IPCC caught out with an old, known, and uncorrected error pending their new AR5 report

UPDATE: 11:15AM PDT 8/20/13 The IPCC reads WUWT, and directly responds below – Anthony

Spot the error. The IPCC can’t.

Story submitted to WUWT by Tony Thomas


Leaked reports of the Fifth IPCC Report, due next month, say the IPCC experts are now 95% sure that human activities and emissions are the main cause of global warming since the 1950s.[1]

The same IPCC experts remain 100% sure that the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are homes to tropical forests, and that they have been since 1995.


But given a doubling of global CO2, they expect the central US tropical forest belt to shift eastwards to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois, even stretching east to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Looking at my own part of the world, I see that the IPCC has Papua-New Guinea, Indonesia and the Philippines currently covered in savannas, dry forests and woodlands. But with global CO2 doubling, the prairies of south-east Asia will surge northwards to Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, even southern China.

India, as in the map below, acquires tropical forests through about 70% of its area. For some reason, the IPCC’s tropical forest belt of northern Australia (most Aussies believe it is gum-tree land) advances south by about 1000km, such that tourists towns like Cairns and Townsville become surrounded by Congo-like vegetation, suitable for imported bonobos and, maybe, okapi.

Turning to South America, the Amazon rainforest is already mysteriously transformed by the IPCC into savannas, which with CO2 doubling will advance across the whole top half of South America.

[2]

It’s a funny old IPCC world. An error, perhaps? Nah. All these assertions are in the all-important Synthesis Report of 1995, where for the first time the IPCC plumped for “discernible” human-caused global warming.

The IPCC also has tropical forests in Dakotas and parts of the Mississippi Valley.

The IPCC’s forest weirdness has been pointed out to the IPCC experts for at least for the past six years. The first chair of the IPCC was Bert Bolin (from 1988-97). In 2007 he footnoted in his 2007 book, A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the IPCC  (p253):

As a curiosity, it might be interesting to note that there is a major error in Figure 2 of the (1995)  Working Group 11 summary for policy makers in that the two eco-systems ‘Savannah, dry forests, woodland’ and ‘Tropical Forests’ have been interchanged, but I have not seen this corrected anywhere in the IPCC publications.

I came across the footnote early last year when scribbling a piece for Quadrant  on the IPCC’s origins. I looked up the IPCC maps and,  five years after Bolin’s prompting, they remained unchanged.

So in February, 2012, I wrote off to Renate Christ, the IPCC’s secretary in Switzerland, carefully following the steps for a complainant as outlined in a 2011 IPCC protocol for error correction.

An error in a  ‘Synthesis Report’ has to set off special alarm bells in the IPCC. Responsibility, the protocol says, rests with the IPCC chair (Dr Pachauri) himself. Both he and the co-chairs of the relevant working group at the time of the assessment, “will be kept informed of the evaluation and participate as appropriate.”

The protocol’s details are even more stringent: All Working Group co-chairs and the executive committee have to get involved. They, in turn, may need to consult their predecessors about it.

I was gratified to get an email back within 48 hours from Jonathan Lynn, communications head, filling in during Dr Christ’s absence.

Thank you very much for reminding us that this needs dealing with.

On the face of it, it looks pretty straightforward, but it’s a bit complicated for our internal procedures, as it involves an old report whose working groups have long disbanded.

Still, I’ve forwarded it to our Executive Committee (which includes Dr Pachauri) and I assure you it’s being worked on.

Best wishes, Jonathan Lynn.

Lovely! Except a year and a half later, on August 18, 2013, I looked up the maps again, and again nothing had changed, despite even Dr Pachauri and his executive committee’s close attention to the matter.  Maybe correcting what the IPCC’s  own ex-chair Bert Bolin described as a “major” error isn’t considered a priority?

I fear this is another instance of what Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise has documented in her Delinquent Teenager book on the IPCC: the IPCC says one thing and does the opposite.[3] Just for example, the IPCC demanded of its authors that, for the 2007 report, all non-peer-reviewed citations had to be flagged as such. When the report came out, Laframboise did a count. Out of the 5,587 non-peer citations, a grand total of six, or 0.1%, were flagged.

The 2011 error protocol arose from Dr Pachauri’s aggressively-wrong reaction to the IPCC’s 2007 melting-Himalayan-glaciers gaffe. These glaciers were forecast to vanish by 2035, leaving half a billion thirsty Asians.

Pachauri (who says he has two Ph.Ds but has only one) in November, 2009, initially roasted the Himalaya complainant.[4] This person was Vijay Raina, an eminent Indian glaciologist. Pachauri accused Raina of practicing ‘voodoo’ and  ‘magical’ science, and making indefensible accusations. He added that the glaciologist had no business questioning such an eminent body as the IPCC.[5]

Pachauri had apparently not even read the brief section complained of, as its bad arithmetic and dubious provenance (gossip recycled by the activist Worldwide Fund for Nature), spoke for themselves. Indeed, the single Himalayan glaciers page in the 2007  report , comprising 497 words, had to be corrected for nine separate errors.[6]

Pachauri’s venom was too much for the respectable scientific community, and within a few months he was compelled to invite the Inter Academy Council (IAC), a peak international science body, to report on IPCC procedural reforms to prevent more errors and loss of credibility.

The IAC reported in August 2010 that as a result of the Himalayan nonsense and Climategate Mark 1, “public confidence in climate science has waned”.[7] But, it added hastily, neither the Himalayas gaffe nor Climategate Mark 1 undermined the IPCC’s main findings about humans now causing global warming. (Its source for that conclusion was none other than the IPCC’s integrity specialist Peter Gleick, who later, in early 2012, confessed to using deception to obtain internal documents from a conservative US think-tank The Heartland Institute).[8]

On error correction, the IAC said,  “The communications challenge has taken on new urgency in the wake of recent criticisms regarding IPCC’s slow and inadequate responses to reports of errors in the (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Such criticisms underscore the need for a media-relations capacity to enable the IPCC to respond rapidly and with an appropriate tone to the criticisms and concerns that inevitably arise in such a contested arena.”[9]

As a result of this IAC critique, the  IPCC  governing panel at its May 2011 Abu Dhabi session issued a detailed and gorgeous  12-page protocol and flow charts for error correction.[10] The protocol includes:

“If the error is in a Synthesis Report, responsibility rests with the current IPCC Chairman.

“At the start of the process, the claimant is informed by the IPCC Secretariat about the next steps … The claimant will again be informed at the conclusion of the process.

“Errata are posted on the IPCC and WG  (Working Group) or TF (Task Force) websites after the conclusion of the process. A short explanatory statement about the error may also be posted.”

Well, as a bona fide IPCC error spotter, I was indeed informed about the ‘next steps’ 18 months ago. But the process of reversing the green and brown color boxes has not yet been done yet.

Perhaps the IPCC experts have a wicked sense of humor, and their reports are an elaborate practical joke. In that case, the egg’s on my face; I’m so damned credulous.

###


References:

[1] http://www.trust.org/item/20130816133815-ao2wt/?source=hptop

[3] http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q

[4] http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/3/the-fictive-world-of-rajendra-pachauri

[6] ibid

[8] http://science.time.com/2012/02/20/climate-expert-peter-gleick-admits-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-institute-papers/

[10] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc_error_protocol.pdf

==========================================================================

UPDATE: The IPCC responds

(Elevated from a comment)

I’m writing with regard to your posting of 19 August, the story submitted by Tony Thomas, in which you say the IPCC has not yet corrected an error allegation submitted by Tony Thomas.

This is incorrect, and I would like to set out the facts for your readers:

When we received Tony Thomas’s letter of 8 February 2012, we brought it to the attention of the relevant Working Group, and acknowledged it to Tony Thomas.

Under the IPCC’s error protocol, it was determined that there was a typographical error in the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers of the Second Assessment Report (1995). An erratum dated 9 March 2012 was issued and can be found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/sar_syr_errata.pdf

(You can also find it by going to “Publications and Data” on our website, scrolling down to the Second Assessment Report, and clicking on Errata under “IPCC Second Assessment Full Report”.)

We wrote to Tony Thomas on 20 September 2012, informing him of this. A copy of the email to him is below.

Jonathan Lynn

(Head of Communications, IPCC)

Dear Mr. Tony Thomas,

Further to our email dated February 9, 2012 informing you that we have initiated the process of the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports, we wish to inform you that IPCC Working Group II completed the analysis of the points in your email of February 8, 2012. On March 8, 2012 the WGII Bureau determined that action was warranted and that the error should be regarded as a typographical error as described in section 2, step 4A of the Protocol. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention.

Please find attached the SAR Errata, which has been posted on the IPCC website. Also please accept our apologies for this delayed response.

Thank you again for your interest in IPCC,

Yours sincerely,

IPCC Secretariat

UPDATE2: 1:55PM PDT

I replied with this in email, and got a boilerplate thank you, but no answer to my question – Anthony

Dear Mr. Lynn,

I have added your correction to the body of the post, thank you for sending it. This seems like a possible case of the imperfect nature of the Internet causing communications to be lost or trapped in spam filters.

On that note, did we miss the apology from Dr. Pachauri to climate skeptics worldwide for his “voodoo science” comment related to the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 claim? See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/ipccs-pachauris-voodo-science-claim-comes-full-circle/

Thank you for your interest and communications.

Anthony Watts

WUWT

UPDATE3: 4:05PM PDT Tony Thomas responds:

(Elevated from a comment)

As luck would have it, I changed my email account from an Australian provider to gmail on September 18, 2012. Jonathan Lynn of the IPCC replied to me, doubtless on my old email account, on September 20, 2012. I have no record of receiving this. With hindsight, my piece was therefore a bit harsh on the IPCC. My checking consisted of inspecting the 1995 IPCC maps and Synthesis Report to see if there was any evidence of a correction. There was none there.

The IPCC’s former chair Bert Bolin described the maps as a ‘major error’ rather than a typo so I assumed some change or alert would have been evident.

I am also puzzled that given that the InterAcademy Council  had complained of tardiness in IPCC responses to error notifications, the IPCC process still seems slow. I complained on February 9, 2012. The IPCC WG11 resolved on action as per typo correction protocol on March 8, 2012. Yet it was not until September 20, half a year later, that I was sent an email about it.

So the story is really one of compounding small snafus.

1. The map coding is reversed in 1995

2. Bert Bolin complains about the uncorrected “major error” in 2007

3. I also complain about it in early 2012

4. Some glitch in IPCC offices leads to a six month delay in a reply to me, which then goes into the lost-email aether.

5. No change is made to the maps

6. I give the IPCC a big spray in August 2013.

7. Hurt feelings all round.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
milodonharlani

UN science is on a par with UN “peacekeeping” expertise.

PaulH

With such a massive, turgid bureaucracy it’s a wonder the IPCC can publish anything at all.

“The main cause” is a somewhat nebulous term. It might mean “a cause accounting for more than 50%” but that’s not very precise. Did they quantify “main” ?

Lil Fella from OZ

I want what they are on. It takes them to a place I have never been! Thankfully!

Rattus Norvegicus

A couple of questions:
1) Does this error exist in TAR?
2) Does this error exist in 4AR?
If not how can you imply that it exists in 5AR?

ilodonharlani says:
August 19, 2013 at 6:15 pm
UN science is on a par with UN “peacekeeping” expertise.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The UN is very competent in everything it sets out to do. What it sets out to do is destroy first world nations, in the strange belief that, that will somehow make life better for third world nations.

Rattus Norvegicus

BTW, it looks like the key is wrong, if you switch the two colors (the pinkish which is marked tropical forests… and the bluish green which is marked savannahs…) it makes much more sense.

Now, if they can just figure out how much warming has occurred since 1950

Mike M

UN = a political organization now so big that it is responsible to no one
(sounds familiar huh?)

Crispin in Waterloo

@Rattus Norvegicus
“BTW, it looks like the key is wrong, if you switch the two colors (the pinkish which is marked tropical forests… and the bluish green which is marked savannahs…) it makes much more sense.”
No! Really?

