Skip to content

Peter Foster: IPCC – Dedicated To Promoting Synthetic Climate Alarmism

Peter Foster, Financial Post

The latest IPCC report is another example of bending science for “a good cause”

Chairman of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri attends the presentation of a report by the UN climate panel.

Chairman of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri attends the presentation of a report by the UN climate panel.

The latest synthesis report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the “capstone” of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — contains no surprises. However, it is intriguing for how it deals with the absence of warming in the past fifteen years, its timing relative to the U.S. midterm elections, and the identity of the man to whom it is dedicated — the late Stephen Schneider, a Stanford professor and proponent of bending science in pursuit of a “better world.”

The report – and even more so its “summary for policymakers” and press release – link unsupportable certainty about the science with an even less plausible faith in the possibility of a global policy agreement to curb emissions, even as emissions continue to soar.

It is filled with what eminent Canadian mathematician Christopher Essex has called “hilarious bamboozling parascientific probability language.” However, one can use the IPCC’s categorization of confidence levels to assign the likelihood of any agreement coming out of the Conference of the Parties meeting in Paris at the end of next year. Success there would come into the “exceptionally unlikely 0-1%” category. Which is not to say, of course, that the climate fandango will end.

According to the IPCC press release, “Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing… However, options are available to adapt to climate change and implementing stringent mitigations activities can ensure that the impacts of climate change remain within a manageable range, creating a brighter and more sustainable future.”

But how can human influence be “clear and growing” when that influence is meant to take place via industrial emissions of CO2, which have been growing at an increasingly rapid rate, while average global temperatures have not moved for more than fifteen years?

The report brushes this detail aside, putting it down to vague “variability” and suggesting that the “hiatus” is due to sensitivity to beginning and end dates. You see 1998 had a strong El Nino (a recurring band of warm water in the Pacific). Funnily enough, however, fifteen years ago prominent climate scientists were claiming that 1998’s heat was all about man-made global warming, not “natural” events such as El Nino. […]

This brings us to the bizarre dedication of the report to Professor Schneider. Not merely was Professor Schneider an ardent fan of global cooling forty years ago, but he is famous for his recommendation in 1989 that in order to get “loads of media coverage,” scientists had to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

What was truly scary was the effective recommendation that scientists should exaggerate or lie in what they believe to be a good cause. For the IPCC to honour him tells us a great deal about its own orientation which, fortunately, is becoming less relevant by the day.

Full post