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.
>>We can thank Al Gore, John Kerry, etc for turning the IPCC into a political machine without integrity.
I think that’s a bit strong. The UN was a political machine without integrity long before Gore and Kerry came along. They just figured out how to use it to their benefit.
The UN like the League of Nations before it is an organization based on a flawed concept, giving equal status to free nations and failed nations in search of “social justice”. Unfortunately, much like every other socialist program tried by the UN, AGW proposes not to raise the standards of the poor countries but to instead lower the standards of the successful ones.
The IPCC does not need to be reformed, you don’t reform a turd, you flush it. The world doesn’t need consensus it needs proof. If one scientist, just one, could provide conclusive proof of man having an affect on climate the world would respond. But after decades of study after study, grant after grant, summit after summit, there is no proof. Just a lot of hot air.
Find a new racket.
I know. I know. That’s to close to reality for a joke.
Acting for decades in bad faith, under false pretenses, the kakistocratic UN and its patently deceitful, self-serving agencies such as the IPCC deserve to be abolished root-and-branch, forthwith. Some things are unforgivable, and multi-trillion dollar global fraud from 1988 is one of them. Any multi-national venture of integrity such as CERN is capable of fending for itself on merit; the rest is but a bureaucratic charade, even as a clearing-house. If worldwide scientific communities have any sense, they will excrete the criminally malfeasant perpetrators of Gore’s “global warming” scam and stay very far away from invariably corrupt State influence in future.
It appear the guilty (or partly guilty) parties are all for throwing the bus under the bus. Reminds me of this:
The Six Stages of a Project:
1. Exultation.
2. Disenchantment.
3. Confusion.
4. Search for the Guilty.
5. Punishment of the Innocent.
6. Distinction for the Uninvolved.
I’d say Nature, et al, are standing around, trying to look uninvolved even before we reach Stage 3.
The entire edifice of corrupt science must be destroyed from the top down. We need another Eisenhower.
I hope that NASA GISS scientist understands that the reputation NASA has at the moment ain’t what we saw in “Apollo 13”, but is more in tune with “Space Balls”. Maybe he should clean his own dirty house before complaining about someone else’s.
I wish some AGW pusher would go over to my brothers house in Virgina and help him shovel the 4 feet of global warming in his driveway.
In the Daily Telegraph (England) today, sixteen peers in the House of Lords published a letter in the letters column. In this letter, these eminent scientists in the House of Lords stated, “There are important issues about scientific process and conduct that must and will be adressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia”.
Do we see why this statement is wrong? The reason is that the errors and tricks of the IPCC and the UoEA render these organisations incapable of addressing the processes and conduct. It is amazing that sixteen Peers of the Realm cannot see this.
To make things worse, these Peers go on to assume that all ‘peer reviewed scientific evidence’ is correct (“The overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that climate change is happening and is very likely to be caused by human activity”) and therefore these Peers derive the consequence that ‘support for a global deal to reduce emissions, building on the Copenhagen accord’ is required. Why? Because it is possible that ‘the risks are major and delay in action is dangerous’.
These sixteen Peers amaze me. They mention the phrase ‘climate change’ five times in this rather short letter, but they never mention the word ‘warming’ once. It seems to be awful to mention the word ‘conspiracy’, but could it be possible that they are covering their bums? Could it be possible that, if the world cools, they could then claim that they warned us that ‘climate change is happening’? Surely not! But if they mean ‘warming’, why not use the phrase ‘climate warming’? What is the problem?
One more thing. It has always been true, scientifically, that experimental confirmation is required in order to raise an ‘hypothesis’ to a ‘postulate’. I am not sure, here, whether the words that I am using are correct – what I mean is, to change a ‘possibility’ (a theory) into a ‘principle’ (a law of physics). In climate matters, there is no experimental confirmation, and therefore all climate change stuff is theory.
This is my idea in regards to future of IPCC – LOL
1.Suspend all activities immediately
2.Within 48 hr every employee must provide declaration of possible conflict of interest
3.Create teams of investigators (forensic auditors) chosen randomly from members states of UN
4.Repeat # 2 ( replace “employee” with “investigator”)
5.After reviewing conflict of interest declaration, first batch of taxpayer funded orange jump suits should be awarded immediately and recipients of this award should be removed from premises
instantly and transferred to nearest “ClubMed” office for future investigation.
6.Continue investigation for fraud, data manipulation and any illegal activity)
7.Reorder orange jump suits as necessary
8.Go to # 6 and repeat
9.If no more orange jump suits required close the door, switch off the lights and change the name
from IPCC to MCIPUN (most corrupted intergovernmental panel of UN)
10.Organize conference for climate science ( reps from any field of science are welcome)
11.Chose the chair by unanimous vote (LOTTO machine will do)
12.Repeat # 2
13.Create organization chart. FOIA policy and conflict of interest policy
14.Change the name from MCIPUN to IPES (Intergovernmental Panel on Earth Science )
15.Invite scientists from all the world to participate ( chose the best from the best)
16.Repeat # 2
17.Create website with all documentation so it can be reviewed by others.
18.Start from scratch
19.First AR1 of IPES should be ready Jan 01 2015
Will the “hockey stick” resurrected again? Will the spaghetti graph have move lines? Will the Climate computer models be V & V? Will all “Temperature” gathering equipment meet any type of standard? Will there be proper accounting For the UHI?
Big Al, I want my money back.
How can you overhaul a system that will put in the same trained scientists?
Right from the education they recieve to the government grants they accept, the same education is taught without regard to any solid evidence from elsewhere.
After all…We have a Nobel Peace Prize so were smart.
Well….doppy…doppy…me!
Junican (18:19:10) :
They also changed “the average ocean temperature” is cooling but the “surface ocean temperature” are increasing.
Smokey (15:08:49) : “The IPCC should be scrapped. But it probably won’t be.”
It should be scrapped and not replaced by anything, if only because China, India, and other developing countries are making it irrelevant. Our atmospheric “experiment” will proceed with or without an IPCC.
“But if the IPCC is brought back under the auspices of the UN, they should be required to publicly archive on-line, in real time, all data [both raw and adjusted, and all methods used]; all computer codes, algorithms methodologies and notes, at the same time that any statements, papers, findings, assessment reports, or conclusions are made. In other words, complete public transparency of the process that led to the conclusion.”
I was thinking the same thing when I saw the headline. It’s not a complete solution, especially with today’s overly credulous MSM, but it’s a step in the right direction.
When it comes to science, Nature now ranks somewhere between Popular Mechanics and The Inquirer.
There will only be reform when science is free from politics and people are free from political classes stealing their money via tax systems to fund science so as to purchase scientific validation of social, political and environmental ideology.
Western Society is in dire need of defunding this huge bureaucratic machine that threatens to distort our freedom and economy.
Money is power…. We have to stop giving them our money for nothing. Otherwise they will just change the name and keep playing the game.
I think its clear that since we can’t actually predict the climate, grand solutions that we put in place could do more harm than good. As many have pointed out, the damage may be irreversible and it might already be too late. What we need is a mitigation strategy that can be implemented incrementally on an as needed basis.
We could start by erecting structures for people to live in. This may sound like science fiction to a lot of people, but there are actually technologies available to control the climate inside of a structure. If it gets too cold, there’s a thing called a furnace. If it gets too hot, there’s a thing called an air conditioner. These technologies are not only proven to work, but cost effective and widely available.
Our next problem would be food. Places that grow food now might not be able to anymore. But places that can’t grow food now would become capable of growing it. We’d have to figure out which food grows the best where. We could put prices on food based on how much we need of a certain kind, and then farmers could figure out how to get maximum revenue from the land based on what it could grow the best. The historical record shows that this has happened in the past with farmers changing the kinds of crops they grow over the centuries in a given area, so we could do it again.
