Itse en ole sitä vielä tutkiskellut, mutta huhut kertovat, ettei akateemikot eivät löytäneet mitään "tuomittavaa", tosin Pachaurin tulisi lähteä.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... conned.pdf
Climate change predictions must be based on evidence, report on IPCC says
Voisiko tuota paremmin sanoa?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... eport.html
The overall impression is that they are recommending a lot of steps that will make little difference. They don't seem to have 'fessed up to what went wrong.
-The idea of having executive committee members from outside the climate science community is in principle sound, but only if they get people who are fundamentally critical of the AGW hypothesis. A sceptic-free IPCC is a credibility-free IPCC.
-The sections on the review process do not acknowledge the gatekeeping that has gone on. THis is "shut-eyed denial".
-Concentration on key issues is probably sensible, but you can't help but feel that this will be used as a route to sideline sceptic comments.
The comments on uncertainty look completely damning to me:[A]uthors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.
-In any credible organisation, heads would be rolling.
-The comments on communication are quite funny. The answer (as ever) appears to be better PR.
-The transparency bit is limp. This particular bird has flown the coop. There is no point in asking for transparency over the appointments process when the authors for AR5 have already been appointed. No credible assessment report possible until AR6.
-This also applies to the section on dissenting views. Asking for author teams with diverse viewpoints is a bit late, isn't it? There is also no point saying that review editors should ensure dissenting views are reported. They are already supposed to do that, but choose not to do so.
Tänne on koottu eri medioiden reaktioita:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... tions.html
McKitrickin kirjoitus pari päivää ennen raportin julkaisua:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/0 ... c-process/
R. McKitrick kirjoitti:After the publication of the AR4 I found that important text had been altered or deleted after the close of the review process, and the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 had fabricated evidence (on Page 244 of the Working Group I Report), by claiming that statistical evidence in two published, peer-reviewed articles on surface data contamination was statistically insignificant, when the articles show no such thing. The paragraph was inserted after the close of peer review and was never subject to external scrutiny. 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.
A major problem with the IPCC is that the assignments for Lead Authors (LA’s) often put them in the position of reviewing not only their own work but also that of their critics. There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process, and what few safeguards are in place are ineffective.
An example concerns the treatment of tree ring-based climate reconstructions in the Third IPCC Report. At the time, there were three studies presenting hemispheric temperature histories back to the Medieval era. One was by Michael Mann, whom the IPCC had picked to be Lead Author, and the others were by, respectively, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones (with coauthors).
Ja Roy Spencerin kommentti tähän:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/dum ... -be-fixed/
R. Spencer kirjoitti:In a recent opinion piece, Ross McKitrick has argued that the IPCC process needs to be fixed. He correctly points out that, “There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process”.
But 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.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/th ... rty_dozen/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/ ... esign.html
But none of the academy’s suggestions—good or bad—address the IPCC’s fundamental problem: It has every incentive—financial and otherwise—to buttress the global warming orthodoxy and none to challenge it. In every other discipline, scientists earn fame and fortune if they successfully debunk its reigning theories. They are feted at conferences, cited more often, offered more jobs. In climate science, by contrast, debunkers invite an onslaught by the entire global warming juggernaut that can leave their academic reputation in ruins. Debunkers get branded as deniers. And as this Australian blogger points out, they get investigated by Desmog, Exxon Secrets, or Sourcewatch, websites dedicated to exposing any connection the researcher might have with the fossil fuel industry—no matter how old or tenuous.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/17/f ... rming-esta