Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate scientists Bruce Glavovic, Iain White and Tim Smith have called for tools down on future IPCC climate assessments and a refusal to accept more public funding, until governments recognise they must do what they are told.
Scientists call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments take real action
January 11, 2022 6.12am AEDT
Bruce Glavovic Professor, Massey University
Iain White Professor of Environmental Planning, University of Waikato
Tim Smith Professor and ARC Future Fellow, University of the Sunshine Coast
Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth. Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system compounds many other drivers of global change.
Governments concur: the science is settled. But governments have failed to act at the scale and pace required. What should climate change scientists do?
…
Where to from here for climate change scientists?
The first option is to collect more evidence and hope for action. Continue the IPCC process that stays politically neutral and abstains from policy prescriptions. A recent editorial in Nature called on scientists to do just that: stay engaged to support future climate COPs.
…
The second option is more intensive social science research and climate change advocacy. As Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes recently observed, the work of the IPCC’s Working Group I (WGI, on the physical science basis of climate change) is complete and should be closed down. Attention needs to focus on translating this understanding into action, which is the realm of WGII (on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and WGIII (on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions).
…
Halt on IPCC work until governments do their part
The third option is much more radical, but unpalatable. We call for a moratorium on climate change research that does little more than document global warming and maladaptation.
Attention needs to focus on exposing and re-negotiating the broken science-society contract. Given the rupture to the contract outlined here, we call for a halt on all further IPCC assessments until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and mobilise action to secure a safe level of global warming. This option is the only way to overcome the tragedy of climate change science.
Readers might agree with our framing of this tragedy but disagree with our assessment of options. Some may want greater detail on what a moratorium could encompass or worry it may damage the credibility and objectivity of the scientific community.
However, we question whether it is our “duty” to use public funds to continue to refine the state of climate change knowledge (which is unlikely to lead to the actions required), or whether a more radical approach will serve society better.
We have reached a critical juncture for humanity and the planet. Given the unfolding tragedy, a moratorium on climate change research is the only responsible option for revealing and then restoring the broken science-society contract. The other two options are seductive but offer false hope.
Read more: https://theconversation.com/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-climate-change-research-until-governments-take-real-action-172690
I believe the government funded climate scientists calling for a climate strike have completely misunderstood their social contract. In my opinion the true purpose of government funded research is to help politicians win elections. Politicians actually acting on the research “product” of the scientists whose work they fund was never part of the deal.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken.
I doubt the climate scientists will go ahead with this strike. A commitment to refuse government funding is unlikely to fly with their colleagues – unless I have misread, and they plan to keep taking the money anyway. But I’d love to see them try. The experience would be educational.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
.
.
Yay!
At least you’re going to stop wasting our money. This is exactly what we want!
Oh, I couldn’t agree more!!!
Ha ha ha “the tragedy of climate change science”. Now that’s a gentle way to state the truth. I suspect, however, that the phony climate scientists take less than 10% of the climate criminal money and the rest goes to the phony elitists, some of who actually believe that stealing a half million a year from the taxpayer is really, really good for taxpayers.
….oh and I almost forgot – for the black people, the homeless people, the children and the children’s children.
“the tragedy of climate change science”
Is all the wasted money spent on trying to control CO2, and all the mental illness caused by this climate change science scam.
I guess these authors are suggesting they take their toys (the Science) and go home, as a way of punishing the other “kids” for not cooperatng in reducing CO2. This illustrates some of the mental illness the climate change scam has caused.
Oh Please, Please, Pulleaze…
Cease funding Climate studies
Cease funding the IPCC
Cease funding Penn State Climate Research
For the next decade and beyond
Put that money into developing reliable energy sources like:::(Unitized Nuclear and potentially Thorium if it truly works) capable of powering a technologically advanced society instead of last Millennium’s unreliable low density energy tech
Or better yet, let the taxpayers keep the money, where it will be more productively spent.
Oh, yes! Taxpayers can spend their money much more efficiently than the bureaucrats. Taxpayers take care not to waste their money. Bureaucrats are not concerned about wasting taxpayer’s money. They think there is a never-ending supply of money available to them, so a little waste here and there is inconsequential.
That’s why it is better to leave the money in the taxpayer’s pocket.
The Thorium fuel cycle was successfully demonstrated to work in the Light Water Breeder Reactor core operated in the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in the 1970’s. The core produced about 1.3% more nuclear fuel as U233 than it consumed.
Then it sounds like Government Funded Thorium Development would be better than “Throwing Money” at what the CC community True Believers insist is already “Settled Science”
Hear, hear!! Fantastic development!! These academics show incredible public responsibility!!
They’re as likely to hold their breaths until their faces turn blue.
We can only hope.
–
–
Nahhhhhhhh…. CUFT*** (Compressed Unicorn Fart Technology) will be a mature technology before “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!… in X years” studies lose their funding.
–
–
–
*** What do you think Jeep® has been secretly working on? No, not 12 reverse gears with a marshmallow creme-filled differential. That’s for later on.
How dare they?
Yes, this seems to be on the level of a child holding his breath when he doesn’t get what he wants. Real mature.
I think the whole UN and all environmental NGOs should show solidarity with their comrades in the IPCC and climate science, and also go on a complete strike, and of course give up meat or anything else produced with the help of co2 producing machines.
And of course no more air travel and conferences – for the environment! Think of the children!
Those last three paragraphs in the quotes part are priceless. They should be printed out, framed and hung in every place possible, especially in legislative bodies. It might actually save some money that could go elsewhere, e.g., flood control and repair, better catastrophic weather forecasting, better agriculture methods for less fortunate countries – that sort of thing.
Reminds me of the old saw, “The beatings will continue until morale improves!”
They are arguing that unless they are in the position of Trofim Lysenko, they will go on strike?
My answer to your very insightful question is “yes!”
Great idea!
“Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth.”
I must be thick. These professors know so much more than anyone else 🙂
We know all that we need to know about the climate, put the money into documenting the environmental impact of decarbonization!
“Unequivocal”. In a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions. Got it.
“Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth.”
The authors couldn’t prove this staement if their lives depended on doing so. They are obviously clueless about the nuances of CO2 and the Earth’s climate.
Humans have demonstrated that some human activities jeopardise life on Earth such as nuclear war, but CO2 is a harmless gas that is essential to life on Earth, and poses no danger to humans or the Earth’s climate. So as far as jeopardizing life on Earth: nuclear war = yes, potentially; and CO2 = no, no way.
Clearly none of these idiots have a clue. Much warmer climate periods in the Earth’s past were periods teeming with life. It is cold that kills, they are literally arguing that black is white.
Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that conmen masquerading as scientists can extort limitless amounts of public money by promulgating the CAGW scam.
There is indeed a broken ‘science-society’ contract. Society needs reliable robust energy supply. ‘Climate science’ aka renewables cannot supply it. In fact, they cannot even supply a scientific basis for needing renewables.
Ridicule is the best response. And you could make all this self parody stuff up lest thought mad. They are, we aren’t.
Rud, I am a convert to “Ridicule”. Methodically showing the CAGW crowd actual climate cycles preserved in the geologic record just seems to infuriate them like it’s some kind of occult nonsense.
It infuriates them because it makes them look like liars. Which they are.
Liberals are convinced that they are saving humanity. It’s what gives their lives meaning.
When you present them with evidence that they aren’t the world’s saviors, it shakes their world view. Intelligent people will react to such events by re-examining their lives to figure out where the went wrong. Liberals on the other hand will defend their world view by attacking those who threaten it.
Very revealing. This suggests some things.
Media has been reframing the narrative (lying their asses off) to portray COP26 as somehow deciding something, proving something, something very forcibly and convincing, so much so that they never quote any new science or evidence revealed there.
“ somehow deciding something, proving something, something very forcibly and convincing, “
With that string I guess you can sing positive praise on “nothing”?
In fairness, I do think we should support these brave “Scientists.”
Surely we can help them along by sacking them all immediately and ensuring that they never again put a penny of taxpayers’ money in their rapacious, dishonest pockets.
It’s the least we can do to support their commitment!
They’ve now had more than 30 years to demonstrate their case. The complete absence of significant findings show that, as Gertrude Stein once remarked, “there’s no there there.” What COP 26 has shown is that the vast bulk of the world’s population is entirely indifferent to their narrow, egocentric concerns.
But sacking won’t happen. It should be evident by now that the world has enormous spare capacity to accommodate even such futile parasites as the AGW community. And in absence of any truly existential crisis like a world war, we never seem to discard anything no matter how useless it is.
“What COP 26 showed was the full magnitude of their failure. China, India, Russia openly scorned their entire agenda. Since two of the largest CO2 emitters will have nothing to do with reducing or eliminating fossil fuel use, it’s time to acknowledge that the global warming agenda has failed.”
I think that’s correct. CO2 will continue to climb while at the same time the Deluded Nations of the world will continue to try to bankrupt themselves by trying to reduce their CO2 output. And they will be fighting a losing battle all the way.
“Moratorium on Climate Research until Governments Take Action”. Specifically no more IPCC until governments start taking it seriously.
That sounds like a hell of a good idea!
About the only downside I can see is that some fool in the government would be sure to find a way to make money on actually taking at least some of the demanded actions …
I can dream can’t I? LOL
I like this version I can Dream, Can’t I also:
“ The first option is to collect more evidence and hope for action”
Should read:
“ The first option is to collect SOME evidence and hope for action”
Or.
“The first option is to run some models, call the output evidence, make a movie about a made up asteroid about to destroy earth and use Leonardo De-Caprio and Jennifer Lawrence, while getting children to demand action”
Only the failure to find any evidence will have a deleterious impact on the “hope for action” thing.
The credibility and objectivity of the climate science community is already in tatters and seems beyond repair. If they stopped doing what they’re currently doing it would be a step in the right direction though.
Agree fully – not so much follow the science, as follow the money!
In order to really make their point, they could go even further and pay back a couple of decades worth of public funding.
The point I get from this is that the science is not only far from settled, it is disintegrating before their eyes. These social scientists are done with it and want it shut down so they can get their hands on the funding and mold government to their liking.
I’d rather say the science is settling beneath their feet, dragging them down into the mire they so vociferously denied they were standing so solidly on in the first place.
Thanks for the post, Eric. The new three stooges (Bruce Glavovic, Iain White and Tim Smith) are funnier than they could ever comprehend.
Regards,
Bob
PS: My apologies to Moe, Larry and Curly.
Thanks Bob :-). I wish I thought of that, three stooges photo.
Did The Conversation copy this article from the Babylon Bee? It sounds like parody to me. My first thought was John McEnroe’s comment “You cannot be serious”. My second thought was Dirty Harry’s comment “Go ahead, make my day”
I double checked the date.
Not April 1?
“Moratorium on Climate Research until Governments Take Action”
I half agree!
So do I. The other half would be replacing “moratorium” with “forever suppression”. (or should I say “cancellation”?)
Seems to me what they’re really saying is that they don’t want any scientist to get uppity and question their religion.
That is the next stage. In a few years, it should become apparent to a few young adults that the world is still here and that maybe they’ve been lied to their entire lives.
And speaking of dismal science:
Science Accused Of Lying Under Oath
January 11th, 2022 – BabylonBee.com
https://babylonbee.com/news/science-accused-of-lying-under-oath?utm_source=Gab&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Gab
“All Scientists Forced To Retire After Realizing The Science Is Now Settled
“The science is settled,” said climatologist Blorg Norbergrobben as he hung his head sadly. “I heard that on CNN. What am I going to do with my life now that all knowledge has been uncovered and will never be overturned by new discoveries? Maybe I’ll get a job as a political advisor!” – April 26th, 2021
https://babylonbee.com/news/All-Scientists-Retire-After-Realizing-The-Science-Is-Now-Settled
“climatologist Blorg Norbergrobben ”
That’s pretty funny! 🙂
A Moratorium on Climate Research and Climate Modelling sounds like a great idea but the scientists will not go along with that as they have a great need for money and Funding.
Attention needs to focus on exposing and re-negotiating the broken science-society contract.
You can say that again perfessors–
“A Queensland cancer researcher has been found to have fabricated scientific data used in support of grant funding applications and human trials, his former employer says.”
Leading Queensland cancer researcher Mark Smyth fabricated scientific data, review finds (msn.com)
Ike warned us about this and all those juicy taxpayer grants up for grabs and we’re looking at you climate changers with your tree ring circus.
a) I’ve never heard of the science-society contract and I doubt anyone else has either.
b) How do you re-negotiate a “contract” that no one’s ever heard of? And who did the original negotiating?
c) I think exposing it would be very enlightening to the public.
“I’ve never heard of the science-society contract and I doubt anyone else has either.”
That’s a new one on me, too.
Do they know something we don’t know about funding being cut? That is the only way this makes sense.
None of it makes sense.
I think this is the best idea they ever had. Second best would be holding their breath till they get their way. I wonder if they have enough savings to survive till politicians believe that deliberate economic sabotage is a winning strategy.
They left out lying on the floor screaming and kicking their feet, with copious quantities of crocodile tears.
Do I understand this correctly? They’re saying, “You’re not listening to us so we’re going to stop taking your money until you do. That’ll larn ya!”
I think I’m liking this new climate action movement.
Is the next step the “I’m going to hold my breath until you do what I want” stage?
How about, “Do what we say or we’re going to quit our jobs and get work in the real world”?
Ok, ok. I was with you up until the last bit and then I lost it completely! Get work in the real world? With no marketable skills or experience? Most of them’ll be too old for burger flipping and too scrawny to collect the bins. Nah, unemployment queue for this lot!
They can still be greeters at Walmart.
You need a pleasant personality in order to pull that gig off.
True, and berating the customers over pronoun usage and calling them nazis likely wouldn’t go over too well either.
“Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth.”.
They NEVER say what the jeopardies are.
“They NEVER say what the jeopardies are.”
Sure they do: Its going to be too hot, or its going to be too cold, or its going to be too wet, or its going to be too dry, or possibly all of these at the same time.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Seems prudent. Best to lock in the errors and avoid risk of the fake emergency being discredited by actual data.
Beat me to it. I was thinking it had to be due to one of two things:
1) They really are running out of ridiculous claims they can blame on climate change, or
2) Stop documenting evidence so they never find the evidence that they’re wrong.
To quote Douglas Adams:
MAJIKTHISE:
We’ll go on strike!
VROOMFONDEL:
That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DEEP THOUGHT:
Who will that inconvenience?
One of my favourite plot themes – an answer which didn’t help you understand 🙂
Who knew that Douglas Adams was quite so prescient. He parodied the climate change movement before it was needed!
Another great parody:
https://youtu.be/Z_JOGmXpe5I
How many times have we heard that scientists never make alarmist claims or demands, they just present the evidence. So much for that theory……