In response to sustained criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the IPCC and United Nations officials asked the Inter Academy Council to review the processes and procedures of the IPCC and make recommendations for changes that would enhance the objectivity and accuracy of the IPCC reports. The Inter Academy Council, a multinational organization of science academies, was given a limited charter to examine only the IPCC’s management structure and methods of operation, not to evaluate the underlying scientific conclusions of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report.
On August 30, 2010, the Inter Academy Council submitted its findings to the IPCC and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The Council provided a summary to the press at a briefing in New York, after which the IPCC leaders conducted their own press briefing to comment on the Inter Academy Council’s findings. The disconnect between the two briefings was palpable.
After its pro forma praise of the IPCC’s contributions to understanding global climate change and asserting that “the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall,” the Inter Academy Council spent the bulk of its 58 page report documenting many significant flaws that call into question the scientific objectivity of the entire IPCC infrastructure.
Dr. Harold T. Shapiro, an economics and public affairs professor and former president at Princeton University, who chaired the Inter Academy Council’s review, told reporters that “I think the errors made [by the IPCC] did dent the credibility of the process.”
The Inter Academy Council recommended major changes in how the IPCC is managed and operates in order to restore whatever credibility it once had. The Council concluded that it was time for the IPCC to adopt a more professional organizational structure. It proposed a new executive management committee with decision-making authority that would include individuals from outside the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence.”
Here are just a few examples of the fundamental flaws in the IPCC’s processes that the Council flagged for attention. The initial reaction of the IPCC leadership does not auger well.
1. No Term Limits – The Inter Academy Council recommended that there should be a limit of only one term for key IPCC leaders, including the IPCC chairman. The Council believed such term limits were necessary from the top down in order to “ensure a greater infusion of fresh perspectives on the assessments.”
The current chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, has been the IPCC chairman since 2002, commencing a second term in 2008. He was asked at the press briefing whether he would follow the one term recommendation and step down before work begins in earnest on the next IPCC assessment due in 2013-14. He replied that he did not think so, although he would do what the IPCC member states ultimately decided was appropriate. Thus, on one of the key recommendations of the Inter Academy Council, the current chairman is choosing to cling to his job rather than voluntarily defer to someone with a fresh perspective to take his place.
2. Conflict of Interest – The Inter Academy Council found that there were no rigorous conflict of interest policies in place, which best practices in other organizations would require. The Council recommended that the IPCC develop and adopt such a conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including the IPCC chairman and vice chairmen, authors with responsibilities for report content, review editors and technical staff directly involved in report preparation.
Taxing the air we breathe, that must be the pinnacle for revenue crazed governments.
Control on all carbon creation, their nose is in every action of man.
I think you missed a story about Climategate there….FPM never got back to tell us what became of this scandal. You just change tact and question something else.
Ah now we are playing your game, sucks dont it : )
It has taken us a while to learn the ways of the dark side but we are getting there.
No I kid, the reality is the science is BS, thats all.
huh? Sorry, the cult speak is wasted on me…just move along davarino.
He's saying you're the pot calling the kettle black. Is that simple enough for you?
Noone has mentioned the biggest conflict of interest – if there is no climate emergency, then there is no reason to keep funding the IPCC, and Pachauri et al will have to find new jobs.
I suspect any bureaucracy has a tendency to produce recommendations which avoid endangering their own funding. I've only heard of one or two rare cases when Quangos voted to disband themselves.
Its good the hammer has come down on the IPCC and about time. We need an end to the climate wackos.
Who knew that this universal Ponzi scheme was fueled by those age-old corruptables: power,greed,money and prestige? Sometimes what is new is really the old.
The problem here is enemy identification. They are attacking on multiple fronts from behind the cover of legitimate causes. They are on both sides of aisle; the Bush's are part of it. Its despicable. We still have time; but probably not much time.
The question is to what extreme will they go to prevent backsliding on their agenda. They are on the verge of a major foothold and the November election is going to be their Waterloo. Every loyal American needs to be on the alert for suspicious behaviour and activity to anticipate false flag events.
God Bless America!!!!