The Power Dynamics of Climate Change Research
In the realm of climate change science, it appears that a select few wield significant power. As highlighted in Jessica Weinkle’s article, there’s a concentrated influence in the hands of a handful of individuals. These individuals not only shape the narrative but also control the trajectory of global climate change research.
“In a video of an April IPCC scenario workshop, a panel discussion argued that the IPCC does not have any scenarios it merely assess scenarios. Professor Tejal Kanitkar called it out as nonsense in practice. There are too many (i.e. a powerful few) who design, select, and prioritize scenarios while also being influential authors of IPCC reports.”
The Bottleneck in Global Climate Change Research
The symbolic power of the IPCC seems to be exacerbating a significant bottleneck in global climate change research. This bottleneck is further intensified by the organization of careers and research trajectories around the development of assessment reports.
“Global climate change research suffers from a rather significant bottleneck and the symbolic power of the IPCC exacerbates the issue by organizing careers and research trajectories around the development of assessment reports.”
The Role of ScenarioMIP
ScenarioMIP, or the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project, plays a pivotal role in the selection and prioritization of scenarios used in climate change science. Its influence is so profound that it’s challenging to overstate its importance in shaping our understanding of climate and climate policy.
“In its selection and prioritization of scenarios, ScenarioMIP has profound implications for climate research and policy. It is hard to overstate how important the work of this small group is for how we ultimately think about climate and climate policy.”
The CMIP Influence
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) stands as a global bottleneck for climate change projections. Its influence is so vast that it’s described as one of the foundational elements of climate science.
“By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current, and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the foundational elements of climate science.”
The IAMC and Its Growing Interdependency with the IPCC
The Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC) was created in response to an IPCC call in 2007. Its role? To lead the IAM community in the development of new scenarios used by climate modelers.
“The Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC) was created in response to an IPCC call in 2007 for a research organization to lead the IAM community in the development of new scenarios used by climate modelers.”
The Concentration of Power
One of the most striking revelations from the article is the overlap of individuals involved in various committees related to climate change research. This overlap suggests a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
“It’s the same people over and over again. This is concentrated power; a handful of people that shape the entire world of climate change research.”
The Need for Structural and Cultural Change
The article concludes with a call for structural and cultural change, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in the decision-making processes related to climate change research.
“This is not a problem that is resolved by a systematic pursuit of knowledge developed through a new research program, as Skea suggests. It is a problem that is addressed through structural and cultural change.”
It’s essential to understand the underlying power dynamics that shape the narrative. The article by Jessica Weinkle sheds light on these dynamics, revealing a concentrated influence in the hands of a select few. As with any scientific endeavor, transparency, accountability, and a diversity of voices are crucial for ensuring that the research serves the greater good and not just a select few.
The IPCC had its Lysenko moment when they embraced Michael Mann and MBH98 in their 2000 report. Advocacy was clearly their goal, and being obvious about it did not matter anymore.
That was the point where the IPCC lost all scientific credibility.
not to mention that a former UNIPCC head stated in a public speech that the environmental movement was more about the destruction of capitalism than the climate – that pretty much did it for me
all?
It never had much credibility to start with.
Now he is screaming again with this new article where he is making wild statements:
World is releasing greenhouse gases at level unprecedented in geologic history, scientist says
LINK
Latest Planetary Savior candidate Dr. Mann on the loose with his hyperbole. And lies.
BREAKING: Climate modeling groups are influential in the development of climate models. News at 7:00.
BREAKING: People that build junk are influential in hiding the fact that their product is junk.
And they are also wasting resources running models with scenarios that are impossible (RCP8.5) yet are the default for the climate crisis porn that passes for scientific research and literature these days.
That is because they are not here for the science but to generate compliance in what must be accepted through the pretentious science research, they publish every 5 years despite that they have been saying the “science is settled” for many years thus this is actually politically generated paradigm being promulgated onto the world.
Yes – definitely politically generated, as the executive summary is always “the end is near, the world is going to end unless we immediately take drastic action” even if the underlying scientific reports (that are supposed to be summarized for the idiot politicians in the executive summary) are quite calm.
I remember awhile back the internet was a buzz about the ice sheets in Antarctica become unstable and there was various articles pretending to explain things and show how we must take immediate action.
Actually reading through the research I learned that if things continue as they are, the Antarctic ice sheets would indeed become unstable… in 700 years!
RCP8.5 was not impossible when it was being used in CMIP experiments. It is not impossible even today, just very unlikely because we do not live in a “no-climate-action” world. And there is value in examining extreme cases, not just from a risk management standpoint, but because using an extreme case can accelerate climate response so you can more easily study changes that might otherwise require longer model runs to see.
There are a couple of papers around that argue the assumptions made in RCP8.5 are internally inconsistent, i.e. impossible.
I’d add that a number of independent assumptions were nominally at <10% likelihood even on the no action assumption (remember it was a conservative BAU scenario). A few of those and the chances of them occurring all at once becomes vanishingly small.
Why does it exist? Just because 8.5 was representative of what some modellers were using as a high end assumption, i.e. not based in any physical reality.
Now this can be useful for stress testing models but it has no use in risk management/policy work. A nigh impossible scenario (vanishingly small likelihood) by a high but not extreme cost tells us little of use for policy work, and is as we are seeing, downright dangerous. It creates the crisis narrative.
If you are trying to manage responses to black swans there are much better ways to evaluate these, and it would be foolhardy to think that an extreme scenario is the same as a more mainstream scenario over a longer term, even in model world.
RCP8.5 was designed to be representative of the 90th percentile of baseline scenarios from a literature review, it was intended as the absolute most upper limit of extremes. Essentially a world where no climate policy was ever enacted. It’s unrealistic because we don’t live in such a world, we live in a world where lots of climate policies have been enacted.
It exists because we need to be able to bookend all possible emissions scenarios – it is impossible to anticipate how humans are going to behave in the future, so instead of trying to do the impossible we instead try to identify the two extremes (the least humans could do and the most humans could do to reduce emissions), and we expect reality to fall somewhere in between them. Most likely. It’s not just about stress-testing models, but about encompassing the entire range of possibilities. That’s how we can be informed for policymaking decisions. Cutting out low-probability high-consequence scenarios just leaves you with less information to base decisions on.
“ just leaves you with less information to base decisions on.”
Ah.. so create more absolutely bullcrap…
… so you have more absolute bullcrap…. ok
Now that is funny !
And highly scientific… not
—-
Sorry, but computer games DO NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION. !!!
This is what science illiterates writes because the 8.5 SCENARIO is generated fiction nothing more which is all he can understand.
No, Riahi et al were set the task of coming up with a scenario that would produce a forcing of 8.5w/m2. This covered off the levels of forcing that the modelling community had been using.
To quote https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z “The four RCPs together span the range of year 2100 radiative forcing values found in the open literature, i.e. from 2.6 to 8.5 W/m2.”
That is what I just said. RCP8.5 represents the 90th percentile of forcing values in the literature.
“90th percentile of forcing values in the literature.”
So it is based on arrant nonsense and faked anti-science.
Thanks.
You keep saying the same thing….
You said “designed to be representative of the 90th percentile of baseline scenarios from a literature review”, you correct to “90th percentile of forcing values in the literature.” Can you tell the difference?
While we are on this topic, where can I see those 8.5 W/m^2? Can I measure them? (assuming the concentration pathway were to occur as described)
More by good luck than good management, CO2 sinks have reduced the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be quite a close match RCP 4.5.
You actually believe that governments can apply interventions to stop the hundreds of climates around the world from changing?
By soaking taxpayers for $billions and giving it to “renewables” snake-oil hucksters?
If you subscribe to Disney’s First Law (Wish and it will come true.) then nothing is impossible. However, “improbable” is about as close to “impossible” as one is going to get in the real world.
Thanks for acknowledging that RCP8.5 is a possible scenario. Cheers.
Yep, just like The Big Bad Wolf, or the Wicked Witch.
Are you SCARED now ?
Hawking claimed that one could spontaneously turn into a television set.
I beleive that RCP 8.5 is of the same ilk.
You completely fail to understand what the article is about because you are clueless to what is going on in the climate science world.
Climate modelling groups are influential in creating scenarios that push an alarmist, hysterical view of climate thermageddon. If they used modern climate estimates the scenarios would be far less scary – even running hot they would take 2-300 years to reach the levels the scenarios outline for the end of this century. The IPCC sets itself the task of creating false propaganda that the UN can push to advance its agenda – it’s a con job set up by Maurice Strong and his cronies.
Proving models to be junk hasn’t worked.
That’s the media stranglehold
The media reports what it wants to report. Junk News is fake news. No one has to prove it, it is self evident as their market share continues to evaporate.
Article referral – about leftists in general –
Give them a little government money. Promise them that you’ll redistribute other people’s paychecks directly into their food bowls. Pat them on the head with supercilious compliments such as “we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Assure them that they’ll “save the world” by gluing themselves to the asphalt of public highways in protest of hydrocarbon fuels, so that wealthy corporate bankers can make windfall profits on otherwise uneconomic “green” energies.” Condition them with poor schooling and overt indoctrination to believe that freedom is “dangerous” and that government is “sacred.” Encourage them to assume that anybody who cherishes liberty is really a “racist,” a “religious extremist,” or a Nazi fascist. Give them enough government cookies so that they never think to question how people who do not want Big Government in their private lives could be “fascists” who believe Big Government should control all our lives. Yank them on the collar should they try to walk in a different direction from those who hold their leash. Reward them for barking and biting anyone outside the pack.
Read more:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/leftists_make_great_pets_but_lousy_leaders.html#ixzz8CdW0bYJJ
It looks like the triumph of Trotsky to me – right down to “I’m the good guy” narrative. Global socialist government under the enlightened leadership of the party and the intellectuals. No wonder they hate Putin so much!!
Lefties live in a constant state of fear.
Not really fear of the things they loudly claim are about to end humanity, but rather their real fear of inadvertently saying or doing something that will contradict the “progressive” narrative, and consequently get them brutally ‘canceled’ by their cult keepers.
Climate Science then Covid Science. I’m just waiting for Orwell to become fiction again.
MOFA?
I followed your burningplatform link in an earlier post and it explains
this one to a tee…very worth reading.
So really, the truth about climate science, models in general, artificial intelligence etc. etc. has been known for decades: Garbage In, Garbage Out. And that will never change.
There are about 1 CO2 molecule per 2500 air molecules. The oceans are about 2000 times the mass of the air, so that is about 1 air molecule per 2000 water H2O molecules. That is about 1 CO2 molecule per 5 million water molecules.
The CO2 molecules are being warmed by the Earth’s surface which is about 57 degrees F or 14 C. The average temperature of the oceans is about 20 degrees C or 68 F.
The colder CO2 can’t warm a warmer ocean. Putting an ice cube in a glass of water doesn’t warm the water up. Heat travels from warm to cold. It is also impossible for 1 CO2 molecule to significantly warm up 5 million ocean CO2 molecules, even if the CO2 molecules were a couple of degrees warmer than the ocean H20 molecules, which they are not.
It is all a bunch of nonsense.
The main energy flow is that the Sun warms the Earth’s surface and oceans and they warm the air.
NRLTSI2 Yearly Averages clearly show that Solar Irradiance(the energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth) has been at its highest level over the last 50 years of any time since year 1610. That is what is warming the air.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/ LISIRD data NRLTSI2 Yearly Averages https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/nrl2_tsi_P1Y
That should read “5 million ocean H20 water molecules”. Sorry for the typo.
