Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News Science

UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC 342

Posted by Soulskill
from the this-can-only-end-well dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:22AM (#31297136)

    Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.

    Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else, this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.

    There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.

    • by microbox (704317) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:41AM (#31297258)
      I was thinking the same thing. For example, a political action group could be using this process to strip climate science of the peer-review process. As a consequence, certain ideologically motivated (*cough* laissez-faire capitalists *cough*) institutions will further their actual claim that there isn't scientific consensus.

      However, there was scientific consensus in the 70s [youtube.com].

      So -- how do you know what is real?
      • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:36PM (#31298380)
        Thanks for that link. I for one knew about Naomi Oreskes' work as a historian of science, however I didn't know the specifics. I'm 16 minutes in and already I've learned that Lyndon B Johnson not only knew that the carbon dioxide composition of the atmosphere is changing, that we're responsible and that could cause AGW, but publicly said so [timelines.com] in 1965:

        This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

        I'd suggest to any climate change denial to watch the video.

    • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:44AM (#31297288)

      There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.

      That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?

      Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trailer Trash (60756)

        There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.

        That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?

        Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.

        There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.

        • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:10PM (#31298086)

          There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.

          Really? Disparaged maybe, but the papers the CRU emails were talking about trying to "shut up" were published anyway.

        • by UltraAyla (828879) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:42PM (#31298436) Homepage

          There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.

          Yes, because as we all know, a single case study always generalizes to the whole. I think it's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.

          As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues, I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it *usually* is very healthy. In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science. That said, I understand your criticism of the CRU emails. It made me mad too, but it has been blown out of proportion. If you look at the IPCC reports, many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included. These guys had some power in the discourse, but not as much as people attribute to them.

          • In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science.

            Read the CRU papers, please. There was political bias on both sides.

        • There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point

          The CRU emails show show no such [youtube.com] thing [youtube.com].
      • by LockeOnLogic (723968) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:15PM (#31297474)
        Why don't you open your eyes? Botanists have been conspiring for decades to push a pro-plant agenda. The "nutritional value" and "oxygen" they talk about is nothing but a front of bad data. All so plants can spread across this globe, making botanists rich and powerful. They don't care that the cost of doing business will skyrocket due to increasing landscaping costs. So long as they get their juicy tomato grants they will continue to lie for grant money.
      • by jadavis (473492) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:55PM (#31297900)

        Do you also think it is the same with sciences?

        In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
        (a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
        (b) The field is not as politically charged; or
        (c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.

        Even with other money-charged scientific fields, like medicine, the results ultimately play out in clinical trials and then general availability. The truth will reveal itself relatively soon, serious investigations will follow any serious problem, and the consequences to anyone who violates the rules are severe.

        However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes. They just say that some "other, unforeseen factor" changed the outcome without contradicting their theory. And serious investigations are much less likely -- note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.

        None of this means that the climate isn't changing. But it does mean that we will have a major problem getting accurate information, making useful predictions, and crafting effective policy regarding climate change (that is, if policy is the correct approach at all).

        • by crmarvin42 (652893) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:29PM (#31298312)
          Mod this guy up.

          There will always be problems with "indepenence" of scientific research when the main (only) funding agency is a political body and an incredibly long validation period. If you don't produce the results the political body wants, they'll cut funding. If they are the only funding source, your options are being broke but honest, or putting at least a little spin on your results to keep getting funded at some level.

          My research has been pressured by funding agencies, but since the main funding source is industry I can always find funding from a competitor (it helps that there are several) to continue my work if the original funding agency doesn't like what my data indicates.
        • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:53PM (#31298518)

          In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
          (a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result

          Where is your proof of this. I have never seen one single shred of evidence for this outlandish claim.

          (b) The field is not as politically charged

          What difference does that make? How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it? And this wasn't always a political debate. President George Bush Snr publicly stated that the world needed to act to prevent the problems of global warming. Up until the mid 90s this had bipartisan support.

          The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time

          The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct.

        • by CheshireCatCO (185193) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:58PM (#31299138) Homepage

          (a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
          (b) The field is not as politically charged; or
          (c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.

          (a) is a pretty bold claim. Got any evidence, any what-so-ever, showing that climate scientists who don't argue for climate change aren't getting funding? That they're systematically being denied grants?

          (b) is nonsense, there are many politically charged fields in science. Evolutionary biology? Vaccine research lately (thanks to people like Jenny "Oops, it wasn't autism" McCarthy)?

          (c) is always just silly. Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales. Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is. (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out. That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine? how much salt is OK? does wine really help with cholesterol?)

          However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.

          Again, that's the norm for most areas of science. Most of us go a lifetime without seeing most of our work being shown to be wrong, even when it turns out to be way off. (Weak evidence often exists, but the really decisive evidence generally takes decades to emerge. The old joke about science is that new theories aren't so much accepted as the old theories' adherents just die off. That's because science, unlike the simple model you're taught in school, seldom moves forward from single, definitive experiments.

          note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.

          In as much as there was nothing in those emails that was incriminating, all of the innuendo and out of context quoting by FOX and others not withstanding, it's difficult to see what your point is.

          Climate research isn't really any different from any other area of science, except that there's a lot of money being thrown against it by various lobbying groups who don't like where it's pointing. (Which makes it a lot more like evolutionary biology than anything.)

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by neoform (551705)

            Climate research isn't really any different from any other area of science, except that there's a lot of money being thrown against it by various lobbying groups who don't like where it's pointing.

            You mentioned about baseless claims... yet you just made one. What lobbying groups are fighting the IPCC report? All I ever see and hear in the media (with exception to Fox 'News') is that climate change is man made, end of story, no room for questions, the end, it's done.

            I hate that kind of crap, can anyone here

            • by CheshireCatCO (185193) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @06:33PM (#31300516) Homepage

              The oil industry has been found to be funding at least one of the more prominent skeptical scientists, for a start. And even just yesterday, All Things Considered reported a story about how an industry lobbying group for the power industry is lobbying against the EPA's plan to regulate greenhouse gases, claiming that they're not a pollutant as the EPA claims.

              We've also seen, in recent years, that the tobacco industry was helping lobby against climate change findings. (The logic being spreading doubt over one kind of science taints it all, apparently.) Link: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1819257 [slashdot.org]

              So while I applaud your skepticism on such things, in this case, the data are there.

              All I ever see and hear in the media (with exception to Fox 'News') is that climate change is man made, end of story, no room for questions, the end, it's done.

              Which ignores the fact that the media widely has carried the counter-claims and stories about the leaked emails and other would-be scandals. One never really does feel that the media gives one's own side a fair shake, do they?

              I hate that kind of crap, can anyone here think of a single other scientific theory that is so adamantly fought for by a group of people?

              Evolution springs to mind. (I seem to recall at least one person being put on trial for teaching it, don't you?) Which is, as I said, similar in that it is also fought against viciously by another group. Which is why you get the strong support: the science community, under assault, are simply pushing back. And apparently, they're wrong to do so. What would you have them do, when their work and their very honesty is attacked?

    • IPRIPCC would be such a badass acronym!
    • by Burnhard (1031106)
      In other news, Fox to launch investigation into Hen-House raid.
  • Extra, Extra! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:25AM (#31297150)
    UN agrees to let scientists disagree ...

    The UN doesn't really do anything very well ... and this won't be any different. Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic.
    • by Moryath (553296)

      The UN doesn't really do anything very well ... and this won't be any different.

      What do you expect of a "democratic" body made up of representatives from almost entirely undemocratic/fascist/theocratic/monarchic and abusive regimes?

      After all, this is the same body that makes a yearly game of putting countries like Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Zimbabwe on "human rights" panels so that they can issue reports bitching and moaning about how bad "human rights abuses" are in places like Europe, Canada, and the US. Al

  • by uassholes (1179143) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:36AM (#31297222)
    By who?
    • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:59AM (#31297396)

      Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?

      Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside can accomplish. He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of, and took as "givens."

      I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming, in one way or another. Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bemopolis (698691)

        Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside[r] can accomplish.

        You left an important word — qualified outsider.

        Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.

        Repeat after me — "Weather is not climate; climate is not weather."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by phantomfive (622387)
        The scary part is that they are even considering the idea that 'grey literature' might be acceptable. The answer is no, and we already have examples of why not: they are not held to the same standards and are often wrong.

