Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sends IPCC a strong letter on their conflict of interest debacle

The plot thickens. Some parts of this letter are strongly worded. It is clear that there’s not much tolerance for the latest set of shenanigans from Pachauri.

Steve McIntyre writes:

Judy Curry draws attention to a letter from the Chairman of the Oversight Subcomittee of the US Science Committee to the UN Chairman asking that IPCC not be permitted to delay implementation of Conflict of Interest policy until after AR5 – press release here.

Here’s the image of the letter (link to full letter follows)


Here the link to the letter:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/061711_Broun%20Letter%20to%20UN%20re%20IPCC%20Conflict%20of%20Interest.pdf

This amounts to a “second request” notice from the committee [second this year, with the first request in Feb 2010]. In the letter, Broun wrote that it is “imperative for the IPCC to adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy before its 34th Session, tentatively scheduled to take place in January 2012.”

It would seem to me that this is not going to go away, and if past history is any indication, the IPCC will allow it to fester to an infection before seeking treatment.

I predict that the pus that is going to come out of it, once lanced, will be of the most smelly sorts.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sends IPCC a strong letter on their conflict of interest debacle

  1. Ross says:

    Why doesn’t the US simply demand appropriate “truth, justice and the American way” from the IPCC or threaten to boycott funding ?

    I certainly would not want to pay for a scientific assessment when it has been demonstrated time and again through numerous channels the assessments are biased and favour an outcome rather than assessing.

    Cut the ground from under them, stop the gravy train until they demonstrate some balance in the assessments.

  2. oMan says:

    The only way to lance this boil is to stop funding it. If the House were to cut off all UN payments contingent upon the IPCC adopting a COI policy right now –not “no later than the 35th” meeting, not by the end of 2011– it would concentrate their minds wonderfully. This is not rocket science. It isn’t even all-or-none. They can adopt a “close enough” policy that requires disclosure/recusal for the ridiculously obvious cases of bias and COI; and they can refine it as they go along. In a world of email, where all the authors and editors in the Assessment Reports are already fully networked, getting this done is the work of a week or two.

    They have nowhere to hide.

  3. Smokey says:

    Interesting letter. Scroll down to the last attachment.

  4. James Sexton says:

    Its just one more nail in the coffin. The IPCC is a “walking-dead” body. Pachy let the cat out of the bag by stating they’re not going to enforce the conflict of interest policy. Meaning that it is very likely this Green Peace dust up is only one of many. If we find 2-3 more examples, we can safely argue the IPCC is nothing more than another advocacy group, or rather a conglomerate of advocacy groups(something akin to the United Way to charity groups) that got it tentacles into various public coffers. Of course, most of us knew this already, but the IPCC is about to display this for all the world to see.

    I think the world would benefit more if we handed them more rope as opposed to tightening the leash at this time.

  5. Olen says:

    Why the IPCC at all. What function do they perform that is not being performed without them including the fraud. With the economy in the West near free fall why waste money on something that is being accomplished elsewhere.

  6. Jimmy Swaggarts of the World take Note.

  7. Thanks for the tip, Smokey. IT is interesting that Rep. Broun not only signed as “M.D”, but attached a 2004 Climategate email. I’m going to keep an approving eye on this guy.

  8. Latitude says:

    I think the world would benefit more if we handed them more rope as opposed to tightening the leash at this time.
    ======================================================================
    I could not agree more…………

    Cap and Trade is dead, Kyoto is dead, nothing has come out of their last few meetings other than more countries jumping ship…..
    ….they are rioting in Spain because of too many green jobs /s

    I predict this is their last report, I also think they know that too…
    …I expect to see the most outrageous screaming hair pulling hysterics yet

  9. Russell Biltmore says:

    I agree stop writing checks to these charlatans! We certainly do not need further proof that the entire IPCC process is agenda driven. It has been a cushy ride Pachauri but you’re out of gas!

  10. Jimbo says:

    Where is Pachauri and GloriOil? He has gone off the radar.
    http://www.glorioil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=10
    Thank God for Google cache.

    Pachauri and his present or past BIG OIL affiiliations:
    http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=9089242&privcapId=22361&previousCapId=138823&previousTitle=General%20Catalyst%20Partners

    Can I now use the ‘D Word’ on Pachauri?

  11. Bob Tisdale says:

    I went to Pachauri’s blog and curiously it’s “Under Maintenance”. Anyone have any idea how long it’s been down?
    http://blog.rkpachauri.org/under_construction.php

  12. pyromancer76 says:

    Thanks, again, Smokey:

    Smokey says:
    June 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    “Interesting letter. Scroll down to the last attachment.”

