Hi Richard,

I think you have forgotten to get back to me regarding my question to you here,

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1590914

Any chance you could have another look at this one please?

Sep 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM | Richard Betts

But anyway, I don't see why having confidence in a particular aspect of the science (whether warming is occurring and whether it is mostly due to increased GHG concentrations) constitutes a conflict of interest. The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances.

As a result of you pointing out that I had misunderstood the IAC position on the "strongly held view/conflict of interest" problem I went back to the document for which I provided a link up-thread:

"PRESS RELEASE. Abu Dhabi, 13 May 2011"

and I specifically mentioned page 3 (my bold)

"Conflict of Interest

The IAC recommended: The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly associated in the preparation of IPCC reports.

The 33rd Session adopted a rigorous conflict of interest policy that covers:-

• Both financial and non-financial interests
• The distinction between a strongly-held view and a conflict of interest
• The need to execute the policy to reflect the various roles, responsibilities and levels of authority held by individuals within the IPCC process
• To mandate a task group of Governments to continue to complete a plan for implementing this policy--including a form for disclosure—for approval at the IPCC’s 34th Session.
• To work towards early adoption of this policy, noting that two Working Groups and the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories have begun to implement interim policies."

This section, "Conflict of Interest" is all about "individuals", and how to deal with the problem of having individuals who signed the Met Office statement (thereby demonstrating that they have a strongly held view that AGW is real, and - the conflict of interest - that their jobs depend upon the concept of AGW being refreshed every few years) being directly associated in the preparation of IPCC reports.

So, you must have read another IAC document which supports your assertion that "The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances."

Please arrange to provide a link to that document. Maybe we are both correct.

Hi Philip

Sorry, I haven't forgotten, I just haven't had chance to look into it properly yet, as it's an important and fairly involved issue - I will though.

Brownedoff - I think we'll just have to recognise that we disagree on this. I don't think signing the Met Office statement creates a problem with being an IPCC lead author, but clearly you do. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

It should be fairly obvious from my posts here (and indeed my very presence here) that I am a reasonably open-minded individual who is prepared to look at all angles of a scientific issue. I've said here that I accept the IAC criticisms of the IPCC and am already working as hard as I can to help ensure that similar problems don't happen in AR5, and so are many others. The fact that I, and indeed most informed people (including many sceptics and lukewarmers) accept that the world is warming and that humans play a role in this does not, in my view, constitute a problem. I have also, as you will note from my post above, put my name on a paper which argues that of the key papers cited in AR4 was far too certain. Prominant sceptics were also co-authors on that paper. Is that the behaviour of someone with prejudicial strongly-held views?

However, if you and others disagree, fine - that's up to you!

But even so, I encourage you to judge AR5 on it's content and not on your strongly-held, pre-conceived ideas about the alleged prejudices and motivations of the authors. Indeed you can help contribute to the content of the report by signing up as a reviewer and showing us the evidence for where our strongly-held views are wrong.

If you want to have a go at somebody for allegedly being compromised with a non-objective view, please find somebody else!

Richard,

OK, fair enough thank you. Please do be sure to respond, it is very unsettling to be left hanging for so long. As I mentioned before, I'm basically on your side scientifically, and I hope you will be able to give me a satisfactory answer. I'm away for a few couple of weeks beginning of October, so I'll check the thread again in a month's time.

Sep 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Richard Betts

The words "strongly held view" and "conflict of interest" are not mine, they are the words of the IAC:

"The IAC is a consortium of national academies of science and research councils from around the globe which was requested by the UN Secretary-General and the Chair of the IPCC to assess the Panel’s policies and procedures last year."

The IAC apparently detected a problem (which you apparently do not recognise) and set out policy recommendations; the IPCC has said:

"The implementation of the policy along with other next steps will be taken to the Panel’s 34th Session scheduled for November later this year."

One of the items to be implemented is this:

To mandate a task group of Governments to continue to complete a plan for implementing this policy--including a form for disclosure—for approval at the IPCC’s 34th Session.

It will be interesting to see this form when it is published - I wonder if one of the questions for the individuals directly associated in the preparation of IPCC reports will be:

"Have you ever signed a petition in connection with an area of your expertise? If so, please give full details below including the wording of that petition".

Presumably, in the interests of transparency, the completed disclosure forms will be published very soon after the form is approved in November. I will not be holding my breath.

BTW, I looked at the paper you mentioned and was disappointed, but not surprised, to see that the first few words are:

"Now that it is widely accepted that global warming is happening, ......"

Of course, this was put out in March 2007, three years before the advent of climate disruption:

see http://tinyurl.com/256af8g

Brownedoff

Your original question was:

Now, is it fair to think that individuals who would sign such a document have a "strongly held view" that AGW is real?

If it is "fair", then surely these individuals have a conflict of interest, in that their jobs depend on the continuance of funding from governments

I completely disagree that we need to keep governments believing in AGW in order to keep out jobs. As I have said elsewhere on this blog under another thread, the real task of climate science is to be able to monitor and understand change and variability from whatever cause in order to be able to forecast its effects and help society be more resilient, eg: robust early warning of severe winter weather, or getting aid in place before the famine or flood hits rather than after. A big task and not one that we claim to be able to do yet (but we're working on it).

So even if AGW were proved wrong, and even if IPCC were shut down, I honestly would not be worried about my job!

Sep 22, 2011 at 8:03 PM | Richard Betts

As I have said elsewhere on this blog under another thread, the real task of climate science is to be able to monitor and understand change and variability from whatever cause in order to be able to forecast its effects and help society be more resilient, eg: robust early warning of severe winter weather, or getting aid in place before the famine or flood hits rather than after.

As I have have said elsewhere on this blog under another thread, society does not need your selective monitoring, your incomplete understanding and your useless forecasts, in order to be resilient.

The best way of coping with the ups and downs of the climate in the UK (or anywhere) is to have an abundance of cheap electricity available 24/7 so that society can either warm itself up or cool itself down down as required, and doing this based on its own decisions, at the time of need.

As a result of the persuasive powers of individuals who have a strongly held view that AGW is real, society in the UK is facing the prospect, in the near future, of scarce, expensive and unreliable supplies of electricity at which time your forecasts of severe winter weather will only be of use to manufacturers of coffins.

Famine and flood has always been with the human race and it will continue. Although it has to be said that in the case of several recent disasters, the UN and its appalling institutions usually arrived on the scene weeks if not months after the US military. Just now, it is not clear for how long the US will be able to continue with this service.

So even if AGW were proved wrong, and even if IPCC were shut down, I honestly would not be worried about my job!

At last, I think you have finally put your finger on the problem.

@Brownedoff Sep 22, 2011 at 8:46 AM

I'll give it my best shot :-)

@Richard Betts Sep 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Richard, please don't take my comments here as being a criticism of you (and/or your contributions to the IPCC reports), because that is not my intent - and I apologize if I have mistakenly given you this impression! But, that being said, the view from here (so to speak!) is that (amongst others!) this particular issue (i.e. that of author selection) is somewhat more than "slightly thorny" ;-)

Setting aside the fact that Principles, Guidelines, Appendices and Annexes are all well and good - and that one needs to bear in mind the fact that they do not have (you should pardon the expression!) the force of an organization's duly constituted by-laws ...

The key sentence in the text you cited above is, IMHO (and my emphasis added):

The composition of the group of Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors for a section or chapter of a Report shall reflect the need to aim for a range of views, expertise and geographical representation (ensuring appropriate representation of experts from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in transition).

With all due respect, "aim for" is a loophole through which one could currently drive a truckload of unqualfied and/or highly biased activists! Not only are there no "guarantees" of fidelity to this rather weak (if not superficial) "principle", but there's no provision for any accountablity or verification that this particular guideline has, in fact, been followed.

Not to mention the divergence between the "principle" and the "practice" (as mentioned by those IPCC insiders whose comments I had noted above).

BTW Hilary I have a question for you regarding the "self-citation alert" metric of yours. If I were to cite a paper which challenged a major conclusion of AR4 (eg: this one which argues that the "30% of species at risk of extinction" statement is unreliable but I was an author on the paper myself (as is indeed the case with that paper), in your eyes is that "good" or "bad"? ie: is it "good" because I've been an objective scientist and spoken up when I think something cited in AR4 was not well-founded, or "bad" because I've cited my own paper? Do I still get a black mark even for doing the right thing?

Our intention with all of the "tags" we use in AccessIPCC was not to pass judgment; i.e. we are not saying that the presence - or absence, for that matter - of any tag is either "good" or "bad". I had hoped that our explanation at the top of every page would have made this clear:

This is not to suggest that we believe such papers are necessarily flawed, but rather that, as Joseph Alcamo noted at Bali in October 2009, "as policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy".

I don't doubt that some CLA's and/or LA's are more scrupulous than others (and I count you among the scrupulous!). For some observers, the "self-reference concern" flag may be a non-issue; for others (amongst whom I admittedly count myself!) the quantity is a signal of the potential for bias (if not outright conflict of interest in its broadest sense). The IAC report noted:

The lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input. Questions have been raised about [...] the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. [...] the Committee believes that the nature of the IPCC’s task (i.e., in presenting a series of expert judgments on issues of great societal relevance) demands that the IPCC pay special attention to issues of independence and bias to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its results.

So there are a few ways one might choose to view AccessIPCC's "self-reference concern" tag:

1. A "big picture" quantification of the "practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work".*

2. A starting point for further investigation by interested researchers

*As I had noted on my own blog a few months ago (and I may have even mentioned it earlier in this thread!), this "big picture" also includes Review Editors.

hro001

Fair enough.

Given the fact that there is still a grey area, but the authors are nevertheless now in place and working away, the best way to check on their ability to do a good job is probably for as many other experts as possible to review the authors' work in the First Order Draft.

Regarding the self-citation alert, it might actually be useful for you to do this for the First Order Draft, feeding the information back to the Technical Support Unit, as an independent check at an early stage on authors not over-doing it on self-citations.

Then again the simple fact that you did this outside of the process for AR4 afterwards should also encourage self-checking on this issue.

Brownedoff

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Sep 23, 2011 at 8:03 AM | Richard Betts

Ouch. /sarc off.

Have a nice day.

@Richard Betts Sep 23, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Given the fact that there is still a grey area, but the authors are nevertheless now in place and working away, the best way to check on their ability to do a good job is probably for as many other experts as possible to review the authors' work in the First Order Draft.

Since you are closer to the seat of power than I - and since the concern relates to the lack of transparency in the selection process - perhaps you could persuade the TSUs and/or Secretariat that it would be a very good idea to place their "database" of CV's on line, so that those who are interested may verify the validity of the choices made.

Regarding the self-citation alert, it might actually be useful for you to do this for the First Order Draft, feeding the information back to the Technical Support Unit, as an independent check at an early stage on authors not over-doing it on self-citations.

This is far easier said than done, I'm afraid; before we were able to begin the work on AR4, there was an awful lot of background cleansing required in order to deal with all the inconsistencies we found. Not to mention that I'm not sure how we would get a copy of the FOD - given the restrictions on distribution; nor would I feel comfortable merely providing the feedback to the TSUs, because in the interest of transparency, I see no reason that it should not be made public.

So your second thought:

Then again the simple fact that you did this outside of the process for AR4 afterwards should also encourage self-checking on this issue.

is probably the preferred alternative at this point in time :-)

hro001

perhaps you could persuade the TSUs and/or Secretariat that it would be a very good idea to place their "database" of CV's on line, so that those who are interested may verify the validity of the choices made.

I agree that it is important that the expertise of the authors should be visible, and I will indeed continue to discuss these matters with the appropriate people.

The affiliations of the authors are shown here, but of course this is itself does not explicitly demonstrate expertise - just because someone works for a particular organisation it doesn't necessarily mean they are an expert (NB. I am not actually questioning the expertise of my co-authors, I'm just talking about it being visible).

I think just putting all CVs online would raise objections under data protection (ie: release of personal information). Again, note that I'm not taking a position here, I'm just explaining a counter-argument. Publications lists ought to be something that could, if practical, be made available (it's already public knowledge - you could collate a list of my publications if you wanted, by going on Web of Knowledge or even just Google), and that's the main point of relevance here.

But on the other hand, since this information can be found online then it might be argued that actually enough information has already been made available for authors' expertise to be checked out by anyone who cares to do so.

Please note I am not dismissing your point - I do actively discuss these kind of issues of transparency with a number of people involved in the IPCC process, and will continue to do so.

I'm not sure how we would get a copy of the FOD - given the restrictions on distribution; nor would I feel comfortable merely providing the feedback to the TSUs, because in the interest of transparency, I see no reason that it should not be made public.

You can get hold of the FOD by signing up as an expert reviewer. Although you are asked to self-certify on your scientific expertise, and asked to list relevant publications, the website also says you can enter "none" if you have no relevant publications. However if you have no expertise then effectively this does of course mean that you have to misrepresent your expertise. Having said that, "expertise" is left to individual interpretation, so really it's down to you whether you think you have it or not!

The main thing they are worried about is getting lots of "spam" review comments which don't actually say anything useful (ie: just saying "this is wrong" or "insert 'not' here" without saying why or without pointing to evidence - we had a fair amount of those in AR4, and all it does is take up time away from dealing with the genuine, evidence-based objections). However, since it has been specifically said by IPCC that authors should cover a wide range of literature not just their own papers, feedback relating to that point would (in my view anyway) be useful.

I understand that review comments will be made public at the end of the AR5 process, along with the FOD and SOD chapters and the authors' responses to the review comments, so anything you feed back to the TSU through the official review process will be made public.

But as I say, and as you agree, the very existence of an activity such as yours should be a reminder to authors about the self-citation issue!

Thanks for talking through the issue, I appreciate getting insight into this kind of thing.

Richard Betts.

(1) ... At Sep 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, I wrote:

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has already considered this "strongly held view/conflict of interest" problem, see page 3 of:

http://tinyurl.com/66xzpzl

(2) ... At Sep 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM you wrote:

The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances.

(3) ... At Sep 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM, I wrote:

"Conflict of Interest

The IAC recommended: The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly associated in the preparation of IPCC reports.

...... So, you must have read another IAC document which supports your assertion that "The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances."

Please arrange to provide a link to that document. Maybe we are both correct.
----------------------------------------------
As of 13:00 hours UK time, 24 September 2011, you have neither

(a) provided a link to support your assertion that "The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances", nor

(b) have you withdrawn that assertion.

Please do one or the other before noon, UK time, Tuesday, 27 September 2011.

Thank you.

Hi Brownedoff

First of all, please don't give me deadlines. I am here voluntarily because I believe in openness and transparency and understanding other people's point of view, but I am under no obligation to participate or to address any individual comments on any timeframe.

If you do that again I will not respond.

But as it happens I am now sitting down with a cup of tea after a morning's DIYing so I am able to answer you quickly on this occasion.

You ask me to elaborate on my remark about the IAC and conflict of interest. On page 51 of the IAC report they say this:

Conflict of interest means something more than a strong view or bias—there must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the individual’s participation

This is what I was referring to when I said "The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances."

I recognise that you argue that even working in climate science at all somehow constitutes a conflict of interest, because you argue that the profession of climate science would not exist if AGW were disproven.

I argue that this is not the case, and that the profession of climate science would exist even if AGW did not exist, because the climate is known to vary for a variety of reasons, but understanding is still far from complete and hence there is a need for scientific research to improve this understanding.

The difference would appear to be in our respective interpretations of the IACs phrase "an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the individual’s participation".

Sep 24, 2011 at 1:52 PM | Richard Betts

First of all, please don't give me deadlines.

The reason for me asking you to act before next Tuesday is that threads have a very short shelf life. In the past this has provided you with the opportunity to ignore some of the contributions of commenters here.

You ask me to elaborate on my remark about the IAC and conflict of interest.

No I did not, I asked you to provide a link to support your assertion that "The IAC was referring to vested interests such as political or commercial stances."

For some reason you failed to include in your quotation the two sentences that preceded your quotation:

"Conflict of interest and disclosure

A key governance feature of institutions that deal with broad public policy interests is the consideration of conflict of interest (NRC, 2002). The term ‘conflict of interest’ refers to any financial or other interest that compromises the service of an individual by significantly impairing the individual’s objectivity or creating an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. Conflict of interest means something more than a strong view or bias—there must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the individual’s participation (NAS, 2003)."

You see they do not exlude "or other interest" they say there "must be an interest, ordinarily finanancial".

On page 53, the IAC makes reference to the NRC conflict-of-interest policies as guidance for the IPCC in developing their own policy:

In developing such a policy, the IPCC may want to consider features of the NRC policy.

These include:

• Distinguishing between strong points of view (i.e., biases) that can be balanced and conflicts of interest that should be avoided unless determined to be unavoidable

• Differentiating between current conflicts, where the candidate’s current interests could be directly and predictably affected by the outcome of the report, and potential conflicts of interest

• Considering a range of relevant financial interests, such as employment and consulting relationships; ownership of stocks, bonds, and other investments; fiduciary responsibilities; patents and copyrights; commercial business ownership and investment interests; honoraria; and research funding

• Judging the extent to which an author or Review Editor would be reviewing his or her own work, or that of his or her immediate employer

• Examining indications of a fixed position on a particular issue revealed through public statements (e.g., testimony, speeches, interviews), publications (e.g., articles, books), or personal or professional activities

• Maintaining up-to-date confidential disclosure forms and participating in regular, confidential discussions of conflict of interest and balance for the major components of each report.

Bullet point 3 is very interesting (and potentially awkward for some people), but the fifth bullet point returns us to the original problem I identified, that is, "indications of a fixed position on a particular issue revealed through public statements".

Is the letter to The Times dated 9 December 2009 a "public statement"? See http://tinyurl.com/yaj93tr

Here is the press release upon which this letter in the The Times is based: http://tinyurl.com/3gj7q6q

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the IPCC will adopt such an awkward requirement as examining individuals for indications of a fixed position on a particular issue (e.g. AGW as demonstrated by the letter to the Times)

So the IAC never used the words "vested interests such as political or commercial stances" and I thank you for drawing to my attention page 51, which led me to page 53.

I am fascinated that the IAC actually recommend that the IPCC consider adopting a policy which includes seeking out "indications of fixed positions" in all individuals directly associated in the preparation of IPCC reports. If this comes to pass, it would be a tipping point, literally as various stars are shown the door.

Shall we all hold our breath?

You then bring in some other totally irrelevant items (as usual):

I recognise that you argue that even working in climate science at all somehow constitutes a conflict of interest, because you argue that the profession of climate science would not exist if AGW were disproven.

I think that have just invented that statement. I do not recall arguing this, but if you do find a reference I shall put up my hands and seek refuge in the concept of "a senior moment."

I argue that this is not the case, and that the profession of climate science would exist even if AGW did not exist, because the climate is known to vary for a variety of reasons, but understanding is still far from complete and hence there is a need for scientific research to improve this understanding.

Yeah, yeah, but I think some acts in the profession of climate science need to be cleaned up before the peasants come around to your point of view.

The difference would appear to be in our respective interpretations of the IACs phrase "an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the individual’s participation"

Our difference is more than that, and it is not just me that is uneasy, it looks like there are many world class scientists in a similar state.

I think that you are "in denial".

Brownedoff,

Fill ya boots......

From the The Climate Witness Programme – Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) Guidelines produced by the WWF

The SAP is made up of leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who are familiar with the
latest climate change-related, peer-reviewed literature in specific regions of the
world.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwKfjKsXaxaGNWFkYTJiNzUtMjFiMi00YjhlLTk0NDctMDQ5NzA3YmFiMTE3&hl=en_US

As at 31st October 2008, there are 130 SAP members and the membership will
continue to grow as we collect more Climate Witness stories from around the
world. A list of these members can be viewed on our website.:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/

Including links to career history,cv's, contributions to IPCC etc. I've only had a cursory glance through those from the UK but their is a general trend that could easily be conceived as, 'vested interest'.

There are a number of opportunities for you to become more involved in the
Climate Witness Programme and climate change work in the WWF Global
Network through attendance at conferences, forums or workshops and interaction
with the media. These activities are optional and you can indicate your level
interest on the SAP membership details form we will ask you to complete.

The principal benefit of participating in Climate Witness is to be part of an
innovative community that is increasing the public awareness of climate change
and building the political will to prevent 'dangerous climate change’.

H/T to http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/23/how-the-wwf-infiltrated-the-ipcc-–-part-1/

Brownedoff

Thanks for your detailed response - you've certainly made me think!

First let me briefly respond to your remark on my apparently ignoring some of the contributions of some commenters here. I'm sorry if I give this impression - sincerely, it is not intentional. It is simply not possible to keep multiple parallel conversations going, especially when new interesting ones come up and/or the old ones have started to veer off the original topic. This is a great blog and there is just too much good stuff being discussed. However, since this is a discussion thread, I think (and hope) it should have a longer "shelf-life" than other threads.

Second, on my statement about you arguing that the existance of the climate science profession depends on the existance of AGW - well, that was an expression of my interpretation of what you'd argued here and elsewhere, but you say that this interpretation is wrong and I am happy to accept that and withdraw my statement (and indeed I'm glad that you don't think that!). Sorry if I misrepresented your views.

On my paraphrasing of the IAC conflict of interest statement - that was my interpretation based on memory, not meant to be an exact quote, and I do think my paraphrasing encompasses the more specific points in the IAC document in a general sense. So I'm not claiming that there was a document which say exactly what I said. (Next time I will look things up so I can quote exactly instead of paraphrasing!)

But to get back to your original point about the 2009 Met Office statement: now that you particularly highlight the IAC bullet on "examining evidence for fixed positions" I can certainly see where you are coming from now. Signing that statement could indeed be interpreted as possibly indicating a "fixed position". All I can say is that my confidence in the statements is based on current evidence, and I do consider other evidence (both through reading papers and looking at blogs such as this one, WUWT, Climate Audit etc). I find the cosmic ray hypothesis particularly intriguing, and while the current evidence seems to be that the effect is probably real but small, I'm open to other evidence on that (the recent CERN paper was interesting, but disappointing in that it wasn't able pull-through the detailed findings to any conclusions on the strength of the effect).

So I guess what I am saying is that while I personally am confident in the statements that I signed up to, this is based on evidence and is not a fixed position!

But maybe what you are getting at is not my position (fixed or otherwise) but that of other UK IPCC authors. Well, I think they'd have the same approach as me.

If I may, I'd just like to re-iterate a comment I've made before about what was not in this statement - it said nothing about AGW being "catastrophic" or "we must act now" or anything like that. If it had, then in my book this would have been more indicative as a "fixed position" as opposed to evidence-based confidence.

But yes I can understand why you are concerned about this. We'll just have to work hard to clearly demonstrate that your concerns can be allayed - I appreciate this may not be easy.

Lord Beaverbrook

Thanks for posting that here - yes, I'd seen it on Donna's website.

Again I can see why this raises alarm bells. Without trying to defend anything or takes sides (I wasn't part of this, and hadn't heard about it until I saw it on NFC), I think it is worth pointing out that one possible motivation for scientists taking part in this could be to try to get WWF to be more evidence-based, and discourage them from reading too much into anecdotal evidence.

It would be interesting to see the results of the Climate Witness work, ie: what statements were made when people filled the forms in, and what did WWF do with them? I've not been able to find any of those though - wonder if Donna has?

Richard Betts

'I think it is worth pointing out that one possible motivation for scientists taking part in this could be to try to get WWF to be more evidence-based, and discourage them from reading too much into anecdotal evidence.'

I 'hope' you are correct even though the momentum for the project is from WWF.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/witness_stories/index.cfm?uPage=1

Page 1 of 15, perhaps Donna intends to cover some of the stories in her follow up articles

A quick glance has a scientific review on a UK story.
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/witness_stories/?51200/Climate-Witness-Cassian-Garbett-UK

Comments are open and this is the only comment on the article so far:

"but Cassian may still loose his home to climate change." hang on, coastal erosion is not new, it has been happening for Millions of years.

"Cassian’s first hand experience of increased coastal erosion" reads like an anecdote rather than science. Surely the reason he is the last resident in these cottages is coastal erosion - which is entirely normal. The National Trust decided not to fight coastal erosion at Studland Bay. Basically you can't stop it - it happens!

This seems a bit woolly and vague and Spohie the scientist hasn't updated her website for more than two years.

This article is not convincing; indeed I feel it undermines the case for climate change.

@Richard Betts Sep 26, 2011 at 12:31 AM

one possible motivation for scientists taking part in this could be to try to get WWF to be more evidence-based, and discourage them from reading too much into anecdotal evidence.

But the entire premise of the WWF's Climate Witness Program is "anecdotal evidence" - which they claim is "peer-reviewed" by the scientists they've recruited!

