(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.
Seriously.
Quotations from Chairman Ken:
Ok, Ken. Stop breathing.
“When”?
All the back slapping and endorsements was to distract them from his pockets bulging with computer tapes as he ambled out the door….
Nah. Too easy.
Great, if a scientist sees the TIMES OF CHANGE and joins WUWT! We are ahead
of our times and we will see more and more LAs, CLAs and Chairs change sides….
No nasty comments please…. we should welcome everybody with open arms until
only the little AGW dwarfs will obstinately remain on the other side. as the dinosaurs of
global warming…….folks, joy to the
world and welcome everybody who has come to his senses…..JS
This reminds me of something I pondered a few months ago. When all this AGW nonsense is shown to be mostly BS (I actually believe in an anthropogenic contribution to climate change, I just don’t believe anyone will ever be able to tease out the signal), what are we going to do with legions of “climate scientists” when the funding for “climate science” dwindles?
We’re talking about a boatload of otherwise useless biologists, “environmental studies” graduates and Ph.D. “climatologists” (who are neither meteorologists nor atmospheric physicists). I mean, there are just so many useless government jobs (and hopefully fewer in the future). What are we going to do with these folks? They have no other useful skills.
In 2010, Caldeira was elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
No doubt he’ll soon be resigning that position as well and for the same reasons?
One big rat leaving the ship, will not mean very much,since the IPCC is infested with them, A complete fumigation is required!
“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 contrived consensus created by dishonest scientists shows the whole claim to be based on a fraudulent premise. Prove the claim, there was no consensus.
Big Ego. Private Agenda. To paraphrase: “The consensus is sound, I don’t want to waste my time on it anymore”.
I see that he still endorses the party line.
So even though he still believes in the “cause” he realizes the jig is up.
I wonder if he really believes that we face climate-a-geddon.
If he did would he pull his shoulder from the wheel? What about the “children”? The poor heat stroked children!
I suspect this is more a face saving gesture to placate his warmist comrades than a sincere expression of solidarity.
One more rat deserting a sinking ship.
The stench from these odious rats as they scramble off the HMS gravy train is palpable!
I said in my presentation at the Heartland Conference in Washington last summer that the IPCC achieved its goal. Caldeira’s resignation and comments confirm this and underline the almost total control a small group had of the IPCC. They produced a predetermined scientific outcome, which was the real “settled science”. The job is done because CO2 reduction continues to drive the political and economic process. Canada quit Kyoto, but they didn’t quit their commitment to reducing CO2.
cjames
Excellent link there. Caldeira seems to have landed himself in the Roy Spencer camp. Who would have guessed that an IPCC coordinating author could ever believe in negative feedback from evaporation and cloud feedback.
So the question is: did he jump freely or did he walk a plank at swordpoint?
A question I have always had is: how much are these IPCC team leaders and lead authors paid?
I assume he found a better paying sinecure?
I guess he looked at the recent list of IPCC AR5 Expert Reviewers, saw “Anthony Watts” on it, then figured “What’s the use in staying?”
DirkH says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm
“Did you think CAGW comes with a money-back guarantee?”
The idea of political science verses observational Science would not suggest a money-back guarantee. although playing with political science will cost a lot, first to entertain and then to accredit consensus, therefor alleviating all fact from public perception. Getting money Back? No!
🙂
I think the British have a term, “Poppenjay”. It refers to a “twit”, who has been assessed by the Crown to be not quite able to handle the demands of being the “Lord of the Manor”. Yet, because of the “Royalty” system, he can’t be fired…or “done away with”. SO, he’s put on a stipend, and allowed to wear the “trappings” of Royalty (certain dress the commoners were by LAW not allowed to wear, reserved for the Royals, don’t you know!)…and go into the local Pubs an Theaters and be address as “your Lordship”. Although I wouldn’t qualify this individual as completely a “twit”, I would say that he now falls back to wearing his “Royal Robes” (I’m a PHD, I’m a ‘scientist’, I do IMPORTANT work, I’m sure I do!) and strutting about Stanford, being address as “Your Lordship”.
Good, keep him on his stipend and out of the way of anyone doing things of REAL value for mankind.
Hmm… nothing on surrealclimate about this yet.
Follow the money. Seriously….
” Ed Reid says:December 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm
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! ”
++1 ^
As soon as I hear that “d” word I write the person off as a coward.
I know Ken. Ken is a friend of mine. I know the breadth of work he is involved in and don’t doubt for a minute that he made a personal calculation on the opportunities he has, and the IPCC fell below more interesting funded work. Unlike some, Ken produces good science. While we don’t agree on the sufficiency and utility of the climate models, we do agree on the scientific challenges that fall within the scope of environmental science, many if not most of which are not strongly related to alarmism about CO2.
If he is walking away from the IPCC in a manner that does not create animosity within his peer group, I don’t find that offensive. At least he is finding better things to do and should be judged in that light.
David Schnare
Shocker – some of the fraudulent carbon cowboys get jail-time:
21 Dec: Reuters: UPDATE 1-German court finds six guilty in CO2 fraud trial
Guilty verdict in six cases, jail sentences for six men
Men took part in VAT fraud in EU carbon market
Deutsche Bank says uncovered no wrongdoing by its staff
By Vera Eckert and Kathrin Jones
Additional reporting by Nina Chestney, Editing by Anthony Barker
A German court on Wednesday sentenced six men to jail terms of between three years and seven years and 10 months in a trial involving evasion of taxes on carbon permits.
Judge Martin Bach said the men, aged between 27 and 66, were guilty of having participated in a conspiracy to evade around 300 million euros ($393 million) in value-added tax (VAT) between August 2009 and April 2010…
The way Germany’s flagship lender, Deutsche Bank, conducted emissions trading with some of those that have been convicted had left the door open for tax evasion, he added.
Deutsche Bank said on Wednesday that independent legal experts had so far found no wrongdoing on the part of the bank’s employees…
European police agency Europol estimates widespread VAT fraud cost EU member states an estimated 5 billion euros in lost tax revenue…
A separate trial in Britain is set to start next February, after seven suspects charged with carousel fraud pleaded not guilty in October.
The EU scheme has suffered a series of scandals since its launch in 2005, including permit theft, the recycling of carbon credits and hacking of carbon accounts.
To combat further fraud, the EU Commission proposed in October that spot carbon permits should be classified as financial instruments, but this still has to be approved by the EU Parliament and council of EU member states before it becomes law.
“The carbon market remains weak. More fraud or similar episodes would be quite detrimental,” said Matteo Mazzoni, carbon analyst at Nomisma Energia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/germany-carbon-fraud-idUSL6E7NL44O20111221
Did anyone read the comments at the NYT DotEarth link?
Unreal.
“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”
Translation:- I have made my money and there is no point for me to actually work for my living anymore so I am off to play at what I most enjoy.
Anyone else care to add a translation?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Why be hard and grudging to those who jump the wrong steamer? Lets receive them
well and much more will follow soon… the AGW front starts to crumble…..FINE. Also
as it is said: Scientific articles are being retrieved back by their climate authors.by high scores…
Another sigh that the AGW steamer has plenty of holes already….
Even in Germany after 1945: The mean Nazis received an American “CLEAN”-certificate,
took off their uniforms, learned to say “Good Day” again, put on tie and suit and were
great Democrats ever thereafter….
pat says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
I am surprised more is not being made of this development in the MSM upon which, in my opinion, the whole credibility of the EU ETS depends. And possibly the whole European economy and even the entire global warming scam.
The A4A (formerly the Air Transport Association) has made a statement:
http://www.airlines.org/Pages/news_12-21-2011.aspx
Officially the next move for American Airlines is to proceed to the British High Court and to comply under protest. But meanwhile Hillary Clinton has warned the EU to halt its plans to include the US airlines in the EU ETS “or face appropriate action”.
http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1413
There is no doubt that other world airlines such as China’s and India’s will also take “appropriate” retaliatory action which could unleash major reprisals on European Airlines operating outside of Europe or some other destructive trade embargos which would affect the already fragile European economy.
Durban may have ended predictably but 2012 is certainly going to start with a major environmental conflict and it is going to be fascinating to see how it ends.