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.
After reading the article I was laughing.
After reading the comments I’m rolling on the floor.
“So what if none of our references in AR4 were peer-reviewed? They were published (in magazines and propaganda brochures)!
We, the vaunted IPCC (agenda) Team firmly believe that, if they had been submitted for (our) peer-review, all of these nonscientific speculations would have been accepted with no criticism (with our streamlined inhouse peer-review process, we would not even read them!).
Thus, the IPCC stands behind everything we deem fit to include in our report that would serve to convince the uninformed, trusting public that we are going to warm and turn a watery planet in to DUNE.
Trust us; we’re the IPCC.”
Michael Coren with Dr. Tim Ball – part 1
Michael Coren with Dr. Tim Ball – part 2
Michael Coren with Dr. Tim Ball – part 3
Michael Coren with Dr. Tim Ball – part 4
Michael Coren with Dr. Tim Ball – part 5
Can’t ‘The World Court’ indict the Secretary General and all the members of the IPCC. Do we have a “World Attorney General” that knows how to do something like that? “Crimes Against Humanity” sounds like a reasonable charge. How about throwing in “Using Official Positions for Unlawful Personal Gain”? Pachauri wouldn’t be able to sell more than a dozen copies of his new “book” unless he had the political clout of a super-duper UN mucky-muck. About the Secretary General, I guess they’ll only be able to impeach him and throw him out on his ear. Maybe we could imprison them all on St Helena, don’t the British still have it? So fitting, first Napoleon and then Pachauri & Friends. And the Noble Peace Prize, don’t try to recoup the cash from them, go after The Committee and wring it out of their hides. Do you think there might be room on the island for BIG AL?
jeez (15:37:33), Fiddling — the data— while the Earth refuses to burn.?
They are now hanging on by their fingernails. They will keep this up for some time yet. They will go on trying to make people think that we have the same motives as they have and only see the problem in terms of marking points. In this context Harrabin’s remark in his letter today (“We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.”) is particularly significant. Who does he think we are?
The arrogance on display here makes me feel this came off or at least passed through Pachauri’s desk. One more nail in the coffin.
From the Financial Times :
“They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.” – Pachauri
The guy is getting delusional. In his world people are merely automatons requiring programming. Clearly we are the problem, we just need debugging.
In short, they expect to make mistakes, but don’t bother them about it because they have no intention of correcting anything. They know what is best for us.
The statement of policy and procedure is a most revealing document:
I read it thus:
It gives the IPCC’s role as not to do the science. Nor is its role to do policy. Rather, the IPCC is “to provide policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive information” and to do this by assessing the science.
But there is an inherent contradiction in the Statement: The peak of ‘pyramid’ of its process of scientific assessment is the “Summary for Policymakers” which “must also be approved, word by word, by consensus, by all the participating governments, typically representing more than 120 countries.”
Again:
Again:
Thus, the approval of governments is what ensuring ‘fidelity to the underlying scientific information’ and provides ‘an important check on the other components’ of the scientific? process…hmmm
Well, I guess there is an implicit message here, namely that this is why the slip about the glaciers drying up, yes the ones that feed the rivers serinh more than a billion poor folk, this did not make it to the peak Summary.
But what a strangely unselfconsious document it is! Indeed, as it says, it is “remarkable to think that every participating government has approved every word in an IPCC Summary for Policymakers.” It is remarkable because how can this approval still represent the peak of its scientific assessment and advice to these same governments? This policy document gives little hint of reform of the unscientific politization of the assessment, instead presenting in itself as a recepe for a politicised process.
And so the self-assessment of the effectiveness of its own value within the document sound decidely creepy:
I have sent the IPCC the following e-mail:
“RE: ‘so-called errors in AR4’
So, there were no errors – what were amazongate & disastergate then?”
If enough of us do something along these lines, the IPCC may begin to suspect it is unloved. Their address is IPCC-Sec@wmo.int
The next IPCC statement will read, “We had reasons to claim that the glaciers in the Amazon would be gone by 2035 and we were right. Its worse than we thought. If only the high climate sensitivity of the Himalayan forests to global warming had not caused their destruction, the world might have had a chance.”
I could be wrong, but it seems the IPCC gave us one of these: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/S2oOauOoBuI/AAAAAAAAQCM/TjStgZm0da0/s1600-h/middle_finger.jpg
IPCC Synthesis Report 2007 page 27:
By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur
in some ecologically rich sites, including the Great Barrier Reef
and Queensland Wet Tropics. {WGII 11.4, SPM}
Professor Peter Ridd on Alan Jones radio program this morning.
The Great Barrier Reef is the finest environment in Australia and is the finest coral reef in the world. The only problem it faces is in south in Morton Bay where the waters are too cold! A recent check on biodiversity showed all original organisms are still in abundance.
The revelations have shown the “world’s premier authority on climate science”, as some have it, to be nothing of the sort. There could be no reason for all the ‘gates’, unless they were using their reports to further an agenda. If the evidence was so strong, they wouldn’t have needed to trawl suspect sources for sensational stories.
The IPCC has destroyed its reputation by its own hand, and no amount of excuses or blustering will repair that.
They’d do better to keep quiet.
“*UK Greenpeace director calls for removal of UN IPCC Chair”
“IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacier error
The head of the UN’s climate change body is under pressure to resign after one of his strongest allies in the environmental movement said his judgment was flawed and called for a new leader to restore confidence in climatic science.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has insisted that he will remain in post for another four years despite having failed to act on a serious error in the body’s 2007 report.
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK , said that Dr Pachauri should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the error, even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.
A journalist working for Science had told Dr Pachauri several times late last year that glaciologists had refuted the IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Dr Pachauri refused to address the problem, saying: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.” He suggested that the error would not be corrected until 2013 or 2014, when the IPCC next reported.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013264.html#comments
(*H/T):
http://www.newswatchcanada.ca/
In too many of these MSM articles that purport to show the warts on AGW, no matter what problems are brought to light, they end up saying it does not affect the “fact” that AGW is a real problem. I think what some others have expressed in one way or another, the AGW’ers are putting up an appearance of engaging the skeptics but in the end they will claim that they listened to the arguments, found them lacking, and then declare victory. The IPCC will party on as will Mann. I only hope something comes to fruition on the Phil Jones investigation. Even if it does, I’m not betting it will stop the AGW train.
So the IPCC concluded that the challenges are without foundations. To parphrase Mandy Rice Davies: “They would say that, wouldn’t they”
I’ve mentioned this in a previous thread, but AR4 Chapter 7 has a citation to what appears to be a Marxist text book, and one to a press release for a business partnership between WWF and Allianz.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html
Jessop, B., 2002: Globalization and the national state. Paradigm Lost: State Theory Reconsidered, S. Aronowitz and P. Bratsis, Eds., University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 185-220.
Book description:
“With increasing globalization, the meaning and role of the nation-state are in flux. At the same time, state theory, which might help to explain such a trend, has fallen victim to the general decline of radical movements, particularly the crisis in Marxism. This volume seeks to enrich and complicate current political debates by bringing state theory back to the fore and assessing its relevance to the social phenomena and thought of our day. Throughout, it becomes clear that, whether confronting the challenges of postmodern and neo-institutionalist theory or the crisis of the welfare state and globalization, state theory still has great analytical and strategic value. ”
(Taken from Amazon description of the book)
Second reference on Chapter 7 of interest is this:
Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp.
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf
Climate Change & the Financial Sector: An Agenda for action
Allianz Group and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have joined forces
to produce a report that will advance the debate in the financial community,
and to propose solutions. The report identifies risks for the sector which are
due to climate change, and develops actions that demonstrate how integrated
financial services companies, such as Allianz Group, can turn these risks
into opportunities
I am sure Roger Pielke Junior will appreciate that one…
ScientistForTruth (16:13:35) :
“…again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands…”
Care to share with us what these ‘valid reasons’ are?
That is easy to answer the valid reasons are to provide the United Nations (and the World Bank) the right to tax the evil industrialized middle class. You have to understand “according to Marxism, objective truth is nothing but a bourgeois trick” it is perfectly acceptable to lie if it is “for the Cause” Once you understand that, and of course many of the warmists do, his justification is perfectly valid.
I wish I could say this is sarcasm but I am afraid it is not. We are arguing from two completely different sets of principles, one based on the scientific method and truth, the other based on political ideology.
A poster at the daily telegraph has provided a nice summary of the stages of belief the AGW crowd is beginning to go through
1) Denial – A total refusal to see, believe or accept what has happened.
2) Anger – Blaming someone else, oneself, everyone else or anything else for what has happened. The deeper the belief, the more vehement this stage is.
3) Bargaining – Believing that you can still do some trading to keep all, something or at least a shred of the collapsing structure. eg concessions,
scapegoats, prayer.
4) Depression – It can’t be stopped. Apathy, depression, tiredness, feeling unfairly punished.
5) Acceptance – Utter Calm. It’s all over. Death.
The IPCC is at Stage 1 (“two so-called errors” “baseless charges”)
Sir David King stepped into Stage 2 when stating the CRU leak “was probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency”
Fred Pearce, the long-time Guardian AGW journo, has moved to Stage 3, in an article criticizing Phil Jones. His negotiating stance: I’ll throw Prof. HideTheDecline to the wolves and everything will go back to normal.
It’s a great game!
Our prophets have heard the voice of Gaia and we stand by our prophets.
@Gail Combs
“I wish I could say this is sarcasm but I am afraid it is not. We are arguing from two completely different sets of principles, one based on the scientific method and truth, the other based on political ideology.”
Very true. This is why we will see these ideologies still pursued even if the science crumbles.
The film “Ice Age” sprang into my mind with a picture of the squirrel waiting for the ice to melt so he could get at the acorn!
Dear IPCC,
Please openly admit you used fake Himalayan glacier data. Admit you quoted a climbing magazine, a master’s thesis report, and agenda pieces from the WWF and Greenpeace.
Then, you might have some credibility. Otherwise, STFU 🙂
Thanks,
Dr. Robert
“the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report”
And those valid reasons are….?
If the data are not from peer reviewed journals, completely traceable, completely transparent, and completely verified as accurate then the document is garbage.
Let me repeat: GARBAGE.