Despite fierce ciriticism UN SG Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, are maintaining that their hypothesis about man-made climate change is entirely valid.

Yet they've requested Dutch scientist Robbert Dijkgraaf, chairman of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW), to conduct an independent investigation into the work processes at the IPCC.

He's not going to redo or score the IPCC's 2007 5th Assesment, which is essentially a propaganda pamphlet meant to bring politicians on the climate bandwaggon. But he will investigate the scientific validity of the IPCC method, so that's a good thing.

In the Netherlands this was big news! Not because it involves a compatriot, but because it aims at putting tax payers' minds at rest: that all is well in the climate narrative and that their hard earned savings aren't misspend on hoaxes. See, how seriously we're taking the allegations?! We're doing all we can to make the charges go way. It says everything about the part the MSM is playing in the 'consensus' conspiracy.

A similar enquiry was launched just a few weeks ago at the behest of the UK's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that aims at investigating the unethical and criminal conduct by researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the original "hockey team". It stranded days later when it transpired that most members of the Russell enquiry were in some capacity or other involved in waming theory (see Greenism dossier, entries dated Feb. 12, 2010): the Russell enquiry turned out just to be another "hockey team".

This is why the community of climate skeptics is keenly eyeing Dijkgraaf's scientific credentials. Well, he makes the noises of a unadulterated greeny, speaking in a radio interview of 'biodiversity' (this is not a normal Dutch word, but a favorite in the ecological lexicon). On the positive side, he's lauding the good, scientific process of the peer review, but doesn't seem to notice that lack thereof is at the heart of the CRU Climategate scandal.

- Caption: brillant sarcasm and witty cynism at "The People's Cube" -

There's more bad news. Dijkgraaf is a mathematical physicist. That would be the class of scientists whose calculations yield a world view consisting of no less than thirteen parallel universes resting on a single membrane. They truly think there's nothing remarkable about such a contention. Because their claims can't be falsified by empirical means, they've developed a mentality which is more consistent with a belief system than with science.

Marcel Crok, a skeptic blogging on the Dutch Climategate blog, has caught Dijkgraaf largely ignorant of climate science, but entirely willing to comply with the 'consensus' - that arbiter of the postmodern version of 'truth'.

A few commentators are pointing to an open letter Dijkgraaf sent last year to President Obama, which ends with this piece of tear-triggering prose:

You are an intellectual, who graduated with honors at prime institutions.  You are aware of the power of words, thought and ideas and you show that the use of reason is not to a person's disadvantage. Unlike your predecessor, who went for his gun at the drop of the word science, you will be able to let the world once again hear the pure voice of reason. The world will be grateful.

This shows Dijkgraaf's keen political involvement. He's not just a Bush basher, obviously suffering from BDR (Bush Derangement Syndroom), he's also a true believer in the Obama adulation cult. Does this mean he's sharing Obama's Marxist principles? Or is he just another sheeple, who thought an enquiry into the Obama background would be grossly overdoing it?

Commentators are also remarking that in addition, Dijkgraaf in the same letter lauds Obama's pick for Energy, warming advocate Steve Chu, which he typified as a "brilliant move".

Dijkgraaf's field (string theory) shows worrisome similarities with climate science: a young discipline in which  little experimental verification is possible; peers dare come up with completely absurd hypotheses, like "the theory of everything".

"Just how warmist is Dijkgraaf?", asks Crok. In a TV interview the physicist signals approval of two climate science colleagues, who're claiming to be one hundred percent behind claims of ocean acidification; another was claiming that Greenland's icecap is melting on account of CO2 emissions. The article concludes with little optimism about Dijkgraaf's impartiality.

Hans Labohm is a renowned critic of warmism and sums it up in a post on De Dagelijkse Standaard as follows:


"A sick branch of science like climatology that is politicized through and through, can't be fixed with an enquiry and a change of policy. What's needed is a traditional, open and free scientific discussion, not tightly directed Lysenkoism by climate alarmists. But don't expect the UN to a advance such a cause. In diplomatic life I've dealt with such organizations. While they may do great job in other fields, the manipulation of information, which may be subtle or not, is on the order of the day, all for our own good of course! UN bureaucrats know better what's good for humanity than the people themselves. (...) >>>

To Continue please click on this link

Published by blogerzoom