Independent Review of U.N. Climate Panel Set

|

IPCC

Climategate and glaciergate have set off a firestorm of criticism against the less-than-transparent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Bowing to public pressure, the IPCC is now seeking an independent review of it procedures by the InterAcademy Council. The IAC is the umbrella organization for various national academies of science from countries around the world. Under the terms of reference, the IAC is supposed to:

Review IPCC procedures for preparing reports including:
• 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 material;
• Handling of the full range of scientific views; and
• Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and
acceptance of a report.

The IAC report will be issued this coming August. It will be very interesting to see which scientists get to do the review of IPCC procedures. Stay tuned.

NEXT: You Might Die in Your Toyota. It Happens.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where’s Richard Feynman when we need him?

    -jcr

    1. Rolling over in his grave because of the widespread anti-science attitude in this country.

      1. I’m shocked. I could have written myself what Tony posted. I guess the only difference is that I believe that Tony is a fine example of the widespread anti-science attitude in this country.

      2. If warming true believers represent science, it’s hard to blame people for having an anti-science attitude.

      3. not when it’s all cargo cult science. (and cargo cult statistics)

  2. Maybe I’m just deeply cynical, but this looks more like ass-covering than a real change. Unless the “independent review” is conducted in a manner that’s more transparent than the IPCC (or the rest of the UN for that matter), it will be worse than useless.

  3. This is hopeful news, but the devil will be in the details.

    BTW, the text in the illo reads “IntergovernAmental” – typo (theirs) or joke (Reason’s)?

  4. How about reviewing procedures having to do with:

    ? Science studied by a panel incorporated by an expressly political body for an expressly political purpose.

    1. There’s just not enough time in the world for that, Mike.

  5. Where’s Richard Feynman when we need him?

    The turbine attached to his grave powers the Sun.

  6. The IAC is the umbrella organization for various national academies of science from countries around the world.

    I’ll have to find out what this means, exactly. If these “national academies of science” are government-run, they’re wasting our time.

    1. not run. funded. even worse.

  7. We’re, what, 15 years into Global WarmingClimate Change and the IPCC calls for a review of its process?

    This isn’t something that should occur because ugly truths are coming out, it should be occurring all the time, live, in real time.

  8. Reviewing “settled” science is a waste of time and money.

  9. It will be very interesting to see which scientists get to do the review of IPCC procedures.

    understatement of the day, Ron. I can already hear the knives being sharpened.

  10. Don’t worry, folks. The IAC is having its procedures audited too.

    …by the IPCC.

  11. Jesus, what WOULD make you people satisfied? I mean really. None of you know what the fuck you are talking about re the science here (hey, neither do I, if any of us did we would not be wasting our time on Hit and Run we’d be out doing science), so I ask, what group of experts could pronounce AGW is likely true and you would be satisfied?

    I really think nothing short of the Von Mises Institute endorsing it would cut it for a lot of you…

    1. It’s the conspiracy theorist mindset. Every piece of data that contradicts the theory is trumpeted; every piece of data that bolsters the theory shows you just how deep the conspiracy runs.

      This independent review will probably say, “The IPCC report is almost entirely accurate, but we found troubling questions in [some minor aspect].” Some minor aspect will suddenly become the most important thing ever, ignoring the mountains of reliable evidence.

      Sadly, libertarianism finally got its own creation science wing.

      1. What’s double sad about this is that there is nothing inherent in libertarianism that would compel one to deny the science here. Are there forces out there that would like to use this science to try to advance “statist solutions?” Sure. But that can be said of many, many subjects, from porn to alcohol to genetic research. That’s no good reason to deny the science.

        Why not offer libertarian solutions? It strikes me that the market is already doing amazing things to address the concerns of AGW folks. Hybrid cars, carbon neutral beer, offsets, etc., are springing up and flourishing. Heck the government may not need to do anything beyone PSA educational campaigns. The good will of most people, who don’t want to see the bad effects of AGW, can be counted on to alter consumption patterns in a way that will have real effects, and no heavy handed coercion will be needed.

        Instead, by tilting at the windmill of the science, libertarians will find themselves summarily dismissed in the discussion over solutions…It’s tragic.

        1. Libertarians who have spent too much time with Republicans for their own good.

          Although there was a good article on Reason a few months back which noted the obvious: That the opinion of any non-scientist about global warming is about 90% predictable based on their political views (and rarely ever having anything to do with understanding the science.)

    2. Whenever a group of status-seeking people cloister themselves and play political games instead of doing what’s best and seeking truth, you know what you get?

      Shakespeare in Love wins Best Picture.

      1. But that film was about Love! And Art! And Love of Art, and Love through Art!

        But sadly Paltrow wouldn’t show us her t*ts…

    3. I’ve written about this before. Most people here feel the need to bridge the gap to “Global Warming doesn’t exist” for no real reason other than instinctual fear of views expressed by statists.

  12. Jesus, what WOULD make you people satisfied? I mean really. None of you know what the fuck you are talking about re the science here (hey, neither do I, if any of us did we would not be wasting our time on Hit and Run we’d be out doing science), so I ask, what group of experts could pronounce AGW is likely true and you would be satisfied?

    I really think nothing short of the Von Mises Institute endorsing it would cut it for a lot of you…

    1. I am a scientist. I do research for a living. I do not agree with the “science” behind global warming because of two things:

      1) Science doesn’t give us “answers”, it gives us probability intervals. IF a group of scientists say that debate is over, that they have the truth, they’re lying to you. The only people who speak about “truth” are priests.

      2) We haven’t had enough time to collect measurements. Ever notice how a political poll has to survey roughly 1000 people to get “statistically meaningful data”? The US population is 300 million, and we need 1,000 people to satisfy the statistical requirement of having an appropriate number of trials. The Earth is 4 billion years old. Do the math. We need a LOT more data.

      1. There’s plenty of data, enough to say we don’t know nothing. Either you’re unaware of it or you’re ignoring it. What field you in anyway?

      2. IF a group of scientists say that debate is over, that they have the truth, they’re lying to you.

        But have you ever actually heard a scientist say that?

        The US population is 300 million, and we need 1,000 people to satisfy the statistical requirement of having an appropriate number of trials. The Earth is 4 billion years old. Do the math. We need a LOT more data.

        What kind of scientist are you, exactly? Do you throw out any data not taken by direct measurement, then? Do you think we should throw out all predictive geology and climatology just because we don’t have thousands of years worth of direct measurements?

        If some random non-scientist started convincing people that we need to stop driving cars because the continents are shifting, would you claim that the science of plate tectonics was baseless?

    2. MNG, you know what will satisfy us. AGW scientists have to make a high-profile testable prediction about anything in, say, 10 years from now. If their prediction is confirmed, it will be a very strong argument in favor of their theory. No predictions — no science. As of now, in terms of predictive power the AGW theory is on the same level as astrology.

      1. yeah they tried that. carbon dioxide-induced global warming is supposed to create a mid-latitude enhanced warming effect. In fact, the warming effect has mostly been in high latitudes.

  13. As to point 1, I’m not a scientist (well, not a natural scientist), but I’ve read the IPCC report for example and it indeed makes its claims in terms of probability. You’ve read it, right?

    As to your second point, By your logic I can think of numerous noncontroversial claims in astronomy, geology, biology, etc., and such, involving processes that cover the span of Earth’s existence, but in which reliable data exists only for a couple hundred years at best. According to your logic these claims are tenuous as well.

    What kind of scientist are you may I ask (fingers crossed that you are not going to say “engineer” and you have a bachelors degree or something)?

  14. Your point one seems suspect to me because even the IPCC report makes its claims in terms of probablity. You’ve read it, right?

    The second one also seems suspect to me. I can think of many claims concerning astronomy, geology, biology, concerning processes that have gone on during the span of Earth’s existence and on which we have been collecting reliable data only for a couple hundred years at best, and I doubt you doubt these claims as well, for this reason…

    Can I ask what kind of scientist you are? Please, please don’t say you have a bachelors degree in engineering.

    1. Well, astronomy is easy — it’s not a terribly complex field to make predictions in, because the only interaction you have to worry about is gravity.

      And please enlighten us as to the credible geology and biology predictions that purport to be as specific as the climate change predictions are.

      1. And please enlighten us as to the credible geology and biology predictions that purport to be as specific as the climate change predictions are.

        Can’t really think of anything as specific, but I can think of things vastly more specific. Plate tectonics would be one, I could probably go with a bunch of pieces of evolution rates at the DNA level, depending whether you’d really consider it predictive though.

      2. well, tulpa, actually the reason why astronomy is great is because there *are* a lot of data points. you see those little pinpricks in the sky?

    2. what, pray tell, does ‘probability’ mean in terms of the earth’s climate? let’s say the scientist says 95% … does that mean in 1 earth out of 20 it doesn’t happen?

      so, yeah, i’m a chemist. and i think most of the AGW stuff is bunk.

  15. Do you see any of these stories on television news after two decades of relentless press coverage of Global Warming with no questions asked? The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.

    1. The Rothschilds did it.

      Also, you are so right. I have never seen, heard, or read a news story about Climategate. Yup, the Illuminati did a real good job of covering this whole thing up. I don’t even know what Climategate is.

  16. So what’s wrong today, everybody? A Global Warming thread with only 35 comments?

    Something is really wrong.

    1. It’s over, man, we’re moving on. Now we’re worried about global shaking.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.