Dave Burton writes:
Anthony,
The IPCC replied promptly to my inquiry (below), and they surprised me, twice:
1. They say that the just released “final” draft of the AR5 WG1 Report isn’t really final after all, but the Summary for Policy Makers is final; and
2. They say the “underlying chapters” may be revised for consistency with the SPM.
Does that seem backwards, to you? The SPM is the political statement. The “underlying chapters” are (supposedly) the science. So they’re saying that they may still need to revise the science to make it consistent with the political statement.
OTOH, while they might have low standards for their science, they have remarkably high standards for promptness. They replied just 98 minutes after I emailed them, yet they asked me to “please accept our apology for the late response.”
Dave
Dear IPCC WGI TSU,
The AR5 WGI Report has now been released, and we were told that when the Report was released all of the expert reviewer comments would be released as well. But I can’t find them on the web sites. Can you please give me the link(s)?
Thank you,
David Burton
(WG1 expert reviewer, USA)
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: IPCC WGI TSU <wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch>
Date: Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Subject: RE: AR5 WGI Expert Reviewers’ comments
To: ncdave@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: IPCC WGI TSU wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch
Dear Mr. Burton,
Thank you for the interest in the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
What has been released so far is the approved Summary for Policymakers as well as the final drafts (version 7 June 2013) of the underlying chapters and the Technial Summary (downloadable free of charge from www.climatechange2013.org). These drafts are still subject to copy edit, error correction and any necessary changes for consistency with the approved SPM. We anticipate that the full report in its finalised and publication-ready form will be released electronically in January 2014. At that time, also all the review comments and responses will become part of the public record and will be posted on our web site.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have further questions.
Thank you again for your interest and please accept our apology for the late response.
Best regards,
IPCC WGI TSU
———————————————————————
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I – Technical Support Unit
University of Bern Phone: +41 31 631 5616
Zaehringerstrasse 25 Fax: +41 31 631 5615
3012 Bern wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch
Switzerland www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch
———————————————————————
Authenticity Note: This email is electronically signed
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alice in Wonderland
A tweet by Richard Tol confirmed that SPM is political:
@RichardTol 9 Aug
@tan123 SPM approved by gov’t, not vetoed by CLAs, most LAs contributed @richardabetts
So you’re right, the science will be modified to fit the political message. It doesn’t really matter how many thousand leading scientists did or didn’t contribute to AR5 when their contributions are overruled by politicians.
Just like CO2 drives temperature, the SPM drives the bulk of the report.
Didn’t Winston in Orwell’s 1984, work for the Ministry of Truth and spend his day rewriting history.
Come back Geroge Orwell Climate “Science” needs you!
Sounds about right. You do the work, write the conclusions, then write the rest to make it look like you intended to do that all along. In this case, the conclusions seem to be driving more than results.
PR drives science. They are doing an excellent job of teaching young people that science serves PR. Once young people learn that lesson, they will not choose a low income science career over a high income PR career.
I wonder how many “contributors” are looking for an opportunity to jump ship. Consider, the bill for climate mitigation has started arriving with a vengeance in places like Germany, Denmark and the UK. Couple that with the fact that 5 of the last 6 winters have been colder than normal in Europe. If another cold winter shows up in Europe this winter as some have predicted, and the 5th assessment report shows up in January along with energy bills that contain green taxes and tariffs as large or larger than many American electric bills, the warm fuzzies from changing to a CFL from incandescent will be replaced by a heated disdain for the folks that are driving them into poverty.
Does this mean that the footnote on climate sensitivity will be expunged, & that consensus will reemerge that it’s 95% certain to lie in the range of three to five K, instead of the 0 to two K supported by actual observation?
Let Tim Ball explain how this process works.
BTW, my original email to the IPCC, to which they replied so promptly was:
Dear IPCC WGI TSU,
The AR5 WGI Report has now been released, and we were told that when the Report was released all of the expert reviewer comments would be released as well. But I can’t find them on the web sites. Can you please give me the link(s)?
Thank you,
David Burton
(WG1 expert reviewer, USA)
Well, the time mark didn’t work because you embedded the video automatically. You have to go to 33:50 to hear Tim Ball’s explanation of the IPCC report process.
Of course, it is backward, but that is how it was intended when they wrote the rules for the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) originally. The SPM goes back to the Science Working Group I (WGI) to make sure they agree with what the SPM was saying. It is like an executive writing a summary and then telling the employees to get the data to agree with the conclusions. This charade was exposed as early as the 1995 Chapter 8 fiasco but few knew the implications of that event.
http://drtimball.com/2011/early-signs-of-cruipcc-corruption-and-cover-up/
If they published the WGI first and wrote it in ways people could understand nothing would be done.
Of course, they agree to make changes because it doesn’t matter now. The objective to get alarmist headlines is already achieved with a much publicized press release to a compliant and complicit mainstream media. Alarmist headlines scare voters and that puts direct and indirect pressure on politicians. It is no coincidence that every SPM is released just prior to nations agreeing to UN expenditures for climate change.
Of course, the IPCC also deceive by putting everything that is wrong with their science in the Working Group I Report and releasing it later when it is no longer headlines. They know few read it and even fewer understand. They can easily marginalize those “skeptics” and latterly “deniers” who dare to question.
The entire IPCC exercise was set up to achieve a political goal of demonizing CO2 using scientists malleable for various reasons,. They have done it with frightening efficiency. The challenge now is to hold all involved to account, but we know that never happens.
But… but it is all about science. sarc/
The Green tail wagged the Australian Labor government dog to death!
Assisted suicide may have overlooked tangible benefits.
And later the IPCC will say;”We were honest, in stating that political agenda trumps science.”
It is their mission after all.
I fully expect most of these UN hacks to resurface in the next great mission, that of banning DiHydrogen Monoxide/ err.. addressing the worldwide shortage of potable water.
Friends:
The subject of this thread is not news. It has been the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. This is documented by the IPCC and did not require emails to learn of it. Indeed, I have repeatedly explained it in WUWT threads over recent weeks.
The facts are as follows.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports. Appendix A of the present Report, AR5, states this where it says.
This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
This is achieved by amendment of the IPCC’s so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose is achieved by politicians approving the SPM then amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
All IPCC Reports including the IPCC AR5 are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
Is there a letter regarding inconsistencies??
If this issue isn’t a practical joke
its not funny, it puts scientists
in the same wagon as politicians,
hurting western democracy.
The procedure is as follows:
Authors write a Chapter including a Technical Summary. The Technical Summaries are the basis for the Summary for Policy Makers, which is written by the Technical Support Unit.
The whole package is reviewed three times: internal review, expert review, government review, and revised accordingly.
Each Chapter is adopted by the IPCC Plenary, that is, the representatives of the IPCC Member States, i.e., your government and mine. The Summary for Policy Makers needs line-by-line approval by the Plenary. In practice that means that the SPM is substantially rewritten. Unpopular findings are removed. Popular findings are highlighted, or added. Some findings are reformulated.
The Convening Lead Authors have a veto over “their part” of the SPM. Some CLAs are proper scientists. Others are partisan, or spineless.
In case the SPM says something that is not quite in the Chapter, or something that contradicts the Chapter, then the Chapter will indeed need to be “clarified”.
richardscourtney says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:26 am
It is Lysenkoism, plain & simple, but unfortunately costs the whole world dearly & corrodes science globally, instead of just in its largest country.
Even more incredible is that this is all done in plain sight of an audience of mostly uncaring and apathetic journalists. Positively scandelous revisionism without official consequences. No wonder blogs have emerged as the only relevant news sources.
Truly Orwellian.
richardscourtney says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:26 am
>>>>>>
SUPER comment, Richard.
(You only continue to get better!)
– – – – – – – –
Dave Burton,
Thank you for sharing your effective communication with the IPCC.
Well, they call the SPM final, but my impression is that it might also be edited / corrected / adjusted given the jumbled, frantic, crudely negotiative process that spawned it in those 5 days of its approval.
As McIntyre says, watch the pea. Especially come January.
John
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by this.
It was stated quite clearly in AR4 that the final report would be amended to align with the SPM. What is surprising is that the media don’t seem to care that the politicians are in charge and that the science will if necessary be tortured to death to make it conform.
They wouldn’t allow politicians to get away with that in any other sphere. Why in the case of climate change?