Here’s an opportunity for input in the next IPCC report. I encourage all readers with relevant expertise to register. See link below.
Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is pleased to announce that the First Order Draft of the WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis will be available for Expert Review from 16 December 2011 to 10 February 2012. In order to review the First Order Draft, you are invited to submit a completed registration form provided below. For additional information, please see the Introduction to the Expert Review of IPCC Working Group I AR5 Draft Reports.
This registration process has been established by the WGI Bureau to facilitate an objective, open and transparent expert review. The WGI Expert Review follows the IPCC Procedures. The WGI Expert Review seeks wide participation of experts and aims for a range of views, expertise, and geographical balance. The WGI Bureau therefore invites all experts with expertise and/or publications in the specific areas covered by the WGI Report to assist in the IPCC assessment process by registering to review the chapter(s) of the WGI AR5 First Order Draft for which he/she is an expert. Prospective Expert Reviewers are asked to provide information on their scientific and technical expertise. Please refer to the WGI AR5 approved outline for additional detail on the content of the WGI AR5.
Each prospective Expert Reviewer is required to complete the registration form below. Prospective reviewers are asked to indicate the chapter(s) that they are interested in reviewing, provide supporting information on their relevant expertise, and confirm their expertise through a statement of self-declaration. Following completion of the registration process, each Expert Reviewer will receive an email from the WGI Technical Support Unit on 16 December 2011 with an individual username and password. Username and password will be specific to each expert and may not be shared.
Register here:
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/registration/
Note that if you have no publications to list, you’ll probably be rejected. Publications in any form can be used as long as they are traceable and relevant to the chapter you check to review. I checked chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
My lucky number is 1029:
“This registration process has been established by the WGI Bureau to facilitate an objective, open and transparent expert review.”
———————————————-
Hahaha! Good one.
“This connection is untrusted.”
That’s what Firefox tells me when I try to link to Introduction to Expert Review…
Good luck Anthony.
Guessing your chances of being accepted as about the same as me getting a date with Sarah Shahi or Sandra Bullock.
How expert do I have to be? I quite fancy a bit of this before Christmas.
Can’t be too hard surely [busily checking gender/race/equality/how righteous tick boxes and so on and so forth]?
Do they need any expertise in exoplanet climatology?
After all, the fictional Earth they describe in their lurid catastrophes
is as far from the real Earth as any actual exoplanet.
Nice quick way to establish a database of emails, blogs and publications. I don’t trust anyone, sorry.
A prospective reviewer may choose a particular chapter on which to serve as an expert. Upon receipt of email instructions on December 16, the potential reviewer will be able to access all chapters.
The peer-review process with this report will again use the Excel grid-layout format and I suspect the comments and responses will be made public.
Some issues that will arise will be non-published literature referenced in the Chapters like perhaps Huey, Dewie, and Louie (2012) which will be available in a lock-box somewhere for editors to view and provide upon request. Yet, I suspect this type of situation will be rare since the “Physical Science” basis of human-caused climate change should not require forthcoming papers to justify.
Like Anthony, I registered for Chapter 2: Observations … and included my peer-reviewed work on global tropical cyclone climatology.
Here we go again getting sucked in by enemy
You need to make a dedicated page where sensible reviewers of each chapter can be alerted to outrageous but not-so-obvious mistakes.
My personal criticism:
The projected atmospheric methane concentrations being fed into AR5’s models are laughable and demonstrably wrong.
Id be perfect for this job!
I know about as much as the ipcc does about climate science.
Right, wheres my cheque?
Good luck, Anthony…because I think you’ll need it. 🙂
How does one become an “expert”?
Can I appoint myself an expert? They seem to.
Can my dog be an expert? Similar logical deduction abilities to some/most of theirs.
By getting your name on the list.You are giving the IPCC a veneer of legitimacy to the corrupt,bias ridden organization.They are increasingly dependent on people who are not there for sober science research.But to advance an idea that mankind is in grave danger.And the solutions are always the “Government”.
The IPCC should be disbanded!
There’s a lot of experts on this blog, including all of the posting authors. Many of these people have expertise that exceeds the expertise of IPCC contributors. Of course, the IPCC is corrupt, so there should be no expectations that anyone here would be accepted as experts. However, none of them should question whether they are qualified to apply.
And there is some truth that participation in a corrupt forum gives it an air of legitimacy, but on the other hand, it’s usually better to participate in order to mitigate the potential damage emanating from such an organization.
Actually, getting accepted under the IPCC umbrella would be a good thing. Upon reciept of your badge, you can proudly flash it as needed and proclaim “diplomatic immunity” whenever anyone wants to see any of your papers.
If they insist, tell them as members of the IPCC Expert Review group, you aren’t bound to any FOIA rules.
Personally, I wouldn’t join unless it included an all-expense paid trip to the next COP.
