« The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig... | Main | Our Bill of Rights and Liberties »

The IPCC review

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch on the forthcoming review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Will it be more widely trusted?

It's possible to divide published opinions on the issue into three broad categories: those who are only concerned with getting the message across that man-made climate change is an over-riding threat requiring urgent action, those who are concerned about the issue but are more concerned by what they see as lack of rigour and transparency within the IPCC, and those who are convinced that global warming is a fraud anyway and the IPCC one of the lead swindlers....

...how independent the scientists on the Inter-Academy Council's review panel will be from the scientists who contributed work to the IPCC in the first place. There's also the wider point that some of the institutions involved with the Inter-Academy Council, such as the UK's Royal Society, have taken a very public stance on climate change.
But to assume this will automatically cause problems for the review is, I think, to misunderstand its nature and purpose.
It is not a review of climate science - some would say it ought to be, but it isn't, it's a review of IPCC practice ..
Will the Inter-Academy Council choose to make use of expertise from fields apparently unrelated to climate science? We shall see - and that, perhaps, will be one of the factors that determines how meaningful and visionary the review turns out to be, and how it is eventually perceived.

And we will be watching it carefully - we have seen to many inside job reviews already. To restore trust it needs to be rigorous, independent and from outside the circled wagons.

Comments

Seems to me it's only about how they should present it better and not allow anyone to see behind the curtain.

The BBC's view on everything to do with Mann Made Global Warming is entirely predictable. They have their position and will endlessly repeat it (at our expense) no matter what new evidence appears, or failings in the current data/theories are uncovered, or fraud, or anything really. There really is no point in seeing what they say, you could probably write the script today.

There will be no surrender to the deniers, the loons, the fruitcakes, the swivel-eyed-maniacs, the voodoo scintists, the scum and other terms, used by the AGW/MMGW/Climate Change converts, to describe anyone that disagrees with or questions the "settled" scince.
It will all be about spin and presentation and fear provoking assertions.

Quite extraordinary.

The three possibilites he gives are all political ones. How about the fourth one: "Those who would like the science to be carefully worked out, from undisputed, unadulterated, un-"adjusted" facts and data, by people with no axe to grind, and who will then make rational decisions based on reproducible hypotheses which stand up to full scientific rigour"?

No place for people like that?

No, I guess not. It's all about presentation.

This is not science, and won't uncover, prove, or disprove anything; it's just more of the same warm horse manure that got us into this pickle in the first place.

They disgust me.

Post a comment