It would be interesting to see the results of the Climate Witness work, ie: what statements were made when people filled the forms in, and what did WWF do with them? I've not been able to find any of those though - wonder if Donna has?

I doubt that anyone outside WWF has seen the completed forms; but it seems that they do plan (at some point) to compile a "database" of the responses to the "interview questionnaire" - according to their own Science Advisory Panel Guidelines:

The Programme also aims to build a database of climate change impacts for future reference. This allows us to monitor where certain impacts are occurring. It also provides the first step towards engaging communities in resilience building and adaptation activities associated with the new climatic conditions.

[...]

3. Why a Science Advisory Panel?

A SAP delivers a key condition of the Climate Witness Programme by providing the ability to distinguish 'anecdotal' stories from real observations that can be linked to climate change impacts. It ensures stories are related to climate change and not just local factors.

[...]

4.1 Benefits of being a SAP member

The principal benefit of participating in Climate Witness is to be part of an innovative community that is increasing the public awareness of climate change and building the political will to prevent 'dangerous climate change’.

[...]

4.2 Process for SAP peer review

SAP members will be asked to peer-review one-page 'Climate Witness stories' submitted to us by members of the public.

So, even the SAP reviewers, evidently, don't get to see the responses to the questionnaires. But that aside ...

YMMV, but this does not strike me as being consistent with "discourag[ing WWF] from reading too much into anecdotal evidence". Nonetheless, assuming that they are prepared to share the data in this purported database, there are some questions for which I'd really like to see the responses. In particular, "4. Impacts to Industry Sectors". (Pls. see ET please call WWF for details)

hro001, Lord Beaverbrook

Thanks. Yes, there are indeed lots of examples of NGO and media stories which undermine the case for climate change!

NB Please can we keep this thread to the subject of IPCC, not WWF? The WWF post by Lord Beaverbrook was relevant in that it highlights a potential (perceived or real) conflict of interest. But for clarity of this IPCC thread, please let's not get into the WWF report itself here (could be discussed on unthreaded though?)

Sep 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM | hro001

Thank you once again for training the limelight on more AGW shenanigans.

I see that YMMV can mean Yet More Manipulative Villains or You Make Me Vomit.

Sorry.

-------------------------

Sep 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM | Richard Betts

Surely there are some peer reviewed papers written by members of the profession of climate science, as well as NGO and media stories, which undermine the case for climate change?

PS: My response to your Sep 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM is work in progress at the moment.

Oopps.

. . . . . . which undermine the case for climate change, particularly of the AGW variety?

Brownedoff

Thanks for your detailed response - you've certainly made me think!

Thank you. That was the idea.

First let me briefly respond to your remark on my apparently ignoring some of the contributions of some commenters here. I'm sorry if I give this impression - sincerely, it is not intentional. It is simply not possible to keep multiple parallel conversations going, especially when new interesting ones come up and/or the old ones have started to veer off the original topic. This is a great blog and there is just too much good stuff being discussed. However, since this is a discussion thread, I think (and hope) it should have a longer "shelf-life" than other threads.

OK, but if you do come here, and say things about topics upon which readers also have a viewpoint, and to which they expect a reply, then, in order to match the time you have available to keep multiple parallel conversations going, you may need to consider reducing your input . Alternatively, maybe one of your modellers could write something for the IBM computer, which is housed in special halls bigger than two football pitches and is rated at 1.2 megawatts, to keep track of all your posts.

Second, on my statement about you arguing that the existence of the climate science profession depends on the existence of AGW - well, that was an expression of my interpretation of what you'd argued here and elsewhere, but you say that this interpretation is wrong and I am happy to accept that and withdraw my statement (and indeed I'm glad that you don't think that!). Sorry if I misrepresented your views.

Thank you. However, I have no view either way as to whether the existence of the climate science profession depends on the existence of AGW, although, to a peasant like me that it seems that the antics of certain members of the climate science profession give the impression that that is the case.

On my paraphrasing of the IAC conflict of interest statement - that was my interpretation based on memory, not meant to be an exact quote, and I do think my paraphrasing encompasses the more specific points in the IAC document in a general sense. So I'm not claiming that there was a document which say exactly what I said. (Next time I will look things up so I can quote exactly instead of paraphrasing!)

Thank you.

