It is fitting this is published near Halloween time in Nature, because the IPCC is full of scare stories.
IPCC: Climate panel is ripe for examination
Mike Hulme & Martin Mahony Nature 502, 624 (31 October 2013) doi:10.1038/502624c
- Published online 30 October 2013
Sociologists of science wish to study the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the same reason that they want to examine other loci at which scientific knowledge is made — whether in a laboratory, the field, a museum or at a conference. We too approached the IPCC in autumn 2010 with a request to study it from the inside; we too were told ‘no’ (see Nature 502, 281; 2013).
We therefore had to rely on self-reported accounts. Using document analysis and interviews with lead authors, we analysed how authors navigate the distinction between scientific description and value judgements, for example when offering information pertaining to the definition of ‘dangerous climate change’.
The IPCC has become a dominant institution in climate science — in the assessment of knowledge for policy-making, and in how assessment practices alter empirical and computer-simulated climate science. Global knowledge assessments such as those undertaken by the IPCC call for carefully documented systematic studies by trained ethnographers.
Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation this time around.
Mike Hulme, Martin Mahony
King’s College London, UK.
==============================================================
Josh previously provided some levity:
It’s something that I have banged on about for years with little success. people on all sides of the debate underestimate how subjectivity in any team member can skew the results of studies. All of us will view any findings with the jaundiced eye of the individual and see what we wish to prove. It’s having the insight to know we do it that is the critical issue.
Hmm..
“Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation this time around.”
If the IPCC doesn’t recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation, then why should we accept it as legitimate?
Just wondering.
I am absolutely tickled to see that anybody still recognizes the Fallacies of Informal Logic and their important to the classical art of Rhetoric (the art of persuading someone to believe something that ain’t necessarily so.)
Got to read “Scientivist” carefully.
Good job Josh.
LOL
Gareth Phillips says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:10 am
It’s something that I have banged on about for years with little success. people on all sides of the debate underestimate how subjectivity in any team member can skew the results of studies.
Seriously Gareth, wouldn’t that be one reason why one should allow others to view their data and methods?
“Sociologists of science wish to study the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
Why? There’s no “science” to speak of going on in the IPCC.
JohnWho says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:11 am
—–
They have long since abandoned any pretext towards being scholarly.
So let me get this straight – socioligists, purveyors of a very squishy “science”, want to study the IPCC, purveyors of another squishy “science” – oh yeah, I’m sure that will provide useful, scientifically reliable results.
Is my eyesight going or is that UNEP logo mooning us?
Why doesnt someone offer a Michael Mann Bobblehead Doll made… There has never been a better subject
“for the same reason that they want to examine other loci at which scientific knowledge is made”
…reading challenged
“relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
“The IPCC …. does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”
We too approached the IPCC in autumn 2010 with a request to study it from the inside; we too were told
‘no’only if IPCC can adjust the data after it is collected.@ Patrick B. Although I am a historian and hence see sociologists as disciplinary parasites who have appropriated history’s domain to create a ‘science’ of society, there have been valuable contributions by sociologists to our understanding of the history of science, notably in the work of Robert Merton. The best among the sociologists (ie the most historically inclined) have asked different kinds of questions and hence enriched historians’ approaches in turn. That being said the IPCC Climate Panel is kidding itself if it thinks it will escape the scrutiny of sociologists and historians. Both fields are interested in understanding the kinds of self-deception and historical contingencies that lead to scientific errors, politicized science, and temporarily successful fraudulent science. In the end we will find all three of these encompassed in the history of this organization, based on the existing revelations of Climategate and shoddy science.
JohnWho says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:13 am
Got to read “Scientivist” carefully.
Good job Josh.
Absolutely. What a most excellent word: “Scientivist”!
JohnWho 8:13 am
Got to read “Scientivist” carefully.
#Scitivist – nomination for a hashtag.
These sociologists probably think that in studying the IPCC they are studying science.
Sociologists like to think everything is political. They tend to portray science as a process by which alternative “ways of knowing” struggle for supremacy via an essentially political and social process. In focusing on the social elements they tend to downplay the importance of things like evidence, truth, fact and proof. The result to me appears to be a distorted charicature of science.
I suspect the sociologists will love the IPCC because it embodies exactly the kind of politicised “science” they like to portray.
This is slightly off topic, but I am so annoyed with it, that I hope it will be permitted. From today’s GWPF, I find http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-government-no-global-cooling-centuries/
I quote “The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con): The UK government has made substantial investment in research that concerns the likelihood and timing of future changes in global and regional climate.
All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”
So, presumably the UK Met. Office used the IPCC models to prepare this reply. It is given in the House of Lords, by a Peer of the Realm, so by the rules of the British Parliament, it OUGHT to be accurate. Since the climate models are completely incapable of producing accurate predictions, the answer gvien by Baroness Verma is little more than a pack of lies.
It was this sort of statement by the Met. Office a few years ago that persuaded Heathrow Airport not to invest in snow clearing equipment, so the a mere 5 inches of snow closed one of the busiest airports in the world for several days. 5 inches of snow here is Ottawa, Canada, would barely cause any delays in service.
Surely it is about time that someone with both authority and courage to stand up and say this nonsense of CAGW must stop before even more damage is done.
JohnWho says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:14 am
Gareth Phillips says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:10 am
It’s something that I have banged on about for years with little success. people on all sides of the debate underestimate how subjectivity in any team member can skew the results of studies.
Seriously Gareth, wouldn’t that be one reason why one should allow others to view their data and methods?
Thanks John,
Absolutely, having someone else confirm your outcomes and conclusions from an independent or devils advocate perspective is critical in excluding bias. A study like this could be really interesting and inform the debate no end.
Employing ethnographers is absolutely essential for climate science. Also psychologists. This is a good Halloween post.
Examination of the UN IPCC under the RICO statutes would be a far more useful act.
I like “Scientwist” better.
Wonderful idea to study the IPCC. Some on this string think sociologists and historians would do a respectable job while others think not.
Does anyone know of any entity that could undertake this inquiry?
“Scientivist” is a great word… ranks up there with one I use on occasion: “meteorologer” 🙂
The IPCC does not conduct independent research but is, instead, a government and UN-supported international clearinghouse http://climal.com/climate-change-facts.php
vigilantfish says:
October 31, 2013 at 9:04 am
Very well said. Today, very few of our best have a serious understanding of the discipline of history or the importance of its uses.
@Latitude: “…reading challenged”
Yep, wrong AGW. There’s the global one. And the graph one.
@Jennifer Hubbard: “Although I am a historian and hence see sociologists as disciplinary parasites who have appropriated history’s domain …”
I’ve always considered a Historian to be a Sociologist that can’t be sued for libel.
lemon says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:48 am
Why doesnt someone offer a Michael Mann Bobblehead Doll made… There has never been a better subject
Hey Lemon, I second that!
If the Authors “want to examine… loci at which scientific knowledge is made,”
Why not just say what we already know as ‘virtually certain’: the ipcc’s method is almost exclusively “computer-simulated climate science” = gigo; ‘Expertly’ guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that “We ‘mainstream’ Climate Scientists
are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don’t gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing ‘Climate Science’ before it’s too late!”?
It sounds like the Authors didn’t get enough inside info from Mr.Foia and want to directly ~”record from the inside”, and the Nature article says :
“The proposal, part of a larger ‘assessment of assessments’ funded by the US National Science Foundation, could offer insight into the ways that social dynamics, unconscious biases and seemingly mundane rules affect the final product — and what might be done to improve the process….
“[Climate Scientist ] Oppenheimer and his colleagues argued that the IPCC tends towards caution and errs “on the side of least drama.”
Ah-ha, the Ipcc its too cautious, needs to deemphasize uncertainty on SLR, for example, such that an anything’s -possible giant SLR means that “We all might-could die if we don’t do something really stupid, before it’s too late!”
It sounds like the Authors should just study themselves, to find that their brains operate the same way as those of “mainstream” Climate Scientists’ and their Warming Models do: motivated garbage in, money out.
tags Methods: It’s Models Modelling their own Modelling Models; Hulm: the main goal of Climate Science is really to ~”eliminate the obscene wealth inequality between the rich and poor nations”; Nut Cases: our cup runneth over…….
Sociologists of science!! S’truth, here we have one of the worst of the corrupted ‘humanities’ going to study the IPCC. I believe the IPCC needs to be investigated but not by a bunch of social(og)ists anti-scientists. Perhaps a real scientific panel and the police would do best.
Perhaps referring to the “Climate Models” as Climate Science would be more accurately referred to as “Virtual Science” since they seem to have as much in common as Virtual Reality does with Actual Reality
The IPCC should be closed down immediately for abuse of power, data manipulation and plain fraud. And exactly that should be the scope of any investigation. Period.
“Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation this time around.”
Why would they? When your intent and actions are to commit fraud in pursuit of a political agenda, ‘scholarly investigations’ of your biased activities are the last thing you will consider or allow!
MtK
jorgekafkazar says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:47 am
Is my eyesight going or is that UNEP logo mooning us?
HA! How perfectly apropos!
MtK
Thanks as always, Josh, great stuff.
w.
As I said, do the math, count the cash and close down the IPCC: http://iceagenow.info/2013/10/math-count-cash/
Mikey Mann, Lewandowsky, and other members of the Team constantly complain about ‘deniers’ being conspiracy theorists. Just read Mikey’s tweets, Lewandowsky’s publications, and the climategate emails. If those two and the rest of the Team aren’t conspiracy theorists, no one is.
lemon says:
“Why doesnt someone offer a Michael Mann Bobblehead Doll made… There has never been a better subject.”
But think about how big the head would have to be…
“Is my eyesight going or is that UNEP logo mooning us?”
Jeeze, it DOES look like its mooning us.
What the hell is a sociologist of science? Kari Norgaard stewing in formaldehyde?
Of course, my favorite method for finding out the system of meanings in the lives of a cultural group is to simply say, “Fossil fuels are beneficial because they provide abundant and inexpensive energy for the most people. They use it for travel, information storage and retrieval, recreation, refrigeration, and many other necessities and conveniences of life.”
The ensuing “response” should provide plenty of material for your qualitative ethnological research. (: Go try it on Youtube right now. It’s fun. See how fast you can get snipped, moderated, banned and cussed at.
‘Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object
for scholarly investigationof derision this time around.’ There, sorted.Hulme? Oreskes?
So that means they’re disappointed with the lack of progress in cultural marxism and need to see what goes wrong at the UN’s pseudoscientists.
Will we ever see a list of the delegates who in Stockholm concocted the latest issue by IPCC on what the public and politicians should think about Climate Change?
Hey, Tom J and Everyone on WUWT,
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
(how could one NOT be on-topic on a sociology thread, lol)
A little Vince Guaraldi and the Peanuts gang to brighten your day:
— Intro. to “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”
— “The Great Pumpkin Waltz”
— And, in the end, the greatest of these is, love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIWh_YIRQuM
#(:))
*****************
btw: I’m with John Robertson and others above:
a criminal investigation is what is called for, here.
I read Nature 502, 281: 2013 and saw the names Micheal Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes and a brief elation quickly disappeared.
However, I did see from Oppenheimer “recognizes his own biases”
and from Oreskes “will promote transparency”
I have to ask: Can there be some kernel of objectivity in the subjective sea?
Donna Laframboise scooped these snoozing sociologists by a mile. But then she is only a journalist and not a peer reviewed sociologist.
“… IPCC Climate panel is ripe for examination…”
Possible spelling error: for ripe read tripe?
– – – – – – – –
Study it but as a preventative strategy only.
Certainly, the IPCC should remain temporarily intact but in suspended animation while an independent of the UN audit in performed in full view of the public. Let’s audit it for a year but in the year no new assessment activity or policy activism should be allowed. Then, after we fully understand its essential and comprehensive corruption and scientific dishonesty from the audit, we should dissolve the IPCC by Dec 31 2014.
No future reinvention of an IPCC-like undertaking is the the purpose of my proposed audit of the IPCC. Preventative measures.
John
Re: The very generous Mr. John Whitman at 2:36pm: “…
afterwe now fully understand its essential and comprehensive corruption and scientific dishonesty … (therefore,) we should dissolve the IPCC by Dec. 31, 2013.” (edits mine)As to your fine idea of preventive measures…. only a permanent, powerful, spotlight, shining on the truth will do that. We truthtellers must remain, even though we have won the debate, forever vigilant. The rats will always be lurking. We can, at least, keep them in the corners.
And we shall. They scuttle out and do some nastiness for awhile, but, inevitably a Jim Cripwell (with A-th-y Watts’ stalwart aid) breaks out his trusty flashlight and shouts out: “I’m so annoyed with this… !” And the before long, the rats slink away… .
Speaking of the “IPCC: Climate panel is ripe for examination,” that reminds me.
Q: What does a maniac do when he is lost in the woods?
A: He finds a psychopath.
Anyways, so think of the almost unlimited knowledge to be gained in the study of obsessions, disorders, syndromes, manias, psychosis, narcissistic conditions, and halucinations.
– – – – – – – –
Janice Moore,
Always a pleasure to see dialog engagement by you.
A couple of points.
First, you imply we know now all we need to know wrt the IPCC lack of integrity. I disagree profoundly. In the prima fascia lack of integrity of the IPCC’s processes / behaviors / reports, I think we only see the tip of the iceberg. To see the whole iceberg via a publicly in-process audit will give the best possible preventative effectiveness against re-occurrence of an IPCC-like institution. To do that we need in place (for my proposed audit) all current IPCC associated persons: bureau members; staff; technical support; editors; lead authors and authors, etc. It is essential that they need to stay in place to be held accountable for providing to auditors all info that was used to generate AR5. They need to sign statements as current and active IPCC associated people to the effect that no info was destroyed to prevent exposure by an audit. No, I am not being generous as you say. I am being very very ungenerous to the IPCC by having its persons in place for a year long independent audit.
Secondly, vigilance against re-occurrence of IPCC-like institutions is aided by maximum public exposure and total information of the integrity failures of the IPCC. Detailed knowledge is power in vigilance. So, I think you have a weak thrust by implying we do not need all the info from an audit to be most effectively vigilant against re-occurrence of IPCC-like institutions.
Finally, regarding your testament to our skeptical investigators at blogs like WIWT, the audit I am suggesting augments the maximum effectiveness of investigators including of the two you mentioned; Jim Cripwell & Ãnthønÿ. Namely the audit gives them more to investigate further, the audit immensely increases their range.
So, again I say wrt the IPCC, a year to audit it! Audit it! Audit it! Then a fortnight to disband it.
The real challenge is forcing (through a powerful public discourse) an audit that is truly independent / critical / skeptical / open / comprehensive. It would be very difficult to force that. It would challenge everyone.
John
“The truth is that very little is known about the actual process.”
We’ve figured out how the fudge is made!
John Whitman:
In your post addressed to Janice Moore at October 31, 2013 at 4:24 pm you say
Sorry, but Janice Moore is right because the IPCC has only done what it is officially and publicly tasked to do. Please see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/#comment-1445687
Richard
[Hulme and Mahony:]
“Scholarly investigation”?! Whatever the two rejected proposals might have been in 2010, it is worth noting that in discussion of the current proposal, like the IPCC itself, Hulme & Mahony seem to have overlooked the August 2010 observations in (and recommendations that followed from) the InterAcademy Council (IAC)’s review of the IPCC – not to mention what we already have learned about the IPCC from Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.
The IPCC’s own “background” material on this “Other Business” agenda item (billed as “Potential Study of the IPCC Process”) contains somewhat more detail than can be found in either Hulme & Mahony’s (self-serving?!) response above, or in Tollefson’s Nature piece to which they were responding.
Considering Oppenheimer’s involvement, the IPCC would have to redefine “neutral” (and conflict of interest!) before such a study could be considered “scholarly” (unless this, too, is “redefined”!)
For details, (including some relevant excerpts from the actual proposal) pls. see Will IPCC accede to redefining “neutral”?
IMHO, it is worth noting that – according to the IISD’s Summary Report of the Oct. 14-17 Batumi meeting – it would appear that a decision on this proposal has been kicked into the long-grass (as has consideration of the Future of the IPCC):
Dear Mr. Whitman,
I think we both agree completely on the essential point: that the IPCC is corrupt and should be fully prosecuted (thus, investigated and its fraud exposed in a public hearing in a forum with the jurisdiction to impose a just punishment). Re: “… you imply we know now all we need to know wrt the IPCC lack of integrity…, ” (you, above). Perhaps my poor writing did, indeed imply that. It was not, nevertheless, what I meant. By my saying we have enough evidence to convict them, I meant that we, right now, have probable cause to file charges against them (and to convict them, once we gather all the necessary documents and witnesses). The prosecution of their matter would, of course, as you noted, take months and require investigation, subpoena’s, etc…, to get a conviction.
I’m saying, thus, “GO FOR IT prosecutor!” (I understood (or misunderstood, perhaps!) you to be saying, “Wait, Prosecutor — we must first gather evidence for about a year to have probable cause to file charges.”
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
*******************
Hi, Hilary Ostrov!
You always write such thorough, informative posts and with such a delightfully feisty, devastatingly accurate, style. lol, re: “… needs further discussion, … in 2014… .” (your great quote above), that said it all.
Take care, you valiant truth teller, you!
Your fan (and follower — really!, I just haven’t commented….yet),
Janice
*************************
Dear Richard Courtney,
{btw: I apologize for addressing you as “Richard” a couple weeks ago, sorry about that — yes, I noted the formality you carefully put into your response that day, smile}
Thanks for your support. The spirit of it was so encouraging. I wish I understood the substance of it… . I know I’m misunderstanding you (re: the substance), but, to let you know the abysmal depths of my incomprehension: How does the IPCC’s just doing their job (“just obeying orders” — ugh) back up my call to prosecute them now?
Sorry to be so dense.
Your truth in science ally who hopes you will call her,
Janice
[Superfast mod reads all … Approves “all” … (By the way, you hit the “fraud” word up there.) 8<) Mod]
To: Mr. Whitman, Mr. Courtney, and Ms. Ostrov
Sigh. About 2 minutes ago, I wrote a response to each of you. I don’t know what the magic word was….. BUT I USED IT. Heh, did you know that there is an invisible post on this page, oh, yes…. and I can see it. #(:)) And, the Emperor and all his court can see it, too…. (’cause I told them that only super smart people can see it), heh, heh, HA!
(now, I suppose the mod will be super-fast and have made that post visible by the time I post this, arrgh)
Mike Hulme? Oh, FGS.
Hulme is the ultimate weathervane, twisting and turning according to the prevailing wind. A few years ago, he was snuggling up to the Warmistas, but his unfailing political antenna has detected a change. He is now sliding around and positioning himself for the next wave.
Even worse, he often writes the kind of opaque, wordy and jargon-ridden prose that ought to be shot at dawn. It has nothing to do with informing the reader, and everything to do with demonstrating how much smarter he is than the rest of us. Allegedly.
One good thing is that when dealing with anything to do with Hulme, there is no question about what the number one priority is.
So the gist of this dressed-up nonsense is to send in a few psycho-babble merchants in the hope of putting anyone who’s a bit off-message under pressure to agree to verbiage that sounds less uncertain. Stinks of marzipan and bulldozer grease.
Good ‘ole Mike Hulme, still tiptoeing through the tulips: scientivist yesterday; polytrician today; evangelomat tomorrow. What a load of postnormal old cobblers. One hopes there isn’t a Guardian rendition for luvvies in the offing (with Harabinesq reinterpretation for the over 40s to follow at the other place). At least Tiny Tim’s was up front:
Thank you, Mod. Sorry to have put you to the trouble of ANOTHER post in the faux pas queue. Thanks for informing me so I could know what I did. I even KNEW about that one. aaack
THANK YOU, SO MUCH, FOR MAKING THIS
WONDERFUL SITE HAPPEN!
You’re the best.
Janice
Once the sociologists are on your case, it’s curtains. Lots and lots of curtains.
Josh – your cartoon should be required reading for 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th-, 5th-, 6th-, 7th-, 8th-, 9th-, 10th-, 11th- and 12th graders once a week in their science sessions and classes. Beats heck out of Common Core!
I’m no fan of the IPCC, but WTF should they allow themselves to be poked and prodded and observed by a bunch of psuedoscientists seeking to advance their careers?
It’s not in their charter, its does nothing to assist their primary purpose, it will add nothing apart from more dreary papers in incomprehensible language to the ever-growing pile of unread academic literature and it would be a total waste of everybody’s time and taxpayer’s money.
There are many serious and legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at the IPCC…the excellent Donna LaFramboise does a great job of leading the charge…but not kowtowing to a bunch of parasites who wish to do their own version of reality TV is not one of them.
