The ever sharp Bishop Hill blog writes:
While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.
Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.
Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):
Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.
Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?
(h/t to WUWT reader Tom Mills)
UPDATE: There’s an update to the story at Dot Earth.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-an-old-climate-critique-still-hold-up/
16 commentsDiscover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Astonishing…
“Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.”
The earth was flat…that was based on peer reviewed literature as well.
Cold Fusion was based on peer reviewed literature.
Thank you, Dr. Andrew A. Lacis, for having the courage to speak the truth!
Did you get a nice pay raise or promotion after telling the truth at NASA?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
What a coincidence: my response to the AR4 ES is about the same:
“Rejected”.
So I assume the reason we don’t immediately recollect the name of Lacis is that he spoke out?
Unbelievable! Wait, …. I do actually believe it – sadly.
Is this man watching the office when Hansen is out protesting against coal mining?
on the executive summary of the chapter:
Maybe not relevant, but this is another example of how the message is spreading:
This week’s edition of Canada’s Northern Miner has a cartoon entitled: How climate scientists estimate reserves.
First scientist: “The deposit grade is too low.”
Second scientist: “We need to re-work the raw data.”
Third Scientist: “Yes! There is no doubt the ‘real’ grade is much higher.”
There are a number of very telling comments from other contributors in that document too. It’s well worth a read.
One of the issues with the review process is what appears to be the absence of any formal process of escalation. We saw this in reviewing chapter 6 comments. A issue would be raised and the author would summarily reject it.
Without any process of escalation and conflict resolution you will always get these types of things. The current process assumes a willing and open minded Lead author(LA) and willing and open minded reviewers.(RV)
LA: The data Shows X
RV: The data actually shows Y.
LA: Thanks mr. reviewer good catch, my bad!
Life is rarely like that. Its more like this:
LA: The data shows X.
RV: wait, my paper shows Y and X is your paper. You should at least
mention my result.
LA: Your results were contradicted by my grad student Phil.
RV: that’s not publsihed yet! nobody has even had a chance to review it
except the two peer review guys that used to work in your lab!
LA: It counts as a published article under the rules.
RV: bastard.
LA: sore loser.
RV: wait till 2013.
LA: as if you’ll be LA, punk
and the shorter polite version.
LA: the data show X
RV: no they dont, they show Y.
LA: rejected.
( celebrity voices have all been impersonated)
How are you dealing with this?:
this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda.
Which is that political agenda?, How will it affect our current way of living?, How will it change the future of our descendents?
Wil they be slaves or what, if these policies are enforced?. Oh, sure, they will tell us “they will live in a more just world, they will be happy and will drink ambrosia (“kool.aid”) everyday.
Who did elect them for even thinking that or planning our future?
In the so called “first world” you can find some of these “thinkers” crossing the streets, so, again:
How are you dealing with them and who are them?
First, I wouldn’t use Cold Fusion as an example of failed science. Look up LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) on Bing and you’ll find a bunch of interesting developments (admittedly they left the term “cold fusion” behind because of the stigma attached to it, but only be cause physicists were applying the rules of typical fusion reactions to this new breed and the two are vastly different). (On the other hand, perhaps cold fusion IS applicable here–they saw something they couldn’t explain and discounted it because it didn’t fit with current orthodoxy, much the same way CO2 has been the assumed culprit with warming and now they’re realizing maybe that just ain’t so.)
Second, our job is liking chiseling The Thinker out of a block of solid granite. With each whack of the mallet the truth becomes a little more apparent until one day everybody who chooses to see will view what’s obvious. Until then, keep whacking away.
It is not a matter of exposing the puppets but the ones who control the puppets.
I humbly and respectfully request that this ‘blip’ be drawn to the attention of H. R. H. Prince of Wales for his consideration and further, make sure your M. P., Congressman or other representative is aware of this item.
Again, a recurring theme here. Notice his degree dates. They’re all in the 1960’s. The only people on either side of the AGW arguement qualified or capable of applying scientific methodology correctly in such a poisoned environment that now exists at US federal intititutions, specifically, NASA and NOAA (oh! and yes, the EPA) are those who have their pensions in the bag and secure. All the younger scientists are in a conflict of interest situation and are being intimidated from dabating the science in any intelligentb way.
The President, even if he believes in AGW, should clean house to maintain the integrity and transparency of science. Oh! Wait!, those were his words right?
To begin with Hansen has to go. He’s stepped way over the line legally and scientifically in my opinion. The President should call in Charles F. Bolden and make it very clear that if he can’t fire Hansen or persuade him to retire, that he’ll find someone who can.
And now we find that, indeed, the IPCC is using exactly the sources Dr. Lacis claimed were in use.
Who again are the denialists?
From the Bishop Hill blog commenters:
Andrew Lacis: Just how does “anthropological influenced” atmospheric circulation differ from “non-anthropological influenced” atmospheric circulation?
Reply: We don’t understand reviewers point.
😀
I suggest everyone posts the link for this to their Facebook profile, in the hope it goes viral. And then posts it to their Representative, MP or whoever
Nothing I read on here would astonish me any more…
Btw I wonder if any of our Harrys is THE Harry (Are you Reading Me…)
Peter Miller (09:24:33) :
Maybe not relevant, but this is another example of how the message is spreading:
This week’s edition of Canada’s Northern Miner has a cartoon entitled: How climate scientists estimate reserves.
First scientist: “The deposit grade is too low.”
Second scientist: “We need to re-work the raw data.”
Third Scientist: “Yes! There is no doubt the ‘real’ grade is much higher.”
————-
Reply:
A good analogy would be Bre-X, a major gold mining scandal that involved salting (fudging) samples taken from a gold deposit. They basically worked from the same hypothesis–that the “real” grade was much higher. You can imagine the outcome; it was a disaster. The reasoning behind the two are equivalent, as will be the consequences.
John,
Why would Obama want Hansen fired? They share the same belief system.
Here is a paper from 2000 by Lacis, a few others and James Hansen:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full
This shows very clearly the climate of fear that the scientists are operating in. Speak out of turn, and Hansen or another big boy will slap you down, take away your funding or simply side line you.
This is compelling evidence that needs to be shouted from the roof tops.
What was the word limit on comments? I’d love to read the 2,500 word version of that.
I do feel somewhat for the LA there tho –“delete it” was obviously not a tenable solution, and there isn’t enough detail in that comment to come to grips with on individual issues.
Lacis would have been better off with a couple dozen detail-level comments picking it apart showing what he was pointing at rather than the overarching “To the Trash Bin –GO!” comment. But likely he knew he was tilting at windmills anyway, and decided one pass on the field of honour was enough, and the ultimate impact on the work-product the same.
On the Feb. 6 post ipccs-latest-blunder-africagate at (16:25:53), Kendra asked if no one really studied the references the IPCC used?
There are several responses there but I don’t know if anyone ever kept track of such things in a single document. I know I did not.
However, many have been reported and they mostly end about the same way. Namely, Rejected
Kendra, are you still with us?
JonesII (09:30:46) :
How will it affect everyday life?
Watch the Green Police commercial.
X will necessarily skyrocket.
Y will profit by selling X.
Z will be arrested for being in possession ox X, and pay a heavy fine after getting gouged at buying point X’.
It’s hardly surprising since the executive summary was likely written first.