Ahhh......Sweet Consistency

Saturday, January 27, 2007
It appears that the forthcoming report from the Working Group (WG1) of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will be released first as a Summary for Policy Makers, and then the whole report will be released. Release of the summary is due on February 2, 2007 (Groundhog Day, appropriately enough) and release of the full report (with all of those nasty statistical and methodological details) is set for May. Why the delay, you ask? Let's let Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit weigh in:

So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 is to enable them to make any “necessary” adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the “necessary” adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. And for IPCC to have the gall to institutionalize the process. Words fail me.

So, none of those who are outside of the process will know what those changes are. Also, it is clear that there will be a media splash about this. Word out is that there is a "smoking gun" concerning human caused global warming. Can a bullet be put back into the gun after it's been fired? Be sure to check out ex-democrat's post and comment section below, Great News: We're All Doomed!

It is kind of interesting that the organization's name includes Climate Change. Change is inherent to any study of the climate. Why not the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Study or something equivalent? It's as if the conclusions were reached before the group was even named. Will Punxsutawney Phil appear carrying a hockey stick?

6 comments:

Bob Hawkins said...

This will be the IPCC's fourth report. Back when they were getting started, they were in a big hurry to get the first report out. So instead of coming up with a scientific prediction; using that to estimate the economic impacts; and, based on that, making policy recommendations; they did all three at the same time. That meant they couldn't base the impacts on the science, or base the recommendations on the impacts. But it was more important to get the product shipped than for it to work right (MicroSoft business model).

Naturally they got some grief because different parts of the first report came from different planets. So apparently they learned their lesson, and are making sure no one can make fun of them for inconsistency.

But notice that they still avoid the sane method of enforcing consistency. It's almost like they know that doing things in the logical order would produce unacceptable results.

Rick Ballard said...

I know the final conclusion:

"Send us all your money and we'll fix it*."

* Definition of "it" to follow.

Barry Dauphin said...

I guess our generation must be very important and very special. We will save the planet! It's an emergency--aging Baby Boomers to the rescue. Or at least the hippie Baby Boomers will once again save the planet from the evil corporateers.

Barry Dauphin said...

Now Punxsutawney Phil carrying a hockey stick would be a great Photoshop for Buddy L.

Buddy Larsen said...

barry, willdo, and am flattered.

Better put it on the front burner (heh heh).

It'll be issued under the letterhead of the WGS2R-IPCC-WG1:

(White Guy Seeks 2 Ridicule-IPCC-Working Group 1).

terrye said...

I have been hearing that phrase climatge change used a lot more than global warming lately.

I don't doubt that man could have some impact on the world's environment, but so can a lot of things. It has always been thus. There is no normal.