        Seriously, if you need grey literature, what it really means is you need to do more research. That is all.
  • by Pete Venkman (1659965) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:41AM (#31297260) Journal

    The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently. When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science.

  • by jfengel (409917) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:42AM (#31297272) Homepage Journal

    The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions. This is what has been said all along.

    The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy. They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.

    I suppose it's intended to demonstrate integrity, to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist (and possibly even uncover others). They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors, should they exist. But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing. Nor can I imagine what would.

    • by russotto (537200)

      The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions. This is what has been said all along.

      The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy.

      You're stating the conclusion in advance of the investigation and you don't see how that's evidence of, if not conspiracy, something very wrong?

      • by jfengel (409917)

        I am stating a prediction. An informed guess, based on the fact that the report has been closely scrutinized and no significant errors were found yet, only simple ones. I am not on the investigating team and my prediction carries no weight with them.

        I am also stating the observation that there is no conceivable way for this report to clear the project, since they will simply be regarded as part of the conspiracy if my prediction holds true. There is no way to disprove a conspiracy, so what is the point o

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JDmetro (1745882)
      They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.
      The climate change supporters always say "they just don't understand the science" so then why don't the climate scientists explain things very nice and clearly instead of making wild claims and picking on the minors and ignoring the majors and all the while refusing to show anyone their raw data.
      It is kind of like not showing your work in math class then whining th
    • by zippthorne (748122) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:15PM (#31298142) Journal

      The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda. They have insinuated themselves into the process and have tainted some of the research.

      There is also a loose gathering of industrialists trying to use the same thing as a bullet point to help separate you from your dollars. From the greenwashing of GE using their mouthpiece of every show on NBC, to the auto companies with their claims of 200+ mpg hybrids (which, of course, get a "small" portion of their motive energy out-of-band...), to the electric utilities with their "we need you to approve another rate hike because those windmills we haven't installed yet cost twice as much per kW as conventional fuels" plans.

      There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.

  • by RingDev (879105) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:43AM (#31297282) Homepage Journal

    The 2 big issues I've heard about that report are the citing of a non-peer reviewed source for the Himilaya glacier and an incorrectly phrased line about flooding in the Netherlands (propertly cited, just incorrectly stated)

    Now those two mistakes should not be in a paper from such a highly regarded organization, but...

    THE PAPER WAS OVER 3000 PAGES LONG.

    If I were to write a 3000+ page paper and only had 2 significant mistakes in it, I would be freaking estatic! I mean really, we are humans, there are going to be mistakes in everything we do. That the IPCC has been so responsive in retracting the parts of the paper that have not stood up to review and that out of such a huge document so few mistakes have been reported, shouldn't we instead see this as a great work?

    -Rick

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trailer Trash (60756)

      Um, so those are the only two errors or just a couple that were really obvious? I think we both know the answer to that question.

      Given that the entire thing is based on bad data (if it weren't it would have been released), I'm not even sure why we're still discussing this. It's a sham.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by chrb (1083577)

        Um, so those are the only two errors or just a couple that were really obvious?

        If the errors were really so obvious, then why did it take two years for anyone to notice them?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by graft (556969)
        What bad data are you talking about? The temperature record? The CO2 record? Both of those are fairly open datasets. Are you talking about data from, say, 1986 not being available? Is that really surprising? How much stuff do you have left from 1986? Scientists aren't always completely diligent about keeping around old data, little imagining that 20 years later some jackass who thinks they're guilty of (20-year sustained and multiply sourced) conspiracy is going to come around and ask for it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons (302214)

      When I find two major errors in such an important report that was supposedly written, edited, and reviewed by some of the top experts in the world - I wonder what other mistakes slipped by. Checking your writeup against your sources and verifying those sources is something even Wikipedia enforces.

      I'm doubly suspicious when it takes the people derided as 'deniers' to find the errors, but the people who support the conclusions can't be bothered to take time out of their cheerleading to double check t

    • Two?

      You're drinking the wrong Kool-Aid

    • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:41PM (#31297766)

      A little mistake is fine. Referencing a WWF report is not a little mistake. Arguing that "gray literature" is required to get an accurate picture basically blows your credibility.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wytcld (179112)

        Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.

        Ceoyouo confuses the camps. The "scientists" who say we need gray literature are those who produce the gray literature. The gray literature is almost entirely supportive of the denialist political camp. The UN would panel, if it leaves out the gray literature, will most likely end up fully supp

    • by khayman80 (824400)

      Working group 2 of the IPCC seems to have made some embarrassing mistakes. Upon seeing the letter [liberation.fr] in Science, I wondered why I'd never noticed these ludicrous statements before. Then I realized that the mistakes weren't in working group 1 report, which is all I'd ever bothered to read. Here's [www.ipcc.ch] what each working group does:

      The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.

      The main topics assessed by WG I include: changes in greenhouse gases and

    • When your premis is false your entire argument is false no matter how long winded your argument is.

      Claiming that 2 significant mistakes is no big deal is like claiming that if you built a bridge out of a million stones and only two in the base were severely damaged you'd be happy. The bridge collapsed. Why are you happy?

  • "Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."

    If it's crucial, it should be peer-reviewed. If no one has time to peer-review the material, it shouldn't be part of the basis for multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions. How is that non-obvious?

  • Gray literature (Score:2, Informative)

    by s-whs (959229)

    One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,

    The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched, having assumptions that are probably correct. If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you cannot scan the article, and especially not its conclusions, but you will have to check everything! So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles. If that's not done by someone qualified, having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research' included is dangerous in that it

  • although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.

    It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years. It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".

    That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.

  • It's good that another review has been announced in order to offset the political hype, but it's discouraging that there was political attacks on the science to begin with. As the article points out, the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report, which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades. Criticism of this single error has only gained traction because of pointless repetition by critics who stand to make
    • by uassholes (1179143) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:49PM (#31297854)

      That is typical. In other words; "Don't argue with us; we are right. Case closed".

      There were no political attacks on the science. There were political attacks on the politics. If you can't keep those two straight, then it's no wonder that you are an acolyte in the Church Of Global Warming.

      Maybe this will help (http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092):

      ClimateGate - This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

      FOIGate - The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

      ChinaGate - An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

      HimalayaGate - An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

      PachauriGate - Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

      PachauriGate II - Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

      SternGate - One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose th

  • by Iyonesco (1482555) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:32PM (#31297640)

    Philip Campbell was one of the "scientists" selected to join the "independent" review panel for the UEA leaks. He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review:

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642 [channel4.com]

    I'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN's review of the IPCC. This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money.

  • Wrong response (Score:2, Insightful)

    There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).

    Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-toba
  • IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years. But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study. Doesn't that prejudice the findings? What if (just a hypothesis) the data shows that the climate is not going through any kind of change that is out of line with historical patterns of change. The conclusion would be that the current dynamics of that climate to not represe

  • This panel needs to take in all information that has not been tainted by any of the following.
    • experts in other fields (economics, law, journalism etc)
    • Big business (banks, oil companies etc)
    • Politicians (left, liberal or right wing)
    • Paid pressure groups and individuals.
    • The seriously ignorant who have irrelevant axes to grind
  • In the name of balance, it would be good also if a financial audit panel were created to
    review and disclose in a public report the funding sources and amounts which
    prominent climate change skeptics and denier-advocates have received.

    I'm not accusing anyone. I just think it is fair that, as part of the vitally important public debate,
      we should know who is behind the various positions we are hearing on this issue.

  • by Vitriol+Angst (458300) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @03:07PM (#31299200)

    ... if they want people to take their science seriously, they've got to quit getting misquoted in Oil Company backed blogs and media. I mean, that stupid nonsense about their article on the world freezing over from that magazine they had nothing to do with, is a great example of why this controversy still exists. Even when people point out that it's a bogus and that science can always change -- it gets repeated over and over again. What's up with that, Climatologists? Your opinions are only like a few thousand, and there are many more non-climatologists getting quoted on this controversy -- you can't even beat out a Russian Economic Think tank that gets money from US oil concerns.

    Heck, the LOL-Cat has more press savvy than you guys.

    Instead of 100% of you Climate Scientists lying for that $10,000 grant, and your Grad Students being in on this huge global conspiracy -- you should go out and earn 10 times more with your math skills on Day Trading, get a lot of money, and learn how to rent-to-own press outlets. Maybe some of your grant money would be better spent on advertisements on CNN rather than all this blinking electronic equipment.

    Stupid scientists!

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...