From the “I’ll believe it when I see it” department comes this story in Nature News:
I thought this was interesting:
A new conflict-of-interest policy will require all IPCC officials and authors to disclose financial and other interests relevant to their work (Pachauri had been harshly criticized in 2009 for alleged conflicts of interest.) The meeting also adopted a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports, along with guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent across reports. “This is a heartening and encouraging outcome of the review we started one year ago,” Pachauri told Nature. “It will strengthen the IPCC and help restore public trust in the climate sciences.”
Which is a far cry from “voodoo science”:
Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires
Next on the forefront of “voodoo” science we have this:
The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. Despite much speculation, there is scant scientific evidence for such a link — particularly between climate warming, storm frequency and economic losses — and the report is expected to spark renewed controversy. “It’ll be interesting to see how the IPCC will handle this hot potato where stakes are high but solid peer-reviewed results are few,” says Silke Beck, a policy expert at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.
I predict they will botch this too.
Full article here h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
We have a consensus … AR4 is rubbish. Thanks Rajendra et al for agreeing with the rest of the world at least about that!
The ipcc won’t have shown any “responsiveness” until it changes its name to something new and more deceptive, just like even the less dysfunctional agencies often have to do in order to continue being dysfunctional. But, sadly, “Children’s Services” and “Intergovernmental Ministry of Social Justice” have already been relieved of all positive connotations.
Paul says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm
On the subject of species loss, I often wonder why environmentalists are such glass half-empty types.
As Maria, my wife, said recently:
Weird: half of the people refuse to accept evolution, the other half would like to stop it.
Liars are always concerned about “image”. Don’t these jokers understand that once a liar is caught, his trust can not be restored? The only solution is to disband the IPCC and demote the entire team to dishwasher, and even then I will be looking closely at my glass before taking a drink!
I would think that a financial conflict of interest should completely disqualify one for an IPCC position of any kind …
If a double negative is a positive, then a double positive should surely be a negative. Seems only fair.
R. Shearer says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm
IMF’s Strauss-Kahn could be put in charge of their professional behavior program.
A perfect fit! But once Strauss-Kahn flees back to France, he’s bound to easily win its next Presidential election. So the ipcc’s bidding will probably have to start immediately, and at about 1000 Chamber Maids more than it would have otherwise!
What is going on at Nature? How could this have got through? I always thought the science was settled.
IMF’s Strauss-Kahn could be put in charge of their professional behavior program.
n.b. to the above subject – It’s doubtful that DKS’s services can be bought by the ipcc’s own Warming Models alone.
@chris D. says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:29 am
I’ve been to nofrakkingconsensus, and I agree that’s a good blog there.
I followed her link to the story: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/when-task-group-says-lets-disappear-a-rule-ipcc-agrees/
..and my jaw fell. It’s very clear that the bureaucrats at the IPCC never had any intention of cleaning up their act. Their entire purpose seems to be to appear sorry and repentant in public, and then continue doing whatever they want while claiming to be “peer reviewed”.
IPCC = The authority of scientific method twisted to serve political ends.
This sounds a lot like Pappa John’s Pizza commercials. Originally he claimed “better ingredients, better pizza” then went on to a new formula but still says “better ingredients, better pizza”. We all ask the same question: If your original ingredients and pizza were better why did you have to make a change? And why should we believe you now when you were apparently wrong about your first claim?
Activists have effectively infiltrated the IPCC and my gut feeling is that they skew their reports. Below is some excellent detective work with a few examples of why the IPCC was veering towards activism.
“Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/01/28/greenpeace-and-the-nobel-winning-climate-report/
“WWF’s Chief Spokesperson Joins IPCC”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/25/wwfs-chief-spokesperson-joins-ipcc/
“Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/
“The IPCC’s Activist Chairman”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/05/the-ipccs-activist-chairman/
Anthony, here website is THE place to visit for a sceptical insight into the IPCC. I am truly impressed by her dogged style.
Ahhhhhh!
“Anthony, her
ewebsite…………”Ian H says:
May 18, 2011 at 2:04 pm
John Johnston says: …
Yeah, right! (In case it is not obvious, that phrase is the NZ colloquial equivalent of /sarc).
“If a double negative is a positive, then a double positive should surely be a negative. Seems only fair.”
Yeah, yeah.
“A new conflict-of-interest policy will require all IPCC officials and authors to disclose financial and other interests relevant to their work (Pachauri had been harshly criticized in 2009 for alleged conflicts of interest.) The meeting also adopted a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports, along with guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent across reports. ”
Pachauri set up, and still manages, TERI, a multimillion dollar charity, which applied for funds from the EU to study the melting Himalayan glaciers. TERI even employed the scientist who set in train the error of confusing the dates 2350 and 2035 which led to the incorrect assertion in the IPCC AR4 report the Himalayan Glaciers would be completely melted by 2035.
There has never, to my knowledge, been any acknowledgment that this conflict of interest at the heart of the IPCC was wrong. In fact the likes of Monbiot have gone out on a limb to castigate anyone that suggested this was a corrupting situation, and accused sceptics of smearing the good name of an honourable man.
Without an acknowledgement of the truth it will be impossible to begin to trust anything they say, however fine their words may look on paper.
Wondering Aloud says: “The IPCC was established to prove global warming and promote ways of dealing with it. Any answer that doesn’t fall into [its] pre determined bias cannot possibly be considered. So don’t look for any significant change. The realistic answer, which is that warming is not a problem, is not an answer they are allowed to consider[,] much less conclude.”
This summarizes it nicely. In other news, the putative extinction of the species Lupus inovisvestitus is greatly in error.
I was ‘wrongly’ led to believe that science was about curiosity and asking questions. Today, I am told to shut up and and get with the program. I won’t shut up.
This is indeed a problem as we are still waiting for the signature.
Alexander Feht says:
May 18, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“Weird: half of the people refuse to accept evolution, the other half would like to stop it.”
Now, that is clever! The Enlightened will never understand it, of course. Along the same lines, I would the other half are deluded that they have the power to stop it.
It’s good that they are contemplating an update to their processes. It’s a hallmark of science that the way it is done is itself improved over time.
However, the things listed in the summary don’t address the biggest problems. They mention conflict of interest, but conflict of interest is largely unavoidable. They also mention continuity about uncertainty between one year and the next; I’m unclear why this is a direct goal at all. Surely the real goal is to find the truth, not to be consistent with last year’s speculations?
The one good part listed is the revived interest in a process on following up on error. That indeed has been a weak point. There’s not much point in a public review period if the problems that are found are going to be summarily dismissed. There’s a real failure of process when the kinds of things Steve McIntyre found make it all the way out to the final publication.
Not mentioned, though, are several other important issues. One is the drafting of the executive summary, by far the most read part of an IPCC report. It should be written after, not before, the individual chapters. Furthermore, the authors of each chapter should have substantial opportunity to weigh in on whether the executive summary is accurate.
Additionally, the standards for citation and evidence deserve some attention. There have been some allegations of IPCC reports citing papers that aren’t yet published, but are merely in the pipeline. Additionally, there have been many instances found where the only citation for information included is highly disreputable, e.g. advocacy pamphlets.
Finally, as with the executive summary, it would be good for the authors of each individual chapter to have some sort of process where they can object to what’s in there and then a moderator can update the wording to satisfy everyone. It should be achievable that the contributing scientists all feel like their points of view are at least represented in the summary. If Wikipedia authors can do it, then surely our esteemed climate scientists can do it as well.
In short, it’s good that they are making a gesture, but it looks like they aren’t really addressing the biggest problems.
The IPCC stop being about the science some time ago , its now a political organization involved in advocacy and should be treated with the sort of ‘respect’ that implies .
For those new to WUWT please see what Pachauri gets up to in his spare time.
The hypocracy alone should make many wince with horror. Anyway, let’s eat less meat and drive green cars for the sake of the planet. Even Pachauri sometimes drives a ‘green’ car. ;O)
Agree with the general gist of some of the comments that this is unusually balanced for Nature.
But they make up for it with this cheerleading piece in the same issue about the US’s “top climate cop”.
Since I know she’s one near and dear to your heart Anthony, I hope this doesn’t spoil your dinner.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110518/full/473268a.html
Didn’t Hansen say that AGW would increase crime rates? Perhaps he could be called in as expert witness for the defense in DSK’s trial.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 18, 2011 at 1:03 pm Pachauri proves how reckless the seekers of world domination are. No sane person or committee would choose Pachauri as front man for a scam, no matter how innocuous the scam.
IIRC it was George Bush Junior who ensured the appointment of Pachauri to the IPCC. That said I think I agree with both your statements. I am not sure of what the Bush administration’s motives were – could have been a clever neo-con master-stroke (in which case unlikely to have been the President’s idea) i.e. appoint a slightly weird and dodgy railroad engineer who can be easily discredited in the future. Sounds more like Cheney’s work to me.