Russ Steele
Regardless of the pronouncements by Al Gore and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that Global Warming Science is know and their is not need for debate, it appears there is a lot of global warming science left to debate. The IPCC is getting ready to produce their next assessment and the independent review panel has some advice for the IPCC.
According to a story in the UK Telegraph: IPCC told to stop lobbying and restrict role to explaining climate science
An independent investigation into the UN’s climate change body has warned it to stop lobbying and to restrict its role to explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature.The Wall Street Journal has a similar story: Climate-Change Group Needs Management Reform
Senior officials at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also been ordered to disclose their outside financial interests to avert any allegations that they may have profited from policies to tackle global warming.
New controls should also be introduced to ensure that the scientific claims made in influential international reports are robust in future.
A group investigating the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report Monday saying the IPCC needs to make several changes to reduce errors and the chance of bias in its reports, including fundamentally reforming its management structure.
The investigation by the InterAcademy Council, a consortium of national academies of science, said the IPCC has been "successful overall" but called for the widely watched organization to enforce its existing procedures more, and to ensure that "genuine controversies" about climate science are reflected in the IPCC reports.
The IPCC also should establish an executive committee that includes people outside the climate-science community, and it should limit the term of its chairman to one term, the report said. The current limit of two six-year terms for the chairman "is too long," the press release about the report said.
The reforms would aid in seeing that "due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views," according to a news release about the report issued Monday morning.
I really like the part about documenting alternative views. In the past the IPCC lead authors have worked to remove alternative views from the assessment reports, as we found out by examining the Climategate e-mail. Now, maybe we will get some real science in this next report rather than some warmed over environmentalist politics.
Exit Question: What happens to all of California’s global warming reduction initiatives if the IPCC does real science this time and declares global warming to be from natural causes? Good by AB32!!
