Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Bad boys exaggerated my graph and ran away! | Main | Spiked on the Hockey Stick »
Wednesday
Jun232010

The Team gets the paleo job...again

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

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.

Jun 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

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 :)

Jun 23, 2010 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarcel Crok

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf
Masson-Delmotte at the head of Paleoclimate chapter.

Jun 23, 2010 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterBenjamin

Very good point from Richard Tol, nominations before the end of the review is a complete nonsense.

Jun 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBenjamin

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 -

"... the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them. All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily for no funding and no pay whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns"

<....reaches for tissues....> So there you have it, get a job you idle layabouts.

Jun 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

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.

Jun 23, 2010 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrady

I've done a quick blog post on these names

here

Here we go again...

Jun 23, 2010 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDonna Laframboise

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...

Jun 23, 2010 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

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.

Jun 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Benjamin

Masson-Delmotte at the head of the chapter and Dominique Raynaud reviewing it. Do I detect the hand of Jean Jouzel?

Jun 23, 2010 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

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.

Jun 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

"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.

Jun 23, 2010 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJean

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

Jun 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel

I recently participated to a chat within my company with Jouzel : a true popaganda exercise !

Jun 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel

No one believes a word the IPCC has to utter on any matter.

Jun 23, 2010 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

I'll grant you this, this grant is great!

Jun 23, 2010 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

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.

Jun 24, 2010 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterHans Erren

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.

Jun 24, 2010 at 7:30 AM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

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.

Jun 24, 2010 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan

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.

Jun 24, 2010 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

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.

Jun 24, 2010 at 5:11 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

artwest

The Sunday Times may have wimped out but the Telegraph and Booker
were not challenged over the same statements - I wonder why ?

Jun 24, 2010 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterjazznick

Delingpole seems to be suggesting that he's going to follow up on the Amazongate story.

Popcorn please...

Jun 24, 2010 at 8:52 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

This is interesting:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-assessment-report-5-authors.html#comments

Jun 26, 2010 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergeorgesdelatour

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?

Jun 26, 2010 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>