Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure

[gilliam]

UNITED NATIONS — The scientists involved in producing the periodic United Nations reports on climate change need to be more open to alternative views and more transparent about their own possible conflicts of interest, an independent review panel said Monday.

…
The revelations about the errors contributed to the already highly charged debate about the science of climate change and gave added ammunition to critics doubting assessments that the earth is warming. Coming on the heels of leaked e-mails among some of the leading climate change researchers which suggested that they were manipulating data, the mistakes contributed to what surveys showed were an erosion in public confidence in the science of climate change.
…
The changes recommended by the panel include replacing the top eight officials responsible for producing the United Nations reports every seven years or so. That throws into question whether Rajendra K. Pachauri, the current chairman of the panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should remain to oversee the report due out in 2013-14.

Read the full story here

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Long overdue.

But dramatically understated.

Seven year tenure seems excessive.

But the idea of transparency should be applied to EVERYTHING, since it is supposed to be science.

 

[estesbob]

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

---

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
**Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. **
**All the King’s horses **
And all the King’s men
**Couldn’t put Humpty together again! **

 

[HeavenlyRoses]

In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond to climate change.”

Absolutely! They need to be accurate so the correct decisions are made.

 

[Nec5]

Central planning at its finest.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Translation: “They need more money and more international conferences in really neat places”.

 

[estesbob]

Translation: “They need more money and more international conferences in really neat places”.

Next meeting is in Cancun!

 

[lynnvinc]

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

They are making the process of reporting on the 1000s of climate change studies better, but the studies themselves are high standard, especially in the science chapters.

The real story behind “glaciergate” is that the mistake in the impact chapter on Asia (not in the science chapters) was only spotted late 2009, more that 2 years after the report was released, because people just don’t seem to care enough about the harms to other people, especially Asians or people far off, to have read those chapters. That’s the real story.

Anyone can make a mistake. The person who made it was not an expert in that area, and picked up the mistake from some not-so-reliable sources, ultimately based on info given over a phone conversation and misquoted. A glaciologist (not a denialist) picked up the error, and it was corrected. So no harm done, and I’m sure they will be much more careful in the future. Considering these reports of many 1000s pages are done by scientists in their spare time for free, I would like to point out the tremendous high quality work they’ve done, rather than point out a few errors that were made, then corrected.

I can say “no harm done,” because I also saw the error before the expert detected it, and tho I’m not a glaciologist, I thought the claim seemed unrealistic, so I did not include it in the peer-review article I was writing on “Food Rights & Climate Change.”

The main point is that the glaciers ARE melting rapidly (in geological terms), with dire consequences even now, but won’t likely all disappear for hundred years – if people refuse to mitigate AGW.

I’ve always found the IPCC reports to be ultra-conservative, since science requires 90-95% confidence before making claims, and these reports require agreement among many reticent scientists, making the reports more conservative than individual studies. It’s obvious to me that they are likely underestimating the problem of AGW – that’s the other main story in this. And research since 4AR was released in 2007 has born that out.

 

[Calliso]

They are making the process of reporting on the 1000s of climate change studies better, but the studies themselves are high standard, especially in the science chapters.

The real story behind “glaciergate” is that the mistake in the impact chapter on Asia (not in the science chapters) was only spotted late 2009, more that 2 years after the report was released, **because people just don’t seem to care enough about the harms to other people, especially Asians or people far off, to have read those chapters. That’s the real story. **
Anyone can make a mistake. The person who made it was not an expert in that area, and picked up the mistake from some not-so-reliable sources, ultimately based on info given over a phone conversation and misquoted. A glaciologist (not a denialist) picked up the error, and it was corrected. So no harm done, and I’m sure they will be much more careful in the future. Considering these reports of many 1000s pages are done by scientists in their spare time for free, I would like to point out the tremendous high quality work they’ve done, rather than point out a few errors that were made, then corrected.

I can say “no harm done,” because I also saw the error before the expert detected it, and tho I’m not a glaciologist, I thought the claim seemed unrealistic, so I did not include it in the peer-review article I was writing on “Food Rights & Climate Change.”

The main point is that the glaciers ARE melting rapidly (in geological terms), with dire consequences even now, but won’t likely all disappear for hundred years – if people refuse to mitigate AGW.

I’ve always found the IPCC reports to be ultra-conservative, since science requires 90-95% confidence before making claims, and these reports require agreement among many reticent scientists, making the reports more conservative than individual studies. It’s obvious to me that they are likely underestimating the problem of AGW – that’s the other main story in this. And research since 4AR was released in 2007 has born that out.

I sorta agree with the first bolded statement. But I think it is also likely because most non scientists in general probably only read the summary for policy makers. And I think most of the media coverage was on that and maybe working group 1. Also I am guessing for those that did read it they didn;t even realize it was a mistake heck people might have even skipped right by it. I mean I imagine that would be easy to do if you are trying to read such a long report. And that entire error was like what a couple lines long at most? But you are right about the IPCC being very conservative overly so in fact. So I have to laugh when people call the IPCC projections alarmist and what not. When it seems that some of them for instance sea ice loss in the artic have proven to be way to conservative.

I also notice in the article more mention of climategate not surprised I think it will be another several years before deniers give up that But once again people have to remember there has been a few investigations into that matter and all have found the scientists innocent of the charges for the most part. And by the most part they did criticize the CRU and the university for not being as open with the data as they should have been. Though it should be noted that as I understand it at least at one point they were pretty much being spammed with FOI requests. And these requests can take quite a bit of time to fulfil it isn;t just a simple matter of quickly going onto your computer and sending them a email with all the data at least not always. rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/experience.html and the foi thing seems to have been planned too. rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/amoeba-gets-underfoot.html

 

[NotCrazyDan]

***Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! ***

 

[Catherine_D]

Shenanigans perpetrated by scientists brings into question EVERYTHING they have produced.

I don’t understand why those who have perpetrated a fraud haven’t already been driven out of the conversation on this topic, if not Science altogether.

The Scientific method involves experimentation, observation, and then after a lot of observation of facts, arriving at some sort of hypothesis/conclusion based on the observed facts.

The so-called “scientists” involved in “climategate” formed their hypothesis/conclusion, then went in search of facts that confirmed it, discarding anything that was contrary to their already formed notion. This is not the scientific method, this is something else, something driven by political or monetary expediency.

I have to say that, based on personal experience, some news reporters do the same thing. They form a conclusion, then go out and try to find something to back up what they have already decided. This is not reporting, this is advocacy. But it is what passes for reporting in such places as the New York Times. Since I don’t have a bird, I don’t subscribe to it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s what I just posted over at RealClimate.org (hosted by top climate scientists, who know what they’re talking about) – see realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/ipcc-report-card/ :

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again — I think the IPCC is way too reticent and conservative. I think it underestimates the problem. And if it does, then that’s a MUCH more serious problem than making a few mistakes in WGII in the other direction.

I know science is reticent and conservative, needing 90-95% confidence to make a claim. I call that the SCIENTIFIC MODEL. Scientists cannot afford to be the boy who called wolf and have their reputations harmed; they have to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims. That’s fine for them.

However, policy-makers and laypersons concerned about life on earth would be interested in avoiding the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to mitigate true and very serious problems. You’d think. I call this the MEDICAL MODEL — we’d feel shocked and upset if the doc came back and told us the test was only 94% confident the lump was cancerous, so come back in a few years to see it if it couldn’t get up to 95% so he could operate. We the villagers cannot afford to be eaten up by the wolf. The the real moral to that story is the villagers were pretty stupid not to heed the boy’s warning, even if he did make a couple of mistakes.

Now when you get a bunch of reticent scientists together drawing up a report like the IPCC, having to come to agreements, it’s bound to be more conservative than single studies in erring on the side of avoiding false claims.

And there is another issue — the way the wind is blowing. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice the general trend over the past 20 or so years in AGW studies is “it’s worse than we thought.” So even as each IPCC report comes out, they seem already to be dated and underestimating the problem.

It would be really fine, AOK if the IPCC OVERESTIMATED the problem. (Please do not listen to a bunch of howling denialists on this.) We’d only have things to gain, if we mitigate an untrue AGW, like the money saved thru mitigation, and the mitigation of many many other problems (and $billions saved that way), like reducing local pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, oil wars, you name it. Not to mention the lives saved….

OTOH, if AGW is underestimated, we have everything to lose. I mean EVERYTHING.

 

[lynnvinc]

…that entire error was like what a couple lines long at most?

It was just one four-digit number, 2035 re when the Himalayan glaciers would have all melted (on pg. 493 of the chapter “Asia” in Working Group II, the Impacts). When I saw that number over a year ago, I thought it shocking, so if I were to use it, I needed some peer-reviewed source. When I saw it was from a World Wildlife Fund report (and these are usually good, based on science), I got the report to find out their source. When I saw it was a New Scientist article, I thought – not good enough for my paper to be submitted for peer-review, so I didn’t include that infamous 2035.

I read that the New Scientist editor had called up a glaciologist in India, who told him that 2035 year, but in later interviews that scientist said he had only told that there were a couple of small glaciers (out of the 1000s in the Himalayas) that might melt away by 2035…but certainly not ALL glaciers. Somewhere else I read the numbers got juxtiposed, and it was supposed to be 2350 when the glaciers were expected to melt away in a worse-case scenario.

Just now a USGS study came out based on satellite observations showing the Himalayan glaciers were retreating at an alarming (in geological terms) rate, one 12% in the past 13 years, etc. See pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386f/ and thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Report%20confirms%20rapid%20glacier%20melting%20&NewsID=256176

To those who disdain the bad news about AGW, let’s don’t get side-tracked by typos or misquotes. Let’s look at the big picture, and put our hearts and minds into mitigating this serious problem – in sensible ways that save us money. Perhaps once we get down to a 60 or 70% reduction in GHGs, we might consider some tiny sacrifices. But for now, just do things that save money without lowering productivity or living standards.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

I don’t see typos or misquotes. I see a concerted effort to destroy the careers of scientists who don’t buy into AGW. I see fabrication of evidence on a large scale, and I wonder why all this is necessary if the answers are so obvious.

 

[catsrus]

Thank you lynnvic for a well thought out and reasoned reply.

 

[lynnvinc]

The Scientific method involves experimentation, observation, and then after a lot of observation of facts, arriving at some sort of hypothesis/conclusion based on the observed facts.

The so-called “scientists” involved in “climategate” formed their hypothesis/conclusion, then went in search of facts that confirmed it, discarding anything that was contrary to their already formed notion. This is not the scientific method, this is something else, something driven by political or monetary expediency.

Actually, it was over 100 years that Arrhenius proposed the greenhouse effect theory based on laws of physics; he noted industrial GHG emissions and thought this might lead to warming, but being in Sweden, he thought that might actually be a good thing. So no political agenda whatsoever.

Science is based on evidence AND theory, and the experiment requires some thoughtful hypothesis to be posited first. Evidence without theory is not good science, tho people do observe things first, then propose hypotheses. That’s the INDUCTIVE METHOD. Formal science is based on the DEDUCTIVE METHOD of proposing first a hypothesis. However, hypotheses will be generated by evidence, and the inductive and deductive methods intertwine in reality.

For instance, Arrhenius was aware of ice ages and interglacial periods (evidence), so he looked to radiative physics to include the GHG factor. The big swings in paleoclimatology cannot solely be explained by other forcings, such as earth’s orbit or wobble, or solar irradiance. Often GHGs are a positive feedback to some initial warming from these other forces. The warming melts frozen permafrost and ocean clathrates, which release vast quantities of carbon, mostly CH4 (methane, which degrades into CO2 & other things over time); the CO2 & CH4 increase the warming, melting more permafrost and clathrates, and so on.

The problem with the formal experimental method in the case of AGW, is that (1) it would never pass the Institutional Review Board, much too unethical to purposely emit GHG just to see what happens; and (2) we don’t have another earth to use as a control to the experiment, one on which we do not emit GHGs. So what we are doing is conducting a “natural experiment” – something unintended that just happens (like a toxic spill), but can be studied using before & after data (or some other control group).

This is why they include the use of models in addition to their primary use of paleoclimatology and current evidence of warming and GHGs. The scientists strive to include as many relevant factors in the models as possible, and as computer power has increased over the past 30 years, the models have improved. They then run the models over the past to check them against actual evidence, tweaking them (including more and more relavent factors and tweaking equations) so they jive pretty well with the actual evidence. They can then run them into the future to make projections, or scenarios based on how much GHG emissions might be expected under various worst case and best case scenarios of our GHG emissions.

However, some, such as Steve Easterbrook (a software engineering professor), think the models may be greatly UNDERESTIMATING the AGW and its problems. See easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1140

At any rate the Catholic Church thru the popes and bishops has admonished us time and again over the past 20 years to mitigate AGW, that it is the moral and prudent thing to do, even if some do not accept all the science on it. Even AFTER the CRU hack (“climategate”) and mistakes found in the IPCC (“glaciergate”), BXVI wrote recently:

“Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system [including the glacial cycle], which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” – Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010, vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hasn’t the warming actually been in constant decrease this past decade?

I think theres real issues with polution, water/air, plastic misused and contaminates. But with the Global Warming while thers been an increase existing from early 70s to 2005. Seems to be in decline now.

I don’t discount all the Pope said though. Without a doubt we are abusive to earth as the human race. If we had continued polluting the water as we were up to the 70’s. we would be in a much worse mess.

The fish in the state rivers here are still loaded with PCBs and while they are taken and eaten. Theres a state wide notice that discourages it. So I wouldn’t go as far as to deem us safe from ourselves yet.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t see typos or misquotes. I see a concerted effort to destroy the careers of scientists who don’t buy into AGW. I see fabrication of evidence on a large scale, and I wonder why all this is necessary if the answers are so obvious.

No one is trying to destroy the outlier scientists who don’t accept AGW. Their work stand or falls on its merit. The nature of science is that scientists in general are skeptical, and there will always be some who disagree with the mainstream. Until recently (aroun 1995-2000) most scientists were not on board with AGW – those proposing it were the outliers.

Now with evidence mounting, nearly all scientists are on board with AGW, but there will always be a few proposing other theories and ideas. Science is a brutally competitive field – one has to have better theories and evidence to buck the mainstream, but it sometimes happens. However, that is getting more difficult to do with the mounting evidence from many many sources (not just the CRU) – the science is quite robust now. But it is still possible. Time will tell. If the skeptic are right, then it still pays to mitigate in terms of economic benefits and solving lots of other problems – it would be a win-win-win-win situation. However, it the skeptics are wrong, and we fail to mitigate it would be a lose-lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE situation in which billions could die over the next 100,000 years. It’s not a risk we laypersons should be taking. As the U.S. Bishop have told us, this problems requires prudence – mitigation even if we are not so certain about AGW:

"…our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence…[M]ost experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are…contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate…Consequently, it seems prudent…to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.
–U.S. Bishops, 2001, “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

 

[Catherine_D]

Actually, it was over 100 years that Arrhenius proposed the greenhouse effect theory based on laws of physics; he noted industrial GHG emissions and thought this might lead to warming, but being in Sweden, he thought that might actually be a good thing. So no political agenda whatsoever.

Science is based on evidence AND theory, and the experiment requires some thoughtful hypothesis to be posited first. Evidence without theory is not good science, tho people do observe things first, then propose hypotheses. That’s the INDUCTIVE METHOD. Formal science is based on the DEDUCTIVE METHOD of proposing first a hypothesis. However, hypotheses will be generated by evidence, and the inductive and deductive methods intertwine in reality.

For instance, Arrhenius was aware of ice ages and interglacial periods (evidence), so he looked to radiative physics to include the GHG factor. The big swings in paleoclimatology cannot solely be explained by other forcings, such as earth’s orbit or wobble, or solar irradiance. Often GHGs are a positive feedback to some initial warming from these other forces. The warming melts frozen permafrost and ocean clathrates, which release vast quantities of carbon, mostly CH4 (methane, which degrades into CO2 & other things over time); the CO2 & CH4 increase the warming, melting more permafrost and clathrates, and so on.

The problem with the formal experimental method in the case of AGW, is that (1) it would never pass the Institutional Review Board, much too unethical to purposely emit GHG just to see what happens; and (2) we don’t have another earth to use as a control to the experiment, one on which we do not emit GHGs. So what we are doing is conducting a “natural experiment” – something unintended that just happens (like a toxic spill), but can be studied using before & after data (or some other control group).

This is why they include the use of models in addition to their primary use of paleoclimatology and current evidence of warming and GHGs. The scientists strive to include as many relevant factors in the models as possible, and as computer power has increased over the past 30 years, the models have improved. They then run the models over the past to check them against actual evidence, tweaking them (including more and more relavent factors and tweaking equations) so they jive pretty well with the actual evidence. They can then run them into the future to make projections, or scenarios based on how much GHG emissions might be expected under various worst case and best case scenarios of our GHG emissions.

However, some, such as Steve Easterbrook (a software engineering professor), think the models may be greatly UNDERESTIMATING the AGW and its problems. See easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1140

At any rate the Catholic Church thru the popes and bishops has admonished us time and again over the past 20 years to mitigate AGW, that it is the moral and prudent thing to do, even if some do not accept all the science on it. Even AFTER the CRU hack (“climategate”) and mistakes found in the IPCC (“glaciergate”), BXVI wrote recently:
“Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system [including the glacial cycle], which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” – Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010, vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

I understand.

But my point was that the shenanigans of “climategate” have called the entire subject into question. When scientists fudge the data, drop data that doesn’t support their pre-determined conclusions, etc., it is completely understandable that the general public would not trust their conclusions.

There’s a lot of work to do, work that needs to be done accurately and transparently, to overcome the damage that has been done by those that have played fast and loose with the facts on this subject.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

There’s a lot of work to do, work that needs to be done accurately and transparently, to overcome the damage that has been done by those that have played fast and loose with the facts on this subject.

Good luck to them. I will never look at scientists the same way again due to this issue. I have lost a great deal of respect for climatologists in general because of the fact that so many of them have stirred up hysteria in order to make careers for themselves, and got caught red-handed doing it.

Lynn, your notion that nobody has been trying to destroy the careers of scientists who haven’t bought into AGW is interesting.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more **** criticisms from the idiots in the near future.”
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.

EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to
‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf

climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

iceagenow.com/At_what_point_do_we_execute_global_warming_deniers.htm

***Marlo –

You are so full of ****.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
#***