Bishop Hill Von Storch fixes the IPCC
May 5, 2010 Climate: von Storch In his presentation to the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Hans von Storch outlines a number of issues with the IPCC and suggests possible solutions. I thought these were pretty interesting, particularly the bit where he discusses dealing with dissent - I've added emphasis to the "ouch" bit.
1. Dominant (“best”) authors are no longer responsible for describing consensus (as “lead authors”) – (otherwise they assess their own work).
2. Political and economic interests are not informing the process of assessing the legitimate scientific knowledge.
3. An independent “ombudsman” - system takes care of complaints about factual errors (in determining consensus and conflicts of interest). – possibly fulfilled.
4. Assessment by IPCC is independent of acting persons. Dominant authors must be frequently replaced.
5. IPCC is providing an assessment of the contested issues. In particular it describes dis-sensus. IPCC encourages falsification.
6. Political and scientific functions within IPCC must be strictly separated.
I think HvS has probably identified the main issues but I'm not sure about the solutions. For example, no independent ombudsman is ever going to remain independent in such a politicised field. The IPCC is meant to be independent already, but clearly it isn't.
The problems of politicised science are impossible to avoid when science is run and funded by politicians but while this remains the case, there are still things that can be done to make the IPCC process more trustworthy. This is why I am surprised that HvS doesn't mention transparency at all. It is fair to say that nobody is going to trust the output of the IPCC any longer unless all its deliberations are public. The output of the reports cannot be decided in advance by a handful of influential authors - witness Overpeck, Mitchell et al in the Climategate emails discussing how to deal with sceptic arguments ahead of AR4. Everything to do with the reports - and I mean everything - needs to take place in public.
This is not to say that there aren't good things in HvS's list. Rotating authors out seems a reasonable step, although I'd go futher and have people from outside the field doing the writing. Anyone within the speciality has a vested interest in the status quo and for such important policy decisions this is unacceptable. Far better to have a neutral do the writing, taking evidence from experts as necessary.
Reader Comments (16)
The one BIG problem is that the IPCC are looking to the Inter-Academy panel to produce a Whitewash. That way the IPCC can claim it ain't broke - so it won't need fixing.
I can also say with some certitude that the IPCC will continue to use grey literature.
Many of these issues were raised in 2005 prior to AR4 and presage precisely what happened in the Briffa-Overpeck section. Worth re-reading include:
my “Op Ed” at Pielke jr’s in Nov 2005 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000630does_the_hockey_stic.html
Contemporary editorials by McKitrick and Vranes at Prometheus linked from http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/op-eds-at-pielke/ .
my July 2005 http://climateaudit.org/2005/07/09/conflict-of-interest-1/ (in the wake of the original Barton letters)
von Storch here http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/hans-von-storch-on-barton-3521,
Also an Op Ed by me in Feb 2005 when I was fresher to this and less jaded than I am now http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/14/some-thoughts-on-disclosure-and-due-diligence-in-climate-science/
I think a major concern is that the IPCC is by definition/founding statement biased towards considering only the human contribution to climate change, and the risk thereof.
e.g. Mission Statement -
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change
It's purpose is to say that AGW etc exists and is a problem. Get rid of the IPCC and if necessary fund a body to study climate.
Why do we need an IPCC? Of course, why do we need a UN? I think the IPCC is actually the most competent task which comes out of the UN. It's a complete waste of time and money and corrupt to the core, but it's not as bad as the rest of the UN.
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there were men and women who used the Scientific Method. They formed hypotheses from known data, designed experiments to test those hypotheses, reported their experimental method (i.e what the actually did in enough detail so that others could independently replicate it), results (i.e. data), analysis (i.e. computer codes) and conclusions impartially (i.e. actual peer review, not peer pal review) and others examined the reports and made comments (i.e. no censorship of opposing views). Then they refined it all and did it again. And again. And again.
Unfortunately we live in La La land where there is "democratic" consensus over what is "true" or not.
HvS is part of the problem, not the solution. Ombudsman for science? Gimme a break.
"Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent live on this planet."
Of course, they could just give up on the IPCC altogether. Politicized science is the easy part. Explain to me the politics that's going to get a program influenced by anti-progress sentiments of English speaking intellectuals foisted off on the rest of the non English speaking world. The only realistic scenario I see is for a few in the developed west to symbolically embrace CO2 abstinence while the rest of the world uses up what's left of the earth's fossil fuels.
IPCC = InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. How about taking Intergovernmental out of it, and having just a Panel on Climate Change (PCC). As long has government stays directly involved in the science, nothing will fix it. HsV ideas may take a couple of squeaks out of the rear door, but the clunker still belongs in the junkyard.
Same old, same old.
One cover-up begets another one, just of a different sort.
Because the IPCC isn't really about science now is it?
I have no faith in the UN period. Ther is not enough light on earth that they could come under that I would trust. Get rid of all of it.
The majority of the IPCC authors are part of the WCRP and the WCRP's mission is partly to satisfy Agenda 21: "WCRP activities match the scientific priorities identified by the IPCC, provide the basis for responding to issues raised in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and underpin efforts to meet the research challenges posed in Agenda 21"
See: UN / IPCC / WCRP for more details.
"It is fair to say that nobody is going to trust the output of the IPCC any longer"
Unfortunately I don't think this is the case. Most of my non-technical friends and family simply accept that if the IPCC says it, and that nearly all 'real' climate scientists agree, and every investigation finds that nobody has done anything seriously wrong (misuse of a few statistical methods certainly doesn't count) then why would they not continue to trust the IPCC?
Reading Gavin's latest contribution on WUWT this morning left me with a very uncomfortable suspicion that this is all taken quite seriously by significant parts of the general public, by nearly all the MSM, by most UK politicians, and by most climate researchers. HvS may see problems with the IPCC, but they will be seen and problems with the process, not the conclusions.
Does even HvS think that the IPCC conclusions are seriously in error?
isn't rotating authors out just an easier way of removing dissenting views should anyone else jump ship?
The meme seems to be the science is solid, but the communication needs perfecting, this comes from all channels, from the IPCC, governments, to the BBC, as if the presentation failed.
International Panel of Climate Research - would be better
http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/presentations/stocker09unfcccCopenhagen_delegate_new.pdf
Maybe they should do something about the above..
Most of it is just junk...
of course the cherry picked graph from 1850 of tem rises says it all.. (ie the politcians just seethis)
Maybe they would think again, if they saw the same data, plus the falling and rising temps from 1000ad..
"warming in the climate system is unequivacol" they say..
The point is - and not made clear is whetehr man has anything to do with it.
Well of course, I would totally agree, the planet warms up after an event called the 'little ice age' as it has warmed and cooled before..
Their graph of co2 and temps for antartica, is also silly, even to my eyes the co2 rises, would appear to follow temp rises. Co2 highest 2009, temp seems to be going DOWN... Their graphs..
But all they keep saying is 'very likely' (ie no one knows) and computer models predict..
This is realy bad science, I only just gotten around to looking at this stuff..
SATIRE
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-rumour.html
As the New Headquarters of the UN will be home to the world stable governing body, know as the NWO, it will be built of the finest, most modern building materials, be earthquake proof, volcano proof, and contain the most technologically advanced accoutrements such as geothermal heating.
After all, if one is going to rule the world, mandate universal vaccination schemes, implement global taxation, force Codex regulations on every continent and manage the world's Carbon Taxation, one must have en ediface truly
magnificient and suitable.