IPCC organisation

This page is for discussion of the IPCC and its organisational aspects.


38 Thoughts on “IPCC organisation

  1. THREAD on October 28, 2010 at 1:35 pm said:

    val majkus says:
    October 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Nice article by John McLean in Quadrant Online https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/glaciergate
    John is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the article is about IPCC procedures

  2. Andy on March 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm said:

    WWF and the IPCC

    Now comes the million dollar question: What is a VP of the WWF doing serving as a Review Editor for Working Group 2, Chapter 15 of the latest edition of the climate bible – the one that is being written as we speak?

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-wwf-vice-president-the-new-ipcc-report/

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm said:

      WWF Influence at the Highest Levels of the IPCC

      “…the draft document [AR4 Synthesis Report.] from which those people [political negotiation] based their discussions was authored by a select group of 40 IPCC personnel known as the “core writing team.”

      [...]

      * 6 of them were IPCC employees at the time – Peter Bosch, Renate Christ, Jian Liu, Martin Manning, Jean Palutikof and Andy Reisinger
      * 1 was an American lawyer (Lenny Bernstein) and another was a medical doctor with a thin publication record who is employed by the World Health Organization (Bettina Menne)

      That leaves us with 32 people who might be considered world-class scientists. But among those are:

      * 9 other people with documented links to the World Wildlife Fund. These nine individuals belong to the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel about which I have been reporting recently. Their names are Osvaldo Canziani, Saleemul Huq, David Karoly, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Monirul Mirza, Leonard Nurse, Nijavalli Ravindranath, the late Stephen Schneider, and Gary Yohe.

      So of the 32 members of the IPCC’s core writing team that we might have expected to be world-class scientists, 11 of them (34%) are publicly affiliated with environmental NGOs.”

      http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/04/wwf-influence-at-the-highest-levels-of-the-ipcc/

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm said:

      Where WWF fits in to The Climate Change Scare Machine

      See – Green Groups
      *******************************************************************************************************
      Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm

      Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: see how your tax dollars are converted into alarming messages

      http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

  3. Richard C (NZ) on October 2, 2011 at 10:38 am said:

    The Corruption of Climate Science: The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) Process To Influence The IPCC

    Read here. The Worldwide Wildlife Federation (WWF) is a major green, anti-growth and anti-prosperity entity that appears to have unleashed an effective means to corrupt (ruin?) the IPCC process, its climate scientists and even a concerned public.

    Step 1: Bribe the public with domestic and international travel reimbursement to report their own perceptions/reality of climate change – e.g. “I believe it now rains more in York”.

    Step 2: Bribe climate scientists with travel, leading conferences and hob-knobing amongst the wealthy and government elites by joining the WWF’s “Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel”.

    Step 3: Then have these same pliable IPCC “climate scientists” take the publics reported perceptions and re-package them as supposed empirical evidence from actual scientific endeavors, with a persona of scientific gravitas.

    Step 4: The WWF then sponsors or produces “scientific” reports using the results of steps 1 through 3 as the basis for the reports.

    Step 5: The WWF compromised IPCC climate scientists then accept these WWF contrived-science reports as scientific gospel, positioning them as peer reviewed papers, when in fact they’re the worst form of grey literature.

    Literally, the strong stink of corrupted science is hard to ignore or dismiss with these new revelations.

    “It is difficult to believe that any self-respecting scientist would have anything to do with the Climate Witness Panel after reading those eight pages. The WWF states baldly, right up front, that the purpose of the panel is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency. That particular phrase is used four times on the final page…In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to:

    * “inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat.”

    No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement.”

    Because the UN and governing elites did not fix the IPCC’s Pachauri-problem, this type of climate science debasement by global warming alarmism proponents will also robustly taint the IPCC’s 2013 report, as it destroyed the credibility of the 2007 report.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/09/the-corruption-of-climate-science-the-world-wildlife-federation-wwf-process-to-influence-the-ipcc.html

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 2, 2011 at 10:54 am said:

      More on WWF’s NZ push in this thread:-

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/09/only-threat-to-christchurch-is-salingers-alarmism/#comment-67742

      Pure Advantage joins the global climate action campaign

      “……….the organisation championing a green growth paradigm shift for New Zealand – is joining former US Vice President, Al Gore, and others in a worldwide 24-hour event to mobilise people from around the globe to help solve climate change.

      The campaign kicks off with 24 Hours of Reality

      “Other aligned New Zealand organisations making presentations include Sustainable Business Network, Oxfam, Sustainable Food, Greenpeace, Generation Zero and WWF”

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2011 at 7:45 am said:

      WWF in denial over Donna Laframboise’s new book

      Posted on October 24, 2011 by Anthony Watts

      So upset they issued a press release. That’ll show ‘em. Funny how they couldn’t delineate the title of the book in the text.

      >>>>>>>>

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/wwf-in-denial-over-donna-laframboises-new-book/

      press release

      Oct. 23, 2011, 10:31 a.m. EDT

      WWF Refutes “Ludicrous” Allegation It Infiltrated IPCC

      GLAND, SWITZERLAND, Oct 23, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — WWF has refuted as “ludicrous” claims in a new climate change denial book that it had “infiltrated” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the respected international body charged with advancing knowledge on climate change and its impacts.

      The sole evidence offered for the claim in the book The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert is some overlap between some of the thousands of scientists who have worked for the IPCC and members of a Scientific Advisory Panel to WWF’s climate witness scheme.

      “It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.

      >>>>>>>>

      http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wwf-refutes-ludicrous-allegation-it-infiltrated-ipcc-2011-10-23

    • More on this at Bishop Hill

      http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/23/wwf-denies-it-has-infiltrated-ipcc.html

      and on Donna’s blog

      http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/24/wwf-issues-press-release-about-my-book/

      The climate witness program from WWF is pure propaganda. Check out hro001 comments (link to WWF pdf) in B Hill link above.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2011 at 11:49 pm said:

      Followed the hro001 link to The Climate Witness Programme [Manager in Sydney] – Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) Guidelines , saw this:-

      WWF International – Climate Witness Programme

      We ask Climate Witnesses to share their experiences of climate change with WWF to assist us to inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals who see climate change affecting the world’s natural places and who want to be active in addressing this threat.

      Climate Witness aims to achieve this by:

      [...]

      Making it real – Climate Witness connects the issue of climate change to real people feeling actual things, rather than hypothetical people and model projections.

      • Bringing it home – Showing that climate change is here & now, not just in the future, or in far flung nations.

      Then followed the link to Climate Witness, “Stories of climate change & climate action” to see how WWF are “making it real” with stories from “real people” “feeling actual things”:-

      http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/witness_stories/

      Pak Mat, Malaysia (Posted on 02 March 2010)
      experienced some rapid sea level rise that the SAP “Scientific review” avoids specifically but reviewer Faizal Parish, Malaysia states: “The observations of Pak Mat for Terengannu are generally consistent with the predictions for changes in weather patterns and increased climate variability as a result of global climate change”:-

      Pak Mat:
      Three years ago, I built a small brick house by the beach. The water’s edge (high tide mark) was then about 70 feet from my house. Each year, the water’s edge moved closer to where my house stood. One night in 2009, after a big storm, the sea water washed away the land on which my house was standing, and half of the structure eventually collapsed. My house was destroyed. My neighbour’s house has also been damaged by the beach erosion. Soon all the other houses nearby are likely to suffer the same fate. I lost about RM5000 (USD 1,480) when my house was damaged.

      Pak Mat seems to have shared the shortfall in the wisdom of his house site selection process but he’s not the first to fall victim of beach erosion in similar circumstances, it’s been happening around NZ for yonks. He’s a weather and climate witness, but he’s a long way from being a man-made climate change witness. I also had a look at Pak Azhar, Indonesia and both are about weather that seems to have become unpredictable in recent years but was formerly predictable but how is that man-made climate change?

      From WWF pdf: “SAP is made up of leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who are familiar with the latest climate change-related, peer-reviewed literature in specific regions of the world”. Faizal Parish must be the WWF (and possibly IPCC) “leading climate scientist” familiar with Malaysia. His single (minimum) citation abstract reads:-

      [....] The WMVc in the 20th century shows significant interannual and decadal variability with a trend of persistent decline in the whole 20th century at the rate of decrease of − 0.02 (m/s)/a. The lowest wind velocity occurred during the last two decades of the 20th century. The WMVc has decreased significantly by about 30% from the early to the late of 20th century. The 20th century decline of winter monsoon velocity evidenced from the SCS coral records is consistent with the atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) simulations for monsoon response to increasing temperatures. In addition, an obvious decline shift of WMV around 1976 can be seen in both instrumental and proxy records and it coincides with many other Pacific records. This shift is likely to correspond to a Pacific-wide change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation occurring at the same time.

      I don’t know how monsoon velocity decline over the entire 20th century is consistent with AOGCM monsoon response to increasing temperatures in 21st century simulations (20th is hindcast) but the rest seems to indicate that the citation supports natural climate variability more than it does man-made climate change (and that’s tenuous at best).

      WWF builds a big case with IPCC ring-ins to give the impression of scientific credibility, but a case for what? Bad weather, natural phenomena and misfortune that have changing climate in common but where’s the anthropogenic fingerprint? This is elaborate propaganda in the truest sense:-

      prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/ Noun:

      1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
      2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

      Spin a lot of anecdotes that can be explained by natural variability but maintain that (according to WWF):-

      The cause of climate change is the unlimited burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas to satisfy our hunger for energy. [so what's the cause of the current hiatus?]

      Because:-

      …..carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver for the greenhouse effect. [rubbish, water vapour is]

      And,

      ….the layer of greenhouse gas gets thicker. This in turn makes the Earth warmer…. [what ghg "layer"? it's the atmosphere that gets thicker but it hasn't warmed for the last decade or so]

      So WWF’s propaganda is not only biased or misleading in nature but it’s fallacious as well i.e. lies. If the UNIPCC continues to be joined at the hip with this bunch of crooks then they deserve to be tarred with the same brush.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2011 at 7:59 am said:

      Can’t find Faizal Parish on the list of SAP “leading climate scientists” but I did find:-

      Dr Jim Salinger specialises in past and current climate trends; Principal Scientist, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand

      http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/

      How long ago was he sacked?

    • Responding to Richard C’s comment re Jim Salinger, I see his name is linked through to “Phase 2″ a “Strong Sustainability Think Tank”

      http://nz.phase2.org/

      Never heard of them, but certainly worth keeping an eye on.

      The crucial changes required for sustainability are a shift to a new set of societal ethics, values and ‘world views’, as well as a major overhaul of economics and approaches to population growth. All of this has to be considered in the context of unprecedented global changes which, in themselves, will be highly challenging for society and people. It is time for these matters to be raised and debated with urgency.

      http://nz.phase2.org/strong-sustainability-for-new-zealand

    • More on “Phase 2″

      http://nz.phase2.org/recommended-web-sites

      Recommended web sites:

      “An Inconvenient Truth”
      “The Guardian Environment”

      Hang on guys, you left out Skeptical Science! Way behind the eight ball.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2011 at 10:10 am said:

      Faizal Parish is an interesting bloke turns out from a bit of Googling – busy too:-

      Workshop on Lessons Learned from Relevant Funds and Institutions for the Design of the Green Climate Fund, July 12, 2011, Tokyo, Japan

      Establishing the Green Climate Fund ‐ Perspectives from Civil Society
      Faizal Parish, Central Focal Point, GEF NGO Network

      http://unfccc.int/files/cancun_agreements/green_climate_fund/application/pdf/key_points_cso_views_cfp_gef_ngo_network.pdf

      Civil society are key Potential partners in the work of the Green Climate Fund
      􀂀 Long History of CSO engagement in UNFCCC
      􀂀 Civil society is directly impacted by climate change
      􀂀 Civil Society can provide major contributions to addressing climate change ‐
      􀁹 Mitigation and adaptation
      􀁹 Mobilising global support for low carbon society
      􀁹 Supporting and ensuring sustainability of GGF programmes
      􀂀 Long history and good track record in programme development and implementation

      Civil Society – United Nations Global Compact

      Civil society organizations — also known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — are critical actors in the advancement of universal values around human rights, the environment, labour standards and anti-corruption. As global market integration has advanced, their role has gained particular importance in aligning economic activities with social and environmental priorities.

      Civil society organizations have been an integral part of the Global Compact since its creation. Their perspectives, expertise and partnership-building capabilities are indispensable in the evolution and impact of the Global Compact.

      http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ParticipantsAndStakeholders/civil_society.html

      UN and Civil Society

      “Our times demand a new definition of leadership – global leadership. They demand a new constellation of international cooperation – governments, civil society and the private sector, working together for a collective global good.”

      Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
      Speech at World Economic Forum
      Davos, Switzerland (29 January 2009)

      The United Nations is both a participant in and a witness to an increasingly global civil society. More and more, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society organizations (CSOs) are UN system partners and valuable UN links to civil society. CSOs play a key role at major United Nations Conferences and are indispensable partners for UN efforts at the country level. NGOs are consulted on UN policy and programme matters. The UN organizes and hosts, on a regular basis, briefings, meetings and conferences for NGO representatives who are accredited to UN offices, programmes and agencies.

      http://www.un.org/en/civilsociety/index.shtml

      Civil Society in New Zealand

      e.g. The New Zealand Resilience Trust is a grass-roots model of community development and sustainability.

      http://www.civilsociety.org.nz/

      civil society – Funds for NGOs, Grants and Resources for Sustainability

      This website is wholly owned by FUNDSFORNGOS, LLC located at 866 United Nations Plaza,

      http://www.fundsforngos.org/tag/civil-society/

    • Very good. I’m glad to see this book getting some legs.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2011 at 11:59 am said:

      More legs – let’s hope it’s a millipede:-

      IPCC warming assessments attract the activists and snub the sceptics

      * by: Matt Ridley
      * From: The Australian
      * October 31, 2011 12:00AM

      A LITTLE-KNOWN Canadian freelancer who writes a short book dense with data and argument, and self-publishes a kindle version on Amazon, can hardly expect fame and fortune.

      Yet this seems to be what is happening to Donna Laframboise, the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.

      Her book has garnered nearly 90 reviews on amazon.com in just two weeks, about four-fifths of them giving it five stars.

      The web is alive with discussion of this remarkable little book. The World Wildlife Fund has put out a press release denouncing it.

      What is all the fuss about?

      >>>>>>>>

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ipcc-warming-assessments-attract-the-activists-and-snub-the-sceptics/story-e6frg6zo-1226180881974

  4. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2011 at 7:54 am said:

    An IPCC Exposé

    Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé

    In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise (see author profile here) spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.

    The IPCC has long been touted as the preeminent authority on climate science. But LaFramboise shows that the participants were picked by governments, not for their scientific expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Many of the scientists are in fact, very young graduate students. Many of the bureaucrats in the IPCC are from radical environmental groups. Real experts are often ignored. She says the IPCC is a purely political organization, not a scientific one, and she backs up her charges with copious references.

    The IPCC has always claimed that its reports are based exclusively on published peer-reviewed research. But LaFramboise found, after a meticulous review of the cited references, that about 28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers. In fact, the major conclusions of one chapter in the latest IPCC report were based on two papers that had not been published. When an IPCC expert reviewer asked the IPCC and the papers’ authors for supporting data, they all refused to produce the data. Yet, the IPCC claims it is completely transparent.

    LaFramboise points out that the IPCC does not check sources. And, “Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true.” “A couple reviewers, of course, are a poor substitute for mass scrutiny. Sometimes reviewers are chosen poorly; other times they’re lazy.”

    >>>>>>>>>>

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/17/book-review-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-an-ipcc-expose/
    *****************************************************************************************************
    Have questioned the MftE CC accordingly (Cc’d to PMSAC)

  5. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm said:

    BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

    CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

    By Christopher Horner, CEI.org for WUWT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/

  6. Mike Jowsey on November 25, 2011 at 1:08 pm said:

    Ross McKitrick’s new report “What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform.” 45 pages, published by Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    The coincidental release of a new tranche of climategate emails this week adds additional evidence to what I believe is a strong case that the IPCC is in need of serious and far-reaching reform. The disappointing results of the process that was initiated by the IAC report last year only serve to indicate how much more needs to be done.

    http://sppiblog.org/news/what-is-wrong-with-the-ipcc

    Section 5, Recommendations for reform, is a good read.

  7. Jim McK on December 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm said:

    With 194 countries represented at Durban Climate Change Conference, including 250 union representatives from around the World, and 10 youth delegates from New Zealand, the first and likely the only agreement has been reached.

    The Conference has decided that the 2012 conference will be Qatar.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2012 at 8:59 pm said:

    IPCC Reports: Then and Now

    Third Assessment Report: 2003

    “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

    Fourth Assessment Report: 2007

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Fifth Assessment Report: 2012 (draft)

    “Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”

    It seems that the 95% confidence interval associated with the IPCC definition of “very likely” is now worth no more than a toss of the coin. How much have we been paying these people to produce “Well crafted figures and punchy take home messages“?

    Still, look on the bright side, the overpaid and underclued IPCC numpties are starting to wander in the right direction. :)

    Roger Pielke Sr also notes that the definition of climate change itself has changed:

    It is interesting to note that the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 2012) has recently redefined climate change as

    “A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”.

    This is different from the previous definition. IPCC states

    “This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability.”

    This is a sneaky move. In effect they are making a post hoc rationalisation to make their previous position more tenable, or a least less untenable…

    >>>>>>>>>

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/ipcc-reports-then-and-now/

    • Andrew W on September 18, 2012 at 10:38 pm said:

      TallBloke and Roger Pielke Sr are either too keen to see what they want to see or dishonest.

      [quote] It is interesting to note that the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 2012) has recently redefined climate change as

      “A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”.[/quote]

      And yet from the 4th Assessment Report (2007):
      “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from
      that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to
      human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

      And in the third Assessment report:
      “Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”

      So the “IPCC Reports: Then and Now” claim is rubbish, Tallbloke is just using the standard IPCC definition of climate change and portraying it as the 2012 IPCC explanation for observed climate change when it’s no such thing.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on July 6, 2013 at 11:31 am said:

    IPCC discussion thread

    by Judith Curry

    The IPCC is soliciting input from participating nations regarding the future of the IPCC. This submission from Netherlands is being discussed in the skeptical blogosphere, lets take a look at some suggestions that I find particularly good:

    [Netherlands] The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.

    JC comment: While I loudly applause a suggestion for more focus on natural climate change, this may be a mismatch for the IPCC given its imprimatur fromthe UNFCCC and UNEP.

    [...]

    Here is a riddle: What do you get when you take the UNEP out of the IPCC?

    Answer: IPCC – UNEP = WMO(GFCS)

    Lets take a look the UN WMO Global Framework of Climate Services (GFCS). From their mission statement:

    “Enables better management of the risks of climate variability and change and adaptation to climate change, through the development and incorporation of science-based climate information and prediction into planning, policy and practice on the global, regional and national scale.”

    “Four priority areas of the GFCS: Agriculture and Food Security, Disaster Risk Reduction, Health and Water”

    [...]

    JC summary: As the relevance of the IPCC is waning, the relevance of the ICBS seems to be rising. While the IPCC is about the nexus of climate science and raw politics associated with energy policy, the ICBS is an emerging nexus between climate science and the national bureaucracies of the weather/hydrological services and end users. I have no illusions about challenges facing the ICBS, but it seems to be time/effort/funding better spent at this point than pursuing additional IPCC reports.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/05/ipcc-discussion-thread-3/

  10. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2013 at 2:20 pm said:

    What Evidence Exists that Continued U.S. Funding for IPCC Propaganda Is Sane?

    Following President Obama’s State of the Union pledge to double down on his frenetic “green” war to prevent climate change, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) has introduced legislation to discontinue any more taxpayer green from being used to advance the U.N.’s economy-ravaging agendas. The proposed bill would prohibit future U.S. funding for the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and also for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a scam devoted to redistributing American wealth in penance for our unfair capitalist free market prosperity.

    Congressman Luetkemeyer strongly objects to the UNFCC’s use of IPCC’s suggestions and faulty data to implement a job-killing agenda here in America. He argues: “The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States. Unfortunately, the president appears to be ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out of control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape, and promote economic growth.”

    Under the Obama administration, UNFCC and IPCC together have received a total average of $10.25 million annually, which will be upped to $13 million under a FY 13 budget request. The George W. Bush administration previously provided about $5.7 million each year. While those amounts may seem like a pittance in the realm of government spending largesse, it’s important to realize that the true costs of that folly amount to countless billions in disastrous policy and regulatory impacts. And that, dear readers, is exactly the U.N.’s intent.

    From page 3:

    ‘The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures’

    by Larry Bell

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

  11. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2013 at 12:55 pm said:

    ‘Two Minutes to Midnight’

    There is much in the news about how IPCC will handle the growing discrepancy between models and observations – long an issue at skeptic blogs. [...]

    IPCC Statements

    SPM Draft, June 2013

    The Problem Re-stated

    Boxplots

    Hiatuses in a Warming World

    Tropical Troposphere

    Conclusion
    No credence should be given to IPCC’s last-minute attribution of the discrepancy to “natural variability”. IPCC’s ad hoc analysis purporting to support this claim does not stand up to the light of day.

    [...]

    But the problem not arise “last week”. While the issue has only recently become acute, it has become acute because of accumulating failure during the AR5 assessment process, including errors and misrepresentations by IPCC in the assessments sent out for external review; the almost total failure of the academic climate community to address the discrepancy; gatekeeping by fellow-traveling journal editors that suppressed criticism of the defects in the limited academic literature on the topic.

    Whatever the ultimate scientific explanation for the pause and its implications for the apparent discrepancy between models and observations, policy-makers must be feeling very letdown by the failure of IPCC and its contributing academic community to adequately address an issue that is critical to them and to the public.

    That academics (e.g. Fyfe et al here; von Storch here) have finally begun to touch on the problem, but only after the IPCC deadline must surely add to their frustration. Von Storch neatly summarized the problem and calmly (as he does well) set it out as an important topic of ongoing research, but any investor in the climate research process must surely wonder why this wasn’t brought up six years ago in the scoping of the AR5 report.

    One cannot help but wonder whether WG1 Chair Thomas Stocker might not have served the policy community better by spending more time ensuring that the discrepancy between models and observations was properly addressed in the IPCC draft reports, perhaps even highlighting research problems while there was time in the process, than figuring out how IPCC could evade FOI requests.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/#more-18392

  12. Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 10:14 am said:

    ‘IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis’

    by Judith Curry

    Conclusion

    The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/

    “The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 29, 2013 at 10:48 am said:

      ‘IPCC: Yes, humans are definitely behind all this global warming we aren’t having’

      Prof: ‘We’re confident because we’re confident’. Whoa, slow down, egghead

      By Andrew Orlowski

      [...]

      The IPCC is several things, but it isn’t, as is widely supposed, predominantly a UN-funded organisation. There is a small IPCC secretariat in Geneva that deals with administrative issues such as travel expenses, but the main process is paid for by national governments, who also select the scientists who write the first drafts.

      Nor is the IPCC process predominantly populated by scientists, at least not after the first preliminary and informal discussions.

      [...]

      How does the IPCC arrive at its confidence number?

      [...]

      At the IPCC press conference today, Professor Thomas Stocker, co-chair of WG1, told press that “we’re confident because we’re confident”.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/27/ipcc_ar5_wg1_teaser/

  13. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2013 at 8:08 pm said:

    ‘Uncertain future of climate uncertainty’

    by Judith Curry

    How believable are the IPCC’s continually increasing confidence levels?

    ‘Disconcerting learning on climate sensitivity and the uncertain future of uncertainty’

    Alexis Hannart, Michael Ghil, Jean-Louis Dufrwsne, Philippe Naveau

    [...]

    JC comments:

    The pause in global surface temperature anomalies for the past 15+ years is arguably an example of negative disconcerting learning. Well the IPCC doesn’t seem to have learned anything yet from this and are not yet disconcerted since they expect the warming to resume imminently. However outside the context of the IPCC, negative disconcerting learning is taking place, as scientists put forward alternative hypotheses for testing. So the pause is arguably a good thing for climate science.

    However, the IPCC feels compelled to continually increase confidence levels (now to 95% on the 20th century attribution), despite the reality of the situation whereby negative disconcerting learning is taking place and previous assumptions are being challenged. Acknowledgement of negative learning, even disconcerting learning, seems important to avoid this senseless march towards increasing confidence as the model projections and observations diverge.

    More>>>>>>

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/17/uncertain-future-of-climate-uncertainty/#more-13363

    Wow! “negative disconcerting learning” – take that Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and Skeptical Science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>