IPCC: Politics and Not Science

Pachauri confirms the assumption by the different reviews of IPCC including the last one by IAC, that IPCC is not governed by science but by politics:

• Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments.
• If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it’s an inter-governmental body and we want governments’ ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow, what are the questions they want answered. 
• Unfortunately, people have completely missed the original resolution by which IPCC was set up. It clearly says that our assessment should include realistic response strategies. If that is not an assessment of policies, then what does it represent? And I am afraid, we have been, in my view, defensive in coming out with a whole range of policies and I am not saying we prescribe policy A or B or C but on the basis of science, we are looking at realistic response strategies. But that is exactly what this committee has recommended that we get out of — policy prescriptions. It is for this reason that I brought out that this what is written in the IPCC mandate. This is a misperception on the part of some people in the scientific community. And I hope I can correct it.

One (small) part of  the scientific community is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: It is now high time for the Academy to understand its misperception and withdraw its support of IPCC, since it is now completely clear that IPCC is politics and not science. Of course, if the Academy is also politics and not science, no action is necessary.

IAC Review of IPCC: Corruption of Science

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) Review is summarized in the Opening Statement by Harold Shapiro as follows:

• Overall, IPCC’s assessment process has been a success and served society well.
• We were asked by the Secretary-General and the IPCC Chair to focus on the processes and procedures of the IPCC, and to make recommendations aimed at strengthening the process by which future climate assessments are managed and prepared.
• We were not asked to re-referee the last IPCC assessment or to review the basic science of human-caused climate change.

IAC thus gives humankind yet another review of the IPCC process, without any form of review of the basic science.

But if the basic science is wrong, which it seems to be, it does not matter if certain formalities of IPCC processes are correct or not. IAC states that irrespective of the science presented by IPCC (= global warming by CO2 = alarm), whether it is correct or not, IPCC has been a success.

To proclaim success without assessment of the science, is only possible under the condition that IPCC assessments are not based on science, only politics. Nevertheless, IAC gives praise to IPCC, as if IPCC assessments in fact are based on science:

• The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change. Indeed, these were among the reasons IPCC was awarded a share of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
  

IAC thus builds on a contradiction: Either IAC understands this, but seeks deliberately to fool the public, or IAC does not see the contradiction at all. In either case it signifies corruption of science into only politics, which cannot "serve society well".

Phil Jones Speaking

Phil Jones is breaking his silence in a New Scientist interview:

• I know things aren't going to be the same as they were pre-November. It's just about learning to live with it.
• Unless the alternative views are in the peer-reviewed literature, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change cannot refer to them.
• Muir Russell showed that there was no perversion of the peer-review process. The papers that we were referring to in that email were bad science.
  
• There should be an acceptance that the climate has warmed since measurements began. OK, there's then debate about what caused that warming. But I do find it difficult engaging with people who deny the evidence and say the world has not warmed.
• I haven't deleted any emails that were the subject of FOI requests, but I have deleted emails...

Evidently CRU is back in business: A little bit of warming, maybe, but what may have caused the warming is of no interest. And bad science is bad science. The message from CRU/IPCC is the same, but things aren't going to be the same as they were pre-November...

What is Phil Jones anticipating?

Honesty vs Scientific Truth

The Muir Russell CRU Climate Gate Review concludes, without assessment of the quality of the scientific work, that CRU scientists were honest. Muir Russell thus allows 2. as a possibility in the following list of combinations of honesty and science 

1. honest and correct
2. honest and incorrect
3. dishonest and correct
4. dishonest and incorrect.

Muir Russell states that e.g. Phil Jones and Michael Mann were found to be honest (scientists), while the correctness of their scientific work was not an issue and thus was allowed to possibly be incorrect without interference with honesty.

But is it meaningful to separate honesty (as scientist) from quality of scientific work? What is best: To get a bypass operation by a skillful surgeon with (possibly) some tax problems, or by a tax-paying surgeon with (possibly) a bad track record? 

Is it advisable for governments to listen to honest scientists informing about incorrect science?

Muir Russells idea to separate (or mix up) honesty as scientist (whatever it means) with quality/truth of science, is dangerous both for heart patients, governments and the people. 

 

My experience from 40 years as scientist, is that honesty is not a virtue of scientists; many scientists steal or "borrow" results from other scientists without giving proper credit, but this dishonesty does not degrade the value to humanity of scientific (possibly inconvenient) truths. 

The conclusion of the Muir Russell Inquiry that Climategate does not give evidence of dishonesty of Phil Jones and Michael Mann, is based on a dishonest inquiry with all critics excluded, and in addition it seems to be incorrect. Nixon had to leave office because of Watergate, but Phil Jones is now back in office thanks to Muir Russell, despite Climategate. 

It is an unstable situation...

Testing if Muir Russell Means What He Says

Sir Muir Russell gives the following recommendation in his presentation of The Independent 

Climate Change Email Review:  

• First, how is science to be conducted in a new world of openness, accountability and indeed what I might term citizen involvement in public interest science? There need to be new ways of making results and data available, and we mention some aspects of current thought. There need to be ways of handling criticism and challenge, of responding to a range of different sorts of criticism and getting into a more productive relationship with critics than we have sometimes seen in this case.
  

I now test  if  Sir Muir Russell means what he is saying, by asking him to respond to the criticism I have expressed in my blog post Muir Russell: IPCC Conclusions Not Based on Science.

I will report on the response...It comes promptly:

Sir/Madam

Many thanks for your email to the Independent Climate Change Emails Review.  

Please note that the work of the Review team has now been completed and our final report     has been published. As such we will no longer be accepting submissions or responding       to questions raised. 

With best wishes

The Independent Climate Change Email Review team

A logical analysis shows that The Review Team is willing to respond only to questions raised about the Review before the Review was published. How many such questions can there be, by people not included in The Team?

More Muir Russell Logic

We continue our logical analysis of the Muir Russell CRU inquiry:

• This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
• On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

Combining these statements we conclude that what Sir Muir Russell is saying is:

• rigour and honesty as scientist is not related to content and quality of scientific work.

In other words, the result of the (honest and rigorous) investigation by Muir Russell is:

• the scientific work of an honest and rigorous scientist may lack quality.

This statement is depending on interpretation either trivially true or untrue, and in either case lacks quality. The conclusion is that the review lacks quality, irrespective if it was carried out with honesty and rigour or not.

Quality is probably what people hope to get for their tax money, taking honesty for granted.

It will be interesting to see if Muir Russell will meet criticism according to the standards

expressed in the inquiry report:

• There need to be ways of handling criticism and challenge, of responding to a range of different sorts of criticism and getting into a more productive relationship with critics than we have sometimes seen in this case.

I will thus test if I can get into a "productive relationship" with MR in my role as critical blogger, and honest and and rigorous scientist...

Muir Russell: IPCC Conclusions Not Based on Science

Sir Muir Russell summarizes his CRU inquiry as follows:

• This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
• We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

Let's subject these statements to a logical mathematical analysis:

• (1) The scientific work was not an issue.
• (2) The conclusions of the IPCC assessments were not undermined.

Combining (1) and (2) we conclude that what Muir Russell effectively says is:

• IPCC conclusions are not based on scientific work.

Seems correct.