From Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF
A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. –Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News, 2 November 2011
A draft UN report three years in the making concludes that man-made climate change has boosted the frequency or intensity of heat waves, wildfires, floods and cyclones and that such disasters are likely to increase in the future. The document being discussed by the world’s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists says the severity of the impacts vary, and some regions are more vulnerable than others. —AFP, 1 November 2011
What the results tell us is that, based on the very limited time-series data we have for most countries, there is no evidence so far for a statistically significant upward trend in normalized insured loss from extreme events outside the US and West Germany… [W]e warn against taking the findings for the US and Germany as conclusive evidence that climate change has already caused more frequent and/or more intensive natural disasters affecting this country. To start with, one needs to be careful in attributing such a trend to anthropogenic climate change, i.e. climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Our findings reported in this article could be down to natural climate variability that has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. –Fabian Barthel & Eric Neumayer, Climate Change, 2012
A new study conducted by federal scientists found no evidence that climate change has caused more severe flooding in the United States during the last century. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study — titled “Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels” — found no clear relationship between the increase in greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change and the severity of flooding in three of four regions of the United States. — Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, 25 October 2011
Donna Laframboise is a journalist, feminist and civil libertarian. Not exactly the ‘white male conservative’ who is assumed by the media to be the typical ‘climate change denier’. First online, and now in this book, she has subjected the IPCC to the critical scrutiny that is should always have received. And what she, and a small group of volunteers who gathered around her, discovered shows that the IPCC is a body that is fatally flawed and is probably beyond redemption. –Pan Pantziarka, London Book Review, 28 October 2011
In March last year, Laframboise recruited 43 private citizens in 12 countries online to audit the entire IPCC 2007 report and count the number of non-peer-reviewed references. The audit showed that 5587 of 18,531 — fully one-third — were non-peer-reviewed sources: including newspaper articles, activist reports, even press releases. The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticised for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 31 October 2011
“The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticised for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule.”
This says it all really. Why do they have rules? Or is there an overarching rule that the IPCC is never wrong.
Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? I mean, in any field the paper will list the professor as the author, but his cadre of grad student slaves actually did the research, right?
Sure, but those papers aren’t used to shape policy that would dramatically affect the world economy.
Ryan says:
November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am
“Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? ”
So, to finish your argument, “isn’t it ok that we let unqualified grad students determine the future of our energy infrastructure? After all, we just can’t let qualified people decide because nobody else does.”
Ryan says:
November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am
…grad student slaves actually did the research, right?
Yes, this may be true, but most grad student research doesn’t result in the mass-wasting of billions by policy-makers on fixing a problem that basically doesn’t exist. So, try a different position!
Ryan says: “Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? I mean, in any field the paper will list the professor as the author, but his cadre of grad student slaves actually did the research, right?”
The monetary and human losses resulting from a mistake in an ordinary paper are ten orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of turning the world over to the rule-exempt IPCC to address putative Anthropogenic Global Warming. This is rather obvious, no?
“New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies”
In other news, water is wet, the sun is bright, and grass is green. Tell me something about the IPCC that we don’t know.
It doesnt matter.
We, the west, is hereby to be paid by africa, Brazil, China, etc etc for the CO2 “pollution”.
It has been decided by the UN. So I will rest my case, and start waiting for the money.
Please hurry up, think of the children;
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Ryan, that’s true to a point. But did you read the link relative to the statement? We’re talking about authoring the IPCC reports (sometimes being lead author), not just publishing papers used as a reference therein.
IPCC “dart-throwing chimpanzees”
kwik;
That’s merely factual data. Reparations are decided by the “Who has what others want” standard.
@kwik
What totally delicious irony! How sad that there is little chance that the vilification of the West will diminish on this news.
The grads student usually submit their paper to the professor before it is published and then to peer review. As I understand it these papers were not submitted to peer review and in fact some chapters at the IPPC were written by grad students. The IPCC really isn’t peer reviewed in the normal sense.
TomT;
Tru’, dat. But its AR reports are tightly controlled and filtered to make sure they’re “on message”. That’s all that counts for the politicians who staff and manage the top committees.
Grad research is (supposed to be) supervised by professors – it is basically practice at being a scientist for students. This worked well in earlier times but now the work of professors has to be closely monitored and supervised, too in this post-normal age. And that’s what we do at WUWT.
I’m glad I was able to prompt a little discussion, but I want to make clear that I can’t comprehend how anyone would want to rely on the IPCC when making energy policy. My real thinking is along the lines of “when people are given a reason to delve into the nitty gritty of climate science they find shoddy work, so what would happen if people had a reason to delve into any other field?”
This paper claims “most current published research findings [may be] false.”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Try not to think about that the next time you’re in a doctor’s office. We might also wonder if scholarship would be improved by ditching the current system of grad students do the work, professors take the credit, and journals get all the money.
“Ryan says:
November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am
Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? I mean, in any field the paper will list the professor as the author, but his cadre of grad student slaves actually did the research, right?”
Good point. And in my experience, greater than 50% of those papers are trash, containing experimental, observational, statistical, and egregious attribution.
M
This is just like watching politicians take money from lobbyists and us saying,”Hey,they shouldn’t do that!” But, nothing ever seems to happen to them or these IPCC folks. Sigh. Our country is in jeopardy.
This was more than grad students doing”grunt work” they were named lead authors. Then they turned the peer review process into a pseudoacademic circle jerk. All well and good fun, but we can’t possibly base any policy on the results.
Just wait for the current crop of high schoolers to become “grad” students, they have seen Al Gore in science class for 5 years and think he is a scientist. I asked my daughter if she heard of Freeman Dyson, she said sure! He invented that cool vacuum cleaner! She is a straight A student at a very good private school, it makes my head ache. In Canada we have David Suzuki explaining climate and enviorment based on his Phd. in fruit fly sex.
Ryan says:
November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am
Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? I mean, in any field the paper will list the professor as the author, but his cadre of grad student slaves actually did the research, right?
===================================
Graduate students are just laboratory jockeys.
Would you be happy with a medical intern undertaking brain surgery on you?
Natural disasters have always happened but, either there were no people affected so or news of such events was not disseminated. Now, because people are there the cause has been attributed to the people rather than the other way around.
Anecdotally, we once found an area of bush that had been flattened in a circle about fifty metres (150ft) diameter with the trees felled in a circular pattern too. Twisters are not common in Australia but there must be more than we know about because no one sees them or the results.
Brian H says:
November 3, 2011 at 10:46 am
kwik;
That’s merely factual data. Reparations are decided by the “Who has what others want” standard.
_______________________
The “Who has what others want” standard. What is wanted is natural resources, but that is alright the rush is on “Reparations” or no “Reparations”
“CAGW never was anything more than a polite face put on the land grab. (see They Had to Burn the Village To Save it from Global Warming)
Since CAGW seems to be terminally ill the Elite are just going ahead with plans any way. I have been watching this trend for about six/seven years.
It has also happened in the EU, Mexico (lost 75% of farmers since 1995) and is scheduled for the USA.
Ryan says:
November 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I’m glad I was able to prompt a little discussion, but I want to make clear that I can’t comprehend how anyone would want to rely on the IPCC when making energy policy. My real thinking is along the lines of “when people are given a reason to delve into the nitty gritty of climate science they find shoddy work, so what would happen if people had a reason to delve into any other field?”
This paper claims “most current published research findings [may be] false.”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Try not to think about that the next time you’re in a doctor’s office…..
____________________________
ERRRRRrrrrr…
The shoddy work has been found there too. Starting with the hospital connected to Rochester Hospital where the old TV program “Sixty Minutes” found the “Famous Surgeon” you were paying big bucks to was out on the golf course while his students were in the operating room cutting you up.
And now:
http://www.medcitynews.com/2011/07/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/
I should correct that. It was the hospital connected to Rochester University in Rochester NY and it was the very high death rate compared to other hospitals that prompted the investigation. I personally knew three people who died at the hospital from “Mistakes” in one year shortly before the report came out…. Made it really stick in my mind. Happened late seventies.
Just to lighten the mood a little:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/good-news-story.html
Occasionally these disingenuous b@stards do actually get what’s coming to them.
Hold your nerve lads, wait until you see the whites of their eyes 🙂
And on a similar note, but in a different field, isn’t it comforting to know that they work for you and are paid by you:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-miracle-in-oregon.html
Utterly disgusting behaviour again from advocates/lobbyists playing at science.
So its peer reviewed by the same folks that m[a]y be part of the problem?
This Thanksgiving Day you should be thankful the students writing the IPCC are not the ones designing and building your bridges.
there have been NO peer reviewed or truly independant studies allowed on GMO foods.
NO Human testing at all, ever.
WE are the test pigs…and as its Unlabelled, by forceful lobbying, how can anyone know whats making them ill?
the companies control the results before publishing or make product unavailable due to commercial secrecy etc.
most pharma drugs have no outside testing or review, what the company presents is what the FDA accepts.
when the FDA rarely does find the gumption to query a product they get a huge amount of pressure to shut up and let the expensive miracle drug pass.
and if a product IS killing people it takes YEARS to get it removed ie Vioxx and early Statins.
the recent Codex inspired slamming of vitamins etc is classic, they want them controlled BY pharmas.
decades of use of herbals and minerals is negated as hearsay when it has more data available than most approved toxic drugs.
legal pharma drugs taken as prescribed kill thousand every year, No reported deaths by vitamins.
what we see with the IPCC is just more of the same.
The ferocity with which the green bubble is being defended points to desperation, whether it’s about power or money, I’m not sure.
===============
“The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticised for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule.”
Yup, rules are for the little people. Rules exist only to advance the agenda. The agenda rules!
At what point does a grad student become qualified, at the level of Mann and Hansen perhaps. Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and many others had no university certification.
I am not saying that certification is not important but the value of the work should speak for itself without the venerable PHD on their name except of course in cases where a certified surgeon is operating, there I would insist on certification. Of course the grad student’s work is reviewed by the professor and the professor’s work reviewed by others but a PHD is no guarantee of honesty, good judgment or brilliance.
“Good point. And in my experience, greater than 50% of those papers are trash, containing experimental, observational, statistical, and egregious attribution.” – Tim Clark
One only needs to look at the NIH database to prove this. The thing is filled with studies that fail to link weight gain and loss with calorie surplus and deficit respectively. Usually because of poor models up to and including self reporting of calorie intake. One of the best ways to demystify The Science! is to show people, using topics they are already knowledgable in, how often researchers screw up in obvious and easily avoidable ways. Once they realize science is done by human beings, equally fallable and biased as any other, they start not buying into claims of authority. Every jackass on this planet has a study or at least an abstract that ‘proves’ his or her insane pet theory about this or that. I know this because I have a study that proves it.
Great news story there Anthony!
Man who has no education in climate science, founds a [trimmed] institution and then writes an opinion piece that is critical of the IPCC. Opinion piece gets broadcast on Faux news.
Fantastic!
What’s your next thread? “Pope says god exists!”
Ryan says (and a lot of people agreed with him):
“….Just to play devil’s advocate, aren’t unqualified grad students responsible for the vast majority of scientific research these days? I mean, in any field the paper will list the professor as the author, but his cadre of grad student slaves actually did the research, right?…”
Well, that certainly appears to be the case for Wegmann. Perhaps if he supervised his grad students better he wouldn’t have been found guilty of plagiarism.
But of course, everyone here would have condemned him for both crimes I’m sure. Or is it different if the shoddy ‘scientist’ is on your side?