So buy Donna's book. I finally managed to find time to flick through the book today, and yes, it is a definite MUST BUY.
Only $5. That should be affordable by everyone.
On a matter as important as the TRUTH of climate change it is CRUCIAL that all of us apply our minds diligently to ensure that EVERYTHING is being done correctly, that all genuine science is being considered, and fake science rejected.
We need to double check and triple check that there are HIGH QUALITY people on IPCC, and that there are checks and balances that ensure we get a genuine, not biased output. We need a process of examination of scientific literature that is more sturdy than anything that has ever been designed before.
We can't afford to make mistakes.
What Donna Laframboise has done is to point out crucial procedural and SUBSTANTIVE errors in IPCC systems and review processes.
I'm not saying Donna's work is to be taken as a bible, or to be treated without questioning. Do question it. I always aim to question. I'm merely saying it contains VITAL information that each of us must know about, and then think about, before we are taken for a ride by the many self-interested, mischievous bureacrats who tend to operate the unaccountable body that is the United Nations.
A few extracts will suffice:
IPCC is still FLOODED WITH GREENPEACE, WWF AND OTHER SUCH FANATICS
The IPCC is currently working on its fifth edition of the Climate Bible. Commonly referred to as AR5 (which stands for Assessment Report #5), it is not being written by a fresh set of faces. Quite the opposite.
Pachauri, who authors forewords for Greenpeace publications, is still in charge. This fact, in itself, delivers a fatal blow to AR5's credibility.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – whose ties to Greenpeace extend back 17 years – is now leading a chapter. So is Michael Oppenheimer, who worked for the Environmental Defense Fund for more than two decades.
Greenpeace 'legend' Bill Hare is serving as a lead author. Richard Moss, the former World Wildlife Fund vice-president, and Jennifer Morgan, the former WWF chief spokesperson, are both involved.
Andreas Fischlin and Guy Midgley, the two WWF-linked individuals who led the species extinction chapter are participating. So are Rik Leemans and Lesley Hughes, two more WWF -linked individuals from that chapter.
Sari Kovats, who only earned her PhD last year, is leading a chapter. As is Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen - who cited 10 research papers that hadn't even been accepted by a journal when he led an IPCC chapter the last time.
Gabriele Hegerl, who refused outright to allow Steve McIntyre to check her data, is involved. So is Kevin Trenberth – whose hurricane pronouncements sparked Chris Landsea's resignation. Alistair Woodward is now in charge of the health chapter, despite the overtly political treatises he has authored.
And let us not forget Thomas Stocker, the climate modeler who heads AR5's 'hard science' working group. Since he thinks gasoline prices should triple and that everyone should participate in the grand goal of de-carbonizing society it's clear his mind is already made up. Do we really suppose that a working group led by him is going to acquit the accused? [FOOTNOTE 36-1]
IPCC has NOT ensured absence of conflict of interest
In May 2011 the IPCC adopted a conflict-of-interest policy, but parts of it remain murky and it's far from clear how the IPCC intends to enforce it. [FOOTNOTE 34-3] In June 2011, Pachauri confirmed that this policy doesn't apply to the authors currently working on the upcoming Climate Bible. His reasoning, as he explained it to a newsmagazine, has to be heard to be believed:
Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we've already selected them and therefore it wouldn't be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively. [bold added]
IPCC has NOT appointed independent members to a crucial committee
Observing that the IPCC structure didn't lend itself to responding in a timely fashion when concerns are raised by the media, the committee suggested a new body be established to deal with IPCC business between the scheduled meetings of that organization. It therefore included the following as one of its recommendations:
The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and three independent members who include individuals from outside of the climate community. [bold added] [FOOTNOTE 34-4]
In June 2011 Steve McIntyre reported on his blog that the IPCC has, indeed, established this new committee. There's just one problem. While the IAC report said it should contain three independent voices, including people from outside the climate community, the IPCC thumbed its nose at that advice. In lieu of independent individuals the IPCC instead gave four of its fulltime staff members seats at the table. [FOOTNOTE 34-5]
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: