Lets face it, FNs Klimapanel vakler

Diverse — Drokles on September 7, 2010 at 4:20 am

En “uafhængig” rapport om arbejdsgangene i FNs Klimapanel (IPCC) fremkommer med lidt velkommen kritik. New Scientist konkluderer på den baggrund bl.a.

The IPCC has tried hard to preserve the normal rules of scientific discourse and to explain continuing uncertainty, but it has been pushed towards simple sound-bite conclusions. Some of this pressure has come from the desire of many scientists to underline their concerns about the dangers the world faces. Sometimes, in the process, “could happen” has become “will happen”, and analysis has veered close to advocacy. Journalists have been willing colluders.

IPCCs egen formand Rajendra Pachauri indrømmer ganske åbent det samme i et interview med Times of India

Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making.

Ja, hvis man skal sælge en vare må man først vide, hvad kunden vil have. Matt Ridley trækker en morsom parallel i The Australian

THIS month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting videos of monkey behaviour.

The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests a body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in his field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for society are not great; no policy had been based on his research.

This week, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prizewinning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest”.

 New York Posts Matt Paterson taler da også direkte om en nedsmeltning af Klimapanelet

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over” — that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds — though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.

The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

 Eisenhower advarede i sin afskedstale om sammenblandingen af politik og videnskab: ”Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.“. Eller som Dr. Roy Spencer nærmest Churchillsk udtrykker det

Never in history have so many advocates with so little common sense held so much influence over so selfish a political class who were elected by so gullible a public for such irrelevant reasons.

Og han konkluderer

The IPCC is now at a tipping point. Will its self-destruct? Probably not. Dramatic organizational changes will be instituted, and at some point success will be declared. The IPCC will be refocused, leaner, meaner, more transparent, more open to the views of the deniers…er…I mean skeptics.

But the ultimate purpose of the IPCC will remain unchanged: to cherry pick and misuse climate science in order to eventually control humanity’s access to energy.

So, in order to put the IPCC out of its misery, it will take more than to just point out its selective use of facts and its biased science. Its demise will have to be the result of political pressure related to its biased political agenda.

And at least in the U.S., the current indications are that the citizens have had just about as much as they can take from those whose (arguable) good intentions force others to pay for paving that proverbial road to hell.

Tim Ball er heller ikke optimist og kommenterer i Canada Free Press nedslående

Nothing will change soon. Too many political, bureaucratic and academic careers are dependent on perpetuating the IPCC. Too many green industries have developed to take advantage of the billions governments have poured into alternate energies and other unworkable projects. Too many lobby groups are dependent on government funding, and use the IPCC message to shake funds out of a deceived and worried public.

Men noget vil alligevel ændre sig. Klimapanelet er ikke øverste autoritet og det er nu legitimt at fastslå. Selv om New Scientist hæfter sig ved, at der ikke er grund til kritik af den samlede forskning (misrepræsenteret, som den ellers er af IPCC ifølge dem selv) og det overordne CO2 paradigme røres der ved kernen af det påståede konsensus. Man skal kende træet på dets frugter og det er naivt at tro at man kan bevare frugterne, hvis man skifter træet ud. Klimahysteriet har mistet sin ryggrad.

2 Kommentarer »

  1. Politiken 6 september:

    Afsmeltningen fra Grønlands isdække er halvt så stort som antaget, viser satellitovervågning.

    Hidtil har forskerne antaget, at der hvert år smeltede 230 gigaton is af den grønlandske indlandsis.

    Det tal alene kan give en vandstigning på 0,75 mm om året, skriver forskere fra Det Tekniske Universitet i den hollandske by Delft.

    Men tallet er forkert, vurderer de efter at have undersøgt målinger fra satellietovervågning og gps-målinger. I virkeligheden smelter ‘kun’ halvdelen af den anslåede mængde is væk hvert år.

    Mere:

    Politiken - Forskere: Grønlands is smelter langsommere

    Comment by Balder — September 7, 2010 @ 11:54 am
  2. Ja der er store usikkerheder når man måler en foranderlig Jord. Derfor irriterer nogle politikere og aktivisters skråsikkerhed mig også grænseløst.

    Comment by Drokles — September 9, 2010 @ 7:14 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress