by Bob Carter (originally published on Quadrant Online)
Former German Chancellor demands IPCC inquiry
Helmut Schmidt, the respected former Chancellor of Germany, has told an audience at the Max-Plank-Gesellschaft that a full inquiry needs to be held into the credibility of advice on global warming that stems from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Set up in 1988 in order to deliver policy advice to governments regarding global warming, ever since 2005 the IPCC has been become mired in controversy over the integrity and accuracy of its procedures. Most recently, in early 2010, a number of scandals erupted over the selective use of published literature by the IPCC, and also its practice of relying upon documents from environmental lobby groups rather than refereed scientific papers.
In his speech, Helmut Schmidt said:
In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are also concerned, at the same time, by the phenomenon of global warming and its alleged consequences. We know that there have always been naturally occurring ice ages and warm periods; what we don’t know is how significant the human-induced contribution to present and future global warming is and will be.
The climate policy adopted by many governments is still in its infancy. The publications provided by an international group of scientists (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) have encountered skepticism, especially since some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger). In any case, some governments’ publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed.
It seems to me that the time has come that one of our top scientific organisations should scrutinise, under the microscope, the work of the IPCC, in a critical and realistic way, and then present the resulting conclusions to the German public in a comprehensible manner ….
The Max-Plank-Gesellschaft is Germany’s most eminent science organisation, and that Helmut Schmidt should deliver his lecture there is highly symbolic. But in calling for an investigation by one of Germany’s “top scientific organisations”, Schmidt shows that he only appreciates part of the problem, which is the integrity of the IPCC. An equal problem in nearly all western countries (Russia perhaps excluded) is the integrity of their national science academies and leading organisations, nearly all of whom, under the leadership of the Royal Society of London, have been acting as cheerleaders for the IPCC for the last ten years or more. Remember, too, that no fewer than three independent inquiries into last year’s Climategate (leaked email) scandal at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, ended up as anodyne whitewashes, and this despite the undoubted “distinction” of the chairmen of the inquiries.
Helmut Schmidt is undoubtedly right to call for a searching inquiry into the IPCC, but any such inquiry will need to be conducted by a special, independent scientific audit group with full legal powers. For, to be effective, any review of the IPCC is going to need to also investigate the actions of other leading national and international science organisations.
Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Translation courtesy of Dr Benny Peiser, Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Further comment and access to the full lecture (in German) available through the GWPF website here…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Debate
Helmut Schmidt vs. Gavin A. Schmidt
LOL
Oh dear, how long before poor old Helmut gets a shafting from the warmista front. Let’s see will they use the oil tactic, the tobacco scam or maybe the good old, in the pockets of industry scare?
“An equal problem in nearly all western countries (Russia perhaps excluded) is the integrity of their national science academies and leading organisations, nearly all of whom, under the leadership of the Royal Society of London, have been acting as cheerleaders for the IPCC for the last ten years or more.”
This is the first time I am aware of, Anthony, that you have written that national science academies and leading organisations have looked at climate science and reached a conclusion that none of their peers disagrees with. They (including the Russian Academy of Sciences) signed off on a joint statement several years ago that stated: “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring” and “it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.” (source: http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)
Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart? I’m really curious how you answer that question.
I was going to check one word and a name, it turns out two words:
First, “some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger).” From http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/mojib-latif-on-zdf-fraud-to-public.html I see Betrüger is not a person, (but still a discredited climate scientist!):
The other word, anodyne, is in “no fewer than three independent inquiries into last year’s Climategate … ended up as anodyne whitewashes….” I first encountered anodyne in a US 1st Circuit Court ruling against my wife early in her law career. It turns out Judge Selya uses his extensive vocabulary in all his opinions, including those on Puerto Rico cases, which is also in the 1st District.
In Werme v. Merrill, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1265262.html , there is
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anodyne
In my wife’s case, I think it was used in the sense of “judicial relief”. In the present sense it’s used to reject the Climategate reviews. Sometimes “whitewash” isn’t strong enough.
This is indeed the problem, because who will investigate the investigators?
It would be tragic if Schmidt’s call for investigations involved another round of wholly ineffective sham enquiries, deliberately framed so as to avoid dealing with the most contentious issues. Can you imagine an equiry led by the German equivalent of a Paul Nurse? If this was to happen, the foregone conclusions would provide more amunition for the warmists propaganda machine. You can already see the MSM preparing the headlines – IPCC vindicated by top German scientific organisation.
Maybe it would be better if Schmidt was derided by the warmists and the sham investigation never held.
I like “fraudsters”. It’s quaint, in an old-world charm sort of way. It has a appealing ring to it.
At least it is a step in the right direction.
I would hope that other “elder statesmen” are encouraged to comment likewise as there must be some who know, or at least suspect, that the glib statements of some scientists who work in closed circles are mere conjectures.
Of course the hoax will not end. They will just reform under a new set of initials. Or perhaps with a new pollutant that has, coincidentally, exactly the same cure as the older one. Vegetarianism, no private vehicles, a vastly restricted life style for all Westerners, the de-industrialization of the West.
Meet the new villain : nitrogen.
http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=14199622
Well he has gravitas and is a highly respected figure.
I think if a properly independant audit were conducted, the German people would accept it and inter-alia, much of the rest of Europe.
Vuk etc. says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Debate
Helmut Schmidt vs. Gavin A. Schmidt
LOL
——
How about Helmut Schmidt and Harrison Schmitt VS. Gavin Schmidt? 🙂
weight of IPCC reports is overpowering science
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC1.jpg
How about a IPCC shutdown instead ?
‘because who will investigate the investigators’
The interesting truth is that only they can and Judith Curry has begun that process.. others will inevitably follow
Helmut Schmidt is undoubtedly right to call for a searching inquiry into the IPCC, but any such inquiry will need to be conducted by a special, independent scientific audit group with full legal powers.
Perhaps the UN could convene such an audit group?
LOL
For, to be effective, any review of the IPCC is going to need to also investigate the actions of other leading national and international science organisations.
I disagree – a proper review of the IPCC could be effective indeed. It then, no doubt, would lead to similar proper reviews of other “leading national and international science organisations”.
Cut off the head, as it were.
Debate
Helmut Schmidt vs. Gavin A. Schmidt
LOL
That would surely give me “The Schmidts”
🙂
Tim
Vuk etc. says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm (Edit)
weight of IPCC reports is overpowering science
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC1.jpg
Lol. Classic. Another for Smokey’s collection.
It is more a case of a small group of people, purported scientists and non-scientists, with a political philosophy collaborating to infiltrate the fields of government, education, science, and the arts; who appoint their more unscrupulous members to positions of authority; then discriminate against the people they target as their enemies to deny them education, employment, appointments to positions of authority, or a voice in the media or government; indoctrinate their opponents’ children and the general public to accept false propaganda without objective scrutiny. After a century of these efforts, they succeed in denying the unorganized opposition and often unsuspecting victims a voice in public affairs, academia, and the professional scientific organizations which falsely purport to represent the views of the majority of their memberships. Finally, the majority of the members of the professional organizations find they are being shut out of the decisionmaking and policymaking of their own organizations by a militant minority who have seized and refuse to relinquish control of the leadership.
Lenin and Stalin were quite successful in seizing power in this way, although they took shortcuts by murdering their opponents.
I think it has now become more than clear that any genuine independent scientist who was asked to audit the activities of the IPCC would be risking his career and those of his families if he did not come up with the required answer of “No problem here, mate”.
The independent scientists – in order to have any credibility and also to be immune from career blackmail – would have to be drawn from those individuals not: i) in government employment, ii) feeding from the grants trough, or iii) associated with ‘big oil’.
Unfortunately, not too many experts on climate can avoid being placed in one of these categories.
It’s very interesting that such comments should come from Helmut Schmidt. A very brave (Iron Cross in WWll despite being of Jewish descent), clever and talented man(classical pianist).
He founded, with Gerald Ford, the American Enterprise Institute World Forum. I don’t know much about this secretive annual gathering other than that its participants are powerful and influential, international businessmen, politicians and academics.
His opinion on the IPCC and what it stands for might perhaps be explained by his dislike of idealism, of which he said, “People who have a vision should go see a doctor.”
The climategate emails revealed the CRU crew had to cook the books to make CO2 appear as the driving force causing any warming. It appears they picked the wrong gas for political reasons. You can investigate them all you want but the fact remains they can not prove CO2 will cause any warming or future catastrophies period. Any conclusions they come up with are political wishful thinking at best. I say defund these frauds and make any investigation have teeth with jail time and large fines for those convicted of fraud.
Schmidt disappoints. – gavin.
No problem. Most of the retired scientists are independent.
The Czec president is not longer alone.
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart? I’m really curious how you answer that question.
========================================================
Noelle, they only look at trends.
“several years ago” when these scientists signed on, the trends looked like temperatures were increasing at a unprecedented rate.
Just like in the 70’s when it looked like the trend was going down = coming ice age.
Our science, no matter how big the computer is, can only predict trends.
They are really just not that smart………….