You’d think that after the drubbing they got last time around from the InterAcademy council for citing mentions of climate effects in travel brochures, climbing magazines, and the Himalayan glacier’s melting by 2035 fiasco, and other blunders, they’d want less grey literature. But apparently this is the anything goes in co-opted climate science beating out reason again. I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction. Or, maybe they are going for the insanity defense in case the climate doesn’t cooperate in the future?
I wonder if we’ll see citations from Return to Almora in the next IPCC report?
From the New Scientist:
The IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the scientists who author its major assessment reports. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.
Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the “glaciergate” scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice. […]
Krug told New Scientist this would correct an imbalance in the assessments as it is harder for people in developing countries to get research findings into the major peer-reviewed journals.
“There is a lot of information available in [the grey literature of] developing countries that would balance IPCC literature,” she said.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, but its reports are written by scientists. In the past these have been chosen largely on their scientific merit, but from now on the 30-person IPCC bureau – which oversees all publications – will have geographical quotas. For instance Africa will have five members and North America four. In addition, each of its three working groups must now include at least one person from every continent in their eight-person bureaux.
Full story at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21940-climate-panel-adopts-controversial-grey-evidence.html
===============================================================
Looks like none of this took hold, from the Register
Report recommends UN climate panel shakeup
Rearrange the chairs please
…
The InterAcademy Council, led by Dr Harold Shapiro, an economist at Princeton University, also said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had “gone beyond its mandate to be ‘policy relevant’ not policy prescriptive” – for which it recommended a new “communications policy”. The IPCC was also criticised for “confirmation bias” with lead authors placing “too much weight on their own views relative to other views”. It recommended working group co-chairs be limited to one assessment.
The (IAC) report is an indirect criticism of the part-time chairman Dr Rajendara Pachauri. The IAC Panel recommends a full-time chairman limited to a shorter term.
The investigation was prompted by criticisms of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report (AR4) published in 2007 – specifically the output of Working Group 2 (WGII), set up to examine the “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and which produced a report ran to almost 1,000 pages. This was found to lean heavily on “grey literature”, including activist reports and even travel brochures. A prediction that that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was traced to a casual remark by an Indian scientist. Here and elsewhere, the IPCC excluded work that suggested that the impacts of global warming were overstated, or which were critical of the costs of the policy favoured by the UN and activist groups of mitigation, rather than adaptation.
The IAP said the IPCC’s work included headline-catching statements which couldn’t be justified.
…
Full story here
I hope that the scientific gay, lesbian & transgender community will have appropriate quotas too and then they’ll be an offical body set up to monitor that the quotas are filled properly.
FFS!
So the next time Ed Bagley shouts that a skeptic’s paper wasn’t “peer-reviewed” …………
Why can’t people get it straight that even though women are absolutely just as capable as men in science and engineering – far fewer of them than men are interested in either. We have to fight back against artificially imposed gender based quotas that have no relationship whatsoever to what people FREELY choose to do. Many women still actually want to be or already enjoy being mothers – thank God for that! Without mothers there would be no one left to marvel at the climate when these nitwits finally get done ‘fixing’ it.
What’s that you say the self proclaimed ‘best’ science promoters in their area want to increase the amount of material which has NO scientific value , well that must be ‘climate nonscience’ at work again
Grey literature has actually always been permitted. BUT the “rule” (before Thomas Stocker engineered its “disappearance”) was that such material was supposed to be flagged as “Non-Published” in the Chapter references. (For the record, of the 5,600+ non-peer reviewed references in AR4, I found that only 6 were so flagged.)
See: When task group says let’s “disappear” a rule, IPCC agrees
and:
IPCC’s use of grey literature: To flag or not to flag, that is the question
Stocker is currently Co-Chair for AR5 WG1; his idea of being “non policy prescriptive” is to declare, during the course of a newspaper interview, that “the planet might be better off if [gas prices] soared to “three to four” times its current level”.
It is worth noting that at the same time Stocker’ and his “task group” recommended that the IPCC “disappear” the flagging rule (because it was “too impractical”), they slipped in another rule to the effect that blogposts and (most) newspaper articles are not acceptable as source material.
For some strange reason, the “new” rules are silent about material that might originate from BIG green advocacy groups.
FWIW, on the gender and regional balance in selection of authors fronts, this is something they’ve always “strived for”. If you’ve ever checked out the responses to the IAC questionnaire, or read Donna’s TDT, you will know that some of the authors themselves recognized that they had been selected on the basis of such “affirmative action” – and that they felt they were out of their depth.
Also, FWIW, when the SRREN report came out, Pachauri stopped referring to “top experts” and began speaking of “inclusive talent”.
These decisions were, for the most part, made about a year ago; but they didn’t actually get “written in stone” until the rather quiet meeting of the IPCC in Geneva at the beginning of this month – when they “concluded” their work on “responses” to the IAC’s recommendations by amending – in a rather foggy way – the “rule” pertaining to making Reviewer comments and author responses from the FOD available to reviewers of the SOD.
This acceptance of grey literature is advocated by those from countries in which grey water constitutes a pristine source.
