People in Greenhouses Throwing Stones

by | Jan 7, 2008

We promised to provide a breakdown of the IPCC’s WGI as we did for WGII and III. So here goes:

As before, we’ve limited ourselves to those contributors based in the UK or USA. That gives us 303 authors to work with out of a total of 618. That’s nearly half the total – strange, for an institution which claims to represent scientists from all over the world.

It was very difficult to establish the discipline, background and level of expertise of scientists who work at the UK’s Hadley Centre and Meteorological Office, and NOAA and NASA in the USA, as they tend not to have personal web pages. 31 of the UK contributors work at the Hadley Centre, 43 of the US contributors work at the NOAA. Where we have been unable to locate these people properly (nearly always), we’ve given them the benefit of the doubt, and included them in the same category as scientists in climatology, meteorology, and oceanography. There were 215 scientists in this category. So there is certainly a higher proportion of people who could reasonably be called climate scientists in WGI compared with II and III. But it’s worth pointing out that this figure is also boosted by a whole bunch of people who work in climatology but who are modellers by training. That’s not to knock modelling – well, maybe a bit – but it does raise questions about what a climate scientist actually is, when you get to call yourself one even if you’ve spent most of your career modelling traffic flows or whatever. We’ll try to come up with some numbers for that at some point.

As for the other 88, 24 are atmospheric physicists, 27 are geophysicists or geologists. Arguably, these could also be lumped in with the so-called climate scientists. Ach, what the hell, let’s call it 266 climate scientists out of 303. Of the rest, we have four statisticians, eight mathematicians/physicists, eight engineers, two biologists/ecologists, and one each from history of science, computer science, and a lonely economist. There were also solos from an NGO, an agronomist, and a lawyer (who curiously seemed to double up as an oceanographer). Which leaves another eight whose expertise we can’t establish.

So, across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts. Which scales up to 1539 out of the putative 2500. Some of our critics have argued that it was dishonest to look at WGII and III, and that the climate scientists are all in WGI. Of course WGII/III are not all climate scientists. This criticism misses the point that the IPCC is neither, as is frequently claimed, 2500 of the worlds best climate scientists, nor indeed climate scientists at all. This is precisely the misconception we have been challenging, following claims made by the likes of Andrew Dessler about the Inhofe 400 list. The composition of the IPCC, it turns out, is not so different.

Tony Gilland points out in his review of Bjørn Lomborg’s ‘Cool It’, the IPCC expertise is spread across many chapters, with the result that most of the scientists involved will have read only a minimal proportion of any report. That’s to say, a reviewer or contributing author to WGI on glacial recession has not made any statement about his or her agreement in WGIII on what is the best way to approach the problem of climate change from a policy or economic perspective – or even on chapters of WGI to which he or she did not contribute. So the idea that the IPCC represents a scientific consensus on climate change and what to do about it is a complete misconception of the functioning of the IPCC. At best, each chapter from each working group represents the work of just tens of authors, across a range of disciplines and levels of expertise. Yet activists, politicians, and journalists will claim that de facto policy recommendations from WGIII have the support of the consensus of 2500 climate scientists.

That ‘the consensus’ does not represent agreement among 2500 scientists might not be news to some people. But others are quite oblivious. We flagged up a few examples in our last post; here’s some more (courtesy of a commenter).

And here’s Robert F. Kennedy doing the same (thanks to another commenter)…

RFK: The science on global warming is settled. Twenty-five-hundred scientists in the IPPC [sic] report – the top meteorologists and climate scientists from around the world have announced the consensus that global warming exists, that we are causing it and that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. You don’t need that science though, all you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Ar’tic [sic]. The Ar’tic [sic] is melting. It is catastrophic. The Good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global warming are things which we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America’s prosperity, for our national security…

The evidence of the IPCC needs to be treated for what it is – not as the last word on the science of climate change, but as a contribution to a political process. A political process that, despite the best efforts of the global warming fraternity (including the IPCC) to nip it in the bud with their claims that ‘the science is in’, has barely even started.

Anyway, where did the whole ‘2500 climate scientists of the IPCC’ figure come from in the first place? If this flyer from the IPCC itself is anything to go by, it refers to the expert reviewers.

So having taken a look at the authors, we’ll have a go at the reviewers next. The IPCC certainly seem pretty proud of them. One wonders how many of those ‘scientific expert reviewers’ will turn out to be social scientists and economists that Andrew Dessler et al make such a fuss about when they turn up in the Inhofe 400, not to mention, Heaven forfend, web officers, administrative assistants and activists . Intriguingly, many warmers have no time for the reviewers. Stoat, Desmogblog and Tim Lambert claim that anybody can be an expert reviewer, which is a handy argument when you want to cast doubt on the credentials of any pesky ‘denialist’ who happens to be one, but kind of backfires when you’re trying to defend ‘the consensus’.


  1. T. Greer

    I was hoping you guys would come out with this soon. A shame that you couldn’t find the specifics for the NOAA/NASA scientists, but that is life.

    I do look forward to your review of the reviewers. I hope you take the time out to check on the 62 scientist who reviewed chapter 9 of the WGI. I wonder how credible the reviewers of the report’s most critical chapter actually are.

  2. Anonymous

    Of the 14 French lead authors of WG1/AR4, 12 work in a laboratory of the archpowerful French CEA (commissariat à l’énergie atomique which translates into: commission of energy that-emits-zero-carbon).

    If it is of any interest to you, I can retrieve the precise list.


  3. John A

    Of course, anyone can become an expert reviewer like for example, William “Stoat” Connelley although his expertise appeared limited to spelling and grammar.

    They should have let Lambert in, because his comments would have been hilarious.

  4. Editors

    Demesure, that would be most welcome.

    Our address is at the bottom of the right hand sidebar.

    We’d be grateful for any info on IPCC contributors that we’ve not been able to locate, or are from non english-speaking countries.

  5. john a. bailo

    I’m reading the IPCC IV chapter on “Historic Overview of Climate Change”.

    Right on the first page of that chapter, p. 95, I have to react. I think I can best summarize my argument as “The Lady [IPCC] Doth Protest Too Much”. It begins not with a simple argument of their position, but with a polemic which pretty much says that their theory is infalible and anyone who argues with any part of it is anti-science! These history of science facts (Kuhn, et. al) are things that even the readers of popluar science are familiar with — but they seem to suggest a dissident quelling effort going on even before the argument is made!

    I will continue reading, but the alarm bells are already ringing…

  6. Alex Tanner

    The IPCC flyer refers to 6 years of science (i.e. 2001-2007) but the Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997… So the IPCC knew how to deal with climate change before researching the science? I don’t think so! Check the WG lists again for a “Mystic Meg, PhD”!



  1. Do the scientists quoted by the IPCC actually excist. - [...] [...]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.