Quantcast

Blogger’s Breach of Trust Doesn’t Change the Climate Science Facts

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponBuffer this page

IPCCclimchngemapThe blogosphere and digital news networks are abuzz with news that a climate skeptic blogger leaked an early version of the fifth UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global climate (AR5).

Couched in the language of climate scientists, the unfinished, draft version report is very much open to interpretation and parsing for either side of the climate change debate. Naturally, the blogger, a climate change “skeptic,” put his own spin on the data, sparking what’s bound to become the latest in a string of unauthorized and unethical, if not criminal, attempts to hijack scientific research results and further politicize an already overly politicized and emotionally high-strung debate.

Rawls’ breach of confidentiality & trust + faulty reasoning

The final, complete version of the IPCC AR5 report’s slated for publication at year-end 2013 or early 2014. The most comprehensive review of global climate science research available, a synthesis of the review of scientific research undertaken by climate scientists selected by the IPCC is peer-reviewed publicly and then reviewed by policy makers—typically representatives of UN member government environment and other ministries and departments.

Besides containing a massive amount of data, the research synthesis, as mentioned, is written in the language of climate science. Hence, it does need “translation,” or rather interpretation into plain English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Arabic, etc.

Meant to better connect policy making and policy makers with real scientific research results and the scientific community, the IPCC report review and production process also opens the IPCC and report results up to political spin, which in turn, tends ot heighten the degree of public criticism from both sides of the climate change debate. As is true in journalism on whatever topic, it also leaves the field wide open for information to be parsed and taken completely out of context.

In an admirable effort to make the AR 5 peer review process as transparent to the public as possible, the IPCC allows anyone – anyone – to sign up to peer review the research synthesis as long as they agree not to publicly or privately disclose any information contained in the report. Human nature and the heated, contentious nature of climate change being what it is, that’s proven to be an overly optimistic, even incredibly naive decision, a point well made by Ars Technica’s John Timmer in a December 17 blog post.

Blogger and climate skeptic Alec Rawls signed up as an IPCC AR5 reviewer. He has no qualifications as a scientist or policy maker. His blog, Stop Green Suicide, is a desultory, highly personal and inordinately biased, skewed and self-reinforcing collection of editorials and essays on the law and politics. Timmer notes that on his blog Rawls was asserting that the IPCC and the global climate report authors—who put together what’s undoubtedly the most comprehensive and thorough review of actual scientific research on global climate—were nothing more than a group of fraudulent “propagandists.”

As Timmer writes, “The report is still in the midst of the review process. Although the rough outlines aren’t likely to undergo significant changes—we’re long past the deadline for new research to be included now—the precise wording is certainly subject to change.

“Which is why it’s even more surreal that there’s so much fuss being made about a single sentence in one of the drafts, a sentence that is being used to justify leaking the entire document. And it’s even more surreal when that sentence is examined in context, which reveals the person doing the leaking has badly misinterpreted it.”

IPCC responds

The IPCC Press Office released a statement in an effort to contain and limit the damage, as well as provide reassurance regarding the AR5 process:

“The IPCC is committed to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment. That is why IPCC reports go through multiple rounds of review and the Working Groups encourage reviews from as broad a range of experts as possible, based on a self-declaration of expertise.

“All comments submitted in the review period are considered by the authors in preparing the next draft and a response is made to every comment. After a report is finalized, all drafts submitted for formal review, the review comments, and the responses by authors to the comments are made available on the IPCC and Working Group websites along with the final report. These procedures were decided by the IPCC’s member governments.

“The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion because the text will necessarily change in some respects once all the review comments have been addressed. It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future (15 March 2013). The text that has been posted is thus not the final report.

“This is why the IPCC drafts are not made public before the final document is approved. These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts of the WGI AR5. Each page of the draft makes it clear that drafts are not to be cited, quoted or distributed and we would ask for this to continue to be respected.”

What the IPCC report actually says

Taking a step back and taking a look at the big picture conclusions contained in the leaked draft of the AR5 report, as PhysOrg does in this article, provides a much more accurate and enlightening synopsis of the report’s contents. As PhysOrg’s Sunanda Creagh quotes from the report:

“There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

Climate Progress’ Joe Romm drives the message home in a Dec. 16 post, as well.

“The draft 2013 Fifth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leaked this week makes clear inaction on climate change would be devastating to modern civilization. The report finds that the human fingerprint on climate has grown more obvious, concluding ‘it is virtually certain’; the energy imbalance that causes global warming ‘is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations.”

That’s the real takeaway from the leaked IPCC AR5 draft, a damaging breach of trust and confidentiality perpetrated by Alec Rawls, who perverted the IPCC’s admirable efforts to make an international policy process transparent for his own purposes and benefit Not that the actual scientific data or Rawls’ breach of trust and unethical professional behavior will do much to sway the opinions of hard core climate “skeptics.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponBuffer this page

Comments

  1. ” … the IPCC’s admirable efforts to make an international policy process transparent … ”

    How certain are you that those efforts are what you think they are?

    “The IPCC Leak: This is What Transparency Looks Like”
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/14/the-ipcc-leak-this-is-what-transparency-looks-like/

    ” … The IPCC describes itself as a completely transparent organization. If that is the case, the draft chapters of its upcoming report that were leaked on the Internet yesterday should be a non-issue. …”

    • Russell,
      Your comment doesn’t really address any of the main points of Andrew’s post, but yes, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with Pachauri personally and I do think the IPCC’s efforts are what they say they are. Are they perfect? No. (I assume you actually read Andrew’s post and maybe even followed a link or two). I guess you are implying those efforts contain a secret and sinister motive with Laframboise’s post as proof.

      Anyone can sign on as a peer reviewer, as Rawls did, with the condition that the draft report not be disclosed until the peer review process is completed. In other words, until the scientific method is complete. Rawls, who Laframboise characterized as a “gent” for dishonoring his word, misrepresented the leaked report and twisted it to his own biased agenda (the real story here, not the vague implication from you and Laframboise). Rawls is not a climate scientist, or scientist of any sort as I understand it, but he still had access to the process, as does anyone. Really, other than showing the depths the climate denier community will go to advance a hopelessly tiresome and deficient agenda, the leaked report is of little consequence, nor does it change the scientific facts about climate change (as Andrew says). So, heck, I guess you’re right!

      I understand there is little chance I will change your mind on any of this, or even get you to question your firm bias on AGW. Frankly, there’s little chance you’ll get me to question my understanding of AGW either. But for my part it is primarily due to the weak and specious argument presented.

  2. Rawls must have been smart enough to fool the vetting process of the IPCC but not smart enough to interpret what the draft report actually said. And he was definitely not smart enough to hack any emails.

Leave a Reply