Wednesday
Jun232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The Team gets the paleo job...again
Jun 23, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: MWP Tip of the hat to Marcel Crok for alerting me to the release of the names of the chapter authors of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.
No Briffa, Jones or Mann, but the paleoclimate chapter includes Tim Osborn. Having someone from CRU onboard might well be seen as somewhat controversial if not downright provocative. Other familiar names are Eystein Jansen, Bette Otto-Bleisner and Juerg Luterbacher.
Marcel advises that many of the authors were also on board for AR4. Perhaps nobody else wants to be involved any more.
Reader Comments (25)
Chapter 10: "Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional" has three UK alarmist contributors: Peter Stott, Gebriele Hegerl and Myles Allen. I think we can safely assume that it will all be attributable to humans, not nature.
Richard Tol, who will be CLA for WG2 of AR5, has a very interesting comment (in Dutch) on http://climategate.nl/2010/06/23/lead-authors-vijfde-ipcc-rapport-bekend/#comments
He writes, my translation: "The IPCC forces IAC's hand. The selction of the authors is the most important step. The IAC therefore has no influence on AR5 and we will have to wait untill AR6 (2021)."
He adds about the selction process for AR5: "Although I am CLA, I had no insight in the selection process."
So at least we have one CLA that could create some balance in his chapter :)
http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf
Masson-Delmotte at the head of Paleoclimate chapter.
Very good point from Richard Tol, nominations before the end of the review is a complete nonsense.
Great to see our very own down-under Prof Andy Pitman is the review editor for Chapter 9: Review of Climate Models. Here's a quotation from him on the ABC last January speaking about his selfless efforts -
<....reaches for tissues....> So there you have it, get a job you idle layabouts.
Grant B -
Being an Aussie living in Sweden you will be pleased also to hear that our own Swedish alarmist climate modeller ...
Markku RUMMUKAINEN - SWEDEN
has been lifted up to IPCC Chapter author status. Here he is back in Nov 2009 commenting on the leaked CRU emails:
"Even if data were fabricated, the knowledge basis of climate change would not change, not at all."
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2009/11/thermodynamics-of-global-climate.html
It looks like Tim Osborn will have a friend here too.
I've done a quick blog post on these names
here
Here we go again...
So the basic premise of even having an AR5 is to fatten the credentials of some more strident warmists? Or just an excuse to throw around some more grant money?
I mean, it's not like these guys are going to be advancing real science by helping to push the IPCC spin machine 'round in circles faster...
Chapter 9: Review of Climate Models. It also has Peter Cox from the UK who, from all the appearances I've seen him make on the beeb, is an alarmist. He isn't a scientist, he's a mathematician (not that I've got anything against mathematicians), so he has no problems believing computer model outputs are evidence.
Benjamin
Masson-Delmotte at the head of the chapter and Dominique Raynaud reviewing it. Do I detect the hand of Jean Jouzel?
If there's going to be someone at CRU, I'd rather have it be Osborn. He is just listed as a chapter author, and not a lead author like Briffa and Mann before him.
"Masson-Delmotte at the head of the chapter and Dominique Raynaud reviewing it. Do I detect the hand of Jean Jouzel?"
Jouzel is on of the reviewer in the Sea Level chapter.
To my knowledge, VMD is a honest and good scientist (she knows and appreciates McIntyre's work), we'll see how it goes.
French view on French names
4 top names from the LSCE organisation which is under CEA's umbrella, the French nuclear research institute
V. Masson-Delmotte will be CLA for the paleo ; she already played an interesting role for AR4 : see some CA posts.
Recently she lead the way for a 700+ scientists petition asking for the French State, the Science Academy, etc. to help the French alarmist scientists against critics from prominent sceptics like Cornillot or Allegre (also a former Minister for education who became hatred by many leftists and leftist media due to his critics against teachers). Indeed a leading scientist on the paleo-ice side, very much engaged on the global warming front. She has a degree from Ecole Centrale, a "grande ecole" famous for producing brilliant modellers on the finance (see Goldman Sachs recent story) and meteo areas.
Ph. Ciais, also a paleo, will play a CLA role as well, on the carbon cycle chapter. Very much engaged on global warming. A "Normale Sup" alumni and top modeller
Laurent Bopp, a colleague will contribute to the same chapter ; same training ("Normale Sup) as well, engaged as well. Spent 6 months at UEA in 2007.
Francois-Marie Breon is a specialist in satellite measurement and biogeochemical cycle ; totally engaged against global warming ; presents himsel as a green activist
A dream team to summarize and present a fair assessment of todays science ; many thanks to the CEA's and french government's contribution to the next IPCC AR
I recently participated to a chat within my company with Jouzel : a true popaganda exercise !
No one believes a word the IPCC has to utter on any matter.
I'll grant you this, this grant is great!
Who is responsible for who gets which position in the IPCC editorial board?
I want names and affiliations an political colours of the people in charge for this nominating process.
This procedure is as transparant as dutch pea soup. Perhaps IAC could shine some light on this.
Donna Laframboise says the IPCC has announced the names of 831 people who will write AR5 presumably the list is made up of coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors. Pachauri in his presentation to the IAC says AR4 had around 450 lead authors and around 800 contributing authors which total around 1250. There seems to be more names to be announced for AR5 or perhaps they will they be introduced via the back door.
Fifth assessment, first or third or thirty seventh......who cares, we won't be perusing the pages for scientific insight or for a new Eureka revelation.
It will be more of the same blasted, twisted hotch-potch of fabrication, hyperbole and shock horror journalese.
No! We seek something far more relishing, the clarion cry of the horn is sounded and the chase begins!
Glory! The adrenal rush, the blood rising and the smell of a distant putrification. Something to really dig the spurs into the flanks......... the sweat stained exhilaration of the hunt, the pursuit of the cunning but ever so sly vermin some would call the 'fox', to which the IPCC accords as........... the facts.
OT: Monbiot predictably has a piece gloating about the Sunday Times cave in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/24/sunday-times-amazongate-ipcc
It's a ghastly read but one section intrigued me though:
“North was right to point out that the IPCC should not have relied on a report by WWF for its predictions about the Amazon. Or he would have been right if it had. But it hadn’t. The projection was drawn from a series of scientific papers by specialists in this field, published in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are referenced in the first section of the IPCC’s 2007 report (pdf).”
The only link is not to any specific papers but to to a pdf of the whole IPCC chapter, at the end of which are hundreds of citations. But searching the chapter for “40%” brings up as far as I can see, only passages dealing with quantities concerning clouds and precipitation – not any proportion of the rainforest supposedly at risk.
Has Monbiot been deliberately vague because there is nothing which clearly would back up the IPCCs claim that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest is in danger from CC? Surely if there had been a killer quote Monbiot would have used it with relish.
I looked into this at the time of Dr Lewis's complaint. The science on which this is based is either obscure or flaky. Somebody should follow it up.
artwest
The Sunday Times may have wimped out but the Telegraph and Booker
were not challenged over the same statements - I wonder why ?
Delingpole seems to be suggesting that he's going to follow up on the Amazongate story.
Popcorn please...
This is interesting:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-assessment-report-5-authors.html#comments
Your grace,
Is there a sense that more moderate scientists are "excluded" from authorship? Are they available or interested? Are these positions applied for? Do we know that the un-inflamed have not been solicited?