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:
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.