Canadese 'Financial Post' fileert synthese–rapport VN–klimaatpanel

De Canadese 'Financial Post' blinkt al jaren uit in nuchtere en goed onderbouwde kritiek op de stelselmatig misleidende klimaatpropaganda van het VN-klimaatpanel (IPCC). Wat een verademing in vergelijking met de huilie huilie berichtgeving in ons land!

Onder de titel, 'Dedicated to promoting synthetic climate alarmism', schreef Peter Foster voor de Canadese 'Financial Post':

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

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 moreso 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?

En zo gaat Peter Foster nog een tijdje door. Hij wijst er vervolgens op dat het rapport is opgedragen aan wijlen Stephen Schneider, die een belangrijke, zij het uiterst dubieuze rol binnen het IPCC heeft gespeeld:

Citaat:

This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen Schneider.

Hiermee discrediteert het IPCC zich opnieuw.

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.

Lees verder hier.

Dat het IPCC dit rapport opdraagt aan de nagedachtenis van Stephen Schneider, wiens aanpak tot een dieptepunt in de wetenschap dient te worden gerekend, toont aan dat men nog niets heeft geleerd.

Het is derhalve hoog tijd dat het IPCC wordt opgeheven.

Voor het synthese-rapport zie hier.

Voor mijn eerdere DDS–bijdragen zie hier.