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.
earthdog says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:22 pm
………………………………… 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?
Yes. The Jesus syndrome. They truly believe they have been divinely chosen to “save the world”, and become angry and frustrated when they are not believed. They simply cannot understand why people would ridicule them and their labors to save the world, and think that “non-believers” must be suicidal. Their ego’s and general mental state will not permit them to believe that they may be wrong.
More importantly, the report implicitly supports these conclusions of the IPCC:
1.) Global average surface temperature STILL DEFINITELY going up 3-6C (5-10F) this century under business as usual, 1C if we stopped burning fossil fuel right now.
2.) Burning gigatons of fossil fuel per year are to blame for 1.
3.) 1. will cause economic hardship, unpredictable agricultural output (most likely global total reduction–predictability is the friend of agriculture!), and immigration.
After reading the report and reading reviews of the report, it seems that the IPCC will come out of this with more funding, more staff and a permanent executive that will remain constantly active.
There was no “stunning rebuke” but rather affirmation and additional resources.
On a slightly OT , but somewhat related, note a story which suggests that the alarmists won’t go “gently into that goodnight” but will “rage against the dying of the light”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727752.600-liability-for-climate-change.html
“WHEN extreme weather strikes, such as the floods in Pakistan, the null hypothesis is to assume that humans have not played a role, then figure out if they did.
“That’s the opposite of what should be done, argues Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. We should assume global warming plays a role in every climate event, then ask whether that role is a significant one. The view is likely to be controversial, but a government-convened meeting last week suggests that it is gaining favour (see “Time to blame climate change for extreme weather”).”
Here is my cynical read on the whole situation. Pachauri has become an embarrasement to the IPCC because of the scandals and conflicts of interest that have come out in the last year. They’d like to get rid of him but he doesn’t want to be seen as having been “fired”. So here’s this report recommending that the head of the IPCC change hands every few years. So, in the end, hey, he wasn’t fired, the new rules say its just time for him to step down. Everyone saves face. I have no proof for this – just my gut feeling that this is a little bit of media theatre.
IPCC was out of control, which was bad, but on the plus side it gave rise to WUWT and similar blogs, and even more importantly gave rise to worldwide web-communities of people of different backgrounds, knowledge and experience. This is a unique sociological phenomenon.
In order for these communities to thrive, or in final analysis to survive, the IPCC should not destroy , it is just needed to get it down to manageable control.
If the IPCC is dead, I am sorry to say that could be the end of websites like WUWT. A lesson from the nature is needed, at best to have symbiosis with the IPCC, or at worse let it live and the sceptics take role of a ‘parasite’, sapping just enough strength out of it to keep it alive but not to let it flourish….
The tragedy is the waste, the utter heartbreaking waste of time and energy and money on a unbelievable fraud.
Nobody I know ever bought into the AGW cult, it was all so obviously ridiculous from the start. Fools and charlatans and gullible fools and cynical exploiters in a circus of epic proportions and all for nothing, we have nothing to show for it except a much weaker Western world, mired in debt and a scientific establishment utterly ruined with the cause of real genuine science set back decades, just imagine what could have been achieved with the money so far frittered away!
Now science will have to pick up the pieces and try to move forward but its going to be a long hard road for science and scientists are going to have to work very hard to win back the trust of the people.
“Earthdog: Mann knows well that climate has elements of a cyclical nature, but underestimated the cynical nature of man.”
richard telford : Man knows well that climate has elements of a cyclical nature, but underestimated the cynical nature of mann.
Another nail to the coffin of the AGW theorists..
[url]http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/2324027/bewijs-oude-doorgang-in-antarctica-gevonden–.html[/url]
I hope my translation makes any sense. 😉
The isolated parts of Antarctica were formally fused by a passage is the conclusion that results from a study after mossanimals.
© Inertia Stockscientists of the British Antarctic Survey discouveredthat on both sides of the West-Antarctic icecap there are simular mossanimals wich share a lot of simularities.
The finding suggests that there was once a passage between the two parts if the two kilometres thick icelayer. These mosscreatures can’t swim, just float.
Therefore they must have floated from one side to the other.
Anderlan
Yes, but there was a mistake somewhere about something in the 3000 pages of IPCC AR4 which proves everything was a hoax and hence the laws of physics have been revoked.
Is there a link to the actual report? I’m not too interested in what someone as biased as Matt Patterson has to say about it since he also believes DDT is harmless. Linking to the actual report so that readers here can see the conclusions reached by the Council would be a good idea.
Scientists were invested by the public with high trust and respect. Now they are regarded as just another special interest intent on profiting at public expense. By investing in this global political-scientific bureaucracy (aka IPCC) bent on a single outcome, science has squandered its currency to the detriment of us all. And as long as the IPCC continues to exist, we will get what we have always got. It has to go.
It all comes round again: this time, the InterAcedemy Council is nemesis to the IPCC’s hubris…
“It’s a travesty”
OUCH
What a fine ending – very clever Mr. Patterson.
(I assume I don’t need to explain)
Projections, conjecture, model output etc. but no evidence.
“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?”
It’s called masonry, plus lots of money.
John Whitman says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Musing from a minor prophet : )
Hark all yea troubled masses, rich ideologues and grant seeking scientists . . .
…..well said, Mr. Whitman – well said. – (all of it)….
richard telford says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm
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.
_________
How dizzying it must be to spin like that.
For those who read the report as an endorsement of the IPCC and the science behind the reports:
Firstly, the mandate of the Inter Academy Council was not to review the science. The IAC document specifically states: “This report examines the procedures and processes used to carry out IPCC assessments; it does not examine climate change science or the validity of its representation in the assessment reports.”
Secondly, the report found that there were “….. many statements in the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers that are assigned high confidence, but are based on little evidence.”
Thirdly, the report criticizes the scientists’ “…….. unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to freedom-of-information requests ……… Poor access to data inhibits users’ ability to check the quality of the data used and to verify the conclusions drawn.”
It is simply incorrect to claim that the IAC document is an endorsement of the science behind the IPCC reports.
This is still going to be a long battle. Even when the alarmism is muffled there is the constant low level, near-subliminal propoganda dribbling out of the mainstream media.
Here are two stories from the BBC website which confirm what should be a joke ie. that Warm = Climate while Cold = Weather.
Moscow heat = Climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10919460
Britain cold = Weather
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11152077
earthdog: cash is a huge part of it. The PIs are well paid and on top of that many places give *large* bonuses (tied to a % of the funding) to people bringing in grant money that is on top of their pay.
John Whitman says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Musing from a minor prophet : )
Nice – this is from one of the major prophets:
Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
“Because you have … relied on oppression [1]
and depended on deceit [2],
this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant.
It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly
that among its pieces not a fragment will be found
for taking coals from a hearth
or scooping water out of a cistern.”
Isaiah 30, 12-14
[1] Marginalising dissenting scientists, intimidating and vilifying skeptics as “deniers”etc..
[2] Anticlockwise rotation of temperature record, killing MWP, “hiding the decline” etc..
Curiousgeorge says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:12 pm
earthdog says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:22 pm
………………………………… 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?
Yes. The Jesus syndrome. They truly believe they have been divinely chosen to “save the world”, and become angry and frustrated when they are not believed. They simply cannot understand why people would ridicule them and their labors to save the world, and think that “non-believers” must be suicidal. Their ego’s and general mental state will not permit them to believe that they may be wrong.
—————————————-
Bingo george! The “Jesus” syndrome has happened throughout history. It is amazing to me that so many seem to believe it couldn’t happen in our day and time. I guess there were those before who also thought it couldn’t happen in their day and time when the “church” was preaching the Earth as the center of the universe.
“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.”
The best scientists and engineers worldwide? If i read a group describing itself like that they get the same ranking as the IPCC and the Club Of Rome in my book. IOW, probably a bunch of rent-seekers.
Re earthdog
While they work as pseudo-scientists, there are fringe benefits. Trips to exotic locations for conferences, occasional appearence fees for TV and maybe in print. May also get some book deals. Mann did his “Dire Predictions: An Illustrated Guide to the IPCC”. In hindsight. the title may not have been the best choice given it can easily be taken out of context. Now where have I heard that before?
Big money though is outside of science. Young scientist makes a name for themselves as the guy who helped invent global warming and help validate a multi-billion dollar investment scam. So consultancy jobs for cash or equity to ‘green’ start ups, seats on company boards as scientific advisor. Nice work if you can get it, assuming the bubble doesn’t burst before you can jump ship and the grants dry up.
@Julienne. Links to the IAC report are right here on WUWT in several places. Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/iac-slams-ipcc-process-suggests-removal-of-top-officials/
John from CA says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Science will not be damaged by this and pulling the plug on ALL UN funding is long overdue.
Corrected for you, rude perhaps but there you go.
If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.
The science people know and trust most is medical science, whose “scientists” are their doctors which they trust, and they also willingly trust, on their trusted doctor’s recommendations, the main products of that science, namely medicines from the pharmaceutical industry branch of the science.
Wasn’t it nice of the Obama administration and the Democrats to expose them as the money-grubbing soulless bastards they really are during the “health care” debate? Yup, people now know better than to trust anyone from that science ever again…
Another one bites the dust…
Writing with punch. Refreshingly to the point and without the hand wringing and self flagellation.
Julienne says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Is there a link to the actual report? I’m not too interested in what someone as biased as Matt Patterson has to say about it since he also believes DDT is harmless.
Poison the Well much, Julienne?
It’s nice to see the IPCC problems getting the deserved attention but at some point we need to get back to work and find out what the consequences are for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. [/gloat]
Gore………….A Bloody Mess, associated with a Horror Movie.
earthdog says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:22 pm
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.
What would their lives be like if there had been no climate hysteria?
They would be anonymous academics writing papers in an obscure and poorly funded discipline, said papers read by less than 10 people. They would be giving lectures to small groups of semi-interested students. Every time the vice chancellor walked by, they would try and merge into the blackboard and not be noticed, lest they be cut from the university. Tenure would be a dream…
With the help of a little fudging, some cherry picking, some confirmation bias, some uncritical pal-review, a suspension of the normal rigours of empirical testing and independent verification for a new fashion of “post normal” science, and then you get treated like a rock star…
jakers says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm
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”
It’s a hostile management takeover. The new broom will sweep clean, and the IPCC will be “restored” to it’s former impartial, authorative glory….
(yeah – and pigs might fly…)
The science editors of New York Post have once again shown they earn every penny spent on them.
OT, but I am a Councilmember of the City of Pismo Beach, California, and I had an opinion piece published in our local paper, the San Luis Obispo Tribune:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/09/02/1273400/viewpoint-vote-yes-on-proposition.html
My opinion piece says that Californians have an opportunity to suspend California’s version of Cap and Trade in November’s election. Here are the first two paragraphs:
“When magician David Copperfield makes things disappear and then reappear, he is creating an illusion. In fact, magicians prefer to be called illusionists.
We have illusionists of another sort in Sacramento, where the governor and some of our lawmakers claim to be creating lots of new jobs in California following the passage of AB 32 in 2006. This bill aims to curb greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide by a complex scheme of regulations that ultimately result in higher energy prices. The illusion is that jobs are created by increasing the cost of energy.”
I have been a regular reader of WUWT and appreciate all the good information presented here.
Nature gave a response:
Climate panel must adapt to survive
Review recommends better governance and transparency for the
IPCC in the face of more public scrutiny.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/467014a.html
Man must adapt to survive, as he always is compelled to do. That has never changed.
The IPCC and company, in thier zeal to sell climate change trading policy, have damaged themselves by resorting to the well of manufacturing warming. Claiming everything under the Sun as proof of Anthropogenic Warming, the brand burned out.
Science is dead.
Hasta la vista, Warmistas . . .
John
Change is coming to a congress near you! Not good for AGW or cap and trade.
To Windrider – you can actually read Ed Begley juniors thoughts at forums.treehugger.com – You’d actually be surprised he’s not as alarmist as you’d expect and he put conservation ahead of carbon control.
Best concise statement of the state of affairs for warming doomists appeared recently in responses to a NY Times article by Andy Revkin. ( http://tinyurl.com/363vway )
By an anonymous commenter from Tennessee:
“When incompetents and frauds rise to the top, it is a red flag that the system is rotten. Climate scientists don’t calibrate their instruments. They don’t check each other’s work (replication). They don’t share data and code. The databases are a mess because the code is often butchered and quality control is a joke. Stats experts have estimated that more than half the papers published contain serious stats screwups. The climate models are not fit for forecasting because they have failed the basic test of verification and validation. Dishonesty, slander and gross exaggeration abound.
“Fifty and 100 years from now, courses in scientific ethics will use Mann, Jones, Hansen and the IPCC as classic case studies in how NOT to conduct science. Jones’ famous rejoinder, ‘why should I share my data with you, you’ll just try to find something wrong with it?’ will go down in history as the antithesis of genuine science.
“The science isn’t trustworthy because it isn’t conducted in accordance with the scientific method and the field is dominated by people who do not behave in a trustworthy or scientific manner.”
Best thought here so far: (paraphrased) If the science is settled, why does the money keep flowing in to the scientists?
John Whitman says:
September 2, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Hasta la vista, Warmistas . . .
I like it!
Ruining the standard of living for, what, basically the the entire world — eventually, I guess, for some quick fame, fortune, and tenure. Sounds about right.
Pretty sickening. It would almost be better if it were the “Jesus Syndrome” or other mental illness.
“If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.”
That’s great!! That’s the way it’s supposed to be. Who ever said we’re supposed to trust scientists? WE ARE SUPPOSED TO VERIFY EVERYTHING SCIENTISTS SAY!
If people start to look into global warming for themselves they’ll find all the exaggerations of global warming hysteria. And they’ll find out about all the awful treatment people like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, and all the rest have been getting.
That is only a good thing!!
If you’re wondering what the guys like Mann are in it for : it’s pretty simple. It’s not really cash or perks, though these would be important : it’s more the feeling that they’re doing the necessary work, they think they’re vital to the survival of the race – modern day prophets. People will go a long way and do a lot of things just to get the support and admiration of others.
No, if they were just into cash they’d just work themselves into some lobbyist position and trouser the greenbacks. The actions and self-importance are indicative of a much, much deeper motivation and desire to go down in history as a ‘name’ like Newton or Einstein – to be a fork in the road where new understanding was found. Unfortunately for them, if they do go down in history, it’s more likely to be in the vain of Lysenko or Sir Francis Galton.
Never heard of him? He’s the guy who coined the term ‘Eugenics’ which ended up being popularly supported by the politicians of the day, until it was worked into official policy culminating in the Eugenics policies of the Nazi party. Note this isn’t a reversion to Godwins’ Law on my part – rather a statement that popular scientific theories, made popular through various means as a solution to the worlds problems, eventually get discarded by the mainstream once a lunatic fringe tag onto them as a means to trasnport themselves into power. We’re in the mid-1930’s at the moment with global warming – still popular, though major political figures are starting to distance themselves, and thus driving strict adherents to the fringe parties.
Cap and Tax is being imposed on several states already. I don’t know how they got it done, but the northeast is already paying more for power as a result of it. It is logical to assume that the same scheme will be tried on the rest of the country.
http://www.rggi.org/home
Coalsoffire says:
September 2, 2010 at 2:47 pm
How dizzying it must be to spin like that.
———
So prove me wrong – bring forth the quote that rebukes the IPCC.
‘why should I share my data with you, you’ll just try to find something wrong with it?’
I agree that this sentence should go down in history as the antithesis of genuine science. One can hope.
Even if only this sentence was leaked, it should have been enough to stop the madness. Genuine scientists would do their best to find somebody who would try to find something wrong with it.
“If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.”
Great opening line! Unfortunately, many people with Fuzzy Studies degrees, who fancy themselves as being educated, think that the best way to arrive at the truth of a controversy involving science, is to trot out various mavens, and to let them duke it out. Apparently the winner is the biggest dinosaur on the block, or the biggest mafia, or the Neanderthal who screams the loudest.
I’m sorry, but appealing to authority is not critical thinking. It’s atavistic thinking.
Most of us do not have the time to become 100% current on all of the background info that’s relevant to the climate change discussion. But we do owe it to ourselves to check the batteries in our crap detectors occasionally.
Hmmm. Hiding raw temperature data from the very public that funds the research (GISS)? Red flag.
Blatant cherry-picking of tree ring data (Keith Briffa)? Bigger red flag.
Dry-labbing part of the temperature proxy data (Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann)? Infinitely large red flag.
Larry’s contribution to the Scientific Method:
When you put on your scientist’s hat, always tell the bloody truth, warts and all.
Is that too much to ask?
Here’s the direct link to the story:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ
Quote “Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy.”
Ha! The IPCC is a political office. What do you expect? An insider describes it as “a shambles”. The only thing they’re really good at is pumping out “global warming” lying propaganda and spending taxpayers’ money.
Let’s go on…
…”Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, “[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion’s share of a £2.5 million EU grant funded by European taxpayers.”
“Thus, the Times concluded, “EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.”…
…”What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.
“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.”
Remind you of anything?
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
-Phil Jones, CRU.
When they come and they tell us we are the cause of the melting mountains of ice.
I usually ask, ‘who are “we” in your story?’
‘Well, us.’ They answer. ‘Us humans that is.’
I ponder this for a while, then I point out, ‘oh, so you mean you?’
‘Yes us too,’ they say.
Whereupon I go about and really give them a much needed beating for melting my damn ice.
I think we have a problem with the term scientist. Science is a process of discovery where we make observations of the real world, create a hypothesis about underlying causes and then make new observations to test the predictions of that model. Learning about someone elses model, exploiting their results or making untested predictions based on them is not science: at best it is engineering and at worst it is science fiction. There are very very few scientists in this world (in the same way as there are few philosophers) but many who claim the title. Almost all the members of the IPCC were politicians, industry lobyists and engineers who relied on the results of physicists outside the committees to provide fundamental data. Although, in general, I had little to argue with in the detailed technical aspects of the IPCC report the IPCC process is not scientific any more than writing a book review is literature. As we have discovered with the discussions on Tom Vonk’s hypothesis, if one starts with a micro focus it is difficult to discuss let alone predict the emerging properties of large complex chaotic systems if one does not have the chance to test the various ideas against what really happens. The IPCC have fooled us but more importantly they have fooled themslves. I personally do not think there was much collusion just a lot of self delusion.
@John Whitman – ‘or a great place not to have been after Elvis died . . .’
You just made my Friday.
——————–
David Spurgeon/phlogiston/Shevva,
On this thread there are many very good and serious (heavy) thoughts/ideas . So I wanted to try to put in a light thought just for some entertaining contrast. : )
John
An Aussie academic by name Clive Hamilton has writen a piece for our very left leaning public broadcaster, the ABC. He writes that “deniers” are gaining too much air time and column inches and that causes confusion for the general public. It is well known that the science is settled about MMCC and allowing discussion by those not on the list of qualified scientists is simply wrong. Now this guy is the head of the Ethics Dept at a major university. According to Clive the IPCC and it’s adherents are right and even the most qualified and published non conforming scientist is not to be heard.
Unfortunately Clive has many ignorant mates and they feed even more ignorant journos so that the common folk have to look elsewhere for truth. Thankfully WUWT, Jo Nova and many others are providing that service. I always thought some good would come from the www and now here it is. The days when politicians and crooked scientists could get away with murder are long gone. With honest scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Carter, Plimer etc available we are all becoming better educated and informed. The blogosphere must be a real headache for the terminally corrupt at UN HQ, particularly the IPCC.
White House Press Release, 1 January 2011, 0001 EDST
“All Federal Funds to all ‘Scientific’ (and ‘Psyentific’) endeavours MUST be cancelled immediately and used to pay down the Deficit. All public and private donations, endowments and bequests, to any ‘Scientific’ (and ‘Psyentific’) endeavours MUST be taxed at the 99% level to pay down the Deficit. Sorry, all science (and psyence) is settled!!! There’s no other way to prevent global economic collapse! We MUST act now and fall bact to pre-1901 fiscal budget levels!!! There is NO OTHER WAY!!!
“This is MORE true than that Fat Albert rant about AGW. Please believe! You must all believe! There is no hope without faith! We CAN do this! It will be a little awkward at first. But when farmers start breeding more horses and mules, the economy will turn around and things will get much better. Life’s a beach! Sometimes you get a hurricane.”
“Thank You, Good Night, And may ‘you-know-who’ bless America!”
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.
Are there any details to this?
Neo says:
September 2, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I once read a story in a “executive” magazine about hiring consultants
Neo, another truism of business – you can tell your boss anything, but he will not believe it until he pays $50k to a consultant to hear it.
cal says:
September 3, 2010 at 1:21 am
…. I personally do not think there was much collusion just a lot of self delusion.
________________________________
I thin the word you want is corruption because there certainly was a lot of collusion and it has been documented in the climategate e-mails
Another example: The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists…
richard telford says:
September 2, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Anderlan
Yes, but there was a mistake somewhere about something in the 3000 pages of IPCC AR4 which proves everything was a hoax and hence the laws of physics have been revoked.
_________________________________
How about the fact that Pachauri lied when he said all the information was from peer reviewed papers. He and the IPCC were certainly caught in an embarrassing situation and that is why this review was done in the first place.
The chairman of the IPCC repeatedly claimed that the report is based solely on peer-reviewed research.
The IPCC report is not based solely on research previously published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nearly 5,600 of the sources upon which this document relies (30 percent) were found to be “grey literature.” Among these sources are press releases, news clippings, student theses, working papers, discussion papers, and advocacy literature produced by green groups.
PDF of Citizens Report
That does not include all the “mistakes” found in the report. WUWT has covered them so you can go look them up yourself.
The age of the dilettante (independent) scientist is long past. ‘Scientists’ are now locked into the employ of private companies or the service of Govt. Remember, they are human beings and have families to feed. Sure, they have their own agenda which will bring them wealth. It doesn’t matter if they support a religion (warmist) or any other view of life so long as they can profit from it. So called ‘science’ now has to be taken with a pinch of salt. You have to ask: ‘What’s in it for these guys?’ And yes, there are independent people out there who will speak the truth but sadly, they are few and far between. What can we do? At least keep hitting this blog and boost it.
Hope you and your family are OK, Anthony.
Gail Combs :
The folk at the noconcensus appear not to know that chapters in edited books are typically peer reviewed. Obviously their rather ridiculous effort was not peer reviewed.
In any case, the IPCC rules on citing grey literature have remained essentially unchanged for over a decade:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS
Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.
Kate says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:52 am
Quote “Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy.” – of course that was Matt Patterson writing, not from the report.
And um, yeah, well, the Sunday Times retracted their story and issued an apology.
And, check here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/02/august-global-temperature-still-in-a-holding-pattern/) re “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
-Phil Jones, CRU.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/iac-slams-ipcc-process-suggests-removal-of-top-officials/
I’m less excited about this op-ed than others appear to be. Although it was printed in the New York Post, it wasn’t written by an editor of the NYP. According to http://www.capitalresearch.org/about/bios.html, the writer, Matt Patterson, “edits Labor Watch and Green Watch. His work has appeared in some of the nation’s top newspapers and political sites, including the Washington Post, New York Post, Washington Examiner, American Thinker, and FOXNews.com. From 2009 to 2010, he was a Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute. Previously he served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer and political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.” This article will be too easily dismissed as a right-wing rant, and not “main stream” at all.