Christopher Hanley

“Leaked reports of the Fifth IPCC Report, due next month, say the IPCC experts are now 95% sure that human activities and emissions are the main cause of global warming since the 1950s …”
————————
The 2007 report summary stated inter alia that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” and that “very likely” meant over 90% likely, using “expert judgement” of course.
So now I suppose 95% sureness means very very likely.
Now I wonder what “main” means, as opposed to “most”.

JimS

Maybe the IPCC is using this map as a “wink wink” to those of the public clued into dry humour. In other words, it is blatantly showing its gross incompetence on purpose to make people know that it is all one big joke. It can’t be real incompetence – come on! I can’t believe it… no, really I can’t.

Greg Cavanagh

The chart wasn’t making any sence to me, until I realised that brown was for forest.
Much like changing the temperature colours on the world temperature anomaly a couple years ago, so that red was zero change.

Olaf Koenders

“the IPCC’s integrity specialist Peter Gleick..”

Too funny!

Keep at ’em. They can’t keep getting away with this nonsense for much longer. People are paying more attention now (every day, in every way). Excellent post, this stuff is important.

JimS

@Olaf Koenders
“the IPCC’s integrity specialist Peter Gleick..”
Too funny!
JimS writes: See what I mean. Who does such a thing unless they are bucking for their own comedy show on TV. The IPCC is trying to tell us that it wants to replace Saturday Night Live.

How dare anyone question His Eminence, Dr. Pachouri! He has a Th. D.!!!! (Doctor of THINKology!!!)

george e. smith

So Tony Thomas, You spin quite a gripping yarn; every bit the equal of Clive Cussler .
Just when we think we have figured out the punch line, you pitch us another curved ball.
But tell me; that other rumor. Is there any truth to that story making the rounds, that you wrote the entire Micro$oft Windows Computer Virus, all by yourself ?
But this yarn ought to make the NYT best seller list.
Thanks for unboring me !

When you bring out a huge report like the IPCC AR5 Report, which is composed mainly of scientific nonsense, a little bit more nonsense in the illustrations is really nothing to worry about. They may or may not ever get round to fixing it, but at present they are more worried by the bits and pieces that keep falling off their Climate Model.

Here is my comment and context for this story. It answers the questions raised here and more.
http://drtimball.com/2013/report-indicates-ipcc-ignore-facts-and-failed-predictions-to-claim-better-results-2/

CodeTech

Oh, man! Does this mean we have to expect more trees migrating? I thought they’d figured out they could just go to higher elevations!
We’re going to have to build tree overpasses over their migration routes.

Streetcred

Rattus Norvegicus says: August 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm

No sh1t, Sherlock ! What would the world do without your acute observations ?

gregK

The figure was taken from a paper by Neilson and Marks, published in Journal of Vegetation 5 1994 pp715 – 730.
The figure purported to show the change in vegetation across the planet resulting from a doubling of CO2 and was derived from something called the Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System [MAPPS].
It would seem that no one bothered to actually check it [either at the “Journal of Vegetation” or the IPCC.
The tropical forests along the border of Russia and Kazakhstan must be worth a visit !
A wonderful example of GIGO [garbage in garbage out].

SAMURAI

UNfortunately, as long as blatant errors of fact and/or interpretation make things “worse than we thought”, the UN has no political incentive nor inclination to correct them.
Retractions are rarely read or remembered and errors of incompetence or nefariousness live on long after the retractions are made.
People too often believe what they wish to believe not because it’s necessarily factually correct, but rather because it supports their preconceived notions and ideologies.
Hey, regardless, “If 97% of “scientists” know CAGW is an undisputed “fact” and is “settled science” (puke/puke), I’ll go with what the “experts” say.” (puke/puke).
Since IPCC has proven itself to be more concerned with justifying its existence and political agendas rather than determining the truth, such errors will continue until this whole mess is slowly giggled into obscurity.

Rattus Norvegicus says:
August 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm

BTW, it looks like the key is wrong, if you switch the two colors (the pinkish which is marked tropical forests… and the bluish green which is marked savannahs…) it makes much more sense.

