From the “I’ll believe it when I see it” department comes this story in Nature News:
I thought this was interesting:
A new conflict-of-interest policy will require all IPCC officials and authors to disclose financial and other interests relevant to their work (Pachauri had been harshly criticized in 2009 for alleged conflicts of interest.) The meeting also adopted a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports, along with guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent across reports. “This is a heartening and encouraging outcome of the review we started one year ago,” Pachauri told Nature. “It will strengthen the IPCC and help restore public trust in the climate sciences.”
Which is a far cry from “voodoo science”:
Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires
Next on the forefront of “voodoo” science we have this:
The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. Despite much speculation, there is scant scientific evidence for such a link — particularly between climate warming, storm frequency and economic losses — and the report is expected to spark renewed controversy. “It’ll be interesting to see how the IPCC will handle this hot potato where stakes are high but solid peer-reviewed results are few,” says Silke Beck, a policy expert at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.
I predict they will botch this too.
Full article here h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Will they disclose that two of the authors of the next IPCC report are employees of Munich Re? Does this count as a conflict of interest? (I mean, of course it is, but will the warped judgment of the bizarro-world visionaries at the IPCC count it as one? I don’t expect it.)
http://www.munichre.ru/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-06-24_company_news.aspx
Well it seems they’ve failed on another count:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/17/ipcc-screw-the-rules/
btw, I don’t see a link to the Laframboise blog on WUWT. She does cracking good work and deserves a link on the blogroll, imho.
REPLY: Oversight corrected
Interesting that Nature refers to the UEA e-mails as having been “leaked” rather than the usual warmist claim that they were “hacked”.
I get this funny feeling that this is more of a marketing thing to push the same old junk. “See, we’ve changed, you can trust us…”
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Nature says that the claim about the glaciers ‘slipped into the last IPCC report’
No it didn’t. An actual person wrote it and wanted it to be there. Many levels of review (supposedly 🙁 ) failed to spot it and after five years of (supposed) very careful work it was formally published. When this ‘mistake’ was pointed out, the head of IPCC castigated those doing the pointing as ‘voodoo scientists’.
It is possible that several mispronts have ‘slipped’ into my remarks here. I however have written it off the top of my head in less than ten minutes, and do not claim that my work is the gold standard with which future economic policies for the nations of the world should be crafted. If it was I’d proofread it at least once more and think about the conclusions a bit more too.
Shame that Pachauri and his gang of second raters didn’t take such elementary precautions. But they only had 1500+ days to work on it, poor dears…………..
Something that came across today . . .
Contributions Wanted for Study on Openness in Science
For those who care to participate . . .
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2011/05/contributions-w.html
you know they (Science) charge per article . . .
“The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events.”
Here’s my prediction – they will wait until the hurricane season is over. If it is an active one, with lots of land-falling hurricanes and significant coastal damage, I’ll give you three guesses as to what their report will say (and the first two don’t count…).
And now you can add this story from Nature…
“Species loss far less severe than feared: study”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iljGwwMN6HAUBo6w8uSfyEGvAX_Q?docId=CNG.e1e3011dfa5c9e06530678b2c4c69dcc.161
que sera sera
The IPCC was established to prove global warming and promote ways of dealing with it. Any answer that doesn’t fall into it’s pre determined bias cannot possibly be considered. So don’t look for any significant change.
The realistic answer, which is that warming is not a problem, is not an answer they are allowed to consider much less conclude.
Chris D. says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:29 am
Well it seems they’ve failed on another count:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/17/ipcc-screw-the-rules/
btw, I don’t see a link to the Laframboise blog on WUWT. She does cracking good work and deserves a link on the blogroll, imho.
I second that position. Ms. Laframboise has been wearing away at the political agenda aspect of voodoo with some very revealing stories. Her blog is how I ended up here among other places.
Let’s get serious. It’s time for the IPCC to show proof of the “signature” warming at 10km in the tropics or fold their tent forever. Without this proof, AGW is moot.
“Intergovernmental panel aims to become more responsive.”
Yeah.
And in another news item, Cosa Nostra are proposing to adopt a strengthened Elf & Safety Policy.
Omg – laughable ! “After months of soul-searching”! What a joke! Perhaps should read “…determined hand-to-hand battle against critics” ?
And THIS gem – “Some e-mails SEEMED to show that leading climate scientists, who had contributed key findings to previous IPCC reports, had TRIED (?!?) to stifle critics”? OMG – what a gross and brazen misrepresentation! It was – and IS (still) – a massive enterprise undertaken because these zealots know that they have been caught out by the likes of Holland, McKittrick, McIntyre and Watts et al.
If these guys hadn’t dug into this – what do you think the IPCC would be doing? Searching their soul? Gimme a break!
Kept after them folks …. Trust but Verify.
Like all other UN based scams, the IPCC doesn’t actually have to release any reports at all to receive money for salaries or research or lunches. They merely have to exist.
Thanks for the cynical laugh, Anthony. I needed to read the rest of the sentence where the opening quote ends: “Some e-mails seemed to show that leading …”
Here’s how it continues… “climate scientists, who had contributed key findings to previous IPCC reports, had tried to stifle critics.”
This is a wonderful double weasel from Nature (London): “… seemed to show…” and “… tried to stifle…”
In fact, the emails did show that leading climate scientists did in fact stifle critics. And it wasn’t just critics they stifled. They stifled honest scientists whose results threatened to falsify their work.
Still, given Nature (London)’s shabby record in the matter of climate science, that they’d even begin to allow a hint of the possibility of maybe more than mere skeptical distortion, in the criticisms of the trans-Atlantic suppressionist cabal, is an advance of sorts.
On the subject of species loss, I often wonder why environmentalists are such glass half-empty types. Well, OK, that’s not so hard to explain.
Nevertheless, if one looks at the theory of evolution (which I’ll assume climate scientists can accept as ‘robust’), species adapt, evolve or become extinct. Why do we always hear about species going extinct as opposed to the new ones being found? Given that the factors which lead to evolution and new species coming about seem to pretty much require the extinction of other species, is this constant harping on extinction really in effect an assault on evolution, in order to try and stop it from occurring?
Or do these folks believe that there is a perfect species level, just like they appear to believe that the planet has one optimum otimum temperature that they’re trying to set using their CO2 thermostat?
I see that LearDog just beat me to it. 🙂
I didn’t think weather was climate? Or is that climate isn’t weather? Can’t remember.
—
assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events.
IMF’s Strauss-Kahn could be put in charge of their professional behavior program.
Ray @ur momisugly 11:44am:
I like this quote from the article you linked:
Quote of the week?
“…….worked with thousands of scientists……..”
How many?
I thought that the final number who actually agreed to the wording of the reports was about 50.
OK, I suppose you can work with thousands but only agree with 50 or so.
But I’ll believe the change of heart when I see it and I ain’t holding my breath.
Interesting, especially in the light of No Frakking Consensus’s post about the IPCC decising not to identify stuff which is not peer-reviewed! Guess we can believe them.
Yeah, right! (In case it is not obvious, that phrase is the NZ colloquial equivalent of /sarc).
Thanks for the new link!
Does this mean they are going to lie less and stop falsifying the data because it doesn’t prove their models? Won’t hold my breath.
Ray @ur momisugly 11:44am:
I like this quote from the article you linked:
“It is kind of shocking” that no one spotted the error earlier, said Hubbell. “What this shows is that many scientists can be led away from the right answer by thinking about the problem in the wrong way.”
Does everyone see the hardcore communism in this? It is the assumption that one’s ideas cause one’s perceptions, one’s analytical approach, and one’s conclusions. As all good communists will tell you, you have to get right thinking scientists.
Latimer Alder says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:36 am
“Shame that Pachauri and his gang of second raters didn’t take such elementary precautions. But they only had 1500+ days to work on it, poor dears…………..”
Pachauri was distracted by his research on the pornographic novel that he was writing. You know, the one about the sixtyish climate scientist and his many conquests around the world. It has been number one on the UN best-seller list since publication. My guess is that the research took about 1400 days. /do I really have to put sarc here?
Pachauri proves how reckless the seekers of world domination are. No sane person or committee would choose Pachauri as front man for a scam, no matter how innocuous the scam.