FNs ekkokammer

Diverse — Drokles on September 1, 2010 at 7:51 am

Presset på at reformere FNs Klimapanel og fyre formand Rajendra Panchauri stiger, som følge af dets troværdigheds dalende tendens. Efter de mange skandaler, hvor anekdotiske kilder har lagt grunden til spektakulære forudsigelser, mest berømt er Himalayas gletcheres snarlige smelten og udtørring af Amazonas regnskov har man (formand Panchauri selv) i et forsøg på selvkritik af egne procedurer valgt at få foretaget et uafhængigt akademisk gennemsyn. Inter-Academy Council fik opgaven (af fomand Panchauri selv) og kom med deres rapport forleden her fra New York Times

The United Nations needs to revise the way it manages its assessments of climate change, with the scientists involved more open to alternative views, more transparent about possible conflicts of interest and more careful to avoid making policy prescriptions, an independent review panel said Monday.

The review panel also recommended that the senior officials involved in producing the periodic assessments serve in their voluntary positions for only one report — a statement interpreted to suggest that the current chairman of the climate panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, step down.

Nedenstående er klimapanelets mest berømte frembringelse i kampen for at vinde masserne.


Ross McKitrick, der sammen med Steven McIntyre afslørede Ishockeystav grafen som værende en konstrueret misrepræsentation af virkeligheden, udtrykte i Financial Post for nogle dage siden skepsis i forhold til rapportens uafhængighed og gav sine bud på nogle grundproblemer i IPPC

Rajendra Pachauri, asked the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) to review IPCC procedures. The IAC is a little-known branch of the Inter-Academy Panel, itself a little-known committee that connects national academic societies. It was a safe choice for Pachauri. The last IAC report was a glowing tribute to alternative energy schemes, coauthored by Pachauri himself, along with current Obama administration appointee Stephen Chu and a group of others. So I do not expect much independence of mind or hard-headed objectivity from the IAC.


Selection of Working Group Chairs and Lead Authors appears to be under the control of a small circle of people committed to a predetermined view on global warming. In combination with the fact that the review process is toothless, this guarantees that the report contents are predictable given the names of the Lead Authors. Indeed there is not much point even publishing the report anymore: Once the list of Lead Authors is known, we can all guess what the conclusions will be. I am sure that there are many areas in the IPCC report where the conclusions will be sound. But in the areas where I have detailed knowledge and experience, this has not been the case.

A major problem with the IPCC is that the assignments for Lead Authors (LA’s) often put them in the position of reviewing not only their own work but also that of their critics. There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process, and what few safeguards are in place are ineffective.


The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report.

In addition, no one is assigned the role of reviewing a particular section or chapter. It is conceivable that parts of a report might not be read by any reviewers: Nothing in the IPCC procedures prevents this.

Although there are more than 140 governments in the IPCC, only 23 governments submitted any review comments on the 2007 IPCC scientific report, and more than half of the comments were from only two countries: the United States and Australia. Not one African country submitted a comment, nor did any Middle Eastern or Arabic countries, nor did Russia nor the former Soviet states. Brazil submitted comments on three chapters and Chile commented on one chapter; other than that, there were no comments from any South American countries. None of the small island states in the Pacific submitted comments. In Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic commented on one chapter, and Hungary commented on three chapters; other than that, there were no comments from any government in Eastern Europe.

Roy Spencer er på sin blog mere skeptisk end Ross McKitrick

The reason why is because the IPCC process was never created to achieve what the U.N. claims, and what most people believe it exists for.

The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.

While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.

Maybe some scientists thought they helped dream up the IPCC to help save humanity from itself. But the process was instigated by politicians and U.N. bureaucrats who misrepresented what they were trying to accomplish. Some people are gifted in their ability to get others to think that they came up with an idea, when in fact they were artfully guided into it.

Det konsensus, som alskens politikere og aktivister hævder at IPCC repræsenterer er altså skabt af IPCC selv. IPCC er ikke et ledende organ for klimaforskning, men et ekkokammer.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress