IPCC's Pachauri – no retroactive conflict of interest policy to be applied to the next AR5 report

Gobsmacking arrogance from Pachauri as reported by Steve McIntyre at his Climate Audit blog. Steve writes:

Yesterday, IPCC chairman Pachauri told Oliver Morton of The Economist at an IPCC event in Brussels that conflict of interest policies would not not apply to AR5 authors. IPCC thereby sabotaged recommendations from the Interacademy Council and announced its plans to evade the conflict of interest policies passed at the 33rd IPCC plenary only a month ago.

The Pachauri Interview

Here’s what Pachauri said in response to Oliver Morton

– see Morton’s interesting blog article here:

B: Are you happy with the IPCC’s new conflict-of-interest policy? [adopted at the panel’s recent plenary]

RP: Absolutely. I must say that was a very heartening piece of work. People put in a lot of effort to come up with what I think is a very robust policy in terms of conflict of interest.

B: At what point should it start to apply?

RP: It’s applicable right away. Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.

All sorts of editorial responses spring to mind (one of which is that, in transcription, Pachauri sure sounds like Acton of East Anglia.) But first let’s follow some backstory – through the IAC Report and the COI policy adopted at the 33rd IPCC plenary.

more at Climate Audit

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 18, 2011 10:10 pm

I’d hand ’em a shovel so they can dig themselves in deeper but they’re doing just fine without my help.

Mike McMillan
June 18, 2011 10:21 pm

It would be an unreasonable burden to actually apply their new standards, as opposed to just touting them. IPCC will, I’m sure, publish those conflicts of interest to ensure transparency.

June 18, 2011 10:23 pm

IPCC: Sporting a new coat of two-sided paint.

June 18, 2011 10:35 pm

He’s so happy with his robust policy, he’s already found an exception to his new rules.
Of course he can be arrogant, he can’t be fired.
Humanity’s demand for job security is actually a demand for permission to be lazy.

June 18, 2011 10:40 pm

It doesn’t really matter what Pachauri says. He will continue to peddle his nonsense while the world turns. All that really matter is what the democratically elected governments of the world say. Canada and Japan are leading the revolution. The US knows the writing is on the wall and Australia will fully turn soon enough. Europe cannot stand on its own and will fragment …… then it will be over.

June 18, 2011 10:42 pm

Did he mean to say, ‘retroactively;?

Doug in Seattle
June 18, 2011 10:58 pm

They are so insulated in their “special” universe that nothing they do cannot be rationalized.

June 18, 2011 10:58 pm

Meanwhile the Arctic hits record lows.

Beth Cooper
June 18, 2011 10:59 pm

“Four legs good, two legs better.” Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm.’
Change of Game plan.

June 18, 2011 10:59 pm

And why is this clown, Pachauri, still in this position?

Doug in Seattle
June 18, 2011 10:59 pm

And there’s that word again – “robust”. Just what does it really mean to them?

June 18, 2011 11:07 pm

Pachauri said, “it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.”
Now, where in heck does fairness come into play when you are a UN body supposedly responsible for shaping countries’ policies?
Aw, gee, somebody might get their feelings hurt when they cannot contribute to Propaganda AR5 because they are either making a fortune off related green investments, are a green energy lobbyist, or they are funded by green activist organizations.

June 18, 2011 11:22 pm

I posted this question over at CA:
Is there anybody out there who could succinctly put the history of all the errors, corruption, ignoring IAC recommendations and conflict of interest etc that Steve has revealed about the IPCC into say a couple of pages? In the UK, for example we could send it to our MPs and get questions asked in parliament about why our Government still believes in the IPCC and why it should base its policies on the IPCC reports.
There is no point in us all separately spending hours pulling something together.

June 18, 2011 11:56 pm

Why isn’t there a campaign for Americans to lobby your government to help reduce your nation’s budget problems by withdrawing from financially supporting the IPCC ?
Remove American money and the gravy train stops – worthwhile lobbying and absolutely no loss to the world.
In a few years the debate should be settled anyway and if necessary we can all panic – or not.
The IPCC hasn’t kicked a goal – except own goals – in its entire existence.
The IPCC is unlikely to have any major impact in achieving any climate action with countries that matter like the US,China,Russia etc so it is simply an expensive junket for an exclusive membership.
Doesn’t sound like the American way to me – taking from your country but not contributing – but I’m from Aus. so what would I know?

June 18, 2011 11:56 pm

What else? Does anyone here believe their gesticulations? These are acting like politicians caught the hand in the cookie jar and who managed to find judges to claim that next time -if caught- they may get a reprimand…

Pete H
June 19, 2011 12:10 am

Doug in Seattle says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:59 pm
“And there’s that word again – “robust”. Just what does it really mean to them?”
Depends Doug, are we talking about an IPCC report or another of Pachauri soft porn novels?

Scottish Sceptic
June 19, 2011 12:31 am

It’s like someone going to an optician and being prescribed glasses and then telling an exam instructor: “Yes I need glasses to see, but as I booked the test before I was prescribed the glasses I don’t think I need them for the test”.
What arrogance! What stupidity! They may as well write: “we’re corrupt” on the cover of the report for all the good it will do them now. There will be a lot of well intentioned people acting with integrity to produce the report and all their work will be wasted. Worse, they will all be tarred with the same “corrupt” brush.

June 19, 2011 12:44 am

Who polices the IPCC anyway, or are they just a loose cannon?

Richard deSousa
June 19, 2011 1:05 am

The IPCC needs a few more shovel ready projects so they can dig themselves a deeper hole.

June 19, 2011 1:28 am

“Humanity’s demand for job security is actually a demand for permission to be lazy”
One of the most profound statements I’ve read in a long time.

Mac the Knife
June 19, 2011 1:37 am

Ross says:
June 18, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Spot On, Ross!
Unfortunately, the US of A is still controlled politically by the progressive socialists: Our Dear Leader – Barack Obama, Senile Majority Leader – Harry Reid, and other exhibitionist socialist Weiners. Add at least another 40 or so spineless RINOs (Republican In Name Only) in the House of Representatives and we find ourselves without the support necessary to cut off funding for this travesty known as the UN-IPCC et.al. The UN-IPCC serves the Obama agenda to destroy the capability for inexpensive US energy production well, hence no driving force to kill the funding until the progressive socialists can be defeated. There is a determined conservative political movement striving to wrest control from the socialists, however. The ill conceived and executed progressive socialist ‘stimulus’ programs that have run up huge US deficits, threaten to bankrupt our nation, and have done nothing to lower out national unemployment rates are (slowly) convincing the majority of our nation that socialism is the wrong path and we must change. That may bode well, as the local, state, and federal elections slated for Nov 2012 will determine this issue….. and many others.
Pray for us……..

June 19, 2011 1:52 am

This is the blogosphere at it’s finest, and makes me proud of getting Steve setup with a blog in the first place – bringing attention to bureaucrats who would defy the democratic wishes of the people who pay them.
I predict that AR5 will be the most investigated and crowd-reviewed report ever, and it will be the last of it’s line. If Canada, Japan and Russia won’t be signing on to any successor to Kyoto, and the US, China and Pachauri’s own India refusing to even consider carbon dioxide controls, the only people promoting AR5 will be the NGOs who stand to make the most money.

Peter Miller
June 19, 2011 2:03 am

But why is anyone surprised at this?
It is self-evident that the IPCC is a corrupt, self-serving organisation.
Given all the facts, you would have to be a very strange person indeed to believe in the integrity of Pachauri and his parasite organisation TERI.
As for the KPMG whitewash of Pachauri – I just read the entire document – there is no mention of the value of facilities provided to him by TERI, basically he has set up TERI to be run in the same way as one of those weird American religious cults, where the self-appointed leaders live a life of unbelievable luxury.

June 19, 2011 2:11 am

These UN people are taking our money and laughing in our face.
Facts, scientific method, integrity, conscience? Pachauri and his team don’t know what these words mean. In their primordial world of corruption, everything — not only the laws of men but also the laws of Nature — is some kind of verbal con, an easy game to win black limousines, best restaurants, and totally brainwashed young women who groan “Global warming is real!” even while having orgasms.
Until the time comes to sue them and to put them in jail, laugh at them.
Laughter is the most effective weapon of the disarmed and robbed.
Rectospectively raw-bust I-Pee-Choo-Choo my donkey!

Glen of Aus
June 19, 2011 2:48 am

Everyone who reads the above statement understands that the AR5 has no COI policies applied – HOWEVER – the other 99.9999% of the world will be told (by the MSM) that the AR5 can be trusted because the IPCC has had a COI policy from *before* the AR5 was put together – which means the public is duped into believing that the AR5 is all OK and above board. We must get Pauchari’s comment distributed widely and constantly, otherwise we will lose!

June 19, 2011 3:32 am

In the wake of the climategate, other scandals and the latest howler, people are always calling for Pachauri’s head. I think he’s more useful to the skeptic cause where he is. He’s politically inept, arrogant and doesn’t do the joined up thinking you’d expect of someone heading up a large international organization.
You never know, if he’s fired he may be replaced by someone who knows what the’re doing. He’s too good a liability to them to be removed from the board.

Luther Wu
June 19, 2011 3:38 am

Point a true believer towards any genuine scientific data which doesn’t support the IPCC agenda and they will reflexively state that the data was produced by this or that evil corporation and is therefore corrupt.
These same true believers very often decry any mention of religious teachings and especially anything Christian.
There’s a good reason for that. They can’t bear to examine the hypocrisies of their own lives, ala Matthew 7:5.

Frank K.
June 19, 2011 3:49 am

jcrabb says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:58 pm
“Meanwhile the Arctic hits record lows.”
…uhhh…since 1979, which is the current estimated age of the Earth according to Warmistas like Mr. Crabb – who likewise has similarly acknowledged RECORD HIGHS in the recent past (particularly in Antarctica)…

June 19, 2011 4:05 am

jcrabb says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Meanwhile the Arctic hits record lows.

Ah, the good reliable warmist method we all love: when under attack on a legitimate issue, change the subject.
As a matter of record you are doubtfully true: it depends which record you look at. As if records only going back a few decades are that useful in what is, after all, only a proxy for global warming anyway.
More importantly you are pushing the wrong barrow entirely. We know the world is warming. It has been for centuries now. Far longer than industrial CO2 can be blamed for it. You need to show that the warming is both accelerating (which will be difficult) and is unbearable for us to manage (which will be impossible, I suggest).
Arctic ice is, frankly, a major nuisance: preventing shipping and fishing. If it melts the world will be better off. If that is the worst effect of global warming, then it is going to be a breeze.

June 19, 2011 4:18 am

Phillip Bratby says:
June 18, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Is there anybody out there who could succinctly put the history of all the errors, corruption, ignoring IAC recommendations and conflict of interest etc……….

The best place that I have found is at:
Meanwhile I was about to post THIS link concerning Pachauri having set up GloriOil and being the scientific advisor when I noticed that his entry has now VANISHED! Does anyone know what happened?
[GloriOil is a residual oil extraction company – it enables big oil companies to extract the last remaining amounts of oil in fields that would otherwise have been abandoned.]
Here are Pachauri’s oil and other affiliations – past and present

June 19, 2011 4:23 am

Further to my last comment – here is Pachauri’s earlier entry on Google cache. He is shown as being it’s founder and scientific advisor.

June 19, 2011 4:39 am

If the IPCC dig their hole any deeper they will find a new form of global warming, the one provided by hell…
A complete and utter disgrace. What a waste.

June 19, 2011 4:48 am

Pachauri!!, Geez, what a Weiner!

June 19, 2011 4:53 am

Pachauri sure has a unique way of saying “go to hell”.

Dave Springer
June 19, 2011 5:07 am

Alvin W says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm
“Did he mean to say, ‘retroactively;?”
I’m sure that’s what he meant to say. It was either a Freudian slip or he’s a moron or some combination thereof.

June 19, 2011 5:36 am

Perhaps Pachauri has become a double agent. His mission? To destroy the IPCC.

June 19, 2011 5:43 am

The IPCC needs to disband.

June 19, 2011 5:47 am

Can I respectfully suggest a great one liner for our new aspirational Septic Blather?
“We are not in a crisis we are only in some difficulties and these will be solved”
You see it’s the World Game they’re playing and you ignorant plebs just cannot understand the rules of your new cognoscenti. Only the Fourth Estate can comprehend the superior ways of your betters and pay them their due homage.

June 19, 2011 5:49 am

Infuriating but I take some comfort in Napoleon’s advice, “Never interrupt your adversary when he is busy making a mistake.” Things that cannot go on, won’t. The corruption and deception are being exposed (thank you WUWT, thank you Web) and voters and taxpayers are wising up. So, while we can try to shift Pachauri from his perch through tough questions and hot letters to government officials, we can also just enjoy the spectacle of him proving our point that power corrupts, and a corrupt policy about COI is worse than no policy at all. It’s the cover-up that gets them in the end. Pachauri is to IPCC as Anthony Weiner has been to the Democrats in the US Congress. The longer he does his dance, the less credible the whole enterprise becomes.

June 19, 2011 5:56 am

jcrabb says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Meanwhile the Arctic hits record lows.

Are you sure??? See here, here, here or here.
Next time say on the instrumental record which began in 1979. In the meantime temperature in the Arctic is at it’s instrumental historic average. Consider soot, because the arch Warmist Dr. James Hansen has with his paper titled Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos. There are other papers too. ;O)

June 19, 2011 5:58 am

I meant:
“……..Arctic is at its instrumental…..”

June 19, 2011 5:58 am

It’s a good thing India and China haven’t fallen for this scam. If they had, the IPCC would have already reverted us to an agrarian world where our agrarian existence would allow our world leaders to live as Gods.

Alberta Slim
June 19, 2011 6:05 am

Ross says:
June 18, 2011 at 11:56 pm
“……Why isn’t there a campaign for Americans to lobby your government to help reduce your nation’s budget problems by withdrawing from financially supporting the IPCC ?”
I agree. I’m a Canadian. We have a majority Conservative Governnment now, but they are unlikely to withdraw from the UN.
I say that the US and all G8s, should stop funding the UN/IPCC and kick the whole UN out of the USA.
I understand that Dubai has a lot of real estate that the UN could fill up.[Out of sight; out of mind].
And— let them finance their own excessiveness on useless projects.
I’m not holding my breath, tho.

June 19, 2011 6:44 am

for Ross from Aus: what you say makes perfect sense, but we have to get rid of Obama and the Dem’s first. They are true, true believers and cannot be converted, only defeated. This is because they see themselves as benefited both politically and personally from the so-called “Green Agenda”, and thus they have chosen to go down with the ship, so to speak, before they will back off.
That’s why this is, in the end, a political matter, not a scientific one. That’s why Pachouri can say and do anything he wants without fear, he is the representative of a politico-religious faction that dare not ever admit that he can do any wrong. All of this nonsense is driven by money, and the money is directed by politics. The answer to everything comes down to politics. Everything else is incidental. That’s where the battle will be fought, and that’s where it will either be won or be lost.

June 19, 2011 6:50 am

If the IPCC thinks they are scientifically and intellectually untouchable, then that means they have already sealed up their echo chamber along with their political and green sympathizers inside. The IPCC needs to contact reality instead of hiding in their echo chamber. They should look out the windows . . . . they will be dismayed to see that independent thinkers have already touched them in the most critically decisive areas!
The IPCC should be abandoned . . . . hope the USA is the first to do so.

Fred from Canuckistan
June 19, 2011 6:54 am

IPCC chairman Pachauri, hell the entire IPCC apparatus is a self inflicting wound on the integrity of science.
I don’t think he knows the truth anymore, knows that his actions and immorality have consequences. He appears to live in this “I’m a do-gooder” bubble that he believes protects him from doing anything wrong as long as he believes it is for a good cause.
If I was a real, honest Climatologist, I’d bail on the the IPCC so fast to protect my reputation.
If I wasn’t a real, honest Climatologist, I’d keep riding the IPCC Gravy Train because it supplies my fix for Fame & Funding.
Climatologists around the world need to realize – we are watching your actions because they are the key to your soul, not the pious words coming out of your mouth.

R. de Haan
June 19, 2011 7:02 am

They’re all crooks.

June 19, 2011 7:04 am

The IPCC has established limits to integrity.

Pamela Gray
June 19, 2011 7:21 am

I am sure they will preface their upcoming report with something like “…conflict of interest has not been filtered from the current results…” And if they don’t, we have Pachauri’s own words to quote. The man just keeps on giving don’t he.

G. Karst
June 19, 2011 7:27 am

Pachauri is formally acknowledging that the AR5 report will contain numerous conflict of interest violations. He is quite content, to leave it to us, to root out the suspect material. So he (IPCC) is offering to the world, a very expensive Easter egg hunt. Is there a prize for finding the green eggs covered in gold $$$ signs.
I would love it if the winner gets to personally lock Pachauri into a jail cell and retain the golden key. GK

June 19, 2011 7:43 am

B: At what point should it start to apply?
RP:.. we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.

“The science is settled!”: if it weren’t for your unfair ability to still ask [me] questions, “we” wouldn’t even have to talk about this anything!

June 19, 2011 7:49 am

Yes but, who put Pachauri in that position?

George Steiner
June 19, 2011 7:55 am

The IPCC and their camp followers will continue to laugh at you until you will use some 2×4 diplomacy. But you will never do that.

June 19, 2011 8:03 am

How about this Mr Watts? Taken from American Thinker today: Most of us expect an intergovernmental agency not to have enviro-advocacy people influencing its reports. Unfortunately for the IPCC, Anthony Watts details at his blog how another blogger, Steve McIntyre, blows the whistle on the report’s ties to Greenpeace.

John D
June 19, 2011 8:14 am

The ONLY way this will change is by voting out the governments that support this: mainly USA, Australia, Britain, and Germany. Only when these governments go, will anything change and it will take many years even if temps plummet they will (IPCC) hang on as long as possible to AGW… Unfortunately ranting on CA or WUWT or JONova will have no effect whatsoever.

June 19, 2011 9:34 am

RP:.. we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.
“Looking for ‘fair’ changes? You fools, we stand corrected corrupted!”

June 19, 2011 10:46 am

John D wrote: “Unfortunately ranting on CA or WUWT or JONova will have no effect whatsoever”
au contraire, no need to be so pessimistic! 3 years ago skepticism was unheard of, these 3 you name were just lonely voices in the wilderness. Look at how much they have changed in that time!!! They have been the point of the spear, and the tide is turning! No longer does a large majority just blindly buy into AGW, and now, at least in the US, Canada, and Australia, there are significant political forces at work to end this charade. (for you in the UK, I’m sorry.)
Now the warmists are worried – they are terrified by these blogs, and those who host them. That alone should tell you how effective they have been! Broadbased political movements start at the grass roots – well, this is the grass roots right here! True change starts here, including a change in government!

June 19, 2011 10:47 am

Doug in Seattle says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:59 pm
“And there’s that word again – “robust”. Just what does it really mean to them?”
I’m not quite sure but i think that it means grantworthy!

June 19, 2011 12:47 pm

Applying it ‘ retrospectively’ (the policy) to upcoming AR5, wouldn’t be sort of fair to who exactly ? The beleaguered authors & reviewers who have worked so hard already or the long-suffering tax payers who are funding the whole circus and don’t have any say in the matter ?
Why does complacency spring to mind ?

June 19, 2011 1:35 pm

So, essentially, a kudos to Mr Pauchauri for telling the rest of the world that the composition of the WG5 is so rottenly biased from start, that they can’t apply common decent, and rational, rules after the teams creation.
Can the private sector now do the same when it comes to new business regulations being passed?

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
June 19, 2011 6:07 pm

Some of Pachaur’s shoot from the lip proclamations make me wonder whether he ever bothers to read what he has said previously and/or what the actual IPCC decisions were. In this particular instance, his:

It’s applicable right away. Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.

would seem to be at odds with [from the “decisions taken” text]:

Noting that Working Groups I and II, and the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI), have implemented, and Working Group III is in the process of designing, interim Conflict of Interest Policies that are broadly consistent with the IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy at Appendix 1, the Panel:
invited the Working Groups and the TFI, in taking forward their activities under the Fifth Assessment cycle, to take note of the Conflict of Interest Policy at Appendix 1 and ensure, as far as possible, that their actions are consistent with the Conflict of Interest Policy at Appendix 1.

Certainly one could drive a truck through the loopholes in the above excerpts. Not to mention that “Annex A: Implementation” and “Annex B: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form” – to the 17 paragraphs which constitute Appendix 1 – have yet to be written.
But one can only conclude that either:
a) Pachauri doesn’t know what he’s talking about; or
b) Whatever “decisions” the IPCC might have “taken” are nothing but foggy verbiage designed to provide cover for “business as usual” – in complete disregard for the intent of the IAC’s recommendations.
[More at:: IPCC and conflict of interest: tapping into the team-work side-step]

Patrick Davis
June 19, 2011 11:29 pm

This reminded me of a song from the 1960’s by Bernard Cribbins…
“Bernard Cribbins – 1962
“There I was, a-diggin’ this ‘ole
‘Ole in the ground, so big and sort o’ round it was
And there was I, diggin’ it deep
It was flat at the bottom and the sides were steep
When along comes this bloke in a bowler
Which he lifted and scratched his ‘ead
Woooh, he looked down the ‘ole
Poor demented soul and he said
“Do you mind if I make a suggestion?
Don’t dig there, dig it elsewhere
Your digging it round and it ought to be square
The shape of it’s wrong, it’s much too long
And you can’t put hole where a hole don’t belong”
I ask, what a liberty, eh?
Nearly bashed him right in the bowler
Well, there was I, a-stood in me ‘ole
Shovellin’ earth for all that I was worth, I was
And there was ‘im, standin’ up there
So grand and official with his nose in the air
So I gave him a look sort of sideways
And I leaned on me shovel and sighed
Woooh, I lit me a fag
And havin’ took a drag I replied
I just couldn’t bear to dig it elsewhere
I’m diggin’ it round ‘cos I don’t want it square
And if you disagree, it doesn’t bother me
That’s the place where the ‘oles gonna be
Well there we were, discussing this ‘ole
‘Ole in the groud, so big and sort o’ round
It’s not there now, the ground’s all flat
And beneath it is the bloke in the bowler hat
And that’s that!”

Brian D Finch
June 20, 2011 12:21 am

Pachauri sounds like St Augustine: ‘Lord, make me chaste. But not yet…’

David, UK
June 20, 2011 4:49 am

Whatever “COI policy” the IPPC has or does not have is irrelevant in a sense. If any real COIs are found to exist in AR5 then its credibility will be damaged. I mean what little credibility it has will be damaged. Yes ok, I know it has no credibility, but you take my point.

Vince Causey
June 20, 2011 6:19 am

So, the authors have been appointed already, and it wouldn’t be fair to get rid of them (implicit acknowledgement of conflicts?). No problem. The IPCC should issue a disclaimer of opinion, much as an auditor issues a disclaimer of opinion if limitation of scope is so pervasive that the auditor cannot form an opinion. Maybe something along the lines: ”
Since there are no safeguards or checks to prevent conflicts arising between the authors roles in preparing these reports and their external interests, the IPPC neither endorses nor refutes any conclusions, predictions or recommendations that may or may not be contained therein. Nothing contained within these pages may be construed as representing fact or reality, other than that which relates to empirical data.”

June 20, 2011 9:56 am

Regarding this latest IPCC incident revealed to us by Steve McIntyre and his associates, two quotes at the beginning of chapter 11 of Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ should be commented upon.
Quote #1 – ‘’’’’IPCC reports are being produced in a very open process under the discipline of science, where honesty and balance are hallmarks of that discipline. ‘’’’’’ (Sir John Houghton)
Quote #2 – ‘’’’’The point is that every single man who was there knows that the story is nonsense, and yet it has never been contradicted. It will never be overtaken now. It is a completely untrue story grown to legend while the men who knew it to be untrue looked on and said nothing.’’’’’’’ (Josephine Tey, ‘The Daughter of Time’)
The first quote has been revealed as nonsense; that nonsense has almost become legend.
The second quote is true wrt the MSM; they wanted to allow the IPCC nonsense to become legend because it supports their ideological premise that whatever the IPCC does will save the planet. MSM simply ignores any controversial IPCC activities as irrelevant because they ‘a priori’ know the IPCC will save the planet. Thanks to Steve McIntyre and his associates for helping to block the IPCC nonsense from becoming legend.

June 20, 2011 11:14 am

Thanks to Wil above at the June 19 8:03am mark for linking to my American Thinker article from yesterday. Indeed, two people who’ve participated in the long term smear of skeptic scientists are also involved in the IPCC. One worked at the same enviro-activist group in 1996 that also employed Al Gore’s current spokesperson. The other co-authored a book with the same out-of-context accusation phrase from a leaked memo that Gore has repeatedly, and incorrectly, said someone else discovered. It sure does appear Gore had the memo at the start of it all back in 1991, but like everybody else, he never showed it to the public, so we are all left wondering why he claims somebody else ‘discovered’ it.
Pachauri sure does whistle past the graveyard with his latest conflict-of-interest proclamation…..

%d bloggers like this: