June 8, 2010
I’ve been alerted, by an e-mail correspondent, to an amazing paper written by Pennsylvania Law School professor Jason Scott Johnson. It’s an 81-page PDF and I’ve assigned it an easy-to-remember short url:
This paper performs an audit similar, in its straightforward conceptual approach, to the one we conducted. It compares what the IPCC says about a number of topics to what the actual peer-reviewed scientific literature says. Quelle surprise, it finds a number of discrepancies and much cause for concern.
Here’s a quote:
As anyone who has served as an expert witness in American litigation can attest, even though an opposing attorney may not have the expert’s scientific training, a well prepared and highly motivated trial attorney who has learned something about the technical literature can ask very tough questions, questions that force the expert to clarify the basis for his or her opinion, to explain her interpretation of the literature, and to account for any apparently conflicting literature that is not discussed in the expert report. My strategy in this paper is to adopt the approach that would be taken by a non-scientist attorney deposing global warming scientists serving as experts for the position that anthropogenic ghg emissions have caused recent global warming and must be halted if serious and seriously harmful future warming is to be prevented – what I have called above the established climate story. The established story has emerged not only from IPCC AR’s themselves, but from other work intended for general public consumption produced by scientists who are closely affiliated with and leaders in the IPCC process. Hence the cross-examination presented below compares what is said in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. [bold added] (p. 9 of the PDF)
May 23, 2010
“The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer.”
It looks like the UN may take another tack at controlling the behavior of we heinous humans. Their concern is now preservation of biodiversity:
“… report shows that on average one third of Earth’s habitats have been damaged by humans… It also warns that in spite of growing awareness of the dangers, destruction of nature will “still continue on a large scale”. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has previously estimated that species are becoming extinct at a rate 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be without humans.”
Now, I’m no paleobiologist, but if memory serves me, Mother Nature has wiped out massive numbers of species on several occasions. It is another case of considering humans as separate from the natural world. Why are human attempts at preserving species considered natural? I would love to see the giant mammals that once inhabited the US, but it wouldn’t be natural. It seems to me that an extinction of H. sapiens is the only solution!
“The report follows a series of recent studies showing that the world is in the grip of a mass extinction event as pollution, climate change, development and hunting destroys habitats of all types, from rainforests and wetlands to coastal mangroves and open heathland.”
A panel similar to the IPCC seems to be in the offing. The UN is making serious attempts to be a global government at all costs. Speaking of which, I wonder from where the funding will come? These people need to be taken down a notch!
As we all know, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC has – in the past – voiced some fairly emphatic views on the presence of only “peer-reviewed” literature in the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Pachauri is also a well connected man of many hats – including that of member of the “External Advisory Board” of the Chicago Carbon Exchange – the weight of which seems to have imbued him with a very short memory for his very own words.
I’ve taken him to task on this in a recent post on my own blog. Here’s an excerpt:
Pachauri has taken non-peer-reviewed material from his “dustbin” to someone else’s “drain” – with a brief stop at neutral en route.
Let’s retrace his path and watch his mouth – as his feet march right into it:
Nov. 9, 2009:
“Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”
Apr. 20, 2010:
“AR4 cited approximately 18,000 peer-reviewed publications. It also included a limited amount of gray (or non-peer-reviewed) literature“
May 14, 2010:
He said the media and other sections of society had misunderstood the role of such information, labelling it grey literature, “as if it was some form of grey muddied water flowing down the drains”.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Or perhaps more to the point, does Pachauri even possess a hat which permits him to be truthful – or consistent?
Read all about it at: Pachauri defends shoddy shades of gray
May 16, 2010
I’m attending the skeptics’ conference in Chicago as a photographer/blogger. I’ve posted some early, quick shots taken at a well-attended press event held at noon today.
Compared to the sparse media attendance at the previous conference last June, this is encouraging. The BBC’s Roger Harrabin is here, among others.
I bumped into Christopher Monckton in the hallway and he had some very nice things to say about the citizen audit project :-)
The relevant section appears at the bottom of the second page and carries on to the third page. It reads:
A citizens audit of the IPCC study found that 5,587 cited references, nearly a third of all sources, were not peer-reviewed publications, but rather “grey literature,” such as press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, masters and PhD theses, working papers and advocacy literature published by environmental groups. These sources lack authoritative scientific rigor and are, more often than not, intended as propaganda.
Have a great weekend!
h/t to citizen auditor D. Robinson
May 9, 2010
The report I wrote based on our examination of the references cited by the climate bible is now available in a 30-page (500 k) PDF.
There’s also a short web-address if you’re trying to get there quick, or want to share it with a friend but can’t remember the long version. Just type:
(not case sensitive)
into your browser and voila! you are taken right there.
May 9, 2010
Remember how we were told the exaggerated Himalayas melting by 2035 was just a minor error that somehow got by the lead authors?
Well Hans von Storch finds that it’s much more than an innocent oversight.