In a thought-provoking and reasoned commentary that asks the
question, “Is climate change controversy good for science? Craig
Idso examines a comparison between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Reports. (Disclosure: I contributed material to the NIPCC Report). Idso’s
article is a review and analysis of an article with the same title in Scientometrics, Jankó et al.
(2017). Idso wrote,
Another interesting finding is
seen in their examination of who each organization was citing. In-text analysis
of the IPCC’s AR5 report revealed that 19 out of the 20 most frequently cited
authors in that report were directly involved in the compilation of it. And
though the remaining person, J. Hansen, was not officially involved in
producing AR5, he participated in the production of at least one prior IPCC
report (Third Assessment) as a Contributing Author. Similar analysis of the AR4
report revealed that 14 out of the 16 most frequently cited IPCC authors were
involved with the writing of that report. Yet, here again, the remaining two
individuals were directly involved in the production of the IPCC’s preceding
Third Assessment Report. Such findings indicate the IPCC report authors are
most intent on citing their own work, thereby promoting their own interests and
findings above the work of others.
Just
as Idso did with revealing Janko et al’s conclusion, I am going to save
the denouementto the end.
This type of incest is no
surprise to many involved in academia. One of the few intelligent things Prince
Philip is reported to have said is that universities are the only truly
incestuous organizations in our society. Almost everybody teaching in a
university is a product of one. For the most part, they run the university by
controlling the Senates, so you have the prisoners effectively running the
prisons. Most university Presidents and Deans are promoted prisoners. There are
many examples of non-academic presidents and department chairs who were pushed
out by the academics in a pattern reminiscent of the politicians of the swamp
rejecting the non-politician Trump. It is almost inevitable that any group will
reject any person they consider not qualified to do the job. The qualifications
used for this decision are the ones they created and protect. If you hire
somebody who is ‘unqualified’ and it turns out they can do as good or even a
better job, then your qualifications and control are undermined. You can add
the IPCC to the list.
Everybody
on the IPCC Report production, that is the actual research and written
documents is selected and appointed by their home nations weather offices. This
was the procedure set up by Maurice Strong through the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) using the UN agency the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), which is comprised of the bureaucrats and
scientists at every national weather office. As Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Alfred
P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
said,
IPCC’s emphasis,
however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives
from over 100 countries, said Lindzen. The truth is only a handful of countries
do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad
the numbers.
It is no small matter that routine
weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as
‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that
they will be determinedly supportive of the process.
Another problem with
politically driven research and the incestuous nature of academia and the IPCC
is that they ignore any rules or information, especially criticism that doesn’t
fit the agenda. Again, Lindzen identified the problem,
The IPCC claims its
report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn’t true, Lindzen said. Under true
peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it
can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the
author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers’ objections
into account.
Under the IPCC review process, by
contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his
review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his
name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.
Some
argue that after early criticisms by Lindzen, Vincent
Gray and others, the IPCC instituted a system of review by outsiders. The Janko et al
study illustrates that it is a farce introduced purely to claim they are
responding. It is the nature of incestuous groups that resolutions of problems
are internal and rarely effectively implemented.
The Denouement.
Idso’s
analysis provides a perfect example of Lindzen’s critique. In the conflict
between Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ research and the analysis of its
inadequacies by McIntyre and McKitrick, two congressional committees combined
to investigate. This became known as the Barton Committee and was a joint
effort between the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Letters were sent to
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, National Science Foundation Director Arden
Bement, Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. It directed
the three scientists to provide data and methods and computer codes used to
achieve their results.
The
politicians knew they would be flummoxed by the science and statistics, so they
empaneled an independent group of specialists to investigate and provide a
report to assist their conclusions. This group became identified as the Wegman Report after its chairperson Edward Wegman
of George Mason University.
In its Recommendations to the
Barton Committee and thereby presumably to any future IPCC Report Wegman wrote,
Recommendation 1.
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake,
academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is
especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same
people as those that constructed the academic papers.
The IPCC paid no attention as
Janko et al., identified, and Idso underlined. They are another incestuous
group following the academic tradition.
