Jones and CRU exonerated

[TraneWreck]

Let's see how Tony Blair faced the Iraq inquiry on this topic. His response was as follows:

Yep. Tony Blair's defence of the Iraq dossier is almost word-for-word the same as your defence of the IPCC AR4. My eye-ron-ee-o-meter has pegged. He first insists the mistake doesn't affect the conclusions. Of course, that misses the point entirely. He then goes on to repeat the "one-in-a-thousand" meme which you also seem quite fond of.

Political spin is so predictable these days.

The Iraq dossier was full of intelligence estimates that were bumped up from basicaly guesses to certainties. Far more than the 45min claim was given this sort of treatment.

Once again, all you've managed to criticize in the IPCC is a mistake about glaciers that no conclusions rested upon and an unpublished graph.

Just because the defenses were the same, that doesn't mean their both of equal merit. Just because OJ Simpson said he didn't kill is wife, that doesn't mean all people who say they didn't kill their wife are lying.

Blair's excuse fails on the merits, the IPCC was an astonishingly accurate report. If you disagree, you better offer more than you have so far.

As for the rest of your points? Ah yes, you've once again completely ignored the errors that I listed, replaced them with your own list of errors, and then said those points aren't important. Which is why debating with you is such a futile endeavour.

I can guess at what you were refering to in your previous point, but I'm not going to waste my time hunting down your meaning. What, exactly, are you refering to? Link the e-mail or whatever evil thing you're upset about so we can look at it.

If you remain vague, there's nothing to discuss.

 

[CoolSceptic]

The Iraq dossier was full of intelligence estimates that were bumped up from basicaly guesses to certainties.

Which is the exact criticism I have of the IPCC AR4. Which is why I pointed to the work of Cohn, Lins, Koutsoyiannis etc.

Sheesh. I've already pointed this out. Why can't you follow a simple debate?

Just because the defenses were the same, that doesn't mean their both of equal merit.

Obviously. But in this case, your excuses ARE identical and have equal merit, as I have already explained. To be honest, I didn't expect the parallels to be so accurate when I started out, but then I didn't expect you to use the exact same spin as Tony Blair did to defend the IPCC.

Blair's excuse fails on the merits, the IPCC was an astonishingly accurate report. If you disagree, you better offer more than you have so far.

LOL. I'm sure Tony Blair would give you the same answer. In fact, let's check. Same link as last time:

Blair says he said in the foreword that he believed the intelligence was "beyond doubt".

I did believe it. And I did believe it beyond doubt.

Yep. Alistair Darling Campbell also underlined the astonishingly accurate Iraq dossier. What did I say earlier? Ah yes, "political spin is so predictable these days". I stand by that.

If you remain vague, there's nothing to discuss.

I really don't see the merits of discussing these things with you anyway. You've ignored the information I've provided you with already, and I've seen no evidence that you would do anything different if I were to furnish more information (which you could find using search if you were genuinely interested anyway).

 

[TraneWreck]

Which is the exact criticism I have of the IPCC AR4. Which is why I pointed to the work of Cohn, Lins, Koutsoyiannis etc.

Sheesh. I've already pointed this out. Why can't you follow a simple debate?

Yes, it must be my fault. Just listing people's names with no explanation of their arguments, how they're directed at the IPCC, and why anyone should care, is definitely the best way to criticize a study.

You brought this up before. You claim that they punch holes in the IPCC, or some similar statement, how? Why are they wrong at RealClimate? You also claimed they didn't understand the paper, what did they miss?

I don't accept your assertions merely because you make them.

Obviously. But in this case, your excuses ARE identical and have equal merit, as I have already explained. To be honest, I didn't expect the parallels to be so accurate when I started out, but then I didn't expect you to use the exact same spin as Tony Blair did to defend the IPCC.


LOL. I'm sure Tony Blair would give you the same answer. In fact, let's check. Same link as last time:


Yep. Alistair Darling Campbell also underlined the astonishingly accurate Iraq dossier. What did I say earlier? Ah yes, "political spin is so predictable these days". I stand by that.

What was incorrect in the IPCC? Surely not just the glaciers and the unpublished graph (that the RMS did say was used correctly).

You're attempting smear by aerial bombardment. Just come up with a slanted analogy, explain nothing, and doggedly hold to you initial claims.

I really don't see the merits of discussing these things with you anyway. You've ignored the information I've provided you with already, and I've seen no evidence that you would do anything different if I were to furnish more information (which you could find using search if you were genuinely interested anyway).

Yes, yes, how terribly taxing for you. Why would I think a discussion forum would be a place for discussion?

I am not going to spend my time researching your arguments. When presented, with some actual references, I will gladly study them and respond. But you have not offered any such arguments. The name of a scientist is not an argument.

 

[Raze]

Unfortunately I think they've succeeded a great deal in shaping the public discourse. Everyone read the headlines about this supposed "climate cover up" - how many people will read a report from a parliamentary committee?

Like "The Great Global Warming Conspiracy [or Swindle, can't remember....]" before it, this has massively damaged public perceptions about AGW.....

But sadly, we also see that the deniers and the mainstream media who were all over the idea of a “controversy” aren’t so interested in the fact that there is none.

I think about one quarter of the population has a below average IQ. Perhaps that has something to do with it?





I do, however, have a criticism of the IPCC: they allow for non-scientific literature in their reports. Even if it is only a little bit, I would prefer if they didn't and instead only allowed peer reviewed science in their reports.

 

[DogB]

To recoup, it looks like the New Scientist / Pearce got the 2035 number from an uncited report of a real study, not the interview like they claim (as said, there was a typo in that report - the original study says 2350).

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the original source of the claim and the typo idea is new to me.

 

[Furcifer]

It seems you're both right, sort of. I did a bit of looking around, and found these...

The faulty page on the IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html

WWF report (cited as IPCC source)
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf

The New Scientist article (cited as WWF source):
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html

Dr. Hasnain's rebuttal to attributing 2035 to his interview
http://groups.google.com/group/india-ej/attach/7dffff27f7643302/Hasnain+PR+final.doc?part=4

And then finally this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php

The blog entry itself isn't the key point this time. Scroll down to comment #13 - it seems to be a pretty believable rundown of the events that lead up to the error in AR4 WG2.

The 2350 > 2035 typo did indeed take place, but it was already in 1999, when government run India Environment Portal published an article citing UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme's 1996 report. It seems New Scientist, WWF and finally IPCC then repeated this error, and the original source was lost from the citations along the way. So, 2035 is the result of this, but some other parts of the text are from the interview (funnily, those parts seem to actually hold water much better).

To recoup, it looks like the New Scientist / Pearce got the 2035 number from an uncited report of a real study, not the interview like they claim (as said, there was a typo in that report - the original study says 2350).

This isn't typical of a peer reviewed paper. It seems pretty clear to me that they are more interested in alarming claims than they are factual data. How do 2500 scientists all miss this?

 

[BenBurch]

This isn't typical of a peer reviewed paper. It seems pretty clear to me that they are more interested in alarming claims than they are factual data. How do 2500 scientists all miss this?

IPCC is not a paper, remember that; Its a report for politicians (and others) who want to understand what's happening and what will happen if human activity does not change.

 

[uke2se]

This isn't typical of a peer reviewed paper. It seems pretty clear to me that they are more interested in alarming claims than they are factual data. How do 2500 scientists all miss this?

Not only is the AR4 not a scientific paper, it is actually a lot more conservative in its conclusions than most climatologists would agree with. As such, it's kind of silly to call it "alarmist".

 

[little grey rabbit]

Mann was largely cleared of any wrongdoing some time back

It now seems that Jones and the CRU have similarly been cleared in a UK parliamentary investigation into Climatefizzle.

