It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar

On July 27, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

On February 11, 2008, one Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, a "scientist" who heads IPCC, said to ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of North Carolina:

I want to emphasize that the IPCC by itself doesn’t do any research, it mobilizes the best experts and scientists from all over the world and we carry our an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that. [Source]

Turns out that ALL of Pachauri's claims are FALSE (including that IPCC mobilises "best" experts, – which is actually a total joke).

But it will suffice to note (for the purpose of my affirmation that Pachauri is a HUGE LIAR) the most obvious falsehood – that IPCC's ACTUAL record of using peer reviewed literature is in the range of 65 per cent, not 100 per cent that Mr. Pachauri keeps babbling about. This ACTUAL record has been documented by IAC, comprising the world's REAL scientists:

An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).

Q.E.D.

In brief, Pachauri is a MASSIVE LIAR who is trying to fool EVERYONE, including elected representatives across the world.

The other issue he raised (re: "experts") is something that Donna Laframboise's book has demolished at great length. I encourage you to read it, if you've not already done so. Donna's work is the BEST piece of investigative journalism I've read in my life. I agree entirely with The Quadrant that "Laframboise represents a long and noble tradition of investigative journalism".

As I read more of it, I'm getting angrier and angrier. Particularly after having read IAC's report. Words fail me as I gasp at the scandal that is IPCC.

Till now I was willing to give it at least some benefit of doubt. No more. NEVER will I be deceived again by IPPC's "reports". I will first examine the credentials of its "experts", their integrity, their transparency, and whether they use real, peer-reviewed literature.

I'm afraid, John Quiggin's wild claims about Donna Laframboise being a liar merely made me buy and read her work, to check her credibility for myself. And in doing so, I've found that not only was Quiggin very wrong, but that Pachauri and IPCC "lead" writers are seriously contaminated. IPCC is close to a con game.

Even people like Quiggin, who are terribly wrong in their understandings, play a useful role in life by making claims that force us to check the truth – and in the process of doing so we often end up learning many crucially important things.

Donna's work can immunise mankind from what may well be the greatest "scientific" fraud of all times: the IPCC. Read her work!

Addendum

The complete discussion

Tagged with: • •
 
2 Comments
ONLY organ donors invited to comment

Now John Quiggin says that the world’s top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.

On July 25, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Now John Quiggin calls IAC's finding stupid. I'm afraid this is getting very curious. I wrote to John referring him to my blog post published yesterday. In addition to the comment he made here (on this blog), he wrote by email the following: 

This is stupid.  Look at any reference list in any piece of research you like, and you will see that it includes books, book chapters, government reports and so on, in addition to journal articles.  All of these kinds of publications go through peer review before publication. [Sanjeev: This is close to the most absurd statement I've heard in my life] The idea that there is something wrong with using peer-reviewed research other than journal articles is so silly that I cannot believe anyone with a PhD would advance it. I'll be fascinated to see if Alan Moran is willing to back such nonsense.

Check back on the examples Laframboise used (unpublished theses, press releases, WWF reports etc), and work out what proportion of the references they account for. Until you've done this, please don't bother contacting me again.
 
Sincerely
John Quiggin

I responded with a detailed email to him. Extracts are provided below. My email is self-explanatory. I trust the standards of Australian academia have not fallen so low that we are now going to dispute the result of a peer-reviewed publication cited by the world's top science academies.

Donna is right. John is wrong. And he first calls Donna a liar. Then he says her volunteers were incompetent. Now he says that

===EXTRACTS===

Dear John,

[Let me write] in relation to my PhD, first, based on whatever little I learnt from it. 
 
