Back in the wider world, regular readers will have noticed this blog rarely ventures onto the climate change topic these days. The reason for this is simple, it is not about science.
While a number of other blogs continue to expend energy on arguing with climate activists and scientists who push the alarmist narrative, pulling apart findings and assertions and countering with studies and findings from scientists who reject the alarmist creed, this blog long ago explained that such debate is a waste of time. Climate change long ago ceased to be a scientific issue, it has for a number of years been a political issue.
Several days ago this argument was bolstered by a couple of stories in the Telegraph concerning the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is due to be published on Friday. Scientists are struggling to explain why global warming has slowed to a statistically meaningless level for the last 15 years, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.
If climate change was a scientific issue the discussion about how to handle this fact, which contradicts all of the claims and projections made by climate alarmists reliant on computer models, would be exclusively between scientists. But as the Telegraph explained, other parties are actively influencing the report:
In a leaked June draft of the report’s summary from policymakers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951.
Several governments who fund the body have since complained about how the issue is tackled in the report.
Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.
The US also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler.
While Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for sceptics.
This isn’t science, this is politics.
As such, rather than waste time countering scientific claims and trying to get one over the Michael Manns of this world, the focus should be on challenging the core of the alarmist cause – the governments and politicians who are clearly directing matter for their own ends.
In a follow up story on Saturday, the Telegraph reported that:
Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the content of the report because it is still to be finalised but insisted it would provide “a comprehensive picture of all the science relevant to climate change”.
More accurately, what it will provide is a picture of the ‘science’ relevant to climate change that has been shaped to fit the desired narrative of politicians, who then use the report as an excuse for more political actions to ‘fight’ climate change – which translate into more taxes, less conventional power generation, higher energy prices and more restrictions on supply. That is what needs to be challenged. Arguing statistics and method with scientists won’t make one iota of difference.
Autonomous Mind 
Just watched the 1.00 news on the BBC. A wonk from the Met Office said that the slow down was predicted, but temperatures are still going to rise. The reporter never bothered to ask him where, in the last ten years of climate propaganda, did any model ever show that the temperature was going to plateau.
The Met Office wonk was lying. None of its models have ever predicted a slow down. When it was identified they denied it was happening.
Clearly he deserves a bonus.
I love hearing debate from both sides, as each contain persuasive elements.
Historically, science and politics have had many disagreements.
Toss in some religious and business pressure, and anything can evolve (or not).
“Only listen to advice which assists the cause”.
Anyhow, it always gives me plenty of material for my cartoons.
This is my latest . . . .
http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-775
Cheers
Mick
It was never about science, it was about claims to have found a signal in a lot of very noisy data and counter claims that this was specious or just seeing faces in the fire.
The authority of science was used as a cloak for a political agenda and to mask or force political and economic changes which we probably wouldn’t have accepted if asked.
As a political matter we could say, we accept the polar bears are drowning and all these other claims of terror at face value, but we don’t care and we don’t want anything done about it. it doesn’t matter how good it’s supposed to be for us, we don’t care.
It was all crafted to avoid the question being asked, to scare and corral us into going in the desired direction.
However, the people questioning the factual basis and authority of the claims have certainly done a fine job. Some shocking stories have come to light of academic dishonesty, complicity and slipshod rubbish being celebrated because it was on message.
The difficult part was always going to be to dismantle the machinery put in place to tackle climate change, especially since British politicians have kidded themselves they are leading the world in some way and have invested such a lot in it. The EU being in on the act adds to the burden of getting rid of it.
However, there are signs of change at an EU level.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/climate-policy-the-dam-bursts/#comments
This was never going to be as simple as Westminster turning round one day and saying, “OK, we were wrong. We’ve wasted billions on damaging the economy and causing misery. We’re scrapping the CCA, we’re getting rid of all the QUANGOs and non-jobs and scrapping the taxes”.
Part of the reason is that they have to wait for the EU.
As this is clearly a political manipulation of a ‘Supposedly scientific document’ it would be of interest, if it is available, or can be produced, a listing of the principal attendees/accredited board members/authorised editors, of the Stockholm Meeting to finalise the IPCC Report, with their credentials, bonafides, affiliations, funding sources etc.
Richard Lindzen was on (predictably) good form recently about the unhealthy relationship between science and politics:
Click to access lindzen.pdf
Recently on his nationwide talk show, host Rush Limbaugh said, “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.”
Rush is absolutely right here. There are very sound theological reasons for rejecting the theory of ‘man-made’ AGW. Either God is in control of all nature and all weather patterns – or he is merely a helpless onlooker of a world which supposedly is controlled by man. That is intellectually and biblically impossible.
I just don’t even know where to begin with the idiocy coming out of the mouths of these people now. It looks like they’re giving away professorships on the back of cereal packets now:
“The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there,” said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. “Global warming has certainly not gone away.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature
Even some governments are starting to cheep, “Cheaper! Cheaper! Too expensive! Too expensive!” when faced with the ruinous bills from renewables and mitigation in general.
Katabasis,
It’s looking horribly like the game is up, Mother Nature isn’t playing ball and the con has been seen through.
Were you to have invested in the con and owed your position to it, would you:
Suggest it hadn’t been seen through at all, blag it out a bit more as with this deep ocean heat business.
Try to redirect the scam as sustainability or biodiversity.
Try to slip away quietly.
Change the name of your organisation and hope you were overlooked and the original purpose forgotten.
Fess up.
Go over to the other side.
I doubt many will fess up or change sides.
Interesting post. It prompted a fair bit of reading. I think we need to talk in terms of the risks of man-made climate change rather than the near religious certainty that both sides of the argument tend to show.
Hopefully this debate will lead to reconsideration of the way forward. The current plan – to build renewable resources now – is costly, ineffective if developing nations do not follow suit, and may be unnecessary. Also, via its bio-fuel component, it leads to rain forest clearance.
Proper control of climate risk means turning away from short-term deployment towards R&D. We need rapid development of those few technologies with the muscle to provide significant amounts of power. They must be as cheap and reliable as possible. They could then be rapidly deployed in future in the event of global warming, global cooling, or simply shortage of fossil fuel.