Pachauri Flips

Just 6 days ago the Head of the UN IPCC declared the ClimateGate data release of CRU's emails and data files a non-issue, declaring that scientists just shouldn't write stuff down.

Now Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that the issue might undermine the IPCC itself, a charge brought by real scientists for over a week now. According to a BBC report, Pachauri now thinks that "the charges are serious and we wants them investigated".

Also the BBC reported that,

"Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator has said the e-mail row will have a 'huge impact' on next week's UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

'It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,' he told BBC News."

Also,

"The UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said the idea that the e-mail row would derail the Copenhagen summit was "nonsense".

'One string of e-mails does not undermine the global science on climate change,' he told BBC News."

It is not fact that emails were released, of course, that undermines the "global science". It is the confirmation of stonewalling the release of bogus data and methodology, even under Freedom Of Information Acts, a crime that persists in the "global science" even today as seen at NASA. It is the confirmation of data manipulation, data destrution, silencing of critics, and complete scientific malfeasance.

It is really just that easy to see, unless your mind is clouded by a holy agenda.

UPDATE:
The BBC reports,

"A colleague of the UK professor at the centre of the climate e-mails row says "sceptics" have embarked on a "tabloid-style character assassination".

Professor Andrew Watson rallied to the defence of climate scientist Phil Jones, whose e-mail exchanges prompted claims that data had been manipulated.

There was no evidence of attempting to mislead people, Professor Watson added.

The University of East Anglia has commissioned an independent inquiry into the affair.

"Despite the best efforts of the sceptics, there is no instance in these e-mails that anyone has found so far - and there are millions of people looking - that suggests the scientists manipulated their fundamental data," Professor Watson, from the university's School of Environmental Sciences, stated.

Actually the professor is wrong on each point. The scientists have indicted themselves, not by external character assassination, but by their own words. They definitely, unquestionably did try to mislead people. And the data manipulation appears in both the emails and in the data/program files. (The fundamental data no longer even exists, professor).

Perhaps professor Watson hasn't been paying enough attention to the actual facts?