|
June 22, 2007
Manufacturing Concensus
Roger Pielke Sr. has a few complaints about the comprehensiveness of the research papers used to prepare various IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports have the following stated goals:Bias? The IPCC? Why the IPCC is totally fair minded and comprehensive. If you don't believe that just ask them."A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change"and"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."However, the IPCC WG 1 Chapter 3 report failed in this goal. To evaluate the IPCC's claim to be comprehensive, we cross-compared IPCC WG1 references on near-surface air temperature trends with the peer-reviewed citations that have been given in Climate Science. We selected only papers that appeared before about May 2006 so they were readily available to the IPCC Lead authors.He then goes on to list a whole raft of papers, both included and missed by the IPCC. There seem to be more misses than hits. If the papers were neglected because they were redundant, this would be no problem. However, they are ignored specifically because they conflict with the assessment that is presented in the IPCC WG1 Report, and the Lead Authors do not agree with that perspective!Quite a charge to make. Mr. P then goes on to note some criticisms made by others. "The process for completing the CCSP Report excluded valid scientific perspectives under the charge of the Committee. The Editor of the Report systematically excluded a range of views on the issue of understanding and reconciling lower atmospheric temperature trends. The Executive Summary of the CCSP Report ignores critical scientific issues and makes unbalanced conclusions concerning our current understanding of temperature trends".It seems like we have way too many inconvenient truths out there. How might we narrow them down? Well Roger thinks he knows how the IPCC arrived at its concensus. The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report process made the same mistakes and failed to provide an objective assessment. Indeed the selection of papers to present in the IPCC (as well as how the work of others that was cited was dismissed) had a clear conflict of interest as the following individuals cited their research prominently yet were also a Review Editor (Tom Karl), works for the Review Editor (Tom Peterson, Russ Vose, David Easterling), were Coordinating Lead Authors (Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones), were Lead Authors (Dave Easterling and David Parker), or a Contributing Author (Russ Vose).That is right. You get a lot more truth and a lot less inconvenience if you can have people review their own work and exclude contrary ideas. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 06.22.07 at 02:42 AM
Comments
And some things just aint worth your time. How valid is the work? Has it been confirmed or refuted? Has it been peer reviewed? Does it take into account relevant data? Asking climatologist to take some papers seriously is like asking an astronomer his opinion on a pro geocentric paper. Alan Kellogg · June 22, 2007 09:10 AM How valid is the claim that global warming on Mars is due to heat island effect? (don't you wish they would make one of those before and after gifs of Earth?) Papertiger · June 22, 2007 11:40 PM Papertiger, I don't get your point: - Your cited article attributes warming on Mars to stirred up dust, reducing the reflectivity (albedo) of Mars. Neal J. King · June 23, 2007 05:06 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2007
May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Principles Of Forecasting
When Only The Truth Is Allowed... Because It Is Popular Enslave The Machines And Free The Humans Telling The Truth In School Classics might be forever, but I'm going on vacation! Multiculturalist Micromanagement? More laws, more bureaucracy, more social workers, more crime! Manufacturing Concensus Rethinking the First Amendment since 1998. Experience counts!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Creating consensus at the IPCC is a lot like making sausages.
Without the meat.
Or the casing.