Science, Innovation, Politics
The group's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said he believes governments will look to the report for "validation ... of their own decisions" being made now.
this is burocrat speak for:Please let us know what you are going to need as conclusions in 2014 so we can be sure our rapport supports themIf the policy is right or wrong is immaterial.
The IPCC is a purely political organization -- led by government bureaucrats -- which first draws its (political) conclusions and then goes looking for “evidence” to support those conclusions.Generally speaking, they do not find their “evidence” in peer reviewed science or observational data but in deeply flawed computer models -- models which utterly fail to describe past climate change and cannot be relied upon to predict future climate change.Remember, in 1971, climate alarmist-in-chief James Hansen, warned the world “of an impending ice age within 50 years”. Of course, peer reviewed science suggests Hansen -- relying solely upon his computer model -- was off by about 49,950 years. Click here for more insight into that chapter of the Hansen saga (including a now obsolete link to the Washington Times story which I linked to).Today, both Hansen and the IPCC are still trying to scare the world with their equally flawed computer models. Aside from trying to scare us with exactly the opposite alarm, the only other difference is the alarmists now have an even more complicit and even less reliable self-described propaganda machine behind them.Click here for some basic facts and peer reviewed science on climate change.
Bad decisions you say? What are the chances that the strict vegetarian chairman of the IPCC who used his official position to advocate against eating meat will call any political action in the direction of his personal belief system wrong?Perhaps you meant what if the political decisions are not in the direction that the IPCC advocates. I call BS; politics based on Bad Science.
Roger, your past criticisms of the politicization of IPCC have frequently been incisive and persuasive. But I think you miss the mark here. Would it be better if Pachauri said that he did *not* believe politicians would look to the report to validate their current-day decisions? How does Pachauri making what on its face is a factual (not a normative) statement amount to anything but a statement of the reality we live in? Or do you think he is mistaken - that politicians will not look to the next IPCC report for validation?
-4-tentrillionI agree that Pachauri's comment is a bit ambiguous, but in the article it is in the context of the role of the IPCC, so I have interpreted it as suggesting a prescriptive role for the IPCC. I could be wrong.-2-SVBOR-I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please slow down the with frequent posts with many links. Your own blog is a good place to advance your own ideas. Thanks.
-5-Dr. Pielke,I only now saw your request that I:“slow down… [the] frequent posts with many links”Your blog, your rules. I will now comply. My apologies for any offense.That said, I have never understood the objection many seem to have with “many links” (merely substantiating the many points).The alternative is to make unsubstantiated assertions of little to no merit.Respectfully, if you ever again care to make any such request, I will see it more quickly if you leave your message on my blog (where I too moderate comments).Best Regards,SBVOR