Yesterday I did something that I never expected to get any results on. My lucky number 1029 paid off.
I’ve been appointed as an expert reviewer for the IPCC AR5. I’ve viewed the invitation letter and it’s the real deal.
============================================================
—–Original Message—–
From: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:57 AM
To: awatts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
Subject: Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Dear Anthony Watts,
The IPCC Working Group I (WGI) Co-Chairs are pleased to announce the
Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) of the WGI contribution
to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis (AR5) and invite you to serve as an Expert Reviewer. An
invitation letter is available from
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/PDFs/WGIAR5_ExpertReview_InvitationLetter.pdf
and may be accessed using your individual username and password:
User name: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Password: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This username and password pair is personalized for you and may not
be shared. Your username and password will be required to access the
WGI AR5 FOD Chapters and to submit a review. The drafts, review form,
and additional supporting material are available from the WGI AR5 FOD
Expert Review website:
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/
Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.
The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011
to 10 February 2012. All comments must be submitted through the above
website by the close of the Expert Review on 10 February 2012.
Thank you in advance for providing a review of the WGI AR5 FOD.
Best regards,
IPCC WGI TSU
on behalf of the WGI Co-Chairs
——————————————————————
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I Technical Support Unit – IT wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
University of Bern ph: +41 31 631 56 18
Zaehringerstrasse 25 fx: +41 31 631 56 15
3012 Bern, Switzerland www.ipcc.unibe.ch
——————————————————————
========================================================
Anyone else get accepted?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All your emails are secret now! Well done!
Great news Anthony. Give em hell. (To paraphrase Gen McCarther)
Congrats! Make sure you’re not used to endorse something bad though.
will this muzzle you?
REPLY: No, I plan to have Kenji do the reviews /sarc – Anthony
Now you are on the inside!
Er, holy cow! Doesn’t that sort of put you in an awkward position?
Sweet !
But this also makes for a “neat” setup.
Make sure what you review and what’s printed is the same once it get published.
This is good. This is scary!
Be careful. Watch your back at all times, but believe it is honest. (I recall Michael Mann’s “TED”
talk in the last few days and The Team still seems to have the same political agenda: hide the data, the models, everything. Hmmmm….. I look at The Team’s response to Curry and Webster’s criticism of the IPCC and worry….)
But, this is very very good. A long time coming. I wonder if McIntyre and McKitrick will also get invites. ….Lady in Red
It’s a trap!
(well, hopefully not, but be careful what they use your name to endorse)
‘Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.’
Does this mean you will not br permitted to comment on this site?
Give the activists from the NGOs, like Greenpeace and the WWF, my best regards!
What’s that old saw? Something, something, keep your enemies closer…
Congrats!
So long as you’re not merely being considered a “token” sceptic, and your input “lost” in the noise…
Congrats Anthony! Watch your backside……….
It does not say that your comments will be acted upon, Anthony. This may well be a sop to placate sceptics.
I’m not sure what to think about this. I figure its either a mistake or they will try and use you to legitimize the skewed results down the road the same way Muller did. Either case should be interesting. As I said before, keep your eye on the pea under the thimble (and have fun!)
If you can’t beat them, join ’em.
why do I have the sense, that no matter how strong your arguments, in the end the decisions will be made by a small core group.
Represent our side with complete, unassailable objectivity. Good luck.
Honestly I think it’s all a sham. They’ll act like they’re listening to you, ignore any input you offer, and then claim that they’ve included all scientists and experts in the process.
REPLY: Probably, that’s what happened to McIntyre last time around, yet it is still important to do this. – Anthony
Any bet’s that they’ll change their minds?
Actually, I´ve got an invitation too. So we are at least two skeptics onboard now. Should be interesting.
Very good, but proceed with caution!
I smell a rat.
yup. i did. thought it might be a good idea since i have expertise on snowpack data in the rocky mountains and western usa, went thru the process, got the letter. pretty simple.