Selon Vincent Grey, qui est un des membres du panel de relecteurs des travaux du GIEC (IPCC en anglais) depuis les débuts de cette institution, dont je rappelle qu'elle est à l'origine de toutes les décisions politiques prises "pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique", le processus de sélection des données et des résultats de recherche qui alimentent les rapports du GIEC ne répondent pas aux normes de qualité d'un travail scientifique digne de ce nom, et le GIEC est une institution au fonctionnement, je cite, "corrompu".
Voici un extrait de sa lettre ouverte :
…I have been an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.
I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisati...
![](/style/all/img/mobile/connexion_bis.png)
Cet article est reservé uniquement pour les membres Premium. 75% reste à lire.
Je me connecte
24hGold Premium
Abonnez-vous pour 1€ seulement
Annulable à tout moment