Cross-posted from Daniel Cressey on The Great Beyond
It’s been a busy week for climate change watchers. We had the British parliamentary hearing into climate-gate, the IPCC announced it was reviewing its procedures, American politician James Inhofe waded in with his own report, and then there was the usual plethora of yes-it-is, no-its-not back and forth.
In case you missed any of it. Here’s the point/counter point.
Written evidence from the Institute of Physics to the parliamentary inquiry is critical of the scientist at the centre of the affair – Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Some have taken it as casting doubt on global warming.
“It reflected our belief that the open exchange of data, procedures and materials is fundamental to the scientific process. From the information already in the public domain it appears that these principles have been put at risk in the present case, and that this has undermined the trust that is placed in the scientific process.”
The Institute of Physics clarifies its written evidence to the House of Commons hearing.
“The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work. The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission.”
David Adam, The Guardian.
IPCC: who reviews the reviewers?
Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair, last week announced ‘an independent committee to review IPCC Procedures’.
“The IPCC strives to ensure that its procedures for use of published material in the preparation of its assessment reports are followed in all respects. But we recognize the criticism that has been levelled at us and the need to respond.”
“In practice, what this means is that another UN-appointed panel of ‘experts’ will convene to review the failures of the original experts. This is less than reassuring. … [T]he outcome of Mr. Pachauri’s inquiry has already been determined—the science will be found to be sound. Too bad for him that the IPCC is likely past the point where it can salvage its tattered reputation.”
The Wall Street Journal is less than impressed.
Inhofe Rides Again
Senator James Inhofe has launched a report – and another attack on climate science.
“In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal, among other things, unethical and potentially illegal behaviour by some of the world’s pre-eminent climate scientists.”
One of the more controversial claims in the ‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy’ report from Senator Inhofe’s office.
“[W]hen Inhofe attempts to discredit respected scientists through innuendo and tries to intimidate them by threatening a criminal investigation, enough is enough. It is time to say, ‘Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?’”
Dan Lashof, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, responds.
“In British Columbia, we live with the problems that have been created by climate change. You just can’t turn your back on that.”
British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell is reported to have blamed climate change for the poor snow at the winter Olympics (Globe and Mail).
“Environmentalists are criticizing the climate change documentary ‘Plus or Minus 2 Degrees Celsius’ by media personality Sisy Chen for its mistakes, reports said yesterday. The movie, a more Taiwan-centered counterpart to efforts like former United States Vice President Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, contained inaccuracies that made it unsuitable to show at schools, critics said.”
Taiwan News reports on a local spat.