[UPDATE: Richard Black of the BBC has some thoughts on the review here.]The IPCC is going to be reviewed by the InterAcademy Council, which is a collection of national science academies. The IPCC press release announcing the panel can be found here in PDF. And the Terms of Reference for the panel are here in PDF. The report of the review panel is due at the end of August.
The review focuses exclusively on IPCC policies and procedures and says nothing about looking into the issues that have been raised with respect to various finding presented in AR4. However, it would be difficult to provide a meaningful evaluation without taking a hard look at experience and especially claims that have been made about failures in the IPCC process. It will be interesting to see how they approach the distinction between substance and process.
[UPDATE: In the Washington Post, David Fahrenthold has this interesting nugget:
Robbert Dijkgraaf, a Dutch professor who will serve as co-leader of the review, said the flaws identified in the 2007 report could be used as "case studies." But, he said, the review's focus will be on the future -- on examining the panel's leadership, methods of sourcing and conflict-of-interest policies -- in preparation for its next report, due in 2013.This is good news for those expecting a serious review.]
The evaluation is itself a political minefield for the scientific community. The IAC needs to do the utmost to ensure that the review is truly "independent" and garners the trust of the public and policy makers. This will not be easy.
For instance, to cite just one example, I note that the Interacademy Council has a strong statement about conflicts of interest on its website which includes the following checklist that it recommends for identifying such conflicts among prospective panelists:
The answer to all four questions with respect to Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, is "yes." How will the IAC review handle the issue of conflict of interest in the IPCC? Will it ignore the issue? Raise it, but offer no guidance? Or ask the IPCC to subscribe to the same standards that it holds for itself? People will be watching closely.1. Does the candidate hold any position in an organization that may profit financially or otherwise from conclusions and recommendations that may emerge from the study panel?
2. Does the candidate have any position through which he or she may profit financially or otherwise from conclusions and recommendations that may emerge from the study panel?
3. Did the candidate ever take a position on any particular issue relevant to the study that raises questions in regard of his ability to accept and respect different views?
4. Have there ever been allegations that the candidate did not meet the standards that are expected from a professional scientist or engineer of good standing?
7 comments:
The Terms of Reference also omit the procedures on nomination and selection of lead authors.
I think that that is the key issue. If you have the right (wrong) group of authors, you'll get a great (lousy) chapter regardless of the procedures.
Freedom of the press and climate skepticism debate hotting up in Australia
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/abc-chairman-says-let-them-speak-greens-say-nooooo/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_chairman_do_not_mock_the_sceptics/
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3389
Also have comment on my site.
I went through a serious mid life crisis last year. I selected my dog to do a full life review, having given him a potted history I wrote myself.
He thinks I'm great and so do I.
When I read that a British judge has been chosen to conduct an independent inquiry, I wonder what he has been downloading from the internet or how much gambling debt he has.
This is a multi trillion dollar game. They won't ever stop.
Richard:
How can the conflict of interest guidelines mean anything if they are not applied to the lead authors.
There also needs to be some clause of having or holding an office or role on the board on an organization whose aim is to promote a particular viewpoint. Namely, if you are on the Board of Exxon or WWF you cannot serve as Lead Author. I suspect that if you are a leader in a Government Lab or Department there may need to b a similar limitation.
Unfortunately the many of the national academies listed on the linked Website have expressed and "institutional" belief in AGW and the work of the IPCC to date.
There will be no impartial review from this group - which is why the IPCC chose this group to conduct the review - this will reveal nothing but the continuing collusion between the IPCC and institutional "scientific community.
It's a way to ensure continued funding for the IPCC and an attempt to rescue the IPCC in time for South Africa.
Richard: The first item in the terms of reference is "Review IPCC procedures for preparing reports." One can assume that they refer to the "Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports." Section 4.2.2 of that document is "Selection of Lead Authors."
Dijkgraaf said in the past that there was a consensus on AGW climate science. Also he mentioned in a, rather slimy, letter to Obama that the appointment of Steven Chu was a brilliant move. We all know where Chu stands for AGW (The Glaciers Are Melting!!!)
Not so sure about the "independence" of this inquiry. Then again, the mainstream of scientists embraced AGW, not because they know a lot about it, but just because everybody seems to do so and it's so PC.
Post a Comment