Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Well Looky Here

The IPCC is finally getting the message (emphasis throughout mine):

IPCC 'must avoid playing politics'
"The UN's climate change body has been told to stick to the science and avoid playing politics in a landmark review of how it operates."
"In March the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC) was called in after a number of errors were found in the IPCC's landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report into man-made climate change.

Key among those was the unsubstantiated claim - based on an article in New Scientist magazine - that most of the Himalayas' glaciers would have melted by 2035.

Its inclusion gave ammunition to those sceptical about the climate change science, who dug for further evidence that the IPCC's report was flawed and the organisation biased."
"The report also recommended that a "rigorous conflict-of-interest policy" should be drawn up for senior IPCC leadership and authors of its reports. In the future no individual should chair the IPCC for more than one six-year term, it stated.

Additionally, "formal qualifications for the chair and all other Bureau members need to be developed", the IAC said."
Report recommends UN Climate Panel Shakeup
"An enquiry into the UN's climate panel, the IPCC, has recommended administrative changes, including a full-time chief executive. It found the IPCC had "assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence", had failed to acknowledge criticism, or follow its own guidelines."
"The investigation was prompted by criticisms of the IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4) published in 2007 - specifically the output of Working Group 2 (WGII), set up to examine the "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" and which produced a report ran (sic) to almost 1,000 pages. This was found to lean heavily on "grey literature", including activist reports and even travel brochures. A prediction that that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was traced to a casual remark by an Indian scientist. Here and elsewhere, the IPCC excluded work that suggested that the impacts of global warming were overstated, or which were critical of the costs of the policy favoured by the UN and activist groups of mitigation, rather than adaptation."
U.N. Climate Panel Looking at 'Second-Best Scenarios'
"Most of the costs are billions of dollars to shift from fossil fuels to clean energies such as wind or solar power. In some renewable energies, Edenhofer said there had been more technological progress than expected in the 2007 report.

He also said that new report would look at possible side-effects of combating global warming. Even harmless-sounding strategies, such as planting trees that soak up greenhouse gases, might have side-effects by displacing cropland."
Reforms urged for U.N. Climate Panel
"Scientists reviewing the acclaimed, but beleaguered, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended major changes Monday in the way it is run but stopped short of calling for the ouster of its leader, Rajendra Pachauri. He has been criticized for possible conflicts of interest but shows no sign of preparing to step down."
Stick to the science, UN Climate body urged
"Panel must avoid predictions, policy advocacy"
"Senior officials at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also been ordered to disclose their outside financial interests to avert any allegations they may have profited from policies to tackle global warming."
"Critics of the idea of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions have said the IPCC errors show the science behind global warming is questionable."
...there was concern about the UN climate panel's lack of a conflict-of-interest policy, as is standard in most government departments and international bodies.

The report called for development of a "rigorous conflict of interest policy" and made detailed suggestions on what should be disclosed. Mr. Pachauri has acted as an advisor to green energy companies.

Mr. Pachauri said the IPCC "will be strengthened by the [scientists'] review and others of its kind this year."

But Mr. Shapiro made clear the scientists' review did not assess the validity of the science behind the IPCC's reports, leaving open the possibility the panel could face a new wave of attacks from critics."
Time for a change in climate research
"Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.

Restoring public confidence in the IPCC is essential, because it is the main intermediary between scientists and politicians who have to decide on climate policies that could cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that most scientists believe in the need to tackle global warming, the IPCC cannot hope to satisfy the most extreme “climate sceptics”. But it must never again undermine its own credibility by sloppily repeating unsubstantiated statements that exaggerate the risk of climate change, such as the notorious claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035."
"A rejuvenated IPCC leadership could tackle the deficiencies in its review process. This should become more inclusive, welcoming alternative views where these are scientifically valid, and at the same time more exclusive, rejecting unsubstantiated claims of dramatic change."

And, lo and behold, the CBC actually reported this, getting right down to the nitty-gritty:
"It also suggested stronger enforcement of how it reviews its research and adoption of conflict of interest rules. The conflict of interest issue was raised because of criticism last year of chairman Pachauri's work as adviser and board member of green energy companies."
Yes, indeedy, that's where the big money is. Now, lets see some solid CBC investigative journalism tackling that angle.


Perhaps the first step for CBC would be to fire Dr. Fruitfly and reprimand  Bob MacDonald, and perhaps develop a policy of its own on consistency with respect to "illegal" release of private emails:
"Conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers were in full force this week over the illegal release of thousands of private emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England".
If the leak is contrary to the CBC's narrative, it's gotta be the work of an "illegal" hacker, you see. On the other hand, if it feeds nicely into the narrative, why it's the work of a courageous whistle-blower.

Once again, CBC. How can you claim with a straight face that there is no bias at Grandmother's Corpse?

PS: Wouldn't it be nice to know what Dr. Fruitfly's investment portfolio includes? We know that one CBCer, George Stroumboulopoulos, sits on the Dr. Fruitfly Foundation's Board of Directors, not to mention the Fruitfly's own wife, Tara Cullis, and his daughter, Severn. I wonder if CBC has even heard of the concept of "conflict of interest", let alone understands it.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home