Climate change e-mails won't effect UN's advice

[Abyssdnb Profile]

The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia will not affect the UN's advice on global warning, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's climate change body.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says radical changes are needed to avoid a climate change disaster.


Mr Pachauri said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received contributions from scientists worldwide and had a rigorous peer review system which ensured a balanced view.

"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 told The Guardian. His comments came after the apparent suggestion in the leaked emails that work on climate change which the scientists did not agree with was not included in the IPCC's fourth assessment report, published in 2007.

Mr Pachauri was asked about a 2004 email in which Professor Phil Jones, head of climatic research at UEA, is alleged to have commented on two papers which he considered to be flawed.

Prof Jones allegedly wrote: "I can't see either... being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

"Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Thousands of emails and documents allegedly stolen from the UEA were posted online which indicated that researchers had massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

The emails sent between world's leading scientists apparently showed researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.

Mr Pachauri 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."

Last week, Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, admitted he was sent the controversial emails more than a month before they were made public.

It raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and reignited the debate over whether the Corporation is "biased" on the issue of climate change.

In his BBC blog , Mr Hudson said: “I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".

"The emails released on the Internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as I can see, they are authentic," he added.

The BBC has previously accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively. Earlier this year, Peter Sisson, the veteran newsreader, claimed it is now "effectively BBC policy" to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.

He said: "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.

"But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard."

A BBC spokeswoman said: "Paul spotted that these few emails were among thousands published on the internet following the alleged hacking of the UEA computer system.

"Paul passed this information onto colleagues at the BBC, who ran with the story, and then linked to the-mails on his blog this Monday."

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into the email scandal, warning the credibility of UK science is at stake.

[Nuffrespect Profile]

none of them gives a shit what the normal people think even if the evidence is there they just want the power and all our money.just like the EU nobody wanted it but here we are