Laframboise on the IPCC rule-bending

From the summary of her critique.

Four chapters – 14 “The Stern Review Scandal”, 15 “Cutoff Dates, What Cutoff Dates?”, 16 “This is Called Cheating” and 17 “Cross-examination” report on some of the ways the rules on deadlines, peer review and the like are bent to suit the agenda.

The tone is set from the top and chapter 25 is “Pachauri’s Cause”, specifically “rapid transformation of the economic system” redefining cultural patterns and major lifestyle changes everywhere.

“We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more…we are on an environmentally unsustainable course..I am not going to rest until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That is the real issue, climate change is just a part of it.”

Chapter 26 “Follow the Leader” describes the way that the cause of climate change and “extreme weather” meant that the leading hurricane expert Chris Landsea had to be sidelined by Kevin Trenbath who was in charge of the relevant chapter in the Climate Bible. The following chapter takes that case further to describe the role of Susan Solomon, the co-chair of that working group, who was named in another chapter for threatening to dismiss Steve McIntyre when he tried to do a proper job as an expert reviewer. Chapter 28 follows the story about pseudo-scientific data on hurricanes that became part of the Climate Bible.

So a dubious finding that originated in a paper written by an insurance company was included in the Climate Bible in 2001. It then made its way into the peer-reviewed scientific literature in 2005. By 2009 it was being regarded as gospel by the US Government.

One of the expert reviewers asked an appropriate question about some papers that were accepted which contradicted the views of a leading expert in the field. What did the expert think about these papers? He was not asked. One of the graphs in a key paper was criticized by an expert reviewer, a different graph appeared in the final report, making the same (alarming) point.

Finally, in Febuary 2010, a contributing author of the chapter admitted he had drawn up the new graph “informally”. [run that past me again!]. In the words of the (excluded) expert “The IPCC created a graph that did not exist in the peer reviewed literature or in the grey literature to suggest a relationship between increasing temperatures and rising disaster costs”.

Nice work if you have enough control over the production to get that kind of result.

Chapters 29 and 30 run through one of the most scandalous beatups on the IPCC record, the malaria scare, suggesting that warming will massively increase the prevalence of malaria. Among other things malaria is not especially a warm climate illness. On top of that we find the domination of non-experts in the field, abuse of non-peer reviewed literature and uncritical channelling of the beat-ups by the obliging press.

Chapter 31 “Extinction Fiction” charts the abuse of pseudo-scientific findings to predict alarming species losses. One of the two key papers was written by Chris Thomas and 14 co-authors. Enter Daniel Botkin, one of the leading figures in the field. He described the Thomas paper as “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal”.

“Is there any way you can cite the findings of the Thomas paper but not tell your readers about the controversy it generated? Is it honest to neglect to mention that the same journal that published the paper followed up six months later with not one, not two but three critiques? Is it scientific to fail to discuss the fact that another harsh appraisal of some 6000 words in length was authored by a scholar at Oxford [an Oxford scholar!] Yet that is precisely what happened.”

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Laframboise on the IPCC rule-bending

  1. Herodotus

    The greatest moral challenge of our time is not climate change or warming, but the unholy alliance of bent scientists, bent media, bent power companies, and bent or stupid politicians. In addition, of course, there are the grassroots brigades of useful idiots.

  2. Entropy

    Ah yes the Stern review, followed by Garnaut. What woke me to the fact the climate models were being used to pursue other agendas than actually solving the problem was that the discount rate applied to future impacts was always zero instead of a more reasonable range of five to seven percent, and that it was always assumed/required a global response of taxes or ‘market based’ solution would be in place. The use of a zero discount rate revealed the future impact must be very small indeed in today’s dollars, and as for a global trading system, laugh!

    Neither assumption is remotely honest. Particularly as developing countries developing their economies so that their people can have food, shelter and a living will swamp past energy production by the first world countries. The way the world actually works is that you if you want to actually indulge in ‘climate action’, you are better off not pursuing mitigation effort and instead concentrating on adaptation. This would be much cheaper, not wreck our economies or transfer industry to other countries without the “market based” solutions, and not result in rent seeking behaviours. And if heaven forbid the terrible scenarios predicted in the models don’t come to pass, would help with becoming better climate risk managers for droughts, floods etc anyway.

    At most the next best use of a dollar would be research into cost effective mass energy production. Not these cottage industry solar and wind systems.

  3. Dr Fred Lenin

    All religous methods of control and power grabbing have to keep inventing lies to keep the punters under control and power in the hands of the leaders Christians muslims and communists all have one thing in common ,they will do anything to keep power ,burn people like the Catholics ,behead people like the islamofascists,shoot millions like the soviets gas people like the German Nazi socialists ,and now destroy jobs and reputations like the u.n,communist leftists . The end justifies the means ,or the alps whatever it takes ,same fascist thoughts .

  4. Rossini

    Herodotus
    #2837141, posted on October 12, 2018 at 7:40 am

    +1

  5. Rafe Champion

    Congratulations Cats, the page views for the link are over 1000 and in the last 100 Cats outscored the Daily Tele by 90 to 7!.\

    Now only 799,000 short of the 800,000 that Jupes wants to see to make a difference:)

  6. JohnL

    The greatest moral challenge of our time is not climate change or warming, but the unholy alliance of bent scientists, bent media, bent power companies, and bent or stupid politicians.

    Wrong!
    Only “bent and stupid politicians”! Strait, smart and honest politicians could eliminate all of the above.

  7. jupes

    Now only 799,000 short of the 800,000 that Jupes wants to see to make a difference:)

    Please excuse my moments of pessimism. It is mind-boggling that ‘climate change’ is still a thing after decades of evidence that it’s just a crock.

    Good to see it’s heading in the right direction so please keep up the good work Rafe.

  8. Arnost

    It is mind-boggling that ‘climate change’ is still a thing after decades of evidence that it’s just a crock.

    I gave up on the climate wars years ago. Came to the conclusion that there was no point trying to discuss / fight a tribal leftie ideology with hosts of useful idiots being thrown into the fray in never-ending waves.

    The only observation I have is that – if someone could harness human stupidity – there is a potentially infinite power source. The only issue is however, that given the typical swampies on the climate change gravy train, it still isn’t very clean…

  9. DrBeauGan

    Harken, there are two approaches to making up your mind on the climate debate. One, yours, is to take a vote. The other is to look at the data. These are very different.

    Looking at the data is a lot harder and requires a certain amount of education. Taking a vote can be done by any idiot. Rather a lot of idiots are, therefore, on your side of the argument.

    You should not take much comfort from this.

  10. DrBeauGan

    Verily, Dr Beau, why shouldn’t one assume the members of 20 score scientific bodies have, if not to a man, but in substantial number, “looked at the data?

    They may have done. That’s not the point. If you want to find out what is true and what is not, you look at the facts. If you want to be in with the majority, you take a vote.

    These are different objectives.

  11. Rafe Champion

    Harken Now, would you like to take up the discussion on a thread that I have opened to focus on this particular issue?

  12. Neville

    Or is my assumption to be that only deniers have truly, honestly, deeply considered the data?

    Yes, Harken, it does indeed appear prima facie that “deniers” (as you lovingly call them) have actually looked at the data. The reason that this is a fair first approximation, is that the enthusiasts for this complete crock of shit scam that inspires an almost religious fervour keep on and on and on repeating (ad nauseam, quite frankly) the same old false “facts”, invented and/or twisted statistics, corrupted and disinterpreted data, and pseudo-science; you know, all the stuff that has been comprehensively falsified and proven to be invented, mendacious, self-serving claptrap, months and years ago.

  13. egg_

    Now only 799,000 short of the 800,000 that Jupes wants to see to make a difference:)

  14. egg_

    Verily, Dr Beau, why shouldn’t one assume the members of 20 score scientific bodies have, if not to a man, but in substantial number, “looked at the data”.

    If so, they’d be able to quote the change in the margin of error over the various IPCC Reports?

Comments are closed.