I agree, James. We should all complain. The article is a slur on IPCC as 
well as blatantly misleading [1]. The complaints procedure is here [2]. 
A rebuke of the Daily Express by the Press Complaints Committee would be 
welcome news, when we seem to be letting the deniers get the upper hand.

Cheers,

John

[1] http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

[2] http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

---

James Pavitt wrote:
> Have you seen the headline and front page???  This is the worst case of
> climate misrepresentation I've ever seen.  I have made a complaint to the
> Press Complaints Committee, and urge others to do so too.
>
> Here is my submission:
>
> Please explain how you believe the Code of Practice has been breached
>
> I believe that the item has breached the code of practice in terms of
> accuracy. 
>
> The article concerns a report by the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) into the
> workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The
> report was critical of the IPCC, especially regarding a mistake in data
> about Himalayan glaciers.  The Express has exaggerated the report's findings
> in a way which misleads readers to assume that the IPCC has been generally
> untruthful.  The IPCC admitted the Himalayan Glacier mistake in January this
> year [source:
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf]
>
>
> Here are some examples of how the express has misled the reader:
>
> The headline is misleading.  "Climate Lies are Exposed".  My understanding
> of a "lie" is purposeful misrepresentation.  There is no evidence provided
> in the article that the IPCC (the subject of the article) has purposefully
> misrepresented anything.
>
> Express: "THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing
> credibility after a damning report into its research practices."
>
> This is untrue.  The IPCC do not carry out research, they collate and
> re-publish previous research.  The report was critical but not "damning".
>
> Express: "A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global
> warming."
>
> This is untrue and misleading.  The Inter-Academy Council (IAC) report did
> not examine the science behind global warming.  The report is complimentary
> about much of the IPCC's work, praising it for creating a "remarkable
> international conversation on climate research both among scientists and
> policymakers".
>
> Express: "The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after
> the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which
> contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by
> 2035.
>
> The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was
> lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview
> with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were
> “speculation” and not backed by research."
>
> This is misleading.  The "key claim" referred to is not a key claim at all.
> The Himalayan error was one paragraph in a 938-page Working Group
> contribution to the underlying assessment. [source
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf]
>
> The article goes on to quote Peter Taylor, an "Independent climate
> scientist".  Peter Taylor is not a climate scientist; he is the author of a
> book called Chill refuting global warming. 
>
> Express: "Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he
> denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions
> of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive
> up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.
>
> Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have
> the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments."
>
> This is misleading.  The implication is that Dr Pachauri was accused of a
> conflict of interests in the IAC report.  He was accused of a conflict of
> interests in an article published in the Express, [source:
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156456/UN-climate-change-chief-under-fir
> e]
> not in the IAC report.
>
> I believe that the article has been purposefully constructed using untruths
> and misleading statements and as such it is highly inaccurate.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Ward
> Sent: 31 August 2010 13:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Express Denial
>
> If you want to have a good chortle, have a look at this 'Debate' just
> launched on the website of the 'The Daily Express':
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196681/DEBATE-Is-global-warming-just
> -a-con-
>
> Apart from its one-sided title ('Debate: Is 'global warming' just a
> con?'),  I particularly enjoyed the illiterate reference to "loss of
> credibity". Well, after all, 'The Daily Express' should know about loss
> of credibility!
>
> Bob Ward
>
> Policy and Communications Director
> Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
> London School of Economics and Political Science
> Houghton Street
> London WC2A 2AE
>
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
>
> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
> Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplian
> ceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
>