1 / 27

The IPCC and Transparency:

The IPCC and Transparency:. A History, and Recent Developments Christopher C. Horner Munich, November 2011. Outline/Summary. IPCC history of dealing with requests for transparency Reviewer comments Responses to reviewer comments Correspondence between authors

peri
Télécharger la présentation

The IPCC and Transparency:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The IPCC and Transparency: • A History, and Recent Developments • Christopher C. Horner • Munich, November 2011

  2. Outline/Summary • IPCC history of dealing with requests for transparency • Reviewer comments • Responses to reviewer comments • Correspondence between authors • IPCC Recognition and response to FOI ‘Threat’ • IPCC Author Panic • The Problem (US): Money Comes With Condition • US Agency Stonewalls, and Getting Caught • IPCC Stonewall • Latest Move: Creating Dead-Drop Zone/Safe House

  3. In IPCC’s Own Words • IPCC governing principles state its role is “to assess on a comprehensive, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis...” • One of three self-assigned hallmarks

  4. First Sign of Trouble • “Hide the decline” a deliberate, behind-the-scenes effort by IPCC authors to conceal differences among published results by concocting a tidy, but thereby false, story • Not discovered for 6 years, confirmed for 8 (CG 1.0) • Demands transparent author communications • Recent US, UK and European FOI rulings: IPCC-related expert correspondence are public records • Must be recognized in IPCC Rules, not dodged

  5. Consider This Evidence • CG 2.0 shows IPCC review of the literature not merely missing key articles, but actively excluding those that an author found to be in conflict with his personal opinions. • Have seen this before, e.g., have cited a single, non-peer-reviewed paper to the exclusion of inconvenient, refereed work.

  6. A History of Requests for IPCC Transparency • First request: to see Reviewer comments • Resistance had led to FOI requests for same • After this wake-up call, odd behavior began

  7. Series of Excuses:Available on the web (somewhere...), Deleted, Personal, Would Prejudice Relations...We Lost it • FOI requests for treatment of Reviewer comments • The IPCC author response(s)? Steve McIntyre, “ClimateGate, A Battlefield Perspective”

  8. Then, The Party LineWhich Begat Bigger Problems Footnote In USG IG Report Reveals Hint IPCC Aware of the FOI “Threat”, Author Deletions Would Come

  9. CG 2.0 Emails Detailing Organized Effort to Delete

  10. With Particular Focus on Destroying IPCC-Related Records

  11. Regarding Which,‘The Team’ Was On The Case

  12. The Problem (US) • IPCC Relies on US Taxpayer Dollars • Those Dollars, as All Know, Come With Some “Strings” • FOIA is another “String” • USG Employees’ Work is to be Transparent • FOIA is a means for citizens to know what “their Government is up to.“  U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989). • “Strong presumption in favor of disclosure” • To “shed light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties.” • FOIA Applies to These Records

  13. CG 1.0 Revealed US Agencies Were StonewallingWhich Led to an Inspector General Calling Foul

  14. These Records Are Subject To US FOIA

  15. Congress Took IG’s Cue

  16. Why? Because This is Precisely Why FOIA Was Enacted

  17. Then, This Latest Move • As you will see, IPCC set out to create a FOI-Free dead-drop zone, ‘safe houses’ • Expressly to circumvent FOI laws • Which does not change the laws • Just works to get around them • Problem: this itself violates FOI, PRA • Worse problem? getting government help

  18. Sensing Growing Danger, IPCC Leapt To Action

  19. However... • By 8th October 2010, IPCC’s Stocker had in fact already established a “closed electronic discussion fora” for WG1 evading emails and national FOI.

  20. IPCC Enlisted The Obama Administration • Creating offline, nongovernmental electronic fora for discussing production of those reports going forward. • The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy led a government-wide effort to enable the United Nations to pull this off, expressly to frustrate the taxpayer's ability to obtain these records under FOIA. • This was apparently a very big deal when it involved the Bush administration and some guy named Abramoff. • Now, well, it's different (Oh, you said ‘global warming’? OK) • Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/11/most-secretive-ever-seeing-through-transparent-obamas-tricks#ixzz1e0AA1kVk

  21. CEI FOIA Request • In October, we requested all records • Including discussions about... • Documents created, received... • And user name and password • Congress followed suit

  22. The Problem Secrecy Creates • It’s unlawful. • So, also violates tacit funding agreement • What’s come out, stinks. • To the public, it seems like misconduct • Public expects more than sharp practice • GW industry may not be offended • But in trying to convince public: Fail • Larger problem: institutions of science • For appearance, and not being offended

More Related