(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.
The scrabbling of little paws on the tilting deck, a fading squeak and a small furry splash.
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?
“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.
“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.
“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.
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..
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.
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
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.
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.
Caldeira must have discovered that the ‘brown shirts’ eventually came to a bad end.
(Wait ’til he discovers Trotsky).
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?
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.
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.
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?
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????????
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!!
Sorta like Iraq. Cash in your chips while they’re… just go home and sleep it off.
Baby Kim’s looking for scientists.
“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?
Queen said it!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&w=420&h=315%5D
“…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!
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?
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.)