Comments on: UK Sunday Times’ sloppy journalism attacks IPCC http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc Global warming and the future of New Zealand Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:31:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Liberal Conspiracy » More media misinformation on climate change http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-10653 Liberal Conspiracy » More media misinformation on climate change Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:47:14 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-10653 [...] Sunday Times’ reporting has been dubbed by many science bloggers as ‘Leake-gate’. One says: The Sunday Times article is simply untrue. It is lazy, sloppy journalism at best, deliberate [...] [...] Sunday Times’ reporting has been dubbed by many science bloggers as ‘Leake-gate’. One says: The Sunday Times article is simply untrue. It is lazy, sloppy journalism at best, deliberate [...]

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Herald censures IPCC on flimsy grounds — Hot Topic http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-10103 Herald censures IPCC on flimsy grounds — Hot Topic Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:16:52 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-10103 [...] Times article is sloppy and wildly inaccurate.  You can read what I wrote about it on Hot Topic here.  I won’t repeat myself. I described it as simply untrue. But it has evidently entered the [...] [...] Times article is sloppy and wildly inaccurate.  You can read what I wrote about it on Hot Topic here.  I won’t repeat myself. I described it as simply untrue. But it has evidently entered the [...]

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Miliband: denialism profoundly dangerous — Hot Topic http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-10007 Miliband: denialism profoundly dangerous — Hot Topic Sun, 31 Jan 2010 06:50:17 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-10007 [...] make it into the journalistic canon. I wrote a few days ago about the UK Sunday Times’ untruthful article on the IPCC and predicted it would be reported uncritically by other newspapers.  Right on cue a [...] [...] make it into the journalistic canon. I wrote a few days ago about the UK Sunday Times’ untruthful article on the IPCC and predicted it would be reported uncritically by other newspapers.  Right on cue a [...]

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9998 Bryan Walker Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:47:40 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9998 Australis, I don't think you can infer that there are no prescribed standards for the documents cited by the IPCC authors. This sentence hardly invites them to choose whatever they want: "Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them." Your assumption that the Muir-Woods paper was chosen because the authors thought there was a story and used the paper because it coincided with their worldview doesn't show much respect for the authors. If you want to know who they were for this chapter of the report you can see them <a href ="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter1.pdf" rel="nofollow"> here </a> on the opening page - all ten of them from nine different countries, with three review editors from three more countries. My understanding is that the Muir-Woods paper was cited because it was the only one that looked at the global catalogue of catastrophes. The Pielke papers cited which normalised losses were for the US only. It seems to me quite reasonable that the authors should include the paper's findings for this reason, and as I've already pointed out they hardly embraced it enthusiastically as proving a point they had decided beforehand they wanted to make. Australis, I don’t think you can infer that there are no prescribed standards for the documents cited by the IPCC authors. This sentence hardly invites them to choose whatever they want: “Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them.”

Your assumption that the Muir-Woods paper was chosen because the authors thought there was a story and used the paper because it coincided with their worldview doesn’t show much respect for the authors. If you want to know who they were for this chapter of the report you can see them here on the opening page – all ten of them from nine different countries, with three review editors from three more countries. My understanding is that the Muir-Woods paper was cited because it was the only one that looked at the global catalogue of catastrophes. The Pielke papers cited which normalised losses were for the US only. It seems to me quite reasonable that the authors should include the paper’s findings for this reason, and as I’ve already pointed out they hardly embraced it enthusiastically as proving a point they had decided beforehand they wanted to make.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Australis http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9996 Australis Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:25:10 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9996 Bryan - I thought the lack of peer review did matter, and should have taken the M-W paper out of consideration. I was surprised (and a little shocked) when you pointed out that there are no prescribed standards for any of the documents relied upon by IPCC authors. I think I agree with your interpretation. The level of insurance losses is the best available measure of "extreme weather events" because they are fully documented and quantified and expressed in comparable (monetary) terms. But if relativity is to be measured over time or space, some statistical adjustments are almost inevitably required. In this case, after adjustments, there was no story. But the IPCC author thought there was a story, and used the unpublished paper to make a point - presumably one that coincided with his/her worldview. Bryan – I thought the lack of peer review did matter, and should have taken the M-W paper out of consideration. I was surprised (and a little shocked) when you pointed out that there are no prescribed standards for any of the documents relied upon by IPCC authors.

I think I agree with your interpretation. The level of insurance losses is the best available measure of “extreme weather events” because they are fully documented and quantified and expressed in comparable (monetary) terms. But if relativity is to be measured over time or space, some statistical adjustments are almost inevitably required. In this case, after adjustments, there was no story.

But the IPCC author thought there was a story, and used the unpublished paper to make a point – presumably one that coincided with his/her worldview.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9994 Bryan Walker Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:25:11 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9994 Australis, you're hard to please. First you say that the paper not being peer reviewed might not matter, then you affirm that its not being peer reviewed means that the organisation has no accountability. You continue to insist that Muir-Woods paper was clearly wrong. The paper was published in 2008 (after the IPCC report was prepared) and from what I can make out from the <a href = "http://books.google.com/books?id=TsKpdWmFNYAC&pg=PT267&dq=robert+muir-wood&cd=9#v=onepage&q=robert%20muir-wood&f=false" rel="nofollow"> condensed summary </a> the writers had decided that the normalising relative to per capita wealth in the US meant that they had insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalised catastrophe losses. Whether that was a retraction from their original paper or not I don't know, and haven't the time or energy to pursue. But in any case the IPCC statement quoted in my post seems to me to be open to this possibility when it says of the original paper: "The significance of the upward trend is influenced by the losses in the USA and the Caribbean in 2004 and 2005 and is arguably biased by the relative wealth of the USA, particularly relative to India." I see nothing here to suggest any grievous error in this section of the IPCC report. Australis, you’re hard to please. First you say that the paper not being peer reviewed might not matter, then you affirm that its not being peer reviewed means that the organisation has no accountability.

You continue to insist that Muir-Woods paper was clearly wrong. The paper was published in 2008 (after the IPCC report was prepared) and from what I can make out from the condensed summary the writers had decided that the normalising relative to per capita wealth in the US meant that they had insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalised catastrophe losses. Whether that was a retraction from their original paper or not I don’t know, and haven’t the time or energy to pursue.

But in any case the IPCC statement quoted in my post seems to me to be open to this possibility when it says of the original paper: “The significance of the upward trend is influenced by the losses in the USA and the Caribbean in 2004 and 2005 and is arguably biased by the relative wealth of the USA, particularly relative to India.”

I see nothing here to suggest any grievous error in this section of the IPCC report.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Australis http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9993 Australis Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:06:48 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9993 No, you seem to be right. This guideline allows all IPCC authors to use any material from any source they have "assessed" - ie there are no prescribed standards at all. This leads to the organisation having no accountability, and the author being personally responsible, for the choice of the incorrect Muir-Woods material. No, you seem to be right. This guideline allows all IPCC authors to use any material from any source they have “assessed” – ie there are no prescribed standards at all.

This leads to the organisation having no accountability, and the author being personally responsible, for the choice of the incorrect Muir-Woods material.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9988 Bryan Walker Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:15:35 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9988 Australis, the following extract is taken from an IPCC <a href = "http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf" rel="nofollow"> fact sheet </a> on the preparation of reports. It makes it quite clear that authors are not restricted to peer-reviewed literature. "The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them. Disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support should be clearly identified in IPCC reports, together with relevant arguments. Expert meetings and workshops may be used to support the preparation of a report." I can't see anything in the IPCC section discussing economic and insurance losses which contravenes these guidelines. Can you? Australis, the following extract is taken from an IPCC fact sheet on the preparation of reports. It makes it quite clear that authors are not restricted to peer-reviewed literature.

“The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them. Disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support should be clearly identified in IPCC reports, together with relevant arguments. Expert meetings and workshops may be used to support the preparation of a report.”

I can’t see anything in the IPCC section discussing economic and insurance losses which contravenes these guidelines. Can you?

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Australis http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9985 Australis Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:43:10 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9985 But why was the Muir-Wood statement published as an authoritative contribution to WG2 - although it was not peer-reviewed (which might not matter except that the IPCC has repeatedly insisted that it won't touch anything not so blessed) and clearly wrong? But why was the Muir-Wood statement published as an authoritative contribution to WG2 – although it was not peer-reviewed (which might not matter except that the IPCC has repeatedly insisted that it won’t touch anything not so blessed) and clearly wrong?

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/uk-sunday-times-sloppy-journalism-attacks-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9962 Bryan Walker Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:28:49 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3967#comment-9962 C3Po, we have already had the timesonline article drawn to our attention by Mikh on this <a href = "http://hot-topic.co.nz/welcome-words-from-a-politician/" rel="nofollow"> thread. </a>You can see an exchange of comments there. C3Po, we have already had the timesonline article drawn to our attention by Mikh on this thread. You can see an exchange of comments there.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>