A leading environmental economist has called upon governments to either radically reform or abandon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In his report ‘What is Wrong with the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform’ published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada) reviews the IPCC’s own procedures in detail and highlights a number of serious flaws and weaknesses.
McKitrick’s report shows that, under current procedures:
1. The IPCC’s managing bureau unilaterally selects Lead Authors, giving it direct influence on the content of reports;
2. IPCC Lead Authors are frequently asked to review their own work and that of their critics, placing them in a conflict of interest;
3. The IPCC peer review procedures allow Lead Authors to overrule reviewers, and to rewrite the text after the close of peer review, rendering it ineffective at preventing bias;
4. Government review and oversight through the plenary panel is cursory at best, with the vast majority of member governments failing to take any active role.
McKitrick presents a number of case studies that illustrate how these various procedural flaws have had material effects on key sections of past reports.
McKitrick proposes a set of rule changes that would aim to make IPCC editorial procedures as rigorous as those of a standard academic journal. Even this modest target would require substantial changes.
Read more here: http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Close it down.
How pretentious “the Global Warming Policy Foundation” – what utter bullshit. And what an advisor one Ian Plimer with his fictional account “Heaven and Earth”. hahahahahaa
Durban’s coming up …. time to crank up the nonsense.
Good morning
Professor McKitrick, a neoclassical economist and a long-term activist against the theory of human induced global climate change. Hardly a unbiased and credible assessment.
Furthermore, Professor McKitrick, a supporter of the “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” who’s declaration is “We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.”
Significant? cost? – arbitrary and undefined.
FOLD IT.
International organizations and most governments have become , or began, as corrupt self serving groups which do more damage than good.
Little Lukey,
“Durban’s coming up …. time to crank up the nonsense.”
Yup, we’ve been hearing it for months from the ITS WORSE TNAH WE THOUGHT brigade. With ClimateGate2 we are seeing WHAT is WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT and it is YOU!!!
The UNIPCC is riddled with lefty ideology plus a burning desire for self preservation.
It’s an unkillable monster which the most burdened of this planet have to carry.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/09/03/the-book-the-ipcc-plagiarized/
Marc,
And your position is of course unbiased and entirely credible?????? ROFL 🙂
That’s the whole point…..it’s all about bias and protecting perceived credibilty and absolutely nothing to do with fixing up the mess…..and no one is defending the actual science anymore.
Why is that do you think?
marc
Significant? cost? – arbitrary and undefined.
Don’t you read the papers?
Officially, the EU just spent more than a quarter of a billion euros in the last few years
for absolutely no reduction in CO2.
Our own government admits it will cost billions every year to buy carbon credits.
Credits mind you, just so we can emit more CO2.
And you have the temerity to say arbitrary and undefined
The mind boggles!
The northern hemisphere is heading for another bitter winter and now Climategate 2. The IPCC faces more and more detailed criticism which must be effectively addressed if the IPCC is to survive. Blustering ad hominem attacks only convinces the convinced. Chinese scientists are directly criticising the IPCC and the Indians have set up their own body to study climate change. Developing countries will not sign anything meaningful in regard to climate. Before Copenhagen the BASIC group met in Beijing to discuss tactics. A nonbinding letter of intent was signed with most countries not getting a look in a great success. A good case can be made for Climategate to be the result of remarkably successful Chinese espionage. The BASIC group does not want agreement in Durban and for IPCC to lose credibility. Durban is already dead and the IPCC in decline.
After downloading McKitrick’s document and a quick read, along with reading “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World’s top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise, plus some of yesterday’s batch of “liberated” ClimateGate 11 emails, its time theUN justified the IPCC ‘s existence to the member nations who are paying its bills. Clean it up fast or shut it down.
A number of brands have been damaged here, the credibility of the UN, and of the world’s science community for starters.
This says it all about IPCC “science”:
IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri is quoted, in Nature, 19/12/2007, (no less):
“We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path,” he says. “I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”
You wonder why the rest of the world can’t see what’s going on.
A little insight courtesy of Climategate 2.0:
McKitrick concludes:
10 years before that email was sent, I was a grad student in economics, planning to do my PhD on carbon taxes. When trying to learn about the physical science issues, one of the first things I read was a 1989 Scientific American article by Schneider. Probably many people first learned about the issue from Schneider’s writings, and over time he had an enormous influence on the way the scientific message was controlled and transmitted to the public and to policymakers. He edited a major journal, wrote UN climate reports, advised governments and generally spoke for his profession for several decades.
That he turns out to have been intensely biased, arrogant and careless with facts matters a great deal.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_2_the_arrogance_and_sloppiness_of_an_influential_warmist/
Yes 5000 new leaked emails.” What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They will kill us all.” ” The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering”
We now find that scientists of the IPCC did collude with Govt officials to cover up the reality.They selectively used data to support their lies.
Millions have died due to the lack of food and energy caused by growth of plants for ethanol and increases in the price of energy.No one will be held accountable because this is backed by our Govts and the corporates who control them.
I’d recommend abandoning McKitrick,as he is beyond reform. After his snarky attack on Schneider,he himself has hypocritically attempted to walk away from quote mining emails.