Reform of the IPCC

djpbarry

I'm surprised nobody has started a thread on this by now...

AN INTERNATIONAL scientific group has issued a highly critical report on the workings of the UN body charged with assembling scientific evidence about global warming.

The report warns the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change must “fundamentally change” its management structures. It must also stick to the science and not stray into “advocacy” in support of the view that climate change is driven by human activity.
...
It called for an overhaul of the panel’s management, including the appointment of an executive director and an executive committee. These should include members who are not part of the panel and not involved in climate science, the report said.

Nothing terribly surprising, I suppose. However, the article goes on to say...

“My reaction is very positive,” said University College Dublin’s professor of meteorology, Prof Ray Bates. He believed it would help win back public confidence in the panel and its work.

I’m not sure about this myself. Personally, I’d be of the opinion that as long as there are sufficient numbers in popular media circles prepared to discredit the IPCC, it will be discredited in the eyes of the general public, regardless of its actual standing. Needless to say mistakes will inevitably be made again in the future, despite any efforts of those involved, providing further ammunition for those who need it.

And just to pre-empt the inevitable claims of “the science behind climate change has been debunked”...

The scientific findings published by the panel remained “unaffected” – the same findings that led the panel to conclude in its last report, with 90 per cent certainty, that human activity was driving climate change.

Turtwig

I'm all for this, but firstly I must criticise that IT article. The panel, had little if anything to do with the CRU emails, so I don't see how this "failure" can be attributed to them. The article only lists two failures and leaves us to guess how many "failures" there were. I only know of two : Himalayan glaciers (listed), and food yields in Africa dropping by 50%.

Ok back on topic. The IPCC has pretty much the same structure with over 20 years, even though it's reports have grown more complex. So, a bit more efficiency in error and fact checking would be welcome. The idea of flagging Grey Literature is something that most people here should love. And do I really need to say anything about the proposal for even more transparency? There's no doubt many will misinterpret this as a complete discrediting of the IPCC -it isn't. What it is, it a restructuring of an organisation that has expanded its roles without changing its internal structure. Here's a toast to even more accurate IPCC reports.:)

djpbarry

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm all for this, but firstly I must criticise that IT article. The panel, had little if anything to do with the CRU emails, so I don't see how this "failure" can be attributed to them.

That's a fair point - I didn't pick up on it when I read the article. However, I guess in the eyes of the public, it's all climate science and so it all gets lumped together.