WhatFinger


IPCC’s revised principles do not instill confidence that their future assessment reports will be any less biased than those of the past. In short, the con will go on

Nothing Beats a Good Con



Nothing beats a good con. Judging from recent revelations, they are still worth the money.

Financial Cons

Financial cons have been around for eternity. One of the latest snake oil ventures appears to have been Russell Wasendorf’s company, Peregrine Financial Group Inc. According to the careful oversight by industry and government regulators, the company had some $220 million of clients’ money in the bank. Last week, Mr. Wasendorf, a well liked benefactor of charities in the community of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, tried to commit suicide. Upon closer inspection of the company’s books, out of the $220 million of clients’ funds, only $5 million could be found. The rest appears to have vanished without trace.

Support Canada Free Press


On an absolute scale, Wasendorf is kind of small fry. Compared to Bernie Madoff, who embezzled multi-billion dollars, he is more like a little kid brother. Still, one has to wonder how he could have escaped the regulatory oversight for so long. According to a “suicide note”, Russell had been stealing clients’ funds for 20 some years. Even cursory audits should have found irregularities in the accounts a long time ago.

Environmental Cons

Environmental cons are even more lucrative, it appears. From the solar panel maker Solyndra, which declared bankruptcy soon after receiving nearly half a billion dollars in government subsidies and guarantees, to a whole slew of other “green” enterprises promising “new technology” and “free energy” in one form or another are all cons. Of course, most of such enterprises come with “safe harbor” statements and the like. In other words, caveat emptor - buyer beware. Once a scheme reaches a certain momentum or critical mass, there almost seems to be no way to stop it anymore. The current global warming bandwagon fits that description. A few weeks ago, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finished acting on the recommendations outlined in a report by the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC had conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, released nearly two years ago. In the IAC’s words “If adopted in their entirety, the measures recommended in this report would fundamentally reform IPCC’s management structure…” The IAC’s key recommendations relate to the IPCC’s governance and management, its review process, its mode of characterizing and communicating uncertainty, its communications, and the transparency of its assessment process. Numerous secondary IAC recommendations relate to the IPCC’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, its process and criteria for selecting lead authors, its reliance on documents of questionable veracity from the ‘gray literature,’ material from lobby groups, computer-generated predictions, and so forth. The IAC report also noted specific examples of failures. For example, the 2007 IPCC report stated that “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high...” However, the reference cited by the IPCC actually reads “In the late 1990s widespread evidence of glacier expansion was found in the central Karakoram, in contrast to a worldwide decline of mountain glaciers. The expansions were almost exclusively in glacier basins from the highest parts of the range and developed quickly after decades of decline. Exceptional numbers of glacier surges were also reported. [2] From a wider perspective, the IAC’s report “Climate Change Assessments, review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC” indicates substantial shortcomings in the IPCC’s process of developing assessments in the past. For example, one of the many IAC recommendations is that “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.” Obviously, the inference here is that the IPCC’s past assessment reports lacked such alternative views. In other words, their conclusions were pre-determined. One should like to think that the IPCC’s revised principles of conduct would emphasize scientific integrity above all, but that hope may be in vain. Their “Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work” provides a convenient escape clause for further obfuscation by mixing science with socio-economic considerations: In selecting Review Editors, the Bureaux should select from developed and developing countries and from countries with economies in transition, and should aim for a balanced representation of scientific, technical, and socio-economic views. In conclusion, the IPCC’s revised principles do not instill confidence that their future assessment reports will be any less biased than those of the past. In short, the con will go on.


View Comments

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser -- Bio and Archives

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts Convenient Myths


Sponsored