IAC & Media Admit The Well Is Poisoned – But Insist The Water Is Clean

They all admit the IPCC is flawed and in need of an overhaul, yet they still insist the science is correct. Go figure. That’s pure rubbish, of course. Bad process = bad product.

It sounds just like the National Academy of Sciences reaching the conclusion that Michael Mann’s hockey stick science had no value, but his answer was still correct.Here are the excerpts from some of the leading online papers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. (I’ve also added some UK links below, h/t: http://thegwpf.org/
 SÜDDEUTSCHE  ZEITUNG in Germany (a favorite of Stefan Rahmstorf) writes:

Obligation to be more open
An examination of the IPCC reveals: The IPCC has to change the way it works. Yet, there’s no basis for the foaming attacks on its results.

DER STANDARD  in Austria writes:

In the expert team’s assessment, they recommend formulating stricter scientific guidelines for handling data on climate change. Forecasts and projections should be made only based on solid scientific evidence.

Sounds good. But if that were to be implemented, the entire IPCC 4AR would be reduced to only 2 pages:  a front and back cover.

DER SPIEGEL in Germany writes:

Consequence of the crisis: Experts urge an overhaul of the UN IPCC. They harshly criticised the work of the leadership. Not only the leadership, but also the scientific work of the climate panel is in need of reform.

 DIE ZEIT in Germany writes:

IPCC to be a reform project

Flawed data, hacked e-mails: The doubts about the IPCC were enormous. Now the UN draws a conclusion: Its work was correct, but its credibilty must be strengthened.

 DIE WELT  in Germany writes:

The IPCC which has been under fire because of series of follies has to be comprehensively reformed in order to remove doubts about its credibility. A report presented by the UN-appointed experts has reached the conclusion that a ‘fundamental reform’ of the IPCC is needed in order for it to strengthen its scientific standards and organisation.

NZZ in Zurich has a more lengthy piece, and writes:

The Interacademy Council (IAC) said critics were only partially right. In a report presented to the UN in NewYork on Monday, the IPCC was attested as having done, on the whole, good work. But it is criticised that its management structures and public relations work of the IPCC did not fulfill the requirements of today.

From the UK, h/t : http://thegwpf.org/
The SunUN ‘lacks Solid Evidence’ in Climate Warnings
Daily Express: Climate Change Lies Are Exposed
BBC News: Stricter controls urged for the UN’s climate body
The Times: Climate chief under pressure to quit after report on glacier blunder
The GuardianRajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign
The Independent: IPCC feels the heat as it is told to get its facts right about global warming

8 responses to “IAC & Media Admit The Well Is Poisoned – But Insist The Water Is Clean”

  1. R. de Haan

    Say No More.

    Listen to this interview with Joseph D’Aleo
    “We cannot trust NOAA’s or NASA’s data bases to make important policy decisions,” days meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo in this shocking interview with Kim Greenhouse.

    “NOAA and NASA have misused science to produce a bias,” says D’Aleo. “The climate models are flawed miserably. Their models are built in ways that give them the desired results. If their models don’t match the data, they don’t change their models – they fiddle with the data.”


    Dr. Spencer has hits the nail right on the head when he says:
    Dump the IPCC Process, it can’t be fixed.

    1. Bernd Felsche

      I agree that the models cannot (ever) be used to determine any realistic future climate.

      The models are comprised of “spherical cows”; vast herds of them. To which science at best adds a few. Meanwhile, institutions such as the UN-IPCC and a large population of pseudo-scientists are milking the herd, whilst doling out the manure in “peer reviewed research” to the public.

  2. Tom Fuller

    That is the best title for a post in the history of climate weblogging. Well done.

    (The post ain’t bad, either)

  3. Mindert Eiting

    Note the trick: the order to the IAC was to study the procedures but not the content. My TV news said: IAC did not criticise the content as if they made a study of it and considered it all right. We could expect this from the beginning.
    Reply: Reviewing the content is probably redundant anyway. If the process doesn’t work, then we know the product it produces is rubbish. Of course, they will never admit that. -PG

  4. Réchauffement médiatique » Blog Archive » Nouveau rapport accablant pour le GIEC

    […] IAC & Media Admit The Well Is Poisoned – But Insist The Water Is Clean [No Tricks Zone] […]

  5. Clothcap

    In a lengthy note to Dr Peiser in Feb 2010 (CCNet newsletter), Norm Kalmanovitch concluded:

    All that was needed to prevent this calamity was for the peer review committee to demand verification for the derivation of the forcing parameter used in the climate models before allowing publication in 1988. Without this single article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf ) global warming would never have become an issue and the IPCC would never have been formed.

    So as well as being an anti scientific abomination, it was misbegotten.
    The world should condemn its creators (UNEP, Strong, Houghton, WMO, probably with (CoR’s) Rockefeller dollars that also went to finance Strong’s UNEP) and it would not be unwise to terminate funding of all politicised UN offshoots that want an eco-fascist world government. (Isn’t funding anti national sovereignty organisations treason? It must at least be against nations’ interests.)

  6. Die Zeit Takes Aim At The Skeptics in “The Abetters of Doubt”

    […] Damn Internet. Of course, the entire climate science community knows that these scandals have not been debunked. Here’s a list of 94 scandals that have yet to be resolved. An updated and much expanded list is coming out soon. As far as the IAC is concerned it Admits Well Is Poisoned, Yet Insists Water Is Safe. […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy