> RUOK
Not really. I had believed everything the IPCC had told us. And thought that the trouble was the newspaper hype and the gross exaggerations by environmentalist politicians. Starting with Gore, his “collapse” of the Greenland Ice Sheet and his “refugees flooding into the United States”. Sure I was aware that Clobal Climate Models are all inaccurate because I’m an expert in computer fluid dynamics in the atmosphere, and was fully aware that climate prediction is less accurate than weather prediction.
I was aware that the overall picture presented by the IPCC first report in 1990 was a little biased. I thought that the detailed scientific work was good, just improperly emphasised in the overview.
Later, I deplored the stated complete change in IPCC policy after Kyoto where they adopted a policy to deliberately ignore all positive aspects of climate change and report only “how bad could it get”. (I read this in the introduction to the first IPCC science report after Kyoto).
But I still held on to the belief that the IPCC’s work, when it failed to correspond to reality, was an accidental oversight.
Recently, however, I’ve taken a knock to my equilibrium in realising that from the very first IPCC report, some of the scientists involved were already setting out to deliberately deceive the public. That comes as quite a shock to my system.
The 2021 IPCC report was another shock to the system. In earlier reports it was accepted that atmospheric CO2 was an important cause of global warming. At the start of the 2021 report in the executive summary, and in the radiative forcing chapter we find that they’ve changed their scientific methodology to exclude all the science, replacing it with the faulty assumption that global warming depends only on atmospheric CO2 concentration, and even then getting the mathematical description of the dependence wrong.
I conclude that the 2021 IPCC report “isn’t worth a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys”. It’s only a meta-analysis anyway, selecting scientific papers that support your bias and misquoting them for political ends. The only reference on the effect of sea level rise on coral reefs in the report for instance is a reference that has nothing whatever to do with that topic.
Accepting that the IPCC has been deliberately and successfully misleading me for 30 years upsets my equilibrium enormously. That science should be so horribly manipulated, that it tarnishes the reputation of the whole of scientific enquiry … no I’m not OK.
I’m tempted to go back through the IPCC reports to determine exactly which IPCC scientists set out to mislead the public, and which are unbiased. For example, for the 1995 IPCC report, scientists J.T. Houghton and J.M. Melillo are two that deliberatly set out to mislead the public.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
News Corp may not even know of the mass resignation protest of IPCC scientists following Kyoto.
Got a link on that?
Just so we know which mass resignation protest you are talking about.
The protest resignation was announced in New Scientist magazine in their News in Science section at the time. 1997? I read all the News in Science articles in New Scientist in those years.
No I didn’t keep a photocopy.
The news was that two thirds of the IPCC Scientists had left the IPCC. Because it had become too political.
If you want an independent check – look at the names of the IPCC scientists before and after Kyoto.
