Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
When a scientist’s work is revealed as wrong, the reason is rarely an issue. The error is identified and corrected by the author Unfortunately, that is not always the case with climate science errors. Often the question is whether it is a matter of incompetence or malfeasance? Either way there is a problem for an accurate advance of science. Normally, a simple determination is that a single mistake is probably incompetence, but a series of mistakes is more likely to be malfeasance. However, again in climate science, that doesn’t always apply because a single major error to establish a false premise to predetermine the result can occur. Usually, this is exposed when the perpetrator refuses to acknowledge the error.
All these issues were inevitable when a political agenda coopted climate science. Two words, “skeptic” and consensus”, illustrate the difference between politics and science in climate research. All scientists are and must be skeptics, but they are troublemakers for the general public. Science is not about consensus, but it is very important in politics. As a result of these and other differences, the climate debate occurs in two different universes.
A major challenge for those fighting the manipulations of the IPCC and politicians using climate change for political platforms is that the public cannot believe that scientists would be anything less than completely open and truthful. They cannot believe that scientists would even remain silent even when science is misused. The politicians exploit this trust in science and scientists, which places science in jeopardy. It also allowed the scientific malfeasance of climate science to be carried out in the open.
A particularly egregious exploitation was carried out through science societies and professional scientific groups. They were given the climate science of the IPCC and urged to support it on behalf of their members. Certainly a few were part of the exploitation, but a majority, including most of the members simply assumed that the rigorous methods of research and publication in their science were used. Lord May of the UK Royal Society was influential in the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. They persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. The Russian Academy of Science, under its President Yuri Israel, refused to participate. At a United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) 2005 climate meeting he was put in his place.
“The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy”.
Israel, a Vice-chair of the IPCC, knew what he was talking about from the scientific and political perspective.
Politics and science of human-caused climate change became parallel through the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The political framework evolved as Agenda 21, and the science framework evolved through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The challenge was to control the science by bending it to the political agenda, which had the effect of guaranteeing scientific conflict; these created inevitable points of conflict that forced reaction.
The first was in the definition of climate change given to the IPCC in Article 1 of the UNFCCC. It limited them to considering only human causes of change.
Climate change means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable periods of time.
Because of the political agenda people were allowed to believe the IPCC were studying climate change in total. The reality is you cannot determine human causes of change if you do not know or understand natural causes. The forcing diagrams used in early IPCC science Reports illustrate the narrowness (Figure 1) and its limitations.
FIGURE 1: Source, AR4
They identify nine forcings and claim a “high” level of scientific understanding (LOSU – last column) for only two of eleven. Of course, this is their assessment.
Most people, including most of the media don’t know that the science reports exist. This is because the Summary for Policymakers Report is released with great fanfare months ahead of the science report. As David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer explained:
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
…
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
Actions speak louder than words. Some of us started pointing to the limitations and predetermination of the results created by the original definition of climate change. As Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” Typically, the IPCC people listened, but only to offset not deal with the problem. Quietly, as a Footnote in the Summary for Working Group I AR4 Report they changed the definition of climate change.
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.”
It is a convenient comment to counter those who challenge the original definition, but little else. If it was true AR5 should be very different. For example, it should refer to the Milankovitch and Svensmark Effects and include them in their computer models. It is not possible to make it true because the original structure of the IPCC and its Reports was cumulative. Each Report simply updated the original material that was restricted by the original definition. The only way they could make the new definition correct is to scrap all previous work and start over.
When science operates properly this wouldn’t happen. Predictions of the first IPCC Report (1990) were wrong. Normally that forces a reexamination of the science. Instead, in the 1995 Report they changed predictions to projections and continued with the same seriously limiting definition. The entire IPCC exercise was a deliberate deception to achieve a predetermined, required, science result for the political agenda. It is not science at all.
If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest. Anonymous
The vast majority of people who have ever studied climatology have studied it in the last 25 years. Hardly anyone was studying the field before it became important in saving the world. Most of the university departments didn’t even exist before the 90s.
That means the vast majority of people who have ever studied climatology have based their whole career on the science being right over those 25 years.
Backing down from that is not a good career move when nobody in the field has anything else to pull back to.
Why fund these new departments if they aren’t saving the world or getting anything right?
True. But, at the same time, it is not possible to conduct unscientific science. It is a contradiction in terms. Those kids in the system that become true scientists eventually hit the political wall of deception. It is inevitable. It is the way science works.
it is not possible to conduct unscientific science
=============
there are an infinite number of ways to conduct unscientific science.
“it is not possible to conduct unscientific science.”
You are truly naive. For example Trenberh has inverted the null hypothesis. To validate the idea that recent climate change is anthropogenic, one must first prove recent climate is outside the norm of natural variability. But their models do a poor job of simulating natural climate change. Yet they claim because they can’t model climate change by natural factors it must be CO2Trenberth turned that around to argue skeptics must prove CO2 is the driver of change. Trenberth suggests climate skeptics are the biggest threat to the earth effectively stifling skeptical research, and promoting only one school of thought.
Most of the climate scientific publications predict changes 20 to 100 years out so there is no way to prove or disprove their predictions for many decades So we are bombarded with countless papers predicting untestable future results, that induce fear instead of better science.
The tree rings temperatures suggest there has been no warming since 1960s. The urbanized instrumental data shows a large increase. The different data sets are likely measuring two different environments, natural and urbanized. The solution for CO2 advocates, was to suggest the trees are suddenly malfunctioning
Satellite data shows no warming. Solution for C2 advocates: focus on a different data base that ahs adjusted origicanl data.
There are lots of ways to promote bad science, and attacking good skeptics as deniers, instead adequately addressing the issues is a sure sign of bad science that can not defend itself versus the many incongruities that would normally scuttle a bad hypothesis
I wonder what happens when the kids in the system hit the political wall of deception, what will happen when they start reading the assessments reports by IPCC and realize that there is so much in there that is not compatible with a critical scientific approach. If they have any education within scientific theory in general and critical rationalism in particular we should soon see an opposition.
The reason why you three think that unscientific science is possible is because you don’t know what science is and, consequently, when someone claims that a random thought amounts to science, you all buy it. But claims don’t make science.
Unscientific science is garbage, not science.
Anyone believing tree rings can be a proxie for global temperature is already practicing science unscientifically. Biology says tree rings are shaped by local conditions of numerous variables, plus genetic factors. They do not react solely, if at all, to a global average of a single variable. I am ashamed as a scientist that anyone considered this approach had any merit.
It’s easy… just ignore the Scientific Method. After that it’s Katy bar tha door. Anything goes.
If you don’t follow the scientific methods, it’s not science. There are many academic endeavors that are confused with science because of the PhD’s involved. If science is in the course title, it is usually because it’s not in the curriculum, like Political Science and Climate Science, which are really the same thing because they both talk about science, but really mean concensus.
“Every time less than 97% of climate scientists don’t agree in human caused catastrophic climate change, a polar bear and a fairy dies”.
There, that about sums up their ‘scientific’ argument.
Sorry, to avoid distress to any children and alarmists reading of course I’m not talking about the REAL fairies or polar bears.
Anyone who has spent some time in university science departments knows that scientists can lie,steal and cheat just like anyone else can.
“Why fund these new departments if they aren’t saving the world or getting anything right?” Because protecting the environment has always been only a disguise for a political/economic agenda that was planned centuries ago and was published by the Club of Rome decades ago; “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill “. The UN history posted on Alan Cheetham’s website, http://appinsys.com , along with the CoR’s statement, above, in the context of CoR membership – every major population reduction advocate in the world, exposes the real purpose of the global warming/ anti-fossil fuel agenda as an excuse for claiming that the earth can’t sustain it’s current population, and that this is entirely the result of too many humans on the earth. The option would have been to state that their small group, the wealthiest psychopaths in the world, really didn’t want the rest of us around, and planned on murdering 95% of us for the sole reason that they wanted to limit occupation of the planet and control of all of its resources to members of their own private club; deception is an essential requirement to accomplishing the mission. They DO support environmental protection; the UN’s gaia worship is essentially identical to the Thule Society principles advocated by Hitler and other nazis. The UN’s stated goal is redistribution of assets from developed to undeveloped nations, focusing on the US as the primary consumer of resources and source of pollution. But the UN has never benefitted developing nations; it’s a money-lender through the Rothschild-controlled IMF and World Bank and BIS that confiscate the resources used as collateral on loans, which are paid to corrupt dictators and UN-affiliated NGOs not citizens. George Hunt’s videos from the 4th World Wilderness Conference include Edmund de Rothschild’s statement that the plan is the fulfillment of Cecil Rhodes’ instructions in his 5th will; to recreate the British Empire by repossession of former British colonies, and to establish global British race and culture and eliminate the “Lilliputions of lesser race”.
These new departments and the IPCC are getting everything right; ‘everything’ doesn’t include science or global warming.
The character assassination targeting honest scientists is produced by the same people who portrayed Wilhelm I as an insane monster chopping the limbs off of children that was used to sell the US on involvement in WWI. When Nuremberg prosecutor John Loftus published declassified information on the dual passport system used by Alan Dulles et al to facilitate the immigration of WWII nazis and place them in CIA positions, CIA disinformation claimed that Loftus wasn’t an attorney and had nothing to do with the tribunals.
“http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm
http://green-agenda.com/
M Courtney says:
Why fund these new departments if they aren’t saving the world or getting anything right?
I think we all know the answer to that: money is the goal for many government scientists. It’s not just a side issue. By playing along, they can expect their usual pay raises, promotions, and job security. The reverse is true, too. So most play along. As M says, backing down from the official narrative isn’t a good carreer move.
The immense piles of easy money propping up the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare are buying exactly what they’re paying for: a narrative. Frightening the public has always made it easy to convince taxpayers to open their wallets.
The ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ hoax is intended, among other things, to promote the passage of a ‘carbon tax’. If a carbon tax passes, then for the money spent, the government will get an enormous return on its investment. And it will get what every government has only dreamed about: the ability to tax the air we breathe!
And it will tax everything else, too. Every industrial activity emits CO2. It is the perfect tax from the government’s point of view. But there is, as always, a flip side:
The huge amount of revenue raised with a carbon tax will be money confiscated from the productive sector. The bureaucracy will balloon, but global temperatures will not change by 0.000001ºC as a result. That is made clear by observational evidence: despite a one-third rise in CO2, global temperatures have not budged.
The mis-allocation of resources from a carbon tax will cause the price of everything to rise substantially; both goods and services. Our after-tax dollars will not buy nearly as much. Except for the bureaucracy, everyone will be hurt.
Remember the promises made when the Income Tax was proposed? Only those earning more than $4,000 a year would pay the tax, and it would be capped at 1% of income. Does anyone believe the promises made by those promoting a carbon tax, when they assure us it won’t cost that much?
Is your marginal tax bracket more than 1%? If so, you are in the minority. Half the population collects tax money rather than paying taxes. This is a very dangerous situation. A carbon tax would make things much worse. Those still earning money in the productive sector would be expected to pay for more and more, as the proportion of non-earners rises: ‘One man, one vote’.
S’Truth!
The science of CO2 warming goes back to the 1800’s with Fourier, Tyndall. Arrhenius, etc., and then continues on and builds all thru the 20th century. To say it is only 25 years old is incorrect.
Arrhenius misunderstood Fourier and misused Tyndall. Arrhenius’s theory was debunked almost immediately on theoretical and mathematical grounds and experimentally in 1909. It lay in the wastebin of failed science until Callendar resurrected it in 1938 and Plass in the 1950s by misunderstanding both it and thermodynamics.
You can start here: http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ Casey gives a thorough overview about the specific deficiencies of Arrhenius’s theory and it’s recent offspring. Jo Nova has an interesting discussion here: http://tinyurl.com/8jhyahd
flagged up over at Mr Goddard’s blog. These people really are insane-
“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Maybe it’s propaganda to fool people into believing that AGW rather than a solar minimum will increase drought globally and make Britain colder. Or they have been briefed by dimwits who have the whole thing backwards. I would suspect for the latter.
“Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.”
Eric Hoffer
It may sound good, but it’s wrong. Propaganda does effect people, but perhaps not all of the people, nor all of the people the same way all of the time.
If propaganda didn’t work, there wouldn’t be so much of it.
yikes!”
does
effectaffectRichard
That report of 2004 is old AGW propaganda based on worst case projections that have proven to be completely wrong in the near term
pentagon-climate-scenario/ June 2014: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda
Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
None of that has happened…
The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/?page=all
This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight that these are worst case projections in the opening paragraph. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case . No nation can afford to spend money to mitigate worst case scenarios, nor should they. The problem is that some politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true. They then fabricate entirely new falsehoods like carbon dioxide is a pollutant on top of these worst case scenarios and you now have a firm government action thrust on the general public that is all pure fabrication of a worst case scenario that will never come about. Yet it comes from the highest administrative offices in the land
Politicians live and breathe by “worst case scenario’s”. Catastrophic threats are their stock in trade for the masses ..”A red under every bed” etc. etc. etc.
Take Gillard’s “The science is IN” blather i.e.. no more argument will be acknowledged.
Now that is 100% political and zero science at work.
Its from 2004 and more significantly its from the Guardian, a newspaper that, like the Daily Express, can be safely ignored on most climate and weather related matters.
tonyb.
I think the deliberate and cynical spin imparted to the SPMs from the underlying papers demonstrates it all stopped being about any notion of science ages ago – it’s all about politics.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
Pointman
“… They [the public] cannot believe that scientists would even remain silent even when science is misused. …” ~ Dr. Ball
Indeed. The public has this myth about scientists that is completely erroneous. There are a few courageous and brilliant people doing science in any generation but they are the rare exception and not the rule. The average “scientist” is merely a lab rat who is thankful to have found a cushy job; most often with a government agency being the ultimate paymaster.
It is unfortunate that we in the education business do not teach the history of science. If we did, the public would know that there are few saints working in white coats.
An attempt to teach anything as subversive as that would lose you your tenure.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/achtung-spitfeuer/
Pointman
I liked this comment from Rastech in the comments: “Buckminster Fuller reckoned it all went to shit with the First World War.He was one of the last ‘Old School’ trained, and saw a noticeable decline in education standards of those leaving ‘Education’, by the late 1920’s (this dramatically accelerated from the late 1960’s on). He blamed it on radio. As a Navy guy, pre-radio, everybody had to be able to think on their feet, and know how to deal appropriately with any new situation or posed threat. Personal responsibility, in other words
Once fresh orders could come through via the radio, obeying orders became paramount, and Education was adjusted accordingly.”
Then came TV (one-way communication, perfect for propaganda) and now internet (all-ways communication, perfect for increasing quantity). The latter is great but also amplifies the stupid.
Agree totally with you. Second hand tobacco smoke, less saturated fat in the diet and more carbs, unleaded petrol, diesel as opposed to petrol Climate change aka AGW. The list is never ending.
Beware the tyranny of the hodgepodge.
Adding some Arthur Koestler to the suggested reading list might introduce a bit of reality.
Joe,
Koestler only knew about one tenth of the Comintern covert influence operations against American/Western culture.
His writings have been updated by recent publications:
http://www.willingaccomplices.com
I have a relative who has spent a huge number of years of his life since he became a professor ,investigating the metal content in bloods (that is his simplified version for me). He has traveled the world, written papers, worked in the UK and Sweden. Has been funded his entire life and is now also a lecturer . He has pretty much achieved jack shit, but has at least been making an effort for a good cause, his motivation being ,the way Leukemia works and answers thereto.
He is an absolutely first class mind. I asked him about CAGW , his answer “No idea ,not my field”
That probably accounts for around 97% of real scientists who are actually busy trying to do some good in the World whilst the 3% parasites live it up big time on the scare stories.
This pseudo science needs to be nailed before all scientists become tainted with this CAGW nonsense.
That an American President can spout the nonsense he spews forth on CAGW being the biggest security threat to the World just makes me want to kick some f$%^&ing sense into him.
What on Earth is he thinking .
Americans ,please impeach Obama ,he has totally lost the plot, if indeed he ever had a plot.
“…before all scientists become tainted…” Too late, I’m afraid.
When the cold hits the fan, I suspect most AGW publishing scientists will say, “I never said temperatures would go up. I just investigated what the impact would be if they did, and identified things that were consistent with, but not proof of, AGW.”
University reputations must not ever be tarnished. Hurts university donations too.
And scientists should be put under oath when testifying before Congress.
“Why can’t climate science
Just be about science?
Why is it that politicians
Demand our compliance?
Why do the media
Push out propaganda?
What are the agendas,
Their hidden memoranda?….”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-CL
Why pussyfoot around? They are Climate Liars. They come in all stripes, and have varying reasons for being part of the Biggest Lie in human history.
The alarmists have it as a matter of faith that corporations oppose action on climate change. I have a feeling that some corporations are pushing for action on climate change.
We have the best politicians money can buy. If all corporations opposed action on climate change, it wouldn’t be a political priority for either party.
My question is this: Which corporations are pushing for action on climate change? How does that help their bottom line?
Start with GE who has the president;s ear.
Oil companies stand to gain monopoly control of the energy market if they can eliminate coal. Oil prices would necessarily skyrocket.
Oil companies currently have to pay for the CO2 they pump underground to enhance oil recovery. they would love to get paid instead for “carbon storage”.
GE has its fingers in many pies:
In 1986 GE reacquired RCA and got NBC in the deal. Subsidiary GE Wind Energy is the 2nd largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, GE having acquired Enron’s wind assets after the scandal. Universal Pictures, Smiths Aerospace, and Dresser are among GE’s other acquisitions.
Any company that was founded by Thomas Alva Edison himself cannot be all bad, can it?
(GE ad from 1899)
http://adage.com/article/adage-encyclopedia/general-electric/98667/
GE made itself a household name with its electric lamps, aka the incandescent light bulb, The GE logo atop a glowing light bulb is pleasantly & permanently burned into my memory.
When General Electric blamed “a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards” for the closing of incandescent light bulb factories in Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, its PR team left out a critical detail: General Electric and fellow light bulb manufacturers Phillips and Osram Sylvania had lobbied for those regulations.
Ignore claims that the incandescent light bulb ban was imposed to fight global warming. The motive behind the bulb ban is money: Incandescents have a low profit margin.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA628.html
If the light bulb flip flop won’t get you, consider the miraculous transformation also engineered by its public relations department whereby a hack b-grade Hollywood actor with a failing career was magically transformed into “The Great Communicator” through the TV program known as GE Theater, which was a regular Sunday evening fixture in our house, and millions of households in the USA during the 50s and early 60s.
“Progress is Our Most Important Product” was GE’s slogan during those years, but behind corporate doors, it may well have been: Molding Public Perceptions is Our Most Important Technique
@SteveP
Ref, “The great communicator”.
You conveniently left out the fact that he was president of the Actors guild and also Governor of California. Funny how someone on this site, all for honest in science, would leave out such facts about someone when using them for political speech.
(Also President of the United States. Twice. -mod.)
Dahlquist June 1, 2015 at 8:35 am
I left out many things, Dahlquist, about Ronald Reagan, such as Iran-Contra and also about GE, such as Fukushima, but tell us please, did you ever watch GE Theater during the 50s and 60s?
I am told by none other than the organiser of Climate Week that major oil companies are not necessarily opposed to climate change propaganda or renewables. It stands to reason, since these companies already have technology at their disposal which could easily be adapted to carbon sequestration, and the proposed subsidies for CCS make it a very attractive business area. That, and renewables investment is a good PR exercise which will never be any real theat to their main business.
Steve, just because he was able to get people to believe things that you oppose, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great communicator.
As for GE, Fukishima was a few weeks away from being closed permanently due to old age. Regardless, the only thing wrong with the design was that the engineers believed the geologists when it came time to deciding how high to put the back up generator.
All the big energy companies have major renewable sectors or wholly owned subsidiaries. The scam has always been to use “research grants” from carbon taxes on the oil to fund those branches. They get to double dip. You pay the tax on the oil then they get the money to funnel into their renewable sectors. All the while they play the villain. It really is a brilliant scam.
MarkW June 1, 2015 at 10:54 am
Steve, just because he was able to get people to believe things that you oppose, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great communicator.
Oh, I’ve already conceded that he came to be known as “The Great Communicator,” and also “The Teflon President,” because nothing could stick to him, not even treasonous activity (which I do oppose) like negotiating with a foreign power, working to delay release of the hostages (so Pres. Carter would get no credit), selling arms to Iran, and using the proceeds to arm the Contra terrorists. Did anyone ever go to jail for these crimes?
http://adst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Reagan.jpg
“ A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
–President Ronald, March 4, 1987
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/07/ronald_reagan_treason_amnesia_gop_hypocrites_forget_their_hero_negotiated_with_terrorists_he_was_just_really_bad_at_it/
If you insist on talking about Ronald Reagan, I’ll be happy to oblige, but my point above was more about General Electric’s PR department, and incandescent light bulbs, than it was about the former president.
Ferdberple: just to add to your observation:
Big oil and gas companies are in the energy business, and always will be. They have the expertise, money, and distribution systems. It seems to me, they have gotten the government (i.e., you and me) to pay for their research into alternative energies. If any of the research pans out, they will simply buy the patents or the rights of production at a fraction of the cost spent on the total research, including the failed research. Bottom line, supporting the AGW meme is in their best interest. They will maintain a quasi-monopoly on energy regardless of the final outcome, and can drastically reduce their R&D expenses.
How much of the IPCC report do you need to read before they give you the only actual science: the amount by which the CO2 warms the planet without feedbacks.
Is it:
a) in the executive summary for policy makers
b) the first chapter for policy makers
c) in any of the of the material for policy makers?
d) in the technical summary?
e) in the chapters dealing with CO2
f) anywhere in the IPCC report at all
g) no where not any where – indeed only ever mentioned once as a footnote I think in 2004
If it’s not obvious, the simple science – the only actual science in this whole damned scam is no where in the IPCC report.
That proves intentional deception
Well said!
Thank you Scottish Sceptic. Straight to the heart of the matter and I endorse your conclusion. It is deceit and now we have to uncover why this deceit was needed and by whom.
oh dear, gonna need a bigger ice breaker.
Indeed we have been fed lies and half truths for the last 30 years. Just look at some of the most popular icons of their so called CAGW.
1. SLR using tide gauges is now about 1.5mm a year and about 3.2mm year using adjusted satellite data. And that’s 6 inches per 100 years for tide gauges and 12.8 inches for satellites in 100 years.
2. Deaths from natural disasters has fallen by 97% over the last century. See Goklany’s work.
3. Temps have risen by about 0.7C since 1900 but at the end of the coldest period for 10,000 years.
4. No increase in Tornadoes, Hurricanes since 1900.
5. No increase in floods , droughts wild fires etc at all.
6. Polar bear numbers have increased by 4 to 5 times since 1950 or from 5,000 then to 20,000 to 25,000 now.
7.Greenland warmed much faster in the earlier 20th century than the recent warming since about 1995.
8. Antarctic sea ice is at record levels since the satellite obs began in the late 1970s.
9.Recent PR studies show much longer mega droughts e.g. USA and Australia in the last 1.000 years than anything we’ve seen since 1900.
10. Australian temps were much higher for thousands of years than we see today. See Miller et al and Calvo et al.
I could go on but will leave it there. Suffice to say that there is nothing unprecedented or unusual about today’s climate compared to the last 11,000 years.
nothing unprecedented or unusual about today’s climate compared to the last 11,000 years.
===========
we have a lot more climate scientists dreaming up new ways to get grants. the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
You quote:
“The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy”.
Do you have any reports of this meeting other than those below.
It strikes me that this is Peisers opinion. It would be good to hear/read the aactual words used – any proper references please?
[The source]
numberwatch.co.uk/Peiser.htm
[Reposts:]
drtimball.com/…/climate-science-corruption-practiced-and-perpetuated-b
sepp.org/twtwfiles/2005/Feb.%205.htm
forum.rottentomatoes.com/topic/show/1827297?page=5
Those reports should not be difficult to find. There is a report which I found some time ago describing the lead up to the event, who went, what they said, how the Russians reacted, the fight that broke out when the Brits realised they were not going to get anywhere. They disrupted the meeting in order to stop the emerging consensus going forward. The Brits took some thugs with them to disrupt the meeting if they were not successful, and they were not. A bunch of them were arrested. The Brits them blamed the Russians (rather unconvincingly) and went home.
As I recall later Russia said they would sign the Kyoto accord if they were paid for the implementation. The EU gave them 7 billion Euros and they signed. Russia spent the money and did nothing else after that. I have always presumed they spent it on EU approved projects.
Scientists seemed to sense that something was amiss years ago when Enviromental Science departments where seperated out from other physical sciences. After climategate Nature magazine had to ring fence climate science in its own publication. Unfortunately isolating the political advocates does not appear to have worked to limit the damage. Rich funding streams were just to tempting.
That is very interesting, since climate science is dependent on the other physical sciences for it’s existence. To me it displays an arrogance which has led inevitably to it’s current state of incompetence and ethical disrepair.
I believe incompetence and deception are not mutually exclusive, although when the incompetent engage in deception it’s not always an intent to deceive. When you are sufficiently incompetent to “not know what you don’t know” it becomes much easier to defend your work in non-scientific ways, (e.g., they’re “confused” or “the missing heat is somewhere … we’ll find it”), rather than revise, correct, improve.
I’ve spent much more of my professional life in private industry than in academia, and In business the smart people aren’t always the one’s who get it right the first time, the smart people are the ones how know when to cut their losses and move on, while the dumb ones will gladly stay with the sinking ship until it’s too late.
Dunning-Kruger, which Mann ironically used once to describe certain people at this site.
I think Mann has it only partly right. A more complete description would be ‘confirmation bias’.
Used in irony would be appropriate, as Mann is the reality.
incompetence and deception are not mutually exclusive
In general, one sorts this out using the old adage follow the money. In this case, however, there is so dang much money flowing to the “environmental” business machine that I suspect it would be difficult to do an exposé. Michael Crichton’s State of Fear comes to mind.
Generally speaking the incompetent learn that to get ahead they have to be deceptive because they cannot advance on merit.
Not all sociopaths are violent Hannibal Lector like geniuses. There are plenty of stupid sociopaths in the world. They make up the majority of the prison population. However, a few slip through the cracks and ultimately end up in management.
Stupid violent sociopaths make up most of the prison population.
Stupid nonviolent sociopaths make up most of management and other bureaucracy.
