http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...n-un-land.aspx

March 11, 2010, 16:16:00 | NP Editor
UN review smells of a whitewashed IPCC rat
By Peter Foster

'N o, no!' said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!'"

"Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

"Who cares for you?" said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but
a pack of cards!"


The UN has decided to follow the Red Queen's approach when it comes to recent mounting scandals
over its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Exoneration first - review afterwards!

On Wednesday, the UN and the IPCC announced an "independent" review of the IPCC's operations by the
InterAcademy Council (IAC). Never heard of it? Doesn't matter.The verdict is already in.

UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon declared "Let me be clear: the threat posed by climate change is
real . Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental
scientific consensus on climate change." But surely it is the alleged scientific "consensus" - and
climate science more broadly - that are the fundamental issues here.

Mr. Ban, who has admitted making climate change his focus, declared on Wednesday that the 2007 IPCC
report had contained a "very small number of errors." But shouldn't the exact number of errors be a
matter for the review? Assuming that Mr. Ban had no knowledge of , for example, the egregious
projection of the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035, why should he assume that there are
not numerous similar howlers of which he is unaware?

The smell of whitewashed rat is overwhelming.

The InterAcademy Council is an NGO that is about as independent from the UN system as a Tweedledum
was from Tweedledee. It is claimed to be an "umbrella group" for National Academies of Sciences,
but was set up in 2000 specifically to advise the UN and the World Bank.

In 2009, the National Academies of the G8 countries issued a statement claiming that "climate
change is happening even faster than previously estimated." But where did they get their
information if not from the IPCC that their "umbrella group" is now meant to be reviewing?

The IAC is in fact blatantly political and deeply embedded in the UN's anti-market "sustainability"
agenda. Bruce Alberts, one of its first co-chairs (and then president of the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences) declared that "an increasingly market-oriented world" is sapping the spread of "world
science." He bemoaned "A system that fails to harness the idealism of young scientists, rarely
connecting them to sustainability goals." He said that "Like many scientists, I have a dream about
a different future. In my dream, our universities are teaming with talented young scientists,
productively engaged in harnessing the power of modern science to produce public goods for poverty
alleviation around the world."

Mr. Alberts' Martin Luther King moment clearly indicates a bias towards Millennium Development
Goal-type pretensions.

The IAC has produced many reports with typical UN redemptionist titles such as "Inventing a Better
Future" and "Lighting the way." When it produced a study of African agriculture, one of its main
recommendations was to set up "agricultural centres of scientific excellence."

Top-down bureaucracy first - development afterwards.

One of the members of its "Lighting the way towards a sustainable energy future" panel was
beleaguered IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. The report was claimed to incorporate "the analysis and
actions of leading global energy and development institutions, such as the United Nations
Development Program, the World Bank and the International Energy Agency." In other words, the IAC
is an echo chamber.

The IPCC and the IAC have already admitted the problem of finding independent reviewers. IAC
co-chair Robbert Dijkgraaf noted that the review needed people with knowledge of climate science
who weren't too close to the IPCC. "Clearly you cannot be the reviewer and the reviewed at the same
time," he said. But another IPCC functionary, Christopher Field, admitted that "almost anybody who
has been involved in climate science has some connection with the IPCC."

To achieve any credibility, such a review would have to recruit scientists such as MIT's Richard
Lindzen and the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke, Jr. If no such well-credentialled skeptics
are included, it will be obvious that this is another snow job.

As for the vaunted objectivity of scientists, last week, a leaked series of emails between leading
academics at Stanford University revealed a plan to mount "an outlandishly aggressively partisan"
attack on climate skeptics. The emails were full of paranoid demonization of "well-funded,
merciless enemies." Renowned alarmist (and close buddy of Al Gore) Stephen Schneider invoked
McCarthyism. In fact, it is skeptics who have been subjected to a witch hunt. The Stanford emails
compared them to those who "would deny the reality of the law of gravity."

Those involved in this email exchange are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The notion of "official" climate reviews has already been tainted by the U.K.'s Stern Review, which
emerged as a blatantly skewed political document designed to support U.K. policy.

More recently, the official review of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia -
from which the Climategate emails were liberated - was involved in turmoil when two of its members
were revealed to hold flagrantly alarmist views.

Still, there is some small humour in this, as befits a Wonderland-ish situation. The IAC is
headquartered at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam. One of 2007 IPCC
report's "very small number or errors" was to double the amount of the Netherlands that lies below
sea level.

At Wednesday's press conference, neither Mr. Pachauri nor Mr. Ban took questions. It was not
reported whether they subsequently disappeared down a rabbit hole. It will be fascinating to see
how long the IPCC's house of cards survives this scandal, which grows ever "curiouser and
curiouser."

