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.
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.