“When the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner.”
A former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that the organization should adopt a code of conduct and develop a mechanism to fix errors more quickly.
On 15 June, Robert Watson, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 until 2002, testified before an independent review committee tasked with improving the credibility of the United Nations’ group.
The 12-person panel of scientists and economists, chaired by Harold Shapiro, a former president of Princeton University in New Jersey, was asked by the UN to review the IPCC, which has faced numerous criticisms in recent months (see: IPCC flooded by criticism). In particular, the organization has admitted to making an error in its last comprehensive report, released in 2007, which said that the Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by 2035.
“To me the fundamental problem was that when the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner,” Watson told the committee, gathered at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, by teleconference. “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. That is something that needs to be looked at very carefully,” said Watson.
Read the rest of the story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Right how to improve the IPCC.
Delete, delete, delete, delete. What IPCC? o_O
Just put Dr Lindzen in charge. He worked on AR3 so he has IPCCian experience, and he’s probably the only true scientist behaving like a proper scientist, that’s doing climate stuff, anyway. Or just put him in charge of GISS to flush out the turds that keep clogging the system.
IPCC you later. The world will be far better off without you.
Here s the IPCC mission statement:
Courtesy of Steve Schneider:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
I’m with 1DandyTroll on this one: Don’t press Ctrl-Alt-Delete, just press Delete.
I agree, put Dr. Lindzen in charge.
“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, the IPCC made no such admission of error. Its statement at
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf merely indicates that “the second paragraph in section 10.6-2” of WGII was “poorly substantiated”, ie not up to IPCC’s commitment only to use primary sources.
The statement fully stands by the summary’s conclusion that there are widespread mass losses of the glaciers and ice caps that supply freshwater, in particular in the Himalayan region. Any reasonable person reading only this statement would not know that the paragraph in question was actually wrong, let alone how it was wrong.
stephen richards says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Science has never before been managed by a political organisation.
Yes it has. By the Catholic church from around 300AD to around 1640AD.
Guard freedom of thought well. We haven’t had it long, and we could easily lose it again.
Roald says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“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.”
Oh really?
Roald…. “Furthermore, it’s not only likely (>90%) but a proven fact that man-made CO2 has lead to an increase in global temperatures.”
Would you care to back up those statements with some proof?
From everything that I’ve been able to read, the statement “man-made CO2 has led to an increase in global temperatures” is anything but a proven fact.
Please point out the actual scientific observations that show a direct causal link between additional CO2 in the atmosphere and higher global temperatures.
spin it again Sam……..
“”, in part because it was the source of the glacier error. But many believe some of it to be valuable. “People automatically think that grey literature is [only] from activists and non-governmental organizations’ reports. In fact, it includes reports from national academies of sciences, and reports from the International Energy Agency,”””
But in the example case, it wasn’t. So why spin it?
” 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!!
Roald says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm
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.
True, that is a problem for climate bedwetters. For climate realists, though, not so much. Even watered-down Alarmist nonsense is still Alarmist nonsense.
The only way to improve upon the cancer of the IPCC is to either kill it or force it into remission.
Hey guys: Forget Roald. He’s a troll, here to incite you to play his stupid little mindless trivial besmirching game. My advice is to respond to the article or to other relevant comments. This one is a loser with no thought to add to anything.
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.
Defund it then disband it.
@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
Awww c’mon, this is such a no-brainer. You don’t need some high powered committee to figure out how to improve the IPCC. A simple one step procedure would fix the IPCC in an instant. Ready with your note pads?
STEP 1-) Appoint Viscount Christopher Monckton as chairman.
FIXED
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.
Why would you reduce emissions if the possible impacts discussion is still on-going?
Can you bring yourself to admit to some benefits of a warmer planet?
For some reason I picture you as wearing Ronald McDonald shoes and make up
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.
My issue with the IPCC is their tendency to initally ignore any errors that have been identified until they receive a wide level of publicity. My understanding is they were made aware of the error relating to himalayan glaciers long before they finally publicly conceded the error.
The same is true with their comments on hurricanes. They were told long before it became public knowlege that AGW is not likely to lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes.
Their approach to any one who disputes any finding in their report is shoot the messenger and do nothing unless it becomes widely publicised. This is disgraceful behaviour from a body that purports to rely on the “concensus of science”.
They will never be trustworthy whilst they adopt this approach.
CodeTech says:
June 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm
So, since CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, how are they going to correct that error?
They can’t – see below for R. de Hann’s answer!
R. de Haan says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm
How to improve the IPCC: Shut it down, it’s a useless obsolete organization.
Politics and Science, can’t work.