Comments on: IPCC WG1 Publication deadlines

By: Pinokkio’s bij het IPCC? » Climategate: feiten en duiding in het klimaatdebat

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:20:51 +0000

[...] McIntyre van Climateaudit heeft eerder onderzoek gedaan naar de omgang met deadlines door werkgroep 1 van het [...]

By: fFreddy

fFreddy — Wed, 10 May 2006 05:55:55 +0000

Re #16, David Stockwell

This loosey goosey IPCC episode resulted in a protest petition by I forget how many thousands of people. You would think they wouldn’t want a repitition of it.

Which they cheerfully ignored. They got away with it that time, why not again ?

By: David Stockwell

David Stockwell — Wed, 10 May 2006 04:01:15 +0000

A great argument for sticking to the letter of the process is to remember the kerfuffel arising from modification of the last summary for policy makers AFTER it had been signed off on by reviewers. This loosey goosey IPCC episode resulted in a protest petition by I forget how many thousands of people. You would think they wouldn’t want a repitition of it.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 10 May 2006 03:42:36 +0000

Armand, also consider how this clause applies: "will not be subsequently modified (except perhaps for copy editing)" . This is for the December version, let alone the February version.

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Wed, 10 May 2006 01:28:50 +0000

Re:

Present Version: When the second draft of the AR4 is sent to Governments and experts for the second round review, the TSU must hold final preprint copies of any unpublished papers that are cited in order that these can be made available to reviewers. This means that by late-February 2006 if LAs can not assure us that a paper is in press and provide a preprint we will ask them to remove any reference to it.

(emphasis mine) I note with interest that (as of today), the TSU *still* does not hold a "final preprint copy" of at least one of the unpublished papers cited in the 2nd draft of the AR4. The (seemingly final) preprint copy of this paper obtained from an author's web site is approximately 50% longer than the copy held by the TSU, includes roughly 30% more citations, 40% more main tables/figures, and so forth. If all those changes and extra material aren't germane to the IPCC 4AR, one would think that the journal's editor would also have been able to get rid of a lot of it before publication...

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:50:58 +0000

“Security council members, in particular the US, have quite a bit of power when it comes to oversight of UN operations.”

Yes, over UN security operations. Not UN enviornmental programs. Hence the “Security” in security council.

As to the CCSP and NRC panel, you’ve got it wrong again. They are reviewing studies that are also included in teh IPCC. It is not a review of the IPCC. To use a poor analogy, it’s kind of like when “Road and Track” magazine does a review of the latest Chevrolet Corvette, and you are saying that’s the same as a SEC audit of GM.

Your completly and totally off base, and are applying totally irrelevant information.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:09:09 +0000

Sid, have you been following the news about the UN in the last year or so? Security council members, in particular the US, have quite a bit of power when it comes to oversight of UN operations. I’m confident that the US could have an audit of the IPCC if it really wanted one. Come to think of it, the CCSP process currently being undertaken *is* a scientific audit of the IPCC, plus there’s the separate NRC panel process with a specific focus on paleoclimatology. What more do you want?

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Tue, 09 May 2006 13:50:04 +0000

Yes they do. UNEP oversight of the UN’s enviornmental program, there is absoluteny zero, zip, zilch, nothing there about oversight of the UNEP by member countries.

You do realize you looking at the UNEP’s functions and responsibilites don’t you.

If there was any discusion of outside oversight of them, it certainly wouldn’t be there.

What the hell would the secutrity council have to do with the enviornmental arm?

And member countries have very little to do with controlling what the UN does, that is the whole reason that the UN was created, the reverse is what happens.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Tue, 09 May 2006 08:19:48 +0000

Paragraphs b, c, e and g look like a comprehensive oversight capability to me. Even if not, either the US or Britain as permanent security council members could arrange for an audit if they wanted to.

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Tue, 09 May 2006 04:59:10 +0000

I’m sorry, did you actually read that?

If by “Seems to include plenty of latitude” you mean, does not in any way discuss any form of oversight policy or audit whatsoever, and absolutely in no way does it even hint of a method of inquiry into the UNEP, then possibly your on to something.