The IPCC can’t learn from past mistakes – wants more grey literature

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, IPCC chairman, pushing his racy romance novel Return to Almora

You’d think that after the drubbing they got last time around from the InterAcademy council for citing mentions of climate effects in travel brochures, climbing magazines, and the Himalayan glacier’s melting by 2035 fiasco, and other blunders, they’d want less grey literature. But apparently this is the anything goes in co-opted climate science beating out reason again. I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction. Or, maybe they are going for the insanity defense in case the climate doesn’t cooperate in the future?

I wonder if we’ll see citations from Return to Almora in the next IPCC report?

From the New Scientist:

The IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the scientists who author its major assessment reports. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.

Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the “glaciergate” scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice. […]

Krug told New Scientist this would correct an imbalance in the assessments as it is harder for people in developing countries to get research findings into the major peer-reviewed journals.

“There is a lot of information available in [the grey literature of] developing countries that would balance IPCC literature,” she said.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, but its reports are written by scientists. In the past these have been chosen largely on their scientific merit, but from now on the 30-person IPCC bureau – which oversees all publications – will have geographical quotas. For instance Africa will have five members and North America four. In addition, each of its three working groups must now include at least one person from every continent in their eight-person bureaux.

Full story at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21940-climate-panel-adopts-controversial-grey-evidence.html
===============================================================

Looks like none of this took hold, from the Register

Report recommends UN climate panel shakeup

Rearrange the chairs please

By Andrew Orlowski

The InterAcademy Council, led by Dr Harold Shapiro, an economist at Princeton University, also said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had “gone beyond its mandate to be ‘policy relevant’ not policy prescriptive” – for which it recommended a new “communications policy”. The IPCC was also criticised for “confirmation bias” with lead authors placing “too much weight on their own views relative to other views”. It recommended working group co-chairs be limited to one assessment.

The (IAC) report is an indirect criticism of the part-time chairman Dr Rajendara Pachauri. The IAC Panel recommends a full-time chairman limited to a shorter term.

The investigation was prompted by criticisms of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report (AR4) published in 2007 – specifically the output of Working Group 2 (WGII), set up to examine the “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and which produced a report ran to almost 1,000 pages. This was found to lean heavily on “grey literature”, including activist reports and even travel brochures. A prediction that that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was traced to a casual remark by an Indian scientist. Here and elsewhere, the IPCC excluded work that suggested that the impacts of global warming were overstated, or which were critical of the costs of the policy favoured by the UN and activist groups of mitigation, rather than adaptation.

The IAP said the IPCC’s work included headline-catching statements which couldn’t be justified.

Full story here

About these ads

85 thoughts on “The IPCC can’t learn from past mistakes – wants more grey literature

  1. So the IPCC has at last dropped all pretense of being “scientific” and admitted it’s just another politically correct collection of parasites…just like its parent organization. Surprise, surprise.

  2. Poptech wrote: “Who knew science was about sexual equality and geographic quotas?”

    Exactly right. And utterly revealing of the politically correct, fuzzy-headed, far left leaning culture that’s behind this CAGW nonsense, including the IPCC.

  3. No, No. You misunderstand. This way they never have to admit they were wrong or made a mistake. Now they can just say, “so what, grey literature is allowed in IPCC”

    Real scientists will not like it though. If these things stand, it will lead to even less trust in IPCC by mainstream scientists and even many climate scientists.

  4. The IPCC is losing its ability fast to pretend this is all about the natural sciences and real causal processes that can be tested and verified.

    They are going to have to own up that these are the social sciences and that the modelling is aspirational. They would like to restructure Western societies and economies and pay themselves a management fee for all the ongoing planning and monitoring of equality that will be needed.

    No more word games. We have compiled a good glossary now. No more relying on the ambiguities of English to obscure different assumptions and intentions.

  5. I fully expect there to be an essay about how a glacier feels as she realises she will be exposed to the living hell of climate change and her hatred for the evil deniers who fail to acknowledge or mitigate her suffering.

    And a foreword from a polar bear praising Pachi and his team for saving his family from extinction in an animalised version of Schindler’s List.

  6. If by “grey literature” they are thinking of such non-peer-reviewed analyses as can be found at Climate Audit, WUWT, Reference Frame, Chiefio, Jo Nova, Real Science, Tallbloke’s, Bishop Hill, Bolt Blog, Climate Madness and a dozen other worthies, that would be great.

