Here on the Klimazwiebel we had a detailed account Richard Tol challenges assertion by Ottmar Edenhofer in ZDF - Richard Tol claimed that WG III Chair Otmar Edenhofer had given a false account in that TV program.
I had informed the IPCC secretariat (as well as Otmar Edenhofer) about Richard's Tol claim. After having not received a response, I inquired at Renate Christ, IPCC secretary on 17 Setpember 2010:
I informed you a few days ago that there have been published claims about false conclusions about consensus in the WG III report of AR4, and about misleading public statements of IPCC representatives. So far, you have not responded to this information; I assume that you do not intend to do so in future. Thus, I have to inform you that I will begin to include this case into my background exchanges with media and policymakers. Also I will point out that your office is still unable to deal professionally with such claims, even after the recommendations of IAC. Indeed, I had been told by journalists before that your office has a reputation of being reluctant in communicating.
This reminder gave a response after a few days, on 20. September 2010
Dear Mr. von Storch,
I acknowledge receipt of your message dated 17 September as well as a message from you to Mr. Edenhofer dated 11 September 2010. Both messages were received during my vacation and therefore I did not reply earlier. Mr. Edenhofer is currently traveling but I will get in touch with him and the appropriate IPCC bodies on the matter raised by you.
Allow me also to inform you that the recommendations of the IAC and their implementation will be considered by the upcoming Plenary Session of the IPCC.
Best regards,
Dr. Renate CHRIST
Secretary of the IPCC
IPCC Secretariat
Since then - nothing.
The Interacademy Council writes about the IPCC on p. 53 of its report:
Developing an effective communications strategy. In the wake of errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC has come under severe criticism for the manner in which it has communicated with the media. The lack of an ongoing media-relations capacity and comprehensive communications strategy has unnecessarily placed the IPCC’s reputation at risk and contributed to a decline in public trust of climate science.
Nothing learned so far. The same arrogance as before.
Thanks Hans
ReplyDeleteThe IPCC response is entirely as expected.
"Allow me also to inform you that the recommendations of the IAC and their implementation will be considered by the upcoming Plenary Session of the IPCC."
ReplyDeleteIf I understand the above sentence correctly, the IPCC will consider the IAC recommandations during the upcoming Planetary Session and therefore does not feel the obligation to imply the recommandation at this moment.
lieber Goethe / Camus anonymous, ich habe Ihren Kommentar zum vorigen Eintrag über "Die Wolke" transferiert, wo er einfach besser hinpasst. Thanks (WK)
ReplyDeleteThe response sounds very much like an administration speaking. An administration which has not decided yet who will answer and how. Some administrations never make a decision (such as in Kafka's novels).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here my question: is somebody out there who can explain shortly the institutional / administrational linkages between IAC and IPCC? And who ideally should be responsible to answer Richard's & Hans' question? And how to assure that it will be the correct answer?
Similar to the absolute silence in Germany and Austria about the 10:10 video, referred to as "Splattergate".
ReplyDeleteEco-faschismus lebt und wird geschützt.
Similar to the absolute silence in Germany and Austria about the 10:10 video, referred to as "Splattergate".
ReplyDeleteI agree it was an incredibly stupid video, but I was also appalled at the lack of mainstream media attention when white supremacists put climate scientists on their to-do list. Did you ever see Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh in action?
Sehr geehrter Hans v. Storch,
ReplyDeletehaben Sie wirklich erwartet, dass beim IPCC der IAC-Bericht nach dem Motto „Huch, dass wir das falsch machen konnten – nun aber schnell besser machen“ aufgenommen wird? Das scheitert m.E. nach schon an der üblichen Schwerfälligkeit der Bürokratie.
Glauben Sie wirklich, dass all die vielen richtigen Verbesserungsvorschläge im IAC-Bericht beim IPCC in naher Zukunft vollständig umgesetzt werden? Ich bin diesbezüglich ein Klimaskeptiker!
MfG
PS: Ich bin überzeugt, dass ein Anstieg der Treibhausgaskonzentration zu einer Erwärmung der unteren Schichten der Troposphäre führt. Bin ich jetzt ein Klimazwitter?
This is certainly not the best time to attract attention for this “crusade” from IPCC representatives.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the issue is not really new. Most of these accusations are already published (see www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,686205,00.html; rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/.../summary-of-richard-tols-look-at-ipcc.html).
The Spiegel article also contains Edenhofer’s reaction.
Second, blaming Edenhofer as a “liar” may contribute to receive media attention but bashing may not create incentives to participate in a fair and rational discussion on scientific issues.
Third, the 32nd IPCC plenary session at Busan, South Korea, will take place from October 11-15th 2010. At this session, the IPCC will negotiate whether and how to implement the IAC recommendations. The stakes could not be higher.
In my view, it would be fair to wait what is decided at Busan and then take these outcomes as benchmark to test IPCC’s ability to “learn” …
@sil_beck
ReplyDeleteEdenhofer never responded. He only evaded.
We decided to make the same point again because Edehhofer claimed, on national TV, that something like this could never happen -- knowing full well that some people think it had, and on his watch.