Monday
Aug302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Thoughts on the IAC report
Aug 30, 2010 Climate: IPCC Climate: Pachauri I haven't got time to go through this in detail, but I'll jot down a few thoughts.
The overall impression is that they are recommending a lot of steps that will make little difference. They don't seem to have 'fessed up to what went wrong.
- The idea of having executive committee members from outside the climate science community is in principle sound, but only if they get people who are fundamentally critical of the AGW hypothesis. A sceptic-free IPCC is a credibility-free IPCC.
- The sections on the review process do not acknowledge the gatekeeping that has gone on. THis is "shut-eyed denial".
- Concentration on key issues is probably sensible, but you can't help but feel that this will be used as a route to sideline sceptic comments.
- The comments on uncertainty look completely damning to me:
[A]uthors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.
- In any credible organisation, heads would be rolling.
- The comments on communication are quite funny. The answer (as ever) appears to be better PR.
- The transparency bit is limp. This particular bird has flown the coop. There is no point in asking for transparency over the appointments process when the authors for AR5 have already been appointed. No credible assessment report possible until AR6.
- This also applies to the section on dissenting views. Asking for author teams with diverse viewpoints is a bit late, isn't it? There is also no point saying that review editors should ensure dissenting views are reported. They are already supposed to do that, but choose not to do so.
Reader Comments (20)
Andrew, can you post a link to the report?
You are too negative.
The whole Pachauri flap was possible because he does not report to anyone. Splitting the Bureau into a Bureau and an Executive would imply that the IPCC Chair cannot run amok.
In past assessments, the review editors were rubber stamps. The IAC says they should be editors instead.
These changes do not go far enough in my opinion, but they are very significant changes.
Here's the link:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf
It will take time to fully digest this report. On first glance I, too, see no acknowledgment of the gatekeeping that has occurred.
I think the recommendation regarding the need to adopt "rigorous conflict of interest" guidelines is encouraging. Nevertheless, the discussion in that section would be stronger if it included a recognition that science has long be riven by factions and cliques. Whatever conflict-of-interest protocols are established with respect to IPCC authors need to place less emphasis on financial issues (traditionally the big concern) and strive instead to address the inevitable competition between various scientific perspectives/factions/tribes/cliques.
If most of the authors of a particular chapter of the climate bible are associated with a particular perspective, conflict-of-interest guidelines that focus on finances won't cure the problem.
As Ross McKitrick has remarked, it isn't difficult to predict which perspective will dominate a particular chapter of the IPCC report simply by looking at the names of the authors selected to write it. By virtue of their IPCC author roles, these same people then pretend that their viewpoint is the only/official/consensus viewpoint.
The IPCC has done science, as well as the public, a disservice by birthing, defending, and glorifying this situation. We're told the IPCC reports are about science but they're really about who wins the political struggle that decides who writes these reports.
Quote, Rajendra Pachauri: " The IAC review is the seventh review this year into various aspects of climate science. While the IAC review was limited to the IPCC's processes and procedures, several of the other six reviews looked directly at the science of climate change. None of these other studies - none - found flaws with the fundamental science of climate change."
The IPCC are still in denial.
I like this bit-
But from skimming through the report, the devil will be in the detail and how much of the recommendations end up implemented in time to affect AR5.
I like the Bureau/Executive split idea as well, if that means editors lose some power and there's a route to appeal if there's contention, perhaps allowing minority reports if those issues can't be resolved. Hopefully that would put an end to dubious looking last minute rewrites with no review opportunities that have damaged the IPCC's credibility.
re Donna
Totally agree. I've often found conflicts of interest confuse people and there's a tendancy to focus just on the financial. There's an old acronym for testing conflicts, MICE or Money, Ideology, Conscience and Ego. Any of those can lead to a conflict of interest and all have been seen in one aspect or another during the IPCC reviews, and all can damage credibility.
"They don't seem to have 'fessed up to what went wrong."
Indeed. 'Fessin up to what went wrong is the only way to actually start fixing anything, and is precisely what will not happen.
Just a bottle with a non-significant report in it, sitting on top o' The Sea of Non-Significant Reports.
Andrew
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
You know who this "world's leading climate scientist" is, right? Pachauri.
"I staunchly support the IPCC, but when [chairman] Rajendra Pachauri comes out making all these really strong policy statements, such as the developed world has to cut back its energy use... and stop putting ice cubes in their water, and other crazy stuff... I don't like that. These guys should pick people who don't want to be advocates and will shut their mouths about advocating for policies."
-Judith Curry
I think most people are missing the main issue. In spite of claiming to be a scientific entity, the IPCC is actually a political entity. Look at how it operates: A Bureau is elected (31 members) and this Bureau appoints the Lead Authors. There is absolutely no requirement regarding "balance" in the makeup. Don't let "climate change" fool you; it is all about "global warming" -- everything relates to the latter subject. Why? Because underlying the IPCC is a UN scheme for redistribution of wealth, from the developed countries to the undeveloped countries. The theme which makes it all possible, be it cap and trade or international carbon tax or percentage of GDP tax or whatever, is global warming. Do you think that the undeveloped countries are going to vote for any Bureau Member who would not be supportive of global warming? So when you stack the deck with AGW delegates, who appoint AGW scientists to perform the reviews, what do you think will be the outcomes? The IAC Report is meaningless, unless the basic structure of the IPCC is changed.
While it is certainly true that the report is not worded as strongly and unequivocally as a sceptic probably would, on digging behind the mild facade into the content, it actually is pretty good. It's certainly a long way from being like the other whitewashes, and contains lots of juicy phrases that I'm sure are going to haunt the IPCC in the oncoming debate.
Considering the intense political pressures that must have been at work here, some of the things they say are frankly astonishing.
The address the tendency of lead authors to ignore critical or dissenting review comments, the lack of documented justification for statements of high confidence, the failure of the IPCC to follow its own guidelines, the use of grey literature, climate advocacy, the opacity of the selection process for authors, the need for a diversity of viewpoints amongst authors, confirmation bias when authors review their own work, unreviewed sections of the reports, the pro-disaster bias and politicisation of the summary for policy makers versus the main report, the lack of evidence for many claims made with high confidence, and the unfalsifiable vagueness of others, the lack of policy on conflicts of interest, criticism of scientists' unwillingness to share data with critics, and finish with an extraordinary appeal for data archiving and openness.
Simply astonishing!
The politics has kept the harshest language out of the executive summary and recommendations, and they are weak on action to be taken - they acknowledge that it is probably too late for some of their recommendations to be implemented. And there is enough equivocation and political appeasement in the introductory material for those that want to to spin it as yet another vindication.
But the compromise they reached is to say is that the sceptics were pretty much right about everything, but then to try hard to give the impression that these are minor details that don't much impact the generally high quality of the IPCC's work and which will be quick and easy to fix.
And I have to say, if you have to have a compromise with the warmists, you could hardly ask for a better one.
The politics has kept the harshest language out of the executive summary and recommendations..
That's right Nullis.
But does their politics ever keep out the warmist alarm bells from clanging away? The skeptics meanwhile have to go satisfied with reading in between the lines pickings.
:)
Shub,
... and quoting them. There's a *huge* amount of ammunition here.
"For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented."
Remember, this was an semi-internal inquiry run by the UN itself, under *tremendous* political pressure, and bureaucrats absolutely *hate* sticking their heads up above the parapet into the middle of a firestorm like this. Careers are being staked here. Plus, of course, their terms of reference prevented them investigating many of the more interesting lines of enquiry.
No, it won't stop the warmists, and there's plenty here for them to quote, too. (And no doubt the MSM will be equally selective.) But compared to the usual stonewalling, it's a massive leap.
Did you expected them all to just roll over and surrender?
Nice, Shub, and I agree. My guess is that the alarm bells are ringing in an ever emptying room.
I don't think we could have expected them to address gatekeeping in any meaningful way, since that requires examining the evidence and the sequence of events closely in each case. As far as I know, that's only been done by skeptics, and they could hardly use that as conclusive proof.
@ this stage I only read through the summary the IAC sent me directly at home following their gentle proposal to do so.
This review sounds very differently from all previous ones ; It also heard the message from the Oxburgh and Muir Russell reviews whereby the IPCC process was prone to transform uncertain scientific assessments into policy proposals based on some assumed high confidence based on nowhere. It may well have taken advantage from all comments to the Uk and US reviews, as well as from the acute review in the Netherlands
The question around the casting for FAR, as announced by the current IPCC leadership, was for me at the time a potentially fatal blow to the IAC review. Perhaps it made no good to the IPCC, stimulating the review members to reshuffle an IPCC leadership who did not bother to postpone FAR nominations by a few weeks and allow the IAC to publish its recos, just in case the review content would have some impact on such nomination process. The IPCC arrogantly took it for granted that FAR nomination should happen as business as usual, anothe piece of evidence of their loss of contact with reality.
The wording is now very clear : all Bureau members not fitting with the IAC review recos (already one term accomplished) should resign ; consequently, the authorship should consequently be subject to confirmation and indeed change in order to apply IAC review's recommanded criteria including the fact that all authors should now implement new terms of reference (conflict of interest, presentation of contreversies, etc.)
If the IPCC were to a) not implement IAC recos, or b) postpone their implementation till next report in 2018 or so, it would be a mascarade or a travesty the current sciencific and political establishment could not afford.
Due to practical considerations, it may well be possible that some compromise will have to me made for FAR, and/or that FAR be postponed by a year ot two.
All in all, a high quality document
Daniel
As long as the UN is in charge, there will be tremendous pressure for the IPCC to push the CAGW agenda. This is because CAGW justifies large payments from the small number of wealthy countries to the large number of poor countries. This makes CAGW very popular with the poor countries. Politicians in democracies love it that CAGW is the basis for huge taxes and an increase in the power of government.
A process where politicians tell climate scientists how to write their reports and choose which scientists get to direct the process is inherently corrupt. The real solution is for climate scientists to reject the IPCC. Judging by the non response of the vast majority of climate scientists to ClimateGate, it is doubtful that they will act to reform climate science.
Having said that, the IAC report was much more constructive than anticipated and is a step in the right direction. It will be mildly interesting to see exactly how the UN turns this report into a dead letter.
This is worse than they thought. Their very own man made disaster with themselves at the epicenter. Grave damage to their cherished authority. Much worse than they thought.
Did you expected them all to just roll over and surrender?
Obviously not, Nullis. :)
And I totally agree with you on this (and Daniel) - this report seems different than the previous ones. Lots of ammunition indeed.
But you will agree, that this measured reasonableness vanishes within the advocacy-salesmanship of the IPCC and its reports. The self-aggrandized lofty stature which the IPCC assigned to itself, which makes surrender so difficult , are the laughable, alarmist eyecatching conclusions.in the first place. What is the IPCC report without its melting Himalayan glaciers, its hockey stick, and its folding Amazon forests?
So, instead of making fun and laughing it out of the court of good opinion, the skeptics find themselves dragging this kicking, spitting child of an IPCC, into the grown-up world.
"I welcome this new report on the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage. The expansion of troikas to include a fourth member should further enhance the impartiality of these courts. The efficiency of grain seizures will be improved by the proposal to deploy larger lorries. And the introduction of a second psychiatrist for pre-camp evaluations will be widely appreciated."