An interesting concept of "independence"

I usually excerpt that reference other articles, but today's story about the new independent review of IPCC should be examined end to end:

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) — An independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world’s top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report, a United Nations environmental spokesman said Friday.

The board’s work will be part of a broader review of the body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, who spoke on the sidelines of an international meeting of environment ministers here.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been under fire since it was pointed out that the 2007 report included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.

That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel’s leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. The climate panel’s assessments are a crucial source of guidance for policy makers addressing global warming.

But mainstream scientists and the United Nations have said repeatedly that the evidence that human activity is a major factor in global warming remains unshaken.

Mr. Nuttall said the review body would be made up of “senior scientific figures” who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea.

He said that several countries had made clear at the meeting here in Bali that they would prefer that the review panel be appointed by an independent group of scientists rather than the climate panel. He said that plans for assembling the panel would be announced next week.

“I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,” Mr. Nuttall said.

One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports.

Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, told reporters here this week that he did not support a ban on the use of gray literature and that the news media had overblown the climate panel’s missteps.

The 2007 report on climate change cites more than 10,000 scientific papers and is more than 3,000 pages long.

So much to discuss. First, the IPCC report has been under fire for much longer than the Himalaya fiasco, and its problem is not a lack of consensus to support it. There isn't an iota of evidence to support it and there isn't a credible individual who supports it.

We were also told that the IPCC would use purely reviewed science. They haven't and rather than explain why this is not important, they are explaining why it is convenient. Because evidently it allows them to discuss things that aren't fully understood. Since this is indeed a document relied upon by international policy makers, why this is an advantage is not clear.

We are all getting tired of counting large numbers, which are supposed to prove reliability. This is a government report. Does anyone truly believe that there would be any problem finding 10,000 papers funded by governments which would support the government view, particularly since future funding depends on doing so?

Meanwhile Reuters, maintaining its legendary objectivity, divides the believers and unbelievers into two camps, described as "mainstream scientists and the United Nations," on the one hand, and "some quarters," in opposition.

Based on this, it's reasonable to suppose that the composition of the "independent" review panel will be chosen by the same people who chose the IPCC. Perhaps not the IPCC exactly, but people with a vested interest in confirming it. It's like the defense being able to choose the jury without consulting the prosecution. I'm nearly certain that Steve McIntyre will not be asked to participate, or even consulted on who should.

Another whitewash is underway. Penn State has delivered one for Professor Mann. The "respectable" scientists will do one for IPCC. But in the end, the problems remain. Temperatures are not rising. A lot of snow is in fact falling. Arctic ice is not changing much. CO2 and global sea levels are trending below the straight line, rather than rising above as we've been warned to expect. Hurricane seasons have been unimpressive.

Sooner or later, the warmists are going to have to deliver something more attention grabbing than CO2 concentrations, or Copenhagen is going to mark the high water mark of their influence, rather than just another step towards the goal.