The bandwagon

So Pachauri thinks that there is a campaign by the British Times and The Daily Telegraph to undermine his credibility and to smear the IPCC. He may have believed that the main supporters of the current climate policies (such as the BBC and the Guardian) would lend their support unconditionally. And he may have had some reason for thinking so: The Guardian was nearly silent in the post-CRU world. And the conservative media seem to have expolited the scandals for political gain, quite predictably. But this has now become a fast moving field.

On Tuesday, BBC Newsnight had the IPCC crisis as top story with Roger Pielke Jr and Chris Field on show. Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark tried to get an apology from Dr Field and somehow hoped to interpret his response in the affirmative. But he did not acknowledge Pielke’s point about the misrepresentation of disaster loss in the IPCC report.

The same day (Tuesday 2 Feb) in The Guardian, Fred Pearce, from the New Scientist, had a front page story under the headline ‘UK scientist “hid” climate data flaws’, followed by a double page feature of the CRU scandal. These double spreads were continued over the next two days. The next day (3 February), the Guardian carried the title ‘Climate chief: I won’t say sorry for glacier error’. George Monbiot who had called for the resignation of Phil Jones and then reverted to his usual attack on climate change deniers, now showed signs of seeing the light.

It is also noteworthy that The Scottish Sun had a headline ‘Climate change is a con’. Before that there was little skepticism shown by the ‘red tops’.

The Economist has an interview with Pachauri where they confront him with the disaster loss blunder. Roger Pielke Jr has posted an excerpt here.

Today , in the Guardian's Comment is free, we see comments from various experts in the field on the IPCC crisis, for example from Monbiot (above), Richard Tol, Mike Hulme, Myles Allen, Bjorn Lomborg and Ed Miliband. Elsewhere in the same paper, the former head of the IPCC, Bob Watson, who ‘said it remained unclear how the Himalayan glacier claim, that all could melt by 2035, was published. "Was it missed by all experts and all governments? Or did someone spot it and comment on it and then it was ignored by the authors?" he told the Guardian. "And, if so, why didn't someone react to it? All of this is meant to be heavily documented."’
After remaining silent for so long, there seem  to be more bubbling stories than in any other paper.

There is more to come, not only from the Guardian. The bandwagon has started to roll.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not rubbing my hands. In order to prevent further damage, the IPCC will have to make a set of urgent and fundamental changes. The sooner this is done, the better. Public trust in climate science and -policy is eroding fast. Alas, some people still think that they can stop the rot by retreating into the trenches.