Its not just about what the IPCC eventually came up with, but the processes they used, and the protocols employed.

The Stephen McIntyre submission to the CRU enquiry shows quite clearly that the processes have been corrupted, and an old boys club has contrived to produce the outcome they wanted.

The same groups of people were on the editorial boards of multiple climate journals and ensured that peer rewiewers acceptable to them were appointed.

Lead Authers were also Peer Rewiewers. Peer Review was used to suppress or delay adverse publications.

Leaders of the pack were given soft reviews by their mates in the pack

.....and on it goes.

When people try to defend the IPCC result by pointing to the peer review papers, they are being disingenuous in the extreme.

Then of course John Mcleans analysis shows yet further the extent of this less than satisfactory process.

There are conflicts of interest, shonky behaviour and incompetence all over this little scam.

It is no basis for any Govt to place a giant barnacle on its economy ..and anyone that does will be tossed out PDQ

Examinator - How dare I what?

State the bleeding obvious ;-)
Well, except goo'dol Fred is still kickin, sorta.
______

Amicus

A spokesman for the UNEP (and WMO) has indicated that an announcement will be made next week that would offer a “credible and sensible review of how the IPCC operates”. I am not sure of the legalities.

Would you be satisfied if "a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science" conducted the review?

Sound advice, can only try - it's hard sometimes :(

_______

Bigmal

You had some good suggestions in a previous thread, let's hope they get tweaked.

QANDA

Yes you are right I did make 10 suggestions initially then added another three ..cant find other three, but here are the 10 again

"Try these ten only suggestions for improving the IPCC process:

1. All those involved are required to sign a Declaration of Interests Document, as is standard practice elsewhere. This would apply to all;
• Members of the IPCC Board, including the Chairman.
• Lead authors and contributors.

2. No one is to be involved in any matter, or subject of discussion and evaluation, where a conflict or potential conflict may arise. They would be required to leave the room, and not be involved by any other means.

3. No assessment/discussion of any selected Peer Reviewed paper (by any Journal) may be undertaken and adjudicated upon, when any of the authors involved are present.

4. Any paper that has been rejected for further considerations as part of the IPCC assessment process should be identified, and the reason for rejection published.

5. Dissenting reports are permitted.

6. A new Board of the IPCC be created, and a new Chairman selected/appointed.

7. The HQ office and support facilities are relocated to another country, not in Europe.

8. Support staff to be turned over, with at least 30% of new appointments made.

9. SPM to be written after the Technical Evaluations have been completed, and signed off by all senior scientists involved.

10. Scientists who have received money in the last 10 years from any oil or coal company are to be precluded.Similarly greeny NGOs are to be completely excluded from the process.

There, that should solve every ones problems. Whats the betting that the outcome and advice is totally different.

If no changes whatever are made, then the next assesment is doomed before it starts by having zero credibility.

Feel free to add your own.Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 14 January 2010 3:48:09 PM

RPG,
I did NOT say that the science was bad. I said the construction of the IPCC report has problems and I addressed that topic which was the point of the article.

Nor am I defending The IPCC cock ups.( apposite archery term)

I was trying to put the topic into proportion.

Exactly the same processes occur daily in boardrooms and the economy. Information is filtered as it rises to the decision makers who then try to make the best interpretation they can.

Every big organization has internal flaws and politics, that's human nature.

We can only try and hope to get the best equipped, qualified people to input information , run bureaucracy and make the decision.

At the end of the day someone/small group has to make the decision.
There is no way that there's going to be consensus on everything this complex.

Contrarians generally are too keen to condemn and in the process, the baby get's thrown out with the bathwater.

*We* civilians can do is make realistic attempts to understand the questions and let the experts tell us what it means.
Failing that, why have experts?

With due respect the contrarians, I find it ludicrous that people who are neither equipped, knowledgeable enough or sufficiently qualified or experienced in the relevant disciplines claiming to be able to second guess those who are.

In addition to the above short comings, some individuals get on line and state it's all rubbish with out a shred of credible evidence (note: credible)....media stories don't qualify.

The only half way credible source, thus far, is Fred Singer but his evidence is apparently out dated.

I challenge the contrarians to *specifically* state how would they better arrange collate, assess, filter the massive amounts of data?
It's easier to find fault than do something that is incredibly complex.

BTW I simply think that AGW/ACC is the best working theory thus far. Sound enough to start actions.
NB I *don't* give it unquestioning allegiance.

The tax/economic barnacle references are hyperbolic emotional responses not rational ones.(their dubiousness is a whole new topic)

examinator, OK, I see your point, and you did not say the science was bad, apologies.

However, I disagree that boardrooms have these problems, when you are a company director, you have LEGAL obligations and you can GO TO JAIL if you screw up or fabricate..

There are no penalties for these people on the IPCC or CRU, and big benefits if they get away with things that are questionably moral and ethical, hence their straying off the track. There is big money involved and it looks like it has done some damage.

Do you think if CRU is found to be guilty of breaking the law on FOI requests, or they are found to have fabricated datasets, they might go to jail?

Of course not, so please refrain from comparing them to institutions that are responsible and accountable and have rules and even a government watchdog, who is very active. Who does not resort to having mates and old buddies and colleagues doing reviews and inquiry, what a joke. Imagine if AWB had been investigated by a panel of other agricultural exporters, what do you reckon they would have found?

On "I challenge the contrarians to *specifically* state how would they better arrange collate, assess, filter the massive amounts of data?"

I see no reason to do that at all - why do we need a body specifically set up to find a problem and indeed their entire existence is tied to finding the bigger problem the better?

We need experts we can trust, is the answer to why do we need them. For many years there have been doubts about the veracity of the data that Hansen and CRU have been dealing with, in fact there have been constant FOI requests that now we know CRU has contrived to get around.

Those sort of experts we can do without, they should be horsewhipped, publicly, lose tenure, all their benefits and thrown out in disgrace and if they are not - climate science will never recover, there will always be doubt if they cannot deal with internal correuption.

In a 1000 page report people have found a few errors none of which contradict the substantive findings of the report.
What should be of greater concern is the assumptions that the report makes about how the future will unfold. To the best of my knowledge the impact of natural resource depletion is not factored into any of the future scenarios.