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.
Anthony, Will be allowed to post your review and comments here or will the IPCC own your inputs?
“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. ”
I think the term is ‘politely dis-invite’ him. This is an interesting tern of events none the less.
All your email are belong to us.
If you report in any way on leaked IPCC materials, they will say you leaked it. It’s going to be a tough call whether to be a responsible voice on the work or continue with the the full strength WUWT. However, I know you will make a wise choice. Either way, you have my respect and admiration.
Resistance is futile , no doubt 7 of nine will be waiting in your hotel room for you and before you know it the headline will be “Worlds best known skeptic agrees with IPCC” with an unreadable footnote in sub microscopic text (the coffee was awful) and the news cycle will roll on with the takeaway message.
Tell them to take it and shove it.
Yep!
Got accepted. 🙂
Didn’t get the magic number, though. Might be because I did it about some days before you!
I intend to participate in a positive manner. Not everything in the IPCC reports is wrong! It will get better this time, at least I expect!
Ecotretas
I think you should consider very carefully the conditions under which you undertake this role, especially regarding confidentiality. I wouldn’t hesitate to suggest you consult a lawyer. This is not necessarily to suggest any nefarious motive, but to insure that neither WUWT’s independence nor your ability to report are materially compromised.
Though not invited to apply, I applied and was accepted. The acceptance was nearly instantaneous, leading me to believe that the decision maker was a computer algorithm.
Anthony – It makes great sense to engage. It is also the only option for the scientist. There is clearly the possibility – though perhaps slim – that you can strengthen the science without in any way limiting your ability to independently point to weaknesses (and strengths) in both the science and the IPCC process. Steve McIntyre’s role as a reviewer certainly helped increase access to the reviewer comments.
Good luck and please let us know how we can help you in the process. I suspect that you will need folks to help with generating posts, etc.
It will be interesting to see if any other blogs (cough… RC … cough) participants are held to the same standards of concurrent blogging and reviewing.
I just noticed this from Judith Curry at the bottom of her latest thread. Nota bene:
“If the IPCC process and assessment were transparent, the emails would be completely uninteresting. In the absence of appropriate transparency (I believe I have made the case for this both in the main paper and in my reply), the emails provide critical glimpses into what actually went into their assessment.
At this point, I am not interested in building bridges with the IPCC, but rather in holding their feet to the fire re transparency, traceability, etc. Recent efforts by the IPCC to make its deliberations immune from national FOI laws reinforces the importance of the emails.”
…Lady in Red
From Rev. Jones, HRH James Hansen, Commandante Michael Mann et al: Choose your weapons. You will hear from our Seconds at midnight.
tallbloke says:
December 16, 2011 at 6:55 am
“Congrats! Make sure you’re not used to endorse something bad though.”
If and when the time comes, the IPCC can promote that 1000’s of skeptic reviewers endorsed global warming.
For what it’s worth I really think you need to do this.
You will be objective, insightful and steadfast in your knowledge Anthony. If they use your input great. If they don’t , great, because you will be able to tell the world where you differ from whatever is published in the end and you will have the proof in your own hands.
Yes they may just be playing the old “inclusive” game but so what? From your, and our , perspective you will be adding to what you know and that’s always positive. I would go further and say that you will definitely be adding to what they know. It really is a win-win.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they threaten you, then you win.”
Hmmmm, maybe they thought you were somebody else?
http://www.bioch.ox.ac.uk/aspsite/index.asp?pageid=603
“Resolving structural details of membrane peptides and proteins at high resolution in a CO2 enriched atmosphere caused by those naughty, downright lying, denier people” is a well known paper confirming the existence of the link between CO2 and peptides, which also cause acidic oceans or is that something for indigestion?
Good luck, Anthony, give them hell, but be honest with them and true to yourself at all times
Congratulations – but I hope it’s not a case of poacher turned gamekeeper..
Don’t expect too much of this. As I recall SM was reviewer on AR4 and all the junk went through anyway because they just ignored his comments.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
http://funnyhub.com/content_images/4287_2144_hell-freezes-over.jpg
It is still very hot, this current chill is simply statistical background noise, nothing to worry about people, move along…
Anthony,
Is it possible that you and Joe Romm (or a guy named David) could end up reviewing the same papers? :/
It’s a trap. Remember BEST.
Anthony,
Yep, I got accepted.
I’ll be looking at Chapter 9: Climate Modeling
It might be interesting…..
Bernie says:
December 16, 2011 at 8:08 am
Perhaps he was a reviewer more than once, but I only remember him blogging about one year. That experience was, as I recall, a snub, in that his criticisms of processes, data, and conclusions were limited, and ultimately ignored. After the fact, I agree, the experience allowed him to share his substantial and expert insights with readers.
It’s by no means clear that volunteer reviewers will be offered a look at anything of substance, at the same time that they are constrained from commenting on anything IPCC. From one perspective, it’s like you’re presenting your wrists for a pair of golden handcuffs. All this is just conjecture on my part. Of course, I wish any of the volunteers the best in their decision to participate, and look forward to hearing from you after your experience, and after the period of the gag order has elapsed.
Congratulations?
Perhaps the person reviewing you didn’t know who you were?
I would not be surprised if this invitation was rescinded. Btw, did you check the IP address of the email?
Congratulations Anthony.
That’ll upset all the right people, good style.