by Drieu Godefridi
Mr. Chairman,
Firstly, I’d like to congratulate you on your appointment as the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If I may, please allow me to take this opportunity to submit to you five questions on the nature of your organisation, which terms itself a “scientific body” (ipcc.ch):
1. The last word, in the IPCC reports, belongs to the General Assembly (“Principles Governing IPCC Work”, article 11).
Is it true that the vast majority of the people in this assembly are not scientists, but civil servants and representatives of the governments, NGOs, etc. without any scientific credentials required?
2. The IPCC has three aims: to summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact.
Is it correct that two of these objectives require value judgments, which are the province of politics, not science?
3. The third part of the last IPCC report (“AR5”), published in 2014 and 2015, urges Western countries to opt for “de-growth”, i.e. negative growth.
Could it be argued that such recommendations have no connection at all with science?
4. The IPPC attempts to deduce, in its reports, the nature of climatic impact from its own summary of climatic science and set standards based on such.
Would you agree that such a claim exemplifies a naturalistic fallacy, as defined by Hume’s law (do not infer how the world ought to be from the way it is)?
5. If, as suggested by its composition, objectives and methods, the IPCC is not in fact a scientific body at all, as it appears to be, but in fact a political body, is it not moot that the very essence of its reports is political as well?
If the answer to these five questions is yes, Mr. Chairman, is it not time to reform the IPCC?
Drieu Godefridi
PhD (Sorbonne), author of “The IPCC : a Scientific Body?”, Texquis, 2012.
Update: The web link was corrected from ippc.org to ipcc.ch on October 22nd.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Brilliant questions to the new IPCC head. Spot on.
Probable the ‘most important ‘ question the head of the IPCC think he will get asked in Paris is ‘tea or coffee ‘ , its a meaningless talking shop for true believers , hangers on looking for cash and NGO’s who ‘need ‘ face time .
Still on the up side , plenty of opportunities for some Christmas shopping , and no doubt he will enjoy his stay in one of Paris finest, and therefore expensive, hotels and at lest given he will be driven everywhere he will not have to worry about taking the metro.
Here’s hoping Lord Monckton parachutes in…
…on second thought, he should invent a new way to crash the party. They might have their AA batteries ready.
Human-piloted is so 20thC. Hexacopter landing on desk belonging to absent delegate from little-known country and plugging direct into microphone socket is the way to do it. Plus if the security guys try to remove it, it just hovers near the ceiling out of reach until they go away.
Your first sentence was close, but in Paris it will be …”red or white?” (As in his choice of wine).
Scott –
Love it.
Mine’s Red. Thanks.
Auto
I very much doubt that there will be a public response to these questions.
That shouldn’t stop trying
350 years instrumental records of CET. Coldest month is January, warmest month is July.
This graph smashes the CO2 hypothesis in mind of any reasonable person.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-J.gif
but the world is full of unreasonable people.
Vuk,
This shows the same thing, and the data comes from arch-alarmist Phil Jones:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
The same step changes, whether CO2 was low, or high. Thus, CO2 makes no measurable difference in global T.
Answering for the new Chairman: “Yes, but we’re too urgently important for science because … science.”
to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change
==========
why is the IPCC only evaluating the negative impact? why is it not also evaluating the positive impact?
Because in all the years that I have been interested in this scam, there have not been any positive impacts, only negative and apocalyptic!
they not only give neg. impacts…they do not mention natural forces..volcanoes,, sun…I read from a geologist…one molecule out of 85,000 in the atmosphere is manmade…whereas 35 out of 85,000 is natural yet we are more concerned about that one manmade
Where do the 84,964 other molecules come from?
Those must be created by yhe the “undead”, i.e. they are the preternatural ones.
I believe you forgot the word CO2
“1 C02 molecule out of 85,000 are man-made against 35 molecules out of 85,000…”
That’s a silly question GTL- they’ve always been there!
@Paul Sarmiento
Yea, I got that. Not my point.
Currently CO2 is 400ppm, 4 of each 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. There are good arguments (I do not agree) that approximately 1 in four (the entire increase from 280ppm to 400ppm) are man made. We really do not know how much of the 120ppm increase from per-industrial times are man made because no one has accounted for, or knows of, all the inputs and take up of CO2 in the atmosphere. We cannot even be sure that 280ppm is the pre-industrial content of CO2. How do we get to 1 of 35 in 85,000?
Like GTL, I am unsure of the original claim of 1 in 85,000 molecules.
4 out of 10,000 molecules are CO2. If prior to manmade emissions CO2 was circa 300 ppm, and if man is responsible for the entire increase to about 400 ppm, then that would suggest that approximately 1 out of 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
I blame the increase of CO2 on all the guys that are feeding us, they are using extravagant amounts of the gas to grow foods like tomato’s , cucumbers , grapes and other foods, stop them right now before they can supply Paris with luscious dinners for these freeloaders!
Politicians spend their time trying to scare the populace about something then presenting a method to obtain salvation from what the people are now scared about. If the IPCC politicians show that there is a positive impact to climate change into a new ‘Climate Optimum’ in fact it may be almost as good as the Medieval Warm Period; how would they manage to get approval for more powers and more taxation? Therefore, the political IPCC is in the ‘hell-fire and damnation’ mode to scare people into agreeing with otherwise unpalatable actions by the politicians.
Because in all the years that this scam has been going on, there have been no positive impacts, only negative and apocalyptic impacts. Things aren’t going to change now, especially with Paris just over a month away.
Off topic; the press in the UK are predicting a bad winter due to a strong El Nino and the coldest Atlantic Ocean for 80 years (so much for the missing heat). The Jet Stream is set to move South in a matter of weeks and stay there. Hopefully the Paris Conference will be snowed off!
No AGW doom , no need for a IPCC , it really is that simply .
In the same manner ,there would be no reason at all to think a convention of snake oil salesman would do anything but tells us how great snake oil is, there is no reason to think the IPCC meetings would do anything but tell us ‘it’s worse than we thought’.
They never seem to evaluate this “negative impact”:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
.
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
…not.
Good to see that you have put this on the Kelvin scale.
Thank you. Here’s the same thing in ºF:
And in ºC:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/05/Mean-Temp-1.jpg
There is simply nothing to support the IPCC’s remit. “Dangerous man-made global warming” has turned out to be a false alarm. The UN/IPCC is useless, and should be abolished at the Paris meeting.
Thanks again for the graph, it always puts things into perspective.
Please send to Senator Warren for enlightenment.
EXACTLY!!!
“why is it not also evaluating the positive impact?”
Because you can’t get $100B out of the deluded fools running the world’s governments it there are any positive impacts.
Good to ask but also good luck in getting an answer.
Meanwhile back at the ranch…what is being done by who on Shukla and the RICO20. What do all large lazy orgs like NSF and NASA have in common? They don’t keep track. There’s gold in that rock.
And the answers are:
1. There is no need for scientific backgrounds for political advocacy.
2. The aim of the UNIPCC is wealth redistribution, to take from citizens and transfer to governments.
3. The UN argument is that poor nations can be made relatively richer by making wealthier nations poorer.
4. It does not matter how the natural world is, was, or will be. It matters that sovereign governments submit to the will of UN bureaucrats.
5. Yes, it is moot. We do not care about the science except to the extent it can support our political goals.
+ 100
Marcus, no one deserves a 100 score. Nothing is perfect. Point 2 could be qualified in line with Communist doctrine that everyone deserves a fair share but leaders deserve a fairer share.
@grumpyoldman22
“All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others” George Orwell ‘1984’
Sorry, the book is ‘Animal Farm’
In regards to (3)…..
People who come into money who didn’t earn it often squander it in a short time and end up no better off or even worse than they were before the money. Same is true for countries. You can’t make a country better off simply by handing them money. Decades of foreign aid with no results proves this.
Precisely. A fine example is the Euro. Countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus have been handed billions over the years, and look where they are now. Too much unearned income for people or countries will actually result in a depreciation of quality of life.
When there is a lot of money around, some one will always figure out how to get their hands on it (i.e., steal it). Any time we have have inserted money into a country, be it foreign aid, military aid, etc., the first few billion seem to disappear into the hands of the controlling families, factions, etc. After you have effectively paid off all of them, the next group with their hands out are the NGO’s. These have become a whole new growth area for non-profit parasites. I don’t remember where the numbers came from but I do remember hearing that you were very lucky if 10% of the funds actually got to those that needed ’em or those that did some good. The other 90% was just considered ‘overhead’.
And some store the money in Swiss bank accounts. If there is to be any compensation it should be by direct action. Western countries should send in western contractors to build sea walls or drought mitigating dams or water wells. It is illogical to pay compensation in the form of money
Question 6:
Could you answer, if not tout de suite, at least before the congregation of climate-whores in Paris?
No? Thought not.
1. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine.
2. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine and to evaluate it’s moral high ground.
3. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine as it compares to political bias.
4. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine and what the perfect climate is: a standard to be kept secret.
5. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine and whether it is actually a political system.
The “Sierra Club” or “Justin Trudeau” response.
“If the answer to these five questions is yes, Mr. Chairman, is it not time to reform the IPCC?”
No, it is time to disband and abolish the IPCC.
/Mr Lynn
Agree
A scientific body would have recognized:
– the problem of induction / justification.
– the risk of group think
– that argument by consensus is a well known logical fallacy
– that to state subjective probabilities, so called level of confidence, is incompatible with objective science
– that models are not nature
A scientific body would have recognized that:
– an idea, hypothesis or theory is merited by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived
– a theory which allows everything explains nothing
– a theory which cannot be falsified, not in the past and not in the future but now, is not knowledge
This is science! (The logic of scientific discovery – by Karl Popper)
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
(First 26 pages contains the easy read essence.)
This is a unscientific body! (The principles governing IPCC WORK):
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAAahUKEwicr5rFzdTIAhVGBiwKHS-CCJk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fpdf%2Fipcc-principles%2Fipcc-principles.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFsgbLY3AyVPdnNmShDTiIqcPJYLw
It is irresponsible of United Nations to allow the establishment of a body based on these unscientific principles, and try governing the world on basis of this body.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
– Albert Einstein
SorF: The problem is, it is not a “scientific body.” It is a political body established to provide “scientific” cover for an ideological agenda. Hence its mandate is to find evidence for the AGW hypothesis, and nothing else. Nothing to falsify here!
/Mr Lynn
Item 2 – ” The IPCC has three aims: to summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact”
Surely then one of the objectives of the IPCC is to prepare for ALL climate change possibilities – not just a warming one. If governments only plan and pay for one outcome and another occurs then there will be considerably less resource to prepare for it. If cooling should occur and only blind fools dismiss the possibility – at least in the short term rather than the long term extreme likelihood of another ice age – then governments are going to be totally unprepared for it. So the question should be – ‘shouldn’t the IPCC be preparing governments for all outcomes of climate change not just a warming one’.
I see no problem with putting weight behind a perceived greater possibility, even if we disagree with it here, however to dismiss good science as irrelevant would definitely lead to the conclusion that the IPCC by the very nature of its commitments is non-scientific and purely political in intent.
On this topic:
Donna Laframboisa has an important post up regarding the new IPCC chair, and the South Korean (former NGO) Grobal Green Growth Institute – GGGI (headed by former UN-climate-heavy Yvo de Boer) which he is part of. GGGI has by the Government been given the remit to act completely outside korean law as it became UN affiliated in 2012.
Excerpts from the treaty:
And it most certainly doesn’t stop there. Read more about it here! And the entire treaty can be found here.
Stunning stuff. And I’d say it’s no wonder these ‘Save-the-Planet’-schemes attract so many criminals … It’s almost as if they’ve been designed for that purpose.
Agenda 21 Writ Large.
Strange that just a few words were omitted from the preceding post, to imply much broader immunity than the agreements actually provide. Not trying to be alarmist here, are we?
???
I omitted much more words … and they’re all there in the second link.
My point it that by omitting the words in bold you imply far more immunity than actually exists – which is normally an alarmist tactic.
This is the biggest problem facing democracy, there is no accountability for acts done in public office. All public servants (including politicians) should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Some leeway should be given, but gross incompetence or negligence should most definitely lead to consequences.
With power, comes responsibility. If people yearn for power over others, they should bear responsibility for their actions, and be held accountable for dereliction of duty, gross incompetence and gross negligence.
richard,
That applies to bureaucrats, too. And political appointees like Lois Lerner. They have immunity from prosecution in all but the most blatant, egregious criminal activity. If we had done what Ms. Lerner or what Hillary Clinton has done, we would absolutely be facing years in a federal penitentiary. But they are given a free pass, and I will be astonished if they are not named in the long list of pardons being prepared by President Obama for when he leaves office.
If appointyees and bureaucrats were held to the same standard that you, me, and the average reader here are held to, the country would be run far better, much more fairly, and very much more efficiently.
“It’s almost as if they’ve been designed for that purpose.”
Almost? Reading this, even with the exclusions steveta_uk accused you of being “alarmist” about, there is no DOUBT this has been designed to protect criminals. I’ve always been outraged about diplomatic immunity – reading this has ruined my morning.
Sounds a little like the immunities afforded Obama.
Good luck getting a rational answer.
“2. The IPCC has three aims: to summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact.”
Note that it is not their job to determine whether the impact is positive, negative, or neutral but only to determine how negative it is. Kind of like the Argo floats which were installed to determine “just how fast the earth is warming”. Not really objective scientific inquiry.
The ARGO floats have clearly failed to serve their intended purpose. They are just serving.. the purpose has moved on to deeper seas.
You do get around. You were on the Murray Canal a few weeks ago!
So, the new head of the IPCC is a South Korean, joining his two countrymen who lead the U.N. and the World Bank. Do the Koreans have sensitive photographs of the string pullers who make these kinds appointments?
Does anyone have a specific reference to the “opt for de-growth” quote in AR5? What part of the 3rd volume contains that request? I search working group 3 for “de-growth” and didn’t find it.
…Prepare to get…… Hosed….(:<(
The nature of true scientific work requires constant consideration of the possibility that you are wrong. The nature of true political work requires never considering the possibility that you are wrong (because anyone who brings up a topic that something might be wrong is not fully on board with the program and is quickly shown the door).
I’m sure a quick review of meeting minutes will reveal if the IPCC is a true scientific body or a true political body.
I suggest that he be hooked up to a lie detector when answering these questions.
I have a question for him; Sir, when will you and the IPCC stop lying about climate?
Thanks for the concept of naturalistic fallacy (Hume’s Law). I have been thinking about how the climate establishment keeps telling us it’s the hottest whatever ever!
The obvious question is, what’s the temperature supposed to be?
“If the answer to these five questions is yes, Mr. Chairman, is it not time to reform the IPCC?”
In all due respect, I don’t think we need a ‘yes’ answer to all of those five questions before considering reforming (or, disbanding) the IPCC.
I suggest that a ‘yes’ answer to so much as one of those questions should be sufficient.
Chuckle. The IPCC is a typically out of control government organization. Look at the expensive get-togethers they have. And I wonder how much these idiots are paid from the taxpayers’ purse. I do note that Pauchari (railroad engineer) finally got axed; time to cut back some more.
1. Our representative bring the views of scientists to their efforts.
2. All of these issues fall under the purview of science.
3. That of course could be argued like anything, but the person making that point would be wrong.
4. I would not agree with that statement.
5. There is of course a political element to this issue, how could you argue otherwise. But the politics are based in science.
Thanks for the laughs !!!!
While you’re at it ask him if he has ever tried heating water through its surface using a warm gas.