Although the IPCC calendar webpage doesn’t link to session documents of the 34th session (Kampala Nov 2011), David Holland has alertly located the documents – see here. IPCC rejected a proposal for anonymous peer review – see document here (page 12 on). We haven’t discussed this topic previously (in an IPCC context). On reflection, the […]
As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was […]
Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is […]
(Steve: Here is Ross’ excellent op ed on the IPCC from National Post. Ross’ paper is here.)
Ross McKitrick points out that IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 listed three Review Editors, one of whom was Bubu Jallow: On Oct 31, 2006, Kevin Trenberth (with Phil Jones, one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of chapter 3) wrote to IPCC protesting Jallow’s inclusion as a Lead Author because he did not attend any meetings, answer […]
As most CA readers know, a few years ago, I wondered how they knew that 1998 was the warmest year in a millennium – a claim that you don’t see in AR4. Nor, at first (second or even fifth) glance does the assertion, once so prominent, even seem to be addressed in AR4. The Climategate […]
If IPCC authors think that it’s important to improve the measurement of some variable, should they say so in an IPCC report? You’d think that this would be exactly the sort of recommendation that policy makers would appreciate in an assessment report. For example, maybe IPCC scientists could have observed that there was in reality […]
One of the curious aspects of IPCC peer review procedure is that the ultimate authority for accepting or rejecting comments by peer reviewers rests with the IPCC authors, as opposed to the Review Editors. Review Editors are supposed to see that authors respond to Review Comments, but don’t follow up to see that it’s actually […]
Re-reading Climategate and AR4 Review Comments, I noticed an interesting discussion about handling the Law Dome O18 record – a series used in Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) with a very elevated MWP.
Update: Feb 13, 2010 NY Times letter to the editor by Paul Epstein deserves a quotation here: That fossil fuel industry-financed forces are continuing their campaign to undermine the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chief scientists should not distract us from what we know about our climate. Two physical findings stand […]
