Hi Jennifer,
Bob Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute has just asked me to draw your attention to the fact that he’s published my analysis of the IPCC review.
It’s titled “Peer Review, What Peer Review” and can be found at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html
A key finding in the document is that the WG I chapter that attributed warming to human activities had 62 reviewers but many had a vested interest (chapter authors, IPCC editors, researchers whose work was cited). Just FOUR reviewers without any vested interest explicitly endorsed the principal claim. Not thousands of researchers, not even hundreds, just 4.
Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters has picked up on the article and written about it at length (and with lots of quotes) at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/what-media-won-t-tell-you-about-u-n-climate-panel
You might also be interested in another of my documents that Bob Ferguson has just published. It’s titled “Fallacies about Global Warming” and can be found at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html.
Cheers,
John McLean
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
MORE reading – As an accepter of the expert opinion on AGW I suppose I could adopt the traditional establishment position and simply dismiss the paper , author and journal as spivs and shonks for not being part of the majority?
Or is it worthwhile being diligent and actually exposing myself to different ideas?
Maybe a poor choice of words ” exposing myself ” – this is a family blog after all.
You mean you actually blog clothed?
Anyway back to the post – so much lack of peer review, so much conspiracy – it’s all very disheartening. (Jeez they go on a bit don’t they – so many bar charts). And Aussie punching above its weight in reviewing – Gold gold gold for Aus.
And I hate shonkies to don’t cite source for their dodgy graphs in the last link !! Probably taught by Durkin film school.
OK – might as well console oneself with a big anomaly http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070904_augtrendthumb.gif
The UN Climate Panel? Jeepers, why didn’t anyone tell me, it’s the UN.
No it couldn t be, surely the IPCC is not running an agenda?! I think the best line is that the letter to the Canadian govt contains more scientists who question AGW, than the IPCC had that actually reviewed and were in favour of AGW!!
Jen is your comment that in Laboratory tests a doubling of CO2 will only lead to a temp increase of 1 celcius?
Jim says:
“Or is it worthwhile being diligent and actually exposing myself … ”
I can’t recommend that course of action.
John,
Excellent article. It has been a pleasure reading it during a rather chilly weekend in The Netherlands(although it is still summer here in Europe).
I trust your article has been peer reviewed.
Cheers,
Timo
Lil’ Lukefish-
You recall global warming calls for unusually warm winters (hence reduced ice cover)?
From NSIDC data of Antarctic WINTER ICE coverage at both ends of the modern “unprecedented warming” period:
SEP’79 = 18.4M km^2 … SEP’06 = 19.3 km^2
What??? A GROWTH of .9M km^2 or ~5%?
From NSIDC data of Antarctic WINTER ICE coverage at both ends of the “warmest decade in 100 years” period: SEP’90 = 18.4M km^2 … SEP’00 = 19.1 km^2
What??? A growth of .7M km^2 or ~4%?
=====
As for your AGW dooms ARCTIC ice scare — why don’t you look up Polyakov et al 2002 among others. The solar and ocean current correlation coefficients range between .65 and .8 over the ~70 year ice coverage cycle (BTW, which is traced back 100s of years). CO2-level correlation is under .3 over the same period.
Perhaps you should also investigate why the Arctic Ice coverage is missing from the Bering side, yet near normal on the Scandanavian side of the extent. Could El Nino lag-warming from the Bering side explain the ASYMMETRY? Certainly it can’t GLOBAL Warming, since it’s not even North POLAR Warming!
It’s back to school for you, ya little guppie…
Correction: “warmest decade in 1000 (as in the millenium) years”
Here’s a little report about how that sea ice minimum is working in the real world.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22359472-5005961,00.html
A BRITISH yachtsman attempting the first solo
Arctic sea passage across northern Russia was
examining his options after heavier than expected
ice blocked his route, his manager said.
Adrian Flanagan is discussing with Russian
authorities the possibility of using a nuclear-
powered icebreaker to lift his boat out of the
water and carry it round the most icebound
stretch of Russia’s Northern Sea Route.
Flanagan is now anchored by an island just east
of the Vilkitsky Strait, still hoping for the ice
to clear but working on the backup plan, his
manager said.
She described the yachtsman’s mood as “pretty fed-
up”.
Quick draw McGraw – gee I’m just quoting the latest 2007 numbers. That’s 2007. You know 2007.
Could El Nino explain the ASYMMETRY and a record melt in a La Nina year ! Come on QuickDraw – desperate stuff.
Have a look at the RSS troposphere temperatures – does it look a tad red ! Just like the modelling says it should be?
The reality is that the models give an asymmetric melt pattern and the real world melt rate is exceeding those expectations. You will note the literature on the subject also mentions the influence of natural cycles as well as greenhouse forcing.
If you’re going to use basic correlations to explain a complex phenomenon like this you might as try modelling with a house brick and fine china.
Instead of 2002 – why don’t YOU get yourself updated and try looking up Stroeve et al 2007 and Serreze et al 2007.
I assume when it’s all gone you’ll still be going “but but but but .. ..”
It’s off to the library for you numb nuts.
Still don’t get it, eh Lil’ Lukefish?
The model for the N. Polar region doesn’t show decline fast enough — the S. Polar region model shows decline where their isn’t any at all! In fact over the “unprecedented warming” periods, it’s trending the WRONG WAY?
After all this, it appears you still trust THE MODELS — normally that would surprising. But with your demonstrated inadequate science and math, your continued faith in models that butcher polar regions (supposedly most sensitive to AGW) likely does not surprise anyone here.
WTF ?
Who says the South Pole is sensitive – which model?
And the North Pole not showing greater decline than the models predict doesn’t concern you? Cripes !
erratum: “Arctic showing greater decline in the real world”
Jim says:
“Or is it worthwhile being diligent and actually exposing myself … ”
I say if you got it, flaunt it.
(We are like that in California.;)
A bit off topic, but … I have been keeping track of the GISS Global Temps and noticed that over this year the previous monthly anomalies have anomalously been increasing.
This is the GISS page with the temps:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The wayback machine will show what was on this page previously:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
What I see from the saved April, May and current Pages is this:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
2007 87 62
2007 88 64 59 66 51 49
2007 87 64 59 66 56 52 50 56
The Feb, May and June temps have increased! Is this proof of Man Made GW? 🙂
cheers
Arnost
anyone who is a qualified, credible expert on the subject has a vested interest in it – one way or the other. Oh ok then, they stacked the WG with pro-AGW scientists.
there were plenty of uncomfortable governmental representatives who significantly watered down the language of the IPCC findings. Don’t bother arguing otherwise unless you were there
Arnost – you need to know what updates and reanalyses they do. Of course maybe it’s a huge conspircacy and they’re on the take – try emailing them ! 🙂
The standard MO of a corporate fraudster is to hide the money trail in a background of constant revision and correction. The climate crims do the same and seriously believe they have invented a new form of dishonesty. Plus ca change.
Crap. Obviously you have no idea of how real time climate data comes in and is revised. As usual you’re an accusational hysteric. Typical denialist bullshit by an exponent.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
It’s official as of UPDATE 12-Sep-07; a new maximum of Antarctic Sea Ice Area, as measured during the (supposedly) unprecedented warming from 1979-present.
Well, at least there’s some hope for you. You didn’t fall for the El Nino hook — I had to check if you were completely hopeless, since you got hooked and gaffed so easily on Warwick’s blog. And you even have a sense of humor too — “Who says the South Pole is sensitive – which model?”
Well that’s exactly what you’d expect isn’t it?
I don’t need to check if you’re hopeless as it’s self-evident – still waiting for those 100s of ice age references.
Lil’ Lukefish re: 100 ice age references …
Your post-70s youth and a demonstrated a lack of even high school physics and statistics understanding are not an excuse. You were hooked and gaffed venturing on WH’s site — turning tail back here is no reprieve. There you were told to “do your own work” — clear to all that AIP + any won’t be enough for someone as ill-equipped as you. It’s also clear now that you weren’t joking earlier; you lack understanding of even the AGW theory side of the discussion.
McCall, it appears that you don’t understand AGW theory.
There are reasons for the Antarctic behaving differently to the Arctic, they aren’t too hard to find, and are being actively investigated by scientists. There’s a global climate out there.
Also of interest, the first hurricane hit on the USA this year.
