IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials

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:
iac-ipcc-pre-release-summary

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.


Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, IPCC chairman, at his potboiler romance book release "Return to Almora"

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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC. Bookmark the permalink.

133 Responses to IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials

  1. Vince Causey says:

    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?

  2. John says:

    This is long overdue!

  3. 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.”

  4. Ed Forbes says:

    “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.

  5. wfrumkin says:

    Wow. The unwinding of the warmist industrial complex will surely accelerate with the November election. Even the NY Times is reporting some truth.

  6. pRadio says:

    Now, to get rid of the ignorance and blatant stupidity in the US government!

  7. Mike Haseler says:

    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’”.

  8. David, UK says:

    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.

  9. Henry chance says:

    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.

  10. R. Shearer says:

    Here’s a possibility. Those eight officials could not be reached for comment as they each were in flight on separate private jets.

  11. Roger Pielke Jr. posted some interesting comments on this report earlier this morning.

  12. John Whitman says:

    IAC Press Release for report on IPCC; “The committee also called for more consistency in how the Working Groups characterize uncertainty. In the last assessment, each Working Group used a different variation of IPCC’s uncertainty guidelines, and the committee found that the guidance is not always followed. The Working Group II report, for example, contains some statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”

    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

  13. Nothing on RC at the moment, but I fear Mike Haseler may well have called it correctly!

  14. Tom says:

    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.

  15. Hu McCulloch says:

    In the review process for the last report, for example, 90,000 comments were submitted. The sheer overwhelming number contributed to the fact that an offhand remark by a scientist in an interview about the Himalayan glaciers made it into the final report.

    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.

  16. arthur says:

    The BBC implied that the only thing wrong with the IPCC report was the date 2035.

  17. Mac the Knife says:

    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

  18. Keith Battye says:

    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.

  19. Oldjim says:

    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

  20. Buffoon says:

    “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.

  21. PaulH says:

    This seems like a promising step, but it all smells like more make-busy work for additional bureaucrats.

  22. latitude says:

    “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….

  23. Patrik says:

    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.

  24. TomRude says:

    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…

  25. Mick J says:

    Here is the London telegraph link to this report.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7971780/Climate-change-predictions-must-be-based-on-evidence-report-on-IPCC-says.html

    Christopher Booker is running his piece this week on the CDM ripoff taking place at the hands of the UN.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7969102/The-Clean-Development-Mechanism-delivers-the-greatest-green-scam-of-all.html#disqus_thread
    “Easily the largest and most lucrative component in the CDM market is a peculiar racket centred on the manufacture of CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, classified under Kyoto as greenhouse gases vastly more damaging than carbon dioxide. The way the racket works is that Chinese and Indian firms are permitted to carry on producing a refrigerant gas known as HCF-22 until 2030. But a by-product of this process is HCF-23, which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. By destroying the HCF-23, the firms can claim Certified Emission Reduction credits worth billions of dollars when sold to the West (while much of the useful HCF-22 is sold onto the international black market).

    Last year, destruction of CFCs accounted for more than half the CDM credits issued, in a market that will eventually, it is estimated, be worth $17 billion. Of the 1,390 CDM projects so far approved, less than 1 per cent accounts for 36 per cent of the total value.”

  26. stephen richards says:

    It still does not go far enough. The IPCC should be disbanded, wrapped up and discharged. It serves not purpose in the science and only muddies the political atmosphere with lies and exaggerations.

  27. Yeup, that IPCC server’s crashed alright.

    WUWT-induced IPCC crash.

  28. Robert of Ottawa says:

    From the conclusion of the evaluatiuon of the IPCC assessment procvess:

    The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound …..huh.

    The very purpose of the IPCC was to push an adgenda – the process stems from that. It is a gigantic example of begging the question.

  29. mpaul says:

    From the report:

    “Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”

    Compare this to Pachauri’s statements from last year:

    “In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an IPCC assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping IPCC assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.”

    And:
    “The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.”

  30. jason says:

    Real climate has broken cover, same stuff as elsewhere. You are watching a co-ordinated respons kick in ladies and gentlemen.

  31. Sonicfrog says:

    They are not a controlling legal authority…..

  32. Simpleseekeraftertruth says:

    At R.C. Gavin sees this only as further strengthening the IPCC and the comments above this post (at this time) as “contrarian spin”. Optimisim from a pessimist: now that is contrarian!

  33. Ed Forbes says:

    Love these points

    ..problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment
    .
    …authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence
    .
    ..making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements
    .
    ..contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.

  34. Trev says:

    ‘For what Its Worth’ … I believe I put this episode into its correct context here …
    http://trevorsden.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/revelation/

  35. Jordan says:

    What does this tell us about 2500 of the worlds leading climate experts who were supposed to have produced the most peer reviewed document in the history of scientific endeavour?

    We can only wonder how it will be going down in the media and other quarters who have gone along with the catastrophe theory. The media likes nothing better than a good story to sell, so there is always the possibility that it could develop into a nasty backlash.

    But whatever happens, this will stain the very name of science in the eyes of Joe P.

  36. Douglas DC says:

    Well, this is shaping up into a FUBAR of classic proportions. Pachy had better get his resume’ ready…

  37. Crossopter says:

    Professors Martin Parry (IPCC chair) and Mike Hulme (UEA) interviewed this morning on BBC Radio Four’s ‘Today’ programme over the roles played by politics and ‘climate science’ in shaping policy:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8954000/8954116.stm [6:52]

  38. Jimbo says:

    Pachauri has overstayed his term. He should step down now and devote his spare time to giving advice the oil technology company he helped set up and continues to advise to this day. While at the same time telling us that we must reduce the level of manmade co2 released into the atmosphere. :o)

  39. Nullius in Verba says:

    “The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself. Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly. When statements are well defined and supported by evidence—by indicating when and under what climate conditions they would occur—the likelihood scale should be used.”

    “IPCC assessments are intended to rely mainly on peer-reviewed literature. [...] An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).”

    “Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.”

    “Non-peer reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer reviewed. [...] Moreover, a search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peer reviewed.”

    “Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”

    “A near-universal observation—made in presentations, interviews, and responses to the questionnaire—was the need to strengthen the authority of the Review Editors to ensure that authors consider the review comments carefully and document their responses. With the tight schedule for completing revisions, authors do not always do an adequate job of revising the text and Review Editors do not always require them to explain why they rejected a comment.” “This includes paying special attention to review comments that point out contradictions, unreferenced literature, or potential errors; and ensuring that alternate or dissenting views receive proper consideration.”

    “The IPCC uncertainty guidance provides a good starting point for characterizing uncertainty in the assessment reports. However, the guidance was not consistently followed in the fourth assessment, leading to unnecessary errors. For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.”

    “IPCC’s mandate is to be policy relevant, not policy prescriptive. However, as noted above, IPCC spokespersons have not always adhered to this mandate.”

    “Data are the bedrock on which the progress of science rests. The extraordinary development of new measuring techniques and new digital technologies has enabled climate scientists to assemble vast quantities of data. However, the large size and complex nature of these databases can make them difficult to access and use. Moreover, for various reasons many of these scientific databases as well as significant unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature are not in the public domain. An unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to freedom-of-information requests were the main problems uncovered in some of the controversies surrounding the IPCC (Muir Russell et al., 2010; PBL, 2010). Poor access to data inhibits users’ ability to check the quality of the data used and to verify the conclusions drawn. Consequently, it is important for the IPCC to aspire toward ensuring that the main conclusions in its assessment reports are underpinned by appropriately referenced peer-reviewed sources or, to the greatest extent practical, by openly accessible databases.”

  40. Michael in Sydney says:

    It doesn’t matter what RC says they are not MSM; here is how the ABC in Australia runs their front page:

    “Climate panel review demands major shake-up

    A shake-up has been recommended for the United Nations’ climate panel, a body which came under fire recently in the so-called “Climategate” scandal.

    A new report, released at the United Nations in New York, is recommending changes to the way the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is run and the way its science is presented.”

    RC – a couple of thousand readers??
    ABC – Hundreds of thousands if not more

  41. Tim Williams says:

    jason says:
    August 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm “You are watching a co-ordinated respons kick in ladies and gentlemen.”

    Or the response we’re seeing reflects a broad acceptance that the IPCC is indeed facing an evolving challenge to communicate the current state of scientific knowledge and a recognition from those involved that this IAC review has made some sensible recommendations on how to achieve just that?

  42. jeef says:

    Throwing the scientists under the bus?

  43. Henry Galt says:

    As I read this I am mostly replacing IPCC with UN, unless the acronym is UN IPCC to begin with.

    The whole mess needs to end. They do nothing except squander and waste. They are ignored by anyone they attempt to “punish”. They redistribute to no avail, in most cases enriching those least worthy as if it were their main purpose. They are the most wasteful organisation in the history of humanity.

    They ignore, and are designed to ignore this type of thing on a regular, and regularly depressing basis.

  44. cicero says:

    Until WG1 is fixed, the other Working Groups should be suspended. What possible good can come from the other WG’s when WG1 is such a cluster?

  45. mpaul says:

    “However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence.”

    I’d like to know exactly which statement those were . Unless the committee specifies which statement were overblown, then one can only assume that the whole of AR4 is untrustworthy.

  46. Ed Caryl says:

    So, who will be the next IPCC chairman?
    Michael Mann or James Hansen? Maybe Phil Jones? No, Al Gore.
    This won’t change anything, just make them more careful.

  47. Ecotretas says:

    For a moment I thought it was April 1st…

    Ecotretas

  48. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Well, this ‘novice troll vegetarian’ (ascribed to me by James Delingpole, luminary skeptic at the Telegraph) who, surprisingly, is a meat eater, is not a troll and explained gently to Delingpole why he and Professor Sir Paul Nurse FRS didn’t exactly enjoy a meeting of minds (see Delingpole’s blog at http://www.telegraph.co.uk to see the correspondence) became the subject of ad hominem attacks by that arch right winger who has, until now, regarded that as the domain of the warmists.

    So I wouldn’t be too self-righteous about the IPCC. They’re wrong, but skeptics can get pretty uptight and rude too, you know……………especially if they need to be right and can’t put their mind into the position of their protagonist who must represent British Science and Scientists in his new role as President of the Royal Society……….

    Spoken by someone who around Copenhagen time was regarded as a ‘lobbyist for the tobacco industry’ and all the other insults…….when I was actually a professional cancer researcher for a decade and did not take money from an oil company in my life……..

    I guess what you learn is that the insults come from those who seek not the truth but to win…………and who consider anyone insulting them back to be a loser, which is a rather strange position to take, since surely the decision should be based on whose insults were more accurate, piercing and stinging, not the order in which they were hurled…………which in my case, are almost always second………………..

    Think about that as people rightly decide how to recalibrate the institutions of climate science to produce a desired end product of quality data translated into cost-conscious actions or non-actions as needed…………

  49. jack morrow says:

    I just wish that the U.S. would spend half as much money toward nuclear fusion as they do on hot climate. There are several promising companies trying to come up with a solution to this type of nuclear energy. Some are General Fusion and Polywell. Some people in the field think 1-2 more years and it might be possible to make this a reality.
    These small companies need federal funding but so do the car companies. ALAS.

  50. Leon Brozyna says:

    My Summary for Policymakers

    Current IPCC is producing good studies and reports.

    However, a problem exists in that not all work is performed in accordance with (IAW) written procedures.

    Recommend that top eight officials be fired.

    Recommend that a new layer of officials be created and new procedures be written to ensure that future studies and reports be produced IAW established standards.

    Continue as before but more discretion be used.

    Problem solved.

  51. John Whitman says:

    I just posted this over at RC. It seems objective and not troll-like. We’ll see if it persisits.

    ________________

    One excellent recommendation by the IAC review committee is to limit tenure of the major IPCC figures to one assessment. This will provide better mix of viewpoints in ongoing assessments. This should mean AR5 has a new group of key IPCC people with track records in science that will help to restore some of the eroded public confidence in the IPCC and climate science in general.

    Also there is another excellent recommendation by the IAC as follows “. . . key improvements include enhancing the transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors and reviewers; . . . ”

    John

  52. Simpleseekeraftertruth says:

    Michael in Sydney 12:42

    What RC says is the party line and will be trotted out repeatedly. The 2,000 readers are the useful idiots(#) that diseminate the message.

    #The term is used to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.

  53. jason says:

    @42 Tim Williams, erm, how is real climate calling discussion about this “contrarian spin”?

    The report is damning, even the fundamentalists must see that.

  54. artwest says:

    The Guardian are using sleight of hand, big headline and front page pic for a “Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change” story – tiny, no pic link underneath for “Rajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign”

  55. evanmjones says:

    such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020.

    Gosh, I don’t think it’s going to get THAT cold!

  56. RobertvdL says:

    United Nations Climate Change Conference Cancun – COP 16 & CMP 6
    29 November-10 December 2010
    Cancun, Mexico

    They are preparing Cancun. We too ?

    https://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php

    UNFCCC press briefing 6 August – UN Climate Change Conference

    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres briefs press on status of negotiations

    http://www.ipcc.ch/calendar_of_meetings/calendar_of_meetings.htm

  57. Mikael Pihlström says:

    “IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials”

    … hard to detect any slamming, constructive criticism concerning
    structure and mangement, yes, and a lot of praise concerning
    the science…

    … “removal of top officials” sounds like: you are fired, when the
    report actually proposes one-term appointments for all leading
    positions …

  58. Feet2theFire says:

    Committee to Review the IPCC
    Harold T. SHAPIRO, Chair, Princeton University, USA
    Roseanne DIAB, Vice Chair, Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
    Carlos Henrique de BRITO CRUZ, State of São Paulo Research Foundation and University of Campinas, Brazil
    Maureen CROPPER, University of Maryland and Resources for the Future, USA
    FANG Jingyun, Peking University, P.R. China
    Louise O. FRESCO, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Syukuro MANABE, Princeton University, USA
    Goverdhan MEHTA, University of Hyderabad, India
    Mario MOLINA, University of California, San Diego, USA, and Center for Strategic Studies in Energy and the Environment, Mexico
    Peter WILLIAMS, The Royal Society, UK
    Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, International Human Frontier Science Program Organization, France
    ZAKRI Abdul Hamid, Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation, Malaysia
    Staff for the IPCC Review
    Anne LINN, Study Director, National Research Council, USA
    Tracey ELLIOTT, The Royal Society, UK
    William KEARNEY, National Research Council, USA
    Stuart LECKIE, The Royal Society, UK
    Tu NGUYEN, InterAcademy Council
    Jason ORTEGO, National Research Council, USA
    Greg SYMMES, National Research Council, USA
    Wow, actually a real pair of committees, not wall-to-wall shills for CRU or the IPCC. It is nice to see.

    Mexican, Indian, Malaysian, Brazilian, Dutch, South African – even a Frenchman.

    Anybody recognize the names?

  59. evanmjones says:

    Or the response we’re seeing reflects a broad acceptance that the IPCC is indeed facing an evolving challenge to communicate the current state of scientific knowledge and a recognition from those involved that this IAC review has made some sensible recommendations on how to achieve just that?

    You could put it that way. Heh-heh!

    One may wonder, however, what the IPCC has been up to that has led us to the current “broad acceptance” . . . dare I say “consensus?”

  60. Mikael Pihlström says:

    “IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials” says WUWT

    … hard to detect any slamming, constructive criticism concerning
    structure and mangement, yes, and a lot of praise concerning
    the science summary…

    … “removal of top officials” sounds like: “you are fired, Pachaury,
    because you failed”
    when the report actually proposes one-term appointments for all
    leading positions as a better structural solution …

  61. paulw says:

    The post title says “[the report] suggests removal of top officials”.

    Is that really true? What the report says is that climate change is too important, so the IPCC needs to be better organized to deal with the complexities of the task.

    Anthony, you come out as a vindictive person which damages the whole debate.

  62. TomRude says:

    “What we have here is a failure to communicate”… as in Cool Hand Luke, with Paul Newman

  63. Dr. John M. Ware says:

    Let’s go back for a moment to the NY Times article, in which we find the phrase “leaked emails among some of the leading climate change researchers which suggested [!] that they were manipulating data . . .” If they actually read the emails, there were various ones in which the manipulation was not suggested, but explicitly admitted–nay, proclaimed and advocated. Thus does warmist bias penetrate a “news” story.

  64. John Whitman says:

    IAC Report in section on Access to Information

    “Moreover, for various reasons many of these scientific
    databases as well as significant unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature are not in the public domain. An unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to freedom-of-information requests were the main problems uncovered in some of the controversies surrounding the IPCC (Muir Russell et al., 2010; PBL, 2010). Poor access to data inhibits users’ ability to check the quality of the data used and to verify the conclusions drawn. Consequently, it is important for the IPCC to aspire toward ensuring that the main conclusions in its assessment reports are underpinned by appropriately referenced peer-reviewed sources or, to the greatest extent practical, by openly accessible databases.”

    —————————–
    So, there is the often repeated theme for more access to climate science data. This time it is made to the IPCC. It did not stop with Mann, Jones, CRU, MET office, GISS and NOAA. Great strategy to keep on moving up the food chain to the top organism. : )

    John

  65. John Whitman says:

    Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    “IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials”

    … “removal of top officials” sounds like: you are fired, when the
    report actually proposes one-term appointments for all leading
    positions …

    ——————

    Mikael Pihlström ,

    The clear and simple recommendation by the IAC to limit top IPCC positions to one assessment means some are all but gone.

    Also, notice this tidbit from the IAC report “. . . key improvements include enhancing the transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors and reviewers; . . . “.

    Well not only are some key replacements in order shortly, but there will be more transparency in the selecting and approving process. You must love that transparency word.

    I think the whole IAC review committee should be nominated to replace the entire IPCC organization. Wouldn’t that be a step change in the right direction?

    John

  66. rbateman says:

    Better get a crane, D8 Caterpillar with winch, tow truck and Sikorsky Skycrane.
    Pachauri is in his bunker with a “Hell no, we won’t go” sign on the barricaded door.

  67. John Whitman says:

    paulw says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:57 pm
    The post title says “[the report] suggests removal of top officials”.

    Is that really true? What the report says is that climate change is too important, so the IPCC needs to be better organized to deal with the complexities of the task.

    Anthony, you come out as a vindictive person which damages the whole debate.

    —————–

    paulw,

    It serves you no credit to insult the host. So, don’t.

    But, as to the removal of top IPCC officials . . . . please see below my earlier post to Mikael Pihlström.

    Mikael Pihlström

    The clear and simple recommendation by the IAC to limit top IPCC positions to one assessment means some are all but gone. Especially Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    Also, notice this tidbit from the IAC report “. . . key improvements include enhancing the transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors and reviewers; . . . “.

    Well not only are some key replacements in order shortly, but there will be more transparency in the selecting and approving process. You must love that transparency word.

    I think the whole IAC review committee should be nominated to replace the entire IPCC organization. Wouldn’t that be a step change in the right direction?

    John

    John

  68. DR says:

    So if the “peer review” process is controlled more tightly to prevent opposing research from being published as has been the case even since climategate, the IPCC process will effectively not be changed at all.

  69. Gail Combs says:

    Shub Niggurath says:
    August 30, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Yeup, that IPCC server’s crashed alright.

    WUWT-induced IPCC crash.
    _____________________________________
    That tells the IPCC that there are a HUGH number of eyes watching them now. I expect the next report will get the same sort of treatment the last one did by Donna LaFramboise at NoConsensus and her dedicated team not to mention WUWT, Bishop Hill, Climate Audit and the rest.

    No one should take the report seriously until it has been completely dissected and analyzed by the “peer review” blogs that have now been set up to do just that. It remains to be seen whether the IPCC will try to pull another fast one, with the hopes that once the lies have been told and hyped by the tame media it does not matter that the truth is revealed, the propaganda has already done its work.

    Propaganda also known as Public Relations:

    ”In everything he did, Bernays began with the basic principles of the psychology of his time, and not only his uncle’s. He felt that it was not reason but emotion and instinct that moved the common man, and throughout his long life he held onto the elitist view that those who understood this could and should control the masses. As he said in the first paragraph of his influential book Propaganda. “Those who manipulate [the habits and opinions of the masses]…constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
    Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-drugs-and-boredom/201002/freuds-nephew-and-public-relations

  70. Martin Lewitt says:

    The review still didn’t address one of the key issues related to models, this from the discussion of WG II:

    “Best estimates from various models are often presented to show variation in the range of outcomes. Uncertainty analyses of individual models could also be presented, if available in the literature.”

    Publication of model results don’t usually present assessments of model uncertainty for GCMs. Diagnostic literature is often published later than reports of model results and don’t include uncertainty analyses. Some diagnostic results show correlated error for all the models so “various models” or ensembles of models won’t necessarily bracket “the range of outcomes”.

    These types of model errors which are just reported and the uncertainty of the models is not quantified in the published literature would fall into the “structural uncertainty” row of the “simple typology of uncertainties”. The diagnostic literature does “compare models with observations” but there was no way to get the authors to admit that these were “inadequate models”, they just charged ahead presenting models results as if they were evidence.

    We need more diagnostic literature, published earlier and to insist that the implications of the diagnostic literature be discussed when model results are reported. Work relevant to net feedbacks and radiative imbalance such as Lindzen, Spencer’s or Eschenbach needs to be developed into model diagnostics and published early and often, because they bear directly on whether the models are adequate. Hopefully Wentz will repeat his precipitation diagnostics on the latest models, since the under-representation of the water cycle was significant and relevant not just to projections of drought but probably to net feedbacks as well. If would be helpful if the diagnostic works of Camp, Lean, Roesch and Tung on solar and surface albedo were also updated.

    If the recommendation of greater transparency, responsiveness and representation of alternative viewpoints are implemented, the authors may have to actually be intellectually honest in order to achieve the appearance of intellectual honesty. That would be refreshing.

  71. DonS says:

    I say, Pachauri, bad show. Best to slope off to one of the less accessible corners of your homeland, p’raps a bit of huntin,’ what? Wouldn’t want to deprive you of your livelihood of deceivin’ the gullible, what? No good givin’ the press rabble any more ammunition. Damn nuisance findin’ another man.

  72. Michael in Sydney says:

    Whichever way you look at it I think that it is damning for the IPCC that a pro AGW mainstream news site such as the ABC reports on the front page of its site like this:

    “Review calls for UN climate shake-up

    A major report handed to the United Nations in New York overnight recommends a big shake-up of the way the international body’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is run.

    In the run-up to last year’s highly anticipated climate summit in Copenhagen, the IPCC was rocked by a scandal involving leaked emails which critics say showed panel members had skewed data…”

  73. Ian H says:

    I believe the IPCC model is the wrong one. What would be better would be the kind of adversarial system we see in court. The problem is that all sides of the question are not being given a fair go. The adversarial system would fix this.

    What I’d like to see are two investigative report writing bodies, preferably less bloated than the current IPCC; one charged with the mandate of presenting evidence that AGW is a serious problem requiring immediate action, and one charged with the mandate of presenting evidence that it is not. Let them issue their reports on an alternating basis with a six month gap between them.

  74. Alexander Vissers says:

    Abraham Lincoln said it:

    “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

    This success owes much credit to this weblog.

  75. Invariant says:

    I think New York Times is on the right track now:

    “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.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html

    Even New Scientist is improving:
    “Pachauri to go? In a move that will inevitably be seen as a criticism of the IPCC’s leadership, the IAC recommended that senior managers should only be permitted to serve one six-year term in their roles. This implies that Pachauri should not oversee the forthcoming fifth assessment report, as he presided over the previous assessment.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19378-climate-panel-must-fundamentally-reform-to-survive.html

    I think it would be difficult for Norwegian authorities and journalists if Pachauri had to go.

    They gave him the Nobel price…

  76. Michael Schaefer says:

    These assessments and recommendations amount to huge slaps in the face ot the IPCC – left, right and center.

  77. John Whitman says:

    Invariant says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    I think it would be difficult for Norwegian authorities and journalists if Pachauri had to go.

    They gave him the Nobel price….

    Invariant,

    Like the carbon trading markets where carbon is essentially valueless, on the Nobel Peace prize market it is likely that future trading in Nobel Peace prizes will be at a nearly valueless level.

    John

  78. Invariant says:

    John Whitman says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    Invariant,

    Like the carbon trading markets where carbon is essentially valueless, on the Nobel Peace prize market it is likely that future trading in Nobel Peace prizes will be at a nearly valueless level.

    John

    Yes. Also they gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace prize too early, so they have reduced the impact of the reward somewhat. (My personal opinion is that Barack Obama and Steven Chu had solid and intelligent comments about saving the rainforest and installing a worldwide supergrid when they were here in Norway last year – I suspect that they may be suspicious about manmade climate change but that the political climate is not there yet…).

  79. AndrewSanDiego says:

    If the recommendations are adopted, AND real scientists are put in charge, it will mean the end of CAGW and support for collectivist political policies.

    If the recommendations are NOT adopted, I predict a “tipping point” of public contempt for the IPCC and the CAGW crowd. (“tipping point”? Where have I heard that before?…)

  80. Ralph says:

    I predict a long period of solitude, for Dr Pachauri – so he will probably be in need of a new red silk hanky……

    .

  81. Ralph says:

    .

    >>>This success owes much credit to this weblog.

    Indeed.

    Which is why we should all place something in the tip-box, on the right side of this page. The Carbon Credit scam would have cost us all dearly, with a tax on almost everything we purchase. WUWT has probably saves us all $thousands (£thousands or €thousands), so a small tip is quite overdue.

    .

  82. John Whitman says:

    Well, below is the second IAC report related comment that I tried to post over at RC today but it seems to have disappeared without being posted. But, I am an optimist and both of the emails are probably being processed as I speak!

    Do you think it was too skeptical? Seemed pro-science to me. I thought it was something that a site like RC that clearly views themselves as pro-science would appreciate.

    Do you think it is my mouthwash or underarm deodorant, or what?

    John

    ——————-

    John Whitman says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    30 August 2010 at 5:37 PM

    Actually reading the IAC report on the IPCC gives a good impression of scientific method in progress.

    For the first time it appears that a really independent review has been done on key issues with the process of evaluating climate science. Some public credibility of climate science might possibly begin to be restored.

    John

  83. R. Gates says:

    Of course the IAC did not call for the removal of the current IPCC officials, but rather for their replacement every 7 years or so. A big difference.

    Never the less, faith in IPCC will not be restored for quite some time, rightly or wrongly. Really, the truth is that the average person on the street could care less about the IPCC or even knows anything about it, and it is only odd-ball climate junkies (warmist and skeptic alike), climate scientist, and policymakers who care one way or another. The climate junkie will form their opinoin based on their personal experience and somewhat on their political leanings, the scientist will form their opinion based on their own educational and special areas of interest, knowledge, and research, and the policymaker will almost always eat the particular flavor of hay as spun and fed to them by their political party. So who really cares about what the IPCC says? Answer: Primarily those who wish to spin IPCC findings or IPCC errors (i.e. climategate) into poltical hay and feed the political machines.

    Bottom line: every day the average man or woman on the street goes about their life and could care less about the IPCC and the average climate scientist, though informed about IPCC findings (and maybe even contributing parts to them) probably knows that the final report might be used one way or another for poltical purposes, and here, for the honest scientist, their roads will part.

  84. Konrad says:

    The IPCC server crashing under the weight of public scrutiny should send the message loud and clear. Little brother is watching and recording. At the moment I suspect many of those involved in promoting the Global Warming agenda would prefer total invisibility to transparency.

  85. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Leon Brozyna insightfuly said on August 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Current IPCC is producing good studies and reports.

    However, a problem exists in that not all work is performed in accordance with (IAW) written procedures.

    Recommend that top eight officials be fired.

    Recommend that a new layer of officials be created and new procedures be written to ensure that future studies and reports be produced IAW established standards.

    Continue as before but more discretion be used

    This is my take as well.

  86. Gail Combs says:

    Ian H says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I believe the IPCC model is the wrong one. What would be better would be the kind of adversarial system we see in court. The problem is that all sides of the question are not being given a fair go. The adversarial system would fix this…..
    _________________________________________________________________
    That is the best idea I have heard yet.

  87. RoyFOMR says:

    I’m pleasantly surprised by this report. True, for some, it doesn’t go far enough but it does go in the right direction IMO.
    The MSM take, on this, has mostly concentrated on the major headlines that seriously question the management and procedural deficiencies of this once hallowed imstitution.
    I, call me an old ‘sceptical’ cynic, fully expected this to be a total whitewash and given recent history had some right to do so.
    Full credit to the investigators for steering away from the precedents set by such UK notables such as Ox and RM.
    They’ve called for changes, not huge changes but big enough for starters given the politics.
    Personally, I would have loved it if they’d called for the abandonment of the original remit of the IPCC that specifically asked to define the role of man in climate change and, instead, broadened its remit to look at all factors.
    But I’m content with the boundaries that they’ve pushed the debate to. A year ago, this would have seemed a pipe-dream!
    To paraphrase WSC, this may be the end of the beginning.

  88. John Whitman says:

    Ian H says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I believe the IPCC model is the wrong one. What would be better would be the kind of adversarial system we see in court. The problem is that all sides of the question are not being given a fair go. The adversarial system would fix this…..

    That is the best idea I have heard yet

    Gail/Ian H,

    I am no fan of the UN being involved in climate science.

    Adversarial model as in law/justice system model revolves around handling man-made objects. The body of law.

    I would see problems in adapting the legal model to metaphysical existents, physical nature.

    The traditional science model (pre-climate science and pre-post modern science) already has a good model.

    I am fond of what I call the argumentative model for climate science. Everyone argues with their papers, data, experiments, models, code and methodologies in a transparent forum. There is no authority, other than nature, to appeal to. May the best argument remain standing. Mother Nature might smile fondly upon her rather homely human creatures for discovering all her secrets. Maybe some parental pride for us!

    John

  89. 3x2 says:

    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…

    The IPCC was created to support a political agenda, not to examine “climate”. For the IPCC there can never be an “alternative view”. Admitting an “alternative view” would fly in the face of …

    “… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human- induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

    No “risk of human- induced climate change”, no IPCC and back to square one for the would be “global ant-hill” architects that created it. A new PR agency will change absolutely nothing.

    A clock tells the time…
    no matter how sophisticated the design…
    …it has no other purpose.

    Just so as I’m clear (historically speaking)…
    [way back when] IPCC remit – “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent”
    [couple of decades and an "IAC investigation" later] – IPCC should be “open and transparent”.

    Bit like finding the human climate fingerprint really – the illusion of progress is sometimes just as good as the real thing. Yes Minister?

  90. pat says:

    Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor at the UK Independent doesn’t seem to have read the report!

    31 Aug: UK Independent: Revealed: why failure of climate summit would herald global catastrophe
    The world is heading for the next major climate change conference in Cancun later this year on course for global warming of up to 3.5C in the coming century, a series of scientific analyses suggest…
    If there are no further breakdowns, it is possible that the meeting may at least restore faith in the UN climate process. “Nobody thinks Cancun will be a big-bang moment,” said Keith Allott, head of climate change for the World Wide Fund for Nature. “What the world needs to do is put some wheels back on the climate truck.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/revealed-why-failure–of-climate-summit-would-herald-global-catastrophe-2066127.html

  91. Doug in Dunedin says:

    R. Gates says: August 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm
    Bottom line: every day the average man or woman on the street goes about their life and could care less about the IPCC and the average climate scientist, though informed about IPCC findings (and maybe even contributing parts to them) probably knows that the final report might be used one way or another for poltical purposes, and here, for the honest scientist, their roads will part.

    R Gates.: Yes but when the ramifications of their decisions and activities are translated into swingeing taxes that the politicians visit upon the man in the street hits home THEN the man in the street takes notice – and how! It ain’t the real bottom line – just the bottom line for now. Certain substances may then hit the fan – as they say.
    Doug

  92. Jim Reedy says:

    Rhys Jaggar says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Whilst I see some sense in what you say Rhys the major reason why
    skeptics may be doing what you say is because they have been marginalised,
    attacked and labeled simply for wanting to see real science done and then verified. This marhinalisation and attacks have been ongoing over a couple of decades. (We have even heard calls for skeptics to be tried for crimes against humanity from the major proponents of this CAGW rubish.)

    As it turns out.. many if not most of the skeptics criticismims of the IPCC and its processes are justified. I doubt that many will be happy until some people are
    brought to trial for the amazing waste of money that this pseudo scientific misadventure has caused.
    And frankly, it is only just that this should occur. (how many deaths from starvation
    can be laid at the feet of those that counseled using biofuels? Hundreds of thousands if not millions…
    Sounds like a crime against humanity has been perpertrated to me)….

    regards

    Jim

  93. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    RC comments are “interesting”! Example:

    A quick scan of the headlines at Google News is depressing…

    Review Finds Flaws in UN Climate Panel Structure (New York Times)
    Pachauri-led IPCC needs fundamental reforms: UN panel (Times of India)
    Flawed science (Telegraph)
    Pachauri escapes indictment (Hindustan Times)
    Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.’s Climate Group (FOX News)
    U.N. climate body needs ‘fundamental reform,’ says report (CNN)
    Report: Climate Science Panel Should Be Better Run (CBS News)

    And so forth.

  94. Ric Werme says:

    The document says:

    Drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report drew 90,000 review comments (an average of a few thousand comments per chapter), stretching the ability of Lead Authors to respond thoughtfully and fully.

    Perhaps the Lead Authors could have delgated some of that to the 2,500
    scientists who contributed to the report. That would be only 36 review
    comments per scientist. Assuming, of course, that all 2,500 made substantial
    contributions.

    Besides, WUWT is up to 470K comments. Admittedly there was only a cursory
    review, but still, it’s an impressive achievement for the WUWT moderators.

  95. G. E. Pease says:

    Roy Spencer summarizes the problem succinctly:

    “The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.

    While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.

    Maybe some scientists thought they helped dream up the IPCC to help save humanity from itself. But the process was instigated by politicians and U.N. bureaucrats who misrepresented what they were trying to accomplish. Some people are gifted in their ability to get others to think that they came up with an idea, when in fact they were artfully guided into it.”

    Read more in
    Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed

    Confirmation from the horse’s..?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/

  96. G. E. Pease says:

    Link to Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed
    in my preceding comment:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

  97. Julian in Wales says:

    You have to give it to them, it has been a well managed response to well researched attacks aimed at the heart of the IPCC’s credibility.

    Stage one – a series of whitewash committees exonerating CRU and Michael Mann and studiously ignoring Pachauri’s very serious conflict of interest statements (voodoo science) and money making activities through his connections with his charities TERI and TERI Europe.

    Stage two – a back door exit for Pachauri

    Once Pachauri is out of the way the immediate danger to the the IPCC will have been dealt with. This is a moment of maximum danger to the IPCC because if the press go for Pachauri now, before he is shown the door by his own side, they will look like they have been sheltering their bad apples.

    If they get rid of Pachauri (and sideline the hockey stick team) they will be back in the land of credibility. Their planned is a stage three that will be all smugness and very little contrition

    In recent weeks Pachauri’s lawyers has been making great play with the point that conflicts of interest are not the same thing as corruption, and of course he is right in this point. (See EUreferendum) Richard North announced this evening that he will be revisiting his research into the accounts of TERI Europe, it will be interesting how the lawyers will deal with that one!

    Pachauri’s lawyer are an unforgiving lot, comments about this man should always be unembellished by unflattering statements of opinion, dry with caveats about not attacking his integrity and always keep to the facts

  98. rbateman says:

    The IPCC is a damaged brand.
    In the world of politics, when a political animal goes down, the pack moves in for the kill.
    No quarter is given, none is expected.
    If the IPCC does not right itself, well, you know what comes next. Whitewash is a very thin coat of armor.

  99. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    A simple question for everyone….

    WHY NOW??

  100. Brent Hargreaves says:

    [snip - OTT ~mod]

  101. Anne says:

    I even wonder if the actions we are taking “Today” to prevent the alleged ‘Global Warming’ is affecting the climate in the opposite way, for this is the second year we have had no “summer”. OH of course that is “weather”. Silly ole’ me. Though if the IPPC can get it “wrong” anyone can. ‘Cept we all pay for their mistakes, you had mine for FREE!

  102. Roger Longstaff says:

    I do not think any of this matters anymore. They are “dead men walking” no matter what they do, simply because “you can’t fool all of the peoplle all of the time”.

    After years of scaremongering in the UK (eg. snow is a thing of the past) the Great British Public has had enough. The next idiot who stands up and declares “2010 the hottest year ever” will probably get shot. Today, in London, I had to fire up my central heating, for the first time in August – ever!

  103. NS says:

    “PaulH says:
    August 30, 2010 at 11:53 am
    This seems like a promising step, but it all smells like more make-busy work for additional bureaucrats.”

    WHS ^
    UN will assimilate the IPCC structure, and all the Worlds taxpayers will not notice the extra dollar or pound, euro they pay in taxes each year to keep a new department of ‘crats in worthless employment generating glossy make-beleive reports to justify further localized carbon tax infrastructure, the proceeds of which will mostly be spent on yes, more bureaucrats.

  104. Peter Pond says:

    Kevin Trenberth was interviewed on (Australian) ABC Radio today and seems to be supporting moves for Pachauri to go, as well as supporting many of the recommendations.

    Transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2998349.htm?site=sydney (sorry not competent enough to embed the link)

  105. boballab says:

    I haven’t seen it here or anywhere esle, but did anyone else take note of the fact that the IAC basically came straight out and admitted that the GCM’s that the IPCC relies on are not Peer Reviewed Science and because of that the IPCC has to be able to use “grey literature”. From the report:

    In fact, information that is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments often appears in the so-called “gray literature,” which includes technical reports, working papers, presentations and conference proceedings, fact sheets, bulletins, statistics, observational data sets, and model output produced by government agencies, international organizations, universities, research centers, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, professional societies, and other groups. The extent to which such information has been peer reviewed varies a great deal, as does its quality.

    Although some respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire have recommended that only peer reviewed literature be used in IPCC assessments, this would require the IPCC to ignore some valuable information. Examples of important, non-published or non-peer-reviewed sources include very large data sets and detailed model results (Working Group I); reports from farmer cooperatives, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the World Bank, and UN bodies (Working Group II); and company reports, industry journals, and information from the International Energy Agency (Working Group III).

    No Grey literature = No GCM’s, No GCM’s = No basis for Climate Alarmism. And to think Warmist scream is it peer reviewed at skeptics when all of their doom and gloom scenerios are based on non peer reviewed GCM’s

  106. Tim Clark says:

    My summation, briefly.

    gave added ammunition to critics doubting assessments that the earth is warming.

    Neil MacFartquhar, the NY Times publicist, is an idiot (as expected). Nobody doubts warming, MN is ice free in the summer.

    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.

    Is a vote of no</b< confidence one on the options?

    Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.

    Steve Mac, you’re wanted on the phone, someone from the IPCC.

    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.

    Adios, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, back to your Lionel trains.

  107. Tim Clark says:

    Opps, a little early in the morning. Pardon the overwhelming bold.

  108. Anne says:

    As long ago as 1997 when I read COM (97) 9. “Environmental Taxes and Charges in the Single market”, it seemed to be all about concentrating on making money out of it. Right at the beginning, the first paragraph reads “The Commission has several times given its support to an increased use of fiscal instruments to make environmental policy more efficient and cost-effective. Most of these instruments are implemented at Member State level. This Communication is presented in order to support these activities, and ensure that the environmental taxes and charges are used in a way compatible with Community Legislation.”

    The real shock at that time was when President Bush said “NO” to Kyoto. They noted that the Kyoto Protocol would require the U.S. to cede to a UN bureaucracy the powers we now use to set the pace of our economic growth, our production of goods and services, and the creation of new jobs. This form of unilateral economic disarmament makes no sense.” “”The idea of trading credits to facilitate implementation of that agreement, and the very concept of regulating the world’s energy policies through an international treaty together constitute a huge battle over power–not just “power” in the sense of controlling the energy sources that drive the world economy, but political power in the sense of “who decides”; who decides how fast our economy should grow (or if it should grow at all), who decides etc, etc”

  109. Tim Clark says:

    R. Gates says: August 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm
    The climate junkie will form their [opinoin]
    sic based on their personal experience and somewhat on their political leanings, the scientist will form their opinion based on their own educational and special areas of interest, knowledge, and research,….

    Gates, in spite of the fact you deny it, some of us here are both.

  110. Peter Wilson says:

    This report contains a lot of very fine recommendations, which is implemented will doubtless result in a much improved, and far less certain, report next time.

    The problem is, there were ALREADY a fine sounding set of policies, regarding peer review, and deadlines, and answering reviewers concerns for instance, which although clearly written down, were in practice utterly ignored, as long as doing so resulted in a more alarming conclusion.

    After all, they weren’t supposed to quote from WWF and Greenpeace leaflets, but they did. I see no reason to suspect these new rules will be followed any more than the old ones were.

  111. Martin Brumby says:

    The results from this review are certainly better than almost anyone on here would have dared to predict and certainly are very much more credible than the three notorious UK “reviews” of the Climategate affair.

    I’m almost inclined to think that it would be hard for them to come up with an IPCC that is even worse than the ‘old’ one. But I’ve been wrong before with that kind of optimism.

    Call me an old curmudgeon (many do!) but my overriding reaction, however, is to recall the old Russian proverb:-

    “You can’t make butter out of sh*t.”

  112. Pascvaks says:

    Pach-man is toast! Well, at least he has the ability to enthrawl millions with his dim wit, de-mean-or, and lively, lurid novels. Imagine what poor Professor Mann is thinking – no alternate speciality. Hay! I’ll bet he could write fiction too. I have a feeling there’s going to be a tsunami of sexest detective novels on the market soon. Wonder what the “Libbers” are going to say?

  113. theduke says:

    Over at Realclimate, it’s as if only lamenters are being allowed to post. I wonder how many posts have been gavinized.

  114. theduke says:

    I found this article by Michael Oppenheimer fascinating. It was published at the Environmental Defense Fund site and is therefore unabashedly honest and boastful about how the IPCC got started. Should be required reading for everyone who thinks the IPCC was a legitimate clearing house for information on climate and climate change:

    http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/

  115. AllenC says:

    theduke says:
    August 31, 2010 at 8:34 am
    “Over at Realclimate, it’s as if only lamenters are being allowed to post. I wonder how many posts have been gavinized.”

    I tried to post a supportive comment about the IAC report at RC, but it got gavinized.

    I wish I had saved a copy of what I was trying to post, but generally all I said was how I was surpised not to see many comments supporting the recommendations of the IAC Report, how there were a lot of comments worried about how the MSM was portraying the report, how I hope all of the recommendations are implemented in time to affect AR5, and how science can only be improved by improved processes.

    So it does seem that any positive, supportive comments are being gavinized. This is likely why there are so few comments appearing. What a pity. Just when you thought there could possibly be some common ground of agreement…..

  116. R. Gates says:

    Tim Clark says:
    August 31, 2010 at 4:30 am
    R. Gates says: August 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm
    The climate junkie will form their [opinoin] sic based on their personal experience and somewhat on their political leanings, the scientist will form their opinion based on their own educational and special areas of interest, knowledge, and research,….

    Gates, in spite of the fact you deny it, some of us here are both.

    _____
    Oh? I’m quite aware that there are mixtures of all types of individuals here on WUWT, from the climate junkie to the politcal hack, and of course, I well aware of the professional scientists here who are also a climate junkies. My point is– main stream America could care less about the IPCC, and really about the whole notion of climate change in general, and the whole debate about the credibility of the IPCC is simply one of politics, not one of science. Changing (or even getting rid of) the IPCC doesn’t change the science, only the kind of political hay that can be made for either side. If AGW is a problem, there will need to be some kind of international body to deal with it, one way or another, eventually.

  117. H.R. says:

    “The IPCC should…”
    .
    “The IPCC should…”
    .
    “The IPCC should…”
    .
    “The IPCC should…”
    etc., etc., etc.

    The IPCC won’t.
    etc., etc., etc.

    Anyone wanna’ bet me a quarter?

  118. DonB says:

    Ian H says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    “I believe the IPCC model is the wrong one. What would be better would be the kind of adversarial system we see in court. The problem is that all sides of the question are not being given a fair go. The adversarial system would fix this.

    What I’d like to see are two investigative report writing bodies, preferably less bloated than the current IPCC; one charged with the mandate of presenting evidence that AGW is a serious problem requiring immediate action, and one charged with the mandate of presenting evidence that it is not. Let them issue their reports on an alternating basis with a six month gap between them.”

    The trouble with that scheme is that there is no financial incentive.

    DonB

  119. Larry says:

    Seems like an ordered retreat to me. The criticism takes a bit of the sting out of the attacks, and makes it appear the beaurocratic machine would eventually have identified the problem itself. Presumably they are looking for another environmental campaign to get some traction, rename rebrand and off we go again.

  120. Jimmy Haigh says:

    theduke says:
    August 31, 2010 at 8:34 am
    “Over at Realclimate, it’s as if only lamenters are being allowed to post. I wonder how many posts have been gavinized.”

    I snuck a post in – in reply to a point the fluffy bunny made:

    Eli Rabett says:
    30 August 2010 at 8:29 PM
    “If you want to see the black helicopters fly, just wait until climate changes enough to make the situation dire. This is something the denialists have not figured out.”

    Which way Bugs? Warmer or colder?

  121. barry says:

    As a skeptic who thinks its reasonable to work with the mainstream view of climate change, as generally articulated in the IPCC reports, and believing policy should be rooted in risk assessments, I welcome the recommendations and acknowledge that the UN chose to seek independent analysis of its processes in order to improve them.

    The muckraking following this report in semi-popular blogs is unsurprising and, to the best of my knowledge, generally unwarranted. There is no comprehensive alternative to the IPCC and no group vying to establish one – that is, an international panel of scientists, industry and government reps assessing and signing off on the state of the science of climate change and attempting to make projections about the future. Until such a broad-based venture is initiated, the recommendations that have followed each of the IPCC reports, most of which are taken up, point to a self-improving institution – particularly in this case where they have sought independent advice. There will be another set of recommendations after AR5, which will no doubt be characterised by some as a ‘slap in the face’ to the IPCC. That will be as desultorily opportunistic a side-show as it is now. The media on this is behaving just as the media does when they fail to report the uncertainty and nuance of mainstream climate science.

    Rather than tearing down the only international, broad-based forum on climate change, it would be better to champion its improvement or build another (no press on that either – why am I not surprised?). The impression gleaned from many responses here is that there should be no international effort to assess climate change, or that if there was, it would be irretrievably compromised. This goes way beyond skepticism, and might be considered ‘realism’, but it is rather a hollow cynicism usually worn by adolescents when first coming to terms with the fact that ‘the system’ is flawed and can’t solve all problems.

    What would you do to advance understanding on climate change? Will you actually do anything?

    If the answer is ‘nothing’ and ‘no’, then ask yourself what you are really doing here, what you really want, and if it is in any way advancing anything.

  122. Smokey says:

    Barry,

    I disagree with pretty much everything you say. First, you are no scientific skeptic. You’re a true believer in the IPCC, as you admit. It never seems to occur to you that the IPCC is in this for money and political power. There is nothing unusual going on with the climate. Nothing. And there are no “risk assessments.” Everything is predicated on the putative assumption of runaway global warming — which is clearly not occurring. Any fool can see that what is happening now has happened repeatedly in the past.

    Your “international panel of scientists, industry and government reps assessing and signing off on the state of the science of climate change and attempting to make projections about the future” is a complete fantasy: there is not a single genuine scientific skeptic permitted to attend any official IPCC proceeding.

    You seem to enjoy carrying the IPCC’s water for them, but the fact is that an “international, broad-based forum on climate change” is 100% composed of Kool-Aid drinkers, who are in it for the money and the political power.

    You ask: “What would you do to advance understanding on climate change? Will you actually do anything?”

    I would leave the science to non-government scientists. What would you do? Cede power to the corrupt UN??

  123. barry says:

    Smokey, I think your comments are grossly misinformed. Rather than deal with them all, I’ll take on one to demonstrate the depth of misunderstanding, in the hope that you might reconsider your positions.

    there is not a single genuine scientific skeptic permitted to attend any official IPCC proceeding.

    Well, that’s not true. Here are 5 contributing authors for AR3 and AR4.

    Richard Lindzen
    John Christy
    Richard Landsea
    Richard SJ Tol
    Paul Reiter

    I reckon you should reexamine your other points, too.

  124. barry says:

    That doesn’t include the skeptics (eg McKitrick and McIntyre) whose work is discussed in the IPCC reports.

  125. barry says:

    I would leave the science to non-government scientists.

    Most of them are non-government scientists.

  126. barry says:

    What would you do?

    Neglected to answer you.

    I would open all data streams to the public, endemnifying scientists against potential loss of earnings. Unfortunately, that probably means government money (our taxes).

    I would remove government representatives from the process except after completion to transfer understanding. No govt officials should have a say in the drafting.

    I would (concurring with the report) make the review process even more transparent, and make access to all reviewer comments easier for the public. I would recommend annexes to each chapter summarizing contrary views that were consonant with and backed by at least three independent studies.

    I think rolling over the chair and other executive positions more frequently is a good idea.

    Invite prominent, qualified skeptic scientists to sit in on the process, and, where their expertise is sufficient, to contribute to authorship.

    While I would recommend establishing an alternative assessment report, I cannot think of a framework for an international effort that would have the facility that the UN does for a project of this scope.

  127. Khwarizmi says:

    Barry – the United Nations is, forgive me for pointing it out, a political organization, having political action, ostensibly for the prevention of warfare, as its raison d’être.

    It is not a facility for conducting science.

  128. Anne says:

    To Khwarizmi see my entry at August 31, 2010 at 4:25 am, re the part the UN plays in this subject. This is how some in the House of Lords debabes view the matter, do you wonder at MY reaction? Lord Avebury in the House of Lords 25th June 2001 asked: “My Lords, have the Government had an opportunity of evaluating the evidence made public in the “Equinox” programme on Channel 4 last week, based on research of Dr Santo Bains at the Oxford University? It revealed that at two points in the world’s history there have been catastrophic releases of methane hydrates from the ocean floors, which came at a certain point in the warming of the oceans, raising the temperature of the Earth by some 8 degrees. Does the Minister take this seriously? If so, should there be a far more drastic programme for the reduction in carbon emissions than we have seen so far?”

    That question perhaps highlights my thoughts on the subject, because apart from some one sitting on the sea bed, plugging the hole from which the methane hydrates are emanating from, I doubt there is little else we can do.

    Constance D Holmes explained her rather lengthy reasons to the House Committee on Science Feb 4th 1998. I will pick out just one or two phrases.
    · It sets a U.S. emissions target, which cannot be met without causing severe economic and social dislocation.
    · It transfers power to UN bureaucrats who could intrude into U.S. legislative and Constitutional processes by controlling U.S. economic growth, limiting the conduct of foreign policy by exempting only those greenhouse emissions that occur from UN sponsored “multilateral operations”.
    · It prohibits Senate reservations and modification to the Protocol, and potential allows for future tightening of emissions targets without explicit Senate approval.
    · Its cost are a “stealth tax” on American consumers and businesses and it increases a UN bureaucracy that likely would be dominated by countries quite willing to use provisions in the Kyoto Protocol to impose economic and social change on U.S. families, workers and businesses–for little, if any, environmental gain.

    An article by Philip Stott, on 12th April 2001 holds one or two “facts”, although I cannot verify any of them. “European politicians, who like to focus on country-by country comparisons which are, in geographical terms, meaningless, have carefully nurtured the myth that the USA is the main producer of carbon dioxide (CO2). But how can you compare tiny counties, like the UK (only 94,227 square miles) or Sweden (173,723 square miles), with the USA (3,732,400 square miles)? Any meaningful geographical comparison has to be with Western Europe as a whole, or at least with the 15 Member States of the European Union (EU) and even the EU, at 1,249,000 square miles, has well under half the land area of the USA.”

    “If we take the carbon dioxide emissions from consumption and flaring of fossil fuels for 1999 (1), we see that the countries of the EU emit around 925 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCe) per year, while the USA emits 1519.89 MMTCe per year. Correcting these figures by area gives us 0.0007 MMTCe per square mile per year for the EU and 0.0004 MMTCe per square mile for the USA. So the per unit area production in the EU is 175 percent that of the USA. And this does not include emissions from EU applicant states, like Turkey (49.96 MMTCe in 1999)”

    It makes ya think, don’t it?

  129. Gaylon says:

    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    August 30, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    A simple question for everyone….

    WHY NOW??

    Indeed, this is really the important question isn’t it? It is…wierd that the MSM has picked this up and seem to be running with it:

    Review Finds Flaws in UN Climate Panel Structure (New York Times)
    Pachauri-led IPCC needs fundamental reforms: UN panel (Times of India)
    Flawed science (Telegraph)
    Pachauri escapes indictment (Hindustan Times)
    Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.’s Climate Group (FOX News)
    U.N. climate body needs ‘fundamental reform,’ says report (CNN)
    Report: Climate Science Panel Should Be Better Run (CBS News)

    Ever seen that before!?

    I remain hopefully optimistic: on the one hand points made by ‘Smokey’, ‘Anne’, and ‘G.E.Pease’ are compelling but is it too much to hope for at this point? My gut tells me ‘dump the IPCC’: we’re being thrown a carefully calculated carrot tainted with subterfuge. My mind tells me this is not going away overnight. These guys are dug in like an ‘Alabama tick’ and aren’t going to give up easily.

    On the other hand comments from the assessment like:

    “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).”

    …are very encouraging, but stops short of any finality: “should be banned of any participation”. Barry et al also make compelling points, and IMO sound suggestions. Perhaps if the “money-makers” were taken out of the circle of influence, of the science anyway, we could move forward. Even as I write that I keep seeing in the back of my mind:

    “H.R. says:
    August 31, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    “The IPCC should…”
    .
    “The IPCC should…”
    .
    “The IPCC should…”
    .
    “The IPCC should…”
    etc., etc., etc.

    The IPCC won’t.
    etc., etc., etc.

    Anyone wanna’ bet me a quarter?”

    No, I won’t take that bet…will you take a donut instead?

  130. Anne says:

    To Gaylon. Take a little tip. Never give up. Keep on fighting. Never let such people that produced the IPCC get away with IT, or your money (and mine) because of it.

    Did global warming cause earthquakes? Volcano’s? The gradual erosion of islands, continents? Is it true we were once joined to the Continent?

    You fight until you win by the TRUTH being told.

  131. bigal says:

    “ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.”

    lol
    Insidious big business strikes again.

Comments are closed.