8 ms·

New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph

27 points by bgurupra 17y ago

patio11 17y ago
It is curious that for a community which theoretically worships peer review that increased scrutiny into their methods starts to come up with all sorts of low-hanging fruit like this. I kind of feel sorry for them: humans make mistakes, and retrospective digging into any human endeavor is going to uncover them. That wouldn't be a problem if their marketing hadn't been "This is the infallible Voice of Science: the only people capable of understanding it all have already signed off on it. Implement our recommendations or be cast into a fiery pit." Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain. I have half a mind to take a week or two this summer, grab one of the old papers in the field and the associated data sets, and just try to reproduce the math. The reason I have only half a mind is that I know I'm likely to discover that the process is not covered in sufficient detail publicly to reproduce it.
- cwan 17y ago
  It's difficult to know what to make of this. There seems to also be such a massive disconnect between other media voices over what the impact of revelations like this are to the overall global warming / climate change thesis. There has been a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity/skepticism by journalists on the issue and if anything, much of the media seems outright hostile to the possibility that the overriding thesis could possibly be wrong. This wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life by people who by and large are insulated from proving their work has intrinsic value/subject to markets/or even the costs if they're wrong. It is to the Telegraph's credit that they've stayed on this story but I'm not sure if I'm more surprised or worried that these revelations have not caused a greater level of introspection or reached a wider mainstream audience. That said, it would seem at least the news is trickling out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm. It does make me wonder even more about the news industry before internet use became pervasive.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    "his wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life" The whole point of implementing cap-and-trade is so that we don't have to significantly change our way of life: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/d...
    - patio11 17y ago
      I will believe that graph is likely to contain something with any connection whatsoever to reality when shown an accurate representation of the economic situation in 2010 produced in 1970.
      - Alex3917 17y ago
        Here is an accurate economic representation of 2010 produced in 1956: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Hubbert_US_high.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Hubbert_U...
    - cwan 17y ago
      The Obama administration internally believes that cap and trade will cost the average family $1761 USD/year: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/ent... - and that's their estimate that's almost certain to be light ignoring the impact on industry itself. Now what happens in actual implementation? Read http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-cap-and-trade-model-loses-billions-to-fraud/19274092 http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-cap-and-trade-m... and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bid-to-gag-emissions-trading-scheme-policy-attack/story-e6frg8gf-1225793355139 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bi...
      - wisty 17y ago
        Well, cap-and-trade will be partly offset by peak oil causing less of a shock.
- mistermann 17y ago
  Unfortunately, I think the peer review idea, which is great, is starting to break down. The latest news item that makes me sketical is the Lancet/autism piece, and then this article. When did the common culture in the science start that "authorities" on a subject could release studies and criticism was not allowed? I'll fully admit that I'm not qualified to judge the merits of most of these things, but in the past, scientists were excited to explain their findings to skeptics...now, they seem to want to change the subject away from findiings. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
  - hga 17y ago
    Well ... while The Lancet is in theory peer reviewed, it has had a very poor reputation for a long time. Anyone who takes what it publishes without a large grain of salt deserves what they get. (Unfortunately in this case, by trashing herd immunity they've killed quite a few children with e.g. measles (yes, you can name names with a little Google fu).)
- thwarted 17y ago
  Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain. Hey hey now, Mr. Wizard never hid himself or any of his demonstrations behind a curtain, he always explained what was being shown, no matter how awesome it was. He also talked his helpers through forming hypothesizes and testing them. Everything was always reproduceable, and doing it at home was often encouraged (with adult supervision, of course). Let's not sully the Mr. Wizard name by implicating him with this climate data stuff -- we'd be better off if there were still shows on like his. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Wizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Wizard (and yes, I know you're making a reference to The Wizard of Oz; should've said "The Wizard" instead of "Mr. Wizard" :) ).
yannis 17y ago
The whole area of Scientific Publishing is in need of a major shift by disrupting current practices - and I am hoping when it does is a YC start-up. While studying for my PhD, a pattern arose - any papers written before 1975 provided adequate details to reproduce results down to code or references to Technical Reports that provided this information. What I would like to see. (01) Any research that is publicly funded to make all publications, data and code freely available. (Not behind paywalls) (02) All papers to have more than one version, version 2 being a good explanation of what the research is all about, results etc - without the jargon, in order for readers to better understand the subject and delve further into it, should they wish. (03) A comments section It is as if suddenly Scientists are afraid of standing up and support their theses. A more open policy on publishing - in detail - on the web can help them do so, they can crowd-source opinions and suggestions - really I don't see a downside to this. Out of curiosity I spent over a week to find out the roots of experiments that determine the effect of CO2 on temperature, if the models took account of diffusion, which layer of the atmosphere is affected the greatest etc... So far I have not been very successful.
- timr 17y ago
  The criticisms in this article have little to do with peer review. In fact, the whole problem is that the IPCC panels appear to have incorporated non-peer-reviewed papers in a few locations in the reports about impacts and mitigation. Peer review is not falling apart, despite breathless claims to the contrary.
  - hga 17y ago
    "In fact, the whole problem is that the IPCC panels appear to have incorporated non-peer-reviewed papers in a few locations in the reports about impacts and mitigation." There's no "appear" about it, they've been forced to admit it. Saying they used garbage "in a few locations" severely understates the damage, e.g. they shouted from the rooftops that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 (which turned out to be a terrible mistake for them, since India had no choice but to take a rigorous look at their claims ... which the Indian head of the IPCC then claimed was "voodoo science", something he later had to apologize for). Peer review "is not falling apart", but it's taken a severe body blow. No longer will anyone be taken seriously who stakes a claim on the basis that it was peer reviewed.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
iuguy 17y ago
The minute I saw people calling those who dispute the accuracy of findings, "Climate Change Deniers" I realised that this was less about science and more about politics. The science should stand up on it's own two feet, it shouldn't need 'consensus' from closed groups. Release the data and the methods and we'll find out what's really happening by putting the hypothesis under scrutiny.
- lukifer 17y ago
  On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label. On the other hand, what else do you call those who are so convinced of a One World Government conspiracy that they refuse to accept the very notion that humanity can cause long-term damage to the ecosystem? They're out there, I've met quite a few.
  - iterationx 17y ago
    One can reject AGW and accept that humanity is causing long term damage to the ecosystem. Your comment reads like a noble lie, "well maybe the science is a little shaky, but we need to implement these policies {driving less, energy reduction, limits on emissions, etc} so let's just get on with it"
    - lukifer 17y ago
      I do think some "green" policies (alternative fuel sources, such as solar and nuclear) make a lot of sense whether or not AGW is true, and in those instances we should act before the science is in. But I didn't mean to imply such an either/or, "you're with us or you're against us" position. My point is that such extremes of position do exist, and that there are people who genuinely believe that since our habitat has been (mostly) ideal for thousands of years, that it will continue to be so forever, and that it is impossible for humanity to alter that, despite centuries of heavy industry. And those folks have their head in the sand w/r/t science and reality, every bit as much as those for whom AGW is unquestionable dogma.
- 17y ago

27 points by bgurupra 17y ago

It is curious that for a community which theoretically worships peer review that increased scrutiny into their methods starts to come up with all sorts of low-hanging fruit like this. I kind of feel sorry for them: humans make mistakes, and retrospective digging into any human endeavor is going to uncover them. That wouldn't be a problem if their marketing hadn't been "This is the infallible Voice of Science: the only people capable of understanding it all have already signed off on it. Implement our recommendations or be cast into a fiery pit." Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain. I have half a mind to take a week or two this summer, grab one of the old papers in the field and the associated data sets, and just try to reproduce the math. The reason I have only half a mind is that I know I'm likely to discover that the process is not covered in sufficient detail publicly to reproduce it.

cwan 17y ago
It's difficult to know what to make of this. There seems to also be such a massive disconnect between other media voices over what the impact of revelations like this are to the overall global warming / climate change thesis. There has been a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity/skepticism by journalists on the issue and if anything, much of the media seems outright hostile to the possibility that the overriding thesis could possibly be wrong. This wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life by people who by and large are insulated from proving their work has intrinsic value/subject to markets/or even the costs if they're wrong. It is to the Telegraph's credit that they've stayed on this story but I'm not sure if I'm more surprised or worried that these revelations have not caused a greater level of introspection or reached a wider mainstream audience. That said, it would seem at least the news is trickling out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm. It does make me wonder even more about the news industry before internet use became pervasive.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  "his wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life" The whole point of implementing cap-and-trade is so that we don't have to significantly change our way of life: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/d...
  - patio11 17y ago
    I will believe that graph is likely to contain something with any connection whatsoever to reality when shown an accurate representation of the economic situation in 2010 produced in 1970.
    - Alex3917 17y ago
      Here is an accurate economic representation of 2010 produced in 1956: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Hubbert_US_high.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Hubbert_U...
  - cwan 17y ago
    The Obama administration internally believes that cap and trade will cost the average family $1761 USD/year: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/ent... - and that's their estimate that's almost certain to be light ignoring the impact on industry itself. Now what happens in actual implementation? Read http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-cap-and-trade-model-loses-billions-to-fraud/19274092 http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-cap-and-trade-m... and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bid-to-gag-emissions-trading-scheme-policy-attack/story-e6frg8gf-1225793355139 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-bi...
    - wisty 17y ago
      Well, cap-and-trade will be partly offset by peak oil causing less of a shock.
mistermann 17y ago
Unfortunately, I think the peer review idea, which is great, is starting to break down. The latest news item that makes me sketical is the Lancet/autism piece, and then this article. When did the common culture in the science start that "authorities" on a subject could release studies and criticism was not allowed? I'll fully admit that I'm not qualified to judge the merits of most of these things, but in the past, scientists were excited to explain their findings to skeptics...now, they seem to want to change the subject away from findiings. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
- hga 17y ago
  Well ... while The Lancet is in theory peer reviewed, it has had a very poor reputation for a long time. Anyone who takes what it publishes without a large grain of salt deserves what they get. (Unfortunately in this case, by trashing herd immunity they've killed quite a few children with e.g. measles (yes, you can name names with a little Google fu).)
thwarted 17y ago
Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain. Hey hey now, Mr. Wizard never hid himself or any of his demonstrations behind a curtain, he always explained what was being shown, no matter how awesome it was. He also talked his helpers through forming hypothesizes and testing them. Everything was always reproduceable, and doing it at home was often encouraged (with adult supervision, of course). Let's not sully the Mr. Wizard name by implicating him with this climate data stuff -- we'd be better off if there were still shows on like his. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Wizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Wizard (and yes, I know you're making a reference to The Wizard of Oz; should've said "The Wizard" instead of "Mr. Wizard" :) ).

yannis 17y ago

The whole area of Scientific Publishing is in need of a major shift by disrupting current practices - and I am hoping when it does is a YC start-up. While studying for my PhD, a pattern arose - any papers written before 1975 provided adequate details to reproduce results down to code or references to Technical Reports that provided this information. What I would like to see. (01) Any research that is publicly funded to make all publications, data and code freely available. (Not behind paywalls) (02) All papers to have more than one version, version 2 being a good explanation of what the research is all about, results etc - without the jargon, in order for readers to better understand the subject and delve further into it, should they wish. (03) A comments section It is as if suddenly Scientists are afraid of standing up and support their theses. A more open policy on publishing - in detail - on the web can help them do so, they can crowd-source opinions and suggestions - really I don't see a downside to this. Out of curiosity I spent over a week to find out the roots of experiments that determine the effect of CO2 on temperature, if the models took account of diffusion, which layer of the atmosphere is affected the greatest etc... So far I have not been very successful.

timr 17y ago
The criticisms in this article have little to do with peer review. In fact, the whole problem is that the IPCC panels appear to have incorporated non-peer-reviewed papers in a few locations in the reports about impacts and mitigation. Peer review is not falling apart, despite breathless claims to the contrary.
- hga 17y ago
  "In fact, the whole problem is that the IPCC panels appear to have incorporated non-peer-reviewed papers in a few locations in the reports about impacts and mitigation." There's no "appear" about it, they've been forced to admit it. Saying they used garbage "in a few locations" severely understates the damage, e.g. they shouted from the rooftops that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 (which turned out to be a terrible mistake for them, since India had no choice but to take a rigorous look at their claims ... which the Indian head of the IPCC then claimed was "voodoo science", something he later had to apologize for). Peer review "is not falling apart", but it's taken a severe body blow. No longer will anyone be taken seriously who stakes a claim on the basis that it was peer reviewed.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

iuguy 17y ago

The minute I saw people calling those who dispute the accuracy of findings, "Climate Change Deniers" I realised that this was less about science and more about politics. The science should stand up on it's own two feet, it shouldn't need 'consensus' from closed groups. Release the data and the methods and we'll find out what's really happening by putting the hypothesis under scrutiny.

lukifer 17y ago
On the one hand, it isn't right for anyone who questions the science (which is, after all, the point of science) to get stuck with a highly pejorative label. On the other hand, what else do you call those who are so convinced of a One World Government conspiracy that they refuse to accept the very notion that humanity can cause long-term damage to the ecosystem? They're out there, I've met quite a few.
- iterationx 17y ago
  One can reject AGW and accept that humanity is causing long term damage to the ecosystem. Your comment reads like a noble lie, "well maybe the science is a little shaky, but we need to implement these policies {driving less, energy reduction, limits on emissions, etc} so let's just get on with it"
  - lukifer 17y ago
    I do think some "green" policies (alternative fuel sources, such as solar and nuclear) make a lot of sense whether or not AGW is true, and in those instances we should act before the science is in. But I didn't mean to imply such an either/or, "you're with us or you're against us" position. My point is that such extremes of position do exist, and that there are people who genuinely believe that since our habitat has been (mostly) ideal for thousands of years, that it will continue to be so forever, and that it is impossible for humanity to alter that, despite centuries of heavy industry. And those folks have their head in the sand w/r/t science and reality, every bit as much as those for whom AGW is unquestionable dogma.
17y ago