New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph | Hacker News Reader

New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph

telegraph.co.uk

27 pointsbgurupra24 comments

The whole area of Scientific Publishing is in need of a major shift by disrupting current practices - and I am hoping when it does is a YC start-up.

While studying for my PhD, a pattern arose - any papers written before 1975 provided adequate details to reproduce results down to code or references to Technical Reports that provided this information.

What I would like to see.

(01) Any research that is publicly funded to make all publications, data and code freely available. (Not behind paywalls)

(02) All papers to have more than one version, version 2 being a good explanation of what the research is all about, results etc - without the jargon, in order for readers to better understand the subject and delve further into it, should they wish.

(03) A comments section

It is as if suddenly Scientists are afraid of standing up and support their theses. A more open policy on publishing - in detail - on the web can help them do so, they can crowd-source opinions and suggestions - really I don't see a downside to this.

Out of curiosity I spent over a week to find out the roots of experiments that determine the effect of CO2 on temperature, if the models took account of diffusion, which layer of the atmosphere is affected the greatest etc... So far I have not been very successful.

The criticisms in this article have little to do with peer review. In fact, the whole problem is that the IPCC panels appear to have incorporated non-peer-reviewed papers in a few locations in the reports about impacts and mitigation. Peer review is not falling apart, despite breathless claims to the contrary.

"In fact, the whole problem is that the IPCC panels appear to have incorporated non-peer-reviewed papers in a few locations in the reports about impacts and mitigation."

There's no "appear" about it, they've been forced to admit it.

Saying they used garbage "in a few locations" severely understates the damage, e.g. they shouted from the rooftops that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 (which turned out to be a terrible mistake for them, since India had no choice but to take a rigorous look at their claims ... which the Indian head of the IPCC then claimed was "voodoo science", something he later had to apologize for).

Peer review "is not falling apart", but it's taken a severe body blow. No longer will anyone be taken seriously who stakes a claim on the basis that it was peer reviewed.

All the bits you mention weren't peer-reviewed. How is that a problem with peer review?

(I think peer review has issues, I just don't understand what you're trying to say)

Didn't the IPCC imply that their claims were from the peer reviewed literature?

However, my comment was indeed agreeing with you that peer review "is not falling apart", and implicitly I was saying that had little to do with this part of the IPCC's shenanigans. My comment was more general, in that the IPCC and others used "peer-review" as a bludgeon against their opponents, all while they were gaming the peer-review system to exclude them.

As Phil Jones wrote to Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"Peer review "is not falling apart", but it's taken a severe body blow. No longer will anyone be taken seriously who stakes a claim on the basis that it was peer reviewed."

No, you're exaggerating.

There's a difference between peer-reviewed scientific publication, and what the IPCC does, which is to aggregate and summarize the findings of peer-reviewed scientific publications. And though the panels assembling the IPCC report let through some questionable material, these errors of inclusion neither invalidate the hundreds of other lines of evidence in the reports, nor do they invalidate the system of peer review.

(Also, not incidentally: claiming that the glaciers are melting more slowly than argued in the IPCC report doesn't mean that they're not melting.)

What I'm referring to when I say "stakes a claim" is a) the sort of thing the IPCC does, science policy, and b) the documented abuse of the peer-review system by ClimateGate conspirators.

And that's quite bad, since the point of a fair amount of science is to have real effects on the world at large; both these abuses is going to make that much harder. They could also have bad effects on science funding ... why should people trust such a system?

Potentially worse is that this general group of people has been crying wolf since the '60s (no later than the publication of Silent Spring in 1962). One day we might truly face an existential threat and our ability to deal with it will almost certainly be crippled since we've been hearing a "we're all going to die!!!" message for half a century, and we're still here and seem to be doing quite well (e.g. life expectancy is going up).

It is curious that for a community which theoretically worships peer review that increased scrutiny into their methods starts to come up with all sorts of low-hanging fruit like this.

I kind of feel sorry for them: humans make mistakes, and retrospective digging into any human endeavor is going to uncover them. That wouldn't be a problem if their marketing hadn't been "This is the infallible Voice of Science: the only people capable of understanding it all have already signed off on it. Implement our recommendations or be cast into a fiery pit." Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain.

I have half a mind to take a week or two this summer, grab one of the old papers in the field and the associated data sets, and just try to reproduce the math. The reason I have only half a mind is that I know I'm likely to discover that the process is not covered in sufficient detail publicly to reproduce it.

It's difficult to know what to make of this. There seems to also be such a massive disconnect between other media voices over what the impact of revelations like this are to the overall global warming / climate change thesis.

There has been a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity/skepticism by journalists on the issue and if anything, much of the media seems outright hostile to the possibility that the overriding thesis could possibly be wrong.

This wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life by people who by and large are insulated from proving their work has intrinsic value/subject to markets/or even the costs if they're wrong. It is to the Telegraph's credit that they've stayed on this story but I'm not sure if I'm more surprised or worried that these revelations have not caused a greater level of introspection or reached a wider mainstream audience.

That said, it would seem at least the news is trickling out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm. It does make me wonder even more about the news industry before internet use became pervasive.

"his wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life"

The whole point of implementing cap-and-trade is so that we don't have to significantly change our way of life:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/d...

I will believe that graph is likely to contain something with any connection whatsoever to reality when shown an accurate representation of the economic situation in 2010 produced in 1970.

Here is an accurate economic representation of 2010 produced in 1956:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Hubbert_U...

The Obama administration internally believes that cap and trade will cost the average family $1761 USD/year: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/ent... - and that's their estimate that's almost certain to be light ignoring the impact on industry itself.

Now what happens in actual implementation? Read http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-cap-and-trade-m... and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bi...

Well, cap-and-trade will be partly offset by peak oil causing less of a shock.

Which assumes that, this time, the Peak Oil crowd is right.

I see no reason to give them any more credence than the last N times they've claimed this (my personal knowledge goes back only to the"Limits to Growth" '70s, but you can go back many more decades).

Nicholas Stern (of the stern review) is asking for 2% global gdp (!) based on findings of the IPCC report

Unfortunately, I think the peer review idea, which is great, is starting to break down. The latest news item that makes me sketical is the Lancet/autism piece, and then this article.

When did the common culture in the science start that "authorities" on a subject could release studies and criticism was not allowed?

I'll fully admit that I'm not qualified to judge the merits of most of these things, but in the past, scientists were excited to explain their findings to skeptics...now, they seem to want to change the subject away from findiings. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Well ... while The Lancet is in theory peer reviewed, it has had a very poor reputation for a long time. Anyone who takes what it publishes without a large grain of salt deserves what they get.

(Unfortunately in this case, by trashing herd immunity they've killed quite a few children with e.g. measles (yes, you can name names with a little Google fu).)

Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain.

Hey hey now, Mr. Wizard never hid himself or any of his demonstrations behind a curtain, he always explained what was being shown, no matter how awesome it was. He also talked his helpers through forming hypothesizes and testing them. Everything was always reproduceable, and doing it at home was often encouraged (with adult supervision, of course). Let's not sully the Mr. Wizard name by implicating him with this climate data stuff -- we'd be better off if there were still shows on like his.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Wizard

(and yes, I know you're making a reference to The Wizard of Oz; should've said "The Wizard" instead of "Mr. Wizard" :) ).

The minute I saw people calling those who dispute the accuracy of findings, "Climate Change Deniers" I realised that this was less about science and more about politics.

The science should stand up on it's own two feet, it shouldn't need 'consensus' from closed groups. Release the data and the methods and we'll find out what's really happening by putting the hypothesis under scrutiny.

On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label.

On the other hand, what else do you call those who are so convinced of a One World Government conspiracy that they refuse to accept the very notion that humanity can cause long-term damage to the ecosystem? They're out there, I've met quite a few.

One can reject AGW and accept that humanity is causing long term damage to the ecosystem. Your comment reads like a noble lie,

"well maybe the science is a little shaky, but we need to implement these policies {driving less, energy reduction, limits on emissions, etc} so let's just get on with it"

I do think some "green" policies (alternative fuel sources, such as solar and nuclear) make a lot of sense whether or not AGW is true, and in those instances we should act before the science is in. But I didn't mean to imply such an either/or, "you're with us or you're against us" position.

My point is that such extremes of position do exist, and that there are people who genuinely believe that since our habitat has been (mostly) ideal for thousands of years, that it will continue to be so forever, and that it is impossible for humanity to alter that, despite centuries of heavy industry. And those folks have their head in the sand w/r/t science and reality, every bit as much as those for whom AGW is unquestionable dogma.

It is clearly about the politics. If you take the time to read the article and examine the 'inaccuracies', you'll see that they have nothing to do with the science but are misstatements about things like alternative forms of energy.

The data HAVE been released, HAVE been scrutinized, and the overwhelming consensus among people who have spent their lives studying the climate is that the Earth's climate is warming and that excessive CO2 production is the likely cause.

The fact that some people try to advance their cause (alternative energy) or overestimate the effects, does not change the scientifically arrived at conclusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com