Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 180

Thread: IPCC Scandals: time for Pachauri to go & then reform ?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wherever I can see
    Posts
    16,730
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default IPCC Scandals: time for Pachauri to go & then reform ?

    The IPCC has been beset by a number of scandals recently. The scandals show serious ethical issues, as well as low standards in their reports.

    In yet another scandal - we learn they based parts of their reports on anecdotes in a magazine article !
    UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph

    In a signed letter/Der Spiegel Editorial Richard Tol (of the ESRI ), Hans von Storch and Roger Pielke both call for radical IPC reform. All 3 are believers in man-made climate change, and need to be taken very seriously.

    Opinion: Save the Panel on Climate Change! - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
    The Irish Economy Blog Archive IPCC reform, now

    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been heavily criticized for erroneous projections. In the following editorial, climate researchers Richard Tol, Roger Pielke and Hans von Storch call for a reform of the IPCC and the resignation of its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
    ...

    That such a large body of work as the IPCC report would contain some errors is unavoidable. But what’s striking in this example is the sheer lack of the most basic standards of scientific review that allowed the glacier and disaster claims to be incorporated. It also illustrates that the IPCC lacks any mechanisms to correct false or contested knowledge.
    ...
    The IPCC cannot continue its work without adopting strong ethical guidelines for its officials. Under normal conflict of interest rules as followed by other leading scientific advisory institutions, Mr. Pachauri would no longer be tolerable as the IPCC’s chairperson. Any proper IPCC reform would also have to include a formal mechanism to correct errors and more transparent procedures for the appointment of key personnel. Apart from adopting new rules, the IPCC won’t be able to regain its credibility without adhering to existing rules regarding the appointment of experts and the review of scientific material. What’s at stake is not just the reputation of the IPCC but the reputation of all of climate science.
    These guys are prominent and require to be taken seriously.

    I too am wholly unconvinced by the IPCC - and think major reform is needed before the body can be trusted again.

    And commentators think reform is on the way:
    BBC - Andrew Neil's blog: The dam is cracking
    Andrew Neil
    The sceptics may be about to get their first scalp. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world's leading climate scientist (he's actually a railway engineer), at first attacked those who questioned the IPCC's alarming glacier prediction as "arrogant" and believers in "voodoo science".

    He's since had to retract the prediction but can't quite manage an apology -- and is now under mounting pressure in his Indian homeland to resign.


    Bill Gates is calling for a radical change of thinking:
    Bill Gates - What I'm Thinking - Why We Need Innovation, Not Just Insulation - The Gates Notes

    Is it time to take reform seriously ?

    cYp
    "Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't see why it needs reform due to an isolated incident. If anything it just needs to apply its existing guidelines more rigidly.

    The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is not the Bible. Its statements are not gospel. They are subject to revision in the light of new evidence or the discovery of inaccuracies.

    That is why climate change is science, not religion. Nothing is settled and sacred; all is subject to constant revision.

    The IPCC’s mistake on the Himalayan glaciers is embarrassing, not just because it is wrong, but because it is so obviously wrong. The warning that these immense ice-fields could be gone by 2035 always struck me as absurd — the Himalayas contain the highest peaks in the world, and the ice that clads their upper slopes is the greatest mass of frozen water outside of the poles. The glaciers may be in rapid decline, but they aren’t going to disappear in 30, or even a hundred, years.

    That doesn’t mean that this is a non-issue, merely that the likely rates of glacial retreat are improperly understood. There is a desperate need for quality research on Himalayan glaciers, given their vital importance to major rivers that sustain millions of people in Asia. The IPCC included the erroneous 2035 figure because there was no serious research to rely on. Yet people are calling it a lie (an intentional untruth).

    One mistake doesn't invalidate an enormous body of knowledge, gathered over many years by hundreds of experts, which paints a picture of a planet endangered by continuing emissions of greenhouse gases. The IPCC process is rare evidence that our species really is intelligent; that it can marshal and assess vast quantities of data — and act on the results.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wherever I can see
    Posts
    16,730
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Húrin View Post
    I don't see why it needs reform due to an isolated incident. If anything it just needs to apply its existing guidelines more rigidly.
    .
    There are multiple incidents
    - CRUgate
    - Pachauri's financial affairs
    - The glaciers
    - The natural disaster claims
    - The claims above on mountain ice

    Nor were the incidents isolated - Pachauri was told not to publish the glacier claims... yet he did, and his company won money from it.

    These are 3 prominent academics - who've contributed to the IPCC. Der Spiegel is pretty much Germany's top news organ. The case for reform is serious

    cYp
    "Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member The Field Marshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Imperial Throne
    Posts
    44,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Húrin View Post
    I don't see why it needs reform due to an isolated incident. .

    That is why climate change is science, not religion. Nothing is settled and sacred; all is subject to constant revision.

    .
    It is not an isolated incident.What about the leaked e-mails and the hockey stick and all the other bogus scientific claims driven by UN politics.

    Nothing is settled or sacred,you say.

    In post after post you labelled me a "denier" for even questioning AGW.That is not consistent with Nothing is settled or sacred.

    You know Hurin I have blown your cover.

    AGW is dead.The game is over.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    12,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberianpan View Post
    There are multiple incidents
    - CRUgate
    - Pachauri's financial affairs
    - The glaciers
    - The natural disaster claims
    - The claims above on mountain ice

    Nor were the incidents isolated - Pachauri was told not to publish the glacier claims... yet he did, and his company won money from it.

