Cherry season again Mr Cox?

The IPCC considered the recommendations in detail at its 32nd (11-14 October 2010), 33rd (10-13 May 2011), 34th (18-19 November 2011) and 35th (6-9 June 2012) Sessions. Four Task Groups were established to address issues related to procedures, governance and management, conflict of interest policy, and communications strategy. In the following sections, the final decisions taken by the IPCC in response to the IAC recommendations are summarized. Further details about the consultations and decisions leading to the final decisions referred to below can be found in the Reports of the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th Sessions of the IPCC and on the webpage of the respective Session.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_review.shtml

Not cherries doc, but nuts.

So your argument is the IAC DID make justified complaints about the process in the IPCC reports but its alright now because the IPCC committee now says they've learnt their lesson and the consequent reports will be ok.

You might be gullible mate but peddle that nonsense elsewhere.

Look at AR5 and the criticism it has received. All of a sudden AR5 pulls a rabbit out of its backside which says they're now 95% certain humans are responsible for AGW which hasn't been happening for a climatically significant period as defined by wonder boy Santer and the rest of the crew!

You couldn't make this junk up and you're satisfied they've learnt their lesson!

Quote:
“Well let's have a look at what the IAC report really said. ++They provided “A simple typology of uncertainties”; obviously because they thought the IPCC did not know what uncertainty meant.”++
False. The IAC (“They”) provided no such thing. The IPCC provided specific guidelines to their lead authors.
Quote:
“The IAC provided a stats 101 primer for the different types of "uncertainty"”
False again. The IPCC supplied the guidelines.
Quote:
“The IAC knew that the IPCC reports were dismal”.
Falsehood number 3. What the IAC said was “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment
process has been successful overall.”
Quote:
The IAC concluded with this aside:
"[The IPCC should] be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it”.

No, the IAC didn't. As previously pointed out, that quote was lifted from the IPCC's own guidelines. What the IAC did conclude (under the heading “Conclusions”; go figgur) was:

Conclusions
The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound,
although significant improvements are both possible and necessary for the
fifth assessment and beyond. Key improvements include enhancing the
transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors, and
reviewers; strengthening procedures for the use of the so-called ‘gray liter-
ature;’ strengthening the oversight and independence of the review
process; and streamlining the report revision process and approval of the
Summary for Policymakers.

If you're sick of being called a liar, cohenite, perhaps you should try sticking with the truth.

Pure bilge Grim; the IAC was being polite; but beneath the niceties the criticism was damning.

I repeat all came from the IAC report. How can the IPCC reports be reasonable science when that list of complaints is made? That list was about uncertainty and the statistical standards used by the IPCC. Look at this IAC list of conclusions about the bias in the IPCC reports:

•The scoping of AR4 was not done by people selected by a transparent process and criteria.
•The writing of AR4 was not controlled by people selected by a formal process and criteria.
•Properly documented alternative views were not given due consideration.
•Genuine controversies were not adequately reflected.
•Authors did not respond effectively to significant review issues in many cases.
•AR4 is not a proper "assessment"" as the authors were not independent and did not consider the full range of available knowledge."
•Selection bias was rampant - both in terms of personnel and the publications included for assessment.
•AR4 did not even get to the first step in considering the range of thoughtful views.
•Controversial issues did not receive appropriate consideration as even the weak existing procedures were not followed.
•There is no evidence that all thoughtful views were considered.
•The IPCC indulged in advocacy.
•Authors placed too much weight on their own views relative to other views.
•WG2 SPM amplified the negative impacts of climate change contained in the underlying report.
•Lead Authors were at liberty to reject critical review comments without justification.

Again take the first one:

•The scoping of AR4 was not done by people selected by a transparent process and criteria.

This is discussed on page 31 of the IAC report:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf

And so on with the rest of them.

Grim, doc and the other groupies are seeking to hide behind some gratuitous bureaucratic language used by the IAC and are ignoring the meat of the report which was damning.

I'm not going to accuse Grim of lying; I just think he's delusional.

cohenite,

My pixies are telling me that you continually get blown out of the water by people who are scientifically knowledgeable.

Canny little guys, eh?

cohenite,

"....the IAC was being polite......"

That's always your fallback line.

Remember when Steve McIntyre tried to squirm out of his association with Watts' mistake-ridden paper a while back.

McIntyre almost bent over backwards to disassociate himself - saying he'd been hasty and that he shouldn't have been included as a "co-author".

You said McIntyre was just being self-effacing and didn't want the glory.

(titter, tee hee)

With that sort of glory, who needs....?

You make it up as you go along