WGIII – But is it Science?

by | Dec 30, 2007

Following our breakdown of the expertise comprising the IPCC’s WGII, we’ve now done the same for WGIII, “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

First, the numbers: Of 270 contributors, 66 were from the USA and UK. We haven’t been able to establish the expertise and discipline of 12 of those – yet. 14 contributors had expertise in physics, chemistry or engineering. 4 from other engineering disciplines. 2 were bio/geochemists. 5 were from forestry ecology, or soil science. 2 had expertise in law. There were 7 social scientists, and a whopping 20 economists.

There were no obvious instances of administrative assistants or web designers being included on the list, unlike WGII. However, the 12 contributors we couldn’t locate don’t appear to possess a great deal of the academic credibility Andrew Dessler demands, and work for business or the US EPA – no surprises there. There appear to be fewer PhD candidates, and among the contributors who did not work in the private sector, most had academic positions. The best in the world though? It didn’t seem likely.

The presence of 27 economists/social scientists again gives the lie to the claim that the IPCC is an institution made up entirely of climate scientists. WGIII explains their function as follows:

In the first two volumes of the “Climate Change 2007” Assessment Report, the IPCC analyses the physical science basis of climate change and the expected consequences for natural and human systems. The third volume of the report presents an analysis of costs, policies and technologies that could be used to limit and/or prevent emissions of greenhouse gases, along with a range of activities to remove these gases from the atmosphere. It recognizes that a portfolio of adaptation and mitigation actions is required to reduce the risks of climate change. It also has broadened the assessment to include the relationship between sustainable development and climate change mitigation. 

Winston Churchill once quipped:

If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of then is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three. 

Somehow, the IPCC has managed to stuff more than 20 economists in a room, and achieved a “consensus”. Remarkable.

Once upon a time, economics was a matter of politics. Now, it seems, economics is as much a matter of rock-solid objective fact as physics. The problem is, though, that environmental economic orthodoxy cannot be challenged politically – especially in the UK – because all politicians hide behind the “scientific consensus”, even though it is formed by a large number of economists and social scientists.

And in case anyone is in doubt that the whole ‘2500 scientists of the IPCC’ thing isn’t common currency in political debate about the state of the planet…

Drawn up by more than 2,500 of the world’s top scientists and their governments, and agreed last week by representatives of all its national governments, the report also predicts that nearly a third of the world’s species could be driven to extinction as the world warms up, and that harvests will be cut dramatically across the world. 

writes The Independent this very month. Or

For the first time in six years, more than 2,000 of the world’s top scientists reviewed and synthesized all of the scientific knowledge about global warming. The Fourth Assessment Report makes clear that the accelerating emissions of human-generated heat-trapping gases has brought the planet close to crossing a threshold that will lead to irreversible catastrophe. Yet like Cassandra’s warning about the Trojan horse, the IPCC report has fallen on deaf ears, especially those of conservative politicians, even as its findings are the most grave to date. 

writes Salon. And then there’s Kofi Annan, no less:

We must also be ready to take decisive measures to address climate change. It is no longer so hard to imagine what might happen from the rising sea levels that the world’s top scientists are telling us will accompany global warming. Who can claim that we are doing enough? 

For any (ahem) sceptics out there, note that this is firmly within the territory of WGII and WGIII, in that it is about predictions, and not scientific evidence for climate change and its causes to date.

In November, we ran a post about Green MEP Caroline Lucas’ comments about there being just 8 years left to create policies to save the planet.

Well, when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don’t think what the public actually want is cautiousness… 

When we rang them, Lucas’s press office cited WGIII AR4 as the basis for her comments. As a result of her campaining – in part – the EU passed legislation to cap emmissions from aircraft on that same day. The same arguments, based on the same ‘consensus’ created by WGII and WGIII are being made by the major UK political parties, who, as we have also reported, are promising 60, 80 and 100% carbon reductions by 2050.

Science or politics – wodjafink?

6 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Good stuff. It is amazing how often the AGW believers and the gullible journalists and editors who provide them such great news coverage give the impression the group are all professors in climate related disciplines. I’ve posted a link, as a comment, at my site here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002642.html

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I took a gander at the working group 1.

    For England. It appears to include research assistants. Note also it appears that everybody and their dog from the Hedly institute is included.

    Taking a deeper look at that group will prove interesting.

    Reply
  3. skyfall

    “Yet like Cassandra’s warning about the Trojan horse, the IPCC report has fallen on deaf ears”

    Contrary to what Salon said, the IPCC is much like Cassadra but exactly in the reverse: unlike Cassandra, its end-of-the-world drum is heard EVERYDAY and govs are scrambing to “act”. Unlike Cassandra, its CAD*, like many similar ones in the past, don’t materialize. Unlike Cassandra who endured opprobium, the modern Cassandra make a good living with their doom porn and even receive prizes.

    *Computer Assisted Doom

    Reply
  4. The Avenger

    What? You don’t think the IPCC reports honest science? Shame on you.

    Reply
  5. 0 comments

    I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes
    which makes it much more pleasant for me to come
    here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme?

    Exceptional work!

    My web page :: 0 comments

    Reply
  6. Ronald

    :O So mush selective information :O … This is by far the most awesome website Dude… :
    D

    Here is my page: Ronald

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. iamjonnyking.com » Blog Archive » Earth Hour? Kyoto? Heaven Help Us!!! - [...] In a recent debate, an alarmist was asked how many “experts” on the IPCC’s list of 3500 (or is…

Leave a Reply to The Avenger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.