An IPCC Expert Reviewer Speaks Out

For the IPCC Third Assessment Report (“TAR”) I was appointed Expert Reviewer.

To the IPCC I sent our report “Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review” by Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V., published by Norsk Polarinstitutt [The Norwegian Polar Institute], 76 pp. [first edition 1991; second edition 1992].

To the IPCC we also sent our peer-reviewed paper “Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?” by Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Ono, N. (1992), published in the top international environmental scientific journal “Science of the Total Environment”Vol. 114, pp. 227 – 284.

None of these two papers were considered by the IPCC, and neither of the numerous comments which I submitted. I got the impression that the TAR draft was supposed to be final, and that the expert reviewers were there to simply give support to the report “as is”, giving the impression that a large number of researchers were supporting the IPCC report without objections.
I also reacted to the deletion of 3 Norwegian meteorological stations as basis for the global temperature curve used by the IPCC TAR. For their Second Assessment Report (“SAR”) there had been 4 Norwegian stations. I checked with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, and found out that the 3 deleted Norwegian stations all had shown a decreasing temperature trend since the SAR. Hence they couldn’t be used as part of a steadily increasing temperature trend, of course! The only Norwegian station left for the use in the TAR global temperature curve was Utsira, which had shown a rising temperature trend. [I commented to the IPCC that this was indeed “cherry-picking” the temperature data, to make them fit a preconceived idea of global warming.]
Because none of my comments or none of our papers were considered by the IPCC, I asked IPCC to delete my name from the list of contributors to TAR. This was refused, so my name still figures as a contributor to the TAR. Later I heard that others also experienced the same, when trying to have their names deleted, because their criticisms had been ignored by the IPCC. The only ones successful in having their names deleted, were the ones threatening with legal actions…
Tom V. Segalstad
Expert Reviewer to IPCC TAR

One thought on “An IPCC Expert Reviewer Speaks Out

  1. IPCC corruption, as with its parent body, the UN,, is legendary. The estimates of historical levels of CO2 derived from glaciers are subject to large errors.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s