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