Wednesday
Mar162011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Did the IAC "lose" some submissions
Mar 16, 2011 Climate: IPCC Hilary Ostrov continues her dogged pursuit of the IAC (Update: Not forgetting Donna Laframboise too!). She has been analysing the submissions of evidence to their inquiry into the IPCC and, as regular readers of her site know, she has found some amazing things.
The latest revelation is that while the IAC announced that there had been over 400 submissions of evidence, only two hundred or so have been published. The inquiry chairman, Harold Shapiro, is not answering his email.
Stranger and stranger.
Reader Comments (25)
Thanks, Bish ... but in the interest of truth in posting, while I have written about a few of my findings, it is Donna who has done the lion's share of digging and finding :-)
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/climate-bible/in-their-own-words/
Who's his boss? it's about time someone took responsibility for this shambles.
Surely someone is answerable?
Many scientists are selected by their political position and not by their competence. (p. 373)
No shit Sherlock!
Heartfelt thanks to you, Hilary (and Donna, natch) for diligence in digging.
You obviously have got the patience of a saint!
I just don't know how to light a fire under the bottoms of the people you e-mailed.
All I know is that politeness and patience will get you far - but only thus far.
It really is time that these bureaucrats learn that communicating with polite people is way better for them than having some really big cannons blast their way into their idyll ...
................... but this is good news, for it shows that when it comes to Global Warming the scientific community, in this case IAC, have failed once again in being open and transparent.
We now have a timeline of events surrounding peer/pal review, grey Literature, IPCC AR4, Climategate and the Climategate/IPCC reviews that shows that climate scientists and the scientific leadership are incapable or unwilling of being straight with the public over this important matter.
That represents one big stick to beat the alarmists with.
How are they supposed to maintain the concept of a consensus, if they they acknowledge dissenting views?
97% of climate scientists (whose jobs depended on it) said they preferred the science of AGW
Hilary, you are too modest. You and Donna between you are doing a great job revealing the incompetence/covers-up.
DLTBGYD
Maybe what's taking the time is finding a way to use Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline.
Value added data- adjusted for negative feedback.
If a lie has been told, I am too far from the action to know or to comment. However, for a little side interest, I sometimes quote from texts. Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' once more, p 859 in my paperback.
"People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I've learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders ones reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one's master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person's view requires to be faked. And if one gains the immediate purpose of the lie—the price one pays is the destruction of that which the gain was intended to serve. The man who lies to the world, is the world's slave from then on. "
She was a perceptive author. No wonder she became famous in her lifetime, for a good reason.
Hilary
I do wish you had included H. Shapiro's email address. I would have liked to ask him what sort of legacy he thought he was leaving to his children / grandchildren and if it concerned him.
Geoff:
Of topic a bit: Ayn Rand apparently frequently lied to others, especially her benighted husband. I enjoy her novels and share her basic viewpoint, but she was no philosopher and no saint.
The IAC is as competent as the IPCC, obviously. If these turkeys have ambitions about running the New World Order, they will need to get their act together rather better than they have to date. Their decline is becoming too obvious to hide!
232 out of 400 is actually quite a good hit rate for climate scientists.
Phil Jones can't find any of the data he based his 1990 UHI Nature paper on, but it still stands as accepted peer reviewed science.
Why bother using Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline, when you can use Phil's Nature trick and lose the data?
The IAC are simply following what is considered to be acceptable practice by climate scientists
I suspect you're a drive-by troll since, if you'd bothered to read the Bish's post you'd have seen that Hilary is a "she".
Anyway, I expect she would like to leave her offspring a world free from corrupted politics and science, and she's doing her best to achieve that - a noble ideal if difficult to achieve.
You know what they say about mushrooms don't you?..................
"Kept in the dark and fed with sh..............."
Sorry KM - forget my last post with apologies.
Confused Hilary Ostrov and H Shapiro.
My bad ...... grovel.....grovel
Free the IAC 168!
I wonder if we can encourage anyone who submitted to the IAC to browse the list of submissions and see if theirs is accounted for, and if not, maybe they would like to publish their submission elsewhere.
Foxgoose
H Shapiro
I have just noticed my comment on this thread has gone! I suspect it vanished when I double-clicked on the back arrow to leave after doing the posting routine correctly.
It does make me realise my comment was rather ephemeral and is probably in the right place!
I have just noticed my comment on this thread has gone! I suspect it vanished when I double-clicked on the back arrow to leave after doing the posting routine correctly.
It does make me realise my comment was rather ephemeral and is probably in the right place!
Did the IAC "Lose" some submissions.
Possible of course. But given the obvious lack of cooperation evident in even providing a polite response to the emails, it would be a better guess that they buried some response "bodies" and now are hoping Hilary will just go away.
It is never the original crime, it is the cover up that gets these fools in trouble. The have become used to having the MSM cover for them, not report on their sketchy, potentially criminal activities.
Times are changing.
Great work Hilary & Donna . . . two more Canucks channeling their inner McIntyre. :)
I've done some 'emailing the IAC' in the past.
My impression is that they are personally obtaining permissions from authors for their submissions to be published.
Of course, they may just not be publishing inconvenient submissions as well.
Many thanks for the votes of confidence and appreciation!
As for the reasons for the delay ... my vote goes to "inconvenient submissions" [along with hoping I'll just go away!] rather than "obtaining permissions".
I'm inclined to rule out the latter because I know that they had no problem including my submission in the 232 - without seeking my permission! Then again, that could simply have been an oversight ;-)
But the failure to even acknowledge my emails (I tried to be as polite, factual, non-aggressive and non-judgemental as I could!) is, IMHO, unforgivable and inexcusable - not to mention far from being (you should pardon the expression) the "model" of transparency and responsiveness they should be setting for the IPCC!
Hilary
Now there is a growing history of climate people just ignoring complaints.
I am beginning to realise that this must run right through their experience from their undergraduate days.
They have always run the party line and have always been waved through in peer review.
Nothing tough ever demanded.
They are well trained in ignoring criticisms.
They are slow learners too.
They will gradually learn that they are in the big school now.
They must do things properly from now on, or they will be called to account.
Sliperly, slimmy, wriggling is out from now on.
(Rather cramps the style somewhat doesn't it?)
A lighter view on the Sari Kovats question?
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/a-leading-scientist/