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...n-un-land.aspx

March 11, 2010, 16:16:00 | NP Editor
UN review smells of a whitewashed IPCC rat
By Peter Foster

'N o, no!' said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the
sentence first!'"
"Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
Nobody moved.
"Who cares for you?" said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by
this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"


The UN has decided to follow the Red Queen's approach when it comes
to recent mounting scandals over its Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
Exoneration first - review afterwards!

On Wednesday, the UN and the IPCC announced an "independent" review
of the IPCC's operations by the InterAcademy Council (IAC). Never
heard of it? Doesn't matter.The verdict is already in.
UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon declared "Let me be clear: the
threat posed by climate change is real . Nothing that has been
alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental
scientific consensus on climate change." But surely it is the alleged
scientific "consensus" - and climate science more broadly - that are
the fundamental issues here.
Mr. Ban, who has admitted making climate change his focus, declared
on Wednesday that the 2007 IPCC report had contained a "very small
number of errors." But shouldn't the exact number of errors be a
matter for the review? Assuming that Mr. Ban had no knowledge of ,
for example, the egregious projection of the disappearance of
Himalayan glaciers by 2035, why should he assume that there are not
numerous similar howlers of which he is unaware?
The smell of whitewashed rat is overwhelming.

The InterAcademy Council is an NGO that is about as independent from
the UN system as a Tweedledum was from Tweedledee. It is claimed to
be an "umbrella group" for National Academies of Sciences, but was
set up in 2000 specifically to advise the UN and the World Bank.
In 2009, the National Academies of the G8 countries issued a
statement claiming that "climate change is happening even faster than
previously estimated." But where did they get their information if
not from the IPCC that their "umbrella group" is now meant to be
reviewing?
The IAC is in fact blatantly political and deeply embedded in the
UN's anti-market "sustainability" agenda. Bruce Alberts, one of its
first co-chairs (and then president of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences) declared that "an increasingly market-oriented world" is
sapping the spread of "world science." He bemoaned "A system that
fails to harness the idealism of young scientists, rarely connecting
them to sustainability goals." He said that "Like many scientists, I
have a dream about a different future. In my dream, our universities
are teaming with talented young scientists, productively engaged in
harnessing the power of modern science to produce public goods for
poverty alleviation around the world."
Mr. Alberts' Martin Luther King moment clearly indicates a bias
towards Millennium Development Goal-type pretensions.

The IAC has produced many reports with typical UN redemptionist
titles such as "Inventing a Better Future" and "Lighting the way."
When it produced a study of African agriculture, one of its main
recommendations was to set up "agricultural centres of scientific
excellence."
Top-down bureaucracy first - development afterwards.

One of the members of its "Lighting the way towards a sustainable
energy future" panel was beleaguered IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. The
report was claimed to incorporate "the analysis and actions of
leading global energy and development institutions, such as the
United Nations Development Program, the World Bank and the
International Energy Agency." In other words, the IAC is an echo
chamber.
The IPCC and the IAC have already admitted the problem of finding
independent reviewers. IAC co-chair Robbert Dijkgraaf noted that the
review needed people with knowledge of climate science who weren't
too close to the IPCC. "Clearly you cannot be the reviewer and the
reviewed at the same time," he said. But another IPCC functionary,
Christopher Field, admitted that "almost anybody who has been
involved in climate science has some connection with the IPCC."
To achieve any credibility, such a review would have to recruit
scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and the University of
Colorado's Roger Pielke, Jr. If no such well-credentialled skeptics
are included, it will be obvious that this is another snow job.
As for the vaunted objectivity of scientists, last week, a leaked
series of emails between leading academics at Stanford University
revealed a plan to mount "an outlandishly aggressively partisan"
attack on climate skeptics. The emails were full of paranoid
demonization of "well-funded, merciless enemies." Renowned alarmist
(and close buddy of Al Gore) Stephen Schneider invoked McCarthyism.
In fact, it is skeptics who have been subjected to a witch hunt. The
Stanford emails compared them to those who "would deny the reality of
the law of gravity."
Those involved in this email exchange are all members of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences.
The notion of "official" climate reviews has already been tainted by
the U.K.'s Stern Review, which emerged as a blatantly skewed
political document designed to support U.K. policy.
More recently, the official review of the Climatic Research Unit of
the University of East Anglia - from which the Climategate emails
were liberated - was involved in turmoil when two of its members were
revealed to hold flagrantly alarmist views.
Still, there is some small humour in this, as befits a Wonderland-ish
situation. The IAC is headquartered at the Royal Netherlands Academy
of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam. One of 2007 IPCC report's "very
small number or errors" was to double the amount of the Netherlands
that lies below sea level.
At Wednesday's press conference, neither Mr. Pachauri nor Mr. Ban
took questions. It was not reported whether they subsequently
disappeared down a rabbit hole. It will be fascinating to see how
long the IPCC's house of cards survives this scandal, which grows
ever "curiouser and curiouser."

The NAS seems to be running true to form. Science integrity seems to
have vanished.