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.
syphax writes:
“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.”
Sir, you are prisoner to a delusion. There is no alternative theory. And there is no theory. There is no set of physical hypotheses that can explain forcings. Spencer can only point the way that research should proceed. Someone has to do the research. No one has done the research. Somebody has to do the legwork to create reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict changes in cloud behavior in an atmosphere with increasing concentrations of CO2. Until some reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses are created, hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict cloud forcings, there is no theory of a physical basis for dangerous temperature increases from manmade CO2.
Noelle says:
March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Erroneous scientific group think is nothing new in history. Especially when it is politically and economically expedient to do so.
History of man is full of intrigues, schemes, secret plans, plots, conspiracies etc. to gain power or/and fame. Of course that neither proves or disproves AGW as such a thing. I think most readers here would agree that climategate proved at least some secret cooperation to hide information ?
federico says:
March 8, 2011 at 1:05 am
Note that Schmidt did not say whitewash, Bob Carter referred to the existing reviews as whitewashes.
Syphax said:
“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.”
Most of the commenters here seem to have ignored Syphax’s appeal. As the one who wrote the review of Spencer’s latest book, I’d like to see what people like you have to say about it. In my opinion, there isn’t much left of Spencer’s recent work… but I may be biased. Here’s the URL again:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
Concerning the existence or not of a conspiracy: the absolute silence of the German press about this speech is proof of its reality. Game, set, match.
To German readers here: as H.S. is publisher of “Die Zeit”, is there any chance it will print his speech, or report it (despite its liberal prejudices)?
Noelle: “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?”
What you are really asking is: “Do you think 1000 and 1 scientists can be wrong?”
The answer is: Yes. And the history of science is full of examples.
To name just one: Wegener’s idea of moving continents, the precursor of what we now call Plate Tectonics, was laughed at because none of those 1000 and 1 contempory scientist could think of a mechanism. And because they considered themselves the experts, it could not possibly be right.
In the case of the signatories of the declaration: I’m pretty sure that none of them would recognise the Eddington-Milne equations for radiation transport, let alone solve them.
Brian H said on March 8, 2011 at 6:39 am
Yes, that’s correct. Helmut Schmidt is the publisher of “Die Zeit”. And yes, he went so far to document his own speech therein:
http://www.zeit.de/2011/03/100-Jahre-KWG-Rede?page=3
But do we perhaps miss something in this version? Yes, you’re right. Fraudsters apparently never harmed the reputation of good old IPCC. And did he really say that “some governments’ publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed”? Not acording to his own paper.
it’s since January on the Die Zeit homepage
as most german papers, die zeit also printed some agw-critical commentaries in the past.
Conspiracy? Sorry, no.
Too bad Feynman isn’t still around to be part of this inquiry.
Dyson, perhaps?
When the letter c is sandwiched between s and e, it is always silent and superfluous except in the alternate spelling of ‘skeptic.’ So I can’t help but pronounce you sceptics as “septics.”
That said, a little background in the history of science is called for. Back in the late 20’s the American Association of Petroleum Geologists took an official stand on the budding controversy over Continental Drift championed by Wegener. Egged on by the great British scientist Harold Jeffries, Wegener’s hypothesis was repudiated and ridiculed for the next 3 or 4 decades, until more obvious and less statistical evidence became available (that not only the shape but the statigraphy of opposing continental shelves matched went over the heads of almost all these scientists). Wegener really did prove his case, but the proof was not appreciated by the experts.
Here in the U.S. we mostly fluoridate our water because all the dentists here are sure it’s a good thing. Most you Europeans don’t because you know better. Group think. Thirty years ago people here called fluoridation a communist plot, but as you former East Germans know, you were not liberated from fluoridation till the Wall came down. Thiomersal and other forms of mercury have been blamed for years on increasing autism rates, but it seems the scare was based on fraud at its outset. Even after the mercury vaccines were largely phasesd out autism diagnsis rates continued to climb, further casting doubt on the connection. But why do the rates climb? Probably due to increasing numbers of specialists who are trained to make the diagnosis.
The foregoing illustrates how science usually works–not only in the 16th century but in the 20th and 21st centuries. Junk science is the rule. Incompetence is the rule. Group think is the rule. You just couldn’t get published if you sided with Wegener, except maybe in Australia or South Africa. And I could never get published in my local newspaper if I tried to repeat any of this, while the quacks and dupes can get in any time they want. And now the local Unitarians are behaving like radical fundamentalists, breaking the law to save the world. Michael Servetus had best not come to Utah. –AGF
One nit to pick: I do not think Russia is part of the West. They are certainly not a first world nation.
Barry Bickmore says:
March 8, 2011 at 6:24 am
“about it. In my opinion, there isn’t much left of Spencer’s recent work… but I may be biased. Here’s the URL again:”
Sorry, you lost me with the title of your website:
“Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
A Local Front in a Global Battle ”
So you call people skeptical of AGW extremists. Telling attitude…
Hugo M says:
March 8, 2011 at 7:51 am
Yes, you missed something. You missed the part that was deleted for the “Die Zeit”.
Please read the original wording in the speech to the Max Planck Audience of January 11, 2011, which is available for the public:
http://www.mpg.de/print/990353
“Zusätzlich zu all den vorgenannten, von Menschen verursachten Problemen, werden wir gleichzeitig beunruhigt von dem Phänomen der globalen Erwärmung und der ihr unterstellten Konsequenzen. Wir wissen, daß es natürlicherweise immer Eiszeiten und Warmzeiten gegeben hat; wir wissen jedoch nicht, wie groß gegenwärtig und künftig der von Menschen verursachte Beitrag zur heutigen globalen Erwärmung ist. Die von vielen Regierungen international betriebene sogenannte Klimapolitik steckt noch in ihren Anfängen. Die von einer internationalen Wissenschaftlergruppe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) bisher gelieferten Unterlagen stoßen auf Skepsis, zumal einige der beteiligten Forscher sich als Betrüger erwiesen haben. Jedenfalls sind die von einigen Regierungen öffentlich genannten Zielsetzungen bisher weniger wissenschaftlich als vielmehr lediglich politisch begründet.
Es scheint mir an der Zeit, daß eine unserer wissenschaftlichen Spitzenorganisationen die Arbeit des IPCC kritisch und realistisch unter die Lupe nimmt und sodann die sich ergebenden Schlußfolgerungen der öffentlichen Meinung unseres Landes in verständlicher Weise erklärt.”
…and compare with your cited Zeit-Version
The deleted part is:
” …zumal einige der beteiligten Forscher sich als Betrüger erwiesen haben. Jedenfalls sind die von einigen Regierungen öffentlich genannten Zielsetzungen bisher weniger wissenschaftlich als vielmehr lediglich politisch begründet”.
Translated:
“…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.”
federico said March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Frederico, thank you very much for your effort. But let me clarify this: it wasn’t exactly me who left out anything, except, perhaps, a clear wording. It was Mr. Schmidt himself who, in his capacity as being a publisher of “Die Zeit”, either authorized or even directed the omission of these critical parts of his speech from an article in his own journal. If only someone could translate the passage from the “Zeit”, for everyone here to understand that by these two ommisions the meaning of the paragraph had changed course by 180°. Now it’s us, the people, who (as usual) do not understand anything without the generous help of a group of top notch scientists explaining to us at least the basics. Hmm, simply using the translation from the top of this page, the mutilated version reads:
http://www.zeit.de/2011/03/100-Jahre-KWG-Rede?page=3
DirkH says:
“Sorry, you lost me with the title of your website:
‘Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
A Local Front in a Global Battle ‘
“So you call people skeptical of AGW extremists. Telling attitude…”
I call SOME people skeptical of AGW extremists. Specifically the ones who dismiss mainstream science because they uncritically accept complete nonsense spouted by the likes of Monckton. You will not find me ever claiming that all people skeptical of AGW are extremists.
Haven’t you (or your pals hereabouts) ever used the word “alarmist” or some such to describe a subset of those with whom you disagree? So why don’t you drop the faux outrage and read the critique. Are some hard question’s raised about Spencer’s work, or not?
Barry Bickmore says:
March 8, 2011 at 6:24 am
You might have noticed that I began a discussion based on Spencer’s book. My claim is that there are no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the forcings that are necessary if rising CO2 concentrations are to cause dangerous increases in temperature. Can you produce such hypotheses?
As regards your review of Spencer’s book, the very words that you use to introduce the reviews to this forum scream “Cheap Shots.”
Syphax said:
“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.”
This forum is for adults to discuss science and its corruption. You can state theses. You can criticize positions. But do not assign homework. If you cannot state the position in your own words, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it then do not attempt to address it.
Hugo M says:
March 8, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“federico said March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Yes, you missed something. You missed the part that was deleted for the “Die Zeit”.
Frederico, thank you very much for your effort. But let me clarify this: it wasn’t exactly me who left out anything, except, perhaps, a clear wording. It was Mr. Schmidt himself who, in his capacity as being a publisher of “Die Zeit”, either authorized or even directed the omission of these critical parts of his speech from an article in his own journal. If only someone could translate the passage from the “Zeit”, for everyone here to understand that by these two ommisions the meaning of the paragraph had changed course by 180°.”
Hugo M.: I agree with you that the text was “adapted” either by Schmidt himself or he authorized the ommisions for “Die Zeit” (which seems to me the most probable of both options). I don’t see though a that the meaning changed 180° as he still calls to thoroughly scrutinize the IPCC, which implies that he doesn’t fully trust the work of the IPCC.
Bickmore should ask Anthony (via the Tips and Notes tab) to have it posted here as a thread, and to get Spencer’s response. Then we can chew it over.
Who’s “spouting” now?
Many of us here have wished that Monckton would collaborate with someone who would get him to avoid overstatement, issue more qualifiers, be more nuanced, concede a few points, etc. But, if one eliminates those flaws, he’s more on target than those he criticizes. His critics, like Abraham, have behaved more discreditably, and spouted more nonsense.
To me this seems to be the another leak in a political dam which is ripe for bursting. Nigel Lawson (a former Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Thatcher government) in the UK is saying something similar, but less sharply. This is a challenge to warmists since it is a breaking of a political taboo, if they fail to stem the leak other lesser political figures will start to widen the leak and the flow will go on growing.
Remember AGW is a double edged sword for governments; yes they provide good excuses to raise taxes but they also spend billions on silly green projects like wind farms when electricity could otherwise be produced for a fraction of the price using shale gas. So a politician wanting to be elected could run on a populist ticket of “screw the cuts and cut the windfarms” ticket.
With regards to the conspiracy theories we have only to look at the pathetic BBC documentaries by the president of the Royal Society (Nurse) to see how willingly duped some of the leaders of the national scientific institutions are.
Theo says:
“You might have noticed that I began a discussion based on Spencer’s book. My claim is that there are no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the forcings that are necessary if rising CO2 concentrations are to cause dangerous increases in temperature. Can you produce such hypotheses?”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “physical hypotheses,” Theo. Can you give me some examples?
“As regards your review of Spencer’s book, the very words that you use to introduce the reviews to this forum scream ‘Cheap Shots.'”
So what you’re saying is that you don’t want to read it.
Theo said:
“This forum is for adults to discuss science and its corruption. You can state theses. You can criticize positions. But do not assign homework. If you cannot state the position in your own words, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it then do not attempt to address it.”
So Syphax says that people “ought to read” something, and for you that constitutes “assigning homework”? You seem to be finding all kinds of excuses not to read a critique of the book you like. Syphax is “assigning homework,” rather than summarizing in his own words so you don’t have to deal with the actual evidence presented. The way I introduced the critique “screams ‘Cheap Shots'” for some undisclosed reason. What’s next?
If someone SUGGESTS that you read something, and you don’t feel you have the time or inclination, all you have to do is not respond, or say you have too much else to read, right now. Nobody expects everyone to read everything that is suggested to them. BTW, if you click the links to the critique, all three parts have a 1-paragraph summary at the beginning.
Roger Knights says:
“Many of us here have wished that Monckton would collaborate with someone who would get him to avoid overstatement, issue more qualifiers, be more nuanced, concede a few points, etc. But, if one eliminates those flaws, he’s more on target than those he criticizes. His critics, like Abraham, have behaved more discreditably, and spouted more nonsense.”
I’m glad. Like I said, I don’t label all critics “extremists.”
Regarding John Abraham’s critique, however, I have actually looked up a lot of the literature Monckton cites, as well, and it turned out Monckton was badly mischaracterizing in a large number of cases.