
New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph - bgurupra
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
======
yannis
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.

~~~
timr
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.

~~~
hga
" _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.

~~~
timr
_"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.)

~~~
hga
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).

------
patio11
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.

~~~
cwan
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.

~~~
Alex3917
"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...](http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-
markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php)

~~~
cwan
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...](http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml)
\- 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...](http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-cap-and-trade-model-
loses-billions-to-fraud/19274092) and
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-
bi...](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bid-to-gag-
emissions-trading-scheme-policy-attack/story-e6frg8gf-1225793355139)

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

~~~
hga
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).

------
iuguy
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.

~~~
lukifer
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.

~~~
iterationx
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"

~~~
lukifer
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.

