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.
@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.