Comment submitted to by Andrew A. Lacis for the First-Order Draft of Chapter 9, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all.
The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted. (source)
Hat tip on this to Watts Up with That.
About the author
Andrew A. Lacis works for NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa U in 1970. You can see his publications here.
Ah, as expected from the h/t, if someone thinks an ES is political, then all that data and footnotes in Chapter 9’s 100 some odd pages must all be a lie also. You run with some real rocket scientists there.
.
.
FM reply: You obviously did not look at the hat tip. The only editorial comment was as follows:
“Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?”
You make stuff up and post it as fact, so you’re probably not a rocket scientist. We can all draw our own conclusions as to what kind of person you are.
Does it really matter whether AGW is real or not? If it leads us to do the things we need to do—diversify our energy sources, repair our balance of payments by not buying OPEC oil, improve our air quality, etc.
.
.
FM reply: Another example of “we have unlimited money and need not set priorities.” Future generations will curse us for such folly.
As part of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, India made a politically binding commitment to reduce emissions by 20-25% from 2005 levels by 2020; China has committed to a 40-45% reduction. In December 2010, in Mexico, the accord will be made legally binding, i.e. specific actions and international verification mechanisms will be fructified then. Further growth and development of the oil industry is now doomed.
Of course this was led by the United States, because America is a bankrupt country from an external financing perspective. Suddenly in 2009, developing countries had a choice not to denominate their forex reserves in dollars. Because of the geopolitical shifts that caused disruptive economic changes in 2008. In 2008, the painless deficits were suddenly endangered, and the US could no longer rely on imported oil and agricultural subsidies for its survival. One solution was to drill for oil and build nuclear power plants. The other was green technology.
The Copenhagen accord, for a pittance of only $100 billion a year, ensures a transition from Black Gold to Green Gold.This transition can take a decade, and much more. But is a decade enough for Americans to transition from militarily dominating the world, to working hard to export useful goods and services? First of all, the common Americans need to be aware that their dream paradise Empire is now gone. They can no longer enjoy the fruits of foreign labor in indolent retail malls, doing little else. Why does Obama talk about American kids competing with Indian and Chinese kids for jobs in future? It’s not because they’re going to lift the visa restrictions, or because of the possibility of more and more offshoring. It’s because the country is bankrupt, and it has nothing with which to pay for imports anymore. And to pay the foreigners back for money already borrowed, American kids will need to labor hard and sell their goods and services competitively to the rest of the world. Let’s hope that the American business schools continue to preach that the customer is the king. Then in future Indians and Chinese will be the kings. And Americans will be found standing in line to get a ration card in Indian cities, because India will be a far more advanced place to work in future.
.
.
FM reply: This is false in almost every respect. First, we have 60 years of history proving that nations at the UN make bold promises — to improve the rights of women, to free press, to end war — that they have no intention of keeping. Second, the actual documents show your assertions to be grossly exaggerated.
You said “India made a politically binding commitment to reduce emissions by 20-25% from 2005 levels by 2020”. In fact India’s response to the Copenhagen Accord says: “India will endeavour to reducee the emissions1 intensity of its GOP by 20-25% by 2020 in comparison to the 2005 level. Please note that the proposed domestic actions are voluntary in nature and will not have legally binding character.” I don’t know what “politically binding means”, but this isn’t it.
Ditto for your assertion that “China has committed to a 40-45% reduction”. China’s response to the Copenhagen Accord says: “China will endeavor to lower its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45% by 2020 compared to the 2005 level, increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020 and increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters by 2020 from the 2005 levels. Please note that the above-mentioned autonomous domestic mitigation actions are voluntary in nature…”
“The Copenhagen accord, for a pittance of only $100 billion a year, ensures a transition from Black Gold to Green Gold”
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I very much doubt it.
As for your assertions about America, they’re just wild guesses. Not worthy of reply.
“Does it really matter whether AGW is real or not?”
Absolutely. Especially if more evidence continues to build showing that the contribution of greenhouse gases from human activities only comprises a fraction of the Earth’s total compared to natural processes.
Does it matter that the IPCC has mislead the public and policy makers with unsubstantiated claims and erroneous results in portions of the report?
Do you care how your tax money is spent? I sure do.