Filed under : Scitizen >> Earth & Environment >> Climate Change >> The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest
The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest
27 Sep, 2007 01:13 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeIf, instead of evaluating research in climate, suppose a group of scientists introduced a new cancer drug that they claimed could save many lives. There were side effects, of course, but they claimed that the benefit far outweighed these risks. The government then asked these scientist to form an assessment Committee to evaluate this claim. Colleagues of the group of scientists who introduced the drug were then asked to serve on this Committee, along with the developers. If this occurred, of course, there would be an uproar of protest! This is a clear conflict of interest.
Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process! The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.
In a previous climate assessment, I made a recommendation as to how to correct this defective assessment process. This is discussed in the report Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences". 88 pp including appendices (available for download at http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf), where I wrote "Future assessment Committees need to appoint members with a diversity of views and who do not have a significant conflict of interest with respect to their own work. Such Committees should be chaired by individuals committed to the presentation of a diversity of perspectives and unwilling to engage in strong-arm tactics to enforce a narrow perspective. Any such committee should be charged with summarizing all relevant literature, even if inconvenient, or which presents a view not held by certain members of the Committee.
Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research and that which supports their personal scientific conclusions without properly placing into perspective the diversity found in the peer literature. When the Chair of such a committee seeks to limit the focus of an assessment Report in a specific direction, such as was the case with this Committee, the advancement of our understanding of the scientific issues involved suffers."
"..Unfortunately, the Report advocates a narrow perspective on science shared by the majority of the committee, rather than dealing comprehensively with the issues under its charge and found in the broader scientific literature. As such it does a disservice to those interested in a comprehensive review of the relevant science."
We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.
Real Climate has sought to argue that the IPCC process is transparent (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/transparency-of-the-ipcc-process-2/#more-463). They clearly contradict themselves in their post, however, where they write "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."
This means that the authors are gatekeepers who can prevent alternative perspectives from being presented. They did exercise that power in preparing the 2007 (and earlier) IPCC Reports. The conflict of interest can be shown clearly in this candid admission from Real Climate. We need to move towards more objective assessments of climate science, if we are to avoid poor policy decisions to respond to the human role within the climate system".
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine| [1] | Comment by Professor Charles H. Greene
- 6 Oct, 2007 05:28 am Your opinion is based on such a shallow premise that it does not even deserve a response. However, for people who might be swayed by sloppy analogies like yours and poorly conceived novels like Michael Crichton's, I will simply state the following. In your analogy to a group of scientists introducing a new cancer drug, there would be a clear conflict of interest were they to be involved in the assessment of that drug's efficacy. The reason is that those scientists would be obvious financial beneficiaries of the drug's approval and future sales. In the climate change debate, climate scientists typically have not benefited financially or otherwise by taking a stand that warns of future climate change impacts, especially under the current US administration. During the past decade, federal research dollars for climate change research have diminished in inflation-adjusted dollars, even relative to previous Republican administrations, and many federal scientists have been muzzled or even lost their jobs by taking such a stand. On the other hand, many contrarian scientists have financially benefited by taking "research grant" money from industries that profit by providing misinformation to confuse the public. These are the scientists who demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. The above line of reasoning was also one of the many errors in logic that Michael Crichton perpetuated in his novel "State of Fear." For a complete repudiation of Crichton's arguments, readers should visit the following Union of Concerned Scientists web site: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/crichton-thriller-state-of-fear.html Unlike members of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Crichton did have a financial incentive, using controversy to sell his novel, and therefore a financial conflict of interest. Even though he is not a practicing physician, as someone who attended medical school, Crichton would have been wiser to remember that part of the Hippocratic Oath that cautions physicians to first do no harm. |
Alert Moderator
| |
| [2] | Comment by Roger A. Pielke Sr.
- 6 Oct, 2007 06:53 pm The derogatory comments at the start of your comment already show a bias in the rest of the comments. I am sorry to see such negativity, but nevertheless will respond to the substance in your comment. Conflict of interest involves more than just financial reward (although that is part of it with respect to professional advancement and in research contracts, for example). I invite you to read a set of excellent weblogs on this subject on Prometheus: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/moveabletype/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=conflict+of+interest Two examples are listed below: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000408conflicts_of_interes.html http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000792conflicted_about_con.html I also recommend you read the book Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2518-2007.15.pdf |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
| [3] | Comment by Arnd Bernaerts - 7 Oct, 2007 11:42 am Prof. Roger A. Pielke Sr assessment of IPCCs obvious conflict of interest is fair and necessary. However, the conflict goes deeper and is more serious. Which climatologist within or outside WMO, UNEP, or IPCC has ever protested that the UNFCCC has no definition for the term Climate? In addition, none of the institutions has ever made clear that the commonly used explanation for Climate with AVERAGE WEATHER would required to define Weather in the first place. Working with officially not existing, or completely unclear terms is at best: >providing misinformation to confuse the public< (quotation: C.H. Green). Not so long ago climatology was generally regarded as the mere dry-as-dust bookkeeping end of meteorology (FN 1) If one wishes to >move towards more objective assessments of climate science, (if we are) to avoid poor policy decisions to respond to the human role within the climate system< (R.A. Pielke), science needs to work with clear and sound terms. For more details concerning the missing term Climate, see: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ FN 1) H.H. Lamb, Meteorological Office Bracknell, Berkshire (UK), The New Look of Climatology, NATURE, Vol. 223, September 20, 1969, pp.1209ff; |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
Read more
