There is currently something of a dispute between Encyclopedia Britannica and science journal Nature on the accuracy of a study Nature conducted some time ago comparing information in the Encyclopedia with the information available on the internet at Wikipedia. The Nature study concluded that Wikipedia was as reliable and readable a source of information as the Britannica.
Readers of this blog may remember that I did a post on the issue quoting an article in The Australia in December, click here.
Now, according to The Register, it seems you can’t trust Nature or Wikipedia, click here. Encyclopedia Britannica is claiming that the study was designed to favour Wikipedia and that information provided from the Britannica as part of the study was incomplete and as a consequence not assessed accurately.
The article concludes with the following comments:
“So why did Nature risk its reputation in such a way?
Perhaps the clue lies not in the news report, but in the evangelism of the accompanying editorial. Nature’s news and features editor Jim Giles, who was responsible for the Wikipedia story, has a fondness for “collective intelligence”, one critical website suggets.
“As long as enough scientists with relevant knowledge played the market, the price should reflect the latest developments in climate research,” Giles concluded of one market experiment in 2002.
The idea became notorious two years ago when DARPA, under retired Admiral Poindexter, invested in an online terror casino to predict world events such as assassinations. The public didn’t quite share the sunny view of this utopian experiment, and Poindexter was invited to resign.
What do these seemingly disparate projects have in common? The idea that you can vote for the truth.
We thought it pretty odd, back in December, to discover a popular science journal recommending readers support less accurate information. It’s even stranger to find this institution apparently violating fundamental principles of empiricism.
But these are strange times – and high summer for supporters of junk science.”
But it seems you can’t trust science journal Nature either? And Nature is presumably not about “collective intelligence” or “voting for the truth”.
Ian Castles has commented:
“This reminds me of a letter to The Economist from ecologist Jeff Harvey, author of Nature’s review on Lomborg in 2001. Harvey quoted in all seriousness a Danish peak science figure who’d said that, to scientists, Nature, Science and Scientific American held the same place as the Bible to Christians and the Koran to Moslems.
Barrie Pittock gives references to the hostile reviews of Lomborg’s book in Nature and Science in the Supplementary Notes and References to Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat. The Science review, by Michael Grubb, was fair comment, though I don’t agree with it. The review in Nature, by Harvey was outrageous – he bracketed Lomborg with holocaust deniers.”
This reminds me of a telephone conversation I had with a farmer some time ago. He always reads my columns in The Land newspaper and was phoning to provide me with some additional information about koalas and their feeding habits. I suggested he should read and contribute to this blog. He replied that he didn’t like the internet because he didn’t trust it as a source of information, he went on to tell me that he did trust what he read in The Land.
—————————
Update 9pm
Here’s a link to the actual response from Britannica, http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf.
Thanks to Benny Peiser for the link.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Having access to both I can say one thing – Wikipedia covers lots more issues in depth than Britanica, many more contemporary technology issues, and is easier to use. Still digesting the implications of above – sounds yukky.
Can’t agree with much of the information in the following piece published today at OLO, but this seems like a good thread to file it at: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4290 . It almost elevated blogging to the value of wiki and the Britiannica!
The problem with Wikki is that you can have someone like Tim Lambert editing all sorts of stuff or a 15 year old Berkeley communist doing the same.
How can you trust Wikki when all sorts of people are “editing”.
That’s like putting a hunk of unguarded red meat in front of my beagle and hoping he shows discipline.
The counter counter-attack has started.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/03/wikipedia_vs_britannica_contin.php#comments
Who cares – EB doesn’t have enough relevant items I’m afraid.
I care, Phil. I’m interested in seeing the claims in the Nature article and the arguments in the accompanying editorial put to proper scrutiny, by someone with more respect for scholarship than the Stoat. I’m not impressed with the Stoat’s malicious delight in the fact that Britannica had been provoked into responding: why shouldn’t they, when his earlier piece acknowledged an objective of putting EB out of business? EB’s fate will of course be determined by the extent to which it meets the needs of users (including for ease of use), but those are separate issues. Nature still presents itself as a scientific journal & should observe the highest scientific standards. I’m not saying that it’s been shown to have failed on this one yet, but its track record in recent years has been pretty unimpressive.
Well Ian (a) it was a comment to his blog not himself responding (b)I suggest you’re not impartial here (c) he is a climate scientist of some ability with the British Antarctic Survey so don’t put the boot in too hard on scholarship. As usual Ian – an appeal to authority – another Lords review perhaps?
Having said that – Nature needs to get it right – but this is commerce versus freeware so it is difficult. As I said I use both. I find Wiki more useful but I check the references provided. And dissent is part of the Wiki game too. Nature needs to sort it.
How the scientific elites might tremble if they find they are not controlling the flow of information and must be accountable in the commons of knowledge
Phil, On (a) The comment, dated 23 March 2006, begins ‘A while ago, Nature did a study comparing wikipedia to Britannica (you can read my take on it here – oh, just look at the title I used’. In my innocence, I thought ‘I’ was William Connelley. Why do you think it is a comment to his blog?
On (b), I agree that I’m not impartial here, and I wouldn’t regard myself as eligible to participate in the proper scrutiny that I believe to be called for.
On (c), I don’t know whether or not he’s a climate scientist of some ability, but would be interested in any evidence you have. What I do know is that he knows virtually nothing about emissions scenarios. Until I told him, he hadn’t even realised that there’d been hundreds of them other than those produced by the IPCC modellers.
I don’t understand your point about ‘another appeal to authority.’ Are you asking me to accept that William Connelley’s views on the economic and statistical issues relating to emissions scenarios have authority because his day job is as a scientist with the British Antarctic Authority?
I’m glad you agree that ‘Nature needs to get it right’ and that ‘Nature needs to sort it’/ That’s my point.
Ian – sorry poorly expressed myself – I was trying to say that he is merely making public blog comment not formally responding in the debate.
But anyway if you seriously read William’s comments he appears to have made a case that EB are miffed but not necessarily right. One might expect some umbrage in this situation. They will have to find some other way of settling things besides William’s commentary !! 🙂
(William is also not impartial as being voted an “admin” on Wiki and believing passionately in the project.)
If you have followed William’s blog for some time I think you might see grasp of modelling mathematics and climate issues is non-trivial. His blog motto i about taking “science by the throat” (sort like Jen’s taking of the environment movement). A fair bit of stick gets handed out for both sides from time to time.
But Ian – it is blogging – not the Australian Public Service nor the House of Lords. Blogging can be a non-gentlemanly contact sport from time to time. You may expect some biased opinion, some erosion of decorum, shooting from the hip and emotion combined with dry facts that differentiates us as humans from computers.
Nature has a response
http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf
No Phil, this thread is not about blogging, it’s not about William Connelley, and its not about the relative accuracy (much less the relative merits) of Wiki and EB. There was a time when Nature would have been a trusted adjudicator of such an inquiry, but not any more.
Here’s an extract from a comment on Nature’s response by David Brewer that you may not have seen. It’s one of a number of telling comments on climateaudit, the blogsite that William Connelley and his RC mates don’t want you to read:
‘And what sort of an approach is this from a supposedly scientific journal?:
1.
These are shallow FUD objections that really do not stand up to a bit of intelligent thought.
Re 1: this approach does introduce judgement on the part of the researcher, but there is no experiment that does not rely on some human judgement at some point. The rationale is clearly correct and it is easy to imagine a fair way to trim a longer article. Evidence of an oppurtunity for intellectual fraud is not evidence of intellectual fraud. Also, in the Nature response I provided a link for the makes it clear that not every reviewer comment was used in the study. You would have to be an idiot to trim an article and then count a reviewer comment that the article was incomplete.
Re 2: I think it is a *much* more reasonable approach to simply choose your experts and then accept what they have said. It would be indefensible for the researchers to be the arbitrators of the truth on all subjects. Besides, random errors on the part of reviewers will not introduce any bias. This is elementary.
Cleary this criticism is agenda driven.
Coby,
You can tell from my post of last December that I am a fan of wikipedia. But I am absolutely horrified to read what Nature has done.
And it is not OK just to accept the critique of an expert if they have clearly got something wrong.
Reading the Stoat and other blogs on this .. it is starting to remind me of the greenpeace rammed japanese whaling boat saga in which many readers of this blog took the side of greenpeace even though they had obviously set out to ram the japanese .. yet they claimed they were innocent by-standers.
Phil, This IS a blog, so I’ll admit to having been a bit unreasonable in asking you for evidence of William Connelley’s abilities and then replying that this wasn’t about him!
OK so William started the counter counter-attack, and you said ‘who cares’ because ‘EB doesn’t have enough relevant items.’ Your comment raises the obvious question of ‘relevance to what?’ – another interesting question in its own right. I’d be interested in some empirical evidence on the relative comprehensiveness, timeliness etc. of EB and Wiki in various subject matter areas, but I repeat that this discussion is not about encyclopedias – it’s about Nature.
William may reveal a non-trivial grasp of modelling mathematics and climate issues on his blog. He also reveals, in my view, an arrogant attitude to others who have a non-trivial grasp of one or both of these matters – or of other relevant matters such as the capacity to assess evidence.
If I didn’t believe that blogs serve a useful purpose, I wouldn’t be taking part in this discussion. But that doesn’t excuse the arrogant attitudes exhibited in (for example) the patronising and ill-informed comments on the Lords Report that have been made on the RC and Stoat blogs.
Jennifer,
I got the impression that most readers took the side of the Japanese, not the other way around. How anyone can comment so strongly when they weren’t actually there is all a bit strange.
Ian – welcome to the gutter. I didn’t say this thread was about blogging – but I’m surprised you haven’t started name dropping already or called for a Senate inquiry.
You’ve immediately taken sides – – you’ve called the match – I haven’t. Connolley who is a major Wiki contributor has a point of view – I’ve tabled it. And if you think William is arrogant – well mate – take a poll on yourself !
Nature has totally rebuked the EB attack. So they’ve dug in.
Interesting though that Climate Audit and William too would even have a view eh? Possibly to do with perceived control of the information flow on Wiki and defense of turf/beliefs ?? EB has vested economic interests. Wiki supporters would be passionate and numerous. Some of us may be establishmentarian in view.
Ian I’m unimpressed with your take, running an agenda on this and turning into an attack thread. But as I’ve said blogging can be a contact sport so I can’t complain.
P.S. Not even gonna swing at the whaling issue (but nevertheless disagree with Jen’s viewpoint) – nuff said.
Hi Jennifer,
You say: “And it is not OK just to accept the critique of an expert if they have clearly got something wrong.”
I know I may have an uphill battle here in defending something that on its face looks pretty undeniable. But context is everything and you did not address the clearly stated reasons why, in this case, it is in fact *indefinsible* for the researchers to *reject* an expert opinion. That clearly introduces the probability unwanted bias in the study. Who says the expert is wrong anyway, much less “clearly” so?
So on the one hand, you have an inexusable introduction of researcher interference in the results and on the other, you have *random* source of error that will not introduce any bias in the results. This attack on the study is a red herring.
Really, this would be like a pollster thinking, “Hmm. This person obviously did not understand what I meant, I’ll put that down as a ‘yes’.” Even if they are sincere, and even if they are right, you CAN NOT do that!
If you still disagree with me, I would like to hear a substantive reason that acknowledges the points I raised.
Cheers,
Phil, We obviously have different perceptions of what this thread is about.
