by Judith Curry
Could we switch to the grownup channel, please? – Donna Laframboise.
Two years ago, Donna Laframboise published a book entitled The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, which was discussed on this Climate Etc. post. Donna has a new book on the IPCC entitled Into the Dustbin: Rachendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize. Her new book is an anthology of her blog posts at No Frakking Consensus. With the release of the AR5 Working Group I Report anticipated in a few weeks, the release of the book is very timely as the world reacts to the IPCC AR5.
Here I provide excerpts from two chapters: 69, which provides a summary of Pachauri’s performance as Chairman of the IPCC, and 31, which introduces us to Thomas Stocker, co-chair of AR5 WG 1. Note, I do not use italics for these excerpts so as not to confuse actual quotations from individuals. Also, the hyperlink for the chapter title links to Donna’s original blog post with all of the original source material.
69 – What Would a Bad Job Look Like?
A few weeks ago, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, delivered a speech in India in which he publicly praised the chairman of the IPCC. “I was just able to meet with my friend, Dr. Pachauri, Nobel Laureate,” he said, “and we thank him for his extraordinary work.” Let us leave aside the fact that Pachauri is not a Nobel laureate. The larger issue is that, according to the US government, Pachauri has done a great job. An extraordinary job, even. So let us review some salient facts.
1. The 2007 IPCC report mistakenly said that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of disappearing by 2035. When various parties tried to tell the IPCC this was ludicrous, Pachauri called those people names and disparaged their intelligence. He said they were practicing “voodoo science” and “schoolboy science.” Eventually, however, the IPCC admitted its glacier claim was wrong.
2. Pachauri has publicly ‘joked’ that his critics (aka climate skeptics) should be given a one-way ticket to outer space. He has alleged that they are part of a “carefully orchestrated” campaign, and that they believe “asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.” Are these remarks worthy of the leader of a prominent international body?
3. Pachauri says it’s “gratifying that [an] independent review found our work solid and robust.” But the 2010 report to which he refers actually identified “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process.” It said “significant improvements” were necessary – and criticized the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence” in many statements for which there is actually “little evidence.” The authors of the independent review did not use the ‘robust.’ Neither did they use the word ‘solid.’
4. The independent review said an IPCC chairman should serve no more than one term, since a 12-year appointment, was “too long for a field as dynamic and contested as climate change.” Pachauri, who was then two years into his second term, refused to take the hint. Rather than helping the scandal-ridden IPCC press the reset button, he clung to his post.
5. The Sunday London Times, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, and the New Scientist have all called on Pachauri to step down.
7. The independent review said the IPCC was too insular and could benefit from “a greater variety of perspectives.” It recommended the establishment of a new, Executive Committee that would include “three independent members,” particularly individuals “from outside of the climate community.” Pachauri’s IPCC has, indeed, established such a committee, but it includes no outsiders. Instead, IPCC employees fill those three slots.
8. Nine weeks prior to the release of the independent review’s findings, the Pachauri-led IPCC announced the names of the experts it had selected to work on its upcoming climate assessment. The review recommended the adoption of “a rigorous conflict of interest policy” with respect to these people. Pachauri told The Economist “it wouldn’t be fair” to impose a conflict-of-interest policy “retrospectively.” In other words, there’s good reason to suspect that the new report has been written by at least some people whose judgment is questionable.
10. The IPCC is supposed to be a scientific body. But Pachauri fraternizes with green lobbyists. In his capacity as IPCC chairman, he has written forewords for Greenpeace publications – in one case describing the document as “rigorous.” He has declared the annual State of the World reports, published by the sky-is-falling Worldwatch Institute, to be “a remarkable source of intellectual wealth.” He has accepted a “green crusader” award and urged students at TERI University (which he also heads) to be “the torch bearers of the green campaign.” TERI’s most recent sustainability conference was partially financed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). A few days ago, TERI jointly released a report with the Natural Resources Defense Council – which styles itself “the Earth’s best defense.”
11. Pachauri has long insisted that IPCC reports rely – only and solely – on peer-reviewed source material. The independent review observed that, to the contrary, the IPCC’s 2001 climate assessment cited peer-reviewed material only 36% of the time in one section, only 59% in another section, and only 84% in a third.
12. The independent review noted that non-peer-reviewed source material wasn’t being identified as such by the IPCC – and that this was a clear violation of its own policy. It said the IPCC needed to:
strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature…ensuring [that such literature] is appropriately flagged in the report.
The exact opposite has since occurred. The Pachauri-led IPCC has abandoned that policy altogether.
13. Pachauri insists that the people who write IPCC reports are the world’s best and brightest, at the very top of their profession. He says they’re selected for their academic publication record as well as their depth of experience. In fact, many IPCC authors have been graduate students still working on their doctorates. Many authors have links to green organizations. Still others are “clearly not qualified” personnel from the developing world (chosen to give the report an international flavour).
15. The IPCC is supposed to be a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” organization. Yet Pachauri aggressively advocates a range of policy responses to climate change – including carbon and airline taxes, emissions reduction, and eating less meat. He has advised the public that it needs to adopt a “new value system” and has berated politicians for not doing enough.
16. When IPCC insiders answered a questionnaire in 2010, their views of Pachauri contrasted sharply with those of John Kerry. Pachauri’s handling of the glacier mistake was described as “inexcusable” – a “major communication blunder” that “damaged the integrity” of the organization. Overall, his leadership was deemed “totally inadequate,” of “very serious and urgent introspection in need.”
17. There is one final reason why Pachauri is a disaster as chairman of the IPCC. He, himself, has acknowledged that the process is rigged. Nevertheless, he continues to pretend otherwise. Let us travel back to 2009. The individuals who would write the upcoming climate report hadn’t yet been selected (that didn’t happen until the following year). Nevertheless, the IPCC chairman knew – all those years in advance – what conclusions these IPCC authors would reach. In September 2009, he told religious leaders in New York:
When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’
Not only did Pachauri know the nature and direction of the IPCC report’s conclusions, he knew these conclusions would be alarming and dramatic. This is not how a scientific body operates. This is the mark of a political organization, established to serve political ends. If Rajendra Pachauri has done a good job as IPCC chairman, what would a bad job look like?
31 – IPCC Bigwigs Spout Political, Childish Nonsense
I’ve written extensively on the harm Rajendra Pachauri inflicts on his own organization. Other IPCC bigwigs are similarly guilty.
Thomas Stocker is a climate modeler from Switzerland. Following 10 years of IPCC involvement, in 2008 he became the current co-chair of Working Group 1. Each of the three IPCC working groups has two chairpersons – one from an affluent country and one from a developing nation. Informally, everyone understands that the former is the person in charge (partly because that individual’s government has committed to housing and funding the working group’s administrative activities until that edition of the climate bible is complete). Because Stocker is head of the ‘science’ section of the climate bible and his co-chair is from China, his influence in the current IPCC configuration is difficult to overstate. In 2009, Stocker gave a media interview in which he declared that “all societies on this planet” would have to adopt “a clear schedule of emission reductions.” This man expects people concerned about the stunted growth of the children in their arms today to get concerned about carbon emissions that might cause a problem 100 years from now?
In another interview that same year, Stocker sounded for all the world like a politician when he opined that the upcoming UN climate summit:
must clearly set down the reductions expected from industrialised countries, and at the same time define sanctions if these reduction targets are not met…then we need a clear plan for the way in which emissions allowances are traded.
Let us be clear about what’s going on here. This man has decided that humanity’s primary response to climate change should be emissions cuts. He’s also decided that penalties will be necessary for countries that don’t meet their targets. Moreover, he’s decided there should an emissions trading system. What I want to know is this: Which part of his physics training equips him to make these policy decisions on behalf of the rest of us?
JC comments
I am grateful to Donna Laframboise for pulling this all together, it provides important context for the forthcoming AR5 report. I encourage you to support Donna’s efforts by purchasing her book at amazon.com (kindle; paperback) and also writing a review at amazon.
I am intensely interested in the response of the IPCC to the UN InterAcademy Council recommendations; does anyone have an update? I am incredulous that the IPCC appears to have dismissed many if not most of the IAC recommendations.
I’m thinking about the diligent scientists, without agendas, that participated in the AR5 particularly for the first time and spent a colossal amount of time working on it. When I first saw the list of IPCC authors for the AR5, I was excited by all the new names including some excellent scientists that are well known to me and whose integrity and honesty I trust absolutely. I ran into one of these scientists a few years ago at a meeting, and he said how excited he was to be a part of the IPCC, how a review on his topic was long overdue, and that he looked forward to the outcome of this review. I ran into another of these individuals at the AGU meeting last fall, who had become jaded by the process. He said it is a constant struggle between the newcomers, who want to ‘tell it like it is,’ versus the old hands who are worried primarily about what was said in the AR4 and not providing fodder for the skeptics. Even if the ‘good guys’ prevail at the chapter level, I have the sad suspicion that the people who are really in charge will be playing politics with the document whereby primary concerns are not providing fodder for skeptics and showing continued increasing ‘confidence’.
The IPCC has clearly been playing egregious politics with climate science, as Laframboise extensively documents. Perhaps this is what the policy makers want, this whole thing is so politicized it is difficult to tell. But there is no escaping that the IPCC has severely tarnished its ‘brand’, since the heady days in 2007 with the release of the AR4 and the Nobel Peace Price: Climategate, Pachauri’s shenanagins, the explicit green advocacy by IPCC grand poobahs and their irrepressible urge to make imperative policy proclamations, and failure to address the reforms recommended by the IAC.
As a result, the IPCC’s legitimacy and authority in terms of its expertise and process have been diminished since 2007. Does this in itself mean that the conclusions in the IPCC AR5 are erroneous or otherwise inappropriate? Of course not. But it does mean that the IPCC will have to do a much better job in terms of making its arguments and defending its judgments than it did in the AR4, in order for them to be accepted. ‘Trust us – we’re the experts’ doesn’t play very well anymore with this particular group of experts.
Laframboise’s statement:
Could we switch to the grownup channel, please?
pretty much sums up the whole IPCC situation for me. The science, the policy makers, and the world deserve better. I hope that Laframboise’s new book gets the attention that it deserves.
Update: Some additional comments seem to be in order based on the discussion in the comments. Laframboise’s interest in the climate change debate seems to have been jump started in a big way in 2009, around the time of Climategate. As far as I can tell, she seems driven by a concern over the accountability of the IPCC. To me, it seems like this concern motivates her selection of examples regarding the IPCC. No, this is not a dispassionate assessment of the IPCC, but rather raises concerns about the integrity and accountability of the IPCC. In that sense, there is ‘spin’ in the book. But given the enormous influence of the IPCC, I find it entirely appropriate that someone take a hard look at the behavior of the IPCC’s principal actors.
Australia has just elected a ‘grown up’ government, (at least for the House of Representatives). Does that help?
Congratulations to Australia. You are the first new glimmer of hope in a very dark world of government by deceit!
And Norway, too, has just elected a “grown up” government. These people vote for the Nobel peace price; maybe it will regain some of its reputation.
Congrats to Norway from Australia. :)
I second that:
Congrats to Norway from Australia. :)
Just 193 countries to go!!
Yes, indeed:
May those who ruled by deceit now fall like dominos !
Is it too late for the book to be renamed?
Honestly, I thought the title of the post was asking for Laframboise to be calmer in her approach and tone things down a bit. I’ve read the first book and found it really good in parts but the title and Laframboise’s tabloid writing style really harm the points she is making.
I found her first title woefully inadequate. Tonally wrong, and deeply jarring to these sensitive writer’s ears.
I totally disagree with your criticism.
Donna Laframboise is desperately trying to communication to the “deaf and blind” about the behavior of those who disguised themselves as scientists, manipulated experimental observations, and turned science into a tool of government propaganda for the political thugs that destroyed public confidence in governments worldwide.
Thank you, Donna, for your courage and your communications skills!
With kind regards,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
I agree. I hated the title of her first book and this one is worse. In my opinion, she turns off the kind of people you would like to take her seriously by choosing a bad title.
On the other hand, if the title is boring, no one will buy it either.
Read the amazon.com reviews for the Delinquent Teenager book (>160 reviews). There were a few obviously partisan reviews by people who hadn’t read the book. Apart from those, i think you can get a pretty good assessment of the impact of her first book, which is a significant impact IMO on people without strong preconceived notions, or on people that are trying to sort this out by reading material on both ‘sides’ of the debate.
I think the last book had little significance, and neither will this one.
Climate ” skeptics” like laframboise have no credibility with the wider public. They can’t “trust” what is claimed in these books, if you will.
Rightly so!
I liked her first book, and will undoubtedly like this one too. It is the far left that has the problem.
lolwot; Your contention is that the generally misinformed public doesn’t believe ‘skeptics’ like laframboise. This is understandable due to the lap dog media’s slavish reporting only on the side of the Statist’s AGW meme.
I find it strange that this point is the one you hang your hat on.
Yet, the fact that Rajendra Pachauri, the point man for the AGW cabal’s attempt at economic armageddon, has his background and training as a RAILROAD ENGINEER, is of no consequence to you.
It’s a one world government attempt to tax the air we breathe and roll back previous scientific and industrial progress by ‘The sky is falling’ scare tactics. All in a never ending attempt at further control of Earth’s citizens.
It never ceases to amaze, the depth of criticism directed at ‘skeptics’ from seemingly intelligent believers.
Believers who then stick their fingers in their ears and wail lalalal, refusing to hear that Earth has not warmed in 16 years as well as the hundreds of verifiable cases of lying, obfuscation, and scientific malfeasance from people exactly like Rajendra Pachauri.
“What I want to know is this: Which part of his physics training equips him to make these policy decisions on behalf of the rest of us?”
Amen.
Even if the WG1 climate work is impeccable, and the WG2 consequences are scary and correct, remedies are a completely different discipline.
Great point Harold. From my engineering perspective, requirements definition is a vastly different process than design and/or implementation.
I think you’ve been reading my mind, Judith … My review:
IPCC personnel’s laurels: Resting on slivers of unearned Nobel glory
Euuuw … Not sure what happened there but the URL should be:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/ipcc-personnels-laurels-resting-on-slivers-of-unearned-nobel-glory/
Hilary, did yer say ‘The IPCC Nobble Award?’ Im not sure how
ter spell it.
A serf.
That’s nobel cause corruption Beth! ;)
A nobbled cause.
============
Looking at Donna L’s review:
Item 8: On the issue of ‘retrospectivity.’ In a properly
run organizaqtion, conflict if interest shouldn’t hafta be
introduced retrospectively as a policy item.
Item 10: No member of an objective science body should
be a ‘crusader’ fer or recipient of a ‘crusader’ award.
Item 11: Peer reviewed source material should mean
jest that. Not 36% peer reviewed and 50% shades of
grey, or more!!! .
bts
I don’t see any mention of Pachauri’s international flights from NYC to Delhi so he could watch his favorite cricket team **practice**?? Mind you, if people wish to do that, great… but don’t ask me to pay for it, and don’t you DARE lecture me on eating beef or driving my truck while you’re flying thousands of miles for such frivolous reasons!
Heck, why do activists need to travel on long, expensive trips for any reason, especially when they are spending money that they desperately say that they need for their cause? And in this case, causing “carbon emissions” that they claim doom humanity? *pause* uh, yeah, I know why, but it’s a great question that I’d love to hear them try to answer.
In Pachauri’s mind, this would be nothing more than another Trojan Horse.
Travel looks to be about a 1/3 of their budget.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session35/doc2_add1_budget.pdf
On page 33.
Donna has always been a straight shooter when it comes to the facts. I appreciate the work she has done to separate the politics from the science. Indeed, it is rare even now to find anyone referencing the IPCC as anything but a political document, almost totally worthless for any scientific reference.
Really? I’m not.
+1000
Add another +1000. In my brief foray into politics (part of my misspent youth), I learned rather quickly that you strive to create a position for yourself, climb into it and then cling to it like grim death. It’s part of the reason I left the arena all together (didn’t even vote for a couple years).
Of course they would reject the recommendations. They would by definition disrupt the well paying, fame manufacturing status quo…and…they can, therefore, they will.
Yes, absolutely a great idea to base crucially important policy changes the world over, on the say so of this two bit fraudster and his merry band of self-serving propagandists..
Beyond pathetic. Beyond parody. Beyond belief..
Kerry, ‘extraordinary;’ Pachauri, ‘remarkable;’ and an NGO [?!] calling itself the Earth’s defense: with this group, the best defense is distance.
Your catalog is well done. Makes me want to consider Pachauri’s suggestion to leave the planet all together. Don’t see how you could get far enough away from that flavor of pedantic ego maniac.
“I hope that Laframboise’s new book gets the attention that it deserves.”
Me too, but of course it won’t. Not a chance in hell. A classic exercise in preaching mostly to the choir. Which isn’t to say it’s not worth doing.
Donna Laframboise deserves a lot of credit for her diligence and transparancy. I read her blog regularly and look forward to reading her new book. The delinquent teenager should have been a real eye opener to any objective reader and i think was for most, but all you have to do is read thru the comments on amazon to see how entrenched the climate tribe is.
In all fairness to Pachauri, if his fallback job is as a writer, I’d be hanging on to my day job as hard as possible in his place too.
Donna Laframboise is a true investigative journalist, one of the last of a vanishing breed. She is relentless in getting the facts and presenting them simply and fairly. When the history of this hall of shame (where most scientists, journalists, and politicians reside) is written, she will be one of those who deserve the thanks of us all. (Not to mention being a knockout–have you seen her 50:1 interview? Highly recommended.)
Agree!
I wouldn’t go overboard in praising Laframboise’s fairness with the facts. While employed with the National Post, she wrote a clearly biased column attacking an honest and courageous fellow-traveler, was sued for defamation, forced out of her job, and the National Post had to settle for a princely sum. http://www.ualberta.ca/~fchriste/LawsuitDocA/MY%20CASE.htm.
Note that Grant Brown is not unbiased on the law suit that he refers to as he was legal council for the “courageous fellow traveler”. As an attorney he also knows that there are good reasons other than overt guilt for settling a civil suit out of court. Mr. Brown has made it his duty to appear in assorted blogs where Ms. Laframboise’s latest book is discussed to sully her reputation. His “concerns” seem not based on her latest publication but are dripping with innuendo concerning a lawsuit having nothing to do with climate science or the IPCC and where no guilt was determined. Very suspicious.
I have replied to Grant A. Brown’s false allegations at some length here: Regarding a 2001 Lawsuit
I was one of more than 100 National Post staffers who received a severance package and a layoff notice shortly after the Post was sold in Sept. 2011.
It isn’t unusual for investigative journalists to be threatened with lawsuits and, indeed, to be sued. The article in question was carefully vetted by the newspaper’s experienced libel lawyer prior to publication. We were confident in the accuracy of our facts, believed the article would withstand a legal challenge, and were convinced it served the public interest to publish it.
A lawsuit was subsequently filed, which dragged on for eight years. Eventually, a settlement was reached – one in which I admitted to no wrongdoing.
My apologies. The Post was sold in September 2001 – not 2011.
One day, the people that have been involved in this endeavor will wake up and realize climate change and the IPCC is nothing more than a tool to a political end. The tool will be worked until it is dull and no longer functions. The IPCC and Dr. Pachuri are likely at this point The tool will then be set aside and another picked up and worked toward the same political end.
As a belief system, AGW is not science and like religion it has its own reality outside our physical world. So, unsurprisingly a raft of superstitious beliefs abound although cloaked in assumed environmental instead of supernatural terms.
In this alternate reality Ragendra Pachauri of the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shares the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore; and, because global warming alarmism is a plank in the Democrat Party platform the Nobel Peace Prize also was awarded to Barack Obama in 2009. All of this is the EU and the Left believing it is enjoying the last word while burying President Bush whose only sin was to stand up for America with his whole heart.
“Pachauri insists that the people who write IPCC reports are the world’s best and brightest, at the very top of their profession.. Many authors have links to green organizations. Still others are “clearly not qualified” personnel from the developing world (chosen to give the report an international flavour).”
How many are not at the very top of their profession? How many have links to green organizations? How many are ““clearly not qualified?’ Source(s)? Thanks..
Joseph, the sources can be found in the InterAcademy Council (IAC)’s compilation of responses to a questionnaire from IPCC personnel themselves, during the course of the IAC’s 2010 Review of the IPCC’s policies and procedures.
Suggest you follow the link(s) to Donna’s blog and/or read her first book on the IPCC: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
Joseph – read the book. Unlike climate scientists, Lafrsmboise provides links to sources to back up her claims. If you have mot resd hrr first book, i’d highly recommend it.
Widely available: do your homework.
Wow. I knew the IPCC was a mess but I had no idea of the extent of the morass.
This is news?
Out of the tens of thousands of supposed investigative reports over the years, Donna is one of the few that that has actually done an investigation rather just regurgitate press releases. I believe that just a few years ago, she and many others would have never been allowed to speak. Thanks for the internet Al!
With the likes of Dr. Curry, Donna, Jo Nova, Hilary O., Jennifer Marohasy, and many others, women are fighting this fight way above their weight class, and winning. History will be kind to them.
I agree. Too many male government scientists seem to have sold their souls for research grants and awards.
Oh, O!
=====
“The IPCC has clearly been playing egregious politics with climate science, as Laframboise extensively documents. Perhaps this is what the policy makers want, this whole thing is so politicized it is difficult to tell.”
Perhaps the politicians want the process to be politicized, but the process is too politicized to tell?
Someone is trying way too hard to appear moderate.
The IPCC was created in 1988, at the start of the CAGW political campaign that swung into high gear in the Senate conference room with James Hansen. The IPCC was created by politicians, staffed by politicians, funded by politicians, and controlled by politicians for a political purpose.
Complaining about the IPCC being political is like complaining about the Democrat Party being political. They are both exactly what they were formed to be – political organizations with political agendas.
The AR5 will be a political document, just like the four ARs before it.
It will be a grand lesson for our grandchildren of the use and abuse of science by politics. It’s not the first example, nor will it be the last, but it is the grandest so far.
=========
Truly, I believe we are getting better at spotting the abuses, but oh Mamma, what a tsunama.
================
Don’t forget the thermal theater. The opening act was dripping in dishonesty.
If you don’t trust the IPCC perhaps the US legal system will help:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/
“I was also struck by the sloppiness of the opinions. They could have both benefited from a good proof read — and not just for grammar and punctuation. The case involves separate allegations against two separate sets of defendants (Rand Simberg/CEI and Mark Steyn/NRO). Accordingly there are two separate orders. Yet the two orders have a hard time keeping the defendants straight and, at times, attribute specific actions to the wrong defendants.”
“Laframboise’s statement:
Could we switch to the grownup channel, please?”
Sums up everytihng wrong with the tedious dross Laframboise writes;
– juvenile point scoring
– accuracy takes second place to rhetoric.
Though it’s entertaining to see the wailing about Pachauri, given that it was the US Bush govt that wanted to be rid of Robert Watson and have Pachauri in his place.
Downright diabolical to set off this one man weapon of mass destruction among the innocent, wasn’t it?
================
kim,
I’d expect nothing other than ditto-headism from you.
Sceptism of Laframbroise’s claims – ZERO.
High Five Team Ditto-Head!!
Would you like to address the issues? Or merely spew more senseless ad hominems?
Seething with dross envy Michael?
Tediousness. Michael’s calling card.
Tim,
Do have have anything other than “so are you!” – I’m sure it worked a treat for you in the playground, but maybe it’s time to move on?
Look who’s talking.
Exactly how is your “insightful” commentary of Donna’s book anything other than throwing rocks from the sidelines? Guess what numbnut, when you throw rocks, don’t whine when they get thrown back.
As for playground treats – maybe at whatever school you went to. We played ball of one sort or another.
Hmmm.
Self-proclaimed skeptics may have been expected to welcome a sceptical look at Donna’s book.
Cult of AGW groupthink space cadets is a quasi religious millennialist organisation. I don’t think we should expect dispassionate responses to a hatchet job on their bible and the college of cardinals.
…but not from the denier cult.
Surely more a circus than a cult?
“Though it’s entertaining to see the wailing about Pachauri, given that it was the US Bush govt that wanted to be rid of Robert Watson and have Pachauri in his place.”
perhaps we can discuss some of the rather strange mails in the climategate collection about him. It’s not pretty. Na, you didnt want to go there did you… hmm maybe we will.
After a while with Google, I found a searchable database of climategate emails. I found 54 results for Pachauri. Reading them now.
“… just,,,But Bush! …”
From number 456
Quoting an American Enterprise Institute document (the URL is no longer valid). Presumably, a careful search of the morgue of that newspaper could determine whether he this text was actually printed, although it may have been removed from its online archives. Wayback? Given that it came from an email expressing concern about the idea of a “rival IPCC (their Team B)“:
Nothing about Pachauri being misquoted. So, pending demonstration otherwise, we should probably conclude he actually made this comparison.
AK,
You should note that sometimes the writers of mails mispell his name.
It helps to read them all.
@Steven Mosher…
But would it do more than prove things I’m already pretty sure about? In a general sense, I mean. Obviously there are all sorts of gory details, but I already know in general about how bureaucracy intersects with politics.
Really too bad the letters haven’t been put into a relational database where we could use the SQL “like” operator.Or have they? Searching would be harder than just typing something into Google, but could be more productive.
Maybe we should talk about the money trail between TERI and Tyndall?
Question for the day, when people were attacking this Bush choice… which Guy ( who wanted to do business with Patchy) was defending him.. and played the race card?
Lots of emails about Tyndall.
Are there some about TERI?
willard (@nevaudit) | September 10, 2013 at 8:11 am |
Lots of emails about Tyndall.
Are there some about TERI?
##################
who is asking?
> Who is asking?
The one who answered your question by pointing to #0660:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=610
That Phil’s played the “race card” might be as “technically correct” as the “scientist card”, a favourite of Richard:
Notice how we can play cards by stating “technically correct” facts.
An alternative answer to “which Guy was defending Rajendra and played the race card” would be kana:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=883
Follows some discussion about the Tyndall Center.
Interestingly, some eminent scientists already know that Mike Hulme would give Patchy a chance.
Willard,
Its not Phil playing the race card.
and psst… there are some things you cant find in that location.
you also might want to search for issues related to North/South
politics..
and if you want the passcode just ask more questions…
That was a cosy chat between Pachauri and Mike Hulme was it not? [Just going by memory here! And sometimes it fails me!]
Steven,
Do you need an invitation?
David, would like one too.
Yes, I actually do need an invitation. There are certain topics that I choose not to discuss unless some idiot makes an opening.
For your future reference here is how that works
1. You or some other idiot makes a comment about politics to divert
attention from the real issue. As long as we are on a diversion.. I’ll
divert the conversation to something I know that you dont know about
the climategate mails. even CG III stuff.
2. You or some other idiot makes a diversionary comment about the science, or about people I know. Again, since we are on a diversion I take this as an invitation to divert the conversation to something they know very little about.
Its pretty simple.
Speaking of diversion, we could even look into the CRUtape letters, which stands next to me as we speak.
O, the joy of a lukewarm comedy of menace in the morning.
Steven,
That was it.
Ah willard there is much more than is in the book.
What you need to do is to read all the mails.
You can do this several ways.
First just read them all straight through from beginning to end in the order presented.
Next, read them all through again and sort them into catagories by topic
make copies into folders by topic
Next, read through them all again and sort them chronologically.
Next read through them all again and sort them by main player
That should give you 4 sets of the same documents.
1. the order presented
2. ordered by topic
3. order by date
4. order by person
Now, read them all again in the various orders you have created.
When you are done with that you wont need a search engine because it will all be in your head. You’ll even remember the misspelling of names.
or odd things like search for the word “megaphone” or the phrase “squeaky clean”
At that point you will be able to caste aside the secondary sources and you will know the text.
Yes, let’s study ‘the text’.
Michael | September 10, 2013 at 11:17 am |
That was it.
#####################
Ya Micheal its pretty easy. There is very little that cannot be tied back to climategate mails, all I need is a word, or topic, or example of a bad argument and i will show you the precursor in the mails.
Ever read a book called the Anxiety of Influence. or read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funes_the_Memorious
> What you need to do is to read all the mails.
First, it was Da blog.
Second, it was Da Emails.
Third, it will be the emails only Moshpit and his clique read.
At least Jason got a lousy t-shirt made in golden wool.
Willard,
as a scholar you should know that the primary text is critical to understanding. You would not merely rely on what somebody wrote
about ‘word and object’, you would actually read what Quine wrote.
You would not use a search engine to understand Quine, you would
read quine. all of him. everything you could lay your hands on.
perhaps you are disadvanted by being a slow reader. There is also
a curse in being able to remember what you read. try to write a poem
about a crow and not think of stevens, or mention helen of troy
and not think of Poe, or Goethe, or Marlowe.. was this the face that launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of illim?
sweet helen, make me immortal with a kiss.. her lips suck forth my soul,see where it flies, god I still remember the day that Erich heller read that in class. hmm maybe there is a dark tower here.. crap thats CS lewis.
so yes, you have a long reading list. the blog, the mails, get crackin
Did I hear someone say diversion?
Yes, but denier
King o’ the hill.
Can you teach a donkey to read?
Or do you have to read it aloud to him?
> First just read them all straight through from beginning to end in the order presented.
This would be silly, and irrelevant to Moshpit’s request to “please cease and desist or I’ll show you some emails”.
Like everything else before, some eminent scientists would claim Da emails lost their lukewarm bite.
Just look how Moshpit dogwhistles Phil’s name when kana’s or even Hulme’s played some cards too.
On importance of primary material:
At the risk of being accused of bringing the pom poms out of the closet, what Mosher states is how I was taught as a History major.
Moshpit’s suggestion has merit, Tim. But if he did that job, why would I redo it from scratch? Free the data, free the code, free the debate.
I’m not the one threatening to read some emails, you know. Personally, I find Mike Hulme more interesting than Patchy. His champion theory is simply fascinating.
One does not simply threaten to go to Mordor.
> First just read them all straight through from beginning to end in the order presented.
This would be silly, and irrelevant to Moshpit’s request to “please cease and desist or I’ll show you some emails”.
############
err no it wouldn’t be silly o meaningless. plus you mis read my caution to you
Hulme is the interesting character.
you will find most of what you need to know by reading, but you cannot rely on search. search will not work for the task you have ahead of you.
So, read the primary material. read it all. Then you can start to piece the picture together. You will need other sources. those are available, but
first you must read the primary material to know where to look and what to request. The key is in plain sight. but search wont help you. memory might.
Joshua.
you meant to say
“did I hear someone say dispersion”
When you practice “knight move thinking” the important principle to remember is that a knight on the rim is dim.
if you are going to practice knight move thinking then make sure you pick a good outpost. deep in enemy territory where a pawn move cant dislodge you.
lets re cap.
michael tries some knight move thinking and moves on bush and conservative in general. This is patzer knight move thinking.
The good counter diversion ( see wikipedia for knight move thinking ) does not strike back by attacking liberals ( for example ) the counter diversion goes deep into enemy territory. Climategate… and… also opens the door to north south politics and corruption.
Mosher: the equal opportunity douche-tease
> you will find most of what you need to know by reading
Indeed, and it’s oftentimes a quote with a link gets more reading than a threat with a READ ALL THE EMAILS:
http://memegenerator.net/instance/40477194
Heh, moshe, I don’t care if they get it right, but they might.
========
Yes Michael, revealing systemic corruption and incompetence is oh such a juvenile thing to do. Grownups know to just suck it up for the sake of political correctness.
Gina,
Donna has a chronic inability to get her facts straight.
Perhaps you can regale us with cited examples. I could say the same about you without proof, and it would be just as worthless a statement.
Michael
Can you be more specific please with say, five examples of incorrect important facts?
tonyb
tony b
Michael doesn’t have any facts, just phony claims.
Laframboise, on the other hand, documents her claims well.
Max
tony b,
“He has alleged that they are part of a “carefully orchestrated” campaign, and that they believe “asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.” Are these remarks worthy of the leader of a prominent international body? ” – DL
No, not really.
Laframboise is engaging in some deception here. If you read the original statement, P was referring to specific individuals and noting their past involvement with the tobacco companies etc. Laframboise has spun it to make it sound as though he directed this comment to any and all ‘climate skeptics’.
“Pachauri says it’s “gratifying that [an] independent review found our work solid and robust.” …. The authors of the independent review did not use the [sic] ‘robust.’ Neither did they use the word ‘solid.’ ” – DL
This is just stupid.
And neither did P. claim the words “solid” and “robust” where direct quotes from that report. What did it say?;
“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall”, “significant contributions”, “rather remarkable”, “represents a significant social innovation”.
Fair comment from P.?
“Rather than helping the scandal-ridden IPCC ” – DL
Nice tabloid journalism – assert what you claim to be a fact.
“The independent review said the IPCC was too insular and could benefit from …” – DL
Oh, Donna!. Where does it say “insular”. The authors of the independent review did not use the word ‘insular’. Wow, I just ‘Laframboised’ Donna!
Well, that’s just the first few paragraphs from the small excerpt Judith has reproduced. The rest will be of the same quality.
It’s silly, stupid, petty and inaccurate stuff like this that fills Laframboise’s writing.
Someone up thread called it ‘tabloid’. That’s a polite way of saying it’s a steaming pile of BS.
Which is a pity. Good critique is useful, but Laframboise buries the rare useful insight under a mound of manure.
And Judith appears to be suffering another ‘pause’ in scepticism.
Michael
I have difficulty in checking your counter claims as over here we ALSO have an IPCC and most googling leads to them.
In fact I thought I HAD stumbled onto a major climate related scandal (as Donna describes) when I read that the death of someone that had been taken into custody was thought to have been an accident but with implications there was a cover up.
You see OUR IPCC stands for the Independent Police Complaints Commission…
Will try and unravel some of your other comments.
tonyb
Michael: Donna has a chronic inability to get her facts straight.
In the examples that you provided, DL actually got her “facts” straight. What you disparaged was her emphasis on facts (in your second example, represented by you as “…”) that you de-emphasized. You criticized her use of the accurate paraphrase “insular” because it was not a direct quote.
DL pointed out that a review had not used the words “solid” and “robust” used by Pachauri. Her criticism of Pachauri on that point was trivial as he fairly summarized what he thought the important parts of the review were; DL gave more weight to the negative aspects of the review. You might could make a case that her selections are biased. I think of them more as counterbalancing the usual biased presentations by IPCC participants.
Does it matter that no one can tell exactly whom Pachauri wanted to rub their faces in asbestos everyday? It’s one of many relevant examples of IPCC participants’ malevolent expressions toward their detractors.
I like your “accurate paraphrase”, MattStat. I might borrow it if you don’t mind. Most of her criticisms sound quite trivial to me, but then I might be biased.
Do you have the Asbestos quote handy?
Many thanks!
“Mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiiirrrrrsssst.”
Never seen that before.
Scratching my own itch:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/260c9290-10d7-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html
Our emphasis.
***
Now, let’s look Donna’s excerpt:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/15/rub-asbestos-on-your-face-why-dont-cha/
***
Considering how Donna interpret Rajendra, some eminent auditors would like to look at some CEO’s Fortune 100 PR misfortunes to see if they kept their jobs. Here’s a dig:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-controversy_n_3286502.html
Left as an exercise to readers.
Perhaps one of them could write a blog and then a book over that single statement from Donna?
Willard(@nevaudit): I like your “accurate paraphrase”, MattStat. I might borrow it if you don’t mind. Most of her criticisms sound quite trivial to me, but then I might be biased.
Did she “get her facts straight”? Were her paraphrases (e.g. “insular”) inaccurate?
Could you tell who exactly was lumped in with the people who deny asbestos causes cancer and who should wipe their faces in it? It seems to be a fair interpretation that Pachauri does in fact lump most critics of IPCC with such people.
“Into the Dust Bin” is a bit extreme for me, but so are “The Octopus” (about railroads) and “The Jungle” (about large scale meat processing), and “The Grapes of Wrath”.
Joshua: “Mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiiirrrrrsssst.”
Is this your indirect admission that “they did it”?
Matt –
Everyone does it – a point I make frequently. What is interesting is that it still comes as surprise to some. Selective reading is my explanation.
Anyway, as I said, everyone does it. It is a given in these debates, as dictated by the attributes of how we make meaning and how we reason, particularly in politicized circumstances.
IMO, what is more important is how people respond to the inevitability of people “doing it.”
One way is to justify it by saying “they did it first.”
There are other ways to respond, also.
Joshua: Everyone does it – a point I make frequently.
So it was worth pointing out how the IPCC had done it in this instance.
Says matt;
“You criticized her use of the accurate paraphrase “insular” because it was not a direct quote.”
Perhaps I was insufficiently clear.
That was no ‘critique’, merely a trivial dig, Laframboise-style; she ‘critique’ Pachauri just before this regarding his “solid and robust” statement in precisely these terms.
Was this ‘accurate paraphase’ (a wonderful concept)? A fair reflection of the overall gist, I’d say.
Donna – trivial and inaccurate. Often simultaneously.
> Did she “get her facts straight”? Were her paraphrases (e.g. “insular”) inaccurate?
I can’t answer the first question for now, MattStat. To me, it’s not a matter of “getting facts straight” as which facts are chosen and how they’re presented to fit into a narrative. Donna’s narrative fuels righteous hindsight more than a rational inquiry, as Pekka observed. Some eminent auditors would add that the best way to mislead is never to tell untruths.
My answer to the second question would be that accuracy might not be the main objective of paraphrasing. If we measured the accuracy of a paraphrase by the way it helps the reader refer to the relevant parts of the IAC report, I’m afraid it’s not quite accurate.
Willard(@nevaudit): To me, it’s not a matter of “getting facts straight” as which facts are chosen and how they’re presented to fit into a narrative.
I sympathize. However, I was responding to an assertion that she had not gotten her facts straight. So far, I don’t see that claim supported.
I’m not sure how you can respond to something you yourself introduced, MattStat:
> In the examples that you provided, DL actually got her “facts” straight.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377884
Michael’s reading was more along these lines:
> Someone up thread called it ‘tabloid’. That’s a polite way of saying it’s a steaming pile of BS.
I don’t think the main problem with the tabloid format is that it consists of falsities.
Willard(@nevaudit): I’m not sure how you can respond to something you yourself introduced, MattStat:
Michael introduced the notion that DL does not get her facts straight: Donna has a chronic inability to get her facts straight. In the examples that he provided, she actually had gotten her facts straight. Then two discussants changed ground, to claiming that her facts were [improperly presented], even though “straight”..
MattStat,
You’re right, Michael did introduce the “facts straight” line. My point is that Michael’s examples go beyond what I and you would consider facts. You are the one who insists in dealing with Donna’s facts, which I don’t think he needs for his criticisms to stand.
So what were the facts in Michael’s examples, again?
Pachauri was elected by a coalition of three forces. Developing countries recognized him as one of their own: A member of the self-serving elite that wrecked such havoc on poor economies. European countries wanted someone who would preach greenery. The USA wanted someone who is gaffe-prone, a poor leader, and followed by a whiff of scandal.
Richard,
A fair summary, but I’d add that the US was very keen to be rid of a credible, outspoken, climate scientist named Bob Watson. The Bushite far-right forces of anti-science were rather intolerant.
What anti-science forces would that be? Please cite the names and dates of their anti-science. And leave religious leaders out of this. I think we are talking science. But I can see how some of the warmists confuse the 2.
Michael
“7 degree C” and “the science is settled” Watson was overdue for replacement.
So is “choo-choo” Pachauri today.
Max
He is clearly qualified to be the President.
Seems that there’s at least one eminent European scientist that appreciated Bob Watson’s athleticism:
#0660
For those who’d rather have the punch line, here’s the “ExxonMobil memo urging the Bush Administration to remove Dr. Watson from his position as IPCC Chair:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
As seen in #0660.
***
Has anyone noticed any shift of opinion by Mike Hulme about Rajendra after all these years?
One of my favorite Bush quotes / stories is from the time he gave the commencement speech at one if his alma maters. He said something to the effect that he was proof even a C student could become President.
I’m curious as to how many people know he not only earned degrees from each of the schools his two opponents attended, he had better grades as well.
Michael-
Where there is darkness, surely there is light ahead. Are you going to use your cape to shield your eyes, or are you just going to wear those new designer sun glasses when it comes?
“Though it’s entertaining to see the wailing about Pachauri, given that it was the US Bush govt that wanted to be rid of Robert Watson and have Pachauri in his place.”
So let me get the logic of this. Pachauri was and is an ethical a disaster, but he was appointed by Bush so…what? Bush appointees are immune from criticism? Bush appointees were all marvelous human beings and performed their duties above reproach? Bush appointees can’t be criticized by anyone who voted against Gore?
Or is the logic just,,,But Bush!
Oh, Gary, you silly boy.
There was a very effective, articulate and credible climate scientist as IPCC chair. The Bush administration deniers hated that and lobbied hard to get Pachauri the job – because he wasn’t those things.
“… just,,,But Bush! …”
Got any sources for that? You have to let us know who the people are before you can then qualify them as anything since everyone denies something, everyone can be called a denier.
just,,,But Bush!
just,,,But Bush!
just,,,But Bush!
just,,,But Bush!
What more needs to be said?
just,,,But Bush!
As seen in #0660, here’s the ExxonMobil memo urging the Bush Administration to remove Dr. Watson from his position as IPCC Chair:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
***
Has anyone noticed any shift of opinion by Mike Hulme about Rajendra after all these years?
Michael and Willard,
You still haven’t made any argument. Bush made a lot of stupid appointments., he was a progressive Republican. he tried to appoint a hack like Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court because she was loyal to him.
I’ll give you one more shot: The fact that Bush appointed Pachauri means he has been a great IPCC head because…….
Gary, Gary, Gary,
P. was suggested because they expected he wouldn’t be ‘great’.
Michael, Michael, Michael,
Nonsense, Bush was a progressive Republican who was duped by almost anyone telling him what he wanted to hear.
“Asked before the vote about the role of the IPCC chair, Pachauri said that he would not criticize any individual government’s position on climate change: ‘The chairperson has to remain politically neutral.’ He said that the time has come for IPCC to place more emphasis on ‘regional assessments, local assessments, and outreach activities.'”
Bush nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts being the sole progressive who decided to rewrite the Constitution to socialize medicine in the United States.
Bush wanted a head of the IPCC who would be horrible from your progressive perspective, true. But he ended up pointing just another shallow, dishonest, greedy progressive who hid his true colors until he got the position he wanted.
You still haven’t made a logical argument. But then, I never really thought you would.
Gary –
You’ll have to forgive Michael. Apparently he didn’t get the memo that people’s political ideology is only what you determine it to be.
Bush may have been the decider, but you are the definer. Obviously.
What a fascinating world view you have, Gary, that: (1) determines Roberts to be a “progressive,” (2) leads you to believe that he “rewr[o]te” the constitution and that, (3) medicine in the United States has been “socialized.”
Keep this up and I do believe that you will soon surpass Wags as my favorite Climate Etc. “skeptic.”
GaryM,
Your analysis of former President Bush appears to be highly tinged buy they filters and lens you view things through. You could have extremely good filters and lens and therefore be accurate in your assessment. But then again you may have the same everyday quality most if us have.
> You still haven’t made any argument.
I had no commitment to make one, and I don’t buy historicist crap.
What you quoted from Michael contained his argument, which some eminent scientists would paraphrase with this meme:
http://www.quickmeme.com/Popcorn/?upcoming
I know you like memes, GaryM.
An inconvenient history.
Ah, Dubya; the Good Ol’ Days.
========
If it’s “inevitable” that there would be errors in a document of the size of an ipcc ar (and I would agree that’s true),then attacking people who point these errors out and denying the existence of such errors until it is impossible to do so any more, as RP did, and only then pointing out the inevitability of such mistakes is either incredibly political, or incredibly naive. Either way, hardly confidence inspiring…
Are the children on the sandpit ready to watch /switch to grown up Chanel; that is the question!
Stefan
Naw. It’s too much fun in the sandbox. But it looks like their time is running out.
Max
That’s All, Folks!
=======
manacker | September 10, 2013 at 7:44 am said: ” It’s too much fun in the sandbox”
manacker, their problem is not to prevent global warming, but to produce one
The recommended actions are only on Pause until such time that the IPCC is disbanded. It is the only kind of Pause the IPCC recognizes.
Long may Pachauri stay and drag down the IPCC ever further.
Gina
Amen!
In good faiuth I signed up to be an ‘expert reviewer’ for the AR5 draft last year and was irritated by the obfuscation when I asked for supporting information.
I was particularly interested in the so called ‘Abyssal warming’ which the IPCC said was ‘accepted’. When I asked to see the research that supported this position they said they could only provide material that was cited in the report.
After a great deal of toing and froing they said that as the research was ‘accepted’ there were no cites so therefore they could not provide it.
This happened in a variety of subjects including sea level change.
I understand there is currently pressure to change the ‘summary for policymakers’ to make it more acceptable to governments thereby continuing the politicisation of this body.
If the IPCC had been set up in 2000 it would surely not have been \allowed to continue as the evidence for AGW-especially the ‘c’ bit that frightens Govt -is very hard to discern.
As it is, the body has acquired its own momentum and although it has outlived its usefulness I doubt anyone is brave enough to drive a stake through its heart.
tonyb
Tony-
I wonder how many “expert reviewer(s)” such as yourself have had similar experiences. How many will have the courage to speak up on the inadequacies of the process and problems with adherence to the scientific method. A compilation of just those testimonies would be damning by itself, I am sure.
Dennis
After reading your post I thought I would look sat the size of the secretariat that supports the IPCC.
I came across the Trust Fund Budget of the IPCC. There has been £100 million of expenditure since 1988 plus numerous ‘in kind’ benefits such as hosting of resources. I was a little surprised to see payments to Lead Authors as I thought work was done for free.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session35/doc2_budget.pdf
They have a budget set for the next 4 years so obviously don’t intend to wind themselves up any time soon. They are apparently audited by the UK audit committee although the last two years accounts weren’t available at the time of the report (2012-nothing that surprising there, accounts are often late) .
I know nothing of the funding of the IPCC and am not suggesting any financial misdemeanours but wondered if anyone here could throw any light on how they operate and who gets paid for what?
tonyb
Oh Tony … as yer indicatin,’ bureaucratic pre-vari-cay-shun
has little ter do with what’s reely happenin’. The IPCC ‘has
acquired its own momentum.’ Seems ter a common serf that
the I-P-C-C, like the ‘In’-quizz-ishun is a power coterie that puts
the lid on reel enquirie..
Jest-a-heart-broken-serf.
You know what to do Beth, its in our genes, pitch forks, flaming torches and and a bit of a sing-song afterwards.
‘With the release of the AR5 Working Group I Report anticipated in a few weeks, the release of the book is very timely as the WORLD reacts to the IPCC AR5.’
I think something that affects all of us discussing the earths climate – not just professional scientists or those who believe the sky is going to fall – sometimes think that everybody else is equally concerned about the topic. I don’t think they are. My guess is that the proportion of people in the world, to the nearest one percent who will be able to recognise the phrase IPCC AR5, will be zero.
Judith
The latest news release from the UN Academy council is over two years old. Do they still function?
tonyb
IAC not an UN Academy. IAC doesn’t appear as highly productive, but less than a year ago the produced a report on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise that may have some relevance for climate science although it doesn’t specifically address climate science.
Inferences from the IAC report are extracted and grouped under six headings here:
http://tome22.info/IAC-Report/IAC-Report-Overview-Short.html
Click on each to go to the relevant part of the IAC report
The six headings are:
– Political interference
– Bias
– Uncertainty
– Conflict of interest
– Management
Tony, as far as I know, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) still functions, but the group commissioned by the IAC (under the chairmanship of Harold T. Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University) to conduct the 2010 IAC review of the IPCC has long been disbanded.
There’s a summary of the findings (although for some reason it is dated Aug. 30, 2011 – when the report was released on that date in 2010):
InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/24770/27696.aspx
Some of the key recommendations that in the course of IPCC Task Group “response” deliberations (led by AR5 WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker) got warped beyond recognition were those pertaining to the (diplomatically phrased, but rather damning):
Perhaps if (unlike Stocker, to whom the word “openness” appears to be anathema) the powers that be at the IPCC had given credit to John and Jane Q. Public’s ability to comprehend the full meaning and implications of the word “DRAFT” (and even that of dedicated enviro-activist journalists – as opposed to Pachauri’s concern about the release of “half-baked” reports), then they wouldn’t have had to worry about all the “leaks” that have occurred, would they?!
Bottom line from my perspective is that the IAC review recommendations handed the IPCC a lifeline – which, for all intents and purposes, for the most part the IPCC powers that be not only failed to grasp, they didn’t even try.
In effect, they thumbed their noses at the IAC recommendations with a few “window-dressing” and/or lip-service exceptions in order to proceed with Business As Usual.
One such exception was the development of an humoungously convoluted but ultimately toothless Conflict of Interest review process – the laughable results of which can be found in the Report of the [unnamed] Chair (pdf Submitted by the Secretariat) scheduled as Agenda Item 12.1 for the October 37th Session to be held in Batumi, Georgia.
The other exception was the beefing up of their PR department (and “protocols”).
Here’s IAC commitment to openness:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf
The whole “John and Jane Q. Public’s ability to comprehend the full meaning and implications of the word “DRAFT”” charade should stop.
I’ve never been audited, and any way I don’t suppose that the “audit” being conducted of climate “skepticism” is exactly like any other audit, but I wonder if it’s appropriate for the auditor to sit for hours talking about crickets, waiting for somebody to post a link to something he already had ready.
The comment regarding “IAC commitment to openness” was posted less than three minutes after my comment with link and quote. While the quote matches mine, I doubt any honest auditor would have simply taken my word for what it said: a quick examination of the linked document, and the context of the quote, would have been involved.
Followed by creating and formatting a comment containing several HTML tags. And, perhaps, testing the HTML before submitting the comment. All in under 3 minutes? Or was the auditor waiting with the comment ready, for somebody to respond to his cricket imitations?
Crickets.
willard,… Line +1
Still, crickets.
A jinx of crickets.
Thank you for your answer, A, which I just read from my RSS reader.
My comment took me more than two minutes to write, in case you’re wondering. I had to find back the email where I discussed this. Then I had to find back the doc. Then I had to reconstruct the OPEN ALL THE DRAFTS meme.
And to answer your remark: I’m not auditing you inasmuch as we’re supposed to audit one another.
willard, would you have eight screens too?
Interesting coincidence, nevaudit. Still, I’ve seen some even more unlikely.
I’m sure you realize the cases aren’t parallel. In both cases the output of the reporting process is something many parties have a stake in. The difference is that the IPCC has been burned by documented misfeasance in its non-open process, so that the lack of openness has contributed to distrust. Its “science” rests on the credibility and expertise of a large number of contributers and reviewers. OTOH, the IAC report’s credibility rests on the reputation and expertise of the (members of the) Committee to Review the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Part of the problem leading to widespread distrust of the IPCC was the widespread dissatisfaction by contributors and reviewers with the final result(s). The IAC report was intended to address this. Do you, or any auditor, have evidence of dissatisfaction by witnesses or reviewers of the IAC report?
AK,
Looks like Willard sat chirping for at least 12 hours before he decided to run off and do some “homework”. But I quite agree, it’s an amazing coincidence that he should have posted a mere two or three minutes after you had posted the very same thing!
So, thank you for posting this explanation. And … speaking of the context that Willard doesn’t seem to have much interest in, I noticed that he opted to omit that which you had provided, and which he obviously must have seen when he claims he was doing his own “homework” (for a change!):
I was left shaking my head wondering what might have precipitated his original out of the blue (downthread) question. And I was even more puzzled by what he might have thought the relevance of his context-free “response” (above) might be to my comments!
But it will be interesting to see which direction he charges off to next, in lieu of responding to your questions of September 11, 2013 at 12:16 am (which I would have asked, if you hadn’t beat me to it!)
Then again, perhaps all we’ll hear are crickets ;-)
AK,
You say:
> I’m sure you realize the cases aren’t parallel. In both cases the output of the reporting process is something many parties have a stake in.
This has nothing to do with the reason the IAC invoked to keep its deliberative process and its testimonies private.
> The difference is that the IPCC has been burned by documented misfeasance in its non-open process, so that the lack of openness has contributed to distrust.
This has nothing to do with the reason the IAC invoked to keep its deliberative process and its testimonies private.
As much as I enjoy red herrings, I prefer when they are stuffed with straw.
***
Have you ever considered that one might need to interpret IAC’s recommendations in a less literal (arguably speaking, see below) way than Donna & the Auditor did, and Hilary repeats?
Speaking of whom, here’s an interesting quote from an op-ed published not long ago:
Dang double blockquotes.
What follows:
> I’m not sure how having closed zeroth-order drafts can arguably be antithetical to openness.
is mine.
I’ll repeat my warning against the word “antithetical”.
***
Oh, and this:
> Then again, perhaps all we’ll hear are crickets ;-)
surely means Hilary must be new here.
Hilary should beware her wishes, in general and more particularly here, as she now will have to defend something even the Auditor refused to do.
@nevaudit…
Actually, it does. In both cases, the deliberative process was “protected” by trying to keep outsiders from inserting their own agendas.
The difference is that the IPCC’s deliberative process had already been discredited. The IAC recommendations were intended to facilitate an “open” process because nobody trusted the “protected” one.
In my view, there was never any intent to actually follow the recommendations offered. Some fig-leaf of pretense might be followed, but probably not.
The decisions coming out of both report processes are political decisions, with strong incentives to be made in smoke-filled rooms. If the IPCC review process were really opened to public scrutiny, the smoke-filled rooms would just have to move elsewhere, earlier in the process. Too much trouble, which is why I am unsurprised that the IPCC management blew off the recommendations.
> Actually, it does. In both cases, the deliberative process was “protected” by trying to keep outsiders from inserting their own agendas.
This overinterprets what the IAC said. The IAC simply said it kept the deliberative process private to preserve its integrity.
***
> The difference is that the IPCC’s deliberative process had already been discredited.
Again, this difference has no bearing on the justification the IAC invoked: to preserve its integrity.
***
> The IAC recommendations were intended to facilitate an “open” process because nobody trusted the “protected” one.
A citation and a quote might be nice to justify that reading.
We should also beware the “nobody”, which might get Donna’s fans searching for one person in the universe who would still trust the “protected” process.
***
Also note how AK implies that an open process is an absolutely transparent one.
What Donna says in her book i’ve been saying for years.
It was always incredulous that the world’s climate was so finely balanced that a rare gas comprising less than one percrnt of the atmosphere could have such a profound affect on climate. Not impossible but highly unlikely.
The UN, not having much success in peacemaking decided its duty was to warn the world of the coming catastrophe. Sundry politicians and economists joined the bandwagon. Al Gore produced a science fiction movie, The politicians from different countries volunteered their met. Bureau staffs who , in any case, did not know how climate could be so finely balanced. Following Hansen the IPCC started sponsoring model;s, none of which has successsfully explained past climate.
What the UN should have done was to call tenders from appropriately qualified institutions to investigate climate and climate change. Because it went off half cocked the UN will probably only make things worse
Further interesting reading:
UNEP structure includes IPCC and its support, UNFCCC, [carbon trader and trained by Gore, C. Figueres, of the Costa Rica political family, is Exec Sec’y]. Kyoto Treaty promotion and approval is the other function of United Nations Framework Climate Change Convention; a bit of a rough slog for Figueres, since her appointment in 2010.
Alexander, this gets my vote for “Understatement of the Year” :-)
Yes, but this would have made controlling the message considerably more challenging, would it not?!
Besides, I think the only “investigations” for which the UN (or at least the UNEP) might call “tenders” are to sub-contract out their own responsibilities so as to give the appearance of “objectivity” and “credibility”. An example of which can be found in the recent MOU between the UNEP and INTOSAI (which I haven’t checked out yet, but which may well turn out to be another arm or finger of the UN maze)
Pingback: Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Judith
Jonathan Lynn is on the IPCC secretariat and carries out their media work. Here he is on twitter
https://twitter.com/jonathanlynn
Why don’t you ask him your question about the response to the 2010 UN inter academy report?
tonyb
Judith, you first ask what the IPCC did with the IAC recommendations, and later you proclaim “failure to address the reforms recommended by the IAC”.
AFAIK the IPCC has considered the IAC recommendations very seriously and incorporated most of them in some way or the other, your sweeping accusation notwithstanding.
Bart,
That correct – most of the recommednations have been implemented.
But not-the-IPCC is a ‘desired storyline’, that can’t be easily be given up when it has such fine rhetoricaly utility.
Michael
Huh?
Reference?
Max
IPCC response to the recommendations is well-documented. Do your homework.
Michael,
I think John R T meant to add:
John RT
“IPCC response”/
Whether or not IPCC “responded” is not in question.
What is in question is the validity of Michael’s claim:
I’ve seen no evidence to support this claim.
Have you?
If so, please provide references.
Max
And yet Judith asks what the IPCC did with the IAC recommendations, and later proclaims “failure to address the reforms recommended by the IAC”.
Yes, but Michael.
Perhaps Bart V and Michael would care to detail exactly _how_ the IPCC has so swiftly changed from dogged political advocacy to honest science.
BFJ
They won’t.
Because they can’t.
Max
BFJ’s homework..
Read WG1and come back to us and summarise the ‘dogged political advocacy’.
He won’t.
Because he can’t.
More ‘skeptic’ stoopid.
Unless Bart V does Judy’s job, some eminent scientists might declare that BFJ can ask Michael if he stopped beating his dog.
Michael
It’s easier than that.
BFJ doesn’t have to plow through the entire WG1 report (or, even worse the WG2 / WG3 stuff).
All BFJ needs to do is read the AR4 WG! SPM summary for policymakers report.
Phew!
Max
> Because they can’t.
Speaking of unsubstantiated claim.
Willard,
Re 9:33 comment:
I don’t recall Michael telling us if he took that survey test a bit back. Without knowing his tenderness score, how can we be sure he doesn’t beat his dog? Or that he’s not a cat person?
PS – however he treats his wife is his business.
I’m not sure how filling up this questionnaire will warrant anything like that, Tim, but since we now know that Judy’s declared that she’s a Libertarian university professor, I say Joshua has a moral responsibility to fill up the questionnaire and report the results.
At least if he wants to be a Denizen like most of us.
Here it is, again:
http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php
I think that it’s fair to say that not all governments have been fully happy with the decisions made by the IPCC meetings, or with all other reactions to the IAC report. Some action has been taken, but it could have been stronger.
Many did also hope that Pachauri had decided to step down voluntarily, when the decision on the maximum number of terms did not bind him.
On the decision making level of IPCC the international politics plays an important role that may differ from the wishes of many people working with IPCC.
“… decision making level of IPCC the international politics …”
This explains the departure from science.
Bart, I am waiting to see an accounting of this. The most obvious neglect of the recommendations is that Pachauri is still at the helm
Deciding on the restriction on the number of terms implied strong hopes that Pachauri would step down. As is common the new rules don’t apply to the present chairman at the time deciding on them.
Factors that made him stay must have included both his personal interests as well as those of others. One difficult issue must have been the nationality of the successor in case he had stepped down.
Yes, that is their ‘out’; presumably also why they didn’t enforce any conflict of interest guidelines on the AR5 authors, who had already been selected. They should have at least had the AR5 declare their conflicts of interest, in a publicly available document.
Nice choice of words. “Considered” and “implemented.”
Yes, the IPCC made some changes to its written rules. But where are the actual changes in personnel? How was the compilation of the AR5 in any way less political than the political ARs before it? Where is the more honest embrace of the limitations on the science?
Nice choice of word. “Personel”.
How many employees does the IPCC have, GaryM?
Every employee of the IPCC should be fired. The answer should be the IPCC has zero employees.
Gary,
All 10 of them??
http://memegenerator.net/instance/41273918
The IPCC was set up to provide propaganda for AGW and it did so, by creating a “consensus of scientists” by Houghton and Santer changing the actual conclusion of the scientists of the ’95 report, that there is no discernible human signal of AGW.
The IPCC has been political from the start and that is the elephant in the room – it is not and never has been a science body.
That is why it systematically trashes any real science from its contributors.
The only way to destroy the IPCC is to destroy the influence of the people who set it up, stop playing to their agenda.
+
“… provide propaganda for AGW …” which UNFCCC high-lighted, to win approval of Kyoto.
Reblogged this on Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations.
Realistically, while the IPCC and/or its members remain funded and driven by politics, is there any serious hope of it ever NOT being politics-driven? Will those government shills ever do anything other than strive to promote government ?
No. Just like any organization they will do what they were designed to do.
This site http://tome22.info/IAC-Report/IAC-Report-Overview-Short.html extracted sentences from the IAC report and grouped them in five categories:
– Political interference
– Bias
– Uncertainty
– Conflict of interest
– Management
Click on each to go to the relevant part of the IAC report
Judith, you write “He said it is a constant struggle between the newcomers, who want to ‘tell it like it is,’ versus the old hands who are worried primarily about what was said in the AR4 and not providing fodder for the skeptics.”
This, surely, is the key point about the conclusioons of the AR5. The IPCC is stuck with the baggage of the previous 4 reports. If they take note of the science which has emerged since the AR 4, then they must conclude that their previous claims of certainty were wrong. The indictions are that they are going to ignore the science, and go with their old conclusions; much to the chagrin of true scientists.
No-one has mentioned how the Russians might behave at the Stockholm meeting to discuss the SPMs, later this month. The Russians were furious at the latest UNFCCC COP meeting, when, against their vehement objections, the demise of Kyoto was endorsed, and they lost all their lovely, virtual money they got in carbon credits, by decomissioning all the old communist electric generating plants. They have been obstructing all the latest UNFCC meetings.
Will they claim linkage, and do the same at Stockholm?
Speaking of the IAC recommendations, has anyone read their draft manuscripts or their review procedure?
Many thanks!
Crickets.
More crickets.
Another batch of crickets.
Willard, shhh…I’m trying to enjoy the crickets..
Many thanks!!!
+ 10
Willard gets a + 4. The construction was 10+, but he showed impatience in waiting for a reply.
Though in all honesty I am one of the last folks who show be criticizing a lack of patience. So it’s +10 to Willard as well.
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
bye Jiminy, willard.
The IAC committee commissioned to conduct this review had a very limited time in which to produce their report. Their review procedure is documented within the report (as you would know if you’d actually read it!) as well as on the IAC main site.
Whatever its shortcomings may or may not be, in terms of transparency, oversight, and accountability the IAC is miles ahead of anything the IPCC is currently capable of and/or willing to provide.
In fact, in hindsight, had the IAC been requested to conduct the so-called enquiries pursuant to Climategate at UEA and Penn State, then I’m inclined to think that rather than the sub-standard reports issued by Muir-Russell and Penn State – not to mention the pathetic dog’s breakfast served up by Oxburgh – there might>/em> have been some chance of improvement on the part of those institutions.
Yes, but the IPCC does not answer the question, Hilary.
Nor was “we did not have much time” the reason why we don’t have the drafts.
What was the reason they invoked, again?
Their full report appears to be here. Quoting from this document:
My bolding. Unlike the IPCC reports in at least one critical aspect: the reviewers are in no way considered responsible for, or to lend their authority to, the results.
The sentence The review procedure and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. seems to have escaped your bold, AK.
Notice how this sentence is not explicitly connected to the one you emphasized.
Also note how it applies to the deliberative process, which excludes reviewers, as the deliberative process is surely responsible for the report.
Finally, note that reviewers are treated like data, i. e. testimonies. This leads to the conclusion that there would be reasons to hide data.
Depends on how you define “explicitly“. I briefly mentioned my own interpretation of the connection in the post above, with more detail (or at least more repetition) here.
> Depends on how you define “explicitly“.
Almost any way except sexually, e.g. “observable within a text”.
No, “almost any way” does not explicitly express what I mean there.
Defining “deliberative process” and “reviewers” would be more relevant, as it would reveal that adding a connector expressing a relation of consequence between the first and the second sentence might be a challenge.
***
Defining “intregrity” would also be interesting.
INTEGRITY ™ – Depends How You Define It.
The connection is that it’s part of the same paragraph. That usually denotes a meaningful connection of some sort. Unless the text in question is documenting free-association or something like that.
It’s up to the reader to see the connection, which seems obvious to me, although perhaps not to somebody being deliberately obtuse.
> The connection is that it’s part of the same paragraph. That usually denotes a meaningful connection of some sort.
That two sentences follow one from another in the text does not imply that they follow one another in a logical sense. In our case, the sentence:
contains its own justification. The sentence that follows:
is a reason to keep comments and suggestions private. That reason does not cover the deliberative process, the very thing that people keep need fully open in the case of the IPCC.
And why is that?
Because auditors around the world want to insure integrity.
INTEGRITY ™ — Open or Close, as You Fancy
***
> It’s up to the reader to see the connection, which seems obvious to me, although perhaps not to somebody being deliberately obtuse.
The connection is also obvious to me: if reviewers were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations, they can’t be used to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. It’s not tough to connect two incompatible thoughts: just put one after the other in the same paragraph, and trust your readers’ gullibility.
Besides, the reason the IAC provides is so strong as to destroy the empirical power of most of the social sciences. Yes, Virginia, some eminent scientists have ways to insure anonymity.
***
There’s a straighforward way to solve that logical problem: to admit that there is still room for some privacy in a process we deem to call open. To claim that “to be open” should mean “to absolutely be open” is not something that can be found in the IAC report.
So much the worse for op-eds in which it would be argued contrarywise.
***
A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.
For Pachauri, what is the downside of keeping his job? There is none. What is the upside to resigning? Also, none. So he stays on in a nice job with good pay and benefits plus regular ego-strokes.
Who can fire him and why would they do that? The man is a dinosaur, and like the real dinosaurs it will take a major catastrophe to end his reign. Or maybe Pachauri will age-out. How old is he?
What’s Pachauri’s salary as the chairman of the IPCC?
Many thanks!
Willard
Salary = x (allegedly he receives £45,000/year from TERI)
Salary plus perks = 10x, 100x?
Who knows?
His airline bill alone must be formidable:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/pachauri-basques-in-glory.html
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/3/the-fictive-world-of-rajendra-pachauri
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/heat-on-cricket-pitch-warms-this-climate-change-laureate/231802/0
“Doing well by doing good”.
(No wonder he is holding on to his job with all fingernails and toenails.)
Max
Thank you for not answering a simple question, MiniMax.
Here it is again:
What’s Pachauri’s salary as the chairman of the IPCC?
Salaries appear to be token, little above honoraria. From etymonline, ‘… honorarius “for the sake of honor,” …’ Travel and other perks far exceed salary.
The best you can get is the honoris causa “technically correct”, John R T.
I expect Ragnaar to tell us if we can replace his day job for an online dictionary.
Willard
I’m sure you know the answer to your question.
It is 0.
It is also immaterial.
The big bucks come from the expense account and perks – not from the salary (makes good tax sense, too – right?)
Max
Indeed, when some eminent scientists hear:
> A job with a good pay.
they immediately assume:
> The pay is 0.
Some eminent scientists would say that it’s “technically correct”.
He is a Railroad Engineer…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featherbedding
after all.
A good attorney knows never to ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.
So tell us what his salary is.
Speed answered below, Timl
Was there a question about Pachauri’s compensation?
Here’s the IPCC statements for the 2 years ended 12/31/11 again:
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session35/doc2_add1_budget.pdf
If the question is compensation of Pachauri we find that on Adobe Reader page 48.
The 2 posts refer to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In 2010 it seems that the Deputy spot was unfilled. I’d guess that 2010 belonged to Pachauri alone. A Swiss Franc is roughly equal to a U.S. Dollar.
A quarter million Swiss Francs per year seems like a good guess for the Secretary’s compensation. I think it’s fair to include pension and health plan costs to get to that number. Entitlements are somewhat explained on line 65 below the chart. Entitlements was zero in 2010, and 102,000.00 in 2011. The question might be what caused such a big change? Perhaps a new policy, a slight modification of tracking and reporting costs. Accounting systems evolve over time, sometimes in response to requests for clearer information.
Travel is still lacking in clarity. See page 45.
The fact that the Secretariat’s travel is broken out indicates that’s it, but that’s just a guess. What the total travel looks like, about a 1/3 of their total annual costs, is flying people to their meetings.
I only work on U.S. Non-profits as a minor part of my business. This is an International one. My understanding of the U.S. Rules, covers mission costs. A non-profit will have a primary mission. Expenses of a non-profit will then be mission costs. In pursuit of the mission. Other allowed costs are Overhead and Fundraising. Personal car, housing and travel allowances are allowed with disclosure. Another form of compensation. I stress to my clients more than anything else, that all costs must be in support of their mission. That’s the standard that needs to be met, and you can bet that the IPCC’s auditors do the same thing.
Off topic, it looks like the audit fee is only 20,000 Swiss Francs per year. I think the auditors should have charged more such a high profile client.
willard,
I saw that after I scrolled down further.
It was what I expected – he isn’t paid a salary as head of the IPCC.
Since I am not an attorney, I’ll ask you a question I don’t know the answer to. How many ways or forms is it possible to be compensated? As a followup, how would you rank them in importance to yourself?
I guess I don’t know the difference between the Chairman of the IPCC and the Secretary of the IPCC who is Renate Christ. In my previous post it turns out I wasn’t talking about Pachauri but rather Renate Christ, and I am sorry about that, and realize what a huge mistake I made. I am sorry for such a huge misrepresentation on my part.
Thanks, Ragnaar. You’re allowed any mistake you want if they make comments as interesting as the one you just made.
***
I have no idea how to sort all these, Tim. I doubt any of this is relevant anyway. NW had a good story about a Nobel prize of economy (I might be wrong here) once wondered why he would not be paid to testify for Congress. I found his argument compelling.
GaryM’s the lawyer here, BTW. I’m just a ninja.
Ding dongs. dont be taken in by the salary question.
That is not how the deal worked.
You don’t have to be an attorney to know that salary is not the only compensation that matters when taking a position. Lawyers, politicians, construction contractors, business people of all types take on unpaid positions. Some even do it to benefit the charity or non-profit for which they work.
But a huge number take it because of the opportunity the position provides. The soup kitchens around here are filled with lawyers and low level politicians, because it is one of the ways of punching your ticket, and getting known as a charitable sort. For some reason, their participation stops not long after they get the judgeship, public employment, political appointment or the government contract.
On an national/international scale, just look at the typical U.S. congressman or senator, party irrelevant. They come in middle class, and leave millionaires. And most of them do it legally.
In Illinois, our speaker of the house for life, not to mention numerous city councilmen and other various and sundry dignitaries in Chicago, make fortunes off selling insurance of various kinds. It is amazing how well your independent business does when you are in a position to award contracts, pass legislation, enact regulations, schedule conferences, arrange for travel, and purchase vehicle fleets….
Crony capitalism is practiced by both capitalists and progressives alike.
But not conservatives, GaryM?
No, not the true Scottish ones.
Just the ordinary conservatives.
willard,
Oh real conservatives lie, they cheat, they steal. Being human they do the things humans generally do. What they do not do is try to paint their weaknesses as strengths., ala Alinsky, Schneider, Gleick, Mann et al.
I know this is hard for you sophisticated secularists to grasp, but there is much less lying among those who actually think it is wrong. You all think you can sh*t can morality, that developed over thousands of years of hard trial and error. Then adopt some new fangled “ethics” off the cuff, carefully tailored to the result you want. Then you actually expect the people who agree with you that there is no such thing as objective morality to obey your rules. It hasn’t worked out very well for y’all so far.
And do conservatives do bad things? Yep. But we don’t ignore it when our leaders get caught doing them. If Bill Clinton were a Republican, he would have been forced to resign. He is still a star among all you progressives, moderates and independents. Not to mention what he did to Juanita Broderick and scores of other helpless women.
We expect to pay a price for our sins. Not just go on Oprah, cry, and then sidle back up to the public trough.
Thank you for the clarification, GaryM. Was just checking why you said:
> Crony capitalism is practiced by both capitalists and progressives alike.
You do have to admit that the word “capitalism” sounds like a lapsus.
***
Here’s something you will appreciate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Anyway.
It’s been fun.
Good night.
Her dad is a hero of mine, but the cow jumped over the moon.
=============
GaryM – “On an national/international scale, just look at the typical U.S. congressman or senator, party irrelevant. They come in middle class, and leave millionaires. And most of them do it legally.”
Exempt from insider trading restrictions..
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/members-of-congress-are-exempt-from.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222725/congress-quickly-quietly-rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/
Do you know, what the good pay is?
He’s not paid for chairing the IPCC. All kind of speculation can be presented on economic benefits related to his position, but nothing specific has come out as far as I know.
As with many other visible and wealthy people the personal motivation is probably much more related to the prestige than to economic benefits.
Or his place in safety with the 1%, all others be damned!
Pekka
Agree with you that it’s very likely the three “P”s that make Pachauri hang on to his job with tooth and nail:
prestige, power and perks
Max
Pekka – [No] economic benefits related to his position … has come out as far as I know.
Here might be an example:
The Telegraph – Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal
Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
I have written here that many people hoped that Pachauri had stepped down voluntarily, and also some other related remarks that should have indicated clearly enough that I was one of those “many”. One of the reason is in the erroneous comments that he has made on several occasions, another is in the apparent conflicts of interest that his positions at IPCC and TERI create.
The errors and the apparent conflict of interest have been linked on several occasions on the issue of Himalayan glaciers. Whatever the details behind these events they look bad enough and should have led to his resignation.
His actions were studied by KPMG and he was cleared of charges of misconduct. Telegraph had to apologize and pay legal costs. Thus Pachauri was free to stay as chairman, but even so my view is that it had been much better that he had stepped down stating that he follows the new rules in spite of the fact that they don’t apply to his present term.
Pekka – [Pachauri’s] actions were studied by KPMG and he was cleared of charges of misconduct. Telegraph had to apologize and pay legal costs.
Thank you for this information.
Monbiot on Pachauri’s income …
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships
Here’s George:
Some eminent scientists might believe that Speed spoke a bit too fast.
Now, how much does Pat Michaels earn, again?
Perhaps he also has a ten book deal in his breast pocket too. Most involved politics do. So they don’t count either.
Scratching my own itch
With respect to Pachauri’s income, this is often not the issue. The issue is expenses. We are just having a massive scandal in Canada on the expenses claimed by four of our senators, amounting the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, even though the chairman of the IPCC may not get much in the way of income, I suspect his expenses in the course of a year, are substantial. And these expenses may well allow him to live a luxurious lifestyle.
So what are Pachauri’s expenses?
Jim Cripwell
You ask
What are Pachauri’s expenses?
Just his airline bill must run into the hundreds of thousands, not counting hotels, meals (even if he skips meat), etc.
But it’s apparently not a figure that’s available to the public.
Max
Agreed, Speed. They’ll have to carry him out on a stretcher. Of course if you’re a skeptic, you want to keep him right where he is. He’s every bit as valuable in that regard as Michael Mann.
Indications that few alarmists really believe in our impending doom are that circus clowns such as Pachauri, Michael Mann, and Al Gore have been allowed to lead the movement. If the future of human civilization were really at stake could anyone allow these jokers to remain on center stage???
Sounds like a red shirt gloating, Ski.
Denizens are used to better than that.
It seems a quarter million is a paltry sum for the big job of sinking Western Civilization.
Book deals, speaking tours, lobbyists, groupies. Tough road to hoe.
No jim2, say it isn’t so! – you’re a believer in anthropogenic civilisation destruction.
Oh, the alarmism!
Does he still own part of the golf course in India?
Michael is still on the track.
In a polarized world critique by one side presented in the way expected from that side has little influence on anyone. Those who already had the same view may applaud, those from the other side dismiss the critique without reading it.
Those in the middle to the extent of being willing to listen to good arguments from both sides are also discourages from reading more by any obviously one-sided argument. I did buy the earlier book of Leframboise thinking that I could learn something worthwhile from it, but that was not the case. She presented so many accusations that I knew to be wrong or seriously misleading that I couldn’t trust any of those on which I had no further knowledge. There were certainly also points on which I agree, but that doesn’t save the value of the book for me.
I have commented previously that I didn’t like the recent book of Mann any better. I’m critical on writings of both sides when I feel that the author either willingly or due to the narrowness of own perception end up in writing what I feel as not true or presented in a highly misleading way. What was more interesting in Mann’s book is that learning something about Mann (both what it tries to tell and the opposite) is of some interest, while learning about Leframboise is not.
I don’t plan to buy this book, one from the author was one too much for me.
> She presented so many accusations that I knew to be wrong or seriously misleading that I couldn’t trust any of those on which I had no further knowledge.
What misleading accusations do you have in mind, Pekka?
Many thanks!
The first impression was created by the introductory chapters, which were supposed to tell about the importance of the book – they did, but in the opposite direction of what apparently was the purpose.
A more specific list would require some re-reading of the book, but I’m not going to do that.
My main point was directed to the general value of clearly partisan books, my experiences with those two books were presented as descriptions of what’s likely to be true more generally with such books.
I wrote some comments at the time of reading the books. Those might contain some further details, but I’m not going to search for those either.
I would appreciate hearing more about this also. Laframboise’s points seem well documented, although I agree that she puts her own spin on things.
Found it, Pekka:
> There’s certainly essential things to criticize in IPCC, and I have proposed myself that major changes should be made. I have also been very critical on WG2 and WG3, but presenting “evidence” as the book does is really terrible. When that sets the tone, I cannot take anything else seriously.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-124289
There might be others.
Another one:
> I have now continued reading the book. The problem is that it’s so strongly tilted towards standard skeptics’ arguments that nobody on the other side of fence will give it practically any weight. I’m not interested in reading selectively picked lists of potential problems and references to strongest critiques whose opinions are already known and predictable. If a book proceeds along those lines too far, the rest will not be read by anybody disagreeing.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-124319
Laframboise does not seem to have a mediational style.
This, Pekka, might deserve discussion:
> It’s right to criticize IPCC, but the type of criticism Laframboise has presented does not help in creating something better. It has obviously very different goals. She shows no attempt in understanding the reasons for IPCC’s existence or the realities, under which it working.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-125442
If Donna’s editorial practices have not changed much, this criticicism would still have some currency.
“A more specific list would require some re-reading of the book, but I’m not going to do that.”
Oh no. Easier by far to make unsubstantiated claims, Pekka. You must real how weak you sound here. Res ipsa loquitur.
Beware your wishes, Poker.
You ought to be in pictures…
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/09/fourth-positive-hiv-test-porn-industry-exclusive-epidemic/
2035, Polar Bears, Lost Heat, AGW, AID WHO NOW…more that 4?
I can add that by the by far most common issue is being very selective with the facts and overemphasizing irrelevant details in a way that may make them appear more important. Through that a totally false impression is created without explicit untruths on any detail. That’s, of course, a generic problem, by no means limited to the earlier book of Leframboise
Reading such a book may have two outcomes. It may strengthen the prejudices of the reader, or it may make the reader angry with the book and unwilling to accept anything from that.
As most issues are rather complex, trusting in the selection of the details chosen for presentation makes the reader ready for indoctrination. To avoid that we must find some ways of getting the information without such pre-selection. It may be that we find fewer details when we avoid the pre-selected sources, but it’s better to have less unbiased data than more but seriously biased data.
The better writer the one is who does the pre-selection the more easily we might be lured in believing that he is objective while he actually has an agenda. I’m afraid that some of the apparently higher quality blogs are deceptive in this way. That applies, again, to both sides of the debate. (I don’t want to tell, which sites I have in mind, that would be contradictory to what I want to contribute.)
Willard
Get with the program.
Laframboise has written a documentary exposing flaws, errors and goof-ups of a group that had immense public power and prestige for a while, but has frittered a good part away.
It’s what’s called an exposé (i.e. account of events, which are not always so glorious, as they occurred).
So whaddidja expect – roses?
Max
“Yes, but the IPCC” ain’t a valid move against “Donna might have overplayed her hand just a bit” or “Donna’s play was suboptimal”, MiniMax.
max,
willard has a point. several good ones in fact.
nobody whose mind you want to change is going to listen to a hatchet job..( hehe i know make the joke).. personally I can’t bear to open her books because the titles are so bad. Im shallow sorry.
I don’t read much of her stuff because I hate the way it improves my opinion of the IPCC.
===============
The many accusations that you knew to be wrong aren’t known any more to be wrong by you who knew so many!
The IPCC has issues, as all large organizations do. Donna touches on many of those issues to some degree of acccuracy but some of her criticisms are very misleading, such as this criticism of Pachauri:
“11. Pachauri has long insisted that IPCC reports rely – only and solely – on peer-reviewed source material. The independent review observed that, to the contrary, the IPCC’s 2001 climate assessment cited peer-reviewed material only 36% of the time in one section, only 59% in another section, and only 84% in a third.”
Is quite a stretch, considering he didn’t take charge of the organization until 2002. Should he go back in time and control the past?
There might be some wiggle room in the concept of a % of time citation.
Is that a bibliometric metric?
He may have not had anything to do with the earlier reports – and she does NOT claim that he does- but he still insists they rely ‘only and solely’ on peer-reviewed material, doesn’t he?
Otter, her implication is clear and clearly misleading. She should not have mentioned him and the 2001 report in the same sentence. Why not take a later report? The answer is that he did exactly as he said he would after taking over in 2002 and so later reports did have higher standards of peer review. Her statement is misleading because it associates him with a report he did not control and does credit him for actually changing the standard as he said he would.
We could mediate this by saying that what Donna says is “technically true” and that R. should suck it up.
I should suck it up and accept a misleading statement? Not gonna happen. The only question is whether she was intentionally misleading or in her zeal to indict Pachauri, she simply got sloppy in her writing.
Well, R., you have to admit that Rajendra does seem to refer to the IPCC reports in general, not only the one under his reign.
If you do wish to investigate into what you call Donna’s zeal, here’s a simple recipe:
1. go on the Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F2TZU1I
2. Click on See Inside.
3. Find the table of contents.
4. Click on a chapter’s title.
5. Click on the date below the chapter’s title.
That ought to give you everything you need for your investigation.
For instance:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/15/the-water-cannon-of-the-climate-debate/
Greens.
Bible.
Some eminent scientists might compare Donna to Galileo.
Well, it certainly seems clear from her AR4 Report Card, that he has NEVER done anything to make them the ‘gold standard’ in climate science!
Donna / Judith: a question –
re “… the IPCC’s 2001 climate assessment cited peer-reviewed material ….”
Should this not be 2007, the assessment we audited?
That’s a fair question.
John, the IAC did not reference the 2007 assessment we had audited, but opted for (I believe) a “peer-reviewed” study conducted on the 2001 assesment report.
It is interesting, though, that the results are quite similar. As were the results found by Peter Bobroff’s computerized AccessIPCC of AR4.
logic fail, R. Gates
Pachauri did not claim that only future IPCC reports, or only IPCC reports for which he was directly responsible, were sourced in peer-reviewed science.
He claimed repeatedly over the years that IPCC reports could (all) be trusted as summarizing only peer-reviewed science.
Thus, if anyone provides counter-examples A, B, C, D, E, F……… of claims from any IPCC report that are not sourced in peer-reviewed science, then Pachauri’s blanket assertion has been contradicted.
R. Gates
“Controlling the past” is hard to do but “conceding past errors and avoiding them in the present and future” is not.
But Pachauri apparently chose, instead, to continue with the errors of the past.
“Glacier-gate” or “African-crop-loss-gate” are examples.
Max
Max
“The IPCC has issues”
Like claiming to be a “scientific” organization, while at the same time admitting they don’t do “any research”.
See my comment below.
Andrew
No, I don’t think anyone has any expectations that he would. But I do think it’s reasonable to expect him not to tell porkies about the organization during the course of his regime, don’t you?! It’s also reasonable to expect him to take responsibility for his very own words – rather than shifting the blame** to others – don’t you agree?
** One example of this pattern of behaviour, as I had noted in my review can be found following his November 2009 BC [Before Climategate] quotable quote from which Donna’s book derives its title:
Now watch Pachauri’s mouth as his feet march right into it!
By April 20, 2010 this had morphed into:
Setting aside the fact that Pachauri has a rather bizarre definition of “limited”, by May 14, 2010, this had miraculously been transformed into:
[Sources for all the above quotes available at Pachauri defends shoddy shades of gray]
‘Does this in itself mean that the conclusions in the IPCC AR5 are erroneous or otherwise inappropriate?’
Considering that they focus upon models which use extremely high climate sensitivities, while Ignoring all the studies which show otherwise – and therefore predict catastrophic climate change, unlike anything the world has ever seen in periods even warmer than today (and very recent at that!) – I would have to say their conclusions, at Best, Misrepresent the science.
Otter
I haven’t seen the final version of AR5, but it is highly likely that you will be correct.
Unless IPCC concedes that (based on several new, observation-based studies) 2xCO2 ECS is likely to be around half of the previously model-estimated mean value in AR4 (and, hence, all future projections of AGW in AR4 were exaggerated by a factor of two) it is, indeed, “misrepresenting the science”.
Which I would equate with the sentence:
Max
Pekka Pirilä’s one brief post contains more
“adult-level” scientific common-sense than Michael Mann’s and Donna Laframboise’s immature polemics combined.
Thank you for this (and many other) outstandingly sensible remarks, Pekka Pirilä!
Pekka – “I feel” “I feel” blah blah blah
FOMTrolling (quoting Pekka’s “I feel I feel”) – “Pekka’s post contains more ‘adult level’ scientific common sense than [blah blah]”
How scientific is “I feel, I feel”? How is that an example of scientific common sense? To someone like FOMTrolling, who can’t even calculate that 7 x 40 is 280, not 400, I guess anything at all, including someones “feelings” can qualify as “strong climate science.”
It should be apparent by now that the focus on CO2 by the IPCC and Kyoto totally ignored the FACT that the heat emissions from energy consumption are four times the amount accounted for by the actual measured rise in air temperature. (They should have been trying to determine where the missing heat was instead of affirming their preconceived notions that CO2 is responsible). For example, in 2008 the energy use was 16 terawatts or 140,160 terawatt-hrs per year. (A kwh is equal to 3416 btus) This amount of heat is 50x10E16 btus and is enough to raise the temperature of the air, whose mass is 1160x10E16 pounds, by 0.17*F. Actual measured rise was~0.04*F. No correlations of CO2 and temperature have ever shown CO2 to be a cause- not now, nor in the 400,000 years preceding the present.
The present plateau in the temperature is due to the cooling effects of glacial melting, one trillion tons a year of Arctic ice at present. (The rate may accelerate as the Atlantic waters circulate past the widening access to the Pacific.) It should be clear that CO2/temperature correlations are useless.
Conversion of CO2 to crops and trees through photosynthesis removes ~5000 btus of solar energy per pound of CO2 converted.( 1 ppm converted through photosynthesis can drop air temperature 0.03*F.) Capture and “storage” of CO2 is a waste of time and money and could better be spent on installation of essential renewable energy sources.
Philip said:
“The present plateau in the temperature is due to the cooling effects of glacial melting,”
—-
Please do expound on this notion and provide scientific research data. The mass of water from glacial melt is going into the oceans, and they are both rising and warming as well.
Thank you for your concerns about Donna’s book, Philip.
Hey Chief:
In reference to, I just might be getting close with this:
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=57
Is the (f) in the above diagram this? >>> “Net incoming TOA flux is determined from the difference between the observed TOA incoming solar irradiance and the sum of the outgoing reflected solar and emitted LW radiation.”
This was interesting to:
“During positive ENSO phase (El Nin˜o), outgoing LW radiation increases, and decreases during the negative ENSO phase (La Nin˜a).”
When it’s hot, TOA works as intended. When it’s cold, TOA works as intended.
It’s starting to look like, if the sensitivity isn’t there to a great extent, it just goes out the top.
composition +
science ++++
I see you’re a science afficionado, John R T.
Have you seen Philip’s Haddad comments at
http://scienceofdoom.com
You might like this blog.
***
I also like the move:
[A] THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ENTITY!!!!!!!
[B] You think?
[A] OFF WITH PACHAURI’S HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[B] Wait, were you supposed to ask for a grown-up discussion?
[A] SCIENCE! SCIENCE! SCIENCE!
***
Sometimes, ”science” sound like “silence”.
***
Please continue.
Denizens need more red shirts.
Philip Haddad has made some mistakes. So what? Or do you imagine that his are more intractable than yours or mine?
This thread ain’t about science, Blue.
