by Drieu Godefridi
Mr. Chairman,
Firstly, I’d like to congratulate you on your appointment as the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If I may, please allow me to take this opportunity to submit to you five questions on the nature of your organisation, which terms itself a “scientific body” (ipcc.ch):
1. The last word, in the IPCC reports, belongs to the General Assembly (“Principles Governing IPCC Work”, article 11).
Is it true that the vast majority of the people in this assembly are not scientists, but civil servants and representatives of the governments, NGOs, etc. without any scientific credentials required?
2. The IPCC has three aims: to summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact.
Is it correct that two of these objectives require value judgments, which are the province of politics, not science?
3. The third part of the last IPCC report (“AR5”), published in 2014 and 2015, urges Western countries to opt for “de-growth”, i.e. negative growth.
Could it be argued that such recommendations have no connection at all with science?
4. The IPPC attempts to deduce, in its reports, the nature of climatic impact from its own summary of climatic science and set standards based on such.
Would you agree that such a claim exemplifies a naturalistic fallacy, as defined by Hume’s law (do not infer how the world ought to be from the way it is)?
5. If, as suggested by its composition, objectives and methods, the IPCC is not in fact a scientific body at all, as it appears to be, but in fact a political body, is it not moot that the very essence of its reports is political as well?
If the answer to these five questions is yes, Mr. Chairman, is it not time to reform the IPCC?
Drieu Godefridi
PhD (Sorbonne), author of “The IPCC : a Scientific Body?”, Texquis, 2012.
Update: The web link was corrected from ippc.org to ipcc.ch on October 22nd.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Brilliant questions to the new IPCC head. Spot on.
Probable the ‘most important ‘ question the head of the IPCC think he will get asked in Paris is ‘tea or coffee ‘ , its a meaningless talking shop for true believers , hangers on looking for cash and NGO’s who ‘need ‘ face time .
Still on the up side , plenty of opportunities for some Christmas shopping , and no doubt he will enjoy his stay in one of Paris finest, and therefore expensive, hotels and at lest given he will be driven everywhere he will not have to worry about taking the metro.
Here’s hoping Lord Monckton parachutes in…
…on second thought, he should invent a new way to crash the party. They might have their AA batteries ready.
Human-piloted is so 20thC. Hexacopter landing on desk belonging to absent delegate from little-known country and plugging direct into microphone socket is the way to do it. Plus if the security guys try to remove it, it just hovers near the ceiling out of reach until they go away.
Your first sentence was close, but in Paris it will be …”red or white?” (As in his choice of wine).
Scott –
Love it.
Mine’s Red. Thanks.
Auto
I very much doubt that there will be a public response to these questions.
That shouldn’t stop trying
350 years instrumental records of CET. Coldest month is January, warmest month is July.
This graph smashes the CO2 hypothesis in mind of any reasonable person.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-J.gif
but the world is full of unreasonable people.
Vuk,
This shows the same thing, and the data comes from arch-alarmist Phil Jones:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
The same step changes, whether CO2 was low, or high. Thus, CO2 makes no measurable difference in global T.
Answering for the new Chairman: “Yes, but we’re too urgently important for science because … science.”
to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change
==========
why is the IPCC only evaluating the negative impact? why is it not also evaluating the positive impact?
Because in all the years that I have been interested in this scam, there have not been any positive impacts, only negative and apocalyptic!
they not only give neg. impacts…they do not mention natural forces..volcanoes,, sun…I read from a geologist…one molecule out of 85,000 in the atmosphere is manmade…whereas 35 out of 85,000 is natural yet we are more concerned about that one manmade
Where do the 84,964 other molecules come from?
Those must be created by yhe the “undead”, i.e. they are the preternatural ones.
I believe you forgot the word CO2
“1 C02 molecule out of 85,000 are man-made against 35 molecules out of 85,000…”
That’s a silly question GTL- they’ve always been there!
@Paul Sarmiento
Yea, I got that. Not my point.
Currently CO2 is 400ppm, 4 of each 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. There are good arguments (I do not agree) that approximately 1 in four (the entire increase from 280ppm to 400ppm) are man made. We really do not know how much of the 120ppm increase from per-industrial times are man made because no one has accounted for, or knows of, all the inputs and take up of CO2 in the atmosphere. We cannot even be sure that 280ppm is the pre-industrial content of CO2. How do we get to 1 of 35 in 85,000?
Like GTL, I am unsure of the original claim of 1 in 85,000 molecules.
4 out of 10,000 molecules are CO2. If prior to manmade emissions CO2 was circa 300 ppm, and if man is responsible for the entire increase to about 400 ppm, then that would suggest that approximately 1 out of 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
I blame the increase of CO2 on all the guys that are feeding us, they are using extravagant amounts of the gas to grow foods like tomato’s , cucumbers , grapes and other foods, stop them right now before they can supply Paris with luscious dinners for these freeloaders!
Politicians spend their time trying to scare the populace about something then presenting a method to obtain salvation from what the people are now scared about. If the IPCC politicians show that there is a positive impact to climate change into a new ‘Climate Optimum’ in fact it may be almost as good as the Medieval Warm Period; how would they manage to get approval for more powers and more taxation? Therefore, the political IPCC is in the ‘hell-fire and damnation’ mode to scare people into agreeing with otherwise unpalatable actions by the politicians.
Because in all the years that this scam has been going on, there have been no positive impacts, only negative and apocalyptic impacts. Things aren’t going to change now, especially with Paris just over a month away.
Off topic; the press in the UK are predicting a bad winter due to a strong El Nino and the coldest Atlantic Ocean for 80 years (so much for the missing heat). The Jet Stream is set to move South in a matter of weeks and stay there. Hopefully the Paris Conference will be snowed off!
No AGW doom , no need for a IPCC , it really is that simply .
In the same manner ,there would be no reason at all to think a convention of snake oil salesman would do anything but tells us how great snake oil is, there is no reason to think the IPCC meetings would do anything but tell us ‘it’s worse than we thought’.
They never seem to evaluate this “negative impact”:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
.
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
…not.
Good to see that you have put this on the Kelvin scale.
Thank you. Here’s the same thing in ºF:
And in ºC:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/05/Mean-Temp-1.jpg
There is simply nothing to support the IPCC’s remit. “Dangerous man-made global warming” has turned out to be a false alarm. The UN/IPCC is useless, and should be abolished at the Paris meeting.
Thanks again for the graph, it always puts things into perspective.
Please send to Senator Warren for enlightenment.
EXACTLY!!!
“why is it not also evaluating the positive impact?”
Because you can’t get $100B out of the deluded fools running the world’s governments it there are any positive impacts.
Good to ask but also good luck in getting an answer.
Meanwhile back at the ranch…what is being done by who on Shukla and the RICO20. What do all large lazy orgs like NSF and NASA have in common? They don’t keep track. There’s gold in that rock.
And the answers are:
1. There is no need for scientific backgrounds for political advocacy.
2. The aim of the UNIPCC is wealth redistribution, to take from citizens and transfer to governments.
3. The UN argument is that poor nations can be made relatively richer by making wealthier nations poorer.
4. It does not matter how the natural world is, was, or will be. It matters that sovereign governments submit to the will of UN bureaucrats.
5. Yes, it is moot. We do not care about the science except to the extent it can support our political goals.
+ 100
Marcus, no one deserves a 100 score. Nothing is perfect. Point 2 could be qualified in line with Communist doctrine that everyone deserves a fair share but leaders deserve a fairer share.
@grumpyoldman22
“All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others” George Orwell ‘1984’
Sorry, the book is ‘Animal Farm’
In regards to (3)…..
People who come into money who didn’t earn it often squander it in a short time and end up no better off or even worse than they were before the money. Same is true for countries. You can’t make a country better off simply by handing them money. Decades of foreign aid with no results proves this.
Precisely. A fine example is the Euro. Countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus have been handed billions over the years, and look where they are now. Too much unearned income for people or countries will actually result in a depreciation of quality of life.
When there is a lot of money around, some one will always figure out how to get their hands on it (i.e., steal it). Any time we have have inserted money into a country, be it foreign aid, military aid, etc., the first few billion seem to disappear into the hands of the controlling families, factions, etc. After you have effectively paid off all of them, the next group with their hands out are the NGO’s. These have become a whole new growth area for non-profit parasites. I don’t remember where the numbers came from but I do remember hearing that you were very lucky if 10% of the funds actually got to those that needed ’em or those that did some good. The other 90% was just considered ‘overhead’.
And some store the money in Swiss bank accounts. If there is to be any compensation it should be by direct action. Western countries should send in western contractors to build sea walls or drought mitigating dams or water wells. It is illogical to pay compensation in the form of money
Question 6:
Could you answer, if not tout de suite, at least before the congregation of climate-whores in Paris?
No? Thought not.
1. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine.
2. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine and to evaluate it’s moral high ground.
3. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine as it compares to political bias.
4. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine and what the perfect climate is: a standard to be kept secret.
5. Only proponents of the AGW doctrine can define who is qualified to comment or endorse the same doctrine and whether it is actually a political system.
The “Sierra Club” or “Justin Trudeau” response.
“If the answer to these five questions is yes, Mr. Chairman, is it not time to reform the IPCC?”
No, it is time to disband and abolish the IPCC.
/Mr Lynn
Agree
A scientific body would have recognized:
– the problem of induction / justification.
– the risk of group think
– that argument by consensus is a well known logical fallacy
– that to state subjective probabilities, so called level of confidence, is incompatible with objective science
– that models are not nature
A scientific body would have recognized that:
– an idea, hypothesis or theory is merited by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived
– a theory which allows everything explains nothing
– a theory which cannot be falsified, not in the past and not in the future but now, is not knowledge
This is science! (The logic of scientific discovery – by Karl Popper)
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
(First 26 pages contains the easy read essence.)
This is a unscientific body! (The principles governing IPCC WORK):
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAAahUKEwicr5rFzdTIAhVGBiwKHS-CCJk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fpdf%2Fipcc-principles%2Fipcc-principles.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFsgbLY3AyVPdnNmShDTiIqcPJYLw
It is irresponsible of United Nations to allow the establishment of a body based on these unscientific principles, and try governing the world on basis of this body.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
– Albert Einstein
SorF: The problem is, it is not a “scientific body.” It is a political body established to provide “scientific” cover for an ideological agenda. Hence its mandate is to find evidence for the AGW hypothesis, and nothing else. Nothing to falsify here!
/Mr Lynn
Item 2 – ” The IPCC has three aims: to summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact”
Surely then one of the objectives of the IPCC is to prepare for ALL climate change possibilities – not just a warming one. If governments only plan and pay for one outcome and another occurs then there will be considerably less resource to prepare for it. If cooling should occur and only blind fools dismiss the possibility – at least in the short term rather than the long term extreme likelihood of another ice age – then governments are going to be totally unprepared for it. So the question should be – ‘shouldn’t the IPCC be preparing governments for all outcomes of climate change not just a warming one’.
I see no problem with putting weight behind a perceived greater possibility, even if we disagree with it here, however to dismiss good science as irrelevant would definitely lead to the conclusion that the IPCC by the very nature of its commitments is non-scientific and purely political in intent.
On this topic:
Donna Laframboisa has an important post up regarding the new IPCC chair, and the South Korean (former NGO) Grobal Green Growth Institute – GGGI (headed by former UN-climate-heavy Yvo de Boer) which he is part of. GGGI has by the Government been given the remit to act completely outside korean law as it became UN affiliated in 2012.
Excerpts from the treaty:
And it most certainly doesn’t stop there. Read more about it here! And the entire treaty can be found here.
Stunning stuff. And I’d say it’s no wonder these ‘Save-the-Planet’-schemes attract so many criminals … It’s almost as if they’ve been designed for that purpose.
Agenda 21 Writ Large.
Strange that just a few words were omitted from the preceding post, to imply much broader immunity than the agreements actually provide. Not trying to be alarmist here, are we?
???
I omitted much more words … and they’re all there in the second link.
My point it that by omitting the words in bold you imply far more immunity than actually exists – which is normally an alarmist tactic.
This is the biggest problem facing democracy, there is no accountability for acts done in public office. All public servants (including politicians) should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Some leeway should be given, but gross incompetence or negligence should most definitely lead to consequences.
With power, comes responsibility. If people yearn for power over others, they should bear responsibility for their actions, and be held accountable for dereliction of duty, gross incompetence and gross negligence.
richard,
That applies to bureaucrats, too. And political appointees like Lois Lerner. They have immunity from prosecution in all but the most blatant, egregious criminal activity. If we had done what Ms. Lerner or what Hillary Clinton has done, we would absolutely be facing years in a federal penitentiary. But they are given a free pass, and I will be astonished if they are not named in the long list of pardons being prepared by President Obama for when he leaves office.
If appointyees and bureaucrats were held to the same standard that you, me, and the average reader here are held to, the country would be run far better, much more fairly, and very much more efficiently.
“It’s almost as if they’ve been designed for that purpose.”
Almost? Reading this, even with the exclusions steveta_uk accused you of being “alarmist” about, there is no DOUBT this has been designed to protect criminals. I’ve always been outraged about diplomatic immunity – reading this has ruined my morning.
Sounds a little like the immunities afforded Obama.
Good luck getting a rational answer.
“2. The IPCC has three aims: to summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact.”
Note that it is not their job to determine whether the impact is positive, negative, or neutral but only to determine how negative it is. Kind of like the Argo floats which were installed to determine “just how fast the earth is warming”. Not really objective scientific inquiry.
The ARGO floats have clearly failed to serve their intended purpose. They are just serving.. the purpose has moved on to deeper seas.
You do get around. You were on the Murray Canal a few weeks ago!
So, the new head of the IPCC is a South Korean, joining his two countrymen who lead the U.N. and the World Bank. Do the Koreans have sensitive photographs of the string pullers who make these kinds appointments?
Does anyone have a specific reference to the “opt for de-growth” quote in AR5? What part of the 3rd volume contains that request? I search working group 3 for “de-growth” and didn’t find it.
…Prepare to get…… Hosed….(:<(
The nature of true scientific work requires constant consideration of the possibility that you are wrong. The nature of true political work requires never considering the possibility that you are wrong (because anyone who brings up a topic that something might be wrong is not fully on board with the program and is quickly shown the door).
I’m sure a quick review of meeting minutes will reveal if the IPCC is a true scientific body or a true political body.
I suggest that he be hooked up to a lie detector when answering these questions.
I have a question for him; Sir, when will you and the IPCC stop lying about climate?
Thanks for the concept of naturalistic fallacy (Hume’s Law). I have been thinking about how the climate establishment keeps telling us it’s the hottest whatever ever!
The obvious question is, what’s the temperature supposed to be?
“If the answer to these five questions is yes, Mr. Chairman, is it not time to reform the IPCC?”
In all due respect, I don’t think we need a ‘yes’ answer to all of those five questions before considering reforming (or, disbanding) the IPCC.
I suggest that a ‘yes’ answer to so much as one of those questions should be sufficient.
Chuckle. The IPCC is a typically out of control government organization. Look at the expensive get-togethers they have. And I wonder how much these idiots are paid from the taxpayers’ purse. I do note that Pauchari (railroad engineer) finally got axed; time to cut back some more.
1. Our representative bring the views of scientists to their efforts.
2. All of these issues fall under the purview of science.
3. That of course could be argued like anything, but the person making that point would be wrong.
4. I would not agree with that statement.
5. There is of course a political element to this issue, how could you argue otherwise. But the politics are based in science.
Thanks for the laughs !!!!
While you’re at it ask him if he has ever tried heating water through its surface using a warm gas.
Perhaps the most important question is:
What statistical criteria is required to finally and officially declare CAGW a disconfirmed hypothesis?
A) CAGW model mean temp projections off from reality by 2+ standard deviations for 20 years. (Already exceeded)
B) CAGW model mean temp projections off from reality by 3+ standard deviations for 25 years. (Should be met in 5~7 years)
C) CAGW model mean projections off from reality by 3+ standard deviations off for 30 years. (Should be met in 10 years)
D) Never.
If the IPCC can’t answer the above, it should be disbanded as CAGW is obviously a political phenomenon and not a scientific endeavor to develop a hypothesis that matches and explains reality in any statistically meaningful way.
First Rule of political organisations:
“Don’t admit it’s a political organisation…”
Dodgy Geezer,
I replied to you below at ‘John Whitman on October 21, 2015 at 2:45 pm’.
John
Mr. Chairman, could you comment on the statement of your executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres:
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3pDlMiSpO
After seeing your second question, I think a follow up question should be:
Should IPCC also evaluate and make a summary of the potential benefit of climate change, because without evaluate that how do you get the “net” negative.
It is obvious that Drieu Godefridi is in the pay of Big Oil and needs to be imprisoned under the RICO act.
The UN/IPCC’s remit:
To summarise climate science, to evaluate the negative impact, for mankind, of climate change, and to set standards to curb said negative impact.
Therefore, the conclusions have been decided in advance. It is now the IPCC’s job to find corroborating evidence showing a “negative impact”, and to set standards to “curb” that “negative impact”.
The problem is this: there has been no negative impact from the rise in human CO2 emissions.
None at all (I would appreciate it if anyone could prove me wrong by quantifying any global “damage” or “harm” resulting from the rise in CO2).
As it has turned out, the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial. There has been zero “negative impact for mankind”. Rather, agricultural productivity is rising along with the rise in CO2.
An honest organization would report that fact.
Reform it? Reform it into what? It’s time to eliminate the IPCC and the UNFCCC. These organizations are unelected, accountability free, non-constitutional, pseudo-world government bodies. They do much harm and little good.
The whole UN has lost it’s purpose and meaning, which was to be a co-operative, positive collective influence on pre-WWII style geo-politics that don’t exist any more. The UN was not designed to be a world government. And it was worthless almost from the beginning. It became nothing more than a tool of US policy in the time of the Korean war. It has evolved into a tool of the Politically Correct Fabians (Marxists minus revolution) today. The UN has no spine. It not only can’t shoot straight, it can’t shoot at all. It cannot judge good from evil. It is amoral, and can’t tell the difference. It leaves evil dictators and world-wide movements of religious Islamic fascists to commit genocide, behead Christians and each other, kidnap girls and sell them into sexual slavery, pirate vessels on the high seas. It sides with Iran on the genocide of Israel. It is anti-individual and anti-liberty.
If it were up to me, I’d bin the entire UN, fire every bureaucrat that works there, send them home, raze that ugly building in NYC, and learn the lesson not to do that again. The few UN orgs that still do good charitable work would continue as private charities, or as is the case, they already have private equivalents.
248,544,843 views
As of this post/comment there are now over 248 million views to WUWT. It may reach “one quarter billion” just prior to the start of the Paris Circus. Other than an occasional troll the viewers here are most likely more informed than on the “me too” sites. Paris is most likely doomed to the annals of history as well as it should be. True science may possibly have a chance to exist and advance after the Paris Circus. I hope so.
[Note: number fixed. ~mod.]
eyesonu,
An amazing accomplishment for Anthony Watts in only eight years. But an even more important metric is the 1.5 million+ reader comments. No other climate site comes close.
And fortunately a lot of the commenters are very well informed and very logical, although I don’t fit in to that class. Even though there is not always agreement on the scientific nitty gritty between the commenters I have learnt many interesting and surprising things here at WUWT. My eyes used to glaze over during 4th year lectures in thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid mechanics but that rarely happens here. Thanks for your endless efforts Anthony.
Dr Lee has a PhD in economics. Hardly qualified to head any real SCIENTIFIC organization. Perhaps qualified to head a political/economic institution. What percentage of people though will assume his title of “Dr” is one from the physical sciences. I think it should be part of his title when ever he is referred to. “Hoesung Lee, PhD in Econonics”
So has Ross Garnaut, the author of another set of stupid “science is proven” reports. Usually these economists pick up their PhDs from user friendly tertiary institutions.
Lee did get his PhD from Rutgers U. so at least it was a real university.
Question #6: Will you be a member of Deutschebank’s Climate Advisory Board, along with Fabio Feldman, board member of Greenpeace Int., The Nature Conservancy, and Friends of the Earth, and Pope Francis’s science advisor, Hans Schellnhuber, replacing your IPCC predecessor, Rachandra Pachauri?
Question #7: What is IPCC’s definition of conflict of interest?
“Schellnhuber is on the Climate Advisory Board at Deutsche Bank with Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Browne, Lord Oxburgh, Klaus Töpfer, Amory Lovins, (Rocky Mountain Institute), Robert Socolow, (Carbon mitigation Institute, Princeton), Fabio Feldman, (board member at Greenpeace International, The Nature Conservancy (Brazil), and Friends of the Earth Brazil).
Ciao Koch-Weser of Deutsche Bank was on Ban Ki Moon’s “High Level Climate Finance Panel”, with Chris Huhne, Lord Stern, Christine Lagarde, (now IMF chief), George Soros et al….”
comment, Dennis A.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/29/schellnhuber-and-the-tyndall-centre.html
I would like to know what is the urgency for any action?
When the original claims for urgent action were shouted from the hill tops, it was not anticipated that there would be a pause in the rise of global temperatures.
The pause in the rise of temperatures may be fortuitous (or it may be because CO2 does not case significant warming), but this pause has given us time. To date all the warming that has presently occurred has been entirely beneficial, and we should avail ourselves of the unexpected and additional time that the pause has given us to firm up on the science.
Now is not the time for any drastic action especially given that it is now clear that the mitigation action to date (renewables, carbon trading, carbon floor price etc) has been entirely futile since global CO2 emissions are not being curbed, but are in fact increasing, and will continue to increase no matter what is signed off in Paris.
Let’s be sensible and pragmatic before committing us (the developed nations) to expensive and futile gestures that will do nothing to curb CO2 globally, and will only impoverish all (including the developing world).
Yes, the course of reasonable men. The question is will the participants at COP21 be reasonable?
Question #6: Will you be a member of Deutschebank’s Climate Advisory Board, along with Fabio Feldman, board member of Greenpeace Int., The Nature Conservancy and Friends of the Earth and Pope Francis’s science advisor, Hans Schellnhuber, replacing your IPCC predecessor, Rachandra Pachauri?
Question #7: What is IPCC’s definition of conflict of interest?
“Schellnhuber is on the Climate Advisory Board at Deutsche Bank with Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Browne, Lord Oxburgh, Klaus Töpfer, Amory Lovins, (Rocky Mountain Institute), Robert Socolow, (Carbon mitigation Institute, Princeton), Fabio Feldman, (board member at Greenpeace International, The Nature Conservancy (Brazil), and Friends of the Earth Brazil).
Ciao Koch-Weser of Deutsche Bank was on Ban Ki Moon’s “High Level Climate Finance Panel”, with Chris Huhne, Lord Stern, Christine Lagarde, (now IMF chief), George Soros et al….”
comment, Dennis A.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/29/schellnhuber-and-the-tyndall-centre.html
I pray to the smiling Gods that Pachauri gets his come uppance from the Indian Court system. He will be an old man by then however.
How about re-writing the Charter / Mission Statement?
Dodgy Geezer
October 21, 2015 at 9:17 am
First Rule of political organisations:
“Don’t admit it’s a political organisation…”
That’s the second rule. The first rule is “never talk about Fight Club / (the organization)”.
peyelut,
I replied to you below at ‘John Whitman on October 21, 2015 at 2:45 pm’.
John
Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC is a dishonest political propaganda organization. The new leader will not change that because this is not about science, logic, pollution, weather or CO2 – it’s not even about the clima, – it’s all about the money!
I propose the following additional open letter to newly appointed IPCC Chairman Hoesung Lee.
In this thread I suggest viewers should consider providing their own open letters to the new IPCC Chairman.
John
John Whitman:
You say
Why?
Richard
– – – – – –
richardscourtney,
In a nutshell, self determination & free will.
John
John Whitman:
Thankyou for your reply to my request for clarification, but I admit to remaining bemused.
I have “self determination & free will”: those are internal properties that everybody has. I don’t see how that is – or can be – affected by writing an Open Letter to the IPCC Chairman.
What purpose are you thinking such letters could have?
Richard
– – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
You have ‘self determination and free will’ and you may choose, as is your wont, to not write any such open letter. Others may choose. My suggestion to others was me exercising my ‘self determination and free will’. It is other’s ‘self determination and free will’ to decide for themselves about writing an open letter. That is obvious. Remember, richardscourtney, this is still a free marketplance of ideas at WUWT, and a wonderous & glorious one. (Thanks Anthony)
And, richardscourtney, you ask me what is a purpose of open letters? I can only state my purpose; to have an open and critical dialog with viewers of my comment and (if WUWT is as potentially as effective as I think it is) to have some reasonable chance of input to the IPCC Bureau / chairman.
John
John Whitman:
Thankyou for the clarification.
I understand your bafflegab to summate to you saying you suggested everybody should waste their time writing pointless Open Letters because you wanted to feel self-important.
Drieu Godefridi wrote his Open Letter to the IPCC Chairman as a method to publicise the fact that the IPCC is a purely political organisation. To me that seems worthwhile and worthy of support, but diluting it with many pointless other Open Letters would reduce its effectiveness.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
In a rationally based hierarchy of fundamental concepts, where does the knowledge of how human beings should associate with one another (i.e. – political ideas & knowledge) fit into that hierarchy?
I think political ideas & knowledge are merely the conclusion of all other areas of the order of the hierarchy. The other areas are necessarily first; politics is merely a result of them.
I think any potential political insights of the IPCC assessment process can only be a result of: a metaphysics, an epistemology, a philosophy of science, an ethics; in that order of thought. I think a political interpretation of the IPCC, without consideration of how it necessarily depends on the other areas, is useless info. You have, as you have consistently done over the years in hundreds of comments, put politics as the primary fundamental cause of the IPCC assessment process.;whereas I do not.
John
John Whitman:
You write
Your gobbledeygook that I have quoted here demonstrates you suggested the effect of the Open Letter from Drieu Godefridi should be diluted by many pointless Open Letters as part of your long-running propaganda campaign to promote the falsehood that the IPCC is a scientific organisation.
Your propaganda is denied by the IPCC’s own Rules, documents and procedures, which define the IPCC is a purely political organisation tasked to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.
I posted the facts which deny your propaganda in this thread here.
Richard
Friends:
Several people have discussed whether the IPCC is a scientific or a political organisation and some have suggested that the First Rule of political organisations is:
Don’t admit it’s a political organisation…
In fact the IPCC is an overtly political organisation. Indeed, the answers to the “five questions” in the above Open Letter from Drieu Godefridi to Hoesung Lee are a matter of official IPCC record.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows.
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.
Richard
Might I assume that our UN representative has only one vote in requiring a response to these five questions? Assuming he could even be required to ask for a vote.
Can our Congress as a major funding agency of the UN require an answer as requisite for funding on the premise that to get what we pay for it should be defined.
Reblogged this on Mbafn's Blog and commented:
Power power power that’s what IPCC stands for…
Bingo!
No replies will be coming from Der Emperor because as a God, humans are not allowed to ask questions or look at the face or into the eyes of Der Emperor, as they are treasonable offenses to the sensitivities of Der Emperor.
– – – – – –
Dodgy Geezer & peyelut,
Unfortunately, it is much worse than that.
Donna Laframboise has looked** closely over many years at the reality of what the IPCC actually is and has actually done versus what the IPCC officially says and what the Charterers of IPCC officially say about what the IPCC formally is and formally does. A (arguably ‘the’) main conclusion by her is the former is largely not-consistent with the later and often the former is conflicting with the later. Also, Donna Laframboise has documented the disturbing IPCC ‘de facto’ policy of not publically addressing the publically obvious discrepancies between the former and the later. In other words, it behaves like a classical unaccountable bureaucracy, it is a “delinquent”** in its behavior.
** D. Laframboise – wrote two books entirely focused on the IPCC (‘The Delinquent Teenager’ and ‘Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize’) and has prolifically written more than a hundred blog posts at her blog site detailing all crucial aspects of the IPCC.
I thank Donna Laframboise!
John
Please don’t just post URLs – at least give a proper summary of what they may contain.
[REPLY: Yes, always include a few words of explanation. Thanks. ~mod.]
Jan Christoffersen
October 21, 2015 at 7:05 am:
“So, the new head of the IPCC is a South Korean, joining his two countrymen who lead the U.N. and the World Bank. Do the Koreans have sensitive photographs of the string pullers who make these kinds appointments?”
@Jan: This is just my opinion. I will suggest here that getting South Koreans to be in charge of these international organizations (including the IPCC) is part of Seoul’s aggressive effort to de-legitimize the North and fatboy Kim Jung Un’s regime on the international stage (at least outside of China anyway).
One needs to put oneself in the shoes of the the South’s government here. Your country has been divided now for many decades, and your countrymen to the north of the 38th parallel are your bitter ideological enemies. Understanding this, it should not be difficult to realize how important it is in the minds of the South’s govt to establish itself as the one, true and legitimate Korea on the world stage (and I concur that it is). What better way to do this than to aggressively pursue the leadership positions of these international organizations? This also explains why the South has aggressively and successfully pursued the opportunity to host numerous international events like the summer and winter Olympics (they will host the winter games in 2018), the World Soccer Cup, and the Korea 500 auto race.
