The Conversation: Moratorium on Climate Research until Governments Take Action

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.

4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
130 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
January 11, 2022 6:07 pm

A moratorium on Climate Research is the only responsible option

.

a refusal to accept more public funding

.

a halt on all further IPCC assessments

Yay!

At least you’re going to stop wasting our money. This is exactly what we want!

the only way to overcome the tragedy of climate change science

Oh, I couldn’t agree more!!!

Last edited 10 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
philincalifornia
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 11, 2022 6:28 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 12, 2022 4:24 am

“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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 11, 2022 6:54 pm

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

J.R.
Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2022 10:30 pm

Or better yet, let the taxpayers keep the money, where it will be more productively spent.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J.R.
January 12, 2022 4:44 am

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.

DHR
Reply to  Bryan A
January 12, 2022 5:21 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  DHR
January 12, 2022 9:59 am

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”

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 11, 2022 7:01 pm

Hear, hear!! Fantastic development!! These academics show incredible public responsibility!!

Scissor
Reply to  Andy Espersen
January 11, 2022 7:40 pm

They’re as likely to hold their breaths until their faces turn blue.

H.R.
Reply to  Scissor
January 11, 2022 8:15 pm

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.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Scissor
January 12, 2022 1:37 am

How dare they?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
January 12, 2022 4:45 am

Yes, this seems to be on the level of a child holding his breath when he doesn’t get what he wants. Real mature.

PCman999
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 11, 2022 10:22 pm

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!

Sara
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 12, 2022 5:17 am

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.

Last edited 10 months ago by Sara
Duane
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 12, 2022 6:35 am

Reminds me of the old saw, “The beatings will continue until morale improves!”

Tom Halla
January 11, 2022 6:08 pm

They are arguing that unless they are in the position of Trofim Lysenko, they will go on strike?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 12, 2022 4:22 am

My answer to your very insightful question is “yes!”

January 11, 2022 6:14 pm

Great idea!

Curious George
Reply to  Rafe Champion
January 11, 2022 6:21 pm

“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 🙂

Reply to  Curious George
January 11, 2022 7:01 pm

We know all that we need to know about the climate, put the money into documenting the environmental impact of decarbonization!

bill Johnston
Reply to  Curious George
January 11, 2022 8:16 pm

“Unequivocal”. In a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions. Got it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Curious George
January 12, 2022 4:53 am

“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.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Curious George
January 12, 2022 8:21 am

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.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2022 8:34 am

Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that conmen masquerading as scientists can extort limitless amounts of public money by promulgating the CAGW scam.

Last edited 10 months ago by Graemethecat
Rud Istvan
January 11, 2022 6:14 pm

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.

Ron Long
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 12, 2022 2:11 am

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
January 12, 2022 4:55 am

It infuriates them because it makes them look like liars. Which they are.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 12, 2022 7:53 am

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.

cgh
January 11, 2022 6:15 pm

Very revealing. This suggests some things.

  1. If ‘the science is settled,’ who cares if they ‘down tools’? Since the science is supposedly settled, there’s nothing more in terms of scientific knowledge or truth they can add of any value.
  2. 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. This should not be surprising. Kyoto Protocol collapsed; the Bali Roadmap in the end was rejected; the Kyoto Extension Agreement collapsed in 2010; the Paris Accord has mostly been marked by countries failing to implement the terms.
  3. The dismal results of COP 26 show that the position of these three individuals is nothing more than mere posturing. It’s an admission that they have failed in their quixotic quest for the past three decades. In short, they can go on any strike they like. The only significant result will be yawns of disinterest.
PCman999
Reply to  cgh
January 11, 2022 10:16 pm

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.

another ian
Reply to  PCman999
January 12, 2022 12:43 am

 somehow deciding something, proving something, something very forcibly and convincing, “

With that string I guess you can sing positive praise on “nothing”?

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  cgh
January 12, 2022 2:19 am

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.

Last edited 10 months ago by Martin Brumby
Richard Page
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
January 12, 2022 2:34 am

It’s the least we can do to support their commitment!

cgh
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
January 13, 2022 8:25 am

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.

Last edited 10 months ago by cgh
Tom Abbott
Reply to  cgh
January 12, 2022 5:06 am

“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.

Eric Stevens
January 11, 2022 6:21 pm

“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!

Steve
Reply to  Eric Stevens
January 11, 2022 6:40 pm

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 …

lee
January 11, 2022 6:22 pm

I can dream can’t I? LOL

RicDre
Reply to  lee
January 11, 2022 6:41 pm

I like this version I can Dream, Can’t I also:

Pat from kerbob
January 11, 2022 6:27 pm

“ 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”

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 12, 2022 3:26 am

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”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 12, 2022 8:26 am

Only the failure to find any evidence will have a deleterious impact on the “hope for action” thing.

Rick C
January 11, 2022 6:27 pm

Some may want greater detail on what a moratorium could encompass or worry it may damage the credibility and objectivity of the scientific community. 

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.

King Coal
Reply to  Rick C
January 12, 2022 9:30 am

Agree fully – not so much follow the science, as follow the money!

Brian
January 11, 2022 6:32 pm

In order to really make their point, they could go even further and pay back a couple of decades worth of public funding.

Fred Hubler
January 11, 2022 6:33 pm

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.

Jeroen B.
Reply to  Fred Hubler
January 12, 2022 1:02 am

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.

Editor
January 11, 2022 6:34 pm

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.

RicDre
January 11, 2022 6:55 pm

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”

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 11, 2022 11:12 pm

Not April 1?

James H
January 11, 2022 6:56 pm

“Moratorium on Climate Research until Governments Take Action”
I half agree!

Joao Martins
Reply to  James H
January 12, 2022 4:27 am

So do I. The other half would be replacing “moratorium” with “forever suppression”. (or should I say “cancellation”?)

Joe Gordon
January 11, 2022 7:00 pm

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.

RicDre
January 11, 2022 7:02 pm

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

Raven
Reply to  RicDre
January 11, 2022 10:49 pm

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

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Raven
January 12, 2022 5:14 am

“climatologist Blorg Norbergrobben ”

That’s pretty funny! 🙂

January 11, 2022 7:07 pm

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.

observa
January 11, 2022 7:18 pm

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.

J.R.
Reply to  observa
January 11, 2022 10:17 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J.R.
January 12, 2022 5:16 am

“I’ve never heard of the science-society contract and I doubt anyone else has either.”

That’s a new one on me, too.

Thomas Gasloli
January 11, 2022 7:26 pm

Do they know something we don’t know about funding being cut? That is the only way this makes sense.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 12, 2022 5:16 am

None of it makes sense.

Andy Pattullo
January 11, 2022 7:28 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
January 11, 2022 8:51 pm

They left out lying on the floor screaming and kicking their feet, with copious quantities of crocodile tears.

Christopher Simpson
January 11, 2022 7:30 pm

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”?

Richard Page
Reply to  Christopher Simpson
January 12, 2022 2:40 am

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!

John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 12, 2022 3:14 am

They can still be greeters at Walmart.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 12, 2022 7:57 am

You need a pleasant personality in order to pull that gig off.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2022 10:03 am

True, and berating the customers over pronoun usage and calling them nazis likely wouldn’t go over too well either.

Last edited 10 months ago by John Endicott
Editor
January 11, 2022 7:32 pm

“Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth.”.

They NEVER say what the jeopardies are.

RicDre
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 11, 2022 7:43 pm

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.

Mike
Reply to  RicDre
January 11, 2022 9:00 pm

Heads I win, tails you lose.

January 11, 2022 8:30 pm

Seems prudent. Best to lock in the errors and avoid risk of the fake emergency being discredited by actual data.

BobM
Reply to  Dave Burton
January 11, 2022 11:15 pm

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.

michael hart
January 11, 2022 8:41 pm

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?

Richard Page
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 12, 2022 2:42 am

Who knew that Douglas Adams was quite so prescient. He parodied the climate change movement before it was needed!

yirgach
Reply to  Richard Page
January 12, 2022 5:35 am

Another great parody:
https://youtu.be/Z_JOGmXpe5I

Mike
January 11, 2022 8:51 pm

How many times have we heard that scientists never make alarmist claims or demands, they just present the evidence. So much for that theory……

TimFM
January 11, 2022 8:52 pm

Here’s an Idea. How about a forth option, they have public debates with their critics.

MarkW
Reply to  TimFM
January 12, 2022 7:59 am

They keep going back and forth on that.

Mike
January 11, 2022 8:58 pm

Governments concur: the science is settled.”….”The first option is to collect more evidence and hope for action.”

Hello? Anybody home??
My money is on the first option….

Last edited 10 months ago by Mike
Steve Case
January 11, 2022 9:21 pm

TimFM

 January 11, 2022 8:52 pm
Awaiting for approval
Here’s an Idea. How about a forth option, they have public debates with their critics.
_________________________________

That gets a [+] from me when it gets approved.

Mr. Lee
January 11, 2022 9:54 pm

What a bunch of nutters these people are. Couched in adults language is the tantrum of a child.

Probably emboldened by the technocratic power-grabfest that is currently taking place, they conjure up a ‘science-society contract.’ As if they consider themselves to be Plato’s philosopher-kings., in other words, supremacists who believe we must obey, because they are smarter and wiser and “know more.”

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Mr. Lee
January 12, 2022 3:33 am

I’d like to see this ‘contract’ and see who signed it and what the wording is. These characters are so far up their *****.

January 11, 2022 10:12 pm

“Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth.“
It is proven that rising CO2 does not “jeopardise life on earth”.

So a non sequitur.

Reply to  Hans Erren
January 11, 2022 10:15 pm

Actually, the increasing deforestation as a direct result of the global biomass hunger – the alleged panacea for global warming -, DOES jeopardise life on earth.

MarkW
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 12, 2022 7:59 am

That only jeopardizes the life in those forests.

John Endicott
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 12, 2022 3:17 am

It is proven that rising CO2 does not “jeopardise life on earth”.”

Indeed. Quite the opposite, in fact, life on Earth flourishes when there’s more plant food available.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 12, 2022 8:00 am

Life on earth also flourishes when it gets warmer. Not that CO2 is responsible for much of that.

PCman999
January 11, 2022 10:12 pm

Best climate news ever! Something that true believers/alarmists, lukewarmers and the rest of can unite together to support – a complete climate science and IPCC strike until ‘something is done about the climate emergency”!

I guess the ipcc’s scientific reports (not the tacked on political assessments that had no relationship to what they were supposed to summarize) weren’t alarmist enough and other science showing gentle, non-accelerating-out-of-control warming was running foul of the science activists, and so they want to throw them under the battery powered bus – but it caught fire in the garage while charging, so you have to settle for the biodiesel bus powered from palm oil made in Borneo, especially deforested for you to help the environment, and turn orangutans into homeless people. ‘Planet of the Apes’ meme-able film footage and pictures of orangutans attacking forestery machinery coming soon to the search engine near you…

J.R.
January 11, 2022 10:26 pm

I really, really hope the three climate scientists read the comments below this article. They would quickly deflate.

accordionsrule
January 11, 2022 10:36 pm

Oh, sure, cut and run now that GSM is upon us. They see the handwriting on the wall and don’t want any more data to be collected that will reveal just how wrong they are.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  accordionsrule
January 12, 2022 5:21 am

“Oh, sure, cut and run now that GSM is upon us.”

I had to laugh at that one, too! 🙂

Streetcred
January 11, 2022 10:46 pm

Let’s see if governments have any cahunas and just lock them out.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Streetcred
January 12, 2022 1:48 am

cojones?

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Gregory Woods
January 12, 2022 3:34 am

Goujons?

Damon
January 11, 2022 10:58 pm

Remind me. When did they invent the windmill?

H.R.
Reply to  Damon
January 13, 2022 6:41 am

And why did they stop using it?

M Courtney
January 12, 2022 12:21 am

They aren’t saying that all climate change research funding should stop. They certainly aren’t saying that WGII funding should stop.
They are just saying that WG1 funding should be diverted to WGII.

Now I don’t know if these guys are working on WGI or WGII.

But I’m willing to bet they would be working on WGII if the money dried up for WGI.

Vincent Causey
January 12, 2022 12:23 am

Never happen. The whole problem is the system has become corrupted, like Eisenhower warned with government money driving the alarmist agenda. Will scientists now stop taking the money? Why didn’t they stop before?

another ian
January 12, 2022 12:35 am

What a bloody good idea!

