InterAcademy Council Says IPCC Needs Major Overhaul, Pressures Chairman Rajendra Pachauri For Conflicts Of Interest

WASHINGTON — Scientists reviewing the acclaimed but beleaguered international climate change panel called Monday for a major overhaul in the way it's run, but stopped short of calling for the ouster of the current leader.

The independent review of the U.N. climate panel puts new pressure on chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who has been criticized for possible conflicts of interest, but shows no sign of stepping down.

"It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The University of Colorado professor praised the review findings as a way of saving the climate panel with "tough love."

The InterAcademy Council, a collection of the world's science academies, outlined a series of "significant reforms" in management structure needed by the IPCC, a body that won a Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007.

Last year, a batch of errors embarrassed the authors of the climate report. Among the most prominent were misleading statements about glaciers in the Himalayas. The IPCC incorrectly said they were melting faster than others and that they would disappear by 2035 – hundreds of years earlier than other information suggests.

"Those errors did dent the credibility of the process, no question about it," said former Princeton University president Harold Shapiro, who led the review of the IPCC.

Climate change science took a parade of public hits last winter, starting with the release of hacked e-mails from a British climate center. Then there was the failure of a summit in Copenhagen to come up with mandatory greenhouse gas pollution limits, followed by the mistakes discovered in the IPCC report. On top of that, the winter seemed unusually cold in many places, undercutting belief in global warming.

The mood seems different now. Several outside reports – including those by the British, Dutch and American governments – have upheld the chief scientific finding of the climate panel: that global warming is man-made and incontrovertible. This year, so far, is on target to be the hottest on record worldwide with a number of extreme weather events.

IPCC chief Pachauri, an academic from India who also is a professor at Yale, said many of the recommendations outlined are steps he already has started. Critics, including those in the U.S. Senate, have called on him to resign, but on Monday he gave no indication he would.

"This has nothing to do with personalities," Pachauri told The Associated Press. "I think we're jumping the gun if we're talking about taking any action before the IPCC takes a look at the report."

Shapiro said if fundamental changes are made, the IPCC – created in 1989 by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization – can regain its credibility. The IPCC involves scientists mostly volunteering work with only 10 staffers, and even Pachauri is a part-time volunteer.

The 113-page review was requested by the IPCC and the U.N. after the errors were found. It didn't study the quality of the science itself, although Shapiro said the key recommendations in the climate report "are well supported by the scientific evidence."

Still, he said the way the report expressed confidence in scientific findings was incomplete and at times even misleading. In the panel's first report, which addresses the physical causes of global warming, scientists may have underestimated how confident they were in their conclusions, Shapiro said. In the second report, about the effects on daily life, in at least one instance they may have overestimated the scientific backing for their conclusions, he suggested.

The InterAcademy Council said the climate change group overall has done a good job. But the council said it needs a full-time executive director, more openness and regular changes in leadership. It also called for stronger enforcement of its reviews of research and adoption of a conflict of interest policy, which the IPCC does not have, even though its parent agencies do. The conflict of interest issue was raised because of Pachauri's work as adviser and board member of green energy companies.

Pachauri said he has been cleared of any conflict claims, especially since he gave away all the money he was paid to sit on companies' boards.

Scientists who have been among the IPCC authors praised the study. Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada said the recommended changes include some that scientists have urged, but he doesn't see these changes as being major.

Weaver said the focus on IPCC structure misses the point when it comes to global warming: "The Titanic is sinking and we're arguing about the nature of the deck chairs."

Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, said the review would help the IPCC recover some of the credibility it lost when it came under a "concerted effort" to attack its integrity.

Steiner said in a telephone interview said the new report restores "in the public mind a level of confidence which is critical for the IPCC's work to be used as a basis for international negotiations and policy making."

___

Associated Press writers Edith Lederer in New York and Frank Jordans in Geneva contributed to this report

___

Online:

The InterAcademy Council's review: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Comments

[yallerdog]

01:35 PM on 09/10/2010

Perhaps the IPCC should be purged or else the agency replaced by another. They are obviously self-serving and self-aggrandising. The next organization formed shoud make it a point to include paleontologists, oceanographers, paleogeographers, even anthropologists and archeologists. You know people who can look beyond 150 years ago or can look at the other half of the earth.

[DocSkull]

07:55 AM on 09/14/2010

"They are obviously self-serving and self-aggrandising."

How are they self-serving?

The IPCC looks far beyond the last 150 years.

[NewportMac]

06:55 PM on 10/22/2010

I highly recommend the following article to anyone who still believes global warming is caused by humans.

President Vaclav Klaus: Climate Control or Freedom?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/20/president-vaclav-havel-climate-control-or-freedom/

[Richard2]

05:05 PM on 09/04/2010

"....Again and again the 2007 report has been found to be in flagrant breach of the IPCC's own rules. For instance, it cited no fewer than 16 articles from a single issue of one climate journal – which had been published after the IPCC's official cut-off date and should therefore have been disallowed. In each of the thousands of instances where the IPCC broke its rules, the claims it made were all in one direction: to hype up alarm over the extent and effects of climate change beyond anything science could justify. The most shameless instance was the claim about Himalayan glaciers, which two of the IPCC's own expert reviewers had pointed out was ridiculous even before it was published. Dr Pachauri dismissed this criticism as "voodoo science" (having employed the author of the claim at his own Delhi research institute).

Through all this the IPCC has been exposed for what it truly is: not a proper scientific body but an advocacy group, ready to stop at nothing in hijacking the prestige of science for its cause. But little of this might be guessed from the Inter-Academy report (jointly commissioned by Dr Pachauri himself and Ban Ki-Moon, the UN's Secretary General). Even if Dr Pachauri is forced to resign at a UN meeting in Korea next month, as seems possible, he will merely have been thrown off the sledge so that the all-important cause can survive......."

Christopher Booker

[maxwells]

06:12 PM on 09/04/2010

ZZZZZZ - more Richard2 baloney.

Check his 1,550+ HuffPo comments newest first, then oldest.

www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Richard2?action=comments&display=all&sort=newest”

They read the same backwards or forwards, like a giant palindrome - essentially denying human-induced climate change. Richard2's first 100 comments were all denials. 1,450 posts later, he's still at it. E.g., I post on climate change, but only two of my first 100 dealt with climate change.

www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells?action=comments&display=all&sort=newest

What does that say?

Richard2 began posting on every new climate thread of HuffPo solely to attack, sow doubt, and discredit any news or science consistent with human-induced climate change. Who but a PAID SHILL does that every day?

Re: the IPCC review.

www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/62822/title/Academies_­recommend_­that_IPCC_­make_chang­es

Says the IPCC chair requested the review, which to catch errors calls for more careful sifting of 90,000+ comments their last report generated, which in their last report amounted to TWO INCONSEQUENTIAL ERRORS in a 2,000+ page report - one an OBVIOUS TYPO, underscored by the very next sentence. Would correcting those two errors change the summary conclusions? NOT ONE IOTA.

The point being that deniers, mainstream media, and scientists themselves hold climate scientists to standards of conduct, rigor, and accuracy far higher than skeptics, deniers, and mainstream media themselves maintain.

Then Richard2 abuses that standards gap incessantly to lie, distort, and mislead.

It's pathetic.

[Publicola]

03:14 PM on 09/03/2010

Richard2: "Perhaps the UN should hire the IAC itself to prepare objective scientific summaries of climate science"

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) is an part of the world's National Academies of Sciences, which includes the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. It's board members are the presidents of National Academies.

The following is from a scientific summary of climate science by the National Academies:

--------------------------------------------------

Climate Change Is Real

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth - in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels.

continued...

[Publicola]

03:15 PM on 09/03/2010

...continued

Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.

Reduce the causes of climate change

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

[Richard2]

04:00 PM on 09/04/2010

Now that the IAC has discovered that the IPCC process has serious flaws, and that the people who wrote the 2007 report weren't objective or thorough, it is possible the National Academies of Sciences would soften their stated position on "climate change."

Certainly the IAC would have a more objective, scientific approach than the IPCC had.

[Publicola]

03:10 PM on 09/03/2010

Richard2: "Perhaps the UN should hire the IAC itself to prepare objective scientific summaries of climate science"

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) is part of the world's National Academies of Sciences, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. It's board members are the presidents of National Academies of Sciences.

The following is from a joint scientific summary of climate science by the National Academies:

--------------------------------------------------

Climate Change Is Real

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth - in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels.

continued...

[Richard2]

01:40 PM on 09/03/2010

John Triggs, writing in the Independent newspaper in London:

"RAJENDRA PACHAURI has a chauffeur, lives in luxury and jets across the world on his quest to ban Sunday roasts and cheap flights. Now he's accused of exaggerating the climate change crisis.

MOST mornings he is driven to work from his £5 million home in a 1.8-litre Toyota Corolla by his personal chauffeur, as befits his status as director-general of a New Delhi research institute employing more than 700 staff."

Dr Rajendra Pachauri's conflicts of interest are obvious. It will be impossible for the IPCC to produce objective summaries of climate science as long as he and the "team" remain in control of the IPCC report writing process. Therefore, it will be impossible to restore the credibility of the IPCC reports.

If the UN really wants objective science in the IPCC reports, it should adopt the report's recommendations now and enforce them immediately upon being adopted.

But perhaps there is a better way. Perhaps the UN should simply defund the IPCC. Perhaps the UN should hire the IAC itself to prepare objective scientific summaries of climate science, which would take the place of the flawed IPCC efforts.

[Publicola]

03:10 PM on 09/03/2010

...continued

Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.

Reduce The Causes Of Climate Change

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

[DocSkull]

12:18 AM on 09/04/2010

"...Pachauri's conflicts of interest are obvious."

His work at a research institute is a qualification, not a conflict of interest.

"It will be impossible for the IPCC to produce objective summaries of climate science as long as he and the "team" remain in control of the IPCC report writing process."

Pachauri doesn't have a team and the workgroups write the reports.

"Therefore, it will be impossible to restore the credibility of the IPCC reports."

Because they too might have ridden in a Toyota Corolla?

[Publicola]

01:52 AM on 09/04/2010

The Smearing of an Innocent man

The report we publish for the first time today proves that the serious charges made against Rajendra Pachauri are completely untrue.

By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 26th August 2010

Has anyone been as badly maligned as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

In December, the Sunday Telegraph carried a long and prominent feature written by Christopher Booker and Richard North, titled: Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

The subtitle alleged that Pachauri has been “making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies”. The article maintained that the money made by Pachauri while working for other organisations “must run into millions of dollars”.

It described his outside interests as “highly lucrative commercial jobs”. It proposed that these payments caused a “conflict of interest” with his IPCC role. It also complained that we don’t know “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC.

The story (which has subsequently been removed from the Sunday Telegraph’s website) immediately travelled around the world. It was reproduced on hundreds of blogs. The allegations it contained were widely aired in the media and generally believed. For a while, no discussion of climate change or the IPCC appeared complete without reference to Pachauri’s “dodgy” business dealings and alleged conflicts of interest.

There was just one problem: the story was untrue.

continued...

[Publicola]

01:55 AM on 09/04/2010

... continued

It’s not just that Pachauri hadn’t been profiting from the help he has given to charities, businesses and institutions, his accounts show that he is scrupulous to the point of self-denial. After the Sunday Telegraph published its story, the organisation for which Pachauri works - a charity called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) - asked the auditors KPMG to review his financial relationships. Today, for the first time, the Guardian is publishing KPMG’s report.

KPMG studied all Pachauri’s financial records, accounts and tax returns, as well as TERI’s accounts, for the period 1 April 2008 – 31 December 2009. It found that any money paid as a result of the work that Pachauri had done for other organisations went not to him but to TERI. None of the money was paid back to him by TERI: he received only his annual salary, which is £45,000.

His total additional income over the 20 months reviewed by KPMG amounted to the following:

• A payment of 20,000 rupees (£278) from two national power commissions in India, on which he serves as director;

• 35,880 rupees (£498) for articles he has written and lectures he has given;

• A maximum of 100,000 rupees - or £1,389 - in the form of royalties from his books and awards.

In other words, he made £45,000 as his salary at TERI, and a maximum of £2,174 in outside earnings. So much for Pachauri’s “highly lucrative commercial jobs” amounting to “millions of dollars”.

continued...

[Richard2]

05:42 PM on 09/02/2010

The New York Post drills in on the IPCC:

"....Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, nor put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist."

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers......"

[DocSkull]

07:59 AM on 09/03/2010

Beyond the IPCC's own corrections to bad references to predictions of Himalayan melt and degree to which African agriculture will be hurt by drought, how many of the thousands and thousands citations in the IPCC report are not of good quality?

[Richard2]

04:23 PM on 09/06/2010

All the alarming ones. That is why they were included.

[Publicola]

12:46 PM on 09/03/2010

Funny how R2 does his best on HuffPo to consistently put a negative spin on anything related to the IPCC.

