Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Still more brazen fraud from the IPCC chief

Rajendra Pachauri joins 7.30 Report
[RAJENDRA PACHAURI on the IPCC] Whatever we do is very transparent. Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, "Yes. Accepted." Where we don't, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don't agree with the comment. So it's a very transparent process.
From David Holland's response on CCNet:
The statement is entirely untrue and very misleading. No “comments” or “reasons” are posted at the IPCC website or ever have been so far as I know, and to my certain knowledge not all of them on the Fourth Assessment were ever published.
From Ross McKitrick's response on CCNet:
Dr. Pachauri insinuates that reviewer comments are posted right away, or at least automatically if not right away, to the IPCC web site. I was a WG I reviewer, and like all the others our comments were submitted confidentially. We were instructed not to divulge the review materials publicly. The only reason WG I comments eventually got posted on the internet (months after the report was released) was that Steve McIntyre and David Holland pursued the IPCC with FOI requests. Having fought so long to keep the review comments from being released, it is rather rich for Pachauri now to invoke the fact that they (grudgingly) conceded the requests as a reason to boast about a process that apparently never had that outcome in view.


Anonymous said...

I saw the particular 7.30 Report interview with Kerry O'Brien and nearly through my coffee cup at the television!! Rajendra was lying through his teeth and you could see it in his body language. If you have it on video, I reckon if you looked at it again, you would see his demeanour changes ever so subtle. I'm sick of the IPCC lying through its teeth, defrauding science and snearing at its critics. I've had a gutful of it all.

Anonymous said...

As peer reviewed as Wikipedia can be. What does this say of their "peers"?