A MUST SEE interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, featuring Professor Judith Curry who has recently quit her position as the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Her reasoning is simple yet so very damaging and dangerous, not only to “climate science” but to the fate of all “sciences”. Her resignation is to do with, not only being vilified by colleagues for having a sceptical (scientific) view of “climate change”, but importantly the ongoing ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.
This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
The systemic failure self-perpetuates :
- Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
- How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935
The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.
MUST SEE interview between Tucker Carlson and Dr. Curry here:
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | Climatism
- Climate money: Monopoly science « JoNova (Judith Curry IPCC Update) | Climatism
- Climate Etc. – Dr Curry Website
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
“we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.” – Richard Lindzen on the broken field of ‘climate science’…
Natural scientists have sought to understand the workings of the climate system and its various parts. But in recent decades the process of discovery has been subverted, and the science is going in circles. Richard Lindzen tells how it came to this in his essay: Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?
As you might guess, the title is a rhetorical question. From his long and deep experience with the field, Richard Lindzen can and does describe in detail how and why climatology is failing as a natural science. The machinations and convolutions bring to mind the quotation:
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
– Otto von Bismarck
Perhaps because the field was contaminated with political aims early on, the whole enterprise has come to resemble a legislative process:
Lindzen sets the record straight with names and maneuvers which have crippled…
View original post 419 more words
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
March 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Many environmental organizations employ people whose sole purpose is to raise awareness about global warming. The more effective they are at convincing the public there’s an urgent problem, the more money these organizations receive in donations.
Activists are therefore the furthest thing from neutral parties. They have a right to participate in discussions about climate change, but we all need to understand that when they do so they are advancing an agenda.
Since agendas and science don’t mix, environmentalists should keep their distance from activities that are supposed to be scientific. Their mere presence undermines the integrity of the research. It casts a shadow over the data and calls into question the conclusions.
But activists have not kept their distance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even though this body claims to be a scientific organization. Nor has the IPCC taken steps to safeguard its reputation by keeping a strict separation between itself and green groups.
This is perhaps best illustrated by a Greenpeace climate change publication that appeared in early 2007. The foreword to this document, which focused on New Zealand, was written by none other than Rajendra Pachauri. At the end of his remarks, beside his photograph, he is identified not as a private individual expressing private opinions but as the chairman of the IPCC.
I’ve mentioned previously that the fact that Richard Klein worked as a Greenpeace campaigner at age 23 was no impediment to the IPCC appointing him a lead author at age 25. I’ve also drawn attention to the fact that some of those who’ve served as IPCC expert reviewers are actually Greenpeace employees.
But the cozy relationship doesn’t end there. Bill Hare has been a Greenpeace spokesperson since 1992. By 2000 he was climate policy director for Greenpeace International. According to various Greenpeace blog posts he is “a legend” in that organization, served as its chief climate negotiator in 2007, and remains a chief policy advisor. Yet none of this has prevented him from being nominated – and chosen – to fill senior IPCC roles.
In 2000 policy director Hare served as an expert reviewer for an influential IPCC emissions scenarios document. When the 2007 edition of the climate bible was released, we learned that he’d served as a lead author, that he’d been an expert reviewer for 2 out of 3 sections of the report (see here and here), and that he was one of a select group of only 40 people who comprised the “core writing team” for the important Synthesis Report.
UPDATE 7 Jan. 2013: Morgan’s online bio has changed since this blog post was written. It no longer contains the key clause: “acting as chief spokesperson for the organization on climate change.” The old version of her bio has been backed up here. A screencap may be seen here.
My upcoming book has a section titled Why We Can’t Trust AR5. The last major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007. It’s known as the Fourth Assessment Report – or AR4 for short.
The latest edition, AR5, is expected to completed in 2013. Its personnel were announced by the IPCC last June. By then that organization had already been wounded by the Himalayan glacier scandal, which involved faulty information published in a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) document. A few critics had also, by that time, shone light on the IPCC’s not infrequent use of literature produced by organizations such as the WWF and Greenpeace.
But the IPCC, it has been observed, is a slow learner. If this were not the case there’s no way it would have appointed Jennifer Morgan as an AR5 review editor.
According to its marketing department, the IPCC is a scientific body that writes scientific reports. If that were strictly true, it’s unclear why AR5 is going to devote an entire chapter to International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments.
for source document, click image & see p. 26 of the 27-page PDF
According to IPCC mythology, those involved in this historic report-writing exercise are the world’s top scientists and best experts. Morgan is a perfect example of how this is utter nonsense. For several years she was the WWF’s chief spokesperson on climate change. She led its Global Climate Change Program and headed its delegation to the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.
Prior to that, Morgan worked for the Climate Action Network (according to her online bio, it’s a collection “of over 200 environmental groups worldwide with eight regional offices”). Currently she’s employed by the World Resources Institute (Al Gore is on its board). In other words, Morgan is not one of the world finest scientific minds. She is a professional activist.
As recently as 10 months ago the IPCC recruited her to help prepare a report that is supposed to be objective, rigorous, and balanced. If previous media coverage is anything to judge by, once it’s released we’ll all be told this report should be considered Holy Writ since “this is what the world’s scientific community thinks”.
Honestly, these people have no shame.
Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?
Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies
MUST MUST SEE VIDEO »
Laframboise and Topher ~ two superb communicators discuss the scandalous truth about the UN’s IPCC. If nothing else in the climate debate has shocked you, the information in this video most definitely will.
50 to 1 VIDEO PROJECT – Topher interviews Donna Laframboise, former journalist turned investigative author. Donna has critiqued the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s claims about itself, its authors and its peer review process, and found them very VERY wanting…
via Real Science
Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim
Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice’s working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was “speculative”.
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.
James Delingpole explains the IPCC methodology :
So, to recap: in the course of a garbled phone conversation a scientist accidentally invents a problem that doesn’t exist. This gets reported as if gospel in an influential Warmist science magazine and repeated by a Warmist NGO, before being lent the full authority of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report which, as we know, can’t be wrong because it is vetted by around 2,500 scientists. Then, on the back of this untrue story, the scientist gets a cushy job at the institution whose director is also in charge of the IPCC.
via Real Science
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s. That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
They are so sure, that Kevin Trenberth sent this letter out :
They can’t explain the lack of warming, but they are 95% sure that the warming they aren’t seeing is caused by man.
James Hansen wrote this in 1999.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
Must See YouTube – The Bias Of The IPCC
United Nations and IPCC Related :
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
- U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy | TheBlaze.com
- IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | CACA
- United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty | CACA
- UN Agenda 21 Links | CACA
- Row over IPCC report as nations ‘try to hide lack of climate change’ – Telegraph
- Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | CACA
- Shock News : The Climate Lunatics Are Still Firmly In Charge Of The Asylum | CACA
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | CACA
- UTTER INSANITY: Spending $160b to cut the temperature by 0.00005 degrees
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- UN-Settled Science
- A cooling consensus
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- Scientists talking about no warming
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong
- UN Agenda 21 Links
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
- Déjà Vu : Himalayan glaciers to melt (again) by 2035! | CACA