The End of Anonymous Peer Review in Science

Wall Street Journal expresses its Opinion on Climategate in The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths: The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power:

• The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited "peer review" as evidence of their "consensus." 
• ...scientists who suppressed others "must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop 'trick' procedures, to 'balance' the needs of the IPCC, and even to 'redefine' peer review."
  
• Why are scholars who review papers allowed to remain anonymous? 
• Reforming scientists and lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused peer review to block contrary evidence?
• Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now have the chance to review the facts. 
• Facing up to high-profile flaws is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in secret.
  

Yes, Climategate has put the finger on the weak spot of science: anonymous peer-review.

Science requires open debate between living scientists with faces and names in order to guarantee that arguments and facts can properly be scrutinized, compared and evaluated.  If in a scientific debate or controversy, one side is allowed to be anonymous and hide the cards, a call cannot be made and the game is unfair. And the result of an unfair game of science can be unfair incorrect science. Just as if you were allowed to cheat in sports. It seems clear that the peer-review process has to be redefined. 

Royal Societies and Climategate

Shortly after the IPCC Climategate explosion, The Royal Society reconfirms its endorsement of IPCC:

• The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. 
• Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  
• As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. 
• The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN’s climate change panel (the IPCC) – made up of the world’s foremost climate scientists – provided unequivocal evidence for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. 
• The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong.

In the light of Climategate all these statements appear utterly ironic, and it can only be a matter of days before The Royal Society will have to make a revision, in particular in view of its 350th anniversary celebration, a revision which of course will be mimicked by The Royal Swedish Academy celebrating its 270th anniversary. The Royal Societies could listen to BBC

to get some inspiration.

Blåögd Sverker Sörlin DN Borde Läsa SvD om Klimatskandalen

Sverker Sörlin, idehistoriker på KTH skriver i sin stort uppslagna Essä i dagens DN: Dags för världen att gå från kunskap till handling:

• Kunskapen om klimatförändringar är överväldigande.
• Internationellt väller klimatböckerna på.
• Det stora genombrottet kom med IPCC rapporten 2007.
• Det finns troligen ingen stor samhällsfråga av naturvetenskaplig art där kunskaperna varit bättre och mer allmänt spridda.
• Om nu alla, eller nästan alla, vet hur det fungerar och de flesta är övertygade om att det är mänsklig aktivitet som ligger bakom uppvärmningen, hur kan det komma sig att så litet sker?
• Varför äter människor kött?
• Jonstad förordar att alla medbogare skall få lika utrymme i atmosfären, alltså koldioxidransonering. Som ett experiment i framtidstänkande fungerar Jonstads bok väl.

Men Sverker, har Du inte läst om Climategate? Eller SvDs ledare som idag ställer frågan:

• Är Allt Bara Båg?
  

Borde inte även Du som idehistoriker ställa Dig denna fråga? Du läser väl inte bara Karin Boijs på DN? Som tex Daily Telegraph? Eller Daily Mail! Eller The Telegraph! Eller Jyllandsposten. Mycket av intresse där för en vetenskapshistoriker. 

Och tänk om det SvD antyder är riktigt? Vilket scope skulle detta inte vara för en idehistoriker? Tidernas största! Du skulle kunna fylla hela DN med detta! Varför då inte som vetenskapsman testa hypotesen: Är Allt Bara Båg?  Studera tex: A simple proof that global warming is not man-made. 

The Times rapporterar idag Climate Change Data Dumped:

• Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. 
• It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. 
• The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. 

Samtidigt ägnar SR Godmorgon Världen klimatfrågan stor uppmärksamhet med historiker Håkan Blomqvist: Hur skall det mänskliga samhället vara organiserat? En oerhörd möjlighet att förändra vår civilisation. Utan att nämna Climategate med ett ord. Namnet borde ändras till Goodby Världen. Finns det bara blåögda journalister på SR? 

Och hör inte en historiker vilka vibrationer som finns i "det mänskliga samhällets organisation" och "oerhörd möjlighet", baserat på båg?

Men se, Vetenskapsradions Veckomagasin tar upp Climategate, men lugnar naturligtvis genast de svenska lyssnarna med: Climategate avslöjar inget nytt; Sven Börjesson som följer klimatdebatten för SRs räkning säger:

• Är det forskningsfusk eller hårklyveri? Man vet inte. Det kan vara jargong.
• I sakfrågan avslöjas inget nytt.
• En chans som skeptikerna väntat på...
• Klimatdebatten förändras inte.
• För Köpenhamnsmötet betyder det ingenting.
• Klimatfrågan handlar om så mycket än bara klimatvetenskap.
• Det är mycket som forskarna inte vet.
  

Ja, så behandlar SR världens största vetenskapsskandal: Kanske hårklyveri? Inget nytt! Klimatfrågan har liten koppling till klimatvetenskap...  

Men skandalen rullas upp och SR inbjuder Climate Scam till debatt. För första gången tror jag! 

Någonting är på väg att hända...även på SR...

Och även franska medier är på väg att vakna...ursäkten är att vetenskap är en smutsig business...lika smutsig som politik och vapenhandel...men kanske vetenskaplig sanning inte är så smutsig...bara lögnen...

KVA Litar på IPCC och Förnekar Climategate

Dagen efter Stockholmsinitiativets presskonferens kommer så ett svar från KVA på några av de frågor jag ställt:

Bäste Claes Johnson,

De svar jag ger på dina frågor resulterar som synes i följdfrågor. Akademien har gjort ett uttalande i klimatfrågan och i det uttalandet finner du Vetenskapsakademiens ställningstagande i frågan. Det är den positionen som jag som ständig sekreterare helt står bakom. Jag skall dock ge svar på de följdfrågor som du ställer men jag är inte beredd att fortsätta diskussionen efter detta eftersom den knappast blir särskilt fruktbar.

Mina svar finns i direkt anslutning till dina frågor nedan. På senare frågor som du ställt så kan jag bara säga att vi inte har för avsikt att revidera vårt uttalande på basis av ett brottsligt dataintrång vid Climate Research Unit vid University of East Anglia. Vidare så avstår jag från att kommentera dina personliga synpunkter på KVA.  

Mvh
Gunnar Öquist


Fråga 1: Anser KVA att det råder vetenskaplig konsensus angående AGW?

Svar: Detta har vi på intet sätt tagit ställning till.

Fråga 2: Har KVA gjort en EGEN vetenskaplig undersökning av AGW innefattande experiment och beräkningar?

Svar: KVA har gjort en ingående granskning av IPCC:s rapport nr 1, ett antal av de i rapporten citerade artiklarna samt nya artiklar publicerade efter IPCC rapporten.

Fråga 3: Har KVA validerat IPCCs rapport, eller är det bara ett konstaterande av vad IPCC gjort?

Svar: Detta är ett konstaterande. KVA anser att ökningen i växthusgaser i atmosfären är den mest sannolika orsaken till den globala uppvärmningen. Orsaken härtill är ändringen i jordens strålningsbalans till följd av ökade växthusgaser.

Fråga 4: Har KVA gjort en oberoende validering av dessa beräkningar, eller är det bara ett konstaterande av vad IPCC gjort?

Svar: Detta är ett konstaterande. KVA har givetvis inte genomfört egna simuleringsberäkningar. De experter inom KVA som tagit aktiv del i utarbetandet av uttalandet är väl förtrogna med dessa studier.

Fråga 5: KVA säger "Regrettably, we are not yet in a position to determine with any precision what is going to happen." Innebär detta att KVAs statement inte är ett vetenskapligt yttrande? 

Svar: Detta yttrande avser intervallet på den förväntade globala uppvärmningen. Vi har för närvarande ingen möjlighet att vara mera precisa på denna punkt då man dels inte tillräckligt noggrant känner den framtida emissionen och dels inte klimatsystemets exakta respons. Givetvis är det ett vetenskapligt yttrande.

Fråga 6: Borde inte KVA pga Climategate revidera sitt oreserverade stöd av IPCC? Se KVA, Statement on AGW, IPCC and Nobel Humbug.

Svar: KVA har inte för avsikt att revidera sitt uttalande på basis av ett brottsligt dataintrång vid Climate Research Unit vid University of East Anglia. 

Återkommer med en analys av dessa upplysande svar...Under tiden kan man kontemplera vad

en av de många klimatforskarna säger...

Analys av KVAs svar: KVAs svar är motsägelsefulla. KVA påstår sig göra ett vetenskapligt uttalande, men säger samtidigt att man bara konstaterar vad IPCC påstår, utan att själv utvärdera huruvida det är sant eller ej. Dessutom medger KVA att det kanske inte råder vetenskaplig konsensus om AGW, dvs att det kan finnas vetenskap som motsäger IPCC, men väljer ändå att lita till IPCC utan egen undersökning. 

KVA väljer att inte se det Climategate som nu rullas upp med motiveringen att det bara handlar om ett "brottsligt dataintrång" och inte alls om en vetenskaplig skandal, naturligtvis precis vad IPCC säger. Att manipulera vetenskapliga data är väl inte enligt vetenskapens codex?

KVA gör alltså ett uttalande som samtidigt är ett icke-uttalande. Detta kan kanske var gångbart i diplomati, men vetenskap handlar inte om diplomati eller politisk korrekthet. 

Men varför gör då KVA ett politiskt korrekt uttalande som vetenskapligt är ett icke-uttalande?

Har det funnits önskemål om detta från politiskt håll?

Dessutom kan Gunnar Öquist inte avstå från att vara snorkig och vägra fortsatt diskussion med mig därför att "den knappast blir särskilt fruktbar". För vem kan man ju undra? Själv tycker jag diskussionen varit klargörande och därmed fruktbar. Mina "personliga synpunkter" på KVA har fått nytt underlag från direkt observation. Det finns mycket läsning som skulle kunna vara fruktbar för KVA, tex Roy Spencers My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate eller Climategates Who's Who eller Climate Gate: The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation. Det är bara en tidsfråga innan KVA tvingas tänka om, om man vill fortsätta med att dela ut Nobelpris med någon prestige kvar. Ekonomipriset och fredspriset är redan ifrågasatta... 

"Climategate" har nu passerat "global warming" på Google och ger 10 500 000 träffar, medan "Nobelprize" ger 1 110 000. En faktor 10 färre...

The Royal Society Flunked the Climate Science Test

Whatever The Royal Society, the National Academy of Science of the UK and the Commonwealth at the cutting edge of scientific progress does, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences will do the same, a couple of years later. Bishop Hill now reports on difficulties of communication with The Society which are similar to mine with the Academy.

In March 2005 the Royal Society presented a A guide to facts and fictions about climate change where we read:

• It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the scientific evidence that has  been collected about climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human  activities as an exaggeration. 
• Some have questioned the motives of  the scientists who have presented the most authoritative assessments of the science of climate change,  claiming that they have a vested interest in ‘playing up’ the potential effects that climate change is  likely to have. 
• This document examines twelve misleading arguments put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their  flaws. 

