IPCCfacts.org Responds

February 23rd, 2007

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Here is the prompt and satisfactory response I received late today:

We regret that your views were misrepresented on IPCCfacts.org, and have
removed the post.

The intent of the site is to follow the conversation around the IPCC
report and, where mischaracterizations about the report are made,
clearly and directly present the IPCC findings. We stand behind our
presentation of the IPCC report findings.

We regret the error.


Joel Finkelstein

4 Responses to “IPCCfacts.org Responds”

  1. Richard Tol Says:


    IPCCFacts did not correct the reports on the IPCC in the Guardian or FT Deutschland. In fact, when I browsed your website, you only corrected those media reports that say “the IPCC did not ring the alarm bell”. This does not square with the above mission statement of IPCCFacts.

  2. 2
  3. bubba Says:

    …well, it would have been nice if they had posted a correction, and left it up for a few weeks, noting their mischaracterizations and apologies on their site so that anyone who has already been mislead by the original document could find it.

    Newspapers and magazines do it all the time.

    But they’ve probably already accomplished what they originally set out to do.

  4. 3
  5. charlesH Says:

    Have we seen a correction from the IPCC regarding their misuse of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph. It was the smoking gun in the last report but left out of this years report.

  6. 4
  7. Anders Valland Says:

    CharlesH, one of the lead authors of the paleoclimate chapter in 4AR said in an interview that the hockeystick is still there, but now represented as the other 14 or so studies that show the same (see ClimateAudit.org for more on those). He also said that the spaghettigraph of those studies was not shown in the 4AR because it was a bit hard to explain to politicians….

    See my translation of the Norwegin interview here (comment #14): http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1131#comments