But to get back to your original point about the 2009 Met Office statement: now that you particularly highlight the IAC bullet on "examining evidence for fixed positions" I can certainly see where you are coming from now. Signing that statement could indeed be interpreted as possibly indicating a "fixed position". All I can say is that my confidence in the statements is based on current evidence, and I do consider other evidence (both through reading papers and looking at blogs such as this one, WUWT, Climate Audit etc). I find the cosmic ray hypothesis particularly intriguing, and while the current evidence seems to be that the effect is probably real but small, I'm open to other evidence on that (the recent CERN paper was interesting, but disappointing in that it wasn't able pull-through the detailed findings to any conclusions on the strength of the effect).

So I guess what I am saying is that while I personally am confident in the statements that I signed up to, this is based on evidence and is not a fixed position!

But maybe what you are getting at is not my position (fixed or otherwise) but that of other UK IPCC authors. Well, I think they'd have the same approach as me.

Not having been a member of that vast herd which grazes in the sun-dappled groves of academe, it had not occurred to me as to how easy it would be for a scientist to slip off the hook and thereby neutralise any suggestion of having a fixed position. Indeed, as you have deftly proved in the two paragraphs immediately above, speaking for yourself and, most likely, for other UK IPCC authors. Have you spoken to any them about this warm potato?

The IAC guys, being long standing members of the herd, have clearly recognised that flaw (possibly even by direct experience) in the NRC policies, consequently the IAC are going for the "strongly held view" test, being a much more tricky hook off which to slip.

If I may, I'd just like to re-iterate a comment I've made before about what was not in this statement - it said nothing about AGW being "catastrophic" or "we must act now" or anything like that. If it had, then in my book this would have been more indicative as a "fixed position" as opposed to evidence-based confidence.

Hmm, I think that you are still avoiding grasping the nettle. It does not matter, in my opinion, what the statement DID NOT say (also for that matter, it did not say that salt dispensers in Northern chip shops should only have five holes, rather than seventeen), it is what it DID say that counts:

(a) We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities

(b) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal

(c) Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

To the man on the Clapham omnibus, (a) says there is AGW, (b) says that AGW real and (c) says that this AGW is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The words "utmost confidence", "unequivocal" and "very likely" give the man on the Clapham omnibus the impression that the 1,700+ guys and gals who signed onto this statement, all within a matter of a few hours, must have had a strongly held view that AGW is real in order to be able to sign on so quickly, that is, they did not even have time to ask John and Julia for some links to back it up!

The Met Office statement was issued within days of it becoming apparent to the whole world that the wheels were coming off the Copenhagen Jamboree and John and Julia decided that the attention of the whole world must be deflected from the disastrous e-mails in order that the gravy train should continue unhindered rather than be de-railed

Look at the time-line, e-mails out on Thursday/Friday, 19/20 November 2009, depending upon where you are located. Within days, in Copenhagen, Saudi Arabia starts making waves and by Monday, 30 November 2009 the Guardian has assembled a list of goodies and one villain: "Moustachioed high-up in his country's ministry of petroleum and mineral resources, leader of the Saudi Arabian negotiating team, and a reasonable bet for Copenhagen's most likely villain.". Seven working days later, Tuesday, 8 December 2009, John and Julia launched their retaliation which then appeared in The Times on Wednesday, 9 December 2009.

So, it took about 12 working days to go from "a miracle has occurred" to "oh no it hasn't".

In my opinion, only individuals with a strongly held view, and to be confident in it, could achieve such a massive logistics exercise in such a short space of time. As the dynamic duo announced when they launched the statement, "The Met Office has co-ordinated this united statement, gathering over 1,700 signatures in just four days". Blimey.

However, I have the horrible premonition that the honourable gentlemen at the IPCC will go for the flawed NRC policy, "examining evidence for fixed positions", (easily neutralised as we have seen above) rather than the the more tricky IAC recommendation of looking for a "strongly held view".

In this way, it will be business as usual at the IPCC and the Chairman will make a meal out of how they have followed IAC guidance.

But yes I can understand why you are concerned about this. We'll just have to work hard to clearly demonstrate that your concerns can be allayed - I appreciate this may not be easy.

The first test of the IPCC resolve to sort this mess out occurs in November 2011, when they are due to publish "a plan for implementing this policy-- including a form for disclosure--for approval at the IPCC’s 34th Session".