Prev  1  2  3  Next

Comments 26 to 50 out of 69:

26. Willis Eschenbach at 18:03 PM on 2 July, 2010
    doug_bostrom at 07:36 AM on 28 June, 2010 >>When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... Willis if you quantify that assertion you'll be moving closer to joining the realist school of critique, moving away from applying your brush to impressionist strokes like that one. What are the statistics?>> Glad to. Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one. >>Finally, in addition to the IPCC question, the science is at issue as well. I have yet to see anyone link to a peer-reviewed article showing any evidence that 40% of the Amazon is at risk due to reduced rainfall due to warming ... Thank you for affording me the opportunity once again to quote the authority on the subject, Nepstad, whose work this vapid brouhaha was all about: In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. >> I begin to despair. You do understand what "peer-reviewed" means, don't you? It is not simply the opinion of Nepstad or anyone else. Where is the peer-reviewed source document for the IPCC claims? That's what I keep asking for, and what you have not provided no matter how much handwaving you have done.
27. JMurphy at 20:08 PM on 2 July, 2010
    Willis Eschenbach wrote : "Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one." Well, since you love to demand citations (especially in front of an adoring crowd at WUWT), perhaps you could do so here and give links to Pachauri's 'repeated' claims ? Then, give the stats which show the "far too often" IPCC reliance on "propaganda pieces", etc - as you have already been asked. Then, tell why you believe Pachauri and the IPCC are one and the same, so that what he says is what the IPCC says. Do you have links to official IPCC paperwork, etc. which has statements by him claiming things like the IPCC 100% assertion you are so obsessed with ? Anyway, you have already been shown where to look to see all the answers, by a Phil Clarke, on the WUWT thread you wrote recently. But you seem to have ignored it, preferring to have a handbag fight with Richard North over who said what and when. Some of the posters on there were very upset at that - two of their so-called skeptic heroes not getting on ! Egos are such a pain, aren't they ? Here is another version of the link that you were given over at WUWT but ignored.
28. Doug Bostrom at 01:16 AM on 3 July, 2010
    Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own but you've offered no factual evidence to back up the impression of the IPCC you're trying to convey. You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer. W/regard to Nepstad, I found it surprising that your seemingly exhaustive "fog" item at WUWT somehow failed to mention that the author behind the work in question w/regard to the Amazon endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, explaining exactly how the citation trail failed while emphasizing that the IPCC remarks on the Amazon were factually correct. Nepstad's words on the matter are easy to find. Omitting that key information degrades your credibility. If you're genuinely concerned with IPCC process you should compose some statistics and then show how the lessons of those statistics demonstrate some material effect on the IPCC work product by poor sourcing. If you're more concerned with impressionism then of course you should continue with selective narration and rhetorical artifices of the type including such statements as "When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda..." without bothering to lend any factual support to that claim.
29. Willis Eschenbach at 13:07 PM on 3 July, 2010
    doug_bostrom at 01:16 AM on 3 July, 2010

    Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own...

    I take all of that as meaning that you have no peer reviewed evidence to support the IPCC claim regarding the Amazon. You seem to think that what is at issue is what I say. It is not. It is what the IPCC says. However, let me answer your questions. You say: You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer. and JMurphy says: "Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one." Well, since you love to demand citations (especially in front of an adoring crowd at WUWT), perhaps you could do so here and give links to Pachauri's 'repeated' claims ? Then, give the stats which show the "far too often" IPCC reliance on "propaganda pieces", etc - as you have already been asked. Pacharui's claims are important, as they have shaped the high regard in which the IPCC is (in my opinion wrongly) held. And the IPCC has relied on non-peer-reviewed claims far too often, as I said. So hang on, this is only a partial list, but it is long. Regarding Pachauri's repeated claim about how it was all 100% peer reviewed science, we have (emphasis mine): "People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 and "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007 and "This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 and As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: 'IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...'" - US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009 (bottom of PDF's page 7) and "When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, 'IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'" - Times of India, November 2009 Regarding the IPCC relying on non-peer-reviewed sources, there are far, far too many for me to list. Let me pick a few. We could start with the very claim we are discussing here, which was based on a WWF paper (non peer-reviewed), which in turn relied on another non peer-reviewed document. Then we have an IPCC citation to my favorite peer reviewed journal: Gwynne, P., 1975: The cooling world. Newsweek, April 28, 64. With respect to climate change in Ontario, the IPCC used the noted journals "Leisure" and "Event Management": Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press) Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76 With respect to the IPCC's erroneous claims on African agriculture, they were based on Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: adaptation and implementation strategies for climatic change. Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp. Again, not peer reviewed. The IPCC claims on Canadian wildfires were based on a couple of newspapers and a tourism publication: Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002. Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002. BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp. Want more? Well, of course we have the claim about the Himalayan glacier melt, famously built on a scientist's mis-represented comment to a newspaper. Or we could look at the use of the non peer-reviewed Master's thesis in the IPCC: Shibru, M., 2001: Pastoralism and cattle marketing: a case study of the Borana of southern Ethiopia, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Egerton University. Wahab, H.M., 2005: The impact of geographical information system on environmental development, unpublished MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, 148 pp. Gray, K.N., 1999: The impacts of drought on Yakima Valley irrigated agriculture and Seattle municipal and industrial water supply. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 102 pp. Schwörer, D.A., 1997: Bergführer und Klimaänderung: eine Untersuchung im Berninagebiet über mögliche Auswirkungen einer Klimaänderung auf den Bergführerberuf (Mountain guides and climate change: an inquiry into possible effects of climatic change on the mountain guide trade in the Bernina region, Switzerland). Diplomarbeit der philosophisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bern. That's from just one Working Group. Or, if you would prefer non peer-reviewed PhD theses, we have: Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford. Foster, S.S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Science, Southampton, 231 p. Oram, D.E., 1999: Trends of Long-Lived Anthropogenic Halocarbons in the Southern Hemisphere and Model Calculations of Global Emissions. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 249 pp. Eyer, M., 2004: Highly Resolved δ13C Measurements on CO2 in Air from Antarctic Ice Cores. PhD Thesis, University of Bern, 113 pp. Foster, S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for Use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Driesschaert, E., 2005: Climate Change over the Next Millennia Using LOVECLIM, a New Earth System Model Including Polar Ice Sheets. PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 214 pp, http://edoc.bib.ucl.ac.be:81/ETD-db/collection/available/BelnUcetd-10172005-185914/ Harder, M., 1996: Dynamik, Rauhigkeit und Alter des Meereises in der Arktis. PhD Thesis, Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany, 124 pp Jiang, Y.D., 2005: The Northward Shift of Climatic Belts in China during the Last 50 Years, and the Possible Future Changes. PhD Thesis, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, China Academy of Science, Beijing, 137 pp. Somot, S., 2005: Modélisation Climatique du Bassin Méditerranéen: Variabilité et Scénarios de Changement Climatique. PhD Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 333 pp. Vérant, S., 2004: Etude des Dépressions sur l’Europe de l’Ouest : Climat Actuel et Changement Climatique. PhD thesis ... and that's just the PhD theses from Working Group 1 ... Regarding the use of non peer-reviewed documents from Greenpeace, we have: Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07 Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp. Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07 And regarding non peer-reviewed documents from the WWF, the IPCC used: Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp. Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp. Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp. Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp. Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp. WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp. Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland I could go on and on, but that will suffice for now. Finally, you have asked for the exact statistics on the use of non-peer reviewed studies in the IPCC report. They are here.
30. Riccardo at 15:17 PM on 3 July, 2010
    Willis Eschenbach, as noted before, the IPCC rules state that non peer review article may be used. Your is only a personal attack against Pachauri and of no much interest for the science. It's a well known and clearly political motivated tactics used way too often by various brands of skeptics. In my views it's unacceptable.
31. Doug Bostrom at 15:57 PM on 3 July, 2010
    Pachauri's remarks are irrelevant to your claim, Willis. You brought 'em up secondary to your original remarks, why I don't know because Pachauri's remarks subsequent to the IPCC 2007 synthesis are of course not part of the synthesis. We know the IPCC is quite open about using "grey" literature in the impacts and mitigation sections. Ignoring professional output from agronomists, biologists and a plethora of other professions working for private, governmental and not-for-profits entities with particular skills in impact and mitigation matters would frankly be insane. This is an issue that's been trotted out already so your seemingly impressive list of statistics is already pretty dull as a palette knife for creating works of impressionism. I'm particularly surprised you think a PhD dissertation is some sort of badge of incompetence or unreliability. I'm not sure what your problem with PhD dissertations is. Perhaps your gallery visitors don't know but presumably you are aware that doctoral theses are typically not only subjected to intensive criticism by a doctoral candidate's own dissertation committee but then are exposed to intense scrutiny by others outside of the committee and are almost invariably defended in oral presentation, the "defense." They are more scrupulously reviewed than any journal article you'll likely find. Nice impressionism but you're laying on the paint with a trowel and it's peeling off the canvas before it can dry. I apologize for being insufficiently specific, the particular term that caught my eye was "propaganda pieces." You apparently consider Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation to be a trump card in any discussion but that's a sloppy habit and of course is more or less believable depending on your political bent. In point of fact, however, nobody has established that publications by these organizations are axiomatically "propaganda" in the sense that most people understand the word. In fact I suspect that relying on a facile rhetorical crutch equating such publications with "propaganda" is a sign of weakness. It is a fact that advocacy organizations publish work that by -some- definitions of the word may be considered "propaganda." Here's a reasonable definition: "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." So you know what? I think you're right, when the IPCC uses cites from Greenpeace or WWF, in the very loosest sense of the word they may arguably be said to be drawing on fragments of what taken as a whole are propaganda efforts by those organizations. This is not really a good idea from the perspective of an organization that is a lightning rod for political attacks, but on the other hand funding for science is always short, advocacy organizations commission much original work that is valid and useful, the persons authoring this work are (as you've shown) professionals with reputations to protect and so to dismiss all such publications is to ignore a sizable body of work for purely political reasons. How bad is this purported "propganda" problem, what material weight does it carry in the IPCC report? Let's assume for a moment that your source for statistics is correct, though I'm already worried by the confusion over dissertations; if the same lack of discrimination is applied throughout the so-called "audit" you cite I wonder about its utility. Working with the data you've supplied, your "audit" source reveals that about 4/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites originate with Greenpeace, apparently, and some 7/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites are from WWF, apparently all of these concentrated in the WGII and WGIII sections and thus not material to the science describing how anthropogenic global warming is instantiated. This says nothing of course about the utility of those cites, instead just finally gets to the statistic you refused to produce, describing exactly what is meant when you say the ...IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces... Are numbers representing well less than 1/10th of 1% suitable for the term "so often?" I don't know, it's sort of an impressionist thing. By the way, the page from the "audit" site mixing politics with science-- the "freedom" part-- reads as though it's taken straight from GOP consultant Luntz's work, except with a touch of rabid froth. I use the numbers from that site with some compunction; who knows if the politics have bled into the "audit?" When an organization equates folks with a concern for the environment with murderous Stalinists, is that a sign that we should depend on them for impartial judgment? Quoting: "People who claim to be making the world a better place have often delivered misery. The Soviets, for example, said they were building a more equal society. Instead, they murdered tens of millions." Finally, I see that once again you have chosen to ignore what Nepstad-- the fellow who authored the work intended to be cited by IPCC regarding the Amazon-- said of the IPCC's claim in relation to his own work. Maintaining the wrong impression on this matters apparently absolutely key for you but of course you're not Nepsted so you don't really know what you're talking about compared to him. Here's what Nepstad (again, the author of the work in question) said: In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct.
32. Willis Eschenbach at 18:17 PM on 3 July, 2010
    doug_bostrom at 15:57 PM on 3 July, 2010

    Pachauri's remarks are irrelevant to your claim, Willis. You brought 'em up secondary to your original remarks, why I don't know because Pachauri's remarks subsequent to the IPCC 2007 synthesis are of course not part of the synthesis.

    Pachauri's remarks are central to the question. The IPCC holds itself out as a review of the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science. Pachauri says that very specifically. Which is why the question of peer review is important, because we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents. Not only that, it has an entire procedure that has been applied to keep out non-peer reviewed documents, and even to keep out peer-reviewed documents published after the cutoff date. (They haven't followed their own procedures, and have let things in like the Jesus paper, but that's a separate discussion.) This mania for peer review has infected the entire discussion, with many important ideas being discarded or derided because they are not peer reviewed. I have received this dismissal many times, that my ideas are worthless because they are not peer reviewed. So why should I care what Nepstad says in answer to a question by a reporter? What he said is no more peer reviewed than what I say. If it were, how come nobody can provide us with a citation to the study? I didn't set up that bar, I didn't establish that guideline. I think it's a dumb way to judge what is worthwhile. Peer review is a joke these days. But that's the bar that the IPCC itself set up, and that it has pushed over and over as the reason we should believe the IPCC, so it has to live or die by it. It can't just ignore it when it is inconvenient, as you conveniently advocate. I am not ignoring what Nepstad said. He may or may not be right. I am just pointing out that the IPCC said that its Amazon claims, along with all of its other claims, were based on peer reviewed science. You have not been able to provide such backing for the claim. You say his was the "work intended to be cited" (although we have no evidence of that) ... but his work doesn't contain that claim either. In fact, the claim was altered (to make it more alarmist) during the IPCC review process, and over the objections of a reviewer. So if you think that the claim rests on peer reviewed science, please give us the link to the study and we can discuss it. Finally, the same thing applies to Masters or PhD theses. Yes, as you point out they may well be right ... but they are not peer reviewed. Like I said, I think it's a dumb way to judge science, but you guys proposed it, you guys are the ones who have been pushing it, you guys are the ones who bust what I say for not being peer reviewed, so you have to follow your own rules.
33. Riccardo at 19:25 PM on 3 July, 2010
    "The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence." So, discussing science and peer review with Willis Eschenbach appears to be really pointless.
34. Willis Eschenbach at 19:30 PM on 3 July, 2010
    Since you objected to my list of non-peer-reviewed Masters and PhD theses, here's a list of working papers cited by the IPCC. Not peer-reviewed studies, not non peer-reviewed Masters theses, not even finished documents, just working papers: Working Group 2, Chapter 1 Hamilton, J.M., 2003a: Climate and the destination choice of German tourists, Working Paper FNU-15 (revised), Centre for Marine and Climate Research, University of Hamburg, 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-9-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 2 Heslop-Thomas, C.,W. Bailey, D. Amarakoon, A. Chen, S. Rawlins, D. Chadee, R. Crosbourne, A. Owino, K. Polson, C. Rhoden, R. Stennett and M. Taylor, 2006: Vulnerability to dengue fever in Jamaica. AIACC Working Paper No. 27, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 40 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-4.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html Ionescu, C., R.J.T. Klein, J. Hinkel, K.S. Kavi Kumar and R. Klein, 2005: Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper 2, 24 pp. Accessed from http://www.newater.info. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html Pulhin, J., R.J.J. Peras, R.V.O. Cruz, R.D. Lasco, F. Pulhin and M.A. Tapia, 2006: Vulnerability of communities to climate variability and extremes: the Pantabangan-Carranglan watershed in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 44, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 56 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html Working Group 2, Chapter 5 Toulmin, C., 1986: Livestock losses and post-drought rehabilitation in sub-Saharan Africa: policy options and issues. Livestock Policy Unit Working Paper No. 9, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html#5-2-1 (in table 5.1) Working Group 2, Chapter 6 Barros, V., A. Menéndez, C. Natenzon, R.R. Kokot, J.O. Codignotto, M. Re, P. Bronstein, I. Camilloni and Co-authors, 2006: Vulnerability to floods in the metropolitan region of Buenos Aires under future climate change. Working Paper 26. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC), 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 7 Black, R., 2001: Environmental refugees: myth or reality? New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper 34, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, 20 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-4-1.html (in box 7.1) Working Group 2, Chapter 9 Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried,W. Dougherty,A. Hanafi, S. Zakieldeen, A. Sanjak, H. Abdel Atti and H.M. Elhassan, 2006: Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. Working Paper 42, AIACC, 44 pp.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html (in the first paragraph, as well as in Table 9.2) Ziervogel, G.,A.O. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortés and T. Downing, 2006: Climate variability and change: implications for household food security. AIACC Working Paper No. 20, 25 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/Working Papers/AIACC_WP_20_Ziervogel.pdf. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-6.html#9-6-1 Working Group 2, Chapter 10 Batima, P., L. Natsagdorj, P. Gombluudev and B. Erdenetsetseg, 2005a: Observed climate change in Mongolia. AIACC Working Paper, 13, 25 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-references.html Relevant paragraphs at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-3.html (in table 10.3) and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-2.html (in table 10.2) Working Group 2, Chapter 11 Packman, D., D. Ponter and T. Tutua-Nathan, 2001: Maori issues. Climate Change Working Paper, New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 18 pp. http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html Working Group 2, Chapter 13 Nagy, G.J.,M. Bidegain, R.M. Caffera, J.J. Lagomarsino,W. Norbis,A. Ponce and G. Sención, 2006b: Adaptive capacity for responding to climate variability and change in estuarine fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 36, 16 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-3.html Nagy, G.J., M. Bidegain, F. Blixen, R.M. Caffera, G. Ferrari, J.J. Lagomarsino, C.H. López,W. Norbis and co-authors, 2006c: Assessing vulnerability to climate variability and change for estuarine waters and coastal fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 22, 44 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-4.html Orlove, B.S., S. Joshua and L. Tosteson, 1999: The application of seasonal to interannual climate forecasts based on El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events: lessons from Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Peru and Zimbabwe. Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Working Paper 99-3, Institute of International Studies, University of Califórnia, Berkeley, 67 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5.html Travasso, M.I., G.O. Magrin, W.E. Baethgen, J.P. Castaño, G.R. Rodriguez, J.L. Pires,A. Gimenez, G. Cunha and M. Fernandes, 2006: Adaptation measures for maize and soybean in south eastern South America. AIACC Working Paper No. 28, 38 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-5-1-2.html Wehbe,M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler,M.Vinocur, C. Ávila and C.Marutto, 2006: Local perspectives on adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico and Argentina. AIACC Working Paper No. 39, 39 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html Working Group 2, Chapter 17 Lasco, R., R. Cruz, J. Pulhin and F. Pulhin, 2006: Tradeoff analysis of adaptation strategies for natural resources, water resources and local institutions in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 32, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html (in table 17.1) Leary, N., J. and Co-authors, 2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls: Vulnerabilities in a Changing Climate. AIACC Working Paper No. 30, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-1.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-1.html Taylor, M., A. Chen, S. Rawlins, C. Heslop-Thomas, A. Amarakoon,W. Bailey, D. Chadee, S. Huntley, C. Rhoden and R. Stennett, 2006: Adapting to dengue risk – what to do? AIACC Working Paper No. 33, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-3.html Working Group 2, Chapter 18 Downing, T.E. and G. Ziervogel, 2005: Food system scenarios: exploring global/local linkages. Working Paper, SEI Poverty and Vulnerability Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 35 pp http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-8.html Goklany, I.M., 2000b: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming. Weidenbaum Center Working Paper, PS 158.Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-4-1.html Working Group 3, Chapter 5 Riedy, C., 2003: Subsidies that encourage fossil fuel use in Australia. Working paper CR2003/01, Institute for sustainable futures, Sydney,Australia, 39 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-5-3.html Working Group 3, Chapter 7 Delmas, M. and A. Terlaak, 2000: Voluntary agreements for the environment: Innovation and transaction costs. CAVA Working Paper 00/02/13 February. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2.html Gupta, K., 2002: The urban informal sector and environmental pollution: A theoretical analysis. Working Paper No. 02-006. Center for Environment and Development Economics, University of York, York, UK. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-1-1.html Next, a list of newspaper and magazine articles cited by the IPCC: Dey, P., 2006: Climate change devastating Latin America frogs. University of Alberta. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7247. Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002. Kesmodel, D., 2002: Low and dry: Drought chokes off Durango rafting business. Rocky Mountain News, 25 June 2002. Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999. Welch, C., 2006: Sweeping change reshapes Arctic. The Seattle Times. Jan. 1 2006. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2002714404_arctic01main.html] Marris, E., 2005: First tests show flood waters high in bacteria and lead. News@Nature, 437, 301-301. Stiger, R.W., 2001: Alaska DOT deals with permafrost thaws. Better Roads. June, 30-31. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://obr.gcnpublishing.com/articles/brjun01c.htm] Business Week, 2005: A Second Look at Katrina's Cost. Business Week. September 13, 2005. [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050913_8975_db082.htm] Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002. Colombia Trade News, 2006: Illegal crops damage Colombia’s environmental resources. Colombian Government Trade Bureau. http://www.coltrade.org/ about/envt_index.asp#top. FAO, 2004b: La participación de las comunidades en la gestión forestal es decisiva para reducir los incendios (Involving local communities to prevent and control forest fires). FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004 /48709/index.html. FAO, 2005: Cattle ranching is encroaching on forests in Latin America. FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/index.html Environment News Service, 2002: Hungry Cambodians at the mercy of climate change. Phnom Penh, 26 November 2002. Accessed 16.05.07: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-26-02.asp. Balint-Kurti, D., 2005: Tin trade fuels Congo War. News24, 07/03/2005. http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Features/0,,2-11-37_1672558,00.html. FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/. Bowen, N., 2002: Canary in a coalmine. Climbing News, 208, 90-97, 138-139. Sparks, T.H., H. Heyen, O. Braslavska and E. Lehikoinen, 1999: Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News, 223, 8. Benedick, R., 2001: Striking a new deal on climate change. Science and Technology Online, Fall 2001. http://www.issues.org/18.1/benedick.html Schelling, T.C., 2002: What makes greenhouse sense? Foreign Affairs, May/June COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)6 32. http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-ghsense.pdf Schelling, T.C., 1997: The cost of combating global warming, facing the tradeoffs. Foreign Affairs, November/December http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-cost.pdf Cowan, J., E. Eidinow, Laura Likely, 2000: A scenario-planning process for the new millennium. Deeper News, 9(1). The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29, 2000. Speth, J.G., 2002: Recycling Environmentalism. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp. 74-76. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2002/07/01/recycling_environmentalism Shashank, J., 2004: Energy conservation in the industrial sector: A special report on energy conservation day. New Delhi, Economic Times. Nippon Steel, 2002: Advanced technology of Nippon Steel contributes to ULSAB-AVC Program. Nippon Steel News, 295, September 2002. Shorrock, T., 2002: Enron’s Asia misadventure. Asia Times 29 January, accessed 02/07/07. ISNA, 2004: From wood to coal in an effort to stop deforestation. Inter Services news agency (IPS), Rome, accessed 02/07/07. IRIN, 2004: Angola: frustration as oil windfall spending neglects the poor. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, accessed 02/07/07. Nuclear News, 2005: WNA report forecasts three scenarios for nuclear’s growth. Nuclear News, November 2005: pp. 60-62, 69. Next, a list of press releases cited by the IPCC: Working Group 2, Chapter 5 COPA COGECA, 2003a: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 9 FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Working Group2, Chapter 11 Premier of Victoria, 2006: Ballarat’s future water supplies secured by major Bracks government action plan. Media release, 17 October 2006. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/news_item.asp?id=978. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-2-5.html Working Group 2 - Cross Chapter Studies COPA COGECA, 2003b: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Reference at p. 848. Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Note: paragraph at p. 846 Working Group 2, Chapter 13 World Bank, 2002a: Desarrollo en riesgo debido a la degradación ambiental: Comunicado de prensa (Development at risk from environmental degradation: News release), No. 2002/112/S. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 4 Snow, T., White House Press Briefing, 2006: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html# accessed 31 October 2006. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-2-2.html World Bank, 2005: An open letter to the Catholic Relief Services and bank information centre in response to the report ‘Chad’s Oil: Miracle or Mirage for the poor?’. News release no: 2005/366/AFR, Washington D.C. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-5-4-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 5 Power System, 2005: Press release 2005.6.27. Development of High Power and High Energy Density Capacitor (in Japanese). accessed 30/05/07. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-3-1-3.html Here's a list of discussion papers cited by the IPCC. Remember that Pachauri said: "When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, 'IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'" - Times of India, November 2009. So here are the non-peer reviewed, not finished documents, not even working papers, but discussion papers cited by the IPCC. Working Group 2 Chapter 4 Banzhaf, S. and J. Boyd, 2005: The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index. Discussion paper RFF DP 05-22, Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia, 57 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-5.html Working Group 2, Chapter 5 Sedjo, R.A. and K.S. Lyon, 1996: Timber supply model 96: a global timber supply model with a pulpwood component. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 96-15. [Accessed 21.03.07: http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-96-15.pdf] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-3-2-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 9 Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: A Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate change on African cropland. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 8. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 58 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006b: Crop selection: adapting to climate change in Africa. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy inAfrica (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 26. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 28 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html Seo, S.N. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: Climate change impacts on animal husbandry inAfrica: a Ricardian analysis. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 9, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 42 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html Working Group 2, Chapter 11 Altman, J., 2000: The economic status of Indigenous Australians. Discussion Paper #193, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, 18 pp. http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00001001/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html Mulrennan, M., 1992: Coastal management: challenges and changes in the Torres Strait islands. Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit, Discussion Paper 5, 40 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html Working Group 2 Chapter 17 Christoplos, I, 2006: The Elusive Window of Opportunity for Risk Reduction in Post-Disaster Recovery. Discussion Paper ProVention Consortium Forum 2006 - Strengthening global collaboration in disaster risk reduction, Bangkok, February 2-3, 4 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf (in box 17.7 on page 733) FAO, 2004: Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin, A situation analysis. Land and Water Discussion Paper 4, FAO, Rome, 160 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf (in table 17.1 on page 722) Sperling, F. and F. Szekely, 2005: Disaster Risk Management in a Changing Climate. Informal Discussion Paper prepared for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction on behalf of the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group (VARG). Washington, District of Columbia, 42 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html Working Group 2, Chapter 18 Newell, R.G. and W.A. Pizer, 2000: Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 99-10-REV. Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-3-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 7 PCA, 2002: Common elements among advanced greenhouse gas management programs: A discussion paper. New York, Partnership for Climate Action, , accessed 31/05/07. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2-2.html Working Group 3, Chapter 9 Palmer, K. and R. Newell, K. Gillingham, 2004: Retrospective Examination of Demand-side Energy-efficiency Policies, Discussion Papers dp-04-19, Resources for the Future. accessed 06/07/07. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-4-1.html Wagner, M. and G. Müller-Fürstenberg, 2004: The Carbon Kuznets Curve: A cloudy picture emitted by lousy econometrics? Discussion Paper 04-18. University of Bern, 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-2.html Working Group 3 Chapter 13 Assunção, L., and Z.X. Zhang, 2002: Domestic climate policies and the WTO. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Discussion Paper No. 164. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf (box 13.7 on page 782) Baer, P., J. Harte, B. Haya, A.V. Herzog, J. Holdren, N.E. Hultman, D.M. Kammen, R.B. Norgaard, and L. Raymond, 2000: Equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science, 289 (2287.12 Discussion paper 2003-2).http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf (in table 13.2, on page 770) Beierle, T.C., 2004: The benefits and costs of environmental information disclosure: What do we know about right-to-know? RFF Discussion Paper 03-05, March http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-7.html Betz, R. and I. MacGill, 2005: Emissions trading for Australia: Design, transition and linking options. CEEM Discussion Paper, DP_050815. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4-4.html Blok, K., G.J.M. Phylipsen, and J.W. Bode, 1997: The Triptych Approach, burden sharing differentiation of CO2 emissions reduction among EU Member States. Discussion paper for the informal workshop for the European Union Ad Hoc Group on Climate, Zeist, the Netherlands, January 16-17, 1997, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 1997 (9740). http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf (table 13.2 on page 770) Burtraw, D., K. Palmer, A. Paul, R. Bharvirkar, 2001b: The effect of allowance allocation on the cost of carbon emissions trading. RFF Discussion Paper 01-30. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html Burtraw, D., A. Krupnick, K. Palmer, A. Paul, M. Toman, and C. Bloyd, 2001a: Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the United States from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. RFF Discussion Paper 01-61. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-1-2-1.html Fischer, C., 2001: Rebating environmental policy revenues: Output-based allocations and tradable performance standards. RFF Discussion Paper, 01-22. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html Fischer, C., S. Hoffman, and Y. Yoshino, 2002: Multilateral trade agreements and market-based environmental policies. RFF Discussion Paper, May. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf (box 13.7 on page 782) Fisher, C. and R. Newell, 2004: Environmental and technology policies for climate change and renewable energy, resources for the future. Discussion paper 04-05, April 2004. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-6.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-2.html Newell, R. and N. Wilson, 2005: Technology prizes for Climate Change Mitigation, Resources for the future. Discussion paper 05-33, June, 2005, Washington, D.C. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf (table 13.2 on page 772) Oates, W.E., 2001: A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism, Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper 01-54, November, 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1 OECD, 1999: Conference on foreign direct investment & environment, The Hague, 28-29 January 1999, BIAC Discussion Paper. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-5.html (figure 13.5) Pezzey, J.C.V. and M.A. Toman, 2002: The economics of sustainability: A review of journal articles. Discussion Paper 02-03, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-1-2-3.html (footnote number 3) Pizer, W.A. and K. Tamura, 2004: Climate Policy in the U.S. and Japan: A Workshop Summary, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper. 04- 22, March, 2004. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1 Pizer, W.A., 2005a: Climate policy design under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 05-44, Resources for the Future. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html Stavins, R.N., 2001: Economic analysis of global climate change policy: A primer. Climate Change: Science, Strategies, and Solutions. E. Claussen, V.A. Cochran, and D.P. Davis. Boston. Brill 18 Discussion paper 2003-2: draft ver. 1 August 2003 Publishing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf (table 13.2 on page 770) The point that you seem to be missing in all of this is that people feel, and with good reason, that they've been sold a bill of goods. For years we've been told that the IPCC only considered peer-reviewed science, that they didn't just, in Pachauri's words, "pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." Now we find out that they are doing exactly that. They are using newspapers, and working papers, and magazine articles, and discussion papers, and press releases, and other non peer-reviewed literature, to try to sell their point of view. As a result, people feel betrayed, and they are angry. But when someone points this out, you're all on about how Masters theses are just fine, and the number of claims from WWF isn't all that great, and other fine excuses. If you were savvy, you'd say, "Hey, we oversold it, our bad, won't happen again". But instead you've circled the wagons, and are trying to defend the indefensible. This was very apparent in Pachauri's response to the Himalaya glacier fiasco. Rather than say "Yes, it was an error", he immediately denounce it as "voodoo science". Indian scientists, whose work he was dissing, were incensed, and rightly so. The Indian Government was so upset by his comments that they set up their own government body, with the Indian Environment Minister saying: “There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science." But heck, keep up the good work, follow Pachauri's lead. All you are doing is further tarnishing the reputation of the IPCC, and you won't hear me complain about that. It has served and over-served its purpose. It has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. People can look at the length of the lists of working papers and newspaper articles that the IPCC claims are "science" and make up their own minds ...
35. Doug Bostrom at 02:59 AM on 4 July, 2010
    Willis does not seem to be able to have a discussion while sticking with facts. As Riccardo suggests, this means talking with Willis is rather pointless. ...we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents. In point of fact the IPCC has never had such a policy. Why does Willis want to convey the opposite, incorrect impression? With regard to Nepstad, Willis says "So why should I care what Nepstad says in answer to a question by a reporter? What he said is no more peer reviewed than what I say. If it were, how come nobody can provide us with a citation to the study?" Of course, Nepstad is in fact the author of the papers in question and has specifically pointed to the papers he authored and which he points out justify the IPCC's remarks. Why does Willis want to convey a false impression? As to "working papers" being yet another badge of unreliability, Willis connects the concept with "not even finished", again seeking to convey an incorrect impression that a working paper is some sort of student project that was not completed. Why does Willis want to convey that wrong impression? A person authoring and then persistently defending what by almost any definition is propaganda relying on false impressions is a useless discussion partner. Propaganda does not axiomatically equate to untruth, but it may include untruth. What I read of Willis' work suggests he's conducting a campaign to sway public opinion, relying on conveying wrong impressions to promote his agenda. Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers. Who is conveying propaganda? Seeking to distort public thinking by suggesting "often" equals less than 1/10th of 1% seems to me like promoting an agenda based on false impressions. It's pretty appalling to witness this style of cognitive vandalism, I'll say that.
36. Willis Eschenbach at 05:03 AM on 4 July, 2010
    doug_bostrom at 02:59 AM on 4 July, 2010 I said:

    ...we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents.

    This statement was questioned, and I was asked to provide citations. I provided a number of quotations from the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, saying that exact thing. Now you accuse me of not sticking to the facts? That's the facts, I have provided the quotations as requested. You replied:

    In point of fact the IPCC has never had such a policy. Why does Willis want to convey the opposite, incorrect impression?

    A citation for your claim that they have no such policy would be helpful. Oh, and you should tell Pachauri, as he has said over and over that they do have such a policy. For example, he explicitly said that they don't use discussion papers, they only use peer-reviewed science, and the rest they just "throw into the dustbin" ... but guess what? The IPCC does use discussion papers, but only the ones that fit the party line. Go figure. Next, you say:

    Of course, Nepstad is in fact the author of the papers in question and has specifically pointed to the papers he authored and which he points out justify the IPCC's remarks. Why does Willis want to convey a false impression?

    Nepstad is not the author of the un-reviewed IPCC citation in question. That would be Rowell and Moore writing for the WWF. Nor is he the author of the un-reviewed paper that Rowell and Moore cite. I have read the papers by Nepstad. None of them contain the claim made by the IPCC. Perhaps you could point out where Nepstad claimed that "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation". He may believe that, and it may be true, but I have looked, and I can't find it anywhere in Nepstad's work. Now I certainly could have missed it ... so if could you point out which of Nepstad's peer-reviewed papers and which paragraph of that paper made that claim? I have provided the citations and exact quotations that you requested, perhaps you could return the favor. Next, you say:

    Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers. Who is conveying propaganda? Seeking to distort public thinking by suggesting "often" equals less than 1/10th of 1% seems to me like promoting an agenda based on false impressions.

    Doug, if a man said "I never cheated on my wife", finding out that he cheated once makes his word worthless. Doesn't matter that he had sex with his wife a thousand times, so he only cheated on his wife 1/10th of 1% of the time. He still cheated. The same is true about the IPCC. Pachauri has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC only used peer reviewed science, and never used anything else because the rest was "voodoo science". I have given a dozens and dozens of examples of the use of newspaper articles and discussion papers and the like. As a result, just like the wife of the man who was cheating, people reasonably feed betrayed. You still seem to think that the issue is the veracity of a working paper or a discussion paper or a newspaper article. I know very well what a working paper is. I also know what a discussion paper is, and a newspaper article. The point is that they are not peer reviewed. You folks have established peer review as the gold standard, not me. You made your bed, you established the rules, now you want to say well, we only broke the rules dozens and dozens of times, so it doesn't count. Nice try. Finally, you say:

    Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers.

    Here are the numbers I put up: WORKING GROUP, Percentage of citations not peer-reviewed. Working Group 1, 7% Working Group 2, 34% Working Group 3, 57% For an IPCC which claims that its results are based on nothing but peer-reviewed science, that's pathetic. You can defend it all you like, but you'd be better off to obey the first rule of holes - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid. I would allow any valid, supported, verified science. But I wasn't consulted when they made that rule. I see that they are now planning to change the rule for the Fifth Assessment Report, which is reasonable to me. But until they do so, the IPCC made the rules, Pachauri proclaimed the rules far and wide, the IPCC broke the rules, and as a result the IPCC lost the trust of the public. You may not like that, but there it is.
37. Doug Bostrom at 06:20 AM on 4 July, 2010
    Willis nothing I say or do is going to change your habits. You've got your agenda, have fun with it. Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid. What's more stupid, a nonexistent rule or constantly asserting in public that it exists? Just for the record, Willis has somehow missed the procedural steps described by the IPCC for inclusion of non-peer reviewed materials in IPCC synthesis reports. Either that or Willis would really like readers to form the wrong impression. IPCC has broken none of its "rules." Read about how IPCC prefers non-peer reviewed literature be used here in Appendix A, Annex 2: PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS (pdf)
38. Riccardo at 06:23 AM on 4 July, 2010
    I was wondering how many non peer review papers have been used by the IPCC and I'm impressed by the numbers Willis Eschenbach gave. Given that they were allowed to use non peer review papers I have to say that they did a really awesome job.
39. Doug Bostrom at 06:28 AM on 4 July, 2010
    By the way, Willis, I notice that once you saw the actual Greenpeace/WWF "propaganda" content you say is "so often" used by IPCC identified as composing something like 11/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites, you quickly changed the parameters of your complaint. Like I say, it's hopeless discussing this with you, you're not trying to improve anybody's understanding of the matter. If you were, you'd acknowledge you'd made an error and that 11/100ths of 1% is not "often."
40. Doug Bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July, 2010
    Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover: [IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN. It would probably be a good thing if Willis were explicit as to the purpose of his "cause." Case of the pot calling the kettle black: "I don't like the UN's politics because the UN's politics don't comport with my politics." Not really about science, after all those words. Tsk.
41. JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July, 2010
    It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order ! They seem to come from here and here.
42. JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July, 2010
    Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link : Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.
43. Willis Eschenbach at 13:19 PM on 4 July, 2010
    JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July, 2010

    Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link :

    Always stated? I fear you missed the part where the document you cited is the proposed revision to the existing rules. As the document says:

    This provisionally revised Appendix to the Principles Governing IPCC Work contains the procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports and other materials relevant to methodologies. This Appendix complements the Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports, which was adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999).

    This is an appendix to the document "Principles Governing IPCC Work", which was not approved until 2006. The provisionally revised Appendix in question was approved at the Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August – 4 September 2008). I find no record of a final revised version. Always stated? Nice try ...
44. Willis Eschenbach at 13:29 PM on 4 July, 2010
    Even George Monbiot has given up on your senseless statement that the Amazon claim was peer reviewed. Monbiot before:

    The ironies of this episode are manifold, but the most obvious is this: that North's story – and the Sunday Times's rewritten account – purported to expose inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood on the part of the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood. Ashes to ashes, toast to toast.

    Don't like it? Write to George ... Monbiot now (emphasis mine):

    There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do. ... It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation". This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn't have been".

    Oooops ... I've asked here repeatedly for a reference to such a statement from the peer-reviewed literature. I can't find one. George can't find one. I'm still waiting for you to either produce one, or (like Monbiot) admit that you can't find one.
45. Willis Eschenbach at 13:39 PM on 4 July, 2010
    JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July, 2010

    It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order !

    Duh ... anyone with half a brain would realize that I didn't go out and research the hundred or so IPCC references in a single day. I didn't reference them because their original provenance is obvious ... the IPCC. What difference does it make where I got them? When the IPCC references a discussion paper, it references a discussion paper. No amount of intermediate collection of different references changes that.
46. Willis Eschenbach at 13:47 PM on 4 July, 2010
    doug_bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July, 2010

    Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover:

    [IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause.

    Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN.

    My cause is the investigation and hopefully the rectification of bad science, whether inside the UN or out. Regarding the UN, I worked in international village level development for many years, and have seen the results of many of their failed programs. In addition, both my parents worked for the UN. As a result, I've seen its boondoggles up close and personal. The problems with the UN are internal to the UN. Inherently they have nothing to do with politics, although in the case of climate science (where politicians have been appointed to the IPCC and the results have huge international implications) they overlap. Regarding politics, I voted for Obama ... remind me how that is relevant?
47. Baa Humbug at 13:56 PM on 4 July, 2010
    Having read thru the thread, I'd like to make the following points (for whatever they are worth to the reader) * Rajandra Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC. He is the final signatory to the report. * Willis supplied quotes attributed to Pachauri who made these statements AS the chairman. * If a chairman or CEO of a company makes statements about that company, one would be safe to assume the statements are those of the company. * Journalists and others listening to Pachauri would have, and indeed did, take his word as gospel and quoted him on it. Not too many people rush off to read the fine print in a 3000 page document. Why would you when the chairman answered direct questions on behalf of the panel. * This isn't a case of a single off the cuff comment made by Pachauri. He repeated his claims of 100% peer review on a number of occasions under direct questioning. * The reason why he was questioned was because the integrity of the report was brought into question. * Pachauri defended this integrity with the "all peer reviewed" comment. * Now that we know it wasn't "all peer reviewed" (rightly or wrongly) parts of the reports integrity must still be under question p.s. I was a citizens auditor. I audited over ten chapters. The lists of "working papers" "discussion papers" etc posted by Willis was done by me for Donna Laframboise. I was flabbergasted at the numbers then, I still am now.
48. Willis Eschenbach at 16:20 PM on 4 July, 2010
    The Story Continues ... Well, it appears that Richard North has uncovered the original unreviewed source of the unreviewed IPAM report that was the source of the unreviewed WWF report that was cited by the IPCC. The original source is an IPAM web page, now only accessible by way of the Wayback Machine. It also turns out that the original source is very near, and yet very far, from the IPCC quote. Here's what the IPCC said:

    Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).

    This is the quote from the IPAM website:

    Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. With an increase in the frequency and intensity of El Niño events, it will become more and more common for forests to dry out sufficiently that they become flammable.

    Here is the IPCC First Order Draft of the statement:

    Forty percent of the Amazonian forests could react sensibly to a slight reduction of precipitation; this could mean that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America, may change very rapidly to another steady state ...

    Note the "react sensibly", similar to the IPAM web page quote. However, the IPAM web page says nothing about how that sensitivity means that the "tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state." Nor is that the context of the quote. Instead, the web page says that 30% to 40% (not 40%) of the Brazilian Amazon (not even the entire Amazon) could be in danger of fire if there is a drought. Nothing about a change in the climate system at all. So even the original source for the claim does not bear out what the IPCC said. Next, in the IPCC Second Order Draft, this has morphed into:

    Forty percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically even to a slight reduction of precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America, could change very rapidly to another steady state ...

    There are three changes between the First Order and Second Order draft. First, "could react sensibly" has been changed to "could react drastically". Second, "this could mean that" has been changed to "this means that". Third, "may change rapidly" has changed to "could change rapidly". Note the process of exaggeration here. There is a web page which makes a random unreviewed claim. The claim is taken up by the IPCC. However, it is then further changed from a claim about reacting "sensibly" which "could mean that" there is a danger of fire, to a claim of reacting "drastically" which "means that" there is a danger of a complete change in the climate. This is the IPCC problem in a nutshell. They are not doing science in any accepted sense of the world. They are taking a non peer-reviewed claim about sensitivity to fire, changing it so it refers to sensitivity to a complete climate change, and then exaggerating the new claim even further. Bad IPCC ... no cookies. w.
49. Doug Bostrom at 17:06 PM on 4 July, 2010
    Ho-hum, Willis has gone off down the Amazon rabbit hole yet again. I suppose it would best to get Nepstad's entire statement out here so Willis can deal with it in detail. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been recently criticized in media coverage (e.g. Sunday Times) for presenting inaccurate information on the susceptibility of the forests of the Amazon Basin to rainfall reduction in its fourth assessment. The statement that has drawn the criticism reads as follows: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that thetropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000)." (IPCC 2007, Magrin et al. 2007) The Rowell and Moore review report that is cited as the basis of this IPCC statement cites an article that we published in the journal Nature in 1999 as the source for the following statement: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.[Nepstad et al. 1999]" (Rowell and Moore 2000) The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete.(The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007. In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. Daniel Nepstad, PhD Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center Coordinator of Research, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia Source for above statement by Nepstad Nepstad versus "Willis Eschenbach." I know where my money would go.
50. Doug Bostrom at 18:12 PM on 4 July, 2010
    Willis persists with his error regarding the IPCC and "grey literature." Here we can read how use of this source of information in the IPCC synthesis has been routine, not a secret, not an error, not a "violation of rules: TS.1 Scope, approach and method of the Working Group II assessment In the item at the link, we read: The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature.[2]

Prev  1  2  3  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.