AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Global Warming IPCC Omniclimate Science Skepticism

CRU Who? Or…Can The IPCC Survive The Oxburgh Review?

Forget Phil Jones and the CRU…for all intents and purposes, Lord Oxburgh’s “International Panel” has hit the IPCC itself with quite a broadside.

This is what the friendly Panel has just deemed necessary to write about the IPCC (my emphasis):

Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain oversimplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined

And here’s what the IPCC says about the IPCC (my emphasis again):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

Clearly, it has now been established beyond all doubt that the IPCC has been a failure regarding the provision of “a clear scientific view” on the “peer-reviewed papers” by CRU researchers. Those papers said one thing, the IPCC another.

With Climate Change too serious an issue to be left in oversimplifying hands,  the Fifth Assessment Report is unlikely to be any good unless substantial organizational changes are implemented in the IPCC.

0 replies on “CRU Who? Or…Can The IPCC Survive The Oxburgh Review?”

Yeah, who do they think they are fooling by blaming the IPCC, which in this case was the crew at CRU?

“we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined”. And who exactly selected the mere 11 papers that were found to be so squeaky clean? They didn’t examine any papers where the CRU team collaborated with others outside CRU, nor their important work with the IPCC. If they had examined any of the papers by Jones, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes co-authored with Michael Mann, or any of their work under him as head honcho of that part of the IPCC report, no such statement could have been made.

The Climategate emails weren’t simply communications intra-CRU. Many of the most damaging ones revealed an international collaboration to do anything but ‘tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’. Moreover, it’s simply not credible to excise from consideration the IPCC and all other collaborations with those outside CRU. CRU staff were vitally involved and inextricably linked with the IPCC process that ensured that “presentations of this work…neglected to highlight this issue”. Of course: policy makers and advocacy groups wouldn’t attempt to digest the original papers, but they would imbibe the relevant sections of the IPCC reports, where the presentation of results with inadequate statement of uncertainties was quite deliberate, and ‘Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline’ or divergence between instruments and proxies came in very handy.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.