UN climate change panel to face Himalaya error verdict

[Derek]

Hi All,
I spotted this this morning, regarding the "verdict" into the IPCC's "possibly by the year 2350" rewritten as "by 2035", "error".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11126597
UN climate change panel to face Himalaya error verdict
BBC News
30 August 2010

Excerpts,
" An international committee reviewing the "processes and procedures" of
the UN's climate science panel is set to report on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has faced mounting pressure
over errors in its last major assessment of climate science in 2007.

The review was overseen by the Inter-Academy Council,
which brings together bodies such as the UK's Royal Society.

and,

Referring to the Himalayas error at an IAC session in Montreal in June,
former IPCC chair Professor Robert Watson told the committee:
"The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected
there is a rapid way to get a correction made."

Hmmm, that could be a busy mechanism..

WUWT has also recently posted regarding this subject area.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/mc...c-process/
McKitrick: Fix the IPCC process
Wattsupwiththat?
August 29, 2010

Excerpt
" That Lead Authors are able to insert evidence and rewrite the text after the close of review
makes a mockery of the idea that the IPCC reports are peer reviewed, and
undermines the claim that they contain the consensus of experts. "

I wonder if there is, or if it is even possible, to have a mechanism that could deal with this sort of behaviour,
that appears to all intents and purposes to be "built in", "accepted", and / or "normal" at the IPCC.

The above led me to Ross McKitrick's Fix the IPCC process essay in the financial post, WUWT mentioned / linked to.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/08...c-process/

and from there I noticed this, the award winners of,
http://opinion.financialpost.com/tag/the...r-duckies/
Junk Science Week: The Rubber Duckies
Financial post.
June 23, 2010

Particularly,
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06...e-coverup/
The Rubber Duckies: For services to the climate coverup
Financial post.
Peter Foster June 18,
Excerpt,
" The Rubber Duck award in the climate category goes to Lord Oxburgh,
who gave “peer review” a whole new meaning in rushing out the first whitewash of the Climategate scandal.
He headed an inquiry into the scientific integrity of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,
from which the emails emerged, and concluded in record time that there was
nothing to see here. Move along please. "


"nothing to see here. Move along please", I wonder if we will hear that again today....

[strogoff]

Thank you Derek, I´ll try to follow up today. If someone´s interested it can be watched live at 10:00 AM (New York time):

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

--------------------------

We had a recent "minor" whitewash of Pachauri´s accounts audited by KPMG:

The Sunday Telegraph´s Dr Pachauri - Apology:

Quote:On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused.

Richard North says TST has done it to avoid the colosal fees of the biggest crooks in the libel business (sic): A non-apology

and,

Monbiot´s ineffable but predictable take on it all: Rajendra Pachauri innocent of financial misdealings but smears will continue

Who can trust the meager auditing report of KPMG?

[strogoff]

I´m a spammer

- Derek writes as a mod. Not now Strogoff, SST has shown me again where to find the "spam", my apologies.
If it happens again to you, or anyone else, just pm me I can deal with it now.

[Derek]

Download Report on InterAcademy Council IPCC Review Website:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/


InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure

Excerpt,

" The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to inform policy decisions
through periodic assessments of what is known about the physical scientific aspects of climate change, its global and regional impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the Panel, which sets the scope of the assessments, elects the Bureau that oversees them, and
approves the Summaries for Policymakers that accompany the massive assessment reports themselves, which are prepared by thousands of scientists who volunteer for three Working Groups.

These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it,
IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports.
This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting
that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared. "

Full version attached as a word document to this post.

[Derek]

Jeff Id's "verdict" on the IAC report into the IPCC management / structure..

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08...e-minds-2/
Meeting of the Minds
August 30, 2010
Jeff Id


Oliver K Manuel comment.
" Yes, Jeff, the same group that brought us the climategate scandal.

Surprise! Surprise! "

[Derek]

Not long after posting the above at his blog, Jeff Id now posts this.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/3465/
Dr. Spencer – Dump the IPCC
Posted by Jeff Id on August 31, 2010

HAL-E-LU-YAH.

Dr. Roy Spencer's post on his own blog.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/dump...-be-fixed/
Excerpt,
" I say the process cannot be fixed. DUMP the IPCC process.

The reason why is because the IPCC process
was never created to achieve what the U.N. claims,
and what most people believe it exists for.

The IPCC was created to use the scientific community
to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period. "
X large - my subtle emphasis...

and,
" I do not see the ultimate goal of the IPCC ever being changed as long as
the United Nations and politicians who look favorably upon the UN’s long-term goals
are in control of the process and the purse strings.
It is as simple as that. "


Derek says, "They" are beginning to see the light.
Or, rather, the house of cards is at last collapsing
- the paradigm is now rediculous.

Time HAS told.

Next inline - GCMs, AND MODTRAN

[ajmplanner]

Unfortunately, our internationist president loves the UN and all it stands for. The EPA can now control everything through regulation and not law. After all the Supreme Court ruled CO2 is a pollutant. The IPCC will still be used by this Administration as the gold standard in this debate. Catch 22. You have to prove them wrong but they won't listen to the counter arguments. And the head of the EPA and its "scientists" appear equally clueless about the IPCC and the overwhelming evidence against CO2 as the cause of warming, if there really is any. Or more cynically, they really know the truth but just want to push an anti-fossil-fuel agenda hailed by The Chosen One as the cure to everything that ails the world. The bottom line is that the real agenda is control over energy production by the government.

[strogoff]

According to Christopher Booker, Pachauri´s accounts need further auditing. From Climate Realists:

The 'anomalies’ of Dr Rajendra Pachauri’s charity accounts by Christopher Booker

Why did the Charities Commission let the European wing of Rajendra Pachauri's empire get away with such poor accounting.

Quote:First, the names of Houghton and Tickell swiftly disappeared from the list of trustees. Then, in May, after an audit by a firm of accountants, the commission’s website showed dramatically revised figures for one of the three years in question. The charity’s income for 2008 had now risen from £8,000 to £103,980, its expenditure from £3,000 to £97,419. But the figures for the previous two years were unchanged. The commission explained that it had allowed this “to save the charity a considerable amount in accounting fees”. It also claimed that the errors were due to the charity’s “inexperience in preparing accounts”, though the figures for earlier years showed no sign of “inexperience”.

(stress mine)

AND,

From WUWT,

New Scientist’s Fred Pearce calls for Pachauri to resign

Quote:Pearce writes:
…
If governments won’t fire him when the IPCC meets at the Korean seaside resort of Busan next week, he should fall on his sword. For the good of the battered reputation of climate-change science. For the good of the planet.

[...]

Actually I think it was Booker and North that lit the fuse, but either way, your work has been important and your call for resignation correct. – Anthony

[Sunsettommy]

I agree that the IPCC should be dumped,but keep Pachauri in place to help maintain damage to that organization.

He is the best thing that ever happened to skeptics because that man represents what is so wrong with the whole pseudoscience process.Using science research to bolster predetermined political objectives.

It was borne from politics.Used by politics.And completed by politics.

There never was any concerted drive for real sober science research free of outside influences ongoing in the IPCC process.

InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

Hmmm....