Excerpts: Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’
By MATT PATTERSON
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium — and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices — and found them badly wanting.
…
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over” — that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds — though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.
The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it’s a travesty.
Ouch that one has to hurt
More intensity in messaging was required. it didn’t work. How about more severe weather threats? That didn’t work.
And if the science is settled why are governments still forking out huge sums for further research?
Something I’ve been trying to tell the vulnerable for years, but they refuse to listen. The Goracle has spoken and so it shall be.
I suggest a big traveling tent and a gospel choir
Note on “sociology”. One of the 7 people who made it to the first of my 5 “Atmospheric Physics” lectures last year, sent this NYP article to me.
He’s somewhat of a “luke-warmer” and I think gradually getting over to the “skeptic” side.
This article CAUGHT HIS ATTENTION.
Fortunately I was able to send him links to http://www.surfacestations.org and other WUWT pieces (current) which gave more debt and breath to the NYP article.
This might be the way we have to convince people, “Each one Win One” or better, “Each one WIN TWO, and teach them to do the same!”
Max
Thanks vindicated, I just have to laugh every time someone says “Goracle”.
Nice to see more media outlets picking up the cause for rational thought and debate, even if it is by tearing the alarmists side down.
Long live science!
Ed Begley Jr is gonna be pretty po’d, I’m thinkin.
They simply do not know what they are destroying … When no scientist is credible, what do you do then. Turn to government of course, they wouldn’t lie to you, would they.
As a famous American once wrote, “every great cause becomes a movement, then a business, and finally a racket.” Algore and his fellows should be investigated, prosecuted and then finally made to shut up.
Hey, you can have competing end of the world scenarios.
I still don’t understand completely. What do these rogue scientists such as Mann, et al. get out of pumping the climate change/warming hysteria? I can’t simply be the grant funds. They have to realize that well will eventually dry up, especially when their crazy prophecies don’t come to pass. Even they must realize the cyclical nature of the environment.
So what is it? Are they thinking that under a new, green, carbon restricted, government controlled world that they will come to hold some sort of seat of power? Environment ministers? Or do they somehow really wish society to come crashing down? Somehow they know what is best for the world and they need to force us back into the past, ends justifying whatever means they feel necessary?
It’s probably the latter. But with this philosophy, they’ll stir up more resentment than mine. People will eventually dig in their heels.
I never thought I would live to see this printed in the mainstream media. It is very well written too. Thanks Mr. Patterson.
This tight relationship between “scientists” and policy makers is the root of the problem in the first place. They are probably jockeying to fill the vacuum that the IPCC would leave!
Hum, funny. I went to the InterAcademy Council (IAC) web site and found such nuggets as
“It is only by engaging the energy and expertise of a large cadre of distinguished scholars as well as the thoughtful participation of government representatives that high standards are maintained and that truly authoritative assessments continue to be produced.”
and
“The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change”
I could not find the rebuke, and they seemed to focus on improving the process, nothing about whether or not there was a consensus. Maybe a link or a quote would help, or is this just MSM B-S?
Science in bed with politics..
“Whumpa, whumpa, whumpa!
Oh, I LOVE the Grant money coming in!
Whumpa, whumpa, whumpa!
Wow, it’s great how no one asks to see our work!
Whumpa, whumpa, whumpa!
Niiiiiiice hockey stick!
Whumpa, whumpa, whumpa!
Is that a rash?
Whumpa, whumpa, whumpa!
Aaaah! Splinters!
Whump.
Ok, let’s just call it a consensus and try again in the morning, ok?”
Given the non-warming trend data of the last decade, is “meltdown” an appropriate title word? Seems to me that “Cooling on the Climate Consensus” would be more technically accurate, not too mention better alliteration.
They have to realize that well will eventually dry up, especially when their crazy prophecies don’t come to pass.
I once read a story in a “executive” magazine about hiring consultants. In the story, they tell of an employee telling his boss that they can’t “screw the customer” and the boss while showing a list of the Fortune 500 companies retorts “set this list .. by the time we go through this complete list of companies, everybody we screwed will have either retired or changed companies.”
Short answer, nobody ever gets “called on the carpet” for something that happened 10 or 20 years ago. They could predict that the moon will fall out of the sky in 20 years .. nothing would happen if it doesn’t … and if it does, it won’t matter.
Poor things
When they were saying “in a hundred years” no one was paying attention.
When they tried to say tipping points, more hurricanes, no more snow, etc,
they got caught in lies.
damned if you do, and damned if you don’t………
Science will not be damaged by this and pulling the plug on IPCC funding is long overdue. Countries need to do their own Peer Reviewed research before agreeing on results and potential action.
Note: Climate Science will actually benefit in the long run — who knows, it may even be perceived as credible some day.
Referring to the above headline article – I think that was rather well put.
The problem is, not Rajendra Pachauri – he has always been a pirate and a clown who has royally filled his boots and now has taken to the more serious business of writing works of pornography of the flesh not editing such (climate porn) as head of climate corruption central – the IPCC.
The IPCC is the problem here, time it was put down, with ‘extreme prejudice’.
Musing from a minor prophet : )
Hark all yea troubled masses, rich ideologues and grant seeking scientists . . .
As it began when saintly Erhlich’s population bomb didn’t explode and lo . . .
over the horizon appeared (right on time) a new dawning Apocalypse of CGC (Castastrophic Global Cooling). . . .
and thusly so, as it began it also ended . . . .
with grant seeking scientists switching from CGC Apocalypse of the 1970’s to . . .
the CAGW Apocalypse of the last part of the 20th century . . . .
and that too did pass . . . . and, lo behold . . . .
over the blessed horizon appeared (whew, us doomsdayers were a little worried there) . . . . .
some weird Mayan prophesy for 2012 or a second hand throwback to old Erhlich bomb . . .
and as in the beginning, it is as it shall be in the end . . . . .
mankind will look back on the late 20th and early 21st as a comedy . . . .
or a great place not to have been after Elvis died . . .
John
Some castor oil will do the trick.
I know weather isn’t climate but another cold northen hemisphere winter and the greens will be in real trouble. But at what expense has this co2 craze cost the bigger environental scene.
I don’t know what Patterson read, but it certainly wasn’t the InterAcademy Council’s report. The report does not rebuke the IPCC, but it does find that the procedures set up for writing the first report at the end of the 1980s are no longer adequate for the much larger reports now being written and the much more politicised environment.
Earthdog: Mann knows well that climate has elements of a cyclical nature, but underestimated the cynical nature of man.