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.
Re: old44 (Feb 3 17:44),
Nice one sir, Mandy always was class, enjoyed a chat with her one night. She was not like the new modern “scientific ones” you always knew the outcome with her, the new ones they just keep saying “its hot”
My translation of the IPCC release? “Shut up, they explained.”
What wonderful material they are supplying for advanced courses in public relations and how (not) to lead an organization through crisis.
I agree. Keep the King of Smarm (will anybody ever shake his hand again????) in place. He will be the undoing of the whole mariachi band.
Watching the Coren interview of Tim Ball looked like balding was a pre-requisite! LOL
Coren kept his guest honest by pointing out when the language went too far.
The IPCC can’t wait for AR5, where they can embark upon a binge-drinking weekend. They’re going to need the xtra support.
Gotta give the Love Guru credit: He’s mighty handy with the Novel approach to Saving the Planet.
Pamela Gray (18:56:02) :
(will anybody ever shake his hand again????)
Not if they they caught the look on his face while holding that book.
Which is the reason bar’s & pubs are dimly lit & serve strong stuff.
The Coren program was great. Coren did keep Ball honest, but Ball was also great in his explanations of the history leading up to what has happened at IPCC. It’s all about control, all about power.
Pamela, you’re a hoot; I like that “King of Smarm” description.
Inconceivable.
“Garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO) describes the doltish IPCC, Hansen’s GISS/NASA, Jones’ Hadley CRU, Mann’s notorious Penn State ESSC– vipers’ nests of Green Gang Climate Cultists, death-eating Luddite sociopaths bent on sabotaging global energy economies, subverting every principle of objective, rational scientific inquiry. And for what? On the threshold of a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum, quite possibly precipitating an overdue end to Earth’s current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, this coterie of nihilistic ideologues (see Keith Farnish, “A Matter of Scale”, enthusiastically endorsed by Hansen) seeks specifically to “cull” numbers of human vermin by 80%– meaning megadeaths on the order of four billion. They want you dead, and cheerfully admit it.
Pachauri and his ilk are not only cheats and liars but homicidal monomaniacs whose conventional facades mask a demonic hatred of post-Enlightenment industrial/technological civilization. Like Lenin, Stalin, Mao T’se-tung, collectivist Statists know only force and fraud. Experience over generations teaches that such reptiles will stop at nothing to herd all into Abyss.
I read the “Statement on IPCC principles and procedures – 2 February 2010.”
Who wrote that drivel? Why isn’t the author identified? It looks to me like a typical smokescreen for some frightened, spineless bureaucrats.
That’s how it is,
Oliver K. Manuel
what a sophmoric response!
At least get a grad student.
IPCC=BORG
BORG HiveClone Pachauri:
” Reason is irrelevent, you will be assimulated.”
” Data is unnecessary, you will be assimulated.”
” Resistence is futile, you will be assimulated.”
” Our PR is useless, we might be the ones assimulated!!!! Oops.”
With sincere apologies to the late great Gene Roddenberry.
John
Doubling down into a pair of two’s.
“The essence of science is testing interpretations against observations, and gradually building a body of knowledge that is consistent with all of the
observations and experiments.”
“Interpretation” (IPCC for theory): man made CO2 has caused the Earth to warm outside the bounds of natural variation.
Observation: The Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.
Experiments: None on record.
It amounts to an appeal to their own authority.
“We are not cranks”
–The IPCC
Has anyone truly analyzed the inner IPCC process? As far as I’ve understood the summary for policy makers is written (at least published) first and the “science” thereafter (sic). So who gets to write the very first draft of THE summary and thereby establish the framework for the “science”? From the looks of it (use of numerous WWF and Greenpeace sources in the “science” report) NGOs (with money from somewhere) seem play a huge role and are using the IPCC as a marketing organization for the climate change industry they are part of.
Re: Robert of Ottawa (Feb 3 16:13),
“it made no sense, addressed none of the issues and just advertised the IPCC’s arrogance.”
This response pattern is probably one of their unwritten “principles”! When have we ever seen a response from the IPCC (or members of the inner circle) which made sense or addressed the issues in the face of any criticism?
The same pattern (and arrogance) permeates Briffa’s responses to reviewer comments on the 2nd Order Draft of Chapter 6 of AR4. If you’re interested in seeing how Briffa (and others on the “chapter team”) dealt with the reviewer comments – particularly on the hockey-stick paragraph – I did an analysis, that you might want to take a look at:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-climate-change-game-monopoly-the-ipcc-version/
OT,
In IPCC AR4 chapter 12 page 547 they state wrong information about the Netherlands. All childeren in the Netherlands learn that 20% of the country is below sealevel. IPCC make it 55%!
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/latest-ipcc-exaggeration/
Gio
So two sentences in a 1000 page document weren’t from peer reviewed journals (Although the “up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive…” comment originally is from Nepstad 1994 and Nepstad 2004 which are peer reviewed). I take it that the rest of the document you don’t have problems with though as it’s from peer reviewed research and publications?
I wonder what is going to be in IPCC AR5? How to save the universe? These people are Gods didn’t you know?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/ipcc-statement-principles-procedures-02-2010.pdf
This policy statement is unsigned therefore unaccountable – no surprises there then… As such it is worthless… For all we know it might have been put there by – errr – hackers…
All we have to go on is the .pdf Properties which says this IPCC statement appears to have been produced by the office assistant!
Ms Laura BIAGIONI
Office Assistant – outreach and web
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_secretariat.htm
Since it ain’t signed I guess we can assume it’s all her own work
We had our reason for including these things but we’re not saying what they are because you plebs wouldn’t understand! (Or worse, you would understand!)
DaveE.
Of course the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Carbon Chicanery) and the AGW’ers (Al Gores Wranglers) will continue to push their Null Hypothesis, because they never have, do not now, and in my opinion never will have any empirical evidence to support their swindle. Manufactured Climate Ingenuity is all they have come up with, and that is as good as it will get for Man Made Global Warming (Should be Mann Made Global Warming, with inventivness from Jones Briffa Hansen et al). At least they have managed to invent the biggest Scientific Swindle of all time, and future generations will be able to look back at 2009 as the year the Hoax was exposed !
When adding up the intelligence of 2500 scientists, the result is less than that displayed by a common cat, which can better assess what is worth eating and what should be avoided, and can better determine the threat posed by those getting close when deciding if it should defend itself or run away and hide.
I suspect there are some canceling elements involved in the math. Looks like we may have proof of negative intelligence.