Analysis: What was the UN IPCC AR4 in 2007 Most Certain About? ‘There appears to be about 10 unique findings that were expressed with a 95% or greater likelihood’
…Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: Revisiting the ‘Consistent With’ Canard — ‘Just don’t use ‘consistent with’ in stretching to link particular extremes with human-caused climate change. It is pure spin’
Excerpt: “…it is meaningful to proclaim that the extreme rainfall observed in Colorado several weeks ago are “consistent with” predictions of more intense rainfall associated with human-caused climate change.
Long-time readers will know that I believe the use of the phrase “consistent with” in this context is a canard and devoid of substance. Here is an example using exactly such a construction related to the Colorado floods.
UN IPCC EMERGENCY! SEND IN THE PHILOSOPHERS: ‘The IPCC climate brigade has a new secret climate weapon up its sleeve: philosophy. Call it ‘anything but the science’
Now the IPCC has a new secret weapon up its sleeve: philosophy. One of the lead authors for the IPCC’s Working Group III, which looks at mitigation, is Oxford Professor of Moral Philosophy John Broome.
It is unlikely that you have heard of Professor Broome. However, you will have heard of the 2006 Stern Review. Some of that review’s most controversial calculations appear to have been rooted in the ethical assumptions of Professor Broome.
Professor Broome’s thinking can be seen in an article he wrote for Scientific American in 2008. In it, he praised Lord Stern’s reasoning. But in fact the reasoning seems to have been his own, since he was acknowledged as a contributor to the Review, and wrote a study for it.
Was that ethical?
Professor Broome made clear in his article is that he is less of a moral philosopher than a moralist looking for sophistic rationalizations — a David Suzuki or George Monbiot in a toga. Mr. Broome is an expert at masking socialist principles behind conceptual flim flam such as “prioritarianism,” a God-like weighing by “society” of benefits to rich and poor. (When Maggie Thatcher said there was “no such thing as society,” this is what she was talking about).…