Submissions to Government IPCC inquiry

The deadline for written submissions to the  IPCC 5th Assessment Review by the Energy and Climate Change Committee (mentioned in an earlier post) has now passed.

The submissions will probably  be posted eventually  on the inquiry website, but some have already appeared.

Richard Tol’s submission is quite short, saying that nothing much has changed since AR4 in the report, and that emissions reductions targets are a bad idea.

Mike Haseler (former Green party member turned sceptic) has posted his submission, which is much longer. I am not sure about the wisdom of referring to Star Trek in the first paragraph, but he criticises climate models for their failure to model natural variability  or  to match reality, particularly in regard to the early and late 20th century warming. (Figure 10.1 in  IPCC chapter 10 shows this  – the models don’t get the 1900-1940s warming).

My submission is quite brief and just summarises a few of the points already made on this blog – the dodgy 95% claim, the reality of decreased confidence and the spin in data presentation.

Any others? Please post links in comments.

Update: Marcel Krok has posted his submission. It discusses decreasing estimates of climate sensitivity estimates, the warming pause and the model/observations divergence.

12 thoughts on “Submissions to Government IPCC inquiry

  1. I sent in a submission describing the IPCC review process and how it differs from normal academic peer review, also mentioning the 2010 IAC report and its criticisms of IPCC processes.

    I’d prefer not to post a link just now – the guidance says: “Once submitted, no public use should be made of any submission prepared specifically for the committee unless you have first obtained permission from the clerk of the committee.”

    Sorry about that, probably just me being overly cautious! It probably won’t be long before they go up on the committee website.

  2. Mike, thanks and apologies for being rude about your submission.

    Ruth, some people are so contrary that when they see that kind of guidance they are tempted to do the opposite of what it says.

  3. From the pingback:

    ” the most unpleasant, non-anonymous person I’ve encountered online”.

    Is he (whoever he is) talking about you Paul? That’s some achievement in a competitive field! How on earth did you manage it? I think we should be told 🙂

  4. ” the most unpleasant, non-anonymous person I’ve encountered online”.

    I think he left out the “who disagrees with me”. People on the “right” side are judged by other standards.

  5. Hi Paul

    Small but important technical point – this is an inquiry by Parliament, not Government. The two are different:

    This is important because it’s Parliament’s role to hold the Government to account. If it were a Government inquiry then it would essentially be an inquiry into one of its own activities, as it is the Government which is a member of the IPCC (since the “I” of course stands for Intergovernmental).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s