Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made
Climate science is ‘ancient astrology’, claims report
By Andrew Orlowski The Register UK (h/t) from WUWT reader Ric Werme
UPDATE: One of the panelists (Dr. Itoh) weighs in here at WUWT, see below.
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document – the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you’ll find some of the key findings – but first, a summary.
Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC’s own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”
Next page: (at the Register) Key Passages Translated
UPDATE: From Kiminori Itoh, Prof., Yokohama National University.
Hi everybody!
I am one of the five who participated to the article in the JSER journal, which may have seemed to you as a mystery from Japan. At first, I thank you for picking up our activity in Japan. I am a regular reader of several climate blog sites, and had been making some contributions mainly to Climate Science of Prof. Pielke. Actually, the information I gave in the article largely owes the invaluable information shown at this site WUWT as well as Climate Science and Climate Audit. Thus, I felt I should explain a bit about the article of JSER because, unfortunately, it is written in Japanese although it has partly been translated into English.
Some readers of WUWT might remember my name; I had written a guest blog in Climate Science several months ago, when Roger kindly suggested me to introduce my new book “Lies and Traps in Global Warming Affairs.” Yes, I am regarded as one of the most hard-core AGW skeptics in Japan, although I myself regard me as a realist in this issue.
The article of JSER has been composed of discussions between the five contributors, made through e-mail for several months, and was organized by Prof. Yoshida of Kyoto University (an editor of the JSER journal). Our purpose was to invoke healthy discussions on the global warming issue in Japan. The JSER journal was selected as a platform for this discussion just because Prof. Yoshida has a personal interest in this issue and he is an editor of the journal.
Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.
All the contributors are well-established researchers in different fields and each has characteristic personal opinions on the AGW issue. Only one (Dr. Emori, National Institute of Environmental Sciences, Japan) represents IPCC. Other members are more or less skeptical of the conclusions of IPCC. For instance, as translated into English, Dr. Kusano made a severe critique on climate models; he himself is a cloud-modeler, so that his critique seems plausible. Prof. Akasofu is well known as an aurora physicist, Prof. Maruyama is famous for his ideas in geophysics, and I myself have sufficient academic record in environmental physical chemistry (more than 160 peer review papers).
We know that our try this time is small one, and its impact has a limitation especially due to language problem. Nevertheless, we believe that the discussion was useful and informative for everyone interested in the controversies associated with the AGW issue. In March, another article will come also in the JSER journal because the discussion received much interest from the readers of the journal.
Any comments and opinions are welcome and very helpful for us.
Thank you again.
Based on Dr. Itohs comments, I’ve amended the headline to be more reflective of his first hand account on the report. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I came across this record a few weeks ago but it seemed unimportant possibly because the translation was poor. This is much better and if it is an accurate record it would be the first major western nation to break ranks.
Tonyb
This is the kind of news we are waiting for.
Now the Japanese Government must implement these findings in it’s policies and bring the discussions on a political level.
If that is going to happen?
In the mean time every American should realize that Obama will use his so called fight against climate change not only to focus on inefficient and costly “Green Technologies” but to tax fossil fuels in order stuff the holes in Federal Budget.
This will burden the US economy in such a way that recovery from the current economic decline will be very difficult if not impossible.
It’s really time now to undertake a joint effort and seek publicity to make clear that Obama has taken the wrong exit before he destroys the country.
Gee, I wonder why this story hasn’t been picked up by the media …
I think something got lost in the translation. I think:
Should be:
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.
Though I will concede that the drone from the IPCC is rather monotonous.
Compliments to these courageous Japanese scientists for showing common sense in upholding foundational scientific principles and for their validation efforts exposing the inadequacy of IPCC assertions of its global warming models.
Hai!! Domo arigato, Nihon!!
Hmmm. I wait for the BBC to report this.
So, will the Japanese admit that the Kyoto Protocol must be scraped?
[snip- boorish societal comment]
No! A Japanese society, representing their energy industry doesn’t agree with AGW. It kind of behooves them to take this stance, don’t you think?
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but why do “skeptics” only state them in the media, on blogs, and on websites? Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?
This is good news. We will be able to trust the CO2 data from JAXA, once they start publishing.
The Japanese are very diplomatic, and avoid causing offence. To find a reference comparing climate science to astrology (Thales) is quite extraordinary.
First Russia, now Japan – who’s left backing AGW apart from the USA and the EU? What do the Chinese think?
“They are funded by big oil”
“They are funded by the coal industry”
“They aren’t climate scientists”
“So and so also believes the earth is flat”
etc etc
Now thats out the way the report can be discussed.
Ron de Han
“It’s really time now to undertake a joint effort and seek publicity to make clear that Obama has taken the wrong exit before he destroys the country.”
That’s pretty much already been done (destroying the country). Credit where credit is due please.
Reasic (09:28:29) :
Are you kidding? Prove that temperature trends are “Natural”?
Prove they aren’t.
Reasic
The onus is on the team members to provide proof the climate is changing due to man NOT the other way roundf.
tonyb
IPCC accused of practicing astrology.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I say.
Someone please send a copy of Orwell’s 1984 to the Japanese. If you think their scientists are angry now, imagine how they’ll feel when they RTFM!
If Japan breaks from the Kyoto Treaty, perhaps there is hope that we will come to our senses as well.
A little OT. I regularly hear the argument that the skeptics only publish in the media and not in peer reviewed journals. However anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that it is harder to get published when you are publishing against the consensus. Siince I have no first hand experience with this can anyone shed some light on this topic?
Thanks,
G
Why is it that every AGW advocate always falls back to this flimsy stance?
If you look at their site, several of the main people in the group are academia, not corporate. To summarily dismiss their information is not scientific, but purely emotional.
WUWT readers:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
The Register is free and relies solely on its advertising. So to show your appreciation and support, you should go there and eyeball their ads.
1. It get censured by editors who won’t print anything that disagrees with the party line. This is known as ‘peer review’, btw.
2. When it does get published, it gets ignored by the warmists, the government and the media.
3. When it does get coverage, it’s to disparage the authors with ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments.
Hope this helps
Even if AGW were true, the science and experiments to support it were sloppy and unproven. At the minimum AGW scientists should be taken to task for bad science.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but why do “skeptics” only state them in the media, on blogs, and on websites?
If only! Where was this? It came out weeks ago. Do you imagine that if the conclusion had been otherwise we would be reading it here or at El Reg for the first time?
Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?
The mere fact that you ask this speaks volumes. Seek, friend, and ye shall find!
You might make a start with LaDochy, et al. (Dec. 2007), McKitrick and Michaels (2008), and Yilmaz et al. (2008).
Reasic: Roy Spencer, Richard Mintzen, the Roger Pielkies etc do publish contravening research
To Reasic: Experiments conducted in the early 20th Century by scientists including R.W. Wood and Niels Bohr proved that “greenhouse” gases like CO2 cannot increase air temperature by “trapping” infrared radiation. The results of R.W. Wood’s research were published in Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320 – back when science relied on experiments, not computer models. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Empirical science proves that CO2 will not warm our atmosphere by trapping IR. The Earth will continue to warm and cool according to the natural cycles of the sun, the oceans, volcanism, orbital variations, and numerous other natural factors. The 0.038 percent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket and totally irrelevant and insignificant.