You probably didn’t read all of the main post, in particular near the end where it says:

Well, as a bona fide IPCC error spotter, I was indeed informed about the ‘next steps’ 18 months ago. But the process of reversing the green and brown color boxes has not yet been done yet.

Swapping labels takes time, you know….

wws said:
August 19, 2013 at 7:59 pm
How dare anyone question His Eminence, Dr. Pachouri! He has a Th. D.!!!! (Doctor of THINKology!!!
—————————-
He also has a Po.D – Doctor of Pornology
WUWT, 30 Jan 2010
He wanted to be a pornographer, but he couldn’t find a pornograph.

AndyL

Good story, but the headline phrase “pending their AR5 report” is misleading because this has nothing to do with AR5. As Rattus says, this headline and para 1 imply this is a problem with AR5, but It’s not until para 7 that you state it is in fact a historical problem from 1995.

milodonharlani says:
August 19, 2013 at 6:15 pm
UN science is on a par with UN “peacekeeping” expertise.
—————————————————————————
That sums up their skills, nicely.

Jean Demesure

“Reversing green and brown”, from the Church of Environnement, it’s a wicked sense of humour indeed.

Phillip Bratby

Anybody in climatology ever heard of Quality Control?

jorgekafkazar

Rattus Norvegicus says: “BTW, it looks like the key is wrong, if you switch the two colors (the pinkish which is marked tropical forests… and the bluish green which is marked savannahs…) it makes much more sense.”
Holy guacamole, Rat-Man! You figured it out! You must have somehow actually gotten around to reading the post AFTER previously commenting on it. I’m amazed by your genius. Awesome! Surely you have merited the rank of Captain, no…Field Marshall, no…Generalissimo Obvious.

KNR

once its in the AGW dogma it becomes unchallengeable and unchangeable , a reflection of the way its not science we are seeing its ‘religion’

KNR: “once its in the AGW dogma it becomes unchallengeable and unchangeable”…
One way of looking at it is that these things have become “canon”, in the Star Trek sense, and thus difficult to change or correct, as it would confuse or annoy the fan base:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

thisisnotgoodtogo

There’s a correction of error but no change to the map

John Silver

Temperate forests of northern Europe, Russia and western Siberia are even wronger.

If they removed all the errors, it would be 500 blank- every part is inconsistent – the title is wrong its not Intergovernmental (it has the UN and scientists), its not a panel and its about climate change.

John Silver

LOL, Yamal is a Temperate Forest. The irony, it burns.

richard verney

The word main is an impresise expression, both subjective and nebulus in nature and can often take its meaning from its surrounding context.
Some suggest that it is “a cause accounting for more than 50%”. Yes it could be, but then it could be far less than 50%. Eg., Say to produce a result requires 41 different components/eventualities. One of which accounts for say 40% of the result, with the other 40 accounting variably between 1 and 2% but together collectively averaging some 1.5% of the result.
The component/eventuality that accounts for 40% of the result is the dominant component/eventualities and most people would say that it was the main component/eventuality.
In railways (something the IPCC knows about) is the main line, the line that gets from A to B fastest (ie., runs the express trains), or the one that can carry the most passengers/freight, or the one that operates the most frequent timetable, or the one that is used the most often to get from A to B etc?
I liked the joke that if they were to remove the errors it would just be a pile of blank pages. That probably would be more useful, and certainly would do less harm.

Gail Combs

Phillip Bratby says:
August 19, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Anybody in climatology ever heard of Quality Control?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they did they would include error bars on their graphs and have a decent discussion of error in their reports.

M Courtney

As a curiosity, it might be interesting to note that there is a major error in Figure 2 of the (1995) Working Group 11 summary for policy makers in that the two eco-systems ‘Savannah, dry forests, woodland’ and ‘Tropical Forests’ have been interchanged, but I have not seen this corrected anywhere in the IPCC publications.

Yes Rattus Norvegicus (August 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm ) “BTW, it looks like the key is wrong, if you switch the two colors (the pinkish which is marked tropical forests… and the bluish green which is marked savannahs…) it makes much more sense.” That is exactly the point.
The error is in the 1995 synthesis report and the IPCC have not corrected it.
It is as though they don’t care about accuracy.
So an obvious question arises. Is the IPCC really a standard bearer in terms of the quality of its scientific output?
And an obvious answer – no other field of science has replicated the IPCC for a very good reason.

Berényi Péter

Reality obviously needs to be corrected to conform to that map. That is, a joint UN effort is needed, backed by an all encompassing international treaty to turn Amazonia & Indonesia into savanna while planting tropical forest in Illinois. Sounds like the standard procedure, does not it? No wonder it takes some time to implement such a large scale project and way more funds, of course.

Time for me to be “Dr No” again I’m afraid 🙂
This error is not “uncorrected”.
The errata is here, dated 9 March 2012.
It can be found under “Second Assessment Report” on the IPCC website here.
Cheers
Richard

Jimbo

Turning to South America, the Amazon rainforest is already mysteriously transformed by the IPCC into savannas, which with CO2 doubling will advance across the whole top half of South America.

Projections for tropical forests are one thing but what about observations from the recent and distant past? Here are some findings.

Abstract – Stephanie Pau et. al.
Clouds and temperature drive dynamic changes in tropical flower production
…..Our results show that temperature, rather than clouds, is critically important to tropical forest flower production. Warmer temperatures increased flower production over seasonal, interannual and longer timescales, contrary to recent evidence that some tropical forests are already near their temperature threshold…..
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1934.html
Abstract – James L. Crowley et. al. – 12 November 2010
Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago)………eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,…….
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/957.short
Abstract – Carlos Jaramillo et. al. – May 2013
Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective
…Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene….. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403

johnmarshall

Pachauri has a joint PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics. (Probably counts this as two PhD’s) This is hardly a good basis for climate science.

richardscourtney

Richard Betts:
Contrary to your claims, your post at August 20, 2013 at 2:29 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/19/ipcc-caught-with-an-old-uncorrected-error-in-new-ar5-report/#comment-1395214
emphasises the IPCC error.
Yes, as you say, the mistaken labeling of the chart is listed as an erratum in the list of AR4 errata.
But that makes it certain the IPCC is aware of the error: as you say, they have documented it as an erratum.
Despite that, they have copied the error into the draft AR5.
Copying an acknowledged error into a subsequent report is incompetence.
Do you ‘get it’ now?
Richard

richardscourtney

Ooops! AR2 and not AR4. Sorry.
See, it is possible to correct mistakes.
Richard

DirkH

They just don’t care. They do their duty, churn out alarmist lies, so that the journalists can contribute their lying and the usual stinking pile of CFR truth fabrication hits the masses. Who cares? Science? Has been bought and paid for.

We are 95% sure that 97% of the time this map works 100% of the time.

True to form, WUWT cites petty trivia errata about a map, that the IPCC acknowledged decades ago – and misses the point.
Here’s the ACTUAL story:
Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100, Climate Panel Finds
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&hp
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the authors are now 95 percent to 100 percent confident that human activity is the primary influence on planetary warming.
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: August 19, 2013
An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.
The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.
The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”
The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore. Its summaries, published every five or six years, are considered the definitive assessment of the risks of climate change, and they influence the actions of governments around the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, for instance, largely on the basis of the group’s findings. (More at Link above)
Best –
James B

M Courtney

AR5 is not out yet so the fact that the error is still replicated in the leaked draft is not that significant. It could be corrected before publication.
But Richard Betts (August 20, 2013 at 2:29 am) picks up a far more important failure by the IPCC.
They have procedures for dealing with corrections:

10. At the start of the process, the claimant is informed by the IPCC Secretariat about the next steps in a general way, and referred to this “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports”. The claimant will again be informed at the conclusion of the process.
11. Errata are posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites after the conclusion of the process. A
short explanatory statement about the error may also be posted.

This has not been followed. Tony Thomas was not informed at the conclusion of the process.
IPCC fails to follow its “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports” – is now a confirmed story.
What other protocols do they fail to follow?
Link to the protocol:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc_error_protocol.pdf