The Gold Standard Shattered
06/18/2012 3 Comments
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.