The second order draft of the next IPCC report will be open for expert and government review from October 5th to November 30th. Sign-up to participate is already open. The application is online at:
https://sod.ipcc.unibe.ch/registration/
I’ll be signing up because I want to see if the second order draft has been modified in response to my thorough documentation of omitted variable fraud in the first order draft (“Vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5“).
The application is simple. It just asks for publications (I cite the blog posts I have written on my area of interest), and a brief statement of expertise (they don’t warn you, but this gets truncated at 750 characters).
Not sure if there is a sign-up deadline other than the closing of the comment window at the end of November. They only say that passwords will be sent out on October 5th. Could be you have to sign up before that. Good luck.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Colin says that this post is “encouraging carpet bombing of the AR5 process by suggesting that sceptical bloggers register as expert reviewers.” That is a non-sequitur. Skeptical bloggers CAN be expert reviewers. I am indeed an expert on the omitted variable fraud that is the very backbone of AR5. Encouraging other people to review AR5 in their areas of expertise is most certainly NOT a call for “carpet bombing” with un-expert views.
Colin’s premise seems to be that people who are not credentialed climate scientists cannot have relevant expertise, which is absurd. What grounds does he have to cast aspersions on any of the six people above who have gone to the trouble of applying to be expert reviewers, signing up to put their names and reputations on the line in comments that will be part of the public record henceforth? I’m sure there are dozens more WUWT commenters who could easily qualify by any standard as having relevant expertise to review AR5. How about a little respect?
Doesn’t the IPCC write the summary first?
How does the process work? I was confirmed as #393, but does that mean I get to review the draft? or does only a subset of the entire pool of volunteers will be nominated to review the report?
#389 ready for duty. Not sure I’ll be let-in; my publications are in applied sciences relating to long-term weathering of architectural construction materials in urban micro-climates.
Alex
In response to your comments on my comment, firstly, may I congratulate you on your article on “Omitted variable fraud.” It is an excellent article, which I agree with whole heartedly. The quality of your article demonstrates your abilities as an expert reviewer and I wish you well in your efforts in that respect. However, the fact that you are accusing these people of fraud will probably mean that you will be completely ignored, as will those bloggers who you have spurred on to serve as expert reviewers also. I don’t know these people and I certainly was not casting aspersions on their climate credentials. But Richard S Courtney makes an excellent point when he says that he was ignored as an invited expert reviewer except for his contribution in swelling the numbers of expert reviewers. So the amateur blogger, no matter what his expertise, is most certainly going to be ignored, except by the alarmist media who will call their contribution an interference in the process.
I would suggest that you would have much greater success by plugging your “Varied omitted fraud” accusations to our politicians and others and to bring into question the IPCC’s own credentials as the keepers of the science.
As I have made two contributions to this thread, that now presumably qualifies me as an expert reviewer, but I shall not be putting my name forward to the IPCC.
Confirmation No. 394 for Chapters 10 and 14 (my time is limited and precious) – hopefully providing an environmental perspective from the electric and gas utility sectors…
Andrejs: The confirmation numbers are just confirmations of having applied. If they accept you as an expert reviewer they will let you know (not sure when) and send you a password (on October 5th).
Anthony, why don’t you sign-up Kenji as an expert reviewer? 😉
REPLY: While that would be funny, I’m pretty sure it would require me to lie in the application as they require publication citations IIRC. THE UCS had no such questions for Kenji…and they apparently still don’t care. – Anthony
So…
Colin Porter says:
September 11, 2012 at 6:59 am
I think that WUWT has lost its way just recently with some of the articles it has published, and I think this may be the worst one.
When others see how WUWT is behaving in encouraging carpet bombing of the AR5 process by suggesting that sceptical bloggers register as expert reviewers, they will say that our side is behaving extremely irresponsibly in attempting to subvert the workings of a “highly professional United Nations body.”
—-
The misbehavior is not with WUWT. Check out the site registration requirements. This is a classic cherry picking exercise. To apply, one has to have 5 published papers. Thus folks are screened not only on the title of their published work, but also by which publication stuck its neck out (or not).
So Mr. Porter, have no worries, even the most published participants on this site would never pass the star-room review of acceptable credentials. The criteria for which is of course is never disclosed. Take your anxiety elsewhere. There are no problems here. AR5 remains in well paid hands. You can go back to sleep.
Enjoy its results.
Colin Porter says:
September 11, 2012 at 6:59 am
…Likewise, the article the other day, “Replication of Lewandowsky Survey” is also somewhat petty and could also backfire. Commenters from the other side could say that it was not conducted professionally and did not replicate all the detail of the Lewandowsky survey, but if it had followed the procedures of Lewandowsky, it would almost certainly be unprofessional. You are damned if you replicate and damned if you don’t.
—-
I neglected the rest of your comment, sorry. Had you taken the survey you would have noticed the contradictory compound questions that asked for a single response. You would also have noticed the clever way that questions were crafted so that any refined answer didn’t count. The survey wasn’t worth the TP upon which it was conceived. Again, Mr Porter, please resume your sleep.
Policy Guy, to be an AR5 WGI expert reviewer you needn’t have 5 published papers. In fact, you needn’t have any, if you can demonstrate your expertise in some other way. The form has space for listing 5 published papers, but you needn’t fill them in.