IPCC peer review ‘tantamount to fraud’ – IPCC official admits

Got alerted to this via Marc Morano's Climate Depot.

Essentially, we pick up the story as IPCC scientists are slugging it out in the letters column of South Africa's Business Day. The writer is Phillip Lloyd, and I have emphasized key points:

Prof Bruce Hewitson (Uninformed vitriol, November 19) pontificates on Andrew Kenny's assessment (Ideology and money drive global-warming religion, November 16). Unfortunately for him, there has been a reformation. The time for pontification is over. The critics must be answered. Instead Prof Hewitson stood in his pulpit and preached the gospel according to St IPCC.

He says he was a lead author for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). That is not material — I was a co-ordinating lead author, but it gives me no mantle of infallibility. Instead, it gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.

The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, "review" means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.

However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.

The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.

The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the summary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen.

The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn't published for another four months or more.

In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.

In the early years of the IPCC, there was a slightly different process. The Summary for Policy Makers and the scientific reports were issued at the same time. In those years, however, the Summary for Policy Makers bore a warning that it was the last current word on the subject, whereas the scientific reports were correctly identified as being subject to continuing development.

Someone smelled a rat about the "last word" story, so the process was changed, and now the summary is issued with no means of checking.

It isn't necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.

Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng

MD: Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants

Comments

[CM]

>>>The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.<<<

Since when was the IPCC reporting determined to be a 'peer review'. It's a summary of the research that HAS ALREADY BEEN peer reviewed. So that makes little sense.

[John Boy]

Ah yes, but peer reviewed by whom? Perhaps how you do it is more important than just doing it.

[Bok]

So let me get this straight CM, you as a world respected and highly educated Climate Scientists want to criticize what this DR Lloyd says. In fact You pull him up and correct his statements with "Since when was the IPCC reporting determined to be a 'peer review'. It's a summary of the research that HAS ALREADY BEEN peer reviewed. So that makes little sense."
(So this emminent scientist make little sense)

Yet this same scientist was appointed the COORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR of the IPCC report. So either the IPCC and those who appoint the people to the IPCC is totally incompetent (I mean you can correct the lead author) or you are way out of your depth. Which is it?

[CM]

>>>Ah yes, but peer reviewed by whom? Perhaps how you do it is more important than just doing it.<<<

Provide evidence that a substantial number of included papers were inproperly peer-reviewed. Or are you just going to rely on 'we all know it's a conspiracy'?

[CM]

>>>So let me get this straight CM, you as a world respected and highly educated Climate Scientists want to criticize what this DR Lloyd says.<<<

Try playing the ball. I never said I was anything. Am I right or am I wrong? who claimed or implied the IPCC reports undergo a 'peer review' process as if they had been submitted to a journal?

>>>In fact You pull him up and correct his statements with "Since when was the IPCC reporting determined to be a 'peer review'. It's a summary of the research that HAS ALREADY BEEN peer reviewed. So that makes little sense."
(So this emminent scientist make little sense)<<<

See if you can try a little harder. I never said he made little sense. Concentrate on the BALL.

>>>Yet this same scientist was appointed the COORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR of the IPCC report. So either the IPCC and those who appoint the people to the IPCC is totally incompetent (I mean you can correct the lead author) or you are way out of your depth. Which is it?<<<

C-
Needs to concentrate.

[Bok]

I apologise for grammatical errors CM. English is my third language.

[Bok]

But let us concentrate.

This from the co-ordinating lead author of IPCC report himself (In other words the joker who actually has inside knowledge of the IPCC and it's workings) "The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports" .

I'll break it down for you.

The IPCC claims _ This from one of the guys at the top of the process.

- thousands of scientists and NEARLY AS MANY REVIEWERS.

However your only response to the whole post is that the IPCC report is not a "peer review report"

So let us be pedantic. Where did he mention peer review? The fact remains, one of the LEAD AUTHORS calls the process a fraud. You who have no involvement in the process whatsoever, call BS?

[CM]

He's clearly comparing it to the peer-review process, because he says

"In the scientific world I move in, "review" means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor."

I simply questioned that one aspect? Where did I call BS on his entire complaint? Where did I claim to be anything that I'm not.

You guys sure like to make stuff up to fit your narrative.

[Bok]

Now you are just back pedaling. You say:" You guys sure like to make stuff up to fit your narrative." I can as easily say, You people like to blow up a small "perceived" anomaly to detract from the facts, however it would be as silly as the one you made. Sweeping and general.

[CM]

I can't 'back-pedal' on something I never said. It's impossible.

[CM]

Bok, do you believe Ian's title of "IPCC peer review ‘tantamount to fraud’ – IPCC official admits" is accurate or not?
When did the IPCC carry out this peer-review that Ian explicitly says Lloyd refers to?

[Bok]

CM if you want to be pedantic then by all means lets go down that path.

1) So you have proof that they did not have a review process in place - even though Dr Lloyd directly refers to it - Why else would you have reviewers?

2) You are happy to "read between the lines" or draw your own conclusions. Read what you write:"Since when was the IPCC reporting determined to be a 'peer review'. It's a summary of the research that HAS ALREADY BEEN peer reviewed. So that makes little sense."

YOU call it a summary, while those in charge of it calls it a report. two totally different things. they call themselves authors. Now I am writing in my third language, so correct me if I am wrong here, but the title author denotes an original work that is created and implies interpretation. As I say I might be wrong here. However just as you can surmise that it is just a summary, I can surmise that you have
1) not been there during the briefing for the report
2) Have not read the full terms of reference for the report , and
3) Not read the report in full.

Now I am just making assumptions just like you are. However I will take the input from one of the co-authors rather than a maybe a commentator on a blog.

Now I have no idea what Dr Lloyd stance is on AGW (i suppose we can infer what it is from the above correspondence, but I don't know.) And if you had the data in front of you , or access to it, that implies that he got his figures wrong, or that he changed the raw data to show that cooling is happening while in fact it is heating up, then i'll say fair argument. However you are being pedantic about a process you had no involvement in regarding a body of work you have not read in full. So again I ask where you get your conviction from regarding this?

I believe that I have put forward a rational and simple argument, however if you are a cheerleader for either one side or the other, i don't for a moment think you would even consider it.

[CM]

>>>CM if you want to be pedantic then by all means lets go down that path.<<<

95% of comments here seem to be vague and unsupported statments. It's not pedantic to point out where statements don't make sense, or when titles or misleading. Particularly given the standards that deniers hold scientists to.

>>>1) So you have proof that they did not have a review process in place - even though Dr Lloyd directly refers to it - Why else would you have reviewers?<<<

It was a review of the literature. That is quite different to a 'peer review'. I'm sure you know that. It was never intended to be a 'peer review' as we all know it, because that would have been redundant.

>>>2) You are happy to "read between the lines" or draw your own conclusions. Read what you write:"Since when was the IPCC reporting determined to be a 'peer review'. It's a summary of the research that HAS ALREADY BEEN peer reviewed. So that makes little sense."<<<

That's not reading between the lines at all.

>>>YOU call it a summary, while those in charge of it calls it a report.<<<

It's a summary report on the literature.

>>>two totally different things.<<<

Rubbish.

>>>they call themselves authors.<<<

Authors wrote the summary report. It still needed to be written.

>>>Now I am writing in my third language, so correct me if I am wrong here, but the title author denotes an original work that is created and implies interpretation.<<<

The summary report is an original work, even if it's an update from last one.

>>>As I say I might be wrong here. However just as you can surmise that it is just a summary,<<<

It IS a summary. Nothing to do with what I think.

>>>I can surmise that you have
1) not been there during the briefing for the report
2) Have not read the full terms of reference for the report , and
3) Not read the report in full.<<<

I don't see the relevance to whether the IPCC summary report was 'peer reviewed' in the same way as a single paper submitted to a journal.

>>>Now I am just making assumptions just like you are. However I will take the input from one of the co-authors rather than a maybe a commentator on a blog.<<<

Again, you're misrepresenting what I've said.

>>>Now I have no idea what Dr Lloyd stance is on AGW (i suppose we can infer what it is from the above correspondence, but I don't know.) And if you had the data in front of you , or access to it, that implies that he got his figures wrong, or that he changed the raw data to show that cooling is happening while in fact it is heating up, then i'll say fair argument. However you are being pedantic about a process you had no involvement in regarding a body of work you have not read in full. So again I ask where you get your conviction from regarding this?<<<

What conviction? That the summary report was a summary report, and therefore it didn't undergo a peer review in the same way a submitted journal paper would?

>>>I believe that I have put forward a rational and simple argument, however if you are a cheerleader for either one side or the other, i don't for a moment think you would even consider it.<<<

I'm not sure what you're doing or who you're arguing with, or why.

[AcidComments]

"Bok, do you believe Ian's title of "IPCC peer review ‘tantamount to fraud’ – IPCC official admits" is accurate or not?
When did the IPCC carry out this peer-review that Ian explicitly says Lloyd refers to?"

CM,

There's been other scientists involved in the IPCC process over the recent years who haven't been happy about what went on in the IPCC proceedings either. You wouldn't be satified even if some of their names were mentioned either.

Even one of them went as far as threatening the IPCC with a lawsuit to get his name removed from the IPCC report.

He was a French malaria expert from the Pasteur Institute. One of the other overhyped Alarmist claims is about the spread of Malaria.

** Prof. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said the list of scientists endorsing the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was a "sham," because it included the names of panel scientists who disagreed with its exaggerated climate predictions.

[Bok]

"It was a review of the literature. That is quite different to a 'peer review'. I'm sure you know that. It was never intended to be a 'peer review' as we all know it, because that would have been redundant." Reference for this statement of fact please...

">>>YOU call it a summary, while those in charge of it calls it a report.<<<

It's a summary report on the literature.

>>>two totally different things.<<<

Rubbish."

Once again reference in the terms of reference please... You are the one makinhg these claims contrary to the person who was there, please provide reference.

"I don't see the relevance to whether the IPCC summary report was 'peer reviewed' in the same way as a single paper submitted to a journal."

You are the one actually challenging the author of the report here so please provide a reference and proof for this statement.

I can go on and on, but this is tedious. I jump up and down saying "I never said that!!!" then go on to say it again.

Lets agree to disagree.

[Bok]

CM I find Ians belief's and his religion quaint and silly. However that does not taint my reading of things he writes. I look at the facts. And then make up my mind. My own mind.

However the discussion we are have here is not about the article or the facts in the article, but because you have grabbed onto a phrase and are jumping up and down trying to justify your criticism.

Okay if it makes you feel justified, how is this.

Ian you drongo, they never said anything about peer review. You should be ashamed and change your headline. Try:

Author of IPCC report claims that the report is tantamount to fraud.! Reason - those checking it was biased and the process flawed.

There.

[CM]

Is it too hard to be accurate? Particularly when criticising the accuracy of others and their work?
It shouldn't be.

[Bok]

Apparently for climate scientists ....yes

[Ian Wishart]

CM, you are indeed being pedantic. I said "IPCC peer review" because that's the process he's talking about.

Yes, yes, we all know the IPCC did not do original research. But nonetheless the work it did do was subject to review by peers. The process, however, was dodgy, and given the scandalous manipulation of journal peer review exposed in the Climategate emails, I think the piece is highly relevant.

In legal terms, it is what we call "similar fact evidence".

[CM]

>>>The process, however, was dodgy<<<

How should it be done then?

>>>given the scandalous manipulation of journal peer review exposed in the Climategate emails<<<

Still waiting on that evidence to be 'exposed' Ian. All you've got are private discussions where scientists display anger at a certain shoddy paper being accepted by a shoddy journal. They also discuss certain papers not making into into the IPCC report, with the result being that they were in there.