by Judith Curry
The current issues surrounding conflict of interest guidelines for the IPCC are summarized in this recent news release from the U.S. House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight:
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Chairman Paul Broun (R-GA) today sent a letter to United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, calling for the adoption of a Conflict of Interest Policy for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Despite my previous requests for the IPCC to adopt and enforce more stringent policies related to conflicts of interest and the use and citation of ‘gray literature,’ the IPCC has delayed action.”
In the letter, Broun wrote that it is “imperative for the IPCC to adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy before its 34th Session, tentatively scheduled to take place in January 2012.”
What is a conflict of interest?
The Wikipedia defines conflict of interest in the following way:
A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possiblycorrupt the motivation for an act in the other.
A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.
COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than “conflict”, emphasizing a connotation of natural competition between valid interests rather than violent conflict with its connotation of victimhood and unfair aggression.
There is a term used in the UK “prejudicial interest,” which is described by the Wikipedia as: In UK local authority politics, the term prejudicial interest is used to describe the situation whereby a councillor has an interest in a topic under debate that may affect their ability to fairly and objectively consider the subject.
For a non-western view on conflict of interest, see this report on Managing Conflict of Interest from the ABD/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific: The Initiative’s member governments are convinced that, to reduce the risk of corruption, conflicts of interest must be identified, avoided, and managed, and the policy frameworks and tools for detecting, avoiding, and managing conflicts of interest must be strengthened in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Additional resources providing multi-cultural views on conflicts of interest can be found here A list of Conflict of Interest publications
There seems to be a fairly common global understanding of conflict of interest and how it can lead to corruption.
COI and the UN
Conflict management is a key element of the mission of the United Nations. In terms of broad COI policies for the UN, here is what I have been able to find:
- 1996 General Assembly document on action against corruption, which includes a statement on conflict of interest
- 2003 presentation on COI issues is provided by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
- 2006 Policy on Financial Disclosures and Declaration of Interests Statement for UN staff members
As an example of broader COI problems at the UN, see this recent article that states “Recent reports show UN Agencies increasingly beset by corporate influence, lacking oversight.”
The parent organizations of the IPCC within the UN — the UNEP and WMO — both have COI guidelines. The WMO addresses this in the context of a broader Code of Ethics document. The WMO’s code of ethics requires staff to avoid any conflict of interest, or appearance of conflict of interest, by: (1) disclosing in advance possible conflicts of interest that might arise; (2) refraining from acting on any matter in which they, someone with whom they have a close relationship, or someone from whom they are seeking a benefit or favor, has a special interest; and (3) refraining from associating with the management holding financial interest in any profit-seeking or other concern that might benefit by reason of their position in the WMO.
COI and the IPCC
Over the course of its history, the IPCC has had no formal COI policy or guidelines. The IAC report notes that in the absence of COI policy for the IPCC, The professional staff members of the IPCC Secretariat are employees of WMO and/or UNEP and are subject to their disclosure and ethics policies. In particular, all IPCC Secretariat staff in Geneva, except for the Deputy Secretary, are WMO employees and therefore are required to follow the WMO code of ethics; the IPCC Deputy Secretary follows UN staff regulations; and the IPCC Secretary must comply with the rules for both UN and WMO staff because the Secretary is seconded from UNEP and WMO.
The only COI policy currently in place for the IPCC itself is this informal guidance document for WG1, dated 10 October 2010:
As an overarching principle, in WGI the practice of self-declaration of CoI and self-policing is exercised. We rely on your professionalism, common sense and honesty. WGI Co-Chairs, Vice-Chairs, the WGI TSU and CLAs, LAs, and REs of AR5 will receive a form created by the WGI TSU, in which they declare real, perceived or potential CoIs they may have identified with respect to their function and responsibilities in IPCC. The information that you submit on this form is for the WGI Co-Chairs only, will be held at the WGI TSU, and can be updated by you at any time. The TSU will contact the holders of office and functions in WGI once a year and request confirmation and updates of the information.
Conflict of interest issues was one of the focus topics of the InterAcademy Council (IAC) Review of the IPCC.
The lack of a conflict-of-interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input. Questions about potential conflicts of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s service as an adviser to, and board member of, for-profit energy companies, and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review. However, the Committee believes that the nature of the IPCC’s task (i.e., in presenting a series of expert judgments on issues of great societal relevance) demands that the IPCC pay special attention to issues of independence and bias to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its results.
The IAC Report recommended that:
Recommendation. The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat).
The IPCC responded to the IAC recommendations with this document. Excerpts:
The overall purpose of this policy is to protect the legitimacy, integrity, trust, and credibility of the IPCC and of those directly involved in the preparation of reports, and its activities. This policy is principles-based and does not provide an exhaustive list of criteria for the identification of such conflicts. The Panel recognizes the commitment and dedication of those who participate in IPCC activities. The policy should maintain the balance between the need to minimise the reporting burden, and to ensure the integrity of the IPCC process. In this way, it seeks to encourage participation and to ensure that the representativeness and geographic balance of the Panel is not impaired whilst continuing to build and maintain public trust.
This policy applies to senior IPCC leadership (the IPCC Chair, Vice Chairs, Working Group and Task Force Co-Chairs), other members of the IPCC Bureau and members of the Task Force Bureau, authors with responsibilities for report content (Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors), Review Editors and the professional staff of the Technical Support Units (TSUs).
Conflict of interest policies in scientific assessment bodies typically make a distinction between “conflict of interest” and “bias,” which refers to a point of view or perspective that is strongly held regarding a particular issue or set of issues. In the case of author and review teams, bias can and should be managed through the selection of a balance of perspectives. For example, it is expected that IPCC author teams will include individuals with different perspectives and affiliations. Those involved in selecting authors will need to strive for an author team composition that reflects a balance of expertise and perspectives, such that IPCC products are comprehensive, objective, and neutral with respect to policy. In selecting these individuals, care must be taken to ensure that biases can be balanced where they exist. In contrast, conflict of interest exists where an individual could secure a direct and material gain through outcomes in an IPCC product. Holding a view that one believes to be correct, but that one does not stand to gain from personally is not a conflict of interest.
To prevent situations in which a conflict of interest may arise, individuals directly involved in or leading the preparation of IPCC reports should avoid being in a position to approve, adopt, or accept on behalf of any government the text in which he/she was directly involved.
Annex A: Implementation
To be developed under the extended mandate of the Conflict of Interest Policy Task Group
Annex B: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
To be developed under the extended mandate of the Conflict of Interest Policy Task Group
So the IPCC has taken a first step towards developing a COI policy. The policy is described by this press release from the IPCC as:
A modern and forward-looking conflict of interest policy, aimed at maximizing transparency and assuring the credibility of IPCC products and assessments was also adopted.
Whatever COI policy actually emerges will not be in place to influence the AR5, as per this post at ClimateAudit.
Managing conflicts of interest
So how should conflicts of interest be managed for the IPCC? The Wikipedia lists the following strategies:
- Removal. The best way to handle conflicts is to avoid them entirely
- Disclosure. Pertains primarily to financial interests
- Recusal. Those with conflicts are expected to abstain from decisions where a conflict exists.
- Third party evaluations. Hire an independent firm (a third party), well-qualified to evaluate such matters.
- Code of ethics. Codes of ethics help to minimize problems with conflicts of interests because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts are permitted by a code of ethics.
Many government agencies, companies, and NGOs have some sort of conflict of interest statements. What makes sense for the IPCC? Apart from overt financial conflicts of interest apparent in WG III, the COI issues facing WG I and II are more subtle, perhaps better characterized by prejudicial interest. Prejudicial interest in this context falls into a gray area where ethics and public perception are more relevant.
In the context of the assessment process itself, COI guidelines adopted by the U.S. National Academies are a useful reference. From the IAC report:
In developing such a policy, the IPCC may want to consider features of the NRC policy. These include:
• Distinguishing between strong points of view (i.e.,biases) that can be balanced and conflicts of interest that should be avoided unless determined to be unavoidable
• Differentiating between current conflicts, where the candidate’s current interests could be directly and predictably affected by the outcome of the report, and potential conflicts of interest
• Considering a range of relevant financial interests, such as employment and consulting relationships; ownership of stocks, bonds, and other investments; fiduciary responsibilities; patents and copyrights; commercial business ownership and investment interests; honoraria; and research funding
• Judging the extent to which an author or Review Editor would be reviewing his or her own work, or that of his or her immediate employer
• Examining indications of a fixed position on a particular issue revealed through public statements (e.g., testimony, speeches, interviews), publications (e.g., articles, books), or personal or professional activities
• Maintaining up-to-date confidential disclosure forms and participating in regular, confidential discussions of conflict of interest and balance for the major components of each report
JC comments. It is hard to imagine how the whole issue of COI for the IPCC was ignored until 2010, in the wake of climategate and questions surrounding Pachauri’s conflicts of interest that were spawned from Himalaya-gate. The IAC has provided superb recommendations and guidelines to the IPCC for proceeding on this issue. The IPCC is moving slowly in the right direction, however too slowly for this to have any impact on the AR5. The IPCC needs to start adopting modern technologies so that it can actually get things done in between plenary meetings. Without an active COI policy in place for AR5, the credibility of the resultant assessment reports will be substantially compromised.
With regards to WGIII, the conflicts of interest may be so overwhelming that they cannot be managed in any sensible way. IMO qualified people from Greenpeace and Exxon-Mobil should be able to participate in the IPCC as reviewers or possibly as contributing authors, but they should not be participating as Lead Authors.
“Without an active COI policy in place for AR5, the credibility of the resultant assessment reports will be substantially compromised”
If the IPCC knew that the authors of AR5 had no conflicts of interest, they would surely implement the COI policy straight away. That they aren’t implementing the policy is not a good sign.
It’s a good (reliable) sign of UN’s intentions.
See today’s Skeptical Swedish Scientists report, “Sun, Sun, Sun”
http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/sun-sun-sun/
The AGW scam is crumbling faster than any cookie!
With kind regards,
Oliver
Julian, perhaps you can confirm your suspicions by identifying the authors and reviewers you suspect have a conflict of interest and explaining why, starting with the following working group.
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf
I don;t think that anybody expects big CoI problems with WG1. They do not have products or consultancy to sell.
But Pachauri effectively gives the game away in this quote
‘Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively’
In other words..’we already know that several of our number’s backgrounds wouldn’t stand up to rigorous CoI scrutiny. So to avoid embarrassment – to them and to us as an institution – we’ll duck the issue’. Which is very ostrich-like, but pretty typical.
We’ve seen this with the recent report about renewables already. More CoI problems than you could shake a stick at. And judging by the stunned silence from the usual IPCC defenders (apart for a few trying to shoot the messengers and failing dismally), they still don’t understand what the problem is.
I guess that for them this behavior is perfectly normal. Nothing unusual about Greenpeace writing a report and getting the IPCC seal of approval on it. Happens all the time…what’s the big fuss?
The founders of the IPCC have a great deal to answer for, That they created an organisation that has no effective way of monitoring or enforcing basic standards of honesty and integrity, evades requests for Conflict of Interest policies, headlines dodgy science and has been hijacked by special interest lobbyists says little for their foresight or ethics.
There may be a deep problem here. Many of the lead authors are among the leading researchers on the topic being reviewed, which means they must review their own work, but that is now considered a COI. If it is a COI then it is built into the IPCC process. The only way to resolve this would be to have authors reviewing topics they are not familiar with, which might actually be interesting.
And they might be a bit more sceptical about some of the claims made as well,
Nobody ever sees mispronts in their own own work however hard they try.
Mispronts are far from the biggest problem though.
Pal-review and self-review are.
The problem of reviewing your own work is not insurmountable IFF (If and Only If) there is a policy to include literature that does not agree with the lead author. The section by Judith Lean on solar effects in AR4 does not meet this criterion, nor did the paleo chapter by Mann in AR3.
‘The problem of reviewing your own work is not insurmountable’
But much easier to avoid all possibilities of conflicts of interest by simply not doing it.
The problem then just goes away.
‘Kid: Mummy mummy, every time I hit my head against the wall it hurts
Mum: Stop doing it then’
They cannot implement COI, because it would leave huge swathes of AR5 blank. If not for conflicted Interests, most of the lead authors have no Interests at all.
As part of the UN, the IPCC itself has an inherent and huge conflcit of interest, since a ‘finding’ by them that there is CAGW offers an apparently watertight argument for world governance.
A similar conflict of interest affects each and every climate scientist on government paychecks, since CAGW likewise supports an argument for more taxes and regulations etc.
CO2 is in on the conspiracy, choosing to be a GHG, and contributing to the the greenhouse effect. The only way to avoid world government is to reduce emissions.
If I understand you correctly, the only way to avoid world government is to submit to its restrictions.
Yes, put a stop to AGW and you put a stop to the growing threat of world government. Libertarians haven’t figured that out yet.
M. carey,
You are anything if interesting. Please explain you logic that putting a stop to AGW would put a stop to the “growing threat” of world government. I await with baited breath.
I already told you in as simple terms as possible. If you still don’t understand, there’s nothing more I can do.
Translation:
‘I have no point to make’ or
‘I am incapable of explaining my point clearly’ or
What’s it baited with? Sushi?
Abating AGW the political machine, or abating the hypothetical but nugatory climate phenomenon?
Carey just means that totalitarians long ago figured out that a truly beaufiful way to usher in world government, is to fund and foster a fervent belief in CAGW. And libertarians have been slow to realise this.
You are right. That was in ~1972, when Henry Kissinger took President Nixon with him to meet Chairman Mao.
That was also the first year experimental data showed that:
a.) Meteorites formed directly from poorly mixed supernova debris [1] and
b.) Solar mass fractionation is large and variable [2]
1. “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972)
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/XenonInCarbonaceousChondrites.pdf
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm
2. “The role of isotopic mass fractionation in the production of noble gas anomalies in lunar fines from the Apollo 15 mission”, Proceedings of Third Lunar Science Conf, vol. 2, 1927-1945 (1972)
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm
See also today’s Skeptical Swedish Scientists report, “Sun, Sun, Sun”
http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/sun-sun-sun/
With kind regards,
Oliver
How convenient. Either we do something about AGW (which we can’t) otherwise we get a world government foisted upon us.
One might be forgiven for imagining that was the plan all along.
It apparently ~20 years from planning to implementation of the plan ~40 years ago:
3. In 1972, implementation of the plan started when Kissinger took President Nixon to China to meet with Chairman Mao.
2. It took ~10 years to come up with a plan after the 1962 Cuban Missile convinced world leaders that they too would die in a full-scale nuclear exchange.
i. In 1952, one of our own most powerful political leaders, Henry Kissinger, served as a consultant to the Director of the US Psychological Strategy Board
CO2 is in on the conspiracy, choosing to be a GHG, and contributing to the the greenhouse effect.
Rather sneaky compound, that CO2. It seems to reveal itself only to western civilisation and otherwise mask its intention to at least half of the planetary population. I reckon the Chinese and Indians alone account for about half of the human presence, and I don’t see them rushing towards cap and trade and mitigation and all of the other complete idiocy you think the western world ought to be engaged in. CO2 therefore seems to exhibit mind altering properties as well in tricking people to buy into all manner of Chicken Little-ism.
Regarding the IPCC ignoring COI until 2010, they had plenty of warning. Roger Pielke was writing about bias and COI back in 2007 and probably earlier. Many in the IPCC crowd would like to write him off because he doesn’t toe the line. They ignored his warmings and
Here is a quote from his 2007 blog regarding COI in the CCSP report:
““Future assessment Committees need to appoint members with a diversity of views and who do not have a significant conflict of interest with respect to their own work. Such Committees should be chaired by individuals committed to the presentation of a diversity of perspectives and unwilling to engage in strong-arm tactics to enforce a narrow perspective. Any such committee should be charged with summarizing all relevant literature, even if inconvenient, or which presents a view not held by certain members of the Committee.”
See http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
Pielke Jr. posts today, about his 2004 posting.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/06/ipcc-and-coi-flashback-2004.html
Oh, God, please lift the
Guilt of Achieving Success.
Greenpeace in our Time.
==============
At the time, I argued that the AR5 process should be suspended until the IAC review was finished. A check on conflicts of interest should be part of the nomination process.
It is embarrassing to all involved to check conflicts of interests of people who have already been appointed and cannot be removed from office. The IPCC is therefore not trying very hard, and authors were not very forthcoming in the trail run last January.
So who are these people who have a conflict of interest and how do we know they do?
You imply that outsiders must determine a conflict of interest (COI) via discovery. However, as anyone who has uncovered a potential COI via discovery knows, the discovery itself results in the assumption of an intention to deceive because the potential COI was not disclosed to relevant parties of interest. Such an event severely damages the credibility of the party that has hidden the COI from other parties of interest. Thus, the discovery that Sven Teske, a lead author of Chapter 10 of the IPCC’s recently released Renewal’s Report was in effect reviewing his own work severely damaged the credibility of the IPCC. If you think otherwise, your head is firmly buried in the sand.
I think you are falsely asserting that Teske’s work was reviewed by no one but him. The basis for the ER-2010 scenario in the SRREN report was a Teske et al peer-reviewed article published in Energy Efficiency. If you want to review the article yourself, it is available online at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu354g4p6576l238/fulltext.pdf
How else would such a paper have found its way into the IPCC report?
Or are you suggesting that it’s normal practice for the IPCC to let any old rubbish through?
jintokyo made no assertion that Teske was the only reviewer. He did not ‘false;y assert’ anything at all.
But that Teske was a’ reviewer at all of his own work demonstrates a clear conflict of interest.
The elephant is in the living room clear for all to see and there is no point in you trying to suggest otherwise.
Telling us that others may also have had elephants in their houses or that the elephant in the kitchen is only a baby or that Joe Sixpack once paid money to see a giraffe at the zoo does not distract from this central and fundamental point.
Teske should do like you, and never review what he writes. He should just write it, and never look at it again. If he can”t get it right the first time, why bother?
It’s not about elephants it’s about nits. Deniers like to pick nits. I don’t know why.
What on earth are you babbling about? Teske has the freedom to write articles and review his own work without limit so long as he makes clear his intention. Such falls under the realm of Op-Ed pieces and such pieces belong on the pages of publications such as the Guardian not in a supposedly neutral forum like the IPCC.
If you think these are nits, then you can’t tell the difference between elephants and nits. Mark Lynas and Andy Revkin can tell the difference. Why can’t you?
I detect a certain lack of actual content in that post.
Are you being frightened by the elephant? Or just baffled what to do about it?
Latimer,
Is M. carey just a clown pulling our chain or is he someone to take seriously? Debating good people on the other side of the aisle is a worthy endeavor, debating clowns is a waste of time.
Cheers
I understand that in the US there is an odd custom of reading something into the record of congress just to put it there. Look upon debating others partly as a similar exercise
Many blogs have a lot more pure readers than writers and one’s words may influence these in all sorts of ways. Its good to rehearse the arguments anyway for when they may be needed with serious players.
Perhaps, but the more I see of this guy, the more I come to the conclusion that he is just a moronic clown wasting intelligent people’s time.
Your argument that Teske’s work was peer-reviewed in an academic publication and thus somehow sanitized to any conflict of interest he may have had in reviewing his own work (and, in the end having it highlighted as one of the important findings of the IPCC’s press release) is rubbish in the extreme. He reviewed his own work and the review of his own work was highlighted in the press release delivered long before the actual release of the supporting documents. As a result, fawning sycophantic media outlets such as the BBC reported this highlight without critical review. In fact, Teske had a potential conflict of interest because he was involved in the assessment of his own work. This potential conflict of interest was not disclosed neither by Teske nor the IPCC to the public but was revealed through discovery. Responsible environmentalists such as Mark Lynas and Andy Revkin have challenged Teske’s conflict of interest in this regard. Can you still possibly pretend that this incident is above board and beyond reproach?
jtintokyo, I suspect you have not read Chapter 10 of SREEN. If you had it might be interesting to hear your thoughts on this report.
M. carey,
What on earth does that have to do with my comment above?
Your pattern seems to be to reply not to the comment made but to raise a tangential point in order to create a smokescreen. If so, intelligent people are not impressed.
Are you capable of directly replying to a pointed, logical comment to a point you made?
Please demonstrate that capability rather than raising tangential points. Are you capable of that?
Thank you for identifying yourself as an intelligent person.
Did he assert only, or are you falsely asserting that he falsely asserted ?
Regardless of that, do IPCC guidelines now allow for self-review when even pal-review is not enough ?
It’s available for you to review.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu354g4p6576l238/fulltext.pdf
Are you up to the task, or would it be easier to look around for other opinions?
That paper is a clearly summed up as a clear case of strategic misrepresentation. They cannot make forecasts and accurate extrapolation of that nature so far into the future, its pure science fiction.
Richard, I also read your comments in full on your blog. I mostly agree with your views and I agree that it should FORMALLY be part of the nomination process. I get the impression that there is a sense of “well, of course, everyone knows he is involved with…” with the IPCC, which isn’t good enough, particularly when there are people ready to pounce on such things. As you know, Bob Watson has been saying for years that anything that looks like activism (or campaigning) of any type should be disclosed and made fully transparent (and even exclude some experts if there is even the sniff of a conflict of intents). Of the people involved with AR5 (WG3), I only see good will, and there is enough triangulation to give a fuller perspective on each sub theme, but I agree that this is too informal.
It’s too late now.
On my chapter, there is a team of eight. Two had to be prompted to admit a conflict of interest. One continues to deny that he has one.
Do I want to do all that work with a team of five rather than eight? No.
Can I, as CLA, remove someone who was nominated by a government and appointed by the Bureau? No.
What level of dishonesty would be required before such an individual was removed?
And what is the mechanism for doing so? I hope that the malefactor would be left in the library with a whisky bottle and a revolver…but imagine it’d be rather more mundane…….
If professional dishonesty reliably induced suicidal behavior, every Heartland conference would look like Jonestown.
And there would never have been even an IPCC AR2….nobody left to write it.
Robert,
You really need to kick it up a notch. Such a slow pitch you offered Latimer. Earle hears that referring to oneself in the third person befuddles opponents so much that their arguments cannot help but collapse to the ground in fear in the face of such smark and circumstance.
BTW…
/sarcoff
And there’d be no live Democrats.
this is an interesting question.
As mentioned, I don’t think it is a question of dishonesty, but a matter of individuals holding stong views. Richard is quite right that although the appointment process was designed with fairness in mind, like university tenure, can be a problem if there was an “awkward” individual appointed. I’m sure there is a long winded and impractical process set out somewhere!
I don’t think there is a procedure for removing IPCC authors. We enjoy full diplomatic immunity.
Can you outline the process for being appointed?
Arriving at the state of infallibility by this route sounds rather more attractive to me than joining the Catholic Church and all that tedious stuff with black smoke/white smoke. And it’s so bad for the atmosphere….
The four stages of appointment:
1. Nomination
Countries nominate authors. The procedure varies from country to country. Some countries (Germany, Netherlands, USA) use search committees, other countries (UK, Ireland) send around an email fishing for volunteers.
2. Appointment of convening lead authors
The IPCC Bureau and Technical Support Unit select the CLAs, based on a mix of ability, comraderie, politics, and geography.
3. Appointment of lead authors
The CLAs, Bureau and TSU select the LAs, on the same grounds. There is an additional complication. Some candidates’ expertise is so broad that they have been nominated for multiple chapters, while the outline is so chaotic that some deep experts would fit in multiple chapters. A dogfight determines who ends up where.
4. Appointment of contributing authors
This is simple. CLAs and LAs select whomever they want. I guess CAs have to be human and real, but I doubt that anyone has ever checked.
Dr Tol, this is really helpful. Thank you.
The IPCC was set up in 1988 with a scientific mandate to investigate the possibility that there was a human cause to the observed global warming that had, started after 1975 when the 33 years of previous global warming ended.
In 2007 The Hadley CRU data was altered to remove the cooling from 1942 as was presented in the IPCC 2001 TAR with four versions of the global temperature data.
Changing data and then restating the claim from a century of warming on whichn the climate models were based to now claiming only the last half of the century because there was no substantial increase in CO2 emissions until after the second world war deomostrates what the actual interest of the IPCC is and this interest is in complete conflict with the scientific mandate under which the IPCC was formed.
The world has been cooling since 2002 and the IPCC still claims that we are warming due to CO2 emissions;and that is the definition of a conflict of interests!
The other conflict of interests is the poor of the world who do not want to starve to death and the IPCC that has instigated a program of sustainable fuels thanks to Greenpeace which turns 6.5% of the world’s grain and 8% of the world’s food oil into biofuels in direct conflict with the interests of those who do not want to starve!
That’s a serious charge. Since you don’t cite evidence, readers may suspect you don’t have any.
Which charge are you referring to? You need to be specific
Implying Hadley altered data to serve an agenda.
You mean the guys at CRU at the University of East Anglia?
Phil Jones and his Climategate mates? The ‘hide the decline Team’?
The guys who won’t let anyone look at their data even when legally obliged to do so by the Freedom of Information Act?
The guys who wrote this
‘The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. ‘
The University who uniquely had to sign an undertaking with the UK’s Information Commissioner to pay more attention to the FoI Law and to be good boys in future?
The guys whose data handling is so shambolic that you can read all about them in Harry_Read_Me? And weep (with laughter) if you’ve ever spent a fortnight in a professional IT shop?
So if its that ‘Hadley; you mean, then I am sure that any such charge is impossible to contemplate, After all, they have their long-established reputation to think about. :-)
So you actually have evidence that they altered data to serva an agenda?
No, but he’s pretty impressive fountain of misinformation.
Which misinformation might that be? All of the remarks above are verifiably true.
wow, and I am impressed with all the evidence you have presented here to support your claims.
Which misinformation might that be? All of the remarks above are verifiably true.
Nothing you said substantiates the claim that CRU improperly altered data to serve an agenda.
OK, I just saw your comment below on that subjeect
Sorry Andrew..it got out of sequence and I don’t know how to put it right.
No blogging tool is perfect, but this is a lot better than Disqustimg at the Torygraph and elsewhere.
Ciao LA
As has been reported to death – in the “hide the decline” email, Jones explained that the word “trick”, means “a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem”.
The inquiry made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis):
The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.
When there are lots of important issues to discuss, don’t let something debunked become the basis of a smear.
The point is simple, supply evidence or keep looking for it and make your point once you have it. Anything else is a smear, and we don’t go in for that tactic here.
Now, lets get back to the issue in hand – is the IPCC contributing to starvation? I think the CDM, supported by the IPCC will actually reduce the threat of starvation. Add to that , there is evidence that IF there is climate change, THEN flooding in some areas and water supply shortages in others will lead to starvation. How do we develop policy instruments to tackle potential problems that Norm Kalmanovitch mentions, while addressing other risks?
Nonsense. Mathematicians do not trick people and do not hide things. Nor do any other genuine scientists. A mathematical trick is when you use a clever method to get the answer quickly, but you could have got the same answer by a longer method – completely different from what Jones did.
How many people here do you imagine don’t know the real meaning of “hide the decline”?
I wish people would stop using that as a straw man
Since all agree that hiding the decline was blatant deceit, criticism of Jones is hardly “debunked” , least of all by his smokescreen on mathematical tricks.
..except the people who actually properly investigated. There is no smoke screen and no “tricks” – come on, actually read the findings of the various investigations before trotting out disinformation: the “decline” is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature, while “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are two separate techniques, finally, the “decline” has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995 – keep up. Failure to do so is blatant deceit, in my view.
That something has ‘been openly and publicly discussed since 1995’ does not give it legitimacy. The assassination of President Lincoln has been openly and publicly discussed since 1865. That doesn’t make it legitimate.
Please stop coming up with this line of BS. it means nothing. if there really are legitimate reasons for the decline and the recent divergence between the supposed proxies and the observed temperature, then lay them out simply here. If not, please do not insult our intelligence.
paul haynes –
There is no smoke screen and no “tricks” – come on, actually read the findings of the various investigations before trotting out disinformation:
I think Muller had something to say about “hide the decline”. You should watch that video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Androidoful?blend=11&ob=5#p/u/0/8BQpciw8suk
As for investigations, there have been no investigations. There have only been hearings that did not bother to ask questions or take evidence. IOW – whitewash sessions with BIG brushes but very thin whitewash.
As Latimer said, please stop insulting our collective intelligence.
The argument that it has been “openly” discussed doesnt really wash.
Mann, Jones, Briffa, all had a choice:
1. Show the decline and EXPLAIN in the text why it does not matter.
briffa 2000
2. Hide the decline and EXPLAIN that you’ve hidden it and why
briffa A4r 2007
3. Hide the decline and trust that people who are new to the discussion
( policy makers) will have enough curiousity to go check the primary
literature. HA!
Jones WMO brouchure
Clearly #1 is the BEST PRACTICE. In his letter to Briffa Dr. Rind, for example, entreated him to discuss the uncertainties OPENLY and not to hide them in footnotes and references. That’s best practice. Rind knows best practice. Jones, mann,
briffa.. not so much
Neither Jones Mann or Briffa followed best practices. They presented graphics that do not stand on their own. To understand those graphics you MUST BE immersed in the whole history of publications going back to briffa 2000 at least. In the primary literature the decline is shown explicitly and discussed. But over time that discussion and it’s implicates has been elided, or covered in the fine print, or assumed as general knowledge. IF, as people claim, the decline was discussed at length in the literature, and IF as people claim that ANYBODY looking at the chart would understand on SIGHT that data had been deleted, then their is NO PURPOSE in hiding the decline
That is, the argument is that the decline can be hidden because everybody understands that it has been hidden. That is the BEST REASON to SHOW the decline. If the decline has been discussed openly, if its well referenced in the literature, then what is the harm in showing it?
The harm is this. It raises uncertainty for those who have never had expsure to it.
Policy makers. And Briffa Jones and Mann do not want to create uncertainty in policy makers minds. By hiding the uncertainty, however, the create more doubt than they tried to hide
If data was indeed changed so that it fitted CAGW, how naive do you have to be to believe this was not done to serve an agenda ?
If data were changed, you look at the explanation for the change. If you are a crackpot, you then disregard the explanation if it conflicts with your fantasy.
If you are a crackpot believer, you believe that climate scientists are transmitting their science in immaculate form, a divine inspiration inerrant by drefinition, and then you go to skeptical websites and pretend it is the skeptic’s fault for not believing as strongly as you wish.
Translation : If data were changed, you look for vested interest in the change. If you share or support the vested interest, you pretend it doesn’t exist so as to preserve your fantasy.
Punksta,
I run into people like M. carey occasionally in business. At first they sound intelligent and one imagines they can potentially do business with such people. However, such people tend to quickly reveal themselves for what they are – fools spinning stories trying to tell you their spun dust is gold. They are always evasive, even when cornered and they never take responsibility for what they say or do. Dealing with such people is a complete and utter waste of time. Save your energy for more worthy, more intelligent opponents.
Correct
Without an active COI policy in place for AR5, the credibility of the resultant assessment reports will be substantially compromised.
Indeed. The WMO’s policy noted above regarding avoiding not only conflicts of interest but also the appearance of a conflict is right on point. The perception of a conflict can be just as damaging as the existance of one. The foot-dragging and weaseling certainly doesn’t help.
When you claim to represent the best available knowledge in the scientific field and to have the highest standard , as the IPCC does , Its simply not acceptably that you fail to meet even standard and quality demanded of an undergraduate handing in a assignment.
The problem really is what is the purpose of the IPCC is it political advocacy or is it to show the state of the science, they simply have to decide which it is has you cannot do both at once without falling into the traps the IPCC does.
KNR – you are spot on. In my view there is no need for the IPCC to summarize the science. Each country could provide its own national assessments and any discrepancies could be resolved through normal scientifc debate. This would be a whole lot healthier and would prevent any risk of a small team dominating the findings. Elsewhere, Robert said there were advantages to having supranational bodies doing the work but he has still not said what those benefits are. I await with interest his views.
I would shorten your sentence: In my view there is no need for the IPCC.
It has proven itself to be hopelessly corrupt, disingenuous (to put it mildly) and unreliable. Nothing more than a slush fund for climatutes and a propagandist for the climate crisis research-financial-industrial complex.
If they do not take this request seriously, the US should formerly declare them to be the useless fraud factory which they are.
Enough is enough.
National scientific societies do provide assessments of their own, as the National Academy of Sciences did in 2010.
The IPCC process does not, of course, replace “normal scientific debate,” which continues throughout the peer-reviewed literature. The scientific literature, of course, does not have a process for sorting out the scientific findings that are important to policymakers and voters, nor for synthesizing the work of many disciplines, nor for a collective effort to try and agree on a level of confidence in particular findings. All of these things are critically necessary functions of the IPCC.
Large national science communities can aggregate information in this way, but there are obvious problems. Who’s going to do the work? If you want to use qualified people to evaluate science, people trained in that particular area, hopefully at or near the top of their field, then of course, most countries are not going to be able to field a full array of the necessary specialists. Where will they get them? Abroad? Then you’re going to need hundreds of itinerant climate scientists, going from country to country repeating the same process over and over, working with dozens or hundreds of different sets of political leadership and supervision by that country’s scientists.
As long as we have one planet and one set of physical laws, and one very limited supply of qualified scientists, pooling resources to do a single assessment and sharing the data is provides obvious benefits. In an ideal world I would love to have five or six independent groups producing IPCC-comprehensive reports, but even if there were, they would still be using the same data sets. And to attempt such a thing, we would need thousands of additional climate scientists and a lot of money to support them in multiple redundant organizations, none of which would be any less subject to the tyranny — if that’s really what it is — of the existing scientific consensus.
If you have a “national assessment”, all that means is a collection of civil servants coming out with whatever the government of the day wants. You are replacing one corrupt organisation with a few dozen corrupt organisations.
When science is driven by political, idealogical or financial interests, corruption is difficult to avoid.
Conflicts of interest programs have stated goals and objectives yet the real world behaves in family and tribal units. COI are inherently at odds with the imbedded cultural practices of nepotism, cronyism, cliques, casts, etc. When confronted with one’s own COI,what one states as applicable to others, does not apply to one’s self. Academia is no more free of this than any other tribe be it departmental, IPCC, cliques of Climate Scientists reviewing one another’s manuscripts, etc. The only hammer that can be wheeled to change these behaviors is attached to the purse strings. For IPCC at least, that hammer has be be wheeled now, before AR5. The only people who have such a hammer are in the US Congress and that is where to direct a collective ire and a call to reform the funding for IPCC.
By the time AR5 is complete, do you think anyone will bother to read it? The IPCC are doing such a great job of destroying their own credibility that it will be just filed away ot gather dust.
And they won’t need a CoI policy for AR6 since the organisation won’t be able to stagger along that far. It will have collapsed in ridicule and recrimination long before.
Latimer
Should the report be henceforth known as AR5E or perhaps for the US readers A55!
I’m sure that there are a couple of good jokes in there, but sadly they have passed me by ;-(.
Cultural perhaps,
Don’t you mean “pa55ed” you by?
:-)
One of the last real conversations I heard on the issue here in Canada, in regards to politics, (as the IPCC is a political body) elected officials are expected to be responsible for avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Not speaking to whether or not that’s been respected in theory or in practice since that last discussion. Seems that in politics political capital is a currency that often is traded or consumed in return for indiscretions. The loss of political capital on part of the IPCC, and speciically on Pachauri would seem to be relevant. Whether the AR5 will be seen another golden egg or the most obvious fruits of a lame duck remains to be seen. The answer could vary over coming periods of future understanding.
It will be interesting to see Pachauri’s future departure carries all the political mud away with him, or if in the eyes of taxpayers in supporting nations that the mud sticks and stays stuck on the whole IPCC process itself.
Dr. Curry
COI is indeed a problem, but truthfully it cannot be addressed without acknowledging compensation for Authors or lack thereof. Please correct me if I am wrong but lead authors, contributing authors and reviewer are all volunteers. So other than some free meals and the prestige of being part of the IPCC you don’t get much for your time. Essentially we are getting what we are paying for.
Excellent.
So when the whole IPCC farrago is soon abolished with extreme prejudice, the authors can;t sue for loss of earnings. I’d hate to think we’d have to pay them off.
Its much worse than that. They have to cater to the industry that does pay them — like Greenpeace.
Jeff, it’s much worse than this. Being on the IPCC summary committee is like being elected a consul of Ancient Rome. There are plenty of profit moments and dreams to be sure but the real deal is about power within a peer group of like minded. If your stated mission is nothing less than “saving the planet” almost anything can be rationalized in such an effort.
“Being on the IPCC summary committee is like being elected a consul of Ancient Rome. “
I don’t know if there’s such a thing as an “analogy fan club” but if there is they’ll be all over this one.
I’ll take that for a compliment. It’s not that bad an analogy and the Roman suffered greatly as Consuls would often spend fortunes and untold risks to rise to political power. Some expected selfish payback while others were patriotic but would later prove incompetent. I’m sure many delusions of the common good were rationalized. It isn’t the petty extortions, rent-seeking or even green idealism that I fear most about the IPCC and the broad agw agenda. It’s the far deeper force of state expansion and misuse of science in the most Orwellian sense of the process that has gone on. Science theory is now about about “may and “might” and leading of course to a policy of “we must”. While the Eugenics movement would find dreadful consequences through Nazi Germany you can’t look back and say they invented the topic. We can say with a high degree of certainty that AGW Alarmism is very motivated by political agenda and the IPCC would naturally be aligned with the likes of Greenpeace. The world and many participants here seem to ignore the subject as most likely they wish to avoid another circular debate on top of the many others associated with climate discussions. There is also the pretense that climate science isn’t at its core political, that it’s “science” which is quite frankly preposterous in the total discussion of anything IPCC related. So in my mind the AGW movement is even worse than Eugenics craze in that it already has global state sponsorship and is clearly aligned with one dangerous political culture.
Remember, Sulla and Hitler were both elected. They had a moral rationalization for their time as well. The IPCC is a bloated tool but it puts a dagger in hand of government.
Indulging in my love of history and Conspiracy Theories who then would be the Praetorian Guard?
Mann, Hansen, Jones under would-be Emperor Gore.
Science theory is now about about “may” and “might” ? ?
Good Grief, science theory has ALWAYS been about “may” an “might.” A scientific theory is an explanation, and explanations can change.
If you want absolute certainty, look into religion. Some religions will offer that to you.
Is co2 and warming like “gravity” and only backwater people would question AGW relating to co2??
Try some context.
Well, if you don’t think C02 is a greenhouse gas, I can have a good laugh.
And if you don’t think the greenhouse gas helps warm the earth, I can have another good laugh.
How many more strawmen do you have in your storeroom?
I’m not sure to whom your sneering derision is aimed, but proper skeptics all agree that CO2 is a GHG and GHGs warm the earth.
What skeptics are skeptical of are the claims of feedback mechanisms conjured from the aether used to explain that which is pure conjecture and then treated as gospel Trvth by the likes of you.
Maybe if you were to address that which skeptics are actually skeptical of you would enjoy useful conversation rather than pointlessly underscoring your ignorance.
And what does your erudite laughter reveal concerning by how much greenhouse/Tyndall gasses warm the earth ?
Do you get to take your General Science GCSE this summer? Or will it be next year?
Really? Or just maybe?
Unfortunately the cost/ impact relationship is disproportionately on the side of impact. The US EPA has set the IPCC as the guide to CO2 regulations. It doesn’t matter if the volunteers make a million or have to pay a million to be lead authors, their voice, as heard by Lisa Sullivan and certainly others, is the issue. Focusing specifically on IPCC funding by USA, that is the only way to implement in this short time COI internal regulations and enforcement. “I am a member of Green Peace, I am a lead author, I review my own work, and I write the final report.” Now that is clear isn’t it?
It’s clear you member of Green Peace who writes and reviews his own reports, including final reports, but the reason for the quotation marks is not clear.
What’s Green Peace ?
Trite remark. Pointless
Whether or not they they get paid
– how are lead authors etc selected ?
– is there any reason to believe compensation will lead the IPCC powers-that-be to select any differently ?
Quick real world example. A Free food bank in my area began to allow volunteers from the ranks of the people they were serving. Okay no problem until the organizers turned a blind eye to the needy/volunteers taking first crack at the donated supplies. The rational was the needy /volunteers were working so unable to stand in line. Soon the number of needy/volunteers swelled, people were showing up early just to volunteer, volunteers would take carts of food to their cars and say they were getting food for people who were unable to come to the food banks. Strangely the organizers were dismayed that they never seem to have enough food to give to the people waiting in line.
If you want authors who are conflict-free, or even conflict-light, then the ability to pay for what you want is going to make it more likely you’ll get it.
Carryja gave an example, the NRC. Do they pay their people who have to meet stringent CoI guidelines, or are these squeaky-clean fools working for free?
People on NRC committees work for free
I have no idea. From your description, it sounds like they determine grants. Are the workloads comparable?
Can’t find if anyone is or has been getting paid but the rules say they can.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, if the Commission determines that compensation of a member of an NRC advisory committee is appropriate, the amount that will be paid shall be fixed by the Chairman of the Commission at a rate that is the daily equivalent of a rate in NRC’s General Grade Salary Schedule, unless the member is appointed as a consultant and compensated at a rate applicable to NRC consultants.
Each NRC advisory committee staff member may be paid at a rate that is the daily equivalent of a rate in NRC’s General Grade Salary Schedule in which the staff member’s position would appropriately be placed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part007/part007-0018.html
My thesis advisor recently chaired an NRC committee. His work was unpaid. My father has chaired several NRC committees over the years. His work each time was also unpaid. Actual expenses were covered by the NRC in each case.
It’s important to note that “advisory committee staff member”s are NOT the same as the committee members. The staff members provide support services, editing, background research, etc. for the scientists who are the members of the committee. Certainly the staff gets paid. But I’ve *never* heard of NRC committee members being paid — tradition seems to be that they are supported by their home institutions. During the 15+ years my dad spent as an independent consultant, he chaired 2 NRC committees. His “home institution” (that is, his one-man consulting firm) supported his participation (that is, he worked for free and turned down consulting gigs to do so).
Xenophon,
It looks like we should have paid more back when…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/ap-impact-three-quarters-of-us-nuke-sites-have-had-tritium-leaks-often-into-groundwater/2011/06/20/AGHBKDdH_story.html
…because it is sure to cost us more, now & then.
Wrong NRC! I believe the discussion here is about the National Research Council, not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Too much alphabet soup in Washington D. C.
For those who don’t know, the National Research Council consists of the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Institutes of Health (or perhaps the heads of those organizations). They form expert committees to study various scientific issues at the request of various Government entities (e.g. Congress, various agencies, the White House, etc.) Such committees are often chaired by one or more members of the various academies, but committee members are drawn from all over the relevant scientific disciplines without regard to whether they are members of the Academies. In fact, it is fairly common for such committees to consist entirely of scientists who are NOT members of the various Academies.
Service on these committees is an honor that is rarely turned down, even though it tends to be a cr*p-load of work with no pay. My Ph.D. advisor described the process of writing the report for the committee he recently chaired as “like writing another dissertation, only more difficult and more time-consuming.”
The question is : does the IPCC want authors who are conflict-free ?
Or do they want political correctness?
Since they’re beggars, I would say they may just want warm bodies. I suppose young scientists get worth out of it in terms of their resumes.
I like reading scientific papers I find on Scholar, but for some reason I find the IPCC stuff less interesting. It’s dated.
All I know, the sky does not care about this nonsense. It will declare the winner.
Punksta
First not an expert on IPCC .
I believe authors are nominated by countries, from there the lead authors are selected by the IPCC leaders.
Compensation is not a guarantee of quality but is often a good indicator. I could be wrong but I think Richard Tol brought up the lack of compensation as one reason some leading experts are hesitant to get involved with the IPCC. Doing a bunch of office work, dealing with big egos and “political considerations” is a pain in the neck especially when you are not getting paid for it.
Jeff: I never said that.
Some IPCC authors get paid (in kind or in cash), some don’t. Unsurprisingly, IPCC authors that toe a party line are more likely to be paid than those that don’t.
“Unsurprisingly, IPCC authors that toe a party line are more likely to be paid than those that don’t.”
Evidence? Quantification? You seem to be asserting a cause/effect relationship. I would say that such a statement requires at least an attempt at verification.
Over time, people’s behaviour is modified by what they get paid to do.
When I was a kid, NHS dentists got paid by the filling. Result – lots of fillings in the teeth of my generation. (‘Drill, em, fill em, and bill em’) Now, dentists get paid to promote ‘oral health’, not fillings per se. Result – a lot fewer fillings.
And the opposite is also true. People do not shell out good money (even when its somebody else’s) to employ somebody to do things that they don’t like.
He who pays the piper calls the tune
OK – my bad. I missed the evidence – the fact that you are convinced there is a cause/effect relationship, based on the # of fillings you got as a kid, should be enough for me.
How could I have been so foolish to think that Richard should provide any other evidence for the corruption he alleges?
The dentist story was an example that would be relevant to a wide audience. And it illustrated my point quite well. It is not unique..the behaviour is pretty universal.
People generally do what you pay them for. That’s all.
Joshua: No hard evidence, or even statistics.
I have been involved with AR2-5 and a Special Report. Some IPCC authors have their salaries covered and an assistant on top; other IPCC authors sacrifice their evenings and weekends.
The former tend to work for national labs, for NGOs, for companies. The latter tend to be academics. There are a few academics who get paid but they tend to have close ties to policy makers.
Now I’m confused. I often read that it is the academics who are in the front ranks of those toeing the line – specifically because it is in their financial interests to do so. I often read that is the non-academics who should be trusted – because they are less likely to have a vested financial interest in “the line” (and, of course, because they’re less likely to be pinko eco-Nazis).
Here you say that it is the non-academics who are getting paid for their contributions and thus (I’m still asking for clarification as to whether your point is one of cause and effect) are more likely to be toeing the line?
And how are you connecting the question of ties between academics and policy-makers?
What’s cause and effect? Independent minds get into jobs where they can be free.
There are, of course, tenured academics who run large research groups on soft money and would not want to offend their financiers.
Possible context-specific explanations of cause-and-effect?:
What other dynamics would explain the correlation you identified?
And, again, can you speak to the apparent contradiction between what you are saying above and what I read here at Climate etc., over and over? You are saying that it is the non-academic contributors to the IPCC that tend to have the most direct financial interests as well as the greater propensity to “toe-the-line”?
I’ve asked a couple of times now and it seems I’m not getting answer? Maybe I’m just not being clear? Is there another reason?
Joshua: Sure, tenured academics can say and write whatever they can support.
It seems that your responses get increasingly more cryptic with each response.
Anyway – one last question – when you say “supported” do you mean in the sense of supported by evidence or support in the sense of getting research grants? ‘Cause what I read around here is that “the academics” (as Judith like to refer to them) don’t need to support their work with evidence.
Joshua: Sorry for being cryptic. I don’t think I need to confirm what I wrote. If you misinterpret me, I’ll repeat myself. If you correctly interpret what I meant to say, I’ll say nothing or be cryptic.
Freedom entitles one to say whatever, but academic freedom restricts one to saying whatever one has good cause to believe is true.
Paying people can reasonably be expected to get line-toeing, so if the IPCC starts paying, expect more ‘consensus’.
My mistake, I do apologize I thought it was mentioned over a Dr Pielke Jr. place when potential authors and the selection process was being discussed. Again my apologies.
The question then is, does the IPCC have the best and the brightest and if not why?
The IPCC is a political organisation. it is the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change. It is there to further political agendas (eg special interest and lobbyist group greenpeace)
The ‘best and the brightest’ is not a consideration in such an institution.
I think anyone interested in reading about the selection process of the IPCC should take a drive through Mr. Tol’s blog. Specifically this post.
Mr. Tol you must be one hell of an Economist or have naked pictures of the PM of Ireland and or of Pachauri for them to put up with you.:)
One more time
Jeff: It’s the former. See http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html
I’m not into naked pictures of older men.
No offense it was an attempt at humour with regard to your outspokeness. I hope I don’t get used to the taste of my foot in my mouth. :)
More humor.
“It is hard to imagine how the whole issue of COI for the IPCC was ignored until 2010”
Skeptics have been on this topic since the IPCC was created and long before that regarding any links to the globalist, statist, socialistic U.N. on almost any topic.
It’s hard to imagine honest supporters of the U.N. and the IPCC could not be aware of this. I appreciate you uttering the obvious since ignoring opposition or considering them inferior is a deep cultural pattern in the fringe left policy making segment but really…..what kind of statement of facts are you passing off???
JC, you weren’t born yesterday nor are those dedicated to opposing the IPCC and the co2 cargo cult being sold 24/7 for a political agenda. You’re twisting in the wind if you think the IPCC can be “reformed”. It’s another product of thought from the 70’s (or 20’s for that matter and throughout) that the Soviets could “moderate”. The IPCC and the Soviets merit elimination and their terrible activities and history exposed. As I’ve said before, this is only a pawn in a larger political game but it is substantial in its own right. All the books, records and communications, models, data should be made reviewable if publicaly sourced and funded or accepted by “peer review”. Those who committed fraud should be punished but they will likely hide behind vague abstractions as if they are wine tasters or movie critics as they have judged their own work and that of their accepted “peers”.
How can a left-wing, statist, anti-industry government orchestrated machine ever eliminate or even control its natural political inclinations to fault private individuals and industry with a self-delusional mandate of the “common good”? All of your points on reform are progress but does anyone who hasn’t missed at least modern history believe the current structure of warming bias and agenda setting of the IPCC and all the conflicted key leaders are just an accident??? Every successive ar cycle has been more politcally purging and less tolerant of
of dissent. Ever more coordinated with political agenda setting such as Kyoto.
Best to abolish the IPCC as a starting point, allow a decentralized research process with competing teams and views until there really is a “science consensus” not just among the small research community but the larger science community as well. Clearly the top-down approach didn’t deliver the eco-left knock-out blow and is very resentful of the obvious blow-back. Since the stakes are so important a new era of mandated disclosure is essential to any forward process. Of course I think co2 warming is corrupt and unsellable. My hope is that you cross the river and denounce co2 regulations as the science clearly can’t support the linkage to total climate. You put up many logical topics, IPCC abuse etc. and posts then equivocate as if there is middle ground. Really, in the end there isn’t. The corrupt eco-co2, U.N. regulate agenda must be exposed and eliminated.
Before seeing this CE thread, I sent the following letter to The Australian newspaper:
The Opposition and the electorate should not be concerned about alternative means of reducing CO2 emissions (Editorial, 21/6). They should be concerned at the increasing evidence that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is a construct of green and left-wing ideologues and politicians who favour increased government control over and direction of people and economies, and which is increasingly bereft of scientific integrity.
It is clear that actions to reduce emissions will have high costs and negligible impact, even if the CAGW hypothesis were correct. All such actions should be scrapped while the alleged scientific basis of human-induced warming is scrupulously examined outside of the IPCC process, which is politically-driven to provide a pre-determined outcome.
Here’s my cynical prediction:
Comprehensive COI policies will not be adopted until the offenders have worked out how they will achieve the appearance of impartiality while at the same time maintaining the status quo.
This means that the corruption will be less obvious and therefore worse.
Hope I’m wrong. But it reeks of cult (see Pierrehumbert’s slap down of Lynas) and I have heard cult is a most difficult stench to wash out.
Ms Curry,
Right now, anything out of the IPCC can be questioned not
only of the veracity of the authors, but also on the open or
hidden financial interests and political agendas of the grey
organizations, the authors and their reviewers.
For the next couple of years this is not a bad thing.
Implementing a conflict of interest regimen will not do a thing for the IPCC’s credibility. Those who support the IPCC need no such new rules. Those who do not will not be reassured by the mere adoption of COI rules. Particularly if they are of the type that WG1 has adopted – self reporting, and self policing. The self reporting part is fine, but self policing COI rules are a farce, in any profession.
Lawyers in every state in the U.S. are subject to elaborate rules of ethics, including explicit rules governing COI. Everybody who thinks that the legal profession is COI free, raise your hand….
If the IPCC adopted serious, stringent COI rules, and it then established a track record of actually policing those rules, including excluding those with conflicts from the process, then there might be some benefit to its reputation among those who mistrust it. I anticipate that happening about the same time the Greenland ice sheet and Himalayan glaciers finish melting.
End it, don’t mend it.
The difference with lawyers is that if they have a conflict of interest which is not expressly disclosed and waived by the client. they lose their license to practice law.
Will J. Richardson,
If a lawyer has a conflict of interest with a client, and it is not disclosed and waived, an attorney CAN lose his license to practice law, but disbarment for conflict of interest is rare. Reprimands are much more common, and those aren’t very common at all.
My point was not that there are no COI consequences for lawyers. My point was that even where there are strict codes of conduct, with external enforcement/policing, and potential draconian penalties, conflicts of interest are a difficult area to guard against. The lax rules proposed for the IPCC WG1 are a joke.
Mr. Jeff Norris, In the world I see, the fellow traveler of a ‘progressive panelist or some such’; is to be given comfort, energy, prayers, speaking engagements, book deals, a seat on the board of some NGO or Corporation, travel to exotic locations etc. etc. etc… If you have the preferred outlook, a place will be found for you. Look at Futerra.uk or any of the myriad other NGO’s. The world is overflowing with scientists, experts, NGO’s, PR, Think Tanks & we all know it. Everything the ERA was not supposed to be… we now have. Can you see the past 100 year progressive trend line? How are we doing as a nation? Science tells us that 67% of people lie more than half the time. Harvard Med. says what about coffee this year?… ‘Free Schools’ coming to you soon in the UK, what could go wrong?… Everybody is telling us everything… except their ‘secret’ stuff… Like I have asked before: “How much will this cost us all; in the end?”
Tom
You forgot to add freedom to pursue sexual urges whenever they occur because of all their noble intentions.
AGW loss in MT, see a pattern here:
http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/voices
they even want the kiddez to sign a petition to save the atmosphere.
I have problems with the definition of COI above. It suggests that only money creates a conflict of interest. If I review my own work, I have a conflict of interest: my own interest in seeing my work advanced, and the interest of the organization I’m doing the review for, that hired me for an objective analysis. Second, a professional advocate/lobbyist put into a decision-making position has the same conflict as a person who takes money from a corporation. Both have a professional axe to grind, with the ideologically-inspired person at least, if not more conflicted where they are required to give objective, balanced opinions. Calling that kind of conflict bias doesn’t make it go away. A person who works for Greenpeace – or Exxon – is going to be conflicted, whether or not they are actually biased in their work. Obviously, if a Greenpeace employee did not put the interest of the IPCC over the interest of Greenpeace, they would find themselves out of a job rather quickly.
Ditto a person who works for government. They will invariably tend to put the interests of government above those of society.
IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, FAQ 3.1
http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
Comparing the trend for the recent warming period with the trend for a combination of this warming and previous cooling periods and then declaring global warming is accelerating is a scientific fraud.
Here is what genuine science says whether global warming is accelerating or not:
http://bit.ly/lVkSkw
Please let us save science from being hijacked.
Girma,
Let me fix that for you.
Rattus,
Allow me to complete that for you
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend
:-)
Jim,
I came across a definition of a gentleman that fits you perfectly.
A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion but doesn’t.
:)
Jim, allow me to perfect yours.
Short term trends. I prefer 30 year trends which are far less likely to show variation due to year to year unforced variation (noise).
I was just correcting Girma’s flagrantly dishonest graph. It is a favorite topic of Girma’s.
I suggest you look at the mirror before calling anybody dishonest as you have been the epitome of that in defending bad climate science, scientists and practices. In fact in climate science terms one might as well as put your name in the lexicon when it comes to denoting dishonesty.
Girma used, in order:
1) a questionable transformation on the temperature data (compress 12) instead of (mean 12) to get annual data
2) series 3 applied a few questionable transforms, detrend, scale, and offset. Why?
3) finally Girma cut data off at 2000 instead of showing the last 10 years of data.
All in an effort to show that the warming in the early 20th century was more rapid that the recent warming. I just ran a more straightforward analysis which involved the monthly data and an OLS trend for the 1910 to 1940 and the years 1970 to 2010. When done in this more straightforward manner it is clear the the trend in the early 20th is ~.15 (rounded to 2 sig digits) and ~.16 (rounded to 2 sig digits).
BTW, I just checked and the choice of 1910 is close to a local minima in global temperature anomaly. But 1911 or 1913 would have looked too much like a cherry pick. Moving back to 1900, to show 40 years of data for the first trend gives ~.10
That is .16 for the last 40 years.
Rattus Norvegicus
Girma used, in order:
1) a questionable transformation on the temperature data (compress 12) instead of (mean 12) to get annual data
Trend plots are not affected whether you use “compress 12” or “mean 12”
Compress 12: http://bit.ly/9kJczm
Mean 12: http://bit.ly/kHiy1F
Result: For both cases, the global warming rate is 0.15 deg C per decade.
2) series 3 applied a few questionable transforms, detrend, scale, and offset. Why?
That is a method I used to extend the global warming trend line for the period 1910-1940 to 2000. That is the only method I found to draw an extra straight line in woodfortrees.org. The detrend is used to make the line parallel to the global warming trend line for the period 1910-1940. The scale is used to change the global mean temperature curve to a straight line. The offset is used to shift the arbitrary location of the line to match the global warming trend for the period 1910-1940.
3) finally Girma cut data off at 2000 instead of showing the last 10 years of data.
I wanted to compare apples to apples by plotting global warming trends for the same 30-year periods. That is, compare 1910-1940 to 1970-2000.
And your point for 2 is?
1) If the trend had continued we’d be a lot warmer today?
2) See the trend didn’t continue
3) The cause of the two trends is the same?
Your choice of 30 years and the start and end dates for the early 20th century trend seem to be chosen to get the maximum trend w/o making the cherry pick too blatant, after all you could have tried 1912 and 1942 and gotten an even steeper slope.
Rattus Norvegicus
Agreed.
Thank you
Here is an example of drawing any line (BLUE) in woodfortrees.org
http://bit.ly/iXczFv
This isnt about rattus. This is about Girma’s chart. The chart is misleading. You know if Jones or mann tried something like Girma does, that you’d be all over it. One cannot try to hold people to account for hiding the decline and then approve of Girma’s misleading charts. Seriously. There are plenty of good arguments for skeptics to make, drawing bogus charts is bad on both sides
Steven mosher
Stating the graph is bogus does not make it so.
What I did was I extended the global warming trend for the warming period from 1910 to1940 until 2000, and also drew the global warming trend for the period from 1970 to 2000 in the same graph for visual comparison. Both periods have the same 30 years duration. It is a very valid comparison. http://bit.ly/lVkSkw
I am 100% sure that the following graph by the IPCC is a FRAUD: http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
Actually it’s not.
1. you offer no rational for picking start dates and stop dates. Cherry pick #1.
2. you offer no analysis of the errors involved. the early samples pre 1940
are far more sparse than the later samples, both on the land and in the ocean.
failure to disclose #1.
So, the questions I would ask you are the same ones I would ask Jones.
A. Do you believe in the accuracy of the record you plotted. yes or no
B. What motivated your choice of periods.
C. why do you fail to disclose error bars.
We can of course go cherry picking thru the record. Mann, like you, knows how to pick the bristlecone cherries, you’re doing the same kind of thing with temperatures.
When you get your analytical game above the pitiful level demonstrated by the likes of mann, let me know.
Truth be told, the temperature record is too short to tell you anything very meaningful about the most important metric. The ECR.
steven mosher
The global mean temperature data shows the following oscillation.
http://bit.ly/emAwAu
This oscillation gives the following years as global mean temperature decadal turning points.
[1880,1910,1940,1970,2000]
As a result, I can calculate global mean temperature trends between the above SUSSESIVE turning point years.
I have not cherry picked anything. You can read the years from the graph yourself.
Do it right and use change point analysis.
It looks to me that by identify the underlying oscillation Girma has incorporated change point analysis. That is how the oscillation was in effect first discovered, though at the time the methodology was not formalized.
FERD.
If you want to see how this should be done, then you can take a look at Tamino’s post on changes. I’ve linked it here. His is one approach, you can probably find my stuff over on CA if your really interested. I think at some point I passed the programs onto Anthony or pointed willis at them.
The change points determined by Taminos and other change point methods are different than the ones you will get from girma’s nonsense.
The shift you will see is that the first change point comes in around 1920. That confirms early work I did. Then around 1940, then around 1973-75.
And of course you see that the trend from the first regime is different from the trend in the last regime. ( This is waaaay more complicated than any simple eyeball test
or OLS test)
The point is that there IS an INTERESTING ARGUMENT HERE. Girma hasnt made it. What Girma does is accuse the IPCC of fraud ( overcharging the case against them) and then he engages in the same kind of misleading graphical presentation.
THERE IS an interesting analysis to be done on the early warming period of the 20th century. but girma isnt doing it. neither is the IPCC. I find no merit in either of them.
The bottom line is this. IF you are going to be a critic of the IPCC, you had better not fall into the same TYPES of mistakes they make.
Rattus and JCH –
I agree, in general, with longer trends (30 years for example). We all seem to be agreed on 30 year segments for the last 100 years or more, The last 30 year segment ended ~10 years ago – so we’re stuck with a remnant until roughly 2030. You, of course, can claim that we’re still on the last segment, BUT – it was Hansen that picked up a less-than-30-year-trend and ran with it in 1988. So the precedent was set by your side of the dance floor – not mine. So I’ll stick with my story. :-)
Well, I like my short-term graph. Global Cooling, yet again off to a nice toasty death.
Rattus Norvegicus
According to you:
1) The following graph by the IPCC is honest: http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
2) The following graph by me is dishonest: http://bit.ly/lVkSkw
I let others decide.
As far as I am concerned that graph of the IPCC is a FRAUD.
Agreed.
Where were the Rattus when the IPCC published this stupid lying graph?
Imagine,
They actually sat and plotted that graph.
Is this what you meant to show? I’ve gotten rid to the ditzy transform on series 3 and just shown the OLS trend for 1910 to 2010. Looks a bit different eh? The IPCC was just pointing out how the rate of change has changed over time. Maybe not the best way to show it, but considerably less dishonest than yours.
Forgot the link.
I’m not sure we can judge levels of “dishonesty” I’d put them both down to being misleading, or uninformative. The point being that there isn’t much of interest
in bare plots of surface temps other than to show that the observation is consistent with the theory. rates of short temporal sequences ( 100 years is short) might help you understand the transient climate response, but not the ECR.
I do find Girma more annoying that the IPCC on this particular matter, but thats more about my impatience
steven mosher
You wrote (referring to surface temperature observations, “temporal” and “equilibrium climate response”):
steven mosher
[reposted to correct formatting error]
You wrote (referring to surface temperature observations, “temporal” and “equilibrium climate response”):
As an observer, I would say that your annoyance (actually frustration) appears to come less from “impatience” than from the fact that Girma shows actually observed data series, rather than theoretical simulations including hypothetical constructs such as “climate equilibrium”, “warming hidden in the pipeline”, etc. and the fact that the actually observed data shown by Girma do not provide empirical support for the model-based premise that AGW has been a principal cause of past warming and, thus, that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, as IPCC would have us believe.
Based on the observations I have been able to make on this thread, I’d say that this is the real source of your annoyance and frustration with Girma.
But, hey, that’s just my observation..
Max
I wonder what that IPCC graph would have looked like had it been drawn in 1940.
Or 1880, perhaps.
Yes, Girma the IPCC (AR4 WG1 Ch.3 FAQ) graph comparing longer and shorter periods in a cyclical record to try to imply an acceleration in warming rate is a FRAUD.
I have shown a graph based on the same data, which shows that the rate of warming in the first half of the 20th century was almost twice that over the entire century; if I used this graph to imply that there had been a deceleration in warming rate over the 20th century, that would also be a fraud.
The curve you posted simply shows that the early 20th century linear warming trend was equivalent to that of the late 20th century warming cycle(of equal length). This is NOT a fraud.
Max
Please do show it is a cyclical record. It goes up it goes down and it goes up again does not show that it is cyclical. Fourier analysis does not show any clear long term period. See here.
Isn’t that Girma’s point – that dishonest graphs are easy to make?
Girma’s point sees to be that the (cherry picked) early twentieth century trend was nearly as great as the late twentieth century trend.
The problem with the thesis is that the early 20th century trend is well explained as being due to natural forcings (chiefly solar (a positive forcing until about 1950 or so) and volcanic (a positive forcing due to the lack of volcanic activity) . These variations in natural forcing ended. The late 20th century trend is forced by our CO2 emissions, which are not expected to end anytime soon.
And the problem with your claims is that they are nothing more than a thesis, also. The difference is that your claims are narrative driven, not data driven.
Rattus –
Girma’s point sees to be that the (cherry picked) early twentieth century trend was nearly as great as the late twentieth century trend.
What “cherry picked” data? He’s using the same data you use to prove “unprecedented warming”. The only difference is that he apparently understands it.
These variations in natural forcing ended.
You don’t know that – and neither does anyone else. Your explanation and the paper it’s based on, is pure conjecture. There was nowhere near zero volcanic activity during the early 20th C. Yes, I’ve read the rationalization – and, for me at least, it doesn’t hold water.
Well, actually we do know that solar forcing increase ended in the 1950’s (or so) and we do know the history of volcanic forcing. That is why the IPCC (and anyone who actually studies this) is able to show that the trend up until the mid 20th century can be explained by natural forcing. Sorry I’m not going to link to http://www.ipcc.ch and the exact graph in the AR4 SPM, but you should be smart enough to find it. In fact I’m sure you’ve seen it.
Oh, but it is cherry picked. For example if he had chosen 1900 the trend would have been 50% less! Move it forward a couple of years (with a corresponding change in end date) and it is about 20% less. This is a well know cherry pick amongst people who wish to deny the anthropogenic cause of modern warming. Two points:
1) it is less than the modern warming
2) attribution for both is fairly well established
You may not like what scientific analysis says, but it is what it is. Do you have a better analysis (hint, EdGCM is reasonably free, play with it, you can run lots of different forcing scenarios).
The variations in natural forcings did not end! The understanding of these forcings is still very poor, but we can roughly estimate when solar forcing for example is causing warming or cooling (solar cycle length as a proxy for solar forcing).
SC long (SCL >=~12 years) – COOLING
SC short (SCL <=~10.5 years) – WARMING.
Rattus reminds me of that "scientist" on tv (BBC I think), who said there were orbital variations in the past, but they ended! And now we have AGW.
“Those involved in selecting authors will need to strive for an author team composition that reflects a balance of expertise and perspectives, such that IPCC products are comprehensive, objective, and neutral with respect to policy.”
Some hope. The IPCC’s track record on this amounts to another form of selection bias.
There is nothing to suggest that perspectives includes skeptics.
This is really just a case of ‘Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted’ .
For the past two decades the IPCC has been at the forefront of establishing a narrative not supported by scientific facts and in many cases actually creating the facts to support the narrative. Nearly everyone involved in establishing this narrative has benefited and continues to benefit from that narrative and pretty much anyone brought into the process will only benefit by continuing the “consensus” narrative. It is basically a “play to pay” scenario at this point. Play the consensus game or you will have a hard time getting paid.
How, at this point, could the IPCC bring in objective scientist who have not been tainted by this? The objective scientists in the field were either once part of the IPCC and walked away from it realizing that the IPCC was corrupt or they would have nothing to do with this corruption.from the get go. Now after attempting to destroy anyone who would not follow the “party line” they (IPCC) are going to seek them out and ask them to lend credibility to an organization that mocks them?
No the IPCC is either toast or it will be at the vanguard of the new world order, there is no other outcome, I would bet on toast
Just a toss-up question… Does anyone know the status of all the collected world weather data? Is there still an original set of this data or has some portion been lost to history? If someone knows, I would love to know the current situation. Do the original logs still exist? I will hope for the best.
That question really doesnt make very much sense unless you are more specific about which records, which countries, etc. Obviously for some records you still have the hand written notes. Take Thomas Jefferson’s records for example.
Also, There are many boxes of data that have yet to be digitized.
Mr. Steven Mosher, I am sorry if I was unclear for you. The reason the question was open was that it has never really been clearly stated by anyone just what was collected world wide, to help the IPCC in their quest. Where are the original logs from the British Empire? The logs were kept over what time frame & by who? Are these unaltered records still extent? What is the status of these historical weather records? Where are they stored? Are they safe? It seems that all around the world central governments and the UN moved to gather all these records (weather) to come up with some sort of Global Average Temp. Why hasn’t this raw data on about 250 years of recorded ‘weather’ still not been put up on the web. The people of the world paid for the collation of this data, where can we see it? PJ said that when they had the ‘Big Move’ to their new digs at EAU… ‘they had to throw the stuff out’… what did he mean? All of the current squabbling over fractional numbers, are based upon these records. Yet, I have not read anything that clearly manifests just what was collected, who has the original weather records now, how can we access these records (they can’t be secret), are these records still in an unaltered state? If all the current historical global weather data is now suspect, you can see that if these records are corrupt you got nothin. Valid questions, I think. If you have the answers help us out.
Why do scientists hate historians…
It will be interesting to see how COI rules will pan out. Western and particularly US mentality is a bit different that most of the world. Bribery, favoritism, and novel interpretation of rights are just business as usual in many countries. Warm and Fuzzy idealism is quite profitable all around the world. Many not so warm and fuzzy governments will support anything that will line the pockets of the ruling class.
Working for the IPCC and consulting for Tata isn’t perceived as a conflict, it is business. Why would Greenpeace working for the IPCC be perceived as anything other than business?
The only thing shocking about alleged corruption in the IPCC is that so many westerners are surprised.
Cant resist quote myself, in the run up to AR4…..
##############
On June 28th Overpeck raises a concern with The Team. The question has been raised about the propriety of having authors, such as Briffa, review their own work. Can they remain objective? He advises them
“Also, please note that in the US, the US Congress is questioning whether it is ethical for
IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to champion their own work/opinions. Obviously, this
is wrong and scary, but if our goal is to get policy makers (liberal and conservative alike)
to take our chapter seriously, it will only hurt our effort if we cite too many of our own
papers (perception is often reality). PLEASE do not cite anything that is not absolutely
needed, and please do not cite your papers unless they are absolutely needed. Common
sense, but it isn’t happening. Please be more critical with your citations so we save
needed space, and also so we don’t get perceived as self serving or worse. “
[From the policy excerpts in Dr. Curry’s post:]
OK, fine … so there’s no “list of criteria” (exhaustive or otherwise). But since this policy is “principles-based”, one would expect a clear articulation of such “principles”. However, it seems that – like much that is generated by the IPCC – their over-riding “principle” is: if you really want to know, go find ’em, yourself.
As I have noted elsewhere, I find it quite telling that the “Purpose” section of this CoI policy includes the following paragraph:
Simply??! It almost sounds as though they consider conflict of interest to be nothing more than a “nuisance” consideration – which somewhat undermines the sincerity of their earlier paragraph:
But commitment to the development and implementation of a “rigorous” CoI policy notwithstanding, such ambivalence is not surprising considering that “conflict of interest” was not even mentioned in the specific terms of reference provided to the IAC – unlike “non-peer reviewed literature” which was included in the ToR, and which resulted in the IPCC deciding to thumb their nose at the IAC and “disappearing” their existing “rule”, which, admittedly, they weren’t observing anyway. But I digress …
The devil will no doubt be in the “details” of the yet-to-be-written “Annex A – Implementation” and “Annex B – Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form”. Will we see any change to the sketchy, inconsistent and remarkably uninformative details that are provided about each chapter’s authors, contributors, review editors and expert reviewers? I’m not holding my breath.
As for the pervasive associated problem of Lead Authors assessing their own work (and that of their pals), it appears that the IPCC CoI policy is one step ahead of any criticism in this regard (having taken a leaf out of the Muir Russell report which articulated the “team-work side-step” as a way of removing any element of responsibility or accountability that should have accrued to Jones and Briffa for their respective actions):
Given the response of IPCC officials (and boosters) to the Teske/Greenpeace SRREN matter, it would appear that they are already giving the “team-work side-step” a trial run.
In case you were wondering just how pervasive this problem might be …
Is the IPCC conflicted? Let us count the ways
Nice work
Thank you :-)
A cynical attorney is one who believes that a conflict of interest exists when something stands in the way of his or her desire for a particular outcome.
The IPCC is more and more like a large very cynical law firm.
Judith Curry wrote:
“IMO qualified people from Greenpeace and Exxon-Mobil should be able to participate in the IPCC as reviewers or possibly as contributing authors, but they should not be participating as Lead Authors.”
______
Yes, I agree. I don’t know about all working group authors, but a spot check of AR5 shows those from the U.S. are scientists from academia and government. There must be some scientists from private firms who can contribute.
This applies even more to people government-funded institutions.
I don’t know what that means. But it sounds like the kind of anti-government nonsense I sometimes hear from a libertarian relative.
It merely a statement of the blindingly obvious fact that government – that funds virtually all climate science – has a monumental vested interest in ensuring pro-CAGW biasrf ‘consensus’ in climate science. It’s the sort of thing those with extreme totalitarian yearnings work hard at denying.
I like the linked graph of gistem global temperature from1880 to 2010. The colors are pretty and even a child can see how temperature rises a lot faster after 1975.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1975/every/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:2010/every/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1975/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:2010/every/trend
This grown adult sees that the rate of temperature change is about the same between 1920 and 1940 as it is from 1975 onwards.
Please replot the graph showing the linear trends from 1880 to 1920, 1920 to 1940, 1940 to 1975 and 1975 onwards. You will see that the gradient (rate of change of temperature) is near identical
What conclusions do you draw?
A grown adult who compares a 20-year period with a 35- year period doesn’t know how to count.
You can read the instructions at woodfortrees.org and plot graphs yourself.
The conclusion I draw is you need to develop better skills.
But Phil Jones said last week that a 12 year trend was ‘significant’.
And he must be ever so clever because he’s a Climatologist?
How nice to take me back to 1975…the year I began my career in IT that I only left in 2010. Isn’t it amazing that even with my advanced years I am still able to plot a few graphs..without artificial aids or assistance!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1920/every/plot/gistemp/from:1920/to:1943/every/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1920/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1921/to:1943/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1943/to:1975/every/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1943/to:1975/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:2010/every/trend
You will see that it ain’t a hockey stick, but a set of steps. A flat bit up until 1920. Then a rising step up to 1943, a flat bit till 1975 and a rising bit after that. Note that the rising bit between 1920 and 1943 (23 years) is about the same gradient (rate of rise) as the bit after 1975.
Which is all very interesting.
Because if we want to explain this graph we have to explain its step like nature. And if we posit cause A for both the warming periods, we still have to explain why it seemed to stop for the flat period 43-75.
Or we can have cause A for the first and cause B for the second. But that’s even harder because not only do you have to explain why cause A stopped, you alos have to say why cause B started.
Or you can just say ‘this problem falls into the category ‘too difficult’. In which case we’ll say it’s all ‘natural variation’ and have done with it.
So m.carey, which explanation do you favour? Since it is a plot understandable by a child, I hope your explanation will be as simple,
Here keeping everything in nice 30 year segments with 2001 the start of another 30 years. It still shows that the 40s to the 70s is the same slope as the 70s to 2000.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1881/to:1910/every/plot/gistemp/from:1911/to:1940/every/plot/gistemp/from:1941/to:1970/every/plot/gistemp/from:1971/to:2000/every/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010/every/plot/gistemp/from:1881/to:1910/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1911/to:1941/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1941/to:1970/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1971/to:2000/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010/every/trend
Nice, Thanks.
Confusing a 30 or 35 year trend with climate is also an indication of innumeracy.
Latimer,
If you graph the global temperature anomaly (GTA) on a monthly basis and look at the chart without bias, one can sense that the GTA bottomed out around 1911 or 1912 and then rose from that date to about 1943. To correct you only in degree, the increase in temperature from about 1912 or so to about 1943 or so is very approximately the same as the increase in the GTA between about 1975 to about 2007.
The gradient from about 1975 to about 2007 is just fractionally greater than the gradient from about 1912 or so to about 1943. Perhaps (and this is just speculation) the difference in gradient between the two is the result of the difference between the human level of CO2 output in the 1912-1943 period and the 1975 to 2007 period. Again, this observation is only the most tenuous hypothesis.
Even a child can see that comparing a short-term trend with a long-term trend is misleading.
Depends how you define ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’.
What definitions would you use?
My comment was directed to M.c, who compares a 95 yr trend with a 34 yr one, and then criticises you for comparing 20 and 35!
Mea culpa, I misunderstood. Apologies
I used all the years available (1880 to 2010) rather than cheating by cherry-picking shorter periods like Latimer did. You have to watch him, or he will try to put one over on you. But you don’t have to watch very closely, as he’s easy to catch.
Difficult to reconcile those remarks with this from you upthread:
‘even a child can see how temperature rises a lot faster after 1975.’
Did you not want us to look at the rise in temperature after 1975? Please explain.
I wanted you to look at all of the years available. Look at the whole thing, not pick certain pieces that pleased you like you would do in a cafeteria. I don’t want posters who understand trend analysis laughing at you. WAIT… what am I saying!
You asked us to look at trends in some data I did. But I looked a bit more closely at the one you had indicated. And I found something you hadn’t spotted or didn’t want me to see. That is inconvenient for you, That is science.
That you haven’t even attempted to explain them is even more inconvenient. Tough.
M. Carey,
Perhaps the NOAA 1880 to present figures are “wrong” but graphing the monthly NOAA GTA figures for the NOAA data show a definite bottoming about around 1911 or so and a maximum around 1943 or so. As well, the graphing of the monthly NOAA GTA figures strongly suggest the slope of the the 1911 to 1943 period was just slightly less than the slope of the 1975 to 2007 GTA figures.
I claim nothing but allow the data to express themselves.
I think your selective graphing is entertaining. I would say even hilarious.
Because? Any explanation for your hilarity? Or is that another content-free post from you?
Actually, I was thinking about your graphs, and posted in the wrong place.
Nonetheless. Any explanation for your hilarity?
Well, I did mention your graphs.
Translation:
I have no useful or worthwhile point to make so revert to teenage hysteria
Great topic – all involving getting public money will mean a lot of potential COIs. Officials, academia, agencies, public companies will have to declare COIs.
You can’t let a lot of government scientists get together without something bad happening, Remember what happened at Los Alamos when all those scientists got to working together and paling around.
Lots of money spent, lots of heat generated and relatively little light.
It did show the possibility of nuclear technology to produce lots of ghg free power though.
I’m sure those were the lessons you wanted us to remember.
The Japanese would agree with you.
Dr. Curry
Looks like I hit the spam filter for using a naughty word combination, when you get a chance could you free them up
Thanks Jeff
It’s rather odd that in the debate above about CoI this exemplary analysis has already been forgotten:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html
… or perhaps not, given that the AGW defenders are back to playing their shell game.
Great link, I’m trying to get it in the Australian MSM.
Sadly they only rarely recorded the reasons for the changes they made. So even if you ask them nicely and say ‘pretty please’ you will not find the explanations that you rightly think should be there. You just have to trust that they did it ‘right’.
By his own admission., Phil Jones, man in charge of one the three most important data sets in the history of humanity (or other such tosh) is very poor at keeping records. Which is a fairly serious failing in somebody whose primary job is as a data curator. Like a lifeguard who can’t swim. Or an elephant trainer with pachydermophobia.
If you seriously doubt this, settle down with a cocoa and read the diaries of one of his programmers at UEA. You can find an introduction here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
Its all good knockabout stuff… worthy of The Keystone Cops. But as a serious bit of data processing? Don’t make me laugh
But despite Jones’s poor record keeping a number of peopel have been able to independently recreate the temperature records and have got pretty much the same results. And no-one has yet produced any evidence that the data was improperly adjusted to suit a particular agenda.
The way that absolutely everything that Jones, CRU or other climate scientists do is automatically viewed in the most prejudicial possible way is just boring.
aa,
That is called garbage in, garbage out.
hunter,
Whatever the quality of the data it is not Phil Jones’s fault.
He’s the custodian of it, One of the three most important datasets in the history of humanity. (Or so we are told)
If not him. who?
The cleaner? Gordon Brown? Harry the hapless programmer? Steve McIntyre? That bloke on the bus with the squint?
Also forgot to mention that he gets a substantial grant form (I think) the US DoD to look after it for them. I trust it is not to late for them to get a refund if he has, as you suggest, been derelict in his duty,
Latimer, the objective of cherry-picking is to cheat, not shoot yourself in the foot as you may have done with that graph.
The OLS line for 1976-2010 (34 years) is longer than the one for 1920-43 (23 years), which I don’t think is what you wanted to show.
I cherry-picked for my graph to show you two can play the game, but I disapprove of the practice. You aren’t going to fool many people by cherry-picking, but you may attract negative attention if that’s what you want.
No shooting involved. Of course the line is longer after 1975. It covers more years. I remarked in my commentary that it the earlier period was 23 years in length. Where do you see a problem?
But the interesting scientific bit is that the two ‘steps’ in question have very similar gradients (‘slopes’ if gradients is beyond you). The temperature changed at the same rate in both instances.
Why do you think this was so?
PS – I very much resent your implication that I have been cheating or attempting to cheat at anything at all.
You drew our attention to the data which is there for all to see. My ‘code’ to plot the graphs is there for all to see, You may disagree with my interpretation…but you seem to have been remarkably reluctant to explain exactly the source of your disagreement.
I can only conclude that you lacking in judgement and continence to make such unfounded allegations, This is a serious allegation and unless you can demonstrate some evidence of ‘cheating’, of which there is none, I suggest that you practice the former and attempt the latter. But I don’t expect you to do either,
But the interesting scientific bit is that the two ‘steps’ in question have very similar gradients (‘slopes’ if gradients is beyond you). The temperature changed at the same rate in both instances.
Why do you think this was so?
Well I can’t speak for M. carey but given that the reasons for the two warming periods are almost certainly different I would go for coincidence.
Thanks Andrew
I suppose you wouldn’t care to speculate what those two reasons might be?
We are assured until the point of tedium that the second is AGW. But if so, what explains the first? It must have been a pretty powerful influence to apply for nearly 25 years and raise the average temperature by 0.4C (two thirds of the total recent warming supposedly from AGW). And at the same rate as AGW.
So what was it? Or is there another explanation?
Value your views.
Latimer,
Well we know that in the early part of the 20th Century there was strong solar activity and low volcanic activity, and neither of these factors applied in the latter part of the century. There was also increased GHG levels but not really enough to make a serious difference. I’m not sure that these factors explain all of the early 20C warming but they certainly go some way towards it.
There is a fairly well known paper which looks at this in some detail and puts relative values to the different forcings but I can’t for the life of me remember who wrote it. Perhaps someone else here can help. Fred?
Ah, this is the one I was thinking of.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2852&rep=rep1&type=pdf
it actually covers the whole 20th century but does include estimates for solar and volcanic forcing in the early part of the century.
OK,
They buggered about with some models and found a combination of factors that meant that they could get a curve close to the observed one by assumig some increased solar forcing.
But there doesn;t seem to be any attempt to find out if this was the only possible combination, or if the conditions that they modelled ever actually existed. A great theoretical exposition but with absolutely no experimental proof. Convincing to a gullible climatologist, but not elsewhere I fear
Latimer Alder, M. carey and andrew adams
The early 20th century warming cycle has been described and analyzed by Delworth and Knutson, using the HadCRUT record.
It shows a linear warming of 0.53°C over the 35-year period 1910-1944, with a linear warming trend of 0.153°C per decade.
Phil Jones has told us that the recent warming trend has been “statistically indistinguishable” from the early 20th century warming.
It also shows a linear warming of 0.53°C over the latest 35-year period 1976-2010, with a linear warming trend of 0.153°C per decade.
So the record shows that Phil Jones is correct.
The problem is that there was very little increase in CO2 over the early cycle (est. 294 to 309 ppmv = 15 ppmv increase) and very high increase of CO2 over the later cycle (measured 330 to 390 ppmv = 60 ppmv increase), yet the warming was the same.
I believe that this has been Girma’s point, which I can understand, as it presents a dilemma for the notion that CO2 has been the principal driver of our climate.
Max
Max,
The proposition is that CO2 has been the principle driver if the warming we have seen since the latter part of the 20th Century. That is not contradicted by the fact that there was warming in the early 20C which (as no-one disputes and I explicitly stated above) was primarily due to factors other than CO2.
Three times, aa, in the last century and a half, the slope of temperature rise has been the same, and only once was CO2 rising also. You have got to face the legitimate null and demonstrate that it was CO2 raising the temperature most recently and not the same causes as historically.
==============
Kim,
Given that, as the “skeptics” so often point out, climate has changed throughout history for various different reasons, I see no great logic in the argument that because there was warming in both the early 20C and the late 20C we should by default assume that the cause was the same.
I guess one might argue that we should assume the same cause all things being equal but of course all things are not equal. We can determine that certain “natural” factors which most likely made a contribution in the former case were not present in the latter. We know that in the latter case there is a significant increase in a particular “non-natural” factor which is known to affect climate.
Surely the rational approach is not make any assumptions at all and look at the different factors we know to be in play during the different periods of warming and come to a conclusion in the light of our best understanding of how those factors affect the climate.
Latimer,
They say
“Here we analyze a series of PCM four-member ensembles of twentieth-century climate with single and various combinations of observed forcings ”
(my italics)
So they are basing their experiment on conditions which actually existed.
Very curious indeed.
If they already knew what the forcings were, then there is no need to do the work that they did. They already had the answer…and could simply use it to make future predictions.
Which begs the question ‘What was the paper actually for’? There was no need for it.
“Given that, as the “skeptics” so often point out, climate has changed throughout history for various different reasons, I see no great logic in the argument that because there was warming in both the early 20C and the late 20C we should by default assume that the cause was the same.”
Yes, there is no logic at all in that argument, no wonder warmists are making it.
Sceptical argument, on the other hand, is that climate change and global warming are Orwelian speak and that climate always changes and warms/cools (depending on timescale). It is nothing unprecedented!
The argument from sceptics is SO WHAT!
Latimer,
The purpose of the paper was to establish whether the cumulative effect of the various forcings is equal to the sum of the effects of the forcings when calculated invividually. Whether you think that is a worthwhile exercise is neither here or there – I posted the link because I thought it provided information pertinent to the question you asked regarding the cause of early 20C warming.
Edim,
Yes, there is no logic at all in that argument, no wonder warmists are making it.
Eh? Warmists are not making that argument.
Sceptical argument, on the other hand, is that climate change and global warming are Orwelian speak and that climate always changes and warms/cools (depending on timescale). It is nothing unprecedented!
And “warmists” do not dispute that climate changes naturally but point out that this does not in itself mean that the climate is not currently changing primarily due to human causes or that the changes are not a cause for concern.
Bloggers
Do you agree or disagree with my following cliam?
In the following IPCC graph, comparing the trend for one recent warming period with the trend for a combination of this warming and previous cooling periods and then declaring global warming is accelerating is a SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
I disagree. The IPCC can’t commit scientific fraud because it does not do science, it just does assessments. It may be assessment fraud, but that is a different issue.
You disagree because of that reason?
Misrepresentation is fraud whether you do it with your data or others’. Moreover, the graph is not sourced from any publication. Nor is any cited.
Shub, you seem to have missed my point. It may well be a misrepresentation but it is not scientific fraud because it is not a scientific result. The IPCC does not do science, they do assessment. The mistaken notion that the IPCC does science is a fundamental confusion.
Moreover, under the law advocacy groups are granted wide latitude in presenting their case. An assessment basically means “here is what we think” and if this is what the IPCC thinks then it is correct as far as that goes. Steve McIntyre’s argument that the IPCC should be held to financial audit standards because trillions are at stake in the climate debate is unfortunately merely metaphorical. IPCC reports have no direct financial implications whatever, so fraud does not fly as a charge.
It is very important to put aside one’s anger and judge the situation correctly. As a great musical — Billy Bishop Goes to War — puts it, “War is not a place for deep emotion.” The same is true for the climate debate.
“The IPCC can’t commit scientific fraud because it does not do science, it just does assessments.”
When you consider that the lead authors of the IPCC are the same people who excluded papers inimical to their aims, pal reviewed each others papers, and then self assessed them, it’s not hard to see this attempt at the differentiation of functions for what it is.
The IPCC does not “just do assessments”, it assembles a narrative built from a selective subset of conflicting scientific outputs. The end result of the narrative construction is that we are told that it is very likely that the majority of the warming in the late C20th was caused by human emission of co2.
It is a scientifically unsupportable statement.
I am pretty sure the authors who wrote that assessment actually believe it. Conclusions believed are not scientific fraud, no matter how controversial. It is just a biased assessment. Scientific fraud has a specific meaning and this case does not fit.
David –
Having made a specific study over the last 10 years of the various forms of scientific fraud, I have to agree with you. Not entirely sure I’m happy with that agreement, but reality is that you’re right.
Hi David,
I can go along with that too. I think my first reaction to your statement was heightened by your use of the word ‘just’ – as if assessment was a merely procedural and uncontroversial task. It is massively value laden and open to bias as you say.
Apologies if my first response seemed sharp.
Yes, we know global warming in the late 20th Century was not caused human emission of CO2, also known as exhaling, but by something else. Science is still trying to figure out just what caused it, but it has been narrowed down to something else. I wouldn’t rule out magic.
My post is a good example of why a writer should review his own work.
The first sentence should say … “caused by human.”
I left out the “by.”
Science is still trying to figure out just what caused it, but it has been narrowed down to something else. I wouldn’t rule out magic
Well, that’s “sorta” an indication of rudimentary intelligence. Magic is, after all, like the OFF button on a computer – the final answer. :-)
The something else is natural warming. No one knows exactly what natural warming, but it could be the sun getting hotter, or more clouds or fewer clouds, or maybe something heating up under ground. And it could be heat from natural population growth. There are so many possibilities.
Science tells us the earth has warmed before, way back before man’s activities could have caused it. Logic tells us if nature has caused warming in the past, nature is the cause of recent warming rather than man.
M. carey –
Science tells us the earth has warmed before, way back before man’s activities could have caused it. Logic tells us if nature has caused warming in the past, nature is the cause of recent warming rather than man.
Not sure where that came from, but it doesn’t sound like you. OTOH, I’d agree if the words were – nature may be the cause of recent warming rather than man. . Is implies certainty – and there is no certainty.
I should check my back trail more often.
Jim, I was just joshing. Obviously it’s not logical to say “if nature has caused warming in the past, nature is the cause of recent warming rather than man.”
Both nature and man can cause warming, alone or together.
Agreed.
Those who deliberately fail to grasp this point are fooling no one either.
The unhappy letter from Broun may be more important than the COI issue. The IPCC is funded by its member countries and the US provides the largest single contribution. This is paid by the US House, via the State Dept. budget (I think). The House may be gearing up to defund the IPCC in the latest round of appropriations. Broun may be laying the foundation for defunding.
Is Patchy clever enough to realise this? Or is he so far out of it that he’ll just ignore the letter. And then look upset and hurt when his money tap runs dry?
I think he is in a bind. His AR5 author assignments have already been made and they violate the COI rules, or will be seen to. Nor is anything he does likely to mollify the House Republicans, so why try? In any case it is fun to watch.
Be careful because in 18 months you don’t know what the House will look like. We need to keep getting good, real data out there in the hands of policy makers from both major parties
Rob: What good, real data are you saying we need to keep getting in the hands of policy makers? As far as I know it is all politicized. I just want to destroy the IPCC, the great purveyor of of green data.
The House can’t defund anyone in the next round of appropriations, unfortunately in my opinion.
It is true that all appropriations bills are supposed to originate in the House, and the House is led by Republicans right now, but no legislation will pass without the approval of the Democrat controlled Senate. All House Republicans have right now is essentially the power to veto legislation. Defunding, if it is to occur, will have to wait until 2012, depending on election returns.
If conservatives win, defunding will become an issue for lots more CAGW folks than just the IPCC. So watch for all the usual suspects to be more vocal over the next year and a half than ever before. Those who think the climate debate (cap and trade, carbon taxes) is over in the U.S., are in for a rude awakening. It’s going to be a nasty election.
The House Reps did a pretty good job of defunding in the FY2011 continuing resolution:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/04/final-spending-cuts-program-by-program.php?page=1
There will be compromises in FY2012 appropriations but big cuts are probably coming. The Senate cannot originate an appropriations bill, so the House is in the drivers seat. And no one is going to fight to save IPCC funding. But you may be right. We may just get another year of CRs.
Both parties are desperate for things to cut. Pachauri has painted a huge target on his back, his front, his face, his everywhere. Everyone wants Pachauri to go away. Pachauri has put the IPCC on the chopping block. If I were a Warmista, I would be wondering if Pachauri is CIA.
I heard rumors that he was seen fleeing the roof of the IPCC offices in Copenhagen in a black helicopter at the end of the 2009 conference, Michael Mann and James Hansen hanging on to the sides for dear life….
Could we please respect the 6 post rule?
Signed “blinded by the banter”
Like the hockey stick, I am certain that the following graph will not appear in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
Girma
You are right. The infamous IPCC AR4 WG1 FAQ3 curve will not appear in the next report for two reasons:
– there has been a general realization that this comparison, intended to imply an acceleration in warming over the 20th century, is a fraud (as pointed out earlier)
– an up-date showing the linear trend for the latest period would show that warming had stopped
Max
Sacré bleu. Just read in the Grey Lit News that Al Gore’s newest documentary on global cooling ‘features a lonely zebra shivering to death in Tanzania?’
The recommendation on bias is irremediably flawed. It reads in part:
“In the case of author and review teams, bias can and should be managed through the selection of a balance of perspectives. For example, it is expected that IPCC author teams will include individuals with different perspectives and affiliations. Those involved in selecting authors will need to strive for an author team composition that reflects a balance of expertise and perspectives, such that IPCC products are comprehensive, objective, and neutral with respect to policy. In selecting these individuals, care must be taken to ensure that biases can be balanced where they exist.”
This standard fails to address transparency. As written, the standard is entirely internal to the IPCC and fails to require that IPCC personnel address the judgements of bias that they make. This flaw is fundamental. The purpose of preventing bias is to reassure the general public and policy makers that IPCC products are free of bias. Yet this standard offers no information about decisions on bias to anyone outside the IPCC. From this standard, people outside the IPCC learn only that someone in the IPCC has declared a particular chapter to be free of bias. Such information is worthless. A standard to prevent bias must have content that is understandable to the public and whose application is understanable to the public.
To make matters worse, the recommendation on bias appeals to some unknown theory that biases among a group of people can be identified and then “balanced.” Though the idea that biases can be “balanced” is risible in itself, the more important problem is that it is irrelevant. What is desired is a Balance of Power between people who have opposing biases. Unfortunately, an author’s power arrives at the IPCC with the author and cannot be determined by the IPCC. The idea that higher level IPCC personnel can identify various biases and then balance them strikes me as altogether childish.
To evaluate bias, use publications. Peer-reviewed pulications can be used to identify a person’s position on a topic and IPCC personnel can seek a good combination of positions. The publications can then be judged by the public to determine a scientist’s position on a topic. The scientist’s position is the best factual evidence of bias.
Judy Curry said:
“The IPCC needs to start adopting modern technologies so that it can actually get things done in between plenary meetings. ”
I don’t expect they want to commit anything to email these days. :)
In my experience, once the person at the top has been shown to be lacking in integrity, the enterprise is doomed.
tallbloke
That’s what happened to the Nixon presidency during the Watergate affair.
Someone was looking for the next world “common enemy” to unify??;
Al Gore brings back the “Population Bomb”;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/al-gore-branches-out-into-population-control-theory/#more-42036
Will warmist play dumb yet againlike they are part of “non-partisan” culture??
It really isn’t that hard to connect these dots yet the MSM, good operatives that they are, will pound the word “science” 1000+ times a month and many scientists hide under their desks saying nothing. It’s time for that to change.
Steven Mosher,
In the Girma battle you mentioned change point analysis. Comparing the 1910-1940 to 1970 to 2000 periods of the GTA, both have change points leading into and out of the periods. There are interesting differences between the two, as well as the obvious similarities (at least in my simple methods). Then, the quality of the data appears different in the two periods, limiting what conclusions are possible.
Perhaps you have better methods of change point analysis you can show us?
If you read CA you’ll find a bunch of us discussing change point analysis. Kenneth Fritsch is probably the best source of information on it as he has continued to look at it. There were a couple packages I recommended back in 2008, I’m currently looking at “changepoint” an R package.
Also, Tamino is a good place to start. He’s a jerk sometimes ( hey me too) but he does good work.
Here is his presentation, complete with the change points and the estimation of trends
for the various regimes and error bars
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/changes/
People may not like Tamino’s manner. But he’s done clear and cogent work here. If you want a great place to start, I’ll suggest his.
What? This is way worse than I thought.
1) Tamino pulls the first “lowness smooth” out of, let’s say, thin air to be polite.
