UPDATE: The interest in this appears to be so high, that the IPCC server holding the PDF report has crashed @ reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net All links to it are down up now about 2 hours later. Thanks to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. I have added the recommendations from IAC below the NYT story. Related: McKitrick: Fix the IPCC process
UPDATE2: Local copy secured, thanks to WUWT readers AdderW and Christopher Monckton download (full report 1.5MB) here:
Climate_Change_Assessments_Review_of_the_Processes_Procedures_IPCC
Pre-release summary report (short form 90K) here:
UPDATE3: RealClimate breaks radio silence for this and posts for the first time in over a week with their typical “nothing to see here move along” meme. From their point of “It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes -” I assume then they endorse replacement of top IPCC officials, even though they make no mention of that point. I’m sure WUWT readers can ask their position, assuming such comments are allowed.
From the “we told you so months ago” department, and the NYT; the InterAcademy Council, karma, and Mister Return to Almora are on a collision course.
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 70-643 exam dumps and 70-536 practice test to competently prepare for 1Y0-A08 exam.
Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
UNITED NATIONS — The scientists involved in producing the periodic United Nations reports on climate change need to be more open to alternative views and more transparent about their own possible conflicts of interest, an independent review panel said Monday.
…
The revelations about the errors contributed to the already highly charged debate about the science of climate change and gave added ammunition to critics doubting assessments that the earth is warming. Coming on the heels of leaked e-mails among some of the leading climate change researchers which suggested that they were manipulating data, the mistakes contributed to what surveys showed were an erosion in public confidence in the science of climate change.
…
The changes recommended by the panel include replacing the top eight officials responsible for producing the United Nations reports every seven years or so. That throws into question whether Rajendra K. Pachauri, the current chairman of the panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should remain to oversee the report due out in 2013-14.
Read the full story here
h/t to a zillion people who read WUWT, thanks.
============================================================
Here are recommendations found in the body of the report:
Governance and Management
The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.
The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
Review Process
The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.
The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty
All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.
Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).
Communications
The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.
Additional recommendations:
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings more transparent.
The IPCC should establish a formal set of criteria and processes for selecting Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.
The IPCC should make every effort to engage local experts on the author teams of the regional chapters of the Working Group II report, but should also engage experts from countries outside of the region when they can provide an essential contribution to the assessment.
The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.
Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.
The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.
The IPCC should revise its process for the approval of the Summary for Policy Makers so that governments provide written comments prior to the Plenary.
All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.
Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur.
Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).
The confidence scale should not be used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.
The likelihood scale should be stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words to improve understanding of uncertainty.
Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.
The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.
The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills.
The terms of the Working Group Co-chairs should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
The IPCC should redefine the responsibilities of key Secretariat positions both to improve efficiency and to allow for any future senior appointments.
The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment.
The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat).
The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is the London telegraph link to this report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7971780/Climate-change-predictions-must-be-based-on-evidence-report-on-IPCC-says.html
Christopher Booker is running his piece this week on the CDM ripoff taking place at the hands of the UN.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7969102/The-Clean-Development-Mechanism-delivers-the-greatest-green-scam-of-all.html#disqus_thread
“Easily the largest and most lucrative component in the CDM market is a peculiar racket centred on the manufacture of CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, classified under Kyoto as greenhouse gases vastly more damaging than carbon dioxide. The way the racket works is that Chinese and Indian firms are permitted to carry on producing a refrigerant gas known as HCF-22 until 2030. But a by-product of this process is HCF-23, which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. By destroying the HCF-23, the firms can claim Certified Emission Reduction credits worth billions of dollars when sold to the West (while much of the useful HCF-22 is sold onto the international black market).
Last year, destruction of CFCs accounted for more than half the CDM credits issued, in a market that will eventually, it is estimated, be worth $17 billion. Of the 1,390 CDM projects so far approved, less than 1 per cent accounts for 36 per cent of the total value.”
It still does not go far enough. The IPCC should be disbanded, wrapped up and discharged. It serves not purpose in the science and only muddies the political atmosphere with lies and exaggerations.
Yeup, that IPCC server’s crashed alright.
WUWT-induced IPCC crash.
From the conclusion of the evaluatiuon of the IPCC assessment procvess:
The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound …..huh.
The very purpose of the IPCC was to push an adgenda – the process stems from that. It is a gigantic example of begging the question.
From the report:
“Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”
Compare this to Pachauri’s statements from last year:
“In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an IPCC assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping IPCC assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.”
And:
“The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.”
Real climate has broken cover, same stuff as elsewhere. You are watching a co-ordinated respons kick in ladies and gentlemen.
They are not a controlling legal authority…..
At R.C. Gavin sees this only as further strengthening the IPCC and the comments above this post (at this time) as “contrarian spin”. Optimisim from a pessimist: now that is contrarian!
Love these points
..problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment
.
…authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence
.
..making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements
.
..contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.
‘For what Its Worth’ … I believe I put this episode into its correct context here …
http://trevorsden.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/revelation/
What does this tell us about 2500 of the worlds leading climate experts who were supposed to have produced the most peer reviewed document in the history of scientific endeavour?
We can only wonder how it will be going down in the media and other quarters who have gone along with the catastrophe theory. The media likes nothing better than a good story to sell, so there is always the possibility that it could develop into a nasty backlash.
But whatever happens, this will stain the very name of science in the eyes of Joe P.
Well, this is shaping up into a FUBAR of classic proportions. Pachy had better get his resume’ ready…
Professors Martin Parry (IPCC chair) and Mike Hulme (UEA) interviewed this morning on BBC Radio Four’s ‘Today’ programme over the roles played by politics and ‘climate science’ in shaping policy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8954000/8954116.stm [6:52]
Pachauri has overstayed his term. He should step down now and devote his spare time to giving advice the oil technology company he helped set up and continues to advise to this day. While at the same time telling us that we must reduce the level of manmade co2 released into the atmosphere. :o)
“The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself. Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly. When statements are well defined and supported by evidence—by indicating when and under what climate conditions they would occur—the likelihood scale should be used.”
“IPCC assessments are intended to rely mainly on peer-reviewed literature. […] An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).”
“Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.”
“Non-peer reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer reviewed. […] Moreover, a search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peer reviewed.”
“Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”
“A near-universal observation—made in presentations, interviews, and responses to the questionnaire—was the need to strengthen the authority of the Review Editors to ensure that authors consider the review comments carefully and document their responses. With the tight schedule for completing revisions, authors do not always do an adequate job of revising the text and Review Editors do not always require them to explain why they rejected a comment.” “This includes paying special attention to review comments that point out contradictions, unreferenced literature, or potential errors; and ensuring that alternate or dissenting views receive proper consideration.”
“The IPCC uncertainty guidance provides a good starting point for characterizing uncertainty in the assessment reports. However, the guidance was not consistently followed in the fourth assessment, leading to unnecessary errors. For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.”
“IPCC’s mandate is to be policy relevant, not policy prescriptive. However, as noted above, IPCC spokespersons have not always adhered to this mandate.”
“Data are the bedrock on which the progress of science rests. The extraordinary development of new measuring techniques and new digital technologies has enabled climate scientists to assemble vast quantities of data. However, the large size and complex nature of these databases can make them difficult to access and use. Moreover, for various reasons many of these scientific databases as well as significant unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature are not in the public domain. An unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to freedom-of-information requests were the main problems uncovered in some of the controversies surrounding the IPCC (Muir Russell et al., 2010; PBL, 2010). Poor access to data inhibits users’ ability to check the quality of the data used and to verify the conclusions drawn. Consequently, it is important for the IPCC to aspire toward ensuring that the main conclusions in its assessment reports are underpinned by appropriately referenced peer-reviewed sources or, to the greatest extent practical, by openly accessible databases.”
It doesn’t matter what RC says they are not MSM; here is how the ABC in Australia runs their front page:
“Climate panel review demands major shake-up
A shake-up has been recommended for the United Nations’ climate panel, a body which came under fire recently in the so-called “Climategate” scandal.
A new report, released at the United Nations in New York, is recommending changes to the way the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is run and the way its science is presented.”
RC – a couple of thousand readers??
ABC – Hundreds of thousands if not more
jason says:
August 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm “You are watching a co-ordinated respons kick in ladies and gentlemen.”
Or the response we’re seeing reflects a broad acceptance that the IPCC is indeed facing an evolving challenge to communicate the current state of scientific knowledge and a recognition from those involved that this IAC review has made some sensible recommendations on how to achieve just that?
Throwing the scientists under the bus?
As I read this I am mostly replacing IPCC with UN, unless the acronym is UN IPCC to begin with.
The whole mess needs to end. They do nothing except squander and waste. They are ignored by anyone they attempt to “punish”. They redistribute to no avail, in most cases enriching those least worthy as if it were their main purpose. They are the most wasteful organisation in the history of humanity.
They ignore, and are designed to ignore this type of thing on a regular, and regularly depressing basis.
Until WG1 is fixed, the other Working Groups should be suspended. What possible good can come from the other WG’s when WG1 is such a cluster?
“However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence.”
I’d like to know exactly which statement those were . Unless the committee specifies which statement were overblown, then one can only assume that the whole of AR4 is untrustworthy.
So, who will be the next IPCC chairman?
Michael Mann or James Hansen? Maybe Phil Jones? No, Al Gore.
This won’t change anything, just make them more careful.
For a moment I thought it was April 1st…
Ecotretas
Well, this ‘novice troll vegetarian’ (ascribed to me by James Delingpole, luminary skeptic at the Telegraph) who, surprisingly, is a meat eater, is not a troll and explained gently to Delingpole why he and Professor Sir Paul Nurse FRS didn’t exactly enjoy a meeting of minds (see Delingpole’s blog at http://www.telegraph.co.uk to see the correspondence) became the subject of ad hominem attacks by that arch right winger who has, until now, regarded that as the domain of the warmists.
So I wouldn’t be too self-righteous about the IPCC. They’re wrong, but skeptics can get pretty uptight and rude too, you know……………especially if they need to be right and can’t put their mind into the position of their protagonist who must represent British Science and Scientists in his new role as President of the Royal Society……….
Spoken by someone who around Copenhagen time was regarded as a ‘lobbyist for the tobacco industry’ and all the other insults…….when I was actually a professional cancer researcher for a decade and did not take money from an oil company in my life……..
I guess what you learn is that the insults come from those who seek not the truth but to win…………and who consider anyone insulting them back to be a loser, which is a rather strange position to take, since surely the decision should be based on whose insults were more accurate, piercing and stinging, not the order in which they were hurled…………which in my case, are almost always second………………..
Think about that as people rightly decide how to recalibrate the institutions of climate science to produce a desired end product of quality data translated into cost-conscious actions or non-actions as needed…………
I just wish that the U.S. would spend half as much money toward nuclear fusion as they do on hot climate. There are several promising companies trying to come up with a solution to this type of nuclear energy. Some are General Fusion and Polywell. Some people in the field think 1-2 more years and it might be possible to make this a reality.
These small companies need federal funding but so do the car companies. ALAS.