torsdag 4 november 2010

The End of IPCC

Judith Curry makes in Reversing the Direction of the Positive Feedback Loop an analysis of IPCC which can only mean that the end of IPCC is near:
  • At the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.  
  • These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy.  
  • Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced  and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
  • When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.  
  • Who are these priests of the IPCC?  Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. 
  • These scientists  have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers.  
  • This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science.  
  • Eager for the publicity,  high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.
  • While the IPCC priests loudly cry out against the heretical skeptical scientists and the dark influences of big oil and right wing ideology that are anti-science, we all join in bemoaning these dark forces that are fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics. 
  • The media also bought into this, by eliminating balance in favor of the IPCC dogma.
  • So do I think these priests of the IPCC are policy advocates? They are mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has  become central to their professional success, funding, and influence.  
  • Supporting the emissions and stabilization policies that they think logically follows from the science is part and parcel of this.  Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view the policy as part an parcel of the IPCC dogma that must be protected and preserved at all cost, else their success, funding and influence will be in jeopardy.
No organization can survive such an analysis. And politics and media has no pardon for a star showing weakness. Will IPCC survive another year after Climategate? Nixon was out of office two years after Watergate. 

  • IPCC is the leading body for the assessment of climate change. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.  
  • By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. 
In short: IPCC assesses and governments endorse and acknowledge,  and non-IPCC scientists have no role. It is a closed self-propelling perpetuum mobile (running on tax money). But a government can change mind over one short Election Day...

  • 1 kommentar:

    1. "...the dark influences of big oil and right wing ideology that are anti-science...we all join in bemoaning these dark forces that are fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics."

      No. This is an incompetent statement. There is no war against science. No competent scientist can support the IPCC against its critics. The thermodynamic lapse rate directly disproves the "greenhouse effect", confirming instead that the IR absorbed and emitted by atmospheric gases is just heat energy, and can only move heat in the atmosphere more efficiently--it cannot warm, it cannot slow down. Curry, Spencer, Monckton, etc, who all believe in a measurable "greenhouse effect", are as positively stupid on this point as are the AGW alarmists. The only salvageable aspect of the atmospheric greenhouse theory can come from pointing to the slightly different specific heat of co2, not to its absorption (and emission!) of IR radiation. And at 400 ppm, that slight difference can have no effect whatsoever on the temperature at any point in the atmosphere. The war is against incompetence in science, not against science, and it is honest, competent scientists like myself and Claes Johnson who are pursuing that just war, not evil forces of darkness. Science itself depends on us winning that war, because the incompetence is deeply entrenched today, across all of the sciences, particularly those which deal with the Earth.