Monday
Aug302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill IAC report news conference
Aug 30, 2010 Climate: IPCC Climate: Pachauri ...is imminent. 3pm UK time as far as I can see.
See it here.
Update on Aug 30, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
I don't seem to be able to get anything from the UN site. Have I got the time wrong or is this an IT problem?
Update on Aug 30, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
I found I was able to get the feed working by opening directly into RealPlayer rather than via the webpage.
Reader Comments (35)
I cant get it either, using Firefox I get a message to download add on but then no add on is found
Hi, only works for me in Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
As far as I can see the time is right Bish
Works on chrome but their buffering sucks, with all that cash you think they would have better servers and software :)
Key Recommendation: "The InterAcademy Council report recommends fundamental reform of IPCC management structure."
I think you need Realplayer to watch it, hate that prog and will uninstall after I watch report
Nope, nothing. Here is the review:
Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Wow! Did I just hear the earth move?
How many of the 31 members of the IPCC Bureau will lose their positions?
a. 10
b. 5
c. 2
d. 1
e. 0
f. All the above.
Dung, you might want to try Real Alternative:
http://filehippo.com/download_real_alternative/
Haven't tried it with this particular file though yet.
Interesting. They found no conflicts of interest because they did not look for any. Where have I heard that before ;-?
From the introduction/Executive summary:
As I consider IPCC as an organization, it seems to me that its large decentralized worldwide
network of scientists is the source of both its strength and its continuing vitality.
In my judgment IPCC can continue to remain a very valuable resource, provided
it can continue to highlight both what we believe we know and what we believe is still unknown
and to adapt its processes and procedures in a manner that reflects both the dynamics of climate
science and the needs of public policy for the best possible understanding of changing global
climate, its impacts, and possible mitigation initiatives
Harold T. Shapiro, Chair
I find myself lacking the motivation to dig deeper :(
Report Recommendation: "The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment."
Does that mean that Pachauri will step down?
In their conclusions they advocate more levels of beurocracy and also the shortening of the AR in order to reduce the burden of review comments????
Perhaps the single assessment term for the IPCC Chair is their way of saying goodbye to Pachauri without actually sacking him.
EH!
The IAC review committee said that grey literature was often relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the IPCC's assessment reports. But it said authors needed to follow the IPCC's guidelines more closely and that the guidelines themselves are too vague??????????????????
The IAC review committee said the processes used by the UN panel to review material in its climate assessment reports were thorough. But the IAC said that the IPCC's response to revelations of errors in its 2007 assessment had been "slow and inadequate", adding that procedures needed stronger enforcement to minimise the number of errors??????????????
Do these learned people actually read what they write??????
These statements are so contradictory that it makes a nonsense of what they are saying.
I have immense respect for Barry Woods and am a scientific pigmy by comparison. However Barry believes in "intelligent, poltite debate".
When you read this report you understand that the writer knows exactly what he is saying and that it is all crap, he doesnt care and will write more of it as long as the funds roll in.
I am not convinced that the softly softly and always polite approach will work against these people?
Use of grey literature: Relevant and vague.
IPCC review process: Thorough and inadequate.
I think that when we go into battle against the IPCC or the IAC or the DECC or the UAE we should always speak the truth and be logical/reasonable but what these people also deserve is scorn and ridicule. Sorry but thats how I see it
I think what we have here is an attempt by the IAC to evoke change within the IPCC by ruffling the minimum of UN feathers.
The IAC are basically saying we know what you know, that they know, that there has been mistakes and malpractice, but we will not say what you don't want to us say, which they are hoping we will say, if you change they way you do things by not changing what you do, as they expect you to do. Are we agreed on that?
Will that strategy work?
I doubt it.
The IPCC could easily take this report and say to the world they have been totally exonerated and carry on as nothing has happened.
If that were to happen the IAC's own credibility will be badly dented.
I sympathise with Dung: it's hard to reconcile reading this verbiage with retaining the will to live. But I've tried to wade through at least the Executive Summary. There's a lot I could comment on - but here's an easy one. One Recommendation (page 3) says, "The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that ... genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report". Who decides which are "genuine"? What are the criteria?
And who chooses the Review Editors? ^.^
Hi Dung..
The thing s a lot of the people 'believe' they are not trying to con, scam, hoax, etc. they truly belive.. (there are many hangers on that perhaps offer no questiuons)..
So shouting at people that believe, just reinforces their own stereotupes of you..
It also allows them to more easily to dismiss you...
I have corresponded wih some BBC reporters, they would never respond, if I ranted at them...
Point by point, little by little things have changed..
Just look at the BBC reporting recently, hardly any AGW in the mainstream news, just floods (the question did getasked in newsnight, but it was largely balanced, despite the presenter, trying to make a story out of it)
Remeber the majority of people, environmental correspondendts, politicians have ahad 20-30 years of, IPCC, cheif scientists, lobby groups saying AGW is real dangerous, in fact CAGW, when in fact it may be aGW, or never even be identifiable as a human signature inthe Climate..
If you get in a slanging match, they have the PR media and politicians behind the.
If they are unreasonable, BE MORE reasonable.. The public recognose the 'extemist' tone...
Sciene will be done at some point, A recent paper indicates cloud feedback is NEGATIVE....
At Collide a Scape (actually broadly pro, but a very good HONEST blog, someone put it very well...
Climate Hypochondria - instead of Climate Alarmism.....!
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/20/the-brushback/
181.SimonH Says:
August 29th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
willard, I feel that climate alarmism is, today, perceived very differently by sceptics AND the general public from how those proponents of the alarmism perceive it. Particularly in the wake of recent events, namely the Pakistan floods, South American chill and Russian heatwave, the enthusiasm with which these events have been embraced by some alarmist quarters as markers of impending doom is of concern to sceptics. But it’s important to note that it is the gusto of the alarmist message, not the message itself, which is raising eyebrows.
I really feel that climate alarmists have drastically worn their platform down by their own hand. It is difficult, now, to regard climate alarmism – by whichever name it prefers to pass – as anything more than raw climatic hypochondria.
You need to appreciate the extent of weariness with which new pronouncements of imminent “death”, on the basis of a hiccup or a sneeze, are received when the news giver has allowed himself – by a concerted campaign of his own making – to become regarded as a hypochondriac. And between the media and the climate scientist, working on concert, this is increasingly the popular perception. Copenhagen was over-sold. It was, for so many advocacy scientists, regarded as “make or beak” – many of them referred to it as as much at the time, in fact – and so it has come to pass.
A friend (very good one) of mine, I found out after climategate, actually coedited the report with 'the Hockey stick' actually in it. They directed me to RealClimate when I asked about it.. They have their OWN emails in the leak/hack, and no they have not looked at any of it... Shouting, will not change things, and they are very good friend since are children were babies together.
That is where I'm coming from.. (and my sister in law is a commited member of the Green party, actuall being a paid PR, and a parlimentary candidate, she is a very nice person as well)
And the BBC is a dear old Auntie, that got sucked into the man Made Global Warming deusion, entirely out of good intentions. And the culure has become very strong.... It may blow away one day, but probably, drip, drip drip, in 5 years time (cold winters and public opinion) may mean it is all largely forgotten.
The IAC noticed the major problems of the IPCC. However, except for just a few instances, the recommendations for changing the IPCC structure/processes/people were just generalities without bite.
John
The use of grey literature should be banned. Period.
Consider this sentence:
"The humid forest acts as a natural barrier to stop fires spreading and if it dries out whole
areas of the Amazon could burn totally out-of-control."
This is from Russell and Moore's "Global Review of Forest Fires" WWF document, the same one that found its way into the IPCC report section on the Amazon.
What is there to prevent such nonsensical exxagerations not to make its way into the next IPCC report? Nothing. We know how reports get written - professors get better at checking and proofing stuff, but is there any clue or indication as to who wrote the chapter in the first place? The WG report looks like a "catalog of bad things" more than anything else.
My Green Party Sister in Law, is now reading, 'The Deniers' - Lawrence Solomon, The Real Global Warming Scandal' - Booker, and 'The Hockey stick Illusion' Montford....
Because she knows I am not a fossil fuel, denying shill. Thus will listen..
Get to know these people as people, not antagonists..
I was surprised to find that Dr Harold Shapiro, head of the IAC committee, came across as credible in the video of him at the UN press conference. I hereby nominate him to replace Rajendra K. Pachauri effective immediately.
John
Barry Woods:
I entirely agree. For example, a month or so ago I sent a short note to my MP summarising my concerns about government climate policy. I took care to ensure it was moderately phrased. He forwarded it to Chris Huhne. To my surprise, Huhne replied in detail - a reply that was both revealing and depressing (but that's another subject). I call that a result: had my note been a rant, I doubt if it would have progressed beyond the MP's in-tray.
Also, I am developing a "community garden and wildlife" area for the benefit of local people living in an urban development. As a result, I'm in contact with local "green" groups (largely very nice people but true believers in dangerous AGW). I doubt if many have encountered a sceptic before or paid serious attention to any point of view that conflicts with their own. But, because I'm doing something of which they approve and because I try to express myself in a reasonable way, they listen.
It's a slow process: but I think we're winning.
@ Barry Woods
Barry I am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong :)
The people we disagree with fall into a number of quite diferent categories.
However there are two "main" categories:
Open minds.
Closed minds.
If you come across one of the former then polite and reasonable is the way to go.
If you come across someone with a closed mind then what is the point of trying to reason with them?
Doug Keenan at the Guardian debate accused Phil Jones of Fraud and as far as I know has yet to receive a response.
I have accused the chief scientific adviser to DEFRA of being a lyer and I await a response.
I really believe we should go for the throat a lot more when we are sure of our ground.
Mr Angry :)
Dung:
There is a point: closed minds can be opened - ranting closes them tighter.
Dung, given the relevant discrepancies in money, power and media consensus..
Going for the throat, is a bit like a mouse, stamping on an elephant..
Smiling sweetly, nicely and asking polite questions...and NOT backing down.
Will either get an answer, or a rant back...
The public recosgnise ranting and spinning in the face of genuine questions, for what it is...
The bitterest enemies are ofthen, sweetness and light in front of each, because OTHER real people are watching their behaviour....
CAGW media tactics, are just the same of 13 years of new labour 'spin'... give them the rope....
ie See Bob Wards (comms director - Grantham institute)efforts in the Newsnights comments section, is that REALLY the best he has? Bob had just attacked Bishop Hill in the Guardian.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/08/monday_23_august_2010.html#commentsanchor
My reply was initially removed for considerations, as was Bob's following my comment..
My comment was put back. (Bob's remains being considered)
Bob Ward's comment to be found here ;) (was comment 24)
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/08/24/newsnight-complain-to-the-bbc/
“Subject: ‘Newsnight’ losing the plot? : Andrew Montford has pointed out on his blog that he is due to appear on ‘Newsnight’ this evening about the link between the floods in Pakistan and climate change. I had heard rumours that the Newsnight editor now thinks all climate change coverage should include a ‘sceptic’ and this seems to be confirmation. I’ve left the comment below on the ‘Newsnight’ blog. I see that Andrew Montford is bragging on his Bishop Hill blog that he is an interviewee on this evening’s programme about the link between the floods in Pakistan. His only contribution to the climate change debate so far has been a controversial book about palaeoclimatology, so it is not clear what his expertise on climate change and extreme weather is meant to be. Or perhaps he will be representing Lord Lawson’s group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which now regularly provides the ‘balancing’ voice of dissent every time a scientist is interviewed about climate change on ‘Newsnight’. If so, this is presumably evidence of the commitment of ‘Newsnight’ to impartiality rather than accuracy? And can I look forward to further instances of this balance by for instance, including comments from a creationist every time there is a story about evolution?”
An immediate response:
26. At 9:16pm on 23 Aug 2010, Alex Cull wrote:
As Bob Ward has just mentioned, Andrew Montford will be providing a welcome sceptical viewpoint re the role of climate change (if any) in tonight's programme.
I've just been to his blog, by the way, and "bragging" is hardly a fair description of what he wrote:
"I've been invited to appear on Newsnight tonight to talk about the Pakistani floods and climate change. Should be interesting."
Andrew Montford is a man who lets the facts speak for themselves, Mr Ward, as I'm sure you may now be aware."
-----------------------------------------
My reply, below: (thank you BBC, but It would be nice to allow people to see what Bob is all about. Put his comment back please:)
55. At 11:39am on 24 Aug 2010, Barry Woods wrote:
Bob Ward has an antagonistic 'history' with Andre Montford (Bishop Hill website) Andrew is the Author of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'
Only last week, the Guardian, allowed this PAID, PR person, to 'spin' against this book.
"• Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
• This article was amended on 20th August 2010. Changes were made following a complaint from Andrew Montford.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public
Bishop Hill responded, and the article was changed, lot's of criticism, even in the Guardian comments section..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/19/glaring-inaccuracies-and-misrepresentations.html
some explanation of the changes in the comments...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/20/progress.html"
@ Barry Woods, Dung and Robin Guenier
I see merit in both approaches, and both should be used as the opportunity provides.
However “Going for the throat, is a bit like a mouse, stamping on an elephant.” brings the following statement comes to mind: -
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito."
- His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
I somehow don’t think His Holiness is suggesting that the mosquito utilises polite and commonsense logic with which to gain attention?
Barry you are assuming I have ranted or said something untoward so far. I have not.
I have told Bob Watson that he lied.
I have told Bob Watson what lie he told.
I have asked Bob Watson for a retraction or a liable action.
He can be as rich as Bill Gates but he still lied.
Perhaps we are aiming at a different audience..!!!! Dung
Confronting the actual former head of the IPCC, is a different 'kettle of fish' !!!
However, as I spent 15 minutes or so talking to Sir John Houghton (former IPCC, co chair, Hockey stick 2001 report), a couple of months ago. I completely believe he is sincere, and 'believes'. Even if like 'Bob' you might think he is lying, many people in their belief, just do not see it that way... In their minds they are NOT lying, just a deniar is attacking them..
Sir John, told me that he had NOT read the climategate emails, and warned me about the tobacoo pr, oil/fossil fuel denial machine... And he meant it.. (and the evils of Booker and Lawson!)
Maybe 20 years ago, that WAS what he was up against...
Some people will never change their minds, but the majority, even after 20 years of a popular acceptcance and culture that CO2 is damaging the planet, are becoming aware of the 'spin', etc..
Todays's mail article will be another little nudge......
UN climate experts 'overstated dangers':
Keep your noses out of politics, scientists told
UN climate change experts have been accused of making 'imprecise and vague' statements and over-egging the evidence.
A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307446/UN-climate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html#ixzz0yAwMMEW4