Comments on: IPCC: "Lively Interchanges" as a Form of Due Diligence

By: EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC « Climate Audit

EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC « Climate Audit — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:06:08 +0000

[...] A clear statement of this occurs in Mann’s 2003 answers to questions from Inhofe (noted up at CA here). There were a series of questions, starting with: 30. Did IPCC carry out any independent programs [...]

By: IPCC Review Editor Comments « Climate Audit

IPCC Review Editor Comments « Climate Audit — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:52:43 +0000

[...] Review Editor Comments David Holland has written in raising an excellent point about the failure of IPCC WG1 to release the Review Editor [...]

By: Spices

Spices — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:30:17 +0000

Great information! I have been hearing more about this subject matter and thank you for bringing this information to our attention.

By: Doug Danhoff

Doug Danhoff — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:30:18 +0000

The problem as I see it is that most people recieved their information not from the IPCC report but from the SPM (summary for policymakers) The SPM was writen primarily by governement appointees who directed THEIR views, not neccessarily those of the participating scientists.
These political appointees claim that a consensus of view was achieved by “thousands” of scientists, but as Arthur Roarch points out in his paper “Pseudo Scientific Elements in Climate Change Research” (in press)”McLean and Holland calculated that some 800 researchers were involved in ALL the reports” and that”the real number of expert reviewers who univocally sustain the conclusions of the most important chapter in the recent assessment (WGI, 9 ‘attribution’) is limited to five”

By: Doug Danhoff

Doug Danhoff — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:20:21 +0000

The problem as I see it

By: Tom C

Tom C — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:24:35 +0000

#40 bender

A PhD in ClimaTautology…

Congrats on a very good witticism

By: David Holland

David Holland — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:06:54 +0000

Not only is there a lack of due diligence on the science but the IPCC does not seem too fussy about demonstrating that they operate as laid down in their Governing Principles, mentioned by Dan in #17, which call for a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis etc. Clause 10 says Differing views on matters of a scientific, technical or socio -economic nature shall, as appropriate in the context, be represented in the scientific, technical or socio-economic document concerned

That Steve and Ross thought Wahl and Ammann was inappropriate, seeing as how the IPCC never considered the accepted version, is to be expected. However when the reviewer for the Government of the United States points out that it does really does not cut the mustard ( see reviewers comment ID #: 2023-415) one might expect some mention in the text. The umpire on Chapter 6 was a Brit, the Chief Scientist of the of our Met Office, sent, I presume, at the taxpayers expense to act in accordance with paragraph 5 of Annex 1 to Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work which say the Review Editors function is to assist the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.

Clearly the Review Editors advice would be interesting to read and paragraph 5 goes on to say that Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report. Review Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel etc.

From the reviewers comments it is clear that many areas are contentious in several of the chapters but I have seen no annexes. Rejected hardly seems appropriate consideration. Clearly the Review Editors written reports are something we would all like to see. In reply to my request to the British Chapter 6 Reviewer Editor I was directed to TSU who were said to be in the process of disbanding. Perhaps this is the Littauer hand off.

I shall, of course, be pressing to get see the review editors reports through FoI in the UK (did no one get sent a copy in the UK?) but in these matters some of you are in more congenial jurisdictions and I hope that someone might press to see these reports which must have been circulated to their governments or the IPCC is even less in anyones control. Either the Review Editors’ reports say nothing because the umpires are biased which means the checks and balances are worthless or they were ignored. Either way the system does not work as specified.

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:00:05 +0000

Prediction; this entire subject, for whatever reasons, should become a non-issue soon. It is very likely that will be within a reasonable amount of time.

By: SteveSadlov

SteveSadlov — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:09:36 +0000

RE: #34 – Planning for a +2.5 deg C future is a really great government program. It’s actually not all that high of a risk, even if nothing is done. It wins votes from the ecologically oriented voters. It increases energy independence (assuming that actual action is taken). Great way to score politically (and, more cynically, make a few extra bucks on the side). Now, consider the “what if we’re completely wrong future. Huge risk, so if you say you’re doing something about it and fail, cold hungry mobs will come after you. The things you can practically do to mitigate it are mostly environmentally “ugly” and may do things like increase cancer and respiratory risks. Not really lots of money to be made when sunk costs are factored in. Most countermeasures would be exceedingly politically unpopular and multiple wars may be needed. Well, that explains it.

By: SteveSadlov

SteveSadlov — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:00:26 +0000

RE: #4 – To add to that, imagine doing something like Fault Tree Analysis / FMEA / Hazard Analysis on the climate system. What would be the severity factors / downsides of the negative forcings in a worst case scenario? Which is harder to adapt to and causes more death, +5 deg C or -5 deg C?