Thursday, March 11, 2010
UN to hold independent review of IPCC: Ban
From The Hindu
The United Nations has initiated, in tandem with the Chair of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, “a comprehensive, independent review of the IPCC's procedures and processes”, including its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday.
While arguing he had seen no credible evidence challenging the main conclusions of the IPCC report and the consensus on climate change, he admitted, “Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors in the Fourth Assessment Report.” He added that it was important to remember that the report was a “3,000 page synthesis of complex scientific data.”
The Report found that the warming of the climate is outpacing natural variability, driven largely by human activity. The U.N. however acknowledged that its credibility had come into question after revelations that the landmark publication contained some mistakes, including over the rate of Himalayan glacier melt.
According to sources the Report’s claim that most Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, was based on information from the environmental group WWF. Similarly the claim was that global warming might destroy 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest was “based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific expertise.”
The IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri has also recently come under fire for such lapses. Amid calls for his resignation on Wednesday he said, “We have received some criticism. We are receptive and sensitive to that and we are doing something about it."
The review would be conducted by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an international scientific organisation, Mr. Ban clarified, saying “It will be conducted completely independently of the United Nations.” It will be led by IAC co-chairs Robbert Dijkgraaf, who heads the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, and Lu Yongxiang, President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, according to the U.N.
Scientists will be selected to serve on a “voluntary and unpaid basis to prepare a draft report on their findings, which will then undergo an intensive peer review by other scientists”. Characterising the task as “forward-looking,” Mr. Dijkgraaf said that there are “no preconceived conclusions.” He said the IAC would consider issues of data quality assurance and control; procedures for correcting errors; and analyzing the IPCC’s communications strategies.
The endeavour would be funded by the U.N. and its final report would be submitted to Mr. Ban, the IPCC, with subsequent transmission to the UN Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation.
Outlining the main purpose of the review Mr. Ban said, “We need to act based on the best possible science. We need to ensure full transparency, accuracy and objectivity, and minimise the potential for any errors going forward.”
While arguing he had seen no credible evidence challenging the main conclusions of the IPCC report and the consensus on climate change, he admitted, “Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors in the Fourth Assessment Report.” He added that it was important to remember that the report was a “3,000 page synthesis of complex scientific data.”
The Report found that the warming of the climate is outpacing natural variability, driven largely by human activity. The U.N. however acknowledged that its credibility had come into question after revelations that the landmark publication contained some mistakes, including over the rate of Himalayan glacier melt.
According to sources the Report’s claim that most Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, was based on information from the environmental group WWF. Similarly the claim was that global warming might destroy 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest was “based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific expertise.”
The IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri has also recently come under fire for such lapses. Amid calls for his resignation on Wednesday he said, “We have received some criticism. We are receptive and sensitive to that and we are doing something about it."
The review would be conducted by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an international scientific organisation, Mr. Ban clarified, saying “It will be conducted completely independently of the United Nations.” It will be led by IAC co-chairs Robbert Dijkgraaf, who heads the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, and Lu Yongxiang, President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, according to the U.N.
Scientists will be selected to serve on a “voluntary and unpaid basis to prepare a draft report on their findings, which will then undergo an intensive peer review by other scientists”. Characterising the task as “forward-looking,” Mr. Dijkgraaf said that there are “no preconceived conclusions.” He said the IAC would consider issues of data quality assurance and control; procedures for correcting errors; and analyzing the IPCC’s communications strategies.
The endeavour would be funded by the U.N. and its final report would be submitted to Mr. Ban, the IPCC, with subsequent transmission to the UN Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation.
Outlining the main purpose of the review Mr. Ban said, “We need to act based on the best possible science. We need to ensure full transparency, accuracy and objectivity, and minimise the potential for any errors going forward.”
Labels: Ban ki-Moon, climate change, global change, IPCC, U.N., UN Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organisation
# posted by Narayan Lakshman @ 9:04 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
This is not a review of the science nor of the small number of mistakes that have been agreed to by the IPCC, among the larger number of gross errors detected. Given the vile paranoia evident in the climategate emails, inclusion of respected sceptics would seem to be a sine qua non.
It is merely a review of a small part of the process. It relates primarily to management issues and as such one of the issues to be discussed is the conflict of interest in relation to Himalayagate and Pachauri.
If the processes are correct but the science incorrect, or if the processes are incorrect but the science correct, then the investigation is meaningless.
The Royal Society is on record as fully supporting the IPCC’s findings even after Climategate.
The InterAcademy Council, based in the Netherlands, will choose the reviewers among a group of unpaid volunteers. The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, a theoretical physicist.While the IPCC says Dijkgraaf will lead the enquiry, this is not strictly true. The Academy has established a Supervisory Committee that will examine the investigation. Members of the potentially more important oversight committee are Prof. Rudy Rabbinge, University Professor of sustainable development and food security at WUR (Chairman), Prof. Peter Nijkamp, Professor at the VU University, Prof. Johan Bouma, professor emeritus soil science at WUR, and Prof. Dr. Ronald Griessen, professor of experimental solid state physics at the VU. These are strong supporters of the IPCC "consensus" (the science is settled)who have built their careers on "managing the coming climate catastrophe".
It appears that there will be no internationally respected climate 'sceptics' or agnostics on the team.
When Obama was elected President Dijkraaf, wrote to him on the issue of climate science:
"Unlike your predecessor, … you will sound all over the world as the pure voice of reason. The world will be grateful."
I am not sure that the world will be grateful for piecemeal process tinkering overseen by the faithful.
Post a Comment
It is merely a review of a small part of the process. It relates primarily to management issues and as such one of the issues to be discussed is the conflict of interest in relation to Himalayagate and Pachauri.
If the processes are correct but the science incorrect, or if the processes are incorrect but the science correct, then the investigation is meaningless.
The Royal Society is on record as fully supporting the IPCC’s findings even after Climategate.
The InterAcademy Council, based in the Netherlands, will choose the reviewers among a group of unpaid volunteers. The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, a theoretical physicist.While the IPCC says Dijkgraaf will lead the enquiry, this is not strictly true. The Academy has established a Supervisory Committee that will examine the investigation. Members of the potentially more important oversight committee are Prof. Rudy Rabbinge, University Professor of sustainable development and food security at WUR (Chairman), Prof. Peter Nijkamp, Professor at the VU University, Prof. Johan Bouma, professor emeritus soil science at WUR, and Prof. Dr. Ronald Griessen, professor of experimental solid state physics at the VU. These are strong supporters of the IPCC "consensus" (the science is settled)who have built their careers on "managing the coming climate catastrophe".
It appears that there will be no internationally respected climate 'sceptics' or agnostics on the team.
When Obama was elected President Dijkraaf, wrote to him on the issue of climate science:
"Unlike your predecessor, … you will sound all over the world as the pure voice of reason. The world will be grateful."
I am not sure that the world will be grateful for piecemeal process tinkering overseen by the faithful.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
