Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian thinks climate scientists are being pressured to downplay their own research findings. But the Guardian fails to criticise the worst culprits in this alleged climate farce – the politically flexible scientists who make it all possible, by choosing of their own free will to continue to collaborate with powerful pressure groups which the Guardian alleges are manipulating the IPCC climate report process.
Climate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board
Robin McKie science editor
Sun 23 Sep 2018 17.00 AEST‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations
Warnings about the dangers of global warming are being watered down in the final version of a key climate report for a major international meeting next month, according to reviewers who have studied earlier versions of the report and its summary.
They say scientists working on the final draft of the summary are censoring their own warnings and “pulling their punches” to make policy recommendations seem more palatable to countries – such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Australia – that are reluctant to cut fossil-fuel emissions, a key cause of global warming. “Downplaying the worst impacts of climate change has led the scientific authors to omit crucial information from the summary for policymakers,” said one reviewer, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
“However, if governments do not recognise the full scale and urgency of the risks, they may underestimate how critical it is to meet the goal of the Paris agreement on climate change. And that could have very serious knock-on effects in the battle to limit the impact of global warming.”
…
The report in question is the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C” (link provided by the Guardian)
My question – how could anyone of integrity continue to be involved in a process which they believe is forcing them to lie, to downplay their own findings?
If this claim is true, it is shameful that scientists are being pressured to censor their own findings. But it is reprehensible that those same scientists choose to comply with the alleged censorship, to continue their involvement with this sham report process.
How can anyone trust anything a climate scientist says, if they are so willing to compromise their integrity to “placate” powerful interest groups? Grumbling via a few back channels simply isn’t good enough.
Guardian newspaper allegations and Bob Ward.
guardian reports that climate scientists preparing a report for an upcoming conference are being pressured to deny their own work that show that actual warming is not too bad. This from “professor” Bob Ward whose title puts hin squarely into the company of AGW enthusiasts. A more likely situation is staring us into the face: Bob Ward found out that the scientists did not find any dangerous warmings to report and he is trying to make them report a fake warming catastrophe that does not exist. The many failed predictions of this warmist crowd makes one think that maybe they really were not so stupid, just dishonest.
“Truth is relative.
Facts are situational.
Data is malleable.
Reports are massaged for the ‘greater good’.”
These are the standard methods of operations for the modern socialists, using Climate Change fraud to justify their need to force everyone to comply with their perverted philosophies.
I can’t think of one person I would trust to save the world, it certainly wouldn’t be me.
Only one man can save the world…Superdag!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=queen+pressure&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBAU811AU811&oq=queen+pressure&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.3753j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is on a par with my favourity howler: at the end of WWII there were pacifists who just could not comprehend that the defeat of The Third Reich had something to do with the war machine built by the allies. No, it ended because Adolf had seen the errors of his ways and decided to stop it.
The writer of that risible Guardian piece simply can not comprehend that real scientists can have doubts about his received wisdom.
Looks like reality is finally dawning on climate scientists. In the past, when they had the full support of USA’s president (pre-Trump), they could get away with embellishing their reports with lies (AKA :- the normal GCM projection). Take the lies away from IPCC reports and only loonies like Greenpeace, Guardian and Bob Ward are outraged. Because they still want to believe in catastrophe. It’s a personality defect of theirs. Nothing will fix that.
The more one can make the people live in fear, the more they will look to one for the solution! If the people fear its government one has tyranny, if the government fear its people, one has democracy!
They left out the really bad bits. The high risk scenarios beloved of climate catastrophists the world over. The highly implausible but theoretically possible scenarios which alarmists have for years relied upon to drive their regressive energy and transport policies like a coach and horses through legislative obstacles.
The forthcoming IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C has been formally accused of “pulling its punches” in order to let polluters off the hook by none other than Bob Ward, policy wonk at the Grantham Institute. The so-called “Institute” is not an institute at all; it is nothing more than a marketing company set up by J.Grantham to flog us global warming using two real institutions, the LSE and now Imperial College to provide him with a veneer of scientific credibility.
Scientists who actually contribute to IPCC reports disagree with Ward however, even Peter Stott and Piers Forster:
Ward is forced to back down and in so doing, he drops himself in even more trouble:
Ward gets a right kicking from scientists and skeptics alike all over the internet. Some of it is here:
https://cliscep.com/2018/09/23/breaking-final-draft-of-ipcc-key-climate-alarmist-report-is-not-alarmist-enough/
It is interesting to note that real scientists hold Ward in such contempt and which questions Ward answers and those he just ignores.
For several years climate extremists and alarmists have been unhappy with the IPCC for not supporting the apocalyptic vision the consensus is obsessed with.
Now these deceptive people are pressuring the IPCC into completely tossing aside even the pretense of being driven by the data.
2 parts here…..
1. The Grauniad will have been ‘wound up’, as have a lot of people in the UK, by watching Trash TV, *especially* a 6-part series that finished this Sunday.
Find out what ‘Bodyguard’ – from the BBC, was all about.
The timing is everything
2. Consider the last 3 paragraphs of our essay here, starting ‘My question -‘
Take a big leap of imagination – picture the participants as drunk = intoxicated with alcohol.
All those questions are immediately answered. It is so Blindingly obvious.
It explains everything they do.
Got that?
Now consider what the state of drunkenness actually is = a chemically induced depression of our nervous system, our brains, our thinking and our memories.
Tiredness.
Now answer theses questions, with yourself as the chief witness:
Why do you crave coffee, especially early and mid-morning?
Why do you ‘power nap’ after an especially large lunch?
Why do yo ‘take coffee’ as the final course in ‘set’ or formal meals?
Why are highly processed & sweetened carbohydrate drinks used as insomnia remedies?
OK now.
Are the climate scientists Super-Humans who do not succumb to the effects of alcohol and other chemical depressants – such as – processed carbohydrate, refined sugar and alcohol.
And you are going to have to take my word (and Mr Trump’s) on alcohol.
After 40+ years of study of the stuff, 25 years on and 15 years off, I can categorically tell you that, as far as your mind, memory and personality goes, There Is No Safe Limit
If you stop drinking today, it is at least 6 months until you are even starting to ‘come out of the woods’
You will not be ‘just fine’ tomorrow.
Hence a resubmission of a request I made several times here before:
Politicians, government officials & leaders, scientists and doctors should be *entirely* barred from office if the are not completely tee-total AND if the have waist sizes of over 37 inches. (for the boys that is)
Otherwise we are all riding on trains. cars, buses and taxis with drunks for drivers.
It cannot end happily.
you saw my deliberate omission from the list of ‘barred people’?
Journalists
and in the UK certainly and the days of Fleet Street, one of the hardest drinking occupations there ever was.
In the same league as doctors, except doctors did their drinking at home after work, not during.
makes sense now huh..
Eh?
Exactly Andrew.
This column makes a very important point. The public has been fed the narrative that climate scientists are beyond reproach, who don’t alter their work based on non-scientific political pressures. Therefore they must be believed.
This is a change of story. But if The Guardian wants to say that political motives can drive the “scientific” conclusions, then I’ll agree.
(Of course, nickels and dimes from “the fossil fuel lobby” is still a corrupting influence, while wheelbarrows full of cash from those calling for hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth transfers based entirely on CAGW have no corrupting influence.)
Correcto-mundo Steve O! This is a bigly admission by the watchdogs of IPCC policy. Climate scientists have altered their research results for political acceptability. Two possible interpretations of this admission:
1) It is demonstrated what many of us suspected all along, that climate science has always been directed by politics.
or 2) The initial integrity of climate science has collapsed under political pressure.
Because of either 1) or 2), I declare climate science in shambles. It’s time to tear down the entire discipline and build it from the ground up.
Thank you for your candor, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment!
Why do they pick out US, Saudi Arabia and Australia as polluters when China and India are the big culprits? (not that I think any of them are guilty of anything to do with causing climate change).
The comments below the article are priceless.
Mainstream climate “science” has been very effective at putting an Alinsky twist on Baudelaire’s “The devil’s finest trick is to persuade the world that he does not exist.”
The warmists greatest trick is persuading the world they have no power are are being oppressed by big oil, corporations, Trump, GOP, …
How can anyone trust anything a climate scientist says, if they are so willing to compromise their integrity to “placate” powerful interest groups?
Simple maths:
NO + $ = YES
They don’t want to admit it, but of course, it’s Trump’s “fault” they are having to backpedal. Without Trump, the whole charade would have been damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead. Interesting that they are using the shield of “fossil fuel nations” as their excuse. All nations are fossil fuel nations, even if they won’t admit it. China most certainly is a “fossil fuel nation”.
The larger absurdity is that this story is warning that “scientists” are watering down the “dangers of global warming” revealed by their research while ignoring fact that the research in question is based on underlying assumptions that have been disproved.
I’m so tired of all my dancing around the PC.
Time to let it go with both bores.
To paraphrase an old joke:
How can you tell whether a climate scientist is lying? — If his lips are moving.
Okay, I left no room for the heroes there. SOLUTION: Avoid calling yourself a “climate scientist”; hence, the joke does not apply to you.
Now this:
My question – how could anyone of integrity continue to be involved in a process which they believe is forcing them to lie, to downplay their own findings?
My answer — as I read it, those involved in the process are not the ones believing that they are being forced to lie. Rather, those REVIEWING the results of the process are the people making this claim.
I wonder who the REVIEWERS were.
Okay, I answered my own question, by clicking to the full-story link to find this:
one reviewer, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Look up that research institute, and you’ll find that it is associated with an academic political science and economics department. And I have a feeling that this institute’s mission is founded on an old, illegitimately created definition of “climate change” that the United Nations first came up with at the start of this madness.
Kinda related. Courtesy of a RPJ tweet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/outlook/2018/09/24/science-education-must-start-teaching-an-inconvenient-truth-some-scientists-fudge-facts/?noredirect=on
Auuugh. I will interrupt this conversation to vent on a Pet Peeve, one that was passed on to me personally by Dr Don Knuth, “father” of computer science according to some.
Pet Peeve: That vs Which
The title of this article is incorrect. Misleading in fact.
“Climate Scientists Massaging IPCC Report to Placate Nations Which Support Fossil Fuel”
With rare exceptions (other than poor usage such as here), “Which” introduces a non-restrictive clause (and normally is preceded by a comma in these kinds of situations.)
*** Leaving out the “which” clause doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence! ***
In other words, correctly read, the title tells me Climate Scientists are Massaging the Report… to Placate Nations — perhaps all nations.
Correctly written, it should be:
“Climate Scientists Massaging IPCC Report to Placate Nations That Support Fossil Fuel”
Here’s a short-but-sweet complete definition:
A restrictive clause is essential to the meaning of a sentence – if it’s removed, the meaning of the sentence will change. For example:
Chairs that don’t have cushions are uncomfortable to sit on.
Card games that involve betting money should not be played in school.
To our knowledge, it is the only body in the solar system that currently sustains life…
A non-restrictive clause can be left out without changing the meaning of a sentence. Non-restrictive clauses are normally either in brackets or have a comma before and after them (or only before them if they come at the end of a sentence):
Chairs, which are found in many places of work, are often uncomfortable to sit on.
I sat on an uncomfortable chair, which was in my office.
Well the Guardian should know all about massaging figures as it keeps us on their list of customers even after it has banned us climate change disbelievers from commenting and we have as a result asked to be removed.
The poor mugs who pay on the basis of numbers are being well and truly conned.