The twelve misleading arguments are as follows:

1. The IPCC has become too politicised and does not accurately reflect  the wide range of views within the scientific community. The IPCC summary for policy-  makers does not adequately represent the scientific uncertainty. 
2. Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem.  Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem. 
3. There is little evidence that global warming is happening or, if it is  happening, it is not very much. Some parts of the world are actually becoming cooler.  Increased urbanisation could be responsible for much of the increase in observed  temperatures. Satellite temperature records do not show any global warming. If there has  been global warming recently, it would not even be a unique occurrence within the past  1000 years. Europe has been much warmer in the past. 
4. The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of  greenhouse gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction of  the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate.  Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing than increases in  greenhouse gases. 
5. There is no reliable way of predicting how temperatures will  change in the future. The climate is so complex that it is hard to predict what might  happen. The IPCC’s climate scenarios are developed by economists not scientists and are  often misleadingly presented as predictions or forecasts, when they are actually just  scenarios – the most extreme of which are totally unrealistic The IPCC’s findings are  dependent on models that are badly flawed. No climate model has been scientifically  validated. The IPCC 2001 predictions showed a wider uncertainty range than that in earlier  reports. 

6. Scientists have been exaggerating the evidence by claiming that  individual extreme weather events have been caused by climate change. The recent  flooding in the UK in places like Boscastle and Carlisle would have happened anyway, and  the frequency of hurricanes hitting the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of the United States is  no different than in the past. Even if they appear to be more severe, this is only because  more people are living in places that are affected by natural extreme weather events. 
7. There is conflicting evidence about whether the ice at the poles is  melting and, in fact, it is actually becoming thicker in Antarctica. 
8. There is little evidence of a rise in sea level due to global warming.  There is no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. There has been  no consistent trend this century, with sea level rising in some places but not in others. Even  if sea level is rising it has nothing to do with global warming and is actually due to the fact  that southern England is sinking due to the bending of the Earth’s crust.
9. Even if climate change is occurring, it won’t be that dangerous.  Abrupt climate change is just another scare story. While an atmospheric concentration for  carbon dioxide of 550 parts per million has been proposed as a political target, there has  been no scientific determination of “dangerous” levels of greenhouse gas concentrations. 
10. There is no evidence that climate change will be bad for people.  In fact, warmer weather will actually be good for those people who live in cold countries.  Climate change may make some places like Russia warmer and more productive places to  live. A warmer climate will be good for the UK’s economy, with more tourists and better  wine-producing conditions. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide would produce a rise in  plant productivity and crop yields. Surely we should let the benefits and costs of climate  change even themselves out. 
11. There are too many uncertainties about climate change and its  impacts to justify taking action. It would be better to wait until we are more certain about  climate change before acting. 
12. The Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time because the United States  will not ratify it. The emission reduction targets required under the Kyoto Protocol are  “trivial” and would do no more than postpone global warming by six years. Implementing  the Kyoto Protocol would be too costly. The trillions of dollars that would be wasted on the  Kyoto Protocol should be spent on helping developing countries tackle poverty. 

What is truely remarkable is that, in particular in the light of Climategate, each one of these statements instead of being misleading, seems to be essentially correct. An amazing result by a Royal Society: No correct answer out of twelve questions! Such a result must require some intelligent design.

It is like the little child hiding the chocolate bar under the sofa saying: It is not under the sofa. Twelve times.

Thermodynamics of Global Climate Politics without Science

Global climate is a thermodynamic process driven by the Sun and the rotation of the Earth in an endless battle between forces seeking to increase or decrease differences in heat, kinetic and chemical energies. A battle between hot-cold, wet-dry, fast-slow, salt-sweet, high-low, condensation-evaporation, absorption-emisson...

Is it possible to understand also global climate politics as a thermodynamic process between forces resulting from differences in natural resources, manpower, technology, political system...? Yes, probably with the main difference being that between the rich and the poor, West and East, North and South: the difference between the developed world and the developing world.

The political leaders of the World are now gathering in Copenhagen seems to have a common interest in putting a global tax on CO2, however with different motivations:

• The developing world expects a net flow of money from the developed world to go green.
• The developed world expects to put a limit on the use of fossil energy in the developing world, to make fossil energy last longer/not become too expensive.

The developed world wants to maintain a difference to the developing world, while the developing world wants to decrease this difference. The leaders may come to an agreement, but with different conflicting underlying agendas. Like the global climate this is a chaotic system for which prediction is very difficult, except that the conflicting agendas will lead to a lot of trouble and wasted resources, which could instead have been used to improve the World.

A further deconstruction of climate politics is given by Lorrie Goldstien in Toronto Star: If you're wondering how the robot-like march of the world's politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed "climategate," it's because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don't give a s*** about "the science." 

This analysis is supported by the announcement by Professor and climate alarmist Markku Rummukainen SMHI in  SvD:

• Even if data were fabricated, the knowledge basis of climate change would not change, not at all.
  

Ergo: Climate politics has nothing to do with climate science. And of course our Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt does not read the Toronto Star, only SvD and DN. And in SVT Debatt 26/11 we hear Anders Wijkman say: 

• We have to listen to what scientists say. It does not look good. If it is so that Nature requires what market economy cannot deliver, then we must do something else...we cannot negotiate with Nature...

Not a word about Climategate, in Sweden. The idea is to keep out anything that could disturb Reinfeldt as he now will lead the World to a climate agreement, without climate science. 

But if everybody in Copenhagen will know about Climategate, wouldn't Reinfeldt look silly if he is the only one who doesn't know?

Stockholmsinitiativets Presskonferens Utan Press

Stockholmsinitiativets presskonferens (se video) med anledning av Climategate var informativ med presentationer av Göran Ahlgren, Peter Stilbs, Ingemar Nordin och konstnär/ornitolog Lars Jonsson. 

Dock saknades press och media, vilket med Görans ord gav en stämning av släktträff. Ingen från vare sig SVT, SR, DN eller SvD var där, trots att Climategate kan visa sig vara alla tiders största vetenskapliga skandal, med väldiga konsekvenser för oss alla. Dock rapporterar  SvD tanklöst:

• Och skulle berörda data vara fabricerade så skulle inte kunskapsläget för klimatförändringarna falla, inte ens en väsentlig del, säger Markku Rummukainen SMHI.
  

Jag fick stöd av KVAmedlem Wibjörn Karlen på plats i min kritik att KVA "jamar med" IPCC utan eget vetenskapligt underlag.  Lars Bern nämnde att han försöker få IVA att ordna vetenskaplig hearing om klimatfrågan och Climategate. 

Det är vetenskapssamhällets uppgift att ge underlag för klimatpolitik. Om denna uppgift förfuskas är det till stor skada för både samhälle och vetenskap. KVA och IVA har ansvar för att Reinfeldt får vetenskapligt korrekt information, och media har ansvar för att sådan meddelas samhället, men nu sviks dessa ansvar. Om vetenskapsmännen avsätter sig själva, vad skall dom då leva av?

Och vad tjänar det till att Sverige är bäst i klassen, vilket Reinfeldt brukar berömma oss av, om det visar sig att ämnet ifråga inte finns på schemat? 

Frågorna ställs av Peter Foster National Post Let the climate debate begin:

• How and why did virtually every government on earth buy into what might turn out to be bogus science and potentially disastrous policy? 
• How was a manifestly biased IPCC process able to sell the line — along with its co-Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore — that the science was “settled.” 
• What was the UN-based system’s role in promoting radical environmental NGOs and allowing them into the policy process? 
• How did NGOs manage to scare the public, and threaten and co-opt Big Business? 
• What was the role of government bureaucracies in pushing obviously self-interested plans to erect massive new programmes to control the weather and dictate industrial activity?
•  How were the vast majority of democratic politicians sucked into this blatantly ideological process without issuing so much as a peep of dissent?
  

Läser inte Reinfeldt annat än DN och SvD? Har han inte tagit del av Stockholmsinitiativets upprop? Köper han utan vidare försöken till bortförklaring av Climategate av Phil Jones:

• We face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.
• This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
• That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.
• The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them. 
• My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.
• Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues. 
• We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest. 

Och frågan kvarstår:  Varför jamar KVA okritiskt med i IPCCs alarmism? Varför svarar inte KVA på mina frågor? Tigande är inget vetenskapligt argument, och vetenskap utövas med vetenskapliga argument. Är inte KVA en vetenskaplig akademi?

Man-Made Global Warming

Fred Singer comments on the IEA Blog:

• The Climategate disclosures over the past few days, consisting of some thousands of emails between a small group of British and US climate scientists, suggest that global warming may be man-made after all – created by a small group of zealous scientists! 
• It would seem they have used flawed data, phoney statistics, and various “tricks”. They appear to have covered up contrary evidence and refused to open their work to the scrutiny of independent scholars. 
• It has also been suggested that by keeping out “intruders”, by reviewing their own papers, by capturing scientific journals and intimidating editors, they have tried to suppress dissent. 
• I consider the whole matter a great tragedy not only for science but also for the institutions involved and for many of the scientists involved who have in fact spent many years and whole careers on their work. Inevitably, the public’s view of science will be affected and this will hurt all of science. 

Watch the debate between Singer and Bob Watson, on BBC not Swedish Television. Or watch the interview with Dan Weiss of Center for American Progress.

Swedish media like DN and SvD only show pictures of maltreated pigs, but Norway is more alert: Glovarmt om oppvarmning...Searching on climate gate on DN and SvD gives no hit. Reinfeldt should not get distracted...Google only gives 18.800 hits, while there are more than 2 million pigs in Sweden...Compare with what Lennart Bengtsson has to say about Swedish media.

Read the shocking story by Roger Pielke Sr on E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Bias and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends.

And CEJournal on Monbiot: environmentalists in denial over CRU emails by Tom Yulsman making the important point:

• The email raises a legitimate question about the integrity of the peer review process, and also about scientific transparency. It would be one thing if we were dealing with the science of cosmic strings, which probably has no relevance to anyone other than geeks like me who get off on understanding the origin, evolution and structure of the universe. It’s a completely different thing when we are dealing with science that supports the case for transforming the economy of the entire world. People won’t be willing to go along if they have the impression that something’s fishy with the science, or that scientists aren’t being completely transparent.

Follow how man-made warming was created by New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). Amazing data!

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Sick Science

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science presents itself as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time  for Copenhagen in December, 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow.  Its Executive Summary states:

• The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global  emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society –  with near-zero emissions of CO 2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – needs to be reached well within this century.  More  specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO  2 by 2050. This is 80-95%  below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
  

The main experimental evidence of the coming catastrophy is summarized as:

• Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases.  Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend. 

The main question Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?  is answered by:

• The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller  warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) 
  

with the following excuse: primarily due to the fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves  out the Arctic, which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years. 

The question Isn’t Antarctica cooling and Antarctic sea ice increasing? is answered by:

• Although the weather station at the South Pole shows cooling over the last 50 years, this single weather station is not representative. 

The question Are there tipping points in the Earth’s climate  system? is answered by:

• The proximity of some tipping points has been assessed  through expert elicitation. Proximity, rate and reversibility have been also assessed through literature review. 
• A global tipping point can only occur if a net amplifying feedback  becomes strong enough to produce a threshold whereby the  global system is committed to a change in state, carried by its  own internal dynamics. Despite much talk in the popular media  about such ‘runaway’ climate change there is as yet no strong  evidence that the Earth as a whole is near such a threshold.  

Of the temperature curves in Fig. 19 one shows an alarming increase in recent years: the red CRU Observed Trend, from the CRU at the center of Climategate. 

On Climate Projections it is reported:

• There has been no new coordinated set of future climate model projections undertaken since the IPCC AR4.  Instead, much  of the new research over the past few years has focused on  preparation for the next round of IPCC simulations for AR5, and  continued evaluation of the AR4 model runs.  
  

The statements presented above are visibly contradictory as concerns e.g. rates of warming,

existence of tipping points, and the value of climate models. If anything the Copenhagen Diagnosis indicates that climate science is sick, and cannot participate in the Copenhagen meeting.

To save the climate conference from collapse, COP15 assures all of us that  Scientists "behaving badly" won’t influence UN climate conference:

• While e-mails stolen from one of the world’s top climate research centres may embarrass some of the involved scientists, the incident is reported not to affect the ongoing political negotiations.
  

After this declaration COP15 rings the alarm of Copenhagen Diagnosis: Global warming outpaces predictions:

• The biggest scientific overview since the IPCC’s landmark report from 2007 warns of warming up to seven degrees Celsius this century – a figure that adds weight to the gloomiest of the forecasts made two years ago. 
  

But a climate congress based on sick climate science "behaving badly" should be called off. 

Reinfeldt now has a global warming potato in his hands. What to do? Close the ears and get burned? Or open the eyes and lead the World away from catastrophy? Read YstadsAllehanda!

It does not require much thinking to understand that a climate conference without climate science is meaningless. It would be like a heart bypass operation on a healthy patient with Gordon Brown at the knife. 

Meanwhile the temperature of Climategate and Copenhagen is increased even more by the Met Office meeting  the allegations of scientific fraud by claiming that 

• previous estimates about the rate of temperature rise had been too low...the planet could warm by 7C (10.8F) which would make large parts of the planet uninhabitable.
  

The response to inquiry is met by increasing the level of alarm. This is a process with positive feed-back and can only end in exponential blow-up.

Watch Fall of the Republic. Science is a republic to serve the people, not priests and oligarchs.

 

Secret Societies of Science

As Climategate is now unraveling, I see aspects of science which I have had to struggle with in particular during my later career. This is the Dan Brown Da Vinci Code or Umberto Eco Il Nome della Rosa syndrome of secret control by secret societies, which scientific societies and journals have come to practice with considerable ingenuity in our time, in particular IPCC, as exemplified by the post on Pielke's blog Beware Saviors! by Demetris Koutsoyiannis. 

More details on secret societies of science, see Pielke on The IPCC Turf. 

One of my own experiences of this trait is recorded in: 

• A Paradoxical Paradox Resolution
• Interview with Editors of Journal of Fluid Mechanics
• Reception Forum.

KVA, Nobel Prizes, Statement on AGW, IPCC and Nobel Humbug

To The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences KVA 

KVA awards the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry and to maintain the high prestige of these prizes, it is necessary that KVA gives an impression of scientific competence to the World. 

As the scientific credibility of IPCC is now being seriously questioned, KVA cannot continue to rely on IPCC without losing credibility itself and thereby damage one of the cornerstones of the Kingdom of Sweden. KVA therefore must revise its statement on AGW and express a scientific view independent of IPCC, or withdraw the statement and say nothing. The Nobel Prize ceremony is coming up in two weeks, and neither the King nor the people wants to make it into a joke.

As long as KVA keeps silent, Swedish media will do the same, since in Sweden nobody dares to question Nobel Prize authority. But an Emperor without clothes easily loses credibility...see video clips e.g. the debate between Chris Horner and Howard Gould.

The very essence of science is in jeopardy, and KVA must rethink: In its Message to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference KVA states:

• Time is of the essence for radical urgent changes to the global energy system. The  world has been increasingly powered by fossil fuels over the last 150 years and now this trend will  have to be reversed in a much shorter time period. Huge changes that will affect and concern  society and individuals will have to take place in a well thought-out manner. The political decisions  made over the next few years will profoundly affect future generations. 

This is a statement of a scientific society with a political agenda of "huge changes". But the mission of scientific society is science, not politics. Unfortunately,the climate science of KVA is the climate politics of IPCC,  as expressed by Alfred Nobel:

• Second to agriculture, humbug is the biggest industry of our age. 
  

Aldous Huxley warned in Brave New World for scientific dictatorship as a world government managed by functional elites and scientists, as did Bertrand Russell in The Impact of Science on Society. The analysis of Huxley and Russell seems to be as actual and relevant as ever.

No reactions 25/11 from KVA on my letters of 3/11 and 22/11. I suggest KVA listens to e.g. Alex Jones Part 1 and Part 2 or James Inhofe and for a moment tests the hypothesis that what is being said is true, and if the answer is yes, KVA takes some action.

Karin Bojs DN om Kriminella Klimatskeptiker

Karin Bojs, chef för Vetenskapsredaktionen DN, Du skriver idag Din Krönika att:

• klimatskeptiker är flitigaste mejlskrivarna; de verkar ha obegränsat med tid
  
• många mejl är oförskämda och aggressiva i tonen
• och använder till och med kriminella metoder för sin argumentation.

Vilka är de kriminella metoder för argumentation, som Du beskyller skeptiker till klimatalarmism att använda, och vilka skeptiker avser Du?

Eller är det tvärtom Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data':

• Some of the world’s top climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data on global warming after hundreds of private emails were stolen by hackers and published online.
  

Jämför vad som skrivs i DN med New York Times, Der Spiegel, Washington Times, Washington Post eller Wall Street Journal:

• Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."
  

Ja, det är svårt att tro, men verkligheten verkar överträffa dikten. Lyssna på Tim Ball på Youtube. Varför rapporterar då DN ensidigt om klimatalarmism? Varför skall vi svenskar undanhållas allsidig information? Speciellt när vi nu leder EU? Kan Du svara på det Karin? 

Jämför med George Monbiot på The Guardian. Eller Lord Monckton.

The Reality Behind Scientific Consensus on AGW

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is one of the many scientific societies which have made statements assuming there is scientific consensus on AGW as expressed by IPCC with backing from in particular the UK Met Office Hadley Centre. 

Washington Post reports on hacked email correspondence showing how the myth of scientifc consensus was fabricated by the Centre and its director Phil Jones. As one of many similar examples, Jones writes to Michael E. Mann proposing to filter the work of  skeptics from the IPCC report:

• I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

The myth of scientific consensus on AGW is now cracking in a Climategate. Will The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences revise its statement? I have posed the question to the Academy and will report on the answer. My last questions were met with silence...but silence is not a scientific argument...neither a democratic. After the confession of The Guardians George Monbiot and the report of  Lord Monckton to the UK's Information Commisioner, the Academy has to say something. Do it now, before the Climate Change Congress starts! Even before the press conference of Stockholmsinitiativet 26/11. After, it will be too late!

Vad Skulle Strindberg Sagt om Dagens Skolmatematik?

I Dygdens lön, den första novellen i Giftas I av August Strindberg, beskrivs den 15-årige huvudpersonen Theodors erfarenheter av skola och konfirmation på följande sätt:

• Vilken eländig maskerad denna skola! Icke en enda av ynglingarna trodde på välsignelsen av att uppräkna hatade konungar, lära sig obrukbara språk, att bevisa axiomer, definiera självklara saker... Huru många långa timmar försattes icke för att förgäves söka vetenskapligt dela en vinkel i tre lika stora delar, då det kunde "ovetenskapligt", dvs praktiskt,  göras på en minut med en gradskiva. 
• Det oförskämda bedrägeriet som spelades med Högstedts Piccadon a 65 öre kannan och Lettströms majsoblater a 1 kr skålp., vilka av prästen utgåvos vara den för över 1800 år sedan avrättade folkuppviglaren Jesus av Nasarets kött och blod, föll icke under hans reflektion, ty man reflekterade icke den tiden, utan man fick "stämningar". 

För detta åtalades den 35-årige Strindberg den 27 september 1884 i sin frånvaro i Schweiz, men frikändes av Stockholms rådshusrätt den 17 november samma år.

Vad skulle Strindberg sagt om dagens skolmatematik?

The Vasa Ship: Well Built But Badly Proportioned

On August 10 1628 the warship Vasa tipped over and sank in the harbor of Stockholm on its maiden voyage along with 50 of its crew of 150. In the resulting trial it was decied that

• the ship was well built but badly proportioned

and nobody was held guilty for the disaster. The ship can now be studied in the Vasa Museum in Stockholm after having been lifted out of its sleep on 24 April 1961. 

This illustrates the present state of Swedish engineering education: We can build solid cars but they are badly designed, because the education is old-fashioned. As in the Vasa trial, nobody is held responsible for this state of affairs...See previous posts Why Swedish Car Industry Has Been Sold Out and The Sad Result of Swedish Low-Tech Education. For Saab there is already a Saab Museum in Trollhättan... 

Is the Grant Too Small?

In a letter of November 17 to the Swedish Mathematical Union and Swedish National Committee for Mathematics I have asked for an initiative to take on the responsibility for mathematics education in Sweden, which was given up during the democratization of the 1960-70s. 

To take on the responsibility would be awarded with $100 million as start up grant by the Minister of Education Jan Björklund, with more grants to follow.

So far, I have not received any reaction. Why? Is the grant too small? Is not the responsibility

for mathematics education to be assumed by mathematicians? Isn't a bit stupid to cut the branch we are sitting on? If mathematics education is taken over by non-mathematicians, what will then be the role of mathematics departments?

Scientific Consensus Again But How?

Roger Pielke Sr. reports in Misrepresentation Of Scientific Consensus By The Leadership Of Professional Organizations that a letter signed by the leadership of American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and Society of Systematic Biolog directed to a US Senator, states that:

• rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver of AGW. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
  

Roger Pielke claims this is incorrect. As in the case of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences one may wonder on what scientific basis the statement by the scientific societies is made, but it will probably be equally difficult to find out...

Der Spiegel reports in Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out that leading climate alarmist Mojib Latif admits:

• At present, however, the warming is taking a break. (…) There can be no argument about that. We have to face that fact.
  

But the real shock is that The Examiner reports:

• The Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
  

BBC also reports on this amazing story without however revealing what is shocking. Anyway it may be another step towards the end of climate alarmism...see also Climate Science Corrupted

disclosing in particular the role of Bert Bolin...and the development of the new concept of scientific consensus. Compare with Spencer: Climategate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming. The Hadley email correspondence is now searchable. See also Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why?

Alarmism scepticism is entering Swedish Radio: Lindzen and Christy in P1-Morgon.

Why Swedish Car Industry Has Been Sold Out

                                      The first Saab 1947: Masterpiece of Swedish engineering!

The first critical steps towards the end of Swedish car industry were taken when Investor in 1998 sold its remaining half of Saab Automobile to GM, and Volvo in 1999 sold its car division to Ford, the reason being that Swedish engineering no longer was competitive. The end of Saab now seems inevitable since it is being dumped by GM and the end of Volvo Car in Sweden is also within sight as Ford gives it away to Chinese Geely. 

Volvo unions met Geely representatives yesterday seeking to assure that development and production will remain in Sweden. To make this credible, arguments must be made that Swedish engineers and car workers are better than Chinese, and quite a bit better since their salaries are much higher. Is this true? If not, development and production will move to China, since Geely is not buying Volvo just to support Swedish car industry.  

What is then the quality of Swedish engineering education? Is it possible that with a better engineering education, Swedish car industry could have been saved? Yes, I believe so. 

German car industry is surviving because German technology has high quality.

When I approach Leif Johansson, who took the first step by selling Volvo Car to Ford,

in his role as chairman of Teknikdelegation with the objective of improving engineering

education, with the information that Swedish engineering education is oldfashioned but can be modernized and thus become more effective, I get zero response. 

I find this remarkable. Isn't it completely clear that without high-quality engineering education

Swedish industry will collapse to packing furniture for IKEA? Why is not LJ as the most influential industrialist in Sweden interested in preventing this to happen? By improving the quality of Swedish engineering. What is preventing him to take initiatives in this direction? What will be the effect for all of us of a Swedish industry in free fall? 

Or is it too late to do anything? But why not try at least; it costs peanuts compared to Björklunds hundreds of millions wasted on grassroot mathematics reform. And we have a responsibility for coming generations to not sell out everything in our time = sustainable industry. Isn't that true LJ?

However, at the KTH promotion-installation ceremony on Nov 20 in the City Hall of Stockholm, everything looked bright: KTH President Peter Gudmundson Swedish informed us that KTH engineering education is among the best in the World and steadily getting better and better...When I a year ago told Peter Gudmundson that the education at KTH is oldfashioned and ineffective, as far as I can judgel, my message did not get across...Evidently the ship is viewed to be fine even if it is sinking...like Vasa...

It seems to be a special Swedish syndrome to believe that we are best in the World, while this may not be even close to reality.

Peter Gudmundson is member of Teknikdelegationen with objective to attract students to engineering studies, in particular to a career in Swedish car industry, which will have moved to China when they finish..

To better understand the silence of Teknikdelegation, let use an argument of reductio ad absurdum which mathematicians use frequently: Thus suppose that LJ says, oops now I see that 

engineering education is old-fashioned, but I have not understood it before. Or, yes I have known all the time during my long leadership of Volvo that engineering education is old-fashioned, but I have said nothing. Contradiction! Thus LJ can only say that everything is fine, even if it is not: 

• I don't belong to those who complain about the level of Swedish education.

Evidently LJ acknowledges that there are those who complain, so he is aware of the problem,

but prefers to deny.  And that is a problem...for Swedish industry and people...  

Mathematics of Free Fall

How can you a tell mathematically if a system is in a state of free fall? Answer: If the internal forces are zero, then the system is in free fall. 

When our astronaut Christer Fuglesang orbits the Earth in a weightless state, there are no internal forces pulling his legs. This is because the gravitational force acts on all parts of the body with equal strength.

Free fall is a wonderful state of no-tension and complete relaxation. Now you can experience it yourself for $4,950 + 5% tax as recorded by Stephen Hawking:

• It was amazing. The zero-g part was wonderful. I could have gone on and on. Space here I come.

The back-side of this wonderful feeling of complete relaxation is that you cannot do anything

but continue to fall freely until you hit something and it's all over.

Mathematics education is in a state of crisis in the Western World and in Sweden in particular. In an attempt to come to grips with the crisis our Minister of Education Jan Björklund is now allocating $100 million directly to grassroot school teachers in order to find an example of inspiring teaching which can serve as a model. Björklund thus bypasses the whole university system responsible for mathematics and mathematics teachers educators.

Does this mean that university mathematics is in free fall? To find out I have made the internal force test. I have sent an appeal to the community requesting a reaction to Björklund's bypass, and have not noticed any reaction. It can only mean that there are no internal forces, that everybody in the community is falling in the same way. In other words: collective free fall. A pleasant relaxed state, but with the disadvantages listed above.

In a new Ph D thesis in mathematics didactics  Students opportunities to assume responsibility for their own learning with regard to mathematics. A classroom-based study in a postmodern era, the free fall is taken one step further by suggesting that the pupils themselves should assume responsibility for their learning of mathematics. Björklund's money could then be allocated directly to the pupils and thus bypass also mathematics teachers. It is clear that lots money can be saved this way.

Varför Vill Teknikdelegation Inte Se?

För drygt en månad sedan skickade jag ett brev till Teknikdelegationen och dess ordförande Leif Johansson samt ledamoten Björn O Nilsson IVA med upplysningen att svensk ingenjörsutbildning är omodern och uppmaningen att Teknikdelegationen har både ansvar och möjlighet att ta initiativ till modernisering.

Jag konstaterar att varken LJ eller BON ger någon respons. Märkligt kan man tycka. Att vara så cool vad gäller svensk ingenjörsutbildning och dess konkurrenskraft. Är det verkligen helt ointressant vilken kvalitet utbildningen har i vårt nya utbildningssamhälle? LJ och BON?

En ledamot av Teknikdelegation gav respons på mitt brev: Peter Larsson Sveriges Ingenjörer. Vi träffades och fann oss vara eniga om att ingenjörsutbildningen behöver moderniseras. 

Sammantaget får jag intrycket att varken Utbildningsdepartmentet som formulerat direktiven för TD eller huvuddelen av TD inklusive Rektor KTH har förstått situationens allvar: Att det är avgörande för svensk konkurrenskraft att vi har en modern högkvalitativ ingenjörsutbildning. 

Vad som fattas är insikten om att nuvarande utbildning inte uppfyller detta krav. Hur skall denna insikt nås? Det är inte svårt bara man bara slutar blunda och tar in information. Men varför vill man inte göra det? Vad eller vem är det som förbjuder detta?

Vill inte Volvo, Regeringen och Folket ha välutbildade moderna ingenjörer? Eller räcker det med att Christer Fuglesang åker ut i rymden? Kanske det inte blir nån mer tur, och hur går det då med TDs strategi för svensk teknik? 

Med en modern utbildning kunde vi haft kvar svensk bilindustri, men vem bryr sig? Vi är ju ändå bäst och behöver inte bry oss.

Matematikersamfundet och Nationalkommitteen för Matematik reagerar inte heller på mitt brev om modernisering av matematikutbildningen. Det kan vara så att matematiker väljer att bita  ihop ännu hårdare och gå ännu längre ut i öknen utan vatten istället för att modernisera och få en halv miljard eller mer att utveckla sitt ämne. Men vem är det som har bestämt och därmed har ansvaret för detta?  Ingen?

