Meanwhile NASA GISS scientist Lacis, who was highly critical of the chapter 9 executive summary draft says that:
I am actually encouraged by the all criticisms that the IPCC AR4 report is receiving.
He makes some valid points and provides insight into the review process. More in comments at Andrew Revkin’s NYT Dot Earth blog here
From the Australian, news on that IPCC “overhaul” in Nature:
Scientists say IPCC should be overhauled or scrapped
INTERNATIONAL scientists have called for the world’s peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months.
The scientists suggest a range of options, from tightening the selection of lead authors and contributors to the International Panel on Climate Change, to dumping it in favour of a small permanent body, or even turning the whole climate science assessment process into a moderated “living” Wikipedia-IPCC.
Writing today in the journal Nature, five US, British, German and Swiss climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – agreed a mechanism for assessing the facts and impacts of climate change was critical.
But they acknowledged that calls for reform had intensified after what Nature called “recent furores”. Last month, for instance, it was revealed that flawed communication between teams of scientists led to the IPCC’s inaccurate claim that most Himalayan glaciers would melt almost 300 years earlier than forecast. In November, the release of hacked email messages between climate scientists triggered widespread media reports of scientific wrongdoing.
According to Mike Hulme, from Britain’s University of East Anglia, the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date. “The IPCC is no longer fit for the purpose,” he wrote in Nature.
In Australia, Barry Brook, the director of climate change research at Adelaide University, agreed, saying: “I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,” he said.
Full story at the Australian here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wikipedia? What, with William Connelly maintaining it???
Scrapping the IPCC and replacing it with something new won’t change a thing. It will be just like the time the UN scrapped their human rights body because it had become completely politicized. They installed a new body with a new structure, new mandate, new name, new management…. and if you didn’t know that it was new you would be pretty certain it was the same one as before.
the “scientists” calling for a new body aren’t asking for a re-examination of the science. They’re asking for a new body that isn’t burdened by the loss of credibility of the old body, so it can be more effective at selling the same agenda.
Anthony,
A little OT but congratulations; your surface stations project paper got a pretty nice write-up by John Lott in this Fox Op-ed piece
…and congratulations to Joseph D’Aleo as well of course.
So “Nature” wants to throw the “IPCC” under the buss. I think they need to reconstitute their “peer review” selection process, as they were a part of creating the problem.
Keep the UN out!! It is a corrupt organization incapable of doing anything without political influence/dominance. We can thank Al Gore, John Kerry, etc for turning the IPCC into a political machine without integrity.
You think the data manipulation, and the writings in AR 4 are bad, just wait until someone looks at the computer models? Imagine the liberties they took in those models that are likely full of exaggerated fudge factors and inaccurate equations.
No one seems to be looking at this issue yet.
I suspect that things like CO2 residence time, and feedback will be controversal.
Those previously involved should be ineligble to get involved in the audit except to provide info for review.
Honestly. Who are we kidding? The entire exercise has been a bust. The mechanics of the system are immaterial now. What MUST be addressed first is corruption – and those who have allowed it to damage our most sacred institutions.
Make over??? Sorry, that’s for girls with stringy hair. We’ve got corrupted souls to clean up, or cast out. Forget the facelift and refits and cosmetic patches – apply some adult law. At a minimum to start, there should be a panel on amends. There are many needed.
All of the hysterical defenders of the IPCC a few months ago are now scrambling to keep their cash cow of government grants alive by calling for a new body. Example. Barry Brook says shutting down the IPCC would be ok “provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,”. Yah right Barry, lets just create some concise policy advice quickly without all this arguing about the validity of the science. After all policy is what this is about, not whether global warming is an issue for mankind. AGW is accepted as a given by “scientists” like Brook, he just wants to write the suggested policy actions for government.
“I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,”
Slam on the brakes! RED FLAG!!
Still will be left in the hands of policy makers.
Same ole, same ole.
p.g.sharrow “PG” (16:20:36) :
So “Nature” wants to throw the “IPCC” under the buss. I think they need to reconstitute their “peer review” selection process, as they were a part of creating the problem.
================================================
Just take the funding for co2 study and put it into something else, voilà, no more problem.
I think there should be a WUWT Guide For Policymakers…
I know that at least one of the recommendations should be,
“Keep your darn dirty paws off our CO2!”
The Australian is also running an opinion piece by Alan Oxley about the WWFand how they should be careful sticking to the facts lest they lose whatever credibility they may still have:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wwf-concocts-its-own-beautiful-set-of-numbers/story-e6frg6zo-1225828934265
To counterpoint how useless The Age/SMH are, their contribution to the climate change story is a picece about Lord Monckton supposedly getting heatstroke in Adelaide:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/climate-denier-under-weather-20100210-nsd3.html
Notice “denier” in the URL… those sad sad rags of our two biggest cities have become no more than News of the World type tabloids.
Andrew Revkin over at Dot Earth contacted Lacis: “The revised chapter was much improved,” he said. “That’s different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it’s a big improvement.”
It would be interesting to compare the first and final versions to see just how much it was toned down. Seems to me that his original comment describes the final draft quite well.
I see Joe Rohm is blowing a head gasket today with Anthony as well as Revkin in the cross-hairs, John T. Pfaffinger
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/10/revkin-dotearth-science-wattsupwiththat-climate-sensitivity-jerome-ravetz/
Who pays for this organization? UN dues? Or independent contributions? No matter, you can assume that the bulk of it comes from the USA. So what has to be done is to get the Congress to forbid another penny being spent on the IPCC or any similar organization.
How could this happen? Simple: don’t elect any more liberal Democrats, or for that matter anyone who will not pledge to stop this taxpayer-paid climate alarmism in its tracks.
/Mr Lynn
OT. but worth looking at.
Reports of record temps in Rio (46.3C) don’t appear to be substantiated! Record temp for whole of Brasil is 43C. An extra 3.3 degrees…I smell a hoax or a major typo.
sSee Facts toasted in reporting Rio Roast for more detail
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/facts-toasted-in-reporting-rio-roast.html
It appears the rats are scurrying around in all directions.
There are still many CAGW believers that are still in “denial”. Romm and Obama head the list. What we see here is that many of them have reached the “bargaining” stage. “Acceptance” is not that far away. We need to keep the pressure on.
Here’s a You Tube on a Garratt locomotive on tour in England.Garratts lasted longer than most steam because they were fairly efficent. Not used much in the
US, Austraila and South Africa used them until quite recently, especially South Africa… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPBjxFLJ_DM
Scrap the IPCC,indeed.Save the Garratts…
If there was one thing I’d sell my soul to the devil for, it would be for Dr Richard Feynmann to come back from the dead and give his lecture about “cargo cult science” to the UN and congress.
Changing personnel or amending the way the IPCC works would be like polishing the hub caps on a broken down automobile. It’s ignoring the fact that the fundamental system became corrupt, with corrupted science input into the system and those operating it then covering it up.
Has anyone ever explained what the ‘hockey stick’ graph was all about ? The problem is that despite all the evidence of derisory standards of scientific accuracy and honesty, major examples of incompetence or dishonesty are being glossed over. If someone comes in each day trying to bank a dud cheque, I don’t care after day 3 even if the cheque isn’t dud, I’ll reject it.
I don’t care how many pages of science they have. Science isn’t measured by it’s weight. You don’t win a scientific argument because your work weighs more than your opponent’s work. It’s the quality of your wok that counts, and all the evidence points to the work of the UEA CRU and IPCC being hideously contrived.
The dismissal of Climategate as being inconsequential is pure bluff on the part of people who have been caught red handed, as what was revealed was horrific, both in revealing the vicious campaign run by a band of zealots driven to achieve a result with no regard to any scientific ethic. The greater surprise is that any scientist would wish to taint their reputation by working with them any more.
The scientists involved have betrayed climate science and THAT is a tragedy, but you can’t unscramble an egg and it would be very unhealthy to scoop this mess off the floor and try to serve it up again as if nothing happened.
I can guarantee that the UK inquiry will find the UEA CRU free from any wrongdoing, but that’s only going to make matters worse. Why governments can’t let go of this failure I can’t explain, but those that do are hitching up to a lost cause and fully deserve to end up in the same trash can.
UN ruined that car, maybe a turbocharged quadturbine “Green Monster” truck. (EPA rating: 0.05001632375664238231 MPG)
Nature also needs to be overhauled or scrapped. And so do many other scientifically corrupt journals.
This is just too rich. I like Dylan Ratigan but the MSNBC explanation that global warming causes Snowmaggedon is just off the charts.
Dylan Ratigan: Snowstorms Are Evidence Of Global Warming (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/dylan-ratigan-snowstorms_n_456945.html
Here is the GPO ad MSNBC is talking about.
12 inches of Global Warming
Here’s a novel idea. Why not get rid of the IPCC, and instead of having a digest of the “best” information on global warming replace it with, I don’t know um………peer reviewed studies? One requirement though, the peer reviewed Journals need to require that the authors make all data available to the public.
Dr A Burns (13:51:10) :”A ‘Wikipedia-IPCC’ ?! He must be kidding!”
Isn’t that exactly what we have now?
Oliver K. Manuel (13:52:52) : “Much more than IPCC needs an overhaul. It cannot be a mere (coincidence) when the (MSM) (all) distributed the same misinformation.”
Well, yes, it’s pretty frightening.
RockyRoad (15:33:05) : “…doesn’t ANYBODY have an idea…on who (the snitch) was?”
And why the hell would they snitch on the snitch? The IPCC goon squad would would toss her down a UN building stairwell. DUH²!!
http://cryptogon.com/?p=11788