But not as severely as they should have been.
The IPCC, as you know, comes out with a set of reports every five years. The reports are written by groups of experts. Draft reports are widely accessible to people who register themselves as “experts” and there is no quality control in that process, in order to keep things as transparent as possible. This means that the worst climate change denialists can simply sign up as “experts” and flood the scientists trying to write these reports with irrelevant and stupid comments, thus, I presume, wasting valuable time and effort. But, such is the cost of transparency, which is important.
But, even the climate change denailits, who tend to be a rowdy group with with only a vague grasp, if any, on ethics and who generally have very little respect for truth, have to promise to not release any part of the draft that they have had the privilege to see and comment on. This is very important for reasons that are so blindingly obvious I won’t bother explaining them here.
Well, over the last few days, one of the denialsts, in comments on one of the famous denialist blogs, released sections of the report. The part he released, essentially, said:
“There is this idea X which suggests that Y happens. There is no evidence that this is true but we looked carefully at it and there is still no evidence that this is true.”
But by cherry picking and providing a lie as context, the climate change science denier (CCSD) made it say:
“There is t his idea X which suggests that Y happens. Y means global warming is not real. This is in the ICPP report. This is a game changer.”
Below I’m going to give you links to a handful of the blog posts out there that explain exactly what happened, as well as a document just released by the IPCC expressing regret that one of the “expert reviewers” did this thing that should not have been done.
I wonder if that person’s “expert” status will remain in place. It probably should. The whinging and moaning that would result from someone violating the rules being tossed out, from the CCSD afflicted community, would be more annoying than letting the jerk continue to pretend that he is an “expert” on something.
Landmark climate change report leaked online
Leak of Climate Panel Drafts Speaks to Need for New Process
IPCC report leaked then cherry-picked
Major IPCC Report Draft Leaked Then Cherry-Picked By Climate Sceptic
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
PDF File of Statement By IPCC is HERE
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Presumably at some point those who were, quite recently, outraged that someone would have the temerity to obtain documents under false premises and then leak them publicly will decry this sort of behaviour.
The link to http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/13/major-ipcc-report-draft-leaked-then-cherry-picked-climate-sceptics above has a typo in ‘draft’
Joel, there is a huge difference between what you refer to: Bravely exposing a nefarious plot to interfere with public education and singing an agreement to participate in an honest and open process, cheating, and lying.
I’m an expert reviewer. Appointed by the IPCC. So I claim. In reality, I signed up to review some of the sections that cross into my field, so I can’t make any such claims. Such is the penalty for belonging to the reality-based community (and having some ethics still not degraded by age and cynicism).
I think his status should be revoked. He got something straight-forward quite backwards. His comments on anything else will be suspect and very likely not worth the time to sift through. Even if he does find something legitimate to comment on, someone else with better reading comprehension would have found it anyway.
The CCSD will find something to whinge about regardless so why not apply the same standards to him as they would to anyone who violated the agreement. No special treatment.
Of course there is, but it does very much highlight the hypocrisy of Watts et al.
They’re digging up the rotting corpse of the old “magic cosmic rays are responsible for our climate change”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121213142311.htm
This is about the insurance industry take on climate change. I think this makes climate denialists irrelevant.
http://www.nature.com/news/be-persuasive-be-brave-be-arrested-if-necessary-1.11796
Everywhere we look we can find virtual mountains of scientific research with regard to unsustainable pyramid schemes that are surreptitiously foisted upon the human community by a few deceitful people with knowledge at the expense of many too many others who are not ‘in the know’. Those with the most wealth and power buy and pay for the brightest minions and best sycophants who assume responsibilities and perform duties as ‘official’ barbarians at the gate of public awareness. In such a dishonest,unjust and patently unsustainable world order, the only humane response is to take action by doing something that increases awareness of what is sustainable on a planet with the size, limited resources and frangible environs of Earth.
Take what is known to be real about human population dynamics, for example, that gives rise to the human overpopulation of Earth. The growth of the human population worldwide and the global political economy are the two most colossal pyramid schemes on Earth. Where are intellectually honest and morally courageous professionals with appropriate expertise in the biology, economics, ecology, politics and demography who are willing to shed the light provided by the best available science on the relentless overproduction, outrageous overconsumption and unbridled overpopulation activities of the human species: the “mother” of all global threats to future human wellbeing?