How to improve the IPCC

The IPCC hustles to print grey literature. They are a magnet for rants and writings than contain the meme.
Again, the science is in.

They need to rigidly and faithfully adhere to the “constraints” of the scientific method. IF they do that, then they have nothing to fear.
That means a total and complete end to replacing empirical evidence with models, hiding data, manipulating data, incestuous peer-groups, threatening publishers, threatening editors, having a hypothesis that cannot be dis-proven as any empirical evidence is suggestive of proof, regardless of the evidence and cause of the evidence…
IF they strictly use the scientific method to prove that CO2 is the sole driver of catastrophic warming, then they will be believed. They have failed to do so thus far.

“The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected there is a rapid way to get a correction made.
They need to find a quicker way to hide the decline? So, what kind of situational/utilitarian ethics do we think they’ll adopt? Seriously, the only way to improve the IPCC is to eliminate it. It’s purpose is politically founded. It’s a lobbying organization, not a scientific one.

How to improve the IPCC: Shut it down, it’s a useless obsolete organization.

Just end it. Put this terminally ill puppy out of its misery. It is a total waste of money that could be spent on something useful, and we have no need for its propaganda.
Of course, the tourism business in Bali, Cancun, etc., would take a hit but they’ll get over it.

The first thing they have to do is to scrap the idea that no matter what is going on with climate, man is responsible for it. Perhaps if they developed some objectivity – and some humility – they may not come off as such insufferable (expletive deleted).

The objective paragraph must be totally changed. The objective cannot be “Find proof for man made global warming” or similar.
Even a 6’th grader can see that this is unscientific. Could’nt the IPCC?
Yes they could, and that was the whole problem.
The objective was….to cherry pick proof for man made global warming.
Confirmation bias, indeed.
I think the only remedy is to shut down that organisation.

“John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has previously been critical of the IPCC, calling the product and process “prone to politicization and bias.”
Whoever he is, this Christy guy seems to have hit the nail on the head. One of the main problems of the IPCC is the involvement of governments which all too often leads to a watering down of many reports. For example, we know now that the last assessment report underestimated sea level rise, Arctic melt and temperature rise. Furthermore, it’s not only likely (>90%) but a proven fact that man-made CO2 has lead to an increase in global temperatures. The ongoing discussion is mostly about the possible impacts on our environment and our way of life, and how to reduce emissions.

He suggests “a climate wiki”. Following my own experience with wikipedia, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that wikis only amplify the ingrained biased of the “professionals”.
The problem with climate “science” is that there is so little concrete information and “peer review” has been actively used by wikipedia activists to create “fact” from fiction so allowing these activists to control which information is “allowed” into the wikipedia because they effectively control the peer review/aka wikipedia publishing system.
Basically a wiki can only work where there is an equal playing field from all people with expertise either within or outside the field. Unfortunately, in climate science the playing field is so clearly skewed that in this field a “wiki” simply means a propaganda tool.

By the way, I’m a bit surprised that a journal like Nature would quote someone like von Storch and present him as a climate scientist.

How to improve the IPCC?
You’ve got to be kidding! Its very premise is flawed in that it takes as a given that mankind is warming the climate. And to keep the funding tap wide open, it has to show that any warming is bad and will get even worse in the future.
Even so, there is another flaw that’s never spoken of in public. It’s a bureaucratic organization tied in to other bureaucratic organizations and, as such, operates under the principle of how to do less with more.

IPCC you later. The world will be far better off without you.

I’m with 1DandyTroll on this one: Don’t press Ctrl-Alt-Delete, just press Delete.

“When the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner.” That may be true or not, but it is not the major issue, in my opinion. If the IPCC AR4 report had claimed, as a result of a transcription error, that some swamp near Kalamazoo was likely to disappear by 2035 and it should have been 2350, then one might care to see how that error was corrected. In that case too, one would grant the IPCC their defense that in a report of 3000+ pages there are going to be a few errors. But the Himalayan glaciers are on a different scale of importance. The rivers that carry their melt-water are critical to the water supply in the Indian subcontinent. That the IPCC echoed this claim of possible disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 indicates that they lose their critical facilities when a claim is made that supports their preferred narrative. In this case, the error itself is the major issue, not how it was corrected.

” In fact, it includes reports from national academies of sciences, and reports from the International Energy Agency,” says Chris Field, an ecologist…”
Wrong examples Chris. Those examples support the contention that Grey Literature is a bunch of activists!!

The only way to improve upon the cancer of the IPCC is to either kill it or force it into remission.

Institutions evolve as their membership changes. Sometimes this can drive an institution in unhealthy directions. To see how an institution is likely to evolve you must consider the kinds of people who want to join.
The Catholic Church has struggled with this effect. Requiring priests to be celibate has had the unfortunate side effect of making the priesthood attractive to people who are afraid of their own sexuality, often for very good reason. The consequences of this we all know – lots of deviant priests.
Now look at the IPCC and ask yourself what kinds of people are going to want to join and what kinds of people are going to want out in the current environment. Exactly! Right now the moderate and the rational are getting out quick as they can, while the fanatical and political are queuing up to join. The natural consequence is that the IPCC is likely to become even more extreme and political and less scientific.
Expect no retractions from the IPCC regardless of what direction the science takes. I predict the next report will assert even more stridently that it is “worse than we thought” and call for even stronger political intervention. However the list of resignations from the IPCC would make very interesting reading.

@jimf
‘Hey guys: Forget Roald. He’s a troll, here to incite you to play his stupid little mindless trivial besmirching game.’
It’s very kind to point the fact that he’s a troll and that he doesn’t mind coming off as person who don’t want government interference in UN business, because I’m sure nobody else really noticed.
And he’s no troll, more a zealot like. :p

The IPCC needs a bullet between the eyes to put it out of its misery. KILL IT and save the rest of us lots and lots of tax dollars that could go to better use.

Might have worked under a “sunset clause” system of tenure limitation where those leading scientists and administrators were elected by their peers in science, rather than selected by political masters to do the devils bidding. Would be nice to see a peak scientific body dedicated to using scientific proof rather than vague scare mongering.
Easier I think to throw the whole lot out and start again and free from influence by the political machinations of UN agenda.

@Enduser et al.
I haven’t got the time or dedication to look up every paper that proves the link between man-made CO2 and Global Warming, but the fact that the US National Academy of Sciences (and many other leading scientific organisations) is convinced of AGW should be enough for starters. It also explains why the warming can’t be due to natural causes:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=29
This arcticle shows that the IPCC rather errs on the side of caution and how various governments interfere with the reports:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=conservative-climate
As to the Nature article and the troubles of the IPCC, perhaps I haven’t made myself clear enough. My idea is to keep politics out of the advisory council and let peer reviewed science (i.e. Working Group 1) speak for itself. The media have reported copiously on the couple of howlers found in WG2, but nobody could find fault with the hard science assembled by the first group.
By the way, it seems that Dr.Spencer has lost some of his data. I’m missing the graph for the record temperatures and the 20-year average on channel 5:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

Roald, highschool science class physics proves that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and that the amount we have released into the atmosphere will have some “warming effect”. OK nobody (even the sceptical scientists) would really dispute that.
What is in serious dispute is the extent of that warming and whether or not feedbacks are amplifying, or cancelling out such warming and whether the climate is anywhere near as sensitive to increases in CO2 as the IPCC assessment reports claim.
The MODELS show a high sensitivity. (they are programmed to do so.)
The Empirical evidence shows a very low degree of sensitivity.
To claim that the science is settled is a plain lie. There is massive disagreement about clouds for a start, let alone all the solar experts who were pretty unanimous back in 2006 about projecting that we would be highly into a massive cycle 24 by now. “4 has started but the solar activity is almost dead. Now all these solar scientists are pretty unanimously saying , “we haven’t a clue why this is like this!”
We do not know how clouds react to warming/cooling. We do not know how the sun works, we do not know how the oceans work, we do not know how sensitive the atmosphere is to increasing CO2. There is an enormous amount of “stuff” that is simply not known about how the climate actually works or why it does what it does. We CANNOT (I repeat) CANNOT predict the future direction of climate. END OF STORY!
Do not even begin to get me started on how atrocious and inaccurate global temperature measurements have been and how we cannot have any confidence whatsoever in the historical temperature record, for I would be writing all day!!! Suffice to say that the IPCC and many eminent scientists claim that the earth has warmed by about 0.6 Celsius degrees over the last century or so…
The way in which that is measured is abysmal and utterly flawed. The cruel fact is, we do not know for certain what the global average temperature should be, let alone if it is going up or down. The direction of temperature depends entirely on what date one starts measuring anyway.
The IPCC is a political machine with the sole objective of PROVING that MAN IS WARMING THE PLANET! They are NOT tasked with establishing how the climate actually works. They are not tasked with deducing what the climate is doing or is likely to do next. They are paid an enormous sum of money to convince the world of a pre-defined, non falsifiable hypothesis.
After over 30 years of CO2 alarmism and billions and billions of dollars of research, they have failed to PROVE their claim that man is solely responsible for warming the planet to dangerous levels through our emissions of CO2.
They have managed to bastardise science, threaten and demonise publishers, create a tiny “in-group” of incestuous scientists who rubber stamp each other’s work, ignore, omit, manipulate data to fit the hypothesis, and worse, but they have not scientifically proven that mankind’s small addition of CO2 somehow stops the logarithmic nature of the absorption of radiative heat by the CO2 molecules and turns it into a linear absorption thus increasing the “greenhouse” warming of the planet from a tiny increase in a trace-gas.

OOPS the link got croggled for #3.
3) The effect of CO2 on temperature is LOGARITHMIC In other words you get the most change at low levels of CO2 and the least change at higher levels until you reach a point where the change in CO2 has do measurable effect. Therefore there is no “tipping point” only a “saturation point”

How to improve the IPCC
As with all fecal material – total elimination.

Roald says: June 18, 2010 at 3:34 am
I have never claimed that, and nor have most of the climate experts. All I said was that the link between CO2 and temperature was rock solid and you seem to agree to some extent.
Yes, we agree to that. However, data shows the link to be temperature increase comes first.
The IPCC was created to compile a catalouge of all the relevant papers on this topic and advise political leaders.
A task at which they have failed miserably. Witness the intentional omission of 700 + papers and counting.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
We may not know everything and we never will
Now there’s some logic. So do we or don’t we?
…….but for some time now we know enough to act on.
If by action you mean inaction, then I agree.
In 100 years we can say with certainty which of the models was right but it might be to late.
I concur. It will be too late if we commit economic hara-kari based on a correlation taken to be causation.

Roald,
Control question for you;
What is the temperature on the sunny side of the moon?
What do you think the temperature would be on earth without an athmosphere?
So, what is it that has an overall cooling-effect on earth?
hmmmm?
Here is some reading for you;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33181109/Rescue-from-the-Climate-Saviors-1-1