    What? That’s not what they have in mind?

  7. We should all be cheering. For a while, the IPCC actually threw a lot of policy weight. This is the moment that the IPCC loses all credibility. The moment when it becomes yet another UN organization squabbling about who from what region gets to ride the gravy train. Pretty hilarious, actually. Bullet meet foot.

  8. Is there a mechanism whereby the US government could write IPCC out of it’s share of the UN funding?

  9. “In 1985 three sponsors, including two UN agencies (the UN Environment Program and the WMO) selected scientists to attend a workshop in a personal capacity in Villach. The resulting statement advised that “the rate and degree of future warming could be profoundly affected by government policies on energy conservation, use of fossil fuels, and the emission of greenhouse gases”. Villach made policy the business of scientists, and when scientists subsequently met, the debate was decreasingly focused on scientific issues, and more likely to ask “what can we do to make them do something?”.
    —————————
    Pretty much shows how we got here.

    But, who was the third sponsor?

  10. One small benefit from this will be that climate “scientists” will have to stop demanding peer-reviewed papers contradicting their position when we quote scientifically written blog posts. What’s sauce for the goose….

  11. Does that mean Chiefio, Willis and other skeptics can get their articles in the next IPCC report? Maybe even Smokey can get in :)

  12. Quotas precede funding. I don’t believe for a moment that any entity on the UN (read Wester nations) teat will share a cent. There will be, instead, a demand for additional funds via some extortianate means.

  13. Five authors from Africa and four from North America. Let’s have a pool on what four they have in mind. How many from Asia?

  14. Didn’t we just read about another failed peer review re: Gergis et al 2012? Maybe all grey is OK for IPCC. Why kid around. Actually it may be necessary in order to support geographic quotas.

  15. “Grey” does not mean low quality and “warmist peer reviewed” does not
    mean high quality….
    There is a mountain of peer reviewed (not gray) warmist trash
    around….. Therefore: We need, and this is a positive move of the IPCC,
    MORE high quality gray literature….and not less, better less warmist trash…

  16. I wonder why don’t they give equal opportunity to the mentally challenged? Isn’t that discrimination?

    Oh, wait, they may be doing just that, with a healthy dose of positive discrimination added. So, they are correct, politically, after all. Good job.

  17. And yet according to Paltridge:
    “………Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by “real” scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review…………”

    So which is it to be? Or does it depend which point of view the non-peer-reviewed material favors?

  18. Ugh, that photo of Pachauri!! He’d be the perfect character to play the role of the dirty old man if they ever made a movie of Jethro Tull’s song “Aqualung”!

    Sitting on a park bench
    eyeing little girls with bad intent.
    Snot running down his nose
    greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.

  19. I hope that the scientific gay, lesbian & transgender community will have appropriate quotas too and then they’ll be an offical body set up to monitor that the quotas are filled properly.
    FFS!

  20. So the next time Ed Bagley shouts that a skeptic’s paper wasn’t “peer-reviewed” …………

  21. Why can’t people get it straight that even though women are absolutely just as capable as men in science and engineering – far fewer of them than men are interested in either. We have to fight back against artificially imposed gender based quotas that have no relationship whatsoever to what people FREELY choose to do. Many women still actually want to be or already enjoy being mothers – thank God for that! Without mothers there would be no one left to marvel at the climate when these nitwits finally get done ‘fixing’ it.

  22. What’s that you say the self proclaimed ‘best’ science promoters in their area want to increase the amount of material which has NO scientific value , well that must be ‘climate nonscience’ at work again

  23. Grey literature has actually always been permitted. BUT the “rule” (before Thomas Stocker engineered its “disappearance”) was that such material was supposed to be flagged as “Non-Published” in the Chapter references. (For the record, of the 5,600+ non-peer reviewed references in AR4, I found that only 6 were so flagged.)

    See: When task group says let’s “disappear” a rule, IPCC agrees

    and:

    IPCC’s use of grey literature: To flag or not to flag, that is the question

    Stocker is currently Co-Chair for AR5 WG1; his idea of being “non policy prescriptive” is to declare, during the course of a newspaper interview, that “the planet might be better off if [gas prices] soared to “three to four” times its current level”.

    It is worth noting that at the same time Stocker’ and his “task group” recommended that the IPCC “disappear” the flagging rule (because it was “too impractical”), they slipped in another rule to the effect that blogposts and (most) newspaper articles are not acceptable as source material.

    For some strange reason, the “new” rules are silent about material that might originate from BIG green advocacy groups.

    FWIW, on the gender and regional balance in selection of authors fronts, this is something they’ve always “strived for”. If you’ve ever checked out the responses to the IAC questionnaire, or read Donna’s TDT, you will know that some of the authors themselves recognized that they had been selected on the basis of such “affirmative action” – and that they felt they were out of their depth.

    Also, FWIW, when the SRREN report came out, Pachauri stopped referring to “top experts” and began speaking of “inclusive talent”.

    These decisions were, for the most part, made about a year ago; but they didn’t actually get “written in stone” until the rather quiet meeting of the IPCC in Geneva at the beginning of this month – when they “concluded” their work on “responses” to the IAC’s recommendations by amending – in a rather foggy way – the “rule” pertaining to making Reviewer comments and author responses from the FOD available to reviewers of the SOD.

  24. This acceptance of grey literature is advocated by those from countries in which grey water constitutes a pristine source.
    Their goal is a “social justice” in which the rest of us must drink from their trough.

  25. Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review.

    I see an expanded role for skeptical bloggers in that “increase”.

  26. ‘In the past these have been chosen largely on their scientific merit, ‘ and the way it agreed with the political objectives of the IPCC and got ‘Team’ approval.

  27. Well I certainly know why women are being force-fit into the system. After all, everyone knows that women are allowed to change their mind – so, alibis all round when the music stops!

  28. I agree, White Males are over represented in climate science and physics. In addition to geographic representation, there needs to be a quota for race, ethnic group, and gender to be sure everyone is included. I am also thinking low-income, the disabled, and GLBT’s should equally represented. It’s only fair!

  29. Phil. says @June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm [ … ]

    So why do you even waste your time commenting here? It’s because you know that WUWT is the the internet’s best science site, or you would be spending your valuable time posting on thinly trafficked, has-been blogs like RealClimate with its two dozen regular readers.

    The fact that you constantly post comments here is your acknowledgement of the value of WUWT, whether you want to admit it or not.

  30. You’ve got it on one – Green Dementia .
    “I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction. Or, maybe they are going for the insanity defense in case the climate doesn’t cooperate in the future?”

  31. “all publications – will have geographical quotas. For instance Africa will have five members and North America four.” Isn’t that special. I say give our four to Africa so they can have nine. Why would you want to participate….it’s like Mark Twain once said: “Never wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty, and besides the pig likes it.”
    What is “grey literature”? similar to grey water? sounds ominous. (I know, it means ‘not peer reviewed’).
    Lets face it, the UN has lost its relevance and should be sent packing. Let the third world have their slimy hate fest somewhere else – perhaps Africa, along the equator, where Ebola lives. The G20 can be the new UN. but retain the G20 name.

  32. Mike M says:
    June 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    Why can’t people get it straight that even though women are absolutely just as capable as men in science and engineering – far fewer of them than men are interested in either. We have to fight back against artificially imposed gender based quotas that have no relationship whatsoever to what people FREELY choose to do. Many women still actually want to be or already enjoy being mothers – thank God for that! Without mothers there would be no one left to marvel at the climate when these nitwits finally get done ‘fixing’ it.
    ===========================================================
    AMEN!
    Two people doing the same job with the same abilities should get the same pay regardless of race or gender. To make race or gender one of the criterion is wrong which ever way you judge.

  33. It is hard not to conclude that the motivation toward “geographical equity” among IPCC Bureau members is to get more representation from those regions which expect to benefit from the “Climate Justice” payouts. Probably also to solidify support from the general Loony Left, although I wouldn’t think that would require much additional pandering.

    I’m sure some will take this as evidence of racism, but does anyone really believe an IPCC Bureau member from just about anywhere in Africa won’t vote exactly as his/her government desires? Bring on the “scientists” from Zimbabwe and Tuvalu — their votes are guaranteed.

    Look, I could be wrong. So if we move the entire UN to Tuvalu and they really do sink under the rising ocean, I will be the first to admit it.

  34. Matthew R Marler says:
    June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review.

    I see an expanded role for skeptical bloggers in that “increase”.
    =======================================================================
    Thaty’d be nice but most likely in the PR skeptical blogger input will be dismissed as not being “peer-reviewed” while the junk science will be accepted. (Should we start to pronounce that “pee-ered reviewed”?)

  35. Was that grey literature or gay literature?–could be both. In the not too distant future there will be bonus social program payouts for recipeints that publish global warming science papers.

  36. Smokey says:
    June 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm
    Phil. says @June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm [ … ]

    So why do you even waste your time commenting here? It’s because you know that WUWT is the the internet’s best science site, or you would be spending your valuable time posting on thinly trafficked, has-been blogs like RealClimate with its two dozen regular readers.

    The fact that you constantly post comments here is your acknowledgement of the value of WUWT, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Well it’s certainly not to enlighten you, Smokey, since, as usual, your response has no bearing on my comment! I thought it was interesting that two posts on the same day would, in one case criticize the use of non-peer-reviewed material by the IPCC, and in the other case praise the contribution of such sources.

  37. Affirmative action from the IPCC: parity men/women, grey literature in lieu of research for poor countries… next, equal representation based on sexual orientation among scientists? All these MUST have an influence on climate science…

  38. Phil. says:
    June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    So which is it to be? Or does it depend which point of view the non-peer-reviewed material favors?

    An excellent question!

    The article said: “There is a lot of information available in [the grey literature of] developing countries that would balance IPCC literature,” she said.

    And with regards to the IPCC report:
    “In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.”
    For the rest, see

    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=9940

    So does this mean there will now be a balance between overstatements and understatements of the severity of the problem?

  39. By AR-7 at this rate the entire UN/IPCC will be run by NGO’s and QUANGOs. Real scientists will not be found anywhere.

    What am I saying?? There are no real scientists anywhere in the UN now. They have all sold out the scientific method and transparency for taxpayer loot, first-class travel, and status.

  40. I realize it’s not the done thing to draw attention to a persons appearance. But would you buy and trust a chicken vindaloo offering from the man pictured above?

  41. My God! Pauchauri looks like central casting’s idea of the perfect villian for “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. If I was travelling the hinterlands and he rode my way, I’d be moving my hand closer to my holster and looking around for his evil companions.

  42. Phil. the IPCC claims to show the BEST scientific knowledge available in the area so either its right and the best is in fact rubbish as it has an increasing addiction none-scientifically valued information and considers the gender/race of the person to be more important that the texts validity or its lying, which is it ?

  43. Berenyi–

    ICSU is involved with the Future Earth Alliance I have been writing about with the Beverly Forum and UNESCO and UNEP and DIVERSITAS and a few others.

    Hey. I didn’t create the name. Future Earth is going operational in 2013 treaty or not unless we understand it and start to say no funding at the national levels.

    And get that the bureaucrats still know they have education internationally. In May the Economic and Social Council of the UN said they would be using ed going forward. And would go over that agenda in the July meeting.

  44. ” I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction. Or, maybe they are going for the insanity defense in case the climate doesn’t cooperate in the future?”

    By continuing down the path using dubious gray literature as climate science. They’ll hopefully maybe get some of those ardent defenders in the faith of the IPCC and their claims of robust science to start changing their tune?

    It never was about the science. It was always about an agenda and a political ideal. passed off as science. Cherry picking out any science or factual information that’s goes total against them. In other words it’s actually anti-science. By not using proper scientific methodologies.

    Voodoo Faux science employed by much of the IPCC never was actual science anyway. So I suppose as they say a Leopard can’t change its spots. So the IPCC will continue down a path of more over exaggerated BS passed of as Climate Science. It keeps the Chicken Little believing Warmists in nice junket being payed to write and selectively cherry pick more BS from the eco-propagandists amongst other!.

  45. KnR says:
    June 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm
    Phil. the IPCC claims to show the BEST scientific knowledge available in the area

    Really, I thought that: “The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.”

    Where do you find that claim?

  46. It was never about the environment, it was always about power and control.

    And, frankly, “being honest and fastidious” doesn’t suit their purposes.

  47. Lets understand that this is all about the full take-over and control of the IPCC by global NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF.
    They’re the ones who sponsor and publish regional grey literature.

  48. “Baa Humbug says:
    June 22, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    Lets understand that this is all about the full take-over and control of the IPCC by global NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF.”

    Yes.

    And aren’t some of those Elite’s who sponsor Greenpeace & WWF also fans of the UN, Global Governance and consider humanity to be parasites?

    So no wonder there’s a bias in the IPCC to using Greenpeace & WWF literature as science fact!

  49. I don’t think we should be overly critical of the IPCC and AR5 yet, they appear to be trying to overcome a purely technical problem with their ‘grey literature’ approach.
    I seem to recall Pachauri bragging (Glaciergate) something to the effect “one tiny error in over 3000 pages”.
    Quantity, not quality, is the order of the day for the IMPRESSIVE Report (AR4 distributed to officialdom worldwide, probably only a handful ever fully read to this day).

    I suspect their technical problem lies in that fewer scientists of the ‘climate’ variety are prepared to risk their reputations by contributing, and then watching their work battered into conformity during the review process, sometimes without their consent.
    Faced with this, what can a poor IPCC do to bulk up their Report to the necessary number of pages without ‘grey literature’?

    Sarc/ – hardly necessary, I think

  50. What we’re witnessing here is the collapse of the IPCC into complete irrelevance, by self-inflicted trivialization— a well-known path to demise in organizations of this type. (See: League of Nations, et al).

  51. Phil. says:
    June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    So which is it to be? Or does it depend which point of view the non-peer-reviewed material favors?
    =======================================================================
    Admit it. You know the the answer. It isn’t the shades of grey that matter to the Indian railroad engineer …er… Lead UN Climate Scientist, but the shades of Green. (Enviro green and money green.) Admit it.

  52. Does this mean the IPCC can pull their retraction of the Glacier melt by 2035 and include it back in the next report?

    Me thinks it is ok now….

  53. Can you imagine any other “science” working like this?

    Imagine medicine accepting magazine articles written by activists. Imagine particle physics insisting that its working groups must include a quota of women. Imagine chemistry insisting that publications show no geographical bias.

    What it achieves is making sure that one or two western activists in each group are surrounded by people who will not challenge them. Instead of arranging for a range of views in each group, which would be anathema, they can block that by the ridiculous insistence on geographical spread.

  54. “I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction.”

    This realization is only just settling in Anthony????

    As you seem to have recently concluded in the article after this one “Delusion is a big problem with the green crowd”. You can add to this observation that a lack of critical thinking skills, an extreme cognitive bias and the general lack of an ethical compass also afflicts members of the green movement.

  55. Phil.

    C’mon. You’ve been a cheer leader for the “if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal then it isn’t credible science” crowd in this forum for months. Are you sticking to your position? Or reversing yourself?

    To be fair, what the IPCC has used to date is garbage science from peer reviewed journals and garbage science from non peer reviewed papers. They’ve ignored quality science from peer reviewed journals and they’ve ignored quality science from non peer reviewed papers. The argument shouldn’t be about the source, the argument should be about the quality, and the track record of the IPCC can hardly be declared to one of quality in either the peer reviewed or non peer reviewed literature.

  56. Is it just me or does “IPCC” bring “Ipecac” to mind for anyone else? You know, that stuff to make you throwup?

  57. You’d think that after the drubbing they got last time around from the InterAcademy council for citing mentions of climate effects in travel brochures, climbing magazines, and the Himalayan glacier’s melting by 2035 fiasco, and other blunders, they’d want less grey literature.

    The problem is that if they tried to use less grey literature then the IPCC could not produce its fairy tales ‘scientific’ assessments.

    Answers to the questionnaire distributed by an InterAcademy Council.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/

    As for Pachauri he is known to just make sh!t up.

    …we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/

    He is nothing but a brazen [self snipped]. ;-)

  58. Oh Boy! Quota Science!! Can we now demand a “Quota set aside” for Skeptics as a minority? Can’t discriminate against minorities after all…

    @Gunga Din:

    It does now ;-)

  59. “Chapter 27: Strengthening the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations – Partners for Sustainable Development

    Introduction
    Over the last decades, the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance has increased tremendously. Today, the UN and its agencies have grown dependent on NGOs to implement UN resolutions and goals, in a mutually beneficial relationship.”

    Source: Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles
    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/Study_1_Agenda_21.pdf

    “UN and its agencies have grown dependent on NGOs to implement UN resolutions and goals”

  60. Pittzer says:
    June 22, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Is there a mechanism whereby the US government could write IPCC out of it’s share of the UN funding?
    _______________________________
    Yes!

    …The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

    “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

    Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.

    The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

    …”This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

    ….Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

    “Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others”.

    …Article VI of the Constitution states:
    Clause 2 – “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

    Clause 2 has the following interpretation from

    ….Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause
    They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the[p.921]State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States—‘the supreme law of the land’.”18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court….

    Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment
    …. For a century after Marshall’s death, however, the Court proceeded on the theory that the Tenth Amendment had the effect of withdrawing various matters of internal police from the reach of power expressly committed to Congress…..

    Speaking for the majority, Justice Barbour seized the opportunity to proclaim a new doctrine.

    “But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”23

    Justice Story, in dissent, stated that Marshall had heard the previous argument and reached the conclusion that the New York statute was unconstitutional.24

    The conception of a “complete, unqualified and exclusive” police power residing in the States and limiting the powers of the National Government was endorsed by Chief Justice Taney ten years later in the License Cases.25 In upholding state laws requiring licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages, including those imported from other States or from foreign countries, he set up the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in drawing the line between the mutually exclusive, reciprocally limiting fields of power occupied by the national and state governments.26….

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art6_user.html#art6_hd4

    There is a heck of a lot more written in the CRS Annotated Constitution about where state’s rights override the federal government. The interesting thing is the Supreme Court decisions are not cast in stone so the Supreme Court can overturn prior interpretations as was done in the case of Federal vs the States.

    The way things are going I think we may actually see states nullify agreements with the United Nations. The Constitution specifically say treaties are among nations and the UN is not a nation. Congress got around that point with a law declaring the UN a nation and not an organization.

    …. The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation…. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

  61. Matthew R Marler says:
    June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review.

    I see an expanded role for skeptical bloggers in that “increase”.

    Nope. Specifically provided for (against):

    hro001 says:
    June 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    It is worth noting that at the same time Stocker’ and his “task group” recommended that the IPCC “disappear” the flagging rule (because it was “too impractical”), they slipped in another rule to the effect that blogposts and (most) newspaper articles are not acceptable as source material.

    I betcha there’s even finer fine print that exempts RC and Desmogblog from the ban …

  62. See the alarmist fandango as the money fades away. His mind squirms with computations, maybe I can invent a new shocking whiter shade of gray.

  63. It’s an unfortunate fact that scientists from countries with a low per capita GNP do not often get a chance to pursue well funded research. It is almost inevitable that the technical quality of IPCC reports will suffer as a result.

    In the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation a previous Director General, Edouard Saouma, ensured he was re-elected by handing out jobs to citizens of countries whose vote he was soliciting. I of course have no evidence that something similar is happening within the IPCC.

    • To Ron….. the IPCC reports are so bad and full of Warmist garbage….
      they cannot suffer any more in quality…..
      If “less GNP countries” for example China, get more research funds
      (they recently did exellent work with studies in Tibet etc.), this will
      improve report quality……
      JS

  64. Seems to me that the IPCC got itself into a heap of big trouble last time around by using grey literature ‘under the counter’. Does anyone really believe that formalising the process that let them down will enhance its already battered and tattered credibility?

    And if this self-created deliberate own goal is the best idea that the greatest and goodest of the climatology mafia can come up with, then my minimal respect for their common sense drops yet further.

    They may be great academics (though I reserve the right to doubt that too) but they are f*****g useless at anything else that matters in public discourse.

  65. From New Scientist (Updated 18:02 22 June 2012 by Fred Pearce, Rio de Janeiro):

    “From now on, for instance, any grey literature used in an IPCC report will have to be put online so that reviewers can assess its quality.”

    So what’s the issue? Seems like an improvement.

  66. Deconfabulated, the IPCC implicitly admits reviewed literature is inadequate to justify its positions, so relies on and indeed solicits less restrained advocacy pieces from suitably opinioned lay sources.

    Gaackk!

Comments are closed.