On January 13 2009 I posted “Protecting The IPCC Turf – There Are No Independent Climate Assessments Of The IPCC WG1 Report Funded And Sanctioned By The NSF, NASA Or The NRC”.
In this post, I concluded that
There are no independent climate assessments of the IPCC report “Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change” that have been funded and sanctioned by the NSF, NASA or the NRC.
With the perspective exposed in the publication of the e-mails from the research group of Phil Jones this past week, the goal of a small group of scientists to control the information communicated to policymakers and the public is clearly illustrated in my post. I documented my experience with respect to an attempt by a few scientists to introduce a broader examination of the role of humans and natural climate forcings beyond carbon dioxide that was being discussed at a December 8 2008 meeting at the National Research Council in Washington D.C.
This attempt was aborted as a result of who attended the National Research Council planning meeting. This included individuals mentioned in the e-mails involving Phil Jones. Despite claims that there are thousands who are driving the focus on CO2 as the primary human climate forcing, the reality is that only a relatively small number of individuals are actually directing this effort.
The group that were invited to attend this December 8th meeting (with their IPCC involvement] were
Caspar Ammann (NCAR) [IPCC Contributor]
Don Anderson NASA HQ
Jay Fein NSF
Isaac Held (NOAA GFDL) [Lead Author IPCC Chapter 11]
Tom Karl (NCDC) [IPCC Contributor]
Chick Keller (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
Judith Lean (Naval Research Laboratory) [Lead Author IPCC Chapter 2]
Roger A. Pielke Sr. (University of Colorado)
Drew Shindell (NASA GISS) [IPCC Reviewer]
Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS) [IPCC Contributor]
Terry Nathan (UC Davis)
Ka-Kit Tung (University of Washington)
I encourage readers of this post to read the entire original post of January 13 2009 which I concluded with
Except for Judith Lean, Art Charo and myself, however, there was no support for the Strawman proposal. The proposal for a formal NRC Panel was rejected by the others, unless it was very narrowly focused, such as on “decadal forecasts”. The agency representatives (from NASA and the NSF) were similarly not willing to support such a study.
The reason, undoubtedly preordained before we even met on that Monday, is that a significant number of the members of the Committee were (and presumably still are) active participants of the IPCC assessment, as documented above.
Thus, the intensity of the dismissive and negative comments by a number of the committee members, and from even several of the agency representatives, with respect to any view that differed from the IPCC orthodoxy, made abundantly clear, that there was no interest in vesting an assessment of climate to anyone but the IPCC.
The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.
If the NSF, NASA and the NRC are going to appoint and accept recommendations by groups with a clear conflict of interest to protect their turf [in this case the IPCC], they will be complicit in denying all of us a balanced presentation of the physical science basis of climate change, including the role that humans have.
The obvious bias in the 2007 IPCC WG1 report is illustrated in the weblogs
Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley – Part I
Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley – Part II
As it stands now, there are no independent climate assessments of the IPCC WG1 report funded and sanctioned by the NSF, NASA or the NRC.
The agency representatives at the NRC planning meeting on December 8 2008, either are inadvertently neglecting the need for independent oversight, or they are deliberately ignoring this lack of an independent assessment because the IPCC findings fit their agenda on the climate issue. In either case, the policymakers and the public are being misled on the degree of understanding of the climate system, including the human role within in it.”
The released e-mails from Phil Jones, in conjunction with the experience I discuss above as well my 2005 CCSP experience (which I will discuss early next week – I have decided to post the morning of November 26 2009), suggest that the collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process.
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. 