There is a lot more in sea water than just water and CO2. It contains suspended mineral particles and phytoplankton, and about 3.5% dissolved salts.
Yes, the relatively few molecule of CO2 would have to warm up them as well.
Dr. Hansen made hilariously incorrect modelled prediction in 1986, LINK
That is an actual quote from the overrated scientist…..
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW, how can anyone take these stupid climate models seriously when they are so far off the mark.
LOL. Ridiculous Hansen!
I was recently sitting in my dentist’s office, waiting to have my teeth cleaned. I noticed an old copy of Time Magazine in the magazine shelf, proclaiming information on the worlds most important ‘influencers.’ Since I haven’t read Time for years, I decided to flip through out of curiosity. There were very few people I recognized! I decided that, more than informing, Time was attempting to validate and promote those who they wanted to have more visibility and credence.
I basically quit reading Time Magazine, decades ago, when the editors announced that they were no longer going try to have balance in their articles about guns, rationalizing that other sources were sufficiently objective that they didn’t have to be. It appears that things haven’t changed.
“ScenarioMIP, or the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project, plays a pivotal role in the selection and prioritization of scenarios used in climate change science. Its influence is so profound that it’s challenging to overstate its importance in shaping our understanding of climate and climate policy.”
This is just nonsense. A scenario is just a scenario. They have an important role in that CMIP is a big activity, and it is important that they use a standard set. But the scenarios themselves, for all the fuss that is made, are just the best guess at what might transpire under various degrees of effort to control GHGs. It wouldn’t make much difference if we were still using Hansen’s A, B and C.
Scenario selection is important in the sense that rail gauge selection is important. It doesn’t matter whether you choose 4’8½” or 1.5m. The important thing is to be coordinated.

“The important thing is to be coordinated.”
Yep Nick , we are all well aware that the whole AGW scam is JUST NONSENSE.
Coordinated fakery is always important in scams.
Thanks for admitting all the billions of dollars wasted is based on a “best guess” from a bunch of scientifically illiterate computer game programmers.
Why are climate scenarios needed at all?
Geology has revealed what has happened to the world under differing conditions throughout epochs.
So why don’t we just look to the past, and use our clever technology and engineering to adapt accordingly?
(or aren’t we as smart as we think we are?)
Good idea. A couple of degrees of warming would be good, some more CO2, good. Therefore everything is just fine, so lets save some cash by sacking all these doom mongers, in fact the whole of the UN. They don’t help me in any way and probably not you either. In fact their total failure with anything (covid, Ukraine, viruses, poverty, famine, anything else) indicates what a good idea this would be.
Charles,
Your article leads to many doors to open. One of them is the “follow the money” theme.
….
Two months ago, you kindly published this article of mine on WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/corruption-of-science-by-money-and-power/
Therefore, to follow up your article by honing in on likely targets, I searched for ties between Rockefeller Foundation and the highlighted people on the IAMC steering Committee such as Detlef van Vuuren, from the main article that you quote, by Jessica Weinkle.
…
The congregation of powerful people to which you refer is interwoven as expected. Some of these IPCC senior people have worked on projects funded by Rockefeller. It was therefore of interest to explore these links more deeply.
….
It turns out that this theme has already been researched by John Spritzler. Short bio follows.
John Spritzler is an academic researcher from Harvard University.
Other affiliations: Northwestern University, University of Texas Medical Branch, Drexel University
He has contributed to research in topics: Lymphocyte & Viral load. The author has
an hindex of 33, co-authored 59 publications receiving 4428 citations.
….
John Spritzler ‘s article is a highly rcommended read.(51 minutes). It covers far more gropund that the Rockefeller influence while explaining concentrations of wealth and power driving climate change movements. Geoff S
….
https://medium.com/@jspritzler/why-does-the-rockefeller-family-fund-want-you-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-bc8ae4fa7b95