Bishop Hill UK government endorses IPCC secrecy
Jun 12, 2012 Climate: IPCC Climate: Parliament Greg Barker, the UK's minister of state for climate change, has endorsed the IPCC's decision that reviewers of the draft Fifth Assessment report should be unable to see lead authors' responses to their comments and critiques. This apparently would undermine the IPCC process. Reviewers are expected to work this out from the next drafts of the report.
The UK government's rejection of transparency comes in the shape of written answers to questions posed by MP Chris Heaton-Harris:
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make it his policy that the delegation to the 35th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in July 2012 should propose an amendment to the proposed revision to Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC to include all the lead authors' responses to review comments in what will be made available to all reviewers on request during the review process.
Gregory Barker (Minister of State (Climate Change), Energy and Climate Change; Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
The proposed revision to the IPCC Procedures, is to correct an error which occurred at 33rd Session of the IPCC, by re-insertion of the text
“All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process”.
The details are contained in document IPCC XXXV/Doc. 11, available on the website of the IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/
As all reviewers of the First Order Draft of an IPCC report have the opportunity to see how their comments have been addressed if they opt to review the Second Order Draft, the UK has no plans to propose an amendment to the above revision to Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC.
Barker has also made a strong defence of the secrecy principle.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make it his policy that the UK Government delegation to the 35th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in July 2012 should propose that the IPCC withdraw its confidentiality decision from its 33rd Session due to its fundamental principle that its assessment process is to be open and transparent.
Gregory Barker (Minister of State (Climate Change), Energy and Climate Change; Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
The IPCC's decision at its 33rd Session balanced its aims for an open and transparent scientific assessment process with the risk of undermining the process through premature public release of draft reports. I am content with that decision and we have no plans to propose that the IPCC should withdraw it.
As I've said before, AR5 is dead in the water. The IPCC has blown it.
Reader Comments (46)
Only a bunch of activist bureaucrats (aka the staff at DECC!) with a supine politician at their beck and call could plausibly argue that an assessment process could be undermined through public release of draft reports.
At what point does this cease to be premature, I wonder.
e e cummings comes to mind
“an error which occurred at 33rd Session”
I.e.the accidental insertion of a transparency clause! That must have caused a few anxious moments...
The purpose of this process is to provide a pretense that our previously prescribed position is proper. The public must endorse the proposition that our proposed policies are perfect for the planet. People peering at the particulars of the process pose a problem for our propaganda. So piss off.
The position adopted does not inspire confidence and gives the impression that 'they' have something to hide.
This story should be linked to the related post on WUWT regarding immunity for the UNFCC
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/unfccc-wants-immunity-from-prosecution-prior-to-rio20/#more-65540
Greg Barker, an ignoramus entirely at the mercy of his civil servants. Little more than a glove puppet – and not a very good one either.
Stan @ 4:14
"So piss off."
Pronto. And in perpetuity.
I will be applying for a grant to study the stultifying effect of the dearth of pejoritive adjectives and invective required to describe the current state of climate science.
The truth is, that I am struggling to find the relevent words to describe my reactions to the plethora of undemocratic activity against which I need to fulminate.
As for goverment sponsored climate science(fiction), I am sick of the whole caboodle.
There, I feel better now than I did before I felt as bad as I do now.
Rant over.
Stan
Nice.
Could have used permit instad of endorse
Nit picking
It sounds like a cleansing of the Augean stables would be in order. It should be a bit easier after all this rain...
I can't get into WUWT at the moment, but found the article on the UNFCCC here:
www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/un-climate-organization-wants...
The IPCC has become like one of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns, at least from the independent (a.k.a. skeptic/sceptic) viewpoint.
The GOOD - Their arrogant disregard of 100% transparency and openness of their whole process makes them already significantly irrelevant to balanced ongoing open and transparent science.
The BAD - The IPCC's arrogant disregard of 100% transparency and openness of their whole process is the sole means by which it premeditatedly manipulates its assessment's toward CAGW.
The UGLY - Their arrogant disregard of 100% transparency and openness of their whole process is overwhelmingly condoned by most media; media that hold sympathetic ideologically biases that mirror the ideological bias of IPCC leadership.
On a ligher note, the IPCC and the movie ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ share one very important characteristic . . . . . fiction. : )
John
Come on Betts ! Where are you ? Defend that if you can !! Don K was spot on as I said. Disgusting bunch crooks and nothing less. Cameron's government is so far removed from Tory principles it's gone past the Labour Party, through the Lib Dems and onto cummunism.
Where are the Tories of old. Come out you lot!!
Bish well found.
I wonder how much money we - the UK taxpayers - are paying for this jolly to Rio?
FOI request anybody?
By the time AR5 comes out, will anybody bother to read it? Apart from sporting and alarmistocidal purposes?
I doubt that I'll be queuing up overnight outside Waterstone's in Piccadilly to make sure I get my personal copy signed by Pachauri.
And I confidently predict that it will not be the recipient of the next Nobel Peace Prize. Possibly instead the Madoff/Enron award for Lifetime Achievement.
The interpretation of these answers seems a bit muddled. The present situation is that some text was deleted and this would prevent reviewers from seeing the responses. The proposal is to re-instate that text. That our government has no intention to propose amending that proposal is probably because the proposal restores things to how they were - that reviewers can see the responses.
Barker's second response is that the government will not propose making review comments openly available. That lack of transparency *is* a problem but who was expecting it to be tackled for AR5?
"The IPCC's decision at its 33rd Session balanced its aims for an open and transparent scientific assessment process with the risk of undermining the process through premature public release of draft reports."
//
Steve McIntyre
Posted Jun 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Reply
J Climate editor Broccoli wrote:
“The article in question did not “disappear” from the Journal of Climate. It was removed from a preprint server for accepted manuscripts that have not yet been published. AMS maintains this preprint server for the convenience of authors and readers. The manuscripts on this server are labeled as “preliminary” and are not in final form.”
//
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/#comment-337818
Well, I shall vote accordingly...
Barker's second response is that the government will not propose making review comments openly available. That lack of transparency *is* a problem but who was expecting it to be tackled for AR5?
Jun 12, 2012 at 6:37 PM | Gareth
Or AR6 or AR7 or AR8 or ARnn. No-one with any knowledge of how climate global change warming works.
AR5 was dead in the water scientifically before it got out of drydock.
That doesn't mean the politicians won't try to sell it.
Barker is Cameron's green zealot poodle. He was gifted the safe Conservative Bexhill and Battle constituency in 2001 after the former incumbent Charles Wardle (with a history of voting against climate legislation) resigned from the Conservatives saying '"There are better things to do with my life than to scrap with the shrill, deeply unpleasant faction inside and outside Westminster who are in danger of dislocating the party from the wider electorate," going on to support Nigel Farage and UKIP.
"minister of state for climate change"
I know I should probably try to keep up more, but we have one of these?
Do we have a minister for daytime and nightime too?
Or Spring, Summer, Autumn or Winter?
Minister for waves and tides! That's what we need.
timheyes
'Minister for waves and tides! That's what we need.'
I thought that used to be Christoper Paul-Huhne.
Or some other useless Cnut.
This is institutionalized corruption at its most blatant. Combined with the new demand for immunity before the fact, it would appear that the IPCC is a parody of a serious organization. It seems reasonable to conclude fromits history and actions that the IPCC is actually about rent seeking and grabbing power.
How can science be real if the research and expert reviews of the work are kept secret?
Jun 12, 2012 at 8:23 PM | hunter
It seems reasonable to conclude from its history and actions that the IPCC is actually about rent seeking and grabbing power.
I think, for some, it's more about time in 5* hotels, airmiles and frequent luxurious holidays in a party atmosphere (not to mention the limos and whores).
Latimer Alder
"Or some other useless Cnut."
Best joke ever! You win the interwebz.
Jun 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM | stephen richards
The answer to this question, as always, is "doing something else". As I've tried very patiently to explain on a number of occasions, I do not sit around all day on the internet waiting to see what Bishop Hill has posted next.... :-)
What exactly am I supposed to be defending here? The response of a government minister, who is not even the one in charge of the department that owns the Met Office? I think you are confused about my role.
If you want an explanation for something that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said, please ask the Department for Energy and Climate Change". I am not employed by them and do not speak on their behalf.
Oh, and by the way, I'd be grateful if you could extend me a little more common courtesy and respect by not addressing me by my surname alone. I prefer to be called Richard, but if that is too familiar, you can call me Professor Betts.
Perhaps Richard Tol has an opinion on it?
This thread is currently promoted to lead story on the GWPF site.
Not sure that applies in this case.
Greg Barker is the guy who, after 14 years of apparently happy marriage - ran off with his wife's (male) interior decorator.
Oh - and he was a PR man for Abramovitch's oil company for while after which a colleague asked for his financial relationship with Russian oligarch Berezovsky to be investigated.
Oh - and he made £320,000 profit flipping a flat that we helped pay for.
Oh - and he also pulled in around £75k of our cash in housing expenses over 4 years.
Sounds like the sort of chap you'd entrust with delicate ethical judgements.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5298307/Greg-Barker-The-320000-profit-on-flat-bought-with-taxpayer-help.html
When sycophantic courtiers told King Canute that even the tides would obey him he made those courtiers stand around on a beach while he sat on his throne waiting for the tide to come in.
When Greg Barker was given the title minister of state for climate change he started to behave as if he could change the climate. The difference was that Canute knew that he was surrounded by idiots whereas Greg Barker, perhaps because he is one of them, doesn't.
Jun 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM | stephen richards
Hi again Stephen
You mean like Mrs Thatcher?
:-)
Cheers
Richard
RB
The epilogue
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
Hi Richard
Most of us here do appreciate you stopping by and understand where you are coming from (only the retired can watch Bishop Hill all day)
But, Perhaps what was being asked for (given your lead author role at the IPCC) was a response from you about the IPCC decision. Which appeared to have been lobbyied for by a 'fellow uk climate scientist , Prof Jones and others..
Politicians do not need any more contempt.. (ie they are beyond caring now) but I would hope that the majority of scientists involved in the IPCC were very concerned by this.. and would perhaps makes some sort of stand and objection.. but I expect the 'silence of the scientists will continue.
.. otherwise I will tend to agree with Andrew.
ie "As I've said before, AR5 is dead in the water. The IPCC has blown it."
Its still very hard to see why if the science is as settled as claimed and why if the issue is as urgent and important as they say. There is so much effort put not into releasing and publicizing the information but into hiding it and building smoke screens.
Why could that be?
Remember the review of the IPCC called for MORE transparency, this move is designed to give it LESS , are these people to stupid to work out how that actual looks given IPCC passed poor behavior or are they just too arrogant ?
From the "SUMMARY OF THE 35TH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: 6-9 June 2012" as reported by the quasi-official rapporteur, IISD's "Earth Negotiations Bulletin" (all emphases mine -hro):
Setting aside the fact that I don't recall "the role of observers" being included in the IAC recommendations ... Unfortunately, this Bulletin (as far as I can tell) is silent on the resolution of the "editorial questions" - one of which was contained in http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session35/doc11_correctionApendixA.pdf:
I guess we'll find out what the Panel might have "decided" when the reviewers of the 2nd draft of AR5-WG1 "request" the review comments (and the "author team" responses!) to the first draft.
Such transparency and efficiency, eh?!
I think that you guys should cut Richard Betts a bit of slack.
I am an arch CAGW denier, second to none, but Richard comes here into the lion's den and has often provided valuable references to me which I have then used against him in debate. He has also asked an obvious opponent to be a reviewer for the next IPCC report and he has accepted that mistakes have been made by the Met Office. Thus, he has earned my respect, if not my agreement.
If only there were more like him!
Roger Longstaff wrote:
I think that you guys should cut Richard Betts a bit of slack.
I wholeheartedly agree. It is stupid to criticise mainstream climate scientists for refusing to debate with critics of their theories if you just abuse them when they do try to discuss ideas with sceptics.
Jun 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM | Barry Woods
Hi Barry
As Gareth and Hilary have noted, the IPCC's actual decision on availability of the responses to review comments remains unclear. I don't have any more insight than you on this. As Hilary suggests, the best way to find out will probably be for a reviewer to actually ask during the Second Order Draft review!
For what it's worth, I personally would not have a problem with responses to FOD review comments being made available to SOD reviewers, and the only reason I can see for not doing this would be if it simply adds to the workload of the Technical Support Unit staff. They have a massive job, what with tens of thousands of comments and responses to handle, so there may be this simple practical issue to consider. However, this is entirely speculation, I really do not know what this part of the process will entail (I just know that I will need to hand in my responses to every comment on my part of the text by a strict deadline, and that these responses will be in the public domain sooner or later).
Also, for what it's worth, I think that the aspiration to keep all the draft chapters out of general release until the end of the process is already something of a lost cause, since many of them have already been leaked. Again, I personally do not have the slightest problem with the fact that my Zero Order Draft is out there. I'd put money on the WG2 FODs being leaked sometime soon, and indeed I worked hard to ensure that I submitted a FOD that I'd be happy with splashed all over the internet if that does happen!
However, I don't imagine for one minute that the IPCC will change the process half-way through the preparation of the assessment, that would simply be too big a decision for a UN body to make quickly. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 6th Assessment Report (if one happens) has drafts that are entirely public and then crowd-reviewed (might actually be quite good if the information flow could be handled effectively!). But who knows, they may even move to a different mode of working altogether, and abandon the idea of writing a big tome every few years....!
All the above is entirely my personal opinion.
Cheers
Richard
Hi Roger Longstaff and Roy,
Thanks for your support!
I don't necessarily expect agreement with what I say, but I do appreciate being able to say it (in my own time!) without being spoken to rudely.
Happily this rarely happens, but when it does, it is quite counter-productive to effective debate.
All the best,
Richard
Jun 12, 2012 at 11:19 PM | Richard Betts
Richard, as I've mentioned before, I don't hold you responsible for either the IPCC's anachronistic "procedures" - or the sometimes questionable pronouncements from the MO :-) ... But ...
Would the TSU not have had to make such a compilation so that the Review Editors could do their job on the FOD?! Or have I misread the extent to which Review Editors are involved in the process at this stage?
Jun 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM | Foxgoose
You forgot the carbon dioxide spewing sausage dog!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/17/greg-barkers-sausage-dog_n_1523611.html?ref=uk-politics
Hi Hilary
Good point.
You are correct that the Review Editors get involved between the FOD and SOD stages.
Cheers
Richard
"I prefer to be called Richard, but if that is too familiar, you can call me Professor Betts."
If you keep on saying things like this one of these days I may just get to like you, Dick, er, I meant Richard. ;-)
@ John Whiteman, Good, Bad, Ugly. This is the format of some jokes, a selection of which follows from
http://www.pagetutor.com/jokebreak/079.html
Good: Your hubby and you agree, no more kids
Bad: You can't find your birth control pills
Ugly: Your daughter borrowed them
Good: Your son studies a lot in his room
Bad: You find several porn movies hidden there.
Ugly: You're in them
Good: Your husband understands fashion
Bad: He's a cross-dresser
Ugly: He looks better than you
Good: Your son's finally maturing
Bad: He's involved with the woman next door
Ugly: So are you
Good: You give the birds and bees talk to your daughter
Bad: She keeps interrupting
Ugly: With corrections
Good: Your wife's not talking to you
Bad: She wants a divorce
Ugly: She's a lawyer
Good: You're wife is pregnant.
Bad: It's triplets
Ugly: You had a vasectomy five years ago.
"As I've said before, AR5 is dead in the water. The IPCC has blown it."
Assuming that the purpose of the report is to bolster public confidence and support for the GW industry that is. I don't get the impression that, since the Copenhagen fiasco, they much care what the public believes - full steam ahead anyway.
I note that we are currently baking at 0.3degC above the thirty year average - that period covering the entire output of the IPCC. (yes, yes, I know - long term trends and all that - but it does provide a little perspective on the climate mania)