I'm citing verbatim from here.
On June 27 , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”
And what kind of recommendations were these?
Read this carefully.
This is BIG stuff. Very serious. Shows us clearly the hanky panky that IPCC has been doing to date.
The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.
The IAC reported that
- IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20)
- fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21)
- are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22)
- "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors", and
- “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18).
- Also: Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).
To me everything else is nothing compared to the first point above:
IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views”.
This is supposed to be a body representing the BEST of human knowledge on climate science. Instead, it is a SEVERELY BIASED ORGANISATION, that discounts well documented (by which I assume peer reviewed) ALTERNATIVE views!!!! (Somewhat like what John Quiggin does, may I add? – But wait, let me not rush to conclusion. Let me wait for John Quiggin to redeem his reputation with me. John, I'm still giving you the benefit of doubt. You and IPCC are distinct. I await your proof that Donna is a liar.)
And about "Government officials appoint scientists from their countries", perhaps the less said the better. Recently, I gather, IPCC is appointing scientists based on geographical quota, even from Somalia. Presumably, science is done by voting now a days.
The complete discussion
- I'm sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority
- Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
- If Kevin Rudd continues to abuse those who ask questions, then Australia should bid goodbye to science
- It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar
- Now John Quiggin says that the world's top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.
- John Quiggin, IPCC's peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
- John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna's integrity. Here's other stuff you and I should know.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- John (Quiggin), Donna's methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
- Now John Quiggin says that Donna Laframboise is lying. I'll ask her about it.
- Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
- Response to John Quiggin re: longevity of "man-made" CO2 in the atmosphere
- Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
- Inviting input from readers re: climate change facts, to conduct a debate with John Quiggin
- John Quiggin, I suggest you review your estimate of the impact of Australian CO2 reductions
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: