Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
There’s lots of yacking around the blogosphere and mainstream media about President-elect Donald Trump politicizing climate science. But it’s nothing new. Climate science became a tool for pushing political agendas almost 3 decades ago.
In 1988, the United Nations, a political body, founded the global-warming-report-writing entity called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was created to support political agendas. And in 1995, politics corrupted climate science, when politicians changed the language of the IPCC’s second assessment report, eliminating the scientists’ statements of uncertainties. To this day, the climate science community still cannot truly differentiate between natural and anthropogenic global warming. Why? The climate models used in attribution studies still cannot simulate modes of natural variability that can cause global warming over multidecadal timeframes.
INTRODUCTION
President Elect Donald Trump’s skepticism of human-induced global warming/climate change had been one of the focuses of the mainstream media during the U.S. elections and remains so in the minds of many environmentalists and their associates in the media. A plethora of articles and talking-head clips have been published and broadcast, bringing the political nature of climate science to the public eye once again.
But how long ago did climate science become politicized?
I was reminded of the answer to that question while reading Dr. Roy Spencer’s recent blog post Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science. (Great title!) There Dr. Spencer begins:
In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming.
I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy.
THE SHADY TASK OF GENERATING THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT POLICY
To reinforce Dr. Spencer’s cart-before-the-horse statement, I’m going to reproduce a portion of the Introduction to my free ebook, a 700+ page reference work, On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. This portion provides quotations from the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, along with links to the referenced webpages. Under the heading of YOU’D BE WRONG IF YOU THOUGHT THE IPCC WAS A SCIENTIFIC BODY, I wrote in part:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political entity, not a scientific one. The IPCC begins the opening paragraphs of its History webpage (my boldface):
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Thus, the IPCC was founded to write reports. Granted, they are very detailed reports, so burdensome that few persons read them in their entirety. Of the few people who read them, most only read the Summaries for Policymakers. But are you aware that the language of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is agreed to by politicians during week-long meetings? A draft is written by the scientists for the politicians, but the politicians debate how each sentence is phrased and whether it is to be included in the summary. And those week-long political debates about the Summary for Policymakers are closed to the public.
Also from that quote above, we can see that the content of IPCC’s reports was intended to support an international climate-change treaty. That 1992 treaty is known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A copy of the UNFCCC is available here. Under the heading of Article 2 – Objective, the UNFCCC identifies its goal as limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases (my boldface):
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Because the objective of the UNFCCC treaty is to limit the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases, and because the goal of the IPCC is to prepare reports that supported the treaty, it safe to say the IPCC’s sole role is simply to write scientific reports that support the assumed need to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Hmmm. Do you think that focus might limit scientific investigation and understandings?
Later in the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):
Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the hypothetical impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one. And it’s a horrible choice.
As a result of that political choice, there is little scientific research that attempts to realistically determine how much of the warming we’ve experienced is attributable to natural factors. We know this is fact because the current generation of climate models—the most complex climate models to date—still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause Earth’s surfaces (and the oceans to depth) to warm for multidecadal periods or stop that warming. Skeptics have confirmed those failings a number of times in blog posts. I even wrote a book about those failings, appropriately titled Climate Models Fail.
…
[End Reprint]
EVEN SHADIER: CHANGING THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT POLICY
Were you aware that politicians revised the text of the IPCC’s second assessment report, drastically changing the draft written by the scientists? Once again, I’m reproducing a portion of my free ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. It’s from the heading of THE EVOLUTION OF THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT:
While there were early scientific studies that pointed to possible increases in surface temperatures associated with the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases, let’s begin this discussion with the formation of the report-writing wing of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As discussed above, the primary task of the IPCC was to create reports that supported the politicians’ agendas. Limiting global warming was likely one of those focuses, but most assuredly there were many others.
The politicians found scientists to write those reports—so began the mutually beneficial relationship between climate scientists and politicians. The politicians wanted scientific support for their agendas and the scientists were more than willing to oblige because the politicians held the purse strings for climate research.
The first IPCC report in 1991 was inconclusive, inasmuch as the scientists could not differentiate between man-made and natural warming…
Note for this post: The Policymakers Summary for the IPCC’s first assessment report is here. There they write:
The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.
So in 1991 the science community was not expecting to be able to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic global warming until 2001 at the earliest.
[End note.]
…In spite of those uncertain findings, a year later [in 1992] the politicians prepared a treaty called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change with the intent of limiting global temperatures to 2 deg C above pre-industrial values—a limit that was first proposed in the mid-1970s by an economist, not a climate scientist.
In the article Two degrees: The history of climate change’s ‘speed limit’ at TheCarbonBrief, authors Mat Hope & Rosamund Pearce write:
Perhaps surprisingly, the idea that temperature could be used to guide society’s response to climate change was first proposed by an economist.
In the 1970s, Yale professor William Nordhaus alluded to the danger of passing a threshold of two degrees in a pair of now famous papers, suggesting that warming of more than two degrees would push the climate beyond the limits humans were familiar with:
“According to most sources the range of variation between distinct climatic regimes is on the order of ±5°C, and at present time the global climate is at the high end of this range. If there were global temperatures more than 2° of [sic] 3° above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”
…
In the early 1990s, the politicians continued to fling funds at scientists with hope the next report would provide support for their agendas. Much to the politicians’ astonishment, the scientists’ initial draft of the 1995 Summary for Policymakers for the 2nd Assessment Report from the IPCC was still inconclusive.
Imagine that. In 1992, the United Nations had convinced many countries around the globe to enter into a treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, when a year before the IPCC could not find mankind’s fingerprint on global warming. Then, by 1995, the politicians’ scientific report-writing body, the IPCC, still could not differentiate between man-made and natural warming, and the climate scientists had stated that fact in the draft of the second IPCC assessment report. The politicians were between the rock and the hard place. They’d had a treaty in place for 3 years but their report-writing scientists could not find evidence to support it.
So, after most of the scientists had left the meeting, the politicians and a lone scientist changed the language of the second IPCC assessment report in a very subtle but meaningful way. Voila! The politicians and one scientist initiated what is now called the consensus. (See the 3-part, very detailed analysis by Bernie Lewin about the 1995 IPCC conference in Madrid. Part one is here.)
…
[End Reprint]
The three parts of the series by Bernie Lewin about the 1995 IPCC conference in Madrid are appropriately titled:
Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science? (archived here.)
Madrid 1995 and The Quest for the Mirror in the Sky (archived here.)
Madrid 1995: The Last Day of Climate Science (archived here.)
Bernie Levin writes about the draft of the IPCC’s second assessment report in Part 1 of his series (My boldface):
Alas, by the early autumn of 1995 the signs were not good. Although a draft leaked in September managed to say that the warming is unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes, this was hardly in dispute, and this was not exactly announcing imminent catastrophe. Moreover, there remained extraordinary strong caveats, especially in Chapter 8, to every positive conclusion. The draft that was circulated to the participants at the Madrid conference, and the only one available when the Report was finally ‘accepted’ by the meeting (see explanation in a following post), also stated in its introduction that results of recent studies point towards a human influence. This was the strongest statement yet, but the body of the document and the concluding summary were not so confident. Some of the boldest retractions were as follows:
Of Studies of Changes in Global Mean Variables (8.4.1): ‘While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.’
Of the greenhouse signal in studies of modelled and observed spatial and temporal patterns of change (8.4.2.1): ‘none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.’
Of pattern studies ‘fingerprinting’ the global warming (see discussion in later post): While some of the pattern-base studies discussed have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [anthropogenic ] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data—an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.
Of the overall level of uncertainty: Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.
Of the question: When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? (8.6): It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.’
[A copy of the 9Oct95 draft of Ch 8 has not been obtained. UPDATE 29June12: 9Oct draft obtained and changes have been verified]
The politicians didn’t like the uncertainties expressed in those statements, so they deleted them. Amazing! Were you aware that politicians had dictated climate science?
Important note: Keep in mind that Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, temporarily driving global surface temperatures downward. While temperatures rebounded by 1995 to a level that was slightly higher than in 1991, the volcanic aerosols spewed into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo had produced a noticeable drop in the warming rate since the mid-1970s start of the recent warming period. See Figure 1. That is, the global warming rate from 1975 to 1995 is noticeably lower than the trend from 1975 to 1991, as one would expect. (I’ve used the GISS dTs data in the top graph of Figure 1, because GISS did not begin to use sea surface temperature data in their global temperature data until 1995. I’ve included the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index in the lower graph as a reference. Both are current versions of the data)
Figure 1
So with the massive impact of Mount Pinatubo on global surface temperatures, one might think that the continued uncertainty by climate scientists was still warranted in 1995.
CLIMATE SCIENCE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE IPCC STILL CANNOT REALISTICALLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN NATURAL AND HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING
Once again, let me borrow a discussion from my free ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. It’s Chapter 1.12 – How Scientists Attributed Most of the Global Warming Since the Mid-1970s to Man-made Causes:
One of the objectives of the climate science community under the direction of the IPCC has been to attribute most of the global warming since the mid-1970s to man-made causes. In other words, if Mother Nature was responsible for the warming, the political goal to limit the use of fossil fuels would have no foundation, and because the intent of the IPCC is to support political agendas, the climate science community had to be able to point to mankind as the culprit. The climate modelers achieved that goal using a few very simple tactics.
The first thing climate modelers did was they ignored the naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to or suppress global warming. The climate models used by the IPCC still to this day cannot simulate those processes properly, and we’ll illustrate that fact very plainly later in this book. Ignoring Mother Nature’s contributions was the simplest and most-convenient way to show humans are responsible for the warming. The modelers also elected not to disclose this fact to the public when they presented their modeled-based attribution studies using the next tactic.
That tactic is a very simple and easy-to-understand way to falsely attribute most of the warming to mankind. The modelers had their climate model runs that showed virtual global surface temperatures warming in response to all the climate forcings that are used as inputs to the models. They then performed additional modeling experiments. Instead of using all of the climate forcings they typically include in their simulations of past climate, they only used the natural climate forcings of solar radiation and volcanic aerosols in the extra climate model runs. The flawed logic: if the models run with only solar radiation and volcanic aerosols (natural forcings) cannot simulate the warming we’ve experienced in the late 20th century, and if the models run with natural and anthropogenic forcings can simulate the warming, then the warming since the 1970s had to be caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
As an example, Figure 1.12-1 is a time-series graph that runs from 1880 to 2010. The solid brown curve shows the net radiative forcing of all forcings that are used as inputs to the climate models prepared by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). They’re from the Forcings in GISS Climate Model webpage, specifically the table here. (In Chapter 2.3, we will illustrate the forcings individually.) Also included in Figure 1.12-1 is the net of only the solar irradiance (sunlight) and stratospheric aerosols (sunlight-blocking volcanic aerosols), shown as the dark green dashed curve; they are considered naturally occurring forcings. As we can see, the group with all of the forcings shows a long-term increase, while the combined forcings from the sun and volcanos do not.
# # #
The climate scientists then ran the additional model simulations with only the natural forcings. They then compare the model simulations using natural and man-made forcings with the models run with the natural forcings only. An example of one of those comparisons is shown in Figure 1.12-2. The models run with man-made and natural forcings show considerable warming in the late 20th Century and the models run with only natural forcings do not show the warming.
Graphs similar to the one shown in Figure 1.12-2 can be found in the 4th and 5th Assessment Reports from the IPCC. One example is FAQ 10.1, Figure 1 from Chapter 10, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5). See my Figure 1.12-3. Note that the title of their FAQ 10.1 is “Climate Is Always Changing. How Do We Determine the Causes of Observed Changes?”
Note: The citation required by the IPCC for the use of their illustration is at the end of the chapter. [End note.]
About their FAQ10.1, Figure 1, the IPCC writes:
FAQ 10.1, Figure 1 illustrates part of a fingerprint assessment of global temperature change at the surface during the late 20th century. The observed change in the latter half of the 20th century, shown by the black time series in the left panels, is larger than expected from just internal variability. Simulations driven only by natural forcings (yellow and blue lines in the upper left panel) fail to reproduce late 20th century global warming at the surface with a spatial pattern of change (upper right) completely different from the observed pattern of change (middle right). Simulations including both natural and human-caused forcings provide a much better representation of the time rate of change (lower left) and spatial pattern (lower right) of observed surface temperature change.
Both panels on the left show that computer models reproduce the naturally forced surface cooling observed for a year or two after major volcanic eruptions, such as occurred in 1982 and 1991. Natural forcing simulations capture the short-lived temperature changes following eruptions, but only the natural + human caused forcing simulations simulate the longer-lived warming trend.
The caption for their FAQ 10.1, Figure reads:
FAQ 10.1, Figure 1 | (Left) Time series of global and annual-averaged surface temperature change from 1860 to 2010. The top left panel shows results from two ensemble [sic] of climate models driven with just natural forcings, shown as thin blue and yellow lines; ensemble average temperature changes are thick blue and red lines. Three different observed estimates are shown as black lines. The lower left panel shows simulations by the same models, but driven with both natural forcing and human-induced changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. (Right) Spatial patterns of local surface temperature trends from 1951 to 2010. The upper panel shows the pattern of trends from a large ensemble of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations driven with just natural forcings. The bottom panel shows trends from a corresponding ensemble of simulations driven with natural + human forcings. The middle panel shows the pattern of observed trends from the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4) during this period.
For another example of this misguided, childish logic, see Figure 9.5 from their 4th Assessment Report. The text of AR4 Chapter 9 for that illustration reads (my brackets and boldface):
9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century
There are now a greater number of climate simulations from AOGCMs [Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models] for the period of the global surface instrumental record than were available for the TAR [Third Assessment Report], including a greater variety of forcings in a greater variety of combinations. These simulations used models with different climate sensitivities, rates of ocean heat uptake and magnitudes and types of forcings (Supplementary Material, Table S9.1). Figure 9.5 shows that simulations that incorporate anthropogenic forcings, including increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and the effects of aerosols, and that also incorporate natural external forcings provide a consistent explanation of the observed temperature record, whereas simulations that include only natural forcings do not simulate the warming observed over the last three decades.
As mentioned earlier, the logic behind this type of attribution is very simple, childishly simple. If models that include anthropogenic and natural forcings can simulate the warming, and if the models that include only natural forcings cannot simulate the warming, then the anthropogenic forcings must be responsible for the global warming.
But the logic is flawed—fatally flawed. There are naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause global surface temperatures to warm and cool without being forced to do so by man-made greenhouse gases. The climate models do not simulate those processes so they are not considered in attribution studies like this.
There’s another way to look at this. One of the greatest climate-model failings is their inability to simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes…like those associated with El Niño and La Niña events, like those associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. We’ll present those failings later in the book. So like anyone trying to market a flawed product, the crafty IPCC turned those failings into a positive by ignoring them in their attribution studies.
[End Reprint]
Yup, that’s a pretty pathetic way to attribute the recent bout of global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
CLOSING
Is President-elect Donald Trump correct to be skeptical of the politicized science behind hypothetical human-induced global warming/climate change? Of course, he is.
Climate science was politicized in 1988 when the UN’s politicians founded and provided direction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. Climate science was corrupted by politics in 1995, more than 2 decades ago, when politicians changed the language of the second assessment report of the IPCC. And, of course, climate scientists still to this day cannot realistically attribute to manmade causes the global warming we’ve experienced since the 1970s, because climate models cannot simulate naturally occurring, naturally fueled coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause global surfaces to warm over multidecadal timeframes. The fact that climate models cannot simulate any warming unless they are forced by numerical representations of manmade greenhouse gases is a model failing, not a means to credibly attribute global warming to the emissions of carbon dioxide. With climate science, the cart is still before the horse.
FINAL NOTE
I’ve searched online for the initial draft of the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report, but have been unable to locate it. If you know where it can be found, please leave a link in the comments. Thank you.
The scientization of climate politics goes back to 1988, one of the most important years in history.
1988
The Science Awakens
The global warming movement is born when a scientist and his politician friend sneak into a government building and set the thermostat to a balance between truth and effectiveness.
The following day Dr James Hansen urges sweaty lawmakers to act on the 170-year-old process of “global warming,” calling any delay “criminal.”
Within a year, climatology—an academic backwater where data comes to die—will become the sexiest discipline ever. The field also goes by the name climate science, leading to speculation that it was once one of the sciences.
The abstract noun ‘science’ has never had a definite article, but climate thinkers welcome it as a way of capturing the fundamentally inert, static nature of the canon of human knowledge. (Science Is A Process, Not A Position, in the minds of high-school graduates everywhere: yet another myth Big Climate urgently needs to re-educate us about.)
Bewildered academics are now dragged, kicking and screaming, into the political spotlight. In time they learn to suffer celebrity in silence.
Today ‘the [sic] science [sic]‘ is credited with an explosive growth in human opinion about nature—not to mention a profusion of new, climate-prefixed job titles nobody could have imagined necessary.
IPCC created
The Panel’s function is to periodically provide a big room—ideally in a hotel or resort—where Policy gets a unique chance to tell Science what to tell Policy to do, in a policy-neutral way.
IPCC estimates of certainty, confidence and risk will be determined subjectively, using NASA’s 1986 wisdom-of-crowds system—the same technology that put our Challenger astronauts in space.
Sorry, I forgot to cite my literature.
And, yes, I made a typo: I obviously meant “The scientization of climate politics goes back to 1988, probably the most important year in history.”
Anyway, enough with the pedantry. You know exactly what I was getting at. Please listen to what I say, not what I mean.
The real climate effort started in April 1970 in Philadelphia on the first “Earth Day”, where “The Unicorn,” Ira Einhorn (cold blooded murderer) was the organizer. It started with evil intent and continues to this day.
Great point, pyeatte. I wish I could add that episode to my history of the climate debate, but… you know… what with rewriting history still being frowned upon in this day and age. Hopefully attitudes will become more enlightened in the future.
I’ve always said part of growing up is to stop expecting unicorns to excrete magic dust that solves all our energy needs. They’re horrible animals who are more likely to kill us and gallop away, leaving us in a closet for the downstairs neighbor to smell.
The criminal conspirator and UN stooge Wirth actually is proud of the scam he and the hoaxing huckster Hansen pulled in 1988:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html
Don’t you find Wirth and Hansen’s little white deception a rather perfect microcosm of everything that followed? Fruit of a poisoned tree.
The IPCC was set up to convince governments of AGW. The UN was keen to use it as a vehicle for global governance and wealth distribution.
Ottmar Edenhofer – German economist and IPCC official
Ottmar Edenhofer’s interview with the Sueddeutscher Zeitung from November 20, 2010
“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole….”
Schrödinger,
Lewandowsky was right all along! Science rejection (as epitomized by Ottmar and his IPCC accomplices) really **does** go hand in hand with conspiracism:
“…But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy….”
An economist stupid enough to think that crippling energy cost effectiveness worldwide will adversely effect only energy companies. If there was any justice a mob of third world poor would tear this idiot to pieces and trash the university that awarded him a degree.
John,
It’s only natural that you “will not be enthusiastic about this.”
You have a vested interest in opposing Edenhofer’s plans for the world economy. You stand to lose big if climate policy is in place.
Because you live on this planet.
That makes you biased.
I need to hear from someone who hasn’t got a dog in this race. Does anyone know the number for the International Space Station?
The political impact has progressed far. The DNB (Dutch National Bank) is developing a Climate Stress Test for banks. The purpose of it is to evaluate the risks of loans to fossil fuel companies.
The UNFCC and IPCC are politics, all the way down.
Right down to the bottom of the barrel.
Or, up from the bottom of the barrel.
The bottom of the swamp, where the scum and bottom feeders lie.
Drain the swamp.
Creative accounting by the IPCC
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
Given that the politicians are obviously driving the process, I have a question. Who benefits from the CAGW scare?
The big money in this case is renewable energy. During the last dozen years or so, almost $3 trillion has been spent on renewable energy, mainly wind and solar (https://www.bnef.com/dataview/clean-energy-investment/index.html). This must surely represent a large number of people getting very rich. Now ask yourselves how much of this would have been spent if the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ had never entered our consciousness.
Commie Bob,
In answer to your question…
It’s obvious who benefits from the AGW scare: The folks who were rooting for the Bolshevics when it became obvious that the U.S. was going to win the cold war.
Pretend that it’s 1988 and you’re a commie.
The Soviet economy is collapsing; Eastern Europe is throwing their Soviet puppet directors out; and the U.S. is about to become the world’s only superpower, imposing capitalism upon the world. (You don’t have to pretend. This was what actually happened.)
How can you possibly sabotage this sad state of affairs???
Answer:
You find a like minded power-broker and collaborate with him to influence the political machinery to sabotage America’s hegemony post haste.
The billionaire Armand Hammer has the right stuff: he’s practically All Gore Jr’s Godfather; he lived in Moscow cavorting with the original Bolshevics from 1920-1929; he’s the CEO of Occidental Petroleum – so he knows that the U.S. is about to have a HUGE oil boom due to directional drilling and fracking technology.
Armand Hammer can use the useful idiot he’s been cultivating from birth (All Gore Jr) to convince the free world to self-destruct and give communism a chance to survive.
This is the final struggle let us join together and tomorrow, the International will be the human race!
It’s not an accurate description to say that the US imposed capitalism on anyone.
Most countries adopted it eagerly once they had thrown the communists out. In fact many of the formerly communist countries became more capitalistic than the US.
Almost no one benefits. It is a less than zero sum game. Par for the course with Socialist economic programs.
Eisenhower saw it back in the 50s. It is not new, it is just more open now.
Correct, I recall when NSF started throwing money around after Sputnik (1957). Few strings attached, but it was taxpayer money so it naturally morphed into what we have now. Lots of diversions away from problem solving and effects across broad areas of research. Somewhat similar to carbon dioxide at a lower magnitude is how we treat nitrogen. Consequences eventually catch up, one recent example.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13498/abstract
There are many others. Costs far below climate, but still important.
The left only ever cites the “industrial-military” part of that speech because they’re using the other part (“corruption of the scientific process“) to further their agenda(s).
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address.html
That’s because they don’t benefit from the military-industrial complex.
You know…really
No one should post a temperature graph…without posting this disclaimer
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png
What a telling graph!
Stunning graph, never saw it presented like that before, that said I hope it’s not true my stomach actually dropped upon contemplation of the possibility that global warming is a complete fabrication and conspiracy. I would be more happy with a just a little CO2 caused global warming
Agreed! My favorite temperature graph. It says it all.
Latitude, you know this very telling chart is the work of Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) at realclimatescience.com and should be attributed as such
Good day
right click on it Jim…it is
I don’t think we’re supposed to mention his name on this blog
Latitude –
Thanks for the clarification, although I always prefer credit be given directly to the source
So what’supwiththis “issue” between Anthony Watts and Tony Heller? Both of these guys have made tremendous contributions to fact-based analyses of the global-warming matter and they both deserve serious credits for beating back the warming-alarmists with empirical data and analysis
They have both been champions of the scientific method and the primacy of observational data over hocus-pocus computer models
Anthony is deeply concerned that the discussions stay rooted in demonstrable facts, while Tony is willing to call “fraud” when the empirical data clearly support that conclusion
This should not be a contest, but rather a collaboration of many voices all devoted to the principles of the scientific method, replicatable measurements, and absolute transparency of datasets, methods, analytical tools, and statistical techniques
Any thoughts?
All I know is that I was asked to not do it again…
…and I said I wouldn’t
Goovernment treated the global warming issue like an underpowered Jeep attempting to drive through a giant mud hole. They’re in it too deep and there is no backing out now. Millions upon millions of Snowflakes whole lives revolve around the mistaken notion of catastrophic man made global warming, imagine the cognitive dissonance if it was admitted that the whole concept was grossly exaggerated and essentially wrong, it would be 100x worse than a Trump presidential victory. FLOOR IT!
Ah, but now they’ve gone and flooded the engine, which is sputtering and dying.
The politicization of climate science goes back further than the IPCC. Don’t you think the following was used to raid the U.S. treasury?
The climate models used in attribution studies still cannot simulate modes of natural variability that can cause global warming over multidecadal timeframes.
==========================
look at the spaghetti graph for the climate models. what the different models are telling us is that natural variability lies somewhere within the spaghetti. Look at the spaghetti. In 1980 the model spread was 0.5 degrees C. By 2020 the spread has grown to 1.5C. This is a difference of 1.0C per 30 years due to natural variability.
What the models are telling us is that a climate change of 1.0C over 30 years is predicted for natural variability. This is many times greater than what the IPCC has attributed to natural variability, and is greater than the rate of modern warming attributed to CO2.
As such the models are telling us that the modern warming thought to be caused by CO2 is well within the predicted climate change due to natural variability. As such, under the Null Hypothesis, climate change cannot be attributed to CO2.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1-1024×768.png
WRONG: the models do not predict!
I seem to remember an English chemist, Maggie something-or-other, making a lot of noise about climate change in 1988.
The climate/green movement is the most effective tool for political control and obstruction of our US socioeconomic system which is quite obviously its goal.
The problem for Climate Science is that the climate models are not being correctly interpreted by the IPCC. The future is NOT the average of ALL model runs, any more than the ACTUAL throw of the dice is the average of all POSSIBLE throws.
for example: A computer model of a pair of dice tells you that your next roll with be somewhere between 2 and 12. If you average all possible throws you with end up with 7 as your projection for the next roll. This is what the IPCC has done. They have averaged all the models and ended up with 7 as the projected next roll of the climate dice. This leads to the conclusion that natural variability is low, because every average comes out as 7.
However, when you roll the dice nothing stops you from getting a 2 or a 12. Rather than getting a 7 all the time, your ACTUAL throw will vary many times greater than the projected AVERAGE.
This is the error that the IPCC has made in interpreting the climate models. The have used the average (7) as their projection for future climate. But this is wrong. They should have used the spread (between 2 and 12) as their projection for natural variability, and anything observed outside that boundary as evidence of human induced climate change.
Never mind the models, look at the actual temperature, sea ice, glacial retreat observed records…
Ignore the ignorant Griff. His aim is the disrupt the thread.
ok…let’s do that
Even if the data shows a trend, imaginary or not, it tells us nothing about what’s causing that trend, moreover; the rate of change of recent short term averages is not unusual even when compared to the rate of change in multi-decade to multi-century averages seen in the ice cores. All indications are that what’s causing the trends the alarmists are so concerned about is the desire to see trends in the data and to fudge the data to meet expectations.
None of which show what poor Griffy wants them to show.
Some spend so much time here. On every thread, loads of comments. on and on. I guess that’s good.
These forever present types must be paid interlopers or independently wealthy.
I have to go back to work now.
Many Himalyan glaciers are not shrinking and some are growing.
Discussed at length here:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
From a Nature article of the Karakoram glaciers growth:
In that Nature article the scientists note they do not understand the “odd behavior” of the Himalayan glaciers when the climate models say they should in massive retreat.
The answer probably is that the climate models are garbage.
This embarrassing fact of Himalayan glacier mass accumulation led several prominent glaciologists to suggest that the were outlier anomalies and they need to be ignored in plots of global glacier mass retreat.
Looking at the spaghetti graph of results, you can’t even distinguish models which use a correct latent heat of water vaporization.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
Some 95% of university faculty are Democrats. Any paper with less than 95% of Democratic authors has to be classified as politicized (and that’s the most polite word used in this situation; populist is the second tamest one).
RH
November 29, 2016 at 6:07 am
“The politicization of climate science goes back further than the IPCC. Don’t you think the following was used to raid the U.S. treasury?”
And RH, a century before that is another report on arctic melting.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
” THE ARCTIC IS MELTING
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….
(see additional*)
….. this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.” A request was made for the Royal Society to assemble an expedition to go and investigate.
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.(from) http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
“The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century.”
I have trouble with this way of putting things. The Earth has experienced warming *and* cooling over the last century, but putting it like it is above, implies that all we have had is warming over the last century. What we have had is a see-saw weather pattern: It warms up a little, then it cools down a little, and then it warms up a little again, like now. It was hotter in the 1930’s than now, then it cooled until about 1979, and then it warmed back up. Nothing to see here. Up and down, up and down.
Merkel’s intention to choke off the expression of any opinions that run counter to her own or those of her political and financial backers will have a particular and specific effect apart from the general effect upon the information available to the general public.
Imagine that you are a graduate student , keen to do research in climate science , not only because it has interesting problems and is potentially important for society , but also for the very sensible reason that there are plenty of jobs available .
Then your supervisor directs you to “extreme events” because these are crucial to the political control of public funds and the daily topic of the papers , on the BBC etc. You come across this :
“Need for Caution in Interpreting Extreme Weather Statistics ” published by a journal of the distinguished Am Met Society :
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0020.1
The abstract, after summarising the analysis of distribution tails of weather events concludes :
“The procedure is illustrated for assessing changes in the observed distributions of daily wintertime indices of large-scale atmospheric variability in the North Atlantic and North Pacific sectors over the period 1872–2011. No significant changes in these indices are found from the first to the second half of the period.”
Now since this contradicts the publicity and policy of Merkel’s govt , and possibly also of your supervisor , would you be tempted to skip it or risk displeasure or worse by including it in the introduction to your dissertation ?
I am sure others could produce stronger examples of current literature not quite in harmony with the politics of our time , but this just happened to be one in my “bottom drawer ” so to speak.
Merkel’s policies could have adverse effects on scientific freedom .
Well, we can just file this in the bulging “but its ok when our side does it” folder, right?
As I told anyone on the progressive/left/whatever they want to call themselves: why are you ok with government having so much power when your side has the reins?
Don’t you realize that eventually someone you DON’T like will have power?
Don’t you think you’ll sound like a hypocrite when you then want THIS power to be constrained, somehow?
Repeat as needed, but its like teaching a pig to sing: you waste your time, and you annoy the pig.
UNFCCC’s Political Redefinition of “Climate Change”
Thanks Bob. In 1992, the UNFCCC a priori explicitly redefined “climate change” to enforce its political agenda. In Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change Judith Curry explains:
“There is both a scientific definition and a political definition.
Scientific definition. Here is what the IPCC TAR says:
Political definition. Here is how the UNFCCC defines it :
This would have made Lewis Carroll proud!
Lewis Carroll, (1872) Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6
“Judith Curry explains:
“There is both a scientific definition and a political definition.”
And here’s what she left out:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/11/unfccc.png
It’s a defined shorthand for a specific document.
Nick Stokes
The UNFCCC’s political redefinition versus the IPCC’s TAR/scientific definition causes the primary political “climate” conflict today. It is the basis for the rhetorical equivocation fallacy by climate alarmists of first using “climate change” to mean the political “catastrophic major anthropogenic climate change”, then to tar skeptics with “anti-science” referring to the scientific definition.
“The UNFCCC’s political redefinition”
Again just ripping stuff out of context. It’s part of an agreement between governments. They are defining what the agreement is trying to do. And this agreement is trying to do something about human effect on climate change. They can’t do much about “natural internal processes”. So the definitions section says that is what they are talking about.
“And this agreement is trying to do something about human effect on climate change”
But, this agreement assumes that 1) the human effect is large enough to matter, 2) warming has only harmful consequences and 3) warming can be mitigated.
Obviously, if 1) isn’t true, then 2) and 3) are irrelevant, but in fact, none are even remotely true except in the imaginations of those who drove the creation of this agreement. The first thing they should have agreed to is to determine if 1) was true, but rather than apply science to see if this is the case, which would have told them otherwise, they went ahead and assumed all three were all incontrovertible fact. This was because they needed a justification for the formation of the IPCC, whose true goal was to promote climate reparations as an excuse for the forced redistribution of wealth. It not only became political with the formation of the IPCC, the scientific method was replaced with conformance to a political narrative which has infected funding, research, peer review, publishing and public perception in the most negative possible way and will be a difficult morass to unwind.
The UNFCCC agreement was very explicit about what motivated it:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/11/unfccc2.png
And that was all recommended to the Senate by Pres Bush, and ratified there by unanimous vote.
Nick,
And what is the substantial difference between the framework you referenced and the 3 points I mentioned along with the undercurrent of wealth redistribution?
Point 1) -> Concerned that human …
Point 2) -> Acknowledging that change … adverse effects …
Point 3) -> Acknowledging that the global … international response …
And of course the reference to redistributional economics -> Noting that the largest …
The only difference I can see is that they acknowledge uncertainty, but fail to mention that what’s most uncertain is whether or not the activities of man have any substantial effect. The nefariousness of the assumptions they made remains unchallenged and is even confirmed by the language they used.
Whether or not this was ratified by the Senate or recommended by Bush makes no difference to the truth as neither the Senate or Bush has the technical understanding to grasp the massive failures in the supposed science said to support the framework.
This wording sounds similar to what has happened in some fisheries. We can only modify human actions, therefore ignore natural. However, this could be without knowing the latter’s variation. In one case I was involved in the data did not support the allegation being used to close a commercial fishery. They then ignored the data which supported the commercial’s claim that the intent was to destroy their fishery. I need to find some old documents, but I suspect the language is fairly close. Different definitions for different reasons.
@Nick Stokes-
I know you know the IPCC material far better than I do, Nick. Doesn’t the AR5 say that global warming up to 1.8C is beneficial? So what the hell are they trying to accomplish besides seriously damaging the world economy? Are we supposed to fear that if we hit 1.9 the sun will crash into the Earth? They pulled this idea out of their Socialist butts and turned hard Left with it.
I also know you’re not stupid Nick so you’re probably not Socialist. This is a dangerous and devious idea that has to be stopped. If you are a Socialist don’t worry about it. I used to be one, too.Just read Adam Smith and think about why Socialism can’t work. People just wreck it.
“Doesn’t the AR5 say that global warming up to 1.8C is beneficial? “
I don’t think so. But anyway, they can’t make that judgment. People around the world will be affected differently, and undoubtedly some will benefit, some not. All the IPCC can do is point out the consequences. As to how people will collectively evaluate and act on that can only be left to whatever governance we can muster..
Peter Ferrara observes: The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory
YOU are amazing! I never even thought of her position on global warming. Are you betting on Petraeus or Romney?
Sent from my iPad
>
Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but science never proves positives.
Only double negatives.
Good science is science that has not been refuted by the evidence…yet!
The evidence never confirms the science.
Climate science has been refuted by the evidence, hence the massive ‘adjustments’ made to the raw data…
There is no (or at least very little)science in the majority of climate science and the green movement. Try to build a nuclear power plant, a refinery, drill for oil, mine or use coal, develop new land, etc., etc. It goes on and on. It is about obstruction of progress by those who call themselves progressives. It is at its worst where they have the most control, like in California and the west and east coasts in general. It, like most socialist/communist movements, is also very corrupt as in pay to play and is about money and power and control. What I find most difficult to understand is that many of those at the top, like Sorros or even the Clintons, have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel and just keep keeping on irrespective of the negative impact their policies have upon society and people in general. I guess if you believe in nothing beyond you own personal self, it makes a pitiful sense of some sort.
“What I find most difficult to understand . . .”
You may want to check your premises. You are assuming those at the top recognize their policies to have a negative impact and / or that they do not intend a negative impact. Also, it is commonly held that belief in something ‘beyond yourself’ is a major virtue. I submit that it can readily become pathological and, in those you cite, has. As Orwell put it:
“Can you not understand, Winston, that the individual is only a cell? . . . The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: ‘Freedom is Slavery’. Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone – free – the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he IS the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.”
— 1984
“It goes on and on.”
If you wish to understand how – and why – it does so, the whole of the chapter from which that quote is taken is very much worth reading.
Climate “science” and Lysenko “science”: peas in a pod.
I really don’t Bob knows how governments work. The statement that “Climate science was politicized in 1988 when the UN’s politicians founded and provided direction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.” is clear nonsense.
A more realistic statement might be “In 1988 politicians were told that there might be a problem with rising CO2 levels and so commissioned a panel to look into it”. Surely the
sensible thing to do if you as a politician are told about a potential problem is to get some people to study it and review the available scientific evidence. Which is what the UN did
and is what the IPCC does. It does not do science and do not present to. It is there to review the available scientific literature and summarise it for the policy makers.
If scientists providing advice to politicians is a bad thing as Bob is suggesting I would like
to know what the alternative is? Making policy without scientific advice seems like a recipe for disaster.
Hence the term ‘politicized science’. A bigger recipe for disaster is false advice from activists posting as scientists.
I find it difficult to believe you didn’t understand this point. Try not to be deliberately dense.
All science is political since it is done by humans and funded and paid for by humans. There is no such thing as pure science. So the term “politicised science” is meaningless.
And if you want to mean science done for a political end then it began in the killing fields
of WW I when governments ask scientists to find ways to break the deadlock and in response they got poison gas, tanks, aerial bombardments. Then 30 or so years later the
atomic bomb. It was also political when the government funded research into penicillin
or radar or semiconductors. It was political when the US government set up NASA and when Kennedy gave them the task to put a man on the moon.
I would ask what evidence is there that the IPCC gave false advice to the UN? Whether you accept the idea of CO2 based global warming or not there is little doubt I think that the
IPCC has accurately summarised the scientific literature on the issue. It is not perfect and
some howlers have crept in (statement about glaciers being the obvious one) but on the
whole the panel members have done a good job.
“If scientists providing advice to politicians is a bad thing as Bob is suggesting I would like to know what the alternative is?”
The problem is the original science didn’t agree with what the politicians wanted to hear, so the politicians cut the scientists out of the formulation of future plans, and made up their own plan based on human activity changing the climate.
The politicians didn’t get the answer they wanted: that humans are causing the climate to change, so they made up an answer that fit their goal: humans *are* causing the climate to change. They turned the results given them by the scientists upside down and created a result that suited them out of thin air.
I seem to recall some of the IPCC scientists involved quit over this hijacking of the CAGW theory by the politicians.
Absolute nonsense, Germinio! It has been made plain and obvious to you herein that the politicians rewrote the assessments of the scientists. You won’t find a rug here to hide that filth under!
Environmentalism was Maurice Strong’s big lever to force socialist, top-down, central-government totalitarian policies on sensible folk who would otherwise balk – all under the auspice that ‘it affects everybody’ and so ‘everybody has to sign on’.
Always granting the legitimacy of the ‘threat’ in the first place. And it’s always amazing how rarely that proves to be the case.
Good work, Bob. The IPCC and their toady’s are very good at “ad hominem”, “muddying the water”, and making “straw man” arguments. At times it is difficult to remember how we got from “there to here”, because there is always another whack-a-mole claim from “the experts”.
You have done the work, that the media is afraid to touch. You would think there would be someone looking to make a name for themselves dissecting this skunk. They would have to be brave enough to live with the stink for quit awhile. And bravery and journalism parted ways, long ago.
Keep up the good work.
Bob Tisdale wrote, “But are you aware that the language of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is agreed to by politicians during week-long meetings?”
The term “politicians” is wrong in that context. Those people are almost entirely governmental bureaucrats from its Environmental department. IOW, environmentalists, mostly extreme. Few if any elected office-holders are members of the group that writes the Summary for Policymakers.
A politician is anyone who’s work is primarily political. Just because they have a bunch of letters after their name is not evidence that they aren’t politicians.
PS: You don’t have to be elected to be a politician.
PS : You don’t have to be elected to be a politician. Isn’t that the truth. I knew all the best ones in our organization.
Wikipedia says:
IOW, a politician is not “anyone who’s work is primarily political.” Such persons are “activists” or “campaigners.” As for Wikipedia’s last sentence, it is too broad. Such persons are engaging in office politics, or they are playing politics without proper authority–e.g., Edgar Hoover.
It is misleading to call biased bureaucratic appointees “politicians.” The audience will never think of them if the word “politicians” is used to describe them.
Those persons are playing “office politics.” It is misleading to call them politicians, period, except in a sarcastic way.
1. Samuel Pepys 21st jan 1661
It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.
House Of Lords 11th jan 1662
The Fast to be observed in Westm. Abbey, and the Bp. of St. David’s to preach.
¶Whereas His Majesty hath been pleased, by Proclamation, upon the Unseasonableness of the Weather, to command a general and public Fast, to be religiously and solemnly kept, within the Cities of London and Westm. and Places adjacent: It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled.
Samuel Pepys 15 jan 1662
fast day ordered by the Parliament, to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which do threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost the last winter; and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time to this day
EXCELLENT POST AND REVIEW. Not stated is that the goal of all of this is the destruction of the capitalistic system and undermining national sovereignty. COnsider these quotes:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), Executive Secretary, February 10, 2015 (Investors Business Daily)
AND
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Ottmar Edenhofer, UN Climate Official, 3.29.16 (Investors Business Daily)
I rest my case.
George Devries Klein,PhD, PG, FGSA
It seems plain that the skeptic viewpoint and information sceptical of climate science is very, very widely financed by commercial, fossil fuel interests, to a very great extent by the Koch brothers…
Is this of no concern to posters here?
Ebell, for example, seems to have made his career for years in Koch financed organisations you could categorise as fossil fuel, Koch funded, lobbying organisations…
Is that a fit person to put in charge? One bought and paid for by commercial interests?
Griff November 30, 2016 at 2:52 am
It seems plain that the skeptic viewpoint and information sceptical of climate science is very, very widely financed by commercial, fossil fuel interests, to a very great extent by the Koch brothers…
Is this of no concern to posters here?
Griff, CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its own [100%] Prediction Failure in the real world of Empirical Data.
On the other hand, you are essentially admitting that what determines your own position here is that you are getting paid by someone or entity that wants you to keep ignoring the principles of real science.
“Is this of no concern to posters here?”
It’s far more concerning that progressive interests, including governments, are financing the broken science since politics like this encourages a monopoly on thought and this is truly dangerous. The fact that private interests have the money to counteract the demonstrably broken science that’s harming their businesses, perpetuating lies and confusing people like you can only be good.
Part of the deception you’ve bought into is that fossil fuel interests are somehow evil and this is one of the sentiments that drives the broken science. Just because people have built successful companies by providing products that people want shouldn’t be held against them and energy is a product that everyone wants and the more energy we can get at the cheapest possible price the better off we will be.
If you have no proofs to put forward for that statement, Griff, I will have to consider you guilty of bald faced l i e s. I wonder who pays you, Griff ; to come here so regularly to be so thouroughly shellacked!
Grifter,
There is no evidence to your paranoid effect.
CACA was born falsified. It takes no funding to show the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate alarmism false.
The corrupt racketeers are all on the anti-scientific CACA side, ripping off taxpayers of so many countries, while dealing death far and wide.
The IPCC has specifically adopted propaganda as a means to accomplish their position. The IPCC admits that its primary audience is “politicians” and not the scientific community. See article http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.612105 or Google Climate Change Science & Propaganda.
Here we go again. I was going to say a few kind words about your analysis of IPCC but then you bring out your figure 1. It is laughable and uses one year step size to prevent people from seeing the exact shape of what they are showing. That GISS artifact is a complete forgery that has now slipped itself into the global temperature curve. The eighties and the nineties up to the start of the super El Nino of 1998 were an 18 year hiatus period that they wiped out and substituted a fake warming for it. I used the original as figure 15 in my book but you jumped on me for having forged it! That is a lie and I expect you to retract it. They stole the original but fortunately they still do not control the satellites. The hiatus I showed in my book is consequently still present in all satellite data sets of contemporaneous age. .We need an investigation of how such data can be changed by insiders that keep it a secret. Mann at least did not deny having changed his data, just tried to justify it. Penn State accepted this and gave him a cushy job from which he is now pursuing law suits against his critics, GISS, Met Office and NOAA who are in on this forgery pretend that nothing happened. You, Bob owe me an apology for what you said and then get rid of these forged temperatures.
Required for control over a physical system is a model of this system for which the mutual information is not nil. Given that no statistical population underlies this model its mutual information is necessarily nil.No statistical population underlies available models of the climate system. Therefore, control over the climate system is illusory.
Terry, it is a shame you cannot distinguish the difference between the concepts of “control” versus “influence.”
Henry:
I’ve used “control” as suggested by this definition:
con·trol
kənˈtrōl/Submit
noun
1.
the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events.
Terry:
“I’ve used “control” as suggested by this definition:
the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events.”
And since cow farts have influenced the California Governor this shows that cows control the state of California through farting.
And maybe they do!
Jon:
In this thread, the topic under discussion is the possibility of gaining control over Earth’s climate system. Currently control over this system cannot be gained as no statistical population underlies the various models of this system. Today’s climatologists see no need for a population.