Review of IPCC Procedures Recently Published

I know most of you won't care about this topic, but I wanted to put it out there so when the next IPCC report comes out in 2013, you'll know that the issues that were raised due to the stolen emails have been addressed, as well as other issues of author conflict, transparency, etc. and the report will be even more credible.

Commentary published in the journal Nature about the report:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/ ... 7014a.html
Climate panel must adapt to survive
Review recommends better governance and transparency for the IPCC in the face of more public scrutiny.

Published online 31 August 2010 | Nature 467, 14 (2010) | doi:10.1038/467014a

Released on 30 August, the recommendations are the product of an independent review — commissioned by the IPCC and the UN — that looked in detail at how the IPCC conducts its business. In the 100-page report, the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council, which represents the world's science academies, recognizes that much of the IPCC's work is done by a throng of volunteer researchers who serve on the IPCC's various committees and working groups. However, the report recommends that the IPCC follow the organizational model adopted by corporations and universities and appoint a full-time executive director, who would manage daily operations and communications while reporting to an independent board of directors (comprised of IPCC leaders AND members outside the climate community, to be changed after every assessment report).

The report also made recommendations to bolster the IPCC's science reviews, to establish formal guidelines on reporting conflicts of interest for IPCC authors, review editors, staff and leadership, and to improve communications with the public and media.

The governments that sponsor the IPCC will discuss the report and decide in mid-October in S. Korea which recommendations to implement and when.

The report: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html