Realclimate got caught with their hand in the cookie jar when the original "CRU" emails got out, IIRC.<p>They were offering carte-blanche moderation power on the site to one side only in the debate.
> The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva<p>> The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports.<p>There's your consensus - 10 full time staff and many volunteers. Doesn't it seem like you'd have obvious selection bias with who would volunteer for the IPCC? We're talking about the most passionately pro-environmentalism people in the world. People that would make the argument, "Even if global warming doesn't exist, we still need to do something."<p>Yet when an untrained amateur tries his hand at it and finds the numbers don't work, he's a "denier". I've seen enough decent analysis that goes against the general IPCC position by engineers, programmers, and other people with general science backgrounds who aren't specifically climate scientists. The most damning was that the algorithms that produced the hockey stick curve created the same scary graph with red noise in over 90% of simulations. So, random temperature data showed in 90% of cases that imminent global warming catastrophe was coming.<p>Despite presenting things sensibly and respectfully, these amateurs often get compared to Fox News or other such ad hominem. Sure, there's knuckleheads on both sides, but you've got severe selection bias in favor of who is working at the IPCC, and intelligent amateurs who respectfully produce data or show that the numbers don't work are shouted down, compared to Fox, or compared to fundamentalist religious people.
What action is it possible to take over some of the (deliberatly?) incorrect/inaccurate journalism?<p>Can a legal challenge be made?
Or is there any other effective way to stop the lies?<p>I'm not trying to suggest that honest debate be stifled; but the continual use of 'facts' that are wrong, and people being mis-quoted or quoted out of context, is not helpful.
Oh wow, this is even worse:<p>> The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science.<p>Any mistakes in the IPCC reports does not imply that any climate research itself is wrong? Doesn't that mean that anything presented in IPCC reports does not imply that any climate research is right either? You can't have it both ways...