Wednesday, February 10, 2010

How to Fix the IPCC: Replace it With Wikipedia? : Discovery News
Five such recommendations are being laid out in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature. They range from establishing an independent International Climate Agency (ICA) staffed full time by 200 climatologists to replace the IPCC's largely government-nominated volunteer authors, to simply reaffirming the IPCC's initial guidelines for peer review, which Thomas Stoker of the University of Bern in Switzerland argues have worked very well for over two decades, and do not need fixing.
...
It doesn't have to be this opaque. The case for human-caused global warming is incredibly strong.  [ok, let's hear the specifics] But by having a monolithic scientific body ruling from on high about climate science, we are making it easy for climate "skeptics" to go around making wild claims like "warm temperatures will be better for plants and crops!"
Think Progress » Hannity: Snow Storms ‘Seem To Contradict Al Gore’s Hysterical Global Warming Theories’
Indeed, the IPCC has said that atmospheric moisture has increased 5 percent over the last century. [does this cause more severe droughts?]
Think Progress » Inhofe’s Grandchildren Build Igloo To Mock Killer Snow Storm: ‘Al Gore’s New Home’
Before the storm hit, the Virginia GOP launched a web ad mocking “12 inches of global warming,” attacking Democrats who had voted in favor of climate and clean energy legislation. Now, after hundreds of thousands of people lost power, several people have been killed, and states of emergency declared in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) family has joined in the mockery, building an igloo on the National Mall and calling it “Al Gore’s New Home“
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: IPCC: Cherish, Tweak or Scrap?
Mike Hulme

The IPCC is no longer fit for purpose. . .

My suggestion for radical reform is to dissolve the IPCC after the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The work would be split into three types of assessment and evaluation, each rather different to the three existing IPCC working groups.

No comments: