A formal announcement was made in a press conference made at 12:30PM EST by the IPCC, which is getting press, for example here. But at the time of this writing, there’s no mention of it whatsoever on the main IPCC web page here:
UPDATE: They’ve finally added a mention of the press release, click link to see the updated main page.
From the The Times by Ben Webster
The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.
A team of the world’s leading scientists will investigate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ask why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.
The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
…
More at the Times
However having a look at the IPCC web page and lack of any mention of it on the main page that I can find, it would seem the announcement is more about PR than procedure. It doesn’t share the side bar or center stage with the upcoming AR5 or any of the other blurbs they’ve released in their defense in the last couple of months. [Note as mentioned above, they’ve added a link on the main page now. ]
To find it, you have to visit the Press Information page where they write:
====================================================
 |
 |
Launch of Independent Review of IPCC Processes and ProceduresNew York, UN Headquaters, 10 March 2010 |
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC Chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri launched an Independent Review of the IPCC Processes and Procedures at a Press event held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday 10 March 2010. This was followed by a Press conference, where Robbert Dijkgraaf, Co-Chair of the InterAcademy Council (IAC), spoke to correspondents and answered questions.
The entire event was available live to journalists via the UN webcast at:: http://www.un.org/webcast/
The IPCC alerted media correspondents before it took place.
Accompanying documents are:
PRESS RELEASE – “Scientific Academy to Conduct Independent Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
Processes and Procedures at Request of United Nations and IPCC”
Terms of Reference for the Independent Review by the IAC
Letters by the Chair of the IPCC and the UN Secretary General to the Co-Chairs of the InterAcademy Council (IAC)
(to be made available as soon as possible)
===================================================
It would seem they don’t much care for putting an attempt to restore credibility on the main page. Makes you wonder.
It will be interesting to see how they explain away some of the more blatant issues, like this one: IPCC Ignored Wildfire Corrections — 3 times
The IPCC starts an independent review.
A large flock of birds suddenly falls from the sky.
Deforestation has yielded the (possible) discovery of a giant impact crater in Central Africa.
The inconsistencies are adding up, multiplying, growing exponentially, then being homogenized and averaged to normalcy. The matrix is destabilizing. Prepare for reboot.
“In view of the relevance of the IPCC assessments for global and sub-global policy-making processes, and to reduce the occurrence and minimize the potential impact of errors in the preparation of reports, further strengthening the IPCC processes and procedures is necessary to ensure continued scientific credibility of its assessments.”
Translation: We need to find new ways to stoke fear, without getting caught. However, until there is an investigation into the professional integrity of the IPCC Chair and associates – there is no “credibility.”
Robert Dijkgraaf will dress your windows, mark my words !.
Unfortunately, Britain’s Royal Society and the United States National Academy of Sciences are no longer objective scientific societies but are themselves perpetrators of, and participants in, the AGW fraud.
The UN review will be a whitewash along the lines of “Mistakes were made, but the overwhelming scientific evidence … blah blah blah …”
Then, I hope some journos stand up at the press conference and demand to see this evidence.
@ur momisugly Milwaukee Bob (12:26:02) : Do you have a link to the Chu comment re: greenhouse gas layer?
ML (12:46:59) :shhh…. we don’t want the warmers to know how utterly sensible Canada is!
So are they going to review the ‘errors’ with Phil Jones? At his interview with parliament ?
I see two things … first this dog and pony show won’t hunt. Second the only real science now is open science, all above boards, all done in public, open to anyone.
So why not we just start over …
This just in (-:10 Mar ’10, 16:36 PST:-) :
“A team of the world’s leading scientists investigated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and asked why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.
“The review was overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members were drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
“The review was led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
“No mistakes were noted. End of report”
____________
Woooo, that’s fast work!
Of course they haven’t even started, how could it already be over? Unless,… no… no something like that couldn’t happen… you don’t think they’ve already decided what they’re going to find and say, do you?
Would you want to be on this Investigation Team looking at
the UN’s Climate Mafia?
The Royal Society in the UK is not a disinterested party when it comes to AGW. See http://royalsociety.org/Preventing-dangerous-climate-change/. So what are they doing on this panel? Then again, would one expect the UN really to set up an “independent” panel?
Well, what d’you know? Further to my post at 11.50, I re-visited the BBC website to re-read Richard Black’s article and found that ‘small errors’ has been changed to just ‘errors’! Could it be that somebody at the BBC has taken to reading WUWT?
Kinda says it all.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”—Upton Sinclair“
Data always beats theories. ‘Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion, ‘ versus ‘coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.‘The former will win every time.”—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
(Sweden)
Martin Rees?
Independent?? Hahahhahahahahah!!!!! Hahahahahahahah!
Royal Society independent?? Hahahahahahahah!
Dijkgraaf independant?? Hahahahahahahah! Hahhahahahahaha!
UNSA independant?? Hahahahahahahahahahah!
They have allready gone all in the AGW race!
Why should they do a rewiew when they allready declared the outcome?
Do they belive that the world is populatet intirely by morons??
This is an intellectual insult and a contempt of the people.
They have obviously lost all contact with reality.To start an obvious white wash at this stage…Im lost for words ….are trying to start a civilwar or a french revolution ?????? They wont get a way with this …not ever!!!
They are so desperate that they`ve turned blunt stupid!
Today, a provincial politician had gotten off with a $500 traffic violation fine as a plea bargain by the government for Drunk driving and Cocaine possession.
Can you see what IPCC will try to pull with their stacked review panel of peer reviewers?
SSDD
Unfortunately for them, it is an illusion to think this exercise will restore credibility – science in general has been so tainted by this mess that no one will trust the independent reviewers any more than the IPCC. Dismantling the IPCC would be a good start in restoring credibility, but to fully regain credibility, any replacing organization would have to be completely an open source environment. Only then can credibility start to be restored.
kadaka (14:36:23) :
‘Didn’t you hear? All 2500 to 4000 full-fledged scientists who worked on “the FAR” were all unpaid volunteers.’
Yea, I know. All those unpaid volunteers had to hitchhike to the last IPCC meeting, sleep on park benches, beg for food and wrote the “Summary” used paper. No Tax Payer funds involved.
If you point out a discrepancy between what the “consensus” says and the raw data, the in-house (but “independent”) review will find the pointer outer guilty. Trust me, I know.
Pamela Gray (18:11:07) :
If you point out a discrepancy between what the consensus says and the raw data, the in-house (but independent) review will find the pointer outer guilty. Trust me, I know.
Sounds like your employment sucked!
Hmm. The Royal Society. I’m sure Prince Charles will believe them.
Meanwhile, over at ClimateDepot.com they have an astonishing article from a site called Faxts.com – not to be confused with facts – that reveals just how desperate the gang is getting and what is coming.
They are already playing the victim card full tilt, and being as honest as usual.
Here’s the gist of it, starting with a fantastic headline based entirely on ‘expert’ speculation:
ENVIRONMENT: Violent Backlash Against Climate Scientists
Tuesday, 09 March 2010 16:43 Written by Stephen Leahy
“UXBRIDGE, Canada, Mar 9 (IPS) – Climate change science has come under full-scale attack in a last-ditch effort to delay or prevent action by the U.S. government against global warming, experts warn.
U.S. Senator James Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma and climate change denier, in late February released a list of leading climate scientists he wants prosecuted as criminals for misleading the government. Those scientists are receiving hate mail and death threats.
”I have hundreds” of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.
He believes scientists will be killed over this. ”I’m not going to let it worry me… but you know it’s going to happen,” said Schneider, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. ”They shoot abortion doctors here.”
This backlash against the evidence of climate change and the scientists themselves is not just a U.S. phenomenon. It is happening in Canada, Australia, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, in other European countries.
On the surface, this campaign is about a few errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2,800-page report released in 2007 and some 10-year-old personal emails stolen from Britain’s University of East Anglia.
But deeper down, this is the last big effort by the fossil fuel industry to delay action on fighting climate change, just as the tobacco industry successfully delayed understanding of the harmful effects of smoking for several decades, says Schneider…”
Etc., etc. And at the end they were kind enough to provide the source of this propaganda:
“(*This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.)”
Thanks Anthony!
This site has the perfect conditions to become an established bastion of uncorrupted published climate science. It’s allready an established forum for open transparent peer rewiew, only the official declaration of it is what’s missing. A contrast to the bunker mentality of the IPCC.The completely idiotic idea to release a chapter every 3-5 years is as much out of date as the similar five year plans that where produced in the old CCCP.
So what’s missing? Founding! I think that we all who frequently visit this site have an obligation to contribute in some way. We know that its very important to develop and obtain this site. Because its a site we trust! To secure the intrest of the authors I think Anthony should set up a fund to finance both his work and the article authors publishing on the site. I’m sure funds will tick in.
In a situation where the old “papers” been published in “Nature” aso when it comes to climate science. The competition is weak now Anthony! Just go for it!!
When it comes to visitors, who beats this site?? You have all ready established a new way and attracted a new big public to the peer rewiew process. And for the science of climate it’s a boost!! Obviously, it’s hard to get papers published if you’re not pro AGW. Well on WUWT it may be easier to publish but harder to be approved to start with.
From the deepest of my heart I would like to thank Anthony and all the fantastic authors and their efforts and success to “publish” articles in a way that even laymen like me can understand. You are also by your actions fighting the blunt deep and wide corruption of both the Science and democracy. I know some of you are sticking your career necks out on behalf/in favor of us who only read and comment.
From the bottom of my heart, Thank you all! And thanks all of you who engage yourselves in this subject for all its complex democratic and scientific importance.
Maybe we will see this Buisiness card soon:
Anthony Watts
Chief Editor WUWT
The leading publishing/site of climate science
It’s hard for the UN to do good work when it has to rely on “deadbeat” nations for funding:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/white-house-sla.html
Look at Major League Baseball – the teams with the worst payrolls usually do the worst – Nationals, Pirates, Padres (all in the bottom 4 of 30 teams):
http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm
You want quality work – you gotta pay for it:
2009 Yankees – largest payroll, World Series Champs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Major_League_Baseball_season
Al Gored!
Well??? They haven’t understood that “big oil” is funding the AGW movement.
Just check under “contributors” on East Anglia you will see.The problem with the AGW ers is that they don’t care about facts at all
.And when they after acting like drill sergeants plays the role of the “princess on the pea” it gets pathetic.And of course people gets angry when lied to and bullied.
Slabadang (17:10:21) :
(Sweden)
Martin Rees?
…
Do they belive that the world is populatet intirely by morons??
———
I knew a scientist who had been a PhD student of Dr. Rees, who spoke of him on occasion.
Dr. Martin Rees, Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics, Astronomer Royal, President of the Royal Society, author of more than 500 research papers, and one of the first to propose that enormous black holes power quasars (and recently created Baron Rees of Ludlow, of Ludlow in the County of Shropshire) believes the world is populated largely by morons.
I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century. — Dr. Rees
(written in the 21st century)
Hope this helps.
Anu (20:24:49),
You’re getting desperate with your analogies. No one picked up Einstein in his rookie years, when he formulated special and general relativity. So enough with your baseball analogies.
Arguing that we should shovel good money after bad into the thoroughly corrupt UN is nothing but pathetic world government boot-licking. That is a completely hare-brained idea after the Oil-For-Food corruption, and the blue-helmeted raping and pillaging by UN soldiers who were sent to stop raping and pillaging.
We can provide more effective direct aid than the UN can, doubled and squared, with the same amount of money. So why should we funnel our tax money through the sticky fingers of the UN kleptocrats, who only leave the crumbs for the people who need it, and who pocket the rest?
The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.
They cannot gain any ground toward credibility until they remove and denounce Pachauri.
“The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”
britain’s royal society has long been taken over by WWF activists,
the american NAS is run by stephen schneider and his streetfighters including michael mann’s enabler Gerry North.
the chinese academy of science, however, is an unknown.