IPCC Scandals: time for Pachauri to go & then reform ?

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
The IPCC has been beset by a number of scandals recently. The scandals show serious ethical issues, as well as low standards in their reports.

In yet another scandal - we learn they based parts of their reports on anecdotes in a magazine article !
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph

In a signed letter/Der Spiegel Editorial Richard Tol (of the ESRI ), Hans von Storch and Roger Pielke both call for radical IPC reform. All 3 are believers in man-made climate change, and need to be taken very seriously.

Opinion: Save the Panel on Climate Change! - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
The Irish Economy Blog Archive IPCC reform, now

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been heavily criticized for erroneous projections. In the following editorial, climate researchers Richard Tol, Roger Pielke and Hans von Storch call for a reform of the IPCC and the resignation of its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
...

That such a large body of work as the IPCC report would contain some errors is unavoidable. But what’s striking in this example is the sheer lack of the most basic standards of scientific review that allowed the glacier and disaster claims to be incorporated. It also illustrates that the IPCC lacks any mechanisms to correct false or contested knowledge.
...
The IPCC cannot continue its work without adopting strong ethical guidelines for its officials. Under normal conflict of interest rules as followed by other leading scientific advisory institutions, Mr. Pachauri would no longer be tolerable as the IPCC’s chairperson. Any proper IPCC reform would also have to include a formal mechanism to correct errors and more transparent procedures for the appointment of key personnel. Apart from adopting new rules, the IPCC won’t be able to regain its credibility without adhering to existing rules regarding the appointment of experts and the review of scientific material. What’s at stake is not just the reputation of the IPCC but the reputation of all of climate science.
These guys are prominent and require to be taken seriously.

I too am wholly unconvinced by the IPCC - and think major reform is needed before the body can be trusted again.

And commentators think reform is on the way:
BBC - Andrew Neil's blog: The dam is cracking
Andrew Neil
The sceptics may be about to get their first scalp. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world's leading climate scientist (he's actually a railway engineer), at first attacked those who questioned the IPCC's alarming glacier prediction as "arrogant" and believers in "voodoo science".

He's since had to retract the prediction but can't quite manage an apology -- and is now under mounting pressure in his Indian homeland to resign.


Bill Gates is calling for a radical change of thinking:
Bill Gates - What I'm Thinking - Why We Need Innovation, Not Just Insulation - The Gates Notes

Is it time to take reform seriously ?

cYp
 


Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
I don't see why it needs reform due to an isolated incident. If anything it just needs to apply its existing guidelines more rigidly.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is not the Bible. Its statements are not gospel. They are subject to revision in the light of new evidence or the discovery of inaccuracies.

That is why climate change is science, not religion. Nothing is settled and sacred; all is subject to constant revision.

The IPCC’s mistake on the Himalayan glaciers is embarrassing, not just because it is wrong, but because it is so obviously wrong. The warning that these immense ice-fields could be gone by 2035 always struck me as absurd — the Himalayas contain the highest peaks in the world, and the ice that clads their upper slopes is the greatest mass of frozen water outside of the poles. The glaciers may be in rapid decline, but they aren’t going to disappear in 30, or even a hundred, years.

That doesn’t mean that this is a non-issue, merely that the likely rates of glacial retreat are improperly understood. There is a desperate need for quality research on Himalayan glaciers, given their vital importance to major rivers that sustain millions of people in Asia. The IPCC included the erroneous 2035 figure because there was no serious research to rely on. Yet people are calling it a lie (an intentional untruth).

One mistake doesn't invalidate an enormous body of knowledge, gathered over many years by hundreds of experts, which paints a picture of a planet endangered by continuing emissions of greenhouse gases. The IPCC process is rare evidence that our species really is intelligent; that it can marshal and assess vast quantities of data — and act on the results.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
I don't see why it needs reform due to an isolated incident. If anything it just needs to apply its existing guidelines more rigidly.
.
There are multiple incidents
- CRUgate
- Pachauri's financial affairs
- The glaciers
- The natural disaster claims
- The claims above on mountain ice

Nor were the incidents isolated - Pachauri was told not to publish the glacier claims... yet he did, and his company won money from it.

These are 3 prominent academics - who've contributed to the IPCC. Der Spiegel is pretty much Germany's top news organ. The case for reform is serious

cYp
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I don't see why it needs reform due to an isolated incident. .

That is why climate change is science, not religion. Nothing is settled and sacred; all is subject to constant revision.

.
It is not an isolated incident.What about the leaked e-mails and the hockey stick and all the other bogus scientific claims driven by UN politics.

Nothing is settled or sacred,you say.

In post after post you labelled me a "denier" for even questioning AGW.That is not consistent with Nothing is settled or sacred.

You know Hurin I have blown your cover.

AGW is dead.The game is over.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
There are multiple incidents
- CRUgate
- Pachauri's financial affairs
- The glaciers
- The natural disaster claims
- The claims above on mountain ice

Nor were the incidents isolated - Pachauri was told not to publish the glacier claims... yet he did, and his company won money from it.

These are 3 prominent academics - who've contributed to the IPCC. Der Spiegel is pretty much Germany's top news organ. The case for reform is serious

cYp
The CRU are not the IPCC, and there is still no evidence of any scientific malpractice in the emails, whatever is assumed by the climate opposition. The IPCC has gone through the entire process of rebutting the 'costs of climate disasters' issue before, back in 2006 - there is no new story there, but a rehash of previously refuted allegations. The one definite point is the incorrect claim with respect to Himalayan glaciers - and the IPCC pointed that out itself. Nor am I sure where you come to the conclusion that any of the three academics involved are particularly "prominent", or why that lends their opinion any particular weight.

There may be a case for reform of the IPCC, but not as a result of shallow and repetitive PR hysteria of this kind.
 
Last edited:

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
It is not an isolated incident.What about the leaked e-mails and the hockey stick and all the other bogus scientific claims driven by UN politics.

Nothing is settled or sacred,you say.

In post after post you labelled me a "denier" for even questioning AGW.That is not consistent with Nothing is settled or sacred.

You know Hurin I have blown your cover.

AGW is dead.The game is over.
Well you said that AGW was not a matter for science at all so I don't know why you're in this thread.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
The IPCC has gone through the entire process of rebutting the 'costs of climate disasters' issue before, back in 2006 - there is no new story there, but a rehash of previously refuted allegations.
There is new claims there, and they're proven:
http://www.politics.ie/environment/122749-un-wrongly-linked-global-warming-natural-disasters.html

The one definite point is the incorrect claim with respect to Himalayan glaciers - and the IPCC pointed that out itself.
The glacier issue is especially serious for Pachauri
UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims' - Times Online
Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen - Times Online

Nor am I sure where you come to the conclusion that any of the three academics involved are particularly "prominent", or why that lends their opinion any particular weight.
I linked to their Wiki profiles, at least 2 of them have been lead authors for IPCC report sections - see here and here for proof. Richard Tol is one of the world's top 250 economists , and at/close to top of the pile for energy/environmental economics

http://www.agci.org/programs/past_workshop_participants/about_the_scientist/participant_details.php?recordID=4407
He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

He is a member of the GTAP Advisory Board.Richard is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy, Environmental and Resource Economics and Integrated Assessment.Richard was elected GTAP Research Fellow "in recognition of his innovative applications of the GTAP Data Base in the field of environmental economics". He is among the Top 5% economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc,
Here's more from Wiki on the other two:
Hans von Storch (born 13 August 1949 in Wyk auf Föhr) is a German climate scientist. He is Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics

Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (born October 22, 1946) is a meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change, environmental vulnerability, numerical modeling, atmospheric dynamics, land/ocean - atmosphere interactions, and large eddy/turbulent boundary layer modeling. He particularly focuses on mesoscale weather and climate processes but also investigates on the global, regional, and microscale. Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.[1]


There may be a case for reform of the IPCC, but not as a result of shallow and repetitive PR hysteria of this kind.
Der Spiegel is highly respected - and reform of the IPCC will be achieved via political proessure

cYp
 
Last edited:

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Here's yet another scandal

UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim - Times Online
A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report
And another
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
...
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
And more on the coverup re the glaciers:
Panel ignored warnings on glacier error - Times Online

cYp
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Well you said that AGW was not a matter for science at all so I don't know why you're in this thread.
Fair dues to ye Hurin me ould flower.
There is nuttin like a woman to distort a mans words.

I have to contradict you flatly on that scurrilous assertion that I said AGW was not a matter of science at all.

[ Maybe your a bit sore coz I blew your cover but thats ok.]

To put the record straight which you, Hurin ,as a paid propagandist for the eco movement are so intent on twisting,what I said was AGW was not purely a matter of science.

I then exposed the political corruption behind AGW & behind the bogus science supporting it.


I know Hurin you and your fellow environmental activists hate to hear me talking politics but thats because you want to confuse people with bogus science as part of your deliberate campaign of deception.

People are aware of the campaign of deceit being waged by the environmental movement.

Already this movement has discredited scientific integrity to such an extent that scientific pronouncements on the climate are just not believed by the general public anymore.

So Hurin continue with your bogus scientific rants.

It matters not a whit anymore because nobody is listening.
 
Last edited:

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
This weeks New Scientist magazine has an incisive editorial on the IPCC,

The wider review made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence

Some argue that the views of an untutored blogger, or even a scientist from another discipline, should never carry the same weight as those of someone with a lifetime's expertise in a relevant field. But if occasionally the emperors of the lab have no clothes, someone has to say so. The wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence in its methods. Scientists should welcome the outside world in to check them out. Their science is useless if no one trusts it.

Let the sunlight in on climate change - opinion - 27 January 2010 - New Scientist
 

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
This weeks New Scientist magazine has an incisive editorial on the IPCC,
Let's talk about it.

New Scientist said:
However, the IPCC's heroic days are probably over. The case for anthropogenic climate change has been established; the Nobel prize is won. So it is time for a rethink of where the IPCC is going, and what its future role should be. Two years ago, in the aftermath of the last major assessment report, many scientists argued that the task should have begun then.

We still need the IPCC to serve as a seeker of truth whose deliberations are open to scrutiny. There is plenty of new science to assess. But it makes little sense to have to wait six years between assessments: though reflection, and time for the replication of findings, are essential, why not have an annual report?
Unlike the OP this writer actually states a credible reason for IPCC reform.

Should the IPCC remain as an intergovernmental body - in other words, answerable to national governments from around the world? Yes, it probably should. It was the US, during the Reagan presidency back in the 1980s, that insisted on this. At the time, many scientists were dismayed, fearing political interference in the panel's published reports. But these fears largely failed to materialise, and the fact that national governments all sign off each report has reinforced the IPCC's authority.
Not true. The IPCC 2007 report was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events” by politicians. David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself.

source

Some argue that the views of an untutored blogger, or even a scientist from another discipline, should never carry the same weight as those of someone with a lifetime's expertise in a relevant field. But if occasionally the emperors of the lab have no clothes, someone has to say so. The wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence in its methods. Scientists should welcome the outside world in to check them out. Their science is useless if no one trusts it.
A naive statement. I am not saying that the science should not be available for public review, but the majority of sceptical bloggers are not qualified to review the science, and worse, are motivated first and foremost by politics. In the US, this mainly takes the form of opposing AGW theory because they think that "liberals" support it. That is not scientific review.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Another IPCC lead author has called for major reform:

Overhaul UN climate panel, scientist urges
A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.

Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria
cYp
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Miliband has been caught quoting fake IPCC reports, his government is anti-science anyhow (remember the fired drugs adviser

The damn has burst:

Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change - Times Online
The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
...
Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

cYp
 

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
414
To put the record straight which you, Hurin ,as a paid propagandist for the eco movement are so intent on twisting,what I said was AGW was not purely a matter of science.

I then exposed the political corruption behind AGW & behind the bogus science supporting it.


I know Hurin you and your fellow environmental activists hate to hear me talking politics but thats because you want to confuse people with bogus science as part of your deliberate campaign of deception.
So you think that AGW is not purely a matter of science. I suppose you use this to justify taking right-wing naysayers seriously, because political opinions are of equal importance to scientific assessments? If AGW is about politics in any way then science could easily disprove it.

So I am waging a deliberate campaign of deception? To what end? I thought you had decided that I myself had been brainwashed?
 

Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
Looking at all those stories from the london times, they all have something in common. It looks like they're going through the references for the IPPC reports, finding one or two sources that are not peer reviewed or are from non academic sources and then claiming that these sources are the 'only evidence' for these claims.

It does look like a very cheap trick that they are pulling to make it seem as though the IPCC have not got credible evidence supporting their claims. I posted a list of references on a different thread, I won't do it again here but there are thousands and thousands of them. The IPCC reports are broken down into different sections, some are more technically dense than others, and the places like the introductions and the conclusions may phrase things in a way that is more accessible to the public, but even if they refer to documents like mountaineering magazines for the purpose of illustrating a point, it absolutely does not mean that their only source of data are mountaineering magazines or that the mountaineering magazine was a central source of data for the claim they were making.

It's a bit like a murder trial, there will be evidence like the murder weapon, the autopsy on the body, the dna and fingerprint evidence etc which may prove beyond a reasobable doubt that the victim was murdered by the accused, but the prosecution will still introduce other less reliable evidence to support the case, like witness testimony, mobile phone records, video surveilance placing the accused in the vicinity at the time etc. The fact that they use circumstantial evidence in a trial does not mean the conviction would be unsafe, unless that circumstantial evidence is the only evidence or it forms a crucial part of the body of evidence.,

The evidence for AGW is massive, comprehensive, detailed scientific evidence, the evidecnce against the theory of AGW is largely politically motivated attacks on individuals and organisations. The criticism by the 'skeptics' is not constructive criticism on the most part, it is not aimed at advancing the science, but of advancing a political viewpoint that all climate science is untrustworthy, and in this regard, they are identical to creationists
 

sharper

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,027
Looking at all those stories from the london times, they all have something in common. It looks like they're going through the references for the IPPC reports, finding one or two sources that are not peer reviewed or are from non academic sources and then claiming that these sources are the 'only evidence' for these claims.
Which is arguably why the peer review rule exists and should be enforced. There is a natural conflict between presenting the best case possible and the most upto-date information. Previous IPCC reports seem to have err'd too much on the side of caution and ended up out of date by the time they were published. This time they appear to have err'd too much on the other side producing conclusions which are open to attack.

In relation to the OP I don't support "reform" by people uninterested in having the body they're proposing. What you actually mean by "reform" is you want the IPCC to produce conclusions you've already determined and only when they do will you know no further reform is needed.

It reminds me of 2003 when various quarters wanted to invade Iraq and were calling for "reform" of the security council due to its obstructionist nature. You can point to many many flaws in the way the SC operates but you're also not going to get let people with a clear vested interest reform it.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Which is arguably why the peer review rule exists and should be enforced. There is a natural conflict between presenting the best case possible and the most upto-date information. Previous IPCC reports seem to have err'd too much on the side of caution and ended up out of date by the time they were published. This time they appear to have err'd too much on the other side producing conclusions which are open to attack.

In relation to the OP I don't support "reform" by people uninterested in having the body they're proposing. What you actually mean by "reform" is you want the IPCC to produce conclusions you've already determined and only when they do will you know no further reform is needed.

It reminds me of 2003 when various quarters wanted to invade Iraq and were calling for "reform" of the security council due to its obstructionist nature. You can point to many many flaws in the way the SC operates but you're also not going to get let people with a clear vested interest reform it.
It's very similar to the 'reforms' of the EU proposed by people who would clearly like to 'reform' the EU out of existence.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top