[Please note Update below]
Well, I’m sure you’ve all heard by now … Donna Laframboise has scored a marvellous coup!
Here’s a picture that will brighten anyone’s day:
A week before Christmas, three data sticks containing 661 files and amounting to nearly one gigabyte of material came into my possession. They were created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body currently at work on a high-profile report.
And on the Green activist infiltration front, it’s definitely worse than we thought:
Additionally, [self-described “climate campaigner” and IPCC “expert” reviewer, Kathy] Yan recommends two news stories that were published on her organization’s website, an online bibliography of “key scientific articles” selected by her fellow activists, a 112-page report on sustainable water strategies, a 90-page report on alternative power in Guatemala, and two other documents about renewable energy in Chile. All of this material was produced in-house (3/869, 3/891, 27/339, 27/345).
All of it, therefore, is activist-generated grey literature – exactly the kind of thing that has caused the IPCC grief in the past.
What is the IPCC thinking? Why is it rolling out the red carpet for activists, permitting them to directly lobby IPCC authors?
And as if that weren’t enough … here’s Josh’s brilliant take:
Happy New Year, folks … I think this is going to be a very good year … if not the best year evaaaah for those of us who are finding fewer and fewer reasons to trust in the work of the IPCC :-)
01/8/2013 12:43 PM PDT Update: The IPCC has “responded” in record time (for them, at least!) Did I say “responded”, well, I suppose one could call this a “response” if one lacked a better word (which I do at the moment).
Clearly the IPCC has taken a leaf from the book of Gleick in their “review” which begins:
The recent posting of drafts of the Working Group II contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) starts from the incorrect assumption that the IPCC is interested in restricting reviewer input to its drafts.
I’m not sure what their new improved PR department have been smoking, but it seems to be adversely affecting their reading comprehension skills.
Although there’s no mention whatsoever of the previously upbiquitous “all peer reviewed”, the PR folks spin away:
All scientific comments submitted through the review process will be considered and addressed by authors, and all comments are made public when the report is completed. Comments in blogs or other communications will not contribute to the review process.
And no doubt, with this in mind, they have discharged little Ms. Climate Campaigner Kay from her duties, right?!
Amazing. Simply amazing.