The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.
This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.
In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.
At this point, the modellers jibbed. The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”. So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WG I report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios. In other words, it was the result of political interference.
Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.
Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.
Many highly distinguished scientists have said they do not believe in the greenhouse threat. We hesitate to call the following group a consensus, because you can’t expect consensus in fields like climatology where so much remains to be learned. But in view of the calibre of scientists involved, we call it a Greenhouse Hall of Fame. New nominations are welcome!
The late Roger Revelle, Professor Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “father” of the modern greenhouse theory Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia, first Director of the US National Weather Satellite Service Chauncey Starr, Professor Emeritus, University of California, key figure in modern risk analysis
for…. What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap (1991) at http://www.sepp.org//glwarm/cosmos.html
Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT
for…. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992) at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Brian Tucker, former Chief of Atmospheric Research for CSIRO (Australian Government)
for.... A Rational Consideration of Global Warming (1996) at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm
The late William Nierenberg, former Director of Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
for.... Science and Engineering Policy and Who Cares? (1997) at http://people.delphi.com/saemet/mesc297.htm
Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS
for.... Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (1997-2000) at http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html
Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willy Soon and Zachary W. Robinson
for..... Environmental Effects of Increased Environmental Carbon Dioxide (1998) at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
George Taylor, then President of the American Association of State Climatologists
for.... Comments on "New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising" (2000) at http://www.ocs.orst.edu/reports/nascomm.html
Paul Reiter, Chief Entomologist at the United States Dengue Research Laboratory
for.... Biting Back (2000) at http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns225716
William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
for.... Get off Warming Bandwagon (2000) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/newsid_1023000/1023334.stm
Posted 9, March, 2001, updated 10, April. © 2001 Warwick Hughes