Excerpts from the Financial Post essay by Ross McKitrick
There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process
After the Climategate emails scandal of last winter, and discoveries of some embarrassing errors in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, asked the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) to review IPCC procedures. The IAC is a little-known branch of the Inter-Academy Panel, itself a little-known committee that connects national academic societies. It was a safe choice for Pachauri. The last IAC report was a glowing tribute to alternative energy schemes, coauthored by Pachauri himself, along with current Obama administration appointee Stephen Chu and a group of others. So I do not expect much independence of mind or hard-headed objectivity from the IAC. But with the report due out on Aug. 30, I guess we shall soon see.
I was one of hundreds of people asked to respond to a set of inquiry questions. The questions, and my replies, are available on my Web page (rossmckitrick.weebly.com).
Here is a summary of some of my input.
IPCC policies, such as the requirement for an “objective, open and transparent” review process, sound impressive, but my experience is that the written policies are not always followed, and there do not appear to be any consequences when they are breached.
For example, one rule states: “Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.” Yet no such annexes have been produced. I was involved in numerous areas where there were significant differences of opinion on scientific issues, such as flaws in surface temperature data, improper estimation of trend uncertainties and methodological flaws in paleoclimate research. None of these differences were resolved during the review process, yet no annexes were ever published, creating a false impression of consensus.
After the publication of the AR4 I found that important text had been altered or deleted after the close of the review process, and the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 had fabricated evidence (on Page 244 of the Working Group I Report), by claiming that statistical evidence in two published, peer-reviewed articles on surface data contamination was statistically insignificant, when the articles show no such thing.
The paragraph was inserted after the close of peer review and was never subject to external scrutiny. That Lead Authors are able to insert evidence and rewrite the text after the close of review makes a mockery of the idea that the IPCC reports are peer reviewed, and undermines the claim that they contain the consensus of experts.
Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/08/27/fix-the-ipcc-process/#ixzz0y0p4sz8u
Well written, illustrative and to the point.
There’s no such thing as good government.
Asking the IAC to critque the IPCC and find its flaws is akin to asking one thief to critique another. The worst that can be said? “You were sloppy and got caught.”
Ross,
You were concise, but “Bob the Builder” was even more concise. 🙂
I think it’s fairly safe to say that the only impartial peer reviews an IPCC report would receive would be from people the IPCC would avoid like the plague — IOW, scientists uninvolved with the UN in any way.
The IPCC has two basic problems.
a) It’s mission statement says it is looking for agw change. That’s nice, but what about natural changes? Natural changes trump agw gge by 356-to-1. But since natural changes aren’t addressed, no ratio can be concluded. The IPCC prefers to exhaustively examine the flea on the elephant’s ass (man) rather than the elephant in the room (nature).
b) It bases its policy statements on primitive computer projections using corrupted temperature data sets. They prefer to be exclusively occupied looking at CO2 measurements which lag ice core temperature increases by about 800 years, rather than examining the titanic forces which completely dictate climate change – planetary mechanics.
As we plummet into the Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum, which will cause severe agricultural losses and their attendant famines, the IPCC keeps whistling the CO2 trace gas tune, while a quieting Sun will wipe us off the planet with unthinkable cold.
Ross writes: “The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report.”
Exactly.
Ross McKitrick:
“The IAC is a little-known branch of the Inter-Academy Panel, itself a little-known committee that connects national academic societies. ”
————————
” The eighteen-member InterAcademy Council Board is composed of presidents of fifteen academies of science and equivalent organizations—representing Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus the African Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)—and representatives of the IAP: the global network of scientific academies, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), and the InterAcademy Medical Panel (IAMP) of medical academies. ”
—–
Looks rather representative to me
Which part is fabricated? Which part is pier reviewed? Which part has been changed since it was reviewed? Who chose the IAC? who chose the pier reviewers? Who chose to corrupt the process? Who corrupted the process with fabricated data? As it is…the AR4 isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, the IPCC isn’t worth the stationary it’s stamped on and Patchy isn’t worth the Aviation fuel spent on him while he dreams of pornographic liasons with desperate women. Thank you very much Mr. McKitrick.
If only the IPCC had followed its own rules, this investigation would not be necessary.
The rules are quite impressive.
The reports are………….well pretty meaningless.
Just my 2 cents worth: It’s FUBAR’ed.
Pachauri is feathering his newly-painted nest, and nobody at the IPCC is going to make him fly away while there’s money to be made preserving the Status Quo and selling steamy novels (that stuff sells).
There was an audit on the finances of Pachauri which shows that he is a male Shirley Sherrod,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships
How do we counter this report that shows he does not make millions, or that he does not take a salary from his role as head of the IPCC?
We look weak, bad.
Steven Chu uses the Mann Hockey Stick graph in his DOE presentations. Unfortunately the link to that PDF now says this: “We’re Sorry! The page you requested cannot be found at this time.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/errormsg.html?v=http://www.eia.doe.gov:80/plenary/Chu.pdf
It was discussed at ClimateAudit here:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/03/spot-the-hockey-stick-n/
Well done Ross!
Thanks. The IPCC needs urgent fixing!
But, can it be fixed?
How many dictatorships vs. functional democracies are there in the UN?
This is unfair to builders like Bob. Unlike the IPCC members, they will lose their jobs if the building falls down.
@ Paulw
The comments tend to put the matter into perspective. Also note the ‘Recommend’ ratings. Pachauri has all sorts of interests associated with Big Oil. And, as this comment shows, the ‘KPMG audit’ was no audit at all:
“ChilliKwok
26 Aug 2010, 5:09PM
JamesEastwood wrote
> Did these AGW disbelievers also get an independent audit
/> completely exonerating them?
From the KPMG report:
6.1.1 This report is based on information supplied to us by TERI & Dr Pachurai..
6.1.2 …KPMG takes no responsibility ..[for].. errors, omissions arising thru negligence or otherwise..
6.1.3 Our work constituted a limited review… significantly different from an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.”
There is too much money on the line, the IPCC cannot be fixed. Nor for that matter expected to tell the truth.
As those issues at the IPCC and elsewhere are neither sincerely investigated let alone solved, I start to think it is up to homeland security to clean up the mess and process those involved.
Ross McKitrick,
A professional and well done statement on the IPCC. Thank you for your leadership.
My view of the fundamental issue with the current/past climate report process is the study of climate should not be in the hands of anybody related to any government. [Of course, especially should not be in the hands of the UN.]
To exclude government from direct or indirect control of the climate study process, a possible scenario would be that private universities around the world take the lead in organizing studies and of organizing the process of producing unified documents on climate which would be made public directly to newspapers. Public universities would play a role under the leadership of private universities. A public forum would ensue for discussing the unified climate documents produced in this manner . Governments would then take direction from the voters. I say again, the government would take direction from the voters.
John
This is precisely the point for warmists to get to spend trillions, so as the natural cyclesleadstocooling, they can proclaim results for the trillions. If not then we get tospendmore. Tails I win…
Please don’t link Bob (a professional with integrity) with these muppets.
Here is a recently published review and history of the IPCC. It’s long but well worth reading , showing how all the different organisations are interconnected , the problems with the review process , problems with data collections etc.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean_we_have_been_conned.pdf
I really doubt that the IPCC process can be “fixed,” i.e. made into an independent, unbiased scientific entity and disentangling it from political and economic influences.
I’m very familiar with this from my experiences in the field of public health. Public health causes take on lives of their own, with constituencies, financial/political interests and, ultimately, lots of jobs with a stake in continuation of policy, no matter how bad/counter-productive it is.
My toxicology instructor, Dr. Sam Epstein from the University of Illinois, has long lambasted the “cancer industry” for perpetuating expensive treatments instead of focusing upon prevention and banning carcinogenic substances. Take a look at this website & discussion of his sobering book “The Politics of Cancer”
http://www.preventcancer.com/press/books/poc.htm
CAGW? Same-same. Worldwide interests have powerful stakes in the outcome of the process, and we are all very familiar with the politics of the CAGW folks. Quite honestly, the best peer review of climate science I’ve ever seen has been on this blog. No-holds barred, anything goes, and very serious/high-level discussion of the science without preconceptions.
There are three ways that the CAGW dragon will be slain:
(a) loss of public interest in the topic, as catastrophic predictions fail to materialize (already happening);
(b) loss of political interest in supporting this cause and hamstringing nations with extensive costs of carbon mitigation and control, as we have witnessed in the UK and now witness in the US; and
(c) failure of China, India and other large, industrializing nations to participate in the West’s plans for carbon mitigation and control. If they don’t play, it makes no sense for other nations to hamstring themselves, since carbon emissions will rise anyway.
Fix the IPCC process? We would be much better off if we just disbanded the phony bunch of charlatans. As a matter of fact, we would be even better off if the U.S. withdrew from the U.N. and invited them to relocate their headquarters elsewhere.
This is an organization that was formed to foster world peace. Boy, that really worked out, didn’t it? Today, the U.N. wants to establish global governance and rule the world. This is clearly an organization that has gone off the rails and does not serve any useful purpose.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N.!
This no-good, closed, fraudulent organisation called IPCC
on the other hand is open to review and comments by sceptics
like McIntyre and McKritick? Not to mention that it gave
Lord Monckton opportunity to boast about his Nobel Peace prize?
M&M were not satisfied with the responses to their comments,
but there is a limit to knit-picking in a matter that after all is
rather marginal in the summary
Chris 2:07pm:
Nothing wrong with the Muppets, Chris.
The IPCC can never be considered truly scientifically independent unless it changes its charter from investigating man made climate change only, to investigating all processes that affect climate. In other words unless it morphs into an independent, international body for climate research.
@Mike Jowsey: The article comments and the voting/recommendation is something we have worked on.
Indeed, it was not an ‘audit’ but a report. KPMG was asked to examine, as a third-party, the financial records/tax returns of Pachauri and also that of TERI (the organisation where Pachauri works for). KPMG did not find millions of dollars and in fact they saw that Pachauri has just a modest income.
The ‘disclaimer’ that KPMG puts in the report is a standard disclaimer that you can find even in high-value audits. For example, the Verisign certification authority has been audited by KPMG for the security of the certificates and the audit report is at https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=304&file=pdf
Look at page 8:
This report has to do with the access to the most popular secure websites like Amazon and most online banking websites.
Regarding Pachauri, we either need to accept the KPMG report or get a more credible line. Otherwise, we look as if we are weak and can only resort to badmouthing.
Brego,
I would like Australia to dump the UN as well. It is controlled by despots and tyrants so what’s in for us except the bill.
Mr. McKitrick has written a concise and accurate assessment of a corrupt process leading to ridiculous expenditure on a non problem. I noticed in the comments following his Post article at least one warmer appealing to the authority of various Academies. The difference between sceptics and believers is that the sceptics read ALL the literature while warmers only read selected quotes from a small number of selected authors. It’s no wonder sceptics have come to a completely different conclusion from the warmers.
IPCC is not a quick and easy fix as too many countries politicians have ridden on IPCC’s coat tails and this includes NASA and others.
There is vast corrupted science which in Universites and Institutions, rely on funding and teaching the next generation of students and leaders garbage science.
mikael pihlström says: “a matter that after all is rather marginal in the summary”
Huh? You must be kidding! The sons of hockey sticks were given credence by the back room dealings of the IPCC.. thus the the first hockey stick was maintained and allowed to pollute the minds of the worlds citizens. The hockey stick illusion is THE central meme of the IPCC.
You must have the same blinders on that the SEC had when repeatedly provided with
evidence re Mr Madoff.
Lawrie Ayres says:
August 30, 2010 at 3:36 am
The difference between sceptics and believers is that the sceptics read ALL the literature while warmers only read selected quotes from a small number of selected authors. It’s no wonder sceptics have come to a completely different conclusion from the warmers.
——-
It nearly sounds like you are a sceptic? and if you say so I will accept
that you have read a lot. But your assertation that sceptics read more than
“believers” is absurd, given the fact alone that 97% of professional scientists
working in a discipline related to climate issues are “believers”. They have
both access and paid time to do the reading, which is a never-ending
task due to the enormous amount of new material published.
Is FUBAR a term in common use?
I thought fubarite was an expression exclusively used by us geologists, which means that it is impossible to recognise the original rocktype as it has been altered so much by geological forces.
FUBAR is therefore an excellent description of today’s historical GISS temperature data, as they bear little or no resemblance to the original data. As for the IPCC, I doubt if anyone there is capable of recognising original temperature data.
Old Chinese saying: ‘Believe nothing you see and even less of what you hear, read, smell, feel, taste in ‘Official’ publications, Radio, TV, Websites; but always, always, always pretend you do.” (Tea Yen Ah Min)
The BBC is reporting on The IAC of the Inter-Academy Panel’s report on the IPCC here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11131897
The UK Telegraph is also reporting on The IAC of the Inter-Academy Panel’s report on the IPCC here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7971780/Climate-change-predictions-must-be-based-on-evidence-report-on-IPCC-says.html
The Telegraph is a bit stronger than The BBC in that they say “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should only make predictions when it has solid scientific evidence and avoid straying into policy advocacy, a group of national science academies has warned in a report. ” Looks as if the IPCC are not exactly being “whitewashed” It is probably more “gray” than expected. Things are afoot.
At the bottom it is reported that “Professor Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, is due to deliver a keynote lecture to the Royal Geographical Society Annual conference this week in which he will call for a dramatic changes to the way the IPCC operates.
Speaking ahead of his lecture, he said: “The IPCC has not sufficiently adapted to the changing science and politics of climate change, nor to the changing expected and demanded role of science and expertise in society.
“The IPCC’s approach of seeking consensus obscures and constricts both scientific and wider social debates about both knowledge-driven and value-driven uncertainties that surround climate change politics.” So there you have it. No doubt WUWT will soon have an article on this subject.
Ref – John Peter says:
August 30, 2010 at 8:49 am
“The BBC is reporting on The IAC of the Inter-Academy Panel’s report on the IPCC…”
___________________________
In UN-ese it’s a clean sweep. Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC are ‘TOAST’!
In BBC-ese it’s a pathetic tap-dance to put the best ‘face’ on the death of one of the GREATEST projects in human history. One that they ‘believed’ in with all their tiny heart and mind. One that, had it won over the little people, would have meant The End of Western Civilization. (An end that they could have then coined the catchy phrase in huge print: NEVER HAVE SO MANY BEEN SUCKERED BY SO FEW!!!)
mikael pihlström says:
“But your assertation that sceptics read more than
“believers” is absurd, given the fact alone that 97% of professional scientists
working in a discipline related to climate issues are “believers”. ”
Please define “working in a discipline related to climate issue”
Please let us know how much physics, chemistry, meterology and thermodynamics were required of these professionals.
Do you credit Al Gore as one with his degree in religon?
Peter Miller says: “Is FUBAR a term in common use?”
FUBAR originated as military slang. It arose as a bit of black humor among the grunts who were expected to die with good grace as a result of it. As FUBAR in both it’s ore (Fubarite) and refined states is widely recognized as the single greatest threat facing humanity; yes, it has come into common use.
Funny – only Fox news is covering this story.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/30/independent-audit-slams-un-climate-panel/
mikael pihlström says:
“that 97% of professional scientists working in a discipline related to climate issues are “believers”. ”
And 100% of professional scientists working in a discipline related to astronomy used to believe that the expansion of the universe was slowing down. What happened to that consenus.
Incidently, you didn’t say what it is that these 97% are supposed to believe in. There are a large number of sceptical scientists as well – Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Loehle, Soon, Balianus, Akasofu, Douglass, Pielke sr., Scafetta, Tisdale, Ball, Svensmark. That’s 13. By your figures there must be at least 420 professional scientists who are true ‘believers’ in . . . something!
Vince Causey says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
mikael pihlström says:
“that 97% of professional scientists working in a discipline related to climate issues are “believers”. ”
And 100% of professional scientists working in a discipline related to astronomy used to believe that the expansion of the universe was slowing down. What happened to that consenus.
Incidently, you didn’t say what it is that these 97% are supposed to believe in. There are a large number of sceptical scientists as well – Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Loehle, Soon, Balianus, Akasofu, Douglass, Pielke sr., Scafetta, Tisdale, Ball, Svensmark. That’s 13. By your figures there must be at least 420 professional scientists who are true ‘believers’ in . . . something!
——–
I had “believers” within quotation marks – not my favorite term. And
I was reacting to the claim ‘that sceptics read more on climate’, which is
very unlikely, precisely because professional scientists (= access to
hundreds of journals) are to an overwhelming extent not sceptics in
the sense WUWT bloggers mean.
The counting of heads has been done at many junctions and is rather
tedious, so I will only say; yes, if you say that 13 or even 30 professional
scientists are sceptics – I could find 420 to 970 non-sceptic colleagues.
For instance, out of the 831 experts chosen for the 5th IPCC report
60% (about 500 persons) are new to the IPCC process. Such a turnover
without any reports of difficulties in mobilizing people should give an
indication of the underlying population.
What they believe in? I guess they believe the facts and reasonable
extrapolations.
This does not help much.
We all have a baseline education which should allow us to read and digest all sorts of information. We should all read all sort of things and examine the motivations of the writers.
There are things, such as conspiracy theories, that we should understand and avoid. For example, some claim that the whole debate on climate change is a communist plot to take over the world. The ironic element here is that Putin believes that climate change is a ploy of the Western world on developing countries. So, who is it?
When you poll your own select group with a bias to self-preservation, 97% means nothing.
I’m sure that 97% of the professionals at NASA want to continue space exploration; whether or not we can afford or if it’s worth is for a larger scientific community to decide.
“I guess they believe the facts and REASONABLE extrapolations” – Heck, I used to believe the ozone hole data were “facts’; now I find the paucity of information used at great cost to my industry to be criminal.
The debate we are having is about the core of climate science. It is unfair to compare with “whether to continue space exploration”. An appropriate analogous question would be something like whether we believe we can find intelligent alien life in other planets in our solar system.
@ Mikael Pihlström: Even though I do not work in the “field” of Permanent Magnet and Rubber Band motors, my knowledge of physics is sufficient to inform me that the field is flawed at the most fundamental of levels.
I believe you will find the bulk of the “skeptics” in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry and the measurement sciences who likewise recognize the fundamental flaws in both the hypotheses and methodologies of climatology.
You will also find them to a great degree among the philosophical “godless,” as they are well attuned to the stink of religion and its apologetic evidence and argument. Interestingly enough you will also find a good many skeptics among the religious; for the same reason.
paulw,
Point taken – I was in a hurry and should’ve taken more time to get a better analogy.
Andres Valencia says:
August 29, 2010 at 11:50 am
Well done Ross!
Thanks. The IPCC needs urgent fixing!
But, can it be fixed?
How many dictatorships vs. functional democracies are there in the UN?
______________________________________________________
If you make that functional dictatorships it is 100%. Think about the last time you actually voted FOR a candidate you liked instead of AGAINST an absolute idiot.
__________________________________
Mikael Pihlström, you keep making appeals to authority. I suggest you take the time to read this article from 1915. It shows how maintaining the status quo and pleasing those with big bucks is more important than the illness and deaths of little children. The American Chemical Society voted to toss out a chemist because his research was not “politically correct” History shows the chemist and NOT ACS was correct. Human nature has not changed in the hundred years since then. Money still trumps good science.
McClure’s Magazine Vol 46 pg 36
paulw says:
August 30, 2010 at 11:36 am
…”So which is it?”
_________________________
You’re absolutely right. And, you’re absolutely wrong.
The top link at the IPCC home page doesn’t mention ‘man-made’ or ‘anthropogenic’ at all.
IPCC’s main purpose is to assess the risk from human-induced climate change. This includes assessing all known components of Earth’s climate, which is absolutely necessary in order to estimate the anthropological influence, if any.
If you think they are over-looking something, check first with the AR4 report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
If you can’t find what you’re thinking of there, post it here and I will double-check for you.
Quick-list of processes:
Sun | cosmic rays | water vapour | clouds | hydrological cycle | land and sea ice | atmospheric processes | ocean-atmosphere systems | aerosols | sulfur dioxide | volcanoes | other GHGs | black soot | contrails | geobiological processes | oceans | winds |hurricanes | paleoclimate | land-use changes | distant stars | industrial carbon inventories | carbon cycle | Milankovitch cycles | feed backs | temperature records | precipitation records | urban heat islands | ocean acidification | species migration | regional effects…
That is hardly a comprehensive list of topics considered.
Why was my reply to Peter Stroud’s comment not allowed?
Just want to understand the guidelines.
REPLY: It ended up in the spam filter, it happens when some word combination triggers -posted now -A
Thank you, Anthony. And again, best wishes to you and your family.
(not necessary to post this one)