Almost everywhere someone looks in the last IPCC report, they find claims that are either not substantiated by the citations or citations to non-peer-reviewed sources. Two more examples:
Climate Quotes finds that the claims that wildfires were hurting tourism were all to non-peer-reviewed sources, and the source for the Canadian claim actually said virtually the opposite.
Bishop Hill looks at a random paragraph on climate change and food production, and finds, surprise surprise, non peer-reviewed sources and claims not backed by the citations.
The post at Bishop Hill was about how the AGW crowd was claiming rice, maize and wheat production has dropped in Asia due to global warming and referenced a paper on tea production. Had the AGWers done a bit of research, they would have found that many farmers in Asia have stopped growing food crops and switched to growing sod since they get better profit.
But you see this everywhere. There is a Wiki article about how Africa’s food producing areas were going to become deserts due to global warming. The referenced sourced was a paper of the drought cycles that occur in the south west US.
More disturbing than all the mouldy citations is how long it was before they were found. What the heck have skeptics been up to all these years?
Perhaps it would be easier for the Alarmists to actually point out a finding in the IPCC report that is actually supported by peer reviewed science ? And by perr reviewed science not something with any of the Climategate frauds fingerprints on it. It may very well be that almost nothing in the report is supported by actual science.
“Almost everywhere” I read lies from skeptics about the magnitude of the errors, real and imagined, in the IPCC report. You claim these errors are found “Almost everywhere”, but that is simply not true. Can you document substantive errors in WG1? It would appear that your “house of cards” has solid foundations!
gary …
I suspect that with all the “hide the ball” games played by the Alarmists over the years the skeptics expected that the IPCC report would be chocked full of fake peer reviewed studies. They assumed (wrongly) that nobody would so brazen as to actually publish such fraudulant nonsense in the light of day. It was basically hiding in plain sight for several years. Because of Climategate the skeptics now have the ear of the worlds media (minus the US MSM) and they are able to gain some traction and reveal the fraud. Maybe it was luck but who cares since nothing has really been done about the IPCC report in the US (sorry Europe you jumped the gun on this one).
richard,
how about you cite the peer reviewed studies that support the findings in WG1 ? Then we’ll talk … otherwise just go back to reading the novel from your train engineer …
How about you cite one of the “lies” and show why it is a lie. Me calling you a moron, over and over again doesn’t make you a moron. I need to you post more comments to prove it.
Surprised Bjorn Lomborg didn’t catch some of that stuff – picking apart rotten citations was his bread and butter in The Skeptical Environmentalist. And presumably he’s read some of the IPCC stuff, since he often cites them.
It’s really scary that influential documents that are full of nonsense can go unchallenged for so long (even by those who were looking for errors). I can’t wait ’till the panic dies down on this topic, but given the history of such things I’m confident that another one will take its place quickly.
I know Lomborg’s been making a movie and, what with the Copenhagen Consensus and all, probably hasn’t had time to look at AR4. But your point is valid. There is no shadow organisation charged with checking IPCC documents and citations. What’s wrong with this well funded denialist conspiracy!
the use of non-peer reviewed lit. in the IPCC is not big news. They have it clearly defined in this doc. — annex 2:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
The idea that this is another big lie uncovered is a strawman (assuming that is what some of the skeptics are saying).
Also, I’m not sure if one of the links Meyer gives is a little disingenuous. I gave the one about fires in BC a quick glance. Even though the total tourist revenue is healthy, this doesn’t mean that local and regional losses weren’t evident due to bushfires. And given the amount of money that seems to go through the tourism industry there, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to infer ‘tens of millions of dollars’ in losses.
Too bad we couldn’t secretly change the authorship of the IPCC report to “Dick Cheney”. Boy, then you would see digging by the press that would be headline material day after day, week after week, for years. Just imagine if reporters actually dug into stories and didn’t take the word of those involved. What a concept.
Pretty remarkable anyone could try to justify or minimize IPCC’s malfeasance in its reporting! It’s one thing to communicate speculation as such. It’s entirely another to make statements and claim they’re ‘supported by science’ when in actuality they’re supported by nothing except speculation, or even vested interest (in the case of the WWF this is clearly the case). There’s a name for these kinds of pronouncements, and it’s not “strawman”….it’s “fraud”.
The IPCC started out as a clearly political body with an ideological agenda, and it’s been all downhill from there.
Now (sadly like so much of the UN) it’s degenerated to common influence peddling and financial corruption. Seems like the UN has an ‘anti-Midas’ touch: everything it touches turns to crap.
The IPCC got away with this so long becuase few of us realized just how deeply ingrained the AGW lies are.
It is like with Madoff: He was a very highly respected, incredibly successful money manager, until the first serious critiques were held, many years after they should have been.
His fame and reputation and high profile blinded people who should have known better from seeing that he was in fact a huge scam artist, responsible for stealing billions.
AGW is not really any different.
That the AGW believers- the true victims of this fraud, still defend it or try to minimize it, is a reflection of well sold they were.
Adiff says:
‘Pretty remarkable anyone could try to justify or minimize IPCC’s malfeasance in its reporting!’
I tend to think some deniers are pretty guilty of exaggerating a few ‘gotcha!’ moments, like Meyer saying:
‘Almost everywhere someone looks in the last IPCC report, they find claims that are either not substantiated by the citations or citations to non-peer-reviewed sources.’
Have you found any unsupported claims of the physics behind AGW, or any of the foundations underlying AGW theory?
Also thought you might like to know that Dr Mann has been cleared of the following accusations in the Penn State inquiry:
Falsifying or suppressing data.
Deleting, concealing, or otherwise destroying e-mail associated with a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Misusing privileged or confidential information.
The final accusation –
Deviating from accepted practices within the academic community.
– is still being investigated.
Actually Shills (do you work for the BBC?) Allgegation 2 and Finding 2 read:
Given that this email on on record
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=.txt
where this exchange occurs
To which Mann replied:
One is left to wonder whether the Penn State enquiry team even looked through Mann’s emails.
It would seem to me that if Mann did what he said he was going to do, that would constitute “participating”.
I’ll ask you the same question I’ve been asking his other defenders:
Did he do what he said he was going to do or did he just lie to Jones?
If you answer that question, you’ll be the first.
@ Adiff:
‘It’s entirely another to make statements and claim they’re ’supported by science’ when in actuality they’re supported by nothing except speculation…’
I agree the Himalayan claim was pretty unscientific, that was a bad mistake of theirs — but no one is superhuman. You quote ‘supported by science’. Is that re. the single Himalayan issue or the IPCC in general? (could I see the quote?). If it is the later than I don’t think it is a lie. Not all content that is deemed scientific or relevant to science has to be peer-reviewed I think you’d agree — this blog claims to be scientific after all.
@ John M
Can I see where you linked the stuff from?
You say: ‘Did he do what he said he was going to do or did he just lie to Jones?’
Are you asking if he contacted Gene ASAP? He did not say he would delete anything. Maybe he didn’t agree with the idea at all — that is not inconsistent with such a vague response. I don’t see how it is a sure lie. however, I agree that it could be implied, hence there was an investigation, and they found nothing. So maybe Mann decided not (or never intended) to do it after all? Or is the inquest covering up the deleted emails?
Do you agree that they found no evidence for the other two allegations?
Shills,
The link is shown.
How can you say “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP” in response to “Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?[delete e-mails]” is “vague”? And if Mann didn’t go along with the idea, why respond the way he did? Do you think Mann is that devious?
Sure they say “we didn’t find any evidence.”
My concern, as with Allegation 2, is how hard they looked.
Without actually seeing what they looked at, “they found nothing” isn’t very meaningful.
No doubt, this will eventually all come out, which is why I hope Penn State is smarter than CRU and the IPCC leadership has been so far.
I’m not sure climate science can withstand another fiasco, though looks like the CRU “independent investigation” is off to rocky start as well.
BTW, their defense of “The Trick” wasn’t very impressive either.
@ John M:
I meant a link to where you got the allegations and findings stuff from.
The response is vague in that it doesn’t explicitly show Mann agreeing with Jones to delete emails, or tell Gene to. But, as said earlier, I agree that it warranted investigation. The response alone does not necessitate that Mann deleted the emails. More evidence was needed but apparently found lacking.
How is the indi. investigation off to a rocky start?
You say: ‘BTW, their defense of “The Trick” wasn’t very impressive either.’
Which defence would that be? Why is it not very impressive?
Shills,
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
With regard to Mann and Allgation 2, note that the allegation includes “participate in”. It does not necessarily require that he delete the e-mails. Besides, providing an “archive” of e-mails doesn’t mean he didn’t delete his copies. After all, Phil Jones apparently hit the delete key on his computer, but didn’t realize there was an administrative archive of the e-mails.
What about “I’ll foward to Gene ASAP” doesn’t strike you as agreeing?
WRT to the trick, the report says in a footnote:
This is disingenuous, since the trick with superposition was not intended to hide what the individual unmodulated waves. Granted, Mann published some papers where graphs were overlain, but the e-mails refer to a graph being prepared for a WMO report (which Mann new) and this graph did not show both. At best, it was s simple splice, which Mann later had a coniption about when Steve McIntyre suggested that he or any other climate scientist would do such a thing. At worst, it was a blending of and averaging of selective proxy data with insturmental data, and not showing the separate data. What “problem” was this solving?
Granted, Phil Jones was the main perp, but here’s the exact language of Allegation 1, with that nasty word “participate” again.
Enough to convice everyone? Maybe not. But a “thorough” investigation, IMO, would have dug deeper recognized the nuance involved. Their explanation is more in line with a quick “let’s get this over with,” and I wouldn’t be surprised if the example in their “trick” footnote was provided by Mann himself.
Clearly, they did not interview anyone with an opposing view. Easy to get “exonerated” on the basis of “no evidence” if you’re providing the only evidence.
Now, now Shills, you are arguing the facts of the matter and what has actually been proven. This will not fly here – we want conspiracy theories, damn it!! It is here that the CS tribes runs back to the unproven (and now largely cleared) allegations against CRU scientists from an illegal hack-job.
Strawman (strawmen?), folks, and time to move on. Before you look desperate, that is…
Yes, we must not look to what they said, but rather we must believe we are told that they did not do what they said they did.
That is the only way the little pipsqueak authoritarians can handle things.
-don’t believe your lying eyes, believe what those in power tell you.
@ John M
You say ‘the allegation includes “participate in”‘
The findings seem to indicate there was no participation, although it is implied
You say: ‘What about “I’ll foward to Gene ASAP” doesn’t strike you as agreeing?
It does seem like agreeing but there is no explicit agreement, hence the invest.
The issue is the investigation it self. I’m sure you wouldn’t be condemning someone due to a single vague line of email alone. You would also agree that an investigation is required to be more certain.
An inquest was done which you question, which is fine. But I think you suggest a fair level of incompetency and laziness on their part that is not founded. I guess you’ll have to wait for the indi. report or something. I am not accusing yourself of this, but it seems to me that a lot of skeptics are happy to condemn the IPCC for not having an impossibly flawless report, but are also happy to assume gross negligence by others. So on one hand, we expect flawlessness, but on the other, we expect sloppiness. I dunno.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘Yes, we must not look to what they said, but rather we must believe we are told that they did not do what they said they did.’
No one is saying that. We should investigate further. But remember all are innocent ’till proven otherwise.
Shills,
The e-mail to “Gene” is just something I knew of specifically that didn’t jibe with the finding.
Whether consequential or not, it just didn’t pass the sniff test to me that they took their job seriously.
The funny thing is, with FOI laws all over the place, if I were Penn State, I would have made damn sure I knew whether Mann did what he said he was going to do. I hope they actually read all those e-mails Mann pulled out of that archive, because dollars to donuts, someone will some day.
Earth to Waldo,
I see you’re still in irregular orbit, like a gnat around a light bulb.
Waldo,
re: ‘arguing the facts of the matter’
and ..’an illegal hack-job’.
You have evidence that it was illegal?
@ John M:
You say: ‘Whether consequential or not, it just didn’t pass the sniff test to me that they took their job seriously.’
Well, I sense that you are astute enough to know that suspicions need fleshing out before a decision is made. I get the the impression from a lot of deniers that this doesn’t apply to the CRU incident. I think as it stands, Mann is largely vindicated until another inquiry finds otherwise, or the recent inquiry is proven to be dodge.
You say: ‘The funny thing is, with FOI laws all over the place, if I were Penn State, I would have made damn sure I knew whether Mann did what he said he was going to do.’
Exactly. The amount of critical eyes on anything to do with climate change today would, I think, create considerable motivation for those involved to not mess up. Doesn’t this conflict a bit with your suspicions of a sloppy inquiry?
@ Tony Hanson:
Is there any kind of hacking that isn’t illegal?
@ Waldo
You said:
‘time to move on.’
I wonder how all the big name deniers and others with so much invested will move on. How will some of them justify their viewpoints as being reasonable and fair? Like the historians reading back through all the denialist journo’s articles filled with nothing but damaging sophistry. Just a personal opinion, but I think Journo’s seriously need to be more accountable; Thier ethics are non-existant.
****”Earth to Waldo,/ I see you’re still in irregular orbit, like a gnat around a light bulb.”
Now, now – ad hom name calling. Seldom gets the point across and generally tends to make the opposite point you intended. Plus you’re starting to make me think I’ve overestimated you.
****”You have evidence that it was illegal?”
Ummm…yeah Tony, the CRU system was hacked into. That’s illegal. I don’t want this conversation to degrade anymore than it already has…but: Duh!
Anyway, what about Shills post on 2/10, 6:10pm? Seems that Shills may have pointed out something that certain people would rather not discuss. Hence the pointless rehashing of the CRU “debate.”
“don’t believe your lying eyes, believe what those in power tell you”
Be fair, hunter. You are absolutely a tow-the-line guy. You absolutely buy into your own party line. You willfully ignore all sorts of evidence and then accuse others of having “lying eyes.” It is funny how certain people always accuse others of exactly their own little sin.
Waldo,
‘Ummm…yeah Tony, the CRU system was hacked into. That’s illegal. I don’t want this conversation to degrade anymore than it already has…but: Duh!’
Thanks for your measured tone, Waldo.
My understanding was that Norwich Police have not yet made an announcement, do you know otherwise?
That still leaves other options on the table.
I noticed you provided no evidence to back your assertion. With the police finding still to come you may yet be proven correct… or not, as the case may be. (There are options that are not illegal)
****”My understanding was that Norwich Police have not yet made an announcement, do you know otherwise? That still leaves other options on the table.”
Oh, so it was an inside job, probably a disgruntled grad-student lab tech, that posted private emails without permission on the web? No, pretty sure that is still illegal. Or maybe Mann, in a fit of remorse, posted his own emails on the web and then, in a fit of realization, denied it? No, pretty unlikely for someone who is capable of defrauding the entire world by publishing peer-reviewed literature. So I guess Obama convinced Brown to allow a perfectly legal wiretap and, for reasons of international security, the agent who hacked into the CRU was killed and buried in Westminster? Or maybe Satan posted the emails on the web? Or maybe, worse still, Dubya in collusion with Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff?
Come on, Tony, this is a ridiculous tract. Believe whatever you want to – I’m climbing back out the rabbit hole. Wake me when the discussion is back on track.
Yes, you would think. You would also think that politicians would know that if they were prowling around like tom cats, someone would eventually find out, but… (cf John Edwards).
Yes, suspicions need fleshing out. That was my interpretation of what the committee was supposed to be laying the ground work for. It appears that they (and you) decided to judge the strength of the evidience, not whether it existed or not. I don’t think that’s the task they were given.
Alternatively, they simply missed the evidence. People do screw up, no matter how careful they think they’re being.
Earth to Waldo,
He who starts with ad hom space analogies often faces same in return. If you’re going to whine about it, don’t start it in the first place.
Gosh John, I hope I’m as smart as you when I grow up. Be as ad hom as you like, my man. Go 4 it! I honestly can’t remember what “space analogy” you are writing about, but who cares anyway?
I’m more curious about the link that Shills posted some time back:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
Has anybody taken a look at that?
Gee, and barely more than a week ago.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/02/dodgy-citations.html#comment-7856
Oh well, I guess you post so many of these snarky ad homs that it’s hard to keep track. And now, here you masquerade as someone who pretends to be above the fray.
But you can do what you want, just don’t whine about it.
WRT to that nice buried weasle wording in the IPCC “principles” link, it’s funny what becomes important after the fact. I’d love to see you troll through RealClimate, Grist, desmoblob, and slimateprogress and come up with someone quoting that more than a month ago. Take your time.
Peer review, schmeer review, whoever said it was important? Ri-i-ight.
But then, more than a month ago, global warming was supposed to give us a Mid-Atlantic region in the US with no snow. Now, all of sudden, hey, lots of snow means global warming.
Speaking of grist-swill, here’s what they had to say about IPCC and peer review before the Brits hit the fan.
http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/
Then there is this comment on this thread,
http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/
I guess it’s the “etc.” that we all missed, which we’re now being told “it was there all the time you dummies”.
In the above link, note the brilliant writers and readers of grist tumbling all over and messaging themselves on how only intellectually superior beings like themselves understand the importance of peer-review.
But, as long as you mentioned the Annex, I guess this is what you mean:
Hmmm, there’s that “etc.” again. I wonder if that’s where Greenpeace, WWF, and Masters Theses would be.
Of course, if I were to wonder aloud as to whether all those detailed procedures described in the Annex were followed wrt to non-peer-reviewed literature, I guess that would just be another wild conspiracy theory, unproven allegation, “etc.”
Gosh, and barely more than a week ago too.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/02/dodgy-citations.html#comment-7856
I guess you make so many snarky ad hom comments, it’s hard for you to remember them all. But frankly, I don’t care either. If you want to now masquerade as being above the fray, that’s beween you and your shrink. Just stop whining about ad homs.
Anyway, wrt to the IPCC “principles” link, it’s funny what turns up after the fact. I’d love for you and Shills to dig out where anyone was mentioning that more than a month ago. Go ahead, look through, RealClimate, desmogblog, grist, climateprogress…anywhere, and let us all know where it was being quoted before this all hit the fan. Take your time.
Here’s what I was able to find:
http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/
http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/
Aha, there it is! It must be in that “etc.” Of course! It was there all the time!
In that second link, the brilliant writers and readers of grist tumble all over and self-message themselves on how only intellectually superior beings like themselves understand the importance of peer-review.
But let’s go ahead and quote from the IPCC Annex itself.
Well, there’s that etc. again. I guess that’s where we would find Greenpeace position papers, WWF press releases, and Masters Degree Theses. Now how did we miss that before?
Alas, if I were to wonder aloud about whether the IPCC actually followed all those documentation procedures required for non-peer-reviewed literature, I’d just be accused of dealing in conspiracy theories, putting forth unproven allegations, “etc.”
Having trouble posting my comment.
Let me try posting in smaller bits.
Gosh, and barely more than a week ago too.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/02/dodgy-citations.html#comment-7856
I guess you make so many snarky ad hom comments, it’s hard for you to remember them all. But frankly, I don’t care either. If you want to now masquerade as being above the fray, that’s beween you and your shrink. Just stop whining about ad homs.
Anyway, wrt to the IPCC “principles” link, it’s funny what turns up after the fact. I’d love for you and Shills to dig out where anyone was mentioning that more than a month ago. Go ahead, look through, RealClimate, desmogblog, grist, climateprogress…anywhere, and let us all know where it was being quoted before this all hit the fan. Take your time.
Here’s what I was able to find:
http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/
Gosh, and barely more than a week ago too.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/02/dodgy-citations.html#comment-7856
I guess you make so many snarky ad hom comments, it’s hard for you to remember them all. But frankly, I don’t care either. If you want to now masquerade as being above the fray, that’s beween you and your shrink. Just stop whining about ad homs.
Ah, that one got through. I had a bunch bounce, maybe ’cause of too many links. I’ll try one link at a time.
Continued from previous post.
Anyway, wrt to the IPCC “principles” link, it’s funny what turns up after the fact. I’d love for you and Shills to dig out where anyone was mentioning that more than a month ago. Go ahead, look through, RealClimate, desmogblog, grist, climateprogress…anywhere, and let us all know where it was being quoted before this all hit the fan. Take your time.
Here’s what I was able to find:
http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/
Cont.
Here’s another:
http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/
Aha, there it is! It must be in that “etc.” Of course! It was there all the time!
In that link above, the brilliant writers and readers of grist tumble all over and self-message themselves on how only intellectually superior beings like themselves understand the importance of peer-review.
But let’s go ahead and quote from the IPCC Annex Waldo and Shills linked to itself.
Well, there’s that etc. again. I guess that’s where we would find Greenpeace position papers, WWF press releases, and Masters Degree Theses. Now how did we miss that before?
Alas, if I were to wonder aloud about whether the IPCC actually followed all those documentation procedures required for non-peer-reviewed literature, I’d just be accused of dealing in conspiracy theories, putting forth unproven allegations, “etc.”
Dear John,
I’m not entirely sure what you double-dogged-dared me to do – who “mentioned” what? Huh? The date on this document is 2003. I’m not sure what anyone “mentioned” a month ago has anything to do with the fact that the IPCC published when and how they would make exceptions to the peer-review rule. Why would Real Climate or anywhere else need to defend themselves for something that was published for the world to see? So instead, I find myself (once again) pointing out the obvious:
1) The links above are to an online magazine – a rather liberal one at that. And, while the author is a professor of atmospherics at Texas A&M, he is only commenting in a general sense about the practices of the IPCC. These are short opinion pieces and not policy statements. No sure what you think you’ve proved there.
2) On pages 14 and 15 of the PDF Shills linked to we find a listing of the circumstances under which the IPCC will use non-peer-reviewed or even unpublished literature.
Since this seems to be something the masses are avoiding, I’ll post what the IPCC published below.
PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS
Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.
…….
2. Responsibilities of the Review Editors
The Review Editors will ensure that these sources are selected and used in a consistent manner across the Report.
…….
4. Responsibilities of the IPCC Secretariat
The IPCC Secretariat will (a) store the complete sets of indexed, non-published sources for each IPCC Report not prepared by a working group/the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (b) send copies of non-published sources to reviewers who request them.
5. Treatment in IPCC Reports
Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published
Thus, as Shills pointed out, the entire debate about “dodgy sources” is, in fact, a strawman argument (master’s thesis and doctoral dissertations are peer reviewed, by the way, each must pass scrutiny by a panel of experts; it is simply not a “double blind” peer review). And this – “how only intellectually superior beings like themselves understand the importance of peer-review” – really speaks to the strange defensiveness of the denialists.
And yeah, “if I were to wonder aloud about whether the IPCC actually followed all those documentation procedures required for non-peer-reviewed literature, I’d just be accused of dealing in conspiracy theories, putting forth unproven allegations, ‘etc.’” I have to agree with this – this is exactly the kind of thinking one sees exhibited on these boards and on the various denialist blogs.
By the way, the “Houston we have a problem” quip was an “allusion” and not an “analogy.” Don’t take it so personally, man, it’s the internet.
Waldo,
You have a remarkable proficiency to pretend to be confused by things you don’t want to confront. It appears that “huh” is a debating tactic for you.
Here, let me help.
Pre-scandal: “Peer review is the ‘gold standard’. That’s why the IPCC is so authoritative”
Post-scandal: “Well of course the IPCC uses non-peer-reviewed literature, it’s all here, in Annex 2, paragraph 2.3.4-4.6, subsection-xyz, clause-abc. Why, position pieces by advocacy groups are even implicitly allowed. See, it says ‘etc.'”
It’s really not too hard to follow my argument. Pre-scandal, peer review is everything. Post-scandal, peer review schmeer review, we can use whatever we want, it’s right there in Annex whatnot.
I’m not surprised you don’t want to dig through all those blogs to find someone advertising the use of non-peer-reviewed literature in the IPCC before the scandal broke.
But since you now say it’s only what the IPCC said that counts, and all those blogs are just a bunch of losers spoutin’ off, does this guy speak for the IPCC?
nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/02/yes-virginia-climate-bible-relies-on.html
Hmmm… “entirely on peer reviewed literature”. I guess he didn’t visit the Annex.
That’s quite a good link BTW. Read it and you’ll find that newspaper articles were used as citations too. Want to argue that those are peer-reviewed too, since the editor looked them over?
(since this blog doesn’t like multiple links, I’m leaving out the front stuff on these links, so they’re not “hot”.)
Anyway, speaking of the Annex, since I addressed the Annex directly, I guess you exclude me from “the masses.” That’s not really a compliment, since I’m proud to be part of “the masses”. I realize “the elites” don’t like “the masses”, but I don’t mind.
And thanks for copying and pasting those requirements. I urge every fair-minded individual to read those requirements and judge for him or herself if following those requirements should have led to things like erroneous claims about glaciers, african droughts, and land elevations in Holland. I guess that too is just denialist drivel, like the guy quoted in this article.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece
Hmmm, now that I think of it, you may have a point. I guess those non-peer-reviewed citations were indeed “selected and used in a consistent manner across the Report.” Pity.
And finally, I see you think you’re proficient at the gotcha game. Allusion instead of analogy. Good one, though I think you’re more proficient with illusions, myself.
You do, of course know, that the “ad hom” you whined about (“I see you’re still in irregular orbit, like a gnat around a light bulb.”), is not an ad hom, but merely an insulting combination metaphor/simile. You see, an ad hom requires a “factual claim” to be made by the person being argued against. Your comment that elicited my insulting metaphor/simile was simply a sarcastic snark. No facts, no ad hom.
I didn’t want to bore the gentle readers of this blog with that petty detail originally, but since you’ve already bored them…
@ John M:
You say: ‘It’s really not too hard to follow my argument. Pre-scandal, peer review is everything. Post-scandal, peer review schmeer review, we can use whatever we want, it’s right there in Annex whatnot.’
We hear your argument loud and clear. But still disagree. Peer review matters. The vast majority of ref. in the IPCC are from peer-reviewed lit. esp. WG1 stuff where all the physics claims for AGW theory are made. But no one ever said the IPCC only ever used peer-reviewed lit. and nothing else. Your only evidence is a few general quotes that are prob. from a context discussing the distinction between the kind of evidence for and against AGW.
Anyway. Step back and you’ll agree that this issue is of little significance for the central denialist claim that AGW is not happening or whatever. All it adds is another little knit-pick to the many denialist knit-picks.
You say: ‘I’m not surprised you don’t want to dig through all those blogs to find someone advertising the use of non-peer-reviewed literature in the IPCC before the scandal broke.’
Why bother when we have an official doc. that suffices.
Your Pachauri newspaper thing is not a contradiction. The process indicates that they don’t just base a finding off the article itself but investigate it further.
Ah, no Mr. M, I wasn’t avoiding anything – I honestly didn’t understand what you were challenging me to do. In any event, Shills has answered the way I would have. He beat me to it fair and square.
And I don’t think I can improve on Shills post. So I’m going to simply quote Shills to himself and the rest of the assembled “masses”:
“The vast majority of ref. in the IPCC are from peer-reviewed lit. esp. WG1 stuff where all the physics claims for AGW theory are made. But no one ever said the IPCC only ever used peer-reviewed lit. and nothing else.”
Nicely put. Strawman arguments, folks.
As for Mr. M’s comment – “I realize ‘the elites’ don’t like ‘the masses’, but I don’t mind” – it didn’t occur to me at the time (although perhaps it should) that I was making a classicist comment – I simply meant to refer to the CS “masses” of posters who were avoiding Shills find. But, once again, it appears we see an us-vs-them’ mentality and the cultural defensiveness of the denialist camp (if you don’t mind, then why mention it?).
Which brings me back to my perennial question – is the global warming controversy really about politics for the denialists? A jab at Al Gore and now Rajendra K. Pachauri? It would be interesting if we could manipulate time and space and turn back the clock to have Dubya declare something like “They hate our freedom and they are cooking the planet” or Reagan take a stand against the hippies who were causing global warming – would the assembled masses react the same way if GW was perceived as a conservative cause rather than a liberal one?
Okay, Mr. M. you are an intelligent guy – you should know better than this. I just got done reading your “no frakking” blog about about newspaper clippings. Certainly you realize that the articles cited have absolutely nothing to do with GW science – the newspaper articles deal with insurance. This is what Laframboise herself claims:
“In a section of the report that discusses the role the insurance sector would play should we need to adapt to dramatic climate change, a newspaper from the Bahamas is cited”
In fact, if one looks at the abstract of the Wall Street Journal article Laframboise links to one could understand why it seems to indicate concern for increasingly violent weather phenomena. It reads:
“Building industry firms are developing techniques to make homes and businesses disaster-proof as more and more storms ravage regions across the nation. Building codes are being strengthened across the nation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency notes that 75% of all homes in the U.S. experience some form of natural disaster damage. Metal and asphalt are being used in roofing to reduce impact damages, and some firms are developing window coverings that are easier to remove and install before hurricanes hit. Wayne-Dalton Corp. has begun selling a light-weight plastic-coated cloth called Fabric Shield, while SentryGlas, developed by DuPont, is impact-resistant and can withstand heavy winds. DuPont is also pilot testing a safe room kit from Kevlar, which is strapped to the home’s foundation and allows home owners to ride out tornadoes and hurricanes in safety. In various states, insurers are being forced to provide incentives to home owners who install safer building materials, such as impact-resistant roofs.”
The effect on insurance is not something that a climate physicist is going to investigate; this is information that would have to come from a newspaper, a trade journal, or other non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific source.
This is exactly how the IPCC would work with these sources. To wit:
“Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided.”
Discrediting works both ways. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that simply because the IPCC makes passing reference to insurance practices (which seem to be responding to GW concerns) it is no longer legitimate on climate science. I would go so far as to accuse Laframboise of being outright deceptive.
I likewise urge every fair-minded individual to read those requirements posted above and judge for him or herself…or better yet, simply follow the links provided and make your own judgment call. Don’t believe the denialist clap-trap on its own merits, if it has any.
Waldo and Shills,
Can you write a post without using the term “denier” or “denialists”?
I hate to point out the obvious, but it appears you guys have settled on a crutch that allows you to disingage your brain.
Anyway, I’m not sure how a long discussion of why a newspaper citation is justified fits into the requirements spelled out in the “Annex”. You either follow the rules for non-peer-reviewed literature or you don’t.
I’ll repeat a quote from above:
If the rules for non-peer-reviewed literature were followed, don’t you think he would have been able to find something to support the claim?
And you know, it’s not just “denialists” that are bringing up these points.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece
Is he a “denialist” too?
And you know, neither one of you knows squat about my views on AGW. The tiniest bit of questioning of the sanctity of the IPCC leads to an automatic dismissal as “denialism”.
I believe “intellectually bankrupt” might apply to such a response.
@ John M:
YOu say: ‘Can you write a post without using the term “denier” or “denialists”?’
Well, I hesitate to use the word ‘skeptic’ because I don’t wan’t to contribute to the damage AGW deniers have already caused the genuine movements of scientific skepticism.
You say: ‘You either follow the rules for non-peer-reviewed literature or you don’t.’
How does the ref. to the newspaper article break the rules?
You say: ‘If the rules for non-peer-reviewed literature were followed, don’t you think he would have been able to find something to support the claim?’
I don’t understand this. There is a ref. to support those statements. See this link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Africagate is discussed in there. Read the whole article, I suggest.
Prof. Watson is worried about a very small number of mistakes? He identifies a trend with a sample of 2 or 3? He doesn’t think there would be any bias in the selection of these mistakes? (surely there are non-peer rev. cites that a not ‘alarmist’, maybe even some mistakes that understate the impacts.)
Maybe media spin has something to do with this weird article.
At face value, if Watson is portrayed correctly, it really is just more knit-picking. If there is a bias then this will be corrected, without doing any serious damage to AGW theory. A few chips off the paint work but nothing to whinge about.
You say: ‘And you know, neither one of you knows squat about my views on AGW’
When have I made any presumptions about you?
You say: ‘The tiniest bit of questioning of the sanctity of the IPCC leads to an automatic dismissal as “denialism”.’
This is just a whine. Got nothing better to say? How many informal debates or discourses do you think go on in which every bit of generalisation and labelling is carefully guarded against? Probably none! because that would horribly hinder the flow of discussion. If I have misinterpreted you as a AGW denialist then I half apologise, and half expect you to suck it up (be reasonable).
I won’t call you a AGW denialist if you aren’t one (are you?) in the future.
Shills,
You could have summed up your entire waste of bandwidth by just saying ‘no’.
Actually, Mr. M, I suspect I do know “squat” about your views on GW. Perhaps your views are more nuanced and complicated than your posts would seem to indicate, but I think I understand where you are coming from. And, frankly, “denialist” is a pretty fair term. “Skeptic” indicates a position dubious disposition toward a subject, a critical evaluation, a polemical debater; “denialist,” I would suggest, indicates a person who, no matter what, has an extremely limited, uncritical and unmoving viewpoint. I suppose “denialist” is the counter part to the term “alarmist” so casually thrown around on this blog.
