With Rajenda K. Pachauri now “toast“, and an AR6 in the works, this is this most logical choice forward.
Guest essay by Tom Fuller
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Nominate Judith Curry as the next Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, will elect a new chair this year. The post is currently being filled by an interim chair following the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri.
The United States has currently nominated Dr. Chris Field. We petition the current administration to withdraw his nomination and instead nominate Judith Curry.
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her integrity, understanding of the science and related policy issues make her a better choice, for the IPCC and American interests as well.
SIGNATURES NEEDED BY APRIL 03, 2015 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Editorial correction to my comment ‘John Whitman on March 4, 2015 at 3:48 pm’
The second paragraph should be changed to read “I think it is likely that the next chairman of the IPCC will be Chinese because it would be the politically nuanced move to attempt to have the Chinese
omebebe more inclusive in the belief system.”John
It’s positively the last thing JC should even contemplate doing, or permitting her name be put forward to do so. She would find herself immersed in a toxic, politically biased, bath of greenpus. From her current position she is free to proffer scientific commentary and informed critques that carry not only considerable gravitas but remain unencumbered by the constraints of politically motivated (C)AGW religious zealotry
What is the point of this post? She doesn’t want the position, explicitly stating that it’s “[h]ard to imagine a worse job (and I hate traveling all over the place). Re the IPCC, my preferred position is armchair pundit”
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/03/ipcc-in-transition/#comment-680054
-ß
It’s not gonna happen, so sign up and get the protest numbers out there. I doubt if JC would accept, but it’s a nice thought that she might turn down the post, giving her reasons. Dream on, eh?
But, Prof. Curry is a Scientist, with integrity and honesty. The question is, would she turn it (IPCC) around and rid it of the corrupt political influence, or would her influence be curtailed? It could prove to be somewhat frustrating for her. Bearing in mind, it’s purpose is to promote the nonsense. Any about turn would render it no longer fit for purpose.
So, how would it play out with Prof. Curry at the helm? She would certainly raise it’s credibility.
Eamon.
A couple of hours ago my vote was 455.
…I hope I don’t get buried with discount coupons from the White House for CO2 detectors and Global Warming umbrellas.
Done. I even used my school email. Legit.
I think Monckton is better suited to cleaning up ipcc. Could someone turn off the heat in raul grijivala’s office. Let feel the effect of global warming.
[Snip. ad hominem attacks on an article author is not permitted. ~mod.]
Dear Prof. Curry if you did this, you could choose who you wanted to audit. best of luck.
I have tried to sign the petition. It says that for my signature to register, I must wait for an email with a confirmation link. It has not arrived all day. How are others managing to sign?
bones
it arrived in a few minutes. There is no ‘confirm your email’ section so perhaps you just mistyped? Why not try again?
tonyb
Better yet, how about we just put the IPCC out of its and our misery?
More lame ideas, Mr. Tom Fuller? What a waste of time.
We don’t want any dirty, stinking, rotten and corrupt UN intergovernmental panels at all, since this invention is just a vehicle to pave the way for the NWO.
Nobody wants any dirty, stinking, rotten and corrupt NWO.
It’s the merger of Stalnism and Fascism on steroids and they will create the biggest mass murder in the history of human kind un the name of saving the planet.
Please wise up and read UN Agenda 21 and http://green-agenda.com
Thank you.
R. de Han –
+1000
MCR
Don’t reform the IPCC. Ditch the IPCC. Lukewarmers and moderates will just cost you slower, not less. While there is an IPCC there will be more and more white elephants to trample the economies of the West. Say no to the IPCC and no to white elephants. Actually, don’t say…yell.
Nobody knows what the climate will be like a month out from now, so nobody should open their yap one millimetre on the subject of future climate. As for telling us to prepare for uncertain eventualities and extremes, we already have people for that. They’re called engineeers, and white elephants just get in their way and soak up funds and cred for sensible projects. The climatariat does not have a message. The climatariat IS the message.
So absolutely no IPCC.
Tango the QANGO out the door.
The IPCC is not an organization of scientists. It was created to provide ‘scientific’ cover for those promoting the fiction of catastrophic, anthropogenic, ‘global warming’. Its sole aim was, and is, to give a false legitimacy to a foregone conclusion, in the service of an anti-capitalist, ‘global governance’ agenda. That mission is the antithesis of the scientific method. It is a job for time-servers and bureaucratic hacks. I cannot imagine anyone with integrity going to work there.
The IPCC should be abolished and its ashes strewn to the far corners of the Earth.
/Mr Lynn
You’re asking us to denominate Dr. Chris Field. A picture of him with a mention of his accomplishments and any of your objections to him would be nice.
Migawd. Would Dr. Curry want this job? Talk about your Augean Stables….
.Judith would undoubtedly be an ideal choice. But it’s naïve to expect a political organisation to appoint a scientist with the appropriate qualifications, simply on merit. The appointee needs to be a political mercenary to reach the appointee level. Someone who believes that money trumps science and can live the lie and still sleep at night. I believe that she possesses more integrity than to join those climate clowns parading before the MSM.
Appointment is NOT a winning strategy.
The IPCC, UNFCC and WMO and UN and their bureaucrats are EVIL.
Their destruction will win the day.
What to do.
Rendition, Detainment and Forget.
The CIA’s “black prisons” in Europe, Africa, and southeast Asia are still operational.
Rendition: capture the bureaucrats of the IPCC, UNFCC and WMO and a Mr. Bon Ki Moon.
Detention: send the bureaucrats to the former CIA black prisons.
Forget: with the bureaucrats stripped naked in the bolding cels, lock the doors and gates. Walk away.
Without tools to escape the bureaucrats will scrum to their “animalistic instincts”, barbarism, sodomy, cannibalism. In short order they will kill themselves, and eat the evidence.
A fitting end to Bon Ki Moon, by his most … beloved. Sad … his Beloved is without … a nice Chianti and Fava Beans.
Just signed the petition.
We’re up over 800, with only 99,200 to go by April 3rd!
I’m sure she has the scientific integrity, but the IPCC is not a global science forum, it is a global forum requiring the translation of up-to-date scientific agreement, disagreement, agreement to disagree and refusal to disagree amiably into policy recommendations for governments.
My view is that you need a scientific head-honcho who oversees the writing of the scientific summaries and you need a different leader to focus on the translation of that science into policy.
I agree that you need that second person to be every bit as full of integrity as the scientific leader. But you also need that person not to be filled with political dogma, rather to present choices available to politicians which may travel in different directions depending on political viewpoints, financial constraints or bureaucratic realities.
What you want from that second person, however, is the ruling out of options demonstrably shown to be inappropriate, unworkable or financially irresponsible. That could involve pointing out that the cost structures of certain technologies do not make them economically acceptable at this time, that certain technologies would not be competitive in certain geographies and that certain data sets do not yet permit certain conclusions to be drawn.
I would like to see discussions about:
1 How likely is it that the next 25 years will see continued temperature stasis due to lower solar activity through cycles 24 and 25?
2. If that gives us a technological window of 25 years to create and commercialise certain renewable energy technologies on a timetable which is not driven by fear of runaway global warming, which technologies would be most beneficial to develop on that timescale?
3. How much of a risk do scientists consider there to be from high solar output during cycles 26 and 27??
4. If so, what adaptation scenarios should be undertaken during a 25 year window of stasis, if any??
rtj1211
You suggest
Sorry, but that is back-to-front:
the IPCC decides policy then translates that policy into ‘science’.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
1
amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
2
by politicians approving the SPM
3
then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
The IPCC is a political organisation but you seem to have the mistaken idea that it is a scientific organisation.
Richard
Why this is a bad idea,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html
“The influence of global warming deniers, consisting of a small group of scientists plus others that are motivated to deny global warming…” – Judith Curry, 2006
“Gore’s statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this” – Judith Curry, 2006
“We’re looking at a much worse [Hurricane] risk than people were thinking about a year ago …some places are going to become uninsurable.” – Judith Curry, 2006
Wow.
Who better than someone who has drunk the Kool-Aid and has subsequently had to throw it up?
What revulsion must Dr. Curry feel for having been gulled thus? How resentful must be her regard for the catastrophe quacks?
Nothing like the reformed sucker, eh?
😎
If all the IPCC ever concluded was, “Yes, the climate changes at times. We don’t know why. We’re trying to find out.” then they might approach being a scientific organization. But they already know the only “why” they want to know. They were founded on it.
Gunga Din
You say
What they may or may not “want to know” is not relevant. The reality is:
If all the IPCC ever concluded was, “Yes, the climate changes at times. We don’t know why. We’re trying to find out.” then they might approach being a scientific organization. But they already know the only “why” they must assume and are allowed to consider. They were founded to promote the assumption and their documented “Role” demands that they do.
I explain this in my post you quoted.
Richard
Why nominate Judith Curry? She does not understand the Law of Entropy. It is gravity which “traps” thermal energy, not back radiation. There is solid empirical evidence now in a vortex cooling tube that centrifugal force produces a temperature gradient, as does the force of gravity. The evidence is here along with the explanation based on the laws of physics.
This is what climatologists need to understand ….
Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot’s earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the “fall” or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. [source]
That is why in a planet’s troposphere there is homogeneous molecular (PE+KE) when entropy is a maximum and so there are no unbalanced energy potentials. And that is why there is a temperature gradient formed by gravity and not by back radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide etc.
Why nominate Judith Curry? She does not understand the Law of Entropy. It is gravity which “traps” thermal energy, not back radiation. There is solid empirical evidence now in a vortex cooling tube that centrifugal force produces a temperature gradient, as does the force of gravity. The evidence is here along with the explanation based on the laws of physics.
This is what climatologists need to understand ….
Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot’s earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the “fall” or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. [source]
That is why in a planet’s troposphere there is homogeneous molecular (PE+KE) when entropy is a maximum and so there are no unbalanced energy potentials. And that is why there is a temperature gradient formed by gravity and not by back radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide etc.