mother.
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
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.
A research paper doesn’t talk about increased crop damage by insects. But as occurred in the Himalayan glacier incident, the erroneous claim remains in the about-to-be released report.
At the United Nations, science doesn’t speak for itself. It’s hammered out during secret, all-nighter negotiating sessions.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
The latest document the IPCC doesn’t want you to see.
The IPCC’s response to the leak of three data sticks is typical of that organization. It expects us to accept its version of reality at face value. Its statement provides no opportunity for the public to draw its own conclusions.
Simon Barnett has created a wonderful analysis tool for the new IPCC data.
The scientists who write IPCC reports have so little authority that changing the word “systems” to “ecosystems” involves multiple layers of bureaucracy.
IPCC review editors were supposed to file a report last September. A third of them apparently didn’t bother.
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.