I reported yesterday on Dr. Richard Norths findings on what he coined “amazongate” related to yet another WWF reference in the IPCC AR4.
Yesterday I sent him a comment from WUWT reader “Icarus” that made a very valid point. However that point drew back the curtain for an even larger problem now uncovered by Dr. North as he writes in:
“We are trying to do the best job we can in assessing the quality information about climate change issues in all its dimensions and some do not like the conclusions of our work. Now it is true we made a mistake around the glacier issue, it is one mistake on one issue in a 3,000 page report. We are going to reinforce the procedures to try this does not happen again.”
So says Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC – as retailed by the famous Louise Gray, purveyor extraordinare of WWF press releases – in The Daily Telegraph today. It was simply a “human mistake”, he adds. “Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier,” he says.
So far though, the IPCC is sticking to its legend that this is only “one mistake”, burying its head firmly in the sand and ignoring the growing evidence that the IPCC report is riddled with “mistakes” – to apply that extremely charitable definition.
Another of those “mistakes” is the false claim highlighted in my earlier post on “Amazongate“, where the IPCC has grossly exaggerated the effect of climate change on Amazonian forests, stating “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” – on the basis of a non peer-reviewed WWF report whose lead author, Andy Rowell, is a free-lance journalist.
However, being “human” myself – although some would hotly dispute that assertion – I appear to have made a mistake in my analysis, charging that in the document referenced by the IPCC, there is no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change.”
Actually, that is the charge retailed by James Delingpole and by Watts up with that, whereas what I actually wrote was that the assertion attributed to the author of the WWF report, that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” is nowhere to be found in the report.
The WUWT post, however, evoked a response from a commentator, “Icarus”, who noted that there was a reference to a 40% figure references in the WWF report, as follows:
Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.
That is very much my mistake, having completely missed that passage, thus charging that the IPCC passage was “a fabrication, unsupported even by the reference it gives”.
With that, though, the story gets even more interesting, as the assertion made by Rowell and his co-author Peter Moore, is referenced to an article in the Nature magazine, viz:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Meanwhile, the warmist blog Common Dreams continues to push the melting glacier story: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/26-5
IanM
“That’s okay. So far I’ve seen the IPCC numbers go from 2500 scientists up to 3000, who of course are completely representative of the absolute consensus of all (real) scientists about the truth of AGW.”
I’ll see your 3000 and go 4000! Patchy cited this number on Aussie TV, last year:
“RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, fortunately, look at the process by which the IPCC functions. We mobilise the best scientists from all over the world. In the fourth assessment report, we had a total of about 4,000 people that were involved. Whatever we do is very transparent. Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, “Yes. Accepted.” Where we don’t, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don’t agree with the comment. So it’s a very transparent process. And finally, the summary for policymakers of every report have to be approved by all the governments of the world. So, you know, if the IPCC’s work is not carrying conviction with some people, I would say that they better look at the whole process by which our reports are produced, quite apart from the substance that they carry and think objectively.” http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2700047.htm
Irony, thy name is Patchy.
maxwell (11:06:06) :
” But this pandering to the idea that a handful of non peer-reviewed citations in an overwhelming sea of peer”
Max, you’re putting up a good fight, but give it up.
Those two mistakes = hundreds of billions of dollars.
No water, and no rain forest
Have you actually read the report on glaciers?
Do you know where it went, and what they did with it?
And what their voodoo science was going to cost people?
Possibly a sign of things to come?
Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: “Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye but with that kudos comes responsibility. Being open with data is part of that responsibility.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/britains-chief-scientist-john-beddington-calls-for-engagement-with-climate-sceptics/story-e6frg6xf-1225823874671
Don’t forget Yamal-gate.
Re: hswiseman (14:03:51) : Yes, Yes, Yes!
The neglect of serious and fixable environmental problems is why hunting the CO2 Snark (ref to Lewis Carrol nonsense poem) is such a disaster and makes many sceptics so angry!
May I encourage all to major on this point when trying to show up the AGW scam? Otherwise we just seem as deniers for the sake of it, and/or get the “precautionary principle” quoted at us! Or peak oil!
Appeals re money, taxes, etc per se also seem less effective than talking what else the money could be spent on: concrete eg’s rather than abstract.
Thanks for the blog, Anthony, and to those who post.
It was fixed within two days, thanks to the nature of the Internet. Just as the IPCC’s “2035” figure would have been, if their group had been open to significant contrarian input. The fact that it wasn’t implies that their deck was stacked, and s suggests that online peer review is the way to go for science in the future.
“We are going to reinforce the procedures to try [to ensure that?] this does not happen again.” — Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
And to what does the “this” refer? Mayhap to “getting caught?”
patrick healy (14:34:15) :
Now THAT’S funny! Thanks.
I read a concession by some neutral or warmist biggie (Geoffrey Lean??) that Glaciergate is worse than Climategate, because it substantially affects one of the pillars of alarmism (less water from the Himalayas) and impacts the credibility IPCC, which is more of a pillar of alarmism than the CRUsaders, who could be seen as a rogue fringe.
Amazongate and Disastergate also undermine key threats in the alarmist list of potential disasters.
I read recently a seemingly knowledgeable comment on a blog that he worked for a railway as an “industrial engineer,” which meant in earlier parlance that he was a time-and-motions man.
Big error: “…due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil.” Most of the water that is used by plants is near the surface; the water at 2, 3 or 5 meters is irrelevant. And no amount of water in the soil will keep a green tree from burning given the right conditions. Here’s how forests burn:
All you need to have good wildfire conditions is for the duff, the organic matter on top of the soil, dry out. That layer of dead needles, leaves, twigs and branches is what carries the fire. On the news you see the whole trees go up in flames, but that’s what is spectacular to show. The fire is carried in the duff and burns into low dead limbs as well as piles of dead limbs and other combustible material (such as trees that have fallen down) go up in flames when the fire in the duff reaches them.
Green trees burn when they get preheated and dried by the fire in the duff and brush below. This is most likely to happen when the fire is burning uphill, where the heat is carried ahead of the fire, up the hill. And when the fire below is hot enough to dry out a green tree, no amount of water in the soil below will prevent the tree from burning. It simply can’t draw the moisture up fast enough.
Some trees will root as deep as five meters, but those trees are generally trees that normally grow on very dry sites. Most roots are confined to the upper 1 to 1.5 meters and many trees only root a half a meter down.
Whoever used the 15 meter figure knows little or nothing about how forests burn.
Here is some analysis you may find interesting.
The IPCC working groups consisted of 850+ contributing authors, 400+ leading authors, and around 2,500 scientific reviewers. Dr. William Schlesinger, IPCC Lead Author and former dean at Duke University, quantified the reviewers as “something in the order of 20 percent had some dealing with climate.” The numbers cited above are somewhat inflated. Many reviewers served on two or more working groups. The IPCC added all members of all three working groups without subtracting duplicate names.
The working groups were broken down as follows:
Working Group I – Causes and future forecasts of climate change. This group consisted of approximately 600 scientific reviewers.
Working Group II – Impacts of climate change Working Group III – Response strategies
Collectively WG II and III consisted of around 1,900 scientific reviewers.
What were the methodologies of the review process? Only 308 of the official IPCC experts commented on the final draft before release to government organizations. Of the 308, only five commented on all 11 chapters.
Only 62 reviewers commented on the pivotal Chapter 9 – the chapter that spelled doom and gloom. Eight of these were representatives of governments, 55 had vested interests in the report because they were the authors and were working under government funding focused on establishing human activities as the basis of global warming. Only one (1) scientist actually endorsed the worst case projections of Chapter 9 and 11!
The “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM) was a shorter condensed version of the IPCC report intended to present the findings and recommendations of the IPCC to government policy makers. A total of 51 subject matter experts worked on the SPM – 33 of them drafting authors and 18 contributing authors. The SPM was drafted at a governmental plenary session attended mostly by government representatives and representatives of environmental organizations.
The SPM was signed by 51 individuals. According to IPCC lead author, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the SPM “represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nation’s Kyoto representatives), rather than scientists.” Significant changes to the main science content of the reports were made to the SPM after the reviewed work was submitted. As one IPCC official put it “it was necessary to ensure consistency.”
The SPM is presented as the body of scientific consensus of thousands of the world’s foremost climate scientists. The facts are approximately 10 climate scientists around the world actually reviewed the IPCC report and endorsed it to varying degrees. Only one agreed with the dire predictions of Chapter 9 and 11. Most others were government officials, sociologists, and other non-climate related scientists. The greatest majority were getting paid by government grant money.
For more in-depth reading, there is an excellent analysis of the IPCC 4AR WG 1. A PDF of the paper can be downloaded at http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
The proper term for a series of many gates to bob and weave through is a slalom course. Looks like Pauchauri is bobbing and weaving through the IPCC slalom event better than Bode Miller. Besides, we already know he’s going for the GOLD!!!
I didn’t see anyone point this out yet….. on the original thread, omnologos (15:04:49) responded to icarus within 45 minutes saying (stated roughly) that the article was about logging, not climate change. EUReferendum subsequently confirms this in detail. Props to omnologos.
Looks like we have peer review at Watts Up with That…..
By the way I have the EUReferendum sight in my normal rotation along with WUWT, CA, Bishop Hill and yes Real Climate.
EUReferendum is more focussed on the political side of AGW which is great, plus they work very hard, its updated with new stuff all of the time, lots of links… highly recommended.
On the occasion of Dr Pachauri’s accession to the IPCC throne,
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=.txt
Fri, 19 Apr 2002
“WWF is concerned that oil and gas interests had too much to
say in the removal of Dr. Watson as chairman of what should
be an impartial, scientific body,” said Jennifer Morgan,
Director of WWF’s Climate Program.
But, Morgan said, the “IPCC is a vibrant group of scientists
and WWF looks forward to working closely with Dr. Pachauri
to protect the integrity of the IPCC and ensure that it
continues to produce sound science on climate change.”
Hank Hancock
That is great information. If people tie this in with my post at 12:23:54 they will have a good idea of the number of pages and the people involved
Tonyb
Pachauri’s theme song (with apologies to The Clash)
maxwell (10:18:59)
You seem to be missing the problem, which is that the IPCC does not follow its own stated procedures. The inclusion of non peer-reviewed papers is just one part of that. Other parts (among many) are the ridiculous responses to the reviewer’s comments, the denial of valid peer-reviewed papers, the secrecy in what is supposed to be a “transparent” process, the exclusion of certain scientists who hold opposing views. Of these, the “review process” is the most egregious.
Here’s the theoretical review procedure. The draft is circulated. Reviewers comment on the draft. Their comments are either included in the final report, or are responded to by the author in question. All comments and responses are published.
Here’s the real review procedure. The draft is circulated. Reviewers comment on the draft. Their comments are either ignored without response from the author, or it is claimed that their comments were included in the final version … except they aren’t included. All comments and responses are kept secret.
I truly don’t see how that is anything less than a huge problem. The peer-review issue is only the tip of the iceberg, a small part of an organization-wide failure to follow its own guidelines. As a result, we end up with a political statement rather than a scientific statement … double-plus ungood, as they say in “1984”.
For example, in the glacier debacle, the lead author of the section said that he knew that the WWF paper wasn’t peer reviewed, but he kept it in anyhow:
So you see, the issue is that it’s not just an accidental mistake that 5% of the sources are junk. The issue is that there is a pervasive belief that the job of the IPCC is to “impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take concrete action”. What does that have to do with science? That is politics and persuasion to push a fore-ordained conclusion, and it is about as far from science as you can get. It is the IPCC-wide delusion that they are an advocacy body that is the problem, not the 5% non peer-reviewed papers. The IPCC sees its job as pushing the scare, and they are not about to let facts get in the way.
Mr. Watts, people do make mistakes, but the important thing is that you acknowledged your mistake promptly upon being made aware of it and stated so publically with a reasonable explanation for the mistake.
This is the mark of a reasonable & fair man and one that respects the scientific method and the give and take of good scientific process.
That’s why multiple sets of eyes are important in the scientific process.
If mistakes or errant assessments are acknowledged upon being pointed out then it’s all part of the scientific method. Mistakes happen.
What we have seen in Climategate is people who won’t acknowledge mistakes when pointed out and have no give and take, rather, they defend the indefensible and rely on their “authority” to get away with it until the continued denial robs them of all credibility.
And they smear people that disagree with their opinion and attempt to keep them from being heard.
This website is a credit to the free flow of information, evidence, and frank expression of opinion.
Cheers
Maxwell, here’s a citation for just one example (among many) of the egregious flouting by the IPCC of their own rules and procedures:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipcc-statement-on-trends-in-disaster.html
Like I said, the 5% unreviewed papers is just a tiny part of the problem, it is merely one symptom among many.
Kip Hansen (10:45:54) :
“Anthony,
Are we going to see any response to
Dr. Menne’s new paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, ‘On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record’.”
Until he does, you might be interested in this.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-data-massaging.html
Trust the NCDC at your own risk.
I really get a kick out of the illogical spinning that occurs when a flaw is exposed (on both “sides.”) Tell me, warmer-folks, if you found that 5% of the information in a prospectus was bogus, would you invest in the fund/stock?
Willis Eschenbach (17:54:12) :
“Like I said, the 5% unreviewed papers is just a tiny part of the problem, it is merely one symptom among many.”
Like they say, the iceberg you see is just 1/8th of all that’s there.
JAE (17:59:24), actually it’s a minimum of 5% bogus info.