Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Nature News is carrying an interview with Professor Martin Parry, co-chair of IPCC WG II during the preparation of its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), titled Setting the Record Straight. Unfortunately, he is not asked about, nor does he address, any sins of omission. He does say, however, “I don’t think there’s a problem in the robustness, rigour and veracity of the entire volume. I don’t think there’s any systemic problem with the way the authors undertook their work.”
But can this be said for the Summary for Policy Makers, perhaps the only piece that policy makers and their advisors ever read?
In two previous posts I noted a number of the sins of omissions in the IPCC’s WG II Summary for Policy Makers:
- The IPCC: Hiding the Decline in the Future Global Population at Risk of Water Shortage — More Insidious than the Himalayan error. This post shows that, contrary to the impression conveyed to any reader of the IPCC AR4’s Work Group II Summary for Policy Maker, the net global population at risk of water shortage is likely to drop because of climate change (according to the studies that the IPCC relied upon). The “trick” to “hide the decline” was accomplished through artful wording. The SPM reported that “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” However, it neglected to inform the SPM’s readers that many hundreds of million more would actually see a reduction in water stress. This was also the subject of a report in the Wall Street Journal — Europe by Anne Jolis, titled, Omitted: The Bright Side of Global Warming.
- The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth. This post discusses the omission of information from the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers that would show that even under the warmest scenario the contribution of climate change to hunger and malaria, two reasons frequently cited for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, ranges from the trivial (4% for malaria) to the small (21% for hunger), at least through the foreseeable future. [I define “the foreseeable future” as the 2080s.]
Clearly, inclusion of such information in the SPM with respect to water shortages, malaria and hunger, would have put climate change in the larger context of the problems facing this world, which would, inevitably, have made climate change seem much less threatening. It would have been quite informative to policy makers, many of whom are on record proclaiming that climate change is (among) the most important issues facing humanity, whether or not they had an open mind on the matter. Notably, water shortage, hunger and disease are among the reasons most frequently cited by our policy makers to do something dramatic about global warming.
Perhaps because I went to a Jesuit school too long, I have always regarded sins of omission as just as heinous as sins of commission.
In this case, the absence of context enabled by these sins of omission ends up skewing the world’s priorities, and threatening global well-being. In the hysteria over climate change we are now going to use funds that could have gone to help solve today’s truly urgent problems to solving the smaller problems of tomorrow — and which may or may not transpire even then (see here).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Andrew
1. As a revieweer of the IPCC documents I can state that I, as a reviewer, did not agree with these rationalizations.
2. If your accountant gave you a report telling you how much you were owed but did not provide information on how much you owed, you would be justified in firing him whether your credits outweighed your debits (or vice versa). Similarly, if a supposedly honest broker such as the IPCC provided information on the positive impacts but not on the negative impacts, they would deserve to be called on it. The reverse is equally valid. The difference is between providing information and making policy judgments regarding what ought to be emphasized. That’s why IPCC’s sins of omission are reprehensible.
3. My suggestion is to think about whether it would have been acceptable had the SPM identified the positive impacts but not the negative impacts? Say, for example, the IPCC SPM had a long piece on reductions in death from excessive cold but ignored deaths due to heatwaves on the grounds that much of the latter seems to be an “harvesting” effect –would that have been acceptable? {For “harvesting,” check: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/EDITb.php.
Anthony — while I don’t approve of ad homs, I think I can handle it. Although I won’t always be able to respond promptly considering I have to work for a living (unfortunately).
REPLY: Ad homs are one thing, claiming you are dishonest over a difference in opinion on procedure is something I won’t tolerate unless the accuser puts themselves on record as you’ve done. -A
Mr. Goklaney,
You are correct, I didn’t read your response until I had replied to Kadaka’s. I also responded to yours but that has been lost. The basic point was that while I now see you have questioned IPCC’s and Arnell’s argument that the benefits of decreased water stress are relatively low, you don’t bring any of this up in your WUWT post “The IPCC: Hiding the Decline in the Future Global Population at Risk of Water Shortage.”
While you link to your previous writings on the subject, the text of this post and even its title imply that they were intentionally hiding something. Which they weren’t – the net reduction in population under water stress is openly stated and referenced in 3.5.1 of which the SPM is a synopsis. Since the beneficial impacts of this reduction are argued to be low in 3.5.1, it makes sense, and certainly is not dishonest to not include it in the SPM which was only of the most significant impacts. Your objection seems to be to this argument that they are not important found in 3.5.1, but instead you imply they were dishonest with words like “hiding” and by your failure to even mention their argument in 3.5.1. You obviously were aware of their argument against the significance of these benefits, but you don’t mention them. Granted you link to them, but the tile (“hiding”) and the text of the post read as if they had blatantly hidden the positive impacts. We see this in the text of your post here, for example:
“And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is.”
