

Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake - anuleczka
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683

======
teilo
The real question here is: Does anyone still believe that the IPCC is a
legitimate scientific panel? They are a political action committee with an
agenda. Whether or not their agenda is legitimate is not the point.

Good on them, however, for admitting the problem.

~~~
gaius
OK, this wasn't a "mistake". It was citing pop science as peer-reviewed
research because it happened to support their preconceived position. I'd
expect that from Wikipedia, not from self-proclaimed "real" scientists.

~~~
jpwagner
I call that a mistake.

~~~
gaius
A professional scientist doesn't pick up a copy of New Scientist at the
newsagent when he meant to get Nature...

~~~
jpwagner
exactly

------
CWuestefeld
Taking this error, in which the peer-review process was circumvented, together
with last year's revelations of Hadley scientists discussing the wholesale
subversion of peer review, is very troubling.

I'm not sure how to express this to show disgust with the putative
"scientists" while only casting skepticism on their work (rather than outright
rejection). But it would seem that they are so caught up in their agenda that
they believe that the end justifies the means, and are willing to compromise
their work and mislead the rest of the world in order to realize their goals.

But I have to note that impeaching the source doesn't necessarily invalidate
the conclusions. Still, it means that we must subject their claims to
increasing levels of scrutiny.

~~~
chrisb
Note that this claim was not in the "Summary for Policy Makers" nor the
"Overall Synthesis Report", which is what the vast majority of people read
(myself included, I haven't even tried to read the entire report).

Therefore very few people will ever have seen the claim until now.

I'm not trying to excuse the mistake, but its consequences may have been
overstated.

~~~
waterlesscloud
That's simply not the case. The claim got widespread media coverage.

~~~
lutorm
I think his point is that it was not significant to the bottom-line
conclusions of the report.

------
tjic
Hopefully all of those who called anyone skeptical of AGW over the last few
years "climate change denialists" (by extension from "Holocaust denialists")
are now acknowledging that there WERE serious issues with the assertions all
along, and are now apologizing for their rashness and intemperance.

I wouldn't bet on it though.

~~~
gjm11
If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the
high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But
then, anyone claiming _that_ should have been apologizing anyway; everything
has mistakes, near enough.)

If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting
AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of
error or dishonesty ... well, then, I don't see how this makes the slightest
difference to _that_.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific
community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true.

We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's
partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media
sources as if they were scientists doing real research.

I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot of work to
try and prove their views to a world that has every reason to be critical.

~~~
lutorm
While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it _is_ legitimate to
look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most
studies agree on can justifiably be called the "consensus among the scientific
community".

Your last paragraph simply isn't justified. Do you think any action or
conclusion lives up to that standard? In particular, why do you think those
that argue that AGW is _not_ happening should be given more of a benefit of
the doubt?

AGW is the conclusion of applying simple physics to the problem. In my mind,
if you are going to argue that it's _not_ happening, you have much more
justification to do.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening
should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? ... if you are going to argue
that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do._

Because the scientific method dictates that the burden of proof is borne by
the one proposing the theory. The opposite is impractical, because for most
questions it's not possible to prove the open-ended negative.

~~~
gjm11
I think talk of "the theory" is ambiguous, so let's break this down a bit.

(All the claims I'm going to list should really be made in a quantitative
form. They all can be; I'm just too lazy right now to look up the numbers.)

Theory 1: _More CO2 in the atmosphere tends to produce warmer climate._ This
is, on the face of it at least, a consequence of well-established physics. The
burden of proof here is on anyone wishing to deny it, just as it would be for
"if I drop a dachsund from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it will fall
to the ground".

Theory 2: _Human activity over recent decades has increased the amount of CO2
in the atmosphere._ Yup, the burden of proof here would be on those who
advocate this theory. As it happens, there's no shortage of evidence. See,
e.g., <http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html> .

Theory 3: _Human activity such as we've seen over recent decades is likely to
lead to warmer and warmer climates, if CO2 emissions aren't reduced and other
drastic steps aren't taken._ It seems to me that, _given Theory 1 and Theory
2_ , the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to reject Theory 3, because
it's basically a consequence of those two.

(If you strengthen Theory 3 to include the claim that human activity over the
last several decades _has in fact_ led to warmer climates, then I agree that
the burden of proof is on whoever's making that extra claim. It seems to me
that the evidence for that claim is in fact very strong, and with that
evidence in place the rest of Theory 3 becomes even more the default position
in the absence of strong disconfirming evidence.)

------
lutorm
The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are
errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you
look hard enough.

The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that
support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from
what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one:
<http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4>) are in the second category.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of
climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such
broad authority, but to advocate skepticism.

It seems to me like items in the first category need to be held to a higher
standard. Indeed, the scientific method itself tells us that those putting
forward a theory (such as AGW) bear the burden of proof.

~~~
ugh
>Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of
climate change science.

Oh, come on. Really? Sure, most people won't question the IPCC. But most
people also won't question other similar institutions. The real question is
whether scientists feel that the IPCC is their bible. And I don't think they
do.

~~~
yters
I read the FOIA feedback on the IPCC's report and it was full of really
incredulous scientists' comments about the innacuracy and question begging
nature of their report.

To substantiate what I said, check in the documents folder: ipcc-tar-
master.rtf ipcc-tar-master2.rtf

------
chromophore
I notice some people above saying that it could be a mistake. I think it could
be. But it is less likely that it was.

I say that because Pachauri had been saying for a year that the Indian
government was being arrogant by not agreeing to their "findings". And he
rejected research such as this : [http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-
information/MoEF%20Discu...](http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-
information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf) Compiled by people who have
3-4 decades of experience in Himalayan glaciology.

Please do check that review paper. It is not easy to find.

------
kevinholesh
It seems like climate scientists are more occupied with manipulating the data
to suit them rather than reporting the facts.

Sample from some climate emails: "Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received
date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." Source:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477970457455...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html)

~~~
lutorm
Simple selection bias. It "seems" that way because there's no story to write
about people just doing their work.

~~~
ajross
Exactly. Scandal leads. So we've got a war between "We're all going to drown!"
and "AGW is a liberal conspiracy!". The demographic for "Maybe we should look
seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is
practically zero.

~~~
anamax
> The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for
> energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero.

Actually, that demographic is huge. Folks would love cheaper energy.

What they're being offered is more expensive energy and carbon mitigation.

~~~
ajross
Hah. I wish. We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures
through our governments. Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free.
Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on
highways. Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs, etc...
All of these ideas get fought tooth and nail by people who claim to be in the
"center" of the debate. It's all a sad joke.

~~~
anamax
> Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free.

Really? The folks who design cars disagree, so clearly you could make a lot of
money by showing them how, or by producing your own cars and putting those
bozos out of biz.

What? You can't do it yourself? How about you invest your money in folks who
you think can? If you're right....

> Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on
> highways.

And yet, the folks who actually do transit don't manage to provide said
options. Morons.

> Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs

And we do it. We also do steel recycling.

> We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through
> our governments.

You don't need govt's permission or a mandate to be more efficient.

------
roundsquare
I guess this is as good a time as any to ask if people have good sources on
both sides of the debate. I can search around but have trouble discerning
credible sources from non-credible ones. Any links/book recommendations would
be appreciated.