Their goal is a “social justice” in which the rest of us must drink from their trough.
Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review.
I see an expanded role for skeptical bloggers in that “increase”.
‘In the past these have been chosen largely on their scientific merit, ‘ and the way it agreed with the political objectives of the IPCC and got ‘Team’ approval.
Well I certainly know why women are being force-fit into the system. After all, everyone knows that women are allowed to change their mind – so, alibis all round when the music stops!
I agree, White Males are over represented in climate science and physics. In addition to geographic representation, there needs to be a quota for race, ethnic group, and gender to be sure everyone is included. I am also thinking low-income, the disabled, and GLBT’s should equally represented. It’s only fair!
Phil. says @June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm [ … ]
So why do you even waste your time commenting here? It’s because you know that WUWT is the the internet’s best science site, or you would be spending your valuable time posting on thinly trafficked, has-been blogs like RealClimate with its two dozen regular readers.
The fact that you constantly post comments here is your acknowledgement of the value of WUWT, whether you want to admit it or not.
Post-Modern B.S. at its best – sorry, worst.
Oh, the utter bathos………..
Atlas Shrugged
You’ve got it on one – Green Dementia .
“I’m beginning to wonder if the people running the IPCC don’t suffer from some sort of mental affliction. Or, maybe they are going for the insanity defense in case the climate doesn’t cooperate in the future?”
“all publications – will have geographical quotas. For instance Africa will have five members and North America four.” Isn’t that special. I say give our four to Africa so they can have nine. Why would you want to participate….it’s like Mark Twain once said: “Never wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty, and besides the pig likes it.”
What is “grey literature”? similar to grey water? sounds ominous. (I know, it means ‘not peer reviewed’).
Lets face it, the UN has lost its relevance and should be sent packing. Let the third world have their slimy hate fest somewhere else – perhaps Africa, along the equator, where Ebola lives. The G20 can be the new UN. but retain the G20 name.
Mike M says:
June 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Why can’t people get it straight that even though women are absolutely just as capable as men in science and engineering – far fewer of them than men are interested in either. We have to fight back against artificially imposed gender based quotas that have no relationship whatsoever to what people FREELY choose to do. Many women still actually want to be or already enjoy being mothers – thank God for that! Without mothers there would be no one left to marvel at the climate when these nitwits finally get done ‘fixing’ it.
===========================================================
AMEN!
Two people doing the same job with the same abilities should get the same pay regardless of race or gender. To make race or gender one of the criterion is wrong which ever way you judge.
It is hard not to conclude that the motivation toward “geographical equity” among IPCC Bureau members is to get more representation from those regions which expect to benefit from the “Climate Justice” payouts. Probably also to solidify support from the general Loony Left, although I wouldn’t think that would require much additional pandering.
I’m sure some will take this as evidence of racism, but does anyone really believe an IPCC Bureau member from just about anywhere in Africa won’t vote exactly as his/her government desires? Bring on the “scientists” from Zimbabwe and Tuvalu — their votes are guaranteed.
Look, I could be wrong. So if we move the entire UN to Tuvalu and they really do sink under the rising ocean, I will be the first to admit it.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review.
I see an expanded role for skeptical bloggers in that “increase”.
=======================================================================
Thaty’d be nice but most likely in the PR skeptical blogger input will be dismissed as not being “peer-reviewed” while the junk science will be accepted. (Should we start to pronounce that “pee-ered reviewed”?)
Was that grey literature or gay literature?–could be both. In the not too distant future there will be bonus social program payouts for recipeints that publish global warming science papers.
There cannot be a worse photo of that guy. He looks like the Grim Reaper.
Smokey says:
June 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Phil. says @June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm [ … ]
So why do you even waste your time commenting here? It’s because you know that WUWT is the the internet’s best science site, or you would be spending your valuable time posting on thinly trafficked, has-been blogs like RealClimate with its two dozen regular readers.
The fact that you constantly post comments here is your acknowledgement of the value of WUWT, whether you want to admit it or not.
Well it’s certainly not to enlighten you, Smokey, since, as usual, your response has no bearing on my comment! I thought it was interesting that two posts on the same day would, in one case criticize the use of non-peer-reviewed material by the IPCC, and in the other case praise the contribution of such sources.
Affirmative action from the IPCC: parity men/women, grey literature in lieu of research for poor countries… next, equal representation based on sexual orientation among scientists? All these MUST have an influence on climate science…
Phil. says:
June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm
So which is it to be? Or does it depend which point of view the non-peer-reviewed material favors?
An excellent question!
The article said: “There is a lot of information available in [the grey literature of] developing countries that would balance IPCC literature,” she said.
And with regards to the IPCC report:
“In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.”
For the rest, see
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=9940
So does this mean there will now be a balance between overstatements and understatements of the severity of the problem?
By AR-7 at this rate the entire UN/IPCC will be run by NGO’s and QUANGOs. Real scientists will not be found anywhere.
What am I saying?? There are no real scientists anywhere in the UN now. They have all sold out the scientific method and transparency for taxpayer loot, first-class travel, and status.