Skip to content

Klimapanelet: Kritikk fra innsiden.

august 21, 2011

Dette blir nok en lengre post.

Utallige medlemmer av FNs Klimapanel har forlatt samarbeidet med begrunnelse i panelets politiske slagside.

Kritikken er unison og ensartet:

Antropogene (menneskeskapte) årsaker til klimaendringer fremheves for enhver pris, mens alle andre faktorer minimeres og bagatelliseres, til tross for vitenskapelig usikkerhet.

Vi tar for oss noen få av disse som med fare for stilling og anseelse likevel har talt både kolleger, politikk og opinion imot:

All ære til disse:

Dr. Philip Lloyd, tidligere Koordinerende forfatter for Klimapanelet:

The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists’ work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.

However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest. The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.

The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the summary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen.

The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more.

In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.

In the early years of the IPCC, there was a slightly different process. The Summary for Policy Makers and the scientific reports were issued at the same time. In those years, however, the Summary for Policy Makers bore a warning that it was the last current word on the subject, whereas the scientific reports were correctly identified as being subject to continuing development. Someone smelled a rat about the “last word” story, so the process was changed, and now the summary is issued with no means of checking.

It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former IPCC Expert reviewer.

(Klimatilsynets sammendrag)

– IPCC består av en rekke utsøkte forskere (2000-3000?) som gjør en utmerket jobb.

– Kun 30-40 er det som kan kalles klimaforskere, som forsker på kjernen i saken, nemlig i hvilken grad menneskelige aktiviteter påvirker klimaet på jorda.

– Det store flertallet forsker for eksempel på hvordan ulike arter av flora og fauna, og hvordan jordbruket vil påvirkes av ulike scenarier av klimaendringer. De tar altså for gitt at hypotesen om stadig økende menneskeskapte klimaendringer er riktig som et utgangspunkt for sin forskning.

– Dette flertallet av Klimapanelets forskere har ikke kompetanse til å besvare spørsmål om menneskeskapt global oppvarming, og ble heller aldri spurt om å delta i noe slags «konsensus» om at menneskeskapte utslipp av CO2 er i ferd med å forårsake en katastrofal global oppvarming.

– Det finnes altså ikke noe «konsensus» av verdens 2-3 eller 4000 «beste» klimaforskere.

– Knapt nok 40 forskere.

Fullt intervju med Khandekar her.

Dr. Chris Landsea, tidligere Contributing Author og Expert Reviewer for IPCC (Klimapanelet):

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author—Dr. Kevin Trenberth—to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic «Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity» along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent
credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon
hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of
Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and
rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even
this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of
the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate,
2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible
for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside
of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very
difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the
assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify
themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements
far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish
our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how
he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr.
Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current
understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed
when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the
misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the
IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking
as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an
IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or
misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference
and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and
that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even
though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection
between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw
nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to
the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must
undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that «individual scientists can do what they wish in
their own rights», as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested.
Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress
in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific
discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a
scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead
Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and
general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was
caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written
in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes
problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed
hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as
the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements,
the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
While no one can «tell» scientists what to say or not say (nor am I
suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and
entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of
view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much
care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than
passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views
on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the
Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several
presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation—though
worthy in his mind of public pronouncements—would not stand up to the
scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea, 17 January 2005

Professor Robert Watson, Board member of the IPCC , 1997-2002.

– «The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.»

– «the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists. »

– «We should always be challenged by skeptics,» he said. «The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.»

Dr. Mike Hulme,  professor of Cliomate Change, School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA):

«The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris:

«The natural history of mosquito-borne diseases is complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.

The recent resurgence of many of these diseases is a major cause for concern, but it is facile to attribute this resurgence to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to «predict» future prevalence. In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on «experts» who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science.

In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources is urgently required to control these diseases, regardless of future climate change.»

Dr. Andrew A. Lacis, Tidligere Expert reviewer for IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass.

“There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by

Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.»

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, tidligere leder for Institutt for Paleogeofysikk og Geodynamikk ved Universitetet i Stockholm, og tidligere Expert Reviewer for IPCC:

«The late 20th century sea level rise rate lacks any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10±10 cm (or +5±15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.»

 

 

From → Uncategorized

5 kommentarer
  1. Bebben permalink

    Ta gjerne med professor Paul Reiter, professor i insektoverførte sykdommer ved Pasteur-instituttet i Paris. Han trakk seg fra Klimapanelet under arbeidet med den tredje rapporten fordi han ble overkjørt av ikke-ekseperter på området, som bare ville ha ham til å skrive i samsvar med et forutinntatt syn. Etter at han trakk seg, forlangte han navnet sitt fjernet fra rapporten, men det var ikke så lett det heller – han måtte visst virkelig insistere.

    Her er hans fyldige memorandum til det britiske parlamentet:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm

  2. Bebben permalink

    Og en til: Nils-Axel Mörner. Han var «expert reviewer» både for den tredje og fjerde rapporten, og har så vidt jeg vet ikke trukket seg, men kritikken er like ramsalt som det havet han studerer, se for eksempel dette intervjuet:

    http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm

    «As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They know» the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. »

    Mörner er en av verdens fremste eksperter på havnivå, men han blir nå forsøkt diskreditert, svertet og latterliggjort i samsvar med klimarørslas vanlige modus operandi.

    Det minner meg om at jeg her hjemme i en rapport om havstigning i norske kystkommuner for et par år siden talte hele to, muligens tre, vitenskapelige referanser. Man får vel gå ut fra at når svaret allerede er gitt, er ikke sånne detaljer som et omfattende vitenskapelig grunnlag så veldig viktig.

  3. Spaceman Spiff permalink

    Hei.

    Har du sett på resultatene fra CERNs CLOUD-eksperiment?? Har akkurat snublet over dette siden jeg har vært på ferie og kommer hjem til en Tor som svinger hammeren nådeløst og dreper min internet-forbindelse.

    http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/august/296200

  4. Hei!

    Dette er hva Dr. Andrew A. Lacis skrev i

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass.

    «There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.»

    http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=1&printThumbnails=no

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

WordPress.com-logo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din WordPress.com konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Facebookbilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google+ konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Kobler til %s

%d bloggers like this: