09 March 2010

It is Not Just a River in Egypt

Hans von Storch has posted up a letter from Martin Parry, the largely silent former-chair of IPCC AR4 WGII, to WGII authors on the various errors and sloppiness found in the report that he led. In short, Parry finds that there is not much wrong in the report:
Firstly, in the current clamour it is easy to forget the big picture, which I think is this: That the WG2 volume represents a sound and reliable statement of our knowledge, and is the product of robust and rigorous assessment by you all.
To see how misleading this statement is, one need only look at Parry's dismissal of complaints about how the the issue of disaster losses was handled in the report:
IPCC authors have defended their statement in Chapter 1 that one study indicates an increase in economic losses due to disasters after normalizing for wealth and property while other studies do not. This rebuttal can also be found on the IPCC home page.
This statement, as readers here will know is highly misleading. Prior to Parry writing this letter, IPCC Lead Author Robert Muir-Wood explained that he thought that the IPCC should not have included a misleading graph showing a relationship between rising temperatures and disaster losses. One hopes that the attitude displayed by Parry reflects the IPCC of the past and not its future.

6 comments:

  1. "Firstly, in the current clamour it is easy to forget the big picture, which I think is this: That the WG2 volume represents a sound and reliable statement of our knowledge, and is the product of robust and rigorous assessment by you all."

    LOL. The word "robust" in climate science is a real red flag.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The more of this that goes on, the better. Like they said in Watergate - it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. The more these people try to cover up, the less likely it is that any disastrous legislation passes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For another great example of denial, check out this at dotearth. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/on-the-causes-of-climate-deadlock/

    Climate science is as solid as our understanding of gravity?! These guys can't even set up a thermometer properly. No one ever checks anyone else's work. And when outsiders check, the errors are often ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For another example, check out this guest post at Roger's dad's site: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/guest-post-2-by-chick-keller/

    Discussing publication of IPCC’s 4AR, Keller writes: "Data and computer models were now good enough to allow us to predict the response of large areas of the planet to these forcings in the next half century."

    And climate scientists wonder why they are hemorrhaging credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Keller is, at nearly every point he makes, talking about things that do not actually exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger,

    You need to check out this Nature editorial. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html

    Wow. Just wow. Over the years that I tried cases, I had some opponents who were very smart attorneys. No matter how much we might have disagreed in our views about the law or the facts, it was clear that they really understood the case, the judge and the jury. They got it.

    There were others, however, who simply didn't have a clue. This Nature editorial sounds like it was written by one of those who never had a clue.

    ReplyDelete