Register to be a reviewer for IPCC Sixth Assessment climate report – AR6

Yes, you can register to be a reviewer. No “climate science” degree required. That certainly qualifies Dr. Michael Mann.

The Expert Review of the First Order Draft Draft of the Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report will run from 29 Apr 2019 to 23 Jun 2019. Registration will be open until 2019-06-15 23:59 (CST).

This is interesting:

Self Declaration of Expertise
I declare that I have scientific, technical or socioeconomic expertise in one or more areas relevant to the report and am therefore qualified to serve as an Expert Reviewer on the chapter(s) indicated.

My advice, go for it, follow the link:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 4, 2019 11:12 am


What is “socioeconomic expertise”?

Is there even a qualification?

Perhaps I might qualify, ex cop, ex businessman, good mechanic, father, grandfather, and with 60+ years of climate observations to my credit.

James Poulos
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2019 12:52 pm

It’s like a degree in Interpretive Dance for Accountants…

Reply to  James Poulos
May 5, 2019 6:03 am

That’s not specific enough….you to add ‘marginalized feminist’ adjective to Accountants.

Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2019 1:08 pm

Sounds perfect – perhaps don’t mention the word ‘skeptic’ on the application :0)

Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2019 1:26 pm

What is “socioeconomic expertise”?

Is there even a qualification?

No qualifications required.


No “climate science” degree required. That certainly qualifies Dr. Michael Mann.

According to Wiki, Mann has A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998).

And yours are…?

[just like Mann, no degree in climate science -A]

Reply to  DWR54
May 4, 2019 1:49 pm

I don’t know what Anthony’s are, but many of us here have a MBsD.
(for the uninformed, that’s a Master of Bullshit Detection. It’s a self-awarded recognition of mature rationality.)

JR Ft Laud
Reply to  Mr.
May 6, 2019 11:41 am


Reply to  DWR54
May 4, 2019 1:58 pm

I wonder if Michael Mann also did an extended tour in kindergarten?

Reply to  BCBill
May 5, 2019 1:33 am

His graduate study was in solid state physics until he realised he would just be average….and coming from a high achieving family that meant starting on a new field where could really be high distinction for his doctorate. Read into that what you will

Patrick MJD
Reply to  DWR54
May 5, 2019 9:17 am

Does it matter? A former climate adviser to the Australian ALP was an English Lit. degree holder. The current LNP science adviser is an electrical engineer. Means nothing!

Reply to  DWR54
May 5, 2019 10:20 am

Griff? That you?

Craig Rogers
May 4, 2019 11:12 am

Here is my review.. its propaganda.

The earth will never be destroyed..

Gary Pearse
May 4, 2019 11:32 am

They’ll have a Ben Santer clone to take any contribution you make and bury it in an overstatement that its unanimous, we’re doomed. However, it will give a participant “qualifications” … “I’m an expert reviewer of IPCC shlock.”

May 4, 2019 11:35 am

sign AOC, Bozo, and Thunberg up…..

Bruce Cobb
May 4, 2019 11:35 am

The only task would be to determine which manure pile it belongs in – Grade A, B, or C, with C grade being the ripest.

Andrew Hamilton
May 4, 2019 11:48 am

Registered. Can’t wait to get started.

Dave Fair
May 4, 2019 12:00 pm

I signed up to review Chapters 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11.

Dave Fair
May 4, 2019 12:27 pm

Here’s the substance of their reply: “The review is only available to selected experts. The WGI TSU will review your request and get back to you shortly.”

In other words: “We’ve got our own boys/girls/whatevers lined up. Thanks but no thanks.”

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 4, 2019 5:05 pm

You should reply that you wholeheartedly believe in wealth redistribution.

You will be selected, since that is what this is really about.

May 4, 2019 12:34 pm

Prey-tell what area of expertise did the eminent Dr. Kenji enroll in? I believe he is still a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. That’s some powerful credentials he carries. Nothing to bark at.

May 4, 2019 12:52 pm

I just registered to be a reviewer. Will let you know if selected.

Dave Fair
Reply to  tkamp
May 4, 2019 3:00 pm

We’ll be waiting a long time for your message, tkamp. The reply I got from my application said: “The review is only available to selected experts.”

Only true believers in CAGW will write and review the upcoming UN IPCC AR6. It will take knowledgeable skeptics some time to go through the many and varied studies, model runs, etc., long after all the scary propaganda is splashed all over the world by complicit media. Accordingly, AR6 will be out there, endlessly exaggerated to stoke public fear.

Mr Bliss
May 4, 2019 12:54 pm

Reviewing the IPPC reports is a redundant and pointless process – when the summaries can be re-written on a whim, without review

May 4, 2019 12:57 pm

Dear IPCC, after reviewing your Self Declaration of Expertise, I recommend that you include “with demonstrated expertise in the Heinie-lich Maneuver”.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  icisil
May 5, 2019 8:33 am


May 4, 2019 1:13 pm


I declared that I have scientific, technical or socioeconomic expertise in one or more areas relevant to the report :

I can see CO2 in the air.

John Hansen
Reply to  Petit_Barde
May 6, 2019 12:04 am

I thought the poor misused child Greta Thunberg was the only person able to see CO2. I’m sure you will be a rewiever.

Peta of Newark
May 4, 2019 1:19 pm

And when you’ve done all that….

Those logbooks are an absolutely massive source of weather data that we can use to improve our historical record of what we know about New Zealand’s climate and the climate of the surrounding oceans..
….The trouble is that these logbooks are handwritten, which means they’re hard for humans to read and even harder for a computer make out. So Pearce and a team of researchers turned to the public for help transcribing these logbooks

I cannot believe that last bit, not even a SUPER computer. yeah yeah yeah.
No matter, apply here:

Miss Bell
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 4, 2019 2:16 pm

Computers are really bad at pattern recognition. If humans, who can recognize the general shape of letters and numbers, are having trouble a computer, for which every different shape might be a new character, will just spout nonsense.

John Hansen
Reply to  Miss Bell
May 7, 2019 12:25 am

No Miss Bell.
I have worked many years designing computer-systems recognizing patterns. One was a large world-known brewery. Breweries are highly automatized, with huge numbers of bottles moving at high speeds on conveyor-belts. Bottles are high and narrow, and thus inheritable unstable, but the are packed so close, that they generally support each other. When, not if, crashes happen large numbers of bottles are smashed, and large amounts of beer 🙁 and glass are spread over the floor, which is very dangerous for people working there. We designed systems scanning the movement of bottles in order to detect movements that would lead to a crash. Of course it was not Windows PC’s as they are far too slow and unstable, but specialized PLC’s. with a minimal operating system. Similar systems are used in Swedish lumber plants in order to detect how to cut lumber in order to get planks with the least number of knots.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 4, 2019 2:54 pm

This sounds like a good exercise for GOOGLE (Alphabet Inc.) in pattern recognition. But then again, we’d have to trust them that there’d be no ‘offsets’ added to the results.

Reply to  MikeH
May 4, 2019 5:44 pm

The original version of reCAPTCHA used text that computer text recognition had trouble with, in the process leveraging the humans involved to decipher the text.

May 4, 2019 1:21 pm

Pertinent reminder that those many folks over the years who referred to themselves as “reviewers” of the IPCC reports were just this… people who self-described as having “expertise” in the relevant areas.

As I recall, several contributors to WUWT over the years have used this wantonly distributed “expert reviewer” tag to add (in their minds) kudos to many a silly argument.

And so it gores on….

Dave Fair
Reply to  DWR54
May 4, 2019 2:35 pm

With the UN IPCC reports’ obtuse language, people read in them anything they want. With “medium confidence” (a 50/50 coin toss) and “low confidence” (even less certainty!) used to describe the results of the studies they rely on to predict harm to our climatic system, no thinking person can rely on them. Like the U.S. Assessments, the UN IPCC makes bold statements with little solid foundation.

Other than UN IPCC modelturbation, there is no evidence that the climate is adversely affected by the slight warming from the Little Ice Age. It is a fact that no climate metric has deteriorated over the last 100 years. None of the various rent-seeking reports’ niggling, evasive verbiage can change that fact.

Reply to  DWR54
May 5, 2019 10:21 am

This would also include, of course, the infamously amateur blog site skepticalscience which “over the years have used this wantonly distributed “expert reviewer” tag to add (in their minds) kudos to many a silly argument.

But you don’t mention them in the same breath as slagging off WUWT.

Reply to  DWR54
May 5, 2019 10:26 am

It _is_ Griff, I thought I recognized the handwriting!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Cube
May 5, 2019 11:50 am

Like a bad penny.

Rod Evans
May 4, 2019 1:39 pm

I am going to put myself forward on the basis one of the past reviewers had some expertise in common with my own.
1, I am good at making hockey sticks.
2. I own woodlands and have a familiarity with tree rings.
3. I am a Man
I am thinking based on past IPCC experts, those attributes will see me through the selection process.

Reply to  Rod Evans
May 4, 2019 2:48 pm

“3. I am a Man”

Not good enough, you have to be a Mann.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
May 4, 2019 1:47 pm

#1 big red flag is the IPCC has no chapters about the main driver of the climate, solar forcing.

Meanwhile the third chapter is ‘Human influence on the climate system’.

Therefore this report isn’t about real climate science. It’s about how they can continue to fool themselves and everyone else for another few years. Working as a reviewer would be a waste of time considering most everything about the IPCC is based on science fiction.

Reply to  Bob Weber
May 4, 2019 5:48 pm

This. By systematically ignoring or dismissing all other plausible factors, they’re left with only the anthropogenic CO2 they can leverage to blame humans and human industry.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Bob Weber
May 4, 2019 6:25 pm

A good friend of mine was a reviewer of the last AR. He didn’t have a problem with the process. It is a chance to see what the science is and how it is presented. He was a thoroughgoing skeptic (he passed away last year) and they welcomed professional level review. He certainly gave them that.

All that doesn’t protect the public from the creation of the Summary for Policy Makers. The SPM is not based only on the report, it is shaped and filled with “other inputs the government’s need”. As you can imagine, that includes assurances that the threat is imminent, well-characterized, and understand with a high degree of confidence.

You must realise that by participating, you will be said “to have been consulted” and therefore approved anything that pops out the end of the pipe.

It is an interesting offer. I hope we get a report here as to who was selected.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 4, 2019 9:03 pm

Unless you rise up and resign over the political manipulations, as have various people with integrity. Then the UN IPCC politicians/bureaucrats will just ignore you. No media coverage, no problem for the manipulators.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 5, 2019 7:21 am

Was invited to be a reviewer for AR4 its largely not the reviewers that are the problem. It’s the politicians, activists and the summary writers.

Jerry Palmer
May 4, 2019 1:51 pm

I have a one-length swimming certificate that I gained at the age of seven. Am I over-qualified?

Reply to  Jerry Palmer
May 4, 2019 2:28 pm

That’s nothing I have a cycling profiency certificate gained when I was 11


Reply to  Tonyb
May 4, 2019 3:43 pm

I have a track trophy from junior high, awarded to me because the record that I set in a particular obscure field event has never been broken.

“What event?”, you ask. ANSWER: The shit (I mean”shot”) put, but, for this occasion, I think my misspoken version is probably more suitable.

And, just for fun, I DID sign up on the reviewer-request page. I just want to see whether they take me seriously, given my high degree of “socioeconomic experience”, partially gained from my highest degree of intuition.

I am white and male, however, which could work against me, if they do a background check. Oh, and I am hetero-normative, which could REALLY work against me.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 5, 2019 2:10 pm

Maybe I better go sign up then. Got to get some diversity balance with all you male palefaces.

Heh, heh.

Jerry Palmer
Reply to  Tonyb
May 4, 2019 3:53 pm

with or without training wheels?

Reply to  Jerry Palmer
May 4, 2019 6:02 pm

I won the first place trophy for the best costume in the July 4th parade when I was 5 years old. Do you think that would be good enough?

May 4, 2019 3:16 pm

I did it! I’ve applied to be a reviewer. I’m a pediatrician and an avid WUWT reader. I’ll let you know if I’m selected!

May 4, 2019 3:30 pm

I am one of the world’s experts in certain areas of modeling and simulation. My work has been adopted as standard methodology in several areas of the space business.
I put in an application for review, but I’m not hopeful of getting an invitation.

John in Oz
May 4, 2019 3:37 pm

I have a PHD* related to earth sciences – do I qualify?

“Post Hole Digger

Reply to  John in Oz
May 7, 2019 7:12 am

You are over qualified, you have a real job.

May 4, 2019 4:18 pm

Our cat Nefertiti is interested in applying to be a reviewer for IPCC Sixth Assessment climate report AR6 and we are supporting her application as she has extensive knowledge of weather and is frequently a better forecaster of the day ahead than the BOM is.

Dave Fair
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
May 4, 2019 8:55 pm

And she sequesters her scat, instead of broadcasting it over the MSM.

May 4, 2019 4:18 pm

I observed my at outside temperature thermometer this morning, and there was fresh snow on the ground. The thermometer said -4 C which is well below normal for this time of year. The -4 C and the snow on the ground indicate no global warming around here, which means global warming is not global. There, I’m qualified.

May 4, 2019 4:20 pm

They might surprise us by saying that as its clearly getting colder, that all of their well published measures against Global Warming are finally paying off.

But and of course, and its a very big but, we most not relax, because you naughty people could easily slip back into your old ways, ands then the world will start to warm up again.
As for our other problem, that of “Climate Change”, well we are not too sure just what causes that, but it has to be caused by humans, so we will still be working hard to control that and to save you from its effects.
So please understand that all of the discomfort you are experiencing is worth while, as we must “Save the Planet”. if not for yourself , think of the children.


May 4, 2019 4:41 pm

Bjorn Lomborg would be the best socio economic reviewer that the IPCC reports have ever imagined.
He has published many of the best assessments of all of the data covering all the IPCC reports and used a panel of the best experts on the planet. A number are Nobel laureates.
But what chance to you think he would have if he applied ?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Neville
May 4, 2019 8:57 pm

If the UN IPCC AR6 ignores Dr. Pielke, we will know them for what they are.

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 5, 2019 3:59 pm

I see a need for a list of Blocked Reviewers , those who have applied but have been ignored/denied. Is there a mechanism/protocol to appeal? What if there is no notification at all?

Mark Broderick
May 4, 2019 6:07 pm

I told them that I had 19 “Participation Trophies” hanging on my wall….( I kinda, sorta failed to mention that they weren’t mine ( but the wall is )), no way they can turn me down… : )

May 4, 2019 7:35 pm

I submitted as a retired public school science teacher with a MS in Ecology. Will be interesting if selected. Thanks for the heads up.

Larry Vaughn
Reply to  SCIWIZ
May 17, 2019 7:29 am

I am now a reviewer and looking at the report.

May 5, 2019 1:01 am

I applied. I was the President of an Astronomy Club for 2 years, and member for over 30. I also wrote several articles for our newsletter, a couple of which vaguely resemble poorly written science papers. They’ll either LOL or send a private plane to pick me up and make me Director of the IPCC.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
May 5, 2019 7:50 am

I would urge some caution to anyone thinking of this. We all know given that the science is on the sceptical side, that sooner or later this scam will hit the rocks and the law suits will start flying. And who will they sue? The obvious target are the “expert reviewers” of the IPCC … irrespective of whether they were personally for or against the final outcome, by participating they become part of the “association” and legally liable.

So I wouldn’t put myself forward to be culpable in this many unless I had professional indemnity insurance covering the several $trillion that the IPCC is liable for.

But no insurance company will ever indemnify anyone for such an eye-watering amount …. so you’d have to be pretty stupid to get involved with the IPCC process.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
May 5, 2019 3:07 pm

No problem, Mike H,

I’m judgement proof.

Coeur de Lion
May 5, 2019 7:53 am

Mann has a Nobel Prize don’f forget

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
May 5, 2019 2:25 pm

Thanks Anthony for the info. I have applied to be a reviewer of relevant chapters on physics/chemistry issues. Dr, JBVigo

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dr. Jimmy Vigo
May 6, 2019 9:59 am

After reviewing my application, the IPCC wrote me that it seemed my background would be more relevant for reviewing WGIII, rather than WGI. Ya, sure. WGI decides if the world is ending, WGII and WGIII decide on which hand-basket we will be using.

Alan Tomalty
May 5, 2019 8:20 pm

It would useless to register if you are a skeptic. As soon as you point to something that goes against the core teachings of Al Gore’s Church of Climatology, it will be ignored.

May 5, 2019 11:19 pm

Mosher should be in there then.

Michael S. Kelly LS BSA, Ret
May 6, 2019 4:59 pm

I signed up for those chapters in my area of expertise, and I’m genuinely interested in being a reviewer. Thanks for this link, Anthony!

May 6, 2019 5:47 pm

I got an actual reply. They want me to clarify how my expertise relates to the substance of of the IPCC report. Perhaps I’ll tell them I studied climate change at the Bloom County Polytechnic Institute, under the tutelage of the immenent Professor Bill the Cat.

Colin Smith
Reply to  Alan
May 7, 2019 9:01 am

I got a pretty quick approval. I do however have a relevant education and work for a UN organisation that generally cheers them along.

May 8, 2019 10:08 pm

Hi packerpack – thanks for the comments.

May 10, 2019 8:35 am

I’ve been accepted to review the section on the energy balance, feedback and sensitivity. Not that I expect they’ll pay attention, but when the lawsuit eventually occurs, there will be evidence that they knew about the many fatal errors in their reports.

May 13, 2019 12:17 pm

Hunting offers benefits to the hunter as well.

Gary Miller
May 17, 2019 7:20 am

To my amazement my PhD in Electrical Engineering, along with a couple of publications related to my specialty, enabled me to be a reviewer. Not what I expected.

%d bloggers like this: