Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Bebben, januar 13, 2012, 08:39:28 AM
SitatAs always, one has to watch the pea. Stocker's language was not an "indirect response" to IAC recommendations. Nor did it have anything to do with IAC. Stocker and Jones had sought to beef up rights of the Working Groups to demand confidentiality prior to the IAC report. Representing enhanced confidentiality as addressing an IAC recommendation was, so to speak, a "trick" (TM- climate science.)
SitatI'm accepted as a AR5 reviewer but have refrained from downloading First Draft documents sinc I am not prepared to agree to the confidentiality terms. IPCC's main enforcement mechanism seems to be their threat to expel someone as a reviewer. Since they ignored my review comment. I dont see that this thread has much downside for me. Otherwise I'm not sure what they can do against someone who doesn't rely on government grants. (Anyone relying on government grants who defied IPCC would pay the price when he sought new funding – that's for sure.)Would they sue me for commenting publicly on their documents? If so, for what? Offhand, it seems an unattractive course of action for them, but you never know.
SitatThe plenary panel is a useless collection of bureaucrats from 195 member states. Going through the responses to the Task Group reports there is little evidence that the delegates even read any of the documents they are given, and for the most part they just rubber stamp the proposals from the Bureau.
SitatConfidentialityClear guidance may be needed on what the rules are for citation/publication of draft reportsand other documentation during drafting and review and how the draft report need to be keptconfidential without contradicting the needed transparency and openness, while differentversions of the draft should be accessible after the completion of the report.
SitatOne of the conditions of the review, to which reviewers must agree in order to access the chapters of the WGI AR5 FOD, is that the drafts may not be cited, quoted or distributed.
Sitat fra: Bebben på januar 13, 2012, 10:32:47 AMSå sekretariatet/byrået gjør som de vil, mens byråkratene er opptatt av .... lunsj?
SitatOkke som er, de nye retningslinjene er i kraft og gjør at IPCC nå tillater seg å sende e-poster til Galloping Camel og Climate Audit og kreve at de fjerner ZOD-dokumentene fra websidene.
Sitat fra: seoto på januar 13, 2012, 15:53:52 PMNå la vi vel aldri ut noen link til nedlasting fra forumet - tror jeg
Sitatone other change that has passed under the radar.Under previous rules, a reviewer was entitled to see review comments during the process. Under that provision, I asked for Review Comments of the AR4 First Draft. They sent them to me after some reflection. To be annoying, they sent them in a paper copy, non-searchable. Now review comments of the first draft are sealed even for reviewers until after publication of the final report.
SitatIf anything the offence is worse than Steve describes. Despite my formal FOIA request to our Department of Energy and Climate Change for the proposal documents upon which the IPCC were to vote, they were not made public until after the IPCC decision was made. The only possible reason for not releasing them was to ensure there would be no public debate in blatant contradiction of the claimed policy of open government.