THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) commissioned a review of its processes and procedures with a report handed down in October 2010, but only just now made publically available at its website.[1]
I’ve only just started to examine the 100 plus page document, but my first impressions are that finally we have an official report that may impose a level of accountability on the IPCC.
OK. I’m expecting too much!
Well at least the report highlights past errors and acknowledges that they have been significant.
The section on "Evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty” includes comment that:
Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left, incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented...
Assigning probabilities to an outcome makes little sense unless researchers are confident in the underlying evidence…
The Working Group II Summary for Policy makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of ‘high confidence’ that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put in perspective, or are difficult to refute. The Committee believes it is not appropriate to assign probabilities to such statements.
The section on “Governance and management” includes comment that:
The IPCC does not have a conflict-of-interest or disclosure policy for its senior leadership (i.e. IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), Working Group Co-chairs and authors, or the staff of the Technical Support Units…
The lack of a conflict –of-interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals…
Questions about potential conflict of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s services as an advisor to, and the board member of, for-profit energy companies, and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.
The report includes a case study on “Himalaya glaciers” and “the performance of the IPCC’s report review process” (page 22). The assessment refers to this “error” in the fourth assessment report by Working Group II and how the IPCC review process “failed”.
The IPCC should have released this report when it was first handed down in October 2010. Now, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must report on it! But I’m not holding my breath.
****
1. Climate Change assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, October 2010 by InterAcademy Council. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf
“Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeating them”.
Mick in the Ills at least got the quote correct. The other view ( how topical can you get) is that writing history is like trying to work out what shape the iceblock was, when all you have is the puddle.
Just using your arguments against you Luke. I mean your argument is based on modeling so just thought I'd give all the models for you to ponder over.
Of course if the planet warms slightly for the next 300 years I suppose that means more evaporation and more precipitation.
BTW you don't think this modeling is valid I presume?
Say what? Neville quoting an AOGCM model. Well I never.
Here's a big Greenland story for the next 300 years, in fact all the models until 2300 showing positive for SLR. (10% of the planet's ice)
But wait that big northern fridge is countered by that BIGGGG southern antarctic monster ( 89% of planet's ice)) showing negative for SLR.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html
Rather stuffs the dangerous SLR theory beloved by Bazza and all the alarmanisters.
Seems to me the 97% medical science consensus that gave us Thalidomide is doing a reprise with climate science (sic).
Maybe if there were a few more sceptical 3%-ers around like the Jennifers, Judiths, Jos and Donnas speaking out with some healthy, hard questioning back then, the world would have dodged that tragic Thalidomide bullet.
"Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeating them"
This must be it cohers
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-07-19/giant-iceberg-breaks-from-greenland-glacier/982822
Our trusty old ABC on the job again trying desperately to make drama out of a naturally ocurring event but not quite making it
"new alarming evidence like the Greenland story"
What story is that?
Maybe this gets a mention in the IPCC review. One of the big problems is the time lag involved so new alarming evidence like the Greenland story does not make the cut. Also a lot of risks are treated as independent when they are obviously not. I suppose you could argue that the time lag means a lot of non-confirming evidence that it is not CO2 gets left out too. But is there any?