the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

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

bio’s here

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:

    1. Data quality assurance and data quality control;
    2. Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments, with special attention to the use of non peer-reviewed literature;
    3. Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC materials;
    4. Handling of the full range of scientific views; and
    5. 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:

    1. Methodology of the report preparation and measures taken to ensure high quality of the report findings;
    2. Recommendations for amendments to the IPCC procedures;
    3. Recommendations concerning strengthening the IPCC process, institutions and management functions;
    4. Any other related recommendations; and
    5. 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

Marcos Buckeridge – reviewer for the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climatic Changes (IPCC)

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.

13 Responses to “Meeting of the Minds”

  1. Yes, Jeff, the same group that brought us the climategate scandal.

    Surprise! Surprise!

    I addressed some comments to this group in a new paper under review and contrasted vibrant discoveries in science in 1960-1983 with stagnant, lock-step consensus science in the period covering 1983-present.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. Jeff Id said

    #1 I honestly think that Dr. Christy will go down as one of the premier scientists in climate of the era. Not, unfortunately for the amazing ground breaking conclusions, but for maintaining a level and unbiased head in the middle of the whole thing.

    Critique aside, it’s still very much an incestuous report. I don’t know if people realize how much more damaging I could be by turning it into a headline and declaring victory. The problem is that it only addresses procedural problems, and not punishment for breaking procedure and further not by addressing the main issues which led to the problems.

    The three main groups MUST conclude

    1 – Man does have real and measurable impact on climate.
    2 – The impact on climate is severe and expensive
    3 – The solutions to the impact are NOT easy and NOT cheap.

    Expensive solutions are required for the IPCC to get the funding it desires. If anyone ever wonders why nukes aren’t enough, there are multiple answers.

  3. Brian H said

    Despite all the vitriol spilled on him, I think that another player notably absent from the IAC assessment (and your thinking?) is Monckton. Supporters have averred that he is punctilious about the math and references he uses, preferring to use the IPCC’s own documents to detonate their own petards in painful places.

    That he is so roundly sneered at and condemned by Warmists is much to his credit, IMO.

  4. Brian H said

    Here’s a book reviewed in the Australian magazine Quadrant:

    Climate: The Counter Consensus by Robert M. Carter
    (Stacey International, 2010)

    Bob Carter is a member of a small group of Australian scientists (although he was born in the UK and mostly educated in New Zealand) who, having attained a distinguished position in their disciplines (he is a paleo-climatologist), were willing to put their reputations on the line by speaking out against the most extraordinary fraud in the history of Western science: the fantasy that by controlling anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, mankind can control global temperatures; a miraculous global thermostat.

    This fantasy is so bizarre that Jonathan Swift could, using statements from today’s Royal Society without embellishment, write them into his account of the kingdom of Laputa. The citizens of Laputa lived on a cloud and threw rocks at rebellious surface cities beneath them. Using Laputa as a satire on the Royal Society, Swift portrayed the ruin brought about by the attempts by the scientists living in the clouds to impose their will on the helpless people living below them.

    Bob Carter’s book is a well written account of the deep corruption of our scientific inheritance which has been central to the spread of this fantasy. It is a fantasy which has spread throughout the intellectual, political and religious elites of the English-speaking world, and which has infected key Australian institutions, notably the CSIRO, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and virtually all our universities.


  5. Brian H said

    Oops. Link to above:

  6. Brian H said

    A new expression I intend to use muchly: “CO2, the magic global themostat”!

  7. sod said

    Despite all the vitriol spilled on him, I think that another player notably absent from the IAC assessment (and your thinking?) is Monckton. Supporters have averred that he is punctilious about the math and references he uses, preferring to use the IPCC’s own documents to detonate their own petards in painful places.

    That he is so roundly sneered at and condemned by Warmists is much to his credit, IMO.

    yes, more Monckton please! (sorry Jeff, but your comment section surely delivers!)

  8. […] Meeting of the Minds « the Air Vent […]

  9. Huh Sod, since you comment here regularly and not have, what I presume you imagine to be, your devastating replies not deleted, this is as much your comments section as it is Jeff’s.

    How it looks to you therefore as much in your hands as it is, in Jeff’s

  10. Sam said

    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.

    Am I missing something? They didn’t ‘meet and review current cutting edge-knowledge on the topic’. That implies they look at the science, which didn’t happen here. They only looked at procedure, and found some very, very obvious flaws in the IPCC structure. They did not take the extra step and say that because of these major procedural flaws (perhaps especially conflict of interest), the science is flawed or at least suspect. In fact, they more or less praised the science.

    Since when does an independent, objective organization point out that another group has conflict of interest problems, but assures us we should trust their past conclusions?

    Either they need serious structural reform or they don’t, and if they do, then the reports created under the flawed system must be suspect.

  11. stan said

    No one should be surprised that the quality of UN’s work on science is about on par with the quality of the UN’s work on human rights. Or peacekeeping. Or Oil for Food. Or anything else. There’s a good reason that teenage girls in war-torn areas fear the UN peacekeepers the most. The UN f***s just about everything it touches. Any organization which consists of the most corrupt, least accountable elements of all the corrupt, dysfunctional governments around the world isn’t very likely to be a model of efficient competency. The UN takes all the worst elements of human nature and combines it with the worst structural aspects of organization by committee.

    There’s an old joke that includes “I’m from the govt, I’m here to help” as one the three biggest lies. In that context, the UN is a mutant form of the all worst aspects of government — on steroids.

    What I don’t understand is why any rational person would consider the UN to be the ultimate arbiter of scientific fact. Is there any question on any subject that you would want to turn over to the UN if you wanted a fair, competent answer? Of course not.

    Pretend for a moment that the IPCC did not exist and suppose there exists a contentious dispute about science and public policy. Some dullard suggests “hey, let’s ask the UN what we should do!” As if the UN is the fount of wisdom and knowledge. The dullard would be laughed off the stage by everyone with at least a room temp IQ. And yet scientists have allowed the most visible area of scientific inquiry to be hijacked by the UN without questioning what it means for science.

    Scientists who actually care about the reputation of their profession and desire that science be used for the betterment of mankind would be well-advised to tell the UN, “No, thank you. We can take handle the science without any more ‘help’ from the UN.” Otherwise, science is likely to come to be viewed in the same light as the UN. I don’t think many would regard that as a plus.

  12. Beth Cooper said

    “Governance and Management…Since it’s founding…the IPCC has been structured in a unique way that combines its intergovernmental form with its scientific objectives…” First state conclusion. Next, manufacture(model) evidence. :-\ I agree with Dr Spencer.

  13. JAE said

    11, Stan: Right on!!!!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: