This alert through from Benny Peiser's newsletter
By Stephen Adams and Robert Winnett
An independent investigation into the UN's climate change body has warned it to stop lobbying and to restrict its role to explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature.
Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor and chair of the committee that conducted the review, said that a report by an IPCC working group "contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence."
Professor Shapiro said the IPCC's response to errors when they were subsequently revealed was "slow and inadequate."
Asked about the Himalayan glaciers error, Professor Shapiro said, "At least in our judgment, it came from just not paying close enough attention to what [peer] reviewers said about that example."
He added that there was concern about the U.N. climate panel's lack of a conflict of interest policy, as is standard in most Government departments and international bodies.
The report called for development of a "rigorous conflict of interest policy" and made detailed suggestions on what should be disclosed. Mr Pachauri has previously acted as an adviser to green energy companies.
"It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado.
And more from Peiser's round-up:
) UN climate experts 'overstated dangers': Keep your noses out of politics, scientists told
UN climate change experts have been accused of making 'imprecise and vague' statements and over-egging the evidence.
A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.
The probe, by representatives of the Royal Society and foreign scientific academies, took a thinly-veiled swipe at Rajendra Pachauri, the panel's chairman for the past eight years.
It recommended a new leader be appointed to bring a 'fresh approach' with the term of office cut from 12 years to six.
The IPCC is important because its reports are used by governments to set environmental policy.
The review, which focused on the day-to-day running of the panel, rather than its science, was commissioned after the UN body was accused of making glaring mistakes.
These included the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years - and that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was prone to flooding because it was below sea level.
An email scandal involving experts at the University of East Anglia had already fuelled fears that global warming was being exaggerated.
The report demanded a more rigorous conflict of interest policy and said executives should have formal qualifications.
It said: 'Because the IPCC chair is both the leader and the face of the organisation, he or she must have strong credentials (including high professional standing in an area covered by IPCC assessments), international stature, a broad vision, strong leadership skills, considerable management experience at a senior level, and experience relevant to the assessment task.' [...]
Dr Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: 'I interpret the review as an indirect call for Dr Pachauri to step down. That is what it says between the lines, whether or not he understands it.
'It is clearly a very, very strong criticism of his management and of him personally.
'The problem is that many in the international community regard him as damaged goods.'
The investigation said the IPCC's mandate calls for it to be 'policy relevant' without 'straying into advocacy' which would hurt its credibility.
The scientists charged with writing the IPCC assessments were criticised for saying they were 'highly confident' about statements without having the evidence.
Editor's Note: More UK media coverage of the IAC Report can be found here: