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."
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
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.
Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?
Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside can accomplish. He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of, and took as "givens."
I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming, in one way or another. Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Why don't you open your eyes? Botanists have been conspiring for decades to push a pro-plant agenda. The "nutritional value" and "oxygen" they talk about is nothing but a front of bad data. All so plants can spread across this globe, making botanists rich and powerful. They don't care that the cost of doing business will skyrocket due to increasing landscaping costs. So long as they get their juicy tomato grants they will continue to lie for grant money.
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:
It is all cookie cutter stuff. You did miss a few points, though.
(Warning! Do not use this in the same post as "there is no debate because we get censored")
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.
Mod this guy up.
There will always be problems with "indepenence" of scientific research when the main (only) funding agency is a political body and an incredibly long validation period. If you don't produce the results the political body wants, they'll cut funding. If they are the only funding source, your options are being broke but honest, or putting at least a little spin on your results to keep getting funded at some level.
My research has been pressured by funding agencies, but since the main funding source is industry I can always find funding from a competitor (it helps that there are several) to continue my work if the original funding agency doesn't like what my data indicates.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
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.
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.
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.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain