The problem with the IPCC starts with its foundational idea, which you highlight above;
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
"human-induced".
Shouldn't a UN body tasked with looking at climate, look at climate? All of it, all possibilities?
Am i a denier? If so i'm in good company here.
Is it any wonder the summaries are ludicrous nonsense, they are the fulfilment of the foundational statement.
Start there.
Also, going to back to your hopeful post regarding the new head of the IPCC, pop goes that balloon.
Just another biased captured individual.
Trump has his work cut out, hopefully he doesn't squander it like last time.
The problem with the IPCC is that it takes as its starting point the assumption that any overall global warming is due to human activity and in particular to the burning of fossil fuels: “The Sixth Assessment Report clearly stated that in 2020 global warming reached 1.1°C, above pre-industrial level, driven by more than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and unsustainable energy and land use.” This known as begging the question.
In pre-industrial times we were still in the Little Ice Age, which we know was significantly colder than today (see, for example, contemporary paintings of people skating on frozen rivers which never freeze today). We also know that before the LIA there was the Medieval Warm Period which is also well documented (see, for example, the DoomsDay Book, a contemporary record of England in 1086 which among other things recorded vineyards in Northern England). The 1st IPCC assessment report duly reported this in 1990 (Working Group 1, Fig. 7.1). The net result of this was to show that any 20th century warming was very likely no more than the natural recovery from the LIA. However, this ‘nothing to worry about’ attitude was completely overthrown by the notorious (and subsequently thoroughly debunked) hockey-stick graph of the 3rd assessment report of 2001, which was skillfully hyped to create mass panic in what must be one of the greatest PR campaigns of all time.
I have yet to see any IPCC assessment since the 3rd report which does not take as its starting point the assumption of significant man-made global warming. I would also point out that since the multi-trillion dollar renewable energy and EV industries are entirely based on this assumption, then we need look no further for the reason why the IPCC will never permit this assumption to be questioned.
Climate Science, much like universities or any other entity where only one side is allowed to be heard, will inevitably get more and more off-base over time. A simple application of Newton's First Law of Motion explains it - without something pushing back on it, the IPCC Narrative remains in motion, going in one direction and one direction only.
It's like setting up a game of tug-of-war, where only one side gets to play. Without a counter force pulling in the opposite direction, the side that gets to pull will quickly move off into La La Land where they can say anything they want, even if it's contradictory! (thus Roger' comment: "... this paragraph arguably misrepresents what the IPCC AR6 actually concluded on extreme weather, danger, and the impacts of fractional warming.) This unidirectional move into La La Land is why we're seeing the move from science to advocacy.
The reason it can remain this way is because there's no cost involved for those making the decisions. They can be wrong all day long and no one cares. In the business world, major decisions often require a "red team" analysis to make a counter argument so that nothing is "missed." Because if something is missed, revenue crashes and people lose their jobs (the cost).
I think some organizations are attempting to Red Team Climate Science (like the CO2 Coalition), but until it becomes more mainstream (i.e., part of the IPCC Process), there won't be enough people who accept it to reach critical mass.
As so many have said on this string... I think the proverbial ship has sailed.
The IPCC is "at risk of losing its credibility"? To this observer and I suspect many others that ship has sailed. Their credibility is gone and only a full house cleaning could resurrect it.
Roger, you are doing important work. Please keep it up.
FYI, I asked AI about the proper term to describe this situation, which is similar to "regulatory capture." Here is Grok's answer:
=====>
The phrase that would describe the capture of a community of scientists by political activists would be "scientific capture" or "ideological capture of science." This term would imply that the scientific community, which is ideally focused on uncovering truth through objective research and the scientific method, has been influenced or co-opted to serve the political or ideological agendas of specific activist groups, rather than adhering strictly to scientific principles and empirical evidence.
This concept is analogous to regulatory capture in that it suggests a shift in focus from the intended purpose (in this case, scientific inquiry) to serving external interests. However, unlike regulatory capture, which deals with economic or industry influence on regulation, scientific capture would relate specifically to the influence on the scientific process and outcomes.
For further context:
Regulatory capture is well-documented in fields like economics and public policy, where industries influence regulators to favor their interests over public welfare.
The concept of influence on scientific communities has been discussed under various terms, often highlighting issues like confirmation bias, funding influences, or politicization of science, but "scientific capture" succinctly captures the idea of political activists influencing scientific consensus or research direction.
We have been warned by many that advocating is incompatible with the Scientific Method. And yet it persists, probably because those that advocate think they can get away with abusing science. Alas they are selling our birthright for pennies.
along with a comprehensive view on costs, benefits, opportunities, and obstacles associated with different possible courses of action.” Maybe there needs to be another IPCC working group.. the “reality-based” working group, composed of people with real-world experience in developing the various energy sources and running grids. Ones who can write about trade-offs like “electrify everything” and “turn off the electricity when winds are too high.” Maybe that doesn’t count as “science” but economics certainly does. Do our array of scientific disciplines not match the need for the expertise to solve problems like decarbonizing? That is a far more serious structural problem than the ditherings and PR of the IPCC, IMHO>
The UN and its IPCC is a total danger to civilization and the population at large.
They have turned a long range economically planned journey to new cleaner energy sources in concert with global prosperity, into an expensive and prosperity damaging panic that has created unneeded fear of the future into our young people, and created a completely insane religious fanaticism with those easily led and prone to acts of irresponsible activism.
The political side of the UN and IPCC is plain irresponsible and clearly with an agenda to further the global world order that is not in anyone’s best interest. They don’t reflect the scientific report findings unless it feeds the sensationalism that is grabbed by a press desperate to stay relevant in a world moving to self information gathering.
Further, even the IPCC scientific findings are subjugated by political bias (and even outright lies) due to a funding frenzy that has created a wasteful climate emergency industrial complex with every snout into the money trough and many fortunes being made. Just too many scietists acting like climate emergency activists to get to the truth with much realigning of the data and reports to suite the emergency rhetoric.
This subjugation has even extended to the traditional scientific peer review process that is now proving untrustworthy to be believable and relevant.
There are other scientific group playing counterpoint and are what would be called Climate realists..
The Clintel organization has done a fair review of the IPCC report and has an excellent video that defines the issues included below..
No it doesn't make any sense, just more climate emergency nonsense. The arctic treeline was hundreds of KM further north several times during the holocene, when it was warmer than now, there are petrified tree stumps you can go look at, something that can only occur if the permafrost melted. There was no problem then, there won't be one now.
I read about a study but have not yet been able to find a link, a canadian scientist setup a greenhouse in the arctic and proceeded to thaw the ground and then measure who much methane was released, and apparently they found nothing. It appears that when the permafrost warms and thaws, there is also and explosion of bacteria and critters that then eat all that methane, the same bugs responsible for the canadian oil sands that ate all the high ends (like methane) leaving the heavy oil/bitumen behind.
As a person without a official degree in science, but with an enormous interest in climate, and an enthusiast of Professor Pelike, this makes perfect sense to me. Dr. Pelike, I think, would also agree. His comments would be appreciated. The melting of the Arctic permafrost and it's consequences have been reported elsewhere and are concerning.
I could see there being scope for a coalition of conservative led countries to fund an assessment of the IPCC, for instance whether they pay any attention to whether the cost of climate policies will also be disproportionately borne by poorer countries, whether the literature is biased towards finding costs and not benefits, and how much it might make sense to put a geoengineering ceiling on any proposed costs of tipping points
Depending on the assessment it might be justified to do an occasional "IPCC as it should be" assessment. Particular allies might be developing nations at risk of being cut off from coal and even gas financing, thereby paying the greatest climate cost of stunted development
I would hope that things could be shored up from within the structure itself given enough consciousness-raising. Even governments in favour of more aggressive climate action must realize that IPCC credibility is key.
Great post, thank you. Can you tell me why it takes 250 people to write a scope of work? Doesn't that fact alone indicate the degree to which the IPCC has become infected with politics?
The problem with the IPCC starts with its foundational idea, which you highlight above;
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
"human-induced".
Shouldn't a UN body tasked with looking at climate, look at climate? All of it, all possibilities?
Am i a denier? If so i'm in good company here.
Is it any wonder the summaries are ludicrous nonsense, they are the fulfilment of the foundational statement.
Start there.
Also, going to back to your hopeful post regarding the new head of the IPCC, pop goes that balloon.
Just another biased captured individual.
Trump has his work cut out, hopefully he doesn't squander it like last time.
Roger, the U.N.’s credibility in these matters may already be dissipating at a speed that more than rivals their claims on the immanency of the harmful effects of man-made climate change outcomes, see this: https://open.substack.com/pub/energysecurityfreedom/p/the-developing-world-is-dissenting?r=fmgkw&utm_medium=ios.
The problem with the IPCC is that it takes as its starting point the assumption that any overall global warming is due to human activity and in particular to the burning of fossil fuels: “The Sixth Assessment Report clearly stated that in 2020 global warming reached 1.1°C, above pre-industrial level, driven by more than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and unsustainable energy and land use.” This known as begging the question.
In pre-industrial times we were still in the Little Ice Age, which we know was significantly colder than today (see, for example, contemporary paintings of people skating on frozen rivers which never freeze today). We also know that before the LIA there was the Medieval Warm Period which is also well documented (see, for example, the DoomsDay Book, a contemporary record of England in 1086 which among other things recorded vineyards in Northern England). The 1st IPCC assessment report duly reported this in 1990 (Working Group 1, Fig. 7.1). The net result of this was to show that any 20th century warming was very likely no more than the natural recovery from the LIA. However, this ‘nothing to worry about’ attitude was completely overthrown by the notorious (and subsequently thoroughly debunked) hockey-stick graph of the 3rd assessment report of 2001, which was skillfully hyped to create mass panic in what must be one of the greatest PR campaigns of all time.
I have yet to see any IPCC assessment since the 3rd report which does not take as its starting point the assumption of significant man-made global warming. I would also point out that since the multi-trillion dollar renewable energy and EV industries are entirely based on this assumption, then we need look no further for the reason why the IPCC will never permit this assumption to be questioned.
Climate Science, much like universities or any other entity where only one side is allowed to be heard, will inevitably get more and more off-base over time. A simple application of Newton's First Law of Motion explains it - without something pushing back on it, the IPCC Narrative remains in motion, going in one direction and one direction only.
It's like setting up a game of tug-of-war, where only one side gets to play. Without a counter force pulling in the opposite direction, the side that gets to pull will quickly move off into La La Land where they can say anything they want, even if it's contradictory! (thus Roger' comment: "... this paragraph arguably misrepresents what the IPCC AR6 actually concluded on extreme weather, danger, and the impacts of fractional warming.) This unidirectional move into La La Land is why we're seeing the move from science to advocacy.
The reason it can remain this way is because there's no cost involved for those making the decisions. They can be wrong all day long and no one cares. In the business world, major decisions often require a "red team" analysis to make a counter argument so that nothing is "missed." Because if something is missed, revenue crashes and people lose their jobs (the cost).
I think some organizations are attempting to Red Team Climate Science (like the CO2 Coalition), but until it becomes more mainstream (i.e., part of the IPCC Process), there won't be enough people who accept it to reach critical mass.
As so many have said on this string... I think the proverbial ship has sailed.
The IPCC is "at risk of losing its credibility"? To this observer and I suspect many others that ship has sailed. Their credibility is gone and only a full house cleaning could resurrect it.
Roger, you are doing important work. Please keep it up.
FYI, I asked AI about the proper term to describe this situation, which is similar to "regulatory capture." Here is Grok's answer:
=====>
The phrase that would describe the capture of a community of scientists by political activists would be "scientific capture" or "ideological capture of science." This term would imply that the scientific community, which is ideally focused on uncovering truth through objective research and the scientific method, has been influenced or co-opted to serve the political or ideological agendas of specific activist groups, rather than adhering strictly to scientific principles and empirical evidence.
This concept is analogous to regulatory capture in that it suggests a shift in focus from the intended purpose (in this case, scientific inquiry) to serving external interests. However, unlike regulatory capture, which deals with economic or industry influence on regulation, scientific capture would relate specifically to the influence on the scientific process and outcomes.
For further context:
Regulatory capture is well-documented in fields like economics and public policy, where industries influence regulators to favor their interests over public welfare.
The concept of influence on scientific communities has been discussed under various terms, often highlighting issues like confirmation bias, funding influences, or politicization of science, but "scientific capture" succinctly captures the idea of political activists influencing scientific consensus or research direction.
<=====
We have been warned by many that advocating is incompatible with the Scientific Method. And yet it persists, probably because those that advocate think they can get away with abusing science. Alas they are selling our birthright for pennies.
Thank you for writing this! I am afraid that IPCC has tipped over the edge. Would you be interested in forming the Scientific Panel on Climate Change?
It is a political clown show. Every developed country that buys into their grift immiserates itself.
along with a comprehensive view on costs, benefits, opportunities, and obstacles associated with different possible courses of action.” Maybe there needs to be another IPCC working group.. the “reality-based” working group, composed of people with real-world experience in developing the various energy sources and running grids. Ones who can write about trade-offs like “electrify everything” and “turn off the electricity when winds are too high.” Maybe that doesn’t count as “science” but economics certainly does. Do our array of scientific disciplines not match the need for the expertise to solve problems like decarbonizing? That is a far more serious structural problem than the ditherings and PR of the IPCC, IMHO>
I hope that Skea does not become another Guterrez.
It seems that ship has sailed too.
You are being too kind….
The UN and its IPCC is a total danger to civilization and the population at large.
They have turned a long range economically planned journey to new cleaner energy sources in concert with global prosperity, into an expensive and prosperity damaging panic that has created unneeded fear of the future into our young people, and created a completely insane religious fanaticism with those easily led and prone to acts of irresponsible activism.
The political side of the UN and IPCC is plain irresponsible and clearly with an agenda to further the global world order that is not in anyone’s best interest. They don’t reflect the scientific report findings unless it feeds the sensationalism that is grabbed by a press desperate to stay relevant in a world moving to self information gathering.
Further, even the IPCC scientific findings are subjugated by political bias (and even outright lies) due to a funding frenzy that has created a wasteful climate emergency industrial complex with every snout into the money trough and many fortunes being made. Just too many scietists acting like climate emergency activists to get to the truth with much realigning of the data and reports to suite the emergency rhetoric.
This subjugation has even extended to the traditional scientific peer review process that is now proving untrustworthy to be believable and relevant.
There are other scientific group playing counterpoint and are what would be called Climate realists..
The Clintel organization has done a fair review of the IPCC report and has an excellent video that defines the issues included below..
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
https://clintel.org/the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/
Good Stuff!!! Does this article published today make any sense?
https://stocks.apple.com/AzPIbhz_PSty3IeEFOMxNZg
No it doesn't make any sense, just more climate emergency nonsense. The arctic treeline was hundreds of KM further north several times during the holocene, when it was warmer than now, there are petrified tree stumps you can go look at, something that can only occur if the permafrost melted. There was no problem then, there won't be one now.
I read about a study but have not yet been able to find a link, a canadian scientist setup a greenhouse in the arctic and proceeded to thaw the ground and then measure who much methane was released, and apparently they found nothing. It appears that when the permafrost warms and thaws, there is also and explosion of bacteria and critters that then eat all that methane, the same bugs responsible for the canadian oil sands that ate all the high ends (like methane) leaving the heavy oil/bitumen behind.
Don't fall for the nonsense.
As a person without a official degree in science, but with an enormous interest in climate, and an enthusiast of Professor Pelike, this makes perfect sense to me. Dr. Pelike, I think, would also agree. His comments would be appreciated. The melting of the Arctic permafrost and it's consequences have been reported elsewhere and are concerning.
Razor-sharp critique and call for correction.
Question: Which parties are best placed to respond to this? Who directs the IPCC?
I could see there being scope for a coalition of conservative led countries to fund an assessment of the IPCC, for instance whether they pay any attention to whether the cost of climate policies will also be disproportionately borne by poorer countries, whether the literature is biased towards finding costs and not benefits, and how much it might make sense to put a geoengineering ceiling on any proposed costs of tipping points
Depending on the assessment it might be justified to do an occasional "IPCC as it should be" assessment. Particular allies might be developing nations at risk of being cut off from coal and even gas financing, thereby paying the greatest climate cost of stunted development
I would hope that things could be shored up from within the structure itself given enough consciousness-raising. Even governments in favour of more aggressive climate action must realize that IPCC credibility is key.
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/structure/
This is a great march through Georgia piece, General Sherman. Your timing is perfect, Roger.
Great post, thank you. Can you tell me why it takes 250 people to write a scope of work? Doesn't that fact alone indicate the degree to which the IPCC has become infected with politics?