Newsgroup: it.scienza.ambiente
Titolo: Finalmente!

Anche l'Ecommunist si è accorto di Pachauri!
Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC
A time for introspection
Increasing scrutiny of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and,
in particular, its chairman, should lead to reforms
Feb 4th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
THE past month has not been a good one for Rajendra Pachauri (pictured
above), the charismatic chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and director general of TERI, an Indian research institute.
His numerous positions on boards and industrial advisory panels, in India
and beyond, have led to charges of conflicts of interest. His intemperate
defence of mistakes about Himalayan glaciers in the most recent IPCC report
had to be followed by a public statement of regret as it became clear that
the IPCC had indeed been wrong—and that its source has been a magazine
article rather than a piece of scientific literature. And, to cap it all,
public mockery of mildly salacious passages in his recently published novel
(he writes poetry, too) has added further spice, if not substance, to the
stories.
The mistaken claim about the glaciers—that they could disappear by
2035—“never really came to my attention” before the end of last year, Dr
Pachauri maintains, though the opportunities for it to have done so were
numerous. Syed Hasnain, the researcher cited by press reports as a source
for the number (though he denies saying it), is now a consultant at TERI,
though Dr Pachauri says he “hardly interacts” with him. The claim featured
prominently in a presentation that Anastasios Kentarchos of the European
Union gave at a TERI meeting where Dr Pachauri was to deliver a “keynote”
address. Dr Pachauri, however, says he left without attending any of the
actual sessions. Pallava Bagla, who brought the story to wide attention in
Science last November, says he discussed the matter with Dr Pachauri and
e-mailed him about it. Dr Pachauri says the discussions were just a
question at a press conference that he did not really take on board, and
that he read no such e-mails.
Shades of grey
The glacier story has led the IPCC’s critics to pore over its most recent
report, focusing on claims that arise from the “grey literature”—normally
taken to mean reports by governments and other organisations that are not
published commercially or passed through academic channels. It is widely
believed the IPCC looks only at peer-reviewed studies, but the panel’s
guidelines do allow information from elsewhere, as long as it is critically
assessed and has proper references.
What counts as grey, though, is itself a grey area. Chris Field of the
Carnegie Institution, who is co-chairman of the IPCC’s working group II,
defends his decision to cite a story from the New York Times as an
illustration of the effect of poor electricity supply during a heatwave: it
was not being used to provide quantitative data, or an assessment of how
confident one should be in a result, but just to say that something
happened. Still, most would not see the Gray Lady as grey literature.
To accept a role for grey literature at the IPCC, provided it is properly
and critically assessed by the authors, is not to say that peer-reviewed
publications should not dominate the assessments. They should. But to allow
nothing but peer-reviewed literature would not only cut the IPCC off from
some relevant material, it could also help well-placed insiders to
marginalise opinions they do not approve of. There are indications of this
in some of the e-mails from and to the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia that were released on to the web late last year.
The IPCC’s own review process is more catholic; it is quite easy to become
a reviewer. But that may not, in itself, be enough. One reviewer of the
previous report pointed out work by Roger Pielke junior of the University
of Colorado that contradicted what the IPCC was saying about
climate-related trends in the costs of disasters. In responding, an
anonymous IPCC author said that he or she believed Dr Pielke had changed
his mind on the matter, without either asking him or, apparently, studying
his most recent publications on the subject, which showed he had not. (Dr
Pielke also thinks a graph on the subject was redrawn to buttress a case
that cannot actually be stood up.)
The fact that critics can dig far enough into the reviewing process to see
such details speaks well of the IPCC’s transparency, but not all of its
procedures are easy to scrutinise. The selection of authors, for example,
is something of a black box. Since it is on the expertise, judgment and
character of these authors, as much or more than on procedure, that the
whole enterprise rests, this needs reform.
Other procedures are simply lacking. Charges of conflict of interest
levelled at Dr Pachauri are hard to judge because the governments which
organise the IPCC have provided no way for interests to be declared, or for
conflicts to be assessed. Dr Pachauri says he would be quite happy for them
to do so. At the same time, interpreting such conflict as suggestive of
personal gain, he rejects charges made against him. He says that, on his
appointment in 2002, he refused even to take money for his office from the
IPCC, and that all payments for his advice and services go to TERI, not to
him. Though he has brought new resources and standing to the institute, his
TERI salary, he says, has risen only in line with inflation. How much that
would be, though, he cannot say. He does not, apparently, trouble himself
to know what his salary actually is.

"F. Bertolazzi" <TOGL...@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:1swfiea0y5ooo$.1jg8ixvhrj10c$.dlg@40tude.net...
| Anche l'Ecommunist si � accorto di Pachauri!
|
| Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC
| A time for introspection
| Increasing scrutiny of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and,
| in particular, its chairman, should lead to reforms
| Feb 4th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
|
Greenpeace UK chiede le dimissioni del ferroviario.
Si saranno riuniti all'ikea di london?

 Greenpeace UK chiede le dimissioni del ferroviario.
forse è difficile.
Il "Climategate" ormai è un caso chiuso.
Non c'erano quelle "indications" (indizi) [1] nelle famose e-mail
rubate all'East Anglia University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?src=mv
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=12589
E mo' che famo? lo licenziamo lo stesso?
O prima licenziamo te e...Bert? ;o)
Bung
[1]
...
"But to allow nothing but peer-reviewed literature would not only
cut the IPCC off from some relevant material, it could also help
well-placed insiders to marginalise opinions they do not approve
of.
There are indications of this in some of the e-mails from and to
theClimatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that
were
released on to the web late last year."
...
da "The Economist", print edition, del 4 febbraio 2010.


lavoro in proprio :-P

 lavoro in proprio :-P
az...allora stai messo proprio male.
un dipendente licenziato può sperare di trovare un altro lavoro,
ma un professionista che si sputtana da solo... ;D
Comunque a Birmingham (Inghilterra) i lavapiatti guadagnano
benino.
Bung :)

 ma un professionista che si sputtana da solo... ;D
rosica... rosica...
:D

 :D
da mo' che sto in pensione...che dovrei rosica'? :D

"Bung" <nos...@nospam.kid> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:4bb3d465$0$1111$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...

e io paaago!
:-)

 :-)
già! :P
(e io ho pagato prima, e non sai quanto...) :(
Però cambiare spesso mestiere è gratificante, nonostante la 
burocrazia.
Vedrai :D
Bung :)

 Vedrai :D
lo so... sono "vecchio" del mestiere ;)
io lo faccio quasi quotidianamente :)))

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:hp456u$an2$1...@tdi.cu.mi.it...

bien! allora, collega ;-)