Question by Richie: How can trust be restored in the less-than-transparent IPCC after Climategate and Glaciergate criticisms?
Climategate and glaciergate have set off a firestorm of criticism against the less-than-transparent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Bowing to public pressure, the IPCC is now seeking an independent review of it procedures by the InterAcademy Council. The IAC is the umbrella organization for various national academies of science from countries around the world. Under the terms of reference, the IAC is supposed to:
Review IPCC procedures for preparing reports including:
• Data quality assurance and data quality control;
• Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC
assessments, with special attention to the use of non peer-reviewed literature;
• Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC material;
• Handling of the full range of scientific views; and
• Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and
acceptance of a report.
The IAC report will be issued this coming August which scientists do you think should get to do the review of IPCC procedures?
Answer by Dr Jello – AGW RIP 1980-2010
What I think is the most comical aspect to all this is that the data is lost, there’s absolutely no way anyone can go back and review the work, no way the research can be verified, and these so-called scientists still claim that even though they no longer have the data, the data is correct, the conclusions are right, and we just need to trust them and accept what they say.
Now the mantra is to have faith in science. Sounds contradictory to me.
Add your own answer in the comments!