When I saw that the IAC Panel had not invited McIntyre and McKitrick for Tuesday’s session I decided to ask the Panel through its spokeperson for an explantion. On Thursday I sent the following email to William Kearney:
I am Dutch science writer following the global warming debate closely. I was present at the first meeting of the IAC Review Panel in Amsterdam.
I applaud the Panel’s decision to invite people with ‘varying perspectives’ for the next meeting in Montreal. However, for people familiar with crucial and controversial issues in WG1 of the AR4 IPCC report, it is inconceivable that a Review Panel would not invite Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
They were not only involved in the process (they were both very active as expert reviewers), but their work was also misrepresented in two important cases: McKitrick’s and Michaels’ critique on the global average temperature in chapter 3 and McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s critique on the hockey stick in Chapter 6.
Apart from the misrepresentation of their work, the climategate emails show how they were denigrated by IPCC lead authors.
Not inviting McIntyre and McKitrick during a public hearing of the IAC Review Panel is like not inviting victims of a crime in a court case.
However, now that the list of speakers for next week’s hearing is online, it turns out they are not invited. Given the fact that the meeting is in Montreal and that both McIntyre and McKitrick live relatively close from there (compared to Watson and Von Storch for example), this means that the IAC Panel has decided deliberately not to seek evidence from them.
This screams for an explanation in my opinion. A clear explanation from the IAC Panel about this decision would therefore be highly appreciated.
Early this morning I received the following answer from William Kearney:
Marcel, sorry it took me till now to get back to you. Given that the InterAcademy Council committee reviewing IPCC processes and procedures expects to deliver a peer-reviewed report by Aug. 30, it has limited time for presentations at its public meetings and therefore has chosen speakers who are current leaders of IPCC or who can offer representative and varying perspectives of IPCC processes based on prior IPCC experience. Meanwhile, members of the committee are interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. A questionnaire also has been sent to hundreds of scientists and stakeholders, and posted to our website so the public has an opportunity to offer input. The presentations, interviews, and answers to questionnaire all will be taken into consideration as part of the committee’s review. I hope you can tune into our webcast from Montreal. If you cannot listen live, we’ll have a recording up soon thereafter. If you want to try to reach any of the speakers in Montreal, let me know and I will try to facilitate. Bill.
The answer is polite but doesn’t make sense because the reason he gives to invite speakers – “speakers (…) who can offer representative and varying perspectives of IPCC processes based on prior IPCC experience” – fits perfectly with McIntyre and McKitrick. They were expert reviewers of AR4. Von Storch by the way was – as far as I know – not involved in AR4 at all. However after climategate and the errors in IPCC he openly criticized the IPCC in an op-ed in Der Spiegel. I have nothing against the presence of Von Storch, he is a very experienced climate scientist and I know he is a favorite scientist for this kind of Panels because he is not a skeptic but nevertheless he is prepared to be critical when science is not done in a proper way. However in this case the Panel should at least have invited either McIntyre or McKitrick because of their crucial role in both controversial issues in AR4 (hockey stick and Urban Heat Island).
Meanwhile I received an email from McIntyre writing that on Friday afternoon he received the questionnaire of the Panel. Can this be coincidence? No, especially when you take into account that Judith Curry received this questionnaire already a couple of weeks ago (information from McIntyre). McKitrick also received the questionnaire yesterday.
Kearney also writes that “members of the committee are interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick”. Is he saying that they will interview McIntyre and McKitrick? No. He is saying that dozens of people in the category “McIntyre and McKitrick” will be interviewed. McIntyre and McKitrick so far have not received requests from the Panel for an interview. Now they have notified the “existence” of the two Canadians, it will be interesting to see whether one of the 12 Panel members (among which the Dutch scientist Louise Fresco) will take the chance to interview McIntyre or McKitrick, especially now they are already in Canada.
- Mijn suggesties aan het IAC Panel
- IAC Panel live vanaf 14 uur
- Shapiro: panel gaat ook critici horen
- John Christy: IPCC authors are gatekeepers
- Hoe kan IAC-commissie objectief zijn als Shapiro $45.000 doneerde aan Pachauri?