“When the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner.”
A former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that the organization should adopt a code of conduct and develop a mechanism to fix errors more quickly.
On 15 June, Robert Watson, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 until 2002, testified before an independent review committee tasked with improving the credibility of the United Nations’ group.
The 12-person panel of scientists and economists, chaired by Harold Shapiro, a former president of Princeton University in New Jersey, was asked by the UN to review the IPCC, which has faced numerous criticisms in recent months (see: IPCC flooded by criticism). In particular, the organization has admitted to making an error in its last comprehensive report, released in 2007, which said that the Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by 2035.
“To me the fundamental problem was that when the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner,” Watson told the committee, gathered at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, by teleconference. “The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected there is a rapid way to get a correction made. That is something that needs to be looked at very carefully,” said Watson.
Read the rest of the story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, since CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, how are they going to correct that error?
The IPCC hustles to print grey literature. They are a magnet for rants and writings than contain the meme.
Again, the science is in.
Stop taking papers written by environmental activists who don’t know the science and apply twisted logic to everything, for starters.
What good is a new code of conduct if you don’t follow the rules you already have?
They should make Watson boss again. That would be fun to watch.
They need to rigidly and faithfully adhere to the “constraints” of the scientific method. IF they do that, then they have nothing to fear.
That means a total and complete end to replacing empirical evidence with models, hiding data, manipulating data, incestuous peer-groups, threatening publishers, threatening editors, having a hypothesis that cannot be dis-proven as any empirical evidence is suggestive of proof, regardless of the evidence and cause of the evidence…
IF they strictly use the scientific method to prove that CO2 is the sole driver of catastrophic warming, then they will be believed. They have failed to do so thus far.
This is missing the whole point. We should be asking whether we need an IPCC at all. In my opinion the answer is NO!!!
Science has never before been managed by a political organisation. It has never needed to be managed by politician. It has always found its own truths through integrity, honesty and firey debate. I say disband the IPCC and leave science to deal with the climategates of this world.
“The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected there is a rapid way to get a correction made.
They need to find a quicker way to hide the decline? So, what kind of situational/utilitarian ethics do we think they’ll adopt? Seriously, the only way to improve the IPCC is to eliminate it. It’s purpose is politically founded. It’s a lobbying organization, not a scientific one.
after so many serious errors have emerged publicly in recent months with many of these very easily verifiable, Robert Watson still hasn’t got the message yet.
As he still sticks with the tale of THE (single) error, he himself is one of those, who continue to derail a proper error handling.
How to improve the IPCC: Shut it down, it’s a useless obsolete organization.
Good point, Nettles. The IPCC revamp is long overdue, but I’m pessimistic about their accomplishing anything more than giving their political Jezebel a new coat of makeup. Failure to toss Rajendra Pachauri under the bus immediately will undermine their credibility, too. Only a 100%, top-down shakeup will have a chance of fixing what’s wrong. And the result will still be more political than scientific. The IPCC is also powerless to fix the world-wide scientific-governmental complex that Eisenhower warned of. They should address it, but they can’t solve it.
Just end it. Put this terminally ill puppy out of its misery. It is a total waste of money that could be spent on something useful, and we have no need for its propaganda.
Of course, the tourism business in Bali, Cancun, etc., would take a hit but they’ll get over it.
Aaah, yes “the error” and “an error”, a slight problem there, I think, with numbers and math and getting stuff right, like….but do not despair, help is at hand, find some here >>> http://www.dyscalculia.org/
The first thing they have to do is to scrap the idea that no matter what is going on with climate, man is responsible for it. Perhaps if they developed some objectivity – and some humility – they may not come off as such insufferable (expletive deleted).
A private company which is incompetent goes out of business. Problem solved!
The objective paragraph must be totally changed. The objective cannot be “Find proof for man made global warming” or similar.
Even a 6’th grader can see that this is unscientific. Could’nt the IPCC?
Yes they could, and that was the whole problem.
The objective was….to cherry pick proof for man made global warming.
Confirmation bias, indeed.
I think the only remedy is to shut down that organisation.
like this one about the deliberate false representation of basic feedbacks. This is an absolute essential error in the whole picture.
Anybody who can read is able to understand the blatant differences between the scoientific papers and the IPCC report, a science degree is not required.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/
I can add some points to the IPCC new charter:
I. Resolved, the IPCC now admits that CO2 is a plant fertilizer and we need to hope for a much higher concentration in the atmosphere.
II. Resolved, that all of human activity (and whales and cows) combined would not add appreciably to the CO2 concentration, anyway.
III. Resolved, that all of the previous reported IPCC data has been manipulated by Big Academia and Big Government.
IV. Resolved, each of the miscreant authors of the falsified and exaggerated reports will be replaced in all IPCC rôles, with recommendations that any tenure these charlatans may hold at an accredited university shall be revoked.
V. The IPCC will not accept a nomination for Chairman of the IPCC who resembles in any way a GEICO cavemen.
With these and other suitable amendments I think we should strongly support the “New” IPCC.
Some things cannot be improved, only made more complex. The IPCC is one of those. It should be entirely disbanded. And there should be no copycat spin-offs, such as the one being proposed for biodiversity.
This planet needs fewer Chiefs and more Indians. The regular folks are sick unto death of being told what to do, eat, drive, how to have sex, what to wear, what to say, when to brush their teeth and with what, what temp. to keep their house, what light bulb to use, ad nauseam.
To all those who think it is their God-Given Right to dictate every detail of everyone life, I have a suggestion for you: BUTT OUT!
“John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has previously been critical of the IPCC, calling the product and process “prone to politicization and bias.”
Whoever he is, this Christy guy seems to have hit the nail on the head. One of the main problems of the IPCC is the involvement of governments which all too often leads to a watering down of many reports. For example, we know now that the last assessment report underestimated sea level rise, Arctic melt and temperature rise. Furthermore, it’s not only likely (>90%) but a proven fact that man-made CO2 has lead to an increase in global temperatures. The ongoing discussion is mostly about the possible impacts on our environment and our way of life, and how to reduce emissions.
Has the IPCC adequately address the errors in Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998/99 yet? How how ’bout the hurricane forecasting 2006-2009?
He suggests “a climate wiki”. Following my own experience with wikipedia, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that wikis only amplify the ingrained biased of the “professionals”.
The problem with climate “science” is that there is so little concrete information and “peer review” has been actively used by wikipedia activists to create “fact” from fiction so allowing these activists to control which information is “allowed” into the wikipedia because they effectively control the peer review/aka wikipedia publishing system.
Basically a wiki can only work where there is an equal playing field from all people with expertise either within or outside the field. Unfortunately, in climate science the playing field is so clearly skewed that in this field a “wiki” simply means a propaganda tool.
Disband it.
By the way, I’m a bit surprised that a journal like Nature would quote someone like von Storch and present him as a climate scientist.
I thought they handled the Himalayan glaciers melting difficulty according to plan.
2350 becomes 2035, small error.
Someone points it out: accuse them of voodoo science.
Collect millions in grants for a study of the dramatic melting that will occur in the next 25 years.
If you’re on the receiving end of the millions in grants, there’s no problem.