In response to David Keighley: We’re right about climate change, say the BBC – and let the facts go hang, Owen_Morgan wrote:
The very structure of the IPCC is reason to question its reliability. Since ‘climate change’ is part of its title, its existence pre-supposes that man-made global warming is a fact. Everything it does is based on that false premise. The IPCC cannot, under any circumstances, decide that it’s all a lot of fuss about nothing. There is a massive boondoggle to support.
What people often don’t realise is that the ‘World’s Top Scientists Are Saying That’ stories, beloved of lazy journalists, are derived from the IPCC summaries, which are not scientific documents at all, but intensely political ones, contrived precisely to generate the kind of ten-years-to-save-the-world headlines that have proliferated for at least three decades.
That’s not to exonerate the scientists themselves. Climate science cannot really be said to be in its infancy. It was there circa 1975 and has generally regressed since. You progress as a ‘climate scientist’ by parroting whatever your academic supervisor has said. There are numerous accounts of the suppression by the Alarmist priesthood of counter-arguments. Papers which fail to support the dogma are excluded; periodicals which publish them have been boycotted; editors and academics have been fired for heresy.
Yet the IPCC has repeatedly condoned shoddy scholarship and outright malpractice, such as editors’ citation of their own work to support the findings of IPCC report chapters, or including as evidence papers which have yet to be reviewed, or which have already been exposed as erroneous. Again and again, claims made in IPCC reports, while a lot more measured than the feverish nonsense in the political summaries, have been exposed as wildly wrong. They have survived the editorial process, nevertheless, and have frequently been passionately defended by the Alarmists (the melting of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was a classic, but a long way from unique).
As the article states, the data on which the IPCC reports and all other Alarmist claims are based are seriously skewed. This is notorious and has been so for a long time. Erratically sited individual thermometers are used to build speculative temperature trends. Adjustments are made to raw figures, invariably in a way that favours the Alarmist cause. Old temperature records are miraculously revised downwards, along with the frequency and ferocity of historical hurricanes and cyclones, while unexciting modern temperatures are bumped up and today’s storms become apocalyptic.
Then there are the computer models. These underpin a lot of Alarmism. There is a place for computer models in some disciplines, I suppose, but running a computer programme for months on a wildly costly supercomputer is a pretty circuitous way of determining the temperature. Any missing variable condemns such a model to failure; there are plenty of missing variables in the climate models. Tellingly, climate models fail even to ‘predict’ what temperatures used to be, but we’re instructed to trust them to be right about the ones which haven’t happened yet.
The article rightly praises the indefatigable Jo Nova. Donna Laframboise has also been ably demonstrating the many failings of the IPCC, for quite a few years. That this IPCC still staggers on, like the Japanese actor in the Godzilla-suit, shows not the authenticity of the climate scare, but the resilience and corruption of entrenched bureaucracy and blinkered, politically-driven ideology.