Mr. Achim Steiner - Executive Director, UNEP
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon – UN Secretary-General, New York
Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt - EU-President/Prime Minister of Sweden, Stockholm
Mr. Michel Jarraud - Secretary General WMO, Geneva
Ms. Inga-Britt Ahlenius - Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, New York.
Geneva November 23, 2009
Re URGENT ACTION SUGGESTED to audit potential lack of balanced scientific data references in recent UNEP Compendium.
Dear Mr. Steiner,
On September 22 - in conjunction with the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in New York - UNEP released a report with the title “The 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium” with the purpose of filling the gap of published climate research between the IPCC AR-4 of 2007 and the AR5 due to be released in 2014.
This report had some «birth defects» which were quickly corrected by Mr. Nick Nuttal your Spokesperson/Head of Media.
I’m sure you’re aware of an accelerating public debate among scientists and the media about the AGW-issue.
Recently I’ve come across a listing of 450 “peer-reviewed” papers that take issue with the present AGW-conclusions.This listing can be found here:
I’ve taken the trouble to compare this listing with the literature references in your 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium.
The numbers come out as follows:
The UNEP report:
A total of 376 scientific papers (not including references to Institutional Reports) out of which 316 papers refer to the period 2007-2009.
The Popular Technology listing:
A total of 438 papers (not including references to Institutional Reports) out of which 133 papers refer to the period 2007-2009.
I’ve compared these listings in order to establish if any of the AGW-critical papers have been included in the UNEP publication’s scientific paper references.
And I’ve found None! Nada! What I’ve only found are the names of a handful of scientists (I’ve counted to nine) that appear on both “sides” of the “issue-fence”.
This is unfortunately a potential proof of the action of an “invisible hand” or “cherry-picking” that is deliberately excluding opposite viewpoints and also excluding the “voice of” maybe hundreds of scientists. The total absence of recent AGW-critical papers in the UNEP-report can not be explained by “hazard”. The numbers are too large.
US President Obama stated November 16 at a Town Hall meeting in Shanghai:…” freedoms of expression and worship—of access to information and political participation—we believe are universal rights. They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities—whether they are in the United States, China, or any nation. Indeed, it is that respect for universal rights that guides America’s openness to other countries; our respect for different cultures; our commitment to international law; and our faith in the future.”
I assume this is valid for the UN-system as well.
I’m sure you will agree that any potential general public doubt about the accuracy of data and the process for assessing scientific issues are harmful to the reputation of the UN-System and for Science in general.
Therefore I suggest that you urgently set up a “Truth Commission” that investigates and hopefully mitigates any doubt about the Scientific Assessment Process at UNEP and also at the IPCC of which UNEP is one of the co-founders.
May I suggest that this Commission is chaired by the present UN Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services – Ms. Inga-Britt Ahlenius. She represents the best my home country Sweden has to offer of an impartial and very experienced civil servant in the tradition of the late Dag Hammarskjöld.
The first task of the Commission should obviously be to confirm my findings and to verify the authenticity of the Popular Technology listing.
I’m confident that you will deal with this matter promptly.
Lars R. Gellerstad
Items of notes and interest from the web.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement