Reviewing the Reviewers

Recent controversies such “Climategate” and embarrassing errors in its Climate Change reports promoted the United Nations to launch an investigation.

Its Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, asked an international committee of senior scientists to review the performance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In a scathingly critical report it found that the IPCC had “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence”.

It had failed to enforce its own guidelines, been guilty of a total lack of transparency, ignored critical review comments, and was open to accusations of racketeering.

IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of global warming based on scientific research but it is clear that much of it relies on Green propaganda.

Any scientist who dared to challenge its gross mistakes was not just dismissed but vilified and accused of “voodoo science” by the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

When McKitrick and Michaels showed conclusively that recent warming had been driven more by local than global factors, their paper was ignored for years.

When it was finally given a grudging reference the false assertion was added that their data had been rebutted by other data – which turned out to be non-existent.

It was this work to which Professor Phil Jones, an IPCC coordinating lead author, was referring in the e-mails outed by the whistleblower at the Climate Research Unit:

“Kevin and I will keep these papers out of the next IPCC report even if we have to redefine what peer-reviewed literature is!”

These are not merely procedural issues but have real consequences for science and society since all the errors and biases wildly exaggerate any impact of climate change.

IPCC reports were unilaterally redrafted by “lead authors” after they had been agreed and a sexed-up “summary for policy makers” written before the report was even complete.

It is clear the whole process needs purging as does the Science Establishment since it has demeaned itself by reacting to each climate scandal with indifference or contempt.

I have yet to see any evidence that the current warming is unprecedented or tending to accelerate and it will likely be a fairly minor problem for nature as well as people.

This discredited branch of science should certainly not be allowed to drive ecologically and economically destructive policies such as biofuels and wind power.


%d bloggers like this: