Everything wrong with IPCC – unwittingly told by a proponent!

The following conversation appeared at judithcurry.com in comments to the post: Paris agreement: A risk regulation perspective

The short conversation is about the following essay:

I highly recommend everyone to read that essay, and I think the following comment by Jungletrunks  explains why it is worth reading:
“The essay describes the success of IPCC through its history and evolution, yet it unwittingly reveals everything that’s wrong with the organization from the perspective of science.”
 The UNscientific method
I think the essay speaks for itself, and have no further comments than those which appeared originally at Judith Curry´s site. I just wanted to keep the conversation here for future reference and because I think it is worthy of a post.

Essay: “The Evolution of International Cooperation in Climate Science”

The essay describes the success of IPCC through its history and evolution, yet it unwittingly reveals everything that’s wrong with the organization from the perspective of science.

From the essay:
As political scientist Clark Miller (2001, 171, passim) has explained, American foreign policy-makers believed the scientific enterprise was ‘intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order.”

It was not just that gathering knowledge gave a handy excuse for creating international organizations. It’s goals from the onset were to reinforce the ideals and methods of democracy.

http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf

Thanks for the link – I´m only one page into it and I love it. 🙂
As you say, it seem to “unwittingly reveals everything that’s wrong with the organization from the perspective of science”

A favorite so far:
“The IPCC, although exceptional in the scope of its mission and effort, is not unique in its methods and outcome. In particular, a requirement for consensus, and the procedures and norms that make it workable, are found in the decision-making of many other international regimes that employ scientific research to address environmental problems.”

“…intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order.”
Superman comic political vision meets Jerry Lewis science!

Kind of goes with that photo of Al and Pachauri getting their Oslo Emmies in lieu of a real prize for actually knowing and doing stuff. Talk about cheesy and creepy.

What’s amazing is that it is the educated class which gobbles this tripe with a very big spoon. (Though a glance at any edition of Salon or the HuffPo indicates that “educated” has taken on a new meaning, more to do with snobbery and self-loathing than knowing.)

Sepp Blatter for next IPCC chairman! (Unless Berlusconi is available, of course.)

  • “What’s amazing is that it is the educated class which gobbles this tripe with a very big spoon.”

    This essay is the typical fodder that serves as the basis for screeds typically found on Huffpost et al; nothing more than byproducts from the monolithic group think cookie cutters of higher education.

    Interestingly this type of thinking results from lack of viewpoint diversity in higher education, the subject of the previous thread.

    So now the elite left are comfortable with using the moniker of science to leverage their views of what a new world order should be. This is really all that the IPCC represents, the wedding of political science to science, and now we battle its offspring on this blog.

     

What do you think about this paragraph:

“All the organizational work for weather prediction did little to connect the scattered specialists in diverse fields who took an interest in climate change. A better chance came in the mid 1950s, when a small band of scientists got together to push international cooperation to a higher level in all areas of geophysics. They aimed to coordinate their data gathering and—no less important—to persuade their governments to spend an extra billion or so dollars on research. The result was the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–58.”

Now consider this; the “extra billion or so dollars on research” is in 1957 dollars, factor in inflation and multiply that number by the number of countries signed on as signatories to the concept; then further multiply this by about 50 years. And the left complains about the 10s of millions in fossil fuel influence; it would be hilarious if it weren’t so myopic, these people are tragically misinformed relative to governmental influence peddling using big money that could only a government could spend on that sort of scale, this synergistically leveraged with politics. What would the total of the amounts spent by global governments amount to to this date? I’d love to see some analysis on that, but only if I was close to a bar.

  • The next paragraph, it just keeps getting better:

    “IGY with its unprecedented funding was energized by a mixture of altruistic hopes and hard practical goals. Scientists expected in the first place to advance their collective knowledge and their individual careers. The government officials, who supplied the money, while not indifferent to pure scientific discovery, expected the new knowledge would have civilian and military applications. The U.S. and Soviet governments further hoped to win practical advantages in their Cold War competition. It is a moot question whether, in a more tranquil world, governments would have spent so much to learn about seawater and air around the globe. For whatever motives, the result was a coordinated effort involving several thousand scientists from sixty-seven nations (Needell, 2000, ch. 11; Greenaway, 1996, ch. 12).”

  • And this one:
    “A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences”

    I think the essay you linked to above, written by a proponent of IPCC, is essential reading for opponents to United Nations climate panel IPCC.

     

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s