Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Hubert Lamb on ice ages | Main | John Maddox on AGW »

IPCC in trouble again

Donna Laframboise has discovered that the IPCC cited the Stern report no less than 26 times, even though the report had missed the cut off date for inclusion by some distance. In fact pretty much every rule in the book seems to have been trampled in the IPCC's haste to get Lord Stern's parvum opus included.

The conclusion here isn't pretty: by citing the Stern Review, the IPPC broke not one, not two, but three of its own rules. First, it had to deliberately overlook the fact that this document is not peer-reviewed...

Second, it had to violate the published-before-January-2006 rule about which Pachauri recently reminded us.

Third, it had to subvert its own requirement that text in the IPCC report be subject to two rounds of expert review.

Are we impressed yet?

The IPCC might have been breathing easy after the lack of any new 'gates for them to be criticised over. Looks like there may be a whole new wave of criticism coming.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (16)

The IPPC process and the Lord Stern report deserve each other.

Here is another example of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out ................ (or should that be garbage in, gospel out?)

Apr 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Isn't "stern" used sometimes as a euphemism for "arse"?

Apr 25, 2010 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterProf Jones's Naughty Son

This peer-review thing is a red herring (and the timing thing is a perhaps slightly beige herring, no more). The main thing about the Stern Review is that much of it was pure shite.

Forget the economics. Have a look at how it deals with water supplies from melting Himalayan glaciers, for example.

Apr 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterVinny Burgoo

Slightly OT but even the readers of the Independent are heartily sick of its constant scaremongering. Check the comments here:

Apr 25, 2010 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterO'Geary

The Stern Report? This only gets 'better' with time. Thanks for staying on top of it.

Apr 25, 2010 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterJennifer

Bish, I may be dreaming here, correct me if wrong, but I had the idea that the cut-off date applied to peer-reviewed publication dates? Does it apply to grey as well?

Apr 26, 2010 at 2:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoddy Campbell


That's news to me. Can you check?

Apr 26, 2010 at 6:41 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

CACC Earthquakes? Ha! what about the climate change killer fungi !, No Alpaca or human now safe in British Columbia!

Apr 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan

Doesn't the publication date requrement apply across the board? The whole authority of the IPCC rests on its alleged thousands of reviewers, the point of the cut off date is that these reviewers can get to see and approve the entries. Anything that misses that date must be approved by a small select few - if not just one person. Not very reassuring.

Apr 26, 2010 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

In fact the IPCC process should be more stringent for grey literature, not less.

I do believe this is a good example of Garbage In -> Gospel Out (GIGO).

The IPCC clearly broke its own rules to include a report that contained gross errors. Errors that have since diminshed the reputation of Lord Stern himself.

Donna Laframboise investigations into the IPCC process should be made into a report and submitted to Robert Dijkgraaf, of the IAC, who is chairing an investigation in IPCC processes and procedures. This along with the many 'gates' including Climategate has very serious implications concerning the public's faith in the so called settled science.

I would argue that a parallel review of the IPCC conducted publicly in the blogosphere should also be set-up. That way the IAC review can be tested thru comparison on the important matters and issues. Indeed that would go some way to resolve the issues concerning the WHITEWASH reviews we have had since then.

Apr 26, 2010 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

April 25, 2010 | O'Geary


There is not a single pro alarmism comment there...
They are all witheringly critical of the article..

Maybe it did not make the Campaign Against Climate Change - Sceptics Alerts list yet!

Apr 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterbarry woods

The IPCC cut-off dates are the same for all publications, gray or not.

While an IPCC lead author can refer to a peer-reviewed paper without further ado, a gray paper has to be looked at by at least one other author and the paper has to be placed in the IPCC repository for all to inspect.

Apr 26, 2010 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

apologies, I was dreaming.

Apr 26, 2010 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoddy Campbell

The IPCC is its own worst enemy isnt it?

I we have a collection of some of the worlds biggest brains YET they seem to have completely and utterly failed to grasp just how important it is to follow their own processes? Now because of their laxness, they have opened themselves up for further attack.

Its almost as if this is what they are after? Maybe some of these big brains have purposely been this sh1t just so the IPCC would get caught out. Maybe some of these scarily big brains realised themselves years ago that the work they were doing was crap, but couldnt say it outright?

Maybe one of them knows who the second gunman on the grassy knoll was?


Apr 26, 2010 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

O'Geary, you mention above a scaremongering article in the UK's Independent. They are recycling a Press Association item, itself based on a mad professor at University College London. Among his gems are: "One of the worries is that tiny environmental changes could have these effects." and "Prof McGuire said that in Taiwan the lower air pressure generated by typhoons was enough to "unload" the crust by a small amount and trigger earthquakes" and (tee-hee) a "Tipping Point".

We shouldn't blame the Indy for this nonsense, although reporting it with derision would be preferable.

Personally, I think there came a Tipping Point when the careers of academics began to flourish with such scaremongering poppycock instead of collapsing in ruins. The credence given to such arrant nonsense is very worrying. There's something rotten in the state of academia, and our taxes are feeding this corruption.

Apr 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves

Nigel Lawson on Stern Report

Full Interview

Apr 28, 2010 at 12:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterbrent

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>