The thing(s) with climate change

[ferdgoodfellow]

The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.

The manner in which the IPCC arrives at its conclusions is not very scientific. As stated above, only a relative handful of participating scientists have a direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC. The policy summaries are produced by an inner core of scientists, and they are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.

The vaunted IPCC review process is not very scientific or rigorous. The review process falls far short of traditional peer review. IPCC insiders admit that there is no data quality assurance performed on the studies reviewed by the IPCC. The IPCC naively trusts the integrity of the scientific journals and their peer review process. In fact, IPCC administrators told one expert reviewer, Stephen McIntyre, that his position would be terminated if he persisted in seeking the underlying data of a particular journal article. Another problem with the IPCC review process is that lead authors are given veto power over objections raised by reviewers, which often are just summarily dismissed. Lead authors also are allowed to judge their own work as well as that of their critics. A good example of this conflict of interest in action would be Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy. Mann, as lead author of the 2001 paleoclimate chapter, approved his own shoddy scholarship and featured it in his chapter.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.

Chairman Pachauri boasted that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed articles. This claim was spectacularly proven false when it was revealed that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035 was based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine article. Journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed.

72% is not 100%.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.

The IPCC is not justified in relying on the peer-review process to produce quality articles for its review because the peer-review process itself has proved to be unreliable and cannot be trusted. In this regard the urban heat island effect study by Wang and Jones, which grossly misrepresented its data, can be cited. However, the Hockey Stick studies by Mann et al are the best examples of the unreliability of normal peer-review. Mann’s studies were published in very reputable journals but received only cursory examination of their methods and no examination of their data. No due diligence work was performed until four years after publication, when Stephen McIntyre, a semi-retired mining consultant from Canada, took an interest in Mann’s work as a hobby and tried to replicate his findings. McIntyre first discovered numerous problems with Mann’s data. In some cases it was impossible to find the original data sources. The data sets had gaps and in some instances the gaps were filled in using the last available number. Some data sets were mislabeled, some were truncated, and some were obsolete. McIntyre also discovered that Mann had used data sets which were known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions but which were apparently included because they had the desired hockey stick shape. McIntyre was eventually able to prove that Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, which supposedly proved that the warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented in 1,000 years, was an artifact of his flawed statistical methods and bad data. Yet Mann’s papers sailed on through peer-review, both at the journal level and at the IPCC.

Recall Holdren’s words about “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” Nah!

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Other Bad Acts

There are numerous documented instances of cheating and other bad behavior which prove the IPCC cannot be trusted. The Climategate emails arguably show that IPCC insiders are guilty of journal tampering and of conspiring to violate Freedom of Information Act laws. The emails also contain disturbing evidence of collusion between a journal editor and IPCC insiders. IPCC rules and deadlines are routinely ignored when convenient. Scientific evidence is often misrepresented in reports and evidence has been manufactured.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Re Post 102.

That the IPCC has severe problems with is structure, procedures, and policies was resoundingly confirmed by the Interacademy Council whose report can be accessed here:

reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Prior Inconsistent Statements and Admissions

Regarding the present halt in global warming, IPCC bigwig Kevin Trenberth said privately to his colleagues: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. [Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009]

The IPCC would have us place a lot of confidence in the ability of its computer models to predict the future. However, in its Third Assessment Report it admitted this: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not
possible.” (TAR, p.774.)

Again with respect to the predictive ability of computer models, Kevin Trenberth admitted there are no climate predictions at all. blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

[If anyone would like to add other examples, feel free.]

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

re post no. 105 and other bad acts

Don’t forget Phil Jones. IPCC bigwig. He was the guy, when pressed by someone who wanted full disclosure of his hadcrut temp data, said, “why should I give it to you when all you are going to do is find something wrong with it?”

He also was one of the main conspirators in the “Hide the Decline” scandal.

The Climategate emails show, without a reasonable doubt, that he encouraged violating Britain’s FOIA laws.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

quick poll of bishops:

How do you feel now about the credibilty of the IPCC? [we haven’t even attacked the science yet]

 

[Theo520]

The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.

Chairman Pachauri boasted that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed articles. This claim was spectacularly proven false when it was revealed that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035 was based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine article. Journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed.

72% is not 100%.

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of these tidbits.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Other Bad Acts

The Hockey Stick scandal does much to illuminate the corrupt inner workings of the general climate science community. Michael Mann was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.

Yet the establishment covered for him and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s critical comment because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors and the IPCC flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable.

But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of these tidbits.

For me it would be understandable if they didn’t exclusively use peer-reviewed studies in the IPCC review process. Even 72% seems like a high percentage. But the issue is why wasn’t the IPCC honest about it. When Pachauri went around bragging about only peer-reviewed studies being used, why didn’t others within and without the IPCC correct the record?

One big reason, I think, apart from their just wanting to burnish the IPCC’s reputation as the Bestest Climate Authority in the World, was that they wanted to discredit their critics who were being systematically prevented from publishing in all the leading journals.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Re Post 102.

That the IPCC has severe problems with is structure, procedures, and policies was resoundingly confirmed by the Interacademy Council whose report can be accessed here:

reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

I turns out that members of the IAC Board represent the following scientific organizations (even the Royal Society!):

Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Science of South Africa
African Academy of Sciences
Argentina National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
German National Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
InterAcademy Medical Panel
InterAcademy Panel on International Issues
International Council for Science (ICSU)
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Science Council of Japan
The Royal Society, United Kingdom
Turkish Academy of Sciences
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

 

[aclausen]

Other Bad Acts

The Hockey Stick scandal does much to illuminate the corrupt inner workings of the general climate science community. Michael Mann was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.

Yet the establishment covered for him and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s critical comment because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors and the IPCC flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable.

But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.

