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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.