The Media’s Collusion in the IPCC’s Irrational Fifth Assessment Conclusions
I am a big fan of the stand-out US sitcom Seinfeld; not least the character “Kramer”. What, among Kramer’s many quirks, fascinated his fellow characters most was his ability to operate “without any visible means of support”. It’s a life principle on which, as its just published (September 27) Fifth Climate Assessment report reveals, the UN IPCC heavily relies.
Unfortunately, the report’s series of gravity-defying headline assertions are currently being repeated parrot-fashion by much of the mainstream media (MSM). This morning (September 27) I awoke to network independent UK radio news informing me that the IPCC now concluded – with 95 rather than (as formerly) only 90 percent certainty – that global warming is man’s fault. Well I nearly fell out of bed laughing. I mean, not a word about the down-to-earth reality that there has actually been no global warming whatsoever for over a decade and a half. At breakfast I checked in at the BBC news site to read an equally uncritical report headlining that man is the “dominant cause” of global warming. That’s the warming that…er… isn’t actually happening, remember. Well I nearly choked on my wheaties. I mean so much levity at this hour? It can’t be good for the digestion, can it?
A few moments checking online and yep…the usual greenie MSM suspects were all faithfully ‘waving’ their 36-page UNIPCC reports warning anyone who’ll listen that the warming that, er…isn’t actually happening … threatens us all unless we take action. So I did. I went back to my wheaties. But wait a minute, I thought. These guys are serious. They are broadcasting all this Orson Welles-style ‘end-is-nigh’ broadcasting as if it were science-fact and not science-fiction. Or more accurately, science speculation. I smelt an article coming on.
Now you might think that this is yet another sceptic piece lamenting how confused white coated computer modellers at the IPCC failed entirely to predict the current warming “slowdown” that has seen the global average temperature flat-line for around 17 years minimum. But you would be wrong. It is actually lamenting the abysmal state of modern journalism. That Fourth Estate that is supposed to a) be sceptical of all governmental utterances, and, b) ask hard questions of those with a vested interest in gaining power, prestige and profit from peddling propaganda. And yet, in the words of the lately departed David Frost, “The clues are there…” for the dull-witted MSM journo.
Clue 1 can be seen from those that make it to the top of the greasy UN IPCC bureaucratic pole. Rajendra Pachauri is no climate science expert. Like Al Gore, Pachauri is adept at side-stepping accusations of blatant conflicts of interests that are making him a highly lucrative living on the back of his planet-saving mission. While scaring the pants off us is part of the job, it is something “Sanjay”, the climate expert hero in a smutty novel Pachauri published in 2010, takes quite literally. In the novel, far from highlighting real world science and facts, “Sanjay” majors on a conveyor-belt of sexual encounters. Of one such encounter Pachauri writes, “Sadly for Sanjay the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started”. It seems Pachahuri is obsessed by unwanted emissions.
However, when scientist and science writer Michael Crichton went the same literary route in his 2004 climate sceptical book State of Fear in 2004, he was far more concerned about how real life environmental science was being hijacked by political activists for their own social ends. Crichton’s book focused on a plot where researchers desperate for government grants put their faith in failing computer models that helped subvert the real science. Sound familiar? But Crichton’s book didn’t use sex to make more money for its author. Rather Crichton took the time-honoured path of getting across a key message in the form of a novel, but one replete with actual hard climate facts and genuine scientific data. And here’s clue 2 for the MSM: neither hard facts nor genuine scientific data have ever been the stock-in-trade of Pachauri, nor the IPCC. Both a lack of integrity and outright corruption of the facts have, however. And that route was set in stone way back in 1996 when, after the real scientists had helped draft the First Assessment and then gone home, IPCC administrators famously went to work beefing up the language to stoke public fears over man’s role. Nor was that the last time the MSM were manipulated into proclaiming hyped messages.
And you might think that clue 3 for the MSM would come in the shape of the 117 original computer model projections that failed entirely to predict the current decade and a half flat-lining of global temperatures. Glaring realities aside, you may think mine a lightweight assessment of the just published Fifth report and its central assertions. In fact, those assertions are nothing new and are based on even less credible evidence. While this report links to online articles that deal with those specific issues, I am much more concerned, as was Crichton post-State of Fear, at just how the MSM is both swallowing the IPCCs obfuscation and peddling it to its audience. Let’s face it the science can’t even be “certain” what the weather will do in just a couple of days time – clue 4 for numbskull alarmist journos?
Crichton’s appendix 1 was headed “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous”. It went on to draw the analogy of “climate consensus” with a similar misconstrued science “consensus” in the early 1900s: eugenics. Eugenics postulated that a crisis of the gene pool was leading to a deterioration of the human race. Scientists, politicians and the media (how could they question the ‘experts’?) all bought into it. Crichton argued the analogy with the climate debate is far from being superficial. As he pointed out, in each case an “Open and frank discussion of the data is being suppressed” and that “leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions … which they have no business doing” and with scientists afraid to dissent publicly for fear of media ridicule. The Climategate exposé alone makes it abundantly clear that all of the same “alarmist” and “consensus” factors skewing the truth are currently in play.
Why the ridiculous “95 percent certainty” of and highly politicized UNIPCC is still considered worthy of being taken seriously in the realm of genuine scientific clarity remains a mystery. One thing is clear however: the IPCCs unconvincing climate cluelessness is now being reflected in poll after poll. Joe Public, at least, increasingly smells a rat in what the UNIPCC is shovelling its way – even if the aroma is yet to infiltrate the offices of a durably gullible MSM.
By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules