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.
There are a half-dozen reasons, all of which contributed to this blunder. The main one is what one of the skeptical scientists who was in on the behind-the-scenes activity at the beginning (Spencer or Pielke I think) blames it on: It was (and largely is) a part of the conventional wisdom that “we’re going to have to move away from fossil fuels anyway, so it would be good to get started as soon as possible, even if the case for CAWG isn’t as strong as its advocates make out, or even if it’s not true at all.”
Further, I suspect there was an acceptance of warmist claims that renewable energy devices would not be terribly expensive once they moved down the “learning curve” and into mass production–which would happen once they were jump-started by injections of government-mandated cash–which would require scientific societies to sound the alarm and get governments on board the bandwagon. Why be picky when there’s no downside, they figured.
Another reason was the way which this controversy was framed–as a case similar to the banning of CFCs (ozone layer) and unfiltered coal emissions (acid rain), with “skeptics” being cast in the role of those (few, crank, paid-for) scientists who doubted or opposed such measures in the beginning, before the case became overwhelmingly clear.
Another reason was the apparent consensus of climatologists. Ordinarily this should carry great weight in deciding which side of a controversy is “fringey,” but for a variety of reasons climatology is a special case–the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Another reason was the general bias among “thinking people” in favor of an environmentalist perspective on issues affecting the environment. Why not be a little precautionary about it, the conventional wisdom went (and goes).
Another reason was that at the time these endorsements were made, the temperature was rising, ARGO buoys hadn’t been deployed, and alarmist projections that the rise would continue at that rate seemed fairly plausible. So why take a chance by delaying, ran the thinking.
Another reason was the well-funded and well-organized sales job the alarmists presented, and (I suspect) the well-executed internal “politicking” they engaged in to get the votes lined up beforehand.
Another reason (I suspect) was that the skeptical opposition was unorganized and hadn’t yet gotten its ducks in a row–and that it probably wasn’t given much of a chance to present its arguments in person to these societies. More likely, these societies were fed superficial refutations of skeptical arguments by the alarmist activists who had their ear.
Well that’s half-a-dozen reasons. I can think of a couple more, but I’ll end here.
I predict that there will be an inquiry into the IPCC. It will be held in about 2040. It will be held to try and discover why the IPCC were so conservative in their predictions….
Since we’re making predictions, I predict that John Brookes will be restrained in a rubber room in 2040.☺
Mike Smith,
Thank you for addressing Noelle’s question. I think that to a certain extent it was an important question that needed to be given something other than a glib answer.
Noelle,
Further to Mike’s comments, scientists are experts who focus on very narrow areas of expertise. They want to believe that their work is important and that their opinions in their areas of expertise should be heeded.
For scientists, having the UN convene a panel of scientific experts to provide advise to policy makers is a step in the right direction that should, logically, lead to other scientific panels on other subjects in the future.
National Academies are predisposed to believing that their advise on their areas of expertise should be heeded. Therefore when another scientific panel comes out with an assessment report they are predisposed to endorsing the recommendations. This is not a conspiracy but very human nature.
Unfortunately the National Academies are bureaucracies vested with self interest and there is nothing more difficult than convincing another human to change their mind. The flaws revealled in the IPCC processes and reports have only recently surfaced. It will take time for the National Academies to notice these deficiencies and slowly change the course of their endorsements. In the end we probably won’t really notice the change unless some diligent bloggers keep their eyes on the prize.
I hope this helps. More questions?
Theo Goodwin:
I’m going to turn this one back at you: Do you actually believe the premise of your question? That the physical mechanisms behind AGW are all hand-waving? That “the necessary physical hypotheses do not exist”? Really?
Have you ever read any of the papers on the topic? Or those cited in, say, Chapter 8 of the AR4 (reading it won’t burn your eyes or grow hair on your palms, my promise)?
It takes an impressive amount of willful ignorance to argue not that the hypotheses and theories in the climate science literature are flawed, which is a premise that can be debated, but that they don’t even exist, which is, frankly, a very difficult position to maintain.
I do not hear real, published scientists like Spencer or Lindzen claim that there’s no physical basis for AGW. Their arguments focus on reasons why the consensus climate sensitivity is too high. Lindzen has made predictions about future warming; what does that make him?
I appreciate Spencer because I like how he approaches thinking about the data. What I don’t like about his current line of thinking is that he proposes an alternative theory (“it’s all internal forcing driving clouds”), but doesn’t get very far explaining how exactly that happens, and why. It’s kind of a random walk, just because.
A thorough (3 parts!) examination of Spencer’s work came out recently. Anyone with an open mind should give it a read; while it’s quite critical of Spencer, the criticisms focus on the science.
PS: Here are the “couple more reasons” I didn’t mention a few posts above:
Guild solidarity. The situation was framed (or reflexively viewed without any external forcing) as yet-another-case-of-Outsider-Neanderthals-vs.-Enlightened-Scientists. I.e., Us. vs. Them. Tribal loyalty kicked in.
The Science-Guy mindset. Many scientific bigshots are marinated in a mindset expressed by Lord Kelvin’s dictum that if you can’t talk about something in numbers you don’t really know much about it. From this many of them unconsciously assume that if you CAN talk about something in quantitative terms–as computer climate-modelers were doing–you DO know something about it. That’s misleading, if climate is a chaotic system over long periods of time, and you can’t compute it with “forcing”-type equations.
Wanna bet? Go here:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/
I agree with Professor Carter that the IPCC needs auditing; the question which international body has the acceptable compentency to do this;
There is no body that I can think of which would be accepted by both sides of the debate (the warmists and the sceptics)
My view is that the IPCC should be disbanded and that each Govt who proposes or has followed its findings should have a Royal Commission to determine whether or not the IPCC findings in respect to carbon dioxide are sustainable or not
That means that NZ, UK; the European Union etc should have a Royal Commission
and that includes Aust whose Govt is currently proposing a ‘carbon tax’
The IPCC has in my view been discredited so there should be no reliance on its findings any more
The UN in my view has passed its ‘use by’ date and now it’s up to each country to determine whether or not there is AGW and whether or not as a result there should be a tax on man made carbon dioxide
My view – I prefer Professor Carter’s view – (most diplomatically expressed by him) adaption to natural climate changes should be what is concentrated on – and for each country that is different
This AGW stuff propogated by the UN is the greatest pseudo scientific fraud of our livetimes
So let’s hold each our own Govts accountable for each of their Royal Commission findings if my proposal is adopted
PPS: Another two reasons:
Faddishness. Fads can sweep through scientific fields for decades before being discarded or forgotten. Psychology, medicine, physics, cosmology, and ecology (among others) have had such episodes. There’s a book about how academia in particular is liable to this phenomenon, Flavor of the Month, by Joel Best.
Special interest. One of the main jobs of most scientific societies today is lobbying government for more resources–and advising governments on where to spend it. In this aspect they are special interest trade groups. If one of their “brothers” or clients comes to them asking help in getting government to move in some direction, the bigwigs in these societies are inclined to assent, like the officials of any trade-association.
For more on the trade-association aspect of “Science” today, see the knowledgeable and well-reviewed exposé, Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion, by Daniel Greenberg.
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
“Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?”
No, just climate scientologists, big oil companies, insurance companies, governments and self appointed demi-gods. No scientists.
ROTFL! I like it. Stealing it (as Swindlers’ List). Thank you!
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
“Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?”
Not a conspiracy in the sense you might suggest but more of a group think.
I’ve just retired as a British [middling] university lecturer. Just before I left we had a presentation by all the young environmental research staff on their research activities. About 20 of them. They ALL fitted CAGW into their research, however tenuous. Some of the linkages were quite embarrassing. They have to do it to get the money.
For instance one attributed a local change in some sea life to global warming. It took me a minute to check the local sea records to see there had been no change in 30 years. It didn’t phase them in the slightest. Wonder why I’m a sceptic??
Those who experienced the leading style and integrity of H. Schmidt know, that when he asks to scrutinize the work of the IPPC he means exactly what he says; he does not ask to “whitewash”. When he says “Betrüger” he really means “Fraudster”: H. Schmidt (unlike the other Schmidt) has always been very careful in choosing his words.
It is worthwhile to put the post in the context of the H. Schmidt’s whole keynote speech: “Responsibility of Scientific Research in the 21th Century”. The speech was delivered in January 2011 and has not been published by the MSM, which is logical because HS is too popular to openly present and debate his opinions when they are politically inconvenient.
These are the chapters of this long, remarkable address to the Max Planck Institute:
Problems of humanity
Globalization of the economy
Worldwide military upscaling
Global Warming
Urgent appeal (to the research community)
Common Rationality (research community)
Special problems of the Europeans
Aging of populations
A large, inter-European, inter-disciplinary research undertaking
Science and politics
Splitting of the top (research) organizations
As can be seen, “Global Warming” was just a small part of it. While the whole text is too extensive and would exceed the scope of this blog, it makes sense to read the full “Global Warming” chapter. I translated this piece. (Some English-polishing required).
“Global Warming”
“In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are at the same time concerned by the phenomenon of global warming and its supposed consequences. We know that there have always been natural ice ages and warm periods; however we don’t know how big the present and future contribution of man to today’s global warming is. The so called Climate Policy operated internationally by many governments is still in its infancy. The documents delivered so far by an international group of scientists (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) encounter skepticism, especially since some of the participating scientists have proven to be fraudsters. In any case, the objectives publicly stated by some governments are less scientifically, but -in fact- just politically justified.
It seems to me that time has come that one of our top scientific organizations critically and realistically scrutinizes under the magnifier the work of the IPCC and presents the resulting conclusions to the Public of our country in an understandable way.
In order to effectively reduce the human contribution to global warming, it seems to be important to switch in the 21st Century from hydrocarbons to other energy sources. This will also be necessary in the long term, because the existing reserves of crude oil, natural gas, coal, lignite, etc., are limited. Nuclear, solar and wind energies will come into consideration for the next decades (hydropower certainly only for a few geographic exceptions).
The European countries have opted for different energy policies, so far: England, Holland and Norway rely on their own reserves of hydrocarbons, France has made its electricity supply largely on nuclear energy; Germany is in the process to do without nuclear power as well as without its own – very expensive – coal and relies increasingly on imported hydrocarbons. Other European countries behave similarly. Solar and wind energies play a secondary but increasing role.
There is no common energy policy of the European Union for the time being. However, it is fairly certain that an answer to this question must be found over the next decades. In particular, the inevitable transition from hydrocarbons to other energy sources requires at first high expenditures in research and development, especially in Basic Research, to make renewable energy usable as suitable alternative.”
Good sense from a former well respected leader.
One Schmidt calling another a Betrüger! Is there no honour among Schmidts?
I am German.
And though Helmut Schmidt was Chancellor here in my young years, he is probably the most influential figure in Germany.
Measured not so much in direct powers (anymore), as he is no longer in office, but as the publisher of “Die Zeit”, a highly influential, intelectual and liberal weekly magazine.
He still is very well connected to national and international powerhouses.
He was the Chancellor who – against the left wing/peace-movement’s protests- had the Pershing II installed in Germany. After he lost his office 1983 (to Helmut Kohl), most people said he was the right man in the wrong (Socialist) party.
And whenever he gives a speech, he has thought things through and has the interests of a peaceful Europe always on his mind (he ie. suggested that Germany has to come up for European debts – not very popular here).
This for me means that he perceives the Global Warming hysteria as a threat to European stability and has strong doubts about the value and reasons of the IPCC.
I for my part am very suprised (or am I) that I have heard NOTHING of this speech on German News. Nothing, Nada. I have to read blogs in English to learn about this speech weeks later.
And what is the talk about conspiracy? The whole life consists of small and large conspiracies, starting by not telling your wife that you betrayed her. Or by lying to keep your job or get the payrise…
most scientist just live very well from this Global Warming alarm, they do not want to return the Nobel Price for peace (awarded to the IPCC in 1997) and I am sure being famous improves the mating chances.
If we look at history it consists of conspiracies, including but not starting with the Catholic Church, Cardinal Richelieu, Potemkin etc…
I cannot understand that people always tend to think that “this time its different”, be it with shares which will never come down or democracy, which for sure is a system that is absolutely lie-free…intelligent people often are very naive or stupid (and socialists and liberals are in my experience mostly very intelligent)
Now the Catholic Church is called IPCC, insists that climate rotates around man and is afraid to take back some claims because of all the niceties and the fear of punishment… how human
Only that they are preaching more and more with their pants down, or better with scientific data not showing a warming anymore (since 1998-2005). And they wre right that earth did warm up (as it cooled down before). They put a CO2 chart next to it and voila…publish or perish…
But they know that the audience will start to laugh soon, and fear is a strong motivator. The media does not want to be called names because they were willingly or unwillingly part of this…
and this “conspiracy” is so large because many, many chimed in and benefited from this panic, especially the media
just human
Daniel
The remarkable point about this speech is not that Helmut Schmidt called for an inquiry into the IPCC – the remarkable point is that he used the word ‘fraudsters’ (‘Betrueger’ stays the same in singular as in plural) in front of this august German scientific society.
He’s been a politicians in the topmost positions a country offers: as Minister of Defense, Finance, and finally as Chancellor. So he most certainly knows his way around, and knows what impact these words will have – and on whom.
I think this was aimed straight at the members of the Max Planck society who have been too cowardly to set their own house in order, because Schmidt knows full well that by mentioning the IPCC all the German participants therein are included.
I hope those who have been fence-sitting about the shenanigans of their colleagues will now feel encouraged to do something about them.
As for smearing him – teeheehee! He delights in being totally un-PC, and even in his 93rd year, he’s not stopped smoking, and will light up even in places where it is forbidden. So smearing with ‘Big Tobacco’ will run off him like water off a duck’s back. In fact, he probably supported Big Tobacco, by smoking all his life …
Would it faze them if you showed them is was just a phase? ;PpPp
Not related to the fazes of the faces of the Moon’s phases, tho’. :DD
Has the Schmidt hit the fan?
typo: “it was just a phase”
and maybe: “the fazing of the phases of the Moon’s faces”.
or SLT.
😎
Matt says:
March 7, 2011 at 5:39 pm
“@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.”
I can confirm that.
“federico says:
March 8, 2011 at 1:05 am
Those who experienced the leading style and integrity of H. Schmidt know, that when he asks to scrutinize the work of the IPPC he means exactly what he says; he does not ask to “whitewash”. When he says “Betrüger” he really means “Fraudster”: H. Schmidt (unlike the other Schmidt) has always been very careful in choosing his words.”
Federico is right. Helmut Schmidt is one of the most experienced German statesmen. He used the term “Betrüger” in front of an audience of researchers; his late wife of 60 years Hannelore “Loki” Schmidt was an academic (Biologist IIRC). He knows what he says and he means it.
When we mention the older climate skeptics, Dr Vít Klemeš, a renowned hydrologist, died exactly one year ago. See what Demetris Koutsoyiannis has to say about his ex-colleague:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/03/vit-klemes-1932-2010.html
syphax says:
March 7, 2011 at 10:19 pm
You do not address the matter of physical hypotheses needed to explain and predict the forcings that would cause dangerous warming. The 19th Century hypotheses about CO2 in the atmosphere are acceptable physical hypotheses. But they do not address the necessary forcings.
Your post reveals two things about you. One, you refer to Spencer’s book but you do not address his claims about physical hypotheses. Instead, you say you do not like his alternative theory. That was not the question I asked. You reveal that you are not a scientist when you raise the question of an alternative theory, something that is totally irrelevant to my question.
Your post is intentionally equivocal. You refer to physical hypotheses without distinguishing between the 19th century hypotheses about CO2 and the physical hypotheses about forcings that are essential to Warmista claims today. That ploy has become a standard Warmista trick. Gavin Schmidt uses it all the time. When he says that Warmista have physical hypotheses, he means the 19th century hypotheses. He knows that he does not have the physical hypotheses about forcings that are absolutely necessary to support a Warmista position. You and he are engaging in intentional duplicity. Can you not help yourselves? Are you like teenagers who cannot control your impulses? Do you have any idea what my opinion of you is? Do you really think that I would waste my time trying to engage you in what you might call science?
Two more reasons scientific societies endorsed CAWG (this makes a dozen):
Bandwagon effect, or domino effect. Once three or four scientific societies had endorsed the alarmist interpretation, the rest fell resistlessly into line, since failing to do so would amount to saying their colleagues were wrong.
Progressive drift. A conservative posited a “law,” based on observation of instances like the Ford Foundation, that “every organization that is not explicitly conservative becomes a liberal organization over time.” I.e., becomes more credulous and accepting of top-down measures.
val majkus says:
March 7, 2011 at 11:21 pm
“I agree with Professor Carter that the IPCC needs auditing; the question which international body has the acceptable compentency to do this;”
There are now sceptical bodies controlling Congressional Committees in the USA. At this time in the sordid history of Climategate, those bodies are the only bodies in the world who have credibility. You should look to them for guidance.