NRSP Peddling Deceptive Statistics About IPCC

authordefault
onDec 17, 2007 @ 09:40 PST

The energy-backed Natural Resources Steward Project‘s Tom Harris is at it again, spreading questionable statistics about the review process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climateย Change.

In Harris’s most recent diatribe on Canada Free Press, the energy industry PR guy says the IPCC is misleading people by saying its work was reviewed by 2,500 scientists. To the contrary, Harris and a new collaborator named John Mclean, say that whole sections of the IPCC reports are reviewed by very few people, and that the editors don’t always respect reviewers’ input. For example, in reference to the chapter that contains the broadest consensus statements about human-induced global warming, Harris and Mcleanย say:

โ€œIn total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears. And of these 62 reviewers, 55 had serious vested interests, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. In addition, almost 60 per cent of all the comments from official IPCC scientist reviewers concerning this crucial chapter were rejected by IPCCย editors.โ€

As someone whose own conflict of interest is so well documented, Harris is a bit dodgy about offering any evidence for the โ€œseriously vested interestsโ€ charge. But when someone (thanks Dave) took the time to follow up Harris and Mclean’s statistical analysis, it turned out that this statistical sample was more than a little misleading. The IPCC had indeed rejected a lot of comments in this section, but 90 per cent came from a single reviewer: NRSP insider Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand chemist and coal expert who has never published peer-reviewed work on climate science and whose last peer-reviewed publication on any topic appeared 17 years ago. And a large number of rejections came because the input was grammatically or logically insensible.

Once again, Harris deserves some grudging admiration: he has succeeded again in spreading disinformation all around the internet and has even won publication of this โ€œanalysisโ€ in the mainstream press (although the Saskatoon Star Phoenix is not quite the New York Times). The fact that he is a front man for a Toronto energy industry lobby firm always disappears into the detail (the Star Phoenix either didn’t bother checking his credentials or doesn’t mind shilling for PR people who want to hide the identity and motivations of their deep-pocketedย clients).

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

onNov 14, 2025 @ 07:04 PST

Their access to the summit is proof that Big Oil still holds "a dangerous sway" over the climate process, campaigners say.

Their access to the summit is proof that Big Oil still holds "a dangerous sway" over the climate process, campaigners say.
onNov 13, 2025 @ 21:01 PST

Delegationโ€™s composition consistent with new KBPO report revealingย this yearโ€™s U.N. climate talks have the largest number of fossil fuel lobbyists to date.

Delegationโ€™s composition consistent with new KBPO report revealingย this yearโ€™s U.N. climate talks have the largest number of fossil fuel lobbyists to date.
onNov 13, 2025 @ 06:22 PST

Labour government accused of being โ€œcomplicit in the fossil fuel industryโ€™s conquest of the COP processโ€.

Labour government accused of being โ€œcomplicit in the fossil fuel industryโ€™s conquest of the COP processโ€.
Analysis
onNov 12, 2025 @ 12:15 PST

Our changing climate will produce winners and losers. Canada should look to the Global South for a winning strategy.

Our changing climate will produce winners and losers. Canada should look to the Global South for a winning strategy.