    These are 3 prominent academics - who've contributed to the IPCC. Der Spiegel is pretty much Germany's top news organ. The case for reform is serious

    cYp
    The CRU are not the IPCC, and there is still no evidence of any scientific malpractice in the emails, whatever is assumed by the climate opposition. The IPCC has gone through the entire process of rebutting the 'costs of climate disasters' issue before, back in 2006 - there is no new story there, but a rehash of previously refuted allegations. The one definite point is the incorrect claim with respect to Himalayan glaciers - and the IPCC pointed that out itself. Nor am I sure where you come to the conclusion that any of the three academics involved are particularly "prominent", or why that lends their opinion any particular weight.

    There may be a case for reform of the IPCC, but not as a result of shallow and repetitive PR hysteria of this kind.
    Last edited by ibis; 31st January 2010 at 04:06 AM.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Field Marshal View Post
    It is not an isolated incident.What about the leaked e-mails and the hockey stick and all the other bogus scientific claims driven by UN politics.

    Nothing is settled or sacred,you say.

    In post after post you labelled me a "denier" for even questioning AGW.That is not consistent with Nothing is settled or sacred.

    You know Hurin I have blown your cover.

    AGW is dead.The game is over.
    Well you said that AGW was not a matter for science at all so I don't know why you're in this thread.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wherever I can see
    Posts
    16,730
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    The IPCC has gone through the entire process of rebutting the 'costs of climate disasters' issue before, back in 2006 - there is no new story there, but a rehash of previously refuted allegations.
    There is new claims there, and they're proven:
    http://www.politics.ie/environment/1...disasters.html

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    The one definite point is the incorrect claim with respect to Himalayan glaciers - and the IPCC pointed that out itself.
    The glacier issue is especially serious for Pachauri
    UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims' - Times Online
    Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen - Times Online

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    Nor am I sure where you come to the conclusion that any of the three academics involved are particularly "prominent", or why that lends their opinion any particular weight.
    I linked to their Wiki profiles, at least 2 of them have been lead authors for IPCC report sections - see here and here for proof. Richard Tol is one of the world's top 250 economists , and at/close to top of the pile for energy/environmental economics

    http://www.agci.org/programs/past_wo...?recordID=4407
    He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

    He is a member of the GTAP Advisory Board.Richard is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy, Environmental and Resource Economics and Integrated Assessment.Richard was elected GTAP Research Fellow "in recognition of his innovative applications of the GTAP Data Base in the field of environmental economics". He is among the Top 5% economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc,
    Here's more from Wiki on the other two:
    Hans von Storch (born 13 August 1949 in Wyk auf Föhr) is a German climate scientist. He is Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics

    Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (born October 22, 1946) is a meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change, environmental vulnerability, numerical modeling, atmospheric dynamics, land/ocean - atmosphere interactions, and large eddy/turbulent boundary layer modeling. He particularly focuses on mesoscale weather and climate processes but also investigates on the global, regional, and microscale. Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.[1]


    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    There may be a case for reform of the IPCC, but not as a result of shallow and repetitive PR hysteria of this kind.
    Der Spiegel is highly respected - and reform of the IPCC will be achieved via political proessure

    cYp
    Last edited by cyberianpan; 31st January 2010 at 04:28 AM.
    "Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wherever I can see
    Posts
    16,730
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Here's yet another scandal

    UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim - Times Online
    A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report
    And another
    UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph
    UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
    The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
    ...
    However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
    The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
    And more on the coverup re the glaciers:
    Panel ignored warnings on glacier error - Times Online

    cYp
    "Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member The Field Marshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Imperial Throne
    Posts
    44,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Húrin View Post
    Well you said that AGW was not a matter for science at all so I don't know why you're in this thread.
    Fair dues to ye Hurin me ould flower.
    There is nuttin like a woman to distort a mans words.

    I have to contradict you flatly on that scurrilous assertion that I said AGW was not a matter of science at all.

    [ Maybe your a bit sore coz I blew your cover but thats ok.]

    To put the record straight which you, Hurin ,as a paid propagandist for the eco movement are so intent on twisting,what I said was AGW was not purely a matter of science.

    I then exposed the political corruption behind AGW & behind the bogus science supporting it.


    I know Hurin you and your fellow environmental activists hate to hear me talking politics but thats because you want to confuse people with bogus science as part of your deliberate campaign of deception.

    People are aware of the campaign of deceit being waged by the environmental movement.

    Already this movement has discredited scientific integrity to such an extent that scientific pronouncements on the climate are just not believed by the general public anymore.

    So Hurin continue with your bogus scientific rants.

    It matters not a whit anymore because nobody is listening.
    Last edited by The Field Marshal; 31st January 2010 at 06:22 AM.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This weeks New Scientist magazine has an incisive editorial on the IPCC,

    The wider review made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence

    Some argue that the views of an untutored blogger, or even a scientist from another discipline, should never carry the same weight as those of someone with a lifetime's expertise in a relevant field. But if occasionally the emperors of the lab have no clothes, someone has to say so. The wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence in its methods. Scientists should welcome the outside world in to check them out. Their science is useless if no one trusts it.

    Let the sunlight in on climate change - opinion - 27 January 2010 - New Scientist
    Regards, Pat Gill

Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •