Hans von Storch Speaks Out On CRU, IPCC And Climate Science

Here is an outstanding interview given by Prof. Hans von Storch, one of Germany’s leading climate scientists, in an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt
(Germany’s equivalent to the Wall Street Journal) yesterday. Although a warmist, Professor Hans von Storch, much to his credit, has always kept an open ear and mind to serious climate sceptics. Here are some paraphrased excerpts of yesterday’s HB interview.HB: Are today’s hot and cold extreme events a sign of global warming?

HvS: It’s important to keep weather separated from climate. The media have certainly been focussing more on the weather. And unfortunately there are plenty of activists who like to connect heat waves and storms with climate change. And then these activists wonder why sceptics do the same when there’s a cold winter, using it as evidence against warming. It’s intellectually low. The fact of the matter is that it is trending warmer.

HB: Who recommends the scientists for participation in the IPCC?

HvS: In Germany it’s the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety and the Ministry of Research and Science in Bonn.  Here one can apply to participate, and this is what I’ve done. I offered to be a part of WG2. That’s where most of the errors occurred and I’d like to help out this time around to prevent such errors from happening again. My name has been sent, along with 80 others, to the IPCC in Switzerland.

HB:  The IPCC has come under fire because it dramatised climate change. How can we prevent such errors and what should quality control look like?

HvS: We have to look very closely at the literature that is handed to us. We have to be very careful with grey literature. It has to meet the highest scientific standards. Under no circumstances can literature from interest groups like reinsurers, coal industry or environmental groups be accepted.

HB:  And what about the WWF’s Amazon Rainforest report?

HvS: One cannot claim that this was a neutral scientific report. The IPCC made that mistake, and it cannot be blamed on the WWF, who have legitimate interests.

HB:  Could there be a benefit in allowing studies from interest groups?

HvS: I would not agree to that. In WG2 it would not be necessary to include material from interest groups. There’s already enough scientific literature at hand.

HB: And what about critical opinions from the scientific community? In the wake of the hacked e-mails from the CRU, some scientists complained that their publications had been blocked.

HvS: Here we have to differentiate between 2 kinds of gate-keeping. In the case of the Climate Research Unit, it is alleged, or indeed it was attempted, to keep an article with a contrary opinion from being published. Thus it was possible to assure that some results would not flow into the IPCC report.

In the IPCC report itself, minority opinions also must be allowed to be shown. We have to determine just where there is consensus, and where there are contrary opinions. This has to be done scientifically, without any prejudice.

HB: A report for the political decision makers probably has to be summarised: But isn’t that walking on a tight rope between what is scientifically exact and what the politicians understand?

HvS: A summary by the scientists for the politicians is in my opinion, not necessary. The summary emphasis takes place at a later time when the decision makers wish to present the matter to their clientel. The politicians that I’ve been involved with know what climate research is about –and especially on questions of adaptation. Personally I’m quite impressed by their competence.

HB: Last fall after errors were found in the IPCC report and the disclosure of the CRU e-mails,  climate science skidded off track and came under heavy fire.. What does this branch of science need to do in order to regain respect?

HsV: There are two strategies – and I’m afraid not much is happening for the most part. It is simply being claimed that evil media outlets and the fossil fuel industry are behind the unjust discrediting of the science. But this assertion simply is not sustainable. In the past, climate science attempted to work too much with catastrophe reports. But that bubble blew last fall. As a result, trust suffered immeasurably.

We have to take a critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the rug. Some of the inquests – like in Great Britain - failed at this. They blew an opportunity to re-establish trust.

The second strategy us scientists have to consider is what role it is we wish to play. Are we supporters of a certain political process, or supporters of a certain brand of politics? I’m emphatically for the first, whereby we are the providers of special knowledge. We must not say that this is right, and that is wrong. This is not the competence of a climate scientist. We are merely experts in climate dynamics, and not specialists for competing political or ethical problems. Fundamentally a debate has to take place. That’s what climate scientists want, and that is what is expected from the public.

HB: Is there a danger that climate science falls on the wayside because the sceptics take up very popular slogans against the subject of anthropogenic climate change?

HsV: Many alarmists do the same– both sides don’t hold back much. We have to accept the challenges the sceptics present and step into the debate with them in order to win them over.

Many physicists, chemists, engineers or geologists have open questions about climate change which they view as unanswered. Here there is a considerable and legitimate potential at hand, which unfortunately is not addressed often enough. Instead, they sometimes get attacked and called sceptics, which only serves to aggravate them. It’s no way to build trust. We have to find a way back to a reasonable discussion.

HB: Do you have any hope that progress can be made with the next IPCC report with respect to climate protection, especially after the spectacular failure of Copenhagen?

HsV: I don’t expect that the next IPCC report will significantly improve the chances for a comprehensive climate protection program. The last report was already so emphatic that there is no way to top it. The concept that science tells politics what’s necessary has failed. We have to give up on the idea of making an agreement from top down for 150 countries, and that they will abide by it. Change has to come from the bottom.

 

NEW Scare Replaces UN’s Now Defunct AGW Scare. Biodiversity And Species Are Dying 100 Times Faster Than Previously Thought!

There’s been talk recently about a new scare that environmentalists have come up with to replace the all-but-defunct AGW scare.  The evil villains are, again, the very thing that have made our lives immensely better: INDUSTRY. The new scare is: industry is destroying biodiversity.   

Today at least two of Germany’s leading online news outlets are reporting on industry’s threat to biodiversity, based on a UN study. Both Stern here and Die Zeit have almost the same title:   

UN: Corporations Driving Ruthless Destruction of Nature   

And both articles are almost identical, indicating they were likely press releases from the UN itself. According to Die Zeit:   

Species, even complete ecosystems, are disappearing at an unprecedented speed. Companies refuse to protect nature, the damage is in the trillions of euros.   

Species are dying 100 times faster than previously assumed. The environmental damage that is caused by the world’s 3000 leading companies is estimated by the UN to be 1.7 trillion euros, this from a study from the UN Environmental Program UNEP.   

According to UN Environment Director Achim Steiner:   

The natural capital of the planet is being destroyed on a massive scale.   

Many economists are still blind to the enormous impact on the diversity of animals, plants and other forms of life and their role in the function of the ecosystem.   

The UN study says that awareness for environmental protection is increasing the most in Africa with 50% of company managers viewing environmental pollution as a threat to their business, 45% in Latin America and only 20% in Europe.   

The UN study will be made public at the International Conference for Species and Biodiversity on Tuesday in London.   

Readers ought to recall how it’s the UN itself and government politics based on UN climate fear mongering  are actually in large part responsible for their claimed massive destruction of nature. Read:
Europe’s Latest Green Megafolly. Burning Forests To Save The Planet!  

And maybe the UN has realised that it wasn’t getting anywhere by nagging and blaming the citizens of the planet. Now it probably thinks it can get more support by demonising industry.

Pachauri Should Step Down, Say Leading German Scientists

Rahmstorf could imagine a better IPCC Chairman

The German Readers Edition reports that 3 leading scientists, among them alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf, are calling on Rajendra Pachauri to step down as Chairman of the IPCC because of management errors and the recent attacks on the IPCC and climate science.

According to Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog Klimalounge:

I’m not calling for an end of Pachauri, but I could certainly imagine a better Chairman because in my view, among other reasons, he reacted in an unfortunate manner with respect to the media attacks on the IPCC. The role of the Chairman is not to decide the contents of the report (he should not get involved with our work). Rather he ought to well represent the IPCC externally.

Calls for Pachauri’s resignation are nothing new. In February director emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Prof. Hartmut Graßl, told the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that Pachauri should clear the table and leave the job in other hands.

Pachauri with Al Gore, a.k.a. Mr Stone.

Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS coastal research center in Geesthacht, Germany, said the IPCC director was a burden because he permitted sloppiness in the reviews and checks of the 2007 climate report.

Readers Edition quotes the current issue of zeo2 titled: The zeo2 Climate Summit, which states:

Pachauri should throw in the towel.

 

Voodoo Policymaking

Money! money! money!

 Again the excellent Readers Edition here has an excellent piece on Pachauri, which I’ve written here in English. Pachauri became Chairman of the IPCC in 2002. 

The following is his little-publicised partial resume of some of the posts he’s held. Now if you look closely and squint your eyeballs really hard, you might see a conflict of interest here and there. 

• 1981 director Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi
• 2001 general director of  The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)
• 2005 founder of GloriOil, which developed TERI technology for exploiting remaining oil reserves of abandoned oil sources
• 2007 on the advisory committee of Siderian Venture Capital in San Francisco
• 2008 consultant to Credit Suisse on renewable and sustainable energy
• 2008 on the advisory committee of the Rockefeller Foundation
• 2008 on the supervisory board of Nordic Glitnir Bank which launched the Sustainable Future Fund
• 2008 Chairman of Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund
• 2008 Director of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva, which was founded by French power company EDF and German power company E.On
• 2009 strategy advisor for the New York based Pegasus Investment Fund
• 2009 Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Asian Development Bank
• Head of the Climate and Energy Institute of Yale University, which is funded by millions of dollars from USA and private companies
• Member of the Climate Change Board of Deutsche Bank
• Director of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
• Advisor to Toyota Motors
• Advisor to the French state-owned SNCF rail
• President of the Industrial Lobby TERI-NA which is funded by 130 government and corporate sponsors, which include the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and the World Bank

Today, billions are being made trading paper called CO2 certificates. For example, Indian Tata moved its steel production of 3 million tonnes annually from England to India, and thus earned almost 2 billion euros in CO2 credits. Not only that, almost 2000 honest workers lost their jobs². India alone has 1455 emissions trading projects up and running with an estimated value of US$33 billion. Many are run by Tata. 

