Friday, June 10, 2011

IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization



Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already and there is no measure of the lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies. Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people,including the media,don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some articles mention both but don’t make the connection. A recent article in the Globe and Mail is a good example.

The article is a small shift because the Globe has consistently promoted human caused warming and attacked skeptics. However,failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses,withdraw from associations or go into hiding.

A Very Large Cast
Universities and governments are already whitewashing the behavior of prominent individuals like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Nobody else involved with the scandal is facing even biased internal investigation. Many are not mentioned in the limited media reports on the scandal. People like Mike Hulme,Tom Wigley,Benjamin Santer,Kevin Trenberth,Keith Briffa,Malcolm Hughes,Raymond Bradley,John Holdren,Jonathan Overpeck,Caspar Amman,Michael Oppenheimer,Tom Crowley,Gavin Schmidt,William Connolley,Tim Osborn,Thomas Karl,Andrew Weaver,Eric Steig,and all names on the CRU emails require investigation. They had to know what was going on,partly because they all used the same vehicles of attack and deception. By investigating only two individuals the collective culpability of the CRU and the IPCC goes unchallenged. Investigation of two individuals underscores the false claim there are one or two “bad apples” but the overall science is unaffected. The IPCC received a Nobel Prize collectively;they must bear the blame collectively.
There are also those in government who acted in extremely questionable ways. Chief among these are members of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) including John Mitchell. He was review editor of the IPCC and initially denied access to information then claimed it was erased. The UKMO later said the information existed but said it was protected information. The Telegraph newspaper said of this,Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated,legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.
What was the role of government officials who selected their country’s representatives to prevent skeptics participating. Such was apparently the case in Canada,the UK and likely the US. UK Science advisor John Beddington has already said failure to include skeptics was a mistake. “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.” The problem is exacerbated when it is still an active policy of government. Work for the next IPCC Report is underway and there’s no apparent change in participants or procedures. CRU people were involved from the start and triggered the first problems.

No comments:

Post a Comment