The Best Science Politics Can Manufacture: UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth says that over the next few weeks, the IPCC report will ‘change a lot’ as ‘government representatives’ engage in ‘a war of sorts’ over what gets emphasized and what gets dismissed
[Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR] “But how these things get portrayed, and the wording used to describe them, may change, to try to make it more clear. The caveat is that that’s not the final version.”
That was seconded by Trenberth — who has attended the IPCC sessions in the past but won’t be doing so this year.
“It’s going to change a lot,” he said. “How it gets said, and the wording, and what gets emphasized and what gets dismissed is decided by the government representatives. And there is usually a war of sorts that goes on in that room, between governments who are determined to have a clear and accurate report, and some governments who are trying to muddy the language and downgrade the language.
“For the 1990, ’95 and 2001 reports, the main countries that were working to obfuscate and diminish the language were the OPEC countries, led by Saudi Arabia,” Trenberth said. “And the 2007 report, the country with a strong delegation and strong objections was China, backed up by Saudi Arabia.
“There is supposed to be unanimous consensus. And that is very hard to achieve.”
The struggle to reach consensus, Trenberth said, “is an interesting process, but it’s a brutal process. The chair has to have an amazingly robust bladder.”…
Hurricane Activity Is At Its Lowest – Despite CO2
…Warmists fail to intimidate CNBC into silencing skeptic hero Joe Kernen
…UN IPCC’s 95% certainty challenged: ‘What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?’
…Warmest Andrew Freedman Mocked for Climate Claims:
…‘Consensus police’: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry reveals scientists trying to ‘stifle skeptical research’: ‘Scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics’
Curry is the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Also see: ‘Flashback 2010: ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’
Excerpts from Dr. Judith Curry’s report on scientific intimidation in global warming research: (Via Tom Nelson)
When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.
…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. 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.
…
So do I think IPCC scientists are policy advocates? They seem mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has become central to their professional success, funding, and influence. Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view …