Is this it for the IPCC?

From the Philadelphia Metro:

The credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a fresh blow yesterday when it was revealed that another of its reports warning of the effects of “man-made climate change” was based on nothing more than a magazine article.

The IPCC said there had been “observable” decreases in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa.

But yesterday it emerged that the source for the report was not peer-reviewed science — but an article in a magazine popular among climbers. Even one of the report’s authors, professor Richard Tol — who is based in Dublin — told Britain’s Telegraph newspaper: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes. It is quite astounding.”

Another IPCC report, which said that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest would disappear, was found not to have been based on independent research, but on an article from a climate change advocacy group.

Come in, Hot Topic, CM, anyone?

After all, this is the same Pachauri who opened Copenhagen with these words:

"The IPCC assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer review processes, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review. The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as by governments. In the AR4 there were a total of around 2500 expert reviewers performing this review process. Consequently, there is full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of published literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views."

Comments

[CM]

These errors are all the same basic thing - no or poor oversight on source-checking. They need to get that sorted out next time.

I'd also be happy if Pachauri stepped down (or was pushed). He's too tainted by everything now. Time for a fresh start.
(Although I don't see anything wrong with what he said - the process is designed to do as he states. Just because it didn't meet everyone's expectations and a few people didn't follow the process properly, doesn't mean what he says is wrong).

But to call for the disbanding of the IPCC is just ridiculous. It would be like ending ferry travel worldwide because of some dodgy ferries in Tonga.

And again, there is nothing even remotely reputable to otherwise look at.

And again, where have the deniers and skeptics been all these years? The people that apparently know it's all a load of crap because they know everything inside out? The more errors that are found, the worse EVERYONE looks. Including you Ian. Just sayin'.

[Louie D]

Cm did you not point out that the IPCC could include
un reviewed reports.
Pachauri makes no mention of this.
The glaciers , acid seas, no snow and no trees , all of these claims are big ,scary and bogus.
The IPCC rode these claims to copenhagen , telling every one they could we better buy into them or were all doomed.

[(not so) Silent]

Well the skeptical scientists have been busy working out ways to measure the temp accurately and correctly without the concerns UHI raise. Things like Nasa's satellites to measure temp, not some dodgy fiddled results from a Temp Measuring Station on top of Niwas office buildimg for example. Also using satellites to measure sea rise. Not some observation from a film maker who produces a report which only a Complete Moron would believe.
Then there is the matter of: sensitive or not? Forcing or not? This is where the last battle is. The rest of the IPCC is being thoroughly disproved by the accurate info starting to come out.

Tell us Complete Moron. Why does James Hansen delete the temps from areas which dont have sea ice all year round?
Is it to make his maps a pretty shade of red?

[R2D2]

CM, what a back track - good on ya, to change your point of view when faced with new facts shows strength. Just a few days ago you were saying it was no big deal and that it was OK for WGII to reference non-peer reviewed articles.

[CM]

>>>Cm did you not point out that the IPCC could include
un reviewed reports.<<<

I did. They can. But only if it meets certain standards.

>>>Pachauri makes no mention of this.<<<

The guy is an idiot.

>>>The IPCC rode these claims to copenhagen , telling every one they could we better buy into them or were all doomed.<<<

They rode those claims specifically? In which reports or public statements?

[CM]

>>>CM, what a back track - good on ya, to change your point of view when faced with new facts shows strength.<<<

Um, what backtrack would that be?

>>>Just a few days ago you were saying it was no big deal and that it was OK for WGII to reference non-peer reviewed articles.<<<

Nice misrepresentation there. Love you guys, you're just so consistent.

[Ross]

CM -- you are echoing a new common theme from the pro AGW supporters in asking where have all the deniers been and how come they are suddenly coming out with holes in the IPCC reports. They have been around commenting on the holes for years , just not getting the MSM press. We have had Ian and others like Plimmer writing books on the alternative view , just in case you missed them.
From the Green view point the IPCC should be abolished because as a political body it has damaged your cause , no end.Believe it or not but some of us dreadful deniers do care about the enviroment and some Green causes, we just don't agree with AGW and all the stupid Cap & Trade and corrupt carbon trading schemes that have been proposed.

[CM]

>>>They have been around commenting on the holes for years , just not getting the MSM press.<<<

Possibly because they haven't withstood scrutiny. Did you ever consider that possibility?

I didn't miss Plimers book. Did you miss this?

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

>>>From the Green view point the IPCC should be abolished because as a political body it has damaged your cause , no end.<<<

I'm not a member of the Green point of view. I don't have a cause. More misrepresentation. Yawn.

[Louie D]

CM you asked in which reports and public statements did the IPCC say those things in.
Well i think it was almost every MSM outlet on the planet. The IPCC fed them this stuff , not the unsensational science , that as it turns out was not behind a few of there claims. I cant be bothered to go and trawl up old articals and reports for you , you know they are there .

[CM]

Hey Ian, I fell out of bed laughing last night when I read this on pg 54 and 55 of Air Con:

>>>"Global warming seems of little help to explorers," noted the K2Climb.Net explorers' website wistfully in January 2009<<<

The footnote gives the source as "http://www.k2Climb.net/news.php?id=17941"

After two further paragraphs of quoting from that source you say:

"You've got to love serendipity!"

Indeed.

[No_to_CM_No_to_IPCC]

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/08/un-ipcc-alarmist-claims-that-global-warming-threatens-amazon-to-be-without-merit-research-finds---another-predicition-wron.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/hysteria-permafrost/

[CM]

I love the first link. One of the two sub-links takes me to CO2Science which uses the IPCC models as a reference.
So apparently IPCC predictions are the best resource to show how alarmist IPCC predictions are....
Genius. One wonders how these people manage to get out of bed by themselves each morning.

[No_to_CM_No_to_IPCC]

http://politifi.com/news/Hansen-colleague-rejected-IPCC-AR4-ES-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-IPCC-do-179767.html

[CM]

>>>http://politifi.com/news/Hansen-colleague-rejected-IPCC-AR4-ES-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-IPCC-do-179767.html<<<

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-an-old-climate-critique-still-hold-up/

Oops. Amazing what a very basic bit of research will do.