Tuesday
Jan082013
by 
Josh
Josh Secret Santa releases IPCC Draft - Josh 193
;)
Donna Laframboise received three USB sticks with draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC's AR5. You can access them at Donna's site here.
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (62)
Hi Hilary
Yes I did think that the WWF remark was one of the main points of Donna's WUWT post, since it was pretty much the only part of her post that was her own opinion as opposed to statements of fact like how many review comments there were.
I personally don't have a problem with the content of these drafts and the review comments being in the public domain. They would be in the end anyway (except for the ZODs, but they'd been leaked months ago anyway). As long as nobody thinks this represents the final version of the report, then actually I quite like people being able to read it.
Kim, can I just reiterate that the govt reps don't tell the scientists what to say. They just ask for statements to be made on certain topics. The answers to those questions is the scientists responsibility. The outline of the AR5 as agreed by the govts is here (click on "AR5 Reference Document). We are assessing the literature relevant to all the topics in that document.
KnR, yes, there was too much grey literature of poor pedigree used in AR4. From what I have seen so far in AR5, there is much less grey literature, and any grey literature that is there is of better quality (ie: courses have been checked). However of course you can now see this for yourself if you wish.
As Barry says, I have been recommending that the final drafts should be released at the same time as the SPM, as opposed to months afterwards as the IPCC has done previously. Whether this happens or not is a decision for the TSU of each Working Group. Hopefully they will realise that unauthorised release of the final drafts is clearly inevitable if they don't release them themselves - but that is completely up to them, I can only give my opinion.
It was suggested in this thread that the expert review self-nomination process was essential to openness and transparency of AR5. That is misleading and does not address the essential problematic issues of openness and transparency.
The post-AR4 IAC report said the IPCC selection process for authors, for lead authors, and for higher up positions of the IPCC's review process all need to be significantly more open.
Independent of the IAC report, it was known that there was significant AR4 biasing by author, by lead author and by higher positions in the review process.
The IPCC's response was, too late for AR5 to be more open for selection of authors, lead authors and other positions.
It is not too late to go back and look now at AR5 selection of the current authors, lead authors and higher positions the review process.
Free the info now. Bureaucrat and environmental activist mentality to the contrary not withstanding, there is no valid reason to block openness and transparency of every single aspect of the assessment processes of climate science (which is virtually all publicly funded). Even the IPCC assessment process itself is publicly funded.
Free the info now. So we can review any biasing effect before any further steps in the assessment occur.
John
Well, Richard, you can reiterate, but you don't seem to be able to reflect.
==========
Hi Kim, I do reflect, that's why I read sceptic blogs - to avoid risk of groupthink. Many of my colleagues don't read these blogs at all. Just because I often don't agree with what's said here doesn't mean I haven't thought about it very carefully.
@John Whitman
I agree that all drafts and comments should be in the public domain as and when they emerge.
I agree that the process of selecting (convening) lead authors should be closely scrutinized. I think that the IPCC should put the CVs of its authors on the web, and that should scientometrically assess their pedigree. Are the authors the real experts?
The selection process cannot be fully open, however, because that would run foul of privacy laws in most countries.
@Richard Tol
I agree with you, but it seems half of the problem has been with the selection process, which has apparently failed to get the 'real experts' in the first place, or at least ones who demonstrate impartiality within the context of the CAGW debate (the lasting impression of all the commentary on the IPCC authors, and also from Donna's brilliant 'Delinquent Teenager' book, is one of a closed club of pro-CAGW friends). Once they are appointed, it's too late.
There has to be a process whereby the selection is as open and transparent as possible. As far as I can see, it's not an 'employment' position per se, but an honoury one in which confidentiality is outlawed by IPCC rules, so privacy shouldn't have such an influence.
I was thinking that a peer-selection process could be used, but considering the corruption of the peer-review process in climate related science publications, probably not beneficial unless the peers that could vote were the registered reviewers who have contributed reviews/comments to the previous ARs.
I guess a more fundamental question must be, in light of the very recent Met Office and now NASA admissions, is there still any need for the IPCC at all? It seems to be a huge waste of peoples time and public monies.
It seems to be a huge waste of peoples time and public monies.
Well absolutely. Keeps lots of people in jobs and free jollies though.
Honestly, it's as if the technological revolution has never happened in academia. 5 years for a bureaucratic monster to churn out a report most of which will be out of date by the time of publication. Plus 99% will only read the pre-determined SPM which could have been knocked up in a day or so. And how much does it all cost? And how bad is the output?
It's similar to all this peer review guff. Years of academic ping-pong and backbiting to achieve the square root of f-all. You can stick any paper on the internet and have it properly critiqued in days by a top class selection of knowledgeable folk from a variety of disciplines. And all for free. And don't get me started on 20,000 hangers-on flying to Climate conferences to tell us all to stop flying.
Times have changed, not that academia seems to have noticed. Do they still use telegrams and fax machines?
Why has no-one got the gumption to call BS on this ludicrous process?
From a UK govt perspective, all it needs is RichardB (in his new role) to report on it :-)
"Richard, ah I see you've finished that Forecasting report. Good man. Right I want to know what all this Global warming stuff is all about. Can you summarise the latest thinking for me? The latest science, predictions, impacts that sort of thing. I've arranged for a team of 5 assistants to help you collate all relevant material. Include views from proponents from all sides but watch out for the Green nutters trying to bamboozle you. Shall we say report back in a month. Excellent."
It's not hard is it.
@ilma630
Improvement is certainly possible and needed.
There are two steps. First, authors are nominated by their governments. This is a national process, independent of the IPCC, and subject to national rules about transparency etc. The IPCC has nothing to do with this. Second, nominations are accepted or not by the IPCC, and authors are allocated to authors.
While the IPCC will never be fully open about this (Mr A cannot be in the same chapter as Ms B because he hates her guts), the IPCC can and should make the long and short list available, describe the procedure for selection and allocation, and demonstrate that the authors are up to the job.
@Richard Tol
"First, authors are nominated by their governments"
Well there's the first problem, governments can bias the proceedings from the very start by proposing who will be 'on message'. That's the start.
The end is the governmental representatives effectively dictating what's in the SPM. That's the end.
So the start and end are government/political choices, designed to deliver what they want to hear. The scientific reports and report processes are just a side-show designed to give the pretence that the regulation, law and taxes enacted as a result are based on 'science'.
@SimonW
It's not hard is it.
You're right. No, it isn't.
@ilma630
That was not my point. My point was that you cannot blame the IPCC for the nominations it receives.
Some countries nominate their best and brightest, some their greenest, or their most pliable, or the president's nephew. But you will need to chase your government to find out what happened and why.
Famous scientist reveals the final fifth version compiled for the ipcc......
Micheal Manns AR5e
Jan 10, 2013 at 4:43 PM | Richard Tol
My experience has been that when "governments" are asked to designate/nominate representatives such decisions/responses are not made at the ministerial/cabinet level, but rather at the civil service/bureaucracy level.
In effect, those who make such nominations are often considerably lower in the food-chain than the Deputy (or Assistant Deputy) Minister, although one cannot fault the IPCC for this ... even though they should (and in all probability do!) know better.
And while I'm here ... one of the things I noticed in the Secret Santa files, is that apparently WG2's TSU is availing itself of the services of iThenticate - a plagiarism detection service.
Setting aside the fact that the TSU gets to decide which parts of the iThenicate reports are conveyed to the Author teams, do you happen to know:
a) When the IPCC began using such a service
b) Whether this service is used in all three WGs
These are some questions that occurred to me when I first discovered the iThenticate reports in the Secret Santa files:
Sign of slight improvement detected in IPCC green files