Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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This discussion has been archived.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 @12:35PM (#31297216)

    Can anyone prove that IPCC doesn't have some WMDs? I know I'd like to make sure they don't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:39PM (#31297246)

    Here's how I see it: Something is causing the environment to change. It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount. Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control, our car, is the place to start. Cars are necessary, we don't know what we would do without them. That doesn't mean we can't point to them as an issue. The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die. Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening. In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought. But in the end, they don't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.

    You make numerous claims and have no evidence to back up any of them. Maybe you should be on the review panel!

  • by LockeOnLogic (723968) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:15PM (#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 Third Position (1725934) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:16PM (#31298156)

    Warmerbot:
    The new evidence does not invalidate the science *click!*... invalidate the science *click!*... invalidate the science *click!*... invalidate the science *click!*...

  • by Bemopolis (698691) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:26PM (#31298270)
    That's just what Big Plankton wants you to think. You bought the lie!
  • by Vitriol+Angst (458300) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @04:07PM (#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!

HEAD CRASH!! FILES LOST!! Details at 11.

Working...