The IPCC has issued a statement about all of the criticism being heaped upon them by bloggers and journalists regarding poor sourcing of references.
Me thinks they are clueless about how to handle public relations.
Here’s the release:
Recent media interest has drawn attention to two so-called errors in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, the first dealing with losses from disasters and the second on the subject of Amazon forests. The leadership of the IPCC has looked into both these instances and concluded that the challenges are without foundations. In neither case, did we find any basis for making changes in the wording of the report. We are convinced that there has been no error on those issues on the part of the IPCC. We released a statement about the disaster issue. As far as the second subject dealing with the Amazon is concerned, again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report.
In response to these baseless charges, we have decided to provide details on the manner in which the IPCC has implemented its principles and procedures. These are the foundations that provide assurance on the validity and accuracy of statements made in the AR4.
Statement on IPCC principles and procedures – 2 February 2010
h/t to Richard North of the EU Referendum
In other IPCC news, it’s all a plot.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well they’ve never been in a battle of wits (public relations). Before climategate everyone just accepted their word. They’re essentially unarmed right now and it really shows.
Fiddling while the Earth refuses to burn.
Can we place bets on how the wording in the 5th AR will be? I bet that it will be very very different! Let’s get some of the bookies involved who are dealing with C-trade!
The IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands.
Uh-huh. Too bad they have nothing to do with science and everything to do with governmental control.
OMG! What is it with these people? Doesn’t anyone coach them on PR? I can’t imagine a worse public response. At a time when the major issue for the IPCC is credibility and trust they simply say, in effect, ‘we had our reasons, trust us’.
Simply unbelievable. Keep it up boys and girls – shoot the other foot off!
OT,
The avalanche is accelerating. Even “Die Zeit”, a major German newspaper and in the past staunchly in the warmist camp, is starting to move:
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2010-02/klimarat-ipcc-krise?page=2
jeez (15:37:33) :
Fiddling while the Earth refuses to burn.
=============================================
nice one evan
“As far as the second subject dealing with the Amazon is concerned, again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report.”
Are carbon kickbacks or massive donations from the “save the rainforest!” crowd valid reasons?
Obviously “vaid reasons” must encompass far more than mere science, which didn’t at all support the published text.
Inasmuch as shouts of Heretic! Blasphemer! CAPITALIST! no longer work for the IPCC, I suppose its going to take them a little time to add new modalities to their repertoire.
Will they give the Nobel back?
Ecotretas
The blurb says
“Some important information appears not in scientific journals but rather in reports from governmental and non-governmental organizations. For the IPCC to fulfill its comprehensive assessment mandate, it needs to assess the information in these reports.”
This seems to be what they call the Gold Standard. Anything goes.
Its also called moving the goalposts
So Stuck on Stupid.
“two so-called errors in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, the first dealing with losses from disasters and the second on the subject of Amazon forests.”
glaciers
Well I read that to the end but I felt like Jim Hacker listening to Sir Humphrey using gobblygook to ‘explain’ and obfuscate the inescusable.
Before I started I made a short list of what I expected to find. I score three out of four:
Peer reviewed………………..Check
Thousands of scientists…..Check
Consensus……………………..Check
What I did not see was the almost obligatory ad hominem attacks which frustrated AGW supporters everywhere use because they are simply unable to argue the facts or the science.
Interesting that the consensus in this case is presented as a political consensus of goverments, not of scientists.
Something I did not expect to see: ‘gender balance’. Huh? What’s that about? I do not recall seeing any High Priestesses amongst the pretty well all male rogues gallery. Just an occasional female ‘scientist’ on the fringes amongst the water carriers.
Nothing to see here… Move along.
Take no notice of the man stuck in the glacier.
Carbon CO2 trading fell from $7 a ton to 10 cents. It is taken care of.
CCX has made the adjustment.
Talk about a C Change!!!
I can buy 12 tons with the change in my pocket.
What a joke. The IPCC spin doctors have had things their own way for so long they are incapable of writing a plausible press release. Either that, or the IPCC high priests, Pachauri et al, have completely taken over the PR machinery – and we know how deluded they are.
In my opinion, it would be better for us to leave the current incompetents in charge of the IPCC for a while longer. That will help to hasten the demise of the entire AGW scam.
is there still the call for them to return their Nobel?
would it hurt John Christy to have to let go of his part of the prize?
To those of us who have seen the sloppiness in the IPCC for years, it is not surprising that there are quite a few non-scientific citations in the IPCC reports. We also expect them to show support for the theory of anthroprogenic global warming because we have also seen the bias of the IPCC over the years.
We need to point out though that all pseudo-scientific citations support the AGW theory. That alone is alone is proof of the bias in the report. If this was just sloppy science there would be citations from both the “skeptics” and the “science is settled” crowd in the report.
To the skeptics this goes without saying, but to openminded people who have gotten their info from the media this could really open their eyes to what is going on. It is proof that there is not just sloppy science, but that the entire IPCC has an agenda.
There were not “so called errors,” there were errors. Unfounded, crazy assertions put into a supposed scientific report. Yikes!
We’re right, you’re wrong, go away.
I look forward to their response in 6 months time when the trickle of stories becomes a flood.
Very good! Keep the Love Guru there as long as possible!
All over the news today Toyota is under massive attack for their sloppy PR efforts with the assorted Toyota recalls. Toyota’s PR team has nuthin’ on the IPCC. ;->
That was hardly “firing back”. More like a junior PR journo-type being thrust into the front-line to put up counter-fire. This was, as a piece of propaganda, totally useless; it made no sense, addressed none of the issues and just advertised the IPCC’s arrogance.
This press release looks remarkably similar to what Pachauri has been saying himself in interviews. Looks like he trotted this rubbish out in a fit of pique.
“The leadership of the IPCC has looked…” Who is ‘the leadership’? Is that Pachauri himself?
“…the challenges are without foundations” They will come to regret this.
“…again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands…”
Care to share with us what these ‘valid reasons’ are?
They are digging themselves into an even bigger hole.
The Statement on IPCC principles and procedures ends with “The IPCC is in the early stages of another challenging and massive exercise, the preparation of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) – due in 2013/2014. We invite the entire scientific community to contribute to this important effort.”
Note the invitation. Make sure your voice is heard – bet it won’t be! “Many are called, but few are chosen!”