They don’t “portray” it as a large negative impact, they argue, with reasons (valid or not!) in 3.5.1 that it IS a large negative impact.
They don’t use a “recipe” they selected the most significant impacts, in their opinion.
They don’t hide the true story from the original studies, the original study, Arnell 2004, agrees the more significant impact is the negative one. But since you don’t bring up Arnell’s or IPCC’s argument in this post, we are led to believe it was a simple matter of deception and that the original literature suggests a significant perhaps even net positive impact.
This doesn’t seem to be a simple act of omission of positive impacts to me. The SPM appears consistent with 3.5.1 to me. Both claim a net negative impact. And it seems your issue is with the interpretation in 3.5.1, not with the hiding of facts which are found readily in the text of 3.5.1 to which the SPM refers.
By implying that is a simple matter of hiding facts when you seem to know that it is really more of a matter of interpretation of the facts, you can see why I might find that post dishonest in nature. I apologize if my language was more reckless than it would be in person. Your other writings you link to raise what appears to be a legitimate question about 3.5.1’s dismissal of the positive impacts.
I agree that they appear pretty quick in dismissing these positive impacts, but personally I think you underestimating the cost of conserving increased water supply during the wet season in regions with little infrastructure currently. You also seem to assume the free flow of factors of production (labor, capital) which are not at all free. If suddenly parts of Asia, which weren’t before, become great places to farm and to have a nice green lawn etc. is the agriculture industry really going to migrate immediately and are all the suburbanites in Sacremento going to relocate their nice green lawns to some remote area of Asia because that’s where the water is now? There are areas of the world suitable for farming which are light years behind the Sacremento valley in terms of technology, farming practice, and yield because this is where the infrastructure, labor, human and financial capital has become the most highly developed.
Andrew P (22:35:42) :
(…)
While you link to your previous writings on the subject, the text of this post and even its title imply that they were intentionally hiding something. Which they weren’t – the net reduction in population under water stress is openly stated and referenced in 3.5.1 of which the SPM is a synopsis. (…)
WHERE? Such a net reduction is not mentioned in any sort of introductory paragraph. Then comes many mind-numbingly long and dense sections, of which a quick scan only reveals doom and gloom. Zip on down to the last paragraph for a summary, one finds “number of people under high water stress” “substantial increase is projected” “speed of increase will be slower for the A1 and B1…” Glance on up at Table 3.2 “Impact Of (population growth and) Climate Change” and OH MY GOD The Latest Study Says SEVEN BILLION WILL SUFFER!
You have to dig into the text to find the “good news,” which for me kills off “openly stated” right there. What is in there?
The number of people living in severely stressed river basins would increase significantly (Table 3.2).
Doom.
The population at risk of increasing water stress for the full range of SRES scenarios is projected to be: 0.4 to 1.7 billion, 1.0 to 2.0 billion, and 1.1 to 3.2 billion, in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s, respectively (Arnell, 2004b).
Doom.
In the 2050s (SRES A2 scenario), 262-983 million people would move into the water-stressed category (Arnell, 2004b).
Doom.
However, using the per capita water availability indicator, climate change would appear to reduce global water stress.
Not doom?
This is because increases in runoff are heavily concentrated in the most populous parts of the world, mainly in East and South-East Asia, and mainly occur during high flow seasons (Arnell, 2004b). Therefore, they may not alleviate dry season problems if the extra water is not stored and would not ease water stress in other regions of the world.
Nope, still doom. Unrelenting ongoing DOOM.
The IPCC cranks out these reports to influence public opinion, which directly feeds into the “stated goal” of informing decision makers. What does the public hear? On one end: droughts, water shortages, food shortages, suffering, death. On the other end: horrific wet weather events, flooding, food shortages, suffering, death. Possible benefits are not mentioned. Indeed, from the second paragraph of 3.5.1 they are laying out the case that more water is not beneficial and will likely be harmful. For any politician or corporate executive, there is nothing “clearly stated” that says climate change will not be a catastrophe with regards to water. Attempt to dig out the “happy news” from 3.5.1 and explain to the public that, despite the SPM, there is no need to panic and act rashly, good things may happen… Well, good luck in your new job or retirement.
While you link to your previous writings on the subject, the text of this post and even its title imply that they were intentionally hiding something. Which they weren’t…
Oh Yes They Did. Drowned it with words, placed it next to the easy-to-notice alarming table, just before it they specifically direct you to look at the alarming table then give other alarming numbers, then state the possible benefit (singular) in language that says it is not what it appears to be, then proceed to discount it. Net effect, they never state any benefits at all. At All.
This doesn’t seem to be a simple act of omission of positive impacts to me.
I agree. This appears far more contrived and insidious. This is the hiding of an ice cube in a snow-covered field. It is technically there, with enough time one might find it, but its existence is not noted by anything, and that “detail” doesn’t show up in the SPM snapshot. At All.
And then, finally, there is your last paragraph, which talks about other things.
Ugh.
…but personally I think you underestimating the cost of conserving increased water supply during the wet season in regions with little infrastructure currently.
I’ve been looking, and I can’t find where he is estimating the costs at all, thus he cannot be charged with underestimating. He has said: “One should expect that societies would take action to store water if that’s what is necessary to avoid water stress. Such actions are not rocket science; they are probably as old as humanity itself, and have a successful track record going back for millennia.” That seems simple enough to follow. If it is needed to survive, one should expect a society to do it to survive. If it will help them prosper, the same.
Such systems do not need to be elaborate and expensive. Here is a nice site I Googled, shows some good ideas. Concepts like this were done when “infrastructure” was dirt roads and wooden carts.
As to the rest of the paragraph… Huh? Sacramento suburbanites relocating lawns to Asia?
Sacramento and other places are already facing water shortages and will have to deal with them, period. Agriculture will not need to move to Asia, as what is already in the area would merely expand to new farmland. And beyond simple talk of “infrastructure, labor, human and financial capital” there is plenty the local people can do in agriculturally underdeveloped areas to increase yields, which require not much more than knowledge and possibly will need less effort and expenditures. Inexpensive solutions are out there, people just need to learn about them.
Re: kadaka (Feb 22 06:33),
Inexpensive solutions are out there, people just need to learn about them.
I have to laugh at the arrogance of these people . In Greece we often have no rains from May to September, sometimes we only get few rains in the winter, and have survived and agriculture survived even before the big reservoirs built in the mountains to catch the winter rains and snow melt that can carry us over draught years.
In the islands every house had a water cistern gathering the winter rain water for the summer. My mother inlaw’s house, built in Piraius in the 1850s, had a “well” in the kitchen which was for drawing water from the rain cistern.
In the island of Santorini, a particularly dry island, they developed a species lentils and fava and grapevines that get irrigated by the fog coming in from the sea, when it comes. Very tasty cherry tomatoes too, all grown without irrigation. Very good wine, the Santorini wine.
I have a rain water cistern in my holiday cottage and use the water for the garden, as do many people.
Within pairs of angle brackets:
use “i” and “/i” to start and stop italics.
Use “b” and “/b” for bolding.
Use “blockquote” and “/blockquote” for indenting. (These can be nested.)
Response to Andrew P (22:35:42) . Note that responses and comments are bracketed and in bold.
ANDREW: The basic point was that while I now see you have questioned IPCC’s and Arnell’s argument that the benefits of decreased water stress are relatively low, you don’t bring any of this up in your WUWT post “The IPCC: Hiding the Decline in the Future Global Population at Risk of Water Shortage.”
[RESPONSE: First, within that post I had provided links to these specific criticisms precisely because that post built off the previous one. Second, it is a fact that the IPCC did not provide information within the Summary for Policy Makers, which has a special status as indicated in its title. It is supposed to be the single stopping point for policy makers, as opposed to my posting which provided explicit links and was clearly not supposed to be free-standing.]
ANDREW: While you link to your previous writings on the subject, the text of this post and even its title imply that they were intentionally hiding something. Which they weren’t – the net reduction in population under water stress is openly stated and referenced in 3.5.1 of which the SPM is a synopsis.
[RESPONSE: Below I am providing the specific paragraph from Section 3.5.1, page 194, where this is “openly stated”, with and without my annotations. Read them, and tell me whether you think what was provided in that Section constitutes proper and open disclosure. I am quoting the whole paragraph so that I don’t omit anything critical.]
NOW FOR THE ANNOTATED VERSION:
ANDREW: Since the beneficial impacts of this reduction are argued to be low in 3.5.1, it makes sense, and certainly is not dishonest to not include it in the SPM which was only of the most significant impacts. [COMMENT: What rational argument? There was an assertion based on speculation founded on the notion that human beings are too dumb to take steps to reduce an adverse impact on their well-being, and this assertion was made without reference to the numbers of people for whom water-stress would be reduced. In fact, had these numbers not been omitted, then these assertions would not have passed the “red face” test. By what stretch of logic do you ignore the fact that water stress could possibly be reduced for billions more?] Your objection seems to be to this argument that they are not important found in 3.5.1, but instead you imply they were dishonest with words like “hiding” and by your failure to even mention their argument in 3.5.1. You obviously were aware of their argument against the significance of these benefits, but you don’t mention them. [COMMENT: As noted previously, the links had been provided and “arguments” found wanting.] Granted you link to them, but the tile (“hiding”) and the text of the post read as if they had blatantly hidden the positive impacts. [COMMENT: Look at the annotated paragraph above. What would you have call it? BTW, I didn’t say it was blatant, in fact it was quite artful.] We see this in the text of your post here, for example:
“And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is.” [COMMENT: Look at the annotated paragraph above. Would you not agree that while no untruths were uttered, they failed to be candid about the numbers that might benefit? And this in Section 3.5.1?]
ANDREW: They don’t hide the true story from the original studies, the original study, Arnell 2004, agrees the more significant impact is the negative one. But since you don’t bring up Arnell’s or IPCC’s argument in this post, we are led to believe it was a simple matter of deception and that the original literature suggests a significant perhaps even net positive impact. [COMMENT: See the first response above, and the annotated paragraph above]
ANDREW: This doesn’t seem to be a simple act of omission of positive impacts to me. The SPM appears consistent with 3.5.1 to me. Both claim a net negative impact. And it seems your issue is with the interpretation in 3.5.1, not with the hiding of facts which are found readily in the text of 3.5.1 to which the SPM refers. [COMMENT: No Andrew, the issue is whether the results of the original study were accurately reported. Section 3.5.1 does a slightly better job than the SPM, but even that is flawed, as shown above. Moreover, I note that probably the most frequent justification for sins of omission is that the perpetrators thought/believed the omission was not important for whatever reason. This is a necessary fiction, if for no reason other than that one needs a fig leaf. I am going to skip commenting on most of the following paragraph because it would be repetitious.]
ANDREW: I apologize if my language was more reckless than it would be in person. [COMMENT: Apology accepted, but you should really have done your homework and read the links that had been provided, and saved everyone a lot of trouble.] Your other writings you link to raise what appears to be a legitimate question about 3.5.1’s dismissal of the positive impacts. [COMMENT: Thanks.]
ANDREW: I agree that they appear pretty quick in dismissing these positive impacts [COMMENT: Not only were they quick to dismiss, by omitting the projections of the numbers that may see a reduction in water stress, they did so without providing a fair accounting of the benefits on the other side of the ledger.], but personally I think you underestimating the cost of conserving increased water supply during the wet season in regions with little infrastructure currently. You also seem to assume the free flow of factors of production (labor, capital) which are not at all free. If suddenly parts of Asia, which weren’t before, become great places to farm and to have a nice green lawn etc. is the agriculture industry really going to migrate immediately and are all the suburbanites in Sacremento going to relocate their nice green lawns to some remote area of Asia because that’s where the water is now? There are areas of the world suitable for farming which are light years behind the Sacremento valley in terms of technology, farming practice, and yield because this is where the infrastructure, labor, human and financial capital has become the most highly developed. [COMMENT: The situation that exists today in Asia won’t be anything like the Asia in 2085 (or 2050, for that matter). You underestimate mankind’s capacity to adapt. I have two posts on this site titled, “Socioeconomic Impacts of Global Warming are Systematically Overestimated.” I would suggest you read them. They can be located via the search box on this page. Also, for perspective, note that we have added 4.5 billion people to the earth since 1950, and the infrastructure that they need to not only survive but thrive. This includes not only infrastructure for electricity but water, public health, agriculture, trade, and everything else. If UN population projections are valid, we will be adding about 3 billion more this century. We’ll also be wealthier, and also have more effective technologies at our disposal (as noted in the posts just referenced). Therefore, building the infrastructure for that 3 billion should not be an insurmountable problem.]