Comments on: IPCC Refuses to Correct Errors

By: JamesG

JamesG — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 10:08:10 +0000

Chris Field

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/september14/field-heinz-award-091509.html

“Stanford researcher Chris Field to receive $100,000 Heinz Award [2009] for environmental science and leadership.”

One of many such lucrative awards to academics whose predictions have been politically correct but (mostly) factually incorrect. The only real positive feedback in climateering is that the more apocalyptic you are, the more the establishment loves you.

By: Niche Modeling » The Creation of Consensus via Administrative Abuse

Niche Modeling » The Creation of Consensus via Administrative Abuse — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 01:10:19 +0000

[...] The existence of ‘consensus’ around core claims of global warming is often cited as some kind of warrant for action. A recent article by Roger Pielke Jr reported the IPCC response to his attempts to correct biases and errors in AR4 in his field of expertise — extreme events losses. As noted at CA, he made four proposed error corrections to IPCC, all of which were refused. [...]

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:19:34 +0000

Perverse as it may be, this is a valuable career skill for many people — they never need consider unwelcome information so long as they keep getting away with such behavior. Careerists plodding onward and upward on the rungs of bureaucracy….

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:14:34 +0000

Not all anecdotes are equal and that for me is a very telling one Craig. It’s when governments have the same reaction to the IPCC that I think there will be change.

By: stan

stan — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:10:58 +0000

“They’ve clearly changed tack and are apparently recovered from the confusion and malaise engendered by Climategate and Copenhagen.

I believe they’re burning more bridges than would be advisable.”

Given they are burning bridges, it would seem they remain somewhat confused. I would liken the team to a hapless fighter pilot who has an opponent inside his OODA loop. No matter what they do the result leaves them in worse shape.

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:48:08 +0000

Some years ago I had a single encounter with Chris Field. I don’t remember the scientific topic but I remember him saying something simply false, and I tried to discuss it, bringing up a counter-point. He simply acted deaf. No facial expression, no reply. Small sample of 1, but people who will not admit they are wrong are a big part of the present crisis.
In contrast, Steve M. corrects mistakes. No one is free from error. It is only via debate and discussion that science achieves reliable results. Not from pronouncements from the anointed.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:11:03 +0000

What it means is that they can make stuff up without anyone being held to account.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:08:48 +0000

I believe Dr. Hansen’s paper also lacks scientific rigour. Specifically his temperature bell curves show a limited picture and is vulnerable to accusations of selection bias. Line plots of the means and standard deviations of 11yr moving periods would have provided a more complete picture. Note that a normal curve has two parameters: mean and stdev.

I plotted the 11yr moving period stdev’s for USA48 from 1895:1905 to 2001:2011 using NCDC’s CONUS divisional temperature data. The result is that there is a very apparent multi-decadal oscillation, but no significant trend in temperature variability. Plot and turnkey R source code can be found here:

http://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/usa48-stdevs

By: kakatoa

kakatoa — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:57:59 +0000

Roger,

I concur with your assessment: #3 takes the cake as far as the worst breach of the scientific method/ethos. In the corporate world if Mr. Woods unsubstantiated work had been used to support marketing and sales materials (say of a press release on the summary of the costs and benefits of an alternative treatment regime for a medical condition) the folks at the FDA and the Justice Department would likely be more then a tad upset about the false claims used to deceive folks into purchasing the alternative treatment.

The FDA and DOJ also get rather upset if upper management do not have processes in place to address error’s and inaccuracies is their marketing and sales literature. If they see comments like Steve’s recommended winner- “the error correction protocol is therefore not relevant.” they have a tendency to see nefarious motivations on the part of the management of the organization. When this happens trust in the organizations ability to manage itself get called into question and some corrective actions are forced upon the organization. If people actually died as part of these breaches in ethics the folks at DOJ have lots of avenues available to penalize the organization, their management and even the offending scientists who made up data.

By: HaroldW

HaroldW — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:12:06 +0000

It depends on what the meaning of the word “but” is.