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.
Did you make it “in” because you are a co-author of a not-quite-yet peer-reviewed but falsely-crowed-about-by-warmists piece of the literature?
Most perturbing and very sketchy, IMO.
By doing such what are you NOT going to be allowed to speak of here?
Anthony, I hope you will not be permanently rejected, like other reviewers seen in the IPCC Reviewer Comments report, AR4.
Only a very few excerpts for example:
———————————-
Considering IPCC only provide policy-neutral report, please delete any
connclusions with value judgment in order to avoid misleading policymakers.
[Govt. of China (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2006-4)]
No specific cases given for this concern on SPM?
———————————-
11-128 A 4:24 4:24 Add at end “But, or course, the models cannot project
natural climate trends or influence”
[VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-1744)]
Rejected, we disagree and no justification given.
———————————-
By no stretch of the imagination can production and
comparison of such “projections” be said to provide “increased
confidence in climate science”.
Indeed, the continued failure during the “last 6 years” to
obtain a model with validation and predictive ability provides
reason for reduced confidence in climate science.”
[Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-39)]
Rejected – see TS 33
———————————-
and so on…
Good luck!
jim c says:
December 16, 2011 at 6:56 am
will this muzzle you?
REPLY: No, I plan to have Kenji do the reviews /sarc – Anthony
——-
I don’t see why not, I understand Kenji has the CV (real street cred) being a full dues paying member of a scientific organization. Good luck to both of you. I’d appreciate it if you could keep this email under wraps. You know —-hide my decline
Good luck, watch your back and if you DO feel that you are being (or have been) set up you must say so as loudly as you can.
And this goes for the rest of you who have been selected as well.
But with any luck this is the beginning of the end for CO2 AGW.
Not sure why you would participate. At best you will be ignored. At worst you will be used to show how open the IPCC is (while still being ignored). The IPCC can’t be fixed.
The fox is being invited into the hen house? I also smell a trap. This is a way for them to say “See! See! Our report was reviewed by Anthony Watts, a known climate skeptic.” It will be like the reaction we saw on the BEST report where the headlines were “Koch-funded Report Proves Global Warming.”
Careful Anthony!
The requirement that all material may not be “cited, quoted, or distributed” refers to this draft IPCC report: “Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5)”
Since you obviously have lots of comments about the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report: The Physical Science Basis, why don’t you post your comments about that report right here? I’m sure there will be lots of overlap between the two documents.
Hm. Butterflies in my stomach. Nah.
Congrats,
Mr. Anthony Watts – IPCC Expert Reviewer
so what happens if you leak some information and analysis thereof? Is there whistleblower protection for you and others?
Wow, Mr. Watts, into the Borg. Use a condom. 🙂 Really though, Shake them up. Ask those questions that don,t get asked.
From my cursory reading of various sections that I could be considered an expert, I found the text very concise and terse perhaps to a fault. Review articles are usually very long even on specific topics. The entire Observations: Atmosphere and Surface section is condensed into about 80 single space pages. It could easily be 800 or 8000.
Don’t forget Confucius – “Sleep with dogs – wake up with fleas.”
Open and Transparent—-just tell us what you tell them and why, and I don’t see the difference between publishing here and publishing in there. But it’s in the editorial power that the danger lies……saying you said something when you didn’t. Reviewed something when you hadn’t. The sort of, Mann SOP…changing things after they get reviewed and approved. You will be lending credence to these Cretans but it’s a way forward and we’ll see. ..IMHO.
You have to do it, Anthony. They knew that you would have to do it. They have a specific strategy in mind and will have a variety of tactical manoeuvres in prospect to meet changing situations. They will sacrifice you without a thought if they deem it in their own interests. Keep your wits about you and I wish you the very best of luck.
Mr. Watts,
Please be very careful in accepting any such invitation as it may have an unintended, restricted effect on what you disseminate on your website and through other channels. While the IPCC may think they are above FOIA law, they have their own rules and regulations which may indiscriminately bar you from posting certain material. It may also inhibit your objectifvity, based in part on potential political pressures you might be exposed to.
If you are aware of all these issues, then good luck and you have my support.
-Larry
They are attempting to employ the same strategy as Best did. I’d not take part if I were you.
Get a well know skeptic on-baord; ignore and reject any points; crowd him out of the private discussions and then hold him up as proof that everything was above board.
You will be used and muzzled.
I suspect that Anthony knows well what he is doing here. Good for him! btw, nice article here Anthony,
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/
I am especially interested in the Sierra snowpack science following this years instances of year round surface snow in deep pockets south of Kings Canyon et al. These were impossible in previous models. The changes to and excuses for past errors orders greater than published error bars will be great theater.
May I make a suggestion,
In your blog you have assembled quite a broad college of experts and willing assistants who would be willing to add to your efforts. Would it be possible to publish the IPCC docs here and expose them to public expert scrutiny rather than secret biased rubber-stamping?
I don’t acknowledge the UN authority to regulate MY life on this matter since I am Canadian and as Canadians we are not part of that treaty any more (there still are little tentacles), but it would be worthwhile to contribute to the purification of the scientific process for all those nations who are still held hostage by the abusers of science.
I know you will abide by the confidentiality rules, even if they are bizarre or excessively restrictive. That will mean no running commentary as the process goes forward. This does give you the opportunity to write a minority report when it’s all done, however. So despite this likely bargain with the devil, you will provide a valuable service to ultimate transparency.
Here is a vista into Anthony’s future in dealing with the UN and the IPCC
A video of a weatherman being covered in raw sewage…. seems appropriate to me.
BTW Anthony, I suggest you re-read Macbeth. This invitation may be the conjurations of 3 diabolical witches…. which bodes unwell for you.
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.
Hahaha, you mean all those millions and millions of scientists who reviewed all the previous AR’s were either not privy to the brick sh** houses erected by the ipcc or else that their comments will now not be available publicly? Keep on digging, you genuine fake septic scientists!
And…oh noes…that Muller’s good old pre and post publication peer review was merely another hoax. I’m crushed! Say it isn’t so!
Don’t go native on us now…