I have more interesting things on my reading list at the moment so I probably won't get around to it to be honest. However, McKitrick's argument is based on Laframboise's work in this area and I've been dealing with his summary.
To McKitrick's credit he doesn't use inflammatory terms like 'infiltration', instead arguing that there is evidence scientists are more likely to be selected for participation in the IPCC process if they have had prior involvement with environmental organisations. The cited evidence is a <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/" rel="nofollow">list of scientists on a WWF advisory panel</a> cross-checked against lists of authors for AR4 <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessannex-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/annexessannex-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex3sannex-iii.html#contributors-to" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
I've checked this evidence and found the following:
- Of 619 authors involved with AR4 WGI, 10 are on the WWF scientific advisory panel (SAP) list
- Of 380 authors involved with AR4 WGII, 52 are on the SAP list
- Of 270 authors involved with AR4 WGIII, 3 are on the SAP list
Clearly the numbers in WGI and WGIII are negligible but there is prima facie evidence of a possible selection bias for WGII. The circumstances would need to be investigated further though. It could be that the large presence is a function of the type of scientists involved in WGII - biologists, ecologists, anthropologists, social scientists and environmental scientists - who are more likely to engage with groups like WWF regardless of the IPCC.
↧