The heretical (that’s you and me) must bend the knee.
First up, the chairman of the IPCC:
There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.
Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.
The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.
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.”
Next up, the White House:
The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.
Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes “climate change is happening.”
“I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore,” he said during Monday’s press briefing.
Sure thing Mr. Gibbs… just like there’s a consensus for ObamaCare… correct?
In the mean-time, heat is being turned up (so to speak):
Among other things, the Watergate scandal of the 1970s gave us a great naming convention for future scandals. Take “Climategate” at Penn State. That’s what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers’ falsification of data. One Penn State professor is involved in the scandal.
The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university’s climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.
Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers–including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann–exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to “delete certain E-mails.”
Penn State officials, who will not discuss the matter, are investigating the controversy.
I don’t personally see anything coming from this particular investigation but I hold to the conviction that truth will prevail, truth will win out, truth will rule the day.