Friday
Aug272010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Revkin on retractions and apologies
Aug 27, 2010 Climate: HSI Andy Revkin at the New York Times has picked up on the Guardian's apology to yours truly and also on the non-apology that the Telegraph made to Rajendra Pachauri.
Update on Aug 27, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Revkin also has this piece today, looking at trust in scientists, particularly climate scientists.
Reader Comments (40)
I found the "About Dot Earth" blurb interesting for 3 reasons.
It leads with concern over population, only briefly mentions climate change and then says the blog recently moved from the news to the opinion section.
The (NY) times they are a-changin'.
Re: Pachauri
So even with the help of the IPCC pushing his interests he still fails to make money from them. I wonder how much of a loss they would made without Pachauri's role at the IPCC
TerryS.. Don't be so sure. The KPMG report that got Monbiot so excited only looked at salary and expenses. It didn't look at whether Pachauri's asset value had increased since taking on the IPCC role, or adress any of the conflict of interest issues. Or even future profits if TERI's jv with ONGC if that wins the Kuwait oilfied clean-up contract. That's worth a humble $3bn or so.
This might seem a bit technical and OT, but please bear with me. I know the Bish has an interest in dodgy climate claims.
Look in the comments to the Revkin post linked in the Update to this headpost. Comment #12 raises the issue of what caused the 1910 - 1940 warming. To my eyes, Revkin's response is condescending, but that's by the by.
Unhelpfully, he directs the commenter to a paper by Zwiers & Weaver (2000) which is behind a paywall. Z&W go along with the consensus (see TAR and AR4 and everywhere else) that the early C20th warming was caused by an absence of volcanism (aerosols down) and an increase in solar activity (TSI up).
Except this isn't true. Bob Tisdale does an excellent job of showing exactly why. Take a look here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
and here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
If Revkin is prepared to parrot the absolutely crucial IPCC mis-attribution to that big pre-1950, pre +300ppmv CO2 warming, then he clearly isn't as uncritical or as well-informed as he thinks he is.
Dominic
Sorry - for 'uncritical' in the last sentence, please read 'unbiased'.
D
The KPMG report was report not an audit, they asked questions and took the answers from Patchy as correct without checking any further. Reminds you of any other recent investigations.
Does a corrupt act or conflict of interest need be successful to be considered so? The standard, if any, for these things seems inconsistently applied.
His Grace was recently excoriated for statements akin to naming a bank-robber based on his conviction for robbing a bank without at the same time noting that said bank-robber's subsequent efforts were unsuccessful.
Maybe I'm confused.
Recently I was listening to Bloomberg radio where the host was speaking about an informal meeting with an economist of high regard over diner. The economist, who does not publish in a peer review process because he is too busy trying to make money, explained that he saw the US housing boom and bust coming and privately told anyone who would listen. He noted that the majority, if not all, of the peer reviewed articles about the economy and the housing sector did not predict the failure of the housing loans and actual positively said that there was not a housing bubble. He also noted that it was actually the peer review process that prevented the voices of those predicting the bubble from being heard in journals . He was too busy to waste time in the peer process.
Here is an example of a whole field of published work with access to real time data that convinced themselves in group think of what they wanted to see, and missed biggest bust in modern history.
Andrew Revkin claims to have followed climate science for nearly a quarter of a century. If it has taken him that length of time to ponder on ‘group think, protective tribalism and willingness to spin findings to suit an environmental agenda’, he has been remarkably gullible all those years. It would be even more interesting if he recognised that the entire crusade can only survive on perpetuating exaggeration and bias. 'Climate science' is in effect the brainchild of evangelical environmentalism.
I learnt my science in what I now see as incredibly enviable times. Research funding from the government (via NERC in earth science) had no policy bias. This was early 70’s. It was pure. So was industry support. Particularly Esso who were leaders in pure academic philanthropy, which is why it angers me particularly to see oil companies sullied and smeared. We would still be in debt from lend-lease and struggling, had it had not been for North Sea oil and gas.
Something changed, to marry up environmentalism, politics and academia. A slow, all-embracing honey fungus, if you are into gardening, except that sceptics are like the native British yew- resistant to it.
Carefully nurtured by political research funding, in prodigal amounts, the fundamental mission goals of the movement were the detection, and proof of damage, suffering or harm due to human influence. This could then justify additional layers of governance and taxation to promote a progressively proscriptive doctrine of social puritanism in a kind of quasi-religious atonement. The 'climate science' movement naturally draws individuals with strong environmental beliefs to its fold. They thus enjoy self-perpetuating recruitment, as does green journalism. It is inevitable that bias and asymmetry is endemic and becomes more outrageously so the more opposition it finds. That Revkin can contemplate impartiality is in itself judgement on him.
Pharos, I remember visiting BP Sunbury research centre regularly when it was a powerhouse of scientific and engineering excellence. Shell Sittingbourne, similarly. Some of the best scientists in the world worked there, and there was huge competion for posts. The academic research groups seem to me to be a shadow of that past productive science, and they way the need to achieve something real is disdained as 'commercial' is endemic, leading to lack of progress and huge wastes not just of time, and money, but brainpower and acheivement which is very very sad.
BP had to live with part 'nationalisation' (the Britoil fiasco) and the oil price rollercoaster. Research is normally the first to go in a downturn. Something for climate scientists to ponder.
Evidently Fox News is running a full programme Friday night on the roots of global warming hysteria and how carbon scams are rife, working title "The Great Green Scandal" :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027097.php
Could be fun
I've spent a lot of effort defending Andy's curiosity and intellectual integrity, which I'll continue to do. But then he admits he hasn't read the Bish's book, and refers the reader to realclimate for reviews of it.
Andy, Andy, how many times have I told you?
=================
Kim
As I said above (Aug 27 6:44pm), Revkin has a lot to learn.
His position on HSI does not surprise me because for all that the pathological CAGW advocates revile him, he is essentially of the consensus, not apart from it. This is evident from the sorts of things he says in response to comments.
I raised the point that he backs the consensus misrepresentation of the causes of the 1910 - 1940 warming and the subsequent cooling because it is so important. It masks the truth that we do not know what caused either episode, and cannot therefore attribute the entirety of the recent warming to GHGs.
In fact the whole issue could be viewed as the next Hockey Stick:
- The consensus, including many Team members, creates a reconstruction of early- and mid-C20th climate change designed to 'prove' that recent warming was 'unprecedented'.
- The key components are obsolete solar data and GCM hindcasting featuring a substantial 'aerosol' tweaking to get the mid-century cooling.
- The IPCC likes what it sees and the whole narrative enters the canon.
- Superficially plausible, and vehemently defended, it becomes the backbone of the supposedly impartial scientific message that CAGW is on the way.
- And almost nobody notices what is going on.
It is desperately overdue for a forensic debunking.
Dominic
JackinLondon
I saw your Revkin post. I just registered and posted a comment, but apparently Revkin is camping and moderation will be sporadic for the next few days. I put in a plug for HSI in my closing remarks.
Dr Crinum
I really think Revkin owes it to himself to read HSI. Not just to NYT readers. His suggestion that the Hockey Stick debate is just a small brawl in a sideshow is utterly absurd. He would never have said that until recently. Methinks he may now be distancing himself from the Hockey Team.
Meanwhile - your post has now been published at Revkin's blog. It sounds from Revkin's latest post that he took his laptop on his camping trip.
J Ferguson
Corrupt acts and conflicts of interest (COI) are different things. A COI may lead to a corrupt act though. So people with interests in carbon trading, carbon capture, green energy etc may have COI if they use their position to promote their business interests. If they do more blatant things like using their position to influence contract awards, funding awards etc especially if there's no competition, then that may be a corrupt act and/or illegal, depending on jurisidiction.
A lot of COI rules vary by country, and are often conditions of employment. UK government has various rules depending on role so can be strict on accepting (or offering) gifts, hospitality etc, or declaring COI and possibly recusing yourself from whatever. A private company may have similar employment conditions, or be bound by related anti-corruption legislation like the US's Foreign (and) Corrupt Practices Act. It can be a legal and ethical minefield though, especially in countries where gift giving may be customary in business. Giving a pen or a paperweight may be acceptable, giving a yacht, probably not.
Corrupt acts tend to be better defined in law and don't always require success, eg cases of bid rigging or bribery can and do lead to prosecution simply for attempting it. COI can be harder to prosecute unless there's evidence of rule violations. So again in government, substantial contracts are often award after open tenders. If there's no tender and a related party gets the contract, that may be illegal. If there is a tender and the related party wins, then proving any COI or corrupt act may be a lot harder. Generally if there is a COI, the person should remove themselves from the bid process though.
Still, it is very nice to be able to re read the Sunday Telegraph's retraction statement -
“We wish to firmly state that the allegations published by The Telegraph are false and without foundation,” the organization said in a statement. “No representative of the newspaper has bothered to approach Dr. Pachauri or crosscheck with him on any of the allegations that have been made.”
As someone else observed :-
The abbreviation [DFWN] stands for "Don't [snip] with North"
Let's see North's track record:
Africagate:
Stefan Rahmstorf [snip] with North, the Frankfurter Rundschau retracts its article.
Tatagate:
Tata [snip] with North, the Sunday Telegraph apologises and retracts its article.
Amazongate:
Simon Lewis [snip] with North, the Sunday Times apologises and retracts its article.
Pachaurigate:
Rajendra Pachauri [snip] with North, the Sunday Telegraph apologises and retracts its article.
(...and North whines about how beastly libel lawyers are...)
.
It's open season. Everybody [snip] with North...
...a tragicomic blustering buffoon.
[BH adds: Please moderate your language]
Canardman,
You should read up on libel some time, the sorry state of the UK libel tourism industry and why risking triple costs payable to libel laywers can be an expensive issue. Especially if you keep libelling North.
Perhaps if he and you, along with the rest of his acolytes, stopped libeling various parties , it would no longer be necessary for others to point it out and to distribute the evidence to prove it. Talking of evidence, where is your evidence to support the accusations you regularly make against Pachauri?
You hide in the blogoshere because you can now see that the mainstream media can be held to standards of research and evidence that you can never meet. By the way, Richard (Holy Fart) North was overpaid for his piece in the Telegraph even if the layers get 200 times as much for geting them to admit :-
“We wish to firmly state that the allegations published by The Telegraph are false and without foundation,” the organization said in a statement. “No representative of the newspaper has bothered to approach Dr. Pachauri or crosscheck with him on any of the allegations that have been made.”
Atomic Hairdryer
Thank you for these observations. The possibility of conflicts of interest seems almost inevitable in any complex political undertaking since acquiring the knowledge to comprehend the issues in context must necessarily be done in the enterprises which form the conflict.
We had to get bankers to help unravel our financial institution mess here in the states simply because they comprised the largest source of people who might have understood where the problems lay.
That Pachauri may have financial interests in enterprises affected by "Climate Politics" isn't surprising or necessarily corrupt - to my mind. This is where his intellectual interests likely lie.
Very few of the participants in the AR series have no financial interest in the subject area, nor is it reasonable to expect them to have none.
It may be that failing a "corrupt act" there is no future in whining about "conflicts of Interest."
Even for Pachauri. Or am I again missing something?
j ferguson
It's not so much intellectual interests but financial interests that create more potential for real or apparent conflicts of interest. Beliefs can play a part, as this paper from SPPI may show-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf
Where Sir John Houghton's strong beliefs in AGW and position may have helped manufacture the 'consensus' about AGW way beyond what is scientifically supportable, and Houghton's currently listed as science adviser to TERI Europe. TERI and the Met Office have both benefitted from AGW hype even if individuals may not have.
Bob Watson had Pachauri's job before him, and has been critical of the way the IPCC may have overstated certainty. Watson's chief science advisor to Defra, who gave TERI £60K or so to write a synthesis report for AR4. Why did that money go to TERI and not the IPCC? Hilary Benn went one better and announced a £10-20m deal between Defra and TERI.
TERI doesn't help itself by being very secretive about it's finances. It's Annual Report has many pages listing Pachauri's press publicity and a single page listing it's finances with no P&L or amounts shown. Pachauri helps neither TERI nor the IPCC by being very outspoken about his policy recommendations, which may benefit TERI and himself, but aren't IPCC recommendations. Pachauri has been criticised by other IPCC members for this, and may have more when the IAC publishes it's review. The IPCC is supposed to be a policy neutral body and provide the evidence politicians can use to make policy decisions. The presence of people with obvious conflicts of interest within the IPCC simply damages it's credibility and increases scepticism.
Then we get cheerleaders like the Guardian and people like Canardman claiming KPMG's non-audit proves more than it does. That shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking and a strong amount of belief. That review proves nothing.
Roger Pielke Jr has a nice article explaining the issues around Pachauri here-
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauris-conflicts-of-interest.html
which is the core of trying to manage conflicts of interest. I also recommend reading his Honest Broker book which explains more about the dangers of scientists playing advocate. It's also why perhaps people like Dr Curry have been outspoken about the risks to scientist's credibility, if climate scientists continue to act as advocates rather than 'honest brokers'. We don't trust politicians, we may not trust scientists as much after profitable scares like swine flu and CAGW hype.
The Funding Effect in Science
This was already a well-established topic before Climate Science hit the headlines. The basic idea is that where the sponsor of a science has a vested interest in its findings, bias is bound to enter the process. Less a matter of fraud or conspiracy, it is more a question of what questions do NOT get asked.
Studies hitherto have focussed on privately funded science, either on its own or in conjunction with state academia. Bearing in mind that virtually all funding of Climate Science is from the state, what is needed now are studies into the effect of state funding on science, in cases where the state stands to find justifications for expanding itself.
As usual you avoid facing up to the fact that yet again a newspaper has been forced to remove content and appologise for posting false and malicious allegations -
“We wish to firmly state that the allegations published by The Telegraph are false and without foundation,” the organization said in a statement. “No representative of the newspaper has bothered to approach Dr. Pachauri or crosscheck with him on any of the allegations that have been made.”
Richard (Holy Fart) North has now closed down the open access to his blog site, despite previously bragging that it was uncensored, and despite the fact that he has regularly encouraged people to make allegations against Pachauri and various other Climate Change scientists. If they do begin to ease the process to take legal action against blog sites and bloggers who knowingly reprint false alegations then all of these denier sites will be at risk. How will they know that the allegations are false and that they were posted knowingly? - easy you have been warned and you have never provided any evidence to support the assertions made by the acolytes who are well known on your debate threads.
For those who may wish to save a copy of this page that omits Canardman's intrusions, I recommend the (free) Firefox extension Aardvark. Precise textual surgery, easily achieved.
@ Jane Coles
No, no. Don't censor.
Let it play out.
Consider everything in the light of comment number three at the beginning of this thread:
Atomic Hairdryer:
'The KPMG report that got Monbiot so excited only looked at salary and expenses. It didn't look at whether Pachauri's asset value had increased since taking on the IPCC role, or adress any of the conflict of interest issues. Or even future profits if TERI's jv with ONGC if that wins the Kuwait oilfied clean-up contract. That's worth a humble $3bn or so.'
Give it time.
Dominic
I'm not going to bother trying to debate with Canardman. He's a true believer and unlikely to be swayed by facts, logic or reason. Best ignored.
Punksta's comments are more interesting though.
Or what can happen if awkward questions are asked, as Simon Singh found out, funnily enough after writing an article for the Guardian. UK libel laws are being used to suppress inconvenient truths being exposed by scientists as well as sceptics.
I think it's a similar problem to commercial funding of science in that it can generate biases and conflicts of interest rather than 'honest brokers'. Climate science has just become the perfect storm with political and commercial motives co-inciding and enormous amounts of money and political influence to play for. That just provides a bigger corrupting influence and given the stakes, not suprising some scientists go post-normal or turn into advocates. Hansen's probably a good example of what can go wrong.
Science (or academic) funding in general though is a bigger problem. If governments aren't funding, then businesses have to fill the gap with the biases that may involve. If governments cut funding, or only fund applied proposals where there are immediate benefits, who will fund pure research which advances knowledge, but the commercial/social benefits may not be immediately obvious?
I suppose it is easier to try to ignore the facts about the appalling performance of Richard (Holy Fart) Norths various incursions into the outside world, in fact I suspect we would all rather ignore him than actually listen to the innuendo and unsubstantiated slurs than he seems to pass with liberal abandon.
However, they stand there for all to see, major newspapers forced to retract and appologise dur to the false claims that North has made. You could of course request that Bishophill either close down this thread (again) or maybe do what North has done and fully batton down the hatches and exclude non members from your club. I find it very amusing that you are happy to visit the Guardian web site to post your own comments, where you all expect to get away with the most incredible lies and malicious comments which are totally unfounded, yet when someone posts assertions here that are easily verified but you do not like you prefer to ignore the truth and simply carry on with your delusions.
I will continue to post on this web site and any other that does not choose to censor the truth, I will also be there to welcome Richard (Holy Fart) North when he next chooses to poke his head out from behind the parapets at fortress 'Holy Fart';
Gentlemen
Could we all please cut down on the name-calling.
BishopHill,
If your reference to name calling is in relation to the use of "Holy Fart" in association with Richard North, then I would like to point out that he wrote the offensive annalogy in a piece in the Guardian while he then also chooses to make malicious and offensive claims against Pachauri yet he is completely unable to substazntiate the claims. Pachauri has been fully vindicated by the report into his finances and the appology from the telegraph yet North continues to accuse him at every opportunity (you have provided a couple to him). It is not name calling to highlight the words that a public figure or a journalist chooses to make a point, it it were it would have been unacceptable to associate the expression 'Voodoo Science' with Pachauri.
There have been hundreds of examples of people accusing climate scientists of the most appalling acts and intentions yet they have zero evidence to support what they claim, I have a clear cut and archived example where Richard North used the 'Holy Fart' theme in the national media of the UK, if you wish to remain above the name calling, and particularly above the unsubstantiated name calling, why don't you apply your mediation in an even handed manner and rebuke or remove the examples that currently infest your own blog.
If you wish to have a reasonable reputation for promoting a balanced view of the debate it must surely provide equality to both goose and gander. It is highly likely that the laws of libel will be tested in relation to the blogosphere, do you really want to be among the early testees?
@ cannaman
How is it that you express such complex sentiments yet cannot spell?
Who are you parroting, I wonder?
Dominic
@cannaman Aug 29 1:49pm
You state:
'The abbreviation [DFWN] stands for "Don't [snip] with North"
Let's see North's track record:
Africagate:
Stefan Rahmstorf [snip] with North, the Frankfurter Rundschau retracts its article.
Tatagate:
Tata [snip] with North, the Sunday Telegraph apologises and retracts its article.
Amazongate:
Simon Lewis [snip] with North, the Sunday Times apologises and retracts its article.
Pachaurigate:
Rajendra Pachauri [snip] with North, the Sunday Telegraph apologises and retracts its article.
(...and North whines about how beastly libel lawyers are...)
It's open season. Everybody [snip] with North...
...a tragicomic blustering buffoon.'
You conflate newspaper retractions with implied inaccuracies on North's part. I cannot answer for whatever unseen pressures were brought to bear on various newspaper editors, but fact-checking North is easy.
Africagate = North was correct. The IPCC claim that African rain-fed agriculture could suffer halved yields by 2020 is based on misrepresentations of the grey literature.
Amazongate = North was correct. The IPCC about Amazon climate shifts was not based on any foundation at all other than some claims apparently made on a long-since defunct web site.
So that's two out of three, which makes North look accurate and you appear disingenuous. Here's a legal opinion, pro bono: were this exchange to become subject to litigation, you, not North, would be in the hot seat.
Therefore your threats concerning the vulnerability of contrarian blogs to libel action are - as you illustrate them - a double-edged sword.
Hope this helps you get your head straight, canna-man.
Dominic
I agree with Cannaman (I love saying that, since I’lm not allowed to say it at the Guardian - or anything else - ever since I described Monbiot as “intelligent”) that we should all avoid innuendo and unsubstantiated slurs. But North didn’t call anyone a “Holy Fart”. It was just a silly joke, like his use of the word “nigger” in today’s post. There’s no point in making a fuss about it, any more than about Monbiot describing us as “scumbags” and”bullshitters”. The point is, North is a thorough and competent investigative journalist , while Monbiot is the kind of journalist who will retract an opinion if it’s in contradiction with an official report.
@geoff chambers:
'The point is, North is a thorough and competent investigative journalist , while Monbiot is the kind of journalist who will retract an opinion if it’s in contradiction with an official report.'
Well put.
Dominic
And yet you offer nothing but your opinions to support that North is correct while his articles have been withdrawn and appologised for. You seem unable to face the reality that his is just a typical journalist who is more prone to grinding his axe than wielding it accurately. He has a political agenda that interferes with his objectivity and the constant and unneccesarily personalised attack on Pachauri and the climate scientists are just particularly unpleasant rhetoric. He has had a self inflicted credibility by-pass.
Cannaman, you are the one here offering unsubstantiated opinion.
I pointed out earlier that you are conflating newspaper retractions with implied inaccuracies in North's reporting, but the two are not the same thing. For example, under legal pressure, Monbiot apologised to North for claiming that North had it wrong about Amazongate. This is a fact. North was right and you and Monbiot are wrong.
The investigation into the African agriculture claims shows conclusively that everything originated with a brief, highly inaccurate report prepared by one Ali Agoumi, who is not a scientist but has acted as a consultant on carbon trading.
Agoumi's claims about Algerian and Moroccan cereal crop yield possibly reducing by up to 50 % during droughts was magically transformed into the entirely wrong IPCC claim that all African rain-fed agriculture yields will halve by 2020 because of climate change. Again, absolute nonsense.
Never mind about how various editors were coerced into 'apologising' for articles. The facts stand up perfectly well to scrutiny.
You seem unable to accept this. Why?
Dominic
And cannaman, no more blather. Your habit of blurring things together then misrepresenting the facts is tiresome. Get your story straight or go away.
Dominic
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/a-newspaper-apologizes-to-leader-of-climate-panel/?permid=21#comment21
Bob Ward comments on the retraction / apology. NYT editors highlight it as "a comment of high interest".
I think you might be interested in prusuing the matter further.
@ pete m
1. If you think the KPMG statement proves Pachauri's financial probity beyond doubt, you have not understood it.
2. You probably do not understand UK libel law either.
3. I said nothing in the above exchanges with cannaman about Pachauri, so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.
4. But since we are on the subject, please see: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-is-conflict-of-interest.html
This will provide the necessary insight into the core issues with Pachauri's continued chairmanship of the IPCC. Pielke summarises thus: 'under the application of COI policies of other bodies, such as the UN, WMO and NAS, it is indisputable that the IPCC chairman has conflicts of interest. This is so patently obvious that is not really worth debating.'
5. My sense is that the IAC appears to agree. Please read the report for yourself.
Dominic
@ pete m
I have very little time for Bob Ward.
Dominic