Folks, I'm pleased that John Quiggin has withdrawn his allegation that Donna Laframboise is a liar. Discussing people's integrity with some disrespect without evidence does make conversations a bit unpleasant, and I'm glad we now move on, and stick to the science.
A proper apology to Donna on your blog, John, would be appropriate, wouldn't it? That will enhance your stature, in my mind. But I leave that to you. You choose your reputation and stature in society through your actions.
The main thing I wanted to bring to my readers' notice is something quite important – that Alan Moran has just pointed out on this blog, as well – namely the issue I raised yesterday about the mess IPCC is in.
This relates to my fundamental question about the TRUTH. Peer review is NOT in itself a guarantee of truth. Take peer review with a pinch of salt, is my recommendation.
Much depends on the quality of peers who conduct a review, the entire peer review process, and the INTENTION and integrity of the person using the peer reviewed publication as secondary literature; in particular, whether all possible critiques have been examined while forming a JUDICIOUS opinion. IPCC's intentions have, however, been likely dishonorable – or so it would appear from the very damning report by IAC.
Time uncovers the truth, though, as scientific findings MUST be replicated, and replication takes time. Bad peer reviewed publications then get weeded out. Also, everyone with a scientific inclination (like me) MUST be persuaded. So we must be prepared to let time take its course, and for there to be many false starts to climate science.
Here's an extract from Jennifer Marohasy's blog re the IAC report:
Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020.Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left, incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented…Assigning probabilities to an outcome makes little sense unless researchers are confident in the underlying evidence…The Working Group II Summary for Policy makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of ‘high confidence’ that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put in perspective, or are difficult to refute. The Committee believes it is not appropriate to assign probabilities to such statements.
The IPCC does not have a conflict-of-interest or disclosure policy for its senior leadership (i.e. IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), Working Group Co-chairs and authors, or the staff of the Technical Support Units…The lack of a conflict –of-interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals…Questions about potential conflict of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s services as an advisor to, and the board member of, for-profit energy companies, and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.
===END OF QUOTE==
Btw, John, you and I should read this report and discuss. My view is that you and I and all of us, as HUMANITY, should aim for the TRUTH and nothing but the truth. Personalities and people are immaterial, just instruments to help us reach the truth. You and I (and all of us) MUST fully understand the SCIENCE and only then can we agree that the costs of man-made climate change (which is TRUE and not fiction), are greater than its benefits.
I believe the ONLY condition when (a physical) science has fully understood something is this: that it is possible to make a PRECISE prediction, and to check whether it has occurred. Higgs boson's discovery is a case in point.
The day climate science will predict an average annual temperature to the third decimal place, and CONFIRM that it has occurred, will mark the first day of climate science. Till then it is only an essay, an attempt.
And then would begin the task of replication of the predictions. Science takes time.
The evidence to date is ambiguous, and not sufficient to provoke defensive action.
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: