From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

I see this discussion has come alive agsin. I cannot pretend to have red everything that has been written since my last post, which was, I think, way back in August, but my impression from a very brief perusal of the voluminous contributions that have been made since then is that the lot of you are missing the point.

Governments are very large organizations and it is virtually impossible to impose discipline within them. And it is worse with multi-national organizations. So it should be no surprise that hosts of rules that overlap and leave gaps are a routine feature of the bureaucratic life. In this chaotic situation some ordering of priorities is often called for.

So it is with the IPCC, it seems.

The IPCC’s history defines its actual and covert purpose, and that is to provide governments with support for policies that depend upon the idea that humankind must be made to rein in fuel consumption and suffer in other ways in order to avoid peril to its survival. At time of foundation, no doubt, it was envisaged that the scientific community would be able to come up with the required scientific basis to provide the support that was wanted. That has not happened, and maybe never will, but governments still have their policies and need their support, even if it is only all bluster and fabricated rubbish. They pay for this and have been able to rely on the IPCC to come up with the goods notwithstanding righteous indignation in this blog and elsewhere at the failure to follow overt aims in the interests of covert imperatives.

Effectively, IPCC reports are commissioned by and directed at governments. At every stage in the writing process, drafts are submitted to governments. Why if not for approval?. No doubt all sorts of content in opposition to government policy finds its way into the earlier drafts. That matters not. The final report, however, is what matters, and by that stage everything unwelcome should have been removed. Within the IPCC priorities have to be established, rules disregarded, authors promoted or pushed aside, etc, all, you understand, in the interests of getting the job done (producing a report pleasing to governments.). No doubt the IPCC reason that it made its rules to facilitate production of good reports, and so, if in the event, rules are found to frustrate the process, they are free to ignore or change them. Whatever shenanigans are required must be made to happen. I have no doubt that when Pachauri said he would see the next report out and then quit, he was referring to all the inevitable dirty work that he would be required to oversee in this process. (It is, no doubt, because of the necessity for these sorts of maneuvers that operators like Pachauri come to get appointed to be IPCC Chairmen. Reasonably straightforward bureaucrats like yours truly could not do the job, lacking the necessary facility at calling black white.)

So the disputes that have occupied contributors to this blog over recent days are mostly irrelevant. Whether this rule or that rule is broken or distorted, this or that chap appointed as author, etc, are all totally subservient to the absolute requirement to produce a dire final report. So do not waste time bothering about the IPCC. It ultimately only does what its paymasters, - governments - require of it.

Use your very considerable intellects to consider how governments may be made to change their policies.

Brownedoff

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.

I've responded to the issue of how often to get involved in threads on Unthreaded, since it's an important general point but off the topic of this particular discussion.

If I may, I'll respond to other points separately for clarity.

First:

(a) We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities

(b) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal

(c) Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

To the man on the Clapham omnibus, (a) says there is AGW, (b) says that AGW real and (c) says that this AGW is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Actually, I think that:

(a) says "There is GW and is it mostly AGW"

(b) says "GW is real" (but says nothing about AGW)

(c) says "most of GW is very likely AGW"

Hi again Brownedoff

Actually I'm confused again now. You mention:

the more tricky IAC recommendation of looking for a "strongly held view".

But I can't find the IAC recommending that anywhere.

As you highlighted earlier, the IAC recommend on page 53 that:

the IPCC develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy

and that:

In developing such a policy, the IPCC may want to consider features of the NRC policy.

Indeed, as we've previously discussed, the IAC say (on page 51):

Conflict of interest means something more than a strong view or bias

If I've missed the IAC recommendation on "looking for a strongly held view", please can you point me to the right place?

The report is here.

Thanks!

Ecclesiastical Uncle

Good to see you back!

Use your very considerable intellects to consider how governments may be made to change their policies.

Not that I'm either opposing or endorsing any policies (not my role), but if you wish to have an input to that aspect of the IPCC's information to governments, how about contributing to the expert review of the Working Group 3 report ("Mitigation")? I think many of the comments made on this blog, if backed up by evidence, would be extremely relevant.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Doc Betts (sorry previously to have insulted you with a mere Mr), thank you kindly for your words. Currently, I am very pushed and so have little opportunity to contribute my tuppence worth from time to time. Sorry!

But I despair. Have I not succeeded in making myself clear? Why should I bother to contribute to the IPCC process in the circumstances of my belief that anything unwelcome to governments will be expunged? And I have no invitation to submit because I am no expert (Wot's in a moniker?) nor,in fact,anything to say. I have not worried my head about measures to mitigate something that there is no point in believing will happen, (Note the choice of words!) and know nothing of significance about the science.

But I still think all this toing and froing about the minutiae of IPCC processes is a waste of time!

Bah!

Sep 26, 2011 at 8:06 PM | Ecclesiastical Uncle
Sep 27, 2011 at 2:52 AM | Ecclesiastical Uncle

Welcome back.

Use your very considerable intellects to consider how governments may be made to change their policies.

In other threads I have shown that, for the UK, as long as there is a majority in the HoC in favour of the status quo, i.e. the Climate Change Act 2008, there is nothing legally that the electorate can do, at least, until 2015, to make the UK government change their policies. If the October 2008 vote was to be re-run tomorrow, the likely result (if every MP turned up to vote) would be, "ayes" 630, "noes" 16 and "tellers" 4. It is also likely that the 2015 election will not make any difference, the status quoers will undoubtedly retain a majority.

So in the absence of being able to take effective political action we can only engage with the next best target , the IPCC and here on BH we have a Lead Author working on AR5.

So the disputes that have occupied contributors to this blog over recent days are mostly irrelevant.

I have to disagree, because, after much backwards and forwards, RB has agreed (?) that there are some important things to sorted out within the IPCC, which, only a few hours ago, RB gave the impression that he wished we could stop talking about.

We are not quite there yet, there is still the problem of the Met Office statement.

Are you saying that the work done by Climate Audit is also irrelevant? Surely not.

I think that the only way to get governments to change their policies is to either make their policies, and by extension the MPs themselves, a laughing stock by emphasising as widely as possible the cock-ups generated by the IPCC, or, work on IPCC insiders to such an extent that they decide to grow a pair and give more time and space to alternative points of view, backed up by science, that are currently spurned.

Just now I am dreaming that the UK IPCC authors might come together, say, an "Association of UK IPCC Authors for Balance and Clarity", and engage with MPs, MSM editors and the Louise Grays etc. by examining their wilder outpourings and pointing out the shortcomings and showing how they might give more prominence to "uncertainties" rather than, at best, consigning them to a red box on page 94 or at worst, just ignoring them. OK, I know I am out of my tiny mind.

Following up on the "balance" concept, in January 2011 a magazine was published under the auspices of the Royal Society:

"Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature change of four degrees and its implications.

Mark G. New, Diana M. Liverman, Richard A. Betts, Kevin L. Anderson and Chris C. West"

See: http://tinyurl.com/34v3l7u

From the Abstract:

"At the same time, the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade and the delays in a comprehensive global emissions reduction agreement have made achieving this target extremely difficult, arguably impossible, raising the likelihood of global temperature rises of 3°C or 4°C within this century".

See http://tinyurl.com/3fu2ncz

I would have thought that scientists, in the interests of balance, would also like to see another magazine from the same source covering:

"Minus four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature change of minus four degrees and its implications."

Surely this is something worth writing, in view of the uncertainties?

RB, can you tell us if such a project is in hand?

RB PS: I will get back to your Sep 26, 2011 at 8:59 PM and Sep 26, 2011 at 9:36 PM in due course.

Sep 26, 2011 at 8:59 PM | Richard Betts

(a) We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities

(b) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal

(c) Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

To the man on the Clapham omnibus, (a) says there is AGW, (b) says that AGW real and (c) says that this AGW is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Actually, I think that:

(a) says "There is GW and is it mostly AGW"

(b) says "GW is real" (but says nothing about AGW)

(c) says "most of GW is very likely AGW"

OK, but I think we are back in the groves of academe rather than on a double-decker in South London.

Also, I do not know why you keep using the device "xxx says nothing about", it did not have to say AGW (unnecessary repetition) because John and Julia wrapped it all up in (c)

Are you going to explain what is wrong with deducing that "the 1,700+ guys and gals who signed onto this statement, all within a matter of a few hours, must have had a strongly held view that AGW is real in order to be able to sign on so quickly, that is, they did not even have time to ask John and Julia for some links to back it up!
............................
In support of the within a few hours claim I said "As the dynamic duo announced when they launched the statement, "The Met Office has co-ordinated this united statement, gathering over 1,700 signatures in just four days".

Sep 26, 2011 at 9:36 PM | Richard Betts

Actually I'm confused again now. You mention:

the more tricky IAC recommendation of looking for a "strongly held view".

But I can't find the IAC recommending that anywhere.

As you highlighted earlier, the IAC recommend on page 53 that:

the IPCC develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy and that:

In developing such a policy, the IPCC may want to consider features of the NRC policy.
(which includes "fixed positions") but I can't find an IAC statement on "looking for strongly held views".

Indeed, as we've previously discussed, the IAC say (on page 51):

Conflict of interest means something more than a strong view or bias

If I've missed the IAC recommendation on "looking for a strongly held view", please can you point me to the right place?

You are right, it was not the IAC it was actually the IPCC, repeat the IPCC!

At Sep 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM I wrote:

quote:

the IPCC has said:

"The implementation of the policy along with other next steps will be taken to the Panel’s 34th Session scheduled for November later this year."

One of the items to be implemented is this:

To mandate a task group of Governments to continue to complete a plan for implementing this policy -- including a form for disclosure - - for approval at the IPCC’s 34th Session.

It will be interesting to see this form when it is published - I wonder if one of the questions for the individuals directly associated in the preparation of IPCC reports will be:

"Have you ever signed a petition in connection with an area of your expertise? If so, please give full details below including the wording of that petition".

unquote.

In my world, having an individual complete a "disclosure form" is a method that an authority employs when looking for things, which could be "bad", in this case I was hoping that the IPCC would formulate the questions so that a "strongly held view" may be easily detected.

I hope this helps to dispel your confusion.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Browned off, thank you for your views which I note you compose with considerable facility. Half an hour only after a long post and we are blessed with another. Respect and envy! It often takes me hours to put my miserable contributions together. The ravages of age, I suppose.

But I find it very difficult to credit your strategy with much chance of success. Changes in the way the IPCC does its business is never going to achieve anything because its business is writing the reports that governments want. There is no way round it – governments have to change their minds. Unlike you, I doubt the IPCC can ever be a useful weapon in any campaign to make them do so.

In considering ways that the UK government might make the change, you miss, I think, the most important consideration. This is the impact on people’s pockets. Come the crunch, which I doubt will be soon, votes will be much more even than you expect. And I would expect that some poltitician on the make is going to spot the opportunity presented by governments’ punitive tax measures on account of adherence to a mere religion and make a good old song and dance about it. No doubt what will be said on the side of sense will be bunkum but in this war bunkum will be an effective weapon against bunkum.

And as I have posted elsewhere in BH, repeal of the Climate Change Act is unnecessarily. I printed relevant pages of the Act before my post on the subject and as I recall shared my opinion that it was a greater waste of paper and parliamentary draftsmens’ time than any legislation I have seen. When the time comes for the government to change tack, I expect they will avoid the collective mea culpa of rescinding the Act by using its provisions to achieve the same thing. Probably it will be done on the quiet and the first Joe Public will know about is when some feared environmental charge fails to materialize. Of course, denizens of this blog will watch parliamentary developments as they happen notwithstanding expected smoke screens and will be unsurprised by the actual act of emasculation.

Tilt on at the IPCC if you wish, however – I am happy enough to concede it does no harm. But for the sake of your sanity, don't expect too much.

Thanks Richard for taking the time to do this...

One question, ref the Met Office statement

ie we could discuss about what the statement says about the science

But I'm interested in how it came about. ie because of the climategate leak
and just before the Copenhagen conference

Whilst all the particpants were happy to sign the science statement based on the science quoted

were they all fully aware of the allegations that prompted the statement

ie the allegation issues of peer-review gatekeepingm FOI, subverting the IPCC process and email deletion, etc

They must have been aware of the reason that the statement was created, so in my view they were all taking a political/policy viewpoint and their signature being used for this purpose.

And many of them would not have looked into the reasons that prompted it for themselves, just taken it on trust. Ie I know one person on that list that had not looked at any of the emails months later (including their own)

So I see that statement as not just about the science, but scientists supporting policy, etc and supporting CRU/UEA, many totally aware to this day, perhaps of the issues, except third hand.

Paul Deniss refused to sign this stement and promptly was assumed to be the leaker.

Ecclesiastical Uncle,

IMHO you are correct about the climate change act but that is only one problem that we face. A bigger problem is allowing the scientists involved in the IPCC process to open their eyes and see the state of the science that they have studied for so long.

What happens to those that have blindly followed the lead once the funds are pulled?
Politicians can fend for themselves, I have no interest in whether they sink or swim but the climate is not going to go away, we will still need scientists, and we will still need to improve our understanding of it.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM | Ecclesiastical Uncle

I will get back to you in a little while.

Right now, I am keeping an close eye on "Unthreaded" because there is some mess to be cleared up following the deployment by RB of cunning wheeze 94(b)(ii), taken from the MET Office Bumper Book of Dirty Tricks.

See my post on Unthreaded at Sep 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

My Lord,

It is indeed highly considerate of you to consider the interests of the PBI on the ‘wrong side’ of the climate change war. For myself I reflect that those who get themselves involved and maybe do much to create bubble industries, like bankers, must shoulder some of the responsibility for their predicament when the bubble bursts. Some will have no alternative.

However, just because policy changes does not mean that the weather stops. So the good Doc Betts can soldier on in the Met Office. In the CRU at the UEA there will be more distress, of course, but the good Phil can fill his final years tinkering away at his temperature records. Briffa and the dendro lot must go into a decline, of course, but these things happen to failed enterprises. Maybe they will come up with another wheeze. Government funded climate war polemicists (like the bloke with the only just forgettable name at Liverpool) will turn their talents to other causes. Bob Ward’s boss will probably consider the good Bob has more rather than less to do.

I doubt that the plight of destitute unemployed warriors will come to trouble public consciosness. (ZDB – an observation, not an opinion, so please.)

And, my good Lord, please do not forget that the situation they will find themselves in is one that routinely faces most people, younger than I, today. Their situation will only be the worse because they will not have been brought up, like me, to expect to have to beg.

But talk about counting eggs!

Ecclesiastical Uncle, as a pair of parishioners sitting in the chapel discussing the last sermon I, respectfully, cannot agree that it is the 'wrong side' that has been invited to participate in the bread and wine whilst the rest of us sit and watch. Even though the collection platter is still circulating amongst those of us still seated.

I would much rather, after the next sermon, that all the congregation be invited to participate as a whole, and be able to comment on the topic that the minister has chosen with the effect of possibly bringing future sermons more in line with the comunities needs, and reality.

I do reverently hope, Richard, that this discussion can be maintained even though some of us do tend to wander slightly now and again, a gentle persuasion will usually get us back on track. You must also realise that if the topic becomes too tightly constrained that the discussion becomes a message and will quickly deteriorate.

Lord Beaverbrook

Thanks - don't worry, I too want this discussion to continue, and I certainly don't want it to become a message!

I just thought that, for clarity, discussion on how the discussion is conducted should not be part of the original discussion itself, but should form a new, separate discussion.

Hi Barry

Thanks for your question.

My reading of the situation was that the damage to the reputation of the scientists was in danger of also damaging the credibility of the credibility of the science. Note that these are different things. The aim of the statement was to say something about the credibility of the science.

Richard, I am afraid that the attempt to separate the behaviour of the scientists from the science does not work. Science is carried out and written up by scientists.
Phil Jones ("hide the decline", "redefine the peer-reviewed literature", "delete any emails", etc) was CLA for IPCC chapter 3 (and the other was Trenberth).
As a professional scientist I cannot trust anything this man has written.
Therefore the whole of IPCC chapter 3 is suspect.
When I look at Chapter 3 and see things like this, my suspicions are confirmed.

Hi PaulM

Sure - I'm not claiming the attempt has worked, I'm just saying what the aim was, in response to Barry's question.

Richard Betts.

I am taking some time out to review whether I want to continue with our conversation.

I have to say that I am not a very comfortable with your recent actions of lifting little bits out of my messages on this thread and then hanging them out on Unthreaded, with what motivation I can only speculate.

If I was of a churlish disposition, which I am not, I could speculate that your first hanging-out on Unthreaded was an attempt to persuade His Grace to evict me from this blog for spurious technical reasons.

When that failed, I could speculate that your second hanging-out on Unthreaded was an attempt to whip up a groundswell of support from potentially sympathetic readers for your stance as a poor, abused, helpless climate hero, and who, you were hoping, would not take the time to review the whole evidence rather than your truncated versions.

I think I am safe in reporting that the second attempt failed as well.

Anyway, having re-read again all of the messages from Ecclesiastical Uncle on this thread I think I am coming round to the view that my expectations are too high and any further time spent on this thread will be non-productive.

So, just carry on without me, although I suspect that this thread will soon just fizzle out again as I get the impression that nobody is really bothered about the preparation and reviewing of AR5 on the grounds that, unless I have missed a statement to the contrary, the good ship IPCC will continue on its merry way with "a business as usual" attitude with only minimum lip service being paid to IAC concerns.

Richard,

Donna has some more detail concerning AR4:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/26/how-the-wwf-infiltrated-the-ipcc-part-2/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/27/here-an-activist-there-an-activist/

It would be extremely embarrasing if this scrutiny was lacking in the AR5 process. With your earlier surprise at this, I guess my first question would be.

Are these allegations, from the blogosphere, considered enough of an issue to raise concern within the process and what would be the means of organising discussion upon this, internally?

My reading of the situation was that the damage to the reputation of the scientists was in danger of also damaging the credibility of the credibility of the science. Note that these are different things. The aim of the statement was to say something about the credibility of the science.

Richard, I think I could accept such a reading if those 1700 had also put their names to one that preceded it with text that reads something along the lines of:

"We call upon those who have tarnished their own reputations by their words and deeds to acknowledge that they have brought discredit to their science - and potentially to that of others. By their actions, and by their words, they have undermined public trust in the credibility of the science and of the IPCC."

But that didn't happen, did it?! In fact they weren't even mentioned in this Dec. 9 "Statement from the UK science community"

[Hmmm ... December 9, 2009 ... Certainly lots of press coverage of this Statement.

Can't help wondering whether or not this exercise was part of the crisis/reputation management "strategy" recommended by Outside Organization's Neil Wallis and Sam Bowen. Nah ... must just be coincidence!]

Lord Beaverbrook

I think we also need to consider the other possibility, which is that scientists involved in the Climate Witness Programme may have wanted to get WWF to be more scientifically rigorous - the logic being that if they, the experts, don't try to do this then WWF will go ahead anyway and say what they like, with the excuse that "we asked the scientists if this was right and nobody objected".

However, this is only a suggestion - what we really need is to see what advice the scientists actually gave, and then what WWF did with it.

So I'm not convinced by Donna's argument that all these scientists are under WWF's influence. They were just being asked for their opinion.

Moreover, Donna's article is on AR4 not AR5. How many of the Climate Witness scientists are AR5 authors? She makes a big deal about AR4 WG2 chapter 4 (ecosystems) - I am on the equivalent chapter in AR5 and the author list has completely changed.

Brownedoff

Sorry to hear that. I can only try to reassure you one last time that I have no devious intentions.

Hope you feel like re-joining this conversation again sometime!

Lord Beaverbrook

Sorry, I forgot to add that I imagine these kind of issues would come under the IPCC conflict of interest policy (see Appendix 1).