2010-09-19 20:23:05Intermediate rebuttal 108: The IPCC consensus is phony
gpwayne
Graham Wayne
graham@gpwayne...
86.158.204.104

The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC

Argument No. 108: The IPCC consensus is phony

It seems ironic that one key version of this argument – that the IPCC ‘misleads’ by misrepresenting the science of climate change and its potential consequences  - is itself a gross misrepresentation of a statement made by Professor Mike Hulme, a climate change scientist who works at the University of East Anglia. He was also co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the IPCC’s AR3 report, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. This is how Hulme dismissed the claim:

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."

The same argument also has a broader scope, demonstrated by the claim that within the IPCC, there is a politically motivated elite who filter and screen all science to ensure it is consistent with some hidden agenda. This position turns the structure of the IPCC into an argument, by claiming that the small number of lead reviewers dictate what goes into the IPCC reports.

Before considering this argument in full, it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all. Its job is purely to collate research findings from thousands of climate scientists (and others working in disciplines that bear on climate science indirectly, such as geology or chemistry). From this, the IPCC produces ‘synthesis reports’ – rather like an executive summary – in which they review and sum up all the available material.  It is necessary therefore to have an organisational structure capable of dealing efficiently with so much information, and the hierarchical nature of the IPCC structure is a reflection of this requirement.

How does the process work? The IPCC primarily concerns itself with science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, although, as it makes clear in the IPCC’s published operational appendices, it does also use so called ‘grey’ material where there is insufficient or non-existent peer-reviewed material available at the time the reports are prepared. See IPCC principles, Annex 2: Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports. Many people are involved in this complex process:

“More than 450 Lead Authors and more than 800 Contributing Authors (CAs) have contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)".
Source: The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process, February 2010

To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.

The Broader Consensus

As with all such disputes, it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence of credible independent support for the reports the IPCC has produced, and the conclusions those reports contain. If the accusations were true, such misrepresentation would also be problematic for official bodies, particularly national science academies and the like.

On that basis, it is reassuring to note that nearly every major national scientific body e.g. the Royal Society (UK) or the National Academy of Sciences (US), unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC. An expanded list can be found here, including this statement:

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”.

In 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council, which represents the world’s scientific academies, the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However, the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work:

“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”.

Source: IAC Report Executive Summary

Like all organisations, the IPCC can improve on its performance. Recent defensiveness regarding errors or ambiguities in the AR4 report may be mitigated in light of unpleasant attacks on the organisation and its director, but the criticisms are valid none the less.

However, claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists, on whose work the IPCC reports are based, are not supported by the facts.

2010-09-19 20:30:08Author's Notes
gpwayne
Graham Wayne
graham@gpwayne...
86.158.204.104

This is my response to the discussions we had about the other IPCC rebuttal I wrote. I hope that this version covers the other aspects of skeptical arguments that were raised in that thread.

I'd like to ask JC to change the title of this argument. In the list, it's called "Hulme says IPCC consensus was phoney" but to make it broader, I'd like to suggest we remove Hulme from the title and just call it 'The IPCC Consensus Was Phony' (no 'e' in phony, I believe - but maybe down under?). 

Please note that I've written this as a new intermediate version. If and when this one is approved, I will write a cut-down version for the basic rebuttal.

2010-09-19 20:37:40
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.252.19
Thumbs up from me. Minor edit - "phoney" for us downunder.
2010-09-19 22:00:57Thumbs up
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
This is good, Graham. I like the idea of including all the scientific organizations as an endorsement, important to include this. Certainly a great improvement on the existing intermediate rebuttal :-) I've changed the title of the argument. One textual suggestion just to streamline the text, what about removing "Lists of national and prestigious private scientific institutions can be found in the Intermediate rebuttal" and having the previous words "nearly every major national scientific body" links to the intermediate page.
2010-09-20 00:50:09Streamlining?
gpwayne
Graham Wayne
graham@gpwayne...
86.158.204.104

OK John - now done.

2010-09-20 04:22:52
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.75
Clear and well calibrated. Congrats.
2010-09-21 23:44:59Nearly ready for publication
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
58.105.164.221
Looks good, Graham. I just have a couple of suggestions:

This sentence is a bit repetitive: “the IPCC does no science whatever – the IPCC does no research at all”. I think you only need one half of this.

Also, to repeat a suggestion I made in the other thread, you might want to mention that multiple surveys with varying methodologies have found the support for AGW among the most qualified experts in climate science is around 97%. While it might be difficult to draw conclusions from any one survey, the point is that several of them have reached similar conclusions.
2010-09-23 22:38:55Oops
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

I thought I'd already "thumbs upped" this. 

Regarding basic versus intermediate on this one, I wonder if it's necessary in this case to make the distinction? This is meta-science after all, does not delve into technical details overmuch and seems a necessary part of basic information for understanding this topic.  

2010-09-24 15:40:09Responses
gpwayne
Graham Wayne
graham@gpwayne...
86.147.249.212

James - thanks, I removed the repetition. I've left the 97% alone though as it is covered in a separate item I didn't want to mix that up with this rebuttal, which is about the IPCC's representation of peer-reviewed papers rather than the consensus around those papers.

Doug - I agree. Don't know how John feels about this though...

2010-09-24 23:43:13
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
58.105.164.221
2010-09-24 23:43:15Fifth thumb
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
58.105.164.221
Alright, here's your fifth thumb, then.
2010-09-25 11:19:36Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
Have replaced my intermediate rebuttal with this version. Can take or leave the basic/intermediate version. Think of it this way - if someone wanted a quick easy answer on the iPhone, would this version suffice as a basic version? If you were explaining IPCC procedures to a barmaid (as you do), is this explanation simple enough?