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."

Comments

Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[Gadget_Guy]

There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?

Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.

Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[Trailer Trash]

There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?

Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.

There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.

Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[jadavis]

Do you also think it is the same with sciences?

In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
(b) The field is not as politically charged; or
(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.

Even with other money-charged scientific fields, like medicine, the results ultimately play out in clinical trials and then general availability. The truth will reveal itself relatively soon, serious investigations will follow any serious problem, and the consequences to anyone who violates the rules are severe.

However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes. They just say that some "other, unforeseen factor" changed the outcome without contradicting their theory. And serious investigations are much less likely -- note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.

None of this means that the climate isn't changing. But it does mean that we will have a major problem getting accurate information, making useful predictions, and crafting effective policy regarding climate change (that is, if policy is the correct approach at all).

Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[UltraAyla]

There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.

Yes, because as we all know, a single case study always generalizes to the whole. I think it's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.

As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues, I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it *usually* is very healthy. In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science. That said, I understand your criticism of the CRU emails. It made me mad too, but it has been blown out of proportion. If you look at the IPCC reports, many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included. These guys had some power in the discourse, but not as much as people attribute to them.

Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[Gadget_Guy]

In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result

Where is your proof of this. I have never seen one single shred of evidence for this outlandish claim.

(b) The field is not as politically charged

What difference does that make? How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it? And this wasn't always a political debate. President George Bush Snr publicly stated that the world needed to act to prevent the problems of global warming. Up until the mid 90s this had bipartisan support.

The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time

The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct.

Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house

[CheshireCatCO]

The oil industry has been found to be funding at least one of the more prominent skeptical scientists, for a start. And even just yesterday, All Things Considered reported a story about how an industry lobbying group for the power industry is lobbying against the EPA's plan to regulate greenhouse gases, claiming that they're not a pollutant as the EPA claims.

We've also seen, in recent years, that the tobacco industry was helping lobby against climate change findings. (The logic being spreading doubt over one kind of science taints it all, apparently.) Link: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1819257

So while I applaud your skepticism on such things, in this case, the data are there.

All I ever see and hear in the media (with exception to Fox 'News') is that climate change is man made, end of story, no room for questions, the end, it's done.

Which ignores the fact that the media widely has carried the counter-claims and stories about the leaked emails and other would-be scandals. One never really does feel that the media gives one's own side a fair shake, do they?

I hate that kind of crap, can anyone here think of a single other scientific theory that is so adamantly fought for by a group of people?

Evolution springs to mind. (I seem to recall at least one person being put on trial for teaching it, don't you?) Which is, as I said, similar in that it is also fought against viciously by another group. Which is why you get the strong support: the science community, under assault, are simply pushing back. And apparently, they're wrong to do so. What would you have them do, when their work and their very honesty is attacked?

Extra, Extra!

[WrongSizeGlass]

UN agrees to let scientists disagree ...

The UN doesn't really do anything very well ... and this won't be any different. Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[h4rm0ny]

Well for a start, calling those of us who have some skepticism "deniers" doesn't do you any favours. As to telling us what we will or wont be satisfied with is not your place either. We've just seen some of the leading proponents of AGW fudging data, destroying data, using personal influence in attempting to keep critical papers from being included in reports. If a second body can help bring some credibility back to the debate, then I'm all for it. The interest of anyone should be the truth and it's insulting to say that anyone who questions what they're told is doing so because they are trying to conceal the truth. It's by questioning that the truth is found and we shouldn't criticise people for questioning and saying someone is a "denier" when all they're saying is "the evidence hasn't convinced me" is wrong. And let's not even get started on your characterisations about black helicopters and commies. You think you understand climate science? I'd say you don't. The climate is very, very complicated and I doubt Phil Jones of the CRU is posting on Slashdot under the username Bemopolis. So don't mock other people who admit they don't know how the climate works and ask for explanations.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[Bemopolis]

How much of the literature have you actually read, yourself? Not books. Not newspaper articles. Not a lecture from a blond melonhead on FNC. Actual, peer-reviewed, scientific articles written by actual scientists who understand science and do science for a living. Seriously. How much. And how much did you understand. What other scientific theories did you put to the same rigors before you accepted them. Heliocentrism? Gravity? Do you refuse to fly because you don't feel the jury is completely out on the Bernoulli effect? But perhaps I *am* being presumptuous; based on recent surveys, and assuming you are American, it's about a 50-50 chance that you don't even accept the well-established theory of evolution.

"But, but, but, the climate is complicated." Complicated? Shit, the human body is complicated. When you get sick, do you comb through the medical journals to find out the double-blind study on the latest treatment your ailment (which you have diagnosed using your years of medical training and the DSM, no doubt). Because hey, if you don't, you are putting your very life in the hands of scientists WHO MAY BE IN ON THE CONSPIRACY. My God man, it's YOUR LIFE, employ some of that "skepticism". When you feel that lump under your armpit, get thee to a homeopath and crystal healer! And don't forget to stop by a Scientology church for your free audit — it could be a fat thetan.

But of course not. While doctors can and do make mistakes, on the whole they are generally treating their patients under the current understanding of their field. So it is with climatologists. So please, spare me your hurt wittle feewings because I know the difference between a skeptic and a denier, and say so. And while you're at it, Google "confirmation bias".

But hey, thanks for making my point.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[Gadget_Guy]

As to telling us what we will or wont be satisfied with is not your place either.

Actually, it is quite reasonable to say what the deniers will be satisfied with because they are so predictable. For example, look at your own post:

• Complain about being called a denier
• Make vague and unsubstantiated accusations about "fudging data" and "destroying data" (with the implication of trying to hide the facts)
• Be the victim: "Our papers get censored. It's all a conspiracy!"
• Mention Phil Jones - imply he is the antichrist where ever possible

It is all cookie cutter stuff. You did miss a few points, though.

• It is actually getting cooler (Warning! Do not link to graphs)
• The science isn't settled - the debate still rages
  (Warning! Do not use this in the same post as "there is no debate because we get censored")
• Point out the few errors in the IPCC report and say the entire thing is discredited because of them
• Say that AGW has been proved to be all a hoax and hope that nobody asks for details
• There is a lot of money to be made in being an alarmist (but don't mention stock options in mining companies or industry funded think-tanks)

But seriously, if you are indeed a genuine skeptic, then you should recognise that the denier tag is not being attributed to you. You must have spotted that there ARE people out there who will not be convinced on this subject no matter how much science you can show them.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[h4rm0ny]

Goodness! By using terminology like "hurt wittle feewings" and extrapolating from my skepticism about AGW that I must also disbelieve evolution, medical science and refuse to fly because I think aviation is unproven, you have completely refuted my own post which was a mere logical argument following from what you said. Well played, sir, well played.

But just so I don't get sucked into the same vortex of facetiousness that you have, I'll respond to some of your points anyway. You're likening of climate science to current medical science is very unfounded. The foundations of practical medical science (a) has been developed over a very long time whilst climate science in its current form is very recent and far more significantly (b) medical science is based on falsifiable experiments - many of them. Do you want to list some of the falsifiable experiments that climate scientists have carried out? We can compare them to the millions of repeated experiments that form the foundation of modern medical science. And remember, that medical science is frequently limited in scope. We try this single drug on 500 hundred mice with cancer and note its effect. The climate is a massive holistic system that makes it near impossible to isolate factors in the same way. Climate scientists simulate falsifiable experiments by looking for "natural" experiments in history and the environment today and that's valid, but it's not the same thing by a long shot. So we are very valid in making distinctions between medical science and climate science.

And I think your parts about heliocentrism and gravity are hillarious. The implication is that you think anyone who doubts AGW might as well doubt gravity. Really? They're equivalent in their obviousness? You're really prepared to say: "Well if you don't notice the impact of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and how that may cause increasing humidity from the oceans causing a runaway effect which is exasperated by released glacial methane but somewhat mitigated by the increased albedo of the planet and the greater level of carbon-absorbing oceanic life-forms and plantlife then you might as well just doubt that there's a force that stops you floating into space, moron."

Really, the point I made was "without studying all the material yourself and researching it, how can you state what the Truth is with great certainty". Do you want to explain how "how much of the literature have you read?" refutes my point? Because I don't see a connection. I say we don't know, and you respond with "well you don't know." That doesn't follow.

And for more poor logic, no, I didn't google "confirmation bias". I find it tiresome how many people try to argue by Google, as if looking up a word is akin to making an argument. You might want to explain how someone who says that they don't know the answer and haven't reached a conclusion, is guilty of "confirmation bias". But who knows. Maybe if you google "relevance" you'll be able to cut and paste the results into your reply. ;)

If you want to reply again, this time please actually argue points, rather than a spiel about scientology and other attempts at argument through mockery.

Regards,
H.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[feepness]

So, what you are saying is that *no* amount of scientific data and publication will convince you, because the "peer review process" has been compromised. The same argument made about biology among the "Intelligent Design" crowd.
That's called denial.
That makes you a denier.

So what you're saying is that *no* amount of malfeasance will convince you the belief system is invalid. The same argument made about the bible among the "Intelligent Design" crowd.
That's called faith.
That make you a member of a religion.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[wizardforce]

Do you want to explain how "how much of the literature have you read?" refutes my point?

It's a pertinent question. When someone claims that there is effectively no evidence in favor of AGW, they'd damn well better know what is actually being written in the relevant science journals otherwise it's little different than what the creationists do. i.e. a YEC claiming evolution doesn't exist ought to be fairly knowledgeable of any scientific papers on the subject of evolution just as AGW deniers. This isn't an unreasonable request, that is that if your going to make a claim either way you ought to know what the hell you're talking about.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[durrr]

A lot of skeptics are not denying we're seeing a long time warming, glaciers after all have been receding for some 150+ years.
They are however rejecting that human activity is the primary driving factor and that things will go to shit and the sealevel will reach the moon before the end of next week if we do nothing.

To condense it, there's two main disagreements: The cause; Man vs Nature. And feedback; negative or positive.

To the latter i may add that negative feedback is more often found in nature, perhaps because it dutifully returns towards its origin and can experience feedback once again, whereas positive feedback once put in motion is not likely to stop or return anytime soon. If negative feedback, i'm buying a SUV. If positive, i'll buy an amphibic SUV, because even the most dreamy scenario of 30-50% reduction in CO2 emissions would still not be enough to stop it.

Re:Extra, Extra!

[Bemopolis]

So what you're saying is that *no* amount of malfeasance will convince you the belief system is invalid.

Why, because scientists being dicks to each other is out of character? Please. And as for dismissing the general public, you should have seen some of the bullshit mail I got from the general public as an astronomer (O may "God" bless you Honest John Malatich you crazy-ass sumbitch!). And that was just from the self-motivated whack jobs; I can only imagine the volume of shit what climatologists get from those in the general public, especially as they tend to be well-funded by those with financial and political agendas.

Personally I will not waste my time discussing science with deniers face to face, any more than I will listen to rant about Jeebus as you try to hand me your pamphlet. Now skeptics are another matter, but you better be prepared to answer some basic physics questions, lest ye be a denier in skeptic's clothing. And besides, malfeasance is not counter-evidence. If it turns out that Isaac Newton was a child-molester who enjoyed stealing from the Treasury while screaming blasphemes about Christ's after-Last Supper activities at the Archbishop of Canterbury, it would not affect his theory on the motions of the planets or those on the nature of light.

Conversely, if it turned out he never kicked a puppy, gave his possessions to the needy, and died keeping the temple of his body virginal so he could sit at the right hand of God, it would not make his theory valid at speeds near that of light.

Re:My particular facts.

[thrillseeker]

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'.

Science vs. Government

[Pete Venkman]

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.

Can't imagine what they hope to achieve

[jfengel]

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.

Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve

[zippthorne]

The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda. They have insinuated themselves into the process and have tainted some of the research.

There is also a loose gathering of industrialists trying to use the same thing as a bullet point to help separate you from your dollars. From the greenwashing of GE using their mouthpiece of every show on NBC, to the auto companies with their claims of 200+ mpg hybrids (which, of course, get a "small" portion of their motive energy out-of-band...), to the electric utilities with their "we need you to approve another rate hike because those windmills we haven't installed yet cost twice as much per kW as conventional fuels" plans.

There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.

2 big problems in that report

[RingDev]

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

Re:2 big problems in that report

[ceoyoyo]

A little mistake is fine. Referencing a WWF report is not a little mistake. Arguing that "gray literature" is required to get an accurate picture basically blows your credibility.

Re:My particular facts.

[Gadget_Guy]

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?

Re:Debate the Solution, not the Problem

[dwguenther]

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.