Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Naomi Oreskes: – “if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?”.
IPCC, You’ve Made Your Point: Humans Are a Primary Cause of Climate Change
It’s time to redirect your major focus to how we deal with the problem
By Naomi Oreskes |
…
But this raises a question for the IPCC: What now? The answer is for scientists of Working Group 1 to declare their job done and pass the baton to the rest of the scientists who populate the organization. Many people don’t realize that the IPCC has three working groups. Working Group 1 (WG1), which issued this summer’s statements, addresses the “physical science basis” of climate change. WG2 deals with “impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability,” and WG3 looks at mitigation. Put another way, WG2 explores in detail why climate change matters, and WG3 tries to figure out how to stop it. Now that we know that DAI is fully underway, it’s time to focus on preventing the problem from getting even worse and figuring out how to adapt to the changes we can no longer prevent. One step that could help that happen would be for the IPCC to declare the job of WG1 to be done and close it down.
After all, if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing? Closing WG1 would answer that question and would allow climate scientists to refocus on basic science, which is, after all, what most of them are trained to do. And it would encourage public and policy attention to shift to solving the problem. This change in focus will require us to pay closer attention to what our economists, sociologists, urban planners and biologists have to say than we have to date, and these experts are mostly to be found in the IPCC’s other two working groups.
…
Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-youve-made-your-point-humans-are-a-primary-cause-of-climate-change/
Oreskes has a point. If we truly have only ten years to save the world, why do we need another report next year saying we now only have nine years?
Congratulations guys, you identified the problem. Now it is time to step aside with grace, and allow all academic climate funding to be diverted to addressing the problem you identified, implementing Biden’s zero carbon vision.
“Halloween Horror”
I assumed you meant the mask she’s wearing.
Anyone have a clue what “DAI” is? As in “Now that we know that DAI is fully underway,….”
Dai Bando was a character in “How Green Was My Valley.”
Actually, Kip, it doesn’t seem to be an acronym.
It’s more like an organisation.
https://www.dai.com/our-work/solutions/climate
leitmotif ==> Yes, and very successful (profitable as well …. they will apparently absorb a great deal of the non-existent 100 billion dollars of Climate Aid). Thank you.
No idea. The only reference I can find that comes close is http://www.dai.com but although it might be relevant, I’m not sure it fits.
Oh hang on, this might fit Oreskes mindset: ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference’?
Although in Oreskes’ case, I’d be prepared to change it to ‘Dangerous Academic Interference’.
Kip, it’s definitely dangerous anthropogenic interference. Mickey Mann has brought out a paper on “Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference” which might be well worth having a look at online – don’t think it’s paywalled.
Oreskes was the scientist not able to google correctly when researching for AGW papers, had to admit it by an official corrigendum
Whenever I see her picture or in video I think of that old joke Gallagher once made:
“Does Joe Jackson HAVE to be in his own videos”?
What’s the point of Naomi?
She is a climate change propagandist.
To be serious though, this seems more like the communists concept of democracy.
One person one vote one time only.
She is saying they stacked the committee and got the desired result, now it is imperative to prevent further research, nothing good can come of it.
Such a good comment, “She is saying they stacked the committee and got the desired result, now it is imperative to prevent further research” – because, as an anti-science propagandist/activist, the last thing she wants is for someone to find-out the truth.
How well would the narrative survive if the focus were on practical matters, technical feasibility and economics?
Thunders would be put out of a job … her only position would be to say “Faster!”, to which the technocrats would say, “That’s what we are doing, dear.”
While achieving nothing.
Oreskes speaks with forked tongue. Science is never settled or finished.
WG1 is the only part of IPCC that is reasonably sane and they tend to moderate the more strident claims that come out of the hyper-alarmists.
WG2 and WG3 are packed with nutters and they assume worst case scenarios.
Oh the irony. The same scientists who torture data to produce politically desirable conclusions, just so they can keep the funding coming and feed themselves and their families, could now find themselves out of work – all because they served their masters too well.
Certainly you do not want to listen to what economist and sociologists think. And what could urban planners possibly contribute? Our world is shaped by technology and engineers economists and sociologists in the best case just describe it and the latter are best ignored. Urban planning works on a horizon of 25 years or more. In my view the focus should be on firstly, expand the world food programme to feed the drought sticken areas.Secondly: step up sea and ocean front water defenses and thirdly as Bill Getes very rationally suggested, invest in research and innovation of energy systems including nucear as well as carbon capturing as Bill Gates very rationally suggested. And foremost: stop the propaganda, it does not help anyone.
The shut-down of WG1 that Oreskes is calling for would be just in time to ignore the new Nature paper with data supporting Svensmark’s cosmic ray connection to cloud and radiative balance:
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/31/new-study-with-groundbreaking-results-connection-between-cosmic-rays-radiation-budget-reaffirmed/
She seems to seriously believe that there is a way for humans to stop the climate from changing. That alone shows how ignorant she is about fundamental facts. ” WG3 tries to figure out how to stop it.”
Where did she get that scary mask?
You have completely missed the point. We need another report next year to tell us we have 10 years.
The climate apocalypse™ has been 10 years away for about 40 years. Why would any sensible person expect that to change next year?
They wouldn’t want to find or report errors in previous assessments and models in the current environment of agenda intolerance now would they. Shut them down for their on safety and that of the Great Advocacy Climate Crusade itself. Do it before cyclical ocean cooling becomes obvious.
To undermine one of the greatest gravy trains in the history of science funding could have some unintended consequences, Naomi.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
Your 97% or 99% consensus could be at risk.
It’s a shame many of us may not live long enough unraveling of this fraud.
When is the potential fall apart time? If there is no measurable AGW indication in yet another 10 years is it over? Or does the whole thing just perpetually reset with fresh timelines?
I want to know if any models predict a coming ice age. What combination of things must happen for this interglacial to end? Surely the models are adequate to properly assess this doom to humankind.
We are already in an Ice Age, what you meant was when GLACIATION phase will commence….
She’s frustrated and lashing out. She’ll remain frustrated as the renewable miracles will not be provided. It’s a stage of grief. I am going to say anger. She didn’t win, she didn’t get her solutions. She pointing her finger at the IPCC. Also reminds me of Greta. She’s blaming.
Ha ha ha . . .
Getting rid of WG1 would make sense if the “science is settled”, such as a hypothetical world where climate scientists not only knew ECS to doubled CO2 to the hundredth of a degree, but also could accurately and consistently project all other climatic effects.
We don’t live in that hypothetical world, WG1 through AR5 failed to narrow the ECS range at all, and AR6 after all these years narrowed it into a range that *excludes” some observational estimates. And that’s with the temperature anomolies, the only thing GCMs have actually collectively predicted “correctly”, if your expectations are low enough to be satisfied with getting the general direction right.
This doesn’t mean that getting rid of WG1 is necessarily a *bad* idea, of course. The problem is obviously too difficult for them to solve. If the computer resources involved in GCMs were redirected into improving weather models, we might actually seem some benefit to humanity.
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.
Richard Lindzen