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.
Sorry for posting another OT comment but our Fearless Leader and his minions are getting seriously scary.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/regulatory-czar-cass-sunstein-spends-30.html
Genius: Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein spends 30 pages describing how government should suppress free speech without mentioning First Amendment
President Obama’s Regulatory Czar is a well-known law professor named Cass Sunstein, who regularly exhibits a troubling disregard for the Constitution. Last year Sunstein co-authored a 30-page paper on the government’s obligations to combat conspiracy theories (i.e., free speech). Among the “conspiracy theories” that Sunstein would have the government rebut:
• “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”
..we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories.
Our Constitutional Law professor President and his Law professor Regulatory Czar both appear both appear to have been sick on the day back when they were attending law school when the Bill of Rights was covered
Adding to R. Pielke Sr. citation:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/19/Top-12-Mercola-Predictions-That-Came-True-Part-1-of-4.aspx
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher known for his philosophical clarity. In my view he has made one of the most valuable observations on the shifting of human views on truth as he stated that all truth goes through three steps:
1. First, it is ridiculed. (e.g. Creationists, Flat Earthers, Deniers)
2. Second, it is violently opposed.
3. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident
I guess these three steps apply only if science was not fraudulent or fraudulent science is supportetd by bad politicians.
‘A day after it emerged that IPCC’s dire prediction that climate change would melt most Himalyan glaciers by 2035 was based on mere “speculation”, environment minister Jairam Ramesh slammed the processes of the celebrated body saying “due diligence had not been followed by the Nobel peace prize winning body”.’
from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms
The importance of this finding cannot be exagerated. One of the most important tenets of the Stern report was that we have to spend billions now to prevent future damage that would cost far more. Part of that conclusion would have been based on the very large economic damage that climate change was supposed to have on the availability of fresh water.
If I was Stern, I would feel the need to rip the report up, toss it in the garbage where it belongs and start again.
Whenever I’ve wanted to cut short a debate with an alarmist, I’ve asked if there are any “benefits” of GW. That usually stops them in their tracks.
The IPCC may have a defence in that their brief was never to study climate, but man’s effects on climate.
“The climate is warming, we can only deduce that it’s CO2 thats doing it”.
What about Clouds and WV?
“We don’t know enough about those so it can’t be them”.
What about the sun?
“We don’t know enough……..”
What about the oceans?
“We don’t………….”
“What about aerosols?
“we don’t………….”
Well what the hell do you know?
“It was CO2 what dunn it”
Galen Haugh,
“That they are lead by a charismatic, authoritarian leader (Gore comes to mind, but there are many others soaking up the lime light) completes the definition.”
You must be thinking of charismatic Gordon Broon and charismatic Kevin Rudd. There’s also charismatic Pachauri and charismatic Ben “beat the crap outta him” Santer.
I wonder if this is a title. You know, when they meet does the conversation go something like “Good morning charismatic Brown, it’s good to see you.”
“Thank you charismatic Obama. I’ve brought along my sidekick, charismatic Millipede.”
“Right, he’s the one that’s been saying it’s socially unacceptable to be against windfarms – welcome aboard charismatic Millipede.”
Dear Indur, I agree it’s more insidious than the glaciers – but it’s also more complicated. It’s not as simple as saying “look, the number 2035 in the IPCC report was complete bogus obtained from a trash bin and okayed by 2500 irresponsible would-be scientists”. So your story is not equally catchy for that reason – and it probably needs some P.R. and simplification to make it equally catchy…
Re Googlegate.
I know this is a bit OT., But Bing has this on their search page.
It seems more likely that Hell freezes over…
…but which city had snow for the first and only time today in 1977?
http://www.bing.com/?scope=video&FORM=Z9LH1
The world is turning, and if it keeps on at this rate, it will eventually be upside down, with the formerly “fringe” publications and pundits wearing the crown of credibility, and the former MSM gatekeepers deposed. The risk of this happening was not taken into account by the herd of independent minds who constitute today’s “anointed” opinion leaders.
Michael (00:42:34) :
Untangling the bureaucracies could be fun. I think every organization who has received govt funds to promote AGW should have funds frozen, pending clarification of bona fides, and then clawed back (regardless of bona fides!). All traders in carbon credits likewise should be stripped of there illgotten gains and every buyer and seller of carbon credits have funds adjusted to as near as neutral as possible. Someone is going to get hurt, obviously, but a lot less than if this scam is allowed to continue.
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
The coming Ice Age of the 70’s was nothing more than a geologic cycle-based prediction. It’s no different than saying that California is overdue for the Big One or that Yellowstone is overdue for the MegaVolcano.
We are in an interglacial, and the big question is when will it end and what will be the unmistakable signs of it ending?
We now know what the signs of an impending volcanic eruption are, but only when the magma has started to move.
We don’t know that much about earthquakes and we don’t know any more about when the next Ice Age will be. Some were able to predict the Deep Solar Minimum we entered, and they predict SC 25 will be even lower.
The IPCC is playing games with Wild ArmWaving Guesses, and they go downhill very fast from there. They will try to morph back into the Ice Age game, flip-flopping along with much doubletalk and deception.
I don’t get what this article is complaining about. The first point in Figure SPM.2 posits increased water availability. The description of the figure says it’s illustrative, the top of the figure says impacts will vary. The detail of Chapter 3 discusses the range of possibilities.
Frankly, this article is clutching at straws. I expect the author is not experienced at reading summaries for policy makers. Policy makers know better how to read things.
Perhaps the writer of this piece is all for decimation of people living in areas that suffer water stress? (Forget about them, there’ll be some places with more than enough water – it’ll all balance out.)
The logic seams quite simple. Surely, water shortages are the result of poverty not global warming. Poverty is increased through a lack of development. Development means using more energy.
Peter of Sydney (02:20:03) :
But if CO2 is irrelevant to global temperatures, as it seems to be turning out to be, that would achieve nothing anyway. In which case, the correct answer is “No”.
If we, as a species, were not driven to such activities, the chances are we would still be banging rocks together. This very behaviour trait is what got us to the moon 2/3 of a century after the first powered flight. And why did we get there less than a decade after deciding to? Because the US was scared that the USSR would get there first.
‘Nuff said.
KeithGuy (04:17:05) :
Could not agree more.
Additionally, the real problem we will face is over-population. The only known humane way to prevent this is increased wealth. The only know way to secure this is energy. Spain, for example, has proved well that vast amounts of gold and gems make you rich for a short time. England has shown that energy (coal in their case) makes you rich for centuries.
very OT, but something I find fascinating is that those with some of the largest stocks of energy, in the middle east, are selling it for instant profit rather than using it to generate a secure basis for future wealth. I may be wrong, but after going there I don’t think I am. What will they do when the oil runs out?
Sou (03:48:29),
So your answer is “it’ll all balance out”? Not too helpful.
The basic problem is, as always, the form of government. Countries with governments that allow the free market to flourish unimpeded have no water shortages. The pricing mechanism assures water availability: if water is in short supply, the price rises to a point where it is profitable to supply water, and the shortage disappears.
This applies to the water shortages in parts of Australia and California, as well as in Ethiopia. When politics are involved with water allocation [or allocation of any resources], it means the government decides who gets the available water. That decision is based on special interests and vote counting. The result is the mis-allocation of available resources, and people being billed for water who get no benefit from it.
The free market sometimes entails what Schumpeter called “creative destruction,” in which inefficiencies are swept away. The result is maximum efficiency through the best allocation of resources. It is much superior to government interference, which results, for example, in an ossified bureaucracy overseeing the Las Vegas desert being turned green and vastly overpopulated by suburbanites, at the expense of taxpayers thousands of miles away, rather than those who benefit from the water.
Googlegate!
Its funny that when you get to big and influential you get korrupted.Many have wondrered what could bring Google down and loose its marketleading roll.
Well this censorship will!! Google has proven to be korrupted in a way that gives cold shills.Control of the internet instead of its freedom is what Google is delivering.Ive changed search engine.Hope you all will follow.They embasseled our confidence in them.
” Peter of Sydney (02:20:03) :
[…]
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.”
…and it would be completely futile nevertheless because CO2 is not the main climate driver. Would you really want to waste all these resources? Because that’s what it would be: a complete waste. You promote a gargantuan waste.
Sou (03:48:29) :
The figure shows increased water in the tropics, decreased water in the mid-high latitudes, and hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress. It does not mention the additional hundreds of millions with reduced water stress. I don’t see where it’s a stretch to call that out.
