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.
“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.”
I don’t think so. It is now fully insane to continue killing in the name of ‘freedom’ and resources. How absurd the above comment truly is. In a natural state, perhaps, it is so. Humans, the supposed most ‘intelligent’ species are truly NOT using intelligence MOST of the time. When PROFITS are large and easy to come by, by selling air, creating ‘money’ out of air, pulling oil from the ground that really should belong to everyone, etc., intelligence and humanitarian ideas go out the window.
We WASTE an enormous amount of resources… little POS happy meal toys–millions of them made and end up in the waste pile very quickly… so, where do all those resources come from? Every year new cell phones, like the ones we have now aren’t enough. Human ignorance must end; however, the indoctrination centers and the idiot box have control for now, so that hope looks relatively dismal.
Humans should respect other species of life and allow for wildlands and the like… without other species, this world would be a cesspool and uninhabitable by humans… other life forms DO a job for this planet even if it is just picking dead carcasses, it serves a purpose. Right NOW human greed is the driver, not the advancement of our race/planet and the protection of what we currently have.
Let me be clear… “How absurd the above comment truly is. In a natural state, perhaps, it is so”
In a natural state minus the supposed intellect of the human mind.
“Marlene Anderson (07:35:53) :
…….
Can kidney stones and warts be far off as afflictions caused by climate change?”
If they can do research which shows koalas are affetced by chemical changes in eucalyptus leaves then I can do research that shows increased temperature and carbon dioxide affect the chemicals in rhubarb, oxalic acid metabolism, making kidney stones more likely.
http://www.rhubarbinfo.com/rhubarb-poison.html
Send grant money to …
cheers David
Smokey,
I always read your posts, I don’t always agree but as my name implies,, please, don.t stop !
Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink,
if I was a trucker taking gasoline from point A to point B for $100 a trip and I was offered a contract to transport water to the same A/B for $200 a trip I would still haul gasoline at $100 a trip, why ? Because those at point A will have to buy my gasoline to go to point B to buy water, that makes about as much sense as the IPCC….
If I was the Chief Indian in charge of this fiasco I would be looking for a new pair of moccasins .
Pascvaks,
“The United Nations in its current configuration is absolutely worthless and quite dangerous to the “Will of the People” of this little blue marble.”
Well, isn’t the UN the brainchild of Stalin and Roosevelt?
KDK (09:31:31) :
You make interesting points about a (not my term here) disposable society. I agree with these points. Even if the resources are replaceable, it just does not make much sense to waste things. I had a cell phone for three years, and by the time it finally flipped open into eternity, the phones available to replace it were ten times as advanced, I would even go so far as to call them palmtops.
That said, most of the rest of that post was a rant and the idea that we no longer have to compete with nature for our resources could very well be our undoing.
Marlene Anderson (07:35:53) :
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Kidney stones are there but not warts.
Could be a neat source of grant money to search a link between AGW & warts. 😉
DaveE.
Thank you for another outstanding post Dr Goklany. Omissions and half-truths are the most subtle and hardest forms of propaganda to detect.
Dave F: The term ‘rant’ should not be used whenever someone expresses views that many others truly have forgotten. We are part of NATURE to be sure, and we are NOT above nature, as many religions would like you to believe.
Humans are very inventive and could do many things we do differently with the same or BETTER results; however, that would make profits less–a sin these days.
Another rant: Public Corporations ARE one of the biggest criminal enterprises ever created. I believe private corporations are more involved in their products and customers and drive industry… not just PROFIT over and above ALL else.
Again… humans are but ONE species on this planet… ONE among many.
I’m not going to debate with you, so this is my last reply on the subject. It was my opinion… my point is: every decision humans make should take into consideration all factors, not just the profit factor.
@ur momisugly KDK (09:31:31) :
You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but you should take a longer (and larger) view. Unless, of course, you believe that the current human family is the final and ultimate intelligent species in the evolutionary story of this planet? Or perhaps that we evolved elsewhere and are not native to Earth?
Patrick Davis (22:34:05) :
“Indeed. Is there any demontrable proof that there was scientific concensus that an iace age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.”
I can’t say whether there was a scientific consensus on the 1970s ice age predictions, there and again the alarmists’ claims for a modern consensus on AGW are dubious.
That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth.
You could turn it around and say that there’s no doubt there’s a latter day warming scare, but that there’s a true scientific consensus, is a myth.
I remember it was the subject of TV programs, books and articles in New Scientist etc. Certainly, professional scientists were talking about it. There was nothing like the song and dance being made over AGW. As far as I’m aware, there was no substantial legislation and taxation based on it.
I recall it was presented as a natural process, not something we were causing and had
to feel guilty about. Scared, yes, but not guilty. There were some wacky proposals for combating it.
I found this
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/09/unearthed-video-global-warming-alarmist-warned-of-ice-age-in-1970s.html
OK, it’s “In Search Of….”. Stephen Schneider appears in it.
KDK,
“Right NOW human greed is the driver, not the advancement of our race/planet and the protection of what we currently have.”
Well, what is greed? What role does it play in society? This is an interesting topic, but I think greed is overrated, and is often used as a catch all.
Are people that buy the latest iPhone acting out of greed? If this is the case, how is that bad? They have to spend their income on something, if not iPhones then what?
Are people who build industries greedy? If so what should they do with their energies instead and how would that help the world?
Are people who dive into a stock market causing bubbles acting out of greed? Or is it fear of missing an opportunity? And if the market corrects how does that harm the world?
In short, the idea that humans possess this flaw called “greed” that is destroying the world is overplayed and probably naive. The bottom line is, you either have industrial/technological progress or you have stasis and probably even worse enviromental despoilment. As someone once pointed out, it is the least developed societies that impose the greatest burdens on their ecosystems, not the most developed. Greed doesn’t even come into it.
“”” KDK (09:31:31) :
“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.”
I don’t think so. It is now fully insane to continue killing in the name of ‘freedom’ and resources. How absurd the above comment truly is. In a natural state, perhaps, it is so. Humans, the supposed most ‘intelligent’ species are truly NOT using intelligence MOST of the time. When PROFITS are large and easy to come by, by selling air, creating ‘money’ out of air, pulling oil from the ground that really should belong to everyone, etc., intelligence and humanitarian ideas go out the window.
We WASTE an enormous amount of resources… little POS happy meal toys–millions of them made and end up in the waste pile very quickly… “””
Hey take it easy when you fling around that “WE” catch all there pardner. Some of us object very strongly to being called WE, and included in whatever shenanigans , that some of “WE” might be up to.
For the record “I” do not waste “an enormous amount of resources”,as you blithely assert.
To be more specific, “I” do not even waste (“an enormous amount of resources”)/”WE”, which would be my fair share to waste in your Communist Utopia.
“I” don’t grab a half inch stack of recycled paper napkins to add to my lunch tray in the cafeteria; then leave virtually all of them, as I scoop my uneaten leftovers into the trash. “I” take one (1) recycled paper napkin, with my lunch, and in the common event that it survives my lunch enjoyment, and isn’t sopping wet with a little water spill, that napkin goes in my pocket, to be used to blow my nose for as long as it sanitarily can do that, at which point it is disposed of in some proper container far from the cafeteria. And as for sweeping my uneaten orts into the cafeteria trash can; there simply is no such thing as uneaten food on my plate. Not even the core of an apple survives its encounter with me. And that saves me beaucoup moolah, since I simply buy apples by the pound ignoring size grading, which raises the price. It all gets eaten, so what does it matter how big or small any individual apple is; the skin ? Can’t say I’ve ever run across that; apple is apple !
It seems many people have ideas what every body else should do. I say:- “Lead by example”
You do it, and if it looks good to me; maybe I’ll do it; otherwise forget it.
So KDK, who is going to provide you with your essential needs after PROFITS are finally expunged from Human existence; and why should they do something so unproductive, for someone or something that evidently is just taking up space needed by “WE”.
Re
Manfred (22:08:32) :
on top of this, hide-the decline and the glacier swindle, there is another, most significant IPCC chapter with massive manipulation, which every reader can verify for himself, even without climatescientific background.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/
Perhaps that article needs more coverage NOW, as the current Media “climate” (pun intended) is more in favour of looking at the Facts of Mannipulation and publishing them.
Well it’s good to know we no longer have to compete for reproductive rights.
Does anyone have Drew Barrymore’s number handy?
The Australian Weather Bureau in their summary for 2009 and the noughties highlighted the claim that it was the hottest decade on record and that 2009 the second hotest year. This is alarming in hot, dry Australia.
What they and the media virtually hid was the fact that it was the second wettest decade on record!!!
Go figure, is this science or propaganda!
“KDK (11:18:58) :
[…]
I’m not going to debate with you,…”
At least HE/SHE/IT knows HIS/HER/ITS weaknesses.
“”” Roger Knights (12:00:52) :
Wade (05:43:28) :
A tiger can’t change its stripes, a leopard can’t change its spots,
Al Gore:
A zebra cannot change its spots.
(From The Stupidest Things Ever Said by Politicians, p. 54 “””
Well fair go there old chap; if I was a zebra, it’s for bloody sure that I would prefer some spots to others. I’m partial to nice cool spots, under an acacia tree, of maybe a fig tree, that’s actually safer, because the monkeys up the fig tree assure me that the leopard isn’t up there with them. And if a flash flood should wash away my favorite fig tree spot; its for damn sure I’m going to find a new better one; than just standing out in the open like all those dumb ones out there watching the lions coming for them.
Its the headlines and the :10 second soundbites that get the most play in this massive Public Relations Campaign called AGW. No one, except the most priviledged, reads the UNIPCC reports. Those piviledged then gleen headlines and soundbites from the report to distribute to the humble populations of the uninformed. Its no wonder that some facts are ignored and others are sensationalized.
True,
And this thing needs to be countered with headlines and soundbytes.
Also if your local MP gets deluged with letters he will most certainly sit up and take notice.
Cheers
Roger
http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
We have a post about a similar case of the IPCC citing non-peer-reviewed literature to make scientific statements today on Climate Resistance.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/01/the-ipcc-and-the-melting-glaciers-story.html
If you’re in a hurry, scroll past the first part to the “Part Two” headline (underlined and in bold) to get past our discussion about the IPCC/Glacier affair.
Re “That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth”
In the UK I remember watching a BBC program in the 1970s presented by Raymond Baxter, probably a ‘Tomorrows World Special’ – the topic was whether the recent global cooling meant we were on the precipice of a new ice age, and various experts were interviewed to give their opinions.
I tried to find a reference to it on the web but no luck so far. It would be interesting to know what was said! I believe it featured a Scandinavian scientist who suggested the cooling could [or would] be counteracted by CO2, which set the snowball rolling!
I think there may be a clip of it in the first part of the BBC’s ‘Climate Wars’ propaganda trilogy, or possibly UK Channel4’s ‘The Global Warming Hoax’.
Water shortage? : 1.2%
From page 42 of University of Arizona’s “Background support presentation for NASA “Black Carbon and Aerosols” press conference” Dec. 14, 2009 :
“9. As we have calculated,melting glaciers(specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.”
http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf
For glacial melting in the Eastern Himalaya’s they suspect black soot (from lorries, factories and fires) as an important cause.
Rod from Oz (03:43:20) :
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.
REPLY:
I was thinking triple damages as is sometimes awarded in US courts when fraud occurs.
“The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) Act’s civil provisions (only the government may prosecute under the Act’s criminal provisions) allow private parties to recover triple damages, attorney’s fees, and costs against any person or company participating in the criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity. This anti-mafia statute has been used in many corporate fraud cases. http://www.paradfirm.com/fraud.html
It is racketeering on a world wide scale isn’t it?
definition of racketeering: “A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.”
I am sure if enough digging is done we will find bribery
1. agree with AGW or your paper will not be published
2. agree with AGW or you will not be promoted
3. agree with AGW or you will be fired/ not hired.
I am sure if enough digging is done we will find obstruction of justice, such as conspiring to destroy data that was subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.
“in furtherance of illegal business activities” didn’t the EU just find 90% of the carbon trading was fraudulent and the UK arrests showed organized crime was involved?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/carbon-trading-fraud-in-belgium-up-to-90-of-the-whole-market-volume-was-caused-by-fraudulent-activities/
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/uk-arrests-in-carbon-credit-trading-scam-organized-crime-said-to-be-involved/
Yup, Yup, looks like racketeering to me.