Why I Won't Be Renewing My 'Economist' Subscription

Rather than helping to keep climate authorities honest, The Economist magazine now serves up a steady diet of green pap. When sound journalistic judgment leaves the building, I stop renewing my subscription.

Read the rest here.

This blog has relocated. You can sign up to receive an e-mail each time a new post is added under the "Email subscription" bar a little below the photo.

NoFrakkingConsensus has a Facebook page.

Forget Genocide & Malnutrition - Sudan Fights Climate Change for the IPCC

(click image for a larger view)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) currently has three vice-chairs. One is from Belgium, one is from South Korea, and the third is from Sudan.

Yes, Sudan. You know the country whose president (after seizing power via a military coup) has been indicted for alleged Darfur war crimes. The country whose government is accused of tampering with the election held just last month.

Here's what the April 27, 2010 issue of The Economist had to say:

[President] Bashir’s henchmen rigged the election to favour their man long in advance of the polls themselves. Both of the main Western election-observer missions...have said that the elections did not meet “international standards”, citing widespread irregularities on top of the usual logistical problems in a country as poor as Sudan.

As well as the rigging itself, several opposition parties pulled out of the election just days before the polls opened in protest against the unfairness of the contest...Just to make sure of their win, party thugs indulged in a spot of intimidation at some of the polling centres.

Last November the United Nations issued a report accusing Sudan of violating an agreement on the deployment of peacekeepers in that country. According to a news account, after "the International Criminal Court indicted Bashir, Khartoum expelled 13 foreign aid organizations, which has made it extremely difficult for the United Nations and other agencies to provide humanitarian aid in Darfur." Millions of people in the region are thought to be dependent on foreign aid for survival.

Perhaps it's fitting that such a nation is now associated with the IPCC at its highest levels. It lends just the right aura of respectability, don't you think? And just so there's no confusion, Ismail A.R. El Gizouli isn't acting as a private citizen. As a letter sent this week to prospective IPPC authors makes clear, only governments can belong to the IPCC.

(click image for a larger view)

Let us understand a few facts. Sudan's per capita GDP is $2,300. That's compared to $7,100 in El Salvador, $13,100 in Botswana, and $46,500 in the US. Life expectancy is 53 years.

This is a desperately poor country cursed with abominable leadership. This is a government accused of practicing genocide and crimes against humanity. In the words of Amnesty International, Sudan's president "allegedly ordered attacks on villages and camps, targeting groups on account of their ethnicity, while using rape, hunger and fear to create conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction."

Sudan is a nation, therefore, with more than its share of problems. Is it not bizarre that a country this poor and this troubled can nevertheless spare educated men such as El Gizouli to play key leadership roles in the IPCC? As the IPCC likes to remind us, those involved in its work receive no pay for their efforts. It's a voluntary gig.

Is it not also curious that a country in which children routinely die of infectious diseases associated with contaminated drinking water nonetheless has time and attention enough to become a signatory to international environmental agreements involving biodiversity, climate change, endangered species, the ozone layer, and the protection of wetlands?

In September 2008, when the United Nations Human Rights Council sponsored a three-day conference, other speakers addressed immediate concerns such as extreme poverty, the importance of good governance, the problem of corruption, and the need for health care.

Sudan's Ismail Elgizouli (different spelling, but same man) talked instead about climate change. His PowerPoint presentation included a graph projecting agricultural yields 50 years hence (worrying about problems that might occur in half a century sounds like a priority to me), claimed malaria would increase due to climate change (this is vigorously disputed by malaria experts), and spent several slides attempting to link the conflict in Darfur to climate change.

Am I the only one who thinks it's twisted that a country in which half of females aged 15 and older can't read or write is devoting scarce resources to producing an 111-page report (PDF here) titled "Sudan's First National Communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change"?

Every nation has limited money and attention. Government bureaucrats can only accomplish so many tasks in a given time frame. Does it make sense, in a country as afflicted as Sudan, that the minister of the environment provides "unceasing interest," that the minister of roads and bridges offers "valuable assistance" over an 18-month period, and that numerous other government ministries and bodies contribute personnel and assistance (p. 3) so that a lengthy report about climate change can get written?

El Gizouli was the project coordinator for that report. So this gentleman knows full well (because it says so on p. 25 of the PDF) that 71 percent of Sudan's population lives rurally and that only 10 percent of those people currently has access to safe drinking water.

He knows (because it says so on p. 26), that malnutrition is a serious problem in his country and that many of his fellow citizens are dying right now from preventable diseases. He also knows perfectly well that in order for this report - which discusses fanciful IPCC computer model projections for the year 2060 (p. 52 onward) - to get written, dozens of Sudan's best educated individuals had their attention distracted from real problems. The report's list of direct contributors is, after all, two full pages in length (p. 6-8).

It is often said that foreign aid frequently doesn't end up helping the most needy. It's said that corrupt elites within Third World countries find ways to divert those funds, that such money gets frittered away on pointless projects that make certain people feel important - while human misery remains unabated.

Does the global IPCC infrastructure encourage self-absorbed behaviour among these same elites?

Here's another thought. In early 2008 filmmaker Steven Spielberg resigned his post as an artistic advisor to the Beijing Olympics because activists felt China wasn't protesting the behaviour of the Sudan government in Darfur loudly enough.

Two years later, where are those activists? Are they OK with the fight against climate change being spearheaded by the violent and unsavoury?

..

>> We trusted too completely
>> Shielding climate orthodoxy from free speech
>> IPCC cites an unpublished journal 39 times
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists

Money to Burn

Given that the World Wildlife Fund raises half a billion dollars a year, one wonders what they do with this abundance. A peek inside the Economist magazine provides a revealing example. On page 22 of the March 27th - April 2, 2010 edition appear two half-page executive recruitment ads. (Click the image above for a larger view.)

The top one has been paid for by the WWF - which is searching for someone with 10-15 years experience to lead its global climate initiative. The successful candidate will orchestrate "intensive national efforts to promote low-carbon development in key countries" and will guide "policy interventions."

Directly below is an ad purchased by the International Monetary Fund. This organization is using the same amount of ad space to recruit - count 'em - 20 individuals (each with a minimum of 10 years of experience). As public financial management specialists, these people will advise national governments in various parts of the world.

To the right, over on the next page, two more ads appear. One has been placed by the UK's MI6 - which is looking for intelligence officers, language specialists, administrators, and technology professionals. The other has been purchased by the Competition Commission - "one of Europe's foremost competition agencies" - and advertises for two positions.

(The following three pages of the magazine are devoted to four recruitment ads apiece. One of these quarter-page ads seeks a president and chief executive officer for a "leading international reproductive health provider." Another has been purchased by a hedge fund. A third seeks someone to serve as secretary general of the German Council of Economic Experts. Two of the 12 quarter-page ads were purchased by United Nations organizations.)

What does all this mean? First, in five pages of ads devoted to executive recruitment, the WWF ad represents the largest spend to fill a single position. Second, the company it keeps tells us a great deal about how the WWF both behaves and regards intself. The IMF, MI6, the United Nations, a hedge fund. These are large, influential, high-profile heavy hitters. There are no shoestring operations here - no small, volunteer-run, community groups battling the establishment like David against Goliath.

When it comes time to fill a senior position, the WWF doesn't place ads on Craigslist or in the back pages of left-leaning Rolling Stone. It goes where the big boys hang out. It behaves, in other words, exactly like any other large corporation.

see a closeup of the WWF ad here

see a closeup of the IMF ad here

..

>> Earth Hour 2010
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists
>> More dodgy (WWF) citations in the Nobel-winning climate report

Let There Be No More Scientific Consensuses

[desktop wallpaper version available here]

It's good news that Rajendra Pachauri's leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is now going to be scrutinized. His behaviour has been conspicuously less-than-professional and it's difficult to imagine informed people taking the IPCC seriously as long as he remains at the helm.

But climate science problems extend far beyond one man. In my view, they can be traced in large part to a phrase that should be struck forever from the scientific and journalistic vocabulary: "scientific consensus."

Science is about doubt – not certainty. Journalism is supposed to reveal – not conceal. When scientific organizations claim there's a consensus, they step over the line into political advocacy. When media outlets trumpet said consensus they "disappear" highly-qualified, dissenting scientists.

There's nothing wrong with saying there's a prevailing or dominant view among scientists on a particular topic. There's nothing wrong with saying there's a preponderance of opinion in one direction. But those phrases do something the term "scientific consensus" does not. They acknowledge the existence of alternative points-of-view.

The IPCC has spent years striving to establish what Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick refer to as "Official Science" (see pages 34-40 in their book, Taken By Storm):

Official Science may serve many functions, but it is most important to understand that Official Science is not science. Moreover, those involved with it represent only a minority of people involved with science, and they are not appointed by scientists to speak on their behalf...while scientists are skeptical of their own work and that of others, Official Science speaks with the simple confidence that good politics requires and journalism demands, but which science abhors.

When we're told about an alleged scientific consensus therefore, what's being described is not certainty or unanimity among all scientists – but merely the opinion of a small group of people who, via a political process, managed to get a seat at the table during the meetings at which, via another political process, the Official Science was decided upon.

When I began examining the climate change debate I was shocked to discover a huge disconnect between how the media described matters and what a few hours of independent research revealed. The Economist, a publication I normally trust and respect, spoke of a "consensus on global warming" as though it were gospel that had been hand-delivered by Yahweh himself.

The once stodgy Time magazine insisted there was "a clear scientific consensus connecting the rise in man-made greenhouse gas emissions" to physical changes in the natural world. Wired magazine, which is aimed at an educated, tech-savvy audience, illustrated beautifully what happens when we think and speak as though scientific consensuses are meaningful. The next step is to proclaim, as a journalist in that publication did in June 2008, that: "No one with any scientific sense now disagrees about the severity of the climate crisis."

But here's the catch. Freeman Dyson (one of the world's most accomplished, admired, and famous theoretical physicists) does disagree. Below are just three relevant Dyson quotes:

The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm.

Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn't mean anything bad is happening. This is something that happens all the time. It's part of the natural cycle of things.

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.

Let's revisit the Wired writer's declaration: "No one with any scientific sense now disagrees about the severity of the climate crisis." Dyson, despite his enormous stature, is thereby reduced to a no one. He doesn't exist. He has been journalistically "disappeared."

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying Dyson's views are correct. That's a different discussion. What I'm saying is that his presence in this debate must be acknowledged. His opinions must be heard. It is wrong and it is dishonest for anyone to behave as though he isn't part of the landscape.

Dyson is a blue-chip intellect with a distinguished career. He's one of hundreds of similarly eminent scientists from around the world who have loudly and publicly dissented from the alleged scientific consensus on climate change. Two dozen such scientists are profiled in Lawrence Solomon's The Deniers. Indeed, thousands of scientists have expressed their reservations. Yet for years, the media has told us such people are less substantial than ghosts. They are invisible. Absent. Simply not spoken of.

This is the sort of thing that happens under totalitarian regimes. It is not an activity that journalists in democratic nations should in any way be party to. Pretending that these scientists don't exist is not only disrespectful, it's a profound betrayal of the public's trust. Journalists are supposed to inform the rest of us about current events and important debates. They aren't supposed to conceal an entire class of highly-relevant participants from public view.

Never again, therefore, should any journalist tell her readers about a "scientific consensus." Never again should any scientific body make use of that term.

By all means, tell me that a majority of scientists believes something to be true. Tell me that most indicators suggest that X is more likely than Y. Tell me there's a high probability, based on the available evidence, that a certain event may take place.

But never, ever talk to me about a scientific consensus. Those two words don't belong together.

