(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.
owns the company which is doing the same work with less people….
sooooooo… conflict in interests… and he is getting out…
are we growing a conscious here or what?
Rats and sinking ships come from the wrong metaphor. Perhaps Dr Caldeira has read about the lady from Riga, who went for a ride on a tiger.He seems to be an actual scientist, i.e. someone who can be led by data, even data which contradicts cherished beliefs. When riding a tiger, make sure that you’re not the one left behind pulling at the reins while everyone else scuttles into the bushes.
The game will be reaching its end when politicians start hopping off their furry feline steed. Sure as eggs it’ll be scientists who are left to be gobbled up. But not Dr Caldeira.
JF
What? Doesn’t he want another Nobel Prize?
=============
Poptech says:
December 21, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Hubris Unbound! See climate scientists, so-called, leap the tallest buildings, stop a speeding locomotive, apply for grants…
Climate science is a baby in the birth canal. To compare a mainstream climate scientist to Kepler, Galileo, or Einstein is like comparing the first physician to use whiskey on his patients with a modern day anesthetist.
Isn’t Dotearth Revkin? If so, he has gone lunatic. NYT went lunatic long ago.
Time is a future resource!
Poptech says:
December 21, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Sounds a lot like a furry rodent carefully combing his hair before departing stage right………..
How many wheels are left on this cart anyway???
Cheers, Kevin.
Poptech,
ARE YOU KIDDING, the NYTimes as a source of real information, good god, take off your blinders and look around………….
the NYTimes PRAISED STALIN, yes, that RAT B——D STALIN, and they (the NYTimes) told us how GOOD things where in the Ukraine (the breadbasket of that part of the world, quite like Kansas has been and still is).
GOOD GOD MAN PUT DOWN THE KOOLAID and pick up a glass of water, or Coors, or Jim Beam, or anything other than the koolaid………….
I’ve seen the future based on the past, and it looks like…
confused yet?
The Inter-Academy Council concluded in their Investigation of the IPCC:
“• The IAC pointed out that there is no formal process or criteria for selecting Lead Authors, and
cautioned that “The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for
author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment.” (p. 18). They alluded to the problem again later when they observed “Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a
full range of thoughtful views are considered.” (p. 20)
• They also called upon the IPCC to develop policies governing conflict of interest, including
intellectual conflicts of interest in which Lead Authors are in a position of reviewing their own
work, or have revealed through speeches, public statements or writings that they hold “fixed
positions” (pp. 46-47).”
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
As the IPCC did not implement their advice. It would be up to governments and organizations with obvious conflict of interest, such as Greenpeace / WWF / Munich Re, to withdraw employees which were nominated as Lead Authors.
“Lord Adair Turner announced today that he will step down as chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) from spring next year…,
Lord Turner has been chairman of the CCC since its launch in 2008 and played a central role as the independent body emerged as a high-profile advisor and watchdog for the government’s low carbon agenda.
“Chairing the CCC for the first four years of its existence has been a pleasure and an honour,” Lord Turner said in a statement. “The CCC has a vital role in ensuring that the UK commits to and sticks to a feasible path towards a low carbon economy, making a fair contribution to reducing global emissions and reducing the dangers of harmful climate change.”
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2134109/lord-turner-step-chair-climate-committee
News probably related to my previous post:
“The government’s flagship programme to transform the energy efficiency of 14 million homes in the next decade will fail and only reach only two to three million households, according to an unprecedented attack from the government’s own climate advisers.
The warning comes from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which on Tuesday for the first time published an open letter criticising government policy. It follows soaring energy bills and the news that one in four homes are now in fuel poverty.”
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2134082/green-deal-fail-governments-climate-advisers-warn
Lots of problems for the UK climate-crisis industry.
“It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”
============
With this quote from Caldeira, the use of “denier” clearly shows where he stands. He’s a ‘Team’ player and saw the writing on the wall and is jumping ship. The presteige of being a lead author of one of the chapters written by an International Panel on Climate Change was not enough to keep him aboard? Is there panic among the crew?
If, as it appears to be, the climate continues into the cooling phase of the 60 year cycle, will we see a mass exodus of the ‘believers’ to suddenly claim a revelation to become ‘climate realists’ (skeptics)? This could be interesting to watch.
@max hugoson
‘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” ‘
We do have a word ‘popinjay’. It means a dandy or a fop.
The rest of your discussion about lords of the manor, stipends, being addressed as ‘your lordship’ etc is mostly drivel based on too much Hollywood and too little actual history.
But the grain of truth is that there were largely ignored ‘sumptuary’ laws to regulate people’s dress in much of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Of course these applied to the early American colonies as well…where they were equally largely ignored.
If you wish to bash us Brits, suggest you choose firmer grounds than this.
The UNFCCC is a political convention that politically establish that global warming, climate change, climate disturbance etc is human driven by human made CO2 and that we have to radical change our way of living to prevent disaster in the future.
The climate models input are basically UNFCCC conform. IPCC was established in the UN system under UNEP. So IPCC is also producing mostly UNFCCC conform reports.
It’s mostly “science” based on politics. So if you are a scientist it’s mostly a waste of your time.
And so it ends.
Slowly fading into the back-ground as – one by one – people and governments withdraw from activities and policies until the AGW-scare becomes a half-forgotten memory.
Before the Copenhagen COP two years ago I predicted that Conference would be the begining of the end for the AGW-scare. And so it has proved to be.
The Cancun COP stalled. The Durban COP was a total farce. One country (Canada) has already stated it has abandoned the Kyoto Process.The worst fears (e.g. spread of malaria) are being recanted. Even the journal ‘Nature’ has started to publish papers which do not support the scare. And resignations from involved people have started (e.g. the Chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and an IPCC Lead Author).
Meanwhile, those with a history of support for the AGW-scare continue to proclaim they were right to support the scare and they still support it. Some of them proclaim their support as they resign from involvement.
The scare is dead. Long live the scare (until it has been forgotten).
Richard
Dr. Dave says:
December 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm
…………”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.”
Biofuels?
Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries”.
Are there others at the institution whose job is “to make trivial scientific discoveries”?
HAHAHA!!! His note in parentheses sounded like “No, no. Everyhting’s fine. The ship is not sinking at all. You guys stay. Everything is fine. Yes, yes, I’ll stay in contact. But I really must be on my way.” /RUNS AWAY!
he has finished his training and past with flying colours now he can have a political career
Well, there are a number of ways of viewing this.
1) He’s a committed “Warmist”, the rest of the group are in the same camp, so there’s no need for him to stay to ensure that nothing off-message gets through the process of censorship.
2) He’s having doubts, but doesn’t want to rock the boat and thus threaten his departmental income stream & invites to places warm for meetings.
Now, which one of these options do I have least respect for?
Difficult.
He will be sadly missed, whoever he is.
DirkH says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Excellent video Dirk – but when you actually listen to watch she says – it’s what most skeptics have been saying for years! i.e. increased moisture equals increased clouds equals increased albedo equals lower temps – still based on a model though!!
Can we now quote that back at the warmista!
Back on topic – it looks like this guy has definately ‘backed’ away from the IPCC stance – his statement is rather lame and seems to indicate a general malaise. I’m still waiting for Jones to come clean…………are you there Phil???
must be tired — ‘watch’ – should be what – I need a drink !!
Like all the others above have already intimated, it’s all CYA code-speak.
Recently, I’ve begun to wonder what a post-CAGW world will be like? Yes brothers and sisters, it will come to pass that the URL’s of these rabid charlatan CAGW web sites will all report back with a new message – 404.