For instance, Watson points out the now famous claim of 2035 for the glacier melt: a big embarrassing mistake for the IPCC. The other is pretty darn minor – that Belgium (I think) is only 26% below sea level, not the 50% the IPCC allegedly claims: a pretty minor bit of misinformation and does nothing to substantiate a major overhaul of decades of scientific work involving 2,500 scientists and numerous world governments. In other words, the claims of IPCC maleficence and misinformation are grossly exaggerated here at CS and uncritically propagated by posters like yourself. Sum total: 1 mistake out of thousands of pages written and sources used.
Do you not consider yourself a “denialist?”
@ Hunter:
You say: “You could have summed up your entire waste of bandwidth by just saying ‘no’.”
I don’t think ‘no’ quite encapsulates it all. Although I would have loved to have added full colour pictures and diagrams in primary colours to stimulate some of the infantile brains here, but hey.
Shills and Waldo,
Before defending myself from the term “denialist”, what is it you think I “deny”. Do you think I deny “climate change”. Do you think I deny “AGW”. Do you think I deny catastrophic climate change? Do you think I deny certainty?
If your definition of a “denialist” is merely someone who “has an extremely limited, uncritical and unmoving viewpoint”, I would say you two pretty much fit in that category wrt the IPCC.
Shills, rather than posting a link to realclimate and telling me to read it, how about you give me your take. That’s what I’ve done with the citations I’ve provided. I don’t just cut, paste, and run. But for what it’s worth, they don’t address the problems with “The Agoumi reference” discussed here.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-laundered-literature-guest-post-by.html
It is also informative that realclimate feels the need to attack the messengers (in this case, non-compliant journalists-remember from the e-mails they favored “predictable” reporters) rather than make their point professionally. I’m a commenter on a blog, these guys are supposed to be “professional climate scientists”. Sheesh.
But frankly, realclimate is a realboon to skeptics. I have no idea why their styles is going to convince an increasingly curious public of anything, particularly when it is now public info from the e-mails that their intent was to tightly control the message and heavily moderate the comments so as to not allow the “wrong” message to get out.
Shills
Oh come off it. Your comments are replete with “AGW deniers” and those references are in my direction.
@ John M:
You say: ‘Before defending myself from the term “denialist”, what is it you think I “deny”. Do you think I deny “climate change”. Do you think I deny “AGW”. Do you think I deny catastrophic climate change? Do you think I deny certainty?’
Lol. (wouldn’t it be simpler if you just told us?)
You say: ‘Shills, rather than posting a link to realclimate and telling me to read it, how about you give me your take.’
I don’t wan’t to needlessly warp the link through my own wording. Even if I gave you my interpretation you would still read the article for yourself, wouldn’t you?
You say: ‘they don’t address the problems with “The Agoumi reference” ‘
All Pielke says is that the Agoumi paper/ IISD is biased to sustainability? Where is the issue?
Again, the IPCC would have verified the claim, if the procedure was followed. If not, and the claim is unfounded than the IPCC will correct this mistake. But no one seemed too worried about it yet so we’ll have to wait and see.
You say: ‘attack the messengers (in this case, non-compliant journalists’
Lol. MM journo’s are terrible at reporting. You know that, everyone knows that. There complaints against the media are totally justified.
You say: ‘it is now public info from the e-mails that their intent was to tightly control the message and heavily moderate the comments so as to not allow the “wrong” message to get out.’
Can you show me this evidence?
You say: ‘Oh come off it. Your comments are replete with “AGW deniers” and those references are in my direction.’
Show me. There is a difference between calling you a denialist and just using the term in one of my posts to you. I very much doubt that my comments are ‘replete…etc etc’.
“Lol. (wouldn’t it be simpler if you just told us?)”
Told you what? Why you’re calling me a denier or denialist? Shouldn’t you know?
As far as Pielke (Ben Pile actually), the claim is that the IPCC quote is not justified either by the primary citation or the references in the citation. Didn’t you read it?
“Again, the IPCC would have verified the claim, if the procedure was followed.”
Jeez, I thought that’s what we were arguing about. Don’t tell me you’re turtling into “see no evil” mode.
“There complaints against the media are totally justified.”
Except when they go running to them with their next press release, I guess.
As far as the realclimate “control” mentality, you know, you really ought to read the e-mails. Not knowing what’s in them puts you almost at as big a disadvantage as relying on realclimate for all your information.
eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt
Googling—realclimate censors—also gives interesting reading.
And we’ll have to let the audience decide how many “AGW denier/denialists” epithets on your part consitutes “replete”.
I kind of think this take on “replete” pretty much covers things with regard to your “denier/denialist” spouting.
englishdaily626.com/movie_reviews.php?043