Gobbledegook from Yury Izrael

Some while ago, Prometheus (always first with the news...) complained about IPCC authors misusing their titles. Yury Izrael (or, as he styles himself, "Yury Izrael, Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President") is now hard at it, at RIA Novosti ("Present-day global warming resembles the 1940s"... well, no it doesn't its warmer now; the garbled ice-age bit; etc).

In this case, its perfectly clear that the IPCC don't agree with him, and given the recent academies statement (signed by the RAS) its clear he's not speaking for the RAS either.

Its puzzling that he is an IPCC vice-chair, given his apparent lack of any scientific interest in the issue. He appears (page 2) to be one of 3 vice-chairs of the IPCC bureau (none of whom I've heard of... this may not be their fault, it may be our interests don't overlap; or it may well be because the vice-chairship is a political sop to be given to placate certain interests). But then again, I'm not clear what the IPCC Bureau actually does... it doesn't look like he is connected to the IPCC WG's.

OTOH, although he is doing his best to make skeptic-like statements, he's still with the IPCC consensus:

Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees. I do not think that this threatens mankind. Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities.

So for T change and SRL, he's straight down the IPCC line - no room for James's bets, sadly. This seems to becoming the way: skeptics are now accepting the IPCC views (YI isn't even trying to argue for the low end of the range) but embedding it in dodgy language. Progress, perhaps. Incidentally, whilst I wouldn't agree with "I do not think that this threatens mankind" (too definitively dismissive) I have some sympathy for that view, as I've written elsewhere. If skeptics like YI could just rephrase their language a bit, things could be so much better. All he is really saying is "We accept the WGI consensus but don't agree on the future damage". But perhaps thats too boring an opinion to print.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Just before jumping up to run for the fire door, with some people you will see the eyes glaze (perhaps the brain is screaming at them); but some will produce a half hearted version of a view they have been spouting for years they now know absolutely is wrong.THEN they will join the crowd and run.I have no idea why this happens but I have seen it several times. The first signal, of course, as the usual suspects sit around the table, is nervous glances at said fire door.
Perhaps this is what is now happening, and the basic reason could be that the climate info has been out wide, thick, and undeniable for years so most of us sort of "know". And the other thing is that those who run this society, so far as anyone does,have paused in their usual survey of all they possess and noticed that something is wrong. There is that feeling of ice in the belly. So they are not sure and the rest of us are presently lacking marching orders. This is very nearly palpable in the media.
Do you think there is any chance, any chance at all, that "they" will come up with the right moves?