Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In an earlier post, The IPCC: Hiding the Decline…, I argued that even more egregious than the IPCC’s mistaken claim that Himalayan glaciers would be mainly gone by 2035, was the willful omission in the IPCC Working Group II’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the fact that global warming could reduce the net global population at risk of water shortage. That this was a willful decision on the part of the authors of the of the IPCC SPM is suggested by the fact that one of the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM 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).”
In this post I will show that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. I will show that there are other sins of omission which are also very unlikely to have occurred due to ignorance of the impacts literature or careless reporting, and that it was probably due to a conscious effort to tell the truth, but not the whole truth.
Before identifying other sins of omission, I should note that over the years, our political leaders, e.g., President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, President Sarkozy, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific or economic basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here), it does show that policy makers ought to be very interested in how the impacts of global warming compare against other problems afflicting society. [Without such a comparison how could one know that it was ( or was not) the most important problem or issue facing humanity?] Therefore, one would think that any Summary for Policy Makers would be eager to shed light on this matter.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Hunger
Among the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, (see page 28, Item A) was the following:
We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of CC; however, they also indicate that many more millions would be at risk whether or not climate changes. (see [sic] Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context. Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios. In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme. [Emphasis added.]
To which, the IPCC writing team responded thus:
This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted. Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2 give greater insights into risks of hunger etc, with full confidence range from negative to positive changes.
But if we go through the current SPM, there is nothing that indicates that even in the foreseeable future, the contribution of global warming to hunger would be substantially smaller than that of non-global warming related factors. Any such statement would, of course, imply that, with respect to hunger, climate change is a smaller problem than proponents of drastic GHG controls would have us believe. That is, regarding hunger, at least, other problems should take precedence over global warming.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Malaria
On page 63 of Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, it is noted:
First, most of the information on these lines is based on Table 20.4. However, there are several problems with that table that need to be fixed; after that is done, these lines in the SPM should be fixed. The problems we have with Table 20.4 are the following:
A. Table 20.4 omits critical information that would provide a context in which CC impacts should be viewed. This information, which is also available in Arnell et al. (2002) — the same source used to construct this table — is the millions of people that are exposed to the stresses highlighted in this table (i.e., the population at risk) in the absence of climate change. This information should be included in an additional column. This compilation has already been done by Goklany (2005a) for the 2080s. It shows that for hunger, water stress and malaria — which inexplicably is not included in this table, although the data are available in Arnell et al (2002) — the population at risk in the absence of climate change exceeds the population at risk under the “unmitigated” or the S750 and S550 cases. This suggests that for these stresses through the 2080s (at least), non-climate change related factors are more important than climate change, and that existing hurdles to sustainable development would outweigh additional hurdles due to climate change (through 2085, at least). Reference: Goklany, I.M.: 2005a. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667- 680.
B. The implications of the relative magnitude of the populations at risk for the hazards noted above with and without climate change should be noted in the SPM (see Goklany 2005a).
C. This table only provides information on the millions of people for whom water stress is increased without providing a parallel estimate of the millions for whom water stress would be reduced.
The IPCC SPM writing team’s response was:
Text has been deleted and replaced by headline on page 18 line 16 and the following text. In particular, lines 25-29 in the old SPM, which were based on Table 20.4, have been deleted.
Table SPM-1 now presents broadly the same information in a more rigorous format. Full range of stabilisation and SRES profiles for 3 time slices are shown, together with examples of impacts related to various temperature changes.
And if one looks at the current SPM or Table 20.4 in the IPCC WG II report, it is silent on the fact that impacts analyses show that through the foreseeable future:
- The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,
- The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,
- Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.
Noting these results from global impacts analyses would have undermined the case for drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions.
What’s truly remarkable about the above-noted comments on the SOD is that they are based on work done by Parry, Arnell, and their colleagues. But Parry was the Chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, and both were on the writing team for the SPM! It wasn’t as if the comment was saying anything that they didn’t already know, since it was all based on their papers (and, in fact, had been brought to their attention a few times previously – but that is another story ). What seems to have been lacking was candor. Perhaps they didn’t want to get crossways with their political masters. But if that was the case, what function does the SPM serve other than rubber stamp political leanings?
Regardless, they committed sins of omissions and, it seems, with due deliberation.
The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth
Indur M. Goklany
In an earlier post, The IPCC: Hiding the Decline…, I argued that even more egregious than the IPCC’s mistaken claim that Himalayan glaciers would be mainly gone by 2035, was the willful omission in the IPCC Working Group II’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the fact that global warming could reduce the net global population at risk of water shortage. That this was a willful decision on the part of the authors of the of the IPCC SPM is suggested by the fact that one of the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM 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).”
In this post I will show that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. I will show that there are other sins of omission which are also very unlikely to have occurred due to ignorance of the impacts literature or careless reporting, and that it was probably due to a conscious effort to tell the truth, but not the whole truth.
Before identifying other sins of omission, I should note that over the years, our political leaders, e.g., President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, President Sarkozy, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific or economic basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here), it does show that policy makers ought to be very interested in how the impacts of global warming compare against other problems afflicting society. [Without such a comparison how could one know that it was ( or was not) the most important problem or issue facing humanity?] Therefore, one would think that any Summary for Policy Makers would be eager to shed light on this matter.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Hunger
Among the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, (see page 28, Item A) was the following:
We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of CC; however, they also indicate that many more millions would be at risk whether or not climate changes. (see [sic] Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context. Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios. In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme. [Emphasis added.]
To which, the IPCC writing team responded thus:
This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted. Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2 give greater insights into risks of hunger etc, with full confidence range from negative to positive changes.
But if we go through the current SPM, there is nothing that indicates that even in the foreseeable future, the contribution of global warming to hunger would be substantially smaller than that of non-global warming related factors. Any such statement would, of course, imply that, with respect to hunger, climate change is a smaller problem than proponents of drastic GHG controls would have us believe. That is, regarding hunger, at least, other problems should take precedence over global warming.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Malaria
On page 63 of Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, it is noted:
First, most of the information on these lines is based on Table 20.4. However, there are several problems with that table that need to be fixed; after that is done, these lines in the SPM should be fixed. The problems we have with Table 20.4 are the following:
A. Table 20.4 omits critical information that would provide a context in which CC impacts should be viewed. This information, which is also available in Arnell et al. (2002) — the same source used to construct this table — is the millions of people that are exposed to the stresses highlighted in this table (i.e., the population at risk) in the absence of climate change. This information should be included in an additional column. This compilation has already been done by Goklany (2005a) for the 2080s. It shows that for hunger, water stress and malaria — which inexplicably is not included in this table, although the data are available in Arnell et al (2002) — the population at risk in the absence of climate change exceeds the population at risk under the “unmitigated” or the S750 and S550 cases. This suggests that for these stresses through the 2080s (at least), non-climate change related factors are more important than climate change, and that existing hurdles to sustainable development would outweigh additional hurdles due to climate change (through 2085, at least). Reference: Goklany, I.M.: 2005a. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667- 680.
B. The implications of the relative magnitude of the populations at risk for the hazards noted above with and without climate change should be noted in the SPM (see Goklany 2005a).
C. This table only provides information on the millions of people for whom water stress is increased without providing a parallel estimate of the millions for whom water stress would be reduced.
The IPCC SPM writing team’s response was:
Text has been deleted and replaced by headline on page 18 line 16 and the following text. In particular, lines 25-29 in the old SPM, which were based on Table 20.4, have been deleted.
Table SPM-1 now presents broadly the same information in a more rigorous format. Full range of stabilisation and SRES profiles for 3 time slices are shown, together with examples of impacts related to various temperature changes.
And if one looks at the current SPM or Table 20.4 in the IPCC WG II report, it is silent on the fact that impacts analyses show that through the foreseeable future:
· The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,
· The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,
· Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.
Noting these results from global impacts analyses would have undermined the case for drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions.
What’s truly remarkable about the above-noted comments on the SOD is that they are based on work done by Parry, Arnell, and their colleagues. But Parry was the Chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, and both were on the writing team for the SPM! It wasn’t as if the comment was saying anything that they didn’t already know, since it was all based on their papers (and, in fact, had been brought to their attention a few times previously – but that is another story ). What seems to have been lacking was candor. Perhaps they didn’t want to get crossways with their political masters. But if that was the case, what function does the SPM serve other than rubber stamp political leanings?
Regardless, they committed sins of omissions and, it seems, with due deliberation.
Will all those people saying that the IPCC is the authority in climate science change their minds? … I hope so!
If there were saying that our quality of life was to increase due to global warming, then they wouldn’t be alarmist, be seen as saviors, and no one would want to have their babies.
It’s all about crying wolf so that the population thinks they have the ability of protecting you from danger. I wish you made an evolutionary psychology article on why being alarmist could be an adaptation, and thus every alarmist could be seen as inherently biased.
What’s up with the sun? SunStripes?
All of this tells me three things:
– the ipcc has a clear agenda, overriding science, responsibility, accountability
– many politicians are more than willing to just talk about historical challenges instead of working on their everyday responsibilities
– Lomborg’s economical approach to get issues resolved in a rational order is the way to go, not ideology and propaganda. Politicians have to learn this lesson finally.
Given the tight interconnections of IPCC with the “green bussiness” it looks to me more like not “sins of omissions” but crimes of fraud (without apostrophes).
Sins of Omission by those who preach of Sins of Emission.
The IPCCF seems to be “truth stressed”
Shortages of truth and disclosure seem to be pandemic.
Please stop,this pinata can only take so many bodyblows!
Which is worse?
1. Emitting plant-feeding carbon dioxide
or
2. Omitting any reference to the beneficent effects of warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide concentrations
The IPCC was never an authority on climate science, they had originally made that very clear.
Gather information only relavent to “human-induced” climate change.
“”The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with
an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does
it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant
to the understanding of the risk of “human-induced” climate change”
Again, they have changed that.
Now the same paragraph reads:
“The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.”
But their mandate did not change.
I posted the following under – “Pachauri must resign – his position is untenable” but maybe here is more OT considering as Richard Heg just said “Sins of Omission by those who preach of Sins of Emission.”
In 2008 NASA’s James Hansen called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”
In 2007 environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”
In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics.
In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”
In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
In 2007, an internal EPA E-mail threatens to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth)
In 2007 a UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” .
In 2007 a Virginia State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)
In 2007 a skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor Excerpt: “State Climatologist George Taylor, does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
AND – October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options:…..
And there were many more but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting to see any of them rushing to the confessional.
Global Warming cost the Minnesota Vikings a Super-Bowl Birth! I asked Danny Glover and he Concured. So there you have it, more evidence of Man Made Global Warming. Oh and Joseph Romm said the Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis was also caused by AGW………You can’t Make this stuff up. But the Alarmist do on a daily basis……….Sincerely (well partly Sincere)……..John….
The sun has suddenly developed lots of sunspots, but because of the high levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, has also started to spin very very fast, causing the spots to blur into stripes. I don’t have a peer-reviewed paper on this yet, but it should be included in the next IPCC report as “grey” data. After all the camera does not lie.
To Indur M. Goklany–
You write:
I should note that over the years, our political leaders… have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific … basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here)”
So, in your opinion, the three links you supply at the end of this statement constitute a scientific refutation of the technical conclusions of the IPCC Fouth Assessment Report? Yes or No? And if no — then what do you mean by “scientific refutation” and why does that not apply to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?
Looking at the links, I do not see what I assume you are suggesting. More details would be valuable.
(Note to all: the ellipses “…” only remove the 1) the names of some political leaders, and 2) “or economic” because I am asking a question purely on the scientific — meaning natural sciences — question.)
Sunstripes: Quality Inn are probably consulting their trademark lawyers even now.
This is really bad news stuff – it’s so underhand and deliberate – no one can pretend this is a typo or misunderstanding a source.
URGH.
So, would anybody that ever believed our H2O would simply disappear please raise your hand? That warming causes malaria, please raise you hand? Or that warming cause the population to forget how to irrigate, please raise your hand?
In my mind, it isn’t a revelation that the IPCC was blowing smoke up our (insert body orifice), but the revelation to me is that someone out there actually believed this tripe.
Any of the above issues denies historical knowledge and proven basic science. H2O doesn’t go anywhere, it evaporates, turns to a gas(vapor) forms clouds and then falls to the earth again. And we, once again, enjoy a fresh drink of water. (Yes, an oversimplification, but true nonetheless.) Malaria? Sigh, even without modern medicine, we knew how to combat the disease. Check out the work the U.S. did while building the Panama canal. Any one following the warming issue should know that the risk of world hunger is greater by perpetuating the warming mythology and the various laws passed to prevent the alleged warming rather than real warming, which would likely result in more arable land, not less. (See Greenland and other similar places.)
Anyway, that’s my rant for the day.
When I was young and started studying medicine, we called them sociopaths. When the hippie movement and protesting began, the shift was toward looking at protestors as really having something. Hansen and Romm have an anti society agenda. Whether Hansen says we need to hurt coal company employees or Romm says warming broke the bridge and people with cars need to physically pay for the sin, we do not see science. They hijack some pieces of scientific info to justify their expression of “social justice” and the war against humanity.
The IPCC is, in fact. lying by omission.
This is what we have come to expect from the IPCC, black and grey propaganda,some truth mixed with half truths mixed with lies and massaged data.
Very little of what they produce in the way of trends,predictions ,guesstimates ,scientific”papers!,peer reviews,are factual ,repeatable or believable.
IPCC have ,with the complicity of others,in the UN and in Soveriegn States,World based charities,greenies everywhere,tried to BLACKMAIL governments into spending amounts totalling Trillions over the years to mitigate a false scenario of Global Warming.
To do this they have over years poisoned the minds of children with frightening predictions,and persuaded the feeble minded politicians to TAX US ,Triple our energy costs ,make us spend thousands on climatising our houses,increasing the cost of our food, and radicalising the poorest in the world into believing the Industrialised World is responsible for All their woes ,through CO2.
CONSPIRACY is the only word thay describes this whole story.
A new article from the BBC which I am sure you will find interesting. Apparently there must be no more economic growth or else the sky will fall very soon etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8478770.stm
However they actually include a dissenting comment right at the end.
Global warming is real!
Anthony Watts is not a scientist. Who are you going to listen to, a blogger or thousands of scientists?
REPLY: Well at least I’m not an anonymous coward, using fake names and fake email addresses as you have. Note our policy page requires that you use a valid email address.
adsfasvgsdv@yahoo.com that you used is not a valid email address, nor are the email addresses for the other angry missives you’ve submitted here under the bogus handle “someone”:
2010/01/25 at 9:31am “OOOH! look! cold weather. See global warming isnt real its all a hoax. Oil companies are far more reliable that scientists.”
2010/01/25 at 9:29am “Look at the overall trend, genius. Its WARMING!”
2010/01/25 at 9:27am “Global warming is real. Read up on the science instead of listening to a blogger.”
If you have something substantial to say, put your name on it, or at least use a valid email address, otherwise it’s the bit bucket for you. Note also that I don’t deny global warming has occurred in the last century, as you erroneously assert, but I question the primary causes, as do many here.
Also, I’ll point out that Al Gore is not a scientist, yet millions listen to him. Are the few thousand people that read my blog really so threatening? Is everybody up there in Hanover as angry and as childish as you? You don’t speak well for your cause when you write the way you do. Oh and a final note, this particular post is authored by Indur Goklany, – Anthony
[Reply to “Anthony Watts is not a scientist.” From my handy Mac on-line widget dictionary: Scientist: n. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. ~dbs]
I’ve never been able to figure how a warmer world leads to more drought. A warmer world has less ice and therefore more water circulating in the liquid and gaseous phases. Sure, some places might get drier, but they will be outnumbered by those that get wetter. And some of the minority of places that get drier might be places that are already very wet.
As for glaciers, they are a store of water – replaceable by reservoirs.
Shouldn’t the headline be “More Signs of Omissions”?
Just wondering, “sins” could of course be relevant as well. 😉
They are called “lies of omission”. That’s when you deceive by not telling the whole truth. Sins of omission are a broader category. If deception is involved it’s a lie of omission.