For weeks, this document has been put in the hands of most every journalist that writes about climate issues, and many articles have been written about its contents. Given that much of the work done in it was publicly funded at universities, and because the discussion in the media has placed the issue in the public domain of discussion, plus with the IPCC Stockholm meeting to hammer out the final version convening this week, and with the announcement today that IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri willl step down in 2015, (translation here) I feel it is time to make this document available so that the public also has the opportunity for (as the IPCC put it in their press release) line-by-line scrutiny.
It’s been suggested by Dr. Judith Curry that these leaks to some key MSM players from the IPCC were deliberate to equip sympathetic journalists with talking points so that they could promote interest and alarm ahead of time.
People have been asking me to comment on the leaked IPCC Final Draft Summary for Policy Makers. Apparently someone in the IPCC made the Report available to ‘friendly’ journalists, as part of a strategy to brief them before the formal release of the Report. – Dr. Judith Curry
Further, the IPCC has made it clear in their Principles and Procedures statement that they embrace transparency.
The IPCC’s processes and procedures are constantly being reviewed and updated to ensure that they remain strong, transparent and reliable.
Given the keen worldwide interest, and the many articles written about the AR5 draft SPM in media with access to it, there’s no reason anymore for the public to be left out of the process. It will also be interesting to compare to the final SPM to see what the politicians have morphed the document into. Reportedly, there are some 1800 changes that have already been requested by government representatives.
Here is the widely distributed PDF of the IPCC Draft SPM.
WG1AR5-SPM_FD_Final (1) (7.64MB)
For some insight into the IPCC process, and the pointless levels of secrecy they added on to reviewers, see this website by Paul Matthews, an applied mathematician at the University of Nottingham:
The IPCC Report – Looking into the 5th IPCC report
Drafts, reviews and leaks
I found this statement interesting:
Since the draft reports cite research papers that have been accepted but not published, reviewers have the right to see these papers. I requested three such papers and received the following response from the IPCC:
“Please find attached a copy of the non-published literature you requested. For security reasons, the attached copy is an encrypted version of a pdf. The copy can be viewed by a software (LockLizard) which is provided free of charge and is simple and quick to download. Below you will find instructions on how to download the software, register the license, and view the protected file.“
Take a look at the LockLizard website – especially the video at the top. This gives an insight into the secrecy paranoia of the IPCC. These are research papers on climate science, soon to be published, but in the view of the IPCC they are closely guarded secrets.
Dr. Judith Curry talks about the leaks:
The IPCC’s ‘inconvenient truth’ — a pause in surface warming for the past 15+ years
Publication of the IPCC AR4 in 2007 was received with international acclaim. The vaunted IPCC process – multitudes of experts from over a hundred countries over a period of four years, examining thousands of refereed journal publications, with hundreds of expert reviewers – elevated the authority of the IPCC AR4 to near biblical heights. Journalists jumped on board, and even the oil and energy companies neared capitulation. The veneration culminated with the Nobel Peace Prize, which the IPCC was awarded jointly with Al Gore. At the time, I joined the consensus in supporting this document as authoritative: I bought into the meme of “don’t trust what one scientist says; rather trust the consensus building process of the IPCC experts.”
Six and a half years later and a week before the release of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), substantial criticisms are being made of leaked versions of the Report as well as of the IPCC process itself. IPCC insiders are bemoaning their loss of their scientific and political influence. What happened?
The IPCC was seriously tarnished by the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, known as Climategate. These emails revealed the ‘sausage making’ involved in the IPCC’s consensus building process, including denial of data access to individuals who wanted to audit their data processing and scientific results, interference in the peer review process to minimize the influence of skeptical criticisms, and manipulation of the media. Climategate was quickly followed by the identification of an egregious error involving the melting of Himalayan glaciers. These revelations were made much worse by the actual response of the IPCC to these issues. Then came the concerns about the behavior of the IPCC’s Director, Rachendra Pachauri, and investigations of the infiltration of green advocacy groups into the IPCC. All of this was occurring against a background of explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to CO2 mitigation policies.
The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself. The IPCC’s consensus building process relies heavily on expert judgment; if the public and the policy makers no longer trust these particular experts, then we can expect a very different dynamic to be in play with regards to the reception of the AR5 relative to the AR4.
…
Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause. If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.
The IPCC’s ‘inconvenient truth’
In my view, the IPCC now faces its ultimate test of credibility. Given its botched and dismissive reactions to errors pointed out by the public in the blogosphere in the past few years, I don’t expect they will rise to the occasion – the skills for presentation to the public in the current dynamic just aren’t there.
This LA Time’s story sums up the predicament quite well: Global warming ‘hiatus’ puts climate change scientists on the spot
fobdangerclose says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm
/////////////////
For what its worth, my comments are:
Fraud unravels all. Insurance does not cover fraud. Fraud is neither an error, nor an omission through oversight.
A deliberate omission could amount to fraud. One does not make a deliberate error. That would be an oxymoron.
D.J. Hawkins:
This is a brief reply because I am about to leave on a 450 mile round-trip to visit a friend recovering from major surgery yesterday.
Your post at September 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1424784
begins saying
Nice try but no coconut.
I provided information on the EXISTING remit of the IPCC and not its “genesis ”.
For the third time in this thread, I provide the link.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
As I said in my post at September 23, 2013 at 2:16 pm, the “Role” of the IPCC was again approved as recently as “ the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012) ”; n.b. last year.
So, contrary to your assertion, it DOES seem that the current state of affairs was a foregone conclusion because the IPCC is officially tasked to accept as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide. ”.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
Richard
richard verney:
I really am in a great rush, but I cannot allow your post at September 24, 2013 at 12:27 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1425086
to stand unchallenged.
It is NOT true as you assert that I make
I quote the IPCC “Role” in full.
But you quote the part which fits your narrative and ignore the part which does not. You say
NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! The IPCC “Role” is specified as being
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
So, the IPCC has NOT been “subverted” as you assert.
The IPCC is doing the job it is tasked to do.
The IPCC is officially tasked to accept as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide. .
Richard
I said at September 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm
It seems the moderator misunderstood me so I guess others may have too.
I am on pre-moderation – at the Guardian website.
To my knowledge I have not yet been pre-moderated here. But trying this new inserting a picture think may get me banned.
richardscourtney says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:25 am
“The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.”
And that’s why the IPCC still has not established that its AGW would even constitute a net disease state.
“…but you can cover it with sparkles.”
They don’t disguise the smell, though.
==========================================================================
I never thought of that! If they’d work daylight savings time into their models maybe their predictions would be spot-on?
“Daylight savings time” — There you go. Gunga Din, you can take that to the bank.
I can see what the IPCC are up to this time. They’ve hidden the pause by using decadal averages, which is why they all cut off at 2005. They’ve started the data at 1901, which conveniently happens to be close to the minimum point in the temperature record.
Personally, I think this is the fat lady singing for Climate Alarmism. I think it will disappear suprisingly quickly. The earth hasn’t played ball at all. As far as I can see there is literally no evidence at all, and less and less every year.
@ur momisugly Shona — “no evidence at all” — precisely. And there is more and more evidence AGAINST AGW every year.
***************************
And here she is….. the “fat lady” singing the death knell of AGW!
Translation 😉
Juuust you wait, yes, oh, juuust you, wait,
You will soon see what is in store for you…….
Oh, yes, it’s cahming, thee end is cahming,
the death of si-eh-jee-dah-bull-you
……………
La moooorrte, … laaa mooooorte,
la mooooooooooooooorte……….
La Morte!
Ha — HA– ha— HAAAAAAAAAAA!
“embedding disabled by request…” Blast. Second try:
richardscourtney says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:48 am
//////////////
Richard
You have misinterpreted what I have said.
i did not say that you were a cynic.
I did not say that only people who are cynics would hold the interpretation that you put forward.
I did not say that people who are not cynics would not share the interpretation put forward.
i put forward a generalisation that the interpretation that you have put forward would be an interpretaion appealing to one who is cynical of the IPCC, and as such it is probably the interpretation held by a cynic. This is a generalisation, and I fully accept that cynics may not hold the interpretation that you put forward. I also quite obviously accept that those who are not cynical of the IPCC may hold the interpretation you put forward.
I accept that your interpretation is a possible interpretation, but I beg to differ that it is the correct interpreation.
It is impossible to “..assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…” without investigating the extent to which climate change is the result of natural non anthropogenic causes.
It is like playing poker, when considering the strength of one’s own hand and the chance of its success, one has to evaluate the risk that the other player will draw good on the river. You might need an ace to make a good hand, you may be able to assess the chance of drawing an ace on the river, but determination alone will not determine the prospects/chance of winning since if that ace were to turn up, it mighty mean that your opponent will make a flush or a straight. you need to determine that risk as well. Both sides of the coin go hand in hand to the proper determination of risks.
If risk assessment is to be performed properly, it is impossible as a matter of risk assessment not to examine fully the other side of the coin. In the climate field one cannot assess the risk of human induced climate change, or the risks that would ensue from human induced climate change until one has assessesthe risk that climate change is not human induced.
If the determination is that climate change is 100% due to natural causes then
(i) you can assess the risk of human induced climate change, this being that there is that there is no risk, or at least no risk unless human activity of another kind takes place 9which other activity could perhaps lead to human induced climate change);
(ii) you can assess the risks that are run to life on planet earth, socieo-economical issues,
infrastructural issues, farming etc etc from human induced climate change, which again can be assessed at none given that you have ascertained that climate change is not human induced.
I do not dispute that the IPCC is looking for data, research that supports the human induced climate change theory. But whilst that is part of its role, the correct interpretation of the ambit of its role is not so limited. It is charged not simply with setting out the case for human induced climate change but rather the evaluation of the risk that climate change is human induced and in order to properly perform that role it needs to assess the risk that climate change is natural and down to non anthropogenic causes.
it is charged with assessing the risks of potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation of human induced climate change. Once again, in order to discharge this obligation it has to assess the risk that climate change is natural and all down to non anthropogenic cause. This is obvious since if climate change is not due to say for example CO2, it is not mitigated by restricting CO2 emissions, by carbon capture, by a switch to green renewables etc.
I usually agree with your comments, we share many similar views, but upon this, with respect, I think that you are mistaken. The difference between us is somewhat accademic; we both accept that the IPCC is prejudiced and not objective, you consider that this was all predetermined by the terms of reference, I consider the terms of reference not to be so limited but that it has become subverted leading to the same ultimate consequence/result.
Richard
Further to my above comment.
The OJ Simpson case is a good example. If you were to make an assessment as to how the trial would pan out looking at the prosecutor’s hand, you would conclude that they had an overwhelming case. However, that fails to consider the hand held by Simpson. We live in a celebrity culture where celebrities are idolised. Simpson was a celebrity of substantial standing much loved and admired. This had a substantial bearing on how matters panned out.
You cannot assess risks, particularly not in a comprehensive and objective fashion, without considering in detail all possibilities.
Leaving aside my point about how risk is determined, think about your interpretation, what meaning are you giving to the word ‘objective’? Are you suggesting that the studies referred to by the IPCC are ‘objective’? that the analysis of data and its errors are ‘objective’? its reliance upon computer models and the averaging of such projections is ‘objective’? Objectively, is not a one way street. i would also add the word ‘comprehensive’ but I accept that that word could be construed (I would say misconstrued) to simply meaning dealing comprehensively with everything that supports human induced climate change to the exclusion of matters that do not support the theory.
The more I think about it, the more firm I am of the view that one cannot assess the risks of human induced climate change (or the risks that would ensue if climate change is human induced) without properly (comprehensively and objectively) looking at the weakness of the evidence that supports the human induced climate change theory, as well as considering the strengths, merits and weakness that climate change is not human induced. All of this is risk assessment.
PS. I did not say in my last post that I did not in my original post seek to infer that you were a cynic. As explained, In my original post, I did not say that you were a cynic, nor infer that you were such, but if you (or others) thought that I was inferring this of you, I wish to make it clear that I was not and I apologize if my comment was construed in such manner. It was not my intention that it should be so construed.
richard verney:
I am replying to your long posts at September 25, 2013 at 12:58 am and September 25, 2013 at 1:24 am; i.e.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1426058
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1426072
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
This is clearly and unambiguously specified as being the “Role” of the IPCC as stated in the IPCC “Principles”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Importantly, throughout the entire existence of the IPCC, the Signatories to the UN FCCC and the IPCC have adopted, confirmed and enacted that “Role”.
The IPCC was created to have three Working Groups (WG). These WGs operate simultaneously and provide their Reports at the same time. Their duties are
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis.
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/
Working Group III: Mitigation, Synthesis Report.
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/
A scientific operation of those WGs would be for the contents of a WG1 Report to be used by WG2 in its deliberations, and then the contents of a WG2 Report to be used by WG3.2 in its deliberations of “mitigation”.
The IPCC has NEVER done that.
In accordance with the IPCC Role,
WG1 collates and reports scientific information supportive of AGW
WG2 assesses ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ to AGW, and
WG3 proposes options for mitigation of AGW.
Importantly, they operate and report simultaneously with each WG accepting as a given – and in accordance with the IPCC Role – that AGW does have a “science base”, is sufficient to provide impacts that require adaption because of vulnerability so demand options for mitigation.
The Synthesis Report is then compiled from the contents of the WG1, WG2 and WG3 Reports.
This is a purely political process for purely political reasons. Indeed, the Report of each IPCC WG is approved ‘line by line’ by politicians and/or the representatives of politicians. Scientific reports are reviews by scientists and are NOT approved by politicians. .
This purely political – definitely NOT scientific – “Role” of the IPCC is deliberate and it is frequently reviewed to ensure it is maintained. The most recent approvals by FCCC Signatory governments are
at Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
and amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
approved at the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and
again approved at the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)
Your claims that these demonstrable realities are a “cynical view” are spin without foundation.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job which it does in fulfillment of the specification.
Richard
The worst thing about the IPCC which was set up on the assumption that significant CO2 (human produced) induced warming is occurring is that no-one seems to be in the firing line personally. What all contributing governments should be doing is demanding a RACI chart (responsibility, accountability, consultation and information) as is used in all modern organisations. Given the amount of human effort and money involved some-one must be held accountable for what their report says
Failure to anticipate the pause is the one thing acknowledged by Kevin Trenberth in a presentation he gave on August 29th, 2013, which I attended. His handling was a falsified temperature graph (no 1930’s warm spell) in which the pause just looks like a blip on a general rising trend.
So that is getting through. We should get two other things across: 1) Shell Oil Company donations were a part of Climategate, and the actual funding ratio is 1000:1 in favor of the alarmists. What does that do to scientific objectivity or the ability to arrive at the truth? Many scientific disciplines are compromised by funding availability for alarmism (any kind of alarmism). That needs to be understood and addressed.
2) And the outright falsification and making up of data. Trenberth had a convincing-looking graph showing a close correlation between CO2 and temperature. This required falsifying the temperature record as in my first paragraph, combined with a CO2 graph extrapolating the known curve from Mauna Loa 100 years earlier, essentially by making up imaginary carbon dioxide levels. We need to call them on that–Lord Monckton is especially good with such things. Rub his nose in this and the general public will find out. And this has to include the graph WUWT ran a couple years ago: temperatures versus number of weather stations. That graph shows you that the warming is indeed man-made (in addition to Mann-made, but he was only a part). This graph was displayed here only once–I think Anthony Watts is a sweetie who cannot face the ugly implications of deliberate falsehood. But if it’s reality, we better deal with it.
As to the funding, we are aware of their projection: imagining that skeptics are “well-funded and organized.” This is a hot-button and one we should finally take advantage of. Where does the alarmist funding come from? Primarily governments fund them. A major part of the motivation for alarmism seems to be a desire for more tax dollars from a tapped-out public–the carbon tax. Leading alarmist Al Gore, former congressman and veep, and Presidential candidate (i.e. politician, not scientist) visited Dr. Keeling at Mauna Loa before the scare really began and heard Keeling’s musings on what the steady rise in CO2 might mean. That’s when Al got interested. Gore’s father was also a Tennessee congressman, so Al grew up where money and its good things came from taxes, and this has been his whole life. He is disconnected from reality.
The attack on fossil fuels is an attack on the worldwide economy at its foundations. We have had plenty of articles on that at WUWT, but the general public has little idea how strong is the connection. Just wait til they find out. The solution to the politicians’ greed and the world economy is two-fold and simple: 1) quit attacking energy; and 2) give the people freedom. Economic freedom in particular, and freedom to express opinions, unleash creativity and produce a huge gain in wealth. Then there is plenty for the government, too.
Embedding disabled by request–all you had to do was click on the line to watch it on YouTube.
richardscourtney says:
September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am
////////////////////////
richard
thanks for your further comments.
i am not disagreeing with you as to how matters have turned out, nor whether the IPCC have apolitical role to play, nor whether they are playing a political role, only whether the one sided nature of their reports was preordained/predetermined by the wording used in paragraph 2 Role.
If this matter came before the English Courts for some form of judicial review and the IPCC souught to argue that the provisions of paragraph 2 (their role) entitled them to consider and present only data/evidence/studies etc that supported that (i) climate change was happening; and/or (ii) that climate change was human induced; and/or (iii) entitled them not to consider and to disregard and to not include in their report that climate change was not happening or that if it was happening then it was due to a cause other than human induced, I am extremely confident that the English Courts would give that argument short shrift. I make no comment upon how other systems of law may approach the interpretation of paragraph 2.
Whilst I accept that your interpretation is a possible interpretation, I would say that it is an extraordinary one, such that very clear words would be required to come to that result. I say that it is an extraordinary one, since it is an interpretation that an ordinary person would consider to be perverse.
If that had been the intention, paragraph 2 would have explicitly stated such. It would have read along the following lines
: ‘The IPCC are to assume that climate change is happening and that that change is human induced, upon the basis of that assumption the IPCC are to assess potential impacts of human induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation’ or
‘The IPCC are charged with the obligation to present evidence that climate change is happening and that that change is human induced. The IPCC is charged with the further obligation to assess potential impacts of human induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation.’
If you like you may dress up the above by throwing in “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis” to make it look a little bit more sciency. I have not done that because I am seeking to show you the thrust of the wording that would permit the IPCC to stand by your interpretation.
If I recall correctly (and I have not specifically looked into the history) I seem to recall having read on a number of occassions that FAR was not going to conclude that climate change was human induced, but was in fact neutral, but just prior to publication one lead author decided unilaterally, to amend the draft and set out that conclussion. If that is so, then it would seem to undermine your interpretation. You probably know more about the history of the IPCC than I do.
As i said earlier, it does not really matter.how things have come to pass. The material point is that they have happened and the IPCC is essentially political activism.
One can see the politicised nature of all of this by the fact that Germany did not want the pause to be discussed. I suspect that this was motivated by the fact that they have gone too far down the road of green renewable energy with ruinous results for industry and consumer alike. Their industry has become uncompetitive being saddled with the highest energy costs in Europe and energy intensive industries are relocating to countries with cheaper energy (eg., some substantial chemical industries relocating to the US). Germany does not want to see other countries roll back their green renewable projects. Germany wants every one else to catch up with Germany so that all countries are saddled with high energy prices. In that way Germany industrial competitiveness will be restored (since all counties will have equally expensive energy) and there will also then be no point in their industries relocating since the relocation country will be saddled by high energy costs, so there is no saving to be made there. Accordingly, Germany does not want the IPCC to report on matters that may cause other countries to hesitate or worse still to abandon their green renewable policies. For political reason, Germany wishes to see all other countries follow its lead in committing economic suicide as this is the simplest way for Germany to help out their own industries.
richard verney:
I congratulate you on your post at September 25, 2013 at 2:57 pm. It is a toure de force of irrelevancies and ‘red herrings’.