I have been reading this website for a long time, I’ve never actually posted anything because I have no technical expertise in the sciences but as a casual observer of the climate change “debate” I’ve noticed some dubious assertions made by the “alarmists”. Many of the people who post on this forum are noticably informed and expert in this debate and I believe should engage the IPCC with their relevant skepticism, even if they shot down your ideas or shun you, at least you’ve used their channels to voice your concerns instead of having to resort to privately manned websites like this one. Don’t get me wrong, this website is a valuable resource for skeptics, but the general public is not aware of your arguments so any chance to bring them into a larger setting and expose them to the public is an opportunity that you should not scoff at. I applaud Mr. Watts for applying for the comments, and hope they do not become a means to add legitimacy to their standing process but become a catalyst to changing the “concensus” back into the scientific method. Keep up the good work, I’m pulling for you- AnInconvenientSkeptic
When I was much younger, every now and then I donated some little money to WWF (mea culpa).
Does that qualify me for an IPCC expert reviewer?
I do field work and publication research daily, and collate, analyze, and report on collected data. However, none goes into ‘accepted publications’; all if it goes to privately funded reports. As such, I won’t qualify. Still, I registered.
hmm, i don’t know anything about the weather or the climate…(kinda like Al Gore)
SIGN ME UP!
This is for the 2013 IPCC report AR5, but the first drafts are available for review now? So nothing that occurs in 2012 or 2013 will impact on this report? Maybe they should save everyone a lot of time and effort and simply republish AR4 – after all, the science is settled – right?
Voila qui est fait. I have registered for Chapter 12.
Having thought long and hard about the evidence for Global Warming, I have entered my little basket of ‘killer facts’ as my research interests. I sincerely hope to be taken on. I want to debate: (i) monthly variations in the Mauna Loa record; (ii) the Svensmark hypothesis; (iii) the proxy utility of the Great Aletsch Glacier in establishing a statistically valid observation period.
Flippancy aside, these are the very areas which have brought me to a decisive stance on AGW. They may well weed me out as an unbeliever, but maybe I’ll manage to get into the Inner Sanctum.
In all seriousness, folks, give it a shot. Apply for a position as Expert Reviewer. The forces of darkness have a long tradition of infiltration. Let’s hoist ’em with their own petard.
Citoyens….aux armes!!!
Wonder what expenses they pay….. d’oh, what a givaway….
Henrythethird writes:
“Upon reciept of your badge,…”
I thought that Warmistas sneered, “Badges? We don’ need no steekin’ badges!”
I wonder who is sitting on the selection committee?
I encourage all readers with relevant expertise to register.
In contrast to the irrlevant expertise of some of the folks already reviewing for the IPCC.
🙂
I am an elite of elites in the science of bull$hit detection. I’d like to be a reviewer but I have 2 problems.
* There are no journals called Bull$hit Detector Monthly for me to publish in.
* The IPCC AR5 doesn’t have a chapter called “Bull$hit Detection of WG1”.
I find it interesting that the IPCC looks to be quite strict as to who can be a reviewer, but when it comes to Authors and Lead Authors, any journalist, environmental activist or PhD candidate is welcome as long as they ‘believe’
As a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, has Kenji Watts also applied to be a IPCC reviewer?
REPLY: no, because the only publications he has are “ruff” drafts – Anthony
Any delinquent teenagers on the blog ???
“Baa Humbug says:
December 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm
I find it interesting that the IPCC looks to be quite strict as to who can be a reviewer, but when it comes to Authors and Lead Authors, any journalist, environmental activist or PhD candidate is welcome as long as they ‘believe’”
I noticed that, too. But, when you think about it, we’re only looking at requested qualifications to be a reviewer. What will they really accept? Let’s see: the perpetrators make millions of $$ per year. They are funded by money that would make most oil companies blush. So, logically, they’ll pay reviewers nothing. So, probably a signed, sworn affidavit swearing allegiance to The Cause would suffice as replacement for experience, education, and publications combined.
Cynical? Me? Naw.
My lucky number is 1029:
Heh, the world’s fate rests in your hands…
Congratulations, you are now part of the consensus, this label will now be attributed to you in our announcements to the mainstream media.
Your sincerely
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri
Having a large volume of signups is not going to help. They will probably just throw everyone out.
My concern is that they will totally reject suggestions by “non conforming” reviewers (as they almost always do) but get to claim that the document was even reviewed by many sceptical experts but they all agree on AR5s conclusions.
I can hear those words out of Pachys mouth now as he waves the document in hand.
I don’t need any stinking qualifications.
I have a valid credit card!
betcha I get to be a reviewer first!
(they do have some pretty high standards, that IPCC)
I’m been working out in this Climate/Weather for over45 years and I stayed at a Holiday Motel. Would that make me a qualify reviewer?
I am thinking about applying as an “expert layman.” At a bare minimum, the report should not be considered fit for publication until an unwashed mass like me can’t see obvious flaws in it.
I’d probably qualify: Permaculture certification plus a degree in sustainable agriculture, climate and urban ecology and extensive studies in renewable energy including the new [old] technology of cold fusion. Medical problems may make travel to the vegetarian banquet a bit difficult. Suppose I could apply just for fun.