Until mid-August, therefore, this blog will be on hiatus. To those of you in the Northern hemisphere – enjoy your summer. To my friends in Australia, New Zealand, and other southerly locales, may winter treat you kindly.
Until we meet again, below are some of the submissions to the body currently examining the manner in which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conducts itself.
Keep in mind when you read these that the public has long been told that the IPCC's findings should be trusted because it is a paragon of virtue. We've been told its approach is rigorous, transparent, robust, and inclusive (see quote at bottom of p.7 of PDF). We've been told it employs a meticulous "peer-reviewed process." Indeed, according to its chairman, no one can imagine a better way of doing things since the IPCC's modus operandi is unparalleled on the planet.
Among those persons who beg to differ are:
- John Christy (scientist, USA) presentation (17-page PDF), interview here
- Marcel Crok (journalist, The Netherlands) submission
- David Henderson (economist, UK) submission, intro here
- Ross McKitrick (economist, Canada) presentation
- Roger Pielke Sr. (scientist, USA) submission
- Richard Tol (economist, Ireland) blog post about issues, submission here
- Hans von Storch (scientist, Germany) 17-page PowerPoint presentation
See my IPCC-related blog posts in the right-hand column here.
>> The water cannon of the climate debate
>> Climate bible gets 21 'F's on report card
>> Cross-examining the IPCC
>> The great peer-review fairy tale
>> What's left if we disregard non-peer-reviewed claims?
>> Cutoff dates, what cutoff dates?