I'm NOT fussed about IPCC using literature that is not peer reviewed. I made that very clear in a blog post. (See: http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/07/second-point-for-john-quiggin-to-what-extent-does-ipcc-use-peer-review-and-is-peer-review-the-same-as-truth/)

 

Peer review is NOT my issue with your multiplication by 100. If you can explain the science I'll be happy enough. But instead of explaining the science to me, you raised this matter (of IPCC's findings being sacrosanct since these are peer reviewed) at our chance meeting in the ACE2012 conference. Your multiplication by 100 was and remains my only issue. I need to know the science behind your calculations.
 
In relation to the peer review issue, though, I did offer to study it further. I'm just pointing out now that you were wrong, and Donna (the supposed "liar") is correct. 
 
My PhD training showed me not to rely on a sample of 30 to generalise to 18000, unless that is best one can do. I was blessed to have taken some data related courses (and did well enough in terms of grades), in addition to having Cheng Hsiao, one of the world's top most econometricians, on my dissertation committee.
 
Unless you can demonstrate to me that five minutes of ad hoc research is more valuable than thorough research, I will defer to my training. 
 

Now, in relation to the definition of peer review. I suggest you are now broadening the definition CONSIDERABLY to include books and government reports. I'm afraid the world's top most science academies, that reviewed IPCC's processes, took the traditional view – that is publications thoroughly assessed by two (or more) independent peers whose identity is not disclosed, but whose advise determines whether a paper is deemed fit for publication. 

 
Government reports and books do not meet this criterion. You must demonstrate that peer review is a loose and fuzzy concept. To me it is a very tightly controlled process.
 
In any event, all I have done in this new blog post is to point out the world's top science academies (IAC) have cited a peer reviewed paper (see citation below), which analysed the 3rd IPCC report. The paper details:
Andreas Bjurström and Merritt Polk
Climatic Change, 2011, Volume 108, Numbers 1-2, Pages 1-22


To me it is clear that ALL the top scientists in the world are fully aware that IPCC makes use of peer-reviewed literature only to about 2/3rd of the extent of its citations. This is not a debatable issue. It is a fact.
 
I trust you can now see that you are pushing the boundaries of (a) statistics, (b) science, (c) definition of peer review process quite seriously. Your position is not sustainable. You are obliged to issue a correction.
 
Regards
Sanjeev

The complete discussion

Tagged with: • •
 
7 Comments
ONLY organ donors invited to comment

If you care about your future, please buy and read The Delinquent Teenager by Donna Laframboise

On July 21, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Is it fair to say your future and the future of your children worth more than $5?

So buy Donna's book. I finally managed to find time to flick through the book today, and yes, it is a definite MUST BUY.

Only $5. That should be affordable by everyone.

On a matter as important as the TRUTH of climate change it is CRUCIAL that all of us apply our minds diligently to ensure that EVERYTHING is being done correctly, that all genuine science is being considered, and fake science rejected.

We need to double check and triple check that there are HIGH QUALITY people on IPCC, and that there are checks and balances that ensure we get a genuine, not biased output. We need a process of examination of scientific literature that is more sturdy than anything that has ever been designed before.

We can't afford to make mistakes.

What Donna Laframboise has done is to point out crucial procedural and SUBSTANTIVE errors in IPCC systems and review processes.

I'm not saying Donna's work is to be taken as a bible, or to be treated without questioning. Do question it. I always aim to question. I'm merely saying it contains VITAL information that each of us must know about, and then think about, before we are taken for a ride by the many self-interested, mischievous bureacrats who tend to operate the unaccountable body that is the United Nations.

A few extracts will suffice:

IPCC is still FLOODED WITH GREENPEACE, WWF AND OTHER SUCH FANATICS

The IPCC is currently working on its fifth edition of the Climate Bible. Commonly referred to as AR5 (which stands for Assessment Report #5), it is not being written by a fresh set of faces. Quite the opposite.
 
Pachauri, who authors forewords for Greenpeace publications, is still in charge. This fact, in itself, delivers a fatal blow to AR5's credibility.
 
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – whose ties to Greenpeace extend back 17 years – is now leading a chapter. So is Michael Oppenheimer, who worked for the Environmental Defense Fund for more than two decades.
 
Greenpeace 'legend' Bill Hare is serving as a lead author. Richard Moss, the former World Wildlife Fund vice-president, and Jennifer Morgan, the former WWF chief spokesperson, are both involved.
 
Andreas Fischlin and Guy Midgley, the two WWF-linked individuals who led the species extinction chapter are participating. So are Rik Leemans and Lesley Hughes, two more WWF -linked individuals from that chapter.
 
Sari Kovats, who only earned her PhD last year, is leading a chapter. As is Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen - who cited 10 research papers that hadn't even been accepted by a journal when he led an IPCC chapter the last time.
 
Gabriele Hegerl, who refused outright to allow Steve McIntyre to check her data, is involved. So is Kevin Trenberth – whose hurricane pronouncements sparked Chris Landsea's resignation. Alistair Woodward is now in charge of the health chapter, despite the overtly political treatises he has authored.
 
And let us not forget Thomas Stocker, the climate modeler who heads AR5's 'hard science' working group. Since he thinks gasoline prices should triple and that everyone should participate in the grand goal of de-carbonizing society it's clear his mind is already made up. Do we really suppose that a working group led by him is going to acquit the accused? [FOOTNOTE 36-1]
 

IPCC has NOT ensured absence of conflict of interest

In May 2011 the IPCC adopted a conflict-of-interest policy, but parts of it remain murky and it's far from clear how the IPCC intends to enforce it. [FOOTNOTE 34-3] In June 2011, Pachauri confirmed that this policy doesn't apply to the authors currently working on the upcoming Climate Bible. His reasoning, as he explained it to a newsmagazine, has to be heard to be believed:
Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we've already selected them and therefore it wouldn't be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively. [bold added]

IPCC has NOT appointed independent members to a crucial committee

Observing that the IPCC structure didn't lend itself to responding in a timely fashion when concerns are raised by the media, the committee suggested a new body be established to deal with IPCC business between the scheduled meetings of that organization. It therefore included the following as one of its recommendations:
The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and three independent members who include individuals from outside of the climate community. [bold added] [FOOTNOTE 34-4]
In June 2011 Steve McIntyre reported on his blog that the IPCC has, indeed, established this new committee. There's just one problem. While the IAC report said it should contain three independent voices, including people from outside the climate community, the IPCC thumbed its nose at that advice. In lieu of independent individuals the IPCC instead gave four of its fulltime staff members seats at the table. [FOOTNOTE 34-5]

Tagged with: •
 
3 Comments
ONLY organ donors invited to comment

John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna’s integrity. Here’s other stuff you and I should know.

On July 18, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

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:

==QUOTE==

 
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) commissioned a review of its processes and procedures with a report handed down in October 2010, but only just now made publically available at its website.[1]
 
I’ve only just started to examine the 100 plus page document, but my first impressions are that finally we have an official report that may impose a level of accountability on the IPCC.
 
Well at least the report highlights past errors and acknowledges that they have been significant.

The section on “Evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty” includes comment that:
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 section on “Governance and management” includes comment that:
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.
The report includes a case study on “Himalaya glaciers” and “the performance of the IPCC’s report review process” (page 22). The assessment refers to this “error” in the fourth assessment report by Working Group II and how the IPCC review process “failed”.
 
The IPCC should have released this report when it was first handed down in October 2010. Now, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must report on it! But I’m not holding my breath.
****
1. Climate Change assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, October 2010 by InterAcademy Council. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf
 

===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

Tagged with:
 
2 Comments
ONLY organ donors invited to comment

John (Quiggin), Donna’s methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.

On July 17, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Dear John

Donna Laframboise is perhaps travelling at the moment, so hasn't responded to my requests to comment.

In the meanwhile, I've decided to read what she wrote, so I bought her book (available here for $5), and have spent five minutes checking for myself her methodology.

Here is what her book says (below). After you read this, please check the link I'll provide, below.

It had now become clear to me that an audit of all 44 chapters of the Climate Bible needed to be undertaken. The list of references appearing at the end of each one had to be examined. It was important to know just how many were actually peer-reviewed. But since some chapters list 400 or more references, and a few list 800 or more, the job was too large for one person. I needed help.

The Internet is a powerful and amazing invention. On March 8th, 2010 I wrote a blog post asking for assistance. The rules were simple. The references appearing at the end of each IPCC chapter would be examined by three people, working independently. They'd identify the non-peer-reviewed entries, tally them up, and calculate the percentages.

In the event that their findings differed slightly (the IPCC doesn't always include complete information, and it's difficult to tell whether some journals are peer-reviewed or not), the result most favorable to the IPCC would be used. Where there was uncertainty, the IPCC would receive the benefit-of-the-doubt. This wasn't about nitpicking. What mattered was the big picture.

Within hours, I began receiving offers of assistance from people around the world. A surgeon from Kentucky. A night-shift worker from Australia. A software whiz from Vancouver. A retired engineer from Germany. Soon, more than 40 individuals from 12 countries had been in touch and a four-week dash to the finish line had begun.

Ordinary people volunteered many hours of their personal time to this project, which I called the Citizen Audit. In a handful of cases, fearing negative repercussions in their workplace or communities, they asked not to be publicly identified. One man told me that his neighbors might slash his tires or set fire to his house.

Think about that. What kind of moment in history do we inhabit when people feel that helping to fact-check a UN document places them at risk? In an era in which freedom of thought, religion, and speech are supposed to be valued why should counting up references in the Climate Bible be the slightest bit controversial?

After the results were all in, a few more days were required to do the math, write a brief report, and compile some tables. Five weeks later, on April 14th, we made our results public. Of the 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed. The peer review score was so low in 21 out of 44 instances, the chapter would have received an F on an elementary school report card (59% or less).

Among the sources used to support IPCC assertions were newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished Masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents, and yes, press releases.

While Chairman Pachauri had declared an Indian government discussion paper fit only for the dustbin, we found that the Climate Bible cites dozens of discussion papers. In one case, the document relied on by the IPCC was clearly labeled as 'version one' of a draft.
 
I wish I could say the release of our findings triggered a media frenzy, that journalists took notice and that this UN body was asked some tough questions. Such as:
  • If the IPCC can't be trusted to describe it's own report accurately why should we believe anything else it says?
  • How can the head of the IPCC be so misinformed?
  • Does chairman Pachauri intend to set the record straight with those North Carolina legislators?
To my knowledge only one news outlet contacted the IPCC. A spokeswoman  acknowledged the IPCC was aware of the Citizen Audit findings, but declined to comment.
 
Six days after we released our results, an article authored by Pachauri appeared in a Yale University online publication. It claimed the 2007 edition of the Climate Bible "cited approximately 18,000 peer- reviewed publications." We found less than 13,000.It further said that "a limited amount of gray (or non-peer-reviewed) literature" had been cited "in cases where peer-reviewed literature was unavailable." Actually, this occurred 5,587 times. [FOOTNOTE 11-1]

John (Quiggin), the detailed underlying data is available here.

There is MASSIVE amounts of detailed data linked above. Every single chapter has THREE different analyses.

You can now go back to your sample of 30 citations and confirm whether the independent reviewers were lying.

And more importantly, as far as I'm concerned, can you please PROVE to me that Donna was lying?

Much appreciated.

You do realise, I hope, that you are a full professor, and also hold an important public office. It is imperative that your opinions have the grativas expected of such a senior person. I'm STILL willing to believe you, but you now need to REALLY prove that Donna is a liar. The ball's in your court.

 

The complete discussion

Tagged with: • •
 
5 Comments
ONLY organ donors invited to comment

Go To Top »
p-4j9aGt2RSyXeB