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?
Well, it’s sure to be an unforgettable and educational experience!!
BTW, make sure to get full binocular 3D video documentation of the encounter with 7 of 9, ‘kay? Enquiring minds, and all that …
PJP says:
December 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
It’s a trap!
Damn that CO2 – now it doesn’t only trap heat.
Roh234 says:
December 16, 2011 at 3:43 pm
That wan’t m rant. i was showing WUWT readers Gregs’s rant. L2Read.
roh234 says:
December 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Update: I sent off a complaint to the editors of Sb about this, and it appears that Laden has been asked to remove the libelous language, though the post remains as does his hateful attitude in comments.
–
Wrong
“Your Stupid State
Sometimes I’m hard on an entire state. Like Texas. Or, recently, West Virginia.
It’s funny when the slack jawed yokels who live in these god-forsaken shitholes get annoyed at that….”
Learn how 2 refer to what u are talking about.
Mike M:
Don’t forget Confucius – “Sleep with dogs – wake up with fleas.”
Works both ways!
Finally, someone can fix this global warming thingy.
It was WAY too hot last summer, but curiously we are still getting freezes this winter.
Please see that the temps never go above 90 in summer and never below 45 in winter. (Except of course in the mountains where we need colder temps for snow and skiing.)
Also, please see if they can explain why the temps fall so rapidly when the Sun goes down. Seems like all the carbon dioxide should hold the temps at least until morning…
PS: If you need more carbon dioxide, please contact blabbing leftists like al gore.
What happened to this:
——
Øyvind Christophersen (Norway) and Eduardo Calvo (Peru), Co-Chairs of the Procedures
Task Group, said “The decisions adopted here cover a wide range of issues, but at the
centre of these decisions is increased rigour, transparency and clarity on how the IPCC
manages its processes, including reviews and assesment reports and how it is assessing
the wealth of data–the procedures adopted today will further minimize any possibility of
errors in future reports.”
——
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/PRESS_RELEASE_Outcomes_abu_dhabi_13_may.pdf
How does “increased … transparency … including reviews” related to the statement:
“all materials provided from this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed”
I would have thought an open review process would be far more transparent.
@ur momisugly John Billings re my earlier comment.
These are only our opinions being voiced.
Although my opinion “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.” suggests that Anthony could say no for that reason, I also said:
“Good luck whatever you choose to do!”
I guess Anthony has enough nous to make his own decision, perhaps without influence from us, perhaps not. We have certainly provided him plenty of unsolicited and unfortunately contradicting advice.
This is his call.
Your opposing my opinion doesn’t contribute much value to the blog. IMHO.
Bottom line – he has much support and encouragement from many people, including myself, and yourself.
Hopefully Anthony might eventually share with us, his decision-making process regarding this issue, and of course, his assessment of its outcome.
Only time will provide us that future outcome, and then we will have some hindsight with which to assess the validity of our own respective thought processes.
There have been some notable skeptics in IPCC reports. John Christy comes to mind.
This is something that you have to do Anthony. Nought to worry about. It is likely that Santer will come to the “correct” conclusions in the Summary for Policy makers anyhow. So you’re good.
My first thought is that this strikes me as an attempt at leak suppression. Having agreed never to publish or comment on the material, when incriminating information is exposed AW will be legally forbidden from publishing it. I don’t believe for a moment that The Team is suddenly interested in skeptic views or reviews. We all know they will be ignored regardless, so that only leave some kind of trickery as the motive here.
i do not know how you can take this work.
The IPCC is the enemy of science
Oops, Roh, I forgot to apologize for my part in getting confused as to who was saying what in your
December 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm post. I really couldn’t tell, which is why I should have asked you!
Once again, you have been invited into the AGW catastrophists’ tent. While this is a nice backhanded compliment, it is also a way to waste your time and energy and paint you as complicit.
This time it is the Big Top – the organisation whose starting premise and raison d’etre is to develop policies to mitigate the effects of (deleterious) climate change caused by humans, thanks to CO2. Why would you lend your good name to that?
If I was a committed animal lover, I would not be commenting on the Dog Fighting League’s proposed Code of Conduct. The fact that other animal lovers had been approached, all of a sudden, when the League was under a lot of pressure, would make me even more suspicious.
They haven’t even implemented a conflict of interest policy yet, because it’s too hard, apparently. Do you want your name associated with these people?
It’s a straight out co-option strategy in the face of serious opposition. Don’t fall for it.
As Ronald Regan said trust but verify.
Get the money up front.
Time to change your bio and your business cards to include “Expert Reviewer of the UN IPPC.”
Go get ’em Anthony – Give ’em Science!
Interesting. I think Anthony has done the upside/downside calculation between the upside of being able to highlight errors and be able to later show the world that the error reports were arbitrarily ignored vs. the downside of the IPCC being able to falsely claim they ‘included’ skeptical viewpoints.
I think he’s taken the better side of the deal. Especially when one considers that, although the drafts and reviews are confidential from the public until later, they aren’t confidential from other IPCC-accepted reviewers. The IPCC has previously played a clever game of “man in the middle” by keeping all the reviewers in the dark as to what other reviewers are also saying. Only the IPCC leaders see all the reviews. Tech savvy skeptical reviewers could take it upon themselves to increase their value to the IPCC by voluntarily using private online work group software to collaborate with each other to improve their ‘work product’. Since it seems like there are quite a few expert reviewers who are open to the skeptical viewpoint, that real-time “peer coordination” could be very helpful in improving the IPCC’s output. I think the IPCC would be grateful to have reviewers working with such diligence to support the best science possible.
Such private work group software could also serve as a repository of the discussions and concerns of the participants during the process. When no longer confidential, these posts would serve as powerful testimony to show how well the IPCC adopted (or not) well-reasoned review notes from not one reviewer but a community of reviewers. In fact, this would simply be reviewers voluntarily implementing some of the reforms the external review of IPCC procedures already recommended, while fully complying within current IPCC policies. It would also show that scientists who are pursuing the truth welcome real collaboration and transparency.
Of course this may not be dangerous at all. It could be all part of the IPPC’s gradual distancing itself from the AGW theories. Good luck Mr Watts.
The more I read of these comments, the more I wonder if Anthony is getting any help at all from us.
More likely we are driving him crazy. He is certainly quiet, maybe waiting for the dust to settle.
We are a ragged lot of “advisors”, pushing our points of view, even thrusting them.
It’s a wonder we haven’t all been moderated. 🙂
Given that he is the expert, this is a bit rich, but human nature is like that. We are all good-hearted, “wanting to help”, (wanting to be right), souls.
One common theme – we wish you luck, Anthony.
So, does this make you one of the oft quoted thousands of scientists working for the IPCC?
petermue:
At December 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm you say;
“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.”
And
“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 “
Your file is very incomplete. It does not include most of my review comments and only parts of some of them. I can send you a file of all the review comments I provided if you email me at
RichardSCourtneyATaol.com
and I am sure Vincent Gray would do the same.
I hope this helps.
Richard
Regardless of their reasons and regardless of whether they ignore / dismiss any inconvenient comments, seems to me that getting to see what the report will (likely) contain before it’s released has one big benefit in terms of challenging anything that needs challenging – the challenging response can be ready to release almost at the same time as the report is.
Obviously, “challenging” before will be a no-no because of presumed non-disclosure but, as soon as the report is published, who’s to say someone didn’t sit up all night and work really really really hard to release any response that’s needed the next day?
I, too, received a shock.
I found the concept funny, with a line from an old song running through my head (“Imagine that, me working for you!”), I registered. I expected instant rejection, but received an acceptance email just a few hours later.
So, my first question as an “expert reviewer” has to be: who vetted the reviewers?
Maybe to saturate/distract you with so much that the quality of your web site is affected?
The dark side of me says it’s a trap. But I hope it is not. Am I taking the skeptic thinky too far?
Hope you have the capability to change your password, otherwise your review is in possible jeopardy.