There was no scandal, and multiple other data sets confirm Mann’s observations. The “scandal” was manufactured by the Heartland Institute, whose sole purpose is to assure the American coal and oil industries remain unmolested by science.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

There was no scandal, and multiple other data sets confirm Mann’s observations. The “scandal” was manufactured by the Heartland Institute, whose sole purpose is to assure the American coal and oil industries remain unmolested by science.

Hi Claus,

In order to be properly eddicated on the subject of the scandal of the Hockey Stick, you need to read Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion. It will clear up for you any delusions you may have that the Heartland Institute had anything to do with it.

Please give a fact-based defense of Mann against the following charges:

Mann is guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

There was no scandal, and multiple other data sets confirm Mann’s observations. …

Please 'splain how these “multiple other data sets confirm Mann’s observations.” And do this while 'splaining how these other studies are independent of Mann (i.e. outside the paleoclimate tribe with all its pal-reviewing), abided by the admonitions of the AAS and Wegman panels not to use bristlecone pines, goofy and unorthodox statistics, freely cooperated with auditing and were utterly transparent, and otherwise didn’t use cherry-picking means to produce a result consistent with the original discredited hockey stick curve.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

How is our hypothetical jury of bishops leaning now?

In a court of law a jury may disbelieve a witness if it finds the witness is biased, has lied, or is guilty of serious misconduct. The testimony of an expert scientific witness can be discounted if it shown that his expertise has been misrepresented or he does not adhere to the disciplines of science. With respect to the IPCC and the climate science establishment in general, all of these grounds and more are present.

A lot more than 10% of our bishops would think our impeachment of the climate science establishment led by the IPCC has been pretty devastating. Any reasonable person would think the same.

The credibility of the IPCC is so low that, if they tell you the sun is shining, you better run to the window to check it out.

 

[lynnvinc]

The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.

Chairman Pachauri boasted that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed articles. This claim was spectacularly proven false when it was revealed that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035 was based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine article. Journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed.

72% is not 100%.

There are 3 parts to the IPCC: WGI (Working Group I) the Physical Science Basis; WG II Impacts, Adaptations & Vulnerabilities; and WG III Mitigation of Climate Change.

WGI is mainly based on peer-review studies and some raw data.

I made the same mistake Pachauri (who is NOT a climate scientist) made in thinking all the working group sections were based only or mainly on peer-reviewed studies when I was writing a paper on Food and Climate Change back in 2007.

I came across that glacier “mistake” (Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035) in the 4th Assessment Report (2007), WGII, Chapter 10 Asia, page 293. Since I had been in contact with climate scientists earlier and knew that glaciers would take 100s of years at the soonest to completely melt, I was surprised. Working on a peer-reviewed article myself, I wanted to make sure, so I looked up the source – a World Wildlife Fund report. Now those types of NGO reports are usually pretty good, mainly based on peer-reviewed science themselves and providing a much needed synthesis for lay readers. I downloaded the WWF report and looked up its source re the glacier melt claim: The New Scientist. At that point I went no further, since I didn’t consider that jnl good enough for my paper. The upshot is I did not use that glacier mistake in my paper.

A year or so after that a glaciologist (not a denialist) found that mistake and drew attention to it. It was eventually corrected or made known to the public.

Since it seems I was the ONLY one reading WGII, Ch 10 Asia (until that glaciologist happened upon it), since I was the ONLY one concerned about the impact of AGW on Asia, but did not use that mistake in my article, there was absolutely NO HARM DONE AT ALL!

The IPCC people learned from that mistake and a few others and have put in place some safeguards to help prevent them in the future, so I don’t really see any problem at all. Of course, they may make other mistakes in such a huge unwieldy enterprise comprising 1000s of pages and involving 100s of writers. And will be needing to correct and tweak as they go. That’s the nature of science.

And anyway, if we keep profligately emitting GHGs willy nilly ALL the glaciers will melt eventually…and the people in the future will first be severely harmed by the extreme flooding caused by that melt (which is happening now in places), then by the lack of irrigation water during the growing season, leading to famine and death. The people of, say, 2800, are just as precious in God’s sight as the people of the 21st century. Let’s not forget that most important point.

So please let’s stop kicking a dead horse and focus on the important issues. The IPCC is an amazing work developed by 100s of scientists and other experts. I suggest reading the latest 5th Assessment Report and you’ll see what I mean (tho it’s a bit boring and heavy reading). See: ipcc.ch/index.htm

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Lynn,

Pachauri did not just make a mistake; he knowingly spoke falsely. And not only that, folks within and outside the IPCC knew the 100% peer review claim was false but still they did not correct the record.

A reasonable person would admit that such dishonesty diminishes the credibility of the IPCC.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hi Lynn,

Pachauri did not just make a mistake; he knowingly spoke falsely. And not only that, folks within and outside the IPCC knew the 100% peer review claim was false but still they did not correct the record.

A reasonable person would admit that such dishonesty diminishes the credibility of the IPCC.

Look, Pachauri was selected because GW Bush didn’t like the real climate scientist that headed it, so please blame it on Bush. I guess he thought bec Pachauri was not a climate scientist and an Indian he could be easily manipulated by the oily folks…sort of like how India put Indira Gandhi in as PM some decades ago, thinking they could manipulate a woman.

And the reason I think Pachauri was so defensive re the IPCC report is because of all the oily denialists out there hounding the climate scientists and hounding him bec he dared to actually believe what the climate scientists were saying and stick to his guns, r/t kow-tow to Bush and the likes. I really think he didn’t know, bec WGI is the main part and it IS based almost entirely on peer-review, so he was probably working off that claim. I also had the impression that the whole thing was based on 100% (or nearly) peer-rev…and probably missed the part that said the science (meaning WGI) was based on nearly 100% peer-rev.