Bishop Hill What we paid for the IAC
Jan 14, 2011 Bureaucrats Climate: IPCC I have had a response to my FOI request regarding the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Interacademies Council report on the IPCC.
Firstly, I asked how much funding DECC gave to the inquiry, and the answer is as follows:
The UK strongly supported the IAC review of the IPCC as an opportunity to make an excellent organisation even more effective. Alongside other IPCC Governments, the UK received a request from UNEP to provide financial support to enable a review of the IPCC to be carried out, and provided US$ 35,000 to support the review process.
Then I asked about whether DECC had put in a response to the inquiry. The answer is that they had, and I was referred to pages 654-8 of the recently published archive of the submissions. The relevant extract can be seen below. DECC think that, on the whole, the IPCC is fine and dandy, with just a bit of tightening up around the margins required.
Lastly I asked for any related correspondence, and they've said that I will have to be a bit more specific. I will give this some thought.
Reader Comments (9)
DECC response, "We suggest that the IPCC should appoint a senior communications officer and put in place a well co-ordinated and pro-active communication strategy."
So much for the science speaking for itself.
also there is this from DECC, "The policy of the IPCC is to reflect the range of reviews. We would like to see some guidance about how this is implemented as part of the guidance to authors and editors on the process that ensures the full range of literature is assessed. There is of course a judgement about what constitutes ―scientific views. It does not seem reasonable to expect the IPCC to give credence to views which are clearly not supported by evidence, although explaining this may be necessary."
Put all that in context as stated by Kevin Trenberth, "Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.
What we are dealing with here is dogma and propaganda.
While it is right to attribute every weather event to global warming (propaganda) it is wrong to question the validity of the science (dogma).
DECC are supporting the concept of IPCC infallibility.
re ¨It has generally been poor in its attempts to retain public confidence.¨
This is a problem for the entire United Nations endeavor. When blue helmets in the Balkans, Africa, and most recently in Haiti cause great loss of life, for example, little ´public confidence´ remains.
Conflict of interest, especially, should be addressed at all levels of the UN. C. Figueres, exec. secy., UNFCCC, would be good place to commence; her enterprise as a carbon trader deserves attention. cf., http://figueresonline.com/CFO_English_Long.pdf
¨It has generally been poor in its attempts to retain public confidence.¨
Exactly why Patchy should be retained ;) , plus not exactly confidence inspiring if the temps are static for 12 years with a decrease on the way.
I can only confirm the sagacity of the conclusion reached by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Economics of Climate Change in 2005 para 171
"The IPCC process
171. We can see no justification for an IPCC procedure which strikes us as
opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least
in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science
cannot emerge from an unsound process"
From my dealings with DECC, I have concluded that they have become filled with green advocates who believe in an alarmist version of AGW and who believe that renewable energy systems are God's gift to humanity. It is a waste of time trying to get sense out of them. Loony Huhne in charge does not help.
So that rules out all climate model projections then. I wonder if DECC thought of that.☺
The DECC response for Q8 on IPCC communication is given under Q7, which is QA, errors etc. Clearly from its response, DECC is unfamiliar with the concept of QA and so has not provided a response.
The DECC response just confirms my opinion of DECC as propagandists for AGW.
.."regarding the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Interacademies Council report on the IPCC": burocrats protect, defend, foster, and perpetuate burocracy. It's their First Commandment.
Regarding their burocratic tone, the Second Commandment is "Whenever possible be nice to morons."
@ John R T
'and most recently in Haiti cause great loss of life'
i am amazed that no reporter/journalist has focused on the USA/UN debacle with regards to Haiti.
ok. the mess is everywhere & before the crisis, but again money from the UK etc poured in, plus UN in situ should have been using its funds to help this country, its been there for many years.
UN , we really need to have a rethink on the role this has going forward IMO.