>The Shredder

Ever wondered just how easy it is to ruin a reputation?

Not really… well that’s not one of my big agenda items either. You see I believe a person, or organization has the right to a good reputation, so long as they play by the rules. In this case, (particularly) the rules they themselves have laid down.

The rules – stated aims of the IPCC include:
….to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

There are a number of things that spring to mind when looking at the work of the IPCC, and the ones that stick out are the facts that they (the IPCC) do not do the scientific work themselves, their task is to EVALUATE the ‘risk of climate change caused by human activity’…. surely that is telling us that the pre-supposition exists that humans are causing climate change? (hummm…….. )

In the first IPCC report (1990) we were told:
The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report says they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. They calculate with confidence that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect.

They predict that under a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario, global mean temperature will increase by about 0.3 oC per decade during the [21st] century. They judge that global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years, broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more.

The second point from the above Wiki entry states:

….. an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.

POSSIBILITY is the key word in that statement, which also must allow for the POSSIBILITY that there is not going to be any harmful climate change – caused by humans.

There’s a problem with all of this, quite apart from the fact that all these statements have been accepted as being infallible – therefore (supossedly) they are 100% correct and you dare not challenge them in any way, shape of form.

The IPCC have a mandate – permission granted etc, to prove that humans are warming up the planet through increasing atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gasses – blaming CO2 for over half of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Yet time after time scientists have shown that CO2 is not doing us any harm what so ever, and is in fact, essential to life, as we know it, here on earth. Even Al Gore has some words on this revelation.

Want to bet, if the IPCC finally do back down on CO2 being the ‘evil monster’, they will just pick another of the greenhouse gasses and commence another campaign?

However that is taking us away from the point under discussion.

How many times will we have to read, learn, discover, that facts and figures, produced and sworn to be absolutely undeniably correct by the IPCC, have been fudged, tweaked, manipulated and distorted, before we will finally call for the dismantling of the IPCC and the refunding of millions of dollars, paid to them by our Governments – actually that money is yours and mine – hard earned tax dollars.

Now the Chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri is to face an

independent inquiry into the performance of his organisation. Since the “Climategate affair’ last November (2009) there have been continued calls for his resignation.

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri’s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.

It is sad to say that there will be a very large number of people sceptical of any review conducted ‘independently’ in this affair. There are many who consider the ‘independent’ review done at

Penn State University, a whitewash, and are expecting the current review with Phil Jones who is being grilled by the Science and Technology committee in the Commons, to end up a white wash as well.

SEE: Climate Panel Pile-Up: UN to double-check fuzzy research

It is time for Dr. Pachauri to resign. He has had his time up front. He has been found wanting as has the IPCC. Caesar MUST be above reproach – seems Dr. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC isn’t.

We do not have to shred his reputation, or that of the IPCC – he’s done a pretty good job of it himself.


About JustMEinT Musings

I like writing, reading and expressing my opinions. I prefer natural health and healing to pharmaceutical drugs. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.
This entry was posted in Anthropological Global Warming, GENERAL MUSINGS. Bookmark the permalink.