|
Back to HOMEPAGE
Major flaws are being revealed in the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change:
and there could be more to come
James Irvine
Editor: www.land-care.org.uk
Filed 24Jan10
©www.land-care.org.uk
Writing in The Times on 23rd January 2010, Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent for the newspaper, gives a fascinating insight into the workings of the United Nations Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(1).
A few days earlier, Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings writing in The Sunday Times described how the world was mislead over the predicted scale of meltdown of Himalayan glaciers (2). It is revealed that the standard of scientific discipline in at least parts of that section of the IPCC report were unacceptable.
At a somewhat lower level of influence, the validity of articles published in the populist magazine New Scientist must also be called into question (3). But an article in such a magazine does not excuse the IPCC from allegedly using its content in its benchmark report,without any apparent competent review, as pointed out by New Scientist itself (4).. If this can happen in one section of the IPCC report, can we have confidence in the rest of it?
An entire paragraph in the Nobel Prize winning IPCC report of 2007 is allegedly attributed to the World Wildlife Fund when only one sentence came from it. For the IPCC to use lobby groups as sources is not appropriate.
But matters appear to be even worse, striking at the fundamental aspects of the IPCC report. The question is being asked if the analysis of the core data, which formed the basis of the reported rise in global temperature over the past 150 years, is sound. It is reported that, at the University of East Anglia (UEA) where the global raw data was kept, all the basic data was thrown out and only "processed" data kept. This was said to happen when the scientists there reckoned they did not have enough storage space when they moved office. If that had been the case then they should have informed the appropriate organisation as to where else the data could be stored. The loss of the raw data from around the world would mean that the validity of any subsequent processing of the data cannot be verified (5).
To make matters worse, much worse, it is reported that the head of the UEA's Climate Research Unit (School of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Norwich), Professor Phil Jones, is alleged to have been sending numerous emails to other scientists as to how the data could be adjusted to show the desired results (6). The manner in which this alleged skullduggery was revealed would make a good novel, but is a disaster for the credibility of scientists if true.
Meanwhile Professor Jones has stood down from his post while the matter is being investigated.
The frequently alleged intolerance of criticism directed against what might be referred to as the mainstream group working on climate change is well illustrated by an article written in New Scientist by the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)(7) following the TV programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle (8) . It may be time for Alan Thorpe to eat his words.
There will always be debate between scientists about the findings they report: and long may that continue. But such debate must be founded on scientific integrity coupled with objective analysis of a critic's case. Before any conclusion is adopted to be part of a highly influential report (such as that of the IPCC) the subject must be peer reviewed in a competent manner. A case in point which could be highly relevant to the next IPCC Report is the differing views between scientists regarding the interpretation of data on sea levels and what might happen to these levels in years to come (9).
Meanwhile we have the situation in which the contents of the IPCC Report have been politicised in a major way. Massive funding at a time of economic global difficulties are being directed in the attempt to avoid the catastrophies that are predicted to result from man-made global warming, unless we all take drastic action to reduce "pollution" by CO2 and methane. Indeed, our own Gordon Brown wishes to be a world leader in the onslaught against global warming, although the UK can only at best contribute some 0.7% of what is claimed needs to be achieved.
Professor Bob Watson, DEFRA Chief Scientific Adviser, gave a public lecture at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on 10th December 2009 entitled The technology–policy challenges to address climate changes and biodiversity loss (10). He made no mention of the alleged scandal described above which is focused on the University of East Anglia, although he must have known about it. But then Bob Watson's present academic position in the same university in the same city is
Director of Strategic Development
Tyndall Centre (HQ)
Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
His former positions include Chair of the IPCC, Chief Scientist and Director for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) at the World Bank, Associate Director for Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President in the White House. Prior to joining the Clinton White House, Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
His lecture was more of an evangelical sermon than the scientific analysis expected of a professional scientist. His slides, too cluttered and too many (thus breaking the basic rules of good communication) seemed to have been chosen to impress rather than to critically inform. He dismissed the views of former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson (:Lord Lawson(11), as being misguided and his economics as wrong, without saying why. Perhaps Bob Watson. along with Alan Thorpe may have to eat his words when he now realises that his own university is implicated in the alleged throwing out of the raw data upon which much of his didactic and highly dangerous message was based.
In contrast to other scientific advisers in other departments (such as Proffessor Nutt), the UK government seem to have appointed one for DEFRA that will do the government's bidding. It would appear that the White House decided not to continue with his services in a similar capacity.
Is it wise for a country like the UK to devote so much of its shaky economy to a cause that increasingly appears to be seriously flawed? Just as this article is about to be filed it would appear that a large sum of EU taxpayers' money may be involved in relation to the IPCC problems with The Energy and Resource Institue (TER|) and in particular with its Director General Dr R K Pachauri (12).
Interestingly, Dr Pachauri's own blog (13) states
"Of the various facets of Dr Pachauri’s personality, his skill as an author of literary fiction was perhaps the least known – that is, until quite recently. With the successful launch of his maiden fiction novel Return to Almora on 7 January 2010 in New Delhi and 8 January 2010 in Mumbai, Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has taken his first steps towards the exploration of a literary career. The book was released in Delhi by Mr Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs and by Mr Mukesh D Ambani, Chairman and MD, Reliance Industries in Mumbai. Veteran journalist and former BBC Bureau Chief Mr Mark Tully and Dr Prannoy Roy, Chairman and whole time director, NDTV read a few passages from the novel to thunderous applause in Delhi, setting the tone for the launch in Mumbai where actor Rahul Bose lent a voice to the powerful prose penned by Dr Pachauri."
He certainly has influential contacts to oil the wheels. But, if the above allegations are proved to be correct, perhaps it was rather earlier than stated that Rajendra Pachauri started his career as a writer of fiction.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Page, Jeremy (2010). UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report.
Article by Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent, The Times, published 23 January 2010
Click Here to Read
2. Leake, Jeremy and Chris Hastings (2010). World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown.
Article published in The Times on 17 January 2010
Click Here to Read
13. Page, Jeremy (2010). UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning.
Article by Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent, The Times, published 21 January 2010
Click Here to Read
4. New Scientist (2010). Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim.
Article published in New Scientist 11th January 2010
Click Here to Read
5. Leake, Jonathan (2009). Climate change data dumped.
Article published in The Sunday Times 29th November 2009.
Click Here to Read
6. Leake, Jonathan (2009). The great climate change science scandal.
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming.
Article published in The Sunday Times 29th November 2009
Click Here to View
7. Irvine, James (2007). The head of NERC responds in the climate change debate with more emotion than logic.
See HOMEPAGE, filed 18Mar07, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View
8. Irvine, James (2007). Is global warming due to the sun: not industrial CO2?
See HOMEPAGE, filed 15Mar07, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View
9. Leake, Jonathan (2009). Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’
Critics say an influential prediction of a 6ft rise in sea levels is flawed.
Article by Jonathan Leake, Environment Correspondent, The Times, published 10th January 2010. Click Here to Read.
10. Royal Society of Edinburgh (2009). The technology–policy challenges to address climate changes and biodiversity loss. Lecture given by Professor Bob Watson, Defra Chief Scientific Adviser. 10th December 2009.
To view the slides used in the lecture go to www.royalsoced.org.uk
11. Irvine, James (2008). Book Review An appeal to reason: a cool look at global warming by Nigel Lawson. Duckworth, London (ISBN 978-0-7156-3786-9)
See HOMEPAGE, filed 23May08, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View
12. Leake, Jonathan (2010). UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers
Article by Jonathan Leake, Science and Environmental Editor,The Sunday Times, published 24th January 2010.
Click Here to View
13. www.rkpachauri.org
Finis
|
