Bishop Hill Is AR5 finished before it begins?
Sep 5, 2011 Climate: IPCC Journals Roy Spencer has penned some further thoughts on the campaign being waged by the Team and he is worried:
We simply cannot compete with a good-ole-boy, group think, circle-the-wagons peer review process which has been rewarded with billions of research dollars to support certain policy outcomes.
It is obvious to many people what is going on behind the scenes. The next IPCC report (AR5) is now in preparation, and there is a bust-gut effort going on to make sure that either (1) no scientific papers get published which could get in the way of the IPCC’s politically-motivated goals, or (2) any critical papers that DO get published are discredited with any and all means available.
And it's hard to disagree with these ideas; the stench of corruption from climatology is quite overpowering. However, the conclusion that the battle is in danger of being lost, I'm not so sure about. I still wonder if the Team haven't gone too far this time.
I suggested on Twitter over the weekend that the Remote Sensing affair demonstrated that the peer review process in climatology is now so corrupt that even if the IPCC was staffed by angels there would be no chance of a balanced assessment of the science: even-handed reviews can't create balanced assessments of the sham that is climate science. Richard Betts begged to differ, saying that there was only a perception of bias, and one that didn't reflect reality.
It's a possibility I suppose. We might assume that:
- when the Team said they would get rid of von Storch and he subsequently resigned this was just a coincidence
- when the Team discussed getting rid of Saiers and he was subsequently removed from responsibility for the McIntyre/McKitrick paper, this was just a coincidence too
- the non-appearance of McKitrick and Michaels' paper in AR4 drafts was not connected to Jones' suggestion that he would keep it out of the review
- Wagner's resignation was a reasonable response to a blog post at Real Climate
- etc.
But, you know, I'm just not sure how many coincidences like this we can be expected to bear.
The thing is that even if Richard is right and there isn't much of a problem in the peer reviewed literature, there is still the problem that peer review and the IPCC not only need to be even-handed, but they need to be seen to be even-handed. With the Remote Sensing affair, that possibility is now long gone. Who is going to believe a word of AR5 now?
Reader Comments (75)
RE: Maurizio Morabito
I too have personal exeprience of the interference in the peer review process, although by a convoluted and indirect set of circumstance.
I was asked (due to my expertise in geostatistics) to provide an independent review for the author of paper on Sahel desertification being a data collection artefact, not a consequence of climate change. The paper was being consistently blocked by the journal editor and reviewers. My review was not for the journal (although I do review for journals occasionally) but privately for the author because of the problems with publication.
Imagine my surprise some years later to discover this paper and its authors expressly referred to in very patronising and derogatory language by none other than Phil Jones and his cronies in the ClimateGate emails.
The interference in the peer review process has been real and Wegman showed very clearly that with the Mann Hockey Stick papers (contrary to Richard Betts comments above) that actually the number of co-authors and the circle in which these papers andthe peer review influence originate is very small - probably as few as a core of 30 - 40 authors. When referring to IPCC and saying there are thouands of papers, well many are grey literature and of course many, many of the papers referenced are second order, by which I mean they are not primary climate science papers but arm waving "if we believe AGW then a, b, c is dying, extincting, collapsing etc etc"
David Betts-
I have a new appreciation for your point of view, given your quotes in news articles that were posted earlier.
You apparently think that the IPCC has an altruistic goal of unbiased assessment of the science. This is an absurd claim. The IPCC was created by the UNEP to produce a document that demonstrates an anthropogenic fingerprint in noisy weather data.
It is biased.
By definition.
Period.
The bizarre behavior of IPCC leadership only reinforces this fact.
It is even more bizarre that anyone thinks the UN has credibility or integrity.
You apparently claim that there are too many journals and investigators to assume that a conspiracy is at work.
This is an absurd claim as well. Climate science has taken the form of an inverted pyramid. At the apex of the pyramid are a few dozen groups that publish climate model temperature rise scenarios. The climate modelers predict catastrophes 2 or 3 decades in the future. They have been doing this for more than 4 decades.
If you control this very small group of researchers, along with the editors of journals in which they publish, then you control the entire inverted pyramid. If the apex fails, the entire pyramid crumbles, along with grant funding for ten's of thousands of researchers who have traditionally had a difficult time scaring up grants. Any researcher who is studying climate change impacts has a canonical conflict of interest in challenging the CACC hypothesis.
This explains the apoplectic response from climate modelers, especially IPCC bigwig Trenberth, when Spencer's 'blasphemous' paper inadvertently slipped through the peer review filter.
As a test of your own vested interest in the existence of CACC, please share with us what happens to your funding and your job if CACC is wrong.
We've been here before:
Jane Coles
Disappointingly, you are the second person today to insinuate some kind of parallel between climate science and Nazi Germany.
No wonder most climate scientists don't come on sceptics blogs.
Richard Betts,
I'm having some difficulty reconciling your description of the IPCC writing/authorship/validation process - which to my ear echoes somewhat too loudly that of Pachauri for comfort - with that of Andrew Weaver.
Please don't get me wrong, Richard - I certainly don't hold you responsible for Weaver's claims. But if you have a chance perhaps you could take a look at:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/weavers-wobbly-conservative-claims/
Some of his more quotable quotes [which I have sourced on that page]:
Weaver also said the IPCC's 2007 report revealed climate change to be:
To my mind there is a disconnect between the thoughtful, thorough - and "balanced" - process you assert and Weaver's depiction in a Feb. 2010 radio interview in which he said that those who contribute to the IPCC reports do so:
I suspect it would somewhat challenging to perform a "balancing" act "off the side of one's desk", unless one had some very strong (party) lines tying one down, so to speak. But that aside ...
Sadly, we know that Weaver's hyperbole - and outright advocacy - is not unique amongst those who have reached the pinnacle of IPCC writing leadership.
You have taken exception to two instances of individuals who see parallels between some practices in the promotion of climate science and Nazi Germany - and consider this to be a sufficient reason for scientists to avoid participating on skeptic blogs.
So perhaps you will appreciate that there are many lay people whose respect for the work of IPCC affiliated climate scientists is considerably diminished by the words and actions of the likes of Weaver and (more recently) Trenberth and Mann.
Richard Betts,
I have never before posted to this blog or any other climate blog that I can think of, but I have been following the discussion in detail for some time. I can't help but notice that out of a long list of posts within this very topic addressed to you, taking issue with a specific assertion that you made concerning the vastness and complexity of the climatology literature making it impossible for a small group to control it, with most of them making substantive posts countering your assertion and requesting that you address their points, you apparently chose to remain quiet and ignore them, and only responded to a poster who used an objectionable Nazi reference.
Your statement that, "No wonder most climate scientists don't come on sceptics blogs" would seem to be tarring all "skeptics" with the actions of a few. Can you not see how your own action in so doing is equally objectionable to those posters who have legitimate points to make and are not among the fringe who are hurling ad hominems?
Ed Kai
I responded to the most recent one in the thread - unfortunately I simply don't have time to respond to all of them I'm afraid, even though the rest may indeed make their points more rationally.
But thank you for making your point, you are right that this nicely illustrates the situation where the actions of a few can unfortunately be misinterpreted as representing the majority.
And I think the risk of irrational abuse is one of the reasons most climate scientists don't come here. I'm glad this is an isolated incident - long may this remain the case.
Richard Betts:
I'm not insinuating "some kind of parallel between climate science and Nazi Germany", I'm asserting the existence of a parallel between 'Ahnenerbe science' and current 'climate science'. The Ahnenerbe story provides a clear example of how easily academic and government scientists can be corrupted by the ideology of those in power. Those who cannot remember the past (or who refuse to remember it) are condemned to repeat it.
Picked from geoffchambers above
“Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes
• Study says 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060
• Increase could threaten water supply of half world population”
How can anyone actually utter such predictions? I am just a retired business man experienced in working with figures (and reality). Looking at satellite temperature measurements and HadCrut 3 to date there is no evidence of a warmer year than 1998 and temperatures are down in August per UAH. Where is the increase and the acceleration. 4C by 2060 is like 3.4C from 2011 or near enough 0.07C per year. That is more than per decade to date from pre- industrial. How could this happen when the influence of CO2 is supposed to be logarithmic and the general consensus is that global temperatures will increase by 1C for a doubling of CO2. Where is the increase and the acceleration? If such strong positive feedbacks exist somewhere, where are they and why have they not already activated themselves?
I understand why more and more level headed people are getting more and more critical of the CAGW consensus. The Met Office should be held account and basically privatised by 2015 if there is no increase and acceleration to justify these predictions and the people responsible presented with their P45 documents.
John Peter
Please listen to my talk (link posted above). I didn't say "catastrophic" and I didn't talk about impacts on water resources, that was another speaker.
My paper on this is Betts et al 2010 Phil Trans Soc
Jane Coles
Your assertion is utterly wrong.
It's a real shame that you've been taken in by the propaganda so much as to think that.
Until yesterday I thought I was able to have a meaningful, rational discussion here, with people who could talk things through sensibly. I'm pleased to say that in most cases this has worked out. Shame you had to spoil it.
Richard, please don't run off like the Arctic Fox and her boss Mr Wolfie. The fact is that climate science has been politicised to an extraordinary degree, and many if not most have gone with the consensus for funding, financial and career reasons. May I recommend Martin Cohen's excellent 2009 essay in the THES - "Beyond Question":
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409454
(keywords - climate science, sociology, Cascade theory, madness of crowds).
IPCC is politically and administrative controlled by UNEP/UN.
The UNFCCC has allready politically established that we have human made global warming and that it is going very bad in future if we dont radicallize our western society.
IPCC have to support the UNFCCC.
So in other words: The AR5 was established in 1992 during the Rio conference when the political UNFCCC was established.
1 or 2 comments does not a blog make, represent all the regulars, or a blogs author...
an example. Godwins Law gets invoked at the WWF in the comments, ('might as well appoint Hitler, )because they've made Prince Charles President of the WWF..(ie killing animals vs his hunting)
http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?5225/New-President-for-WWF-UK#comment-304901201
The above post is further evidence (as if it were needed ) of Bishop Hill's biased outlook. Montford calls any examination of Roy Spencer's motivation's ad-hom . But Roy Spencer's conspiracy theories about the motivations of others are regurgitated here unquestioned.
Theories with some evidence of scientist attempting to influence journals and editors
Hengist McStone,
Any bias in a climate scientist will be seen. Motivation and ideology are irrelevant, except to the extent they bias a climate scientist's work product. Biases will always be detected through open and transparent scientific discourse. I think many here are concerned the IPCC led process is not open and transparent so the bias detection in the IPCC is largely disrupted.
When detected, the biased scientist will become less sought in his field. As the IPCC's so-called consensus/settled scientists become less sought and independent/skeptical scientists become more sought there will be a lot of emotional exchanges. I think that is unfortunate and should be minimized, but is to some extent expected.
No problem since it is a self-correcting process, except the harm those biased scientists inflict on neutral or opposing scientists. That is a problem that seeks more justice from the scientific community.
Personal Note: Hengist, I really find your hostility toward a blog host uncivil, but that is just my private evaluation.
John
@John Whitman
I'm sorry you feel that way but I can assure you that both Mr Montford and myself are thick skinned enough to bear a little 'hostility' and it's nothing personal . It's not all one way either, if I ask a difficult question of him he evades it. And I have to say his suggestion that I don't know the meaning of ad-hom is frankly objectionable and entirely unnecessary.
On the plus side this blog was mentioned on the Carbon Brief recently as a consistent entertaining read. I concur, although I will keep my reasons to myself.
Hengist - could you please post your definition of "ad-hom"?
geronimo - nice tour de force. Very nice indeed.
Richard Betts' selective responding is nothing new. He reads the posts he feels he might score a point on, and ignores the rest.
Can he (or anyone else) provide a single example of where he has told the nutters with whom he is frequently (and innocently, according to him) associated with - you are wrong? You are way off the bounds of reasonable thought. As a professional in the field, I cannot allow myself to be associated with such balderdash.
And I don't mean "some may disagree" mealymouthed cant.
Don't hold your breath.
johanna: I was just about to respond to a question Richard Betts had asked TBYJ this morning when your comment here caught my eye under 'Recent comments'. And lo, your question is in March 2014 and all the other comments on the thread are from September 2011. Do you mind me asking how you arrived here? It does make your
feel a little anachronistic. Certainly anyone that had held their breath since Betts was criticised here would not be enjoying your contribution now!
Anyway, given that we are in March 2014 I will offer what I felt was Richard's best contribution in 2013. I realise it may not meet your criteria but on 16th May 2013 Richard tweeted as follows:
I thought that was A1 - exactly what leading climate scientists should have been doing far more during the length of the climate wars. I also, with all due respect, think it's more important that Richard chose to put the official twitter account of Barack Obama right than that he responded as effectively to a commenter on Bishop Hill who may not yet be in as important a position as BO. (One can never tell of course, given the humility of those using nyms here!)
I think the pressure RB is often put under is a little economical with common sense. I think his question to TBYJ I was about to comment on is a fair and interesting one. But he surely can't be everywhere. He chooses his moments. And of course as a batsman for the other team (however defined) his sometimes picks off an easy rather than a more difficult ball from the assorted sceptics. He's perfectly within his rights to do that, in my book. But if he leaves one line of argument alone for three years and it strikes other readers as a powerful one then he and the scientists he represents (including those that never engage) will be judged accordingly. It's all good.
He didn't say that they were wrong. He just said that it wasn't what he said ("misquoted/quoted out of context" - oh, dear). It is the kind of slipping and sliding that we have become all to accustomed to seeing, but hopefully don't accept.
Oh come on. @BarackObama had said
Richard said that the 'dangerous' was wrong, to the most powerful man in the world, and he was completely right to do so. If we can't applaud that we've lost perspective, whatever remains to be criticised and debated.
johanna
No, I take part in discussions where I feel able (or interested) to contribute. This means I tend to focus on posts about science. Many of Bishop Hill's posts are about government policy or individual people (typically scientists or politicians), and as a civil servant I generally don't think it's appropriate for me to join such discussions. They don't particularly interest me either.
Well I don't suppose we will always agree on who counts as "nutters", but a few examples of where I've told folks on the "warmist" side they are wrong can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.
Also you could check out discussions on other (non-sceptic) blogs, eg. here.
And let's not forget my discussion here at Bishop Hill with Aubrey Meyer, who says incorrect things about climate science from an extreme Green stance.
There are others if you care to look. If Barry Woods is reading, he's normally quite good at remembering such things.
Richard Betts, your examples highlight exactly what I was talking about. You don't disassociate yourself from people who are talking alarmist rubbish; you don't call them out when they spout things that are just wrong - but you now and then say, like Nanny in the nursery of very rich, spoiled children - well, perhaps that's not quite right.
What is characteristic is that you don't subsequently engage on behalf of what you (allegedly) believe in. There is never any follow through. After Nanny's gentle reproof, you are gone. Others go on promulgating the things you have said (apologetically) are not true, but you let the kids go on smashing things up in the nursery anyway and without a word. Perhaps it's your afternoon tea time, every time?
johanna
I'm afraid it's as simple as not having the time spend it all on the internet! There are far too many conversations going on to stay involved in them all. I do stay in some, others I may drop in to, many I don't join or don't even read. I'm not sure why I'm being singled out here anyway - many BH commenters drop in and out, that's the nature of blogs.
Unless you'd prefer me to do what the majority of scientists still (unfortunately) do, which is not join social media discussions at all?