..

h/t to Jeff at the Air Vent, whose post yesterday sparked this one


>> Reuters' climate change fiction
>> Systemic failure: invasion of the drama queens
>> Global warming and My Cousin Vinny
>> Climate skepticism is free speech
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists

Yes Virginia, the Climate Bible Relies on Newspaper Clippings

We don't pick up a newspaper article sound bite Rajendra Pachauri sound bites

In 2008, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco [video here - relevant passage starts at 1 minute, 15 seconds]. In response to a question, he explained how his organization works:

The point is you have a transparent, comprehensive, extremely widespread process involving the best scientists and experts from all over the world telling you that climate change is for real. And this is not something that the authors working on IPCC reports have invented. 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. This is on the basis of very rigorous research which has stood the test of scrutiny through peer reviews.

In actual fact, at least three newspaper articles made it into the 2007 Nobel-winning climate bible. In a section of the report that discusses the role the insurance sector would play should we need to adapt to dramatic climate change, a newspaper from the Bahamas is cited:

With expectations for rising levels of flood risk in developed countries, political pressures demand that if private insurance is withdrawn, state-backed alternatives should be created...In the northern Bahaman islands...in 2005 flood insurance was withdrawn for some residential developments, ending the ability to raise a bank-loan mortgage. Without a state-backed alternative, houses became abandoned as their value collapsed (Woon and Rose, 2004).

This is the full citation:
Woon, G. and D. Rose, 2004: Why the whole island floods now. Nassau Guardian and Tribune, November 25, 2004. [Accessed 09.05.07: http://www.unesco.org /csi/smis/siv/Caribbean/bahart3-nassau.htm.]

Remarkably, however, this newspaper article makes no mention of insurance - neither private nor state-sponsored. The word "mortgage" doesn't appear, either. And the only banks under discussion are the underwater limestone Bahama Banks. Really. This article is mostly about physical landscaping changes that have led to a particular area now being prone to flooding.

In another instance, a Wall Street Journal article is one of two sources cited by the IPCC to backup the claim that "Insurance companies are introducing incentives for homeowners and businesses that invest in loss prevention strategies (Kim, 2004; Kovacs, 2005b)."

Full citation:
Kim, Q.S., 2004: Industry Aims to Make Homes Disaster-Proof. Wall Street Journal, 30 September2004.

That article doesn't seem to be available online, although what appears to be a short excerpt appears here.

As Anthony Watts has pointed out, a third newspaper article is cited by the IPCC (as the sole reason to believe an idea is true) when it writes: "Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999)."

The New York Times article is here and the full IPCC citation reads:
Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999.

Finally, there's the Economist citation. While this publication looks like a magazine to me, it refers to itself as a newspaper. It turns out that, rather than independently verifying a straightforward factual matter, the IPCC instead relied on a media report when discussing Oxfam. Writes the IPCC: "According to The Economist (2000), a quarter of Oxfam’s US$ 162 million income in 1998 was given by the British Government and the EU."

That citation appears in an IPCC list of references like this:
The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29, 2000.

Do these newspaper citations really matter? Yes, they do. Taken together they demonstrate that Pachauri's frequent claim that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed literature - and then subjects its every assertion to rigorous scrutiny - is false.

As Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit highlighted recently, important institutions tend to believe Pachauri when he makes such claims. A December 2009 document from the US Environmental Protection Agency deflected criticism of the IPCC with the following:

As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated:

IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts... [p. 7 of this PDF]

When newspaper clippings are cited as evidence, when there's a discrepancy between what an article says and what the IPCC claims it says, when IPCC writers rely on media reports rather than verifying facts directly - neither the process nor the end result is anything like what Pachauri has advertised.

A great many government institutions need to wake up and smell this stinky coffee.

..

h/t to The Dog Ate My Data for the Commonwealth Club video
see also: ClimateQuotes.com

>> Greenpeace and the Nobel-winning climate report
>> More dodgy citations in the Nobel-winning climate report