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.
Richard S Courtney says:
December 16, 2011 at 12:35 pm
petermue:
Re: your mention of me at December 16, 2011 at 10:15 am.
Yes, and it is important to niote that all my similar review comments were rejected withiout justification.
Hello Richard.
The examples were randomly picked. Didn’t know you read along here. 🙂
Yes, you’re right.
Meanwhile IPCC seems to have retracted the Reviewer Comments Reports, which once were made public for download. However, I can’t find them on their website any more, but still have a copy of them.
As they HAVE BEEN published before by the IPCC, I have no problem with uploading them on my own website, even with the “Confidental” tag on it.
Their main target seemed to be Vincent Gray, whose comments were almost 100% rejected, despite of his IMHO very good arguments.
For those who are interested in those IPCC Reviewer Comments, you can download the PDF here.
http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/AR4WG1_TS_SOR_CommentResponses_EDist.pdf
Greetings, Peter
Being chosen as a reviewer does not require one to actually review anything.
It, of course, would be impossible to review a whole chapter.
The experience may prove invaluable, though.
Give ’em hell Anthony.
Congratulations, you should have a ball. Let us know if the IPCC pays better than Big Oil.
u.k.(us):
At December 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm you say;
” It, of course, would be impossible to review a whole chapter.”
Nonsense!
I am not able to say if you could, but anybody competent and familiar with the subject can.
Richard
Good news. Can you persist that in AR5 when there is conflicting evidence on observations, we be given BOTH sides of the story such as is done in this report on polar bears in to-days Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/bear-facts-and-polar-opposites/story-e6frg6z6-1226224338514
I am sitting in my lounge room in sydney with the a/c on heating ? beat them at there own game
Any technical expert co-opted into becoming an IPCC reviewer will be given short shrift if his comments are deemed detrimental to that panel’s all-too-palpable objectives. The prospect of sceptics actually influencing the “consensus” viewpoint is nil. Their reviews will only help IPCC anticipate and finesse basic scientific criticism through polemical means. I wouldn’t participate in this charade even if they doubled our usual consulting fee.
“The IPCC gives me a shock
First it’s a shock, then comes the Lobotomy. But finally lucky you ends up just like Roh234! In other words, either at the OWS’s radical! learning camps for the severely speech challenged or perhaps in an equally “progressive” Chico, California, by that time also in complete protective medical isolation from the rest of Roh’s non-Californian “eleven fingered teabagger” nation. Or perhaps valiantly trying to reproduce more of Roh’s truly salvational Virginia “liberals” as below, no doubt all the prototypical byproducts of Roh’s own beloved and transformational! Obamacare!
Roh234 says:
December 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm
http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target96.html”
That wan’t m rant. i was showing WUWT readers Gregs’s rant. L2Read.
Congratulatiuons! Give it your scientific best and let the physical evidence point where it will.
Have legal cousel review any agreements that you may be getting into and their long term implications. Document everything and CYA. Act as if you were an expert witness reviewing expert testimony in a court proceeding. Because in a sense you are.
Hate to burst your bubble anthony check in with Dr. Vincent Gray of NZ, 4 time peer reviewer of the IPCC drafts, he submitted over 18% of the comments to AR4, guess what all in the trash can but the IPCC still published his name as one of their expert peer reviewers. Like the rest of IPCC it is just a big sham to appear to be credible, none of your comments irrespective of the number of peer reviewed references which accompony those comments will ever get included in the final report, The IPCC is a very corrupt organization.
Hell, if they were looking for a “sop” or an “easy pushover” then Mr Watts or McIntyre would’ve been bottom of the list. I would urge people to consider this with an open mind. Don’t let past experience with or exposure to the IPCC blind you. Have a open mind, and then we’ll see. That, dear friends, is the true nature of scepticism. Not to condemn from the outset.
Some of the comments above are closed-minded, not open-minded.
Personally speaking, if there is to be one “representative”, so to speak, I would push Mr Steve McIntyre forward. Mr Watts, you are are great guy for the overview, for the broad picture, but I think Mr McIntyre is the guy for the detail.
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 16, 2011 at 11:29 am
> They are attempting to employ the same strategy as Best did. I’d not take part if I were you.
I don’t think so – Dr, Muller approached Anthony to get his data and then went off and misused it, published unreviewed results.
This is a effort to attract (ideally) a group of people with a wide range of skills and insights to improve the next IPCC report. Of course, it’s more likely that some on the IPCC want to be able to point to the list of reviewers without mentioning they were completely ignored in the process of producing the next report.
The only thing the IPCC wants from Anthony is a piece of his reputation….
@Ric Werne: The only thing the IPCC wants from Anthony is a piece of his reputation….
Yeah? He has no “reputation” (other than as a trouble maker) in “scientific circles” and Mr Watts has no voice in Government that needs to be neutralised.
Calm yourself, please, Let’s see what happens.
If you condemn something from the outset without any consideration, you are as bad as that which you seek to condemn.
What kind of attitude would you like Mr Watts to attend to this task with? That of “you are all a bunch of c****s and I am going to f*** you?” Surely not, please. In my view, it’s better to go with an open mind. And then we’ll see.
“The IPCC gives me a shock…” like an electric cattle prod to the family jewels. As many have said, be careful as to what your are giving up.
No doubt this attention from the IPCC is meaningful. It proves that your efforts in revealing the hidden declines and your extensively publishing of compelling arguments against the IPCC claims, have not gone unnoticed or unacknowledged.
However, like many above commenters, I strongly feel that no good would come from your involvement with the IPCC, I believe you would risk compromising your well known integrity.
I think this comment from above says what I believe:
“December 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm
barry moore says:
“Hate to burst your bubble anthony check in with Dr. Vincent Gray of NZ, 4 time peer reviewer of the IPCC drafts, he submitted over 18% of the comments to AR4, guess what all in the trash can but the IPCC still published his name as one of their expert peer reviewers. Like the rest of IPCC it is just a big sham to appear to be credible, none of your comments irrespective of the number of peer reviewed references which accompony those comments will ever get included in the final report, The IPCC is a very corrupt organization.””
Good luck whatever you choose to do!
This is good. First the IPCC tones down its rhetoric about ‘extreme’ weather. Now they’ve actually opened out to at least a few people who aren’t committed to supporting the ‘Team’. The backlash against climate orthodoxy might just gather momentum — it can’t go on forever. Lotsa hard work, no doubt, but so’s running WUTW. Congratulations, and sincere best wishes.
I agree with John Billings that an open mind with due caution and diligence is appropriate. The first thing to avoid at all costs is being muzzled but the second is being isolated. As far as possible, bring trusted and talented friends to the party with you. Also be prepared to play the game your way if necessary in a way the bureaucracy doesn’t expect. There are lots of possibilities, from a minority report to a behind-the-scenes populist expose. Above all, have fun!
Sorry Anthony – I’m with the others on this topic: IPCC are using time-worn techniques to co-opt your credibility onto their cause. There is no downside for them – if you refuse they can say “we asked and he refused”; if you accept – you can’t blog about it (and perhaps reduce you capacity to blog in total) and they can say “skeptics have had input” whilst simultaneously ignoring you.
A tough spot.
I suppose it may make you feel better – but this has a Trenberthian “come visit NCAR’ written all over it….. There is value in being an informed critic…..so I would say – based upon prior experiences (McIntyre et al) and current IPCC behaviors (conflict of interest etc) – would politely suggest that they clean up there own house first – rather than try to get you to do it for them…..
Just sayin….
@Ken McMurtrie “However, like many above commenters, I strongly feel that no good would come from your involvement with the IPCC, I believe you would risk compromising your well known integrity.
Why? What could possibly help us from disengagement? I personally would call this the chance of a lifetime. My strong belief is that this is a vindication of the work done so far by Mr Watts and others, and that a press release should follow accordingly. Frankly, I feel I am swimming through a major shoal of whales with no directional sense whatsoever. A press release on the topic of “Shunned derided climate sceptic invited to contribute” with discussion points from both sides would make global global global headlines across the weekend, but you are all too puritanical to be able to observe a major media opportunity when you see one.
…I just saw a pig fly by my window!!
Give ’em hell, Anthony! Keep the process honest…if there IS environmental damage being done by fossil fuels, let’s put it on the table like honest scientists and discuss our options. However, if not, then put that out there too! This is MUCH too important to leave to the likes of the Hockey Team, “Dirty Books” Pauchuri etc.
Merry Christmas, Chuck the DrPH
ps. I saw on the news that the ban on incandescent light bulbs is in the new budget legislation!
They just want to tie you up with other things to keep you occupied, like a miss direction of sorts, you know like the never mind the man behind the curtain thing! So they can carry on with their business without having to worry about you exposing them.
You should never be a part of their plan, the old saying comes to mind, if you can’t beat them join them, well it’s changed, now it is if you can’t beat them recruit them.
So now, there is one more expert reference that will be added to the pile of those that will be heralded among the 1000s of references for the already forgone conclusions of AR5.
I have no faith in this church. I will read their published Gospel and separate the wheat from the chaff when it presented(although Jeff Id has some insight on the tablets as they are being carved).
Consider working to make friends, Anthony. Take along a list of simple suggestions for
improvement of the world’s CO2 situation. And, maybe, some cookies…?
Like this:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fe5265e23e/kristen-wiig-s-global-warming-solution
Really: whatever you do, best of luck. …Lady in Red
“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.”
Of course you have to obey this. However would you be reviewing a chapter that has been presumably updated from AR4? If so, that would not be secret information. Would it be practical for you to publish the appropriate chapter from AR4 that is being revised? Then many of us who may have specialized expertise in certain areas of that chapter can give our thoughts. If the same paragraph then ended up in AR5, in addition to your own considerable expertise, you could give consideration to any other good ideas that your readers can collectively come up with.
I am sure the IPCC have a special bin for you Anthony Watts. The IPCC’s opaque process guarantee they don’t need use anything you supply and they still get to list on their references.