New York Times
"...But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, called for Dr. Pachauri’s resignation last week.Critics, writing in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph and elsewhere, have accused Dr. Pachauri of profiting from his work as an adviser to businesses, including Deutsche Bank and Pegasus Capital Advisors, a New York investment firm — a claim he denies.They have also unearthed and publicized problems with the intergovernmental panel’s landmark 2007 report on climate change, which concluded that the planet was warming and that humans were likely to blame.The report, they contend, misrepresents the state of scientific knowledge about diverse topics — including the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers and the rise in severe storms — in a way that exaggerates the evidence for climate change."
H/T Climategate.com
----------------------------------------------
BBC
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
£8BN BBC ECO-BIAS
Daily Express
"STRIKING parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund can be revealed today.The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. ...Veteran journalist and former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons is unhappy with the corporation’s coverage.He said recently: “The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard."
--------------------------------
Even the BBC is now worried that religious fanatics are doing the AGWarming cause great harm (Poneke's Weblog) (NZ)
"STRIKING parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund can be revealed today.The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. ...Veteran journalist and former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons is unhappy with the corporation’s coverage.He said recently: “The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard."
--------------------------------
Even the BBC is now worried that religious fanatics are doing the AGWarming cause great harm (Poneke's Weblog) (NZ)
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
BBC Newsnight on IPCC
Roger Pielke
"Tonite I was on BBC Newsnight (screenshot above) with Professor Chris Field, the (new) head of IPCC Working Group II. ....Instead, Professor Field tried to talk over me and deny, deny, deny. As I said in the interview, this issue is not ambiguous. The studies are not equivocal. There is no signal of rising temperatures in the disaster record. Period. Maybe there will be in the future, but there wasn't in 2006, when the IPCC deadline for publication occurred and there is not now. Further, both the "mystery graph" and the falsification of my views are unambiguous failures of the IPCC process to ensure that accurate information is included in its reports. How can this be denied? "
"Tonite I was on BBC Newsnight (screenshot above) with Professor Chris Field, the (new) head of IPCC Working Group II. ....Instead, Professor Field tried to talk over me and deny, deny, deny. As I said in the interview, this issue is not ambiguous. The studies are not equivocal. There is no signal of rising temperatures in the disaster record. Period. Maybe there will be in the future, but there wasn't in 2006, when the IPCC deadline for publication occurred and there is not now. Further, both the "mystery graph" and the falsification of my views are unambiguous failures of the IPCC process to ensure that accurate information is included in its reports. How can this be denied? "
UN climate body IPCC 'regrets' blunders
BBC Newsnight
"The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presided over a series of damaging blunders, but how and why has so much gone wrong?Governments around the world rely on its findings to support policies on climate change and it is meant to be the gold standard.It admits that its findings that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035 is wrong, but there has been a wave of criticism.Newsnight's Kirsty Wark spoke to Professor Chris Field, co-chairman of the IPCC Working Group responsible for that report, and Professor Roger Pielke Junior, who says his work has been misrepresented in an IPCC report."
"The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presided over a series of damaging blunders, but how and why has so much gone wrong?Governments around the world rely on its findings to support policies on climate change and it is meant to be the gold standard.It admits that its findings that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035 is wrong, but there has been a wave of criticism.Newsnight's Kirsty Wark spoke to Professor Chris Field, co-chairman of the IPCC Working Group responsible for that report, and Professor Roger Pielke Junior, who says his work has been misrepresented in an IPCC report."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)