2) then he pulls that is can be “piecewise-linear function” out of same place. The data doesn’t fit those sorts of functions. But now he has a derivative of a derivative.
3) Then he pulls “change points” out of his baised(he is clearly pro-AGW) thin air.
3) Again his unbaised visual breaks them into “four episodes” – using straight lines no less.
4) Then he extrapolates” them. Extrapolation for something he has derived from derivations from derivations from derivations with his eyes.
I saw no need to go any further cause that blog entry is just nuts.
There are tests for fitting trends, like least squares, goodness of fit-R-squared, Chi squared etc.
I like comparisons like annual to 10 year moving averages. The longer moving averages show the break points and the shorter averages the lead in to the breaks. By comparing the lead ins you can get an idea of the differences/similarities. Done right, you can even toy with the idea of predicting trends.
Of course, that may require some cherry picking which is a no no for science, but allowed for say wagering.
Moving averages look nice in the stock market too, but don’t bet your money on the graphs there either.
I like Tamino’s manner just fine, Moshe; he is firm, patient and silent.
=============
Teddy,
Actually you can, as a contrarian. It is when you are part of the herd or consensus that you get in trouble.
Steven mosher
I checked your link to Tamino’s article on “change points”
Here is what he wrote:
But it’s still a pretty good approximation to model global temperature as a piecewise-linear function. That’s just a set of straight lines. Of course, that leaves open the question when to stop one straight line (at one slope) and start a new one (at a new slope) — these are the “change points” of the slope. A long time ago I devised a method to do so. First, choose some approximate change points. Doing so by eye is good enough. Use them to split the data into intervals.
Steven, instead of Tamino’s approach above, don’t you think it is less arbitrary to find the “change points” by first detrending the data and reading directly the “change points” from the detrended data as shown below
http://bit.ly/emAwAu
After finding the “change points”, you can then draw the “piecewise linear functions” as shown below
http://bit.ly/k0rZNk
This result shows no acceleration of warming, no unprecedented rate of warming; contradicting the main premise of AGW.
And as a bonus, there is little warming in this century: http://bit.ly/lYhfIV
It is difficult to understand the UN’s delay of imposing COI rules on those associated with AR5. If immediate imposition of these rules results in a delay in publication of AR5, due to expected changes in AR5 leadership, so be it. What is more important is the restoration of IPCC credibility–something that clearly won’t happen under Pachauri’s leadership.
What’s difficult? The IPCC is political organization with an eco-regulate agenda, how would COI help that agenda?
It’s like Claude Raines from Casablanca;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0
It drives me crazy when the left and perhaps the naive pretend this is hard to figure out.
Max
Let me try to confirm your result: http://bit.ly/ixI9t9
As a 40-year veteran of the U. S. aerospace industry I’ve had to endure more than a few lectures on ethics, including conflict of interest, so I think know what I’m talking about. Given the UN’s miserable record on corruption (does the Oil for Food scandal involving a former UN Secretary General ring a bell here?), I don’t think much can be done at the UN level. On the other hand, I think all U. S. participants in IPCC activities can and should be held accountable for ethics and conflict of interest violations. Just don’t expect the likes of Waxman and Markey to push for such action in Congress.
What does AGW, Keynesian economics, Settled Science, the IPCC have in common?;
BEWARE! The person in the linked photo may be posting in this thread.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/2353?size=_original
I have read a number of times, including in a the comment by Andrew Adams above, that solar activity could account for early 20th C warming, but not the later 20th C warming.
Then I read of a paper by the Netherlands solar physicist, Dr C. de Jager which states that the latter part of the 20th C had the highest solar activity in the UV range in 400 years. And the century had the highest UV activity for 900 years overall.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/solar-physicist-dr-c-de-jager-predicts.html
So which is correct then? Is the sun a likely factor or not? And does the IPPC only focus on total solar irradiance, and if so why is that when UV apparently varies so much more within and between solar cycles?
Sorry, this has nothing to do with conflict of interest, but could it be relevant to bias?
Everything about climate can be related to bias and cherry picking on either side. Warmist will be correct in attacking solar claims by claiming normal variance in solar cycles as they will use the same logic they never apply to anything co2 or agw related. Ironic will not be the proper word for this…..hypocrisy is clearly called for in this case.
The battle has never been won with actual science, it’s too opinionated and abstract. There has been no success on predictions, models and data kept in secret. The sample periods of comparison can go on forever. With no hard and fast physical equation or quantity why focus on the anti-science hope of warmists; “prove us wrong”??? The level of public ignorance about the science method is clearly high that this half-baked agw theory got this far with clear political hacks almost everywhere.
Standard ethics, COI and science malpractice are the winning issues. People can see that there just isn’t that much to be gained by addressing agw faith with charts and data that piled end to end go nowhere. Sure, it has to go on but the burden of proof is hugely on the backs of those making outrageous quantity claims and links without measurable input models or formulas. Regardless of what happens on the solar front wouldn’t it by hypocrisy to think it negates co2 causation??? It’s a mistake to use a fallacy to refute a fallacy.
Frankly, the killer app is already in the files IMO. Public funded files that need to be released starting at the CRU and elsewhere. It’s clear that all the summary IPCC committee is completely crony driven and conflicted. Over time, unpredicted events and natural variance have weakend alarmist dogma, hence AGW becomes climate change to deal with that. It will be the filth of the IPCC operatives coming to light that finish this off. Another five years is my estimate, the lie is so great many have no choice but to take it to their graves. It will become very marginalized and then they will go back to other standard fair like the “Population Bomb” etc.
cwon14 –
It will become very marginalized and then they will go back to other standard fair like the “Population Bomb” etc.
You mean like this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/al-gore-branches-out-into-population-control-theory/
You are on target, Jim
One way or the other, Big Brother, wants total control.
When I was in college, it was called “The Zero Growth Movement”. It’s all the same, man is evil and needs expert government regulation. Guess who thinks they are saviors in the movie in their own mind? To lower health costs it’s time for cap and trade in food;
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/feds-look-to-regulate-food-similar-to-tobacco-with-hopes-of-saving-money-on-health-care/
They have far better “science” in regulating diets than co2 but how do you think it’s going to play out??? They aren’t talking “big oil” here but “corn muffins” and what kind of government do you want to have?
Right now in California they are looking to ban circumcisions while it is releasing prisoners because they can’t afford to keep them in jail. A failed state always needs more to distract from recent failures of its own making, a basic Hayek truth. They can’t operate a banking or prison system but they are going to save the world from co2 and soda? They’re like a cast from a Fellini film.
It’s all the same suspects, thinking in lock-step and the agenda is always the same on any topic. AGW is glaring in its lack of science foundation but how many here were this naive to think it was really about science in the first place?? JC posts on the COI policy but still talks as if it was an oversight or as if the COI can’t and will be faked. At some point people involved have to connect far easier dots than charts of surface temps and take a stand. Talk about denial.
Latimer, I like the following definition of cherry-picking:
“If people cherry-pick, they choose things that support their position, while ignoring things that contradict it.”
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/cherry+pick.html
In your graph you compared OLS trends for the periods 1920-1943 and 1976-2010. You gave no rational for choosing periods of unequal length( 23 years and 34 years) from the 1880-2010 series. Apparently to support a position, you wanted to show an early period that had the same rate of temperature increase as the later period, but choosing 34 years for the former contradicted what you wanted, so you cherry-picked the 23 years.
I don’t know that your intention was to deceive, so I shouldn’t have said you were cheating, but the cherry-picking doesn’t speak well for objectivity.
There was a very simple reason for choosing those times. That was what the data showed. A flat bit, a rising bit, another flat bit an then a rising bit.
I’m sorry that Mother Nature didn’t arrange herself into convenient equal length bite-size chunks to suit your odd definition of ‘cherry-picking’. I will chastise her soundly and instruct her to do better next time. Knowing that you are on her case will no doubt help her to mend her untidy ways.
I would also point that I did not pick out this data ‘to support a position’. I arrived at my interpretation only after having looked at the data. This is the normal way round to do it in science.
I re-emphasise. The data shows two periods of warming at approximately the same rate. Between about 1902 and about 1943, and then post 1975. They are of different lengths. It is possible that they are caused by different things. Or by the same thing acting over different periods. Or by a combination of many things interacting. I have no ‘position’ on it other than to point it out, I do not know what caused it. But if AGW caused the second, something else caused the first.
I find your last remarks very much less than fulsome and so ask you for a proper apology. You could start by removing the unnecessary weak qualifier ‘I don;t know that your intention was to deceive’ Weasel words…..
typo 1920, not 1902
Don’t insult mother nature. She makes it easy and convenient for the 1880-2010 period to be divided into two equal 65-year bite size chunks.
Of course the two equal time periods will be of no use to cherry-pickers who want to use unequal time periods to support their position. But mother nature doesn’t like that kind of thing, and I don’t either.
It might be best for you to apologize to both mother nature and me.
I will leave it to others to make their own judgements on this discussion.
But our friend Hum at
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/20/conflict-of-interest-guidelines-for-the-ipcc/#comment-78370
has plotted the same data divided into 30 year chunks. The effect I noted is still there. It is not an artefact of ‘cherry picking’ or anything else. It is in the frigging data, Flat, step, flat, step, flat……
Unless you can come up with some very good scientific reason why you believe 2 x 65 year chunks gives a better representation of the data than 1 x 130 year chunk or 6 x 30 or any other combination, then I fear your case will simply be found to be inadequate and naive.
Do you have such a reason? If so, please lay it out for all to understand.
Latimer,
Mother nature doesn’t let us divided the 1880-2010 period into equal 30 year chunks. But let’s get back to your graph that compares global temperature trends for 1920-1943 and 1976-2010, and looks like a cherry-picked comparison because the periods have different lengths.
You could have avoided the appearance of cherry-picking simply by comparing time periods of equal length. If you identified the 23 years between 1920 and 1943 as the period with the sharpest temperature increase in the early part of 1880-2010, you could have compared it with the 23 year period having the sharpest temperature increase later, which I believe is 1984-2007. As you can see from the linked graph, temperature rises faster in 1984-2007 than in 1920-1943.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1945/every/plot/gistemp/from:1945/to:2010/every/plot/gistemp/from:1920/to:1943/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1984/to:2007/every/trend
You could ask why the 1920-1943 temperature rise was almost as fast as the 1984-2007 rise. Isn’t that close enough to what you wanted to do?
M,carey –
Mother nature doesn’t let us divided the 1880-2010 period into equal 30 year chunks
Don’t be silly. If that were true the the 11 year sun cycle (and a LOT of others ) would also be invalid. It is true that not all cycles are exactly the same length – as illustrated by the latest 2 solar cycles. Nor are the climate cycles exactly 30 years. But 30 years is close enough to work with. Cycles are part of the world we live in. Deal with it.
You could have avoided the appearance of cherry-picking simply by comparing time periods of equal length.
OK – here’s your equal length time periods –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1945/every/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/to:2010/every/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/every/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/every/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/every/trend
Note that the rate of change is greater in the 1910-1940 segment than for the 1970-2000 segment – by 0.00022 deg/year. IOW – the same rate.
Jim,
Please pay attention. The 130 years from 1880 to 2010. cannot be divided into 30 year periods. Try, and you will have 10 years left over.
M,carey –
Try, and you will have 10 years left over.
So? The last 10 years or more have been essentially flat — and are part of the next (and incomplete) 2000 – 2030 30 year period. Why do you have a problem with that?
If it makes you feel better to look at it in that way, I’m cool with your graphs.
The sequnce flat, step, flat ,step (maybe flat) is what needs explaining. How you divi up the periods is of secondary importance..and doesn’t really affect the argument much at all.
One day you will have to explain from first pronciples what was getting you so excited about my earlier attempts. I am genuinely baffled about your extraordinary and bizarre level of rage.
And I still want a proper apology from you for your unfounded accusations of ‘cheating’. Under my easygoing, warm and cuddly facade I have a long memory for such things.
Latimer, as I explained before, I don’t know if your cherry-picking was or was not an intention to cheat. But if you want respect from knowledgeable people, you should stop doing it.
It is you who owe me an apology, as well as a thanks for attempting to edify you.
I’m quite happy – as ever – for my actions and arguments to be judged by ‘knowledegabe people’. Sadly I cannot include you in that category.
Your argument about division of time is completely bizarre (for example how would you analyse a temperature sequence of 131 years – a prime number?) and your obsession with non-existent cherry picking means that you have yet to develop the facility ot see the wood for the trees. Perhaps therapy might help?
And I note that you have still failed to provide the apology.
But now we have arrived at a graph even you are content with, do you have anythign t add to the discussion. It was you who drew our attention to it originally. What did you want to say about it?
Latimer Alder said in his post on June 23, 2011 at 4:00 am
“Your argument about division of time is completely bizarre (for example how would you analyse a temperature sequence of 131 years – a prime number?) and your obsession with non-existent cherry picking means that you have yet to develop the facility ot see the wood for the trees. Perhaps therapy might help?”
_____
Latimer, you should apologize for attributing an argument to me that I never made. I didn’t say the only proper way to compare periods within a temperature sequence is to divide the entire sequence it into equal periods. Obviously, within the sequence lots of periods having equal lengths can be compared.
By comparing periods of equal lengths (e.g., 1920-1943 and 1984-2007) rather than periods of unequal lengths (e.g., 1920-1943 and 1976-2010), you can avoid being accused of cherry-picking to support a biased position. If you enjoy attracting negative attention, however, you may want to continue cherry-picking.
Please explain how
‘By comparing periods of equal lengths (e.g., 1920-1943 and 1984-2007) rather than periods of unequal lengths (e.g., 1920-1943 and 1976-2010), you can avoid being accused of cherry-picking to support a biased position’
What am I supposed to have ‘cherry picked’? And what biased position did I support?
A reminder. The data showed about a 23 year period of warming (1920 to 1943) at about the same rate as was shown post 1975. I explicitly pointed this out. Explain why you think this is ‘cherry picking’,
You must also explain my ‘biased position’
And also lay out under what circumstances you think you would be able to successfully bring a charge of cheating for making such a remark. If there are none, I look forward to your apology.
Steven mosher
I checked your link to Tamino’s article on “change points”
Here is what he wrote:
Steven, instead of Tamino’s approach above, don’t you think it is less arbitrary to find the “change points” by first detrending the data and reading directly the “change points” from the detrended data as shown below
http://bit.ly/emAwAu
After finding the “change points”, you can then draw the “piecewise linear functions” as shown below
http://bit.ly/k0rZNk
This result shows no acceleration of warming, no unprecedented rate of warming; contradicting the main premise of AGW.
And as a bonus, there is little warming in this century: http://bit.ly/lYhfIV
Judith,
Since you know that conflict of interest is the norm, and science has been cherry picked, who will be objective enough to review science that has vast amounts of errors generated by creating science and not following science???
Judith,
Science “peer-review” still does not effect me as I choose to stay away from this process.
Currently moved on to study the “splash effect” of meteors and debris that hits our atmosphere.
I choose to look for answers and not create them.
Nor ever describe them once you believe you have arrived at them ;-)
Latimer,
You have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in what I have to say or the research I have been following.
More and more it is getting difficult to go back to showing how a simple circle in motion was misunderstood by mathematicians and science when the energy of motion is stored energy by compression from centrifugal force is part of the equation.
Joe
As you have never been able to describe your research, your methods, your apparatus or your findings in ways that I or anybody else can understand, then strangely enough, my level of engagement with them has fallen to pretty low levels.
There are plenty of good examples of how to write up research..most O level general science textbooks will give you a template. When you write up your work in such a format, I am sure that I will give it due attention.
But until then I regret that I have you classified as a (probably harmless) tyrekicker,
Latimer,
This is exactly where the problem lies.
I’m suppose to give references off of bad science in a form that has been traditionally taught for generations.
This is exactly the reason why we still are extremely uncertain about many areas of science and science is still 90% undiscovered.
The mind is a very funny thing. If I draw pictures of processes to easier understand at a kindergarten level, then it is more believable.
References of people in power generation positions do not count even though they have to have some sort of mind to be in those positions with degrees.
I cannot by conscience give “bull crap” answers of what theories have done to current science by having to reference off of each other. No wonder science is in such a mess and the research into new areas is stagnant.
Joe
Sorry mate…your post is content-free.
Describe your apparatus, experiments and findings. They do not involve any preconceptions about theories or whatever. They are ‘philosophy-free’
We can discuss the interpretation of them (which probably will involve some of the above) once you have done the former. But we need to see you side first.
In less polite language:
Put up or shut up.
I do have a few experiments.
One can show how motion can compress mass with speed of rotation in a contained field that stores energy and with inertia, slowly releases energy and decompresses mass (centrifugal force). Speed of motion changes compression.
Second more complex is how inversion of turbine can generate an energy working together at an individual level in circular motion.
Third how magnetic fields have different strengths with distances from poles and the proximity to the center between poles (our solar system).
Fourth how atmospheric splashing of outside material is similar to water splashing and the loss of atmospheric mass.
Fifth, how water compression can contain mass on this planet back billions of years through weight of water and pressure to the planet trying to throw mass by centrifugal centrifuge.
I wonder what James Hansen is thinking about conflict of interest rules and disclosures right about now.
The retort, very easy to predict will be they are now reliving the McCarthy era (all the phony disinformation about that period assumed) and are victims. When the left loses they are victims who were ahead of their time. The public that is no longer backing the poilicy? They have reverted to the ignorant uneducated mob that doesn’t “get it”. There only fault was “poor communication”.
COI and investigation of the IPCC will be “science repression” and a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Mann, Jones and Hansen will go to jail before releasing the data, emails and records. When crunch time happens the MSM will depict them as civil rights activists being hung in the south in the 60’s. This is the world as it is.
Gary,
I heard that some organization has filed a legal request for details on the ~$$1.2 million dollars that Dr. Hansen earned from outside sources while on NASA’s payroll.
Here is the lawsuit:
http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-law-center-asks-court-to-force-nasa-to-produce-ethics-and-outside-employment-records-of-dr-james-hansen/
Chris Horner is a legal bulldog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_C._Horner Ten years ago he did the legal work when Sen. Inhofe and I sued NSF to block the first National Assessment of Climate Change from becoming federal policy. Chris helped me do the research that made the case. It was lots of fun.
Wouldn’t it be nice if GISS disappeared.
Chris Horner is an anti-science lawyer whose web site says Greenpeace has been stealing his garbage and has include him in “A Field Guide to Climate Criminals.” I am interested in this guide, but my search hasn’t been successful. Does anyone have a link to it?
M,carey –
Chris Horner is an anti-science lawyer
Interesting slime job – but untrue. He writes the truth that you don’t want to hear. And backs it up.
Now – can you back up the anti-science comment?
IMO, Chris Horner is anti-science, because as an attorney he represents the interests of a right-wing ideology that finds itself in conflict with climate science.
M,carey –
Chris Horner is anti-science, because as an attorney he represents the interests of a right-wing ideology that finds itself in conflict with climate science.
Allow me to help you with that thought –
Chris Horner is not anti-science. As an attorney he represents the interests of a realist ideology that finds itself in conflict with a consensus climate science that has failed to practice the scientific method.
Your opinion has little or nothing to do with reality, science or what he is. If you don’t have facts/numbers/science/reality, you have nothing.
Jim, I’ll second what you state. The business about no hard relational numbers or equations to co2 is one that sticks in craw while ranters such as below call others names and “anti-science”;
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/meltdown-chris-matthews-rants-about-corrupt-evil-limbaugh-beck-on-global-warming/
Words like “likely” and “Highly likley” are a joke. Could you imagine Newton or Galileo using words like that? It’s no accident there isn’t statisitical analysis in ar4 for the same reason there isn’t a COI policy. Facts or ethics can’t help the religion in question so we don’t need no stinking facts or ethics.
I imagine Newton knew about the word “likely,” and used it now and then. I don’t think Galileo spoke English.
Chris is not anti-science, he is anti-green-scare. About ten years ago Sen. Inhofe and I sued the NSF to block the first National Assessment of Climate Change, or as I call it the National Scare. Horner did the legal work and helped me with the research that made the case. He is a first class investigator. It was lots of fun. I guess that makes me a “climate criminal” too, except Greenpeace is nuts (and dangerous).
Chris Horner is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. According to the Institute, Greenpeace has repeatedly targeted Mr. Horner by stealing his garbage weekly and issuing press releases announcing with whom he dines.
http://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner
I was interested in Greenpeace’s press releases about Mr. Horner, so I Googled ” Greenpeace Horner press release,” but found no press releases. So I went to the Greenpeace site, where the organization’s press releases can be accessed as far back as 1991, but again found nothing.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/#tab=0&st=Climate%2Bchange&page=48
If anyone knows if these press releases exist, please tell me where I can find them.
David,
Thank you for your work!
You pick an odd week to doubt that fanatics might not target a prominent skeptics garbage can. There someone in Australia, still employed, who suggest gassing “deniers” would be reasonable. A few weeks back there was a suggestion of tattoos for “deniers”.
Doesn’t the idea of of comparing those you disagree with “Jewish Holocaust Deniers” a bit unhinged no matter how common it is in the debate? These aren’t snarky undergrads from lower level public colleges either we are talking about. You think by the example set to the young or lowest fringes there might be people targeting “enemies”???
What about the civility people like Chris Matthews?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/meltdown-chris-matthews-rants-about-corrupt-evil-limbaugh-beck-on-global-warming/
“Wouldn’t it be nice if GISS disappeared.”
That’s certainly what your allies issuing death threats to climate scientists seem to think.
Fortunately, the public is not on board with your anti-science crusade.
Fortunately, the public is not on board with your anti-science crusade
They’re getting there.
That’s certainly what your allies issuing death threats to climate scientists seem to think
So what do your allies issuing death threats to skeptics think?
That’s not what the polls say, sorry.
I know you’re a liar, Jimmy, but this is an unusually shameless fabrication, even for you. I guess pretending the other side is guilty of the foul stuff you get up to is the only way you can sleep at night.
Here’s an idea: stop issuing death threats to scientists, and you won’t have to lie about receiving them.
ROTFLMAO!!! –
You can’t even work up a decent insult.
And effective insult, Robert, has to have some truth to it – a kernel, a mustard seed. Otherwise it’s just laughable – and garbage.
Grow up, little boy.
Oliver,
Yes, ATI (led by Chris Horner) has filed suit regarding their FOIA requests to NASA on the subject, which prompted my comment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58454344/ATI-NASA-Hansen-FOIA-lawsuit
Dr. Curry previously posted on the underlying FOIA requests here.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/04/09/lawyering-up/
Here is the ATI page on the lawsuit:
http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-law-center-asks-court-to-force-nasa-to-produce-ethics-and-outside-employment-records-of-dr-james-hansen/
(WordPress seems to be acting up. I posted a comment an hour ago on this but it never appeared. Maybe I got spam filtered.)
Looks like the ATI is trying to use the FOI to malign Federal employees it doesn’t like.
Looks like the ATI is trying to use the FOI to malign Federal employees it doesn’t like
Heh!! – Like the warmists have never done anything like that?
Actually, Hansen has been breaking the law for years – and getting away with it. Why? What kind of naked pictures does he have squirreled away in a safe place?
If you assert Hansen has been breaking the law, I guess that means he has.
M,carey –
If you assert Hansen has been breaking the law, I guess that means he has.
Do you know the provisions and applications of the Hatch Act ?
When you figure it out come back and we’ll talk. Until then, your ignorance on this subject is total.
m. carey,
Yes, the law does not apply to the high priests of AGW. We understand how the beleivers need that, but…..too bad, bucko.
How it works. Say you don’t know a Federal employee has broken the law, but you attempt to use an FOI request to snoop through his personal records. His employing agency denies the request on privacy grounds, which you can suggest implies there is something the agency and employee have done wrong and want to hide. You then file a lawsuit, and the law suit itself implies there was wrong doing, even if the court sides with the agency. If the court sides with you, you may actually find laws or regulations have been broken, but even if you don’t, you may find something that you can use to malign the employee. The risk to you is minimal since the law doesn’t protect the employee from your attempts to smear him.
M,carey –
How it works.
No. How it works – Hansen has been playing politics for over 20 years. Under the Hatch Act, that gets him fired/canned/dismissed.
Only it hasn’t. Why?
So it’s time to investigate. NASA won’t do it and won’t apply the provisions of he Hatch Act. So it’s time for an external investigation. Thus a fully justified lawsuit.
There are a few things you’re failing to note:
1) You are one of the employers of said Federal employee, and under the the law have fairly broad rights to information held by the employee and his agency.
2) The request and the suit both noted the basis for the question. This was not just a random fishing expedition.
3) The employee has the same libel and slander protections as any other (this is somewhat conditional, one might argue that Hansen qualifieds as a public figure).
Are you really willing to argue that a public employee in a position of authority should not be subject to FOI?
Public employees are subject to FOI requests and the request are subject to the FOI rules governing request.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/FOIA/exempt.html
FOI is not a carte blanche for harassment of public employees.
M.carey –
FOI is the law and Federal employees are required to answer unless they have proper justification.
What’s the justification in this case? Maybe – we don’t feel like it? Or – we don’t care?
FOI is not a carte blanche for harassment of public employees.
“harassment”, wouldn’t that be an assertion? Unless of course you have some evidence regarding the motive for the request.
How it works:
Say you know a federal employee is busy making large bux making speeches, selling books, being given ‘awards’ by foundations, and you would like to know if he is doing it on the job.
So you ask.
Since it is a public employee, you get to check public records.
The issue is whether these NASA GISS folks are using their positions for political and financial purposes. If they want to go into politics they need to leave the civil service.
Federal law doesn’t muzzle government employees. The employees may engage in for-profit outside activities such as speaking, teaching, and writing as long as they adhere to the rules governing these activities.
http://www.usoge.gov/training/module_files/misuse_wbt_01/offtitl1.html
They may not engage in political activities.
Jim Owen said (at 3:44 pm June 22) in reference to federal employees:
“They may not engage in political activities.”
_____
Jim, that is not correct
“Most federal employees may take an active part in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.”
For information on limits to what they can do, see
http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/ha_fed.pdf
M,carey –
See – http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/20/conflict-of-interest-guidelines-for-the-ipcc/#comment-78737
Here’s an interesting conflict. Square ‘bro bono legal advice’ with ‘$720,000 from an advocacy organization. Let those Death Trains run on time, please.
======================
The IPCC and Greenpeace don’t seem to realize that the general public has rumbled them.
Are they that stupid or do they think we are?
They can’t help it, gc; Pachauri Jones had better watch his speed.
===============
I’m always glad to hear from someone who speaks for the public.
The IPCC will not adopt the IAC recommendations on Conflict of Interests or Grey Material for obvious reason. They are not trying to present a balance view of science.
They are trying to present a view of science that corresponds to the personal interests of the IPCC chairman.
I don’t think being overly focused on the Chairman personally is the way to go. He’s a true believer playing his part and true believers seized control of the IPCC almost at once. As Dr. Lindzen has stated, the science was settled before the first paper was reviewed.
We’re looking at decades of fine tuning and adjustments of discussion and politics. Focus on a single puppet in real time is fine but capturing and accepting the eco-activist agenda is essential. It’s time for those of reason and associated to the IPCC to dismiss the total IPCC result and state what is obvious and true about alarmist agenda setting. Dr. Curry has only come half way across the river. She has to denounce the radical eco-alarmist agenda, admit it is central to the fall of the IPCC and reject their statist solutions once and for all.
Oh boy, another conspiracy theory !
M.carey –
Oh boy, another conspiracy theory !
Hey, you have your own – don’t mess with ours. Especially since yours are a lot sillier than ours.
Have you not heard Dr. Lindzen’s assessment of IPCC motivations? He was there when it started.
If most children whine at some point is it a conspiracy theory to make this observation? What next, the NYTimes is a right of center publication to radical leftists there for that is what we should accept in the general population?
The elephant in the room is the vast partisan culture of those at the core of hockey team and the radical claims of what is happening and what will happen based on co2. All with inconclusive and obscure real world evidence. There is the irony that many skeptics even share this political bias but other factors outweigh compariable politics but on average in larger scale the issue does break down on traditional party lnes. Is that a conspiracy theory to observe this?
Anyone can defend their beliefs and they have a right to choose, pretending it isn’t essential to this topic is a fantasy. How the IPCC doesn’t compensate or account for the levels of political bias that exist is an essential flaw. Imagine one party controlling an important Senate Committee regardless of election results forever, just being able to pass control from one peer to the other without consideration of opposition? It doesn’t help that the society naturally forms tribes and important niches (as it turned out in science enclaves) left skeptics short handed of actual climate scientists. Who knew that academia even in science fields would jump the shark and compete with Women’s or Government Studies departments in radical politics and partisan agenda setting. Look whats happened to AMS;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/
Another conspiracy theory?
Get the point?
So there is no COI issue with the IPCC or its leadership?
lol.
Thanks, rube.
“The IPCC can’t commit scientific fraud because it does not do science, it just does assessments.”
This statement is misleading and plain wrong. The IPCC decides what will go into the report and what will not.
In effect, the IPCC is cherry picking scientific results on a global scale, to built a “scientific paper” which is then “peer reviewed” by governments before release.
Those findings that the IPCC includes are then considered to be “scientifically correct”, bypassing the normal process of scientific validation.
This is how the EPA greenhouse regulations were implemented, by using the IPCC assessment as though it was a “proven scientific paper”.
Fred, that was very well put. “Scientifically correct” = Politically Correct as well
But the IPCC reports are not scientific papers. Your putting “scientific paper” in quotes indicates that quite nicely. It is very important that the IPCC does no science. Nor does EPA cite the IPCC reports as scientific results. They cite the IPCC (and USGCRP) assessments as an alternative to doing their own assessment.
Understanding the situation correctly is important. The IPCC must be criticized for doing bad assessments of the science, not for doing bad science, because they do no science. If you criticize them for doing something they do not do they are off the hook.
Asserting the IPCC does “bad assessments of the science” doesn’t mean the IPCC does bad assessments of science.
If you can present good assessments of science, or even a middling assessments, for comparison with the IPCC assessments, you might have some basis for asserting the IPCC does bad assessments.
My basis is that the logic of complex issues, including assessment, is my field and I have studied the IPCC assessments very carefully. Off and on for 19 years in fact, and written extensively about it. Is my expert opinion not “some basis”?
No, stating that you have an opinion is not a basis.
If you don’t accept expert opinion, why do you accept the IPCC?
Because in my opinion you aren’t an expert unless you have peer-reviewed work in reputable scientific journals.
you mean pal review?
Actually corrupted pal review process.
This is David’s way of saying his degree in philosophy makes him a scientist . . . not unlike Monckton thinking his journalism degree makes him a scientist.
Robert, we have had this discussion before. Look up cognitive science and you will see it includes philosophy. I do applied analytical philosophy, especially diagnosing confusions. I have a diagnostic system of 126 kinds of confusion. Is that not science?
Fascinating…what are they?
I have never published my diagnostic system, which I call Coherence Analysis, since I make money using it. Here is an article about the development of it:
http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Science/ENR_cover_story.doc (see Counting kinds of confusion)
It was originally designed for regulations but it applies to all expository text, including entries on this blog. Most of it even applies to people as each of us is confusing is certain specific ways, which differ from person to person. I have been hired on several occasions to figure out why someone could not be understood.
“Vague concepts” is probably the worst of the 126. Another is “too many examples” because people focus on the example as though it were the issue. In the climate debate “questionable factual assumptions” is very common.
Yes they can.
“Most federal employees may take an active part in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.”
http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/ha_fed.pdf
But there are limits on what they can do.
M,carey –
In 5 years I did 4 investigations of Federal employee activities that were less egregious than Hansen’s – and Schmidt’s. Three of the four found new careers. I hated that part of the job, but I did it well. And I know what the limits are.
You exposed your lack of knowledge about the law on government employee political activities when you said “They may not engage in political activities.”
You asserting Hansen broke the law doesn’t me he broke the law. Anyone can assert anything.
M,carey –
No, I gave you the short version. If you want the application, find the website that details the cases that were prosecuted. Hansen has had a slot waiting for him on that page for at least 12 years.
That you think he doesn’t is 1) obvious and 2) exposes your own ignorance of the law and it’s application.
You want me to find some unidentified web page that’s supposed to support your fantasy?
It doesn’t get much sillier than that.
M,carey –
Heh! So you’re too lazy or incompetent to do your own research? You found the Hatch Act site – it should be close. Go for it.
Great!
Dr. Hansen has nothing to worry about if he confined his external activities and incomes to the statues,