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.
Alan Haile (09:08:04)>> I don’t understand why MSM publish these reports from private think tanks, whithout a big warning sign, like: “NOTE! This is based on a biased paper from a lobby organisation!”
No matter what the opinions being put forth are, this should be mandatory.
It’s almost like when advertisments are disguised as articles inbetween news.
This happens all the time with Greenpeace and a lot of other NGO:s, here in Sweden also.
As Gomer Pyle would say “Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!”
The AGW followers reminds me of the Cargo Cult.
So, the name Carbon Cult seems appropriate.
Typical Carbon Cult, no sorry, Cargo Cult;
“The inception of cargo cults often is defined as being based on a flawed model of causation, being the confusion between the logical concepts of necessary condition and sufficient condition when aiming to obtain a certain result.”
hehe
It went down this way: after howling about the terrible dangers of warmth, the CAGW-ers held their big do in Bali. Caviar and champagne in the tropical Blue Lagoon.
But a hue and cry went up — if warm is so awful, why do you all prefer Bali? So the CAGW-ers next selected Amsterdam in winter. We’ll show those denialiacs that CAGW-ers have some integrity (haha). And they froze their rutabagas off.
It’s all a giant farce. Fraud yes, but also farce, buffoonery, theater of the absurd.
” Alan Haile (09:08:04) :
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.”
Send them to Beijing immediately to discuss it with the Communist Party Of China. And film it. That would be fun.
“What’s up with the sun? SunStripes?”
It’s worse than we thought….
Milwaukee Bob (08:24:59) :
Your important listing shows the worst outcome of what misused science is causing.
These are reminders of worst times, in Germany before ’45 and East Germany before ’89.
Alan (09:08:04)
That’s a good example. As Tom’s comment notes, NEF at least reveals their true intention. A psychotic lust for apocalypse.
Alan Haile:
I heard this piece on “Today” this morning. The guy quoted at the end of the article is right and economics is not a zero sum game. If “They” have more it doesn’t mean I have less, on the contrary, it means They can afford to buy what I want to sell them!
And even if we were frying the planet with CO2, and seawater was washing 5 miles inland, it doesn’t mean the end of economic activity. We would sell more solar panels and wave-energy generators, and houses on stilts.
The guy who wrote the article hasn’t enough imagination to think outside a very restricted box. How VERY 20th Century.
Good piece, lots of new insight.
It would help if you distinguished between your own words and the quoted texts, by indentation, bold or italic. I found it hard to work out, in places, the boundary between the IPCC responses and your commentary on them.
I doubt anything will be done about this, except the UN will appoint an intergovernmental panel to investigate — the IPIPCC. (Pronounced “ip’-ip-kak,” which sounds appropriately like an emetic. ) Of course, this investigation will take 12 years, cost a billion dollars, and produce no firm conclusions.
someone (09:27:34) :
“Global warming is real. Read up on the science instead of listening to a blogger.”
We have been looking for ‘the science’ but all we seem to be able to find are lies wherever we look. RealClimate lies, CRU lies, WWF lies, IPCC lies, lies, lies , lies. Just a pack of lies.
It is indeed sad, I pity you.
Remember:
We live in “interesting times”, and in these times happen interesting things…
Remember that everytime and everywhere, where it begins to smell fishy or rotten, everyone, almost inmediately begins to blame the other as the source of such an ugly smell.
What should we do?….wisely….just buy more popocorn and watch.
JonesII (10:21:54) :
“almost inmediately begins to blame the other as the source of such an ugly smell.”
People like that should buy a dog. Wasn’t me, must have been the dog.
Anthony writes:
I’ll point out that Al Gore is not a scientist, yet millions listen to him.
FACT: What Al Gore says and writes is backed up by a 40+ chapter scientific report that took several years to write, is the work of hundreds of scientists and which references thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers to reach its conclusions.
QUESTION: Do you have anything like that to back up where you believe the facts of the science genuine are?
REPLY: Ah better living through trolling….are you referring to the IPCC report? If so, take a look around, its about to go down the tubes. -A
UPDATE: Well Herman, or whomever you are, you’ve earned yourself a penalty box status. You’ve been switching around your handle and email address, a no-no here. You’ve been “Steve K” using a different email address. One of the great things about wordpress is that it provides reports on such things. Settle on one name, one valid email address- A
Indur, there is no doubt that the entire AGW saga is a meticulously planned, managed and very nearly successful campaign. Its authors have used an ingenious strategy of weaving a multi-dimensional fabric containing layers of interwoven truths, half-truths, omissions, facts and fancies. I believe its authors would have anticipated a degree of skepticism and possibly even included a strategy to accommodate opposing “fans”. However I think that they were a little too cock-sure in their control of the MSM and underestimated the difficulty of controlling information via the web. They will learn from their mistakes and might even be in the process of slowly withdrawing, hence the rearguard offerings of dispensable pawns. No doubt their next endeavor, and there will be another, will have plugged the holes. The first obstacle though will be control of ALL forms of communication, especially the internet.
In the word of real science the discovery that some of the data is wrong, deliberately or accidently, would lead to a reappraisal of the conclusions. In the world of ‘climate science’ as practiced by the high priests of Global Warming that is to be resisted to the last breath.
Science v Religion
Religion
1. Not evidence based but consensus based. There are thousands/millions of people with the same opinion. Comfort in numbers.
2. Does not change in the face of new or revised evidence.
3. Believers always dismiss anything contrary with the view that it is overwhelmed by all of the other reasons to say it is true even if there are no such reasons. They generally don’t bother to look.
4. Has holy scripture which cannot be questioned. Dismisses and ignores other writings which have not made it into the approved canon.
5. Older writings have precedence over newer.
Science
1. Evidence based. Consensus does not equal truth because again and again a consensus has been overturned in the face of new knowledge and understanding.
2. New or revised information demands a reassessment of previous assumptions and conclusions.
3. Has to account for all of the evidence. Does not dismiss contrary views but aims to explain all apparent anomalies and special cases within the overall theory.
4. Nothing is automatically immune to being reviewed and revised.
5. Newer writings are often preferred to older conclusions because generally they depend on better and more up to date evidence.
I submit that Global Warming fits religion better than it fits science. The fit are not exact but there are a few close parallels. For example the holy scripture of the Global Warming ‘Peer Reviewed’ literature. The canon is jealously guarded by the priests and acolytes of the creed.
We have a good example with glaciergate. The attitude is: So what if this evidence is bogus? There’s a lot more evidence (where that came from?) so no need to question the ‘consensus’. Same with the lack of hurricanes, the recent cool summers, the northern hemisphere freeze up and record amounts of Antarctic ice.
I expect we will get the same response from the true believers if arctic ice rebounds further this summer and even if glaciers start growing again.
So, we no longer have to worry about droughts, malaria, extreme weather, himalyan glacier melt and sea level rise is estimated to be around 210mm over 100 years – nothing verry serious – so what then are we supposed to be worried about? What are we spending so much money on to avoid???
The argument to “act now” has never been weaker, it seems they no longer having anything in their arsenal for alarming us and the case for adaption is far far stronger!
Lets end this charade now before we are too comitted, in NZ we are already damned with a carbon trading system, end it before it happens to you!
deniers suck (09:24:52) :
“Global warming is real!
Anthony Watts is not a scientist. Who are you going to listen to, a blogger or thousands of scientists?”
Sigh, one does get so tired of the appeal to authority argument. But for the sake of argument, can you name at least 100 “scientists” that haven’t engaged in the “washing or homogenizing”(see fudging) the temp numbers? Or hasn’t used a modeling program that will bring you the same result regardless of the numbers input? Or hasn’t engaged in deleting or hiding data that didn’t agree with their hypothesis? The THOUSANDS, where are they? Who are they? And if they haven’t engaged or used these PROVEN fraudulent numbers or methods, how did they come to their conclusions? Did they get their conclusions from reading a WWF article? Please produce these THOUSANDS of scientists.
MattN (09:49:06) :
SOHO must have a transmitter/receiver problem of unknown origin.
Milwaukee Bob: “In 2007 a Virginia State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ”
Fortunately that governor is gone from the state. However he is head of the DNC now.
[snip]
Herman L (10:36:27) :
Have you not read the article you’re commenting about? The several articles recently wrote(here and several other places on the web and traditional media outlets) regarding the veracity of the IPCC report? You know, the one where they’ve admitting to entering information that was based on fantasy as opposed to fact based science?
Steveta_uk (07:58:08) :
Yea, he doesn’t look good today, but been feeling a bit blank for a couple of years now. Maybe send him a get-well card!
The warmists love to accuse skeptics of being financed by big oil. But reading Pielke Jr on natural disasters and insurance, I was curious and looked on google, in Portuguese, the term global warming and the first suggestion was a sponsored link for a … insurance! (Allianz). Do the warmists do the work to increase insurance premiums on natural disasters for free?