By Matt Patterson
If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium—and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”
Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices—and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false—yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there’s the IPCC’s earlier prediction in 2007—which it claimed to have “high confidence” in—that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements.” The critics note “many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges ‘were not adequately considered,’ the InterAcademy Council’s investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report.”
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data—but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, “[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion’s share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers.”
Thus, the Times concluded, “EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.”
All this comes on top of last year’s revelation of the “Climategate” e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia—perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over”—that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds—though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.
The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers—and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it’s a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists’ reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center
By Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF
IPCCs mandate is to be policy relevant, not policy prescriptive. However IPCC spokespersons have not always adhered to this mandate. Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility. Likewise, while IPCC leaders are expected to speak publicly about the assessment reports, they should be careful in this context to avoid personal opinions. --InterAcademy Council, 30 August 2010
The GWPF calls upon the IPCC to accept the key recommendations and implement them without delay. Otherwise there can be no confidence in the outcome of the current Fifth Assessment Report which is expected to be finalised by 2014. --Nigel Lawson, 30 August 2010
I interpret the IAC review as an indirect call for Dr Pachauri to step down. That is what it says between the lines, whether or not he understands it. It is clearly a very, very strong criticism of his management and of him personally. The problem is that many in the international community regard him as damaged goods. --Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 31 August 2010
The rap across the knuckles is deserved. It should have triggered the resignation of Dr Pachauri but he insists he wants to stay on to implement any necessary changes in procedure. Yet his - and the IPCC’s - credibility have been tarnished by this affair. We have argued that a conservative case for preserving the planet’s scarce resources should support much of the action demanded by concerned scientists, regardless of whether the case for man-made global warming can be proved. But it becomes difficult to keep an open mind on such issues if the findings of a purportedly scientific document cannot be trusted. --Editorial, The Daily Telegraph, 31 August 2010
IPCC told to stop lobbying and restrict role to explaining climate science
By Stephen Adams and Robert Winnett, UK Telegraph
An independent investigation into the UN’s climate change body has warned it to stop lobbying and to restrict its role to explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature.
Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor and chair of the committee that conducted the review, said that a report by an IPCC working group “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”
Professor Shapiro said the IPCC’s response to errors when they were subsequently revealed was “slow and inadequate.”
Asked about the Himalayan glaciers error, Professor Shapiro said, “At least in our judgment, it came from just not paying close enough attention to what [peer] reviewers said about that example.”
He added that there was concern about the U.N. climate panel’s lack of a conflict of interest policy, as is standard in most Government departments and international bodies.
The report called for development of a “rigorous conflict of interest policy” and made detailed suggestions on what should be disclosed. Mr Pachauri has previously acted as an adviser to green energy companies.
“It’s hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado.
Editor’s Note: The IAC’s full report Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC is available here.
UN climate experts ‘overstated dangers’: Keep your noses out of politics, scientists told
Daily Mail, 31 August 2010, Fiona Macrae
UN climate change experts have been accused of making ‘imprecise and vague’ statements and over-egging the evidence.
A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.
The probe, by representatives of the Royal Society and foreign scientific academies, took a thinly-veiled swipe at Rajendra Pachauri, the panel’s chairman for the past eight years.
It recommended a new leader be appointed to bring a ‘fresh approach’ with the term of office cut from 12 years to six.
The IPCC is important because its reports are used by governments to set environmental policy.
The review, which focused on the day-to-day running of the panel, rather than its science, was commissioned after the UN body was accused of making glaring mistakes.
These included the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years - and that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was prone to flooding because it was below sea level.
An email scandal involving experts at the University of East Anglia had already fuelled fears that global warming was being exaggerated.
The report demanded a more rigorous conflict of interest policy and said executives should have formal qualifications.
It said: ‘Because the IPCC chair is both the leader and the face of the organisation, he or she must have strong credentials (including high professional standing in an area covered by IPCC assessments), international stature, a broad vision, strong leadership skills, considerable management experience at a senior level, and experience relevant to the assessment task.’ [...]
Dr Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘I interpret the review as an indirect call for Dr Pachauri to step down. That is what it says between the lines, whether or not he understands it.
‘It is clearly a very, very strong criticism of his management and of him personally. The problem is that many in the international community regard him as damaged goods.’
The investigation said the IPCC’s mandate calls for it to be ‘policy relevant’ without ‘straying into advocacy’ which would hurt its credibility.
The scientists charged with writing the IPCC assessments were criticised for saying they were ‘highly confident’ about statements without having the evidence.
Editor’s Note: More UK media coverage of the IAC Report can be found here:
The Sun: UN ‘lacks Solid Evidence’ in Climate Warnings
Daily Express: Climate Change Lies Are Exposed
BBC News: Stricter controls urged for the UN’s climate body
The Times: Climate chief under pressure to quit after report on glacier blunder
The Guardian: Rajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign
The Independent: IPCC feels the heat as it is told to get its facts right about global warming
----------
ClimateGate new probe - “Another Whitewash when really the whole climate spin machine must be closed down”.
Piers Corbyn astrophysicist of WeatherAction long-range forecasters today (31 Aug) lambasted the findings of the new ClimateGate probe by the InterAcademy Council (of the world’s top science academies) for ‘dereliction of duty’:
“The IAC recommend a timid re-organisation of the furniture when what the world needs is the total dismemberment of UN Climate games (the IPCC), the application of evidence-based science and an independent probe into the role of the media in propagating fiction in the name of science”.
“Let’s get real. The IAC just wants to re-arrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic when really the ‘Ship of Lies’ - the UN Climate Committee (the IPCC) is doomed.
“They point out the IPCC is riddled with conflicts of interest and that Key scientific claims on which the IPCC rest its case (eg concerning Himalayan glaciers) are in fact fiction. Yet they do not call into question the main alarmist findings of the IPCC 2007 report and indeed say it has ‘served society well’!!
“This is a disgraceful dereliction of their duty. Imagine if all the test flights of a new aeroplane had ended in crashes would a committee of scientists of integrity honestly say “Let it fly!”?
“The IPCC must be closed down and replaced by the application of evidence-based science for the good of the world. The UN should invest in predicting and preparing for extreme weather events. We can predict them but the UN and Governments are not interested. They put self-serving ideology ahead of saving lives.
“The world needs a probe into the supine role of the media in propagating climate falsity and hysteria and consistently misrepresenting naturally caused - and often predicted (by solar activity) - extreme weather events and changes as if they are caused by mankind’s CO2.
“The theory of Man-made Global Warming & Climate Change is failed science based on fraudulent data. All the dire predictions of the IPCC since 2000 have failed. The world is cooling not warming. There is no evidence in 600, 600,000 or 600million years of data that changes in CO2 levels in the real atmosphere drive world temperatures or change climate; indeed it is temperatures which generally drive CO2 levels.
By Chris Horner, Planet Gore
Judge Paul Peatross has ruled that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli cannot access the University of Virginia’s records in his inquiry into Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann’s claims made to obtain research funding. Judge Peatross’s ruling protects the University, Mann, and the Department of Environmental Sciences - at least for now.
I attended the hearing a week ago Friday, when the parties argued the University’s motion to dismiss. Beforehand, Peatross, in place of the vacationing chief judge, cited his wife’s 1982 degree in environmental science from UVA and asked counsel whether they believed it disqualified him from hearing the University’s motion.
That fact, apparently, was relevant. Okay.
But the fact that the judge’s wife previously worked in the Department of Environmental Sciences - the very department that stood to suffer had he ruled in favor of the attorney general - was somehow not worth disclosing to counsel. I learned of this only after the hearing from Ms. Peatross’s former coworkers, who were astonished that her husband would decide such a matter given his seeming lack of objectivity.
Also not worth disclosing was that Ms. Peatross’s relationships go much deeper, for she produced a book edited by the department’s then-chairman during Mann’s alleged hijinks, and, it appears, at least two of his papers. Yet the fact that she has a degree from the department merited consideration in determining the judge’s suitability to hear the case. And only that.
Amazing.
Charlottesville, where I live, is a company town - with UVA the company - as is surrounding Albemarle County. An adverse ruling leading to the release of Mann’s documents was the biggest possible black eye for a university that zealously promotes its prestige derived, in part, from Thomas Jefferson’s having founded it. It’s a history the school’s lawyers rather sadly invoked in their brief. They argued that, while some people are subject to laws, others simply cannot suffer the indignity.
It’s on Jefferson’s headstone, no doubt. But while that particular argument of “academic freedom” did not prevail, the University did manage to avoid letting the taxpayer discover whether the university, through Mann, engaged in fraud. Again, this is for now, as Attorney General Cuccinelli, according to press reports, intends to press on with a new civil investigative demand. It was not a complete victory for the university, but, if you attended argument and/or read the briefs, you know such an outcome was not a consideration.
However that turns out, this series of events gives the appearance of the judge’s failure to disclose. Indeed, it seems to rise to the level of a basis for the judge to recuse himself, instead of asking counsel, in his presence, whether they thought he was biased. The last thing our institutions of government need is more reason to question their operation. This is unfortunate and could easily have been avoided. See post here.