Bishop Hill Gary Yohe's fictional citation
Aug 14, 2015 Climate: WG2 
It is...irresponsible to ignore the preponderance of evidence on floods, extreme precipitation events (and if it is winter, these are snow storms), wildfires, etc. These were anticipated to occur as the climate changes. They have occurred around the world (U.S., Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, etc..), and they are getting worse and more frequent[2].
The quote is from famous environmental economist Gary Yohe, writing at Climate Feedback, a site where climate scientists rate media articles on their scientific content. Yohe was writing about a Bjorn Lomborg piece.
Yohe's citation is to the detection and attribution chapter of AR5, which is, on the face of it, a bizarre thing given that there are whole chapters in the IPCC about observations of the climate. Intrigued, I looked at the chapter cited.
Here is what it said about floods:
River floods, defined as impacts caused by the overtopping of river banks and levées, have shown statistically significant increasing and decreasing trends in some regions. The role of climate change in these changes is uncertain, as they may reflect decadal climate variability and be affected by other confounding factors such as human alteration of river channels and land use.
And here's what it said about heavy rainfall.
In regions with detected increases in heavy rainfall events (North America, Europe), both increases and decreases in floods have been found (medium confidence in detection; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Villarini et al., 2009). In the UK, flood risk has increased due to anthropogenic forcing for events comparable to the 2000 floods (Kay et al., 2011; Pall et al., 2011; see also Section 18.4.3).
A "preponderance of evidence" eh? What is about climate scientists that makes them think that nobody is ever going to check their citations?
Bishop Hill
Reader Howard Goodall points out that, very hilariously, Yohe was the coordinating lead author of the chapter concerned.
Which means he must have known that it didn't support the claim he was making at Climate Feedback.
Reader Comments (62)
Yohe was the coordinating lead author of the chapter concerned...
...Which means he must have known that it didn't support the claim he was making at Climate Feedback.
You really think so?
There is a low-rent feel to the whole thing - in my opinion. When you have the US president pushing 97%, asthma, sea-level rise, and 'extreme weather', when you have Yvo de Boer promoting skepticalscience as a source of climate information, the mystery is gone, there is no substance and the whole thing is running on pure hype. Plus you note the Republican politicians language - 'we will fight Obama's climate rules 'as hard as we can' - there's already a signal of defeat.
It takes surprisingly little to make this statement scientifically accurate:
"It is...irresponsible to ignore the preponderance of evidence on floods, extreme precipitation events (and if it is winter, these are snow storms), wildfires, etc. These were anticipated to occur as the climate changes. They have occurred around the world (U.S., Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, etc..), and they are getting worse and more frequent[2]."
"It is...irresponsible to ignore the preponderance of evidence on floods, extreme precipitation events (and if it is winter, these are snow storms), wildfires, etc. AOGCMs PROJECT THAT SUCH EVENTS WILL INCREASE as the climate changes. INCREASES have occurred IN SOME REGIONS around the world (U.S., Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, etc..), BUT DECREASES HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN OTHER REGIONS.
Why is Yohe's statement inaccurate? In his eagerness to save the world from climate change, he's forgotten how scientist should behave. This passage is from Feynman's talk on "Cargo Cult Science":
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."
Politicians and lawyers live by a different set of ethical standards than scientists - they present only the facts that support their preferred position. However, they are required to provided equal time for their opponents to present the facts that support an alternative position. Climate scientists who have become policy advocates want to speak with authority of scientists, but not provide equal opportunity to opposing views.
Radical Rodent, and Frank,
Climate Scientist is a euphemism for ........ ???
Al Capone was brought down by the taxman
Pachauri has resigned due to the bravery of one woman
Sepp Blatter resigned due to a lack of support from FIFA ?!
The International Association of Athletics Federation is looking dodgy due to doping cover-ups
The IPCC just carries on as though global warming never stopped. The Global Warming pause is now old enough to buy a drink to celebrate (in the UK). I wonder if it will be old enough to buy a drink in the US, before an American President notices.
@Leo Smith is right just cos someone's name is down as the lead author we can't assume that they have read the paper. It does seem that sometimes the science process can be so corrupted that a big name is stamped on the work of a lower student to give that work credibility especially if that work is "on message".
Aug 16, 2015 at 1:54 PM shub
Just noticing that th early motivation and drive seem to have gone with BH. Paul Homewood and Judith Curry seem to carry the flag at this moment. There's enough left to investigate if you want.
“… Politicians and lawyers live by a different set of ethical standards than scientists - they present only the facts that support their preferred position …” Frank 11:25 PM.
=================================
Politicians are in a class of their own, however even lawyers, at least in the British system, are a cut above Climate Change™ scientists in that as officers of the Court they must not mislead and must be frank and open in disclosures to the Court.
Chris Hanley: Aren't British lawyers allow to ask a witness if an increase in extreme rainfall has been observed in U.S., and observed in Russia, and observed in Indonesia, and observed in Japan, and observed in Argentina AND then ignore all of the other places in the world where an increase hasn't been detected or a decrease has been observed? In other words, lie by omission, as can be seen in my above amended version of Yohe's statement.
I know that lawyers in the US are not allowed to solicit testimony from a witness that they know is FALSE. I'm am not an expert in legal ethics, but I assume that the above "lying by omission" strategy would be permitted in a courtroom. The adversarial system works because we count on the opposing lawyer to cross-examine witnesses and exposed such deceptions. Activist climate scientists won't publicly debate skeptical scientists and they control the agenda at the IPCC and NAS, so the general public is unaware of the real weaknesses in the consensus position that AGW will be catastrophic.
As both Feynman and Schneider point out, scientists expect other scientists to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with all the if ands buts and caveats. However, when they chose to "tell scary stories" to the public, there is no adversarial system that can challenge their deception.
Frank, I am not a lawyer but........
If asked a "difficult" question in Court, a climate scientist could simply refer to the relevant peer reviewed paper, as proof, that their expert opinion was based on scientific consensus. Hence so many climate science papers have been "peer reviewed", to cover all the bases, and hence the significance of the US President quoting the cooked up 97% consensus.
That a well informed lawyer, on either side of the Atlantic could shred much of it in court, may be why climate scientists are so reluctant to end up in court.
The very veracity of the Most Sacred Holy Hockey Stick of Mann, must not be called into question. Climate scientists have been thrown to the lions, damned for eternity and labelled heretics, as a warning to others.
I’m not a lawyer, I was thinking of the active attempts by Climate Change™ scientists, as exposed by the ‘Climategate’ emails for instance, to conceal pertinent information in the court of public opinion.
Frank
"Climate scientists who have become policy advocates want to speak with authority of scientists, but not provide equal opportunity to opposing views."
I think you mean any opportunity!
Pointman
"Rodders with a bad toupee"
And about as bright!