The Weather in Målilla and Global Climate

                          Kuno Schröder measuring the temperature since 2004 in Målilla.

In Part II Mathematics of Turbulence of my book with Johan Hoffman Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow from 2007, we show in Chapter 13 Turbulence and Chaos that turbulent fluid dynamics is

• short-time pointwise predictable
• long-time pointwise unpredictable
• long-time mean-value predictable
  

illustrated by the temperature variation in the little idyllic village of Målilla  in the county of Småland  in southern Sweden, for which data are available from the Swedish Institute of  Meteorology SMHI since 1860. Målilla has the Swedish record high of 38 degrees Celcius from 1948, before global warming was invented...  

We see, as we all know, that the daily temperature can only be predicted a couple of days ahead, to a meaningful tolerance, while the monthly or even better yearly mean-value can be predicted years ahead to a meaningful tolerance.

These are also features of climate dynamics, which is a form of weather dynamics on large space-time scales, but long-time prediction is difficult because of the complexity of the modeling.

We are thus pleased to see that our book, written before we lifted our horizon to climate dynamics, directly connects to the crucial question of accuracy and reliability of climate models. We see these connections in particular in the recent  text by HK Climate.

We also note that Nowcast reports from a weathercasters poll that only 19% agree to the statement that global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet. If weathercasters don't believe in climate models, and they should know since they have a lot of experience, who could believe? Believers should answer one simple question and maybe take a look at the comparison between model prediction and real outcome.

Even Swedish Radio P1-Morgon Nov 20 reports on alarmism skepticism represented by Richard Lindzen and John Christy claiming that climate models exaggerate climate sensitivity

because they are programmed to do that. Mass illusion and hysteria, according to Lindzen, who is quite out-spoken...

Brev till Matematikersamfundet och Nationalkommitten

Till Matematikersamfundet och Nationalkommitten för Matematik

Skolminister Jan Björklund har avsatt 500 miljoner till en matematiksatsning med motiveringen:

• Resultaten i matematik och naturvetenskap har sjunkit under en rad år. Vi måste vända den negativa trenden.
• Eleverna räknar mycket på egen hand och gör ofta systematiska fel, som inte upptäcks av lärarna. Vi vill hjälpa lärarna och skolorna att ändra sin undervisning.
• Skolverket skall sprida information om goda exempel på hur matematikundervisningen kan bli mer inspirerande.

Under året har 87 miljoner delats ut till 1237 projekt jämnt spridda över landets kommuner. 

Jag har kommenterat detta på min blogg: 

• 500 milj till vad?
  
• Stackars alla lärare och elever i matematik!
• Vem skall inspektera Skolinspektionen?

Läget kan sammanfattas på följande sätt: Supertankern Matematik har gått på grund eftersom 

destination och navigering saknas och kapten och styrman har avgått,  och är på väg att sjunka. Rederiet anmodar besättningen att rädda skutan genom att slänga ut ett nät med förhoppning att något skall fastna, med nätkostnad på en halv miljard.

Alla är ense om att matematikundervisningen i våra skolor inte fungerar. Finns det då inga som är ansvariga, som har som en av sina huvuduppgifter att se till att det fungerar? Jo, denna uppgift har matematikprofessorerna vid våra universitet och matematiklärarutbildarna vid lärarhögskolorna. Men de får inga pengar av Björklund, utan pengarna går direkt till lärarna i landets kommuner med förhoppning att fånga upp några goda exempel på hur matematikundervisningen kan bli mer inspirerande. 

Detta innebär en total kollaps av utbildningssystemet.  I politiska termer motsvaras det av att regering, department och riksdag har avpolletterats och landet istället styrs av goda inspirerande exempel från alla medborgare, exempel som utväljs och premieras av Skolverket UPA. 

Igår hade jag möte med Utbildningsdepartementet angående matematiksatsningen och framförde min kritiska synpunkt att Björklunds matematiksatsning innebär 500 miljoner till ingen nytta alls. Departementet sade att eftersom jag bara är en professor bland många behöver man nog inte lyssna och närmare utreda om det jag säger är sant.

Jag vänder mig därför nu till landets matematiker vid universitet och högskolor, och speciellt till alla professor i matematik: Matematikämnet befinner sig i en kris. Ett av många bevis på denna kris är Björklunds matematiksatsning. Det är dags att vi matematiker, och speciellt då vi matematikprofessorer tar tillbaka huvudansvaret för matematikundervisningen, på alla nivåer,

ett ansvar som frånträddes under demokratiseringsvågen på 60-talet.  Varför? Av flera skäl: 

1. Det är en av våra huvuduppgifter, för vilken vi är betalda av skattemedel. 
2. Användingen av matematik inom vetenskap och samhälle har med datorns utveckling ändrat form och innehåll och utbildningen måste därför moderniseras.
3. Det kan ge oss resurser att undvika total kollaps och istället utveckla vårt viktiga ämne. I potten just nu ligger närmast 413 miljoner, ungefär 10 ggr den totala årliga statliga forskningsfinansieringen av matematik.  
4. Om inte vi tar huvudansvaret för den nödvändiga reformen, kan ingen annan göra det heller, och den gammalmodiga skutan sjunker.

Vad som behöver göras är att vi enar oss om en gemensam linje vs Björklund och säger att 

vi vill ta vårt ansvar för att matematikutbildningen i Sverige skall fungerar väl, och att vi är beredda att utforma en plan och åtgärder för hur detta skall uppnås. Till en kostnad av 413 miljoner. Med denna jämförelse verkar vädjan från 5 professorer om en miljon till Mittag-Leffler närmast patetisk.

Jag uppmanar därför Matematikersamfundet och Nationalkommitten att ta lämpliga initiativ

i den viktiga frågan om morgondagens matematikutbildning.

Vänliga hälsningar,  Claes Johnson