Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2011
One thing which is abundantly clear from the emails is the incestuousness of the climate consensus. Of course they fail to see the problem but that is what happens when you are blinded by the goal. Below is a particularly honest statement by Hulme on Pachuri’s election to head the IPCC. He is fully aware that the IPCC is not really about the science. DEFRA’s (UK version of the EPA) support of Martin Parry is particularly interesting as you can find internet references of him sitting in front of DEFRA later on to make reports back. So they put him in place and receive reports back on issues which are more about energy and money than science.
I suppose people will tell us that there is nothing wrong there.
date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:44 2002
from: Mike Hulme <firstname.lastname@example.org>
subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
to: Phil Jones <email@example.com>
I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.
If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).