Subcomittee of Japan's Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC – says "recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity"

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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

Ron de Haan

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.

Leon Brozyna

Gee, I wonder why this story hasn’t been picked up by the media …

crosspatch

I think something got lost in the translation. I think:

“[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.

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.

David L. Hagen

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.

Paul

Hai!! Domo arigato, Nihon!!

Phillip Bratby

Hmmm. I wait for the BBC to report this.

Ray

So, will the Japanese admit that the Kyoto Protocol must be scraped?

dearieme

[snip- boorish societal comment]

Reasic

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?

anna v

This is good news. We will be able to trust the CO2 data from JAXA, once they start publishing.

Steve

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?

TerryS

“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.

Gibsho

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.

Scott Covert

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

Gerry

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.

Greylar

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

T Bailey

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?

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.

evanjones

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.

John Galt

Reasic (09:28:29) :
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?

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

RK

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.

evanjones

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).

jack mosevich

Reasic: Roy Spencer, Richard Mintzen, the Roger Pielkies etc do publish contravening research

Retroproxy

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.

Phil G

Reasic asks: “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?”
Reasic – why not ask …WHERE IS THE FUNDING to develop, carry out and publish research which either proves the falloacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism…? It seems to me YOU HAVEN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION! Wake up! The powers-that-be are pushing all the research dollars to researchers who only look to prove AGW. They are curtailing or refusing to fund research and researchers who just might disprove AGW. Hell, some AGW true believers want to de-certify, de-tenure, mock, degrade, marginalize, and otherwise punish anyone who doesn’t agree with them. As exhibit #1, I offer as proof your own words that MOCK these leading Japaneese scientist as nothing but representatives of the “energy industry” . You see yourself as a SAVIOR of the world…. but in reality YOUR appoach proves that you are nothing but a BULLY and THUG for a belief that is an unproven theory.

DaveM

One little crack at a time… Eventually, the hysterics will inexorably be replaced with reasoned hypothesis such as we see here and elsewhere. I commend the bravery of these scientists for standing firmly on the science rather than advocacy. They, as with all AGW skeptics, have reality on their side. Time is on the side of the truth, as is being plainly shown with every passing day as more and more reality creeps into this mess. I feel quite confident that the hysteria over naturally occurring climate change will ultimately be cast aside as once good intentions gone horribly wrong! Maybe soon we can start addressing the “real” environmental problems we face. Much has been ignored while the world fusses over a non existent problem. That ignorance is perhaps what irks me the most. I see folks with AGW/Climate change stickers all over their cars leave enormous piles of plastic and glass etc. scattered everywhere after a weekend in my little valley in paradise. Perhaps instead of Dr. Hanson’s civil disobedience, they might strike a blow by cleaning up after themselves! And stop cutting down mature trees for their firewood!!! (They mightily hack down a parent tree [instead of an easily spotted standing dead tree] and after much no doubt manly sweating and grunting, discover it won’t burn as it is too green! One more among thousands of such tragedies I witness on a daily basis)
Sorry for the rant but I just came back from a site yesterday where some of these new enviros had hacked down, no butchered, an 800 year old fir that would have spread it’s successful genetics for miles around had not some beta male eco lumberjack slaughtered it for his campfire. Such ignorance is increasing because the AGW gang has made paying lip service to environmentalism all that is required. Voting for a “green” candidate entitles you to untold environmental destruction! I have had campers, when caught in the act, promise to buy offsets as punishment! Can you believe that!!! The eco movements equivalent to Catholic “indulgences” more like. Apt for any religion I suppose.
Alright. Enough. I am sorry but the sight of that magnificent tree laying scorched but not burned over a fire pit really got me. The “Climate action now!” bumper sticker on their car just drove the point home.

This is a very encouraging report, injecting a bit of common sense to dampen hysteria. I find it particularly interesting that the substance of this report reflects the substance of the reservations the IPCC itself expressed in the body of its reports before all sense was put to one side in the hyperbolic political summary.
One more step towards sanity and balance.

John W.

Well, I can now say with 100% certainty I am proud to be a Japanese Language and Cultures major. I was already familiar with the work of Akasofu-sensei, but I commend the rest of the scientists for taking such a stance. I await to see any report of the mainstream media on this. Not holding my breath though.

This is spectacular news!
Given a choice of “go along to get along” but with the risk of permanent loss of face when the AGW thesis falls apart, or “be the nail that sticks up” (and thus gets hammered down), they chose the path with the most public pain. This implies that they know AGW is a farce and care more about their reputation in the long run than being battered in the press now.
Steve (09:41:43) : First Russia, now Japan – who’s left backing AGW apart from the USA and the EU? What do the Chinese think?
Australia is in the EU camp. And the EU camp has ‘defectors’ like Czech Republic.
Per China: They are voting with their (our?) dollars.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/china-where-coal-turns-to-money/
Notice they produce more coal than anyone else on the planet and are building one coal powered electric generation plant a week, more or less, and will be for years to come. (They are ‘in train’ for at least several years. It’s that whole communist ‘5 year plan’ thing…)

MattN

I’m tellig you guys. Stop feeding the troll…uhh, I mean Reasic….

Simon Evans

Syun-Ichi Akasofu is an eminent scientist who has expressed his reservations over a number of years (see here, for example – 10mb – http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf).
I can’t really see what the ‘news’ is in this article – the JSER certainly doesn’t represent the Japanese government’s position.

Ray

Retroproxy,
I agree. If exciting the molecules of CO2 would cause such an increase in temperature, I would fill my house at 1000 ppm and save on my heating bills. My plants would also grow very nicely in there.

Pete S

And yet the good old BBC reports that everything in the Arctic is changing so fast, and for the worst. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7906539.stm

You do all realise that with the sheer numbers of scientists in dissenting countries such as Russia, China, India and Japan WE have suddenly become the consensus!
Mary, Joel, Rachel et al, I don’t know how to tell you this, but YOU are now the Skeptics!
tonyB

anna v

Greylar (09:52:53) :
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

Both publishing and grants are tough to come by for those not in the AGW camp.
See the recent entry in Roy Spencer’s blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/02/what-about-the-clouds-andy/
“Is my work published? No…at least not yet…although I have tried. Apparently it disagrees too much with the IPCC party line to be readily acceptable. My finding of negative SW feedback of around 5 W m-2 K-1 from real radiation budget data (the CERES instrument on Aqua) is apparently inadmissible as evidence. “

David Jones

There is a report in co2science today which seems relevant. “More evidence of Solar-Driven climate change.”
I’m sorry I am not able to see how to include the link in my posting. If anyone will kindly explain to me at djones9253@aol.com I’ll be grateful.

George E. Smith

Well I think the Japanese Government should tell the world; that Kyoto is one of their most revered cultural cities; and that the whole world should cease and desist from using the name Kyot, in any menton of any UN promoted so-called accords; which so far absolutely nobody is complying with.
And speaking of who else; the Indian government and science community have aslo said “poppycock”, and basically told the AGWers to ‘go and jump in the alke’ ; they are not going to pay attention to nor abide by any carbon controls of any kind; and they said the man made global warming nonsese was pure bunk.
But yes you can expect our new Marxist government to keep on shoving it down our throat, to keep that bug-eyed crone in power.
Be careful what you pray for; you might get it.
Did anybody notice in last nights crafty but very non-Reaganesque diatribe; that the words Nuclear power were never mentioned, along with the used donut grease that he is going to fuel airforce one and two with or whatever they call those expensive helicopters.
For the very courteous Japanese people to describe the UN/IPCCs thesis as ancient Astrology, is being quite unfair to ancient astrology..
We now have a dictatorship, and it is being run by the man behind the curtain; who issues instructions to the juvenile empty suit out front.
Read Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” if you want to know what is happening to this country; which once had a Constitution that defined the responsibilities and limited powers of central government.
Remember what our founders gave to us; so you can describe to your grand children what it used to be like in America; land of the free.

John G. Bell

I should hope that fact that “… the JSER certainly doesn’t represent the Japanese government’s position.” is not a interpreted by you to reflect badly on the scientists involved in this report.
Science should inform policy not support the current ruling party’s position.

Manfred

the for decades leading japanese party is about to loose next elections. their probable successors have declared to persue a more asian focused policy. and not to follow the us as uncritical as before.
i wonder if greenpeace’s extremely aggressive attacks that left one japanese whaler dead may have contributed to this.

Simon Evans: Your link doesn´t work : “ERROR 404 – FILE NOT FOUND”

Gripegut

While this is good news and while I also agree that the AGW crisis will eventually fold like the house of cards that it is, AGW will just be replaced by “Climate Change” and after that by some other crisis with the only common theme being that man is bad and is destroying the earth.
All of this hysteria has but one common end. That is to reduce human population in a Malthusian effort to “save the planet.”

Tim Clark

I read the entire translated version and must summarize the report in this fashion:
それは愚かな太陽である
(I don’t know if wordpress supports Japanese language so I’ll publish the translation for Leif’s benefit, John W. (10:20:05) can tell me if it’s right.):
It’s the sun, stupid!

Tim Clark

Oops, forgot: ;~D

kim

Simon, surely you jest. The ‘ancient astrology’ bit itself ought to be the horselaugh heard round the world. Here we are, the truth is finally getting out of bed, and looking for its boots, which Simon would prefer to hide in another room.
==========================================

J. Peden

DaveM (10:08:11) :
Geez, Dave, just when I thought I was the one having the most trouble by having to be around hypocritical Greeenies. Around here, my local Green compatriots have gotten the Bull Trout/Dolly Varden incorrectly declared “endangered”, then they want to illegally catch and eat them! No $hit, you can actually see the lust in [some of] their eyes! I guess it must just taste better if only you can eat it and illegally?
It also turns out that the Dolly Varden is quite a predator of other fish, so now hardly any other fish can exist amongst them where they are “protected”, which the Greenies claim took them totally by surprise, when they had in fact already been told right from the start by the local guides that this would happen!
As I’ve mentioned before, they have also got the whole Canyon here nearly perfectly primed for a big burn by outlawing fire breaks and the cutting of standing dead trees for firewood. Well, that burn will really help “save” the endangered species, not to mention our cabins – and ourselves and the hapless Campers, if we all get trapped up-canyon and can’t outrun the fire!

Cold in BC

This may be slightly off topic, but how can anybody take these people seriously anymore?
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Technology/Life+doomed+climate+woes+British+scientist/1328177/story.html

Some dismiss solar cycles / activity of having much of an influence on climate change due to the small variation in TSI.
Lubos ( http://motls.blogspot.com/ ) has a blurb on his blog right now and a link to an interesting paper. From the extract…..
We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml

Ron de Haan

Reasic (09:28:29) :
“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?”
Reasic,
You are putting the world upside down.
It is the AGW/Climate Chance doctrine stating that CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is causing unprecedented Global Warming, that lacks scientific proof, despite over 50 billion dollars spend on research.
You can not blame the “skeptics” for that.
Until today all read this once again, all IPCC AGW claims have been debunked.
If you take the trouble to the read for example the studies published at ICECAP.US or had read the earlier posts at WUWT, you would have known all about the facts and you would have spared yourself this rediculous claim.

Mikey

Just for the fun of it – International groups of skeptics…
India
http://tinyurl.com/6mj6l8
Russia
http://tinyurl.com/56h7js
Canada
http://tinyurl.com/cnx4nu
Argentina
http://tinyurl.com/bbfh6x (pdf)