Again, all of these efforts (I suggest) and designed by Seoul to de-legitimize the North outside of China. With a South Korean at the helm of the the IPCC, I cannot say if he and the South’s govt actually believe in the alarmist CO2-induced climate change theory (I don’t) and whether he can and will answer the questions in the post above. As I have said here though, the importance of having a South Korean in the IPCC chairmanship position has importance to Seoul that goes beyond the scientific validity of theory itself (or lack thereof). I believe that should be understood here.
…..that goes beyond the scientific validity of THE theory itself.
I would ask where is the refund mechanism in any carbon tax plans? If we don’t warm up despite lots of CO2 and the climate doesn’t warm up then how will they do the refund? Let’s base the temperatures or not on the UAH & RSS measurement data sets just to be fair (one scientist from each side of the argument).
Typo in the article: IPPC.
The man now in charge at the IPCC belongs to a privileged, protected, secretive entity headed by the UN’s former top climate official.
Hoesung Lee was elected head of the IPCC. He also has a seat on one of the the Seoul-based Global Green Growth Institute governing bodies.
The GGGI enjoys an array of protections and immunities-the kinds of privileges normally reserved for nation states. Korea’s government has signed a document in which it has agreed to treat GGGI headquarters like an embassy. Korean authorities have no jurisdiction on its premises or over its records: “The Headquarters shall be inviolable. No person exercising any public authority within the Republic of Korea shall enter the Headquarters to perform any duties except with the express consent of the Director-General. The archives of the GGGI shall be inviolable wherever located. The property of the GGGI shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.”
The GGGI and its staff enjoy immunity from every form of legal process, except in rare circumstances. The GGGI is exempt from taxation and customs duties, and may transfer funds in and out of Korea at will. The salaries of the roughly 100 people who comprise the GGGI staff are tax free.
People visiting the GGGI from outside Korea do not need to produce passports as Korea’s government has agreed to treat GGGI-issued “travel certificates” as the equivalent of national passports. GGGI staff, their spouses, and their dependents are immune from immigration restrictions and baggage inspection “except in doubtful cases.” In the event of an international crisis, Korea will treat GGGI personnel and their families on a par with diplomatic envoys.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/18/the-preposterous-green-institute-and-the-ipcc/
If reformed where would silly people go?
5 questions:
1. Does the IPCC know what science and the scientific method is?
2. Does it adhere to its strictures, its annoying habit of not producing the results you predict or expect and its deepest principle that you can never prove a hypothesis, only falsify it?
3. Does IPCC measure ROI on its budget since 1990?
4. If so, do such calculations adhere to international accounting standards and have they been subject to critical forensic due diligence by disinterested, honest, principled third parties not interested in the size of IPCC egos?
5. Do you consider the reputation of the IPCC to be of any higher standing than FIFA currently and, if so, how in God’s name did you manage to reach that conclusion??
from a practical viewpoint – the author’s 5 questions are an attempt to awaken Lee Hoe Sung – to nudge him to a more scientific perspective – i don’t know if that will work – but it costs nothing to try
Hoe Sung is not a scientist – and he has been a longtime AGW believer – (see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/21/hoesung-lee-an-ordinary-guy-who-helped-clean-up-korea) – so don’t get your hopes up
however – the linked article says he is a “listener” – so – if he hears rational voices on the skeptic side – as opposed to emotional rants – then maybe – just maybe – they will grow in influence – and overcome his current bias
Can anyone advise Mr Lee’s salary? Does it require he listens to skeptics so he becomes better informed? Does it require he follow UN policy without question?
it depends on the man’s character as much as to salary – however he starts with a bias – he’s made an emotional investment in a position – hard to dislodge such people with reason alone – and his position is by definition pro-IPCC – that’s like superglue – a small attempt (these 5 questions) to gain his ear costs nothing – unless we get our hopes up
I just want to thank the Australian government for this wonderful,rare provision to international students.
In other countries, international students are not allowed to engage in any kind of work, depriving them much needed industrial exposure and experience.for example, I’m studying community services, but the student working rights have given me a grand opportunity to contribute positively in disability industry for close to two years. Indeed this provision is an important supplement to our daily living as students.
Once again, thank you very much and God bless Australia.