UN Climate expert: 'What? Me worry?'

This is pretty incredible. For cluelessness, I have to give it a 9.5. And if its deliberate ignorance, let's go all the way and give it a perfect "10."

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN had this to say about Climategate, according to the left wing Guardian's James Randerson:

There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."

The guy really doesn't get it, does he. The whole point of Mann and Jones' efforts were to keep papers from being peer reviewed IN THE FIRST PLACE! So of course there were no "peer reviewed" papers that were left out due to skepticism because there weren't any skeptic papers that anyone offered to include to begin with.

Several instances of putting pressure on journals to turn down papers that disagreed with the CRU scientist's conclusions are staring this guy in the face and he either doesn't realize the significance of the emails, or has deliberately ignored them to create his own comfortable little global warming reality. Not only that, clear interference in the process was also evident as the CRU frauds got editors of two journals fired for publishing papers that questioned their work.

The IPCC chairman's sublime ignorance is surreal in the face of the evidence. Expect more of this incredible disconnect at the Copenhagen conference next week.

 

 


This is pretty incredible. For cluelessness, I have to give it a 9.5. And if its deliberate ignorance, let's go all the way and give it a perfect "10."

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN had this to say about Climategate, according to the left wing Guardian's James Randerson:

There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."

The guy really doesn't get it, does he. The whole point of Mann and Jones' efforts were to keep papers from being peer reviewed IN THE FIRST PLACE! So of course there were no "peer reviewed" papers that were left out due to skepticism because there weren't any skeptic papers that anyone offered to include to begin with.

Several instances of putting pressure on journals to turn down papers that disagreed with the CRU scientist's conclusions are staring this guy in the face and he either doesn't realize the significance of the emails, or has deliberately ignored them to create his own comfortable little global warming reality. Not only that, clear interference in the process was also evident as the CRU frauds got editors of two journals fired for publishing papers that questioned their work.

The IPCC chairman's sublime ignorance is surreal in the face of the evidence. Expect more of this incredible disconnect at the Copenhagen conference next week.

 

 


RECENT VIDEOS