On February 11, 2008, one Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, a "scientist" who heads IPCC, said to ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of North Carolina:
I want to emphasize that the IPCC by itself doesn’t do any research, it mobilizes the best experts and scientists from all over the world and we carry our an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that. [Source]
Turns out that ALL of Pachauri's claims are FALSE (including that IPCC mobilises "best" experts, – which is actually a total joke).
But it will suffice to note (for the purpose of my affirmation that Pachauri is a HUGE LIAR) the most obvious falsehood – that IPCC's ACTUAL record of using peer reviewed literature is in the range of 65 per cent, not 100 per cent that Mr. Pachauri keeps babbling about. This ACTUAL record has been documented by IAC, comprising the world's REAL scientists:
An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).
In brief, Pachauri is a MASSIVE LIAR who is trying to fool EVERYONE, including elected representatives across the world.
The other issue he raised (re: "experts") is something that Donna Laframboise's book has demolished at great length. I encourage you to read it, if you've not already done so. Donna's work is the BEST piece of investigative journalism I've read in my life. I agree entirely with The Quadrant that "Laframboise represents a long and noble tradition of investigative journalism".
As I read more of it, I'm getting angrier and angrier. Particularly after having read IAC's report. Words fail me as I gasp at the scandal that is IPCC.
Till now I was willing to give it at least some benefit of doubt. No more. NEVER will I be deceived again by IPPC's "reports". I will first examine the credentials of its "experts", their integrity, their transparency, and whether they use real, peer-reviewed literature.
I'm afraid, John Quiggin's wild claims about Donna Laframboise being a liar merely made me buy and read her work, to check her credibility for myself. And in doing so, I've found that not only was Quiggin very wrong, but that Pachauri and IPCC "lead" writers are seriously contaminated. IPCC is close to a con game.
Even people like Quiggin, who are terribly wrong in their understandings, play a useful role in life by making claims that force us to check the truth – and in the process of doing so we often end up learning many crucially important things.
Donna's work can immunise mankind from what may well be the greatest "scientific" fraud of all times: the IPCC. Read her work!
The complete discussion
- I'm sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority
- Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
- If Kevin Rudd continues to abuse those who ask questions, then Australia should bid goodbye to science
- It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar
- Now John Quiggin says that the world's top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.
- John Quiggin, IPCC's peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
- John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna's integrity. Here's other stuff you and I should know.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- John (Quiggin), Donna's methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
- Now John Quiggin says that Donna Laframboise is lying. I'll ask her about it.
- Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
- Response to John Quiggin re: longevity of "man-made" CO2 in the atmosphere
- Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
- Inviting input from readers re: climate change facts, to conduct a debate with John Quiggin
- John Quiggin, I suggest you review your estimate of the impact of Australian CO2 reductions
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: