Questions for IPCC Vice Chair David Wratt as new IPCC scandal breaks

NIWA's David Wratt was the Vice Chair of the UN IPCC's Working Group 1 (WG-1), the prestigious "science" report on climate change.

Wratt and others have previously talked of how impeccable the WG-1 process was, so I'd be interested in hearing how he or his colleagues managed to let papers from an unpublished journal slip into the WG-1 report, as part of the growing scandal surrounding the integrity of the UN IPCC documents.

So how could 16 papers, accounting for 39 new citations across fours chapters and two working groups, have made it into this twice vetted, next-to-finalized IPCC report? Those citations don't reference research papers the wider scientific community had already digested. They don't even reference papers that were hot off the press. Instead, in 15 of 16 cases, no expert reviewer could possibly have evaluated these papers since they hadn't yet been accepted for publication by the journal itself.

Where do these 39 citations of the May 2007 issue of Climatic Change turn up in the IPCC report? [working notes here]

• Chapt. 11 by Working Group 1 references ten papers (20 citations in total)
• Chapt. 12 by Working Group 2 references nine papers (15 citations in total)
• Chapt. 2 by Working Group 2 references two papers (2 citations in total)
• Chapt. 3 by Working Group 2 references two papers (2 citations in total)

Among the 10 papers cited in Chapter 11 three were co-authored by Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen. I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that this gentleman served as one of two coordinating lead authors for that chapter.

Comments

[Geoff]

Christensen turns up once in the CRU emails

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=513&filename=1114113870.txt

Some references to von Storch

[C3P0]

Any chance of a reply to Truffle Hunter and Quasi's attack on Willem DeLange for daring to show a non-AGW view point to students in one of his lectures, in one of his courses, at Waikato Uni? I guess at this stage its only a few short comments rather than a specific post, but worth keeping an eye on. I find it absolutely disgusting the lengths some people in the camp of Renowden and Walker will go to in order to intimidate anyone who dares oppose their view in public. The result is that a good number of working scientists who disagree with AGW do not say so because they are well aware their job would be at risk if they ever did. Brave people such as DeLange, and fearless institutions such as Waikato Uni, are unfortunately the minority.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/doug-digs-denial/

[Andy]

I just emailed de Lange.
He can defend himself if he wants.

[Andy]

..and a very terse reply.
Don't waste your time with HT.

Probably a good lesson there.

[C3P0]

Yeah good advice. I find myself reading the comments, getting suitably angry, and then posting something that I feel is well considered and to the point - but then having a single point twisted and sent back in reply. Usually burning a strawman I never actually said. I then feel forced to reply and get sucked into a debate - very frustrating!

An example would be a few weeks ago a post by Walker quoted the Bolivian President claiming that 2 degrees of warming would mean "the melting of the Andean and Himalayan glaciers”. On asking for clarification in the form of a reference I get accused of not believing 2 degrees would risk altering seasonal melt flows - when of course 2 degrees warming, if it occurred, would have an effect. I was just being critical of the fact that unreferenced alarmist comments were being made! Yet I get accused of all manner of weird things lol.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/klein-in-bolivia-global-democracy-is-the-way-forward/

[AcidComments]

More IPCC Mischief

The paper is listed in the references for Chapter 10 of the IPCC's
Working Group 1 report here where it looks like this:

Vaughan, D.G., 2007: West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse – the fall and rise of a paradigm. Clim. Change, in press.
It is cited (incorrectly, given its eventual 2008 publication date) as Vaughan, 2007 on this page to support a statement whose plausibility it actually rejects. The IPCC declares:

If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007). [bold added]

But concluding remarks on page 13 of the January 2006 version of Vaughan's paper leave a different impession:
Since most of WAIS is not showing change, it now seems unlikely that complete collapse of WAIS, with the threat of a 5-m rise in sea level, is imminent in the coming few centuries. [bold added]
If the sole research paper the IPCC cites to establish the notion of a 5-meter sea level rise says such an event is "unlikely" shouldn't the IPCC mention this fact? Yet when the Vaughan paper gets cited on this page, the IPCC once again fails to tell the whole story. Instead, alarming statements go unqualified:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-ipcc-mischief.html