Comments on: Opening up the IPCC

By: drj

drj — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:22:06 +0000

@lance: Sorry, it’s way too late. The IAC submission deadline was the end of June. We would have appreciated your endorsement.

By: Lance McKee

Lance McKee — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:30:37 +0000

Please add my name.

Overcoming technical obstacles often precedes and forces the obsolescence of old policies, financial arrangements, perceptions and behaviors. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) creates open geoprocessing interface and encoding standards that make it much easier to publish, discover, access, assess and use geospatial data and processing services. Contributors to AR5 should familiarize themselves with OGC standards (http://www.opengeospatial.org) and consider participating in activities such as the Global Earth Observation System of Systems Architecture Implementation Pilot (http://www.ogcnetwork.net/AIpilot).

Lance McKee
Senior Staff Writer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

By: Jorge Kampmann

Jorge Kampmann — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:41:32 +0000

This is a great task. I endorse it completely . thanks tor the work already being done..

Being in Europe (DE) and working with Linux I would request that software developed hereunder within the IPCC-process should be portable to various operating systems in particular LINUX.

If possible this could be done with Java – however I understand that most of the programs are written in Fortran … ok then – a good compilation environment (Makefile) should be made available including versions of compiler, libraries and linker.

Generally the so called sceptics should not be excluded from the reports moreover there should be a chapter or even a special report on the sceptics including the argumentation against them. Example: Scafetta/West against Benestad (in 2010)

best regards
Jorge

By: drj

drj — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:11:05 +0000

@Vincent Gray

“Review” is mostly covered by section 4.2.4 of Appendix A of the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

Did you make a submission to IAC suggesting a change to any of the published procedures?

This is not the sort of blog where we encourage people to be vaguely whingey about the IPCC.

By: Vincent Gray

Vincent Gray — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:46:00 +0000

I have been the most prolific reviewer of all the IPCC Reports. I contributed 1,898 comments to the last Report 16% of the total. Most were rejected without reasons given. I would like to have reasons for rejection, the right of reply, and for my responses to be part of any future report.
The IPCC already quotes non peer reviewed papers when it suits them (e.g. the CSSP Reports) They also refuse to discuss papers in peer reviewed Journals they disapprove of, such as “Energy and Environment” which has published several of my papers. Publication of responsible criticisms is currently impossible because of the manipulation revealed by the Climategate Emails. I would like to see the inclusion of responsible papers, however and wherever published, and permit reviewers to submit papers they have published

I would like the Reports to deal with Climate Science instead od “Climate Change” interpreted as caused by human changes in the amnosphere, plus marginalizing of “natural’ influences

By: Nick.Barnes

Nick.Barnes — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:37:23 +0000

I have now submitted this comment to the IAC. Feel free to continue discussing it here, but it is too late to add your signatures.

By: Brian Crounse

Brian Crounse — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:46:14 +0000

Please add my name.

By: drj

drj — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:05:24 +0000

Can I again encourage people who want to make a “thorough overhaul” (or similar) to make a submission to the IAC.

This is our chance to change the IPCC, so if you genuinely believe it needs changing, please write a comment and send it to the IAC. It would be great if you could publish it on your blog.

People saying “this is wrong” (“this” the submission in the article, that I’ve signed) could be a little more critical. In other words say what’s wrong and why. But we’re not going to change the petition, that would change what people have already put their name to. So it would really be better to write your own comment to the IAC.

We’re still interested in what you have to say about this submission, but please spend some time making a comment to the IAC.

By: Charles Minning

Charles Minning — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:01:28 +0000

I agree. The IPCC process needs a thorough overhaul.

By: Nick.Barnes

Nick.Barnes — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:45:15 +0000

@Robert: I agree that the drafting and review processes should be very much more open. That wasn't really the focus of this comment, which is about the open-ness of the underlying science. I don't want to broaden this comment to address your concerns, because I feel it would lose its focus. In any case, as explained above, I can't make any changes at all now that it has a large number of signatures. But I encourage you to write your own comment for the IAC; their public comment form is here.