“Trust” the Process: IPCC AR6 WG1 Edition

AR6 WG1 final revised report and expert review comments have just been released

Adapted from an email from David Burton

It appears that the IPCC has finally finished their revisions to the “final” AR6 WG1 Report. This web page has been redesigned and expanded:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

If you scroll down to the bottom you can find the heretofore secret list of Expert Reviewers:

ANNEX X

Expert Reviewers

DOWNLOAD 

And here’s the page with the FOD and SOD documents, and the links to the Expert Reviewer comments and responses:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/drafts-and-reviews/

Note that, until now, even the Expert Reviewers, themselves, were not permitted to see any of this material. Even while reviewing the SOD (Second Order Draft) we were not permitted to see the authors’ responses to even our own FOD (First Order Draft) comments.

In the case of our FOD comments, we’ve had to wait nearly three years to see the authors’ responses.

The IPCC’s “expert review” process, despite the similar name, does not resemble peer review for academic papers. The IPCC treats its own “expert reviewers” like mushrooms. The IPCC’s authors needn’t even take reviewer comments into consideration.

Imagine an academic journal which ran its peer-review process the way that the IPCC runs their “expert review” process:

  1. Reviewers write comments, the authors ignore them or not, as they see fit.
  2. Eventually (perhaps years later!) the authors write excuses for ignoring reviewers’ comments, but they don’t even show those responses to the reviewers until after the Report is published.

That’s how the IPCC’s “Expert Review” process works.

Imagine an academic journal which conducted its peer review process like that. Would YOU trust such a journal? Would YOU publish in it?

Of course not. Nobody sensible would.

Then why would anyone trust the IPCC’s Reports?

Dave

4.8 23 votes
Article Rating
33 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr.
May 7, 2022 10:17 pm

IPCC does political science.

Not science science.

Mr.
Reply to  Mr.
May 7, 2022 10:55 pm

Here’s the sort of political shenanigans the IPCC gets up to –

they change the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policy Makers.
That is – the bureaucrats at the IPCC write what THEY reckon the scientists should have said.

Example –
Replace
“Observed changes in the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere and biosphere provide unequivocal evidence of a world that has warmed. {2.3}”

with
“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. {SPM.A.1}”

Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 12:11 am

Excerpt from the IPCC report website:
Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-LIV/Doc. 5, Rev.1)”

In the good old days, I recall the Technical Assessments were written by the experts, and then the politicians would write the alarmist Summary for Policymakers (SPM), and the two were often inconsistent. Awkward!

It now appears that the politicians and their minions now write their SPM, and then go back and rewrite the Technical Assessments to agree with their alarmist nonsense in the SPM.

So much more credible! (Sarc/off)

I waded through the first few Technical Assessments and SPM’s but they havelong been a total waste of time, especailly the SPM’s, which are alarmist drivel.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 9, 2022 2:58 am

alarmist drivel

Alan you nailed it with this phrase!

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 9, 2022 7:52 am

You are correct, Allan. I believe Steve McIntyre encountered this problem.
When Steve was doing his review a couple or so IPCC’s ago, he asked for more informattion on one of the papers he was reviewing. Susan Solomon told him not to ask any questions or he would be kicked off the panel. It is documented on his web site.

Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
Reply to  Mr.
May 7, 2022 10:59 pm

So why do the politicions seem to regard anything from thr IPCC as if it’s Holy Writ.

Perhaps that is the basic problem, it has become a religion.

Michael VK5ELL

Duker
Reply to  Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
May 7, 2022 11:48 pm

More than just a religion, it’s a militant faith spread by zealots

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Duker
May 8, 2022 12:34 am

The objective is, was, & always has been, to invent evidence to promote the concept of a one-world globul guvment, run on Socialist principals(not that Socialists have any of those). The wealthy ruling intellectual elites will not be required to obey or conform to such principles, those are only for the proletariat/peasants, or ordinary people in other words!!!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 8, 2022 9:39 pm

They may have principals, but principles, not so much.

Reply to  Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
May 8, 2022 7:53 am

They consider it Holy Writ because it preaches the sermon they want told under the guise of scientific credibility.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 12:29 am

The clue is always in the title, ” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”! Not International, or Independent, so anything with the word government in it, in some form or other, is by default a political document/organisation, no ifs, buts, or maybes!!!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 8:11 am

Politicized Science.

Political science is a branch of Social Science.

I am not arguing for the validity of Social Science, of which I am dubious. I am arguing that a distinction needs to be made between the study of politics and the practice of politics.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 8, 2022 9:10 am

Politicized Science is corrupted science, which is no longer science.

May 8, 2022 12:57 am

IPCC wild guess predictions of the future climate, that have been wrong since 1988, are not science. Starting with the conclusion that global warming is controlled by the CO2 level, caused by man made CO2, and will be rapid and dangerous, so must be stopped is not science. Science does not start with a conclusion. The IPCC arbitrarily dismissing all natural causes of climate change as “noise” in 1995, is not science. The IPCC quoting climate computer games, that predict whatever the programmers
want predicted, and have grossly over predicted the warming rate for 40 years, is not science.

The IPCC is a political organization that censors contrary data and opinions.
The future climate can not be predicted — the IPCC has proved that. There are no data for the future climate. Data-free predictions are not science, especially when they have been proven wrong decade after decade. Climate predictions can only be based on unproven theories and speculation. And that adds up to climate astrology, not climate science.

The “peer review” process is irrelevant for junk science that get published. IPCC reports are junk science that get published. So it is obvious the peer review process is not working.

Some people ask: “Why would anyone trust the IPCC’s reports?”
A better question: “Why would anyone read the IPCC’s reports?”
They all say the same thing, which is anti-science circular reasoning,
so there is no logical reason to read more than one IPCC report.

This is what they all say: ‘Assuming global warming is man made and dangerous, we predict that future global warming will be man made and dangerous … and will be worse than we claimed in our last report, so never mind our last report.’

Every IPCC report is a tall, steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products — leftist political scaremongering based on junk science and wild guess speculation, pretending to be real science, by the use of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

IPCC reports and climate computer games are tools used to create fear. Fear is used by leftists to increase government powers. That strategy was VERY obvious during the COVID scaremongering. It’s also obvious with “climate change”, with the scaremongering getting louder and more hysterical since the 1980s.

The only “climate” question leftists care about now:
How much money can we spend on Nut Zero?
No debate is allowed on climate science.
Leftists already have enough anti-CO2 zealots.
That’s why accurate IPCC reports and computer games don’t matter. Repeated wrong predictions of climate doom don’t matter. The Climate Howlers will just make another 12 years to doom prediction when the last 12 year prediction of doom ‘expires’.

The belief in a coming climate crisis \was not created with facts, data and logic. Therefore, the belief can’t be refuted with facts, data and logic. The best we can do is to point out, and ridicule, the 100+ years of wrong predictions of various imagined coming environmental crises that never show up. Don’t try to debate Climate Howlers when you can ridicule and insult them !

Never forget that “climate change” is just a prediction of climate doom, and predictions are not reality. We have the advantage of living in reality. Reality is that our current climate may be the best climate for humans, animals, and especially for plants, since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended about 5,000 years ago.

Reality is on our side. But we are fighting a climate religion, not climate science. And their bible is the Appeal to Authority IPCC Report. They own the historical climate data, and revise it at will. So It’s an uphill battle against climate propaganda and scaremongering. I won’t back down, and I hope you feel the same way.

Steve Case
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 8, 2022 1:11 am

Some people ask: “Why would anyone trust the IPCC’s reports?”
A better question: “Why would anyone read the IPCC’s reports?”
____________________________________________________

First chuckle of the day.

cerescokid
Reply to  Steve Case
May 8, 2022 2:13 am

I’ve been reading for 8 decades. It’s the most unreadable document that I’ve ever tried to read. There is not even a close second.

cerescokid
Reply to  cerescokid
May 8, 2022 3:17 am

I’m going to amend my comment.

In response to a comment in “ IPCC AR6 WGI – Second Order Draft Review Comments and Responses – Chapter 09” about the possibility that acceleration of SLR might be related to the ascension phase of a 60-70 year cycle, this was said “Rejected. Unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions”

That was all. Nothing more. In spite of the fact there were many papers referenced by the commenter. I have read numerous papers raising the same issue, above and beyond those mentioned in this section.

What a pathetic excuse for offering a rigorous scientific process. Kiss it off as personal opinion. No, if there are papers raising the possibility that acceleration might be oscillatory, then the IPCC has an obligation as to why the science says it is not. Don’t weasel out by saying it is personal opinion.

Just this extremely minuscule example says everything anyone needs to know about why the IPCC is a sham.

I said above the document was unreadable. I didn’t say it wasn’t fun. It’s great fun finding proof the skeptics are right.

tygrus
Reply to  cerescokid
May 8, 2022 4:44 am

If “ascension phase of a 60-70 year cycle..” is dismissed without scientific reasoning then I would say most of the IPCC reports could be judged the same. IPCC reports contain mostly “unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions”.

Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
Reply to  cerescokid
May 8, 2022 3:39 am

We need a person or political group to say that as per William Harper, that CO2 at parts per million, compared to water vapour, ie H2O which like CO2 is also a Greenhouse gas & also blocks the Infra Red radion from Earth.

But unlike CO2 at its PPM, water vapour is 1 % of the atmosphere.

So CO2 is just a bit player, & as William Harper says, it does not matter that both India & China put vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, it does not matter.

It’s H2O which controls the weather.

So as it’s not possible to Tax that hopefully our polititions will get back to doing what we pay them to do.

To make the World a better place for all of us.

As for the IPCC , close it down as well as the useless United Nations.

Michael VK5ELL

May 8, 2022 4:20 am

Steven E. Koonin:

“The problem is there’s a long game of telephone that goes on which starts with the peer-reviewed literature: the reports of the basic research written by scientists for scientists. . . . 

Then there’s the process of putting the assessment reports together, which can go on for a couple years typically [and] involve hundreds if not thousands of people contributing. They are a narrative, if you like, that is meant to convey things to non-experts. 

Then there are the summaries for policy makers of the assessment reports, which further distill the understanding down. And then finally you get to the media, which translate it for the general public.

And . . . very few people actually read the assessment reports. [So] there’s ample opportunity for mischief along that chain of refining and filtering to spin things one way or the other.

Climate Scientists Make Us Skeptical

Reply to  Joe Born
May 8, 2022 8:17 am

Koonin gets one thing wrong here.

He implies that the Assessment Reports are published first, and then

there are the summaries for policy makers of the assessment reports

Which would be an understandable mistake, given that no other document in the history of discourse has ever been ‘summarized’ before it existed.

To assume the IPCC operates within any known set of human norms is, nevertheless, just that: a mistake.

Mr.
Reply to  Brad Keyes
May 8, 2022 9:18 am

Yes I wonder why we’re all continually surprised by the flagrant perfidy of the IPCC machinations, in view of the fact that this organization was created by zealots to specifically and vigorously push the AGW “cause”.

We’re like the fans who keep watching Looney Tunes in the hope that Wile E Coyote will one day get the upper hand on the Road Runner.

John Shotsky
May 8, 2022 5:04 am

In the IPCC’s charter, it is stated that they are looking ONLY for HUMAN-CAUSED climate change. That gives them wholesale permission to blame everything on humans. Yes, there is a 65-70 year cycle. You can SEE it in the data. We are now on the downside of that cycle, which is why ‘global warming’ stopped.

DonK31
Reply to  John Shotsky
May 8, 2022 5:44 am

People, even “scientists” find what they are paid to find.

A bureaucracy never finally fixes the problem it was built to fix because if they do, there is no longer a need for that bureaucracy and the bureaucrats populating the agency get to be unemployed.

DonK31
May 8, 2022 5:40 am

Trust…but verify!

firefoxx
May 8, 2022 5:43 am

They even say:
Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-LIV/Doc. 5, Rev.1)

Dave Fair
Reply to  firefoxx
May 8, 2022 1:07 pm

Translation: You will do what the Politburo tells you.

Coeur de Lion
May 8, 2022 6:17 am

Do read both of Dona Laframboise’s books on the decades of IPCC dishonesties. The second deals inter alia with the corrupt chairmanship of Rajendra Pachauri the sexually compromised railway engineer. Do get up Steve McIntyre climateaudit.org and get up his analysis of the fraudulent Hockey Stick that appears on the Summary for Policymakers BUT NOT IN AR6. Unbelievabler. Fake. Why believe anything this fraudulent body Fay’s or does. Defund the IPCC

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 8, 2022 1:18 pm

For a free sneak peek at Ms. Laframboise’s work, here’s an outstanding lecture that she gave:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InIQkyKYfv4
(It’s 31 minutes, but, to her credit, she speaks so clearly that she’s perfectly understandable at 1.75x or 2x speed.)

Pat Frank
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 9, 2022 2:13 pm

Thanks, Dave. Donna gave an outstanding talk on her extremely important work. Her investigation revealed the IPCC to be without integrity.

Then Chairman Pachauri was incompetent and likely dishonest. The AR authors, world-renowned scientists all, include undergrads and WWF partisans. The claimed-to-be peer-reviewed content is 30% grey literature.

She finishes with, ‘Ask rudimentary question and it becomes very clear very quickly and beyond any doubt that the IPCC is not a credible organization. Its people are not trustworthy. The fact that journalists have not scrutinized the IPCC over the last 25 years is shameful. And the fact that governments continue to rely on the IPCC is scandalous.’

It’s all out there in full view under the sun. And the fraud continues. Crime without penalty.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
May 8, 2022 8:18 am

Woo-hoo, experts! Experts are amazing, aren’t they? 😉

May 8, 2022 8:20 am

That’s great news. They’ve finished the report!

Now they can get on with doing a summary for policy makers.

Oh wait

%d bloggers like this: