Dr. Judith Curry has an absolute must-read post today, in which she cites extensive text from Dr. John Christy’s March 2011 testimony (pdf) before the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
John Christy has a unique perspective on how the hockey stick became the icon of the TAR [Third Assessment Report] – he served as a Lead Author (along with Michael Mann) on Chapter 2 Observed Climate Variability and Change.
and she concludes her post as follows:
The IPCC process is clearly broken, and I don’t see anything in their recent policies that addresses the problems that Christy raises. The policy makers clearly wrought havoc in context of the AR5 WG3 report; however there is a more insidious problem particularly with the WG1 scientists in terms of conflict of interest and the IPCC Bureau in terms of stacking the deck to produce the results that they want.
IMHO, after reading this post, no reasonable person could conclude otherwise. Readers of this blog will know that I have rarely noticed much that is commendable about the IPCC’s processes – even after the InterAcademy Council’s attempt to point them in the right direction. Their handling of the “hockey stick” reminds us why.
Is it not time to call for an end to this seemingly interminable “Mannifestation” of climate science?