Comments on: Science and Communication, Part 1

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:33:32 +0000

Brian D noted that “97% of Dr. Gray’s comments were rejected, which is distinct from 97% of all rejected comments. In truth, approximately 60% of all comments were rejected, but most of them stemmed from Dr. Gray, who submitted nearly half of all total comments.)”

Ha! “No play for Doctor Gray.”

He’s not the only one who trades on having submitted review comments. Another is TVMOB, aka Lord Monckton. I believe TVMOB even sports a Nobel-prize pin on that basis.

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:50:14 +0000

Tangentially, also highly recommended: Schneider’s “The Patient From Hell” — find it here; http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-H.-Schneider/e/B001K8IXWS/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

By: MikeN

MikeN — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:24:45 +0000

[citations needed re: IPCC comments]

By: Brian D

Brian D — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:59:20 +0000

Er, correction: The percentages I gave for the comments in my last paragraph only apply to chapter 9 (the attribution-to-mankind chapter), and I mis-quoted the percentage of rejected comments (97% of Dr. Gray’s comments were rejected, which is distinct from 97% of all rejected comments. In truth, approximately 60% of all comments were rejected, but most of them stemmed from Dr. Gray, who submitted nearly half of all total comments.).

Chapter 9 was the chapter the denialists (specifically the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition) held up as an example of the uselessness of the IPCC process (neglecting to mention the overwhelming role of Dr. Gray’s comments, nor that you could read his comments to see if the rejection was justified), and Dave Semeniuk did the initial calculations on his blog, which has since been closed down. I did read through the WG1 draft comments and Semeniuk’s numbers seem accurate, although I didn’t repeat his analysis.

If you can spare the time at least for a browse or light reading, the comments I mentioned in my reply above are well worth a read.

By: Brian D

Brian D — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:48:55 +0000

MikeN, you don’t need a nomination to be an IPCC expert reviewer – you merely need to ask to see the draft report and sign a few agreements. It’s one of the reasons why you should be suspicious whenever people trout that position out to claim credibility (i.e. as if it were a lead author position).

By the way, on a related note for whoever’s interested, a little-known fact about the AR4 is that all of the WG1 reviewer comments (and author responses to those comments) are available online. It’s a good example of how science works for people who aren’t aware, or for anyone interested in the inner workings of the IPCC reports itself.

I bring it up here as an example of the openness of the review process – notice, for instance, all of the comments by Dr. Vincent Gray (some 96% of all rejected comments are his, and surprise, when he speaks against climate science, his credentials all prominently include “IPCC Expert Reviewer”. Note that discounting his comments, only 16% were rejected outright, which is far more typical of research papers (and as usual, you can read their justifications yourself)). Does this strike you as the kind of person who would be nominated for the position by someone credible (skeptic or no)?

By: MikeN

MikeN — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:33:52 +0000

Stephen Schneider actually made Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit a reviewer for a paper on the hockey stick, Wahl and Ammann, that was submitted to a journal he was editing. I wonder if he was the guy who nominated McIntyre to be a reviewer of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

By: mspelto

mspelto — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:52:51 +0000

I first heard Steve Schneider speak on AGW in 1983 at a conference on glaciology at Northwestern. The area of modelling was in its infancy, the audience at the time quite skeptical of the consequences. To watch the maturation of our knowledge in this arena of science that has identified the consequences occurring and modelling those to come has been impressive. I will have to take your advice and read the book soon.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:31:18 +0000

Steve Schneider's full quote is On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. [Even the full quote doesn't include the context, which the original interview (in Discover) left out. He also said that his "first mistake was to be a bit too tongue-in-cheek". -Kate]