Yet another lead author falsely cited; tourism mistake in the AR4
Barry Smit
You might recall an earlier false claim in the AR4 about tourism, about Canada and wildfires. There is another mistake in the AR4 regarding tourism, this time it is in WGII, Chapter 9.4.7 Tourism. The following claim appears:
Although scientific evidence is still lacking, it is probable that flood risks and water-pollution-related diseases in low-lying regions (coastal areas), as well as coral reef bleaching as a result of climate change, could impact negatively on tourism (McLeman and Smit, 2004).
First of all, this claim is so uncertain it probably shouldn't even be in the report. Let's read it again with all the uncertain words in bold:
Although scientific evidence is still lacking, it is probable that flood risks and water-pollution-related diseases in low-lying regions (coastal areas), as well as coral reef bleaching as a result of climate change, could impact negatively on tourism (McLeman and Smit, 2004).
In any event, they support this claim with McLeman and Smit, 2004. This is referenced as:
Read the rest here...
AR4 makes false claim about Bangladesh mangroves
I was looking through the AR4 recently in order to look at the recent Bangladeshi scientist's claim that the AR4 exaggerated how much sea level rise would affect their country. That may be another post, because I found another false claim related to Bangladesh.
In WGII, Chapter 10.2.4.3 Oceans and coastal zones, the following claim appears (bold mine):
Evidence of the impacts of climate-related factors on mangroves remain limited to the severe destruction of mangroves due to reduction of freshwater flows and salt-water intrusion in the Indus delta and Bangladesh (IUCN, 2003a).
Notice the "and Bangladesh" on the end. Read the rest here...
What the IPCC Citizen’s Audit really means
Yesterday, the IPCC Citizen's Audit results were released. They show that out of 18,531 references in the AR4, 5,587 (30%) are not peer-reviewed. These results are making their rounds around the internet, but what do they really mean?
First, I need to state that I was involved in the audit. I was an auditor, and I also helped Donna Laframboise in a few other ways, such as creating a guide to auditing the report. If you've ever visited this site in the past, you know that I have looked fairly in depth at the AR4 and found several interesting things, such as the boot cleaning guide, the master's student story, the master's students citations, the false wildfire-tourism claim, all the news articles, the issues with the authors falsely citing themselves, and other interesting stuff. I already know that the AR4 isn't entirely based on peer-reviewed material.
Read the rest here...
Wolfram|Alpha supports AGW theory?
I occasionally use WolframAlpha for different things, and I happened to look at their blog today. This post was on top:
Comparing Global Warming Potentials with Wolfram|Alpha
Here is a quote:
Today when you hear about global warming, the first thing that comes to mind is probably carbon dioxide; however, there are many greenhouse gases that may contribute to this phenomenon. Wolfram|Alpha now provides information on the relative global warming effects of about 30 common pollutants in the atmosphere using the global warming potential (GWP) index.
The GWP index estimates how much a certain chemical will add to global warming compared to the same mass of carbon dioxide over a certain time span. The data Wolfram|Alpha uses is from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The post continues by talking about examples of how to use Wolfram|Alpha to compute the impacts of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere.
Some have accused Google of skewing the debate in favor of the AGW theory, could this be an example of the same bias?
IPCC coordinating lead author’s own paper falsely cited in AR4
Adil Najam
Yesterday I posted about a contributing author's own paper being incorrectly cited in the AR4. However, I have now found something worse than that: a Coordinating Lead Author's own paper has been falsely cited.
Recently I posted about an interesting claim and comment made in the AR4. In the Second Order Draft (SOD), the following claim appears (page 43, lines 34-36):
Relatively few NGOs are directly accountable to members in the same way that governments are to voters or businesses are to shareholders, raising further questions about the extent to which their claims to the mantle of civil society are justified.
The claim had no citation, which led an expert reviewer to make the following comment, Comment 12-189 (page 78):
Seems a bold claim - can you substantiate it? ENGOs in most cases are supported through financial contributions from individuals as well as from foundation funding. They are also governed through Boards that in principle represent their consituency. If you leave this, you need to provide a citation.
(Jan Corfee-Morlot, University College London (on
leave from OECD))
The reviewer thinks that this claim is bold, and seems to imply it is false. He ends "If you leave this, you need to provide a citation." The writing team responds:
Read the rest here...
Some climate humor from the AR4
I thought some of my readers may find the following claim (section 1.2 The Nature of Earth Science of WGI) in the IPCC AR4 humorous:
The attributes of science briefly described here can be used in assessing competing assertions about climate change. Can the statement under consideration, in principle, be proven false? Has it been rigorously tested? Did it appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Did it build on the existing research record where appropriate? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then less credence should be given to the assertion until it is tested and independently verified.
Let's take them in turn, shall we?
Contributing Author’s report cited falsely
I've found another mistake in the IPCC AR4, this time a Contributing Author's own report was incorrectly cited.
Let's start at the beginning. In the First Draft Order of Chapter 11 of WG II, Australia and New Zealand, the following claim appears on page 22, line 25:
The capital value of the built environment in New Zealand accounts for almost 10% of GDP.
This prompts an expert reviewer to comment, Comment 11-967:
To say that the capital value of NZ's built environment is nearly 10% of GDP is absolute nonsense. Even an elementary calculation shows that this is far too low. Given the 1.4 million homes, at an average value of $300,000 gives a total value of $420 billion. GDP is about $140 billion, so even without counting office buildings it is clear that the 10% should be a at least 300%.
(Adolf Stroombergen, Infometrics)
He's right, and this claim was dropped. However, other reviewers noticed the fact that there was no Australian equivalent to this statistic, Comment 11-965:
Can similar statements be made about the value of Australia's built environment?
Read the rest here...
IPCC first makes claim, then adds reference later
In other posts I have claimed that the IPCC process appears to be along these lines: Make a claim, then find a citation. While it was fairly obvious they did this often, I hadn't found a slam-dunk case I could point at to prove it. I now have that case.
I am participating in the Audit of the IPCC's AR4 conducted over at NOconsensus.org (I recommend you spare an hour or two to help if you can). I was given Chapter 12 of WG III, which I've completed. Afterwords, I decided to look at the expert reviewers comments for my chapter. I found quite a few biased remarks, which will make another post coming soon. I also found one particular comment interesting. Comment 12-189 (page 78):
Read the rest here...
IPCC independent review not reviewing!
The IPCC announced yesterday that they were having an independent body review themselves. The implication in most people's minds was that they would look at how the IPCC could allow so many errors in their AR4, so that they could attempt to reestablish some credibility. But there is a problem.
The review won't review the AR4.
That's right, it will only "focus on improving procedures for the future".
I'm not kidding.
IPCC reviewers pointed out wildfire mistake, ignored by authors
In a previous post I mentioned that the IPCC's claim of reduced tourism due to wildfires (section 14.2.7 of WGII) didn't match their source. They claimed there were millions of dollars in tourism losses, but their source did not make that claim. One of the reasons the claim was false was explained in their own source, a British Columbia Tourism newsletter. It said:
It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the fires is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.