Bishop Hill IAC blanks M&M
Jun 10, 2010 Climate: McIntyre Climate: McKitrick The Interacademies Panel - the one that is investigating IPCC process and procedures as a result of Climategate - is going to be holding hearings in Montreal.
Great, I hear you say. That means that they'll be able to invite McIntyre and McKitrick.
'fraid not.
The invited speakers do include a sceptic, in the shape of John Christy. They are even flying in Bob Watson from the UK and Hans von Storch from Germany. But will they invite the two people who have been at the centre of criticisms of the IPCC, who know more about the breaches of rules and procedure that went on ahead of Climategate, and who live, if not just round the corner, then at least handily close?
Don't be silly.
The IAC is inviting comments on its website. I think this omission is worthy of (polite) comment, don't you?
Reader Comments (13)
To invite M&M to this meeting would be seen as the IAC doing a proper job in collecting real evidence.
Now that is a silly position to be in when you are trying to conduct a whitewash.
The IAC only hear what they want to hear. The IAC only want to see what they want to see.
We can all write the conclusion for this IAC report. "The IPPC is exonerated from any wrong doing."
Meanwhile in the real world - the IPCC gets another beating.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/ipcc-cites-unpublished-journal-39-times.html
You are missing an l at the end of the url; the Montreal page is here.
[BH adds: Fixed now. Thanks.]
Let's be honest here, these guys were hardly going to invite the "anti-christs" to their little get together are they?
Mailman
Another absurd "independent" review.
The four speakers for this "independent" review meeting are all past or present IPCC authors.
Through Pielke Sr's blog, Marcel Crok's comments to the IAC Review.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/interacademy-council-iac-review-of-the-ipcc-input-by-marcel-crok/
Just tried posting a pejorative comment, only to be told that my long-standing E-mail address is invalid. Probably it diverges from "robust" IAC models, which accommodate only credentialed poseurs of known AGW Hysteric sympathies.
On the face it, the IAC review of the IPCC seems to be what in business is called an ISO 9000 review. This is where a member of the business's administratium, (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/administ.htm), accompanied by an ISO 9000 consultant, and wearing a gestapo uniform, and carrying a full set of ISO 9000 documentation, interviews hard-working people and ensures that they know where a similar amount of documentation is filed which tells them where the post room is, what the business mission statement is, what the title and content of their job position is etc. Ergo, this has to do with bureaucracy, not the efficient and honest running of the business.
That should read:
Don't be silly (TM, Eli Rabbett)
They're not invited (MM) because the panel knows they will literally run rings round 'em and these stuffy bureaucrats hate being exposed for what they actually are.
Cue lots and lots of the white stuff.
Well for better or worse I made my contribution ^.^
Maybe Steve should ask for an invite. After all he was an IPCC contributor.
Funny that...
Comment on the einquiry website is limited to less than 50 words.!
Mac wrote:
Thanks, Mac. I followed the link which gave the full list of titles and authors for that issue. Guess what. 19 out of 21 articles are behind a paywall ($34:00 per article) so unless they have access to an academic library or a significant amount of money no one will be able to follow up the details.