Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/22/2009 9:33:03 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
An oligarchy is a
“form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”
This definition certainly fits with the IPCC, as illustrated by the closed meeting in which Gerald Meehl, Jonathan Overpeck, Susan Solomon, Thomas Stocker, and Ron Stouffer are organizing in Hawaii in March 2009. This meeting is reported at
Joint IPCC-WCRP-IGBP Workshop: New Science Directions and Activities Relevant to the IPCC AR5 [Tuesday, March 03, 2009 - Friday, March 06, 2009 at the University of Hawaii International Pacific Research Center Honolulu , Hawaii].
While the meeting is to be mostly self-funded [which means federal contracts and grants and other such sources will be used to pay for the trip], it raises the issue as to why such a remote location is chosen. Presumably the particpants should be concerned about the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere from the jet aircraft that will transport them to Hawaii.
The Workshop is also open to only the IPCC Working Group 1 Lead Authors [LAs] and Contributing Lead Authors [CLAs] from all four assessments. While the goals of the Workshop are appropriate scientific topics, the closed character of the Workshop and its location perpetuates the exclusiveness of the IPCC process.
This small community of climate scientists is controlling the agenda with respect to the assessment of climate change. This is an oligarchy.
Climate Science urges that a new group of climate scientists be empowered to lead the next IPCC report. The inbred group of scientists who are to attend the Hawaii workshop, while most are excellent scientists, have a conflict of interest in that they have already presented their viewpoints on the role of humans in the climate system [at the expense of excluding peer reviewed science viewpoints, however; eg. see the Appendix in Pielke 2008].
The next IPCC assessment should involve only scientists who have not taken a strong position on the IPCC reports, but who have outstanding scientific credentials. Among the first questions they should address are the three hypotheses, only one of which can be true;
This research question has been discussed on Climate Science (e.g. see).
Without new scientists leading the IPCC process as LAs and CLAs, the next IPCC report is doomed to continue to be completed by an oligarchy that is using its privileged position to advocate for a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system [the third hypothesis above]. The next IPCC report will not be a balanced assessment, but continue to be policy advocacy in the guise of a scientific framework.
To me... I hope so....
Senior Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling, Volume 78, Second Edition (International Geophysics) (Hardcover)
Series Editor of:
Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Volume 61 (International Geophysics) (Hardcover)
sorry all about the way that posted.....!
Read the link much easier!....lol
Global Warming Oligarchy is unsustainable but far from down and out because the stooge media will still be doing their propaganda for free. The email “hack” is a huge chink in the facade but who actually knows about it?
As long as stooge media maintains code of silence this will not be properly reported. Has it been on the CBSNBCABC evening news yet?
Did a google search on IPCC view...turned up this Power Point document...
Special Report on Emission Scenario's
**********************************EXCERPT*****************************
Will place on fresh response page so I don't have to edit ....
Please note that the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed government text and the official point of view of the IPCC.
The slides in this presentation reflect this carefully established scientific consensus.
While presenting the results of the IPCC Special Report, please stay close to the contents of the report and indicate clearly when you are giving your personal rather than the IPCC view.
The presentation is very long and repetitive. Depending on your audience, please pick and choose from the slides, and modify them where you deem it appropriate, keeping in mind the agreed SPM text.
The notes under the slides contain language from the SPM and the Technical Summary and other explanations for your reference.
With kind regards,
Bert Metz and Ogunlade Davidson, co-chairs WGIII
Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed government text
One might ask....Which Government ?
Once real scientists begin to take apart the cooked and cherry-picked data, then there will be some weeping and gnashing of teeth.
From: Tom Wigley To: jan.goudriaan
grassl_h
Klaus Hasselmann
Jill Jaeger
rector
oriordan
john
mparry
pier.vellinga
************************************************
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
*************************************************
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases" for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.
*************************************************
Not sure what the recent letter was...surmise it was a joint effort on the part of the eleven....
********************************************
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits (averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much, too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late (which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against postponement to be more compelling"). People who endorse your letter will NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
****************************************************************
Who IS this Tom Wigley....?
Storm Trooper in charge of discipline?
My take is the AGW people are damaged 10%. If we had a more impartial media this would be a scandal. But what does some reporter who is a liberal arts grad know or care about science?
Picture at the link....
********************************EXCERPT********************************
Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, has been named a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for his major contributions to climate and carbon-cycle modeling and to climate data analysis.
A mathematical physicist with a doctorate from the University of Adelaide in Australia, Tom is one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline. He has published on a diverse collection of topics in climatology including data analysis; climate impacts on agriculture and water resources; paleoclimatology; and modeling of climate, sea level, and the carbon cycle. He has served as lead author in each of the six major scientific reviews of the greenhouse problem.
Ernest...please dont Ping me...I find it annoying as I’m trying to respond to other posters...
I can read the things that intrest me on my own...
Thank you.
*********************************EXCERPT****************************
Air Date: Week of April 4, 2008
|
An article in the latest issue of the journal “Nature” asserts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has seriously underestimated the technological solutions necessary for the stabilization of the climate. The commentary is titled “Dangerous Assmptions” and it’s co-authored by Senior Scientist Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Dr. Wigley talks with host Bruce Gellerman. ********************** Transcript *****************************
GELLERMAN: "Dangerous Assumptions" is the ominous-sounding title of a commentary in the latest edition of the British journal Nature. The authors of the commentary charge that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization, the IPCC, has been using incorrect assumptions about climate change and seriously underestimates what it will take to save the Earth from catastrophe. Tom Wigley is one of the authors of "Dangerous Assumptions." He's a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado. Professor, thanks for joining me. WIGLEY: Thanks for having me. Good to talk to you, Bruce. GELLERMAN: This is a pretty serious charge. What specifically are the dangerous assumptions the IPCC has been making? WIGLEY: The assumptions are more in the presentation of information regarding what we might have to do to reduce the magnitude of global warming in the future. What IPCC has done is they haven't given the full picture of what those assumptions might be. GELLERMAN: I was surprised to read in your article that the assumption that the IPCC makes is that about three-quarters of the carbon in the atmosphere is just going to simply, spontaneously, automatically disappear. WIGLEY: Yes, that's right. In the absence of climate policy, they're expecting large changes in progression towards using what are called carbon neutral sources of energy. IPCC essentially assumes that a lot of those things are going to happen just spontaneously. That's the key word. GELLERMAN: Well, how does carbon just spontaneously, automatically disappear, anyhow? WIGLEY: Well, in the past, energy efficiency has improved. If you look at the records over the last number of decades, even over the last century, in terms of the emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of energy, we're improving the way we produce energy. But what is a little alarming is that if you look at just the last five to ten years, those changes have gone in the other direction. Now, if you make assumptions that the changes that occurred up to say the year 2000 are going to continue in the future, and you look at what's happened over the last five years or so, that change towards greater efficiency has not continued.
GELLERMAN: China and India, you know, their economies have been going gangbusters. They're using lots of resources and lots of energy. How does that factor into this? WIGLEY: Essentially, China and India are using twentieth-century technology in the twenty-first century. Now, you can't blame China and India for doing this because that is the cost-effective way of doing things. But if you just project ahead what's going on now in China and India then the emissions from those countries are going to continue to increase for many decades. GELLERMAN: Well, what about targeting limits on carbon dioxide for example? That's what governments have been doing. That's what the Kyoto Protocol calls for. Will that clear up the problem? WIGLEY: Well, the Kyoto Protocol assumes that there will be a succession of protocols that become increasingly stringent as the decades go by. Well, we're having trouble even abiding by the Kyoto Protocol. So the prospects for further and stronger protocols in the future look rather bleak at the moment. Now, part of the problem is that the Kyoto Protocol deals with a concept called targets and timetables. It essentially says, we want to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide by a certain amount globally by a certain time. Now, that's all very well, except that it doesn't really tell us how we're going to do it. What we suggest is that there needs to be more emphasis on developing the appropriate technology, the appropriate carbon-neutral technology to reduce emissions. So, don't just tell us where to go, tell us how to get there and legislate how to get there. GELLERMAN: What form of legislation would you suggest? WIGLEY: What we need is policies that put a large amount of money into developing appropriate, carbon-neutral technologies, be it renewable energy, methods for storing carbon dioxide in the ground and so on. There is money being used and put towards developing those sorts of technologies, but it's too small by orders of magnitude. We need to be putting, you know, ten to 100 times more money into developing appropriate technologies to reduce the magnitude of global warming. GELLERMAN: So, you're talking about something the size and scale of the Manhattan Project? WIGLEY: Yes, indeed. That's exactly the term that's been used in a number of papers in the past. GELLERMAN: Well, why not just leave it up to industry? I mean, if there's gold or money to be made in them thar hills, you know, let them go out and develop the technology. WIGLEY: Yes, industry is very good at developing the technology, but if you look at the major innovations that have occurred over the twentieth century, the initiation, the innovation in almost all cases comes from government research spending. Once the concepts are out there, then industry comes in and makes a buck out of it. But they're not good at starting the ball rolling. GELLERMAN: But government money doesn't grow on trees -- it comes out of my pocket. WIGLEY: Yes indeed, but then, in the long run, you, your children, your grandchildren, will benefit by having a planet that's not upset by what could be catastrophic changes in the climate or very large increases in sea level and so on. GELLERMAN: Tom Wigley is a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and co-author of the article now appearing in the British journal Nature: "Dangerous Assumptions." Thank you very much. WIGLEY: Thank you, it's been a pleasure. |
*********************************EXCERPT**********************
Tom came to NCAR in 1993 and was appointed a senior scientist one year later. Before coming here, he was director of the Climatic Research Unit in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom.
So he passed the Chair of the CRU to Phil Jones...
IPCC: Ignorant Propaganda Creating Confusion
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Scientist Tom Wigley co-authored a commentary criticizing the IPCC in the journal "Nature."(Photo: Carlye Calvin, Courtesy of UCAR)