"If you can't explain it simply,
you don't understand it well enough."

—Albert Einstein

Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’

Click for sourceClick for sourceAmong the documents recently submitted to a UK Parliamentary committee, a live grenade nestles in the straw.

It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.

The biography included with his submission tells us that Darriulat was spokesperson for

one of the two experiments that simultaneously discovered the weak bosons and gave evidence for quarks and gluons being produced in the form of hadronic jets.

He is the recipient of prestigious science honours, and advises us that his “scientific work is recognized by the international community.”

Now let us recollect that Al Gore says the climate debate is about “high school physics.” And let us recall that Martin O’Malley, the Governor of Maryland, has suggested that climate change (by which he means dangerous, human-caused climate change) is scientifically as uncontested as gravity. In his words, “It is physics, pure and simple.”

The implication of this line of argument is clear. If you don’t think climate change is a planetary emergency you’re a dunce – a scientific know-nothing who should keep quiet and accept the judgment of your intellectual superiors.

In light of their public statements, one would expect Messrs Gore and O’Malley to be keenly interested in what a renowned physicist has to say about the recent Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the document that was drafted by 65 hand-picked IPCC personnel.

Here’s a direct quote from Darriulat’s submission:

The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case. [bold added]

Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “can not be a scientific document.” His next remarks deserve to be displayed on every billboard in Times Square:

When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” thinkat the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message… [bold added; click here for the full, unedited version]

This is bracing, no-nonsense talk from someone well equipped to understand what’s going on. In Darriulat’s opinion, when scientists write IPCC summaries not only are they are engaging in “a highly subjective exercise,” they’re blatantly  “ignoring basic scientific practices.” Not mincing words, he declares that “Such behaviour is unacceptable.”

In his opinion, the conclusions presented in the IPCC’s recent Summary are “far from robust.” He thinks the IPCC “should consider it a duty to answer scientifically” a number of concerns that have been raised by its critics, but says the new IPCC report fails to do so. Instead, he says, it sometimes appears to be “eluding rather than facing embarrassing questions.”

Darriulat’s submission is worth reading in full (online here, PDF here). Near the end, he directly addresses questions posed by the committee’s Terms of Reference.

Keeping in mind Gore’s claim that nothing more complicated than high school physics is involved, here’s what an actual physics virtuoso thinks:

Committee: Has [the IPCC's latest report] sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?

Darriulat: Of course not, how could it? One can only suggest hypotheses. The coming decade should help us with understanding much better what is most relevant.

Apparently, climate change isn’t basic physics after all.

And – just in case you missed it - 65 prominent IPCC personnel have been publicly accused of

  • producing a “shocking and deeply unscientific” document
  • abandoning “scientific rigour”
  • distorting science
  • and ignoring “basic scientific practices”

The list of IPCC authors who drafted this Summary is backed up here

Source

Pin it

Comments   

amirlach
#1 amirlach Dec 22, 2013 11:20 am
This is how they have been doing things from day one. No suprises here.
Quote | Report to administrator
Amber
#2 Amber Dec 23, 2013 2:34 am
Mr.Darriulat is saying what everyone already knows . The IPCC is a scientific farce .

It's great more scientists are speaking out about the abuse of public trust oozing out of the IPCC
and UN gold diggers.
Quote | Report to administrator
Vidyardhi Nanduri
#3 Vidyardhi Nanduri Dec 27, 2013 7:18 am
Sub:INVISIBLE-TO-VISIBLE SENSEX -ENVIRONMENT
As the Invisible Phenomena becomes visible at the near Earth-Environment, why not Climate Research groups open to new frontiers in science ?
By joining hands with Space research groups in monitoring Space Weather Environment, many scientific groups will find interlinks as Necessity-Demand-Curiosity-Sus tain the Spirit of Science to catch up with Nature-Philosophy
One can see the slow perspective change to
THE SCIENCE OF COSMOLOGY-VEDAS: UNITY IN DIVERSITY
SPACE SCIENCE-Reports Cover [ESA]-2010- PROPOSALS-Environment-Sensex-E arth-Glow-Sun Life-Significance - Human Being in-depth-Milky-way Sensex-Aditya links
VIDYARDHI NANDURI.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#4 amirlach Dec 27, 2013 9:43 pm
Quote:
why not Climate Research groups open to new frontiers in science ?
Why would they be "open" to new science? They ignore the scientific method when it does not agree with their failed model predictions.

When your prediction is wrong you should be "adjusting" your theory to fit the observations. Instead Climate Alarmists "adjust" the data to fit the models.
Quote | Report to administrator
Vidyardhi Nanduri
#5 Vidyardhi Nanduri Dec 28, 2013 8:49 am
In-adequacy of perception. Where lies Maturity and Wisdom before the event, during the event and after the event ? I look at 12 years frames of minds.
Science at cross roads -last 10 years or more is a known fact. Take Himalayan floods or even Japan disasters. Can we wake-up!
Better brains Trust- Interaction need of the hour.
Quote | Report to administrator
amirlach
#6 amirlach Dec 29, 2013 11:02 am
Yes there's an "in-adequacy of perception" on your part. You might think your looking at 12 year frames of minds, but your not looking at the data.

There is NO TREND in climate related "disasters". The IPCC has been lying about it's own findings. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/watch-now-climate-depot-s-morano-on-the-blaze-tv.html

Spare us from your mumbo-jumbo psycho babble and nonsense. Look at the data.
Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Get an avatar at Gravatar.com.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh

2590750
Today
Yesterday
This Week
Last Week
This Month
Last Month
All days
7006
11475
91915
910233
241119
330282
2590750
Your IP: 54.204.163.26
Server Time: 04-20-2014 15:34:49
Visitors Counter