Tuesday, December 13, 2011

IPCC, CoI, FoI

There are two points worth noting about the IPCC WG2 AR2 lead authors meeting in San Francisco.


First, a conflict of interest is now in place. Essentially, we all signed a form declaring that we have no conflicts of interest. This is defined narrowly: pecuniary, personal, direct benefit from deliberate bias. There is no audit of these declarations, and they will not be made public. The IPCC pretends that its authors operate in their personal capacity, even if people work on their chapters in their bosses' time. Conflicts of interest that arise because IPCC authors are also journal editors, PhD advisors, researchers, fund raisers, referees, and what nots are deemed irrelevant.

Energy Economics, an academic journal, has decided that the IPCC poses a conflict of interest and a potential risk for the reputation of the journal. The journal editors will refrain from handling papers that are relevant to the IPCC chapters they are involved with as authors.

Second, the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Richard,
    when you say 'the IPCC member states have ruled...' surely you mean that an interpretation has been made by the IPCC , not an actual ruling, because as you say the IPCC has no say in this matter. Could you point us to the source please.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Richard, I also am trying to figure out the basis for the reported assertion that "the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material" (one that you say is false).

    Was this statement made in any documents provided to IPCC WG2 authors? Or was it an oral statement by an IPCC WG2 official? If so, who?
    Thanks, Steve McIntyre

    ReplyDelete