Dutch Scientist Says 5th Report Draft Exemplifies “Worst Features of Science” – Calls For A Critical Review!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Dutch scientist and chemical engineer Dr. Arthur Rörsch has distributed a working paper to Dutch officials in his country to request a comprehensive review of the results and recommendations of the IPCC, especially its upcoming 5th assessment report.H/t: http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=926:

In his paper Rörsch, former vice-president of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Research, writes that the IPCC has “deviated from the traditional scientific principles”.  On man-made warming from CO2, he writes “that no indisputable scientific proof, or even strong empirical evidence, has been provided for such an effect, which therefore remains a matter of speculation.”

Read his entire working paper here.

He adds:

These reviews would best be undertaken by senior and established scientists whose reputation rests in the traditional enabling disciplines that underpin climate science, specifically physics, chemistry, geology and meteorology.”

The draft volume for WG1 AR5 is a summary and compilation of papers published in scientific journals up to 2011. Rörsch makes two observations:

– The prevailing hypothesis of the assessment report is that Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW) is occurring; this hypothesis has been under challenge for many years by numerous independent scientists. These scientists were not invited to participate in the preparation of the AR5 report.

– The scientific literature cited in the draft AR5 is selective towards papers that support the DAGW hypothesis, and even the papers that are included are then selectively analysed towards the same ends. These two underlying biases set the tone of the message that the authors of the AR5 report want to transmit.

Rörsch particularly criticizes the following points:

1. The IPCC assumes that atmospheric CO2 is a dominant forcing agent for global temperature without providing evidence.

2. The report authors are instructed to express their conclusions in terms of a qualitative (i.e. opinion-based) probability scale.

3. The IPCC’s use of “self-appointed experts”.

4. There’s arrogance and intolerance for alternative views displayed by the self-appointed climate experts. These experts should be treated with extreme suspicion.

5. The style of the draft AR5 report marks it as a political rather than a scientific document, for it has been fashioned within the framework of a particular cultural paradigm.

Here’s what Dr. Rörsch concludes:

The IPCC’s draft AR5 report shows insufficient objectivity, and lacks the ‘traditional’ scientific balance necessary for it to be used as the basis for policy making. Regrettably, the report exemplifies some of the worst features of the ‘post-modern’ approach to science…”

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

11 responses to “Dutch Scientist Says 5th Report Draft Exemplifies “Worst Features of Science” – Calls For A Critical Review!”

  1. Mindert Eiting

    It is not yet clear how he wants to distribute the paper among the Dutch scientific community and political and science administrators. The science organisation KNAW formerly had an IPCC-bias. The article is well written but still is a draft (he should refer explicitly to Donna Laframboise’s book but that is just a detail). Anyhow, a good initiative.

  2. grayman

    Were was the good Doctor during Ar 2, 3, 4. They all say the same thing, so what has changed for the doctor to come out of the closet, so to speak.

    1. Papy Boomer

      He decided to “Take no word for it”, which is what most scientists should do instead of stupidly “believe”.

  3. matti

    The house of cards falls as the first card collapses The two German scientists pulled the first card .The rest will fall there after. It is only a matter of time .

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Seemingly that’s going on. Peter Gleick is an example. I did not know who he was and thought he was about twenty, the age young men are involved with criminal or revolutionary acts. But he is over fifty and has a complete career behind him. You must be desparate to commit identity fraud and steal documents from a decent organisation.

  4. John Shade

    Excellent work – nothing new about the trashy IPCC house-style, but it is timely to see it exposed so well by an authoritative commentator in the draft AR5.

    Can the IPCC leave the AR5 draft without making dramatic changes? Surely not since the draft is being so effectively exposed as unsatisfactory.

    I have been impressed by the speed with which alarmist outputs are being exposed as lacking in substance or integrity these days. Now even their drafts are getting the same treatment.

    Goodbye IPCC, you will not be missed. You have contributed a great deal of harm to the world. We shall be better off without you. It would have been better for the world if you had never existed at all.

  5. Cool start, but clear skies and warm sun … warming ahead, maybe until sunset | Cranky Old Crow

    […] Dutch Scientist Says 5th Report Draft Exemplifies “Worst Features of Science” – Calls For A Cr…  from NoTricksZone by P Gosselin […]

  6. Ulrich Elkmann

    ‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time.’ (Either Abraham Lincoln or P. T. Barnum)
    Well: they talked so much about tipping points beyond which Everything Is Lost. They were right.

  7. Edward.

    Dr. Rörsch said:

    “The IPCC’s draft AR5 report shows insufficient objectivity, and lacks the ‘traditional’ scientific balance necessary for it to be used as the basis for policy making. Regrettably, the report exemplifies some of the worst features of the ‘post-modern’ approach to science…”

    I couldn’t have put it better myself………however if I may quibble just a tad:-

    I suppose I could, WOULD have been a little bit more ‘harsh’ and a lot more derisive in fact but – in the end we reached similar conclusions even if we don’t agree on strength and nuance of wording.

    IPCC AR5 [and not forgetting the others ie: 1-4] = CR@P.

    YES the AR5 is utter CR@P and in fact is not worth the toilet paper it was written on.

    I can’t say fairer than that.

    1. Mindert Eiting
  8. Bob W in NC

    To date, the entire charade of AGW (DAGW?) is exactly what one would expect if a criminal jury trial were held and…

    • the judge was biased for the prosecution

    • the jury was selected by the prosecution only

    • the prosecution screamed for conviction and presented supporting “evidence” unchallenged

    • reporters dutifully reported everything presented, shunning fact-checking

    • and the defence was barred from the courtroom…

    It sounds as though the defence is finally and greatfully making themselves known.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close