On this, and this alone, I am in full support of the stand they have taken.
Latimer, this is A Moment.
Perhaps they have detected that Hulme is a slightly upmarket version of a NOWT “journalist”, hoping for a scoop.
If so, they would be right.
Can’t they just model the IPCC?
Joking aside, if they think it is time to have a “Climate Audit”, then the thought is late coming to them.
Also, in the entire history of the cosmos, I am struggling to recall the name of even one single solitary bureaucracy where those running (and benefiting from) it agreed to such a thing in good faith.
Janice:
Firstly, I am honoured to be invited to address you by your Christian name.
In your post at October 31, 2013 at 8:23 pm you ask me
I answer that an entity cannot be prosecuted unless accused of a crime, and there is no national or international law which the IPCC can be accused of having broken. Indeed, the IPCC has vigorously fulfilled its duties of providing apparent justifications for political policies.
Indeed, the IPCC has openly stated that is what the IPCC does and why the IPCC does it because that is what the IPCC is tasked to do by the signatory governments of the UNFCCC: see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/#comment-1445687
The IPCC is an evil entity established to justify evil activities for evil purposes. Indeed, the IPCC TAR WG3 Report openly stated that the (ridiculous) IPCC SRES scenarios were invented to provide “desirable societal visions of the future”. However, that Report did not define “desirable” and many such “visions” are possible; c.f. those of Mussolini and Marx.
The IPCC is often proclaimed as being a scientific organisation. It is not. The IPCC is a purely political organisation, established to conduct political activities for political purposes, and that is what it does.
The true and nature and purpose of the IPCC do not need to be exposed because they are not hidden. That nature and purpose is purely political. But the true nature and purpose of the IPCC need to be proclaimed to the public who have been gulled into thinking the nature and purpose of the IPCC is ‘science’.
The evil nature and purpose of the IPCC threatens horrific consequences as a result of its effects on energy and environmental policies in many countries. But the IPCC cannot be prosecuted because it has committed no crime according to any law: it has only done what politicians established it to do.
I hope that answer is clear.
Richard
Ooops!
I intended to write
The truth and nature and purpose of the IPCC …
but I wrote
The true and nature and purpose of the IPCC …
Sorry.
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney & Janice Moore,
Thanks for your communications.
The IPCC was not given in its charter a license to avoid integrity and have irrational thinking in assessing science related to climate. It now appears an honest and reasonable conclusion, after they followed their charter for 20+ years, should have been that it couldn’t find significant unambiguous AGW observations and potential impacts are not known to be net negative. But it, instead of integrity and rational thought in fulfilling its charter, chose redefining science to be a mere compliant servant to an ideologically predetermined CAGW result. It is that redefinition of science that is the sufficient and necessary reason they should be audited. Auditing, as I propose, should be done, especially, given their charter.
Prosecution=> just auditing is effective enough when done by highly professional independent standards and people; and effective enough when an audit is openly viewed in-process by the public. : )Audit. Audit. Audit.
John
Mike Hulme is a man who wants to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds (illegal these days in ‘liberal’ Britannia). I’ve listened to him lecture, live, on why sceptics are psychologically inadequate. I don’t find him a man of integrity I’m afraid.
John Whitman:
Your post at November 1, 2013 at 10:01 am comments on the discussion between Janice Moore and me. It includes these two statements about the IPCC
and
Sorry, but your comments are mistaken.
The IPCC has not redefined science. It has selectively reported science in support of AGW as its “Role” decrees it should. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the IPCC is a scientific body. It is not.
I again provide you with a link to my documented explanation that the IPCC is a political – not a scientific – organisation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/#comment-1445687
And the IPCC is regularly audited by the politicians representing signatory governments to the UNFCCC who approve both the Role of the IPCC and the actions of the IPCC in fulfillment of that Role. My linked explanation includes this link to the IPCC Principles which include its Role
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
That document is headed
So, the most recent “Audit” was completed by an amendment to the “Principles” governing the IPCC in June 2012.
Richard
Er, the IPCC is a candidate for a Sociology of Science study? Surly you jest? I was thinking more in the line of an Anthropology, since the field has run out pre-literate tribes practicing magic to study, the IPCC should be ripe for an ethnographic study in post industrial myths and shamans.