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.
Abraham Lincoln said it:
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
This success owes much credit to this weblog.
I think New York Times is on the right track now:
“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.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html
Even New Scientist is improving:
“Pachauri to go? In a move that will inevitably be seen as a criticism of the IPCC’s leadership, the IAC recommended that senior managers should only be permitted to serve one six-year term in their roles. This implies that Pachauri should not oversee the forthcoming fifth assessment report, as he presided over the previous assessment.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19378-climate-panel-must-fundamentally-reform-to-survive.html
I think it would be difficult for Norwegian authorities and journalists if Pachauri had to go.
They gave him the Nobel price…
These assessments and recommendations amount to huge slaps in the face ot the IPCC – left, right and center.
Invariant,
Like the carbon trading markets where carbon is essentially valueless, on the Nobel Peace prize market it is likely that future trading in Nobel Peace prizes will be at a nearly valueless level.
John
John Whitman says:
August 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Invariant,
Like the carbon trading markets where carbon is essentially valueless, on the Nobel Peace prize market it is likely that future trading in Nobel Peace prizes will be at a nearly valueless level.
John
Yes. Also they gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace prize too early, so they have reduced the impact of the reward somewhat. (My personal opinion is that Barack Obama and Steven Chu had solid and intelligent comments about saving the rainforest and installing a worldwide supergrid when they were here in Norway last year – I suspect that they may be suspicious about manmade climate change but that the political climate is not there yet…).
If the recommendations are adopted, AND real scientists are put in charge, it will mean the end of CAGW and support for collectivist political policies.
If the recommendations are NOT adopted, I predict a “tipping point” of public contempt for the IPCC and the CAGW crowd. (“tipping point”? Where have I heard that before?…)
I predict a long period of solitude, for Dr Pachauri – so he will probably be in need of a new red silk hanky……
.
.
>>>This success owes much credit to this weblog.
Indeed.
Which is why we should all place something in the tip-box, on the right side of this page. The Carbon Credit scam would have cost us all dearly, with a tax on almost everything we purchase. WUWT has probably saves us all $thousands (£thousands or €thousands), so a small tip is quite overdue.
.
Well, below is the second IAC report related comment that I tried to post over at RC today but it seems to have disappeared without being posted. But, I am an optimist and both of the emails are probably being processed as I speak!
Do you think it was too skeptical? Seemed pro-science to me. I thought it was something that a site like RC that clearly views themselves as pro-science would appreciate.
Do you think it is my mouthwash or underarm deodorant, or what?
John
——————-
Of course the IAC did not call for the removal of the current IPCC officials, but rather for their replacement every 7 years or so. A big difference.
Never the less, faith in IPCC will not be restored for quite some time, rightly or wrongly. Really, the truth is that the average person on the street could care less about the IPCC or even knows anything about it, and it is only odd-ball climate junkies (warmist and skeptic alike), climate scientist, and policymakers who care one way or another. The climate junkie will form their opinoin based on their personal experience and somewhat on their political leanings, the scientist will form their opinion based on their own educational and special areas of interest, knowledge, and research, and the policymaker will almost always eat the particular flavor of hay as spun and fed to them by their political party. So who really cares about what the IPCC says? Answer: Primarily those who wish to spin IPCC findings or IPCC errors (i.e. climategate) into poltical hay and feed the political machines.
Bottom line: every day the average man or woman on the street goes about their life and could care less about the IPCC and the average climate scientist, though informed about IPCC findings (and maybe even contributing parts to them) probably knows that the final report might be used one way or another for poltical purposes, and here, for the honest scientist, their roads will part.
The IPCC server crashing under the weight of public scrutiny should send the message loud and clear. Little brother is watching and recording. At the moment I suspect many of those involved in promoting the Global Warming agenda would prefer total invisibility to transparency.
Leon Brozyna insightfuly said on August 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Current IPCC is producing good studies and reports.
However, a problem exists in that not all work is performed in accordance with (IAW) written procedures.
Recommend that top eight officials be fired.
Recommend that a new layer of officials be created and new procedures be written to ensure that future studies and reports be produced IAW established standards.
Continue as before but more discretion be used
This is my take as well.
Ian H says:
August 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I believe the IPCC model is the wrong one. What would be better would be the kind of adversarial system we see in court. The problem is that all sides of the question are not being given a fair go. The adversarial system would fix this…..
_________________________________________________________________
That is the best idea I have heard yet.
I’m pleasantly surprised by this report. True, for some, it doesn’t go far enough but it does go in the right direction IMO.
The MSM take, on this, has mostly concentrated on the major headlines that seriously question the management and procedural deficiencies of this once hallowed imstitution.
I, call me an old ‘sceptical’ cynic, fully expected this to be a total whitewash and given recent history had some right to do so.
Full credit to the investigators for steering away from the precedents set by such UK notables such as Ox and RM.
They’ve called for changes, not huge changes but big enough for starters given the politics.
Personally, I would have loved it if they’d called for the abandonment of the original remit of the IPCC that specifically asked to define the role of man in climate change and, instead, broadened its remit to look at all factors.
But I’m content with the boundaries that they’ve pushed the debate to. A year ago, this would have seemed a pipe-dream!
To paraphrase WSC, this may be the end of the beginning.
That is the best idea I have heard yet
Gail/Ian H,
I am no fan of the UN being involved in climate science.
Adversarial model as in law/justice system model revolves around handling man-made objects. The body of law.
I would see problems in adapting the legal model to metaphysical existents, physical nature.
The traditional science model (pre-climate science and pre-post modern science) already has a good model.
I am fond of what I call the argumentative model for climate science. Everyone argues with their papers, data, experiments, models, code and methodologies in a transparent forum. There is no authority, other than nature, to appeal to. May the best argument remain standing. Mother Nature might smile fondly upon her rather homely human creatures for discovering all her secrets. Maybe some parental pride for us!
John
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…
The IPCC was created to support a political agenda, not to examine “climate”. For the IPCC there can never be an “alternative view”. Admitting an “alternative view” would fly in the face of …
“… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human- induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
No “risk of human- induced climate change”, no IPCC and back to square one for the would be “global ant-hill” architects that created it. A new PR agency will change absolutely nothing.
A clock tells the time…
no matter how sophisticated the design…
…it has no other purpose.
Just so as I’m clear (historically speaking)…
[way back when] IPCC remit – “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent”
[couple of decades and an “IAC investigation” later] – IPCC should be “open and transparent”.
Bit like finding the human climate fingerprint really – the illusion of progress is sometimes just as good as the real thing. Yes Minister?
Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor at the UK Independent doesn’t seem to have read the report!
31 Aug: UK Independent: Revealed: why failure of climate summit would herald global catastrophe
The world is heading for the next major climate change conference in Cancun later this year on course for global warming of up to 3.5C in the coming century, a series of scientific analyses suggest…
If there are no further breakdowns, it is possible that the meeting may at least restore faith in the UN climate process. “Nobody thinks Cancun will be a big-bang moment,” said Keith Allott, head of climate change for the World Wide Fund for Nature. “What the world needs to do is put some wheels back on the climate truck.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/revealed-why-failure–of-climate-summit-would-herald-global-catastrophe-2066127.html
R. Gates says: August 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Bottom line: every day the average man or woman on the street goes about their life and could care less about the IPCC and the average climate scientist, though informed about IPCC findings (and maybe even contributing parts to them) probably knows that the final report might be used one way or another for poltical purposes, and here, for the honest scientist, their roads will part.
R Gates.: Yes but when the ramifications of their decisions and activities are translated into swingeing taxes that the politicians visit upon the man in the street hits home THEN the man in the street takes notice – and how! It ain’t the real bottom line – just the bottom line for now. Certain substances may then hit the fan – as they say.
Doug
Rhys Jaggar says:
August 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Whilst I see some sense in what you say Rhys the major reason why
skeptics may be doing what you say is because they have been marginalised,
attacked and labeled simply for wanting to see real science done and then verified. This marhinalisation and attacks have been ongoing over a couple of decades. (We have even heard calls for skeptics to be tried for crimes against humanity from the major proponents of this CAGW rubish.)
As it turns out.. many if not most of the skeptics criticismims of the IPCC and its processes are justified. I doubt that many will be happy until some people are
brought to trial for the amazing waste of money that this pseudo scientific misadventure has caused.
And frankly, it is only just that this should occur. (how many deaths from starvation
can be laid at the feet of those that counseled using biofuels? Hundreds of thousands if not millions…
Sounds like a crime against humanity has been perpertrated to me)….
regards
Jim
RC comments are “interesting”! Example:
A quick scan of the headlines at Google News is depressing…
Review Finds Flaws in UN Climate Panel Structure (New York Times)
Pachauri-led IPCC needs fundamental reforms: UN panel (Times of India)
Flawed science (Telegraph)
Pachauri escapes indictment (Hindustan Times)
Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.’s Climate Group (FOX News)
U.N. climate body needs ‘fundamental reform,’ says report (CNN)
Report: Climate Science Panel Should Be Better Run (CBS News)
And so forth.
The document says:
Perhaps the Lead Authors could have delgated some of that to the 2,500
scientists who contributed to the report. That would be only 36 review
comments per scientist. Assuming, of course, that all 2,500 made substantial
contributions.
Besides, WUWT is up to 470K comments. Admittedly there was only a cursory
review, but still, it’s an impressive achievement for the WUWT moderators.
Roy Spencer summarizes the problem succinctly:
“The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.
While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.
Maybe some scientists thought they helped dream up the IPCC to help save humanity from itself. But the process was instigated by politicians and U.N. bureaucrats who misrepresented what they were trying to accomplish. Some people are gifted in their ability to get others to think that they came up with an idea, when in fact they were artfully guided into it.”
Read more in
Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed
Confirmation from the horse’s..?
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Link to Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed
in my preceding comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
You have to give it to them, it has been a well managed response to well researched attacks aimed at the heart of the IPCC’s credibility.
Stage one – a series of whitewash committees exonerating CRU and Michael Mann and studiously ignoring Pachauri’s very serious conflict of interest statements (voodoo science) and money making activities through his connections with his charities TERI and TERI Europe.
Stage two – a back door exit for Pachauri
Once Pachauri is out of the way the immediate danger to the the IPCC will have been dealt with. This is a moment of maximum danger to the IPCC because if the press go for Pachauri now, before he is shown the door by his own side, they will look like they have been sheltering their bad apples.
If they get rid of Pachauri (and sideline the hockey stick team) they will be back in the land of credibility. Their planned is a stage three that will be all smugness and very little contrition
In recent weeks Pachauri’s lawyers has been making great play with the point that conflicts of interest are not the same thing as corruption, and of course he is right in this point. (See EUreferendum) Richard North announced this evening that he will be revisiting his research into the accounts of TERI Europe, it will be interesting how the lawyers will deal with that one!
Pachauri’s lawyer are an unforgiving lot, comments about this man should always be unembellished by unflattering statements of opinion, dry with caveats about not attacking his integrity and always keep to the facts
The IPCC is a damaged brand.
In the world of politics, when a political animal goes down, the pack moves in for the kill.
No quarter is given, none is expected.
If the IPCC does not right itself, well, you know what comes next. Whitewash is a very thin coat of armor.