Christy’s remarks are at about 2:30. He mentions the proprietor of CA favorably.
This review, like all other reviews to date of CAGW, is not serious. They will not be serious until they give equal footing to you and the other science based skeptics and critics of CAGW and the institutional industries that promote it.
The irony that your perspective was specifically mentioned as one that needed to heard and that you have been once again excluded is palpable.
A more direct link to the audio files:
There are four streams on this page but I haven’t found Steve at 2:30 of any of them. Could you please be more specific, Steve?
Christy is great. And I like von Storch, too.
Still, I am afraid that this is a selection of witnesses done for them in such a way that they can still produce a “majority” that will be able to overrule any of the “minority” observations.
Can’t find it either …
2 hours 30 mins, not 2 mins 30 seconds – it’s not clear from Steve’s OP. Session 1 – http://ppro.ir-live.com/avwtelav/2010.06.15/etelav100615-a/index-sp1.html
Audio only (hard to tell who is speaking), bad quality sound…. where did all the funding go ?
It’s not even live, how hard is it to film the meeting and put the video file online ?
You are under the misimpression that this is a sserious effort to review and reform the CAGW promotion industry.
Christy begins about 2:48:45, and mentions Steve shortly after 2:31:00.
Christy’s comments are well worth listening to — can we get a PDF of the hard copy that he distributed?
Make that 2:28:45.
“…I urge you in the strongest terms to engage Stephen McIntyre in your deliberations, at a high level, as he has accurately documented specific failures in the IPCC process…”
Christy was very good. I particularly liked the segment where he was asked by one of the committee whether his work was considered but rejected. Christy nailed the response by emphatically and bitingly pointing out that the papers he had sent to the Chapter authors did not even make the list of references. He also made good use of some of the emails – especially the one where I believe Jones asked others to undermine Christy’s data by whatever means were possible.
Von Storch’s piece was confusing – he clearly sees the AR4 process as suspect calling it “sh*tty” at one point. However, his extended description of the Baltic Report process and presumably its lessons for the IPCC was difficult for me to understand.
That said, there were a number of comments from committee members that reflected IMHO the assumption that science should reflect a consensus judgement – so I am not optimistic that anything significant will emerge if these folks are in the majority.
The proper role for an organ like the IPCC is to seek, not consensus, but second-order agreement (or third-order, if second-order proves unattainable) in Herman Kahn’s typology:
1st-order agreement is agreement on substance.
2nd-order agreement is agreement about =what the argument is about=. “If A and B have achieved it, either should be able to explain it to C and each should be willing to accept the other’s explanation.”
3rd-order agreement is “an understanding on why second-order agreement cannot be achieved. … When third-order agreement is reached, each party can explain satisfactorily to a third why his opponent thinks the two cannot really come to grips on relevant issues and facts and eventually achieve a second-order agreement.”
4th-order agreement is “the simple assertion by one or both [parties] that the other is too stupid or biased for further discussion to be worthwhile”.
Ref: _Can We Win in Vietnam?_, Praeger, 1968, pp. 3-4
Good quote about the consensus, that has been the sticking point in my side about IPCC all along about there needing to be a consensus. Only way to make a consensus is to force it, and this goes for just about anything in our lives, everyone is going to have their own bias, and by ignoring that fact, you will get the scientific method wrong everytime.
Double blind experiments are done for this reason, so that personal bias is at least mostly eliminated in science. The fact that this is not even attempted in the modeling and now as we see in the decision making level shows the disconnect from reality that IPCC has had all along.
Roger Pielke Jr’s blog entry today discusses Hans von Storch’s presentation at the review. In it, von Storch pointedly accuses the IPCC of deliberate disinformation:
Greetings everyone – this is my first post.
Steve – I can’t thank you and your colleagues enough for all the work you have done. Like many on this blog, I used to be a card carrying member of the blind AGW believers (I shudder now at the thought). I left my thinking, rational brain behind for a while. Thanks for the wake-up call.
I listened to John Christie’s remarks and I thought he spoke very eloquently and to the point (with a nice shout-out to Steve as well). I hope there is a transcript somewhere of his talk.
Have you all seen the latest accolades bestowed upon James Hansen in the latest batch of Nature news?
*correction: Science news.
Christy sent me his talk yesterday. I posted it here (after a short introduction in Dutch: http://climategate.nl/2010/06/17/john-christy-ipcc-authors-are-gatekeepers/
My thanks too Marcel. We shall see where this ends up. If the past is our guide, it will have little effect, but this last year has produced some interesting surprises.
IPCC head Pachauri “…welcomes the review…”
A direct link to the audio is mms://media1.pqm.net/digicast/telav/etelav100615-a.wma
I particularly like this quote from John Cristy:
A fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies.
Never truer words were spoken.
Not sure if it is a coincidence, but both co-chairs of the IAC Review of the
IPCC, Harold Shapiro and Robbert Dijkgraaf, have Princeton ties. Dijkgraaf is
now head of the science society in the Netherlands, but was a string theory
researcher at Princton. I seem to remember that Princeton has something called the Carbon Mitigation Initiative, funded by BP to the tune of $1.2M per year
over the last decade. One of their more widely known scientists is Michael
Oppenheimer who recently wrote an article asking if there should be an new
Manhattan Project (refering to the WW II plan to build the atomic bomb) to
combat Climate Change. The fact that Princeton believes they need a Carbon
Mitigation Initiative means they have already accepted AGW and are hot on plans
to halt it. I am getting a funny feeling with all of these ties within the
IAC to Princeton, BP, Carbon Mitigation. If this is the plan to restore confidence in the IPCC process, not sure if this is the best start. Of course,
the IAC team was chosen before the oil spill and the spotlight on BP. What
other universities have received funding from BP for “climate change”,
“carbon mitigation”. Are the other panelists on the IAC already associated
to either Shapiro, Princeton or BP?
Barry Woods has ‘astonishing’ news about Sir John Houghton at Keith’s and the Bishop’s. Judy is the one astonished.
Nick Barnes of the ClearClimateCode project has an IPCC petition for improved citation tracking across the IPCC reports. This is a no-brainer in my mind. Go here to sign the petition.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 3,581 other followers