Slashdot Mirror
UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.
Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else, this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
UN agrees to let scientists disagree ...
... and this won't be any different. Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic.
The UN doesn't really do anything very well
By who?
Something is causing the environment to change. It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount.
Since you've already decided that people [especially relatively rich Westerners] are the significant contributors to your already decided 'changes' in environment, you're just the kind of 'scientist' being solicited for the 'independent panel'.
The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently. When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science.
The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions. This is what has been said all along.
The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy. They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.
I suppose it's intended to demonstrate integrity, to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist (and possibly even uncover others). They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors, should they exist. But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing. Nor can I imagine what would.
The 2 big issues I've heard about that report are the citing of a non-peer reviewed source for the Himilaya glacier and an incorrectly phrased line about flooding in the Netherlands (propertly cited, just incorrectly stated)
Now those two mistakes should not be in a paper from such a highly regarded organization, but...
THE PAPER WAS OVER 3000 PAGES LONG.
If I were to write a 3000+ page paper and only had 2 significant mistakes in it, I would be freaking estatic! I mean really, we are humans, there are going to be mistakes in everything we do. That the IPCC has been so responsive in retracting the parts of the paper that have not stood up to review and that out of such a huge document so few mistakes have been reported, shouldn't we instead see this as a great work?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Every year for the last ten years has been setting record temperatures.
This is just false. I have yet to see a report that does not agree that there has been no warming since 1998. And many reports that suggest temperatures have fallen slightly since 1998 (several that suggest they have fallen as much as they rose in the previous 2 or 3 decades of warming).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Last winter we had 2 inch of snow, this we had 20. that means we'll have 200 inches of snow the next winter and 2000 after that. This is clearly a true and well determined problem, we can't afford to wait until next winter before we implement a multi billion$ anti-snow policy. We also should not waste any more money on any further studies of the predicted snow depth because I already have a consensus that it's a real problem.
If you disagree with me you don't understand the science or hold stock in snow-removal services. And those are the only possibilities, there's no one that cares about truth anymore, there's only monetarily motivated people and stupid people in this world.
Its been cooling a bit for the last 8 years... the trend began in 2002.
Wow! I can't believe anyone seriously uses that argument anymore. This last decade as been the hottest decade on record. Any slight cooling doesn't change that. You make it sound like it must be much cooler than the record books, but 2009 was globally the 5th hottest year on record.
Have a look at any temperature graph and tell us how significant is your cooling period. Can you spot any other similar cooling pattern in the preceding decades? If so, did those times also prove that it is getting cooler, or did it just bounce back even higher?
This is also typical. Attack the science with quotes from an opinion column that cites other opinion columns that make up stories and repeat falsehoods until they look like truth. Thank goodness most national governments aren't run by bloggers, so we can actually get something done.
I am so not replying to all of those. Come on, man. This is like trying to be right because you scream the loudest.
I stopped reading after this one, though, because...
ClimateGate was one gigantic manufactured controversy and it GENUINELY saddens me that there are so many people who fall for this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Catching scientists in a misrepresentation isn't "the scientific process worked", it's "the scientific process failed, but it could have failed even worse if they had gotten away with it". Lying is an attempted subversion of the process, not part of the process. You might say that being able to catch lies is part of the process, but not lying is still better than lying and being caught.
And many of the proposed anti-global-warming measures themselves have the potential to "eventually devastate our social and economic well being".