THE fifteenth United Nations Climate Conference (COP-15) will be held in Copenhagen in November. While only one official view on the science, that of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is usually put forward at these gatherings, this year the United Nations has agreed to support an alternative and probably rival overall assessment from a team of climate change sceptics.
This decision follows a recommendation from Vaclav Klaus, the well-known climate sceptic who currently holds the European Union Presidency.
The recommendation was first made to President Klaus by David Henderson, a former chief economist at the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) based on the work of Irving L. Janis on ‘Groupthink’.
According to the late Mr Janis irrespective of the personality characteristics and other predispositions of the members of a policy-making group, when the decision-makers constitute a cohesive group and are under stress from external threats it can lead to illusions of invulnerability and belief in the inherent morality of the group leading to self-censorship, illusions of unanimity and an incomplete consideration of alternatives solutions to the issue at hand.
In order to avoid groupthink the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has accepted the recommendation from President Klaus in particular that the IPCC adopt Janis’ nine principles including that several independent groups work on the same problem, that alternatives be properly examined, and at least one member of every working-group be assigned the role of Devil’s advocate.
The team of sceptics, to be headed by Australian meteorologist William Kininmonth, will be forced to work within the United Nation’s framework, in particular as an independent working-group re-assessing the science in the lead-up to Copenhagen.
Mr Ki-moon said, “They will provide an important counterpoint. We will be making important decision at Copenhagen, decisions that will impact on all the world’s citizens, it is important we discuss and debate the underlying scientific theories, otherwise we could be working from a weak foundation.”
President Klaus commented, “It is certainly not too late for the IPCC to change its decision-making process. This may be the most significant reform that I achieve as President of the EU and, well, I am proud.”
April 1, 2009.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is April first, right?
It is time to send my kids out to the backyard to look for those flying pigs I see there every year around this time.
Posted on April 1st. As rational and logical as this sounds the skeptic in me says “April Fools”.
You’re cruel Jennifer! Caught those of us on the other side of the international date line napping!
Damn, you got me, fair and square.
It is just my opinion, but I do not expect that it will have any impact since the basic rule of the discussion at the IPCC is that peer reviewed papers are the basis of the discussion. So any contrarian view that will be expresed will have to support itself on reliable sources of real data, not on ideology.
You have to be joking to plant this one so early in the day
I especially liked this paragraph:
“In order to avoid groupthink the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has accepted the recommendation from President Klaus in particular that the IPCC adopt Janis’ nine principles including that several independent groups work on the same problem, that alternatives be properly examined, and at least one member of every working-group be assigned the role of Devil’s advocate.”
If James Hansen’s GISS had had a functioning ‘Red Team’, there wouldn’t have been the blatant fabrication of Russian temperature data for October that Watts and McIntyre exposed.
Jennifer, have you ever considered writing for The Onion?
😀
Ouch – that hurts. I forgot about 1st April and was reading that in amazement (and wonder). It started to pong a bit though around about teh text “at least one member of every working-group be assigned the role of Devil’s advocate”. That was really straining credibility.
Nice one.
Luk:
“So any contrarian view that will be expresed will have to support itself on reliable sources of real data, not on ideology.”
There is plenty of “contrarian” peer-reviewed literature. There is also a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed litertature which has been shown to be garbage by ClimateAudit and friends. Maybe you should read more.
Announced this morning over the ABC that an underground airport is to be built at Coober Pedy. (For non-Aussies, Coober Pedy is an outback opal mining town noted for its underground dwellings.) Any more good ones out there?
Very Good Jennifer, they have not caught on at WUWT yet!
The fact that it is untrue means the Copenhagen junket will be a joke.
You got me Jennifer!
Yup, you got me, too.
Well, it wouldn’t surprise me if the IPCC actually took this up.
It’s the perfect assassination plot. They can’t out argue the top sceptics, so why not get them all together, in one place, & get rid of them.
Brilliant! Read this elsewhere and fell for it completely.
Which just goes to highlight another pyschological trait: confirmation bias!
I too overlooked the date and was elated to read that the “United Nations has agreed to support an alternative and probably rival overall assessment from a team of climate change sceptics.”
Nothing better illustrates the sad state of modern science.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
dear co2 freaks,
almost every free scientist knows there is no important thing in reducing co2 emissions. its only a new kind of business, no climascience at all.
it is stupid to believe, that there are not more than a dozent mistakes in every ipcc report, they do junk science and thats it what stupid people understand and will understand.
Nice one! And it was even richer when forwarded to unsuspecting friends under this cover:
“When I saw this today, I thought, we are being had – the UN would NEVER
invite the foxes into their chicken coupe!
“Turns out it’s not a prank. There may be hope yet.”
BTW it’s hard to imagine the hysterics having a laugh on anything, let alone a prank like this.