WHAT?  CAN IT BE?  MARK THIS DATE IN HISTORY – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  The New York Times has discovered that there's a global-warming scandal.  A bit late, but at least they've come to the altar in a not-bad story with enough PC to assure modern-dance majors in their readership that The Times hasn't abandoned them:

Just over two years ago, Rajendra K. Pachauri seemed destined for a scientist’s version of sainthood: A vegetarian economist-engineer who leads the United Nations’ climate change panel, he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the panel, sharing the honor with former Vice President Al Gore.

Well, we'll give the lead a pass, although I don't think that's the scientist's version of sainthood.  That's the political scientist's version.

But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, called for Dr. Pachauri’s resignation last week.

I love it.  "Right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists."  The Times finally noticed that there are some real scientists asking questions.  But we'll give the paper another pass.

With a global climate treaty under negotiation and legislation pending in the United States, the climate panel has found itself in the political cross hairs, its judgments provoking passions normally reserved for issues like abortion and guns.

Okay, I know you're laughing.  Look, this is the way The Times has to write it.  But at least they wrote it.  Be thankful for small blessings.  Considering the paper's readership problems, increasingly small blessings.

The general consensus among mainstream scientists is that the errors are in any case minor and do not undermine the report’s conclusions.

Still, the escalating controversy has led even many of them to conclude that the Nobel-winning panel needs improved scientific standards as well as a policy about what kinds of other work its officers may pursue.

This is garbage.  There is no such thing as a scientific "consensus."  Science doesn't work by consensus.  It's not a show of hands.  It works by proof and observation.  Many of the "mainstream" scientists have their careers invested in global warming, and won't let go.  At least there's some understanding that standards must be elevated.

Dr. Pachauri acknowledged his role as an adviser and consultant to businesses, but he said that it was his responsibility as the panel’s chairman to disseminate its findings to industry.

Nonetheless, Christopher Monckton, a leading climate skeptic, called the panel corrupt, adding: “The chair is an Indian railroad engineer with very substantial direct and indirect financial vested interests in the matters covered in the climate panel’s report. What on earth is he doing there?”

And...

In one case, the report included a sentence that said the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The sentence was based on a decade-old interview with a glaciologist in a popular magazine; the scientist now says he was misquoted. The panel recently expressed “regret” for the error.

The panel was also criticized for citing a study about financial losses after extreme weather events that found an increase in such losses of 2 percent a year from 1970 to 2005. That study had not been peer reviewed at the time, although it was later on.

COMMENT:  This article is a foot in the door.  We are behind the British press in exposing the corruption in the global-warming "community."  There's more to come.  This is, so to speak, the tip of the iceberg, which may be melting or not.

February 9, 2010