R2 again cites the same IAC quote he cited below, again ignoring the fact that said quote was specific to the Working Group II volume of the IPCC 2007 report, which deals with deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems and was not authored by climate scientists.

Again - the physical science of global warming as presented by climate scientists is presented in the Working Group I volume of the IPCC report - which the IAC's criticism was explicitly not directed at.

R2: "Was science even a real concern for the IPCC?"

Read the Working Group I volume of the IPCC 2007 report and find out, R2.

------------------------------------------------------------

Who pays you to consistently disinform on global warming here on HuffPo, R2?

And is the $$ really worth the weight on your conscience (assuming you have one)?

[Richard2]

01:37 PM on 10/16/2010

What is by far the dumbest argument made to discredit climate science critics?

It is the one that all critics are working for big oil or other giant corporations, and that in some cases, they are even "paid shills."

When a majority of the public is not convinced that catastrophic man-made global warming is real, it should not be surprising if a few members of this majority might enjoy expressing their personal points of view on the topic, on a website as user friendly as the HP.

Being called a "paid shill" just demonstrates the bottom of the barrel arguments of those who blindly attack climate science critics, rather than seriously discussing the topic.

[Richard2]

09:01 PM on 09/01/2010

Matt Riddley weighs in at his blog:

"This month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting videos of monkey behaviour. The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests that a body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in his own field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for society are not great — no policy had been based on his research.

Yesterday, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence”, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest”.

Enormous and expensive policy changes have been based on the flawed work of these scientists. Yet there is apparently to be no investigation, blame, suspension or withdrawal of papers, just a gentle bureaucratic fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts."

[Publicola]

10:32 PM on 09/01/2010

Ironic timing that you are now citing libertarian (shocking, I know) columnist Matt Riddley in your incessant science denier campaign here on HuffPo, R2 - Riddley had been citing and praising Bjorn Lomborg's then-contrarian view on global warming for years. Now that Lomborg has just changed his tune I wonder (ok, not really) if Riddley will still praise and cite Lomborg as a go-to, reliable source...

Funny too how Riddley - just as R2 consistently does here on HuffPo - has done his best here to put a negative spin on anything related to the IPCC. More example, Riddley quote-mined that the review said the 207 IPCC report "assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence" in an effort to undermine public confidence in global warming science research without informing the reader that said quote was specific to the Working Group II volume of the report; the physical science of global warming as presented by climate scientists is presented in the *Working Group I* volume.

Gotta love incessant misleading science denier spin by people like Richard2 and Riddley.

Or not.

[DocSkull]

08:43 AM on 09/02/2010

Your blogger is very shaky on the facts.

"Yet there is apparently to be no investigation..."

You just said there was a four-month review.

"blame..."

When the IPCC discovered their own mistake, they blamed themselves for trusting sources which they should have rejected.

"suspension or withdrawal of papers..."

The IPCC announced that the few sentences were wrong. Not bad considering that the reports cover thousands of pages and synthesize nearly everything on the subject.

"just a gentle bureaucratic fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts."

I guess a mostly volunteer organization could use some help.

[Gfspell]

08:48 PM on 09/01/2010

I take the topic seriously, but I say this guy needs a major beard overhaul!

[Matthew Gaylard]

06:01 PM on 09/01/2010

George Monbiot provides a well referenced account at:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/08/26/the-smearing-of-an-innocent-man/#more-1281

[Matthew Gaylard]

06:00 PM on 09/01/2010

And how much does he earn as chairman of the IPCC? Exactly $0.

[Richard2]

01:43 PM on 10/16/2010

The chairman sits on advisory boards for major corporations that have financial interests in global warming efforts. For example, a major German bank, Deutsche Bank, which has invested heavily in global warming related projects. It is just possible he might be getting paid for this work, or might be receiving perks of various kinds. Of course, the IPCC doesn't have "conflict of interest" rules, unlike almost all other major organizations, so he is free to wheel and deal as much as he wants or needs to.

[Matthew Gaylard]

05:57 PM on 09/01/2010

Sorry, that should read ...
... made a maximum of 2,174 in outside earnings in 2009. He was also awarded a prize of 25,000 Rupees which he gave to charities.

[Matthew Gaylard]

05:53 PM on 09/01/2010

Conflict of interest? Pah! KPMG did an audit on Pachauri - he works for an NGO where he earns an annual salary of £45,000 and a maximum of £2,174 in outside earnings. I am dissapointed to see what is a systematic smear campaign of an unusually upright global civil servant being repeated without being clearly exposed as such by Mr Borenstein.

[Richard2]

05:59 PM on 09/02/2010

And who works for KPMG? Pachauri's old boss. If the UN wants to do an audit, they should hire their own independent firm.

[Richard2]

10:45 PM on 09/02/2010

De Boer said he will be a consultant on climate and sustainability issues for KPMG, a global accounting firm. He also will help several universities. Prior to joining the United Nations, de Boer worked as the lead climate negotiator for the Netherlands and as a Dutch housing minister.

De Boer's departure was expected by many. The United Nations last summer had given him a one-year extension on his term that allowed him to serve through the Copenhagen conference and into 2010. .

[DocSkull]

08:01 AM on 09/03/2010

"If the UN wants to do an audit..."

Why would the UN need to do an audit?

[Publicola]

02:06 PM on 09/01/2010

simpleperson: "This report does appear to put a dent in the 'settled science' argument."

Guess again.

Strictly speaking science is never "settled", but it the sense that anthropogenic global warming is the overwhelming scientific consensus this report does nothing to undermine that fact - to the contrary it supports it.

From the report::

“The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change”

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

[Richard2]

08:53 PM on 09/01/2010

Dr. Shapiro stated that he thought the errors had put a dent in the credibility of the IPCC.

[Publicola]

10:36 PM on 09/01/2010

So what part of:

"Strictly speaking science is never "settled", but it the sense that anthropogenic global warming is the overwhelming scientific consensus this report does nothing to undermine that fact - to the contrary it supports it. "

are you not clear on, R2?

Or are just trying to confuse people with non-sequiturs? (Silly question, I know.)

[DocSkull]

04:09 PM on 09/02/2010

"Dr. Shapiro stated that he thought the errors had put a dent in the credibility of the IPCC."

No, Shapiro said that the errors put a dent in the credibility of the process, not the whole IPCC. Only the references to the estimates concerning Himalayan glaciers and African agriculture have been called into question.

[simpleperson]

08:40 AM on 09/01/2010

This report does appear to put a dent in the “settled science” argument.

[DocSkull]

10:08 AM on 09/01/2010

"This report does appear to put a dent in the “settled science” argument."

Not in the least. The IAC's comments are about IPCC procedures, not about the science itself. The IPCC does do the science, they merely synthesize the large body of information.

[simpleperson]

12:32 PM on 09/01/2010

When the IAC, regarding the IPCC’s evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty, makes such statements as "For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020." or " In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented." , it will generate a lot of uncertanity in most open minded people regarding the IPCC's real agenda.

[DocSkull]

01:43 PM on 09/01/2010

"it will generate a lot of uncertanity in most open minded people regarding the IPCC's real agenda."

I guess you could fool some people by lying about the IAC recommendations, but it doesn't change the science of global warming.

As the IPCC members themselves pointed out, they've reassessed their reference to existing predictions about African agriculture and Himalayan glaciers. Of course this doesn't mean that the glaciers aren't melting or that the African isn't in any trouble, but that there is more work to be done.

[scottie1321]

09:32 PM on 08/31/2010

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

http://www.interacademycouncil.net/

[DocSkull]

09:51 PM on 08/31/2010

The IAC conducted a review, but they did not find that "there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming" or "made “substantive findings” based on little proof" or made "exaggerated and false claims."

Those are three lies.

[scottie1321]

10:25 PM on 08/31/2010

Again I will let the readers go to the IPCC’s Evaluation of Evidence and Treatment of Uncertainty (Chapter 3) in their report. It is a PDF. They can at that point read and decide if you or I are correct. I will not try to change your mind. you are free to believe what you want.

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%203%20-%20IPCC%E2%80%99s%20Evaluation%20of%20Evidence%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Uncertainty.pdf

[DocSkull]

07:53 AM on 09/01/2010

"Again I will let the readers go to the IPCC’s Evaluation of Evidence and Treatment of Uncertainty (Chapter 3) in their report."

I read Chapter 3 and did searches for your quoted text. There is no truth to your lies. The phrase "little evidence" is used once and not in reference to global warming. The phrase "substantive findings" is not used at all nor was there text which contained the same meaning. The IAC also did not suggest that discussion of discussion of Himalayan glaciers was "exaggerated and false."

This IAC' report concerns IPCC procedures and make no judgments about the science of global warming.