The Gold Standard Shattered

Russ Steele

I have been debating global warming and climate change with our local supporter of the anthropogenic global warming religion for years, and according to all the participants peer review was the gold standard for credible science. The standard was tarnished when we learned in the Climategate e-mails that peer review in climate science had degenerated into “pal review” as all the peers were friends and colleagues of the study authors, rather an independent reviewers. We also learned that many of the studies were based on complex computer models and the peer reviewerd did not take the time or energy to examine the validity of those computer models or examine the input parameters. In many cases the data base use in the models were not available to the reviewer or to the public wishing to do their own third party review. The result was a decline in public acceptance of peer review in the climate sciences.

When the public learned that the UN IPCC had violated it own rules on the use of peer reviewed material in it’s assessment reports.  It was using non-peer reviewed material in it’s assessment reports, as a result the tarnish became unmitigated crud. Donna Laframboise in her book, The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert,  explodes the myth that the UN IPCC only uses peer reviewed material in it’s assessment reports in Chapter 11, The Peer Review Fariry Tale.  Assessment Reports that government agencies have used to make climate change mitigation policy, like California’s CARB and the US EPA.

With the myth of peer reviewed science busted in the press and in the blogs that  follow global warming and climate change, the UN IPCC was presented with a challenge, how to recover it’s credibility?

No problem, just change the policy and accept “gray literature” as valid science. After all they had already done that is AR-4 in 2007, why not consider the policy in AR-5 in 2012. Here are the detail in a New Scientist report:

Climate scientists are likely to face charges of putting politics before science, following two controversial decisions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month.

The IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the scientists who author its major assessment reports. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.

Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literature”: publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the “glaciergate” scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice.

Why the change? Because third world scientists have trouble getting their papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. So, in “fairness” the UN is chucking the gold standard of science and accepting “gray literature” without evaluation.  After Climategate and reading Donna Laframboise excellent book  exposing the truth about the UN’s peer reviewed science I was dismayed, now I am outraged that our political leaders will be basing policy decisions on non-peer reviewed scientific crud.

What about you? Are you comfortable paying taxes based on policies with limited or no scientific basis? Where is your out rage?

H/T to a regular reader for bring the New Scientist article to my attention.


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

3 Responses to The Gold Standard Shattered

  1. D. King says:

    Russ, we don’t want good science to get in the way of sustainability.

    Like this:

  2. gjrebane says:

    Again the real story here is that such bamboozles time and again reveal the utter contempt in which the progressive elites hold the intellectual level of the general populace, and doubly so that of their own core constituents. Confirmed by the responding silence of the sheeple, these elites continue to forge ahead with their Agenda21 schedule to spread their command and control policies all over the world.

  3. Sean says:

    I realize with California’s belated entry into the climate mitigation game, what goes on in the Rio + 20 summit may indeed have relevance. But the reality for most of those attending this conference, the sense of urgency is over and the delegates know they are in danger of becoming irrelevant themselves. When geographic and gender diversity drives what gets included, the science is done and politics are clearly the real driver. Few heads of state attended this summit. The delegates are grasping at straws trying to hold their agenda together but they also will soon realize its time to move on

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: