The Times: Top British scientist says IPCC is losing credibility

Scientist says IPCC claims about African rainfall reductions due to global warming have no supporting data.

Click to enlarge

African Annual Rainfall Image - UNEP FAO/Agrhymet Network and ESRI

A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.

Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.”

Speaking this weekend, Field said: “I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”

Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.

Read the entire article at The Times here

Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sad Science

I’m sure Pachuri will respond to this by calling it voodoo science or something…

Veronica (England)

Good grief. Bob Watson uttering a sceptical word… things are getting worse and worse for the IPCC. Delighted to hear that all these Africans are not going to starve after all. Especially as the Sahara is greening over.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

Alan S

Ah Bob Watson, I did enjoy watching him squirm on Channel 4 news up against Lord Lawson. You could see from his body language that he knew the game was up.
Now we see him throwing anything he can overboard to try and keep himself afloat and divert attention from the major part he has played.

Nigel S

Renault: I am shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in here!
Croupier: Your winnings sir.
Renault: Oh. Thank you very much.
Renault: Everybody out at once!

DR

Is someone collating these blunders for easy reference?

Jørgen F.

….Observing climate changes is a paranormal gift some people have. Some talk to the dead, some see ghosts , others watch gletschers melting and deserts growing.

hunter

When all is said and done, the only aspect of AGW that will remain credible is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Not one prediction of impending doom, the only justification for AGW inspired radical policies, holds up under scrutiny.

TerryS

Robert Watson was on Sky news this morning (approx 10:30 GMT) making the following claims:
1. The only mistake the IPCC made was about Himalayan glaciers.
2. There is nothing wrong with the peer review system.
3. The emails do not show any data manipulation.
4. The IPCC report is based on peer reviewed literature so is solid.
5. etc
So I wonder what has happened since 10:30am.

John Blake

After all too many instances of the IPCC’s publishing alarmist theses in bad faith, under self-evidently false pretenses, we are entitled to ask: Has no-one inside or out the “climate science community” (sic) ever actually read any of these ludicrously contentious, high-strung prognostications?
When we find that, first, projecting Himalayan glaciers’ disappearance in thirty years (2035) was based on an uncorrected typo; second, that no evidence supports the original figure (2350); third, that this datum’s garbled source was a years-old off-the-cuff press interview broadcasting pure advocacy-group propaganda– objective, rational observers are entitled to ask, What IPCC statement is NOT false-and-misleading hyperbole designed to promote Warmists’ hyper-partisan, extreme-radical collectivist Statist “New World Order” with such as Seigneur Rajendra Pachauri, railroad engineer extraordinaire, presiding o’er benighted private-sector peasants at its head?
For the record, Edward Lorenz’s Chaos Theory (1964) plus Ludwig Boltzman’s fundamental Second Law of Thermodynamics (1880s) prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in Earth’s complex dynamic atmospheric system is both mathematically and physically impossible. (See Gerlich and Tschneuschner’s 125-page paper published by Germany’s Institut fur Mathematische Physik in January 2010.) Not only are linear extrapolations from Lorenz’s non-random but indeterminate processes invalid due to “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” (the Butterfly Effect), but denying Boltzman’s Second Law of Entropy that governs heat-exchanges (“work”) amounts to endorsing Perpetual Motion.
When fundamental math and physics make nonsense of one’s aggravated hypothetical house-of-cards, who needs to waffle and fuss in detail over conclusions rendered prima facie ignorant, mistaken from first principles?

JohnRS

“A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.”
The headline seems to imply this is a possiblity – I thought it had already lost pretty much all its credibility anyway. With yet another “gate” today there’s not a lot of credibility left to lose. Even the MSM are starting to sound almost unbiased (some of the time).

Bob Wats on: ” We’re in quicksand. We take one more step, and we’re still there, and there’s no way out. “

Okay so how does this not show bias in the IPCC report? The IPCC report is little more then conclusion with as much science as possible and then a healthy dose of speculation ( alarmism ) to spur people into action ( allowing the UN to tax them to ‘fix’ the problem )
Forget about that even if we were to go back to 1990 CO2 levels it would be meaningless if in fact Global Warming was occurring because of CO2 emissions.

Baa Humbug

Re: hunter (Feb 6 14:42),
Actually it may change to Celadonhouse Gas.
Celadon (pronounced /ˈsɛlədɒn/) is a color that is a pale tint of spring green.

old construction worker

And all paid for with our tax money. I wonder when the lawyers will get involved?

RichieP

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

RockyRoad

TerryS (14:45:37) :
Robert Watson was on Sky news this morning (approx 10:30 GMT) making the following claims:

3. The emails do not show any data manipulation.

_____________
Ans:
Well, mostly. The damning part regarding data manipulation was what came WITH the emails (the emails just fretted about such minor things as disobeying FOIA, beating people up you disagree with, subverting the peer review process, tax evasion, deleting emails to CYA, lamenting that the earth was cooling down, etc. etc). It was the REST of the material (condolences to Harry the progammer, et al) that point to data manipulation.
Of course, without a BEFORE set of data, determining what was manipulated and exactly how it was manipulated will be rather difficult to ascertain, but I have a sneaky feeling it’s all stored in somebody’s basement or garage just waiting to be discovered.

u.k.(us)

the flood gates have opened.
the suppression of science is ending.
it was “a damn close run thing”.
glad i could watch it happen here, anthony!

John R. Walker

It’s one thing for Bob Watson to talk about the IPCC losing it’s credibility – not that it has any – but I notice he doesn’t say anything about the IPCC Working Groups losing any of the considerable funding DEFRA and other UK government sources throw its way…

Ron de Haan
Jim Clarke

John Blake,
People have been reading the IPCC reports from the beginning, finding the same flaws and trying to get the word out on what is actually going on. If they were in the ‘climate research science community’, they soon found themselves pariah. If they were in another branch of the atmospheric sciences, they were labeled ignorant or some other more demonstrable epitaph. The complaints and arguments against the AGW theory were never addressed directly. Instead, there would be some hand waving and then a pronouncement that the skeptical arguments were easily disposed of.
This has been going on for 20 years. It is good to see the house of cards falling down, but we will be paying for the consequences of this for a long time. A whole generation has been brainwashed.
I was in the Denver Airport yesterday and all the advertisements on the walls were for ‘green’ energy companies. These are companies trying to sell an inferior product at a higher price to the brainwashed masses, using the tax dollars of the masses just to stay in business. It is a lose/lose scenario at a time when the country needs some big wins.
We will be paying for the AGW falsehood for a long/long time.

It’s going to be along long winding crash landing.
How many IPCC lies does this make now? I call them lies because things like this don’t just happen with world quality peer reviewed science.

JackStraw

If that prediction was true then any steps that were taken by the west to cut CO2 emissions would have no affect, at least in the short term. The only solution would be massive transfers of wealth to Africa and other like affected locations.
Oh wait…

Peter of Sydney

How ironic. The real reason the Africans might still starve to death is because of the AGW policy of denying them a cheap source of power generation – coal. Without that, they are possibly doomed but hope not. I won’t go as far as some who say this is a deliberate policy to cull the African population. I see no evidence of this. But the end result might still be the same thanks to the AGW extremists.

Peter of Sydney

u.k.(us), don’t be so sure. They still have the vast majority of the media on the AGW side. I still fear they will win given all the lies still being reported. Sure many will be unconvinced thanks to the Internet but that doesn’t mean the western governments won’t rush in the appropriate legislations to tax us under the guise of saving the planet. It’s the early stage of the Orwellian society we may have to suffer, largely thanks to the large section of the public who are not interested and don’t want to use their brain matter to think things over before voting. That’s why the media are to blame in the end for not doing due diligence, and reporting both sides of the debate when in doubt rather than reporting almost all the time one side only.

DirkH

“TerryS (14:45:37) :
Robert Watson was on Sky news this morning (approx 10:30 GMT) making the following claims:
1. The only mistake the IPCC made was about Himalayan glaciers.
2. There is nothing wrong with the peer review system.
3. The emails do not show any data manipulation.
4. The IPCC report is based on peer reviewed literature so is solid.
5. etc
So I wonder what has happened since 10:30am.”
Nothing. It’s still not true.

Rob

Has Global Warming increased the toll of disasters.
Debate, The Royal institution of Great Briton,
Panel: Prof Roger Pielke Jr, Bob Ward, Dr Robert Muir-Wood,
The audience came to the conclusion there is NO link.
I believe Dr Robert Muir-Wood ran his Ipcc cited study from 1970 and failed to allow for population growth in areas susceptible to hurricanes.
Roger Pielke jr ran his study from 1900 allowed for population growth and found NO link.
http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000

j ferguson

“The errors seem likely to bring about change at the IPCC. Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”
The above was the last paragraph in the article. If the IPCC reports continue to be a collection of misrepresentations and inventions, they will indeed need a better means of explaining themselves.

Is it official yet?
The IPCC report – the “gold standard” – has now been shown to be fool’s gold.

rbateman

Sad Science (14:25:44) :
I’m sure Pachuri will respond to this by calling it voodoo science or something…

I believe he has already played that card, or something very close to it.
Neither Pachuri or the IPCC can hear anything at this point.
Bubble wrapped and isolated.

chemman

The IPCC report – the “gold standard” – has now been shown to be fool’s gold.
I’d say more like lead. They have been exposed as the alchemists they really are.

latitude

Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”
He’s still saying after the fact.
How about just don’t lie and fabricate in the first place.
But there’s no fun in that, because then all they could say is we really don’t know.
AR5
begin:
We really don’t have a clue.
end:
Printing the whole report on a index card would save a ton of money too.

Terry Jackson

JohnWho (16:45:11) :
Is it official yet?
The IPCC report – the “gold standard” – has now been shown to be fool’s gold.
When pressed it was found to be ironed pyrites. ;>)

Robert

I agree that all these blunders and inaccuracies are gradually chipping away at fortress IPCC. Unfortunately, the warmist propaganda movement is still able cite these inaccurate doom and gloom scenarios, since the MSM stays silent for the most part.
Remember the Hockey stick is still cited and used regularly despite it’s thorough de-bunking. Nevertheless, it is good to see the “settled science” being challenged, when a few short months ago, hardly anyone would dare (except here of course!).

Henry chance

Well, Climate Progress is still quoting the IPDD stuff. I am sure several blind writers have no where to go. They attached their identity to the IPCC and now it craters. Now the skeptics are being called condescending.

Kate

I started out on my “climate change” journey by reading Will Alexander at climaterealists.
He is elderly and retired now, but worked faithfully for the So. African government his whole career. He has a great deal to say about the droughts in So. Africa. And he writes simply, so that the commoner can understand.
His work is archived at climaterealists under his name in pdf files.

Kate
Grumpy Old Engineer

What I cannot understand is how no-one seems to have caught these lies and blunders before. I have only been reading this blog & related ones for the last 6 months, but it is several years since their original publication! I am not blaming anyone, but think we should prepare, collectively, to analyze the next major IPCC offering (AP5?) by scouring it’s contents and checking on it’s references; just let me know if this layman can help.

Kate

Dear Grumpy – I’ve had the same feeling. But there was massive cover-up.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/part_5/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml

Kate

13 Trillion dollars here:
This might also help to explain the position of the BBC, the Environment Agency, other Government and some Universities.
http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx
“The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.
And the IIGCC are not alone. On 14th January 2010 an association of similar groups published at statement calling for more action, quicker, ‘cos they’ve got investments to protect… I mean, to save the planet. And UNEP have their fingers in that as well. http://www.Unepfi.org
The world’s largest investors released a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to quickly adopt strong national climate policies………
The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy calls for rapid action on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies. The statement was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors with more than US$ 13 trillion of assets – Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

Fact:
The ancient Egyptians lived during a warmer period than today. They experienced longer rain seasons and the Sahara desert was smaller at the time. The famous Sphinx still bears grooves along its body formed by ancient rainfall.
Apart from the annual flooding of their lands, which they saw as a good thing and no longer happens because of the Aswan Dam, the Egyptians called their land k’mt, which means black fertile land. They called the dry red land far from the Nile ‘dsrt’, which is where we get the world desert from. In those days the Egyptians had to travel to out to the desert to see the parched landscape. Today, in a cooler world and because of the damming of the Nile, the desert has grown to swallow Egypt’s cities and meets the Nile.

Erik Anderson

TIMES ONLINE headline:
I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
Quote: “Jones believes that the unit was maliciously targeted with multiple FoI requests by climate change sceptics determined to disrupt its work.”
Sigh. The toll of paranoia.
REPLY: There is a second story by the same author, which gives a bit different picture;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece
– Anthony

Erik Anderson

There is a second story by the same author, which gives a bit different picture
Quote: “Since November last year he has been a prisoner of public opprobrium and a target of such vilification that was he was almost persuaded to comply with the wishes of those who wanted him dead.”
I am reminded of what Tim Ball, Patrick Michaels, Sallie Baliunas, and Willie Soon, etc. have had to put up with for years — thankfully with much greater resiliency.

Brian G Valentine

It must be disheartening for Dr Tom Wigley, formerly of East Anglia University who went on to preside over the UCAR in the US, to witness the edifice of his vision crumble around him.

Mike Young

Has anyone been keeping track of how much this report is shrinking as each false claim is revealed? Pretty soon, all that will be left will be the covers.

J.Hansford

Pachauri’s response will be…..
” She came to him. Her breath hot against his cheek. Outside a blizzard raged, but inside passion burned hot and unchecked….. ”
I kid you not! :-0

Brian G Valentine

All that is left to support the IPCC hypothesis, is the model projections for the future.
The first and second of the Assessment Reports revealed the (impenetrable?) barriers to modeling the climate with fidelity over anything more than a decade, such issues were not revealed in the Fourth of the Assessment Reports, by design, because it was desired to make the Reports coherent with the Summaries (for Policymakers).

Christopher Hanley

#Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (20:14:46)
Also
During the Holocene Optimum 6000-8000 years BP when the world was ≈ 2°C warmer than today, the Sahara had some of the largest freshwater lakes in the world and the biggest, Lake Megachad (of which the present Lake Chad is a miserable relic) was bigger than the Caspian Sea
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndLandscapes.htm#Lake%20Chad

John Q. Galt

“….Observing climate changes is a paranormal gift some people have. Some talk to the dead, some see ghosts , others watch gletschers melting and deserts growing.”
And some see the global socialist party blowin’. Just wait till the Americans get wiff of this.

John Q. Galt

John Blake,
please teach us American squishy-faced people how to speak.

Still into distortion and self justification. If Phil J had been above board and freed CRU’s public date to Steve Mc when it wasinitially requested, he wouldn’t have been hit with an avalanche of requests. Just doesn’t get it does he?