UPDATE: The interest in this appears to be so high, that the IPCC server holding the PDF report has crashed @ reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net All links to it are down up now about 2 hours later. Thanks to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. I have added the recommendations from IAC below the NYT story. Related: McKitrick: Fix the IPCC process
UPDATE2: Local copy secured, thanks to WUWT readers AdderW and Christopher Monckton download (full report 1.5MB) here:
Climate_Change_Assessments_Review_of_the_Processes_Procedures_IPCC
Pre-release summary report (short form 90K) here:
UPDATE3: RealClimate breaks radio silence for this and posts for the first time in over a week with their typical “nothing to see here move along” meme. From their point of “It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes -” I assume then they endorse replacement of top IPCC officials, even though they make no mention of that point. I’m sure WUWT readers can ask their position, assuming such comments are allowed.
From the “we told you so months ago” department, and the NYT; the InterAcademy Council, karma, and Mister Return to Almora are on a collision course.
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 70-643 exam dumps and 70-536 practice test to competently prepare for 1Y0-A08 exam.
Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
UNITED NATIONS — The scientists involved in producing the periodic United Nations reports on climate change need to be more open to alternative views and more transparent about their own possible conflicts of interest, an independent review panel said Monday.
…
The revelations about the errors contributed to the already highly charged debate about the science of climate change and gave added ammunition to critics doubting assessments that the earth is warming. Coming on the heels of leaked e-mails among some of the leading climate change researchers which suggested that they were manipulating data, the mistakes contributed to what surveys showed were an erosion in public confidence in the science of climate change.
…
The changes recommended by the panel include replacing the top eight officials responsible for producing the United Nations reports every seven years or so. That throws into question whether Rajendra K. Pachauri, the current chairman of the panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should remain to oversee the report due out in 2013-14.
Read the full story here
h/t to a zillion people who read WUWT, thanks.
============================================================
Here are recommendations found in the body of the report:
Governance and Management
The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.
The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
Review Process
The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.
The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty
All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.
Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).
Communications
The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.
Additional recommendations:
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings more transparent.
The IPCC should establish a formal set of criteria and processes for selecting Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.
The IPCC should make every effort to engage local experts on the author teams of the regional chapters of the Working Group II report, but should also engage experts from countries outside of the region when they can provide an essential contribution to the assessment.
The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.
Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.
The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.
The IPCC should revise its process for the approval of the Summary for Policy Makers so that governments provide written comments prior to the Plenary.
All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.
Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur.
Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).
The confidence scale should not be used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.
The likelihood scale should be stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words to improve understanding of uncertainty.
Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.
The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.
The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills.
The terms of the Working Group Co-chairs should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
The IPCC should redefine the responsibilities of key Secretariat positions both to improve efficiency and to allow for any future senior appointments.
The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat).
The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The article ends with: ‘to make sure that all scientific criticism is addressed and different point of view are reflected in the final report.’
An admission that different points of view have been hitherto excluded?
This is long overdue!
From FoxNews’ coverage (might be in the NYT also), we have this slam:
“We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.”
“The review panel recommended that the main writers involved in the report not respond in writing to merely editorial remarks, but they sit down with the editors to make sure that all scientific criticism is addressed and different point of view are reflected in the final report…”
—————
Comments not “‘peer reviewed” can now be ignored.
Wow. The unwinding of the warmist industrial complex will surely accelerate with the November election. Even the NY Times is reporting some truth.
Now, to get rid of the ignorance and blatant stupidity in the US government!
The response this will get is obvious: “the IAC is a denialist organisation which in no way represents the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with climate ‘science'”.
The report released Monday by the panel from the InterAcademy Council, which links scientific institutions around the world, did not try to reassess the science of the climate assessment itself. It said the way the United Nations panel goes about its work has “been successful overall.”
Indeed it has been “successful overall” with the way it “goes about it’s work” selling lies to the world.
I read the KPMG auditors reoprt on Choo Choo Pachauri last week. He owns Teri and he engaged the accountants to question if he cheated on his travel expenses at his own company. Surprise, self exoneration.
It was not an independent audit as the carnival Barker over at some blog said.
I am also sure his mama would send a note saying he is a handsome wellgroomed studmuffin.
Help him sell his books.
Here’s a possibility. Those eight officials could not be reached for comment as they each were in flight on separate private jets.
Roger Pielke Jr. posted some interesting comments on this report earlier this morning.
OK, a formal statement of IPCC’s exaggeration of certainly. I recommend the AR5 working group drafts be available online for blogosphere review. All drafts from beginning to final. Transparency required.
I found that the IAC hit the major problems with the IPCC, recognized the existence of the problems. However, except for a few instances, the recommendations for change were weak generalities . . . mainly only offering pointers to better structure/process/people . I guess that is better than nothing.
I was surprised to find that Dr Harold Shapiro, head of the IAC committee came across as credible in the video of him at the UN press conference. I hereby nominate him to replace Rajendra K. Pachauri effective immediately. Dr Shapiro has be brought up to speed by being chair of the IAC review of the IPCC.
Anthony => WUWT had no small part in getting to this point. Thank you.
John
Nothing on RC at the moment, but I fear Mike Haseler may well have called it correctly!
Comments not “‘peer reviewed” can now be ignored
I’m looks to me like the IAC recommended that the formal process of responding to all comments in writing could be streamlined with respect to comments about style, grammar, and so on, but that comments on substantial scientific disagreements could no longer be given a written brush-off but had to be dealt with substantively.
Or so I hope, anyway.
BBC coverage at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11131897
So is that how it happened? 😉
Note that the IPCC has still not acknowledged that the claim was in error — all they have admitted is that they made a procedural error by including a claim that was not backed with a proper citation to a peer reviewed article. The claim could still be true, for all anyone reading their statement would know.
The BBC implied that the only thing wrong with the IPCC report was the date 2035.
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’.
“The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says. …mistook reference to year 2350 for 2035…. referenced sources not peer reviewed or published”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
As Maxwell Smart said “Missed it by that much (315 years), Chief!”
http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/sounds/niceness.wav
Will this signal the beginning of the end for uncontrolled, untested and unreasonable climate alarmism from within the UN system?
Perhaps the alarmists will need to look for a new outlet for their collectivist propaganda but I will be very surprised to see any contrary views appearing in IPCC AR5. Rather just a fuzzing up of the message by using less absolutist terminology.
The real enemy of mankind will continue to be the MSM. Until they start to carry the truth about the climate they will enable the politicians to make good money out of this modern delusion because far too many people are happy to make like dead fish and go with the flow. Too many people find it hard to think critically about what the MSM serves up and so go along to get along.
Grrrrrr.
I have a copy if you need it.
As it is only 1.5MB I can either email it directly or upload it to my webspace and send you a link
REPLY: covered , thanks -A
“The response this will get is obvious: “the IAC is a denialist organisation which in no way represents the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with climate ‘science’”.”
I sincerely hope so. If the IPCC appears to be “cleaning house,” but still has an agenda, then they will come out the other side with the same message and method but a shiny new look. If they bash their detractors, they will come out the other side dirtier and less trustworthy.
This seems like a promising step, but it all smells like more make-busy work for additional bureaucrats.
“Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
It’s still the same IPCC editors.
Look at the years, and re-writes, it took Dr. Spencer.
All because one hostile reviewer did not think his science was right.
Problem is still the peer review process.
When your peers believe in science one way, they are not going to believe in science another way. They are not going to put their “ok” stamp on something that they do not think is good science.
Yet, science that follows their beliefs gets the fast track….
Swedish media are full of reports from IPPC-involved “experts” who claim that this report only makes IPCC stronger and better.
Somehow I get the feeling that these responses have been rehearsed before today.
Among the authors:
“Édouard BRÉZIN, Professor Emeritus, Département de Physique, Laboratoire de physique théorique de l’École normale supérieure, Paris, France”
This one is a rabbid warmist and an active participant to the witch hunt in France against Courtillot and Allegre…