I was thinking which is worse; mixing religion & science or mixing politics & science.
In western societies the concept of separation of church and state has limited the power of religion. In the USA the courts have repeatedly kicked religion out of the science classrooms. So while mixing religion and science is worse conceptually, in a practical sense mixing politics and science is much worse. To use AGW terminology it is potentially catastrophic.
mixing religion and science is worse conceptually, in a practical sense mixing politics and science is much worse
===========
interesting point. history does have a way of repeating itself and science has become the new religion.
It can be argued that religion was science, in that it attempted to explain the natural world. If we disregard the recent mono-theistic religions, all of the “primitive” ones try to answer questions. What is the sun? What is thunder and/or lightning? Why does it get dark? What causes the sound of wind through the leaves of a tree? Etc. etc.
All of these questions plus the many more are answered by the assumption of there being unseen powerful usually humaniform “gods”. With the evolution of religion, it was realised by the controllers that there was no need for many “gods” so the mono-theistic form evolved. Because of less competition this gave more power to the successful few, to wit Popes, Metropolitans or Muftis.
The fact that the original hypothesis of the religions has been disproved does not reduce the desire for control by the powerful. The pseudo-science of religion is to a large extent being replaced with the religion of pseudo-science.
An aspect of deliberate deception is found in what areas are approved for research and which ones the hive mind ignores.
On my part, I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”. That is, it is far more about ideology and power than about the health of the biosphere, let alone the welfare of humanity.
@buckwheaton
“On my part, I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding. ”
Actually not. The question that naturally flows is “when does the inexorable rise in global temperatures take the world beyond the global climate in which modern man has lived, and what are the costs of adaption incurred along the way?”
What I find fascinating is the unspoken assumption that any warming must be bad. That the temperature of the last few hundred years are the absolute best that can be.
If rising temperatures result in improvements, then the cost of adaptation is essentially zero.
We already know that civilization not only survived, but thrived in temperatures warmer than we are seeing at present.
We already know that rising CO2 reduces the cost of food.
Finally, what “inexorable rise in global temperatures”?
Actually, the question that naturally flows is “how bad will the next cooling phase, which likely has already begun, be, and how easily will man recover from the enormously costly CAGW mistake be which has led man foolishly down a rabbit hole?” These lead to even more questions such as “how many Warmist pseudoscientists will be put in jail for their crimes against humanity?” So many questions, so little time.
It’s all about money, power, control, just like most such sky-is-falling “scenarios”. And “unfair” is a silly and weak adjective; how about evil and fatal to national sovereignties.
Is “knowingly misleading” an unfair description of “official” IPCC climate science?
In FIGURE 1: Source, AR4 – where is the greenhouse gas H2O water vapor represented? It does mention cloud albedo effect. Is that supposed to be the total H2O effect?
I was looking for H2O, Vater vapor and clouds under natural forcing in Assessment Report 5, but could not find it. The only factors under natural forcing was solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols. And a conclusion; “There is very high confidence that industrial-era natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing except for brief periods following large volcanic eruptions.”
Quite strange – without IPCC I would have thought that clouds were the single most important natural variable which were having an effect on near surface temperatures.
The assessment report is huge, I wonder if anyone has read the whole ….. thing. However, by searching for some key words you can quite rapidly find everything that is written on certain themes. It is quite amusing actually. Some of it looks more like gobbledygook than science.
However there are not much mentioning of H2O in Assessment Report 5. Here are a few of them:
“Stratospheric H2O vapour has an important role in the Earth’s radi- ative balance and in stratospheric chemistry.”
“Because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low. Near-global satellite measurements of stratospheric water vapour show substantial variability but small net changes for 1992–2011.”
There are much on clouds, and some of it is quite …… clarifying:
“Although trends of cloud cover are consistent between independent data sets in certain regions, substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence remains in the observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends.”
“The model spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity ranges from 2.1°C to 4.7°C and is very similar to the assessment in the AR4. There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback.”
“Cloud feedbacks continue to be the largest uncertainty. The net feedback from water vapour and lapse rate changes together is extremely likely positive and approximately doubles the black body response. The mean value and spread of these two processes in climate models are essentially unchanged from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), but are now supported by stronger observational evidence and better process understanding of what determines relative humidity distributions. Clouds respond to climate forcing mechanisms in multiple ways and individual cloud feedbacks can be positive or negative. Key issues include the representation of both deep and shallow cumulus convection, micro- physical processes in ice clouds and partial cloudiness that results from small-scale variations of cloud-producing and cloud-dissipating processes. New approaches to diagnosing cloud feedback in General Circulation Models (GCMs) have clarified robust cloud responses, while continuing to implicate low cloud cover as the most important source of intermodel spread in simulated cloud feedbacks. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is likely positive. This conclusion is reached by considering a plausible range for unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for, in addition to those occurring in current climate models. Observations alone do not currently provide a robust, direct constraint, but multiple lines of evidence now indicate positive feedback contributions from changes in both the height of high clouds and the horizontal distribution of clouds. The additional feedback from low cloud amount is also positive in most climate models, but that result is not well understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so confidence in it is low.”
“The RF of the total aerosol effect in the atmosphere, which includes cloud adjustments due to aerosols, is –0.9 [–1.9 to −0.1] W m−2 (medium confidence), and results from a negative forcing from most aerosols and a positive contribution from black carbon absorption of solar radiation. There is high confidence that aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases. They continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to the total RF estimate.”
And – IPCC concludes that the temperature development does not mach their model simulation of natural forcing and natural variability, hence it must be CO2 which is causing the temperature increase.
Provenance for the cartoon, please?
Sounds like ‘Voltaire’s Bastards’ as John Ralson Saul terms such apparatchiks were in on the ground floor. An orchestrated, predefined fraud for geo political reasons.
Ralson Saul a close friend of Maurice Strong.
John Theodore Houghton:
“Our long-term security is threatened by a problem at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism: human-induced climate change. … The impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a “weapon of mass destruction.” Like terrorism, this weapon knows no boundaries. It can strike anywhere, in any form…”
Fitting that he is now President of the Victoria Institute then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Institute
“He is the president of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation “connecting Environment, Science and Christianity”, where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve.” [Wikipedia]
With a most effective “weapon of mass destruction” being carbon tariffs, I would tend to compare his life with a leading role in Paradise Lost by Milton.
+1
Does anyone remember when these weathermen could not even get funding for Doppler? Then when they did, it was so corrupt, we almost didn’t get Doppler anyway?
Now they have elevated themselves to climate scientists……and they should still be the laughing stock
There is little to any overlap between weathermen and climate “scientists”.
At the UK Met office they share a lot more just a building , and how likley is it that the thinest of certains are used between the two groups at other places ?
https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/hurricanes-hardly-happen-in-hampshire-global-warming-climatologists-misunderstand-basic-statistics/
They are now claiming that even though the data for major hurricanes show them hitting most cities in the US once very CENTURY, they say that the real number is once every 20 years! So according to their own statistics which do not reflect reality, this means many US cities must be hit very soon due to the 20 year predictions.
Which is ridiculous. They conclude their report claiming they need MORE MONEY for research to understand why this happens only once a century and not according to their own models.
See how this fraud works! Instead of correcting their models to reflect reality, they want more money for more models that don’t reflect reality.
“What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.”
Um. Did you not notice the error bars in your IPCC science Reports graph?
Not sure why you ask the question.
It is clear and evident that the entire Politically Correct Progressive movement is based on “deliberate deception.”
An excellent example of the utter corruption of “science” for PC-Prog ends is the recent fraudulent “peer-reviewed” article published by “Science” on the power of gay persuasion.
Turns out that the “peer-reviewed” article, with the imprimatur of a “big-name scientist” was fake from beginning to end. The entire “science” system simply accepted the fraud because it reinforced their political beliefs.
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge-fraud.html
The only difference between this fraud and the “Climate Science” frauds is that a whistleblower, from inside, piped up and spilled the beans. Why? It’s likely that the level of monetary corruption is much less in “Political Science” and therefore there is less for the whistleblower to lose by speaking up.
The exposer likely lost some friends in “Political Science,” and the PC-Prog community, but he did not lose any grants–as there are not many to be had in his chosen field of “Science.”
Unlike the “Climate Science” field, in which the money is enormous, and any rocking of the boat can lead to huge monetary losses for the brave soul who speaks up.
But we still must continue to seek that first brave whistleblower to blow the lid off the scam. Grad students at Penn State?
The lid was blown off climate fraud decades ago. It had very little effect.
By the time this AGW farce is over “scientists” will rate lower than used car salesmen as trustworthy. It’s not just these clowns the whole field has been perverted by money.
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-a-gay-marriage-study-went-wrong
Here’s a link to a very thorough paper showing the failings of the Green/LaCour paper.
http://stanford.edu/~dbroock/broockman_kalla_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf
Yes, he was the only one that had the balls to take on the hi and mighty.