I've been looking for a suitable title to note the end of RP Sr's blog. I quite liked FB's, though I was going to go with "another one bites the dust" (QS, RP Jr, then Sr) but now RP has solved the problem for me. For a blog that had a lot of interesting science, its a shame to end like this.
After a series of failed attempts at picking holes in the IPCC reports, he has another go. The fundamental problem asserted is conflict of interest.
To this complaint I do have some sympathy, but RP loses that by ranting. In fact what his post is really complaining about is his failure to get his point of view given primacy in the CCSP report.
But back to the IPCC: RP manages to object to "The authors of the report used the input from the reviewers to improve the report. In some cases, the authors may disagree with the comments - after all, it is them who are the authors of the report; not the reviewers." I can't understand what the alternative to this could be: should the authors be obliged to accept all comments, no matter how wacky? That appears to be RPs implication. Oddly, though, he says "This means that the authors are gatekeepers who can prevent alternative perspectives from being presented" - no, thats not what the sentence says at all. RP then proceeds to pick up this strawman and run with it.
But what about the essential point, impartially considered: that there is a conflict of interest in the IPCC process? [Disclaimer: I had nothing to do with it, other than sending in a few comments]. As I said, I have some sympathy with this. People are having to assess their own work and that of close colleagues. But this is for the obvious reason: that the best (generally somewhat senior) people are invited into the IPCC process, and the best people produce good research, and the more senior you are the more you'll have produced, and the more widely you'll have collaborated.
What is the solution to this? RP makes no suggestions that aren't already part of the process.
Restricting the IPCC writers to people who hadn't written any of the papers that should be considered in the report would be mad. Ditto restricting the papers considered to those not published by the people writing the report would also be mad.
Suggestions for improvement are welcomed.
- Log in to post comments
should the authors be obliged to accept all comments, no matter how wacky?
Wouldn't making the authors of the report different from the authors of the underlying papers have been a more robust approach? That would've at least eliminated the conflict of interest of having people reporting on their own research.
[I pointed out in the post why that won't work, and James has just said the same but more fluently.
And of course, RP knows this too. So why doesn't he even discuss it - its the obvious problem with the obvious solution. One reason might be wishful thinking on his part. The other might be not letting reality get in the way of a nice argument -W]
Josh,
I agree at first blush that sounds an attractive idea...until you realise that if you exclude the authors from citing any research they co-authored, then you either have to have a bunch of well-qualified people discussing a badly weakened subset of the literature that omits many important advances in understanding, or else go out of your way to pick as authors a bunch of poorly-qualified people who probably don't understand the field very well. Neither of those options sounds that great unless the real goal is to ensure that the result has no credibility or influence. Of course this outcome would suit some people down to the ground...not surprisingly, these are generally the same people who complain about the existing process.
If the authors did a bad job overall, I'm confident that the rest of us would complain very loudly....instead you get at most a few quibbles from the likes of me, and even I freely acknowledge that they basically got it right :-)
I think you are right.
The Arthur Anderson Report on Enron's finances should have been accepted without question. After all how could outside auditors understand Enron's finances better than they did?
I think the FAA ought to adopt the policies of the IPCC.
And why do we waste so much money auditing defense contractors?
We must thank the IPCC for showing the way.
Sure, if you want an audit, appoint auditors. The IPCC report isn't an audit.
Do those who criticize the report as being handicapped by a possible conflict of interest by the authors forget that the IPCC has published the various comments received and the disposition of them? This mechanism heightens transparency and allows those who think that the substance of the report is wrong due to process failures to back up their claims by focussing on specific failures. So where is the hue and cry about the all substantive failures that this supposedly faulty process has produced?
But in the same vein as Dr. Pielke's warnings of the conflict of interest of the authors, shouldn't we also be concerned about the consequences of the explicitly POLITICAL process by which the IPCC member states reviewed and approved the reports, and which cuts in favor of a watered-down report?
Where are the blacklined copies showing changes from the first draft and those finally approved? Where are the discussion boards revealing the changes that member states insisted on before approving the reports?
Are those who criticize the supposed conflicts of interest by the lead authors unconcerned about these other factors that affect the substance of the report?
It is somewhat reductionist that Roger liked to talk about Roger's papers. Of course, you can name your Roger.
Maybe these things (blogs) just have a natural lifetime for most people. RealClimate has been rather less active recently, although I suppose we are just coming to the end of the summer holiday season...