Either John Quiggin has particular insights into IPCC's data that I don't, or he knows something about Donna Laframboise that I don't. Either way, this matter needs further consideration.
I tend to not question the INTEGRITY of anyone till I've got substantial proof. But in this case the events have been thus.
I dealt with John Quiggin's issues re: IPCC in two blog posts. One of these related to the question of the extent to which IPCC uses peer-reviewed literature. I cited the work of Donna Laframboise, whose analysis showed that 30.1 per cent of the citations in IPCC's fourth report were not peer reviewed.
Here's what John first wrote:
"Pick a chapter of the IPCC Reports at random. Look at the first 30 references – that's enough for a reliable sample – and report the proportiion that aren't in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings (some may have been reviewed in other ways). I picked WGI, Chapter 4, which happened to be on snow, ice and frozen ground (as I'm sure you're aware, there was a mistake in the WGII report on glaciers). I found 25 peer-reviewed journal articles, 2 proceedings, 2 book chapters and 1 article from the encyclopedia of hydrological sciences. Conclusion: 90 per cent of work cited is peer-reviewed, and most of the rest is from authoritative secondary sources. I invite others to replicate (or not) my results."
He was impatient that I wasn't spending the five minutes to reproduce this. I was not going to reproduce this, since I BELIEVED John (I don't question anyone's integrity without proof), but had something else to say.
This is what he wrote:
It will only take you 5 minutes to replicate (or not) my work here. To make ti even easier, here’s the link to the IPCC (AR4, WG1) report
So, how about a response?
I then wrote a more detailed piece, pointing out a comprehensive analysis that had examined all 18000+ citations. In particular, I noted that Donna Laframboise has apparently:
described a collaborative project involving a worldwide team of helpers who checked all the cited references in the 44 chapters of the 2007 report, counting how many were peer-reviewed and how many came from the “gray” literature. Her suspicions were aroused by reports from IPCC expert reviewers (not insiders to the writing) that some items were being submitted which did not have scientific status. These even included some press releases, however their concerns were dismissed and the reports were listed as input to the final report (p46).
The final score for 18,531 references in the 2007 report was 5,587 (one third) not peer reviewed. In 21 of the 44 chapters the score for peer reviewed references did not reach 60%.
Indeed, Rajendra Pachauri himself confirmed at least PART of this data when he wrote:
"AR4 cited approximately 18,000 peer-reviewed publications. It also included a limited amount of gray (or non-peer-reviewed) literature in cases where peer-reviewed literature was unavailable." [Source]
But now John Quiggin is suggesting that Donna Laframboise is a liar. In his comment a few minutes ago on this blog he has written thus:
I assume by now you realise that Laframboise is lying.
The dilemma before me now: whom do I believe?
I'm happy to believe that 90 per cent of IPCC's citations are peer reviewed provided John can prove to me that Chapter 4 is sufficiently representative. I'm a trained statistician and econometrist (only a doctorate, though, with a person of the stature of Cheng Hsiao on my dissertation committee; I didn't get time to publish any work in peer reviewed journals), and like to see the assumptions underpinning such a claim, offset against which is a comprehensive census.
So here I have one well qualified person who has widely published in top peer reviewed journals. His authority is close to 100 (out of 100) in terms of recognised competence. This person checks 30 (THIRTY) of the 18000+ citations in IPCC's report and passes a comprehensive judgement that the figure of 90 per cent that he arrives at from analysis of these THIRTY citations, is the ONLY truth.
He not only denies that the comprehensive analysis by Donna Laframboise, a mere feminist with no credentials and no peer-reviewed publications, is correct, but AFFIRMS CONCLUSIVELY that Donna Laframboise is a liar.
On the one hand I have one of Australia's most cited and well-known economists. On the other hand I have a non-credentialed feminist.
Whom do I believe?
As a professional economist I am clearly inclined to prefer the comprehensive census. Even though Donna is not trained in statistics and econometrics (which John is), she has surely got the capacity to count.
But I'm happy for John to explain why the comprehensive census is not appropriate in this case.
In the meanwhile, I'll attempt to get in touch with Donna Laframboise and ask her if she is a liar. She should know.
In addition to comments below, please read my next blog post:John (Quiggin), Donna’s methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
(Donna, if you do read this, please respond on the next post (i.e. the one cited in the addendum).
The complete discussion
- I'm sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority
- Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
- If Kevin Rudd continues to abuse those who ask questions, then Australia should bid goodbye to science
- It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar
- Now John Quiggin says that the world's top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.
- John Quiggin, IPCC's peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
- John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna's integrity. Here's other stuff you and I should know.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- John (Quiggin), Donna's methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
- Now John Quiggin says that Donna Laframboise is lying. I'll ask her about it.
- Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
- Response to John Quiggin re: longevity of "man-made" CO2 in the atmosphere
- Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
- Inviting input from readers re: climate change facts, to conduct a debate with John Quiggin
- John Quiggin, I suggest you review your estimate of the impact of Australian CO2 reductions
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: