IPCC Letter of Resignation

[JerrySeinfeld]

An open letter (quite scathing) from a meteorologist, researcher at National Hurricane Centre and former contributing scientist to the IPCC

This is interesting on many fronts, not the least of which is the continuous accusation by climate alarmists that it is the DENIERS whose research and claims are tainted....enjoy.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclo nes more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, whic h is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Cl imate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

[jdobbin]

Old news (2005). And in the latest IPCC report (2007), they say they don't have evidence of more severe hurricanes except for Katrina and Rita which gathered up a few more miles per hour in the Gulf. Even Landsea admitted as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

" As for climate change affecting Hurricane strength, Landsea said that global warming theories and numerical modeling suggest only that "hurricanes like Katrina and Rita may have been stronger due to global warming but maybe by one or two miles per hour."

[JerrySeinfeld]

Old news (2005). And in the latest IPCC report (2007), they say they don't have evidence of more severe hurricanes except for Katrina and Rita which gathered up a few more miles per hour in the Gulf. Even Landsea admitted as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

" As for climate change affecting Hurricane strength, Landsea said that global warming theories and numerical modeling suggest only that "hurricanes like Katrina and Rita may have been stronger due to global warming but maybe by one or two miles per hour."

The issue here has a whole lot more to do with the behavior of the IPCC leadership in general and Dr. Trenberth's in particular.

It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the "2500" scientists who supposedly agree with the findings of the lead authors.

It literally undermines the credibility of the entire report and any future reports from this organization.

[jdobbin]

The issue here has a whole lot more to do with the behavior of the IPCC leadership in general and Dr. Trenberth's in particular.

It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the "2500" scientists who supposedly agree with the findings of the lead authors.

It literally undermines the credibility of the entire report and any future reports from this organization.

I didn't see any attempt to change Landsea's research on hurricanes. If anything, had he stayed on the IPCC committee, we would have seen the same result as we have in the 2007 report: no evidence that hurricanes get stronger with global warming.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The issue here has a whole lot more to do with the behavior of the IPCC leadership in general and Dr. Trenberth's in particular.

It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the "2500" scientists who supposedly agree with the findings of the lead authors.

It literally undermines the credibility of the entire report and any future reports from this organization.

I didn't see any attempt to change Landsea's research on hurricanes. If anything, had he stayed on the IPCC committee, we would have seen the same result as we have in the 2007 report: no evidence that hurricanes get stronger with global warming.

Did you even read the letter?

Trenberth blatantly contradicted known research and lied to the media.

[jdobbin]

Did you even read the letter?

Trenberth blatantly contradicted known research and lied to the media.

And yet what he said never went into the report even after Landsea left because scientists agreed there was no evidence to put it there.

[ScottSA]

It's part of the IPPC trend. It comes out with astounding claims of impending hellfire and brimstone and then, following the odd leak and the odd resignation or legal action by one of the few scientists with enough integrity to stand up against it, it begins to back off its original doomsday scenarios. It's prognoses have been getting a little bit less dire each time a new report comes out. Each new one usually contradicts the one before, but throws in a few new wooscary bits of tard to keep the hemp sandal crowd in an uproar. It's not only a joke, but it's making a joke of science in general.

[jdobbin]

It's part of the IPPC trend. It comes out with astounding claims of impending hellfire and brimstone and then, following the odd leak and the odd resignation or legal action by one of the few scientists with enough integrity to stand up against it, it begins to back off its original doomsday scenarios. It's prognoses have been getting a little bit less dire each time a new report comes out. Each new one usually contradicts the one before, but throws in a few new wooscary bits of tard to keep the hemp sandal crowd in an uproar. It's not only a joke, but it's making a joke of science in general.

Perhaps you can draft a letter to Harper where you call him a sell-out. Or better yet, vote for another party.

Landsea left in a huff and for what? The information he didn't want in the report never made it there at all.

The scientists (including Landsea) agree that global warming is happening and that humans have an impact. Not all agree on how it will manifest itself or how it will affect us.

I'm sure that you are also one of the people that still argues the merits of smoking as well.

[ScottSA]

It's part of the IPPC trend. It comes out with astounding claims of impending hellfire and brimstone and then, following the odd leak and the odd resignation or legal action by one of the few scientists with enough integrity to stand up against it, it begins to back off its original doomsday scenarios. It's prognoses have been getting a little bit less dire each time a new report comes out. Each new one usually contradicts the one before, but throws in a few new wooscary bits of tard to keep the hemp sandal crowd in an uproar. It's not only a joke, but it's making a joke of science in general.

Perhaps you can draft a letter to Harper where you call him a sell-out. Or better yet, vote for another party.

Landsea left in a huff and for what? The information he didn't want in the report never made it there at all.

The scientists (including Landsea) agree that global warming is happening and that humans have an impact. Not all agree on how it will manifest itself or how it will affect us.

I'm sure that you are also one of the people that still argues the merits of smoking as well.

*yawn*

[JerrySeinfeld]

Merits of smoking? Huh?

Why are people so quick to defend an action that is clearly unscientific and intended to decieve the public?

It's this kind of blind defnse of the IPCC lead authors - even when they act deceptively - that fuels skepticism.

The environazis trot out these guys who act deceptively, then get caught, then backpeddle, then wonder out loud why everyone in the world doesn't buy the drivel they're spoonfeeding us all.

Hilarious.

[jdobbin]

*yawn*

Woke you up enough to reply.

[jdobbin]

It's this kind of blind defnse of the IPCC lead authors - even when they act deceptively - that fuels skepticism.

The environazis trot out these guys who act deceptively, then get caught, then backpeddle, then wonder out loud why everyone in the world doesn't buy the drivel they're spoonfeeding us all.

Hilarious.

The right wing trots out a 2005 story as brand new news. It isn't. The IPCC report didn't include the information that Landsea thought it would. It more or less followed his line of thinking.

The deniers use his arguments to discredit all of the global warming reports but while doing so ignore the fact that Landsea himself says that global warming is happening. He even said that Rita and Katrina were more forceful hurricanes because of warmer Gulf water but only to the degree of 1 or 2 m.p.h.

And the only ones who don't believe global warming is happening are righties such as yourself.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's this kind of blind defnse of the IPCC lead authors - even when they act deceptively - that fuels skepticism.

The environazis trot out these guys who act deceptively, then get caught, then backpeddle, then wonder out loud why everyone in the world doesn't buy the drivel they're spoonfeeding us all.

Hilarious.

The right wing trots out a 2005 story as brand new news. It isn't. The IPCC report didn't include the information that Landsea thought it would. It more or less followed his line of thinking.

The deniers use his arguments to discredit all of the global warming reports but while doing so ignore the fact that Landsea himself says that global warming is happening. He even said that Rita and Katrina were more forceful hurricanes because of warmer Gulf water but only to the degree of 1 or 2 m.p.h.

And the only ones who don't believe global warming is happening are righties such as yourself.

Um - global warming and cooling happen all the time. It's called CLIMATE CHANGE.

And as you can see, when it comes to planet earth, change is a constant.

This is a thread about a leader of the IPCC. The IPCC is the most often cited "credible" source of the enviro-alarmists.

Do not try to turn this around and make it into a thread about "deniers".

The only denier here is you. You are denying the obvious.

Dr. Trenberth:

1. Requested that research into climate and hurricanes be done by Lansea

2. Then held a press conference titled ""Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" - stating a scientific conclusion before the research had been done

This is an example of an IPCC lead author using the media to promote an pre-determined POLITICAL agenda with no science to back up the claim.

Whether this deceptive and unscientific attempt to alarm the public happened in 2005, 2004, 2006, 2003 or 2002 or 2001 is completely irrelevant.

By trying to dismiss this serious [/b]use of the media to unscientifically deceieve the public because it happend two years ago is tantamount to saying:

"That's an old IPCC lie so who cares - show me some NEW lies"

The hockey stick graph was another old lie. Al Gore's Kilimanjaro snow melt is an old lie. How many old lies will it take?

Shouldn't this whole debate be about truth and what scientifically matters to the planet?

Has this thing ceased to become science and instead become such a religion to you that you believe your great eco-leaders and not your lyin' eyes?

This is about lies. Lies being told to us by the IPCC.

Tell me - why should anyone believe the IPCC claims that the "science is settled" if the lies keep changing?

[jdobbin]

Um - global warming and cooling happen all the time. It's called CLIMATE CHANGE.

And as you can see, when it comes to planet earth, change is a constant.

This is a thread about a leader of the IPCC. The IPCC is the most often cited "credible" source of the enviro-alarmists.

Do not try to turn this around and make it into a thread about "deniers".

The only denier here is you. You are denying the obvious.

Dr. Trenberth:

1. Requested that research into climate and hurricanes be done by Lansea

2. Then held a press conference titled ""Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" - stating a scientific conclusion before the research had been done

This is an example of an IPCC lead author using the media to promote an pre-determined POLITICAL agenda with no science to back up the claim.

Whether this deceptive and unscientific attempt to alarm the public happened in 2005, 2004, 2006, 2003 or 2002 or 2001 is completely irrelevant.

By trying to dismiss this serious [/b]use of the media to unscientifically deceieve the public because it happend two years ago is tantamount to saying:

"That's an old IPCC lie so who cares - show me some NEW lies"

The hockey stick graph was another old lie. Al Gore's Kilimanjaro snow melt is an old lie. How many old lies will it take?

Shouldn't this whole debate be about truth and what scientifically matters to the planet?

Has this thing ceased to become science and instead become such a religion to you that you believe your great eco-leaders and not your lyin' eyes?

This is about lies. Lies being told to us by the IPCC.

Tell me - why should anyone believe the IPCC claims that the "science is settled" if the lies keep changing?

Was it in the IPCC report? No.

The rest of your argument has been gone over countless times.

If you have a problem with it talk to Harper who has said that he now believes the science on global warming.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Um - global warming and cooling happen all the time. It's called CLIMATE CHANGE.

And as you can see, when it comes to planet earth, change is a constant.

This is a thread about a leader of the IPCC. The IPCC is the most often cited "credible" source of the enviro-alarmists.

Do not try to turn this around and make it into a thread about "deniers".

The only denier here is you. You are denying the obvious.

Dr. Trenberth:

1. Requested that research into climate and hurricanes be done by Lansea

2. Then held a press conference titled ""Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" - stating a scientific conclusion before the research had been done

This is an example of an IPCC lead author using the media to promote an pre-determined POLITICAL agenda with no science to back up the claim.

Whether this deceptive and unscientific attempt to alarm the public happened in 2005, 2004, 2006, 2003 or 2002 or 2001 is completely irrelevant.

By trying to dismiss this serious [/b]use of the media to unscientifically deceieve the public because it happend two years ago is tantamount to saying:

"That's an old IPCC lie so who cares - show me some NEW lies"

The hockey stick graph was another old lie. Al Gore's Kilimanjaro snow melt is an old lie. How many old lies will it take?

Shouldn't this whole debate be about truth and what scientifically matters to the planet?

Has this thing ceased to become science and instead become such a religion to you that you believe your great eco-leaders and not your lyin' eyes?

This is about lies. Lies being told to us by the IPCC.

Tell me - why should anyone believe the IPCC claims that the "science is settled" if the lies keep changing?

Was it in the IPCC report? No.

The rest of your argument has been gone over countless times.

If you have a problem with it talk to Harper who has said that he now believes the science on global warming.

See? So again you're trying to make this political. This is about science and truth.

We should believe what's in the reports then? WHat about the hockey stick graph from older IPCC reports?

[jdobbin]

See? So again you're trying to make this political. This is about science and truth.

We should believe what's in the reports then? WHat about the hockey stick graph from older IPCC reports?

All of this has been debated countless times. If the right did have a scientific argument against global warming, it would have been made by now. Instead, the try to create the science conspiracy.

As I said, why argue with me? Go to Harper and show him your findings.

[JerrySeinfeld]

See? So again you're trying to make this political. This is about science and truth.

We should believe what's in the reports then? WHat about the hockey stick graph from older IPCC reports?

All of this has been debated countless times. If the right did have a scientific argument against global warming, it would have been made by now. Instead, the try to create the science conspiracy.

As I said, why argue with me? Go to Harper and show him your findings.

I'm not the one claiming the end of the world is nigh (again). The onus of proof is on those making the claim.

And when they get caught lying to the media and the public, their theories tend to lose credibility.

[jdobbin]

I'm not the one claiming the end of the world is nigh (again). The onus of proof is on those making the claim.

And when they get caught lying to the media and the public, their theories tend to lose credibility.

Don't think I made that claim anywhere. Nor is that in the IPCC report.

Take it up with Harper.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'm not the one claiming the end of the world is nigh (again). The onus of proof is on those making the claim.

And when they get caught lying to the media and the public, their theories tend to lose credibility.

Don't think I made that claim anywhere. Nor is that in the IPCC report.

Take it up with Harper.

You're talking in circles. You said "if the right did have a scientific argument against global warming..."

The "right" as you put it is not making any scientific claim. The onus is on those claiming a scientific theory: ie. man made global cliamet change, to prove that.

The point is this: The claim about man-made global warming is being made. Hence the onus of proof is on those making the claim. Since the IPCC lead authors choose to lie and misinform the public during press conferences, that undermines their credibility.

And once again you have tried to make this political - a common mispractice my global warming alarmists. It is not a "right" "left" issue. It's a true, false one.

And when the people shouting "true" commonly misinform the public and ae caught trying to scare the public with that misinformation, they aren't very credible.

[jdobbin]

You're talking in circles. You said "if the right did have a scientific argument against global warming..."

The "right" as you put it is not making any scientific claim. The onus is on those claiming a scientific theory: ie. man made global cliamet change, to prove that.

The point is this: The claim about man-made global warming is being made. Hence the onus of proof is on those making the claim. Since the IPCC lead authors choose to lie and misinform the public during press conferences, that undermines their credibility.

And once again you have tried to make this political - a common mispractice my global warming alarmists. It is not a "right" "left" issue. It's a true, false one.

And when the people shouting "true" commonly misinform the public and ae caught trying to scare the public with that misinformation, they aren't very credible.

I don't think the IPCC reports are alarmist nor are they lies. I don't hold the same anti-U.N., anti-science stance that you and the right have on the issue.

And the issue is a political one since that it is a political decision about what will be done.

The only one doing any shouting here is you. You say it is all a lie. Most people disagree with you.

[jbg]

It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the "2500" scientists who supposedly agree with the findings of the lead authors.

It literally undermines the credibility of the entire report and any future reports from this organization.

The desparation to suppress skeptics, to the point of using the (Holocaust) loaded word "denier" is palpable.

My perception is that the effort to control poison-type pollutants such as sulfur dioxide did not succeed in promoting the command and control economy so much of the government establishments (as distinguished in many cases from elected leaders) want. Governmental size depends on having something to do.

Thus, the near panic to avoid this issue coming and going from public consciousness, the way the "mini-Ice Age" of the mid 1970's did.