Lengthy article showing IPCC corruption. Intro only follows.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...r-the-hackers/

26 01 2010 Guest Post by Steven Mosher
All processes are subject to hacking, both from external and internal entities. The IPCC process is
no exception, neither is the process of writing for science journals exempt. As recent reports show
Pachauri hacked the IPCC processes to make them work against themselves and bend the system to his
financial ends. An inside hacker, like Pachauri, can be especially dangerous since they play a role
in structuring the very system that they hack. Not only do they exploit a system they were meant to
protect, but they also act in ways to prevent detection of their hacks.

What the recent disclosures about Pachauri show is that the IPCC process is now totally
compromised, compromised from the inside. Like a system exploited by a destructive hack, that
system may be beyond repair. It's time to reformat the hard drive and start from scratch, as
climate scientist Hulme, spotted 101 times in the Climategate files and closely tied to Pachauri,
suggested-perhaps in a moment of clarity after the discovery of the emails:

"It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its
course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural
tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian
and exclusive form of knowledge production."

Just how was the CRU system hacked? And can such hacks be prevented or are they a very part of the
nature of authoritarian systems? As discussed in our book "Climategate: The Crutape Letters , now
available on Kindle and in Ebook format, the "hacks" were focused on the publication process.

The IPCC reports where intended to be summaries of the science, both what we know and what we don't
know. These summaries were written for policy makers who would use the science and its findings to
take action: action to prevent climate change, mitigate it, adapt to it, and to fund new studies
where knowledge was uncertain. And action is where the money is. Every hack of the system cashes
out into some form of compensation to the hackers: more money for their organizations or more
prestige for themselves.

As the mails show the hacking of the CRU process and the scientific process itself was exposed
primarily because of the "pressure" put on the hackers by the FIOA process. And as the mails also
show, the hackers moved to thwart the FOIA process by corrupting FOIA officers. In fact, the most
egregious hack of the system, Jones' request that people delete mails, came as the direct result of
trying to cover up a hack of the process, the hack surrounding the 'Jesus Paper.'

During the course of writing the account of Climategate, we noticed that Pachauri, was named
directly in the files 11 times and he's mentioned by title in others. Before canvassing those mails
it's key to understand how the hackers worked to subvert the IPCC process and the scientific
publishing process. And finally, it's important to understand that they are planning counter
measures that will allow them to continue hacking the system with the upcoming fifth assessment
report due in 2013. As Jones indicates in late 2009 ,Pachauri and Thomas [Stocker] an IPCC Co Chair
took up the issue of FOIA with the full IPCC. One can't imagine that they argued for full
disclosure or full compliance with disclosure laws. As detailed in this mail Jones' alerts
Stocker, who works at Bern in Switzerland, to measures Holland suggests for the next IPCC report.
Jones alerts Stocker to specific comments on Climate Audit, arming him for the next battle.