The most upsetting issue for me is the NSF selection of this one report. The next issue I have is the US scientific community giving credibility to IPCC whose quality control and assurance standards are so far out of alignment with what is expected of our governments science based agencies.
As a retired engineer I can’t help to see standard peer review process as being a very low level of quality control and assurance. In researching what quality standards government agencies apply to their work I came across the Office of Management and Budget “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Dissemination by Federal Agencies”
This outlines the requirements for each agency to develop separate quality standards and their requirement to establish mechanisms to address those persons seeking corrections.
My belief is that knowledge persons should be inundating agencies who promote bias and straight out misinformation to promote an internal perspective that lacks objectivity and ignores valid science that raises uncertainty of their perspectives. E.g. UHI, model vs observation, and unsupported claims of extreme weather.
I seem to recall Roger writing that the new head of the IPCC will improve things, a scientist, i guess this is his test.
I'm betting nothing changes.
Why not have him make a very public statement that RCP8.5 is invalid and all "science", all 45,000 examples referencing it shall be discounted and retracted?
But of course, that eliminates the best source of decision-based evidence-making and so that also will not happen.
At least we will have confirmation that the Mannian destruction of climate science is not changing.
Roger, perhaps you should have mentioned that Chris Landsea left the IPCC due to all their shenanigans. Otherwise, excellent work, as usual.
What will happen now?
1. First of all, the IPCC-camp will ignore the writings of Roger Pielke jr, until it is no longer possible to do so. Then they will continue ignoring Roger until AR7 is written, where we might or might not see a small admission of error in the form of a footnote.
2.Then someone will lean on PNAS to prevent a retraction. If that fails, point 1 is applied again, with someone else duplicating the retracted research so IPCC can continue referring to it.
This is political climate science, business as usual.
I just finished viewing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOgDwhWXYk on the UK redefining how excess daths are calculated. At least they had the "integrity" to go back to the past and recalculate all of the years -- although they worked very hard using "backwards Math" to come up with an excess deaths calculation that made 2023 look good. G18 and ICAT should have at least pretended to apply the same definition of losses across all years.
This kind of merging of data sets appears to be common in global warming “science”.
IIRC at least one of the hockeystick graphs was obtained in part by effectively grafting post 1900 temperature data onto proxy data from prior centuries, but a few minutes of searching climateaudit has failed to find it and the closest climategate email I can find is this one - https://www.di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
If I understand correctly, an insurance company created a dataset that said climate change was responsible for increasing damage. This seems to me to be always COI when coupled with request to regulators to increase premiums based on CC. Am I missing something here?
This information should not be a surprise to anyone. Science has fallen into the same abyss as the media and academia, especially the social sciences. Someone who has no credentials and no skills to lead can be the President of Harvard. A Bureaucrat posing as a doctor can send the country over the cliff and put back education and businesses and our common sense by years. Everything is worse compared to the past except Biden's economy, which is as cooked as the climate figures. As someone once wisely said, follow the money. I'm 77 and have seen draught and flood in California, Texas, Hawaii and most of the rest of the 50 states. I'm betting that with a few strokes of the electric pen I can Prove that now is worse than then, just look at all those dollars we have lost. My $21,000 Seattle home is now listed for $1,000, 400. Just think of damage if a storm hits or the big earthquake. Oh, the humanity. B.S.
The bottom line here is unclear to me. Are you saying the "billion dollar disasters" data set from NOAA is inaccurate even though it comes from NOAA? Are you saying it's accurate but mixes direct and indirect costs while earlier observations have only direct costs, therefore later observations are inflated relative to earlier due to the inclusion of additional costs?
Is there any way you can strip out the indirect costs from the "billion dollar disasters" data set for comparison purposes? I think if you can document that in a very short piece that will be more effective than a long personal history of the dispute like this.
It is very depressing that certain scientists are repeatedly biasing data in furtherance of their politics. This seems to be most prevalent in climate science where the peer review process has been abused and long term historic temperature datasets "adjusted". This politicisation of the science by the UN and IPCC has undoubtedly encouraged much of the unrest in the world at the moment, albeit indirectly. Thank you Roger for highlighting it yet again and so forcibly.
The most upsetting issue for me is the NSF selection of this one report. The next issue I have is the US scientific community giving credibility to IPCC whose quality control and assurance standards are so far out of alignment with what is expected of our governments science based agencies.
As a retired engineer I can’t help to see standard peer review process as being a very low level of quality control and assurance. In researching what quality standards government agencies apply to their work I came across the Office of Management and Budget “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Dissemination by Federal Agencies”
This outlines the requirements for each agency to develop separate quality standards and their requirement to establish mechanisms to address those persons seeking corrections.
NSF Standards are at (https://www.nsf.gov/policies/infoqual.jsp) and includes a link to NSF Information Correction Form.
My belief is that knowledge persons should be inundating agencies who promote bias and straight out misinformation to promote an internal perspective that lacks objectivity and ignores valid science that raises uncertainty of their perspectives. E.g. UHI, model vs observation, and unsupported claims of extreme weather.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Thanks for the piece sir!
I seem to recall Roger writing that the new head of the IPCC will improve things, a scientist, i guess this is his test.
I'm betting nothing changes.
Why not have him make a very public statement that RCP8.5 is invalid and all "science", all 45,000 examples referencing it shall be discounted and retracted?
But of course, that eliminates the best source of decision-based evidence-making and so that also will not happen.
At least we will have confirmation that the Mannian destruction of climate science is not changing.
Roger, perhaps you should have mentioned that Chris Landsea left the IPCC due to all their shenanigans. Otherwise, excellent work, as usual.
What will happen now?
1. First of all, the IPCC-camp will ignore the writings of Roger Pielke jr, until it is no longer possible to do so. Then they will continue ignoring Roger until AR7 is written, where we might or might not see a small admission of error in the form of a footnote.
2.Then someone will lean on PNAS to prevent a retraction. If that fails, point 1 is applied again, with someone else duplicating the retracted research so IPCC can continue referring to it.
This is political climate science, business as usual.
This is indeed a real test of integrity. I am curious to see if it gets attention in the legacy media and in what form.
My gut feeling: you will be ignored by the IPCC and PNAS.
The question is: what will the members of the IPCC panel who review this section do?
Was it error, or just propaganda?
I just finished viewing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOgDwhWXYk on the UK redefining how excess daths are calculated. At least they had the "integrity" to go back to the past and recalculate all of the years -- although they worked very hard using "backwards Math" to come up with an excess deaths calculation that made 2023 look good. G18 and ICAT should have at least pretended to apply the same definition of losses across all years.
Nice post!
"...today — in draw-dropping fashion..."
Maybe should be "jaw-dropping"... ?
This kind of merging of data sets appears to be common in global warming “science”.
IIRC at least one of the hockeystick graphs was obtained in part by effectively grafting post 1900 temperature data onto proxy data from prior centuries, but a few minutes of searching climateaudit has failed to find it and the closest climategate email I can find is this one - https://www.di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
If I understand correctly, an insurance company created a dataset that said climate change was responsible for increasing damage. This seems to me to be always COI when coupled with request to regulators to increase premiums based on CC. Am I missing something here?
Bravo, Roger.
An interesting experiment. Given PNAS's previous behaviors, my expectations are not high. Still, I hope...
Thank you Roger for an excellent article. Keep up the fight.
This information should not be a surprise to anyone. Science has fallen into the same abyss as the media and academia, especially the social sciences. Someone who has no credentials and no skills to lead can be the President of Harvard. A Bureaucrat posing as a doctor can send the country over the cliff and put back education and businesses and our common sense by years. Everything is worse compared to the past except Biden's economy, which is as cooked as the climate figures. As someone once wisely said, follow the money. I'm 77 and have seen draught and flood in California, Texas, Hawaii and most of the rest of the 50 states. I'm betting that with a few strokes of the electric pen I can Prove that now is worse than then, just look at all those dollars we have lost. My $21,000 Seattle home is now listed for $1,000, 400. Just think of damage if a storm hits or the big earthquake. Oh, the humanity. B.S.
The bottom line here is unclear to me. Are you saying the "billion dollar disasters" data set from NOAA is inaccurate even though it comes from NOAA? Are you saying it's accurate but mixes direct and indirect costs while earlier observations have only direct costs, therefore later observations are inflated relative to earlier due to the inclusion of additional costs?
Is there any way you can strip out the indirect costs from the "billion dollar disasters" data set for comparison purposes? I think if you can document that in a very short piece that will be more effective than a long personal history of the dispute like this.
It is very depressing that certain scientists are repeatedly biasing data in furtherance of their politics. This seems to be most prevalent in climate science where the peer review process has been abused and long term historic temperature datasets "adjusted". This politicisation of the science by the UN and IPCC has undoubtedly encouraged much of the unrest in the world at the moment, albeit indirectly. Thank you Roger for highlighting it yet again and so forcibly.