From Green Watch America a weekly on line publication

Click on the title to go directly to the publication

UN IPCC Lies Exposed For All to See


Originally Published: 9/2/2010



Thursday, September 2nd, 2010



Little by little, inaccuracies and false claims in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have trickled out over the last few years. Claims about the melting snow on the Himalayas, acidification of coral reefs and the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest have been revealed to be embarrassingly sourced (if sourced at all) and/or inaccurate. Questions about the process, including the exclusion of dissenting views, have marred the objectivity of the panel.



An objective observer could not possibly have concluded anything other than that this panel was biased from the start, serving the interest of politics rather than science. However, proponents of the Radical Green Agenda have stuck to their guns, claiming any criticism of the report or the panel is unfounded and anti-science.



Until now.





The world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.



A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.



It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.





So the world's leading climate change body exaggerated (if not lied) and fear-mongered to promote a political agenda. Oh, and then won a Nobel Peace Prize for it.



The inquiry also suggested that the senior officials involved in each report remain in their positions for only one report. This immediately raises questions about the current head of the UN IPCC, Rajenda K. Pachauri. The embattled Pachauri has taken a great of criticism since the first of these inconsistencies came to light, and now the pressure for him to step down continues to grow:



As the IPCC's leader, Dr Pachauri is ultimately responsible for the defects identified by the inquiry. Worse, he has done much to aggravate them. He has been in the vanguard of the panel's detour into policy pronouncements – for example, by calling a decision by President Obama not to try for a full climate treaty in Copenhagen "an abandonment of moral responsibility". And his bombastic rejection last winter of any criticism deepened the crisis.



But he is refusing to quit, saying he will stay to implement the changes unless he is dismissed by the representatives of the 194 governments who run the IPCC.



Until the IPCC chairman is...able to adapt to the realities, his organisation, his cause – and that Peace Prize – will inevitably be damaged and devalued.

Thus far, the governments have backed Dr. Pachauri, who is in the second year of his second six year term. However, given Pachauri's past, and his tendency to stick his foot in his mouth, it can't be long until he comes to his senses and realizes that he must step down. He has no credibility left. And that's only a little less than the IPCC has.





Most Egregious Claim of the Week





Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is campaigning against Proposition 23, a ballot initiative that would suspend California's Climate Change law until unemployment stops dropping in the state. At first, his rhetoric was predictable:



"Go home, Texas Oil Companies. We won't compromise our environmental and health standards so you can make more money."



Of course, he might as well be saying, "Go home Texas Oil Companies. We don't want your money. We're content with ridiculously high unemployment rates and massive state debts." But that position, while stupid, isn't worthy of our Most Egregious Claim of the Week. Fortunately, Villaraigosa kept talking:



Flanked by community activists from Latino neighborhoods, Villaraigosa accused San Antonio-based Valero and Tesoro of "dirty tricks," adding that because of asthma from poor air quality, "More Californians will get sick if Prop. 23 passes."



Of course, the Proposition only affects greenhouse gas emissions, none of which have anything to do with the incredible smog that pervades Southern California. But, just like the IPCC, who cares about the truth? The Climate Change Movement is at stake.





-Patrick Gallagher, Editor