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.
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?
As it so happens, you have answered your own question. Yes! Except “scientists” are a small part of it.
Below is a link that gives some of the background. Then you should search WUWT and other sites to learn who actually wrote, and how many scientists actually fully agreed with, the IPPC report. How many reviewer’s comments were ignored, how many non-peer reviewed papers were cited, and so on. Please spend a couple of days researching this issue and report back.
“UN Infects Science with Cancer of Global Warming”
Edward F Blick 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
Interesting that a synonym of “Betrüger” is “Schwindler”
“Helmut Schmidt vs. Gavin A. Schmidt”
How the Mighty Hath Fallen!
I feel very sad that in this controversy I could no longer accept the Royal Society as an independent arbiter.
Sold out to the noisiest bidder.
Robert Hooke, on the other hand, might have poisoned himself to seek the truth.
The IPCC manual: How to Serve Man
(screams of “it’s a cookbook” heard in the background)
Please! Be kind to German & European Hero! He was handling “the leaden times” (Die bleierne Zeit). Also he is also one of the most respected Europeans! Cold war stayed cold also because of him.
Note that my political opinions are not the same as his are.
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Pay attention will you! The article was written by Bob Carter not Anthony.
What I find incredulous is that anyone believes anything that comes out of a United Nations organization. Name one thing the UN has gotten right! From Oil-for-Food to the Rwandan genocide debacle to human rights, the UN and their corrupt affiliated organizations have cocked-up (to put it mildly) everything they have ever under-taken. The UN is the most corrupt organization ever to spring from the mind of man.
There was an effort to get Helmut Schmidt listed as a skeptic on his wiki page (see the Discussion tab). Of course Kim Dabelstein Petersen stepped in and put an end to that. Can’t have a respected socialist and progressive as a skeptic can we? Their tentacles are everywhere.
“Sir Crispin Tickell was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows. Green College merged with Templeton College in 2008 to become Green Templeton College, located at what was previously Green College.”
Nice Trustee on the board of the Thomson family Foundation… He coopted Monbiot!
Who is Max Plank? ;). Is this an Americanism or did you mean Max Planck?
I wonder if some of the commercial certifying companies that operate under the ISO9000 umbrella would be better choice for an audit of the IPCC. These companies, even a non-profit organization like UL, have a great deal to lose if they were to lose the confidence of the public. There is no way that the IPCC could pass such an audit.
One of the simple rules is, “Say what you do, and do what you say.” The IPCC has stated that they will be an open organization but fail to disclose requested documents. Fail.
“Methods and procedures will be verified and validated.” Epic fail.
The tough part will be to force the governments to cease funding when these organizations fail to be certified. The certifying organization needs to be susceptible to lawsuits to keep them honest.
‘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.’
Follow the money. A lot of people made a lot of money doing research for the IPCC to show “warming” but it took “political scientists” to link the warming to CO2.
We need a new Schwindler’s list.
@ur momisugly Ric “I see Betrüger is not a person”
in German, this word can only be employed to mean a person committing fraud and nothing else, i.e. a fraudster. It depends on the context whether this has a criminal connotation or not.
Also, the German word is not softer, as suggested elsewhere; it is the exact equivalent.
CaryB says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Who is Max Plank? ;). Is this an Americanism or did you mean Max Planck?
*******************************************************************
Max Plank is a relative of Max Headroom, obviously.
But “Trust me” Tony Blair says AGW is a big problem, who to believe?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838369-tony-blair-to-earn-millions-as-climate-change-adviser.do
I guess its as true as the WMD he claimed to have secret proof of that he couldn’t make public, but later turned out to not exist.
The conspiracy theorists are out in full force today. Not only is the IPCC in on the conspiracy, but so are every major scientific organization in the world, the media, education systems, governments, much of private industry and countless tens of thousands of individuals. These organizations and people have co-opted the physical laws of the universe to be a part of the conspiracy also. Wow.
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
“Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?”
Basically yes. They like riding on the gravy train.
sceptical,
Conspiracies exist. Do you deny that fact?
The Left made hay out of Senator McCarthy’s false claim that he had a list of names of Communists in the State Department. His “list” turned out to be a laundry list. Ever since, “conspiracy theorist” has had an unsavory connotation.
But conspiracies always exist. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Replace “prices” with “taxes” and you have today’s situation.
In what other branch of science are political interest so intense and the outcome so important to politicians.
President Bush called on NASA to investigate climate change and look at the results. NASA promoted climate change on steroids and in lock step with the IPCC. Political interest should be included in any investigation and independent of political influence. If that is possible.
@sceptical says: March 7, 2011 at 5:55 pm
All those institutions you listed, not conspirators but willing dupes !!
Noelle,
I would like to add some thoughts to your question that I do not believe any one else has touched on.
Most of the “scientists” in the national academies are not atmospheric scientists (AS), so the majority of the members rely on the minority of academy members with a background in AS. Seems reasonable, but there are two problems:
— Researcher in AS are overwhelmingly computer modelers and, too often, uncritically believe the results of those completely unproven (as forecast tools) models.
— Second is “groupthink.” I am a meteorologist and have spent a fair amount of time around the major atmospheric science research centers and the amount of groupthink is stunning.
Three years ago I attended a meeting at one of those centers and we were broken into focus groups. One hundred percent of the (well qualified) participants not associated with the research center had one view of an important AS issue and one hundred percent of the people who worked at the research center had the opposite view. This was shocking to me as the people from outside the center were from all over North America, had very diverse backgrounds, and were at least as well qualified scientifically as the people who worked at the center. Nevertheless, the people who worked center at the did little but reinforce each other throughout the session. It was the first time I have witnessed that dynamic.
Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist, calls this “tribalism” which is right on the mark. It is a serious problem in AS, especially as it pertains to the global warming issue.
Mike
The vast majority are ‘dupes’, those already re-educated to follow the AGW meme; those in control and knowingly misusing the science are fewer, but powerful in their connections. Goverments are in on it.. It doesn’t matter which ideology, there’s a lot of money being made by some while the majority are being fleeced by ‘green taxes’ and so on. The turning point, if there is one, won’t be reached until enough of the plebs realise they’ve been duped.
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.”
Most likely, they are like climate scientists and do not understand the notion of physical hypothesis. As Roy Spencer has so clearly shown in his book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder,” Warmista have no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain or predict the forcings, such as those involving clouds, that must exist if CO2 is to cause a dangerous rise in temperature.
So, I will turn your question back to you: Why has no one (NO ONE) from one of these august scientific bodies addressed the question of physical hypotheses? Why has no one addressed the main thesis of Spencer’s book? Is it a conspiracy to protect the Warmista so that the public will not discover that they are a bunch of idiot savants whose specialized knowledge of computer simulations is of no benefit to them or anyone?
Sir, the necessary physical hypotheses do not exist. There is no argument about that. Gavin Schmidt cannot produce them. James Hansen cannot produce them. You cannot produce them. Until they are produced, climate scientists should have enough humility to admit that their science is in its infancy and they have no ability whatsoever to explain or predict future warming caused by manmade CO2.
As a member of the Academy I can assure you that most of my colleagues don’t have the foggiest idea whether global warming is real or not, and don’t particularly care. What they do care about is the avalanche of money that is flowing from the federal government for research on “green energy.” Nothing like it has been seen since the glorious “go to the moon” days of the 60’s (and, yes, I remember them well).
This is the “iron rice bowl” of the 21st century, and a scientist with a lab to support will seriously consider selling his first-born to keep it alive.
Hell, if Obama’s “ballooning of the green” budget goes through, I’ll probably send in a proposal myself (that, hopefully, will surreptitiously address some more real scientific issues). If they’re dropping money from helicopters …
Conspiracy? In the scientific community, there’s no conspiracy. “Conspiracy” implies secrecy, and this boondoggle is no secret at all.