It’s worse than we thought! Now the IPCC has been citing magazine articles, like this one from Climbing Magazine, issue 208, shown at left. We’ve heard the title before, according to their index: “Canaries in a Coal Mine,” – Feature on global loss of glaciers. But wait there’s more! If you think that’s crazy, we also learn that IPCC Chairman Pachauri has penned a “smutty” romance novel! Bizarre, but true.
The Telegraph reports on the magazine issue:
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.
This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.
But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.
Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.
“Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.
“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”
The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.
The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.
It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.
The report also states that the section is intended to “assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.
Mr Bowen said: “I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”
The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.
read the complete article at the Telegraph
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 642-642 exam fast using self paced 640-822 prep tools including 640-863 dumps and other study resources.
>>Mike D. (18:11:34) :
>>Climbing Mag covergirl has hair that defies gravity.
In actual fact, she was crawling on all fours on level ground, before the pic was rotated. So much for climbing magazine being a purveyor of any kind of truth.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/climbing_magazine_issue_208.jpg
Bill DiPuccio (20:18:18) :
An astonishing resource, obviously a labour of love. Thanks very much for the link – I have bookmarked it for future reference.
….he looked into her eyes, “hot babe or what and getting hotter”, he thought. “Come to bed”, she said, but he felt torn between a night of passion and getting anecdotal information off to IPCC about how unusually hot it was in her bedroom for the time of year….
In fairness to Mark Bowen I think he made a perfectly valid point when he was quoted as saying:
“I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”
Suppose the climbers had said that there was more ice on the mountains than there used to be. In that case I am sure that some of the readers of this blog would have been quite happy to use that annecdotal evidence then.
Did Climber Magazine or the IPCC make any attempt to find descriptions of the same climbs, or at least climbs that were on the same mountains even if the routes were not identical (the very top climbers like to set new routes) in magazines or books from a few decades earlier? Perhaps there was even more ice a few decades ago, before the current generation of climbers got involved in the sport, or perhaps there was even less then than climbers are reporting today.
Either way a comparison of such reports would provide some evidence of local trends or cycles in warming and/or cooling and, if the results were consistent over large areas, would provide some indication of global trends.
The climbers’ descriptions might be more qualitative than quantitative and therefore the sort of scientist who believes in Kelvin’s dictum regarding measurement might not be happy about using such material but social scientists who distinguish between primary sources and secondary ones would undoubtedly classify the climbers’s records as a primary source since, as Mark Bowen pointed out, nobody who is not a climber would be able to get to some of the places they go to.
By the way, scientists should also learn from historians and other social scientists to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Original data is a primary source. Data that has been massaged is a secondary source. That does not mean it should be automatically disregarded but it does mean that questions should be asked about what was done to it and why.
Royinsouthwest
2010/01/31 at 12:56am
“Suppose the climbers had said that there was more ice on the mountains than there used to be. In that case I am sure that some of the readers of this blog would have been quite happy to use that annecdotal evidence then.”
Actually, no…
I remember the ice on the mountains being thicker when I was younger (a teen actually) but I also remember a LOT of things looking a lot bigger back then. Memory is proven to be inaccurate, unreliable, and definitely not scientific.
Now, if there were photos of the same mountain glacier every year taken by a mountain guide that showed the truth, that would be acceptable here, no matter WHICH argument the evidence proved. This blog is about truth, period.
of course the IPCC knows that a lot of Mountaineers have degrees some of them are actually quite bright, theres a sort of survival of the fittest thing going on with climbers, (a lot of them are adrenalin junkies !) so the observations of the survivors must have some merit.
And lets face it the damb glaciers we used to trudge up for hours or sometimes days have receded quite a bit in places.
There are clearly other factors as well as warming involved with receding glaciers, less snow accumulation, dust from pollution reducing albedo and speeding melt, shift in prevailing wind patterns etc.
Climbers should be applying for grants! could fund the odd expedition or two.
If TERI can do it why can’t a few climbing clubs get in on the act!
I am sure it was peer reviewed, and as the cover is in colour, has to be true right?
Edward:
Depending on the extent of the thesis, there is nothing wrong with writing a paper based on anecdotal evidence.
Of course there isn’t. But no-one is bagging the thesis. It’s the use it has been put to that is inappropriate.
Nick
The implication from The Tele that professional mountain guides cannot distinguish between traffic damage and wholesale decadal changes to ice mass in the areas they work in is fatuous.
This is bollox on so many levels.
1. Science works by fact, not anecdote. It was only when doctors started ignoring anecdotes and actually testing drugs and techniques that progress was made. If we were still going by anecdote, we would be still bleeding and cupping. The fact is – and it is a fact – that “experts” in a field have no better memories than ordinary folks. They are equally prone to bias and distortion. They are told it is getting warmer, so every bad year is “proof” of warming, and every good year is ignored. Selection bias is terribly hard to eradicate without measurement (and even then rears its head time and again).
2. If the “science is robust” why stoop to including this sort of material. If the Alps really are going snow-free, why is there not better evidence than this?
3. I lived in the Alps for a while. I did not notice the locals making any comments about how much less snow there was. Does my anecdote beat yours? That’s the problem with anecdotes – they are damn near useless as evidence.
If you are genuinely at the stage of needing to justify rubbish evidence like this, then you have a real problem.
A decent counter-argument would not be to defend the indefensible. It would be to show more (better) evidence that the Alps are indeed losing snow. Can you do that?
Richard North (17:51:11) :
“When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.”
It looks, Richard, as if you’re going to have to do some more work on this story. Be very careful though because from the words of an old French song:
Cet animal est très méchant, Quand on l’attaque il se défend.
Well Patchy is still lording in in his position of head of IPCC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247376/Controversial-climate-change-boss-uses-car-AND-driver-travel-mile-office—says-YOU-use-public-transport.html
@Mark
Pachauri says “The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments.” Would these experts include people like Pat Finnegan of GRIAN. He is listed as a reviewer of Working Group III of the fouth Action Report. I can find no reference anywhere to any suitable qualifications pertaining to Mr. Finnegan other than he is an AGW advocate.
http://www.grian.ie
mikelorrey:
I should have written “suppose the evidence from the climbers was that there was more ice on the mountains than there used to be”.
My argument has nothing to do with memory. I was thinking of contemporary descriptions of routes by mountaineers. Such descriptions would be written either during the actual expeditions / climbing trips or very shortly afterwards and in the latter case would probably be based on briefer notes and/or photographs made during the actual trip.
If accounts of climbers in recent years are compared with descriptions of the same or very similar routes made by other climbers decades ago then that would give us evidence of local changes and if those changes are similar to those in other mountain ranges it becomes possible to draw more general conclusions.
I think I get it now. So basically, the IPCC can’t do anything right, is that it?
For some reason, this reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s hatred of the NAACP. Oh, it’s not that he hates black people. Not at all. He just hates it when they organize to form groups to assert their human rights, that’s all.
could anybody please check there is no reference in the IPCC AR4 to “People” or “News of the World”?
John Whitman (18:15:51) :
My question iswhy in the past 2.5 years didn’t anyone in the professional scientific community actually read the AR4 report? I am assuming they didn’t because if they are professionals and they did read it then there would have been an immediate uproar of indignation on the AR4 late of scientific basis. Is the state of science that bad?
John
In a word YES. Science has become very political. As long as someone else controls the money/grants they also control the science.
a jones (18:44:04) :
Its not just WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
What are we all going to do once the house of cards is gone?
Show our scars upon St. Crispin’s day I suppose and tell tall tales over a beer or two?
But this must be the biggest worry: if this scam continues to collapse at the present rate, how will Anthony get to his 100M hits by end of year?
———–
ClimateQuoter (19:41:35) :
Remeber Ed Begley’s rant about ‘peer-reviewed’? I wonder what he thinks now.
From what I saw of Begley, the word ‘think’ is disputable.
DoctorJJ (17:35:35) :
“The Telegraph reports on the climabing magazine:”
Should read: The Telegraph reports on the climbing magazine:”.
Maybe it’s a new sport, combining climbing with instantaneous scientific observation – clima-bing!
OK, there’s definitely more than enough evidence to call into question the whole of the IPCC. It must be fully investigated in various ways, including corruption and fraud. There’s absolutely no doubt about it. It’s only a matter of time before some of these clowns are in a court defending themselves. Whether they are guilty or not is up to the court system, but it’s now got to the point charges MUST be handed out to many of them, especially the chairman of the IPCC. If not then this will eventually backfire on the politicians so badly many will lose their careers for life as they are booted out of office. It’s time for them to all come clean or else.
________________
I posted the “Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Papers” link on Real Climate in response to a commenter that said we skeptics could not find 100 peer reviewed papers skeptical of Climate Change. The commenter added that we could not even find 10.
In reply I said words to the effect of “you are right, I can’t find 100 or even 10 however, I will give you over 150 – see link below.”
Gavin removed allowed my comment but removed the link and called it rubbish!!!! I sent him back a response saying “so much for open discussion.”
People are missing the point spectacularly. This is a media invention.
The two ‘questionable’ cites,one of anecdotal climber’s evidence,the other a more solid interview based piece with eighty experienced accounts,are the only non-core science cited in that table. The rest is solid and there is a lot of it. There is no shortage of science on the Alps,and there is no shortage of that science in AR4 WG2.
And I’m sorry ,Mooloo ,but professional climbing guides in the world’s busiest mountain range,leading climbing groups,often daily, up standard routes,many of which have been established for fifty years and in some cases one hundred, know when ice coverage changes permanently. It has also been casually photographed by millions of visitors over more than a century,for those who are interested in forensic landscape reconstruction. No matter,this is trivial,but true. In less politically fraught circumstances,you’d probably find the reports interesting reading.
I suggest people look at AR4 WG2 Ch.1.3.1.1 before pontificating.
As well, reviewers could self-nominate for AR4,such was the commitment to transparency. I doubt they will extend this courtesy next time,as the crowds will cripple the process…
Correction:
Gavin allowed my comment but removed the link and called it rubbish!!!! I sent him back a response saying “so much for open discussion.”
mountaineers and guides….
no, no, it’s 2500 of the worlds top scientists.
Ralph (23:59:57) :
Ralph, Wikipedia, ….. do you take it as a fact?
You might find something useful about a plane, a car, a bird…..
But not about Climategate, IPCC, the Iraqi war, or the swine flu, or the JFK assasination, or 9/11…..
We seem to have gone past the “Age of Reason”.
We are now in the “Age of Emotions”….
Sadly, taxes don’t require scientific justification.
The carbon tax is coming to one and all regardless.
Jimbo (03:27:02) :
Gavin allowed my comment but removed the link and called it rubbish!!!
He does that constantly. Gavin Schmidt is the self-appointed gatekeeper of all climate information — which is a big reason why RealClimate is such a failure; they spoon feed their AGW propaganda to the few dozen regular inhabitants of their echo chamber – while WUWT posts all points of view, and lets readers decide for themselves.
Schmidt, like the equally odious William Connolley [who also edits RC, in addition to editing Wikipedia], determines which facts the hoi polloi are allowed to consider. If they deem 150 sources to be ‘rubbish,’ then those legitimate papers are deleted, every one of them. That’s not science, that is one-sided advocacy of their repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW agenda.
Nick (03:25:30),
Unless the local changes you mention fall outside the parameters of natural climate variability, what you’re describing is nothing out of the ordinary. There is no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it.
The effect of CO2, if any, always has been the central question in the AGW debate. So please, explain exactly how CO2 causes those glaciers to recede. I’m interested in the mechanism.
Hold on guys. Be fair!
I awoke at 04.30 this a.m. in ..lets say, Asia, to cover my tracks… I had an early visit to wuwt and to be honest, saw nothing to change yesterdays posts. Then, at lunch some “nice” Aussie guy (after a heavy morning trying to source non faked electrical goods and retiring to a local hostelry ) persuaded me to buy a copy DVD of “Mary and Max”………. (Honest, its not a copy!)
I have spent the rest of the afternoon trying to work out if someone slipped me a tab of LSD and my wife is watching it again and still giggling and she is 60 next month!!
Then I get online on WUWT (have to use a proxy but…..) and find the cover of “Climbing” with a young lady with thighs bigger than my…..
Thanks Anthony, Checking into the clinic in the a.m.!
BTW Ralph (23:59:57) : Wiki…….More peer review!!!!!! Please! Its been a long long Sunday without Wiki science and after suffering the real life of Mary and Max I need some simple truth!
So looking forward to Mondays discoveries……Life is finally making me smile again!