Taking science by the throat...
I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. More...
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Planktos | Main | Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny? »
Category: climate communication
Posted on: June 26, 2007 4:48 PM, by William M. Connolley
G points out that the IPCC AR4 comments are now available. Presumably due to JA's efforts :-).
A quick browse didn't throw up anything funny (the Courntey bit is pathetic rather than funny).
I made a minor comment to the historical review section, commenting that "Reference to Hawking unneeded: original cite to Einstein enough" (I told you it was minor) which was "accepted". But then the next comment in line is "Reference to Hawking is inappropriate..." which is "rejected". Weird.
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
I found this in chapter 8:
"You have to face it. No model has ever successfully forecast any future climate in quantitative terms. It is surely because they incorporate only one of the many influences on the climate, increases in greenhouse gases. Why should any of us believe them?"
and:
"Insert before "Confidence" "Despite the total absence of any succedssful future climate prediction"
and again:
"Insert after "above" "but no evidence of any actual succesful prediction"
and yet again:
"Insert after ."(see Chapter 8)" "but not from a single successful forecast"
all by Vincent Gray. I found 7 of these all up. Methinks someone is trying to make a point. The only reference I could find to him was this page:
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/
from an Kiwi contraian website, that from a cursoary reading , gets alot of stuff wrong. One wonders where these people come from, and why they get to be "expert" reveiwers of the IPCC.
[Anyone can be an "expert reviewer"; curiously its only the contrarians who use it to puff their status -W]
Posted by: Chris C | June 27, 2007 3:13 AM
yeah, jeez, have you seen the McI lackeys patting themselves on the back, that the reviews were up just because of McI's dedicated fighting for the common man etc. (surely Annan and others had requested it too and deserve some credit; not to mention the much-maligned IPCC for getting a system in place at relatively short notice?)
what a joke, just like Lindzen & Ball always screeching they're "silenced" and you see their articles all the time in the corporate media. reading comments from Gray & McI & McK were pretty fun though. at least they can't say they didn't have a chance to look at IPCC stuff; and it gives them some extra fodder & notoriety for getting cash out of Exxon (i.e "we're IPCC reviewers and decided there's no global warming etc". I guess next we'll see "Lubos Motl -- former string physicist at Harvard and now IPCC expert review and New Enron consultant" ;-)
Posted by: Carl Christensen | June 27, 2007 11:34 AM
Mr Gray is nothing if not persistent! Given the comments on his Climate Science blog I was surprised not to see anything from Roger Pielke Sr. - I haven't searched exhaustively though...
Posted by: SomeBeans | June 27, 2007 11:41 AM
Eric Steig's comments on abrupt climate change in the palaeoclimate chapter are very welcome. I'm not sure I buy Wunsch's arguments but they should at least be mentioned.
Posted by: SteveF | June 27, 2007 12:50 PM
Carl,
What do you think about the "IPCC and the Briffa Deletions" discussion on CA?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1792
Posted by: charles | June 28, 2007 12:16 AM
Hey, someone is spoofing Carl Christensen up there, he mentioned my name without throwing in an insult or two - even more implausibly, he suggests that I might possibly deserve some credit for something :-) I'm sure normal service will be resumed shortly, especially if I post anything about the comments on chapters 9 and 10...
I did indeed specifically request that they made pdfs available, citing the US climate change program as an example of how I though it should be done. Probably Steve M said something similar, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two other scientists had also chimed in (eg Harold Brooks also seemed unimpressed in some comment somewhere).
Anyway, it's good to see that reason can prevail - and in a rapid time frame, too.
Posted by: James Annan | June 28, 2007 2:23 AM
Mr Annan,
Thank you for pushing for full disclosure of IPCC comments.
Would you also please push for full disclosure of all data and methods regarding GW. I believe Jones et al have never fully disclosed their data and methods regarding the land based temperature records.
Posted by: charles | June 28, 2007 8:09 AM
While the quibblers and denialists try in vain to disprove what's before the other 99.6825% of the planet's eyes, society moves on to figuring out how to adapt and mitigate.
At least the dead-enders have something to do, rather than distract the rest of us with red herrings and mendacicizations.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | June 28, 2007 9:39 AM
well James, just because I think you're a big girl's blouse & broken record about expert vs uniform priors doesn't mean I think you're totally useless. maybe you can bet Rush Limbaugh!
and about CA/Briffa -- who cares? I predicted when the review comments were online the CA twits would be screeching there are smoking guns all over (and boy, Vincent Gray with his "CA product placement" griping comments sure helped!)
Posted by: Carl Christensen | June 28, 2007 11:16 AM
Was it made clear in the review stage that comments would be released to the public? I don't remember such wording. Fortunately I didn't say anything too stupid...
[Good point; I didn't realise. Wonder if there was a disclaimer we signed? -W]
Posted by: Raymond Arritt | June 28, 2007 6:06 PM
Aw, Carl, I always knew you had a heart. Have a big wet kiss from me, you old softie.
Raymond,
I'm not sure how clearly it was flagged, but it was always part of the official policy, as documented in some pdf somewhere. IME it's never a good idea to assume anything you write in an email will stay private, anyway...
Posted by: James Annan | June 28, 2007 9:20 PM
James, yes, always good advice as many have learned the hard way...
Posted by: Raymond Arritt | June 28, 2007 11:08 PM
From chapter 3 (2nd round comments)
in his first comment on the chapter our plucky Kiwi expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, writes ..
"This Chapter is completely distorted, sustained by suppression or denigration of publications which challenge its conclusions. It depends upon a failure to permit any publicatons or arguments which challenge the virginity of the amalgamated surface record..." etc etc he carries on in the same vain for quite a while
The long-suffering editors respond:
"We thank Vincent for his diligence in wriritng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion. ..."
I suspect VG was going for the record for number of changes requested judging by the rest.
Posted by: SCM | June 29, 2007 12:38 AM
The Heartland institute are capitalising on the release of the AR4 comments (press release via earthtimes):
Al Gore Confronted by Own Scientists - 'Confusion Between Hypothesis and Evidence'
The gist seems to be: Al gets his info from the IPCC, scientists have critiqued the IPCC's AR4, therefore scientists are critiquing Al Gore.
They seize with particular glee on Eric Steig's comments re abrupt climate change in the paleoclimate chapter which is quoted in their headline.
Posted by: SCM | June 29, 2007 4:25 AM
I'm sure Eric will appreciate the quote mining going on.
Posted by: John Sully | June 29, 2007 2:26 PM
weeee, it's getting more fun, the tame IPCC reviewer comments are now a "smoking gun against Al Gore" on the el-supremo right-wing nutter blog Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858466/posts
as usual these a-holes want it both ways --- it's both a commie-pinko network of scientists lock-step bleating in unison; as well as suppression of scientists in the ....errr.... consensus.
Posted by: Carl Christensen | June 29, 2007 4:27 PM
"and about CA/Briffa -- who cares?"
That's not much of a response - I am sure that people who are undecided and faced with contradictory claims from both sides care.
Is there a better response re the Briffa stuff anywhere?
Posted by: Frank O'Dwyer | June 30, 2007 6:22 AM
sorry, I'm not an expert on proxy timeseries, and people who are "undecided" and focusing on one little thing like "Briffa divergence" ad infinitum are grabbing the wrong end of the stick and shaking it, all for their zeal to support their foregone conclusions.
Posted by: Carl Christensen | June 30, 2007 11:08 AM
"people who are "undecided" and focusing on one little thing like "Briffa divergence" ad infinitum are grabbing the wrong end of the stick and shaking it, all for their zeal to support their foregone conclusions."
Nobody who is undecided is doing that. You are mistaken if you think I am impressed with what I am hearing from the denial side of the aisle. Everything I have checked out so far has been a crock. I am sure this is too, however I would like to understand why.
Anyway, you're saying you don't know. Does anybody here know?
Posted by: Frank O'Dwyer | June 30, 2007 2:14 PM
He's at it again. 2nd chapter, first 2 comments:
"The chief defect of this chapter is the total absence on the main greenhouse gas, water vapour. By comparison, the others are insignificant. The usual excuse for this blatant ommision is that the computer models are so defective that the only way they can deal with the undoubted importance of water vapour is to relegate it to the status of a "feedback", and remove its importance from public scurtiny"
VINCENT GRAY
(Slaps self in forehead).
He's got a few others scattered throughout, but they're not quite as stupid, although I partcularly liked a response to one of his edits:
"rejected. Not supported by literature."
Posted by: ChrisC | July 1, 2007 8:51 PM
Here's a goodie from Chapter 11:
Replace "is very likely" with possible" [Vincent Gray]
Reply: Not useful, anything is possible.
(The above sequence was repeated numerous times.)
Posted by: Raymond Arritt | July 2, 2007 12:06 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png
Posted by: Hank Roberts | July 4, 2007 6:04 AM