Dr. Ross McKitrick writes in an email tonight:
I am pleased to announce the release of my new report for the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation entitled “What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform.”
The Hon. John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, kindly supplied a foreword. He writes, in part
Professor McKitrick’s report focuses on the reporting procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The intellectual bullying, which has been a feature of the behaviour of some global warming zealots, makes this report necessary reading if there is to be an objective assessment of all of the arguments. The attempt of many to close down the debate is
disgraceful, and must be resisted.
Ross McKitrick has written a well-researched and articulate critique of the IPCC’s methods. It deserves careful study, especially by those who remain in an agnostic state on this issue.
A copy can be downloaded here: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
An op-ed describing the report is published in today’s National Post here: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/22/fix-it-or-fold-it/
The coincidental release of a new tranche of climategate emails this week adds additional evidence to what I believe is a strong case that the IPCC is in need of serious and far-reaching reform. The disappointing results of the process that was initiated by the IAC report last year only serve to indicate how much more needs to be done.
Please feel free to pass this along to anyone you think might be interested.
Ross
– Professor of Economics
– Department of Economics
– University of Guelph
– Guelph ON
– Canada N1G 2W1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
fred db said: ” ‘And from the full text of the UNFCCC: “The ultimate objective of this Convention … is to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’
Hardly being tasked to find man made global warming”
You’re right Fred. That statement actually PRESUMES man made global warming. Thanks for making the case even stronger.
Euthanize IPCC – the one gift you can give your grandkids
Just get rid of the IPCC and the UN and World Bank while you are at it. You best toss in the IMF and world Trade Organization too.
As much as I like and respect Ross McKitrick, I must disagree with his prescription for the problem. Reform will not suffice for the IPCC, because its corporate mission is what is screwed up. They have set out, as instructed, to find and exaggerate the human effect on the climate. They will continue to do so until they are dead.
My question for Ross is, what has the IPCC ever done for us? They have spent billions of dollars, and labored and brought forth a mouse. The next report is dead on arrival, nobody will pay a scrap of attention to it. It will be used as a blunt instrument for bludgeoning the media and other useful idiots into submission, and that’s about it. Anyone with half a brain will ignore it.
So truly, Ross … even if it is reformed to your specifications, what do you expect to get out of it? It does no science at all, what are its products that make it worth our while to keep it alive?
Me. I think it should be killed dead, as fast as possible, and then given the vampire treatment as I described in “I Have A Stake In the Outcome.”
Sorry, Ross, but that’s my analysis. If anyone could point to even one gain that has come from having the IPCC around, that might indicate that somehow the IPCC might someday be valuable, that would be interesting.
But I know of nothing the IPCC has ever done. It has ever been a force for disagreement and propaganda. It is a mystery to me what Ross and other people see in it that makes them want to put it on life support. For me, it’s on a DNR order, and I’m not questioning it. Defund it tomorrow is my advice, we’ve blown enough money on these charlatans already.
w.
PS—Ross, you suggest inter alia:
Don’t do that again, Ross, my sides still hurt from laughing at the naiveté of that idea.
Please, please tell me you don’t think that will make the slightest difference. No matter how “objective and transparent” the selection process may be, since the same people are still in charge of the insane asylum, do you truly believe that this will keep out the rent-seekers, the newly-minted PhDs with an agenda, or the “respected” scientists who were up to their fundamental orifices in the Climategate swamp? These are the same folks who were unable, through five separate Assessment Reports, to institute a bozo-simple requirement for a conflict-of-interest statement, and you think calling for (or implementing) “objective and transparent” procedures will change that?
Really?
You truly believe that changing the deck chairs on the Titanic like that will make a difference? Ross, you propose changing the rules, but the problem is not the rules. The problem is that we have liars, crooks, and thieves in charge of the IPCC. Your idea that we can sweep the Augean Stables clean of Noble Cause Corruption by changing a few rules is … well, let say that your hypothesis is a great candidate for inclusion in the AR5, because like most of their hypotheses, it is very poorly correlated with observations.
A lot of commenerts concentrate on what The IPCC was ”set up for”, manyof you seem to think that they were – “Hardly being tasked to find man made global warming.”-
Well, man made global warming cannot be found by anyone, so why should the IPCC be previledged to do so. — Oh darn my socks! -I almost forgot – even the “skeptics” are accepting that proof for warming by Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) must exist somewhere as they all seem to agree that CO2 is capable of raising our planet’s temperature by “close to the minimum of what the IPCC predict”
So come on “you skeptics who think that CO2 can raise the Earth’s temperature” (even by just 1/2 a deg. Celsius) — Show me the proof!!– If you cannot, then look at the big log in your own eye before you look at the splinter in your opponents’
A thoughtful and interesting proposal Professor McKittrick. Perhaps the basis for a new organization. I do not see a way to implement your proposals into the existing IPCC as the organization will not allow such significant alteration from their existing practices.
How about more fundamentally the IPCC was never set up to do science. Review of other papers doesn’t count. Who writes a study that just consists of reviewing other papers. That’s just step of science to give you guidance on the next steps. Next is scope, hypothesis formation, data gathering, data processing…..
To do it properly would make it the biggest project of all time.
“Gail Combs says:
November 23, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Just get rid of the IPCC and the UN and World Bank while you are at it. You best toss in the IMF and world Trade Organization too.”
Gail, I’m with you. The IPCC, UN and World Bank have run out of OPM. China “ain’t gona” bailout anybody.
bold construction worker says:
November 24, 2011 at 9:14 am
“Gail Combs says:
November 23, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Just get rid of the IPCC and the UN and World Bank while you are at it. You best toss in the IMF and world Trade Organization too.”
Gail, I’m with you. The IPCC, UN and World Bank have run out of OPM. China “ain’t gona” bailout anybody.
Ditto
How likely is it that the waste will be stopped by the recipients and beneficiaries of said waste?
The question answers itself.
_________
The IPCC mandate looks really funny in view of the recent revelation by IBUKI that the West is a CO2 sink, and the undeveloped nations a major source. Follow the logic, and one of the consequences is that industrialization must be imposed everywhere. ASAP, PDQ.
On the other hand, if CO2 is beneficial, industrialization must be prevented, to preserve all those lovely undeveloped national pumps churning it out.
The gods are howling with laughter!