Scientific Academies Tire of the IPCC Act and Take Pachauri Down a Peg

From the Orange County Register comes this editorial:

A consortium of national scientific academies has scolded the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for downplaying uncertainties about global warming, failing to point out when its claims of catastrophe were based on weak evidence and misrepresenting some findings as peer-reviewed by scientists, when they weren't.

The findings of the InterAcademy Council investigation also criticized IPCC management, recommending the organization adopt a conflict-of-interest policy. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has advised energy and financial companies potentially affected by policies stemming from IPCC findings. He says proceeds go to an energy think tank he heads, and to charity.

The criticisms outlined this week by Princeton University professor Harold Shapiro, who chaired the investigation, essentially told the IPCC to stop lobbying governments to combat global warming and restrict its role to explaining science.

This is exactly what the global warming alarmism critics have been saying for years now. Donna Laframboise at "No Frakking Consensus" has a long and informative post on the news. Here is how she begins:

This moment is a turning point in the climate change debate. Not because the report released Monday addresses every concern raised by critics of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but because it knocks the IPCC off its pedestal.

Those who challenge the IPCC’s authority are often ignored. Numerous science academies have blessed its efforts, so who are we to question? This week those academies began to act like grownups in relation to this wayward child. The report, authored by a committee assembled by the InterAcademy Council (a collection of science bodies from around the world), blows smoking holes through just about everything the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been telling us. [113-page report PDF]

After discussing transparency, the use of peer-review literature and the processes followed in the IPCC reports, she concludes:

Let us not forget that we have been advised – by no less an authority than Pachauri himself – that the reason we should believe the IPCC’s global warming prognostications is because the IPCC’s process is so rigorous, so airtight, so unparalleled on the planet. As he argued in 2007:

So you can’t think of a more transparent process, you can’t think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out. [bold added]

Three years ago, Pachauri said the nature of the IPCC process was a valid reason to “accept the science.” Now that we know this process is deeply flawed, it follows that this is a valid reason not to accept the science.

The collapse of one of the greatest scams in human history is continuing before our very eyes.