Meeting of the Minds
Posted by Jeff Id on August 30, 2010
The recent IAC report was described at WUWT and Fox News as a blasting of the IPCC. The reality IMO is a bit different. While the report is more critical than anything anyone anticipated, it has the same bite as a toothless dog, and it COMPLETELY fails to recognize what created the problems in the first place. Just who is the IAC though.
This is the most time I’ve spent on a non-technical post. The following names represent the IAC board. I was curious who they were.
Robbert DIJKGRAAF, Co-Chair, President, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
LU Yongxiang, Co-Chair, President, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Howard ALPER, Ex Officio Member, Co-Chair, IAP – The Global Network of Science
Jo Ivey BOUFFORD, Ex Officio Member, Co-Chair, InterAcademy Medical Panel
Eduardo CHARREAU, Member, President, Argentina National Academy of Exact, Physical
and Natural Sciences
Ralph CICERONE, Member, President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Robin CREWE, Member, President, Academy of Science of South Africa
Jörg HACKER, Member, President, German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
Mohamed H. A. HASSAN, Member, President, African Academy of Sciences
Ichiro KANAZAWA, Member, President, Science Council of Japan
Yücel KANPOLAT, Member, President, Turkish Academy of Sciences
Eduardo Moacyr KRIEGER, Member, Former President, Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Kurt Lambeck, Member, Past President, Australian Academy of Science
Sangkot MARZUKI, Member, President, Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Jacob PALIS, Member, President, Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Martin REES, Member, President, The Royal Society, United Kingdom
Jean SALENçON, Member, President, Académie des Sciences, France
Achiel VAN CAUWENBERGHE, Ex Officio Member, Former President, International
Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS)
M. VIJAYAN, Member, President, Indian National Science Academy
Goverdhan MEHTA, Observer, Former President, International Council for Science (ICSU)
Ed NOORT, Observer, Foreign Secretary, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
The common thread is that they are all part of government science. Every single one of them has risen to the top in their government program. It goes without saying that none of them are conservatives.
The board creates committees to which they charge the following:
2.1. Review the IPCC procedures for preparing assessment reports including, but not restricted to:
- Data quality assurance and data quality control;
- Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments, with special attention to the use of non peer-reviewed literature;
- Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC materials;
- Handling of the full range of scientific views; and
- Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and acceptance of a report.
2.2. Analyze the overall IPCC process, including the management and administrative functions within IPCC, and the role of UNEP and WMO, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders, with a view to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the assessment work and effectively ensure the consistent application of the IPCC Procedures.
2.3. Analyze appropriate communication strategies and the interaction of IPCC with the media to ensure that the public is kept apprised of its work.
2.4. Prepare a report on the outcome of the activities referred to above, including:
- Methodology of the report preparation and measures taken to ensure high quality of the report findings;
- Recommendations for amendments to the IPCC procedures;
- Recommendations concerning strengthening the IPCC process, institutions and management functions;
- Any other related recommendations; and
- Outline of a plan for the implementation of recommendations.
So as the average kindergarten teacher, who would you choose to undertake such a rigorous task? First a short prayer to the god of science.
Independent Judgment. When requested to provide advice on a particular issue, the IAC assembles aninternational panel of experts. Serving on a voluntary basis, panel members meet and review current, cutting-edge knowledge on the topic; and prepare a draft report on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. All IAC draft reports undergo an intensive process of peer-review by other international experts. Only when the IAC Board is satisfied that feedback from the peer review has been thoughtfully considered and incorporated is a final report released to the requesting organization and the public. Every effort is made to ensure that IAC reports are free from any national or regional bias.
Three committees of the IPCC:
Guy Brasseur; Renate Christ; John Christy; Chris Field; Michel Jarraud;
Rajendra Pachauri; Janos Pasztor; Achim Steiner; Hans von Storch; and Robert Watson
Brazil meeting. Tercio Ambrizzi; Paulo Artaxo; Marcos Buckeridge; Eduardo Calvo; Edmo José
Dias Campos; Chou Sin Chan; Ulisses Confalonieri; Carolina Dubeux; Jose Marengo; Luiz
Antonio Martinelli; Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho; José Roberto Moreira; Carlos Nobre; Jean Ometto;
and Reynaldo Luiz Victoria
China meeting. Yihui Ding; Zhongli Ding; Kiminori Itoh; Jiahua Pan; Dahe Qin; Yanhong Tang;
Shaowu Wang; Songling Xu; and Guoguang Zheng
USA meeting. Richard Benedick; Diana Liverman; Jonathan Overpeck; Roger Pielke Jr.; Rich
Richels; Cynthia Rosenzweig; Ben Santer; Steve Schneider; Susan Solomon; and John Weyant
Guy Brasseur – lead author IPCC.
Reneate Christ – Secretary IPCC
John Christy – Lead author 2001 IPCC
Chris Field – head of working group II
Michel Jarraud – secratary general of WMO
Rajendra Pachauri – IPCC chair.
Janos Pasztor – top climate advisor to UN
Achim Steiner – the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program
Hans von Storch – Lead author of IPCC AR1 and AR5
Robert Watson – Chairman of the IPCC during the TAR
Tercio Ambrizzi – dunno
Paulo Artaxo – Lead author WG2
Eduardo Calvo – Vice Chair IPCC WGII
Edmo José Dias Campos – Lead author AR5
Chou Sin Chan – Lead author AR5
Ulisses Confalonieri – Lead author AR4
Carolina Dubeux – Lead author AR5
Jose Marengo – Lead author AR4
Luiz Antonio Martinelli – dunno
Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho – Co-chair WG1
José Roberto Moreira – coordinating lead author WGIII
Carlos Nobre – Lead author IPCC WGII
Jean Ometto – IPCC AR5 WG2 Review editor
Reynaldo Luiz Victoria – dunno
Yihui Ding – Lead author AR4
Zhongli Ding – an established environmental scientist — do the goole search for the humor.
Kiminori Itoh – Skeptic IPCC reviewer.
Jiahua Pan – IPCC WGIII co editor
Dahe Qin – AR4 Co Chair WGI
Yanhong Tang – dunno
Shaowu Wang – dunno
Songling Xu – dunno
Zheng Guoguang – director of the China Meteorological Administration
Richard Benedick – Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Diana Liverman – contributing author IPCC
Johnathan Overpeck – Lead Author IPCC
Roger Pielke Jr – Nothing I know of.
Rich Richels – IPCC Author
Cynthia Rosenzweig – Head of climate impacts group IPCC
Ben Santer – Lead author.
Steve Schneider – Lead author WGII
Susan Solomon – Co chair WGI IPCC
John Weyent – Lead author IPCC
While there are a few known semi-skeptics in the group, the bulk is obviously party liners. There are likely zero conservatives, and all are employed by government or government supported university. It’s no wonder that the report didn’t conclude that the IPCC is a defunct political organization. It’s no wonder that the lies of the IPCC didn’t reach the headline of the report, however some of the conclusions were pretty strongly worded.
In the end, the lessons of climategate may actually be sinking in on some fronts, and when you think about it, blogland is the only known impetus for the self reflection.
With all that written above, I do have to say, much of the IAC report was quite reasonable.
With the tightschedule for completing revisions, authors do not always do an adequate job of revising the text and Review Editors do not always require them to explain why they rejected a comment. In the case of the incorrect projection of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, for example, some of the review comments were not adequately considered and the justifications were not completely explained (see Box 2.1). Although a few such errors are likely to be missed in any Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision review process, stronger enforcement of existing IPCC procedures by the Review Editors could minimize their numbers. This includes paying special attention to review comments that point out contradictions, unreferenced literature, or potential errors; and ensuring that alternate or dissenting views receive proper consideration.
It is quite telling that nothing about Jones/Briffa’s hide the decline was even mentioned, despite the fact that McIntyre pointed it out prior to AR4 release, and despite the little tiny climategate incident that brought about the little IAC report on the IPCC. You know, hte same report on climategate that Real Climate, Tamino, the BBC and Sod say didn’t happen. These guys seem to think it did for some reason.
We shouldn’t miss little gems like this:
Governance and Management
Since its founding in 1988, the IPCC has been structured in a unique way that combines its intergovernmental form with its scientific objectives. Representatives of participating governments (the Panel), in consultation with members of the Bureau, determine the scope of the assessment and review and accept the reports, and thousands of scientists from all over the world devote their professional expertise to carry out the assessment. This combination of responsibilities has both yielded a landmark sequence of global assessments related to climate change and sustained the interest and support of governments on a critical set of policy-relevant climate issues.
Policy relevant…. hmmm. This is not a science report even though scientists were involved. The fact that a whole report was generated on the IPCC based on files left randomly at a small group of climate blogs — is rather amazing. Think about that, a set of emails which changed the world perception of climate. Emails which exposed the thoughts and abuses of the consensus.
Anyway, I’m not going to convince anyone of anything with an article this long. People don’t have this kind of attention span – including me. I’m tired anyway so let me know what I missed.