Smokey (04:56:14) :
One can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of a “free” market, but I don’t see how you can say “The basic problem is, as always, the form of government. Countries with governments that allow the free market to flourish unimpeded have no water shortages.” Australia is one of the more free markets out there and they’ve had water shortage issues in areas. Russia’s is relatively restrictive and has limited water shortage issues. I don’t think the type of government matters all that much in comparison to the people that run the government or the society that backs them.
Smokey, you misread me. I think the article is much ado about nothing (have you read it and my comment properly? Have you looked at the relevant parts of the IPCC report? Perhaps you really believe that ‘free market’ trumps all and forget about getting water to those most in need.).
The article is a furphy, it doesn’t even mention the very top line of the figure to which it refers. The writer of the article makes an erroneous assumption about the nature of the chart. Policy makers would not make the same assumption but would recognise the chart for exactly what it is, an illustration of important points, including, as the figure states, some areas will get more water but there is a likelihood that many people would also suffer increased water loss.
It’s not me who’s saying it will all balance out. I was surmising that the writer of the article up top of this page seemed to think so and appears to regard as trivial the fact that many people will be at risk of severe water shortage (eg along the rivers fed by glaciers). I don’t think this is trivial at all.
Another thoughtful posting by Indur Goklany.
And if @Sou (03:48:29) “don’t get what this article is complaining about” then you have to feel sorry for him. So it is OK for the IPCC to put out this kind of alarmist bullshit because “Policy makers know better how to read things”.
Really? So how come all the “policy makers” have fallen for all this AGW crap, then? And are using it as an excuse to tax our asses off?
You’ll be telling us next that all the journalists who read 4AR will have carefully check the IPCC’s claims before they rushed to print the next shock horror ‘worse than we thought’ doom prediction.
sou = small worthless coin.
You got it in one.
I think some of us are looking at this wrong. I see the next crisis we will have to deal with once AGW is dead. These people aren’t stupid. They are greedy and megalomaniacs, but they are not stupid. So they see the future and know the AGW gravy train won’t last forever. So time to start making another crisis. The next global crisis which will be our fault will the lack of potable water. We will be asked to pay up because potable water is in short supply. When that crisis is proven a lie, then another crisis will be made up. A tiger can’t change its stripes, a leopard can’t change its spots, and these people can’t change who they are. They will find some great cause to bilk us out of money and liberty. They will live fat and rich, we will live in misery due to the global communism but the masses will thank them for saving us from ourselves.
The major proponents of AGW want money and power and they want to appear righteous while getting it. They will always find a new disaster we need to be saved from. The water crisis will be the next one in the line.
David Stockwell showed that Australia’s CSIRO report warning of increased drought was backwards. Testing against historical data showed increasing rainfall was predicted as increasing drought by the CSIRO’s models.
See Stockwell’s Drought Exceptional Circumstances thread at Niche Modelling
David Stockwell emphasizes issues of statistical errors in: the Ten Commandments of Statistics
@ur momisugly JER0ME (04:29:40) :
Peter of Sydney (02:20:03) :
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.
But if CO2 is irrelevant to global temperatures, as it seems to be turning out to be, that would achieve nothing anyway. In which case, the correct answer is “No”.
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.
If we, as a species, were not driven to such activities, the chances are we would still be banging rocks together. This very behaviour trait is what got us to the moon 2/3 of a century after the first powered flight. And why did we get there less than a decade after deciding to? Because the US was scared that the USSR would get there first.
‘Nuff said.
———————————————————–
Just to add a bit to this: Competition – including mortal competition between and among species for reproductive rights, territory, resources, etc. is an essential ingredient to the evolution of all life. This includes plants, insects, and even bacteria.
Given that the IPCC was set up to promote AGW and the means to combat it, is this really much of a surprise?
Much more of a problem than the IPCC’s inherent and unashamed partiality is that Governments around the world pretend the IPCC is impartial when from the ground up, from day one, from within the very genes of the unit, it is a lobby group with an ideology to push and using the weight of carefully selected science to do it. Meta-analysis of only some of the available science (through cherry picking and the CRU/Mann style gaming of peer-review) has led to an incorrect conclusion.