January 12, 2022 12:55 am

“the science is settled”. Stop funding all climate “science” research then and get rid of these useless “scientists”

Gregory Woods
January 12, 2022 1:35 am

More Klimate Klown Krackerjacks….

January 12, 2022 1:51 am

“Do you want fries with that?”

“Didn’t you used to be Michael Mann?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 12, 2022 5:24 am

Funny!

Michael Ozanne
January 12, 2022 2:00 am

/whispers
No please don’t do that…….
\

2hotel9
January 12, 2022 3:31 am

Sounds good! Then all these lie spewing liars can go work at McDs and Panawful cardboard sandwich shops.

glenn holdcroft
January 12, 2022 3:58 am

Climate ‘scientists’ go on strike but the weather gets better .

Doug Huffman
January 12, 2022 4:15 am

until governments recognise they must do what they are told.

Ah, the Faucian model of tyranny. Faux FauXi

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 12, 2022 4:32 am

Haha, that makes my day. The quacks deciding to go on strike because the healthy patient does want to take the snake oil . What’s not to like?

Matthew Sykes
January 12, 2022 5:00 am

ools down on future IPCC climate assessments and a refusal to accept more public funding” Oh please do, really, please do this!

Mark Whitney
January 12, 2022 5:13 am

Hmm. I would say Dick the Butcher had it wrong about starting with the lawyers…

Bruce Cobb
January 12, 2022 5:58 am

What should climate change scientists do?

Here’s a thought: How about try telling the truth. For a change. Oh wait, then they’d be out of a job.
Never mind.

The Dark Lord
January 12, 2022 6:13 am

ahh … to stop doing climate research don’t you have to actually be doing real climate research in the first place ? so they will stop doing fraudulent research I guess …

MarkW
January 12, 2022 7:46 am

Other than China and the third world, could anyone please name a government that hasn’t taken action?

MarkW
January 12, 2022 7:48 am

I’m still trying to figure out how refusing to accept government money, is going to force government to do anything.

Cat
January 12, 2022 7:52 am

Is that a promise?

AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 8:17 am

Great – the “research” is nothing but propaganda anyway, so if we stop it that’s just more money they can stop taking away from useful pursuits.

Then we can just go back to living without all the pseudo-science based self-flagellation.

TonyG
January 12, 2022 9:08 am

Works for me. Cut the funding.

Tom.1
January 12, 2022 9:23 am

Brings to mind a certain scene in “Blazing Saddles”.

Ted
January 12, 2022 9:35 am

This is a step in coming to the realization that the IPCC wasn’t created to get scientific results and recommendations, but as a tool to justify political policies. The first hint should have been the fact that the Panel (of political flunkies) has the task of editing every word that comes from the scientists in order to fit government narratives, but hey, you gotta start somewhere.

King Coal
January 12, 2022 9:39 am

Great news! Perhaps all that AGW wasted Govt cash can now be funnelled into worthwhile causes like Cancer research, more homes, less taxes, space exploration, better social care, better pensions, etc – things that actually improve life

Robber
January 12, 2022 1:29 pm

I would welcome further research into mitigation and adaptation options. That is likely to be far more productive, as Bjorn Lomborg’s studies have already indicated.

Barry James
January 12, 2022 4:25 pm

Please! Don’t just “go on strike”. Resign and keep your noses out of the conduct of our energy industries for keeps. Your destructive ideas are needed like a boil on the bum.

Paul Chernoch
January 12, 2022 6:11 pm

The gesture is disingenuous. They fear that further true research will expose the charade. I suspect that collectively, the small remaining group of scientists with objectivity are nearing a kill shot from which the AGW camp’s theories cannot recover and they know this. Perhaps a group of devastating papers are mired in the peer review process now, lurching towards publication, and the writing is on the wall. They wish to change the subject with theatrics so that when the news gets out, nobody notices.

Walter Sobchak
January 12, 2022 9:45 pm

I agree with Gospodin Glavovc, their funding should be cutoff.

I don’t think that anything should be done about the Climate because I don’t think there is a problem that needs to be solved. But, that is another story.

%d bloggers like this: