Via Greg Hengler. The data’s in a dumpster and the analysts have been discredited, but the science itself remains pristine, my friends. When asked about Climategate last week, The One’s climate czar literally shrugged it off. Would the head of the UN’s body on global warming fare better? Of course not:
Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.
“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.
“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”…
Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists’ intended actions, but said: “I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors’ meeting then there are others who would chew him up.”
A fair point. If you’re going to game your analysis to arrive at a preferred result, for god’s sake, don’t leave a trail. (Hence the dumpster.) But even if you do, per Gibbsy, it’s onward to Copenhagen anyway. Exit question for Pachauri via Mark Steyn: Precisely how many polar bears have your little cricket jaunts killed this year, pray tell?
Update: A brutal assessment of the significance of Climategate from Clive Crook, writing at, of all places, the Atlantic:
The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process…
I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.