Golly, I never saw that coming!

Score: Vegetarian Overlords 1, Humanity 0

 

[Captain.Sassy]

blah blah Iraq intelligence blah blah IPCC4 blah blah blah

The thing is, with the Iraq intelligence, there were tons of others in the same epistemic community who contradicted the US intelligence reports and said they were false. Intelligence agents and agencies around the world disputed the Iraq WMD findings, and so did international monitoring organizations.

This isn't the case at all with AGW. Here, the vast majority of the epistemic community is united in its consensus, with a few deniers and holdouts.

The situation is in fact completely reversed from the Iraq one.

If you're looking for a parallel with the way the Iraq war agenda was pushed forward, you might instead consider the way the denialists have been preferentially cited by politicians seeking to stymie efforts to address global warming.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Golly, I never saw that coming!

WE were all a little shocked.

Score: Vegetarian vegan earth worshipping Overlordesses 1, Humanity 0

off to the camps with you

 

[Furcifer]

IPCC is not a paper, remember that; Its a report for politicians (and others) who want to understand what's happening and what will happen if human activity does not change.

Indeed.

I was just pointing out that this typo has lived an enamoured life for over 10 years. A little more scutiny is in order.

As far as being alarmist that was a little tongue in cheek. It reminded me of that joke about the sun burning out, 15 billion I thought you said 5 billion. I suppose 2035 isn't that far away.

 

[Furcifer]

Not only is the AR4 not a scientific paper, it is actually a lot more conservative in its conclusions than most climatologists would agree with. As such, it's kind of silly to call it "alarmist".

I don't find AR4 that alarming. I think it really depends on how you interpret it. The report itself might be a little biased but hardly alarmist.

The myth that the Himilayan glacier might melt 300 years before it might melt is. They don't seem to be doing a very good job of checking over the data that grossly misrepresents the AGW claims though.

 

[macdoc]

How about a security analyst...v

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/c...change-nightmares-of-military-strategists.php

 

[DogB]

I was just pointing out that this typo has lived an enamoured life for over 10 years. A little more scutiny is in order.

To be fair it is a very big document and drilling down to reference level is mammoth task. Once the error had been made it doesn’t surprise at all it has survived so long. I’m certain there are other errors in there that still remain undiscovered.

 

[Furcifer]

To be fair it is a very big document and drilling down to reference level is mammoth task. Once the error had been made it doesn’t surprise at all it has survived so long. I’m certain there are other errors in there that still remain undiscovered.

Absolutely. I didn't give it much thought until Halsu give the history of it. All it gets is one of these ""

I was just breakin some balls being a troll.

 

[DogB]

I was just breakin some balls being a troll.

It's a dirty job...

 

[Pixel42]

I do, however, have a criticism of the IPCC: they allow for non-scientific literature in their reports. Even if it is only a little bit, I would prefer if they didn't and instead only allowed peer reviewed science in their reports.

Don't forget IPCC reports are actually a set of three reports and a summary. The report that summarises the science (by Working Group 1) only uses peer-reviewed sources. It's the ones that look at impact (WG2) and mitigation (WG3) that use any so-called grey literature as sources, and it's in those that the (actually remarkably few, given the size of these reports) errors have been found.

 

[lomiller]

Don't forget IPCC reports are actually a set of three reports and a summary. The report that summarises the science (by Working Group 1) only uses peer-reviewed sources. It's the ones that look at impact (WG2) and mitigation (WG3) that use any so-called grey literature as sources, and it's in those that the (actually remarkably few, given the size of these reports) errors have been found.

Furthermore each chapter has it's own authors and reviewes. No one has ever claimed 2500 people reviewed every part of the report.

 

[Raze]

You guys make good points. It's like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The obvious problem, however, is that it is THESE portions that aren't peer reviewed that have spoiled public opinion on climate science.

Can anyone think of a realistic solution to this problem?