IPCC AR4 also gets a failing grade on 21 chapters

While Oxburgh writes a 5 page book report that most college professors would likely reject due to incompleteness, we have this report from Donna Laframboise of Toronto and a team of citizen auditors. The mission? Determine how much of AR4 met IPCC’s own standards for peer review by reviewing every reference in the report to determine if it comes from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, or if they “simply made stuff up”, like glacier melt dates.

She writes:

21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.

Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”

We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.

Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As.

In November, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri disparaged non-peer-reviewed research in an interview with the Times of India (see the end of the article):

IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.

Between Oxburgh’s failure to write a credible report and this obvious failure of IPCC to follow their own rules, is it any wonder why people are beginning to laugh at the “robustness” oft touted in climate science?

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC. Bookmark the permalink.

165 Responses to IPCC AR4 also gets a failing grade on 21 chapters

  1. Calum says:

    Well done to everyone for revealing the flimsy nature of the IPCC AR4.

    You could send a link to the secretary of the Inter-Academy Council who are reviewing (supposedly) IPCC reports.

  2. Brilliant research – well found! We need to keep raising awareness of the pseudo-mystical guff that the IPCC continues to recucle and pass of as science. How about the formation of a Campaign for Real Science?

  3. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I couldn’t find a location on Donna Laframboise’s web page to congratulate her on a job well done. May I do it here? Another Great Canadian :-)

  4. pgosselin says:

    Leaks just keep popping every where.
    The IPCC AR4 is an advocacy work that uses cherry-picked science to drive an agenda, while completely ignoring a huge scientific body that is not in agreement. They failed, or even refused, to discern scientific literature from fantasy.

  5. oakgeo says:

    So a total of 30% of the citations were of non-peer reviewed writings. That’s actually far worse than I expected. It also would be interesting to know how many of the 70% peer reviewed citations were actually referenced correctly (i.e. supported the relevent IPCC text), but that would be a monumental undertaking.

  6. MattE says:

    Would be nice if the listing mentioned, generally, what was in each of the failing chapters…

  7. The IPCC really are a bunch of shysters. And the response will be….

    “Nothing to see here. Move along now”

    I’ll echo Calum – well done to everyone involved. Copy of this going to my MP (once the election is over and to Cameron).

  8. Loco says:

    Perhaps we should report on all the major players and give them a grading…?
    Al Gore – for inaccurate, misleading and totally unscientific pronouncements, oh, and for making a truck load of money by scaring people… F
    John Kerry – for being in a position of power and influence, but for being so DUMB (I’ve never seen a peer reviewed paper that refutes global warming)… F
    George Monbiot – For years of rampant alarmism, but then finally having the balls to admit that Climategate was both damming and a blow to the AGW cause… C+
    James Hansen – for.. um, where do you start? For some of the most outrageous pronouncements on global warming every to dribble from a person’s lips… G (only because it’s below an F!)
    Steve McIntyre – For vigilance and determination in the face of almost overwhelming odds… A++
    There’s plenty more to choose from!

  9. vigilantfish says:

    Well done Donna LaFramboise and the citizen volunteer auditors! I agree with MattE. It would be interesting to see a semi-detailed analysis of the chapters that are the worst offenders.

  10. Wind Rider says:

    The breakdown of the grading by chapters is interesting – Group one, describing ‘Climate Science’ appears to have been put together somewhat professionally. The part where they start ‘making things up’ comes in with the work from Groups two and three, Impacts and Mitigations, respectively.

    So, basically, they may be able to claim to talk about ‘something’ happening, but as far as what that means, and what should be done about it, they don’t seem to have a the first frakkin clue other than their hairshirt agenda.

  11. pgosselin says:

    To be fair, AR4 (70%) is an improvement over TAR (62%).
    http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/ipccs-scientific-assessment-reports/
    At this rate the IPCC will be using only 100% peer-reviewed literature by 2030. But by then we might be in a little ice age (but at least AGW will be proven!).

  12. mrpkw says:

    OUTSTANDING !!!!

    Will anyone pay attention ???

  13. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Great job guys. Eventually the masses will catch on to the entirely political nature of the IPCC and many of its lead authors.
    A tipping point will be reached, hopefully soon.(note the number of hits on this blog alone, steadily rising).

  14. Bob Laban says:

    An excellent idea, but the auditors have not followed it up with the necessary analysis. Were the references to news articles, etc. *appropriate*? If the cited publication was accurate authority for the proposition footnoted, then it is correct, regardless of whether it is peer-reviewed.

    For example, if you are referring to the Kyoto Protocol, you may want to cite to the text of the treaty (not peer reviewed) rather than to a peer-reviewed article about the treaty.

  15. RockyRoad says:

    Any bets whether Al Gore will now follow through on his promise to get with Fox News for an interview?

    What would be the odds?

  16. Max Westin says:

    Unfortunately for Framboise she bases her report card (much like many of her past criticisms) on the wrong information. Regardless of what Pachauri has said publicly, the IPCC guidelines do not state that it will only use peer reviewed literature. See for yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

    “[The IPCC will reference] Peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry.”

    [snip]

    REPLY: That’s a point of consideration, but consider this: warmists will never again be able to say “but it’s not peer reviewed, and therefore irrelevant without looking like complete fools in the context of citing the IPCC -A

  17. Richard Tol says:

    @vigilantfish and all
    If you click through you’ll find all the raw data on each chapter

  18. Riku Mellin says:

    Hi, Riku Mellin, one of the auditors from the project.

    I noticed that few people requested more details.

    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php

    You can find the list of the individual workgroup and under the chapter number you can find “A”, “B” and “C” options, wich all of them have the individual audit.

  19. GregF says:

    MattE and vigilantfish, click on the link to the report on Donna’s page above, then click on detailed findings. Under each chapter listing is an a, b and c. Those link to the individual audits and also link to the text of the chapter and the reference list. That should be enough to get you started. Cheers,

    GregF

  20. fredb says:

    How many of these grey literature citations stood in isolation *without* a partner peer reviewed citation. My (incomplete) reading of the IPCC is that most often the grey literature citation was a complement to a peer reviewed citation. Unless that distinction is made in this sort of analysis, this posting has little meaning.

  21. Robert M says:

    edit… yo???

    professors would likely reject due yo incompleteness, we have

  22. Frank Lansner says:

    This is extremely useful. Its becoming harder and harder for the global warming movement. Now they cant even get away with “It must be peer reviewed” anymore. Poor AGW crowd.

  23. Todd Brunner says:

    Regardless of what Pachauri is quoted as saying, the IPCC guidelines clearly state that they use non-peer reviewed literature at times. Looks like everyone gets an A after all….except Laframboise and her in-depth research team.

  24. Layne Blanchard says:

    Someone posted here recently that there was a clause somewhere in AR4 allowing grey literature. Don’t know myself. But is a fluff piece by WWF even considered “grey”?

  25. Todd Brunner says:

    Forgot a link to the IPCC publication guidelines: http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/publications.html

  26. RockyRoad says:

    fredb (09:45:45) :

    How many of these grey literature citations stood in isolation *without* a partner peer reviewed citation. My (incomplete) reading of the IPCC is that most often the grey literature citation was a complement to a peer reviewed citation. Unless that distinction is made in this sort of analysis, this posting has little meaning
    ———————–
    Reply:

    Of what use and of what authority are companion citations that come from non-peer-reviewed sources (regardless of whether or not they ahppen to be paired with peer-reviewed sources)?

    Answer? NADA!

    The only reason they’re thrown in is to increase “thud factor” — toss the document on the
    floor and because it’s thicker, it makes a bigger thud.

    Is that what science has come to? (It does’t work for a mid-term English paper, either!)

  27. Charles Higley says:

    The models must be right because they are so expensive and complicated. How could they be wrong?.

    The IPCC AR4 must be right because so many “scientists” and real scientists worked on it. Ah, but who edited it?

    Of course, I would really like to see which chapters earned A’s or B’s, as they were probably topics which were not crucial to the AGW fabrication of assumptions. The editors could let these few goods chapters slide.

    A friend used to say “We should eat cow dung. How can 14 trillion flies be wrong!” (His version of Truth by Democracy.)

  28. F. Ross says:

    Well done auditors.

    As far as the results go, who would expect anything else from any United Nations organization?

  29. Ron says:

    In section 6 of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work it does say that not all material must be peer reviewed but it must be clearly labled as such.

    6. IPCC SUPPORTING MATERIAL

    All supporting material should be formally and prominently described on the front and other introductory covers as:

    “Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review processes.”

  30. Charles Higley says:

    RockyRoad (09:59:51) said:

    “Of what use and of what authority are companion citations that come from non-peer-reviewed sources (regardless of whether or not they ahppen to be paired with peer-reviewed sources)?”

    Ah, but the grey companion citations often use much less objective (more alarmist) language, which is what they really want. Exaggerated conclusions and wantom, scary warmings, abound.

  31. Peer review is no guarantee of quality or protection against advocacy it is important in the scientific process. This is good work, thank you volunteers. We must remember the IPCC process is more political then anything else. This is not an excuse for not even following its own rules, it just is the way it is.

  32. GregO says:

    After Climategate last year it was a relief to find that AGW was shall we say, exaggerated. And it’s good news too – man-made CO2 is nothing more than much needed plant food. Public opinion polls show concern for the AGW conjecture is low and we can hope it falls even lower as there is nothing to be concerned about.

    The bad news is that the exaggerations and flat out lies continue to inform our leaders and the electorate and MSM couldn’t seem to care less. Donna LaFramoise and her citizen volunteers have shown that so-called gold-standard peer-reviewed science informing the UN and world governments is more exaggeration and in some cases pure hearsay. There is an old saying – nothing ruins the truth like stretching it.

    So this what the face of “settled climate science” looks like. Get past the letters after the names; get past the august institutions of academia and government; that’s the mask: rip it off and you get the real face of this so-called settled science. It looks a lot to me like a lynch mob of politically posturing petty intellectuals hungry for totally undeserved public recognition. Rip off the mask; what do you see? I see evil.

  33. Don Shaw says:

    Max Westin (09:33:29) :

    Max, Did you know that the IPCC recently changed the wording and removed the claim re: only using peer reviewed material?

  34. Henry chance says:

    The anti science mis informers are which side?

  35. bubbagyro says:

    This audit is a great start, but let’s not fall into the “if it’s peer reviewed, it’s OK”. How many of the “peer reviewed” papers are from controversial journals like Science or Nature? How many papers are mutually reviewed? (One lies, the other swears to it, or you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours!).

    I think the whole field of climate science has to move from opinion or speculation to hard science, with more input from physicists, chemists, geologists, statisticians, and biologists. I think meteorology has to be stepped up a notch so that divinity students like Al Gore or Railroad Engineers like Pachauri don’t get first dibs in the debate. Although if their arguments were sound, I don’t care who their mothers are.

  36. Agassiz says:

    Part of the standard of classifying a paper as “non-peer reviewed” by this report is that the paper in question was published before the modern, scientific peer review process existed. Here is some of scientific literature cited in Working Group 1, Chapter One, that falls in that category:

    1. Agassiz, L., 1837: Discours d’ouverture sur l’ancienne extension des glaciers. Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles, Neufchâtel

    2. Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872: Suggestions on a Uniform System of Meteorological Observations. Publication No. 37, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Utrecht, 56 pp.

    3. Croll, J., 1890: Climate and Time in Their Geological Relations: A Theory of Secular Changes of the Earth’s Climate, 2nd ed. Appleton, New York, 577 pp.

    4. Langley, S.P., 1884: Researches on the Solar Heat and its Absorption by the Earth’s Atmosphere. A Report of the Mount Whitney Expedition. Signal Service Professional Paper 15, Washington, DC.

    In the case of the first one listed, the IPCC report reads “Louis Agassiz (1837) developed the hypothesis that Europe had experienced past glacial ages … .” That’s the sum total of the Agassiz reference.

    My question is: do the authors of this report card — and everyone here writing in support of this document — believe that it is appropriate to treat a reference of scientific literature like this one (Agassiz) on the exact same basis that contemporary peer-reviewed scientific literature (e.g., Mann) is referenced?

  37. Sphaerica says:

    This would be great if it weren’t complete garbage, because there is no such rule that only peer-reviewed studies may be used. Quite to the contrary, they have explicit rules on how and when non-peer reviewed publications may be used.

    Read the PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS Adopted at the Fifteenth Session (San Jose, 15- 18 April 1999) amended at the Twentieth Session (Paris, 19-21 February 2003), Twenty-first Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), and Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August – 4 September 2008) to see the “rubric” which should have been used for “grading”.

    And in the future, please do your own research before you publish nonsense, spread disinformation, and waste everybody’s time.

    From the rules…

    PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS

    Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.

    Note that working groups 2 and 3, the ones with all of the “failing” grades because the (gasp) used non-peer reviewed studies, are concerned with mitigation and adaptation activities.

  38. Fred says:

    I still think they’d be more accurate and honest if the used a Beer Review Process.

    Couldn’t be any worse than their current process.

  39. Todd Brunner says:

    The IPCC PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS has the official work on non-peer reviewed literature in its section entitled PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS:

    “Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided…”

    Read more here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

  40. bubbagyro says:

    I agree with Sphaerica.
    Almost all of the articles in the IPCC, peer reviewed or not, are cherry-picked to support their hare-brained hypotheses, or else their membership in the Club Gore and access to lucrative grants are jeopardized. This hypothesis, the earth is warming unprecedentedly, it is caused by humans, and CO2 is the culprit, has been falsified on all three issues in the last 10 or more years in both peer-reviewed and “rogue” journals (today’s rogue journals, with more honorable peers doing the reviewing, I predict will be the bellwether of science in the not-too-distant future) since it has been shown that a conspiracy has kept “skeptical” papers out of the “reputable” journals.

  41. Michael says:

    “When the Sun’s magnetic output is low, winters in Europe tend to be cooler than average – whereas higher output corresponds to warmer winters. That is the conclusion of a new study by physicists in the UK and Germany that looked at the relationship between winter temperatures in England and the strength of the Sun’s magnetic emissions over the last 350 years. The group predicts that, global warming notwithstanding, Europe is likely to continue to experience cold winters for many years to come.”

    Sun Blamed for Europe’s Colder Winters
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42298

  42. James Sexton says:

    Sphaerica (10:26:05) :

    “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”…..Rajendra Pachauri.

    So, Sphaerica, I ask you, is the head of this group that stupid that he doesn’t know the rules governing his work product, or is he so dishonest that he’d wish to mislead the world regarding his work product?
    Further, you know, like I know, the words “peer reviewed” has been part and parcel of the alarmist mantra. So much so, the sentiments have echoed the above quote.
    In the end, it doesn’t really matter if the rules allowed “grey” material or not. The head of the group (Pachy) either doesn’t know what the rules are or is completely dishonest. This alone and in itself is enough to invalidate the work product. The reasons for the invalidation is exemplified by the many statements that came out of the IPCCs work product that were shown to be so blatantly wrong. (Rapidly melting glaciers in the Himalayan, for example .) They were either too stupid for such an undertaking or grossly dishonest. I suspect both, but will be difficult to prove.

  43. Neil says:

    Al Gore et al will dismiss this research as ‘typical of the sceptics and ‘deniars’. Sadly, this will not get the airtime it deserves, particularly on the ‘impartial’ BBC

  44. Smokey says:

    From Don Shaw above:

    “Max, Did you know that the IPCC recently changed the wording and removed the claim re: only using peer reviewed material?”

    I wonder if Sphaerica has the language that was changed in 2008? I’d like to see all the changed language posted for the record.

  45. Summer is coming, the arctic sea ice starts its seasonal decline and the cryosat ready to start beaming down info.

    It’s going to be an interesting year.

  46. Sphaerica says:

    James Sexton,

    Funny you should mention glaciers. WUWT loves to post articles on weather and anecdotal events (look! it snowed this winter! global warming can’t exist!), but there’s no mention of the glacier that collapsed in peru, destroying fifty homes in the process.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/13/massive-glacier-triggers-tsunami-lake/

    REPLY: I’m so sorry, my all seeing eye is defective today. Please be sure to note weather events on other countries, continents, moons, and planets that WUWT didn’t write about so that you can build up and knock down those ridiculous straw man arguments as well.

    -Anthony “one eye” Watts

  47. One of my favorite pages from our report is titled How the IPCC report has been Advertised. It’s a list of quotes – from Dr. Pachauri, from the US Enivironmental Protection Agency, and media outlets ranging from the The Economist to the Associated Press.

    All these quotes declare that the IPCC report is based only and solely on peer-reviewed literature. This is the grand myth of the IPCC. And Pachauri is not the only one who has peddled it for years.

    It is all well and good to point out that the IPCC has a policy regarding non-peer-reviewed references. But that policy says non-peer-reviewed references are supposed to be “will be followed by a statement that they are not published”. I recall seeing no such statement. Not once in the thousand of IPCC references I personally examined.

    That such a policy exists in no way changes the fact that the 100% peer-review myth has been widespread and long-lived – and that it has been used to shut down debate and to squelch dissenting voices.

    If the IPCC’s own chairman has spent years mis-characterizing this report what possible explanation could there be? Has he deliberately misled the citizenry of the world – or is he shockingly ignorant of the true nature of his own organization’s primary product? Whatever one’s views on climate change, surely reasonable people see the problem here.

    If you can’t even describe your own report accurately, don’t expect folks like me to believe anything else that comes out of your mouth. Nothing Pachauri now says about his organization or his report has any credibility.

  48. vigilantfish says:

    bubbagyro (10:24:34) :

    This audit is a great start, but let’s not fall into the “if it’s peer reviewed, it’s OK”. How many of the “peer reviewed” papers are from controversial journals like Science or Nature?

    ————-

    Good point. It’s not just climate science that’s a problem at these journals. Anything with an alarmist spin will be defended and the opposing science is suppressed. A case in point:

    Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 1–5
    Alan Longhurst
    “Doubt and certainty in fishery science: Are we really headed for a global collapse of stocks?”

    “…a recent article in ‘Science’ by Worm et al. (2006) was more alarmist: their analysis of a spatially interpolated version of the FAO archives led these authors to conclude that the rate of stock collapses had accelerated throughout the period 1950–2004. They extrapolate this trend in such a way that many readers understood that all exploited fish and invertebrate stocks
    could collapse before mid-21st century if remedial action was not taken: even more extreme interpretations of the text were widely reported in the news media….”

    ” …critical comments concerning the article have been offered to the Science editors by several fishery scientists: one of these suggested that the ‘collapse’ data had been obtained by Worm et al. from FAO archives using unreliable assumptions. But, at the time of writing, in January 2007, no critical comment has yet been published by Science; the only response that I have seen from the editorial staff concern my own (rejected) comments on this apparent failure of peer review, and are meaningless: “We are aware that fisheries science and ocean ecology are contentious subjects, and that areas of legitimate disagreement exist” (Sugden, in litt.).”

    After presenting evidence for the flawed use of statistical tools and other problems with Worm’s research, Longhurst comments:

    “The results reported by Worm et al., and the very public interpretation of their text, must raise in our minds the issue of doubt and certainty in science (Young, 1951), and the increasing difficulty of certifying that important scientific results have a reasonable probability of being correct. The managing editor of Science, whose response I quoted above, had it completely wrong: if fisheries science and ocean ecology are contentious subjects, it is perhaps only because the process by which contributions are assessed by disinterested reviewers is starting to fail us.

    Inevitably we are drawn to consider the apparent failure of peer reviewing in cases like this, and to the essential question: how should we resolve doubt and certainty in science now that individual scientists appear more likely than in the past to espouse social issues that are related to their research? If this is really the case, how may we now ‘certify’ that a scientific conclusion is the result of unbiased investigations and has received a disinterested review? More specifically, what are the consequences of part of the scientific community losing confidence in the review processes in what the press refers to as ‘influential scientific periodicals’?”

    I wanted to draw WUWT readers’ attention to the fact that climate science is not an outlier in this problem. I had seen other people here comment that Science and Nature were tainted journals, and thought this might be a good opportunity to give evidence that this is a general problem. Longhurst also critiques ‘faith-based fisheries science’ – another familiar theme here.

    (For those who might want to link to this article, it is available through a paywall at Scholar’s Portal.)

    bubbagyro’s argument that articles published in these two journals should not be counted as being properly peer-reviewed should be taken seriously.

  49. observa says:

    [snip]

  50. Dan says:

    This news article came from Reuters, how true is it?

    Glacier breaks in Peru, causing tsunami in Andes

    By Marco Aquino

    LIMA, April 12 (Reuters) – A huge glacier broke off and
    plunged into a lake in Peru, causing a 75-foot (23-metre)
    tsunami wave that swept away at least three people and
    destroyed a water processing plant serving 60,000 local
    residents, government officials said on Monday.

    The ice block tumbled into a lake in the Andes on Sunday
    near the town of Carhuaz, some 200 miles (320 km) north of the
    capital, Lima. Three people were feared buried in debris.

    Investigators said the chunk of ice from the Hualcan
    glacier measured 1,640 feet (500 metres) by 656 feet (200
    metres).

    “This slide into the lake generated a tsunami wave, which
    breached the lake’s levees, which are 23 metres high — meaning
    the wave was 23 metres high,” said Patricio Vaderrama, an
    expert on glaciers at Peru’s Institute of Mine Engineers.

    Authorities evacuated mountain valleys, fearing more
    breakages.

    It was one of the most concrete signs yet that glaciers are
    disappearing in Peru, home to 70 percent of the world’s
    tropical icefields. Scientists say warmer temperatures will
    cause them to melt away altogether within 20 years.

    In 1970, not far from Carhuaz, an earthquake triggered an
    avalanche of ice, rock and mud on the mountain of Huascaran
    that buried the town of Yungay, killing more than 20,000 people
    who lived below Peru’s tallest peak, which sits 22,204 feet
    (6,768 metres) above sea level.
    (Writing by Luis Andres Henao; Editing by Peter Cooney)

    Kilde: Reuters (via NTB)

  51. hendrik says:

    Many references are out of context, as has been noted above several times, Richar Tol did a graet job on this. Checking the relevance of a ref or cit with the claim being made is a very time consuming job. This job has been made extremely difficult (by intent?) due to the very large number of refs. Eliminating 30% helps for this second phase;))).

  52. Dear moderator: I’m very sorry. I’ve just submitted a comment that’s missing an tag. It should appear after “Advertised” in the first sentence. My apologies. Also, if you’re feeling particularly kind-hearted, in the 3rd paragraph the removal of “are supposed to be” would make things more readable.

    Donna Laframboise

    [Already been fixed. ~dbs]

  53. RayG says:

    Max Westin (09:33:29) : the use of the word “selected” implies that something has a particular or special value that sets it apart. That 30% of the cites are from non-peer reviewed sources seems a very large stretch in the use of the word.

  54. H. J. Durham says:

    Reference those who say the IPCC standards allow use of non-peer reviewed sources, and that the “F” grade is thereby invalidated. The standards specify:
    “5. Treatment in IPCC Reports Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published.”
    I checked one chapter in WG2′s report and (in an admittedly cursory scan) found 0 (zero) notes about non-published references, and 1 (one) that told how to access a report, but even it did not state whether it was published. There were a number of website URLs, but none that I found identified explicitly peer-review vs non-peer review.
    So, the statement that non-peer reviewed sources are permitted is true. What it IMPLIED, that the standards allowed them to be quoted without identifying them as such, is not.

  55. My concern with this is related to the fact that Donna Laframboise just happens to be launching a book about this.

    I find it tougher to fight the points with pro-agw people when they can just turn around and say

    “she made it into a book, of course she made it sound bad!”

    Snouts are in the trough on both sides of this debate. Might be time to write a book Anthony, before it becomes a saturated market.

  56. Kate says:

    Incestuous Science

    Papers such as the Guardian and the Independent dislike economic development as much as they dislike poverty, which limits their options somewhat. They fall back on token efforts to reduce poverty, such as Fairtrade, which don’t threaten to make the poor any more of a burden on the world’s resources, while at the same time campaigning against “climate change” in the hope that a marginally different future climate will prevent poverty getting even worse.

    In much the same way, we find the Third World development charity Oxfam, another stalwart of modern environmentalism, increasingly campaigning against both “climate change” and Third World development.
    Is it true that “there is no politics in science”? As we can see, alarmism projects itself through the seemingly-scientific projection. Might this have been made possible because of the way Ch.10 itself came into existence? For example, an interesting bias emerges when Ch.10′s authors are surveyed:

    USA: number of researchers 28, Secondary affiliation, 1.
    UK: number of researchers 17, Secondary affiliation 3.
    Germany: number of researchers 7, Secondary affiliation 1.
    Japan: number of researchers 7, Secondary affiliation 0.
    France: number of researchers 6, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Switzerland: number of researchers 6, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Canada: number of researchers 4, Secondary affiliation 0.
    China: number of researchers 3, Secondary affiliation 2.
    Belgium: number of researchers 3, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Australia: number of researchers 3, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Russian Federation: number of researchers 2, Secondary affiliation 2.
    Netherlands: number of researchers 2, Secondary affiliation 0.
    ECMWF (LINK): number of researchers 1, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Finland number: of researchers 1, Secondary affiliation 0.
    India: number of researchers 1, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Monaco: number of researchers 1, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Sweden: number of researchers 1, Secondary affiliation 0.
    Senegal: number of researchers 1, Secondary affiliation 0.
    TOTALS: number of researchers 94, Secondary affiliation 9.
    Non – US/UK: number of researchers 49,
    US / UK: number of researchers 45,
    (Some contributors to Ch.10 are listed as belonging to 2 countries).

    In the case of the UK, at least, two decades of emphasis that politicians have placed on climate research has had a dramatic effect. Also interesting is that it is the country which for a long time has been considered the enemy of action to prevent climate change – the USA – which appears to have contributed most to the development of climate models. But on an per-capita basis, no country rivals the UK.

    That the UK is a world leader in a field of climate research is not necessarily a bad thing. But it does speak about the priorities and prejudices that dominate the political sphere, which, in turn, is reflected in the constitution of academic climate science, represented in Ch.10. The UK since Thatcher, and increasingly in recent years, has sought to establish its moral authority on the world stage by embracing the “climate issue”, and making it the principle substance of international relations, and latterly its domestic polices: its “Green New Deal”, its “Industrial Strategy”, its “sustainability agenda”, its energy policy, and so on . Whether or not these politics are expressed in the science, it somehow leaves a footprint that is politically-shaped, even if it isn’t politically-driven.

    It’s a mainstay of the argument for “action” on “climate change” that the “overwhelming majority” of climate scientists are in agreement on the need for it. Yet as the table above shows, there are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which, alarmists argue, the case for alarm rests. “Ah, but…”, says the alarmist, “it’s the weight of evidence that counts”. Never mind that there is no evidence for something that hasn’t happened yet – the catastrophe which is the object of the alarmism – these 94 researchers do not draw from a wealth of research, but manage instead to cite themselves a whopping 317 times in a document that contains references to just 550 papers (including references to previous IPCC reports).

    If we excluded those papers in which the chapter’s authors were directly involved, there would be only 292. Just eight researchers manage to cite themselves no less than 110 times – over a third of the chapter’s self-citations, and a fifth of the total.

    Researcher: Jonathan M Gregory, Country: UK, number of Citations 19
    Researcher: Gerald A Meehl, Country: USA , number of Citations 17
    Researcher: Thomas F Stocker, Country: Switzerland, number of Citations 13
    Researcher: T M L Wigley, Country: USA, number of Citations 13
    Researcher: Myles Allen, Country: UK, number of Citations 12
    Researcher: P Huybrechts, Country: Belgium, number of Citations 12
    Researcher: Sarah C B Raper, Country: UK, number of Citations 12
    Researcher: R J Stouffer, Country: USA, number of Citations 12
    TOTAL: 110

    Between the USA and UK, there are 208 self-citations from the 45 researchers. Authors from just two countries produced nearly half the entire body of “evidence” for alarmism, which they “review” for themselves.
    The population of self-citing climate modeler-projectionists are so small in number, and so interconnected that there may be an argument that it constitutes a community with its own insular politics. Given the predominance of certain individuals from that population in the climate debate, it seems hard to argue otherwise. That’s one for sociologists to mull over, perhaps.

    Don’t think I’m throwing out these numbers in order to argue that the science presented in ch.10 is rubbish. There’s nothing strange about self-citations or geographical bias or the dominance of small subsets of individuals in science. You would find similar dynamics in pretty much any other specialist field. This example gives an idea of the workings of a research community that has provided the raw material on which much of the “man-made global warming” alarmism is based.

    The alarmist’s case does not reflect the opinion of an “overwhelming majority of scientists”, and there is not an “overwhelming body of evidence”. There is clearly a political dimension to the constitution of both the body of WGI Ch.10 authors, and the research it draws from.

    The real casualty is not climate science, but climate alarmism, and by retreating to the firm scientific ground of WGI, alarmists demonstrate that clearly. Without WGII and WGIII, there are no grounds for alarm. All the promises, projections and prophecies are contained in WGII and III. Without a scientific basis for alarm, all you have left at your disposal is precaution, as Ed Miliband has discovered.

    Alarmist articles oscillate wildly between headlines that proclaim “How the ‘Climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies” and “Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review”. First, they appear to be suggesting that those behind the climate emails are the victims of “lies”, and then they “reveals how [the same] researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study”. On the one hand, the alarmists want to hold with the political arguments they have long been making, but they are also working double-time with doublethink to explain what happened to the science that was only recently “incontrovertible”.

    It’s a bed the alarmists have made for themselves. They wanted a catastrophe, and now they’ve got one.

  57. b.poli says:

    Now – let’s have a look at the “peer reviewed” papers which rely on IPCC AR4 or cite IPCC AR4 – especially those which end with the term: “… we still believe in ….”

  58. Steven K says:

    Some people make of all this way too complicated. As a common (well educated but non-scientist) person it really boils down to this: we hired a group of individuals to produce a scientific report; they produced a report that they claimed was science based; now we (the people who hired the report makers) take a look at the final product and realize that it isn’t what we paid for, and it isn’t what they claimed it to be. It honestly doesn’t matter one bit to me whether or not you can find in the fine print of the IPCC rules that non-peer reviewed literature would be allowed to be included. They were hired to produce science, they claimed to have produced science, and now we find they produced something of the quality of a newspaper article. This isn’t what we were paying them to do, and it isn’t what they said they had done!

  59. Todd Brunner says:

    Smokey, Don Shaw and anyone else:

    You can see here that some minor wording was changed in Annex 2 back in 2003, meaning that it was in existence before then (most likely since at least 1999 since that’s the last time the Procedures were amended before 2003): http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session20/doc10.pdf

  60. mikael pihlström says:

    1- It just came out and you can already judge it’s quality, methods etc?

    2 – It is not clear what IPCC’s stand on non-peer reviewed material

    3 – Even if IPCC has/had a rule: only peer-reviewed, it is a stupid rule

    4 – Grey material ranges from rubbish to superior compared to peer-reviewed
    articles. For instance, extensive reports from FAO or Swedish Env Inst are not
    as limited in scope and well resourced in man-hours put down.

    5 – The problem is that you have to actually read the grey product to assess
    its merits, but actually the same often applies to peer-reviewed articles

    6 – Fundamentalism in this context is wrong; in the end only the evidence
    and the arguments presented matters.

  61. mikael pihlström says:

    vigilantfish (11:30:42) :

    bubbagyro (10:24:34) :

    This audit is a great start, but let’s not fall into the “if it’s peer reviewed, it’s OK”. How many of the “peer reviewed” papers are from controversial journals like Science or Nature?

    Your phrase 1 – I fully agree
    Your phrase 2 – maybe a problem here: with rejection rates 90%, you will
    have a lot of people in the world disagreeing with Nature or Science editors

  62. Todd Brunner says:

    H.J. Durham and Donna LaFramboise:

    I think you are interpreting Annex 2 different from the IPCC authors. Just do a quick search for the term “unpublished” in IPCC AR4 and you will find several references labeled as such…unpublished references. Here’s one example page that includes an unpublished reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

  63. toby says:

    [snip]

  64. James F. Evans says:

    Does this confirm that a political agenda was more important than quality science?

    And, those that are pro-AGW, what say you?

    If good science is your goal, how can you support this?

  65. pgosselin says:

    I agree with Donna,
    The IPCC and its proponents used the peer-review argument over and over again to shut down dissent, declaring the science settled, and there’s nothing you can present that could possibly change that.

    Jo Nova puts it beautifully:
    “Every time the IPCC have spat on a scientist with “that’s not peer reviewed”, they have set themselves up to look like duplicitous fools when caught relying on student theses, magazine articles, and boot cleaning guides.”
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/the-ipcc-5600-small-white-lies/

  66. Craig Moore says:

    This reminds me of a joke I recently heard.
    ———————–

    A mathematician, an accountant and a climatologist apply for the same job at the UN’s IPCC.

    The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”

    Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”

    Then the interviewer calls in the climatologist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The climatologist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”

  67. pgosselin says:

    Kate
    Good piece!

  68. John Galt says:

    …(The Guardian and The Independent) fall back on token efforts to reduce poverty, such as Fairtrade, which don’t threaten to make the poor any more of a burden on the world’s resources, while at the same time campaigning against “climate change” in the hope that a marginally different future climate will prevent poverty getting even worse.

    FairTrade is not going to help anyone get out of poverty. Free enterprise, property rights, and individual freedom are what they should be supporting. And if they are worried about climate change adversely affecting the poor, the emphasis should be on fight poverty.

    Wealth allows people to adapt to a changing world. Wealthier people are also more concerned about the environment. Poor people are worried about short-term survival and have no means to pay for pollution controls and environmental cleanup.

  69. Mike D. says:

    Donna earns an A++. Stellar job. Kudos to all the citation sleuths.

    She is 1,000% correct when she says the IPCC CANNOT BE TRUSTED. They have lied before, they are lying now, and chances are good they will continue to lie.

    Garbage In, Fraud Out.

  70. mikael pihlström says:

    bubbagyro (10:43:31) :

    “I agree with Sphaerica.
    Almost all of the articles in the IPCC, peer reviewed or not, are cherry-picked to support their hare-brained hypotheses, or else their membership in the Club Gore and access to lucrative grants are jeopardized.”

    Since most peer-reviewed articles on AGW are from proponents, there
    is no need for cherry-picking.

    One would think that IPCC’s evident acceptance of the validity of grey
    litterature would suit the sceptics, since you feel discriminated by
    journals and could thus find other channels, which would be
    impicitly acknowledged by IPCC, in principle that is.

    The content will always decide in the end.

  71. DirkH says:

    “climategatestuff (11:51:07) :

    My concern with this is related to the fact that Donna Laframboise just happens to be launching a book about this.

    I find it tougher to fight the points with pro-agw people when they can just turn around and say

    “she made it into a book, of course she made it sound bad!”

    So we should dismiss what Hansen says based on the facts that he sells books based on it? Good point!

    We should also dismiss everything the Club Of Rome says. They sell their reports in book form.

    Oh, and a lot of peer reviewed pro AGW papers are behind pay walls.

    You’re a concern troll.

  72. Johnny D says:

    Funny that all the chapters in Working Group 1, where the actual climate science is laid out, seemed to get A’s. One could argue that Working Group 1 is the only one that really matters, considering that that’s where the climate science is. Of course Working Groups 2 and 3, on fuzzier stuff like adaptation and energy, are going to be less rigorous scientifically.

  73. UK Sceptic says:

    Oxburgh did the job he was hired to do. The exoneration of Jones and his motley CRU in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary was depressingly predictable. And still the BBC is reporting “hacked” climategate emails. My TV screen is becoming blistered and warped with all the swearing I’ve aimed at it over recent weeks…

  74. UK Sceptic says:

    As for the IPCC report – a big round of applause to all the people who pored over the contents and made Pachauri’s claim of 100% peer review a complete nonsense and a damnable lie!

  75. mikael pihlström says:

    Kate

    “That the UK is a world leader in a field of climate research is not necessarily a bad thing. But it does speak about the priorities and prejudices that dominate the political sphere, which, in turn, is reflected in the constitution of academic climate science, represented in Ch.10. ”

    The numbers (UK and US dominance) just reflect general excellence in
    Science and possibly an edge for English speaking nations: if an
    international review on totally neutral disciplines, say fundamental
    chemistry or neuroscience would be commissioned you would find about
    the same distribution of nationalities.

  76. Darkinbad the Brightdayler says:

    When you’re in a hole, stop digging!

  77. mikael pihlström says:

    James F. Evans (12:38:54) :

    Does this confirm that a political agenda was more important than quality science?

    And, those that are pro-AGW, what say you?

    You mean pro-AGW theory; pro-AGW or AGW enthousiast would make
    me a criminal wouldn’t it (language matters). Since sceptics maintain
    that the peer reviewed bulk of climate science material is corrupted
    and IPCC in your view undoubtedly would cherry-pick the grey material
    also. What would be the point in their manipulating through this
    mechanism?

    Maybe it was just pure common sense: to cover relevant material in
    an optimal way. A ratio of 70/30 or 65/35 sounds like a report firmly
    based in peer-reviewed science, but also reaching out for e.g. extensive
    synthesis reports and other relevant material? Doesn’t have to be more
    sinister than that.

  78. BrianMcL says:

    Very interesting article and certainly destroys any remaining credibility that Pachuri might have had left.

    Of the grey literature, does anyone know how much was published by advocacy groups or similar organisations who might have had a very specific agenda? Given the concentration of “F”s in WG2 and 3 I’ve got a hunch that it might be quite high.

    Some of the criticism of this article also seems a bit misplaced. If one were to write a paper for an exam with a similar level of unreviewed references would it get an “F”? To my mind the question isn’t really whether the IPCC used unreviewed citations, simply that by using so many in what really are the critical parts politically, do they in fact deserve to get an “F”?

    If we agree that they would, would the fix simply be to go back and rework it so that they don’t use so many?

    Then, by leaving out much of the unreviewed material does it materially affect either the impacts of AGW or its mitigation?

  79. Mike J says:

    @Sphaerica (10:26:05) :

    You miss the whole point. It does not matter what the IPCC’s guidelines to their tame scientists are. What matters is the perception among policy makers and the public that the IPCC reports are infallible because they are *entirely* based on peer-reviewed studies. This perception is one which has been actively promoted by the IPCC (a list of quotes is here: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php ).

    For example:
    “As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: ‘IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…’” – US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009 (bottom of PDF’s page 7)

  80. BrianMcL says:

    Also, having read and reread Laframboise’s claims, she doesn’t say that the report claims only to use peer reviewed material. She does, however, say that it is claimed over and over again, not least by its Chairman and not even all that long ago, that it only uses peer reviewed material, and that such a claim is incorrect.

    I think that Max and Todd both need to apologise for the pointless introduction of their straw man. Sorry guys, you can’t criticise her for an incorrect claim that she doesn’t make.

    Nice try at hiding the pea though.

  81. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    At some point, the legal issues will have to be addressed….were the IPCC authors committing outright fraud? Seems like it to me….

  82. Tenuc says:

    For all those doubters who think that ‘grey-papers’ are allowed in IPCC reports, here’s a quote from the head of the IPCC.

    “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”…..Rajendra Pachauri.

    So if he is correct, a mistake has been made regarding IPCC Policy – if he is wrong, the head of the IPCC is a fool or a liar. The whole organisation is a joke, much like the rest of the UN.

    Regarding the peer reviewed papers used in the report, it would be useful to know how many have been refuted by subsequent papers? This would be another massive job, but I suspect it would be revealing!

    The whole IPCC climate scam really built on the shallowest of foundations, just like the conjecture of CAGW.

  83. John from CA says:

    The chart at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm indicates that “Expert and Government Review” occurs in the 2nd and 3rd draft and “Expert Review” occurs in the 1st Draft.

    If questionable material made it into the drafts, its reasonable to assume it was sanctioned by all the “Experts and Government Reviewers”?

    Allegedly, some material was inserted after the 3 Review stages. If true, I’m surprised Governments aren’t more outspoken about this apparent breach of faith.

    Do all the government reviewers support the final version?

  84. So we should dismiss what Hansen says based on the facts that he sells books based on it? Good point!

    We should also dismiss everything the Club Of Rome says. They sell their reports in book form.

    Oh, and a lot of peer reviewed pro AGW papers are behind pay walls.

    You’re a concern troll.

    By DirkH on April 14, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I am saying exactly what I said. And the point was quite obvious. We should be in this to make a point, not money out of it. This lady is.
    And don’t you dare accuse me of being a troll.

  85. James Sexton says:

    @ Johnny D (13:00:54) :

    “Funny that all the chapters in Working Group 1, where the actual climate science is laid out, seemed to get A’s. One could argue that Working Group 1 is the only one that really matters, considering that that’s where the climate science is. Of course Working Groups 2 and 3, on fuzzier stuff like adaptation and energy, are going to be less rigorous scientifically.”

    Johnny, I’m not clear here. Peer-review literature only matters where you believe science matters or is it that peer review literature doesn’t matter on “fuzzy stuff” such as energy? Or that peer-review literature only matters when using it as claims for veracity? Or it doesn’t matter towards claims of veracity?

    To be perfectly honest, I really don’t care about whether the science backs up climate change or not. I’ve known our climate was in a constant state of change for some time now. It is the “fuzzy stuff” that bothers me. You know, mitigation for a non-existent problem, the starving large groups of people of energy, the laughable attempts to force adaptation to perceived problem,…ect. I really could care less if a group of people want to waste time and money on trying to prove an unprovable, as long as it’s not on my dime and the reaction to their ludicrous conclusions is thwarted by a sense of reality. Sadly, it is my dime, and there is no sense of reality to thwart these idiots.

  86. kadaka says:

    When do they release the Fourth Assessment Report-Corrected Edition (FARCE)? When it’s complete?

  87. vigilantfish says:

    mikael pihlström (12:22:59) :

    Your phrase 2 – maybe a problem here: with rejection rates 90%, you will
    have a lot of people in the world disagreeing with Nature or Science editors

    ——————————

    You are new here. There have been observations on threads in the distant past (pre-Climategate) about how both these journals refuse to publish articles which do not support the prevailing narrative of environmental catastrophe due to human influences. While I have grave concerns about the state of many of the world’s fisheries, when Boris Worm made his pronouncements in 2006 they were greeted by myself and others who know something about fisheries science with derision. He has since recanted and now produces more reasonable projections, although his focus remains the same. Indeed, at a conference last year there was some progress in dialogue between fisheries biologists and Worm and a contingent of other ecologists. While Science would not publish the critiques of his inflammatory projections, other journals specializing in fisheries science, where the scientific authors and readers are more familiar with fish population dynamics, fisheries management and fish biology, did publish them. Does the fact that Science refused to publish scientific criticisms by fisheries biologists reduce the value of these papers? Hardly. The point is that Nature and Science selectively publish ‘science’ relating to environmental issues only if it supports a given, ideological slant.

  88. Steve (Paris) says:

    I know this is really OT and moderator I fully understand if you cut this but is anybody doing this on the ObamaCare bill? It needs 10,000 auditors on it like Mr Watts has on climate. Two channels: 1) take the bill apart line by line, do the sums, check the facts; 2) work together to compile reform that would really keep the US healthy at a better price. We people in Europe need a functional US ‘main street’ to keep us out of the bloodbath that has been much of our history.

    Reply: Seriously off topic. You can go make your own blog? ~ ctm

  89. Steve (Paris) says:

    Fair point ctm

  90. RobJM says:

    What proportion are peer review but not scientific, ie, based on the guesswork of computer models?

  91. kadaka says:

    In DirkH (13:00:47), DirkH calls climategatestuff a concern troll.

    In blackswhitewash.com (14:17:30), blackwhitewash says in direct reply to DirkH (13:00:47) “I am saying exactly what I said. (…) And don’t you dare accuse me of being a troll.”

    Did someone get their two different aliases mixed up? :-)

  92. DirkH says:

    “blackswhitewash.com (14:17:30) :
    [...]
    I am saying exactly what I said. And the point was quite obvious. We should be in this to make a point, not money out of it. This lady is.
    And don’t you dare accuse me of being a troll.”

    What about Steve Mosher? Do you extend your accusations on him? He makes money out of climategate, doesn’t he? He’s written a book.

  93. GregO says:

    climategatestuff,

    “My concern with this is related to the fact that Donna Laframboise just happens to be launching a book about this.”

    Awesome. Can’t wait to see it. I have been buying and reading every book on AGW that comes out. Highly entertaining. Well worth every penny.

    I suppose I am atoning for all those years of paid subscriptions to Scientific American and Newsweek.

    It’s a lot of work writing a book – hardly qualifies as “feeding at the trough” in my opinion. I mean, what public funds is Donna getting to write her book? If she is getting no such funds, then whence cometh said trough feeding. Right on Donna. Bring it on.

  94. DirkH says:

    blackswhitewash, are you identical to climategatestuff or what’s going on here? Please don’t do that.

  95. mikael pihlström says:

    vigilantfish (14:22:52) :

    The point is that Nature and Science selectively publish ’science’ relating to environmental issues only if it supports a given, ideological slant.

    Well, that is well reasoned and it worries me (such bias is obviously destructive). But, is your claim that Science magazine has a slant
    solid? It can be somewhat random: one rejects, you go to the next,
    etc. In the end you don’t always understand the logic.
    More likely in this case; being generalists the editors of Science did
    not understand the importance as well as the fisheries journals and
    they could argue that they have to reject a lot of good papers on
    account of the huge supply of manuscripts. Were the critical responses
    of yours, an article or in the letters compartment?
    have so many

  96. Dr A Burns says:

    Max Westin (09:33:29) :

    I was going to make the same point Max. I couldn’t find any claim by the IPCC that supported the statement “We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science.”

    Perhaps it’s just our favorite railway engineer shouting his mouth off.

    Interesting work all the same.

  97. WillR says:

    So many people have tried to shut down any debate with the “Is it peer reviewed?” line that it was well worth the time spent. There were many other issues spotted as well — self citing, (“academic check kiting” is a term I have heard), circular citing, etc. There are lots of issues, but the first one to resolve is the “throw it in the dustbin” line. Now that’s done. Now we can move on to something important!

    For those who want more — I say “Go for it!” start up a new project. You could also audit horrible things like the Ontario (Canada) “Climate Change” literature which is based on IPCC literature — and uses many of the same (non)mathematical techniques to arrive at suspect conclusions. The point is that it can be done.

    Now we don’t have to accept “It isn’t peer reviewed.” Why? We now have agreement here at least that peer review is not necessary. So grab your crayons, sharpen them up, and draw a graph — then “Get Published” (non peer-reviewed of course!).

  98. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Kate.
    Excellent article. I read it twice but it was worth it.

    Mikael P.
    Do you really think that one’s mother tongue determines success in publishing in journals? Actually, I probably agree which says everything about so called peer review.
    As someone said earlier (metallurgist) it is essential for all young researchers to be published and most papers are fairly ordinary but they keep their fingers crossed. Certainly, in medicine, one might be advised as to which journal might be appropriate i.e. different standards of ‘validity’, whether in design or statistical interpretation etc. But, once published they often seem to have the same ‘truthfulness’ at least as far as the media is concerned. Peer review only means that the paper is not complete rubbish, on a first cursory read, but says nothing about the true validity of the paper.

  99. Mike Allen says:

    I’m don’t think it is reasonable that the IPCC report should be expected to only reference peer-reviewed work. This excludes a huge body of information including reports from scientific institutions, government bodies, NGO’s, the Media and even skeptical sources.
    If you have a look at the report you will get an idea of the sort of references it involves.

    Having said that, this is an interesting piece of analysis, and I’m sure that Laframboise’s book will be a great success.

  100. mikael pihlström says:

    RobJM (14:48:18) :

    What proportion are peer review but not scientific, ie, based on the guesswork of computer models?

    Really, you cannot reason like that. Computer models are part of
    science. Period.
    You could possibly maintain that IPCC use of models is guesswork,
    meaning that they apply the method in a bad way .
    I don’t agree with that conclusion.

  101. vigilantfish says:

    mikael pihlström (15:12:27) :

    The critical responses were not mine, but belonged to a scientist (Alan Longhurst). They were in the form of an article. Please note that Longhurst echoes the fears of other scientists that the peer-review system is failing, first in the failure to get articles properly reviewed in the first place, and then second, in the refusal of scientific journals such as Science and Nature to publish the criticisms of published work by highly qualified scientists. Ironically, Longhurst is very concerned about overfishing. He just does not want public confidence in science to be eroded by distortions and exaggerations. Science requires a dialogue, not a diktat, if it is to prosper, have relevance, and more importantly, not become a tool for political abuse.

  102. Mike Haseler says:

    If there were any clearer evidence that this whole thing is one great “groupthink” mistake, it is the way all these reports are full of bogus science. In proper science, there is proper scrutiny and stupid stuff like this would never have found its way into the reports.

    Instead, not only is their dodgy dossier full of bogus science, they even are stupid enough to try to defend their own failings. And by doing so, not only do we know that their reports are dodgy, we also know that the whole system of review and oversight is also highly dodgy: the whole system is corrupt, and so it is inevitable that anything produced by this corrupt system is also corrupt.

  103. James Sexton says:

    @ Sphaerica (11:19:01) :

    James Sexton,

    Funny you should mention glaciers. WUWT loves to post articles on weather and anecdotal events (look! it snowed this winter! global warming can’t exist!), but there’s no mention of the glacier that collapsed in peru, destroying fifty homes in the process.

    Yes, I’ve read the story, calling it even anecdotal is a stretch. Unlike alarmists, I know of no instance where someone here claimed glaciers are or should be static. You simply read a story about glacial movement, and a bunch of simpletons that grouped by it expecting the ice never to move or break off.

    BTW, is “look! it snowed this winter! global warming can’t exist!” anything akin to saying “Look! We’ve had a very warm March!!! This is proof of the existence of global warming!!!” Well, that and glacial movement.

  104. magicjava says:

    Didn’t see this in any previous comments. My apologies if I’m simply repeating known information.

    IPCC chapters receiving a grade of A:
    Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
    Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
    Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
    Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
    Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation
    Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
    Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
    Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections

  105. Peter S says:

    “Sphaerica (11:19:01) :
    James Sexton,

    Funny you should mention glaciers. WUWT loves to post articles on weather and anecdotal events (look! it snowed this winter! global warming can’t exist!), but there’s no mention of the glacier that collapsed in peru, destroying fifty homes in the process.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/13/massive-glacier-triggers-tsunami-lake/

    When I read this story yesterday the following sentence stood out.

    “Patricio Vaderrama, a Peruvian glacier expert, said: “The tsunami wave breached the lake’s levees, which are 23m high — meaning the wave was 23m high,” or 75 feet. ”

    I guess this guy must have spent his life taking showers and never made waves in the bath.

    It is getting to the surreal stage. Is it just me, or does every report in the MSM that has anything to do with global warming include stupid exaggerations from so called experts? BTW, this report is linked to FOX, but actually is a Reuters story.

  106. JER0ME says:

    Donna Laframboise (11:30:28) :

    One of my favorite pages from our report is titled How the IPCC report has been Advertised. It’s a list of quotes – from Dr. Pachauri, from the US Enivironmental Protection Agency, and media outlets ranging from the The Economist to the Associated Press.

    All these quotes declare that the IPCC report is based only and solely on peer-reviewed literature. This is the grand myth of the IPCC. And Pachauri is not the only one who has peddled it for years.

    If you can’t even describe your own report accurately, don’t expect folks like me to believe anything else that comes out of your mouth. Nothing Pachauri now says about his organization or his report has any credibility.

    Thank you very much, both for the report, and this sensible and reasoned riposte.

  107. Phil Clarke says:

    But who shall audit the auditors?

    I picked one of the low-scoring chapters [24% or 12/50] and double checked.

    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/2007/WG3chapter1-A.html

    Now 12 of the references classified as ‘not reviewed’ are to other IPCC reports or chapters. These may not be academic journals, but they are the most reviewed scientific documents on the planet – going through 2 public drafts and a final review by politicians. To place them in an ‘unreviewed’ category is laughable.

    I then took a reference classified as ‘not peer-reviewed’ and looked it up:

    Gritsevsky, A., and N. Nakicenovic, 2002: Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change. In: Technological change and the environment, A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, W.D. Nordhaus, (eds.). Resources for the Future, pp. 251-279.

    Certainly, the cited article is a book chapter, and books are not peer-reviewed, but somehow our ‘citizen auditors’ managed to miss the fact that the it is a reprint from the very much peer-reviewed Energy policy, and it has been cited an impressive 131 times in the literature. It took me about 2 minutes with Google Scholar to discover this

    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Modelling+uncertainty+of+induced+technological+change&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

    Amateur auditing? So the figure derived by this ‘report’ for this Chapter is at best, less than 50% of the actual number. Is there any reason to suppose the rest is any more accurate?

  108. Ric Werme says:

    Sphaerica (11:19:01) :

    James Sexton,

    Funny you should mention glaciers. WUWT loves to post articles on weather and anecdotal events (look! it snowed this winter! global warming can’t exist!), but there’s no mention of the glacier that collapsed in peru, destroying fifty homes in the process.

    Very little gets past WUWT, but not everything gets turned into a page. If you write something, perhaps Anthony will make you a guest poster.

    Over in Tips & Notes I see references on April 13th at 06:18 and on the 14th at 00:45. Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-to-wuwt-5/#comment-367599

    There are likely other references in in other pages, but those all belong in Tips & Notes too.

  109. James Sexton says:

    @ magicjava (16:13:58) :

    “Didn’t see this in any previous comments. My apologies if I’m simply repeating known information.
    IPCC chapters receiving a grade of A:………………”

    Yes, the grading was based upon how many peer-reviewed references were used vs. “gray” material. So, I’m a bit confused about your post. Is it that peer-reviewed material only matters in your mentioned chapters? Or that it doesn’t matter at all? Or perhaps only those that are important to you? I’m not sure.

    What I took away from the article……. A quote from our favorite train engineer, Pachy(man in charge of the IPCC report) “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”
    Pachy was being either blatantly stupid or blatantly dishonest. Either way, the man in charge of the report was/is obviously unfit. His entire work product is invalidated, regardless of the few “A”s they got based on the few chapters that included some peer-reviewed studies.
    Moreover, if he truly believed that only peer-reviewed material was being used, then his subordinates were picking and choosing the material they wished in the report and ignoring other material without his knowledge. If he did have knowledge then he has shown a propensity to mislead and misinform the public. However you wish to perceive Pachy, his body of work is invalidated by his own statement. (Or one could look at the fantastic claims made by the report that has already been discredited.)

  110. Chris D. says:

    Congratulations to Ms. Laframboise and her team. This is a very significant bit of work.

  111. mikael pihlström says:

    vigilantfish (15:55:25) :
    Please note that Longhurst echoes the fears of other scientists that the peer-review system is failing, first in the failure to get articles properly reviewed in the first place, and then second, in the refusal of scientific journals such as Science and Nature to publish the criticisms of published work by highly qualified scientists.

    Dr T G Watkins (15:28:50) :
    Do you really think that one’s mother tongue determines success in publishing in journals? Actually, I probably agree which says everything about so called peer review.

    Peer-review system is indeed failing; for sure it is overburdened by the
    shee volume of articles submitted. Still doubtful on Science & Nature bias though. There is of course nothing magic with S & N, only we have made
    them so important for impact points etc. Peer-review was a bad system all along, but the best we have. As TCW says, it is a minimum standard. The
    slight(?) edge of being a native English speaker cannot perhaps be blamed on peer-review, since a native speaker objectively tends to express himself
    better. The effect of US/UK being dominant in excellence is hard to separate
    from any language effect.

  112. mikael pihlström says:

    Phil Clarke (16:30:20) :
    Amateur auditing? So the figure derived by this ‘report’ for this Chapter is at best, less than 50% of the actual number. Is there any reason to suppose the rest is any more accurate?

    The value of this panel is more participation? and raising interest for the
    issues? If the whole venture has been started with an aggressive agenda
    in the shadows, the volunteers are put into an unfair spotlight. But, you
    are right it would be logical to audit the auditors.

  113. Jimbo says:

    If tomorrow morning i presented the IPCC with hard evidence that falsified AGW, would they disband?

    Anser: NO

    Why? Answer: A tangled web of vested interests (‘research’ funding, salaries, Pachauri, Gore, Oxburgh – insert others – …….)

    If and when AGW collapses it is going to be very embarrasing indeed.

  114. WillR says:

    For those who wish to audit the auditors and re-do the work… Please! Feel free to do so. The checks would be most welcome.

    For those who noted that some articles were re-printed as chapters of a book — Indeed it was noted by some auditors. The issue then was to read the book, read the paper and see if any conclusions or data had been changed. This would be an onerous task. Would it not be simpler for the author(s) or editors(s) to state that the article was included in an unchanged fashion? Indeed in some cases an article re-published in book form was included, however the task of verification proved quite onerous. Again, feel free to re-audit and question the work. Is this not the very basis of the scientific method? Why would an auditor complain that you rechecked the work? Simply do as Donna did and state your methods, assumptions and resolution processes. We look forward to your articles and notes. You will get your work peer-reviewed — right?

    I will say that to me it proved the point that not even the IPCC and its spokespeople truly understood the nature of their own work. Certainly consumer laws protect us when companies misrepresent and over-sell their work. Perhaps the same mechanism can be used here. Should Pachouri be prosecuted for overselling his “product”? You tell us!

  115. Alberta Slim says:

    Donna Laframboise
    I, also, thank you , for an excellent, well written, report.

    It would be such a positive step forward if, somehow, someone, would initiate a class-action lawsuit against the IPCC and the lead scientists, for fraud.
    [ie accepting government/taxpayers funds for fraudulent scientific reports.]

    Steven K (12:07:29) said it beautifully. Thanks Steven.

  116. Mike J says:

    For those who wanted to know the chapter headings, I hope this table formats readably:

    Working Group 3, Chapter 12 F 37 414 63 Sustainable Development and mitigation
    Working Group 2, Chapter 13 F 40 354 60 Latin America
    Working Group 2, Chapter 11 F 42 372 58 Australia and New Zealand
    Working Group 3, Chapter 2 F 46 302 54 Framing Issues
    Working Group 2, Chapter 7 F 46 244 54 Industry, Settlement and Society
    Working Group 3, Chapter 10 F 47 191 53 Waste management
    Working Group 3, Chapter 13 F 48 491 52 Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements
    Working Group 2, Chapter 9 F 53 361 47 Africa
    Working Group 2, Chapter 17 F 53 275 47 Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity
    Working Group 2, Chapter 20 F 53 220 47 Perspectives on Climate Change and Sustainability
    Working Group 2, Chapter 18 F 56 270 44 Inter-Relationships Between Adaptation and Mitigation
    Working Group 3, Chapter 9 F 56 229 44 Forestry
    Working Group 2, Chapter 14 F 58 562 42 North America
    Working Group 2, Chapter 16 F 58 194 42 Small Islands
    Working Group 3, Chapter 3 F 58 358 42 Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context
    Working Group 2, Chapter 10 F 59 391 41 Asia
    Working Group 3, Chapter 11 D 62 330 38 Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective
    Working Group 2, Chapter 6 D 65 443 35 Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas
    Working Group 2, Chapter 2 D 67 374 33 New Assesment Methods and the Characterisation of Future Conditions
    Working Group 2, Chapter 15 D 68 361 32 Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic)
    Working Group 2, Chapter 5 C 70 444 30 Food, Fibre, and Forest Products
    Working Group 2, Chapter 3 C 71 377 29 Fresh Water Resources and their Management
    Working Group 2, Chapter 12 C 71 633 29 Europe
    Working Group 2, Chapter 19 C 71 273 29 Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change
    Working Group 2, Chapter 8 C 75 557 25 Human Health
    Working Group 3, Chapter 8 C 77 317 23 Agriculture
    Working Group 1, Chapter 1 B 80 264 20 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
    Working Group 2, Chapter 4 B 82 917 18 Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and Services
    Working Group 1, Chapter 4 B 85 257 15 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
    Working Group 2, Chapter 1 B 86 650 14 Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems
    Working Group 1, Chapter 11 B 89 609 11 Regional Climate Projections
    Working Group 1, Chapter 6 A 93 609 7 Palaeoclimate
    Working Group 1, Chapter 8 A 94 686 6 Climate Models and their Evaluation
    Working Group 1, Chapter 9 A 94 535 6 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
    Working Group 1, Chapter 2 A 95 759 5 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
    Working Group 1, Chapter 10 A 95 545 5 Global Climate Projections
    Working Group 1, Chapter 3 A 96 804 4 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
    Working Group 1, Chapter 5 A 96 289 4 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
    Working Group 1, Chapter 7 A 96 869 4 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry

  117. Robert E. Phelan says:

    mikael pihlström (15:42:38) :
    Really, you cannot reason like that. Computer models are part of
    science. Period.

    Terrific. Another diktat from the hive-mind to go along with “The Science is Settled.” The models are nothing more than the articulation of a theory – a tool to generate hypotheses that can be tested through empirical observation. In the case of the climate models, the predictions are mostly so far in the future that many of us won’t live to see them validated or falsified. The few predictions that have been generated for the near term have failed badly. Sure, computer models are part of science, in the same way that a theory is part of science, but the existence of the theory is not evidence or proof of anything. Neither are the outputs of the models.

    Even if the predictions of the models were validated, that still would not mean the science is settled. Incorrect theory can and has generated lots of empirically verifiable (and verified!) predictions. Ptolemaic astronomy generated predictions that were verified by events for over a thousand years. The problem is that the sun really and truly does not orbit around the earth on crystalline spheres.

  118. Dave Worley says:

    The price of investing in “post normal” Science…..
    http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/92117-neil-armstrong-criticizes-obama-space-plan
    Armstrong is a humble man who rarely makes public statements.
    He is to be applauded.

  119. Mike J says:

    Oops – sorry Mod – I missed pasting these 5 lines to the top of my previously posted table

    Working Group 3, Chapter 4 F 15 360 85 Energy supply
    Working Group 3, Chapter 7 F 23 352 77 Manufacturing and process industries
    Working Group 3, Chapter 1 F 24 50 76 Introduction
    Working Group 3, Chapter 5 F 27 260 73 Transport and its infrastructure
    Working Group 3, Chapter 6 F 29 379 71 Residential and commercial buildings

  120. hro001 says:

    Todd Brunner (12:29:39) :

    [regarding IPCC rule that non-peer-reviewed material is to be clearly identified as such in the references by use of the word "Unpublished"]

    “Just do a quick search for the term “unpublished” in IPCC AR4 and you will find several references labeled as such…unpublished references. Here’s one example page [...]”

    I happen to have all 44 chapter references as Word docs sittng on my h/d. So, I’ve just completed such a search. Here are the results:

    WG2 CH5 = 1
    WG2 CH6 = 1
    WG2 CH9 = 1
    WG2 CH10 = 1
    WG2 CH11 = 1
    WG3 CH5 = 1

    WOW! 6 instances of “Unpublished”. In the context of 18,631, I would not consider a grand total of 6 to be “several”. YMMV.

    Apart from the fact that “Unpublished” – perhaps not unlike “entirelysolely“, “only” and “all” (even “trick”, come to think of it) – seems to have taken on a whole new meaning in IPCC-speak, I don’t find 6 out of 5,587 to be particularly indicative of, well, anything. Except perhaps that the IPCC doesn’t follow its own rules.

    Is it your contention that the other 5,581 references that were not sourced to a publication which indicates that material contained therein has been peer-reviewed must be reclassified as “peer-reviewed” because they do not contain the word “Unpublished”?! Or do you contend that the IPCC has .. uh … redefined “peer-reviewed” journal, without letting the rest of the world know?

    As one of the auditors involved in Donna’s project, what I found quite interesting about the results is that numbers in our raw data are quite close to the preliminary numbers resulting from work undertaken by Peter Bobroff in Australia. He’s developing a program that will make such research much faster and accessible to all in the not too distant future. My understanding is that this program will enable the user to very quickly get answers to some of the questions posed elsewhere in the comments. Stay tuned!

    Considering the lack of consistency in the IPCC’s citation of source material – which presents even more of a challenge to a computer program than to three pairs of eyeballs – I’d say that Bobroff’s results were remarkably close to ours, as you will see for yourself when you view our raw data – because I’ve included his, for comparison purposes. All declines are in full view!
    and no FOI request required ;-)

    http://tinyurl.com/citizenauditdata

    But the bottom line is that we now have an unequivocal NO in response to the question:

    Are Rajendra Pachauri’s, “science” journalists’ and other media mavens’ claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment reports are “all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature” supported by the evidence in the references?

  121. Johnny D says:

    James Sexton:
    “To be perfectly honest, I really don’t care about whether the science backs up climate change or not.”

    That pretty much says it all right there.

  122. cba says:

    there will be auditing of the auditors by the ipcc report originators and by every warmer in world as well as every media hack on the CAGW bandwagon.

  123. Andy Scrase says:

    @WillR (17:31:21) :

    For those who wish to audit the auditors and re-do the work… Please! Feel free to do so. The checks would be most welcome

    Thank you WillR
    The audit was undertaken with good intentions and was for the most part a laborious and thankless task, though it did on occasions give us some insight into the science. In many cases this was a positive experience.

    Sure, there were cases when we missed out “reprints” or had to make decisions about historical papers that pre-dated the modern peer-review process, but we believe we did this in as fair and transparent manner as possible.

    If anyone wants to review or do further work on this then I am sure Donna would be happy to engage.

  124. FergalR says:

    Off topic, sorry; Low solar activity link to cold UK winters
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8615789.stm

    “But they added that the phenomenon only affected a limited region and would not alter the overall global warming trend. ” *rolls eyes*

  125. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    “simply made stuff up”

    Don’t even need acorns for this falling sky. It’s just falling. Take their word and fork over the cash.

  126. Dave Worley says:

    I know this is somewhat OT.
    I suppose we can afford to shut down our space program.
    We can always design a computer model of a spacecraft delivering a telescope to the lunar pole. The model could simulate the images of earth and the cosmos which might have been captured using such a telescope, without actually going there and doing it. These images would be accurate and useful in the post-normal sense.
    The model might even result in lots of virtual spin-off technology.
    To be fully effective, the model should simulate the drama, the excitement and the sense of accomplishment of such an exploratory venture.

  127. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F

    Ya, that does sound like government work.

    BTW, George Bernard Shaw and Yasser Arafat won Nobel Prizes. So it’s ‘anything goes’ there.

  128. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    is it any wonder why people are beginning to laugh at the “robustness” oft touted in climate science?

    I’ve been laughing a long time.

  129. James Sexton says:

    Johnny D (18:00:26) :

    James Sexton:
    “To be perfectly honest, I really don’t care about whether the science backs up climate change or not.”
    That pretty much says it all right there.

    That’s really cool man. Do you really think you can take something out of context like that? I mean really, all anyone would have to do is scroll up as see this….
    “To be perfectly honest, I really don’t care about whether the science backs up climate change or not. I’ve known our climate was in a constant state of change for some time now.”

    Sorry if you didn’t pay attention during your 5th grade science class, but the climate changing has been common knowledge for most self-aware entities for some time now. You know, carrying the “scientist” label doesn’t mean they hold some obscure yet unequivocal truth about mankind and nature. What’s next for you? Do we need to spend a few billion taxpayer dollars/pounds to inform you that lightening can be dangerous? Maybe Mike Mann can do a study to show you how lightening is caused by man’s methane emissions and we can find some totalitarian cure for that too?

    You know, you could have just honestly engaged me in a conversation, or even actually answered my question. But, again, it’s common knowledge alarmist won’t and can’t. It probably goes back to their attention span in the 5th grade.

  130. Baa Humbug says:

    Hi all

    As far as I’m concerned…

    1-) A research task was undertaken
    2-) The purpose of the research has been clearly stated
    3-) Conclusions were drawn and tabled
    4-) ALL the work, including the working papers, have been made available for all to see, read and check

    The above was achieved by a bunch of volunteers. Whichever country you live in, don’t you think your government, with all it’s resources, should have done this before accepting the report as gospel?

    It may not be perfect, but I’m proud of the work we did and of Donna Laframboise for organising it.

    p.s. To those commenters questioning Donnas integrity, I for one found her a pleasure to work with, totally professional and consistent, and I would readily put my hand up for any future project she may undertake

  131. Todd Brunner says:

    hro001:

    My contention was that the term “published” in Annex 2 may not mean published in a peer-reviewed publication but instead published in a form that was available to the public. The evidence seems to point to the latter definition.

    In any case, after reading your response and that of Donna Laframboise, I’m left wondering why you wasted all this time just to answer the question:

    “Are Rajendra Pachauri’s, “science” journalists’ and other media mavens’ claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment reports are “all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature” supported by the evidence in the references?”

    when 5 minutes spent reading IPCC procedures would’ve given you the answer. I think the likely reason is that you, like the “media mavens” who also got it wrong, just accepted Pachauri’s statement without fact checking actual IPCC procedures and now you’re left scrambling to find an actual use for your report card project. It certainly doesn’t cast any doubt on the IPCC report itself. To do that, you’d actually have to spend time looking at the grey literature references, see how they were used, and then determine whether they were appropriate.

    Hey, I think I just got an idea for a book…

  132. James Sexton says:

    Baa Humbug (19:15:44) :

    You guys did great. And give Donna Laframboise a hug, kiss, handshake…….what ever is appropriate. I can’t imagine the effort it took. It was illuminating. 133 responses and counting. Pretty good. You know it’s good when the trolls come out to play.

  133. James Sexton says:

    @ Todd Brunner (19:30:36) :

    It isn’t whether the rules stated they did or didn’t use peer-reviewed sources, or even whether they were allowed by the rules. It goes deeper than that. The article of this thread directly quotes Pachauri. You think he forgot what the rules were? He was/is in charge of the damned thing. If he doesn’t know what the rules are about including or excluding material, then the contributors are including and excluding material at their leisure conforming to their own biases.(We all knew that already, but this is proof.) Or it is occurring with the approval of Pachauri and he’s intentionally misleading the public. (Again, we all knew that, but this is DIRECT PROOF!) All we have to do is give Pachy a test to see how cognate he is of reality. I suspect we’ll find that Pachy is cognate, the subordinates acted with his approval and did include or exclude material at their leisure according to their personal biases and without regard to the scientific merits of the work referenced. We’ve already seen that with the Himalayan glacier melt reference and others.

  134. leftymartin says:

    You have to laugh at the likes of Todd Brunner haughtily dismissing this evidence on the premise that it was well known that the IPCC. Funny, but I don’t recall him trying to reality check claims made by Pachauri, Ban Ka Boom (my nickname for the UN secretary general), the EPA (which quoted Pachauri’s “mis-statements”), and all the mainstream media outlets (which Donna’s report cites) that fell for Pachauri’s 100% peer review crap hook line and sinker.

    So Todd, where were you? One of those who enjoys deceipt when it suits your particular religious belief?

    Donna and volunteers – well done!

  135. WillR says:

    I think that this topic points out how the process was manipulated. As I recall it was stated many times that of you wanted to present a “negative point of view” regarding AGW all one need do was write a paper, get it peer reviewed and it could (might?) be included in the IPCC assessment.

    The work by Donna Laframboise and her team of volunteers was worthwhile for one point alone: Clearly the “science” and “policy” work commissioned or reviewed for the IPCC reports need not be peer reviewed if it was “on message”, i.e. it supported the “so-call consensus view”. I really do think that the point is quite clear now. In other words — “get your work peer reviewed for inclusion” was just so much balderdash and a smoke screen. You gained inclusion and became part of the “in crowd” by going along to get along.

    If you can’t draw any other conclusion from the work it should be clear that the work need not be peer reviewed — it need only provide the right message.

  136. hro001 says:

    Todd Brunner (19:30:36) :

    hro001:

    My contention was that the term “published” in Annex 2 may not mean published in a peer-reviewed publication but instead published in a form that was available to the public. The evidence seems to point to the latter definition.
    =========

    Perhaps so; you do seem to have a penchant for contention. But the issue on the table – and the relevant part of the paragraph to which I was responding in my post – was as follows:

    I think you are interpreting Annex 2 different from the IPCC authors. Just do a quick search for the term “unpublished” in IPCC AR4 and you will find several references labeled as such…unpublished references. Here’s one example page that includes an unpublished reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html [emphasis added since you seem to have missed it the first time]

    Your claim was “several …unpublished“.

    As I noted in my response (17:53:55), I found 6, and I listed all of them for you (including your “example page”)

    In my books 6 out of 18, 631 (total references) still does not constitute “several”. Nor, for that matter, does 6 out of 5,587 (non-peer-reviewed references). I concede that YMMV may vary in either or both cases.

    I’m somewhat relieved to learn that it is apparently not your contention that the other 5,581 references that were not sourced to a publication which indicates that material contained therein has been peer-reviewed must be reclassified as “peer-reviewed” because they do not contain the word “Unpublished”. Nor do you contend that the IPCC has .. uh … redefined “peer-reviewed” journal, without letting the rest of the world know.

    This is good news. Doesn’t do much to enhance the veracity or significance of your “you will find several … unpublished”, though.

    BUT … what on God’s green earth does any anomalous “interpretation” of “published” have to do with your finding – and suggesting that others search for – “Unpublished”?!

    Now, it may have escaped your notice that at the slightest hint of criticism – or questioning of the tenets of the climate bible, Pachauri brandishes “all/only/solely/entirely peer-reviewed” like a cruxifix before vampires. And we all know that, while he is quite possibly the most zealous, he’s certainly not the only one. But he’d probably get an A for consistency in this regard (and an F for truthfulness).

    So while you’re dreaming up an escape from the published/unpublished quandary that you’ve created for yourself, Mr. Brunner, maybe you’d care to tell us what your “interpretation” of each of the following expressions might be:

    all peer-reviewed
    only peer-reviewed
    solely peer-reviewed
    entirely peer-reviewed

    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

    And do try not to move the goal-posts – again – in your reply. Moving goal-posts is almost the equivalent of fooling with mother nature, and that’s not nice.

  137. mikael pihlström says:

    Dave Worley (18:41:06) :

    “I know this is somewhat OT.
    I suppose we can afford to shut down our space program.
    We can always design a computer model of a spacecraft delivering a telescope to the lunar pole.”

    This is not a bad example, but if you think about it for awhile:
    Modelling is the reason why you can send the astronauts out there
    and get them safely back. To simplify boldly: if you are anti-model,
    you are anti-science and why are you then in a debate about science?

  138. mikael pihlström says:

    Robert E. Phelan (17:51:18) :

    mikael pihlström (15:42:38) :
    Really, you cannot reason like that. Computer models are part of
    science. Period.

    “Terrific. Another diktat from the hive-mind to go along with “The Science is Settled.” The models are nothing more than the articulation of a theory – a tool to generate hypotheses that can be tested through empirical observation”.

    Where is the conflict here? I said models are part of science. You
    describe that part. I agree on the methodological description, but not
    on the conclusion concerning IPCC models.

    You will have to admit, that in the sceptic movement it is becoming
    commonplace, to dogmatically look for the word ‘model’ and then
    declare the science invalid.

  139. Shevva says:

    Someone point out my mistake but a book not based on total facts is a book of fiction?

  140. Johnny D says:

    James Sexton:
    “You know, carrying the “scientist” label doesn’t mean they hold some obscure yet unequivocal truth about mankind and nature.”

    Well, of course, but when it comes to climate science, I trust climate scientists more than I trust others. Actually, I would call it “obscure” since true scientific expertise in climate takes years of intense study, not months of blog grazing. But what I’ve gathered from your comment is that no amount of scientific evidence will change your opinion, making engagement futile.

  141. Todd Brunner says:

    hro001:

    I can’t really understand what your getting at here. What is my “published/unpublished quandry”? It seems like you are trying to argue that “several” can’t mean “6 out of 18,631″. Please elaborate.

    And I’ve already said I agree that Pachauri and any other media source that said the IPCC contained only peer-reviewed material was wrong. Like many people I discovered this fact years ago when I decided to check what their official procedures were. So Pachauri says something wrong about the IPCC report and you, for some reason, decide to grade the IPCC report based on his incorrect statement. How is this of value?

  142. Paul Nevins says:

    This quote from Pachauri is particularly telling and ironic: “Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, …”

    The total absence of published data hasn’t stopped them from using any of the supposedly historical reconstructions. Not only isn’t the data published but we have all witnessed 20 years of mendacity and obfuscation by the team trying to hide the data, the method, the sources…

    There is nothing “Science” about this process. This is simply a religious exercise. The “scientific method” used by Jones, Mann, Schmidt and a host of others promoting an agenda would not be adequate to earn a passing grade in a decent ninth grade science course yet it becomes “settled science”. The peer reviewers obviously didn’t do their job.

  143. mikael pihlström says:

    Todd Brunner (05:04:39) : Phil Clarke (16:30:20) : see below

    “So Pachauri says something wrong about the IPCC report and you, for some reason, decide to grade the IPCC report based on his incorrect statement. How is this of value?”

    Indeed. How is this of great value? and is it fair & balanced? as the
    saying goes. I do however see potential value in the exercise,
    provided it is not disseminated further under the propagandistic
    slogan:
    21 of 44 =F, 5600 grey references, 1 discredited IPCC report!

    Because, a citizen panel generally is what scientists should crave for:
    involving citizens in the process creating greater understanding of
    science and science/policy interactions. There are also difficulties;

    Phil Clarke (16:30:20) :
    I then took a reference classified as ‘not peer-reviewed’ and looked
    it up:
    Gritsevsky, A., and N. Nakicenovic, 2002: Modelling uncertainty of
    induced technological change. In: Technological change and the environment, A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, W.D. Nordhaus, (eds.).
    Resources for the Future, pp. 251-279.
    Certainly, the cited article is a book chapter, and books are not peer-reviewed, but somehow our ‘citizen auditors’ managed to
    miss the fact that the it is a reprint from the very much peer-reviewed Energy policy, and it has been cited an impressive 131 times in the literature. It took me about 2 minutes with Google Scholar to
    discover this.
    [ and to complicate; some books are nowadays peer-reviewed MP]

    We would be demanding a lot from non-specialists! and afterwards
    possibly, would have to criticise them (audit, public discussions).
    Maybe include a board of scientists for advice on the methodology?
    Not sitting at the same table during the work, but available. Then,
    this board could take part of the rap.

    The question of what Pachauri/IPCC has actually said is not totally
    clear to me, but I guess he could be rebuked . However, are
    you all aware that Pachauri (or the scientists) are not receiving a
    salary from IPCC? Ask any Project Mangement Consultant; in his/her
    judgement can a organisation the size of IPCC be effectively run
    with a volunteer leader? IPCC is a first-time experiment; with hind-
    sight it could have been better structured.

    I know a wave of ridicule might be on its way: Pachauri has lined his
    pocket 10 times a top executive salary by other means. Well,
    then we have to investigate that also, according to proper procedure.
    At this level, we cannot assume that the executives will not have
    their private economy well-buffered or that they should give up their
    businesses (unless there is conflict of interest). If that is the criteria,
    the leaders would have to be retired billionaires only.

  144. kadaka says:

    DirkH (15:09:08) :

    blackswhitewash, are you identical to climategatestuff or what’s going on here? Please don’t do that.

    Sorry, but it looks like you won’t be getting a reply anytime soon.

    Gee, I wonder if someone just lost a good-paying job… ;-)

  145. Robert E. Phelan says:

    mikael pihlström (01:09:52) :

    Where is the conflict here? I said models are part of science. You
    describe that part. I agree on the methodological description, but not
    on the conclusion concerning IPCC models.

    You will have to admit, that in the sceptic movement it is becoming
    commonplace, to dogmatically look for the word ‘model’ and then
    declare the science invalid.

    Mikael: I’m only on my third cup of coffee this morning, so if I’m not at my charming best yet… there may be no conflict, but blunt statements about science with no nuance are becoming typical of warmest propaganda. Computers and models are part of science in exactly the same way as white lab coats, clipboards, microscopes and test tubes and pregnancy testing kits. They are tools, nothing more.

    I do disagree that skeptics automatically reject “model”…. far too often, from people who should know better, and probably do, the word “model” is embedded in a statement that includes “proves” or “worse than we thought”. The output of models is NOT evidence. The output of models is not science. People who cite the output of models as evidence of the urgency to fundamentally transform our economies and social systems are either fools or charlatans. They are not scientists.

  146. Richard S Courtney says:

    Paul Nevins (06:01:01):

    You assert;

    “The peer reviewers obviously didn’t do their job.”

    Not true! We did. But nobody took any notice.

    Please see the discussion in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/

    Especially the pertient discusion of IPCC practics towards the end of that thread.

    Richard

  147. kadaka says:

    @DirkH, addendum to kadaka (07:12:27):

    The “climategatestuff” link (climategatestuff.wordpress.com) goes straight to blackwhitewash.com. Same site, two different links here going to it, attached to two different aliases. Draw your own conclusions.

  148. Craig Loehle says:

    Whether IPCC “requires” peer-reviewed lit or not, RC and other blogs and pro-AGW debaters use the claim that anything not peer-reviewed (and in Science or Nature no less) as a debating tactic to disparage news they do not like. likewise, IPCC touts its work as peer-reviewed.

  149. Dave Worley says:

    mikael pihlström (00:59:47) :
    “Modelling is the reason why you can send the astronauts out there
    and get them safely back.”
    Nope, the reason we could do it was that we had the will.
    Animations appear to suffice today.

  150. vigilantfish says:

    mikael pihlström (01:09:52) :

    You will have to admit, that in the sceptic movement it is becoming
    commonplace, to dogmatically look for the word ‘model’ and then
    declare the science invalid.

    ——————-

    The origins of my scepticism lie with the misinterpretation of models by fisheries scientists: the models used by fisheries scientists who were recommending catch limits for the Grand Banks fisheries in the 1980s were generated using too many assumptions about natural mortality, the fishing mortality rates, and recruitment rates. I.e. – there was not enough data to justify the conclusions being drawn from the models. The result? The most calamitous collapse of groundfish stocks in the history of the North Atlantic fisheries. The good thing was that this event forced scientists to go back to the drawing board and re-examine their assumptions.

    Models are not evidence, they are tools. Where is the evidence that reinforces the claims being made by climate scientists that catastrophic, or even non-catastrophic, global warming is occurring DUE to human-generated CO2? WUWT provides a plethora of evidence in numerous postings over the past several years that there are few if any measurable effects from this source.

  151. mikael pihlström says:

    vigilantfish (12:31:43) :
    Models are not evidence, they are tools.
    Robert E. Phelan (07:16:51) :
    I do disagree that skeptics automatically reject “model”…

    Unless you have some subgroup of sceptics in mind, I cannot understand
    your opinion that many skeptics do not automatically reject any results,
    which mentions models. The two instances when I admitingly was blunt, were direct responses to such cases in a single thread.
    I completely agree that model is not evidence, but prediction. I completely
    agree that they are dangerous in wrong hands. But I completely disagree
    taht science cannot make scenarious/predictions for the future, just because
    we have to wait for the evidence.

  152. vigilantfish says:

    mikael pihlström (13:13:49) :

    I feel as if I am repeating tropes here, but the lovely thing for climate scientists is that their predictions are so far in the future that most of them will have spent their last paycheck and be long since stowed in the ground before their predictions are rejected or verified.

    Even before climate alarmism took off and climate science became a hive of ideological and politicized activity (back in the innocent days of the study of weather) I was drawing mental parallels between meteorology and fisheries science. Both deal with attempts to predict the future course of events. Meteorologists so far have little success beyond a 5 day horizon. Fisheries scientists try to use past data to project the total allowable catch at a certain proportion of the fish stock. Their calculations include the recruitment of fish (successful spawning and survival to the first year), growth, natural mortality from predation etc, as well as fishing mortality.

    Since the cod stock collapsed the science has been refined and models are being used more cautiously. The sustainable yield is now calculated as a much smaller portion of the stock. Scientists now must also account for variations in water temperatures and long-term climate change whether natural or not, and multispecies interactions, the role of environmental damage (e.g. effects of bottom trawling) fish behaviour and other parameters. They still rely on models, but the models, while vital tools, are now treated more cautiously, and cross checked by a variety of mathematical and empirical techniques.

    The variables for fisheries science are enormous. Yet they are at least equalled by those that challenge climate science. The computer models of the 1990s made no provision for the effects of clouds or solar variation, or the PDO or AO or numerous other parameters. But while fisheries scientists had to change the way they operate due to the the collapsing fish stocks, there is never any consequence when climate scientists’ models turn out to be way off target. They simply reboot and start all over again, always with the same story, modifying their models to keep their hypothesis of global warming going, while declaring the science to be settled. Furthermore, to push their story they rewrote history: Michael Mann’s now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph (a model of the past) is an example of why it is hard for sceptics to treat climatologists’ projection models with much reverence. It also turns out that while they are embarked on a an argument that relies heavily on statistics, they are not very good statisticians. See
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/

  153. Smokey says:

    vigilantfish (15:26:25),

    I just finished reading the link you posted. Very interesting. “VS” responded to Scott Mandia, who said that CO2 is rising and most of the rise is anthropogenic:

    [ ... ]
    Fine, I would say that there is a basis for a hypothesis of warming through CO2 emissions (i.e. a phenomenological model). Ergo, we should then be able to detect the effect of changes in such emissions on changes in temperatures. We have 150 years of proper observations, so something has got to give, right?

    But using the best tools available, we don’t find any proper correlation. In fact, such a relationship is rejected by the data. Now this is a problem for any hypothesis, and if this were an economic (phenomenological) model, it would have suffered a fatal blow by such test results (indeed, many ‘nice’ hypotheses in economics died at the hands of econometricians/statisticians).

    In other words, there is no evidence that the substantial rise in CO2 over the past 150 years has caused any warming at all. It may have. But the effect is extremely small compared with what we’ve been led to believe by people whose incomes are dependent on showing that CO2 will lead to catastrophe.

    This is one more example showing that CO2 is harmless and beneficial.

  154. mikael pihlström says:

    vigilantfish (15:26:25) :

    “Furthermore, to push their story they rewrote history: Michael Mann’s now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph (a model of the past) is an example of why it is hard for sceptics to treat climatologists’ projection models with much reverence. It also turns out that while they are embarked on a an argument that relies heavily on statistics, they are not very good statisticians. See
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/

    No objection against a critical ‘surge’ on evaluating the chances of predictive modelling of climate for the 21th, but given the ‘sceptic’
    view on modelling we discussed earlier, I wonder when that will
    happen. As the IPCC report 2007 provides rather much material on
    the modelling and scenarios it is perhaps symptomatic that the
    discussion (rejection)here is on a rather abstract level. Involvement
    of statisticians is of course needed, but does the last phrase of a
    fragment copied from the link you posted suggest to you that a
    pure statistician approach is not enough?

    • VS Says:
    March 4, 2010 at 13:54

    “In other words, global temperature contains a stochastic rather
    than deterministic trend, and is statistically speaking, a random
    walk. Simply calculating OLS trends and claiming that there is a ‘clear increase’ is non-sense (non-science). According to what we observe therefore, temperatures might either increase or decrease in the
    following year (so no ‘trend’).”

  155. mikael pihlström says:

    vigilantfish (15:26:25) :

    Mcintyre is obviously a better statistician than Mann, but that the
    hockey stick is thoroughly discredited I doubt – time will tell.

  156. vigilantfish,

    Nobody expects a 1 to 1 relation between temp and CO2, esp not when other climate forcings (notably aerosols, but also volcanic, solar, other ghg etc) are also changing. On that thread on my blog, some people seem a little too eager to jump to conclusions that are not supported, and haven’t even been tested.

  157. Richard S Courtney says:

    Bart Verheggen (01:57:12):

    You assert:

    “Mcintyre is obviously a better statistician than Mann, but that the
    hockey stick is thoroughly discredited I doubt – time will tell”

    No, the Mann, Bradley & Hughes (MBH) ‘hockey stick’ is probably the single most discedited graph in the entire history of science.

    Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005)).

    In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al.
    (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005), McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)).
    But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003
    (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003))
    that showed it is not possible to directly replicate the work of Mann et al.

    The fundamental errors in the methodology of Mann et al. were that their statistical methodology tends to generate a graph with ‘hockey stick’ shape when fed with data that is random red noise. This was first determined by McIntyre & McKitrick.

    The US National Academy of Sciences established a special committee to investigate the matter and it determined that the findings of McIntyre & McKitrick concerning the methodology were correct. The Energy Committee of the US Congress was so concerned at the matter that it commissioned Prof Wegman (an accomplished statistician) to form a committee to investigate it. His report is available at
    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
    That report also determined that the findings of McIntyre & McKitrick were correct.

    There are several reasons for the inability to directly replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refused to reveal his source codes to others except his co-workers. This inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting.

    Other similar flawed studies have been conducted but they were each conducted by co-workers of Mann and they each use the same data which has not been revealed to others.

    When Briffa published one such study in Philosophical Transactions B of the UK’s Royal Society he was surprised to discover that the journal’s Editor insisted that he had to reveal his data. This resulted in the revelation that his ‘hockey stick’ was a function of the trees he had chosen to select from those that were available (this is known as the ‘Yamal Controversy’).

    And then there is the ‘divergence problem’ and ‘hide the decline’, … but the above is probably sufficient to demonstrate that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ has been completely discredited.

    And there is more. Much more.

    Richard

  158. George E. Smith says:

    On a related matter The book “Climategate” by Mosher & Fuller, advertised above, now has another book with a similar name; well it also is called “Climaegate”, and is supposed to be about more than just the CRUtape e-mails.
    The new book was pseudo leaked yesterday, at several SF Bay Area Tea Party rallys. Written by Brian Sussman; former TV weather man; and now the KSFO raio morning show host (Conservative).

    Brian has been touting his book for some time on his radio show, and leaking bits and pieces of what is in it; and he plans a big release on the Sean Hannity radio and his Fox News TV show next week.

    I didn’t buy the book, but Brian has from time to time made comments about items in it. It would seem that he settled on the Climategate Title relatively recently once that storm broke. He is hoping that this will be the big expose, and the definitive nail in the coffin of AGW and IPCC and other sillinesses.

    I have a feeling that he is in for a big letdown. Not that he doesn’t reach the right conclusions; but I suspect that there is much of the important Physics; that he really doesn’t know; and he possibly has put his foot in it in a few instances. Those feelings are based on what he has revealed on his radio show.

    Well if anyone decides to spend the money; maybe they can give us a report; or perhaps the vultures will soon descend and tear it to shreds. Well I wish him well with it any way.

  159. Robert E. Phelan says:

    mikael pihlström (13:13:49) :

    mikael:

    You manage to completely agree with a statement I didn’t make (dangerous in the wrong hands?), completely disagree with a statement I didn’t make (science cannot make scenarios for the future?) and then manage to imply that we must take drastic action based on the output of models, even though they are not evidence. You make a statement about skeptics in general:

    You will have to admit, that in the sceptic movement it is becoming
    commonplace, to dogmatically look for the word ‘model’ and then
    declare the science invalid.

    Then you switch to a statement about “many skeptics” and cite two “cases in a single thread” without either pointing to the cases or providing any context. You write as if your observations have weight and meaning. They don’t. You do not and cannot quantify your observations, which are strictly anecdotal and then denigrate mine (which, I concede is also anecdotal; I did not run a survey or attempt content analysis)?

    Your engagement here is a waste of time.

  160. Newt Love says:

    I will leave the deconstruction and dissembling of Laframboise et al to other posters above. I wish to marvel at a simple truth shown if the main point is expressed in layman’s terms.

    Referencing the article: 5,587 of the 18,531 sources cited were not peer-reviewed.
    In other words, more than 1 out of every 4 — almost 1 out of every 3 — citations or referenced articles is not peer reviewed. This is not a minor error.

    Given the high stature and esteem that the Climate Scientologists demand that we give them, they need to be exemplary in something as basic as following their own rules, that every paper be peer reviewed or not allowed into the report.

    This makes the Hockey-Stick gang more than laughable in their excluding papers — even peer reviewed ones — when the IPCC allowed 5,587 grey paper citations into the report.

    More than 1 out of every 4 — almost 1 out of every 3 — papers fail the IPCC’s own test. How is this not a failure? Perhaps heavy cannabis use influenced the grading scale?

  161. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Bart Verheggen (01:57:12) :

    vigilantfish,

    Nobody expects a 1 to 1 relation between temp and CO2, esp not when other climate forcings (notably aerosols, but also volcanic, solar, other ghg etc) are also changing. On that thread on my blog, some people seem a little too eager to jump to conclusions that are not supported, and haven’t even been tested. “””

    Then why do “Climate Scientists” continue to keep citing such a relationship; via the phony notion of “Climate Sensitivity”; which not only asserts such a relationship; but even specifies its mathematical form; namely a logarithmic/exponential relationship (depending on which way you plot it). Absent either hard observational evidence; with sufficiently small error bands to lock down such a mathematical form, to the exclusion of other equations; or alternatively, some real physical model, that predicts such a logarithmic relationship; I can see no virtue in postulating such a connection.

    And yes; I believe all the feedback interrelationships, and other factors biological or physical/chemical, simply make any such simple cause/effect connection to be highly unlikely. The whole system is chaotic; and likely to remain mathematically intractible; besides never being in equilibrium; even remotely.

  162. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Dave Worley (10:34:55) :

    mikael pihlström (00:59:47) :
    “Modelling is the reason why you can send the astronauts out there
    and get them safely back.”
    Nope, the reason we could do it was that we had the will.
    Animations appear to suffice today. “””

    Well I am old enough to remember quite clearly; as if it was yesterday, that when those first men reached the moon on a landing expedition, that their fancy computerized modelled process for landing on the moon; was too damn stupid to notice that it was about to put them down on a pile of rocks, which very likely would have tipped the whole machine over; from which no escape would have been possible.

    I wonder if the mission planners ever thought to construct the LEM in such a way, that the total contraption was light enough and strong enough that two men in space suits with shovels or whatever could actually right the whole contraption if it fell over.

    In any case, and actual man, had to take over the landing and move to some place othet than a rock pile.

    Thats’ why models are always supicious. They are simply wonderful to explain in some simplified fashion, that which is already known from observation; but they should be taken with a grain of salt, when making predictions; especially about the future.

Comments are closed.