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.
I read 450 scientists, where the pdf leads in with ‘thousands of scientists’.
A pyramid structure.
Top of the heap are politicians. They ‘distill’ the messages, and the concensus is of the politicans, NOT the scientists.
Comments appear to make up the bulk of pyramids.
No mention of confidence levels specifically, could be anything.
(4) word-by-word, consensus approval, by governments, of the Summaries for Policymakers.
What’s a report? What’s a concensus? Who decides whether there is actually any science underlying the reports? Who are the commentors?
What happens if somebody does not agree with the PolicyMakers?
Please IPCC, list your reasons then and we will be the judges.
Qlder (15:39:50) :
5 quatloos that they simply restate the proposition, with a caveat: “Mistakes have been made, but we adjusted them”.
It’s with statements like these that it would have been better if they just shut up.
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
i love that “broad, balanced participation in the author teams” is listed as a key component in paragraph 4 pg 1 of the IPCC principles and procedures document that’s attached.
that’s a helluva defense for them to use with a straight face.
there is a line in there about the role of not just peer reviewed science, but also reports from government bodies and NGO’s, so i guess citing the WWF, greenpeace, and some outdoors magazines is OK after all…
As long as they escape being charged with fraud and/or corruption and taken to court, they will continue their tactics of smoke and mirrors. There’s just too people at high places who are desperate to keep the IPCC alive. The battles must be moved to the courts to get real progress.
“The IPCC does not carry out original research. It assesses the findings in scientific publications. Most of the scientific literature assessed by the IPCC is published in scientific journals, where the journals’ peer-review and editorial processes provide an important foundational stage of quality
control. 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 is an important responsibility, but it is also a challenge, because the diverse approaches to reviewing and editing in these alternative sources of information force the IPCC authors, reviewers, and review editors to utilize additional care and professional judgment in evaluating them.”
In other words… we put what ever we want in the report… as long as it is scary enough to bring about the changes we want…
“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.”
See, they have implemented principles as a response.
I guess that’s a start.
Hey … no question of handing back the Nobel … they’re giving Pachy another award, in recognition of his “outstanding contribution and leadership in the area of climate change and, in particular, his contribution to knowledge and global action on climate change and cities.” Plus a $10,000 cash prize.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-day-another-10000-dollars.html
If you read the principles and procedures it states quite clearly that a portion of the material they review and assess is not from peer reviewed literature, to wit:
“The IPCC does not carry out original research. It assesses the findings in scientific publications. Most of the scientific literature assessed by the IPCC is published in scientific journals, where the journals’ peer-review and editorial processes provide an important foundational stage of quality control. Some important information appears not in scientific journals but rather in reports from governmental and non-governmental organizations. For the IPCC to fulfill its comprehensiveassessment mandate, it needs to assess the information in these reports. This is an important responsibility, but it is also a challenge, because the diverse approaches to reviewing and editing in these alternative sources of information force the IPCC authors, reviewers, and review editors to utilize additional care and professional judgment in evaluating them.”
So in a nutshell… the literature can come from anywhere and we shall interpret it the way we like.
Later they say:
“The IPCC procedures provide a strong foundation for the organization. They minimize the risk of errors and maximize the emphasis on balance, especially as messages move from first drafts of chapters toward the Summaries for Policymakers.”
That’s Gold Jerry! Balance?? Jeebus these guys are funny.
kwik (16:08:50) :
Very good! Keep the Love Guru there as long as possible!
Haha 🙂 Pachauri: The Love Gurfu 🙂
You must trust us. If you don’t trust us, you are stupid. If you continue to not trust us, well, that doesn’t matter.
We have our reasons. Which we won’t tell you. You’re too stupid to understand, as your disbelief shows.
“In response to these baseless charges,…”
Wait, didn’t they already fess up?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/ipcc-admits-error-on-himalayan-glacier-melt-fiasco/
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/ipcc-admits-more-errors-in-2007-report-glaciergate-hunts-pachauris-head/
UN IPCC also targets the money sources. There is now a UN department focused on your super, with UN based policies signing up retirement funds all over the world to their strategies. In other words your retirement dollars are going to ‘green’ causes and funding the AGW industry.
http://twawki.com/2010/02/04/super-green-putting-your-retirement-in-al-gores-hands/
Jack,
Why wouldn’t you trust them, look how many letters are in their name IPCCPHDSFROMTHEUN .
Sorry, I’m grumpy tonight.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/sophistinators/
my take.
Thanks again WUWT group for providing a ceaseless source of all the news in climate.
RE: MY yonason (16:34:38) :
That second link is one I just found, and what I meant was to use the references to the Telegraph that it contains. Note that that site is a bit, shall we say, “odd” overall. Needless to say, I don’t subscribe to some of their other stuff. That said, since they are the type I would expect to otherwise go for AGW, the fact that even they are angry about what the IPCC is doing tells us that the Leftist base may in fact really be crumbling. (sorry, I should have said that above)
The Climate Clowns at the IPCC should get a Nobel for Climate Ingenuity (as in Cunning) and maybe a name change to Intergovernmental Panel on Carbon Chicanery, then at least we could all agree on their real purpose in life. (i.e. Taxing the life out of the giver of ALL LIFE ON EARTH CO2)
“How dare you question your overlords!? Everything we say, every word, is ROBUST! Publications from non-scientific propaganda organizations like greenpeace are ‘peer-reviewed’ if we say they are! Now shut up, get in line and throw away modern life like we told you to.”
Not a surprising response, except for the fact they felt they needed to publicly respond. The optimist in me is happy to see the obviously defensive tone.
They’re just trying to rally their troops, or herd cats;
I can’t decide which.
My assessment is that the IPCC is operated on the basis that anthropogenic global warming is real, and generously financing various scientific groups to confirm this, rather than to scientifically assess the issue.
Naturally these groups are reluctant to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and there you go…
The next question concerns the origin of the IPCC which, arising under the auspices of the U.N., had shakers and movers that established and maintained it. Who were these people and what were their interests and motivations and, has there been a change since the inception of the IPCC?
“I am not a crook”
-Richard Nixon
Pachauri — a cross between Nixon & Carter — he’s claiming that he’s not a crook but he has lust in his heart. Nixon was in denial mode right to the very end — and now it’s Pachauri’s turn. The end is nigh. He can devote himself to his “literary” career. Hmmm A Memoir of Lust.
They could’ve tried to fire back to the skeptics about the big warmup in the Southern Hemisphere SST’s according to Unisys. but it seems like they changed satallites or issued a major correction with the marked change in their map from yesterday
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Now it shows southern SST’s going down while the Northern Hemisphere remains almost unchanged, with ironically puts it more in line with NOAA’s charts which actually was showing cooler oceans than Unisys.
“Me thinks they are clueless about how to handle public relations.”
Just like they were utterly incapable of handling the logistics of a major event, like the hapless Copenhagen fiasco of recent memory.