Shocker – Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC AR5 lead author

Dr. Ken Caldeira - Image from Stanford University

(via Tom Nelson) Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author, saying:

“…it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”

New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel – NYTimes.com

Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

But can anybody point to any important positive outcomes resulting from the IPCC AR4 process? [AR4 is shorthand for the panel’s fourth assessment, which was published in 2007.] Is there reason to expect a greater positive impact from the IPCC AR5 process? [This is the forthcoming fifth assessment of climate science and policies, coming in 2013 and 2014]

I am all for scientific reviews and assessments, and I think the multi-model comparisons reviewed by the IPCC have been especially useful. However, it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…

(As an aside, I recently resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter simply because I felt I had more effective ways of using the limited amount of time that I have to engage in scientific activities. My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.

His bio page says:

Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries.” He also serves as a professor (by courtesy) in the Stanford University Department of Environmental Earth System Science. Caldeira is a lead author for the upcoming IPCC AR5 report and was coordinating lead author of the oceans chapter for the 2005 IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage. He was a co-author of the 2010 US National Academy America’s Climate Choices report. He participated in the UK Royal Society geoengineering panel in 2009 and ocean acidification panel in 2005. He was a lead author of the 2007 U.S. “State of the Carbon Cycle Report. Caldeira was invited by the National Academy of Sciences Ocean Studies Board to deliver the 2007 Roger Revelle Lecture, “What Coral Reefs Are Dying to Tell Us About CO2 and Ocean Acidification.” In 2010, Caldeira was elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kbray in california

When ships start sinking, every living thing on board tries to jump off to save themselves…

Theo Goodwin

“Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.”
Bwaa ha ha ha!
What he said amounts to: “I have no criticism of the science or the scientists but I quit because the work is not worth doing.”
Nothing more need be said.
[Moderator’s NOTE: Theo, site policy requires a valid e-mail address. I had something to send you and it bounced back. Please provide a valid e-mail address. -REP]

Lew Skannen

I wonder whether the IPCC has considered the possibility that some of the scientists may, slowly over time, develop …. ethics.
It is worth hoping for and would devastate the ranks.

John West

“Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries.”
Can one important scientific discovery be attributed to Ken Caldeira?

ian

Spoken like a true politician. …or was he supposed to be a scientist ? I forget ..remember, there was never supposed to be a blend of the 2, but this is what happens when you try and mix science with politics. The most trusted group of individuals in industry are scientists, and the least trusted are politicians ..Now we see how things turn out when you blend the two. When science has an agenda, politicians begin lying…and lie and lie and lie and lie..
luckily science can be replicated and the truth came out, and will all come out. Like I said when Climate-gate 1 broke, this will take 5 years to go through the system, so far, its only 2 years. The dust has yet to settle. Stay tuned for many more chapters…
Ian

John A

My reply would be: if the work being done by others is so wonderful, why leave? I think that Ken has come to the conclusion that Richard Lindzen came to, that the IPCC is a tremendous waste of time for able scientists.

Jeremy

Rats also scurry to escape a sinking ship.
The writing is on the wall: HMS IPCC is sinking faster than the titanic. thanks in part to Donna Laframboise and her new book, as well as WUWT, Lord Monckton and many other skeptic bloggers… finally the lies of the unelected bureaucrats, unelected government institutions and unelected NGO’s are starting to backfire.
Soon Nobody with any sense will want to be associated with fraudulent CAGW

The credibility of anyone who uses the term “climate-science deniers” instantly drops to zero in my book. Caldiera’s just hit zero. Oh well!

The IPCC activity of comparing climate models is not scientific activity. Simply not science. So, it is a meaningless activity except for the illegitimate idea they have that climate models define global warming in combination with their two false hockeystick graphs for temperature and CO2.
There is no other area of science which has a political body tasked to survey it. As a political body, it is impossible for the IPCC not to politicize the findings, particularly as their mission is not to survey climate science but to specifically show the effects of global warming and its impacts—the constant assumption is and has to be that global warming is happening, regardless of the real world. To do otherwise would be to fail their mission. There is no other conclusion that the reports can report, it is their raison d’etre.

Andrew

Look at them run for cover! They cannot recant what they have said and written about in the IPCC without admitting to academic fraud, they wanna keep their jobs, right? So they back away slowly…’Nothing to see here folks, everybody move along’….

Charles.U.Farley

One by one the dominoes topple…..

Schitzree

I particularly like how I assures everyone that the science is still settled and the IPCC is doing a great job, he just has more important things to do… like anything else.

Schitzree

I meant how HE assures everyone, Not me.

It makes sense. As Donna has shown the IPCC is for people without a PhD. Once one becomes a scientist there are better things to do than waste time writing useless chapters.

Bryan A

I believe that there is a strong possibility that the Cooling Signal evident in the last 10 to 15 years is likely cause for (Quiet) concern among the scientific community trying to convince us that AGW is a fact. It therefore seems likely that Mr Caldiera’s resignation is likely due to what could be viewed as His own “Concerns” that the cooling will continue and the next report IPCC AR5 will still indicate that the Models show Catastrophic Warming if Man doesn’t act to mitigate it. He likely doesn’t wish to have his name associated with just such a report.
Could you blame him???

son of mulder

“Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change.”
The basic science (I assume the radiative physics part) was never enough to understand the climate system and justify decisions for pre-emptive trillion dollar committments.

Eyes Wide Open

Generally not raccoons that desert a sinking ship!

ldd

Wow – so who’s he trying to convince here, us or himself?

cjames

I first came to believe Ken Caldeira was having doubts about some of the IPCC positions when I saw this video of him entitled “Does increased evaporation lead to global cooling?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWsZJq_LQA
In the video he states that yes it does, putting him in opposition to the view of the IPCC.

This resignation statement was a bit like a sandwich.
A bit of a dig at the UN and the bureaucracy
A slap on the back for his colleagues
Another dig at the the ipcc
something for everyone, even a bit of ocean acidification

SES

A case of cold feet …

klem

Wow! The wheels are truly falling off.
It seems that alot of interesting things happen just after the last climate conference ends in failure.
I’m sure there is more to come.
Now if the news media would just pickup the stories involving the UNs REDD program. REDD has got to go.

olsthro

“It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.”
Really? What could be more important than to save the planet from pending disaster? (Sarc)
“The danger posed by war to all of humanity – and to our planet – is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming. I believe that t he world has reached a critical stage in its efforts to exercise responsible environmental stewardship.”
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
“I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency – a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.”
Al Gore

Magnus

AR4,5,6,7,8,9,10 … me thinks revisions are not good for those seeking consensus-building. They should’ve just stuck with the first version and learned from the fundamentalists in other religions. Never change a thing when you claim what is written is written by the Almighty!

Al Gored

While I remain confident that the ship is sound and robust and on the correct track, I just felt a need to go for a swim. Because of the unrelenting AGW heat of course.
As my statement confirms, I am still a worthy Team member and will be happy to accept contract work from the ship owners from my new island.

Konrad

The scrabbling of little paws on the tilting deck, a fading squeak and a small furry splash.

Fitzcarraldo

This begs the question…If everybody is trying to jump from the IPCC sinking ship why are quite a few skeptics here willing to jump on as reviewers?

Leon Brozyna

“Mongo only pawn… in game of life.”
Blazing Saddles (1974)

I guess there are plenty of enthusiastic youngsters waiting in the wings to take over his job and get a bit of travelling and planet-saving done before settling down to do their PhDs. It has to be one of the best gap-year(s) opportunities around. As long as, of course, they are incapable of independent thought. Those that are might well find better things to do with their time.

David, UK

“Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”
Anyone on either side of the debate must surely see this statement for what it is: a mere platitude. And a lame one at that. Dutifully announcing within earshot of his paymasters that he definitely, without a single, solitary doubt, has faith that the Emperor has new clothes. So now sceptics are “climate-science deniers?” Dishonest, and quite disgusting language. In fact, just what we’ve come to expect from the lamestream.

kwik

“I am all for scientific reviews and assessments, and I think the multi-model comparisons reviewed by the IPCC have been especially useful.”
Right, got it.
And the tipping point? Gone? No more to be seen?
Well, I guess if the world’s end is coming, one can just as well have fun.
Much better than comparing curves from a computer and writing reports on it.

R Barker

Maybe more scientists will want to put some distance between themselves and the IPCC. However, a number of influential people have a close relationship with government supported “clean” energy programs which use incentives, subsidies and mandates to make them work. They will not care what excuses are used to justify the flow of taxpayer money from the government’s coffers to their own, just as long as the money flows. Sustainability is waiting in the wings when the current scam loses its appeal..

old44

I thought it was blindingly clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices, you get the result you want.

pat

Shocker – Carbon price more about “finance” than “the environment”:
N.B. *****”This is less a discussion about the environment and more about finance,” said Kumar.
20 Dec: Deutsche Welle: EU responds to slump in carbon price
Author: Zulfikar Abbany
Editor: Nathan Witkop
European carbon prices jumped 30 percent almost immediately after the vote…
“Government’s have only just started to realize how much money they are losing,” said Sanjeev Kumar, senior associate at the environmental think tank E3G, in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
“Germany, the UK, and to a lesser extent Sweden, France and Italy have all been losing money,” he said.
E3G was one of 15 companies and lobby groups, including Dong Energy, Alstom, and Shell, that issued a joint statement at the weekend calling for intervention in the ETS.
If the plan passes the second vote next year, 15 percent of carbon allowances, around 1.4 billion, will be withheld starting in 2013.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the figure is raised to 2.5 billion relatively soon,” said Kumar, “it’s only a matter of time.”…
*****”This is less a discussion about the environment and more about finance,” said Kumar…
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15615242,00.html

AnonyMoose

He’s saying that the science is settled, so there’s no need for the science to be described again. He’s declared victory and is going home.

pat

BBC leaves out India and all the other Countries opposing this unilateral, EU-only tax – an absurdity given all airlines fly in and out of everywhere, thereby cancelling out each other’s emissions in the long run:
21 Dec: BBC: Business bites: Trade row fears over EU airline carbon emissions tax
EU plans to levy a emissions tax on airlines are valid, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled…
Opposed by Chinese and American carriers, it has already sparked tit-for-tat legislation in the US and is likely to provoke further sanctions…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16289618
21 Dec: EU Observer: China joins legal battle against EU aviation tax
The four carriers – Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Hainan Airlines – have the backing of the country’s air transport association, which claims the new carbon emission rules will cost Chinese airlines some €95 million.
The association asked all Chinese carriers not to take part in the EU carbon trading scheme, not to submit carbon emission monitoring plans or to negotiate with the EU on a bilateral basis…
Some airlines, such as America’s cargo giant UPS, are already thinking about re-routing flights in order to side-step the scheme and cut costs, reports the Wall Street Journal. The move is likely to end up creating more carbon emissions.
Mitch Nichols, president of UPS Airlines, told the newspaper that the company may look at redirecting flights between its hubs in Hong Kong and Cologne, Germany, by going through Mumbai. That will cut the cost of the tax by about a quarter because UPS would only be charged for the distance flown between Cologne and Mumbai. But the distance flown will increase by 1,100 miles, upping the emissions…
In a statement on Tuesday (20 December), the Association of European Airlines expressed fears of an imminent trade war should the plan go ahead. “Even if the ECJ (EU court) decides that the EU (emissions trading scheme) conforms with EU law, this will not resolve non-European countries’ vehement hostility,” it said.
EU climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard has refused to back down, however.
*****”It is not just an idea, it is EU law,” she told Financial Times Deutschland, stressing that the commission will not give in to pressure from the US or elsewhere.
http://euobserver.com/884/114700
*****it’s not only a very bad idea, but a very bad law, Connie.

Luther Wu

Caldeira must have discovered that the ‘brown shirts’ eventually came to a bad end.
(Wait ’til he discovers Trotsky).

David L

kbray in california on December 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm said:
When ships start sinking, every living thing on board tries to jump off to save themselves…”
Is it true it’s the rats that are the first to leave a sinking ship?

markus

Fitzcarraldo says:
December 21, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“”This begs the question…If everybody is trying to jump from the IPCC sinking ship why are quite a few skeptics here willing to jump on as reviewers?””
And here is my donation;
To overload the ship for a quicker sinking.

David

cjames says:
December 21, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I first came to believe Ken Caldeira was having doubts about some of the IPCC positions when I saw this video of him entitled “Does increased evaporation lead to global cooling?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWsZJq_LQA
In the video he states that yes it does, putting him in opposition to the view of the IPCC.
CJames, an inportant post, as everthing prior to this was speculation. If he really has doubts about the IPCC and CAGW, but refuses to say so in public, then I cannot respect his statement, despite understanding his economic reality.

Beesaman

Being situated in academia (I teach and carry out research In a large UK university) this all strikes me as very odd. What we have here is an academic walking away from the World’s largest funded gravy train. Very odd! Maybe another job is calling, one that needs him to create a certain distance from certain people and groups?

David L

Schitzree on December 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm said:
“…he just has more important things to do… like anything else.”
What’s more important than saving the world from irreversible global warming catastrophe????????

Sparks

What? Get Ken Caldeira Back here!!, I demand answers from him and his colleagues as to why they have advised my political representatives in my country to introduce a climate change Levey on it citizens, that has had a terrible effect causing ongoing fuel/energy poverty among our poorest and most vulnerable throughout some of the harshest winters in our countries recorded history, and within 24 months time this “introduction climate change Levey” will be a full blown financial penalty, a price on everything that will have huge consequences.
Drag that “rat” back to the sinking ship, All accountability has not been accounted for, lives have been lost and hardship brought to so many on the back of bad advice, Ken Caldeira’s resignation should not be accepted, How dare he call others “deniers” while he tries to weasel his way out of this.
A Cowardly B*s***d if I ever did see one, get back to your post and defend your position.
What a sickening display!!

ChE

He’s saying that the science is settled, so there’s no need for the science to be described again. He’s declared victory and is going home.

Sorta like Iraq. Cash in your chips while they’re… just go home and sleep it off.

ChE

Luther Wu says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Caldeira must have discovered that the ‘brown shirts’ eventually came to a bad end.
(Wait ’til he discovers Trotsky).

Baby Kim’s looking for scientists.

Number 7

“He participated in the UK Royal Society geoengineering panel in 2009 and ocean acidification panel in 2005”
Without a basic understanding of carbonates
PHD in what – politics?

cui bono

“…it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”
It’s very clear to the bureaucrats!

DirkH

Sparks says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“A Cowardly B*s***d if I ever did see one, get back to your post and defend your position.
What a sickening display!!”
That’s what journalists and scientists do; they never admit having been wrong; they just stop being wrong. Did you think CAGW comes with a money-back guarantee?

DirkH

Maybe his German (she sounds like that) Postdoc explained the hydrological cycle to him.
Julia Pongratz:

(Guess she doesn’t plan to become a Globalist UNFCCC con artist.)