Examine this record:
- The Sunday Telegraph article detailing Pachauri’s connections with industry and banks – retracted.
Reason: RK Pachauri threat of a libel suit.
Outcome: The issue declared settled. Potential conflicts of interest from Pachauri being the IPCC Chairman overlooked.
- The Sunday Times Amazongate story – retracted.
Reason: Simon Lewis, the expert felt like getting ‘into the media streetfight’ with a bit of activism.
Outcome: The IPCC’s use of alarmist material from WWF reports overlooked. Reasons for bad scientific scholarship being defended in the most convoluted ways possible, overlooked. “Retraction of newspaper article implies ‘IPCC is vindicated’” – logic established.
- Jose Marengo’s contribution to a Boston University press release – retracted.
Reason: Questions raised by an Australian global warmng activist blogger.
Outcome: Marengo’s views on the WWF report’s passage on fire and drought in the Amazon not aired.
- The Frankfurter Rundschau article on the IPCC African crop yields fiasco ‘Africagate’ – retracted
Reason: Unknown. Climate scientists and activists urge the newspaper that a UNFCC-funded project can generate scientific findings for the IPCC. One scientist feels a single blogger should not have so much influence in the climate debate.
Outcome: The IPCC’s use of alarmist material from advocacy groups overlooked. Conflicts arising from IPCC’s use of research material originating from UNFCC-funded projects overlooked.
- The Guardian publishes a flawed financial document about RK Pachauri, produced by the private company KPMG calling it an ‘audit’ and declares RK Pachauri’s accounts free of conflict.
Outcome: Questions about transparency in the affairs of the IPCC go unanswered.
- The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report declares – “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”.
Reason: The Committee set out that it was not its “purpose” to examine CRU’s science, or “seek evidence on the science produced by CRU” and that would be “for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid”.
Outcome: The results of the inquiry declared to be ‘as expected’, and Phil Jones declared ‘exonerated‘.
- The Oxburgh Scientific Appraisal Panel declares it “saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”.
Reason: Lord Oxburgh reveals “the science was not the subject” of study by his panel.
Outcome: Decisions on scientific malpractice reached without examining the science. CRU declared ‘honest and fair‘.
- The Muir Russel panel declares that it “did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”
Reason: The panel does not allow publication or panel cross-examination of David Holland’s submission detailing behaviour of CRU scientists that might have undermined the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. One of many reasons.
Outcome: CRU climate scientists declared to have been ‘cleared of accusations’. Their ‘rigour and honesty’ declared ‘not in doubt’.
- An internal Pennsylvania State University inquiry decides that no investigation was required to determine whether Michael Mann deleted emails he had gotten from Keith Briffa of the CRU relating to the 2007 IPCC report (AR4).
Reason: Unknown. Michael Mann is reported to have showed them a zip archive which was ‘full’ of files, containing emails ‘relating to AR4′.
Outcome: Michael Mann declares this “to be very much the vindication” he expected.
- An internal Pennsylvania State University investigation declares Michael Mann did not participate in any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices of his research community.
Reason: The inquiry declares that ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was a way to bring together data “in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field”.
Outcome: Michael Mann declared to be cleared of all academic misconduct.
- The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) assessment of the IPCC ‘climate impacts’ report declares the IPCC report free of ‘significant errors in its summary conclusions’.
Reason: Unknown. The PBL assessment noted all errors that had been revealed by that point, and acknowledged that these were indeed errors
Outcome: The IPCC employed the PBL assessment to declare its ‘core conclusions’ were ‘confirmed’ and that all its statements contained no ‘significant errors’
- RK Pachauri, to his position as chairman of IPCC in the plenary session held at Busan, Korea – reelected
Reason: Unknown. The plenary makes no note of the numerous conflicts of interest and the Interacademy Council recommendation that the chairman serve one term only.
Outcome: Pachauri continues to serve as chairman, despite significant material to suggest against it.
- Phil Jones, given a newly created post -’director of research’ – at the University of Anglia’s CRU after the Muir-Russel Climategate inquiries.
Reason: Unknown. The University Vice-Chancellor declares that Jones is given the post to “continue the world-leading research which has made CRU a household name”.
Outcome: Jones declares he is “extremely relieved” about results of inquiry and that he would “focus [his] full attention on the science of climate change” in his new job.