Of course some countries wouldn’t be able to grow enough food for themselves. But other countries would grow too much. What we could do is set up a system where countries that grow too much could trade it for other stuff they need with countries that grow too little. We could give it a fancy name… like World Trade or something.
I know this sounds awful complicated, but I bet it could be made to work, and I don’t think we would even need something like the UN to run it. It might just run on its own.
Quote: Mike D. (18:41:22) :
“When it comes to science, Nature now ranks somewhere between Popular Mechanics and The Inquirer.”
Very sadly, Mike, I agree with you.
I once ranked Nature as #1 for integrity. Lost credibility will not be easily restored.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
David Shepherd,
Thanks for the link.
Seems that Lacis was more worried about the clumsily worded and obvious overstating of the desired warmist conclusions than the conclusions themselves.
He’s all for misleading people with circumstantial evidence so long as it isn’t totally obvious and easily criticized by “skeptics”.
Too bad. I had hopes that one of these NASA guys would step forward and say that the Emperor was naked.
Why do we need any international organization at all. There’s no IPHP (intergovernmental panel on the Higgs particle) or genetics or artificial intelligence or cloning or … Well, I think you get the picture.
Let climate science be handled like any other. It’s not like there’s a problem that needs any more attention than any other science.
The game is over. Do not give an inch.
Lots of luck jettisoning such an international gravy train as the I.P.C.C.! Has anyone informed our President’s administration that “the gold standard” of AGW science is under attack by certain mainstream climate scientists? I find it interesting those scientists apparently could not determine AR-4 was junk science on its face and only turned against the report like back-biting dogs after having read bad things about it in the news media.
I think what we’re seeing here is more about fashion than science. The only thing some of these scientists know today that they did not know a year ago is that a large segment of THE PUBLIC now finds the IPCC to be ludicrous and those scientists are suddenly scrambling to get on the right side of the wave.
Actually, that’s not a Garratt. Here’s one:
Notice the two sets of drivers, fore and aft, and none under the boiler. But I agree with the sentiment, entirely!
/Mr Lynn
Scrap the IPCC, and the closely related instituions that feed along side of it.
The infestation is near 100%, the damage too complete. Totaled.
Cheaper to raze it to the ground and start anew.
I thought long & hard as to how to rebuild it, we had the technology, but that too has been outsourced. There’ll be no 6 million dollar Pachauri Man.
I have an idea. How about individual scientists publishing their respective findings in journals or on-line journals/fora, in which venues the press science reporters can wirte articles so the general public and policy makers will know what the leading experts from both sides of the issue conclude, and there would be no political organization which serves as the clearinghouse and megaphone of what it perceives as the relevant or important findings.
Oh. What’s that you say? That’s the way science actually DOES operate, and ALL other branches of science work perfectly well and have done for 100 years?
Let’s hear some calls to GET POLITICS OUT OF SCIENCE ALTOGETHER. NO NATIONAL OR WORLD BODIES CONTROLLING ANYTHING.
Reporters all tell us over and over. “We don’t write the news, we only report it.” Well we scientist need to stand up with our corollary. “We don’t invent the natural world* – we only observe, measure and try our best to make sense of it.”
*With the exception of some ClimateGaters
Pamela,
Yeah, Apollo 13 was a high point in “oh crap, what do we do now” engineering, but you have to admit, the Martain rovers are pretty good answers to a problem too.
That being said, I think there are still some engineering heads there, trying to fight the good fight from inside. I hate to say this, but feeding a family with a “secure” job sometimes means not getting shot outright – but being ethical and working to change the system. I’ve seen these folks in action, and they, sorry to say, sometimes move the corporate machine further than those who stand up and take the bullet. Both are needed, but these folks deserve credit too.
I wish the world were a little more black and white. The grey fogs my vision.
Mike