This document has been written in response to the independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) currently being undertaken by the InterAcademy Council (IAC).
Others may have a different opinion but I have no faith whatsoever in this review because the IAC has far too many close links with the International Science Union (ICSU), an organization that spent almost 30 years pressuring for the creation of the IPCC (see chapter 1).
According to the IAC website
, the 18-member board of the IAC has at least three people - Ralph Cicerone, Martin Rees and Kurt Lambeck - who head national science bodies, all of which are members of the ICSU. Howard Alper, also an IAC board member, is the co-chair of IAP, the global network of science academies, and most of those academies are ICSU members. Membership of the ICSU has the documented obligation of supporting its objectives, which means that already the IAC’s independence is compromised.
The relationship is not merely via overlapping roles of individuals and the bodies they represent because the president of the ICSU is an official observer on the IAC board, and among the IAC’s web links to “partner organizations” we find the ICSU listed prominently.
The IAC and ICSU have a very similar role. Both seek to fit the square peg of science into the round hole of politics, to take a field where truth is not determined by consensus and twist it to fit a field where consensus is everything. Both have grandiose statements of intent - the IAC’s is “Mobilizing the world’s best science to advise decision-makers on issues of global concern” - and both work very closely with UN bodies such as the UNEP, a co-sponsor of the IPCC.
The ICSU’s modus operandi is to involve government and intergovernmental organizations in research projects where those organizations provide funding and ICSU members do the observations and research. The ICSU writes a report about that work and presents it to the client organization although rarely with any external peer-review.
The IAC makes similar statements about its work; in fact the IAC seems almost a twin of the ICSU in that it seeks to provide scientific input to governments and intergovernmental organizations and does so via reports.
The close links between the IAC, the ICSU and United Nations bodies like the UNEP make me think it very unlikely that the IAC review of the IPCC will propose radical changes because to do so would be to alienate a number of organizations and put its future work prospects at risk. So carefully does it need to tread that I expect only recommendations for minor changes rather than the radical changes that I believe are necessary.
Rather than make a submission to review that is at risk, in my eyes, of being perhaps not a whitewash but nonetheless weak, I have elected to release my own views on the matter via a different forum.
The first chapter of this review will deal at length with the scientific justification for the establishment of the IPCC, which is not as solid as some might believe, by exploring the events, reports, individuals and organizations that played key roles.
Chapter two will show that the writing of IPCC Assessment Reports is a process open to bias by the authors, consensus about the text is far less than the IPCC implies and how IPCC authors have rallied together to produce papers for citing by the reports.
Chapter three will deal with the peer-review process and explain its fundamental flaw and show how it is nothing more than a means of soliciting further information to support the IPCC’s arguments.
The fourth chapter will discuss the IPCC’s distortions and serious omissions, the kinds of things that if published in unbiased fashion would have undermined its strident claims.
Chapter five will present the case that the IPCC’s temperature data is unreliable and that the method of temperature measurement, the environment in which that monitoring takes place, the coverage of the Earth’s surface and even the sources of the data are so dynamic as to cast doubt on the accuracy of the entire temperature record.
Chapter six will show that the climate models on which the IPCC relies for attribution and projection are seriously flawed because, as the IPCC indirectly states, they are incomplete.
Chapter seven will provide a short summary of the key problems with the IPCC’s analysis of climate issues and show that the IPCC’s claim of significant man made warming cannot be sustained.
The final chapter contains some brief recommendations for a climate monitoring and investigation system with far greater integrity than the IPCC has shown.
Because this is a review, examples will be provided where applicable. It should not be assumed that the examples are the only instances of problems related to the subject matter under discussion, nor that the authors and reviewers mentioned were the only people to act in a similar fashion.
When examining the IPCC reports my focus has been the contribution by Working Group I because the contributions by the other working groups are based on the assumption that WGI correctly describes the situation. For this reason I don’t address matters such as plagiarism on the matter of Himalayan glaciers nor the citing of very suspect material in discussion of the Amazon rainforest and changes in the Antarctic.
Finally, let me state for the record that none of the work for this review was funded by anyone other than myself.
Click source to read FULL report by John McLean.