Pachauri is also on the Advisory Committee of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative CO2-exchange in the world, which was supported by TERI. One director is Maurice Strong, former General Secretary of the UNCED, and head of Petro-Canada, and head of Ontario Hydro. In 2005 he had to step down because of his involvement in the UN Oil For Food scandal. Since then he’s been living in Peking, where he directs his oil business and advises the Chinese government on how to get rich with CO2 certificates – just like India is doing. (But don’t blame India and China – they are only accepting great offers. Who wouldn’t!). 

Now one begins to see just how corrupt the UN climate policy is. People near its core are getting seriously rich. Now you know why Al Gore will say and do anything to keep the scam going.  

Pachauri also asked the EPA to limit CO2 emissions without waiting for Congress to act. The EPA took his advice and declared CO2 “dangerous to human health”. The EPA based all this on the bogus IPCC 2007 4AR. This alone  is going to cost industrial countries another estimated $45 billion. 

WWF: Expect Snowfalls in July!

In Russia’s German edition of Ria Novosti online, a Russian WWF climate expert claims that the recent “climate anomaly” of winter weather and a hurricane strength storm occurring in southern France in late spring confirms the anthropogenic impact on global climate. http://de.rian.ru/science/20100505/126183713.html.

Ria Novosti interviewed WWF climate expert Alexei Kokorin, who says:

The situation in France fits right in with the theory of anthropogenic climate change. We are now able to observe marginal climate change. Temperature and precipitation fluctuations have increased 10-fold. In Russia the number of dangerous hydrometeorological events have increased 10-fold in the last 15 years.

Nothing you wouldn’t expect from an alarmist. But then he adds (original German):

Wir können in Zukunft mit einem etwas wärmeren und zugleich weitaus instabileren Klima, darunter mit Schneefällen im Mai und Juli, rechnen.

In English:

In the future we [Russians] can anticipate a somewhat warmer and much more unstable climate, including snowfalls in May and July.

Warmer and yet snowfalls in the summertime? You gotta be kidding.

But do expect the IPCC to cite them in its upcoming 5th assessment report. The chances of being cited are quite good – Alexei Kokorin is the director of the Russian WWF Climate Protection Program.  In the past the IPCC has had no qualms about citing such sources.

Video: Joe Bastardi On IPCC vs Actual

Here’s a graphic many of you may already have seen lately. Well, now here’s the video. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi compares IPCC projected temperature curves with what has actually happened.  http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vblog_bastardi

Joe predicts a La Nina event over the next year or two, meaning global surface temperatures would drop and diverge even further away from IPCC forecasts.

FOX Covers IPCC’s False Advertising

Donna Laframboise’s Citizens’ Audit shook the IPCC’s credibility to the core last week after revealing that 21 chapters of the IPCC 2007 AR4 report got an “F” because more than 40% of the literature they cited wasn’t peer-reviewed. The IPCC cited newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers and even a boot cleaning manual from an Antractic cruise company. Fox News covers the findings of the audit here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.

In June 2008, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, said

People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions, given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.

For years the IPCC pitched it to the public as being based solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature, telling us that the report was the gold standard in scientific review.  Now we find out they have misled us. False advertising. The U.N. is not commenting in depth on the audit, but it has acknowledged its existence.

IPCC 2007 AR4: Advocacy Hijacks Science

The IPCC has egg on its face. The 2007 AR4 is discredited.

Donna Laframboise has just released her findings of her comprehensive audit of the IPCC AR4 references. Recall how AGW proponents have trumpeted that the AR4 is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. See here for some notable quotes:

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

It turns out that the 2007 AR4 is not based solely on peer-reviewed literature after all. Rather it also cites numerous press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups.

Here are the results of the IPCC AR4 audit:

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

Facts and Figures IPCC 2007 AR4:

1. 18,531 references, 44 chapters, almost 3,000 pages.

2. 44 auditors checked its references

3. 21 chapters (48%) get an “F” (less than 60% peer-reviewed)

4. In total 5,587 references were not peer-reviewed (30%).

Having been one of the 44 auditors involved in Donna’s project, I was amazed at how unscientific some cited references were.

Conclusion: the 2007 AR4 is an advocacy report that uses cherry-picked science to support one view.

IPCC’s “Scientific” Assessment Reports

Donna Laframboise’s (love that name!) website: http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/ has just announced she’ll be releasing the results of the Citizens’ Audit of all 18, 531 references of the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.  The audit was done by 40+ people from 12 countries. The target of the audit was to determine just how scientific is the literature that underpins  the famous UN report, much ballyhooed by policymakers and activists. What percentage of the references was peer-reviewed literature, and what percentage was not?

Having taken part in the audit and examining the references of several chapters, I’ve been able to get a vague idea of what the results could be, but will not go into that. It’s Donna’s project. In an earlier post, Donna mentions how a PhD student had collected data on the IPCC 2001 TAR. His findings are reported in a guest post at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog a few weeks ago and look like this:

Journal references in the IPCC report (TAR) overall: 62%
Working Group 1: 84%
Working Group 2: 59%
Working Group 3: 36%

To me it looks like the 2001 TAR (the one with the famously flawed, prominently featured hockey stick) was a science review report with a lot activism spun in.  Let’s see if the 2007 AR4 was any better.