BBC – The World’s Top Climate Scientists, who are they? (Answer: activists)

Dennis Ambler writes:

The BBC is referring to the authors of the IPCC Special Report on the impacts of 1.5 deg C of warming over pre-industrial, as the World’s Top Scientists. There are very few of what could be described as “climate scientists, but lots of geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts and the odd Eco-Psychologist thrown in for good measure, together with considerable UN and World Bank affiliations.

Co-ordinating Lead Author of Chapter 1 is physicist Professor Myles Allen of the Oxford Environmental Change Institute – https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/people/mallen.html

Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader, Climate Research Programme, ECI

His list of authored and co-authored publications demonstrates his ardent political campaigning perspective and the names of several others of the “1.5 degree team” are also present.

He is a proponent of the Carbon Budget theory, and there is a website with a dramatic countdown clock heading towards  “The Trillionth Tonne”, http://trillionthtonne.org/.

He is effectively saying that all anthropogenic CO2 ever emitted is still in the atmosphere and causing warming and catastrophe occurs when the cumulative figure, [from his perspective] hits a trillion tonnes.

He has been pushing “climate litigation” for some time. In 2003 he told the BBC that:

“The vast numbers affected by the effects of climate change, such as flooding, drought and forest fires, mean that potentially people, organisations and even countries could be seeking compensation for the damage caused. “It’s not a question we could stand up and survive in a court of law at the moment, but it’s the sort of question we should be working towards scientifically,”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2910017.stm  

He was present at the 2012 meeting at La Jolla, when the Union of Concerned Scientists, led by Peter Frumhoff, constructed a strategy to bring prosecutions against fossil fuel companies in the manner of the tobacco class action. A co-strategist was Naomi Oreskes, who has repeatedly attacked non-conforming scientists as “Merchants of Doubt”. Blogger, Shub Niggarath, revealed the story a couple of years ago, complete with photo of the group:

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-new-york-times-wrong-on-the-la-jolla-rico-junta/

They produced a Climate Accountability Report from that 2012 meeting:

“Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, suggested that while it is laudable to single out the 400 Kivalina villagers, all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are victims of climate change. “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change? That is a sound bite that I don’t hear used. Why should taxpay­ers bear the risk? Perhaps that question alone can help shift public perception.”

In 2017, Allen was proclaiming in the Guardian:

Big Oil must pay for climate change. Now we can calculate how much

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/07/big-oil-must-pay-for-climate-change-here-is-how-to-calculate-how-much

He was a witness in the abortive case against Exxon-Mobil in March 2018;

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/21/stick-to-science-judge-turns-courtroom-into-a-classroom-in-climate-change-case.html

There is more background on Professor Allen here, especially his Climate Prediction Distributed Computing Group:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/playing-climate-games

One of his co-CLA’s is Opha Pauline Dube of the University of Botswana

https://alumni.uq.edu.au/story/5888/professor-opha-pauline-dube

She says:

Climate change is an effect of unsustainable development pathways practised since the industrial revolution. Impacts of climate change permeate all geographical and socioeconomic scales affecting most developing countries.

[but not developed countries?]

PhD in Geographical Science at The University of Queensland. Co-Editor-in-Chief of environmental science journal “Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability”, has a focus on global environmental change in the context of the Anthropocene. [an unofficial epoch. Is she really a top scientist?]

The other Co-CLA is William Solecki  http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/people/fac/solecki.html

Professor; and Founder Director, Emeritus, CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities
Professor within the Department of Geography at Hunter College-City University of New York.

Co-editor of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, (with Dube) and founding editor of the Journal of Extreme Events. He holds degrees in Geography from Columbia University (BA) and Rutgers University (MA, PhD). [Is he a top scientist?]

Interesting Lead Authors include Stephen Humphreys

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/stephen-humphreys/

Lecturer in the Department of Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He has edited a book on climate change and human rights. He previously acted as Publications Director for the Open Society Justice Initiative (Soros) in New York, and before that oversaw a project monitoring minority rights and discrimination in ten EU accession countries for the Open Society Institute (Soros) in Budapest.

Is he by any stretch of the imagination, a top scientist?

Or Seth Schultz, Special Advisor on Science & Innovation to Global Covenant of Mayors

http://www.p4pittsburgh.org/pages/seth-schultz

Formerly worked on climate and sustainable development issues at the Clinton Foundation

How about Linda Steg, Professor of Environmental Psychology.

https://www.rug.nl/about-us/news-and-events/people-perspectives/scientists-in-focus/lsteg?lang=en

She gained her PhD at the University of Groningen with a thesis entitled ‘Gedragsverandering ter vermindering van het autogebruik’ [Behavioural change to reduce car use]

A top scientist?

The list goes on, political nominations by governments:

http://www.sysu.edu.cn/2012/en/news/news02/30292.htm

“A total of 590 nominations from 39 countries in the world were received and a team of 86 authors were selected by the committee to take on the responsibility of writing each chapter of the report together. IPCC reported that the members of all three IPCC Working Groups carefully considered all nominations and developed the final list of authors and review editors in a detailed and iterative selection process.

The selection was undertaken according to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, considering the required scientific, technical and socio-economic expertise, geographical representation, gender balance, and the inclusion of experts with and without previous IPCC experience. [Don’t they say they should not be policy prescriptive?]

“The selection of the authors for the IPCC’s 1.5°C report is the first step in the critical journey started at COP21. This special report will facilitate this important journey by assessing the available science and highlighting the policy options available to support the achievement of a climate safe, equitable and sustainable world,” said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of Working Group II”.

 

Advertisements

44 thoughts on “BBC – The World’s Top Climate Scientists, who are they? (Answer: activists)

  1. A Climate Safe World? What star system is that in?
    These activists left their serving of science sit out too long and it spoiled.

    • “A Climate Safe World?”
      What they mean is the Marxist radical change of society with the their politicized Nature dictatorship?

    • “The BBC is referring to the authors of the IPCC Special Report on the impacts of 1.5 deg C of warming over pre-industrial, as the World’s Top Scientists. There are very few of what could be described as “climate scientists, but lots of geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts and the odd Eco-Psychologist…”

      May I suggest “climate clowns, bullsh!tters, useful idiots and fellow travellers…”

    • Too funny. “Climate Justice” is another ludicrous phrase I hear bandied about by moronic lefties. As I see it there’s only one way to fight this nonsense. First, stop putting so much emphasis on arguing the science. It won’t work. It’s not about the science, it’s about politics. Instead start hammering away at the economics. The cost of trying to prevent warming beyond 1.5 degrees or whatever magic number they’ve snatched out of the Co2 laden air with the help of their toy computers will be ruinous. The damage will far outweigh any benefits. We might even start getting some support from climate scientists who are secretly on the fence, as it gives them a way out. I really don’t understand why there’s not been more emphasis on that point. We ought to be hammering away at every opportunity.

      • Bjorn Lomberg provides plenty of data in support of the cost benefit analysis of practical mitigation strategies for CC and the pursuit of a variety of societal goals with very beneficial C:B versus the Kyoto Treaty. He refers to the former as a collection of smart strategies in Cool It. The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (2007). “Thus we can not just talk about CO2 when dealing with climate change. We need to bring into the dialogue considerations about both carbon emissions and economics, for the benefit of both humans and the environment.” P150. Another point of economics BL doesn’t discuss but which may be the most important consideration is opportunity cost of spending $Billions on an utter fraud.

  2. They lie just like some climate scientists.

    “”
    Peter Wadhams first became aware of Isaac’s 1940s proposal while working at Scripps at the start of his career. “Prince Faisal then cottoned onto this idea, and asked ‘can we tow icebergs to Saudi Arabia?’ Of course, the obvious answer is ‘no’ because you’ve got to get them across the equator and they melt, but nobody told him that because he had a lot of money to put in, and he funded a lot of research.”

    Ergo.

  3. People are turning away from this CAGW nonsense. These activists seem to be having a last ditch attempt at closing down western civilisation. Trump refuses to play ball with these authoritarian numpties. Shame the UK government prefers to swallow this nonsense rather than spit in the face of the pseudo-scientists trying to push a deeply harmful agenda.

    • While I hope you are right, I believe that you are incorrect.
      The climate obsessed control nearly the entire public square. Thry have corrupted the academy, young public education, popular entertainment, religion, and more.

    • Exactly. Trump, AND Xi and Putin refuse to play CO2 ball. The Commanders of the British Empire, like Dr. Schellnhuber CBE, are hysterical losing their geopolitical grip. Churchill is turning in the grave. Gone is the stiff upper lip, raving jacobins roam.

  4. “Impacts of climate change permeate all geographical and socioeconomic scales affecting most developing countries.”

    Only “most”, but not “all” developing countries? Can we see the list, please?

    “Why should taxpayers pay for adaptation to climate change?” Well, because adaptation may be a lot cheaper than “stopping” climate change? Of course, the real question is why should taxpayers in developing countries pay for adaptation rather than make the taxpayers of the developed countries pay to stop climate change? Or watch their entire countries fall apart as their economies tank?

  5. UN SR 15 – “Climate Nazis of the World Unite”

    It’s disgusting the lengths they will go to in order to push their propaganda.

  6. Ah yes geography, a subject that has morphed from rivers and crops to yet another vehicle for social justice, handing sciency titles and respectability to activists. Sadly the once respectable Tamsin Edwards (she once dined with Anthony) is now at the geography department of Kings College London, and was just on BBC radio discussing the latest IPCC bid for global governance.

    The other trick of academia is to allow activist organisations to associate themselves to universities, such as Grantham’s and the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford.

    Who said religion is dying? It is reappearing in a new guise, complete with an extensive priesthood, tablets of stone, and harsh punishment for heretics.

  7. The only way to properly rank scientists is by their record of predictive skill, not by who they are, not by how many others agree with them. Because if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong… Full Stop.

  8. I wouldn’t trust anything the UK’s British Biased Corp. aka ‘The Beeb’ put out anymore wrt Climate, they have a vested interest in it: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-eco-bias as revealed 8 years ago and their top science presenters, now mainly Profs. keep on pushing the agenda of CAGW along with Radio 4 pumping propaganda seemingly hourly or whenever they can.; and they have banned dissenting voices of recent times.
    In addition weather forecasts now have a hint of so much warming, unprecedented temps etc.
    (sorry but I’ve gone biased the other way with that lot now and so sick of it and may cancel my licence fee next renewal dear BBC)

  9. The mug gallery of sagacious looking greybeards on the IPCC is the last desperate flail of a generation of 60’s student Marxist-anarchists who never accepted the fall of communism either morally and intellectually or as a historic fact. It is the horror-movie nightmare ending of the zombie monster in its last mortally wounded roar of defiance. Before sinking into the abyss. This generation of washed-up 60’s useless revolutionary academics is a curse on humanity and the earth needs nothing more than to be finally rid of these idiots.

  10. It really doesn’t matter who they are, everything they project is science fiction.

    Since CO2 lags ocean temperatures by 10 months, it cannot be a driver of ocean warming nor the climate:

    https://i.postimg.cc/qvfYLvG8/Had-SST3-leads-12mo-CO2-change.jpg

    Which closely confirms “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, Humlum etal.

    Since the change in CO2 so closely follows the short and long-term trends in sea surface temperature, man-made emissions are a tiny blip on top of what the ocean does, not the major factor as claimed.

    Whether or not we reach 1.5 or 2 C or more someday is entirely independent from future man-made emissions.

  11. Just written to the London Times suggesting that the massive developing nations coal-fired programmes should be closed down to save us all. If they print it I will renounce the world, put on sandals and become a saddhu.

  12. From the BBC dictionary
    *world’s scientists* = people who signed this new IPCC document
    .. which as WUWT points out is NOT ‘top scientists’
    But rather
    – SOME cherry picked climate scientists,
    – SOME cherry picked other scientists
    – and a bunch of other signers who have Law Degrees etc.
    … ie Overall a bunch of cherry picked ACTIVISTS …. #groupThink

  13. The real world’s top climate scientists:
    Richard Lindzen
    Judith Curry
    John Christy
    Roy Spencer
    Patrick Michaels
    Roger Pielke Sr.
    Fred Singer
    Joe D’Aleo

    IPCC could not get the top scientists to say its narrative so it got the activists

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *