The IPCC gives me a shock

Yesterday I did something that I never expected to get any results on. My lucky number 1029 paid off.

I’ve been appointed as an expert reviewer for the IPCC AR5. I’ve viewed the invitation letter and it’s the real deal.

============================================================

—–Original Message—–
From: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:57 AM
To: awatts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
Subject: Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Dear Anthony Watts,
The IPCC Working Group I (WGI) Co-Chairs are pleased to announce the
Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) of the WGI contribution
to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis (AR5) and invite you to serve as an Expert Reviewer. An
invitation letter is available from
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/PDFs/WGIAR5_ExpertReview_InvitationLetter.pdf
and may be accessed using your individual username and password:
User name: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Password: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This username and password pair is personalized for you and may not
be shared. Your username and password will be required to access the
WGI AR5 FOD Chapters and to submit a review. The drafts, review form,
and additional supporting material are available from the WGI AR5 FOD
Expert Review website:
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/
Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.
The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011
to 10 February 2012. All comments must be submitted through the above
website by the close of the Expert Review on 10 February 2012.
Thank you in advance for providing a review of the WGI AR5 FOD.
Best regards,
IPCC WGI TSU
on behalf of the WGI Co-Chairs
——————————————————————
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I Technical Support Unit – IT   wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
University of Bern                           ph:  +41 31 631 56 18
Zaehringerstrasse 25                         fx:  +41 31 631 56 15
3012 Bern, Switzerland                           www.ipcc.unibe.ch
——————————————————————

========================================================

Anyone else get accepted?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TheBigYinJames

All your emails are secret now! Well done!

John Marshall

Great news Anthony. Give em hell. (To paraphrase Gen McCarther)

Congrats! Make sure you’re not used to endorse something bad though.

jim c

will this muzzle you?
REPLY: No, I plan to have Kenji do the reviews /sarc – Anthony

Now you are on the inside!

Er, holy cow! Doesn’t that sort of put you in an awkward position?

AdderW

Sweet !
But this also makes for a “neat” setup.
Make sure what you review and what’s printed is the same once it get published.

Lady in Red

This is good. This is scary!
Be careful. Watch your back at all times, but believe it is honest. (I recall Michael Mann’s “TED”
talk in the last few days and The Team still seems to have the same political agenda: hide the data, the models, everything. Hmmmm….. I look at The Team’s response to Curry and Webster’s criticism of the IPCC and worry….)
But, this is very very good. A long time coming. I wonder if McIntyre and McKitrick will also get invites. ….Lady in Red

PJP

It’s a trap!
(well, hopefully not, but be careful what they use your name to endorse)

George Lawson

‘Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.’
Does this mean you will not br permitted to comment on this site?

Give the activists from the NGOs, like Greenpeace and the WWF, my best regards!

Burch

What’s that old saw? Something, something, keep your enemies closer…
Congrats!

Old Goat

So long as you’re not merely being considered a “token” sceptic, and your input “lost” in the noise…

William McClenney

Congrats Anthony! Watch your backside……….

Stephen Richards

It does not say that your comments will be acted upon, Anthony. This may well be a sop to placate sceptics.

David Davidovics

I’m not sure what to think about this. I figure its either a mistake or they will try and use you to legitimize the skewed results down the road the same way Muller did. Either case should be interesting. As I said before, keep your eye on the pea under the thimble (and have fun!)

If you can’t beat them, join ’em.

Don B

why do I have the sense, that no matter how strong your arguments, in the end the decisions will be made by a small core group.

pittzer

Represent our side with complete, unassailable objectivity. Good luck.

Honestly I think it’s all a sham. They’ll act like they’re listening to you, ignore any input you offer, and then claim that they’ve included all scientists and experts in the process.

REPLY:
Probably, that’s what happened to McIntyre last time around, yet it is still important to do this. – Anthony

Neil Jones

Any bet’s that they’ll change their minds?

Adolf Goreing

Actually, I´ve got an invitation too. So we are at least two skeptics onboard now. Should be interesting.

Curfew

Very good, but proceed with caution!

Tom Ragsdale

I smell a rat.

randy

yup. i did. thought it might be a good idea since i have expertise on snowpack data in the rocky mountains and western usa, went thru the process, got the letter. pretty simple.

And there you are:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=631+56+15
Tue, 10 Nov 2009 3:59:07 am
1257847147.txt-3012 Bern, Switzerland
1257847147.txt-ph: +41 ???
1257847147.txt:fx: +41 ???
1257847147.txt-http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch
1257847147.txt—————————————————

— is also a message.
Ilkka.
REPLY: No it’s not, you are practicing numerology, and I’m growing weary of it. Troll bin for your ramblings now – Anthony

Crispin in Waterloo

Will there be a non-disclosure agreement involved?

matthu

Better (for them) to have you inside the tent p*ssing out than outside the tent etc. (Make sure you turn around properly when they address you.)

Doubting Thomas

Congratulations, Anthony. It would have looked very bad for the IPCC if they had not allowed you into the review process. I’m sure there are many NGO “scientists,” etc., who are far less qualified. I’ve been a reviewer before. It’s a lot of hard work but I’m sure you’ll do it well.

T. Currie

Watch your food and drinks. Congrats, make us proud.

Jenn Oates

Color me both surprised AND impressed. We’ll see where it goes from here, but hopefully it’s only good, nothing else. And adventure for the Chico boy, anyway, right? 🙂

Give ’em Hell, Anthony!
(with all due respect to the 33rd POTUS)
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

Matt Skaggs

For Burch:
The American (Texan) version, courtesy of LBJ: “Its better to have a troublemaker inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.” But actually I am leaning more towards the conspiracy theorists. Anthony cannot comment or post on anything related to AR5 until the process is completed, Anthony’s input will be ignored, and when AR5 is published, it will be stamped with the imprimatur of none other than Anthony Watts. That said, if it were me, I would go ahead and participate anyway. Successful efforts to improve the behavior of powerful entities generally consist of countless lost battles on the way to winning the war.

sounds like a ploy – confidentially agreements, ‘skeptic network silenced from the top down’ , a leap in IPCC credibility, whilst you are assigned to the ‘backblocks’. 20 000 emails dispersed slowly, it would be hard to criticise your bosses… just my initial thoughts/gut reaction.

Hal

I am sure the IPCC gang (after getting instense blowback from the Warmist bloggers) will see the error of their way, and regretably remove you, Anthony.
It was a nice, temporary,victory.

DJ

Anthony, I very glad for you. Unfortunately, having read the actual exchange between the lead authors and the contributors and those who do the actual internal reviews and comments prior to the assessment report’s release…..I fear for both you time, and you upcoming frustration.
I’ve seen how Fred Singer, and many others have been treated in the process (the official name of it I don’t recall) where their comments or criticisms are summarily dismissed….it’s gonna be painful.
Nonetheless, I am still happy for you to be on the “inside”. Other readers will now get a much closer and more accurate view of the REAL process. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll be more honest this time around.

David S

Not that I mean to give you unworthy ideas, Anthony, but when a cliché-ridden consultant suggested to a crusty old English gent that he would rather have some competitors inside p***ing out than outside p***ing in, the response was….”Peter, you have neglected a third possibility – you may find that they are inside p***ing in.”

Lucky for them, Anthony. For you, I hope it’s better than BEST.

AntiAcademia

They simply cannot ignore you anymore Mr. Watts, in my humble opinion that is the main reason they did this. You have reached such a massive audience and trustworthiness that they MUST invite you or they will face a hurricane of critics. You and others like you really changed public opinion. Public opinion FORCES them to do that. You got a really difficult fight on your back, Mr Watts, I hope your courage and wisdom will help you in doing a great job

Microbiologist

Fantastic news! I understand the reservations aired already, but I am hoping that ClimateGates 1 & 2, the erosion of public support for AGW, BBC Bias, failing green businesses etc. has rattled the IPCC cage sufficiently for them to be worried about their paymasters turning off the tap, and hence this move.

Just look at the memorable username and password you have. All x’s.
Seriously, as people are saying… be careful and seek lots of advice on this one.

Fitzcarraldo

Sorry but I’m afraid AW has fallen for it again like the BEST experiment. Since they are desperate to neutralize skepticism and real science they are trying to recruit WUWT and don’t be surprised if CA and others are recruited. If you cant beat them join them and make them turn LOL Big mistake in my view as with the BEST project you are giving the scientific respect they do not deserve or have.
REPLY: Nobody recruited me, I was not invited by IPCC to apply, I was given a tip by another skeptic on the application page – Anthony

Ken Hall

Bearing in mind how Dr Muller treated you with your previous work, I am sure that you will be much more careful this time around. Congratulations on your invite and remember the scientific method is the most important set of principles in the search for truth.

The IPCC takes all kinds. I wrote about two AR4 reviewers who had significant involvement in the smear of skeptic scientists here, “There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/there_is_a_cancer_growing_on_the_ipcc_and_al_gore.html , and I also mentioned in the comments for the WUWT thread about the genesis of RealClimate that Fenton Communication’s Kalee Kreider – a.k.a. Al Gore’s current spokesperson – is also found in the IPCC’s 1997 “Authors, Contributors, and Expert Reviewers of the Regional Impacts Special Report” Annex H page (scroll down to the USA section http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=329 )

Duke C.

Well-
MY Expert Reviewer registration was just Confirmed.
Conf.# 1077
Awaiting the confirmation email…

MattC

Here, I’ll write the intro paragraph for the next report:
Something, something, something, Complete. Something, something, something, Vexatious. Something, something, something, Dark Side.
OK, you guys go ahead and fill in the details.

“…Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed…”
and “…The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011 to 10 February 2012…”
Means he can’t comment on the papers or content until AFTER 10 Feb, 2011. Didn’t say he can’t copy the papers and data he finds there. Think about the data we can’t find anywhere else, using FOIA.
Sounds like SEVERAL skeptics have been given the key.
On Feb 11th, however, we expect a FULL report on what you found hidden in there.

Mark Bofill

There are several possible explanations, and maybe I’m giving the co-chairs too much credit. Maybe the person/s who issued the approval didn’t even realize who Anthony Watts is. Still, if they did, one can argue that this is a smart move on their part. If they can say afterwards that skeptics such as Watts were involved in the expert review process, they legitimize the process and the results become that much stronger.
That being said, I agree with you Anthony – it is important to do this. Not being willing to play ball isn’t a good way to answer the gambit either.
Mark Bofill

Mary Childs

Have you discussed this with Dr. Curry in light of her recent Univ of Calif involvement?

Al Marinaro

They invite you, then you are somehow legally binded not to talk about anything IPCC. Sounds like a possible legalese trick to me… Beware..