I’m sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority

On August 3, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Folks, I'll no longer be engaging with one "Professor" John Quiggin, member of Australia's Climate Change Authority. I'm posting my last correspondence with him. No more trying to show John the truth.

It has been a great disappointment to interact with John whose specialisation seems to be to INSULT everyone who points out his errors. He ALWAYS plays the person, NEVER the ball.

I fear for the future of mankind with with such people being appointed to senior roles by governments.

I truly fear for mankind's future. Not because of CO2 (which is a boon) but because of those who REFUSE to investigate the truth and yet hold high positions of influence.

EMAILS EARLIER TODAY

[My last email to John]

John, I was trying to help. But if you feel that everyone who points out the truth (and I really don't care about who Evans is) is some kind of a fraud or liar, then I'm done.

I clearly proved to you that Donna's observations are perfectly in line with a peer reviewed publication that assesses the use of peer reviewed journals by the 3rd Assessment. That was never my key issue anyway. Why do you think that's an issue? I don't care for [the] peer reviewed/ non-peer reviewed [criterion]. Only for the truth.

I have also read Donna's book now and it appears EVERYTHING in it is correct. I've verfied a few of her references. I strongly encourage you to verify for yourself how IPCC has been taking the world for a big ride.

I have repeatedly shown you that your multiplication by 100 is wrong. You haven't yet fixed it that fundamental error.

But given the nature of responses I keep getting from you, I'm no longer going to engage. I thought I was discussing with someone interested in the truth. I'm clearly mistaken.

I won't insult you, though, as you keep insulting others (and me). I wish you the best in your life and career.

Sanjeev

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:39 PM, John Quiggin [Sanjeev: email ID removed] wrote:

Evans is a fraud – he's taken a stint doing some carbon accounting software and used it to present himself as an expert on climate science. You failed to respond to my observation that Laframboise claims about IPCC references were false, and as far as I can tell you still haven't read the reports you're denouncing. [Sanjeev: This is FALSE. I responded to John repeatedly!] You also ignored it when I pointed out that the article you cited, obviously sourced from the denialist blogosphere though you danced around the question, was a load of rubbish. [Sanjeev: This is FALSE. I fully accepted that ONE of the two articles I pointed out was later superseded by another article, but that didn't even remotely disprove the key point that his multiplication by 100 was WRONG.]

If you want to believe silly conspiracy theories, go ahead. You're only confirming the observation that belief in the free market is highly correlated with conspiracist, anti-science views on everything from AIDS to the moon landing
 
 
Please don't waste my time any further. [Sanjeev: As if I have time enough to waste so that I can waste others' time! John has no idea of the hours I put in each day!]
 

JQ

On 03/08/2012, at 8:27 PM, Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@gmail.com> wrote:

John

John, don't know if you are still interested in the science, but one Dr David M. W. Evans shows clearly that IPCC models have all grossly over-predicted temperatures, and predicted other effects which have not actualised. I suggest you re-consider your ill-placed faith in IPCC's reports. Pl. see: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong-20120801-23fdv.html

I would appreciate being notified when you review the facts and change your mind.

s

 

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

John Quiggin, IPCC’s peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.

On July 24, 2012, in Science, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

John, the last time we discussed the issue of the use of peer review in IPCC's report, you conducted a five minute analysis of 30 citations and concluded that IPCC's rate of use of peer reviewed references is 90 per cent. I cited Donna Laframboise's  study which showed that the figure stands at 70 per cent.

You then questioned the quality of work by Donna's 40 "amateur" volunteers who had analysed the data.

I then suggested that (since I have no time to do a detailed analysis myself) we can agree to a figure that is somewhere between 70 and 90 per cent.

But now I have access to TRULY SOLID data that confirms that Donna's analysis was almost certainly accurate.

I'm currently reading the IAC's 2010 report (by the world's top science academies – not government appointed bureaucrats and "scientists"), and while I will have much to say on IAC's report in the coming days, I'll presently focus only on IPCC's peer review process.

Here are the precise words used by the IAC:

Sources of data and literature
IPCC assessments are intended to rely mainly on peer-reviewed literature. … 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).
 

The current IPCC procedure requires authors to critically assess unpub­lished or non-peer-reviewed sources, reviewing their quality and validity before incorporating them (Appendix D).Non-peer-reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer-reviewed. T

it is clear that these procedures are not always followed. A search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed. Blogs, newspaper articles, press releases, advocacy group reports, and proprietary data were thought by many to be inappro­priate.

John, although Donna's analysis refers to the 4th IPCC report, and IAC's refers to the 3rd IPCC report, it is clear that IPCC processes had not changed between the third and fourth reports. The performance of IPCC (in terms of use of peer reviewed literature) in the 3rd report was even worse than what Donna came up with for the 4th report. I'd be surprised if more than 65 per cent of IPPC's work is based on peer reviewed work.
 
Donna has been very charitable, giving IPCC the benefit of doubt.
 
But regardless of whether the figure is 65 per cent of 70 per cent, it is NOT 90 per cent, which is your assertion.
 
That concludes the proof that you were wrong on BOTH your claims.
 
If you think there is still some scope for debate, let me know.
 

NEXT STEPS

You have not yet apologised to Donna for calling her a liar. That is a shame. But I do expect you, now, to publish a blog post (on your blog) that corrects both your errors – of multiplication by 100, and gross exaggeration of IPCC's peer review process. I trust you are a seeker of the truth, and will not hesitate to correct your mistakes. Much appreciated!

I look forward to a public demonstration of a genuine spirit of academic excellence and respect for the scientific method.

Addendum

Donna's recent talk in Melbourne (which I did not attend) is now online, I note.

 

The complete discussion

Tagged with: • • •
 
5 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