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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
Will there be a non-disclosure agreement involved?
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.)
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.
Watch your food and drinks. Congrats, make us proud.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 )
Well-
MY Expert Reviewer registration was just Confirmed.
Conf.# 1077
Awaiting the confirmation email…
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.
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
Have you discussed this with Dr. Curry in light of her recent Univ of Calif involvement?
They invite you, then you are somehow legally binded not to talk about anything IPCC. Sounds like a possible legalese trick to me… Beware..