In my post at September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1426131
I stated the IPCC Role as defined in its “Principles”, the application of that Role since Day One of the IPCC, and the frequent approvals of that Role by FCCC Signatory governments.
Clearly, the UN IPCCC Signatory governments agree that the IPCC “Role” is correct and is being – and always has been – correctly interpreted and applied. Otherwise they would not keep unanimously voting for it.
But you talk about imagined views of what some English Court may think, whether the CORRECT (i.e. adopted and repeatedly approved) interpretation of that Role is “extraordinary”, what you call my “interpretation” (i.e. what the IPCC actually does to fulfill its Role), the ‘Chapter 8 Scandal’ (which I recall but you say you don’t), and Germany’s dislike of the AR5 mentioning ‘The Pause’.
None of that is relevant.
The simple truth is as I have explained with links to complete documentary evidence; i.e.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job which it does in fulfillment of the specification.
Richard
I mistakenly wrote
Clearly, the UN IPCCC Signatory governments …
but I intended to write
Clearly, the UN FCCC Signatory governments …
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm
///////////////////
Richard
This post is about the leaked SPM. It is the content of that document that is important, not the reasons why it contains what it contains.
Any comment that pertains to why the SPM contains what it contains is essentially a red herring and an irrelevance, and I include in this your initial post (September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm )suggesting the predetermination of the views expressed by the IPCC (given your interpretation of the provision of their role), and my comments suggesting that it was not so preordained but came to pass due to subversion of process. Discussions on the politicised nature of the IPCC is but an aside. May be of some interest, particularly if one has a political bent, but ultimately of no consequence.
Incidentally, if one wanted to cite examples of the way the IPCC conducts its affairs and the politicised nature of all of this (your 03:36am post refers), the most glaring exampe is that the SPM comes out before the report itself is finalised and published, and that the SPM is drafted with the active participation of the policy makers themselves. This not only places the cart before the horse but enables those making the policy to decide what carriage they sit in and how it is decked out. Given that the next climate conference takes place in 2015, there is no need to have the SPM published this year.
My example of Germany was cited as an example of how politicians put pressure on the IPCC over the contents of the SPM and the report. Contrary to your view, it is in fact of some relevance to this particular post since one of the issues of contention is how will the IPCC deal with the pause? Different countries have different self interests. Germany’s self interest is that the pause should not be discussed because they do not want to encourage others to have cold feet when treading the long and winding and ruinous road to green renewable energy. This is because Germany wishes to help their induistries remain competitive so they need other counries to have equally high energy costs, Now I do not know whether Germany will get its way or whether other countries will win out. Personally, given the recent media interest in this, I do not see how the IPCC can avoid dealing with the pause. Whether they wish to simply paper over it with the thinly veiled decadel averages remains to be seen. I am fairly confident that you would agree that both as a matter of science and also as a consequence of the assessment of risks pertaining to human induced climate change, the pause needs to be discussed since it has a bearing on, amongst other matters, climate sensitivity, the effectiveness of climate model projections and to what extent CO2 is dominant over natural variation..
Anyway, as i say, motive is irrelavent, it is all a mtter of content that matters. On that we will know more after the Stockholm meeting.,
,
richard verney:
This is a brief note to show that I have read your silly post at September 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm which is part of your campaign to pretend the IPCC is a scientific organisation.
You say
Bollocks! The motive defines the content.
As I have I have explained with links to complete documentary evidence the IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job which it does in fulfillment of the specification.
I shall ignore any further posts from you unless they contain something worthy of response.
Richard