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.
Tim Ball : “Of course, it is backward, but that is how it was intended when they wrote the rules for the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) originally.”
A consultant looks for solutions to your problems. An ideologue looks for problems for their solutions.
Corruption:
… corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or ‘political’, corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.
Etymology
The word corrupt (Middle English, from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere, to abuse or destroy : com-, intensive pref. and rumpere, to break) when used as an adjective literally means “utterly broken”.
Petty
“Petty” corruption occurs at a smaller scale and occurs within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favors. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.
Grand
“Grand” corruption is defined as corruption occurring at the highest levels of government in a way that requires significant subversion of the political, legal and economic systems. Such corruption is commonly found in countries with authoritarian or dictatorial governments and in those without adequate policing of corruption by anti-corruption agencies.
The government system in many countries is divided into the legislative, executive and judiciary branches in an attempt to provide independent services that are less prone to corruption due to their independence.
Systemic
Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system.
Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers; monopolistic powers; lack of transparency; low pay; and a culture of impunity. Specific acts of corruption include “bribery, extortion, and embezzlement” in a system where “corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception.” Scholars distinguish between centralized and decentralized systemic corruption, depending on which level of state or government corruption takes place; in countries such as the Post-Soviet states both types occur.
Methods
Corruption can occur in many ways. The use of both positive and negative inducements to encourage the misuse of power is well known. In addition, favoring of friends, relatives and cronies in a way that is not directly beneficial to the corrupt individual is a form of corruption. In systemic corruption and grand corruption, multiple methods of corruption are used concurrently with similar aims.
1) Bribery
2) Embezzlement, theft and fraud
3) Extortion and blackmail
4) Abuse of discretion
Abuse of discretion refers to the misuse of one’s powers and decision-making facilities. Examples include a judge improperly dismissing a criminal case or a customs official using their discretion to allow a banned substance through a port.
5 ) Favoritism, nepotism and clientelism
Favoritism, nepotism and clientelism involve the favoring of not the perpetrator of corruption but someone related to them, such as a friend, family member or member of an association. Examples would include hiring a family member to a role they are not qualified for or promoting a staff member who belongs to the same political party as you, regardless of merit.
6) Improper political contributions
This is the use of contributions to political parties to secure illicit power, not because one favours their policies. An example would be tobacco or alcohol companies funding major political parties as a means of influencing the policing of their industry.
7) Conduct creating or exploiting conflicting interests
– – – – – – –
The issue is fundamentally the different views of science in various all encompassing thought systems (epistemological / metaphysics).
The IPCC science will not be ashamed of itself in its publicly irrational appearing scientific processes because it considers itself justified to be above any traditional rational science base.
The self-justification of the IPCC conception of what their science should be and what / who it should serve was explicitly, completely and openly described by the philosophy of science guru Jerome Ravetz in his guess essays here at WUWT over the years.
He in turn inherited a philosophy of science tradition that intentional subverted the independent-nature-based-objective-science into a science-serving-some-ulterior-utilitarian-higher-social-purposes.
Arguably, it began most significantly with Kant in ~mid 18th century.
John
geran says, ” SUPER comment, Richard. ”
I concur. Richard Courtney should be nicknamed The Sage of Climate. He has a depth of knowledge that is ecumenical. I always look forward to your posts, Richard.
_Jim says:
October 12, 2013 at 11:41 am
Cognate with Spanish “romper”, “to break”, from Latin “rumpere” with the same meaning, but apparently not with English “romp”, which is what CACA-train culprits have been doing on the public dime.
Juice & Dr. Ball, beware of James Corbett. He’s a 9-11 “truther” nutcase.
That said, the Tim Ball interview snippet starting at 33:50 is quite informative, and I thank you for the link.
Bob says:
October 12, 2013 at 11:52 am
Yes, Richard does wonderful work at WUWT. He seems to always know what the point is.
ROFL. This is how “consensus science” works, first draw the conclusion then build up the case that leads to the conclusions.
This is what warmists call “the science”.
It needs a clarification in Climate Glossary, it is important that we understand what the other side says and means when they say something:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/climate-glossary-2/
On the other side of this question, I believe that the process is not per se illegitimate.
As long as the world has access to the pre-change and post-change versions, and the changes are accompanied by explanations, we should be conditionally OK with the flow of data from the SPM to main body.
‘Climate Science’ adjusted/manipulated to meet the demands of its political masters – so nothing unusual here.
If the climate science in the IPCC is the ‘Gold Standard’ then why change it to match the SPM?
The fact that the final AR5 report is driven by the SPM should not surprise us. The IPCC thinks that CO2 drives temperature, but the truth is the opposite, temperatures drive CO2. Thus clearly, every thing the IPCC does is consistently upside down….and they are 85% confident it is right.
It’s always been the way IPCC has worked. This was what the Santer scandal was about.
It should get more exposure.
Our friend richardscourtney has the right of it in his post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/#comment-1445687
Nothing new here. Although it never does any harm to keep banging the drum.
I’ve been meaning to say for some time that it’s an absolute pleasure to see Richard posting in full flow again here at WUWT. A pleasure. I was concerned that we’d lost hime for a while.
More power to your elbow Richard.
darn typo and lack of edit. Damn you wordpress!
Bad as how the IPCC behaves in changing the science to agree with the politiics, there is something that is far, far worse. The Royal Society, The American Physical Society, the AGU, WMO, Old Uncle Tom Cobly and all, APPROVE, and condone what the IPCC does in this regard.
Mike Stopa for Congress, pass the word:
Jim Cripwell:
Your post at October 12, 2013 at 2:21 pm makes the important point
Yes, and how that has usurpation has been achieved is detailed in a paper by Richard Lindzen which is a shocking read that names names. It can be read at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Richard
PS. Many thanks to those who have posted kind words about me in this thread. I did leave WUWT for a while but succumbed to pressure to return.
theo goodwin at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/#comment-1445789
says :Yes, Richard does wonderful work at WUWT. He seems to always know what the point is.
from my perspective the ability he has in not only being able to see the point,but to convey it to those of us with little academic background is very much appreciated .
@sean2829 –
The bill for mitigation is coming in, and not just in dollars or euros, but also in ruined and prematurely ended lives – thousands dead from hypothermia in Europe, thanks to carbon taxes, and millions crippled or dead from malnutrition and starvation in places like sub-Saharan African, thanks to the ethanol program making grain supplies unavailable or unaffordable. The people responsible for this are war criminals every much as the Nazis – it is a new Holocaust, and its deniers are the alarmies.
@ConfusedPhoton –
The IPCC and the alarmies in general make a great deal of use of Orwell’s “memory holes” – witness Lisa Jackson’s “Richard Windsor” incognito on her home computer, so that she couldn’t be watched through FOIA inquiries. Of course, der Fuehrer is also obviously using memory holes to dispense with the “phony scandals”, and Ernest Moniz and company will use them to get rid of coal and natural gas.
Donna Laframboise did a post on this earlier in the month. There are 10 pages of “mistakes” to “correct”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/02/10-pages-of-ipcc-science-mistakes/