CO2 is “Ultimately A political decision”
Posted by Jeff Id on November 22, 2009
This is absolutely stunning.
We have to think back to all the people who told us over the years that the IPCC is a “scientific organization” . This particular email has some huge implications in it which you really have to read a few times before you can close your jaw. I’ll bold some of the really shocking bits at the top but the rest is for you to work out.
If nothing else, read the first paragraph and try and wrap your head around -first, the concept and second, the beating down of others reasonable points. F…ing amazing.
From: Dave S
To: Shrikant J
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.
If you want to do ‘realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).
‘Advice’ will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.
On Sun, 16
May 1999, Shrikant [snip] wrote:
> I’m enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using
> the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model
> runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
> and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to
> use different data will be hard to explain.
> Dr. Shrikant
Email number 0926947295.txt. I think I misinterpreted this partially, the implications are simply based around how reasonable a scenario was decided to be presented. i.e. how much CO2 is presented determines how warm it will be in the future and what disaster scenarios they could present. It mostly has to do with beating down of a junior member on in his view of a reasonable level of CO2 increase.