Today it seems to be a lot of tip & ring, wrapped around a bunch of bandwidth.
Philip Haddad
50x10E16 btus … is enough to raise the temperature of the air, whose mass is 1160x10E16 pounds, by 0.17*F.
Yes, 0.17 ℉ if the entire atmosphere was in an enclosed room. And if all of the ANNUAL heat was released into the atmosphere in ONE HOUR.
How much of that 1 hr 0.17 ℉ temp rise would remain a year later to add to next years rise? (hint: not much)
The actual temp rise due to anthro heat for one hr using your rounded numbers is around 0.00002 ℉. How much accumulates to add to the next hour’s 0.00002 ℉ depends on the average transit time of heat to outer-space (which cannot be infinite as your number suggests else the oceans would have boiled away aeons ago).
Your are abusing the already limited usefulness of heating and ventilation equations in the open atmosphere.
If the heat entered the atmosphere without extra CO2 – added heat wouldn’t stay there at all. Extra CO2 is what changes the fundamental energy dynamic of the atmosphere.
How that interacts with the global energy budget is a topic I am mightily bored with.
Chief Hydro mused:
“Extra CO2 is what changes the fundamental energy dynamic of the atmosphere. How that interacts with the global energy budget is a topic I am mightily bored with.”
_____
Bored with the central issue related to AGW? Funny dat!
‘Yes the flux peaked in 1998 according to that graph. The average flux estimated from OHC changes remained high until 2000. This period from 1998 to 2000 forms a significant part of the rapid rise in OHC that Lyman and Johnson show. Thus the more recent Lyman and Johnson results are in rough agreement with the data used in that graph. Both tell that OHC did rise until 2003.’ Pekka
Bit of an ad hoc analysis in my opinion – global energy peaked in 1998/2000 from flux considerations. But Lyman and Johnson do show ocean heat peaking in 2003. Perhaps oceans soaked up enough heat from the atmosphere to make a difference in the period. It makes little difference to the story of climate shift in 1998/2001.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=0
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
So you haven’t embarrassed yourself enough gatesy – but have to buy into a discussion of the heat of combustion an idiotic misunderstanding of the energy budget? Utterly pathetic.
Chief Hydro mistakenly said:
” global energy peaked in 1998/2000 from flux considerations.”
__
It not logical or scientifically justifiable to calculate global energy simply on the basis of “flux considerations”. The movement of energy in the system between forms and spheres (ocean, atmosphere, kinetic, graviational potential, latent heat, etc.) is far too varied to try and calculate global energy simply by “flux considerations”. At best this is an unreliable proxy and at worst it’s pure smoke and mirrors.
More nuttery from the Chief.
You have such an inadequate understanding of the basics, dogmatic allegiance to space cadet memes and a commitment to abuse of anyone who challenges the Borg collective. It is quasi religious and so you are unable to challenge your own quite irrational and unscientific beliefs.
Let me reprise.
The 1st differential global energy equation by the first law og thermodynamcis is:
d(W&H) = power in – power out + Pcom. + Pint + Prot
W&H includes kinetic and potential energy in the oceans and atmosphere and enthalpy. Power in and power out is in W/m^2 usually = Joules/s. Pcom is the heat released by combustion – about 0.03 J/s/m^2. Pint is the heat from radioactive decay in the mantle – about 0.03 J/s/m^2 – Prot is the partial dissipation through the system of the energy conserved in planetary rotation. The latter is important for cyclones, polar annular modes, tracks of ice bergs out of the Arctic, the evolution of ENSO and much else. Power out varies most and is the significant cause of recent climate change – as shown in the albedo graph from Project Earthshine.
Flux is an instantaneous power flux in W/m^2 say. The power input or output is the average instantaneous power flux over a time in Joules. It is the integral of the right hand terms.
.
As we are interested in differences – this can be calculated well within the precision of measurement of the terms. This is done all the time.
e.g. the missing energy = energy in – energy out
I am sure I could find a NASA article on a Loeb study to this effect.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/missing-energy.html
Yes I know you have already linked to this – I just wanted to rub in how dumb you are.
In this case power in over a period – http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png – less power out over the same period – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=57 – is about equal to the change in ARGO heat content. If you know what you are looking for – you can eyeball this in with sufficient precision.
The amusing bit is that the change in energy out is all in SW. By energy conservation – the global energy dynamic is described to high precision by the global energy equation. Less power out over a period than power in – the world warms and vice versa. An iron law of nature. Closing the energy budget with flux and ocean heat data is very informative.
Gatesy – you have become a dogmatic and very ignorant champion for an idea that makes no sense at all. I guess we should be used to that.
Glad you keep linking to Loeb’s research Chief Nutter. This from the link you supplied:
“”Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline. This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth,” Loeb said.”
—–
Do you even read what you link to and how it contradicts the very points you are trying to make? NO SIGN OF DECLINE in ocean heat content. It did not peak in 1998 as you so absurdly and continually claim, but continues to rise.
Henceforth it shall be Chief Nutter for you, since you seem to know so little about hydrology, but rabidly clip and paste with links to research that refutes the very nonsense you blather on about.
Hey Chief.
Seems I mis-posted again, could you look at the below comment please?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-378166
I don’t know how many times I have referred to von Schuckmann and Le Troan 2011.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=47
That’s exactly what it says and the missing energy is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy with a few minor terms.
The increase is from cloud radiative forcing and is an order of magnitude greater than any mooted change in greenhouse gas forcing.
And as you simply repeat your insane weasel space cadet rant.
‘Yes the flux peaked in 1998 according to that graph. The average flux estimated from OHC changes remained high until 2000. This period from 1998 to 2000 forms a significant part of the rapid rise in OHC that Lyman and Johnson show. Thus the more recent Lyman and Johnson results are in rough agreement with the data used in that graph. Both tell that OHC did rise until 2003.’ Pekka
Bit of an ad hoc analysis in my opinion – global energy peaked in 1998/2000 from flux considerations. But Lyman and Johnson do show ocean heat peaking in 2003. Perhaps oceans soaked up enough heat from the atmosphere to make a difference in the period. It makes little difference to the story of climate shift in 1998/2001.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=0
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
So you haven’t embarrassed yourself enough obviously gatesy – but have to have another silly rant.
Chief,
Your post is so close to incoherent that I am genuinely concerned for your general mental state. It’s like you are just taking bits and pieces of whatever you can find to try and wiggle your way around your basic failure to prove your contention that ocean heat content peaked in 1998. It did not. Loeb said it has CONTINUED TO RISE. 2013 is so far the highest on record.
Get some rest Chief. Take care of yourself.
So you are playing the concern troll now?
Lyman and Johnson show ocean heat content peaking in 2003.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=1
Thick black line. The uptick at the end is ARGO.
Palle shows why.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=0
I was going to add that all this stuff was way above your pay grade obviously. So it is little wonder that you fail to understand. There is something as well of cognitive dissonance in all this as well as mad weasel rants.
Oh – the uptick – the long period of insignificant change according to Palle – was all SW.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=125
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=94
You don’t really seem to have the technical capacity to understand any of this do you? We get just odd little mad weasel rants that seems pretty typical of space cadets. So sad too bad.
Yes, BFJ, Causal entails the_chain_of _ observational_evidence.
No, Bert V, not jest aa AFAIK ‘incorporating the recommendations in some way other other’ i.e. trust us.
A serf who is -suss -of – trust – us.
Pekka writes : “She presented so many accusations that I knew to be wrong or seriously misleading that I couldn’t trust any of those on which I had no further knowledge.”
And yet, quelle surprise, out of all those wrong or seriously misleading accusations (“so many” you say) you can’t remember a single one with any specificity. What a shock.
Pokerguy,
I obviously didn’t buy the book to see that’s of no value for me. Some early comments about it made me think that it might be of interest.
What I can easily remember is the reaction that I had from reading the book. What I wrote in this thread was about that reaction and about my belief that the book would not be any more influential to other people who are not looking for evidence on the faults of IPCC when they already “knew” that IPCC is terrible.
Looking at a few first reviews at Amazon (they all gave 5 stars) I didn’t see a single one that would contradict my suspicion about a strong preconception against IPCC. Some of them brought that up, others where consistent with that but also with other interpretations.
But: Who would be the people who have ended up reading that book lacking rather strong preconceptions about IPCC?
And what I can easily remember of your “reaction” to The Delinquent Teenager … Pekka, is that you did not provide a single byte – let alone a quote from the text – of evidence in order to … uh … sustain your objections.
Easy, Poker.
In Chapter 8, Donna speaks of Bibles, windows, secrecy, and IAC’s questionnaire.
Donna assumes that:
> [A]n organization that is utterly transparent expects us […]
My emphasis. This utter transparency is also the ringtone of that email report:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/26/another-ipcc-demand-for-secrecy/
There’s a cameo appearance by Richard Betts on the comment thread.
***
In any case, I’ll repeat my question:
Speaking of the IAC recommendations, has anyone read their draft manuscripts or their review procedure?
The Auditor could not answer that question.
Can you, Poker?
Mornin’ Willard, If you’re satisfied with the way the IPCC is conducting the people’s business, that’s more than fine with me. We all have to make our own judgments.
You asked for a specific criticism, Poker, and you got one.
Also, please tell me where I can find IAC’s draft manuscripts and review procedure. If you can’t, please tell me so.
Ignoring both points does not look good on your quest for INTEGRITY(tm).
Willard, I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the claims D.F. makes regarding the IPCC can be challenged. There are few things in the world having to do with human behavior, that can’t be argued. Imho, the preponderance of the evidence indicates the IPCC is a sham, starting with their risible leader who famously dismissed those raising valid objections as practitioners of “voodoo science.” I find their most recent claim…or coming claim… of even more certainty in the face of papers arguing less sensitivity along with a 16+ year pause which they are unable to explain, absurd on its face.
My point WRT Pekka was that he’d made a sweeping statement regarding the falsity of many charges in the first book, then couldn’t name any. Had I or any other skeptics done the same thing, you’d likely have jumped all over it…
I’m not going to question Pekka’s integrity. I don’t know the man. I can only say that in my experience, when I read a bunch of things I’m convinced are false, I’m likely to remember a few of them.
Yes, but the IPCC.
Nice wording, BTW: “can be challenged”.
Compare
> Some of X’s claims can be challenged.
with
> I read a bunch of things I’m convinced are false by Y, I’m likely to remember a few of them.
Interesting in some ways, that the usual stark divergence of opinion continues even here. I say “even here,” because making a judgment as to whether the IPCC is fulfilling its charter in an effective manner, basing their reports on peer reviewed science, basing their claims of near certainty on solid statistical grounds, steering clear of conflicts of interest while striving to the extent humanly possible to be respectful of their weighty, some might even say awesome responsibility, is not rocket science. It’s not even climate science.
That we can’t even substantially agree on this matter obviously does not bode well.
Well-said.
It is a vast religious schism.
==============
Well, there is a vast ____ schism. Supply your own modifier or choose from the following: political, economic, energetic, cultural, psychological and more. Feel free to multiply the modifiers.
Interestingly enough, the scientific schism is small and narrowing.
===========
Yes, there is a vast schism between humans and the Borg. How shall we ever come together as…oh…right.
Now there’s a perfect analogy. Resistance is futile.
pokerguy, you write “Interesting in some ways, that the usual stark divergence of opinion continues even here. I say “even here,””
You also write “That we can’t even substantially agree on this matter obviously does not bode well.”
It does not surprise me in the slightest that the warmists find as much fault as they can with Donna’s new book. Ever since Climate Etc. started, I have found that no matter what aspect of CAGW is discussed, the warmists can always find a pal (peer) reviewed reference to show that the warmist side is correct. I have learned that when I investigate these references, the science is, to say the least, shakey. But it is there.
So. of course, the warmists are going to defend the hypothesis of CAGW wherever, whenever, and in whatever form it is challenged. So I am not quite sure what you mean by “bode well”. Nothing has changed. We are in the usual SNAFU.
“So I am not quite sure what you mean by “bode well”. Nothing has changed. We are in the usual SNAFU.”
Hi Jim, I was thinking that given the intransigent, motivated thinking we continue to see even in areas that are not that complicated or nuanced, I don’t see the warmists ever giving up, come what may in the way of scientific developments and real world data. They’ll never surrender, only much too slowly, fade away. If you want to accuse me of naiveté, or belaboring the obvious, you can go right ahead. I’ll not argue.
pokerguy, You and I are, as usual, in complete agreement.
I’ve added the following comment to the main post:
Update: Some additional comments seem to be in order based on the discussion in the comments. Laframboise’s interest in the climate change debate seems to have been jump started in a big way in 2009, around the time of Climategate. As far as I can tell, she seems driven by a concern over the accountability of the IPCC. To me, it seems like this concern motivates her selection of examples regarding the IPCC. No, this is not a dispassionate assessment of the IPCC, but rather raises concerns about the integrity and accountability of the IPCC. In that sense, there is ‘spin’ in the book. But given the enormous influence of the IPCC, I find it entirely appropriate that someone take a hard look at the behavior of the IPCC’s principal actors.
+1
Any book with a “point of view” to espouse, is by definition biased. Ultimately, it’s the reader’s responsibility to make judgments as to the author’s competence.
+10
Let me join in with Peter. +10
Judith
+100
That’s what it’s all about.
Sure, DL has an “agenda”.
Part of this “agenda” was to demonstrate that IPCC has an “agenda” and that its principal actors are presenting “agenda driven science” in its reports.
Other than the extracts you posted, I have not yet read her second book, but from what I’ve read from her so far, she tells a pretty compelling story.
Max
Judith, your initial post was more than balanced. Don’t let the bast_rds wear you down – the world needs your perspective.
Let’s move to the future of IPCC.
My own view is that IPCC in it’s present form has outlived it’s usefulness. It could be a good idea to create a depository for climate science in a form that takes something from IPCC but is different in more ways than it’s like to the present one. It would be a depository both for the data, and for scientific papers. It would accept in some way all papers that are in some way relevant and not shown to be strictly wrong, but it could have a structure that makes it easy to find papers judged more significant than others.
How the details would be built, I cannot tell. The most difficult issues are related to the judgmental tasks that I consider necessary. The impartiality of those activities should be secured in some way, but these activities should at the same time help essentially in finding the most relevant material. In practice these requirements are often contradictory.
The material collected could be used in writing reviews and assessments, but those should be written in more independently, and the same areas should in many cases be covered by several assessments by authors emphasizing differing points of view.
The areas covered by WG2 and WG3 are more difficult. IPCC has been less successful in those parts, and the future approaches might have little in common with the present IPCC WG’s.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this a shift from your former position?
No, at least not essentially since early 2011, I haven’t suitable documents from more distant past.
Just check my blog.
Easy job; the most important but most wrong alarmist papers are the most easily demolished by the skeptics. There’s the algorithm, and it’s been working for awhile.
========
I’ll take you word for it, I don’t keep a running record of who thinks what. Lots of people here are critical of the IPCC, some think it can be fixed, others think it needs to be replaced. And some, I suppose, think as I do that the entire function needs to go away.
This may have something to do with the rethinking of WG3:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10295045/Brussels-fears-European-industrial-massacre-sparked-by-energy-costs.html
Pekka
Agree with you that IPCC, in its present form, has “outlived its usefulness” and should be replaced with something new.
Referring to a paper by Ross McKitrick on the same subject, Dr. Vincent Gray presents a pretty strong and convincing rationale why IPCC should be disbanded.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.ch/2013/05/the-ipcc-should-be-abolished.html
An excerpt:
While one might argue that Gray is exaggerating the story, it is difficult to claim that all he has written is untrue.
And, for that reason alone, I would argue that IPCC should be disbanded and replaced with a more neutral and objective body that owes no allegiance to UNFCCC or any other political organization with a preconceived agenda.
Max
Thinking about the role IPCC has had and may have in the future as well as about it’s possible successors we must remember that governments would use some sources of information anyway in deciding on policies. The existence of UNFCCC does certainly affect the policy choices of many governments, but it’s much less clear what the influence of IPCC has been. With IPCC it’s reports are referred to but without IPCC some other sources would be used instead. It’s not possible to tell the direction of the change that IPCC has caused.
Governments like to use information sources on which they have trust. The trust is not simply trust in the level and correctness of the science, but it has political dimensions. The control that governments have on IPCC contributes to that even if it may actually weaken somewhat the scientific accuracy.
Replacing IPCC with something new should be done in a way that improves the potential for developing wise policies (whatever that means), not in a way that makes decisions to be based on lower quality information sources.
“It would be a depository both for the data, and for scientific papers.”
And definitions, parameters, processes / methods / specifications; e.g. show your data, show your work.
I wonder sometimes if AGW scientists were so smart, that they were able to skip high school.
I wasn’t expecting this. Visited to the IPCC website to check on when WG1’s report is due to escape. Clicked on the link and I got a warning telling me that http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch is untrusted.
Looks like Donna’s message is getting through. ;-)
Pingback: Donna's nya bok ute - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
In 2011, Donna celebrated the anniversary of her audit by selling a mug, and saying:
> All of those people were therefore in a position to know that the 100% peer-reviewed claim was false.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/17/citizen-audit-anniversary/
Interestingly, there’s no citation for this 100% peer-reviewed claim.
I have yet to find that 100% claim.
Can Denizens quote and cite Rajendra’s words, pretty please with some sugar on it?
Many thanks!
Willard
This from your link
“Pachauri once told a newspaper that research that has not been peer-reviewed belongs in the dustbin (see the end of this article). He further told a committee of the North Carolina legislature:
…everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that.”
If that citation is true, surely Pachauri is claiming that research is totally peer reviewed. i.e 100%.
Are you saying the citation about the NC legislature can not be traced?
tonyb
Answer below:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377864
Willard,
We have Pachauri using the words “everything” and “all” and “only” in the context of asserting the thoroughness of the IPCC’s sourcing in only peer-reviewed literature.
We have you quibbling about whether he really meant to imply “all” and “only” and “everything” in all of his blather about sources and peer-reviewed literature.
Anyone can read his public statements and see that his references to the limits on current knowledge never hinted to the public that vast numbers of IPCC citations have NOT been to items in peer-reviewed literature.
Perhaps “we” have that, but for now, there are no direct citation to those words here, now.
Words that are supposed to be very important, hammered over and over again, everywhere to everyone.
Fancy that.
It depends on what the meaning of is “is”.
willard –
When “skeptics” repeat over and over that something has been said, they aren’t actually saying that it was said, even though they repeat, over and over, that it was said.
In reality, when “skeptics” say that something was said, what them mean is that something else was said.
Think of “The science is settled.”
“Think of “The science is settled.”
Joshua,
You should carry business cards:
“Disingenuous Statements Unlimited
-Will Travel”
The science is settled enough that anyone with an opposing point of view, including Judith Curry in some quarters, is called a denier.
Seems pretty settled to me.
Of course the other side of you card should read:
“Mind Closed for Repairs.”
.
The fascinating gerbil wheel of unintentional irony is in full motion, I see.
“…anyone with an opposing point of view…is called a denier…”
Looking past the irrelevancy (in terms of meaningful outcome) of being called a denier, PG, who are you referring to there?
Would you say “anyone?”
There is a great Burmese restaurant in Philly that serves “Thousand Layer Bread.”
I doubt that there are a thousand layers of unintentional irony in the climate wars, but in some cases it does seem to be awfully close. Eh, PG?
Got your loofah?
willard, something about ‘heaving’…
No, Tom, only something about citation needed.
One does not simply mince words without proper quote and citation.
One does not simply make a fuss about one single quote backed up by one single citation.
If Patchy’s PR relies on the 100% claim, some eminent scientists might read it on lots of virtual walls.
Willard,
You don’t have to search hard to find Pachauri’s statements. Some are linked from DL’s website. For examples, Pachauri has asserted that “all” IPCC work is based upon peer-reviewed literature, and that it is sourced “only” from “peer-reviewed literature.” Is there an interpretation of the English words “all” and “only” which would allow unstated exceptions? No, those words imply “100%” in their simple meanings. e.g., as in “For all X, if X is an IPCC claim then X is sourced in peer-reviewed literature.”
Turned out not to be true “for all X”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/05inter.htm
Here’s what you got, Skilphil:
What’s the it, again?
What does all on the basis of means?
In which logic is there a “for all” and “gaps” and “we don’t know enough about this subject”?
***
Some eminent scientists might discover that Donna overplays her hand.
Perhaps just a bit.
Oops, my comment which got nested above was supposed to follow this one.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377885
It might follow the comment, Skilphil, but it does not respond to it.
One does not simply split hair over some of Patchy’s sayings without some quibbles in return.
You know, quibbles like providing a direct citation to the “100% claim”.
And that’s notwihstanding Donna’s brilliant technique of evaluating that claim by counting references.
Skip it might be fun to crowd source a list of Patchy Quotes
In looking for the 100% quote you would be astounded at the things that can be found.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/interviews/pachauri.html
unintended consequences of asking for citations.
“And finally, I think the developing world still has a large number of poor people who have no access to modern forms of energy, and you can’t possibly deny them that access. Therefore, you need to create capacity and produce energy to fill their needs.”
‘That’s why you have disasters like the Three Gorges Dam. We just displaced God knows how many millions of people, sunk in so much money, and already that facility is declining in performance and creating all kinds of environmental nightmares around it. But they got away with it. …
I’ve been going to China since 1981 and have a good relationship with Tsinghua University. We worked with them over the years. In the ’80s, these guys would talk about the Three Gorges Dam and say there are too many environmental problems.
That was the official party line. And now they’ve all turned around and said, “It’s a very good dam,” because they dare not say anything against it. There is no civil society or dissent.”
“That’s where I think you need a lot of intellectual effort. This would involve all the stakeholders, business, industry, government, civil society, to be able to come up with some of these answers. You really need a major, vigorous debate on this subject to be able to articulate the solutions that are required. I’m afraid we’re not doing that at this point of time. …”
“Quite right. I think people in the U.S. have very short memories. If you go back in time to the period of the Depression, that was a pretty miserable period. What were consumption levels at that point of time? It’s not as though it was a catastrophe. Yes, it was a very difficult period. But there were also a number of positive features that came out of human behavior at that point of time — people helping each other, a much greater community feeling.”
“So maybe what the world needs is a good depression.
A bit of a shock. Maybe.”
Read it all.
What fun:
So lets pull that quote from context, and let’s make an “accurate paraphrase” to say that the speaker is wishing for millions to die (if not tens of millions), children in particular.
Same ol’ same ol’ in the climate wars.
World Bank Progress. For all the people.
Joshua,
You see the link to the full document. Go ahead and read the full document.
Of course to get you to read it, i’ll pull some interesting quotes.
Now your job would be to explain how his position makes any sense whatsover. That perhaps going through a depression is a good thing?
Thats interesting logic.
What do I think of harm of future climate change?
Well, it will be kinda like the depression, good things will come out of it.
what do I think of the holocaust?
you get the idea.. if you want to justify his thinking knock your self out
Imagine if Judy said what he said..
Do that, read through what he says and put judys name in for his
willard made me do it and joshua insisted
So HERE is where stupid skeptics get crazy ideas about watermelons
I’ll throw out the Americans. Let’s say we all consume about what an average European consumes. How many people can the planet support?
We’re in serious trouble. I think even with the present population, we would just create enormous problems. That’s why I personally believe that the emerging economies have to find a different path. We really can’t end up consuming what is being consumed in the developed countries today. But at the same time, the developed countries also have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level. And that’s precisely why we’ve highlighted as an important mitigation strategy changes in lifestyle and consumption patterns.
A lot of Americans think that the European lifestyle is pretty ascetic, and they’re not willing to step down to that level of consumption. But you’re saying even at the level of European consumption, we’ve overpopulated the planet.
Quite right. I think people in the U.S. have very short memories. If you go back in time to the period of the Depression, that was a pretty miserable period. What were consumption levels at that point of time? It’s not as though it was a catastrophe. Yes, it was a very difficult period. But there were also a number of positive features that came out of human behavior at that point of time — people helping each other, a much greater community feeling.
Wait a minute. Are you saying we need to go back to the levels of consumption of the Depression?
No. All I’m saying is that human nature is quite adaptable. [What] North Americans may see as a distinctly lower lifestyle in Europe may have several dimensions that —
That’s what Americans are afraid of. They’re looking out here, and they’re saying: “This Indian guy, he’s head of the IPCC; he’s going to cut our allowance. And he thinks we can just handle it. He thinks we can take it.”
No. I personally think technology and the ability to innovate today is such that you don’t have to give up the so-called good things in life. Take the example of transport. Yes, Americans are living in suburbs; they travel long distances. But if you had a better public transport system —
I go to Washington, D.C., very often. Before the Metro came up over there, everybody thought that this was an enormous waste. Look at the difference it’s made to the life of people living in the D.C. area. Why is it that we can’t get a rapid train between New York and Washington?
If that was the case, people wouldn’t fly between New York and Washington. It’s so much easier to go from city center to city center.
There are powerful lobbies that keep these things from happening.
That’s the point.
In New York City, the gateway of the United States to the rest of the world, you can’t get a reasonable train journey into Manhattan from the airport because of the taxi lobby.
Absolutely.
You can’t get public transportation systems in most cities because the car manufacturers have built cities under different rules. We’re back to business.
When I go to Houston, Texas, unless you have a car, you just can’t get around. There’s no such thing as public transport. …
So there’s got to be pain. I don’t disagree with that. But —
The only reason why I was going back to the period of the Depression is that was a period of pain. But I think out of that experience, a lot of good things did come. And I think human beings are quite capable of going through a period like that and finding the positives, and then building on them appropriately. I’m sure if people had not been through the Depression, you possibly wouldn’t have had the kind of growth, the enormous desire to succeed with economic activities that you found subsequently.
So maybe what the world needs is a good depression.
A bit of a shock. Maybe.
What will that shock look like?
The shock would essentially mean the pain of transition. And there’s no getting away from the fact that if we were to bring about a transition, there will be some losers, and those losers are obviously going to depress the economy.
Those losers are going to be those people that are consuming more than their fair share.
Right. And those who are producing goods and services that are essentially polluting in nature as far as a global environment is concerned, they’ll have to produce other things.
Just like with Hitler: he said exactly what he was going to do, then did it. Nobody believed him till he did.
Here is the idiot engineer
“That’s what Americans are afraid of. They’re looking out here, and they’re saying: “This Indian guy, he’s head of the IPCC; he’s going to cut our allowance. And he thinks we can just handle it. He thinks we can take it.”
PATCHY:
No. I personally think technology and the ability to innovate today is such that you don’t have to give up the so-called good things in life. Take the example of transport. Yes, Americans are living in suburbs; they travel long distances. But if you had a better public transport system –
##############
Do you think patchy knows a single thing about corridors for transportation in the US.
Yes, steven, indeed it is obvious.
Clearly Pachuri meant it is good when people die, starve, and suffer. Particularly children.
How could there possibly be any other meaning. Why, I just can’t imagine that he had any other meaning.
Ask willard about that fallacy. Something about arguing from incredulity.
Or maybe you might ask yourself about charity?
> unintended consequences of asking for citations.
Sometimes, I just wish I could read my mind as well as Moshpit does.
Note also that there’s no “100%” in Moshpit’s quotes.
Nor are there always citations and clear identifications of quotes.
All Moishpit shows is how to get a food fight.
So let’s recap: in response to my request to document Donna’s claim about Rajendra’s claim, Moshpit pushes swaths of badly formatted text about Patchy.
As if Patchy’s behavior somehow justified Donna to overplay her hand a bit.
Just a bit.
***
Also note that this Where’s Patchy game comes just after his comedy of menace about Da emails.
Some eminent scientists wonder why.
Even though Willard is not exactly a big picture guy, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it’s not only Pachauri who has propagated this “all peer reviewed” myth. The MSM and other organizations (who should know better) have taken this previously unexamined claim on faith, as well. See:
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php
“When I go to Houston, Texas, unless you have a car, you just can’t get around. There’s no such thing as public transport. …”
I live in Houston and don’t drive. I cycle most of the time, but the Metro System isn’t at all bad.
One does not simply overplays one fumbled quote in one article to frame a big picture.
To frame, perhaps.
Just not a big picture.
One fumbled quote in one article?
“The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” Rediff interview 2007
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/05inter.htm
“Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I’m not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed.” New Zealand herald interview 2008
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0
Recording of Pachauri speech to Commonwealth Club, San Francisco 2008
http://www.hark.com/clips/wtqdpndpcb-rajendra-pachauri-we-dont-pick-up-a-newspaper-article-and-dot-dot-dot-come-up-with-our-findings
“When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration in the on-going round of scientific review by IPCC, he said, ‘IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'”
Remarks to The Times of India, 2009
Now quick, while you defending one fumbled quote in one article, explain again how Hansen 1988 really got it right, and the hockey stick was right on, upside down Tijlander was just alright with me, the polar bear really drowned because of CAGW, and the Himalayan glacier…and Manhattan under water,…and the magical disappearing Amazon…and the ice free Arctic this year..and….
Skiphil already cited the Rediff quote, GaryM.
I’ll pay due diligence tomorrow to the other ones.
Meanwhile, please note that you might profit from delving into the IPCC’s own documents on the question of using grey litchurchur.
Oh, and BTW: I’m not defending Patchy.
Some eminent scientists prefer to think that I am in front of the other net, right now.
You know, the place where you need to be to score goals in the NHL:
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2013/01/23/nhl_goal_scoring_dominated_by_wrist_shots_star_analysis_shows.html
Thank you for playing.
Willard,
I looked at the IPCC standards on quoting grey literature, back when Pachauri’s serial lies were first being talked about. The AR4 was explicit that, if grey lit was included, it was to be identified in the text. The AR4 didn’t do that, at all. It was as dishonest ion that regard as Pachauri.
Thanks for playing…so poorly.
Patchy says the IPCC is 100% peer-reviwed.
Patchy leads an organization that has a policy to include non-peer-reviewed litchurchur.
Very interesting.
Oh, yes, but now the IPCC did not follow its procedure.
Good night.
Wilard,
Yer a funny guy. And not intentionally so.
“So let’s recap: in response to my request to document Donna’s claim about Rajendra’s claim, Moshpit pushes swaths of badly formatted text about Patchy.”
You defend a serial liar by claiming he made one off comment in one interview. You ask for cites and quotations in at least four comments above. And when you get them….whine whine whine.
You assumed it was one quote, blown out of proportion, giving you a chance to condescendingly criticize Laframboise and the other commenters here. You were wrong. Again.
Good night indeed.
> You defend [Patchy].
No, GaryM. You put that burden on me, while begging a question that is irrelevant to me.
You repeated that I defend Patchy, when I just said that this was not my role to defend him. Patchy’s old enough to take care of himself.
I’m not here to defend Patchy, but to pay due diligence to Donna’s audit.
I’m not here to defend myself either.
Are lawyers kinda forbidden to state untruths, GaryM?
***
So let’s recap: you beg a question to make the discussion about Patchy or about me.
Anything to distract us from the fact that this thread is about Donna’s book(s).
Thank you for the kind words.
OK. Just found back this subthread. Damn I miss G Reader. Anyway.
***
The second link by GaryM has already been provided by Skiphil:
> Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I’m not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0
Not unlike the first link. In fact, compare that quote from Patchy with the quote from the first link provided both by GaryM and Skiphil before him:
> We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. […] I can’t think of a better process.
Perhaps Patchy lacks imagination, but I could certainly think of a better process. In fact, it would be quite something if Patchy himself could not think of a better process. He’s a pulp fiction writer, after all.
Perhaps Patchy did not meant it that way.
***
In any case, we can see that both quotes carry similar ideas:
– The IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed literature.
– The IPCC reports result from a very good process.
Both quotes implement these ideas differently.
In the second, only the assessment is developed on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. Since this way of selling the IPCC does not prevent non-peer-reviewed literature to be considered during the deliberative process, as long as it’s not the basis for the assessments, this claim would be immune from Donna’s falsification efforts.
But in the first quote, the it does seem to refer to the process itself, which does not square well with the first interpretation. It is quite clear that the process leaves room to grey litterature, as was made clear in april 2009:
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/bureau-sessions/bureau39rep.pdf
Patchy should certainly work on getting his story straight from one interview to the next.
***
The Hark citation can also be found at Donna’s, who used it to show that Patchy was wrong to say that the IPCC does not use newspaper clippings because (check this) the IPCC cited three newspaper articles.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/03/yes-virginia-the-climate-bible-relies-on-newspaper-clippings/
Some eminent scientists smell a whiff of literalism in that op-ed, which might explain Donna’s biblical ringtone.
***
All in all, Donna’s audit does seem to rest on the assumption that one citation is worth as much as the next.
This appears in her crisp interpretation of a “100% claim” which she puts into Patchy’s mouth. This also appears in the way she counts her percentages of grey literature. This finally appears even more starkly in the way she constructs her Virginia op-ed.
I find this presumption problematic. Patchy’s point does seem to be better understood by the claim that the IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed literature. This does not imply that every citation shares an equal part in the assessment.
Anyway.
***
TL:DR — it’s divide-and-conquer all over again.
“Joshua | September 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
Yes, steven, indeed it is obvious.
Clearly Pachuri meant it is good when people die, starve, and suffer. Particularly children.”
Huh, nice strawman.
Here is the thing. There is No reading on which Patchy’s statement is anything other than a moral abomination.
If I were to say, well climate change will come and people will be hurt, but hey look at the depression, good things came out of that, maybe we need a climate apocalypse … If I said that or rather if Judith said that you
would not sit still for it.
willard,
“Patchy’s point does seem to be better understood by the claim that the IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed literature. This does not imply that every citation shares an equal part in the assessment.”
“all, “only and “all” and “Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.’”
No, according to Pachauri, there was no issue of different treatment of grey literature. If it wasn’t peer reviewed. it was thrown in the trash.
Now I will grant you, that is arguably a true statement, because the ARs are trash. But that was not how he meant it.
willard, you are in danger of becoming like one of those WW II Japanese soldiers, hiding out on an island, refusing to surrender from your intellectual cave, even after the Americans have built their new hotels and spas all around you.
And this is comical.
“No, GaryM. You put that burden on me, while begging a question that is irrelevant to me.’
I didn’t put anything on anyone., You had posted four comments in this thread defending Pachauri before I posted my first. I can understand your concern with the burden though. Defending the integrity of Pachauri, or Mann, or Gleick, or Schneider, puts you in a league with Sisyphus. With about as much success.
Steve, at http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377979
“We’re in serious trouble. I think even with the present population, we would just create enormous problems.”
Here is part of the solution:
“Electricity to Be Rationed: Power Cuts in 2 Years Unless Industry Cuts Back, Warns Regulator.” Mail Online. Accessed June 28, 2013. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349719/Blackout-alert-Electricity-rationed-Power-cuts-2-years-unless-industry-cuts-warns-regulator.html
Nelson, Fraser. “It’s the Cold, Not Global Warming, That We Should Be Worried About.” Telegraph.co.uk, March 28, 2013, sec. elderhealth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html
Savings on medical care, retirement benefits and an opportunity to tax whatever possible inheritances are left. (h/t Ebenezer Scrooge)
Thanks, TonyB.
The first link leads to a Webcitation and Webcitation does not work this morning.
The second link check-kites to another op-ed at Donna’s, where’s there’s no hit for “100%”.
Some eminent scientists appreciate who important that 100% claim we got there, and to whom.
***
And no, Virginia, a “100% claim” is not a claim where any other quantifier than 100% will do.
That would turn Donna’s claim “technically incorrect”.
“All” and “only” and “everything” ….. Oh, yes, we also have the EPA quoting Pachauri in a legal document, saying that the IPCC process relies “entirely” upon “peer reviewed literature”….. That is like 100% reliance except when they don’t feel up to it.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/03/yes-virginia-the-climate-bible-relies-on-newspaper-clippings/
[emphasis added] in Pachauri quotation above
Yes, the same quote, from a second source.
Amazing.
tony b and Willard
Pachauri may have erroneously stated that IPCC only used peer-reviewed literature, but the IPCC guidelines are quite a bit looser on this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml#.UjA9VBj8Jdg
Priority is given to peer-reviewed scientific, technical and social-economic literature. The IPCC recognizes that non-peer reviewed literature, such as reports from governments and industry can be crucial for IPCC assessments, and the appropriate use of such literature expands the breadth and depth of the assessment by including relevant information. Use of this literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams to ensure the quality and validity of cited sources and information.
Max
Some eminent scientists would advise Patchy to make sure he never use quantifiers which parsing artists can interpret in a crisp manner, and say instead:
– for the most important parts;
– for every central questions;
– when it matters most, etc.
Perhaps the Boston Bruins should have been more cautious in the last minute of their last game, last year:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/gameflash/2013/06/24/32695_recap.html
***
That the IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed litchurchur is quite undisputable. All contrarians can wish for is to beat up on the same quotes over and over again. Beating up over and over again the same quotes over more than a ten years span. Any kind of quotes, including the indirect ones we have.
You don’t even have to keep track of their sources. After a while, they get a life of their own. Think Peiser. Think Schneider. Think of about all the times we’ve played this game.
How much fun contrarians must have.
re Literature versus counting, as in audit
“That the IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed litchurchur is quite undisputable.” [‘quite’ – somewhat quaint qualifier, eh?]
Neither diversion nor distraction. We counted; DL calculated and published.
DL’s instructions occasionally disturbed me. For instance, we counted as peer-reviewed, ‘special climate edition’ editorial comments on an editors own paper; hence,everal researchers’/editors’ citations ran up the tally. Donna’s generous protocols gave the benefit of the doubt, each time. ‘Peer’-reviewed editorials? of one’s own work?
Thank you for your clarification, John R T, and for the Procrustean game you invite me to play:
– whine about quaint qualifiers;
– when offered crisp ones, try to find counterexamples.
I bet you don’t lose often at this kind of game, John.
I support Donna’s efforts by purchasing her e-book (I had already purchased her previous dilyghtfull book).
I LOVE this bit from the IPCC website:
“The IPCC is a scientific body… (*BUT* (mine)) It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”
How long with this joke continue?
Andrew
“It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”
Right. Why let a little thing like empirical data get in the way of a good story?
Is there any proof Robert Watson said “the science is settled” other than an extremely biased and totally unreliable source?
JCH
Is there any proof the source was “”extremely biased and totally unreliable “?
Max
Prof Curry: No, this is not a dispassionate assessment of the IPCC, but rather raises concerns about the integrity and accountability of the IPCC.
Had IPCC been reviewed for sainthood instead of merely a Nobel Peace Prize, there’d have been a spirited and energetic counter-argument by the Devil’s Advocate. These excerpts can be read in that spirit. One needs to be suspicious whether a phrase introduced by “The IPCC says … ” is either true or well-substantiated. DL has made a good case that the IPCC can not be trusted. If there is to be an unbiased review of the science for policy-makers, someone other than the IPCC as it is currently constituted will have to write it.
For another example, DL’s work reads like a grand jury indictment; there is sufficient evidence to take this case to trial by a different body. By itself it is insufficient for a verdict.
Matthew R. Marler
The jury will be the general public.
The verdict will likely come after AR5 is published.
IMO, if IPCC “hangs in there” with its old CAGW line based on high climate sensitivity (as outlined in AR4), it will be pronounced guilty (and irrelevant).
But we’ll have to wait and see.
Max
@Matthew R. Marler:
I would say that is a good summation. The problem is getting the court to hold the trial. We have seen they are not inclined to do that as they want to protect the IPCC for whatever reason.
“The 2007 IPCC report mistakenly said that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of disappearing by 2035. When various parties tried to tell the IPCC this was ludicrous,…”
The review comments are available on the IPCC webpage. Perhaps Judith Curry would be so kind as to show how this error was pointed out and by whom? As far as I know criticism of this statement didn’t appear until years after the report was finished. In fact, Mr Raina who wrote the report about Himalayan glaciers Pachauri called “voodo science” says he had never read the IPCC report.
Distinguish between (1) what the relevant IPCC editors were told before AR4 was published, (2) what they should have known had a better drafting, reviewing, and sourcing process been followed, and (3) how the did (and did not) respond to reasonable corrections and criticisms once the report had been published. Also, there is this, when the IPCC finally admitted THREE years later that they’d screwed up on a much highlighted claim of AR4:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
Skiphil, (1)Ddo you know what the relevant IPCC editors were told? As an IPCC author Kaser should have known how to make an official review comment, which makes his claim to have warned IPCC somewhat dubious. (2) It was a silly error, but humans are fallible and no matter how careful you think you are there will always be some errors. (3) As far as I know IPCC admitted the error immediately when it became public.
Kaser does have a point that WG II and III are behind WG I in their procedures, which is why I usually only quote WG I in discussions.
Crickets.
Willard, kindly stop with your silly “Crickets” thread-spamming.
Some of us have real lives and more important things to do than to address your tendentious and often irrelevant anxieties. I do not expect to be back for awhile, so endless “Crickets” spam will merely indicate that I have better things to do.
As for Pachauri and climate alarmism, peer review, and Glaciergate…..
When he says that “all” of the IPCC process is based upon “peer-reviewed literature” and that “only” peer reviewed research qualifies, that implies that all and only “peer-reviewed literature” should form the basis for IPCC “process” i.e., reports. “All” is the logical equivalent of “100%” for there are no exceptions to a statement “for all X, if X is an IPCC claim then X is based upon peer-reviewed literature.” You can say Pachauri did not use the term “100%” (and I haven’t seen DL or anyone say it is a direct quote), but you cannot say that “all” is equivalent to “some” or “most”….
Thomas,
good points and thank you for a reasonable reply. I am not going to delve into Pachauri’s world or AR4 right now except to note that this is how he handled “Glaciergate” when stuff hit the fan in Nov. 2009 – Jan. 2010, long after AR4 had been published. I agree that human imperfections must be allowed for, but considering how highly-reviewed the vaunted IPCC process was said to be, and how much alarm was generated by the Himalyan-glaciers-will-melt-by-2035 claim, it should have been handled much better before and after the publication of AR4. Instead we had this:
Glaciergate
[emphasis added]
> Some of us have real lives and more important things to do than to address your tendentious and often irrelevant anxieties.
In the actual case, that would be Thomas’, not mine. Thomas’ question was posted at 12:58 pm. Skiphil’s comment above was posted at 4:31 pm.
His online presence can attest that Skiphil’s had better things to do.
At 2:19, Skiphil had time to comment on Fan:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377942
At 2:34, Skiphil responded to Joshua:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377947
Our emphasis.
***
Having cleared all he had to do, Skiphil had more time to write a complete non-response to Thomas at 4:37:
> I am not going to delve into Pachauri’s world or AR4 right now except to note that this is how he handled “Glaciergate” when stuff hit the fan in Nov. 2009 – Jan. 2010, long after AR4 had been published.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-378002
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
Sorry, Willard, I’m not interested in your silly games. You are not intelligently responsive to anyone, you simply play your little word games…. for what purpose, who knows?
WILLARD
Skiphill, Booker is not someone I would rely on for an impartial description. Telegraph even had to publish an apology for other accusations he made against Pachauri. Having not read Raina’s report I cannot comment on whether Pachauri’s opinion of it was justified, nor would I say that there had been much alarm generated by that 2035 claim. It wasn’t even in the summary of the report, which is what most people read.
The irony here is that Pachauri only got elected as chair because President Bush thought the previous chairman, Robert Watson, was too radical and refused to support him for reelection, which would have been the normal procedure.
This discussion seems to be drifting from my original question on which I’d really like to see a response from Judith Curry.
Thomas
I don’t know if your story is correct that former U.S. President George W. Bush was responsible for the removal of Bob Watson as IPCC chairman (it sounds good, but I have seen no evidence).
Watson became infamous for his “the science is settled” and later “7 degrees C warming by 2100” gaffes.
But I have seen no evidence that your story about his being fired because of Bush is really true or not.
Max
Thank you for your kind words, Skiphil.
You just got caught saying your first life needed attention, whence it was clear that you:
– had time to play with Fan and Joshua;
– had no intention to answer Thomas.
This is not exactly a word game.
This is exactly what Donna does with Patchy.
Tell me how it feels.
***
Some eminent scientists can surmise why Donna uses her “100%” as a paraphrase. This has nothing to do with logic. It is a game Eli has called parsomatics:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/parsomatics
One does not simply parse words outrageously while accusing others of playing word games.
***
Since you’re looking like the red shirt [1] in our story, I presume you must be new here [2]. So I’ll let it go, and will simply pay due diligence to Donna’s parsomatics. Next time, I might not.
Enjoy your glaciergate,
w
[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedShirt
[2] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-must-be-new-here
Manacker, you can find an account here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/science/02CLIM.html
If you want to change the IPCC change its politics. I don’t see any other solution.
”Does this in itself mean that the conclusions in the IPCC AR5 are erroneous or otherwise inappropriate?”
As far as I have understood on basis of the ‘leakage’ the IPCC AR5 will focus on extreme events of weather and on potential influences of climate warming believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Key issues:
As to the adaptation to natural extreme events of weather I agree with IPCC. Whereas any global warming believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions has no evidence in reality. There is no empiric evidence a) according to which anthropogenic CO2 emissions could conrol CO2 content in atmosphere and b) according to which any increase of total CO2 content in atmosphere could dominate global warming. Hence, in order to control global warming, there is no reason to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Look e.g. at comments http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 ; and http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287036 ; and http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/17/open-thread-weekend-28/#comment-366643 .
The evident answer to Judith Curry’s (rhetorical?) question is “YES”.
For the common-sense reason that (in the real world) “stunted children” commonly are the sequelae of short-sighted failure to distinguish strong climate-change science from mediocre-to-weak science, in a toxic partnership with amorally short-sighted economic assessments that willfully ignore crucial issues of generational sustainment, abetted by the well-documented cultural timidity of the IPCC’s scientists-in-committee.
Conclusion Juvenile indistinction of strong-versus-mediocre science and generational sustainment is a grave flaw that is shared by IPCC committees *and* critics of those committees (specifically including Laframboise/Curry). For “responsible adult” appreciation of these crucial issues, it’s good that Climate Etc has Pekka Pirilä posting responsible adult common-sense.
Acknowledgements Thank you yet again, Pekka Pirilä!
FOMD confession A first-draft of the above comment called Judith Curry’s (rhetorical?) question “dumb”. Please let me hereby acknowledge that *my* own embrace of “dumb” language was itself entirely wrong-headed, being both gratuitously rude (which I regret) and also forgetful that in science there are no “dumb” questions.
To appreciate that Judith Curry’s question deserves a thoughtful response, consider its transposition to medicine
To which the “responsible adult” answer is “yes” (obviously).
Thank you for asking a *TERRIFIC* question, Judith Curry!
The FOMD robot cannot distinguish between “stunted growth of children” today and hypothetical effects of atmospheric CO2 a century from now??!!
No wonder that wading through his streams of comments requires a strong stomach or a weak mind….
Thanks god that you’re up to the task, and shame on those who force you to do it.
Yes, Joshua, I do have a suitably strong stomach….. Although most hours of my life I have better things to do….
Link to everyone’s favorite weak-minded & perennially juvenile slogan-shouter added by me! Thanks for the contrasting reminder, skiphil!
Most but not all, eh Skiphil?
:-)
DocMartyn asks if middle-aged adults concerned about dementia rates in the 65-90 age group of today are concerned about medical research into dementia that might yield a cure decades from now?”
As it is Climate Research is far better funded than dementia research; however, based on current life expectancy and dementia rates, half of the readers of this blog are going to die whilst suffering from dementia, and none of them are going to die from cAGW.
So given the choice between funding dementia research or climate science, all “responsible adults” would answer is “yes” (obviously).
Doc –
I recently moved into a house that I am sharing with someone who has dementia.
Is your point that because I am concerned that there is a prevalent view among experts in the field that ACO2 presents the potential to significantly alter the environment, and because I am in favor of funding research into the affect of ACO2 as well as alternative forms of energy, I therefore am unconcerned about dementia?
Am I being given a choice? What level of certainty should I have that taking money from research into climate change and alternative energy will yield better returns if we put it into research into dementia?
When did you stop beating your wife, Doc?
Joshua, I was replying in exactly the same ‘guilt trip’ script hat FOMD has been using.
I note that you are a fan of Fan, and never get pissed off at his entries.
You are in no danger of atmospheric CO2 levels causing you even mild discomfort, let alone turning your brain into Swiss Cheese, which is what you, and all of us, face.
Perhaps if you applied the same effort to actual, statistically verified, dangers that the future can bring, instead of acing as an indigent spokesman for a children’s crusade, you wouldn’t come across as a smug prig.
Doc –
Really? On what basis do you “note” that?
Since you responded to my comment but didn’t answer my questions, I will repeat them.
Finally:
Why thank you. I wouldn’t have guessed that you think I am an acing spokesman, but I will take the compliment – but I feel compelled to point out that I am not on a “children’s crusade,” and in fact, I have no idea what you’re freakin’ talking about?
Do you?
Oh, and BTW – I forgot:
“Mommy, mommy, he did it fiiiirrrrrrsssssst.”
Never seen that before.
My, my Josh. Firstly:
OPPORTUNITY COST
In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the “cost” incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as “the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen”. Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing “the basic relationship between scarcity and choice”. The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently. Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs.
Secondly, my wife is a 5 foot tall French Jew who has lived in the Anglo-sphere for the two decades, teaching French and Spanish language to high schoolers and is as tough as nails. I am not in the habit of hitting her or any other woman for that matter.
Thirdly, I was originally answering one of FOAD’s stupid posts not giving you an opportunity to go all morally offended.
Finally, if you actually gave a damn about preventing the rise in atmospheric CO2 you would actually be doing something about it, like getting the more brain dead members of your cult to endorse electrical power from natural gas and nuclear energy, but you wont, because you don’t want to be challenged on your stratospheric levels of smugness.
Fan
Might might might. If’s and but’s. Possible. Maybe. Could.
Let’s deal in realities and instead of the highly hypothetical carbon scenario you pose above what do you think of the debt that WILL overwhelm the US unless you take action now. No if’s, No But’s, No maybe’s.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Why don’t you campaign on this real world issue instead of your hypothetical ones? Drowning in debt will certainly Impingee on James Hansen’s Grandchildren. It is very far from certain that Rising sea levels or rising Temperatures ever will.
Of course, if you don’t have any money left because its all been spent, it will be impossible to mitigate future climate disasters IF they happen.
Pick a new campaign Fan. Against DEBT not carbon.
tonyb
I guess alarmism and lack of acknowledging uncertainty have their place, eh Tony?
Think like an adult, TonyB!
Adult Common Sense The scientific probability that “James Hansen’s climate-change worldview is essentially right” is far *GREATER* than the scientific probability “Your heavy-smoking relatives will die of lung cancer after several decades.”
Proposition If it makes scientific (and moral) sense for individuals to quit smoking, then it makes scientific (and moral) sense for civilizations to move beyond carbon energy economies.
That’s adult common-sense, eh TonyB?
Fan
Instead of gratuitous insults can I please have your comment on the dangers of Debt of the here and now and future and not on the unlikely carbon scenarios of the far distant future?
Thank you
tonyb
Thesis Advancements in science-and-technology will eventually unleash humanity from “the tether of fuel“.
Corollary Carbon-energy taxes (invested in research) will bring about that happy day sooner and faster; therefore carbon-energy taxes should be immediately imposed at levels sufficient to substantially supplant carbon-energy with non-carbon energy, in order to dramatically increase both market incentives and technological capabilities in the noncarbon energy sector.
That’s orthodox skeptical economics *AND* “best available climate-science” *AND* foresighted humanitarianism *AND* adult common-sense, eh TonyB?
Believe me, once James E. Hansen’s grandchildren develop a brain of their own they will chuckle at the silly doomsday predictions of their fuddy-duddy grandpa.
Like Louis Armstrong sang:
“They’ll learn much more, than I’ll ever know.”
Max
(Sorry ’bout that, Fan…)
The only responsible body that can judge the IPCC or Pachauri now is the court of public opinion. Donna has provided the perfect document for that court to use. If the IPCC or Pachauri repeat their earlier errors then that fact will be evident to everyone reading Donna’s book. The one thing that the American public will not stand for is a person or organization that is proud of its past misdeeds.
For the long run, the IPCC is powerful evidence that such international agencies are beyond legitimate control and may choose to go rogue.
Theo Goodwin
+100
If there’s one thing that you can rely on in the climate wars, it is that you will find an astounding example of unintentional irony just around every corner.
Donna writes this kind of appeal to authority, and Judith and our much beloved “skeptics” stand up and applaud.
but Dyson
John –
I agree that dismissing Dyson’s “authority” by virtue of his specific area of expertise is fallacious. Always have.
My point was the selectivity in approach to “appeal to authority” so often seen in these threads from “skeptics.”
Manacker is so wedded to his selective reasoning that he couldn’t even understand the point.
Joshua
“appeal to authority”?
Huh?
Howzat?
Max
Huh?
You don’t get that
> Which part of his physics training equips him to make these policy decisions on behalf of the rest of us?
is an appeal to authority?
Please consult a philosopher, MiniMax.
There is no especial authority in policy – something generally decided at the political level and each of us seems equally qualified. That Stocker has no especial authority in this seems evident.
It seems specifically to be suggesting that Stocker was claiming a false authority. Anyone then using this to buttress an opinion would be making a appeal to authority in the accepted sense. An appeal to a false authority.
Sort of like asking Joshua or Willard to be a character witness.
Dyson by the way seems to have climate experience from way back.
A good reason to cry, may think the Amazonian turtle, is that butterflies can drink:
http://www.livescience.com/39558-butterflies-drink-turtle-tears.html
Rejoice, Chief, for the north is not a dead cold place:
You seem incapable of anything but nonsense.
Let’s try this instead, then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1yL-YLr_w0&feature=player_embedded
Of course there are authorities in policy, Chief.
Aren’t you one?
Do you really want to hurt me?
Do you really want to make me cry?
Do I really look like an Amazonian turtle to you, Chief?
Amazingly you can’t seem to focus on the relevant qualifier.
You mean, “especial”, Chief? Because there’s nothing especial about it. The only especial authority I know was a Scotsman. A true one.
What are you looking for exactly, Chief? You want me to drop the gloves and show that you might be overselling some kind of exceptionalism regarding policy? Why would I discuss glittering generalities, Chief?
You don’t listen to the music of what is said. You don’t dance to it. All you do is to say “no”, which is a cardinal sin of conversationalism.
There’s a beautiful world out there, Chief:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVsnq24Z1iI
Try Life on Mars. Click on 4:29.
Willard said:
The Chef is both unpredictably evasive and a contrarian. The best description is that he is a prevaricator with the intent to sow FUD.
Reach out and touch faith, Web:
The relevant qualifier is ‘false’ authority.
Yes, Chief, an invalid appeal to authority might be more proper. Invalid in the sense of unjustified, though I might prefer unwarranted, as the notions of warrant and authority seem like a good fit to me.
I can’t make you love me, Chief:
No, that one:
God you’re an idiot. What happened – brain damage in a collision of philosophical precepts?
An appeal to authority is defined as appeal to a false authority. Appeal to an actual authority is how referencing works.
> An appeal to authority is defined as appeal to a false authority. Appeal to an actual authority is how referencing works.
The word “authority” appears on both sides of your definition of an appeal of autority, Chief.
If we nevertheless apply this definition to your second sentence, something like “referencing works by appealing to an actually false authority” should obtain.
Since I wish to leave you undenied:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8TlMaMtZg
I would settle to the observation that people oftentimes use “appeal to authority” to mean “appeal to an unwarranted authority”.
We may wish to distinguish an appeal to an unwarranted authority from an unwarranted appeal to authority, but I’m not sure how, nor why.
So where does my heart belong, Chief?
I would rather appeal to rationality.
‘Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.’ wikipedia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leg_AqkGvWc
Yes, Chief: the classical view of this kind of argument is that it’s always wrong. We could even interpret an appeal to authority as an ad hominem. Such an argument does target a person’s being as a warrant.
But like ad hominems and fallacies in general, it’s more subtle than that. Compare:
(1) Because Feynman says so.
(2) Because, as Feynman says, “You’re a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!”
In the first case, you see that a person defers to the authority of Feynman. In the second case, that person refers to what Feynman said. In a rational inquiry, only the first case is fallacious.
But even you, Chief, have to admit that mentioning Feynman in (2) has its effect. One does not simply refer when one cites someone, one appeal to someone’s name. A valid appeal to an authority like the second example (if Feynman knows some physiology) does contain some deference.
I don’t think the classical renders justice to how humans work in real life.
***
This is where contemporary analysis of fallacies kick in. In a nutshell, appealing to an authority, to be warranted, must satisfy some conditions. And these conditions cannot be “because you make an appeal”. It’s been a while I studied this, but I will surmise that it always depends upon how you put your own authority on the line: an appeal to authority sure looks fishy when it does not look your argument anymore. In other words, if you have the feeling that it’s Feynman (or any other authority) that now owns the argument, there’s something’s more than a rational inquiry going on.
And even then, I’m sure it’s more complicated than that. But this should give you an idea of why journalists like David Rose are so upsetting.
***
Seems that Walton wrote a book on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Expert-Opinion-Arguments-Authority/dp/0271016949
In **The Problem of Authority**, he questions how the classical view of the problem of authority can lead to scientism.
Anyway.
***
What’s it like there, Chief?
Fascinating:
===>>> Informally, everyone understands that the former is the person in charge (partly because that individual’s government has committed to housing and funding the working group’s administrative activities until that edition of the climate bible is complete). Because Stocker is head of the ‘science’ section of the climate bible and his co-chair is from China,
This is the type of reporting that Judith applauds? You know, in her attempt to “build bridges?”
And our much beloved “skeptics” demand proof when Pekka criticizes this type of reporting as being overtly biased?
Ya’ just gotta love the climate wars.
“). Because Stocker is head of the ‘science’ section of the climate bible and his co-chair is from China,”
She could have discussed Stocker and his relationship to Phil Jones.
There is of course a mail on this and it relates to Jones working with Stocker to thwart people using FOIA with the IPCC.
I just want to re-post this for emphasis:
Because I think it so beautifully captures the unintentional irony of the climate wars. Here we have a “skeptic” who shows no respect for uncertainty, to express an alarmist viewpoint.
Why do “skeptics” insist on ignoring the important principles of due skeptical diligence?
It is an interesting question, don’t you think?
Let’s consider the following as a possible response to tonyb’s alarmism:
Sound rather reasonable to me. I wonder how my much beloved “skeptics” might react to such a response to tonyb’s alarmism?
Joshua, you write “I wouldn’t say we’re facing a crisis. We’re certainly facing a very difficult challenge.”
I, for one, consider this to be a complete load of garbage. The hoax of CAGW presents no sort of challenge whatsoever. The more CO2 we put into the air, so far as I am concerned, the better
Jim –
I give you credit for being consistent in your approach to the climate wars. I don’t recall you engaging with the overtly politicized aspects of this debate. As far as I can recall, your posts are always focused on scientific debate. You seem to have scientific expertise, and I find it interesting that your views are treated by “skeptics” in much the same manner as their views are treated by some “realists” – much to the “skeptics” concern.
That all said… those weren’t my words, but they were Pachuri’s response when he was asked about alarmism.
My point is that tonyb was being alarmist, without due consideration of uncertainty, and that it might be interesting to use the words of a much despised Pachuri as a possible model for responding to tonyb’s alarmism.
So let’s examine the contrast to your response to alarmism about climate change to the one that Pachuri expressed in relation to alarmism about climate change, and as an exercise, think about turning them both around and contrast them as a response to tonyb’s alarmism.
You both appropriately use some qualifying language to make it clear that you are expressing an opinion +1 to each.
You both go on to state your opinion as fact, without any acknowledgement of uncertainty. -1 to each.
However, at the end of your comment, you do qualify with “…as far as I am concerned…”
I’ll give you a +1/2 for that. You win!
Still, what would be good, IMO, would be to see stronger responses on both sides of the climate wars. Maybe folks should clean up their own houses before focusing so much on the mess on other people’s houses?
Joshua, you write “You both go on to state your opinion as fact, without any acknowledgement of uncertainty. -1 to each.”
I base my opinion on empirical evidence. There is known uncertainty when something is measured. There is no measured CO2 signal in any modern, measured, temperature/time graph. None whatsoever. I have stated this many times. If anyone wants to challenge this, I welcome the discussion. Just show me where the measured signal is. From simple signal to noise ratio physics, this means that it is almost certain that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no effect on anything to do with global temperatures. I dont need to acknowledeg any uncertainty.
Jim –
I was going to respond to the second sentence (by saying that I can’t judge the science, but have a hard time accepting that anyone, you included, doesn’t need to acknowledge any uncertainty) – but then I saw that the first sentence directly contradicts the second.
Could you clarify?
Joshua, you write “Could you clarify?”
Let me try.
When you make a measurement in physics, you automatically get a +/- accuracy with that measurement. There are NO exceptions. This is basic physics 101. So when we have modern temperature/time graphs, we know precisely what the uncertainly is. It is the accuracy with which the measurements have been made.
If no-one can measure a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graphs, then, within the accuracy of measurement, there is no signal. And absence of any signal means that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes no measurable effect on global temperatures
Thesis Climate-change debt-alarmism (like TonyB’s) is short-sighted and self-fulfilling; hence entirely wrong-headed.
That plain common-sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
Fan
Here is the US debt expressed in a simpler manner
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
So, the impact this will have on hansens grandchildren doesn’t worry you, in fact you pat my head and tell me That I need to apply some adult common sense. Yet you are constantly alarmed about something that may become a problem in a century if you can imagine some very unlikely scenarios that involve soaring sea levels and soaring temperatures
Tonyb
It is far more rational to fear a shortage of prudence, planning, and creative investment, in toxic combination with abundant supplies of selfishness, willful ignorance, and timidity … … than it is to fear an excess of debt and a shortage of investment opportunities!
Fortunately the former traits are self-inflicted, are they not?
As creative investment opportunities, opportunities abound!
Sidles you blithering idiot do you have any inkling what happens to people who live paycheck to paycheck if the global economy goes tits up? Who’s going to pay their mortgage, their grocery bills, their electricity bills, their medical care? You? Hansen?
Josh,
What if the opinion was expressed as follows:
An increase in the size of the debt burden, should it continue at a rate similar to now, has greater potential to negatively impact Hansen’s grandchildren than what a warmer climate will likely present.
It takes into account the possibility of steps occuring which will limit or even reduce future debt. It acknowledges that the degree of impact is not precisely determinable (as well as at least some uncertainty of climate impacts). And it pretty much makes the same point.
tim –
It’s better. And I think that the difference is far from negligible. And like I said to Steve, it would be a fool’s errand (appropriate for me, eh?) to try to draw conclusions about the incorporation of uncertainty into such a short statement. But, there is one point that stands out as problematic, IMO. Allow me to revise it slightly, but in a way that I think makes a big difference.
Josh,
Your substitution of may is fine. The degree of uncertainty for economic issues is likely as great as with climate issues. I’d even agree it is greater.
You are good on the timeframe bounds. I didn’t intend to imply any conditions related to social/ economic class or position. That is the restatement was not meant to apply specifically to Hansen’s grand kids.
I’ll finish with the point that the restatement was not meant as an end all, close the discussion comment. It is a starting point. It is supposed to lead to discussions of which issue represents higher probabilities and how do we go about quantifying them.
I don’t get the wife beating comment.
Joshua
Naw, Josh. It’s actually a pretty stupid one.
Max
The next report is coming out soon, so we should table all talk about disbanding the IPCC until we take a look at AR5.
Contrary to their best efforts there will be errors in the report, so lets sharpen our knives.
Bob. you write “so lets sharpen our knives.”
I hope, and believe, that a lot of very well respected scientists that already have their knives sharpened to perfection. I am sure some of them are salivating while they await 27 th September, and the garbage SPMs that the IPCC will produce.
Take out the garbage and that was a great post.
It shows bias.
Bob Droege
Cripwell is right. There will be critique of the AR5 report, especially if IPCC “hangs tough” with its old model-derived high climate sensitivity, rather that accepting the results of several independent (at least partly)observation-based estimates, which are around half as high.
As Judith commented on an earlier thread, this could become a problem for IPCC’s overall credibility if it chooses to sweep the new data “under the rug”.
Let’s see what happens, Bob.
Max
Max,
I believe I was advocating criticism of AR5, however your knives are seriously dull.
I believe one of your low sensitivity studies is the Schlessinger paper?
Do you agree with his recommendations on what to do?
Or do you take the diagnosis but not the medicine?
Go back and read AR4 again, climate sensitivity is not solely model derived, you should know that.
Cite for me again, the recent ones that are outside the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5, if you have the time.
Or you could fabricate your own chart.
‘
thanks
Bob,
I hope you don’t mind my continuing from the last thread here. It was getting rather long.
Here are a couple links (I am still looking for the Navy paper).
http://www.automotive-management-services.com/blog/?p=292
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA558214
The first shows that DoD is continuing to spend on alternative fuels, at least in the non tactical vehicle fleet. I believe this is in large part driven by executive directive. When one considers the size of DoD expenditures on fuel, this can be argued as perhaps the most efficient means of encouraging development of the infrastructure for alternative fuel programs.
The second is the GSA/DoD report I referred to. It is clear from this report that programs to encourage alternative fuels are costly and not capable of meeting even limited demand. Our armed services simply cannot afford to make any significant use of alternative or green fuels for 70% plus portion of its fuel usage – ie tactical vehicles, ships and aircraft, even if they were available.
So, to the question of “Does our military leadership believe climate change is a critical issue?” there is not much in the way of evidence either way. From what I’ve read in publications such as USNI’s Proceedings, the Green Fleet program has pretty much been forced on the Navy. From a policy standpoint I could still argue that it has a benefit in it determining if alternative fuels offer a feasible replacement in the event of fossil fuels running out. But that has nothing to do with climate change.
I’ll respond to some of our other comments below.
d(W&H) = power in – power out
TOA flux and ocean heat content are exactly the same energy – or at least the dynamics thereof
And to refresh your memory – http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/06/open-thread-weekend-31/#comment-377001
You are a lying little merde. I wonder why?
Whoops talking to gatesy.
Bob,
RE these comments:
You know the IPCC is on the borderline of being too low on SLR. – I don’t know that. What I have seen is that depending on which data you use, tidal gauge or satellite, you get a 1.5 to 3.3 mm/yr increase in SL. While I don’t automatically assume satellites are the more accurate (though I’d agree they are more precise) measure, common sense tells me to go with the higher number. But that number is not scary. More importantly, the rate of increase is not increasing.
You will have to provide a cite for the Navy following the IPCC on climate change, I may have some misplaced confidence that the Navy would figure it out themselves. – I did not say the Navy was “following the IPCC on climate”. I said that for the purposes of the report they were asked to provide, they were told their starting point was to assume the conditions and projections of the IPCC reports. There is a difference. ( I will look for the report so you can reach your own conclusions.)
The faster the world as a whole can reduce the use of fossil fuels, the more will be left for more strategic uses, such as the Navy and a personal favorite of mine, pharmaceuticals. – I am in whole hearted agreement withyou on this.
Things are much different in the arctic compared to when I was last there. – I don’t doubt you at all. I’ll note that I haven’t made any comment on this years Arctic ice. I think it is a bit foolish to put much stock in it. I believe that whether there are long term cycles at work or if human activities are accelerating what is happening, there are changes occuring in both extend and composition in the general direction of there being less. What I don’t believe is that this is a sign of global warming apocalypse.
You might try a little harder to understand the few warmists who do post here regularly, you might learn something. And spend more time reading Hansen and less time on wuwt – I am not much for labels. When I’m called a denier, I find it a bit humerous in the sense I don’t deny anything. I also find it a good indicator of the credibility of the person using the term. As for “warmist” I’m not sure that I don’t fit that category. I don’t argue against it warming or humans having an impact. My issues tend to be with two categories – various claims of what the impacts will be and claims as to the certainty of our understanding. As for learning something, I do so almost every day. One of the things I like best in my science mentoring is that I am guaranteed to learn something, often from the students I’m working with. I’ve also learned that I’m not always correct in positions and opinions I express and therefore keeping an open mind is to my benefit. My experience on the climate issue has been that many of the people I looked to for information were either hostile, arrogant or in a few cases, moronic. I have yet to see you act in any of those manners. So I listen.
FYI – has it occurred to you that there are far fewer of us in the world then there are people with PhD’s. Carries no weight in a climate debate, but I keep it mind when I run into someone with a strong streak of arrogance.
Thanks Timg56,
Here is my position on SLR in as short an argument that I can make.
Compare the current rate against the average rate for the 20th century, 3 mm/yr against 1.7 mm/yr, tells me it is accelerating.
We know from past climates that at 3 C above pre-industrial temperatures, the Greenland Ice sheet is very reduced and sea level is much higher.
How fast we get from today to what’s coming is a good question, I don’t know, but anyone who says it’s not scary or SLR is not accelerating is not correct.
The GRACE mission shows mass loss from Greenland and WAIS is acceleration and the rate is doubling between every 5 and 10 years, see Hansen. I am curious as to how the AR5 addresses this. Thinking the mass loss will slow down from quadratic and be more linear in the future makes it difficult to predict how long the ice sheets will last.
What has happened this year with the sea ice extent? I have mulled over an analogy for a few days and here goes. Imagine you have two bags of ice and two bathtubs filled with cold water. You dump one bag in each, the difference being you slam one bag on the floor such that you put it in the bathtub as cubes and the other is still a near solid block. Which one melts out first?
I did predict that the ice extent would set another record this year and I was wrong. I based that prediction on the development of large cracks in the ice this winter before peak extent, it looked to me that the currents were going to pull the ice apart and it would melt. Instead we had three successive polar cyclones. At times it looked like the ice was about to split in two and there would be clear water all the way to the pole. Huge polynyas, if you can see them in the Cryosphere Today, they are big. The ice is falling apart rather than melting this year.
I found this
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12897
and from that this
“The terms of reference direct that this study be based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and other peer-reviewed assessments. Therefore, the committee did not address the science of climate change or challenge the scenarios on which the committee’s findings and recommendations are based.”
interesting
And you are right, arrogance and insults do not make for polite conversation.
And yet ARGO is showing 0.69mm/yr steric sea level rise in a period of declining ocean fresh water content. CERES is showing that all warming in that period was from a slight reduction in cloud cover. The change in CO2 forcing was certainly not enough to make much difference at all over such a short period. We are talking about an order of magnitude difference in forcing.
I estimated 5.7 million km^2 based on winter AO and the state of the Pacific. The nascent La Nina doesn’t seem to be evolving as fast as I thought it would in the current cool IPO. In fact it seems to be retreating.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.9.9.2013.gif
Bob-
Please give me a cite for the 1.7 mm 20th century rate.
Bob,
How much of the difference in SLR is due to the difference in measurement technology? As I understand it, tidal gauges provided the 1.7 mm data. When satellite data came available, the rate jumped to 3+ mm per year. I see three possible takeaways from that. Satellite data is more accurate and previous data does not show real SLR. Satellite data may not be as accurate and the current rate is over estimated. Increase in SLR coincided with satellites coming on line.
Of the three, the last seems the least likely to me. Therefore I would default to the first and assume the satellite data is good and we should plan on a minimum if 10 inches with CO2 doubling. If I am in a coastal plain, I might even double that, if feasible. That is still less than 2/3rd’s of the lowest figure I have seen projected.
Cheif Hydro said:
“The nascent La Nina doesn’t seem to be evolving as fast as I thought it would in the current cool IPO. In fact it seems to be retreating.”
____
An “La Nada” as they are amusingly calling it:
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-la-nada-climate-pattern-lingers.html
And it probably means that temps will be staying flat to slightly higher for the coming year, keeping in mind the last La Nina was the warmest La Nina year on record.
timg56
20th C SL rise (measured by tide gauges at several shorelines) rose 1.74 mm/year on average, with significant decadal variability (from -1.0 to +5.1 mm/year).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
Over the first half of the 20th C, the average rate of SL rise was slightly higher (2.03 mm/year) than over the second half (1.45 mm/year).
SL rise over the last decade (1993-2003) was reported by several independent studies, ranging from essentially 0 (Holgate 2004, based on tide gauges) to 3.1 mm/year (IPCC, based on satellite altimetry).
Tide gauges measure SL at various shorelines, where humans live, while satellite altimetry measures the entire ocean, except for coastlines and polar areas, which cannot be captured by satellites, so the two methods measure a basically different scope and should not be compared directly.
A study by Wunsch et al. reported 1.6 mm/year for the period 1993-2003 but warned:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
While reporting a rate of 2.5±0.5 mm/year for the 1993-2003 period, the NOAA scientists responsible for the satellite data have been quite cautious regarding the reliability of the altimetric readings.
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
So I’d conclude that any talk of an “acceleration in SL rise” is highly speculative.
Let’s wait a few decades until the altimetry data can be made more reliable and we have enough data to capture the decadal swings before we start talking about “acceleration”.
Max
Here you all go, a cite for both 1.7 mm/yr in the 20th century as well as a cite for acceleration, both in the same paper, think of that.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/abstract
I find it more believable than manackers flicker graph.
Did you do that yourself max? I noted spelling errors and one of your favorite words “slight”
Bob droege
Yes, Max did do that Flicker graph himself, his name is at the bottom.
I corresponded with Simon Holgate on 20th Century sea level rise a few years ago. It rose faster in the first half of the 20th century (presumably because of the large amount of glacier melt circa 1918-1950) than it did in the second half which included a period of cooling and a relatively short period of warming .However he said the difference in rate was not statistically meaningful.
tonyb
Tony,
Let’s see if Max owns up to it!
If the early 20th century rate and the late 20th century rate are statistically similar, then we can compare the 21st century rate, or the rate since 1993, the earliest data point on the current Colorado graphs, to either the early the late or the combined. And what we get is that the rate is faster now than last century, so we can conclude that sea level rise has accelerated this century.
By the way, the paper I cited has been cited a significant number of times in other papers, perhaps there is a vast conspiracy to document acceleration of sea level rise in order to gain grant money, establish tenure, fly on extensive government funded boondoggles as well as initiating the new world government.
La Nada was a term used in paleoclimate research. It seems to be a vulgar adaptation to ENSO neutral.
Your prediction of ENSO a year out is utter nonsense. Decadal expectations are for more intense and frequent La Nina – but any guess more than 3 months out is no better than chance.
The global energy inputs – as I have discussed endlessly – peaked in 1998 – fell significantly and then increased a somewhat again since. The changes in the satellite records are overwhelmingly SW.
Chief is the ultimate prevaricator. He consistently claims no warming for “a decade or three”, but now says any guess more than 3 months out is no better than chance.
Real scientific discussion is meaningless with him, the only important strategy to him is to continue to heap on the FUD.
You’re an idiot webster.
Predicting ENSO more than three months in advance is no better than random. That’s well known.
But in a cool Pacific Decadal Variation – La Nina is more frequent and intense for 20 to 40 years and the north Pacific is cold.
Three degrees C warming for a doubling of CO2, if you haven’t forgotten Chef Waterboy.
PDO will oscillate and the 3C warming will not.
You’re an utter twit with imaginary numbers. At most it is 0.1 degrees C/decade.
e.g. http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
It is quite likely mostly cloud in recent times.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=23
And the PDV is not just the PDO.
e.g. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/PredictingPacific.pdf
And it varies over millennia.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ENSO11000.gif.html?sort=3&o=137
If you actually knew anything real someone might pay attention.
Get this — Chef Waterboy can not predict random ENSO because it is random, but can predict random Pacific Decadal Variations because it is … random.
How is that for pretzel logic?
And to top it off, we will get the 3C global warming on land when CO2 reaches a doubling, and we could have another variation on top of it due to the positive PDO signal that Chef claims will be there.
Chef, will that make it 3.5 C warmer? You tell me, since you claim to have a handle on the long term outlook.
Chef is in a trick box once again.
Chief Hydro-Fabricator said:
“The global energy inputs – as I have discussed endlessly – peaked in 1998.”
______
Oh, is this a little switch-a-roo you’d like to pull? First you say “ocean heat content peaked” in 1998, and mentioned Loeb’s research for your proof, but when a quote from Loeb in the very research you linked to said that ocean heat content continues to rise, now you try to slip your way out of it by saying “global energy inputs peaked in 1998”.
So, how can global energy inputs have peaked in 1998 and ocean heat content continue to rise? Quite illogical Chief Nutter.
So for those who are actually not aware of what a true nutter you are Chief, the truth is that actual energy input to the total system did fall off a bit in the past 10 years to 2 reasons:
1) Less intense solar cycle
2) Slighly increased aerosols mainly from a series of moderate volcanoes
However, there has also been a reduced energy flux from ocean to atmosphere during this period and ocean heat content has continued to rise as Loeb has stated correctly. Thus, the system has continued to gain energy, not because of getting more incoming (quite the opposite), but because of keeping more in the system, primarily in the oceans.
Webby obviously didn’t read even the abstract of the PDV paper linked to.
We are in a cool mode and these last for 20 to 40years. It is not a prediction. Webby shows irredeemable ignorance as always. The background warming in the other study I linked to is around 0.1 degrees C after subtracting natural variability. The study adds this.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents
significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26),
leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global
mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that
could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation
of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions
(27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and
without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.
To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and
may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’
It is ultimately the failure to understand this that demonstrates the woefully shallow intellectual capacity of the webster.
Now what did gatesy have to whine about this time?
Oh, is this a little switch-a-roo you’d like to pull? First you say “ocean heat content peaked” in 1998, and mentioned Loeb’s research for your proof, but when a quote from Loeb in the very research you linked to said that ocean heat content continues to rise, now you try to slip your way out of it by saying “global energy inputs peaked in 1998″.
Willis 2004 showed a peak in ocean heat in 1998. ISCCP-FD and Project Earthshine show a couple of W/m^2 increase in cloud radiaitve forcing between 1998 and 2001. Lyman and Johnson 2013 showing a peak in ocean warming in 2003. I have always linked ocean heat with energy flux. Gatesy is a lying little merde.
So, how can global energy inputs have peaked in 1998 and ocean heat content continue to rise? Quite illogical Chief Nutter.
I quoted Pekka on ocean heat peaking in 2003. I suggested that I found this unlikely but perhaps the atmospheric/ocean energy dynamics might explain it. It is all in black and white above.
So for those who are actually not aware of what a true nutter you are Chief, the truth is that actual energy input to the total system did fall off a bit in the past 10 years to 2 reasons:
1) Less intense solar cycle
2) Slighly increased aerosols mainly from a series of moderate volcanoes
However, there has also been a reduced energy flux from ocean to atmosphere during this period and ocean heat content has continued to rise as Loeb has stated correctly. Thus, the system has continued to gain energy, not because of getting more incoming (quite the opposite), but because of keeping more in the system, primarily in the oceans.
I don’t know which bit of missing energy gatesy doesn’t understand. It is vaguely amusing that the Loeb article he cites concerns the missing energy. The Loeb article showed that inceasing energy inputs is consistent with ARGO. The increase is all SW.
Here again is CERES and MODIS and CERES SW
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=57
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS.gif.html?sort=3&o=100
I am sure he doesn’t any of this and just indulges in mad weasel space cadet rants. Gatesy gets more insane with every entry.
Convenient for Chief Nutter to avoid the central issue of his slight-of-hand switch from ocean heat content to energy inputs to the system since 1998, or perhaps in his mind they are the same thing.
Who can say what goes on in the mind of a rabid cut-and-paste nutter?
d(W&H) = power in – power out
TOA flux and ocean heat content are exactly the same energy – or at least the dynamics thereof
And to refresh your memory – http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/06/open-thread-weekend-31/#comment-377001
You are a lying little merde. I wonder why?
Chef Waterboy never considered the situation that we may have a natural oscillation peak when the GHG forcing starts and then we have a natural minimum when we measure the temperature as the GHG value reaches 1.5X CO2. Somebody like the Chef would take that measurement and lowball the sensitivity estimate, only to see the max peaks in the natural oscillation positions align when the CO2 reaches its eventual 2X value. Suddenly the sensitivity is higher.
I know that this math is too tough for the Chef to visualize, but there it is. Oscillations are zero sum.
Why don’t you boys just get a room. Slap each other around with your pocket protectors for a while. Then come back and act like adults?
Why don’t you go phuck yourself Gary.
The numbers have been done many times in many different ways.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/lontermtrend_zpse9264a75.png.html?sort=3&o=6
The residual is about 0.1 degrees C/decade. From the same study.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implemen- tation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
Now I know that you, Gatesy and Gary are incapable of understanding this – and that’s not my problem but it is the essential problem.
Bob, if you have an oscillation there will be accelerations and decelerations and neither can be used to determine the true rate of SLR until there is enough data to smooth the trend. Max is right to state that time is needed to tell if there is truely an acceleration. The authors of this paper agree.
http://www.nc-20.com/pdf/2012GL052885.pdf
Steven,
Is there a 60 oscillation of SLR around a zero trend, or is the oscillation around an increasing trend? The paper you cited leans to the latter and doesn’t rule out an accelerating trend.
From your cite, a trend of 1.7 mm/yr, a cycle of 50 years and a magnitude of the cycle of 6.0 mm. So in 50 years or one cycle, sea level rose 85 mm, but went up an down 6 mm?
Please!
The GRACE satellite studies do show and accelerating mass loss from both Greenland and the WAIS and that may not show up in the satellite measurements for sea level rise until it is too late for any mitigation efforts.
But that is what Max wants.
Likely not by coincidence the anomalous linear rise of 0.1C/decade since 1950 coincided with the modern solar maximum. Spookily when the sun got real quiet the past several years global average temperature moved from pause to dropping like a stone. Now it seems our best instruments brought to bear on attribution are finding it isn’t longwave from GHGs that are the culprit but rather shortwave from the sun being modulated by clouds. Queue Svensmark right about now. :-)
And just for the record, the reason the bandwagon science community got it so wrong is that DWLIR over the ocean has jack diddly schit to do with ocean heat content. It works over land. DRY land. Especially frozen land. This causes warmer runoff from the continents which bypasses the mixed ocean layer and the heat thereby shows up in the deeper ocean without being detected by ARGO going through the top layer first.
Now if only alarmists were willing to let facts influence their beliefs catastrophic anthropogenic global warming would by now be consigned to the set of failed hypotheses where it always belonged.
David;
Can “… warmer runoff from the continents …” be the important anthropogenic contribution to perceived global warming? Aswan, Three Gorges, and other dams retard river flow enough to capture solar energy; this heat moderates temperatures, enhancing growing seasons in NH temperate zone. Costa Rican and other geothermal projects carry/convert terrestrial energy to Earth-surface, also.
Dampened near-surface temperature fluctuation, more CO2, more water for irrigation equals more food for more creatures. Hardly a catastrophe.
Bob Droege | September 11, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
“Steven,
Is there a 60 oscillation of SLR around a zero trend, or is the oscillation around an increasing trend? The paper you cited leans to the latter and doesn’t rule out an accelerating trend.”
The 60 year oscillation appears to be riding atop solar trends that last for centuries before reversing and those ride atop orbital trends lasting for a hundred thousand years of cold or 15000 years of warm (glacial/interglacial) before reversing.
Bob, I never said anything about a zero trend. The question is has there been an acceleration. The possibility of there being an oscillation makes that difficult to judge. The authors of the paper seem to lean towards there being an oscillation.
Grace won’t be reliable for estimating ice loss until they get a firm handle on the isostatic rebound models. The last I heard they were working on it. I haven’t seen any papers yet comparing the results with the models.
Steven,
Do you have any cites supporting any effects of isostatic rebound on either the acceleration of sea level rise or on the acceleration of mass loss from Greenland or the WAIS?
Isostatic rebound is a response to melting so it’s hard to see how that affects the mass loss.
Modeled isostatic rebound against empirical data is a fresh outlook coming from an assumed “skeptic” but you did say Max was right.
thanks
Here is a study where they are trying to correct the GIA using GPS. As you can see it makes a large difference in the conclusions. The problem is that land doesn’t all raise and lower at the same rate and once you get into the interiors of ice sheets it becomes very difficult to estimate what the land is doing underneath all that ice.
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/3703/2012/tcd-6-3703-2012.pdf
Since you mention GRACE and sea levels this paper may be of interest to you also.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04508.x/abstract
Good point Joshua:
“Why do “skeptics” insist on ignoring the important principles of due skeptical diligence?”
A no regrets policy of paying down the National debt a bit would yield economic benefits. An example would be an individual paying their down credit card debt faster than previously planned. Such early payments are not lost money, as we’d improve our finacial position by one dollar for every dollar spent on average. The Economic Science is settled. And the results are unequivocal. But if the results are not unequivocal, we are 95% confident that they are or will be in about another 5 years. A penny saved is a penny earned. If we do not act now, future economic disasters will be increased in severity by about 5 or 10%, but I had a little help from my Magic 8 Ball finding these numbers.
Ragnaar, you write “A no regrets policy of paying down the National debt a bit would yield economic benefits.”
Canada is in the lead with this policy, and at the recent G20 meeting, our Prime Minister urged other nations to follow suite. His aim is that our debt to GDP ratio should be 25% by 2020.
August number:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-august-2013-0-16-deg-c/#comments
Very calming.
What Western public schoolteachers of AGW wish for those of us who work in the free enterprise sector of the economy you must admit adds an element of schadenfreude to the underlying motives of those in the government climate change industry.
Joshua,
Public debt is quantified, its rate of growth is known, and at least reasonable projections can be made based on existing laws covering entitlement spending, tax rates, demographics, and the like. Yes, there is of course considerable uncertainty in those projections, especially once you look beyond several years, since the law can always be changed to restrain spending or increase taxes, but also because the economic benefits due to technological improvements (and concurrently higher tax revenues due to increased economic growth) are impossible to know. Is that skeptical enough for you?
Still, lots of people are concerned about the rapid growth of public debt, and IMO rightly so, because under current law obligatory payments on the debt with soon crowd out nearly all discretionary government spending. The trajectory is financially unsustainable, and as Herbert Stein noted, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” The longer governments wait to bring expenditures and income back into balance, the more difficult and disruptive the process will be when it does happen. I am honestly concerned for my children (and grandchildren) that economic disruption will cause real hardship in the coming decades . I am even more concerned that that economic disruption will lead to lack of economic growth, and so extend the misery suffered by the Earth’s billion+ poorest.
Of course, many governments may ultimately renege on their public debt obligations, or simply print money to pay off public debt, and so essentially steal much of the wealth of those who have extended credit. Of course, after that happens people will be more reluctant to extend credit to anyone… and interest rates will rise rapidly. I am concerned about the economic disruption that would cause as well.
Steve –
It is skeptical. I like that. I’m not sure how to determine what is or isn’t “skeptical enough.” Could I find places where your statements failed to fully account for uncertainty? Probably, if I had a mind to. But:
(1) It was a short expression of an opinion, and as such, it would be unrealistic to expect it to be sufficiently skeptical.
(2) It would be impossible to really explore the depth of your skepticism without good faith dialogue. If my goal were to treat your comments as a finished product, I could certainly point fingers and conclude that because you didn’t address all areas of uncertainty, therefore, you were an alarmist, or a true believer, or some other gross generalization. But that would be binary thinking – something to be avoided.
(3) I’d say that we’re starting in the middle, anyway. If our goal were really to explore uncertainty, we’d have to start at the beginning – with determining starting points of agreement, with defining terms, and the like. I’d say it is a fool’s errand to try to determine your true level of skepticism in this context, because the communicative context is not one of sharing views to explore uncertainty. Our context here is one of a junior high school cafeteria food fight.
That final point is what I find most amusing about the climate wars. Why would a true skeptic expect to explore uncertainty with people who might have differing views in this context? I’d say that what is likely to be true is that folks exploring uncertainty in this context are mostly fooling themselves. What they’re really doing, primarily, is confirming biases.
There is always an element of confirmation bias – but the goal, IMO, should be to try to renovate the context of the debate, so as to background the goal of confirmation bias relative to the goal of exploring uncertainty. Engaging in this context, with guns a’blazing, will not achieve the putative ends, IMO.
Scorched earth. Zero sum gain. We should be “getting to yes.”
Josh,
I should probably stay out of this, but I am getting the impression that there may be a position open for head judge of skeptical thought and standards and you are interested in filling it.
I will admit that Judge Joshua does have a ring to it.
No reason to stay out, tim. I always find your input amusing.
Dare I ask I it is when I mean to be amusing or when I don’t?
Not sure I can answer that, tim, as I’m not always sure how to determine which is the case.