Monthly Archives: March 2010

The IPCC Must Go-Part 3: The Whitewash


With much fanfare, the UN says the IPCC will submit to independent review of “procedures and practices”.  The leader of this review will be Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, head of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dijkgraaf says that his mandate is not to look at past mistakes but to ensure that the IPCC’s next report, its fifth, on the state of climate will be accepted by the public and scientific community. (Emphasis added by Cbdakota). This is a whitewash, not intended to validate the science of man-made global warming (AGW) so badly shattered by Climategate and a myriad of errors in the  2007 IPCC AR4.  He will see that the process is correct, not if the science is correct.  So he may be on his way to Paris, when Berlin should be his destination but he can say with confidence that he stayed within the speed limit and obeyed all road signs.

He intends to get ten top scientists to do the review. You can bet that no one that would have interest in challenging the AGW theory will be part of his panel.  So neither Linzen nor Idso nor Soon nor Spencer nor any other of the distinguished skeptical scientists will have to sit by a telephone so as to not miss the call from Dijkgraaf to join his panel.   For that matter, Steve McIntyre, a man who could keep those ten scientists honest, wont be asked to participate, either.

IPCC must go.  The UN is not willing to appoint a panel of that has warmers and skeptic to review the validity of the science.  That would be risking the death of the entire carbon control gravy train.   So, once again, you see them putting bandages on the corpse in hopes no one notices.

See also IPCC Must Go:Part 1

and        IPCC Must Go:Part 2, Global Temperature Manipulation

Cbdakota

Advertisements

Apocalypse Fatigue


Before we get back to the task of showing why the IPCC must go, lets looks at the Weekly Standard’s takedown of the AGW climate campaign.

The Weekly Standard’s posting  is titled “In Denial-The meltdown of the climate campaign.  It is a tour de force by Steven Hayward.  It is comprehensive at some six pages long. I have selected some of the notable sections for you:

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work and facing calls for a serious shakeup. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the self-serving coalition of environmentalists and big business hoping to create a carbon cartel, is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress. Meanwhile, the climate campaign’s fallback plan to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the cumbersome Clean Air Act is generating bipartisan opposition.

Al Gore is in for some scathing comments:

Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress.

How are the AGWers holding up in this storm of criticism?

The rout has opened up serious divisions within the formerly closed ranks of the climate campaign. Before Climategate, expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming typically got the hefty IPCC report thrown in your face along with the mantra that “2,500 of the world’s top scientists all agree” about climate change. Now the IPCC is being disavowed like a Mission Impossible team with its cover blown.

And:

As Gore put it in his February 28 Times article, “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.” I note in passing that the 2007 Working Group I report uses the terms “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in its 987 pages, including what it identified as 54 “key uncertainties” limiting our mastery of climate prediction.

This central pillar of the climate campaign is unlikely to survive much longer, and each repetition of the “science-is-settled” mantra inflicts more damage on the credibility of the climate science community. The scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal at East Anglia University, Phil (“hide the decline”) Jones dealt the science-is-settled narrative a huge blow with his candid admission in a BBC interview that his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated, that the medieval warm period may have been as warm as today, and that he agrees that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years—all three points that climate campaigners have been bitterly contesting. And Jones specifically disavowed the “science-is-settled” slogan.

Are the skeptics at fault?

The climate campaign camp followers are exhausting their invective against skeptics. Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs wrote in the Guardian that climate skeptics are akin to tobacco scientists—some of the same people, in fact, though he gave no names and offered no facts to establish such a claim. In the Los Angeles Times Bill McKibben compared climate skeptics to O.J. Simpson’s “dream team” of defense attorneys able to twist incontrovertible scientific evidence. Not to be outdone, Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) compared climate skeptics to appeasers of Hitler in the 1930s, a comparison, to be sure, that Al Gore has been making since the early 1990s, but Sanders delivered it with his patented popping-neck-veins style that makes you worry for his health.

In addition to being a sign of desperation, these ad hominem arguments from the climate campaigners also make clear which camp is truly guilty of anti-intellectualism. Gore and the rest of the chorus simply will not discuss any of the scientific anomalies and defects in the conventional climate narrative that scientists such as Christy have pointed out to the IPCC.

What about “Apocalypse Fatigue”:

The lingering question is whether the collapse of the climate campaign is also a sign of a broader collapse in public enthusiasm for environmentalism in general. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two of the more thoughtful and independent-minded figures in the environmental movement, have been warning their green friends that the public has reached the point of “apocalypse fatigue.” They’ve been met with denunciations from the climate campaign enforcers for their heresy. The climate campaign has no idea that it is on the cusp of becoming as ludicrous and forlorn as the World -Esperanto Association.

This is really a good read and you can see it in its entirety by clicking here.

Cbdakota