the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

IAC Report on IPCC

Posted by Jeff Id on August 30, 2010

I saw the reference to this at CA today.  The IAC produced a number of recommendations to the IPCC for improving their structure.  Of course it doesn’t and won’t address the key issue which is the recognition of the fundamental pressures on the IPCC report conclusions and the resulting motivations of the people in charge but I don’t think anyone expected that level of  understanding.  Unfortunately to me, these pressures require the organization to continue promotion of exaggerated, biased and extremist versions of the science, which it undoubtedly will.

I won’t have time to read the actual report until tonight at least but here is the link and the article which includes a link to the report.

——-

InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure

UNITED NATIONS — The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change, says a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies.


11 Responses to “IAC Report on IPCC”

  1. Brian H said

    If the IPCC process so far has been “successful overall”, the bar must be set awfully low. How many integral ‘Pachauri prevarications’ would it have taken to render it unsuccessful, one wonders.

  2. Schiller Thurkettle said

    To be credible, any investigation of the IPCC and the resulting report needs to address at least the 94 blunders and outright lies committed by the IPCC and the Hockey Team.

    You can find the list at http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/ and it’s quite complete.

    In a sense, these 94 items might be said to result from flaws in the climatology institution. Assuming that’s true, what’s the likelihood that fixing the institution will result in all these ‘-gates’ being fixed?

    Not very good, when the investigations are unanimous in saying that they did not ‘look at the science’. That’s tantamount to police investigating a murder but not looking at the evidence.

  3. Brian H said

    Indeed; like limiting the forensics to whether the accused have nice friends who will vouch for them.

  4. boballab said

    Look if the IPCC Assessment Reports only dealt in facts then they would be very short reports:

    “The basic physics of CO2 in the Atmosphere would produce as much as 1.2° C of warming per doubling. Any feedbacks from that warming, either positive or negative, and the magnitude of those feedbacks are unknown at this time.”

  5. 2dogs said

    I’m quite happy with the IAC report. If implemented, there should be quite an improvement in IPCC 5AR WG2 in particular: there are good recommendations concerning probabilistic statements.

  6. Bad Andrew said

    So many years and so much money wasted. And now we get a critical report?

    Pardon me that I don’t give a damn, except that I feel p*ssed.

    Andrew

  7. Brian H said

    Climate manipulation by fooling around with CO2 emissions was always a mug’s game; every cent of the trillions now committed to it is not just waste, it’s species self-mutilation and debilitation. The imposition of expensive low-efficiency energy sources as replacement for cheap high-efficiency ones is going to be noted down as one of the stupidest decisions in history by the survivors.

  8. boballab said

    One thing I have not seen talked about (haven’t read through all the comments on WUWT) is the section dealing with Grey literature. The way I read it was a section showing why the IPCC can’t go Peer review only: Because that tosses out all the GCM’s

    In fact, information that is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments often appears in the so-called “gray literature,” which includes technical reports, working papers, presentations and conference proceedings, fact sheets, bulletins, statistics, observational data sets, and model output produced by government agencies, international organizations, universities, research centers, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, professional societies, and other groups. The extent to which such information has been peer reviewed varies a great deal, as does its quality.

    Although some respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire have recommended that only peer reviewed literature be used in IPCC assessments, this would require the IPCC to ignore some valuable information. Examples of important, non-published or non-peer-reviewed sources include very large data sets and detailed model results (Working Group I); reports from farmer cooperatives, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the World Bank, and UN bodies (Working Group II); and company reports, industry journals, and information from the International Energy Agency (Working Group III).

    Right there the IAC is admitting the GCM’s have not been peer reviewed, so if they only went with Peer Reviewed Science the GCM’s get tossed out. No GCM’s, Nothing to base the Alarmism on.

  9. stan said

    Boballab,

    Even more interesting than the GCMs are the very large databases.

    I once made a suggestion at Climate Audit (in a thread for a post where Steve had exposed some more sloppy work), that ‘settled’ science should be limited to findings from studies that had been replicated by at least one serious critic of the work. Got snipped of course.

    Suppose we only used computer models that met the basic requirement of forecasting that they be verified and validated, regarded any study that had not been rigorously replicated to be mere hypothesis, required databases to be subjected to serious review for quality control and exposed all the assumptions and adjustment processes to analysis. There’d be very little left of current climate science, but what developed over time would be worthy of use in making public policy.

  10. Brian H said

    #9;
    Yeah, the whole enterprise would deflate like the Hindenburg if they couldn’t make sh** up! Which is what using Tinkertoy model output amounts to.

  11. Hi Jeff. Thank you for the message.

    The faulty IAC probe is but a symptom of a bigger and more widespread problem than the manipulation of climate data:

    Our best research journals, governmental and international research organizations have become tools of propaganda that routinely violate the most basic principals of science and promote absolute rubbish as scientific facts.

    Unless I receive a response from Nature tonight, which is most unlikely since the NPG Executive Board has ignored several earlier messages, I will post here tomorrow an open request for the resignation of the Nature editor, Dr. Philip Campbell with documentation.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: