Reply to comment
A new round of pro-global warming papers have begun to appear as the vested interests of the climate change community attempt to resuscitate their failed theory. Having been exposed as a theory full of holes, based on uncertain, perhaps even corrupt, data and overly dependent on computer modeling for “proof,” the supporters of catastrophic climate change are trying to rally. Amid mounting attacks on the IPCC, a small number of its leaders are trying to explain themselves to colleagues, the press and the people of the world. Now that their highhanded, tolerate-no-dissent approach has failed, it seems some IPCC scientists are open to compromise.
In a news maker interview in the February 12, 2010, edition of Science, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science attempted to respond to the avalanche of criticism that has engulfed the IPCC since the uncovering of the Hadley CRU emails and the discovery that many of the assertions in the AR4 report were taken from untrustworthy sources. Field has been designated co-chair of the report by Working Group 2, which will examine the impacts of a changing climate for the 2014 edition of IPCC reports. He helped write the rare public acknowledgment of error apologizing for the statement in the 2007 IPCC report that stated the Himalayan glaciers were “very likely” to melt away by 2035.
“It's clear there really wasn't a body of evidence required to assign that "very likely" term,” said Field. “It's hard for me to figure out what might be a process that would sustain the credibility that should be associated with the IPCC process,” he continued, “I must admit I don't really have a mature strategy for how we deal with [substantive] errors.” And there in lies part of the problem—the hoopla surrounding global warming has been the result of a politically motivated, haphazard process that hurriedly prepared a series of slipshod reports based on shoddy, substandard science aimed at selling the dangers of climate change to the public. That process now stands revealed as a colossal farce.
Publicly, Field continues to support IPCC chairman Raj Pachauri, saying, “I think he's tried to do the best job he can do.” Nothing like being damned with faint praise. When asked if any of the governments that fund the UN agency are upset by the recent revelations he said, “I think it's fair to say there have been some expressions of concern.” Concern, along with several calls for defunding and even the dissolution of the IPCC organization.
Phil Jones, the UK professor behind the Climategate affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organized. This contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics, said Jones in a BBC interview, but was quick to add he had not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.
Jones also agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming and that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period. These statements are welcomed by people skeptical of man-made climate change who have been insulted by IPCC scientists and government representatives. Many respectable scientists have been called flat-earthers, deniers and worse by the likes of Pachauri, Al Gore and UK Prime minister Gordon Brown.
In a letter to Science, Kevin Robert Gurney of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Purdue University stated “by demanding nothing less than rigid recipes, we have lost valuable momentum.” He offered a number of recommendations to help climate science recover from the recent publicity disaster: Leave aside the near-obsessive need to benchmark everything against the 2°C target, don't use science recommendations as a litmus test for policy success or failure, and lower the level of rhetoric.
“In short, we need agreement, even an imperfect agreement, to show a consistent and committed forward momentum,” states Gurney. “What were general scientific guideposts have become ossified deal-breakers.” Gurney, a contributing author to the IPCC, summed up his advice this way: “after the first-hand experience of the rapid crash of the Copenhagen meeting, I have changed my thinking: World leaders, please stop listening to us!” Finally some advice the world can follow.
The IPCC and its associates thought global warming was a slam dunk winning case and, because it was a sure thing, they tried to steamroller any and all opposition. But this is not how science works. All voices need to be heard: the ones that are in opposition and particularly those who point out flaws in the proffered theory. Instead of meaningful dialog, the climate change alarmists offered an atmosphere of intolerance and ridicule for any opposing view. They are now reaping the bitter harvest of their own hubris.
The upshot of all this is that climate change legislation is dead in the US Congress for the foreseeable future and public belief in the dangers of global warming has dropped world wide. Still the indecorous Rajendra Pachauri continues to spew vituperative complaints at his critics in a failed attempt to defend the indefensible. As it turns out, climate science was only “settled science” in the same sense that toxic effluent settles to the bottom of a holding tank.