the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Openly Confidential

Posted by Jeff Id on January 13, 2012

Steve McIntyre has an interesting post on how certain members of the most controversial sections of Climate Science™ have influenced the openness and transparency of the IPCC.   As usual, he has put considerable time into the effort and discovered a unique chain of events in the public documentation.

The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.

We wouldn’t want anyone pointing out that flawed Steig work was being used as a poster boy for global warming until after it was too late right?   After all, Soon and Baliunas needed to go because its method was flawed, not because it was an anti-AGW result.  I’m sure that the Berkeley temperature study will also be treated similarly.

 

 

13 Responses to “Openly Confidential”

  1. Anonymous said

    It’s interesting that if, before the first of the e-mails became public, one had to guess about the likely behavior of the team behind closed doors, anyone who’d read a great deal of climate audit would have guessed that the team members behave in the unscrupulous, dishonest, unscientific ways that are revealed by the e-mails. Based on what one saw of Mann, Jones, et al and their behavior in public, anyone with a basic understanding of human nature would surmise that a look under the rock would have likely revealed lots of ugly stuff.

    The only real surprise is that they turn out to be worse, by every metric, than one might have guessed.

  2. Bruce said

    Before Climate Gate: Accusations of fraud aimed at IPCC “scientists” were SNIPPED by level headed blog owners because of lack of evidence.

    After Climate Gate: Evidence proving fraud are presented almost every day by level headed blog owner.

  3. Frank K. said

    “The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.”

    One the one hand, I can understand the IPCC want to control their message. After all, it IS “their” message. On the other hand, my tax dollars are helping to fund their work, and their “policy recommendations” are likely to have a negative impact on my life (e.g. global carbon taxes). So, in that light, I think letting the world see their decision making processes is in the best interests of all.

  4. TerryS said

    The Berkeley temperature study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet and so technically it shouldn’t be included in the report.

    Or did I miss it being published (as opposed to press released)?

  5. @1: “anyone with a basic understanding of human nature would surmise that a look under the rock would have likely revealed lots of ugly stuff . . . The only real surprise is that they turn out to be worse, by every metric, than one might have guessed.”

    Yes, anyone “with a basic understanding of human nature” anticipated “lots of ugly stuff.” But the findings are no worse than “one might have guessed” if they grasped that the battle of life is a battle to escape the ego cage, where seven deadly sins fuel the false illusion of control:

    Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed, Sloth

    http://deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

    a.) Pride distorts Reality
    b.) Humiliation is injury to Pride
    c.) Humility is the absence of Pride
    d.) Leaders of nations and sciences spent vast quantities of public funds . . .

    On observations and data, but are helpless trapped in their own ego cages – like rats on a sinking ship:

    1. This brief (3-min) video of images from the vast regions of space conveys one Inconvenient Truth:

    2. The short summary of space age data conveys another Inconvenient Truth:

    Earth is a tiny piece of fly ash heated by the
    Nuclear furnace that made our elements and
    Spit out the ash five billion years (5 Gyr) ago

    3. This 3-D plot of rest masses of every atom in the universe is the key to yet another Inconvenient Truth:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

    The Inconvenient Truth written in the “Cradle of the Nuclides” was first published in 2000 on the front cover of the Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium organized by Glenn Seaborg and me to show how nuclear energy is stored as rest mass in mixtures [of two forms of one fundamental particle (Neutron/H-atom)] that comprise every atom:

    This same Inconvenient Truth has prevented a solution to our energy needs:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/01/08/nuclear-fission-flyer/#comment-148404

    Thanks to a few brave souls like Jeff Id, Steve McIntyre, and Judith Curry,

  6. steve fitzpatrick said

    This is a political problem. I do not find the desire on the part of IPCC honchos for secrecy at all surprising; I would in fact be shocked if they did not want secrecy. They claim to be trying to produce a “consensus” document, but I think more accurately, they are trying to produce a document which reflects the views of a relative handful of the most influential participants; all other views never see the light of day. Secrecy in the process satisfies two important goals:

    1) It protects the prerogatives of a handful of influential climate scientists in controlling the content of the final report, without the need to ever defend the legitimacy of those prerogatives, and
    2) gives a false impression of a high level of confidence in the content of the report, by claiming a consensus “of hundreds of climate scientists”, when final content, emphasis, and tone is in fact controlled by a handful of people.

    If the sausage-making process were in full view, then the disagreements/uncertainties/doubts of all those involved would be known, along with inappropriate influence by the powerful. People outside the process would be in a better position to judge for themselves if the final document were a fair representation of consensus on ‘the science’.

    Like all political problems, this one only has a political solution: Make US funding of all UN based climate activities contingent of everything being done 100% open to public scrutiny, and prohibit participation (by law) of climate scientists who work for the US government (NASA, NOAA, national labs, etc.) unless all UN climate activities are held in the open. Of course, that will require a change in the current administration in the USA.

  7. All is well today!

    Sorry about the lengthy message, but a large amount of factual information accumulated behind the wall of government deceit before it finally surfaced as Climategate email and documents in late November of 2009.

    Thanks to brave public servants, awareness has increased and even Wikipedia now carries the story.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

  8. Brian H said

    Bruce;
    Yeah, I’ve apparently got a lifetime ban over at Climate Audit because I used the word “fraud” re The Team despite an explicit ban — AFTER Climategate.

  9. Bruce said

    #8 Steve has his guidelines, and while I would prefer to vent more, I think in the long run his well-documented destruction of the Team will be more effective.

  10. Brian H said

    Re: TerryS (Jan 13 13:02),
    Nah, the whole thing was a PR exercise. The peer-review/publication thing was just verbiage to cover the egregious sloppiness of the work.

  11. Pambudi said

    Thank’s the news. It is good. I hope you to comment and visit in my blog, because my blog is very low visitor, now.

  12. page488 said

    RE: #3, Frank K. said: “I can understand the IPCC want to control their message. After all, it IS “their” message. ”

    Whoaaaaaa, there, Frank.

    We don’t pay them for “messages,” just for science. I totally agree with Steve Fitz in #6.

  13. stan said

    Jeff,

    OT, but did you see this op-ed that Glenn Reynolds linked? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/14/rex-murphy-thou-must-not-question-big-environment/

    “The greatest advantage the greens have had is the relative absence of scrutiny from the press. Generally speaking, it’s thought to be bad manners to question self-appointed environmentalists. Their good cause, at least in the early days, was enough of a warrant in itself.

    There is no such thing as investigative environmental reporting — or rather very precious little of it in the established media. Environmental reporters rarely question the big environmental outfits with anything like the fury they will bring to questioning politicians or businesspeople. Advocacy and reportage are sometimes close as twins.”

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 134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: