The Media’s Collusion in the IPCC’s Irrational Fifth Assessment Conclusions

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.

Add Comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Text

Comments (5)

  • Ben Humar October 8, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    For AGW not to be happening you have to then explain all the following phenomena or go measure it yourself and show that none of these are happening:

    1. CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm
    2. lower tropospheric temperatures are rising
    3. upper tropospheric temperature are declining (Important clue!)
    4. satellite measured heat imbalance of earth of solar radiance is ~0.6 watts per square meter
    Earth has 510,000,000,000 sq meters of surface area!
    5. Ocean temperatures across all measured depths are rising
    (93% of warming goes here first)
    6. Sea level is rising (there’s 362 million square miles of ocean!)
    7. Ice mass is declining in the Arctic and Antarctic, critically ice mass on land declining
    8. Glacial ice mass on all 7 continents is declining
    9. Bioregions for plants and animals are moving polewards
    10. Species are showing chromosomal evolution to be more heat tolerant
    11. Solar radiance has not increased in the past 50 years
    12. Volcanic outgassing has not increased in the past 50 years
    13. Cosmic ray events in the upper atmosphere have not increased in the past 30 years
    14. El Nino/La Nina cycle has been progressively warmer each cycle for past 50 years
    15. Frequency of heat waves, droughts, floods and intense storms has increased each decade

    The key is to look at decade to decade trends, not yearly trends or you’ll mistake weather for climate.

    Lets be clear here, thousands of scientists from dozens of competing universities, some even funded by deniers have gone out and measured these phenomena. They’ve considered natural cycles, solar radiance, cosmic rays, volcanic outgassing as hypothesis to explain these. Those hypothesis make testable predictions which don’t match the phenomena. The best remaining explanation is that CO2, which absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation (heat) and has a 200+ year half life in the atmosphere is trapping heat in the oceans (93%), land (3%) and atmosphere (2%). The planet will take hundreds of years to rebalance this heat (which it will do), while melting a lot of ice, flooding a lot of lowlands, shifting bioregions poleward and amplifying the intensity of weather events. The signature of much of that excess CO2 in the atmosphere has the isotope ratio that correspond with fossil fuel burning.

    Your critiques don’t even scratch the edifice of evidence and science that has led 33,000 scientists, and EVERY national science academy and EVERY professional science and engineering organization to endorse this interpretation of the evidence and the science.

    Reply
  • George Fox October 8, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Ben Humar – Your post is reminiscent of the old adage “if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shight.” You can run out all of those meaningless (at least to the common person) statistics and studies you want. We simply don’t believe you anymore. Doubling down on the hoax will not yield many converts. On to the next scientific crisis. How quick can we shift the grants to funding ways to keep, I don’t know…say a giant meteor from destroying the earth in,what….maybe 11 years?

    Reply
  • Stephen Ede October 8, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    Only the US public doesn’t believe in Global Warming/Climate change. And the reason it doesn’t is because the US Media seriously pushes the denier line because that’s where many of them get paid to do, because that’s where the BIG money is. Of course that is the opposite of what this opinion piece is pushing.

    As to whether this makes the US population smarter and better informed or the opposite? Well the US population is also the strongest supporter in the West for Creationism, Birthers and pretty much any wacko anti-science theory or simply anti-reality conspiracy you want to name.

    Reply
  • Archaeos Pteryx October 9, 2013 at 1:17 am

    New religions need a little help from propaganda machines… Repent! The end is coming! Buy some carbon indulgences, on sale now, three for the price of two!

    Our Climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years, and if I was to worry, I would worry about a possible ending of the current interglacial.

    Reply
  • Ben Humar October 9, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    There is a well documented trail of court evidence and public records that show tobacco and oil companies colluding to sow doubt about climate science. The same PR firms used to deny a connect between smoking and cancer have used the same tactics to stir up controversy about climate science.

    Tens of millions of dollars have been funneled to groups whose sole purpose is to lie and spread disinformation. They don’t do science, they don’t publish peer reviewed research. They message test the crap like comments in this article to spin a false image of the state of the science.

    Claiming it’s a religion is idiotic. That’s like saying the earth being round is a religion. I believe climate science has done exceptionally detailing, convincing scientific work to vet all the available hypothesis and present a strong, persuasive case for AGW. You either have to show that their evidence is flawed or their reasoning in incorrect and you have a lot of work to do to accomplish that. Get busy.

    Fox: I love how I present you with a clear stack of evidence, summarized for your convenience and you resort to being an offensive jerk. Got no real case to make huh?

    Reply

© 2013 Energy Tribune

Scroll to top