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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Next time someone tells you that the IPCC only relies on peer reviewed papers think again.
See comments referring to “gray” or “grey” from insiders themselves.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
VOA chooses pic of what is considered a man-made brisbane flood due to untimely release of dam water to illustrate their story:
17 May: Voice of America: Phil Mercer: UN Climate Experts in Australia to Finalize Landmark Report
Photo Caption: Local residents clear away the mud from their flooded home in Brisbane, Australia. Parts of Brisbane reopened as deadly floodwaters that had swamped entire neighborhoods recede, revealing streets and thousands of homes covered in a thick layer of putrid sludge, January 14, 2011
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/environment/UN-Climate-Experts-in-Australia-to-Finalize-Landmark-Report-121988694.html
“A new conflict-of-interest policy”
“a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports”
“guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent”
Nothing that addresses the underlying science.
How about:
“include in the process more solar physicists”
“include in the process, or invite review from, scientists critical of past IPCC reports”
“publish the technical part of the report for review and revision, before publishing the summary for policymakers”
and, of course,
“replace Pachauri”
John Johnston says: May 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Actually, it’s even worse than this! Not only has the IPCC decided to not identify non-peer-reviewed material, but they’ve also (very cleverly!) “disappeared” the fact that they decided to “disappear” the rule (which they very rarely observed, anyway).
For details and links pls. see: Breaking news: IPCC posts text of decisions taken
Why just “disclose”? It should be either “banned” or the violating party to liquidate all confict of interest holdings even before submission.
This playing and manipulating the markets MUST STOP!
Roy Jones says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:30 am
Interesting that Nature refers to the UEA e-mails as having been “leaked” rather than the usual warmist claim that they were “hacked”.
Second time I have come across this term today. At the Bishops blog, the same reference is made by John Beddington (JB), UK chief Scientist. The blog itself is worth a read as it reveals plans for shaping AR5…
“JB updated CF about the enquiries following the leaking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, that is the enquiry led by Sir Muir Russell and a review of the science being led by Lord Oxburgh.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/17/sir-john-b-and-the-ipcc.html
Ahhhhhhh….. The Reformation of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has arrived!
My ‘confidence in its integrity is restored’. /sarchasm off
Reform isn’t possible. In addition to being corrupt, they have an agenda, and it isn’t about either climate or science. It is highly unlikely that any but the most naive or already hopelessly drunk on the koolaid are going to buy this PR stunt of theirs.
Pedal, pedal … backwards we go …
Seems to catching on … there’s a story about overblown extinction predictions …
http://www.livescience.com/14216-overestimation-extinction-rate-habitat-loss.html
In a decade or so there’ll probably be a story about how this climate thingy got a bit carried away and exaggerated.
Ray says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:44 am
Very interesting. I particularly liked:
Does that ring any bells? Remind you of any other branch of environmental ‘science’?
What I do love is the way they effectively say: “the predictions of disaster were wrong because we had the science wrong, according to new science. This new science gives us new predictions of disaster, a bit slower, but this science is right. We know it is. They knew it was right before, but they were thinking about it in the wrong way. We are right, obviously, because we are thinking about it in the right way.
Why can’t they ever just say that they don’t know? The only time they ever say that is when they state “more studies (read ‘funds’) are required”!
Funny how the IPCC agrees to ‘reform’ once they have funding taken away. Follow the money!
Its worse than we thought:
When a committee investigated the IPCC last year, they weren’t nearly as impressed as its chairman. The committee therefore made a specific recommendation, which it expressed in rather clear language:
The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature…ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.
But as Hilary Ostrov tells us today, IPCC bureaucrats had other ideas – and these bureaucrats have now prevailed.
At an IPCC meeting earlier this week, this recommendation appears to have been approved. According to page 4 of this publication, the IPCC:
…agreed not to flag information derived from grey literature in the reports and focus instead on ensuring the high quality of all information, placing priority on peer-reviewed literature.
In other words, screw the rules. And screw the committee that investigated the IPCC last year which insisted the rules should be followed.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/17/ipcc-screw-the-rules/
So, when you read:
IPCC agrees to “major” reforms
What it really means is:
Business as usual.
Details on how the IPCC will NOT be flagging non-peer reviewed material, contrary to the review done last year. Thus, the IPCC remains free to use any source it wants for the basis of its recommendations, not matter that it hasn’t been reviewed.
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/when-task-group-says-lets-disappear-a-rule-ipcc-agrees/
Theo..
“Pachauri was distracted by his research on the pornographic novel that he was writing. You know, the one about the sixtyish climate scientist and his many conquests around the world. It has been number one on the UN best-seller list since publication. My guess is that the research took about 1400 days. /do I really have to put sarc here?”
I wonder how many are currently on the IPCC pay schedule 😉
lock them all up and throw away the key
Interestingly, what they have done is admit that their previous releases cannot be trusted. This is a hail Mary.
Mark
“IPCC agrees to “major” reforms”
They’re switching to decaf?
My take: IPCC: Peer review? What peer review?
You can wash a dog with room temperature Evian, cover it in Chanel no. 5 and put a gold chain around it’s neck. But….it’s still a dog. It will still beg, still interbreed, and will always leave a turd somewhere and claim it wasn’t them. It’s the nature of the beast.
OldMountainNews
Anthony,
Thanks for the link above to the previous WUWT item. I’d
forgotten the web address I gave in my comment on your
Jan 17, 2010, “Told ya so…” report about the India MoD
“Discussion Paper” which Mr. Pachauri claimed was not only
“voodoo science” but “arrogant” as well.
The paper is:
Mr. Raina is the former Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India:
The paper is at:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
It’s a 60 page PDF, wait as it loads…
I’m so sorry.
The V.K.Raina, et al. , paper was not from India MoD. It
came from their Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF).
The web address was right:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
What problems have either the IPCC or the UN solved? Seriously, what have they done? What has the US taxpayer gotten for his/her money? If they can’t show results or be accountable, then why do we continue to finance them? More people need to start asking these questions of their representatives.
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. Well, OK, that’s not so hard to explain.
Nevertheless, if one looks at the theory of evolution (which I’ll assume climate scientists can accept as ‘robust’), species adapt, evolve or become extinct. Why do we always hear about species going extinct as opposed to the new ones being found?”
Do you know of any new species that have come about due to developing advantageous traits in response to humans’ effect on the environment?
Humans can wipe out every species on the planet, including ourselves. Doing so would not be an example of Darwinian natural selection of species.
with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events.
Tell us which way the climate is changing, warmer or cooler.