I agree that I shouldn’t have argued that you said that it was ‘about’ blogging, but beyond that I simply don’t get your argument at all.
You say that you haven’t taken sides (and that I have), but in the next breath you declare that ‘Nature has totally rebuked the EB attack’ – and that ‘theyve’ dug in (I assume this means EB?).
Well, I haven’t taken sides. I haven’t declared the match.
EB assembled a team of 30 staff members and outside scholars who spent six weeks going over the alleged errors that Nature detected. If you don’t mind, I’ll wait until their 7000-word commentary and Nature’s response have been the subject of some expert assessments before reaching a view on the validity of the results of Nature’s survey purporting to show that Wiki was almost as reliable as EB.
It’s Nature’s survey which is at issue, not the relative merits of two encyclopedias. I’d like to think that there is a place for both. But if people end up believing on the basis of Nature’s survey that EB don’t have any significant advantage even on the criterion of reliability, that’s probably the end of EB.
You refer to EB’s attack. Why? It’s Nature that’s attacked EB, by publishing results that undermine EB’s core merit of superior accuracy and reliability. William scores it as a victory that EB have been provoked into replying, and you accuse them of digging in.
Does EB have no right of reply in our brave new world? I’m reminded of the estimable conduct of Scientific American in publishing four vitriolic attacks on Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, and then threating to sue him when he attempted to publish an intelligible response on his own website.
I don’t know whether you’ve actually examined EB’s review of the Nature study before deciding that Nature has ‘totally rebuked’ it, or whether you’re prepared to dismiss anything EB says on the grounds that they have vested economic interests.’ (And Nature doesn’t?)
It wasn’t a Climate Audit view I presented, by the way. It was the view of a correspondent. on the CA site. Coby argued that David Brewer’s objections were ‘shallow FUD [?] objections that really do not stand up to a bit of intelligent thought’. I don’t agree.
Digging in simply means standing their ground. That’s fair enough. No problem with them defendng their turf either. Strangely I thought Microsoft Encarta was the segment leader. Wonder what they think?
I also commented the Nature was kicking back hard too. And were equally insistent they were right.
Incidentally all I got out of the original comparison myself was that Wikipedia wasn’t that bad – despite the slagging it tends to get. I still use both for a variety of purposes.
Phil, OK you have no problems with EB digging in and defending their turf. Fair enough. But the context in which you’ve used these phrases implies that they
Ian Castles is highly selective with his targets for rigorous analysis. If only he’d apply those powers of critical examination and standards for accurate statements to his own unsubstantiated and erroneous argument that Australia’s aid (ODA/GNP) exceeds the international average.
Jennifer’s farmer “didn’t like the internet because he didn’t trust it as a source of information, he went on to tell me that he did trust what he read in The Land”.
If it’s in print, esp. black ink on white (bleached) paper, then it may as well be carved in stone. I bet a lot of masons share this outlook. Reminds me of a brilliant Pratchet book “The Truth” – recommended reading (some of you might even develop a sense of humour in the process).
Beware the internet, you might be confronted by opinions that are incompatible with your own, and listening to them might expand yr range of tolerance or even sew some seeds of doubt about your own fervently held views.
btw, seems joe doesn’t know what wiki stands for.
I’ll stay on-topic, thanks Thinksy.
In Nature’s Editorial of 15 Dec. 2005 (at least, it’s headed ‘Editorial’, and it doesn’t seem to say ‘advertisement’ anywhere), ‘RESEARCHERS’ (EMPHASIS added) are urged to ‘read Wikipedia cautiously and amend it enthusiastically.’
Reading on, we are told that ‘In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, RESEARCHERS have had to do battle with SCEPTICS pushing an editorial line that is out of kilter with MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC THINKING’ (EMPHASES added).
Nature claimed that ‘The idea is not to seek a replacement for established sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica’, but William Connelley helpfully explained on his blog that the idea was to do just that.
And it’s me who’s ‘running an agenda’?
alright, but keep your standards consistent, eh?
Yep.
I received an email from someone called Mr W Gates who said that our debate is irrelevant – it’s what happens to Encarta that’s important.
Don’t worry Ian, Connolley is such an international influence I’m sure MI6 are watching him.
Just dropping a few names as I’m wont to do, I’ve no reason to believe that Connelley would be a subject of greater interest to MI6 than other British scientists with international influence such as Sir David King, Sir John Houghton, Sir Crispin Tickell and Lord Robert May.
Yes but can these toffs give your GCM an oil change – who are you gonna call? Left wingers make better scientists – it’s well proven.
OK – now we’ve got down to it :-
EB = right wing, good, establishment, making money
Wiki = left wing, greenie, subversive, re-engineer the planet and society
EB = righteous and good, but jeez I hate this interface
Wiki = Lord pls forgive for keeping on looking, but golly here’s another interesting little thing, did you know .. ..
Phil,
I know you like to fall back on the left-right thing a lot. But I don’t actually think it is relevant here. Furthermore, I think your ‘right wing’ category is a mix of conservatives, libertarians, optomists, empiricists, contrarians and those who simply don’t like ‘group think’. AGW often smacks of very dumb group think.
Phil, I’ve tried to save time by letting your ideological jibes pass through to the keeper, but your association of EB with ‘making money’ (unlike poor Mr W Gates) reminded me to ask you what evidence you had for your claim the other day that IPCC experts give their time
No smiles eh? Sour lot. Anyway .. ..
moving right along – well Ian – the people I know seem to always be cribbing time after hours to do the chapter reviews and writing material, muttering thankless task. Of course Ian I only associate with grunts and not the senior officer class, let alone the Lords. But then again Ian you move in very lofty circles.
Yes some may be paid their salaries while at meetings but won’t necessarily get their careers anywhere. Could be writing papers or chasing scarce research dollars.
And where does it get you – to be abused as a conspirator wanting to destroy western civilisation.
I think we should subby the job out to you.
Sounds like J D Bernal wants to burn off some biospheric CO2.
“AGW often smacks of very dumb group think” – how so – haven’t seen any holes in the climate science yet? And haven’t seen any of the contrarian sites ripping down stuff that’s out of date or wrong? And we’ve seen Rossby waves of global proportions containing contrarian arguments ping-ponging between blogs regardless of content.
As a matter of fact I think the BoM met data beatup in recent days is a classic example of dumb group think ! (subject of your post).
P.S. Good marks for bait 🙂
“AGW often smacks of very dumb group think”.
Pot calling the kettle black, coming from someone who regularly responds to comments without first reading and comprehending properly, who posts issues and spurious claims without thinking them through rigorously (eg ‘oooh I think I may have meant public choice theory, but I don’t really know what that means so perhaps someone can write about it for me, and I can’t really defend my argument so I’ll just fudge it, ok? cos I must rush to get my blonde highlights touched up’) and who relies on commenters to do the research, the thinking and the fencing.
Well-researched and well-thought through arguments are in the minority here. When I first started commenting on this blog I would carefully research my comments, choose my words carefully so I didn’t misrepresent that facts and I’d post references to back up what I was saying but I’d get accused of being hysterical or irrational! I know the real reason for those accusations – the screaming attacks of people who have been debated back in between a rock and a hard place. When I stopped writing such carefully considered and researched posts, I stopped getting those accusations. Many of your supporters Jennifer play a win/lose game and like to play games of bluff. IMHO your comments often set a poor example (by being poorly thought through and poorly justified) and miss an opportunity to elevate the standard of the exchange.
In the fortnight beginning on Christmas Eve 2002, I was grateful for the voluntary help of a number of technical people at the ABS (not the senior officer class, Phil) in preparing the graphics that I circulated at the discussions on the IPCC scenarios at the Expert Meeting in Amsterdam. Despite promises made by the IPCC Secretariat at the time that the Panel’s invitation was issued, the SRES authors provided nothing in writing either before or during the meeting.
Your generalisation that all IPCC experts give their time freely and out of hours is absurd. The Panel’s scenarios were produced over several years by highly-paid researchers at well-funded institutes in the US, Netherlands, Austria and Japan. There are many institutions in Australia and other countries that would have been glad to assist the IPCC, if they had been given the opportunity.
Of course I realise that the work of IPCC lead authors and reviewers often devolves upon people who have more than enough to do already. That happens also to be true of the members of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords, as is evident from their Declaration of Interests lists appended to the Report.
I don’t know any of the members of the Committee personally, but I have the highest admiration for their approach to their task and their Report. The fact that it gained the support of members of all parties (and of no party) in itself shows that your attempt to portray climate change as a left/right issue is misguided.
One of your many sarcasms had it that I might call a Senate inquiry: has a Committee of the Australian Senate EVER produced a unanimous report which challenged key policy positions of the government of the day?
Thinksi,
Public Choice Theory is very applicable – just because I didn’t spend the time explaining the fine detail to you – because I assumed you were trolling – well I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it. There is a blog post on the way, fingers crossed – and not from me – because I like to share around the issues.
When you first started commenting at this site your obsession was with the IPA – I acknowledged we have been able to move beyond that – many thanks.
You’re a really serious guy Ian.
Thanks for the little irrelevant morsel in para #1.
Scenarios yes – but do you know the size and scope of the review functions. There’s more than just scenarios.
Gee I didn’t think you’d really call a senate inquiry. Have you thought about a Royal Commission though. No it’s a joke – don’t swing.
I’m starting to seriously understand why your views aren’t getting a hearing.
I’m not inferring ALL people are not remunerated by being paid their usual salaries while working for the IPCC but I have heard a number of personal variants of the tone of this anecdote from associates involved.
from RC
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=258
[Response: Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones’ time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it’s work that has to be done. It’s grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved. The only thing that might seem like a “perk” to those outside the process would be the international travel (about four trips per report), but these trips are anything but fun. Most of us have more opportunities than we need for international travel, research conferences like the Ascona one on Neoproterozoic climate are much more fun than IPCC, and anyway given all the necessary travel, most of us would rather have more time to spend at home with our families. When I went to New Zealand with IPCC, I spent all my time locked up in the hotel writing reports and having discussions with our chapter authors, then had to head right back to cover my teaching (and to make matters worse got stuck overnight in Los Angeles because of a Chicago snowstorm, missing a fantastic performance of Carmen by the Lyric Opera, for which I had subscription tickets). IPCC is important work, but it’s not something one would wish on one’s best friends. I’m very happy you liked the Darwin article, though. –raypierre]
You can always spot a latent lefty when they start to apply philosphy to simple commercial transactions. You know they are full blown when they toss in the ‘greedy developer’ epithets (where do you live thinksi, in an ethical house built by a nature loving philanthropist?)
cheers for the jerk-off reaction rog, but where above did I or anyone say ‘greedy developer’? A prime eg of the stereotypical extreme right winger inability to read for comprehension -> being on your side clearly involves some kind of hallucinatory gene that disrupts the process of eyes reading words and brain processing the meaning.
btw, you can spot a liberal far rightie when they brainlessly categorise issues as ‘philosophical’ simply because they fall outside of their ‘I’m privileged and markets = opportunities for me to make money and I don’t give a stuff about other people’ narrow mindset.
Phil,
Your long quote from Raypierre is totally irrelevant to the point at issue (unless you’ve interpreted his statement that ‘there is no remuneration involved’ as meaning that he is obliged to take leave without pay when he attends IPCC meetings). He has my total sympathy for the IPCC’s drain on his time. But I didn’t mention ‘perks’, Phil, nor did I suggest that IPCC work is ‘fun’. I think that it would be much better if all of the Raypierres on our planet could devote themselves to the research that they’d prefer to be doing. But some people think that that would be ‘anarchy’, and that there is a need to control the process through a panel of 200-odd governments, backed by the world’s scientific establishment. In my view, the main effect of this is to entrench the status quo and to marginalise dissenting voices.
You say, ‘Scenarios yes – but do you know the size and scope of the review functions. There’s more than just scenarios.’ Yes, Phil, I know about that. The IPCC told the world about it in their press statement issued in Milan in December 2003, where 10000 of the scientific and political establishment had gathered to review progress in implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The sole purpose of the statement was to discredit Castles and Henderson, but here’s what they said along the way:
‘The global community needs to know that rigorous preparations have been undertaken for structuring the AR4. Two intensive scoping meetings were held in April at Marrakesh and in September in Potsdam respectively to prepare the intellectual underpinnings of various components of the AR4. Over 130 experts participated in the first scoping meeting for three full days and over 150 participants in the second meeting for four days. Collectively, this represented over a thousand person days of teamwork, to which must be added the extremely useful inputs provided by governments and other organisations, involved in this exercise.’
You know perfectly well that those thousand days of teamwork were not donated by volunteers but were paid for by the governments and research institutions that employ the IPCC experts. It’s not to the point that many of the scientists would have preferred to stay at home: my own view is that that only makes matters worse, but I respect the fact that Raypierre (and presumably many others) believe that ‘it’s work that has to be done.’
Why do you suppose that my views aren’t getting a hearing Phil? Did you read the letter I received from William Nordhaus saying that it was clear to him that my intervention in the issue of measurement of output in the context of global economic modelling and global warming ‘will be seen as playing a pivotal role in changing the way modeling is done in this area’? Do you know something that he doesn’t? The SRES was the product of a writing team of 89 authors and 142 expert reviewers. They explained in their response to the Castles & Henderson critique that they were obliged to use MERs to measure output because that was what was done in 99% of the literature (note how the IPCC procedure entrenches the status quo). Now the IPCC’s own chosen keynote speaker at their Expert Meeting on Emissions Scenarios has said, in effect, that the literature was wrong and that the IPCC was absolutely wrong in claiming in its press statement that this issue was just like Celsius and Fahrenheit.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for an apology from the IPCC, but Nordhaus said that he’s ‘cautiously confident that, over time, models will [move] definitely away from MER accounts.’ So in some circles at least my views have apparently been heard, and that’s good enough for me.
Thanks for posting that link to the RC posting on climate intensity, btw. I’ve sent a comment to RC and am awaiting developments.
Ian Castles
Ian I admire your intellect and tenacity. But perhaps you might consider the delivery.
In terms of “In my view, the main effect of this is to entrench the status quo and to marginalise dissenting voices. ” – I could print another cut – will find it if I can – whereby an IPCC participant says that in his opinion the process is a free of pressure and influence (well at working group level) as you could get. Clearly one’s mileage does vary as you’ve pointed out.
Surely IPCC’s role to review the state of the science not to totally and absoluteley define and control what needs to be done next. Although uncovering something on the critical path or a major area of uncertainty would provide some useful directional clues.
Thanks Phil. One does indeed get different stories from different people, but even if all participants in all working groups agreed that the process was completely free of pressure, it seems to me that you still don’t have a good process – the only experts you have are those that the IPCC selected from persons nominated by governments.
I thought I’d been over all this on a previous thread. Richard Tol is a past coordinating lead author and lead author on several previous IPCC reports, but he couldn’t be nominated for AR4 because ‘only people with close connections to the Green Party [of Germany] have been nominated [to IPCC Working Groups II and III].’
It’s bad enough that experts who’d like to be selected for IPCC writing teams must be careful about the views that they express in order to encourage the IPCC hierarchy to believe that theyre ‘safe’ selections, but it’s worse when, as in some countries, persons hoping for nomination have to associate with a particular political party to get their names on the slate of national nominees.
Then there’s the IPCC’s apparent determination to exclude experts in economic statistics from the relevant writing teams. When I put to Chairman Pachauri in July 2002 (at our meeting in Canberra) that national accountants be involved in AR4, everyone present agreed that that was a good idea. Some months later I wrote to Dr. Pachauri again, mentioning by name the heads of three national statistical offices whom I knew would be glad to assist the IPCC.
Despite my best efforts, no national accounts expert has participated in any IPCC Expert Meeting since January 2003, and none was selected for any of the writing teams. Do you have any thoughts about the possible reasons for this?
I could go on. Some days after the Amsterdam meeting, David Henderson sent Dr. Pachauri a suggestion ‘as to the agenda, venue and attendance for a meeting that could be held with the aim of reviewing the kinds of projections of economic change that enter into the scenarios work of the IPCC.’
Six possible speakers were mentioned by name, with a careful specification of topics that David envisaged each would cover. The proposed speakers were Nicholas Crafts, Shankar Acharya, Paul David, Angus Maddison, William Nordhaus and yours truly. I agreed reluctantly to allow my name to go forward in this list only because I could see the need to avoid raising the protocol issues and possible embarrassment that would have arisen if a serving official statistician were named instead.
Of the six speakers named in David
Ian – It appeares to me that you have now been categorised. The IPCC have got themselves into a “defence of the realm” position. You have probably been identified by IPCC’s “MI6” to be a potential subversive with unknown intent. For the IPCC to some extent it’s a natural reaction to the criticism for what many would contend would be a labour of love & devotion.
But realistically there is no realm – there is simply the best science and what it tells us. There ought be no sides – simply the truth. However with imperfect knowledge one will have to make some judgement calls. On some areas the IPCC’s deliberations seem very balanced e.g. see El Nino -basically they discuss the various postulations but say they don’t have any solid evidence to support a link. So that’s just calling it how it is. Not that there may be an eventual linkage discovered or arising – just that the current science is unable to attribute one.
I note RC gave you a print run and a response. Impertinently if you really wanted to get some exposure – ask them for an economics post on your issues.
There is a separate alternative path – to get enough resources to develop a contrary publication, peer review it and put it into the public domain. Wiki it even ! Would you be able to put together your own modelling consortium?
Thanks for those comments Phil. I’m not a modeller, and in fact that has been one of my beefs about the Australian and British Governments – they’ve taken the view that it’s for the modelling community to settle the PPP vs MER question. Its not: economic statisticians and index number theorists agreed that MER-based GDP was wrong decades ago.
There’s no more reason to allow economic modellers to ignore the SNA definition of GDP as there is for climate modellers to ignore the laws of physics. If modellers weren’t prepared to accept the statisticians’ definition of output (GDP), they shouldn’t have incorporated GDP in their models at all: they should have developed their own concept of output.
I did propose a modelling consortium in 2002, to be led by ABS and to include the main academic modelling groups. That’s what led me into all my troubles. I thought that the idea stood a chance because no Australians had been involved in the SRES. However, I think the opportunity for an Australian initiative in this area has now been lost.
I’ll write again to RC. I think Gavin missed my point and thought I was supporting Stern. But the ‘gang of 9’ was strongly critical of Stern.
Gotcha great blog going on here.
Clearly thinksi’s objectivity is subjective.
Have you got a job yet young thing? trust me, its not as bad as some make out and the cash is handy. Leave all this -ism stuff for the idle rich kids.
a rock-solid background in business before i retired rog, why do you need some tips? Are ‘ition’s allowed? check out the juxtaposition of the 2 streams in this thread, pretty funny but time to end it. Over.
Tee hee – that one was really worth waiting for. All may not be as it seems. (even with Rog !)
Tips thinski? – I’ve opted for the salt and pepper look.