More Insidious than the Himalayan error
Guest post by: Indur M. Goklany
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings of the Times of London this weekend spotlighted an IPCC error of Himalayan proportions, namely, that, contrary to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Himalayan glaciers will not have melted away by 2035. This error, they attributed to a series of blunders, bad quality control and poor scholarship.
I want to spotlight another error in the IPCC report. This is an error, based not on blunders or poor scholarship but on selective reporting of results, where one side of the story is highlighted but the other side is buried in silence. In other words, it’s a sin of omission, that is, it results, literally, from being economical with the truth. It succeeds in conveying an erroneous impression of the issue — similar to what “hide the decline” did successfully (until Climategate opened and let the sunshine in).
I have written about this previously at WUWT in a post, How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative, and in a peer reviewed article on global warming and public health. Both pieces show how the IPCC Working Group II’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which deals with the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, hid the projected decline in the future global population at risk of water shortage due to climate change. Not surprisingly, news outlets (e.g., here and here) routinely report that climate change could increase the population at risk of water shortage, despite the fact that studies show exactly the opposite regarding the net global population at risk of water shortage.
First, before getting into any details, let me note that just as the hockey stick was the poster child of the IPCC’s Third Assessment report, the designers of IPCC WGII’s Figure SPM.2 probably hoped that it would be the poster child for the Fourth Assessment Report. The following are excerpts from the earlier WUWT blog:
“Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s ‘official’ Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2007-05/overview-wg2-report.pdf).
“Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.
“Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.
“The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]
“What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows. In fact, by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)!
“And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is. It also reminds us as to why prior to testifying in court one swears to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
“Figure SPM.2 fails to tell us the whole truth.
“Hints of the whole truth, however, are buried in the body of the IPCC WG 2 Report …”
The entire piece can be read here.
The problem I have with what the IPCC WG II SPM did with the water impacts is best summarized by this excerpt from the US National Academy of Sciences’ book, On Being a Scientist, that I found on Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website today:
“Researchers who manipulate their data in ways that deceive others, even if the manipulation seems insignificant at the time, are violating both the basic values and widely accepted professional standards of science. Researchers draw conclusions based on their observations of nature. If data are altered to present a case that is stronger than the data warrant, researchers fail to fulfill all three of the obligations described at the beginning of this guide. They mislead their colleagues and potentially impede progress in their field or research. They undermine their own authority and trustworthiness as researchers. And they introduce information into the scientific record that could cause harm to the broader society, as when the dangers of a medical treatment are understated.” [Hat tip to Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.]
As a long time science policy analyst, let me note that such conduct is reprehensible. Expert comments on the Second Order Draft of the SPM (see Items C and D on page 32 of linked document) had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Despite that, the SPM chose to report the increase but ignored the decline.
This was clearly undertaken consciously, as opposed to being the result of a blunder. It is, therefore, more insidious than the Himalayan error.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As much as I’d like to, I find it hard to pin a whole lot of credibility on the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That kind of sullies anything that might be published there.
Mike D. (22:09:05) :
……… and southward shifting boreal tree limits.
Good points Mike, only don’t forget us Southern Hemispherians !
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) :
Is there anything connected with the IPCC and it’s parent organization that is NOT a lie? Anything at all? Anyone?
Well, they’ve been pretty consistent in saying Pachauri is a railroad engineer by trade — that should count for *something*…
Dr. Goklany nails it again, as he does in his stupendous book The Improving the State of the World. For anyone who’s interested in reading more about the subject of water, this guy has some interesting things to say, most of which I didnt know:
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/01/water-water-everywhere-nor-any-drop-to-drink/
Patrick Davis (22:34:05): Is there any demonstrable proof that there was scientific consensus that an ice age was on its way in the 1970’s?
I don’t know about scientific consensus, but an excellent book on the subject of neoglaciation is:
Pielou, E.C. 1991. After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America. Univ Chicago Press.
Dr. Pielou is the smartest woman in the world, IMHO. I am not positive that there are any men smarter than she, either.
I suspect the AGW cult has its response ready. Something along the lines of:
a) Global warming will mean black heat. This is heat that will change climate, but not evaporate water. So, we expect precipitation to decrease rather than increase.
b) CO2 in the atmosphere will not only trap heat but encourage water vapour to escape into space. So, we expect the planet to boil dry.
c) Global warming will cause water vapour to rise so high into the atmosphere that it’ll condense into snow flakes before falling to earth to cover close-to 40-year record amounts of the Northern Hemisphere in snow. The temperature drop that the snow will cause can be directly attributed to global warming.
Peter of Sydney (22:16:33) :
Put a socialist and a libertarian in the same room and ask them to agree on a solution. Now add a communist and a dictator. See the problem? I agree though that the #1 reason for the various “solutions: being proposed is “power and money.” It’s amazing how quickly the little guy gets forgotten about.
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
I don’t know about a scientific consensus, but there was a lot of media interest. Here are a few links to media reports from the 70s. Maybe they made it all up?
IPCC = Inventing Politically Convenient Catastrophes
Well if one reads “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring ?” Frank Wentz et al for SCIENCEW July 7 2007; they reported based on satellite observations that a 1 deg C rise in mean global temperatures, gave a 7% increase in precipitation. That usually translates into more water available worldwide. Well to be pedantic, they didn’t observe the whole of a degree rise, but that gives the right rate of increase in precipitation they observed.
Now if one wants to bet that all of that extra water and maybe some more is going to move away from people, and hence satisfy the IIIIPCC predction; excuse me projection, then I would say you have a better crystal ball than most.
“Now, Google’s pièce de résistance of hypocrisy: Climategate. In a January 16th article in the National Post entitled “Better off with Bing”, Lawrence Solomon documents a devastating statistical account of how Google censored news accounts of Climategate.
Has Google invested heavily in “green” anti global warming technologies? Google has close ties with Al Gore and Obama. Anyone looking for information on Climategate is directed to links critical of Climategate and no suggestions for it. Rather than doing injustice to the great work of Lawrence Solomon by trying to recount the specifics, I would direct you to the article itself. Better to cut and past the link as I would advise not using Google to look for it.”
Who’s Watching the Climategate Gatekeepers?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/whos_watching_the_climategate.html
“NEW DELHI (AFP) – India’s environment minister slammed the UN’s top climate body in comments published Tuesday, claiming its doomsday warning about Himalayan glaciers was not based on “scientific evidence.””
Indian minister slams UN body on Glacier Research
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100119/wl_asia_afp/indiaenvironmentglacierswarmingun
George Orwell once said;
The biggest lies are the lies of omission.
tokyoboy (22:15:33) :
IPCC = Insidious Pachauri & Craps Contingent?
How about:
IPCC = Instigating Profitable Climate Consensus
I have to say that MSM seems to be taking this on board at last The Australian is quite angry with the Ice story… It was headlined yesterday and commented extensively today. They reckon its more harmful to AGW than climategate!. I think the Coleman Video 4 is by far the most damming. WE shall see. Prediction in 12 months time AGW will not been an issue and there will be no 13th IPCC report in 2013.
If only The Team had not done what they did, they would be highly respected scientists. Who knows.. they may have been correct to some extent…The outlook now is quite bleak for them…
Creating jobs out of thin air (CO2) is becoming problematic. Unwinding a $200+ billion dollar industry is not going to be easy. Once these bureaucracies are created, it’s very difficult to un-make them. We need to have an extensive study and post on this issue. I am hoping for many articles on the subject.
“The European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime, according to a December 9 statement issued by European police. Europol, an EU-wide criminal intelligence agency similar to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, says bogus trading at the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has exceeded €5 billion (U.S.$7 billion) over the past 18 months alone. Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent.”
Climategate: European Carbon Credit Trading System Plagued by Fraud
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/
“Mike D. (23:26:09) :”
Thanks for your response, I will look in to that.
“greg2213 (23:46:18) :
I don’t know about a scientific consensus, but there was a lot of media interest. Here are a few links to media reports from the 70s. Maybe they made it all up?”
Thanks for the links, and the media have been running “bad weather” doom stories since the late 18th century, so no know there is no news there. I am also fully aware of the media hype back then as well as actually being up north in the UK during those cold weather spells. And it sure was cold. Even during the power strikes in the ’70’s too, no electricity, we had parafin lams/heaters and an open fire fortunately, but still, waking up in the mornings to a cold house (No such thing as central heating and double glasing for my family then).
So the myth of a scientific concensus on an approaching ice age is likely true.
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) : 18/01
It has taken me quite a bit of research, but I think I am safe in asserting that the page numbering in the IPCC Assessment Report appears to be correct.
From the Daily Express today:
TAXPAYERS FOOT BILL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CAMPAIGNERS
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners
Brussels bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5m of taxpayers’ money last year
January 19, 2010
BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.
The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe – more than half the pressure group’s 2009 budget.
The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas insisted that the groups’ aims and objectives were in tune with EU policy.
***************************************************************************
…My taxes at work. Now you have to pay taxes to have groups lobby for more taxes on everything based on the biggest scientific fraud in history, and pay for useless landscape-destroying bird-shredders to smother our country at the same time. This is the financial equivalent of paying someone to rob you. Only the useless corrupt EU could invent this situation.
IPCC = Insidious Propaganda Corrupting Children
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
Indeed. Is there any demonstrable proof that there was scientific consensus that an ice age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.
I don’t know about consensus, but then nature doesn’t care about consensus. Here are a few stories about 1970s fears of ice age.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945635,00.html
http://www.almanac.com/sites/new.almanac.com/files/1895_cvr1_0.png
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061024143134.aspx
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592803/part_2/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/time-announces-approaching-ice-age/
“Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
“Mike D. (22:09:05) :
Indeed. Is there any demonstrable proof that there was scientific consensus that an ice age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.”
…I am not surprised you have heard it’s a myth. The global warming worshipers have been busy trying to rewrite this part of climate-scare history. If you are interested, here is a summary of their activities.
***************************************************************************
[Reply: uh kate, next time post an excerpt and a link mkay? I’ll help you just this one time. ~ ctm.
Thursday 10 December 2009
Same fears, different name?
Maurizio Morabito uncovers a 1974 CIA report showing that the ‘scientific consensus’ then was that the world was cooling.
Maurizio Morabito
Panic about climate change is not an entirely contemporary phenomenon. In fact, 40 years ago, some scientists were similarly fearful about an impending climate catastrophe. The world would be harmed and life would become harsh, we were told. Policies were drawn up to deal with the coming change, and the scientists crossed their fingers. But there is one vital difference between the panic then and the panic now. It wasn’t global warming that was concerning scientists 40 years ago; it was global cooling.
This revelation comes from a recently unearthed 1974 CIA report. Because of this we now know that a large number of scientists really were convinced that world temperatures were on the way down. The only uncertainty centred around the strength and duration of the upcoming cooling of the planet. Yet this apparent consensus around global cooling, so prevalent during the 1970s, seems to have been erased from history. Why?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/7817/
…ok I helped]
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it
Of course we can do soemthing but it would require the combined efforts of all countries on a massive scale to reduce our greenhouse emissions by say 50% over the next say 50 years. We have some of the technology now and we can develop news one later, but we don’t have the will power to do it. Instead governments and big business create scams to increase their power and get richer. Otherwise, we would have had world peace a very long time ago. Think about this. If man wasn’t so greedy for power and money, we’d probably be traveling to the stars using faster than light technologies by now, and populated countless planets. Instead we have wasted our time fighting wars over the centuries for what? Small pieces of land that wouldn’t even add up to the same surface area of a small moon. Yes, man is sure dumb.
“rogerthesurf (01:44:06) :
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)”
The term “porky” usually refers to someone who is a bit, errrrmmm, rotund, chubby etc. The term “porkies” is “slang” for “pork pies”, or lies. Tony Bliar will be well used to that term by now.