“Humberto grows into hurricane, hits Texas
Humberto made landfall on the Texas coast early Thursday shortly after strengthening into a Category 1 hurricane, the National Hurricane Center said. The storm was packing winds of 85 mph and heavy rains only a day after emerging as a tropical depression. full story”
What’s so interesting is that it wound up so quickly, all the experts were expecting a minor storm to hit the coast, but in an amazingly short time, it was up to hurricane strength. That’s what higher SSTs can do.
WOW, and just what is the McLean alternative to peer review.? Peer review actually works 99% of the time. Is this some tinpot calling the kettle black.? If you want to define vested interest so self servingly, all you end up with is anybody without a vested interest is going to be ignorant. If you seek peerage, then go publish!
Quick-draw Mccall lays smoke fast and veers off – that response means there was nothing to offer up. And laying thick the ad homs and refusing to step up to the plate well illustrates your inability to oblige.
So you’ve been asked and found wanting I’m afraid.
I mean just because I’ve only had junior schooling doesn’t mean that I can’t improve my situation. I think you’re being very mean and personal.
Junior schooling? Luke got too big for the desk and they had to let him go.
So, Luke, you probably missed my question in another string, but what do you do for a living?
Not a lot. In between jobs currently Janet.
Luke says “you’re being very mean and personal” yet criticises others in a mean and personal way.
This blog is all about Luke and his monstrous chip. Climate etc are side issues.
“In between jobs”, a period measured in years
So cruel Rog – so cruel.
And you should be more honest, Luke. You do have a job — don’t you?
I mean if you are not a government employee, paid to stalk Jen, I will eat my computer.
Come on — fess up!
What ever I say you’ll believe what you want so what does it matter.
get off the bloody couch Luke you slob, I’m sick of you spongeing while I slave to the bone. At least do the mouldy dishes – no more ‘oh cos orf AGW I dunt wanna yuse hot water’ excuses.
Why use hot water when the ants can do a good job? Internal ecosystems are an overlooked area of domestic ecology.
Smart guy like you Luke could be, should be, a bit more entrepreneurial and go into business!
McIntyre discovers, Hansen is right.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061#comment-137949
“I think these plots speak for themselves, but here are my conclusions:
– There is good agreement between GISS and CRN12 (the good stations)
– There is good agreement between GISS and CRN5 (the bad stations)
– On the 20yr trend, CRN12 shows a larger warming trend CRN5 in recent years
To be honest, this is starting to look like a great validation of GISTEMP.”
A worthy effort of validating the temperature record we already had.
I just read the following post by Tim Lambert at his ‘Deltoid’ website. John McLean you are a dodgy dodgy character …
——
TL:
Hey, remember John McLean? The guy who kept steering Andrew Bolt into brick walls? Well he’s teamed up with Tom Harris of the NRSP to accuse the IPCC of lying about the scientific support for its reports:
JC & AB:
“In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.”
TL:
First, there were much more than 62 reviewers for chapter 9. McLean and Harris have only counted the reviewers of the second order draft and ignored the more numerous comments on the first order draft.
Second, they mislead by giving the impression that 60% of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC, but half of the comments (572 of them!) were made by Vincent Gray, with 97% of them rejected. Only 16% of the comments by other reviewers were rejected. Gray was also responsible for most the rejected comments on the first order draft. Examples of Gray’s rejected comments include:
> Insert after “to” “the utterly ridiculous assumption of”
> Insert after “Bayesian” “(or super-guesswork)”
> Insret before “Calibrated” “Bogus”
Dave Semeniuk has a more detailed analysis of Gray’s comments — 50 of them were Gray repeatedly asking for “anthropogenic” to be replaced with “human-induced”.
Third, as Richard Littlemore points out, it is pretty dodgy for the NRSP to complain about “vested interest” when their own vested interest is so blatant. But how did McLean and Harris come up with their claim that 55 of the reviewers had “serious vested interest”? McLean gives details in a piece published by the SPPI (an oil industry funded think tank that apparently does not count as a vested interested to McLean). Scientists were declared to have a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a “possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming”. Basically that leaves amateurs like Gray and McKitrick. In one of his comments Gray asked them to cite one of his Energy and Environment papers. Fortunately it was rejected, or he would have been ruled out as well.
John Mashey examined McLean’s background and it seems that while the National Post awarded him a PhD he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture. Which makes McLean’s rant against a critic, which was captured by Nexus 6 particularly funny.