    That attachment is reason enough to defund! defund! defund!. No more “rope”. So glad most commenters understand the only action to take.

  13. Ross says:

    Jimbo
    Picked up on those links yesterday. Great . I can see a Josh cartoon with a two faced Pachauri in it.

  14. TrueNorthist says:

    I am in agreement with those that are seeing signs of the imminent demise of the IPCC. They have run out of time and will have to deal with all the rot lurking just below the surface. It is absolutely incomprehensible that they would continue to game things even while they are having to dance on the head of a pin to keep a lid on things, but I don’t think they care much any more. I think the people in charge at the IPCC have lost control over this monster. The authors of the various sections have run amok and seem to be intending to go out in a blaze of glory. All fanatical regimes tend to end this way.

  15. TrueNorthist says:

    Way to go Smokey!

    Nice catch.

  16. DeNihilist says:

    James Sexton, go visit the Bishop’s blog. Another greenie is ratting out the Hydro electric section. This could even be more damaging, as one of the 2 top of the tops is/was invovlved with building these dam’s!

    Anyone got some white cheddar popcorn?

  17. ZT says:

    Kudos to Paul Broun

  18. dahuang says:

    Broun has sent a formal letter to UN Secretary General on Feburary 2, 2010, before the IAC report came out in last October. It seems there is no response. How about this new letter?

    http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/documents/2.2.10_broun_un_letter.pdf

  19. Uber says:

    The IPCC has no reason to worry and no reason to enforce. They are everybody’s darling and they know it.

  20. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    The IPCC also knows that threats to defund are empty noise since the Senate will refuse to pass bills that don’t include IPCC funding or that our President will veto it.

  21. rbateman says:

    A most inviting choice for a budget cut, that IPCC.
    Pachy has even made the bed.
    Now is the time to make them lie in it.
    Pleasant dreams.

  22. higley7 says:

    The next report, AR5, could be really short if they have to leave out those with conflict of interest and then have to delete the activist references.

  23. Gary Krause says:

    The reference to “integrity” is the real point. It says two things, that there is no integrity and please might you demonstrate some integrity in the future.

  24. MangoChutney says:

    Richard Black posted this piece on 9th May 2011:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13337864

    but curiously, the BBC doesn’t seem to be following the conflict of interest story

    /Mango

  25. John Whitman says:

    Where are the similar letters from all the science institutes, academies and societies around the world?

    Shame on them for not standing up for scientific integrity against the IPCC’s incidents. Incidents that are a main source of the increasing loss of society’s trust in science.

    On another line of thought, the IPCC is the result of the inherent fatal flaws of PNS. By eliminating either one the other will take a serious fall.

    John

  26. KenB says:

    Thanks smokey -seems confirmed that the head of the UN was fully appraised of the concerns in February 2010 and chose to ignore those requests, for the UN to take a firm and uncompromising stand on the very practices that have been revealed in the present scandal, of agents within the IPCC process pushing their own profitable wheelbarrow of corrupt information.

    High minded American Climate Scientists should en masse walk out of the IPCC process in a professional protest at such corrupt practices. This action should be backed by ALL professional scientific associations within the US.

    Perhaps we need to write to all those :”chosen” to participate suggesting they withdraw until the system is corruption proofed.

  27. Ross said:
    June 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    > Why doesn’t the US simply demand appropriate “truth, justice and the American way”…

    Truth, justice, and the American way — it’s not enough anymore:

    http://tinyurl.com/3vp2pum

    Supermanbearpig

    next we’ll have moonBatman

  28. Steve Oregon says:

    Let’s see, the people with conflicts of interest want to produce a report to be used in imposing sweeping government policies but want their conflicts hidden until after they provide the report.

    Why doesn’t that disqualify all of them from participating in any way?

  29. Policyguy says:

    Pachauri won’t stop. He’s infected and invested.

    The UN won’t stop. Its accepted and infected.

    Lets move on to the solar story. Big news last week. The feds have finally released their funded studies of the sun, that took two years to convince them to fund. Do you believe it? Three federal agencies actually released results that all agree that the Sun is going dormant for awhile.

  30. wayne says:

    Advocacy groups or members have no place in a scientific entity. Their very existence spells partiality. You can start to see which “scientific” unions, organizations and journals are not scientific at all by their silence in this matter of the IPCC/UNEP/EPA concerning conflict of interests.

    Thank goodness there are a few from science starting to step forward.

  31. Beth Cooper says:

    Cracks in the wall are becoming seismic shifts, no doubt due to global warming.

  32. John Whitman says: June 20, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    “Where are the similar letters from all the science institutes, academies and societies around the world?”

    They are living in the fairytale world where the world is still warming, where sunspots are just speckles on a distant star which circles around their world and “science” is just a sausage machine of “scare in -> loads of money out”.

  33. jazznick says:

    Mango

    Richard Black gets a good kicking here from Dr David Whitehouse (GWPF)
    http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3259-solar-science-little-ice-ages-and-journalism.html

  34. Latimer Alder says:

    @ uber

    They are everybody’s darling and they know it.

    Ceaucescu in Romania thought the same. Until reality kicked in about half way through this speech.

    Even those most deluded by their own propaganda realise their mistake in the end.

  35. Mac the Knife says:

    All right. This is clearly actionable! I urge each of the US of A WUWT readers to write, call, and email their Representative and Senators, describing the failures of the UN-IPCC to abide by the IAC recommendations for transparency and full disclosure of Conflicts Of Interest within the UN-IPCC organization. Urge your Congressmen to sponsor and support extreme funding cuts to the UN, unless the Conflict Of Interest measures are fully implemented and verified by an independent third party, comprised of WUWT regulars!

    C’mon folks. Enough with the gritching and belly aching about their skullduggery. Take action, to hit ‘em where it really hurts! Do it… do it today.

  36. thisisgettingtiresome says:

    He must be thinking, well I’ve got away with it for this long, so why stop now ? The UN does like to believe it is beholden to no-one.

  37. Les Johnson says:

    This is hilarious, in the deeply ironic sense. Pachouri, amongst other jobs for multiple oil companies, had this duty with the Oil and Natural Gas Company -2006-2009

    Member of Audit & Ethics Committee

    HT Jimbo.

  38. Galvanize says:

    I`m no longer sure that it is arrogance that drives the likes of Pachauri. Ann Widdecombe seems to have it right:

    “How long will it be before the voice of reason prevails over the cynical cowardice of climate-change scientists who are faced with increasing evidence that they have it wrong but are too deeply dependent on huge government spending to admit it?”

    Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/252729/Ann-WiddecombeNo-more-lies-on-the-global-climate-front#ixzz1PtkqQh5C

  39. Alan the Brit says:

    We all know how corrupt the UNIPCC process is ever sinec its second report. You’re included in the reports, you reviewd them, said they were crap, but who cares, they published them anyway & put your name at the bottom as endorsing it because you “took part”! The idiots couldn’t even decide on a proper nomenclature system for each report because the bureaucrats were so busy getting trendy & excited over their apparent success in screwing the western free democracies, eg. FAR, SAR ,TAR, then they realised their mistake, so coined AR4, & now AR5, cue James Earl Jones style voice-over for the promo video!!! If they’d thought about it they’d just have started with AR1 & no problems. Anyhow, Ban has ignored letters from other scientists before so why people will think this corrupt little so’n so is going to respond I have no idea! He will do the “just & proper” thing & totally ignore it. If the IPCC does fall apart, don’t worry, it will be everyone else’s fault & not theirs, they will blame Big Oil, the USA, India, China, the little green men from Mars, you, me, everyone, but not themselves, etc. Just you wait & see. I bid you farewell, Strength though Unity, commrades! I’m off to enjoy what’s left of the interglacial :-))

  40. Alexander K says:

    Thanks, Smokey. The attachment shows that some in high places have their heads on straight!
    I should be amazed that little Ban Ki Moon is ignoring this, but I am totally unsurprised. The entire UN is a corrupt mass held together by graft, corruption, favours and the turning of blind eyes.

  41. David L says:

    IPCC can’t do it. They exist solely on conflict of interest. Take that away from them and you’ve taken the teeth
    out of the beast.

  42. oMan says:

    Look for the real point of leverage here. UN has leverage on Pachauri. Congress has leverage on UN. Voters have leverage on Congress. So, sure, keep those cards and letters coming, folks.
    But consider also: lawsuits. If an attorney-general can find a criminal case here; or if a plaintiff’s attorney can find a civil damages case here; then some serious fun could be had. On the criminal side, maybe the theory is: public funds are being spent in an uncontrolled fashion. Any time or other resources used by a grantee of US or state science funding, in furtherance of IPCC business (to review the literature, to prepare the chapters, to consult with the IPCC editorial staff, etc and much etc), is a diversion from the purposes of the grant. It is being spent in a process that is not subject to adequate policies and safeguards against corruption. As a result the public’s money is at best wasted on a report so shoddily prepared as to deliver little value; and at worst spent to make taxpayer-funded science a laughingstock. Suppose IPCC were a housing lender information agency, that reviewed and reported on the state of home mortgage financing activity; and suppose it relied on employees of US banks to help collect and review the data and prepare its reports; and suppose IPCC failed its own (limited) quality controls by using data with errors and falsehoods, sometimes supplied by market manipulators; and suppose the results of those (numerous, chronic, material) failures by IPCC allowed the US banks to expand their book of business and pay their managers bigger bonuses; and suppose this book of business turned out to be…junk. How long do you think it would take prosecutors or plaintiffs to go after the US banks for having been complicit in this (very convenient) arrangement, with IPCC laundering the poor and sometimes fraudulent information, and with bank employees co-opted into helping it do so?

    The analogy is not perfect, but any litigator worth her salt could come up with a theory that would get universities’ attention and, thus, ultimately Pachauri’s as well.

  43. Graeme says:

    Conflict smoflink… were the IPCC – who’s going to stop us – ha ha hahahahahaha.

    Pride goeth before a fall.

  44. Graeme says:

    Pachuri is probably penning his next soft porn novel… far more interesting to him, then actually ensuring correct scientific process in the IPCC.

  45. Graeme says:

    oMan says:
    June 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    If they did that – the next TAR would be about 4 pages long, mind you the summary for policy makers would be printable on a postage stamp.

  46. oMan says:

    Judith Curry makes a good point at her blog (Climate Etc). Namely: even if IPCC has no COI policy, its people mostly are subject to such policies through other affiliations. IPCC Secretatriat works for UN, which has COI policy. IPCC people who work for WMO are likewise covered by its policy. The many correspondents (editors, reviewers, etc) who do IPCC’s real work, are employed by institutions of higher learning etc which have COI policies. It would be worth a look at some of those policies, and how they might apply to COI by a university employee in connection with his or her work for IPCC. Work that will reflect badly on the employer university if it turns out to be corrupt due to lack of COI.

    More angles than first appeared…

  47. John Silver says:

    The only thing the IPCC must do, is die.

  48. Athelstan. says:

    If the IPCC ever had any legitimacy whatsoever – and that is up for debate, it has long since dissipated – surely now it’s time to end this farcical process, the latest episode involving Greenpeace writing the script – no conflicted interests there then?

    “Science went out of the window!” I can recall somebody making this assertion, to which I would rejoinder, no scientific method, still less investigation ever occurred under the aegis of the IPCC.

    IPCC was never about science, no, not science – just about advocacy, bolstering a false premise. The real victims are the taxpayers of the Western world, particularly: the citizens of the USA and Britain.

    I am not interested in making people pay, just interested in bringing a halt to good people paying – ie, sending good money after bad.

    End it now.

  49. Richard M says:

    David L says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:50 am
    IPCC can’t do it. They exist solely on conflict of interest. Take that away from them and you’ve taken the teeth
    out of the beast.

    Exactly, the scientists and environmentalists reason to exist would evaporate without the IPCC. Conflict of interest is the entire reason for the IPCC existence. If it goes away lots of people will lose their jobs.

  50. Mr Green Genes says:

    Galvanize says:
    June 21, 2011 at 1:45 am

    I`m no longer sure that it is arrogance that drives the likes of Pachauri. Ann Widdecombe seems to have it right:

    “How long will it be before the voice of reason prevails over the cynical cowardice of climate-change scientists who are faced with increasing evidence that they have it wrong but are too deeply dependent on huge government spending to admit it?”
    =============================================================================
    I never thought I’d find myself in agreement with old Widders. Still, there’s a first time for (almost) everything.

  51. Ryan says:

    I would say that the IPCC is about one US election away from termination. And Ban Ki Moon has ensured that the UN will probably go down with it.

  52. energy01 says:

    The IPCC renewable energy fiasco is not over yet. Over at the website, Bishop Hill, bloggers are examining the IPCC claims about solar, biomass and hydro:

    “At least half of the lead authors of the hydropower chapter are not independent scientists, but have a vested interest in the promotion of hydropower. This creates a conflict of interest, which is reflected throughout the report.” (Mark Lynas)

    I have a feeling that these conflict of interest allegations are not over by a long shot.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/20/this-time-its-hydro.html

  53. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    “Like” Ralph Hall, U.S. Congress Texas.

    Roladex the man.

  54. jae says:

    CORRUPTION, several orders of magnitude worse than I could even conceive 3 years ago. And unfortunately, climate science is only a tiny part of it…”Western Civilization,” whatever that really means, is truly in peril!!!!!!

Comments are closed.