Reposted by permission from Conflicted. Give the substack a follow. It’s excellent.
JESSICA WEINKLE
In a video of an April IPCC scenario workshop, a panel discussion argued that the IPCC does not have any scenarios it merely assess scenarios. Professor Tejal Kanitkar called it out as nonsense in practice. There are too many (i.e. a powerful few) who design, select, and prioritize scenarios while also being influential authors of IPCC reports.
Kanitkar asked the now new IPCC Chair, Jim Skea, about how this will be addressed in the future at the same time as addressing the deep inequities these scenarios, chosen by a select few, project well into the future.
For her part, Kanitkar and colleagues have argued for an improved framework for making decisions about scenario selection and design. In doing so, the underlying value disputes regarding our common future (if you will), are called out, aired out, and made transparent.
Skea replies by agreeing that the COI problem is substantial and known. He recommended solving the problem by
developing a science of assessing scenarios which would make sure the processes for vetting and looking at scenarios would be fully out there in the peer reviewed literature rather than being part of the assessment process.
In general, research is not an effective tool for resolving underlying value disputes. And it certainly does not promise much for an area of science that busies itself with imagining decadal and centennial futures with no known probability of occurring.
Addressing the underlying problem requires improving the structure and transparency of the political process that is IPCC scenario choice. Hence, the suggestion for an improved framework for decision making.
Improving the transparency will also require a professional cultural shift in the climate sciences that prioritizes publicly accessible conflicts of interest disclosures.
Without dealing with the underlying structural issues, value disputes, and lack of disclosure, a new research enterprise aimed at vetting scenarios for use by the IPCC is apt to exacerbate the existing problems.
The bottleneck for global climate change research
Global climate change research suffers from a rather significant bottleneck and the symbolic power of the IPCC exacerbates the issue by organizing careers and research trajectories around the development of assessment reports.
A few weeks ago, while taking a look at reported priorities for the next (7th) IPCC reporting cycle, The Honest Broker emphasized the control exercised by a key organization in the choice of scenarios used in climate change science
In its selection and prioritization of scenarios, ScenarioMIP has profound implications for climate research and policy. It is hard to overstate how important the work of this small group is for how we ultimately think about climate and climate policy.
So, on its surface, it looks like 1,000’s of climate change scientists all over the world are going about their merry way researching as they see fit; the “free play of free intellects.” But as was always the case, that very myth hides underlying power structure of the research enterprise.
CMIP
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), a project of the World Climate Research Programme, is a global bottleneck for climate change projections. Technical documentation of the project describes its influence,
By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current, and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the foundational elements of climate science
As the US Fourth National Climate Assessment explains, the CMIP model results are standard inputs, “for virtually all work in the United States and internationally concerning climate change science, impacts, vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation.”
The IPCC depends on the CMIP and activities of the two are closely related.
Because of the importance of the CMIP, decision making about which emission trajectories will be used in CMIP analyses has a profound influence all over the world on how research is conducted and how climate change is understood.
IAMC
The Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC) was created in response to an IPCC call in 2007 for a research organization to lead the IAM community in the development of new scenarios used by climate modelers. It was “anticipated that the IAMC will be the main vehicle for coordinating the work” of the integrated assessment modeling community.
Cointe, Cassen and Nadai (2019, hereafter as CCN), documents the growing interdependency of the IAM research community and the IPCC. CCN explains that the IPCC provides the IAM research community an activity to orient towards,
the unifying principle behind IAM research does not lie in a core theoretical basis, but in the dual ambition to represent complex systems through a combination of disciplinary insights and to provide policy-relevant assessments – but its legitimacy to do so rests on epistemic grounds whose soundness needs to be collectively guaranteed. This distinctive feature of IAM research has largely shaped its collective organisation. It can account, at least partly, for the prominence of collective projects and institutional hubs in the IAM community… The IPCC seems to constitute a similar nodal point for IAM research.
IAM research and IPCC reporting The two activities have become interdependent and reciprocally legitimizing.
ScenarioMIP
For the sixth phase of CMIP (CMIP6) researchers formed the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP). The Scientific Steering Committee of the ScenarioMIP consulted with the IAMC Working Group on Scenarios to select scenarios and prioritizations for use in CMIP6 and IPCC AR6.
The idea and processes of the ScenarioMIP was developed during discussions at the 2013 and 2014 Energy Modeling Forum annual invitation only Snowmass workshops, and 2013 and 2014 meetings hosted by Aspen Global Change Institute.
It’s the same people
The table below shows the overlap between those involved in the ScenarioMIP Scientific Steering Committee, those involved in the IAMC Scenarios Committee, and the IAMC’s hub of governance, its Scientific Steering Committee .
Several of these same individuals led discussions on scenario development at the Snowmass meetings and the AGCI meetings. And lead discussions about priorities in scenarios for the next IPCC go-around.
Several of the researchers in the table are identified as of the most influential IPCC authors.
The table also includes those involved in the IAMC Climate-related Financial Analysis Committee, an industry specific committee.
All of the researchers that govern the IAMC through its Scientific Steering Committee are also on the Climate-related Financial Analysis Committee and work directly with the worlds largest and most influential financial institutions.
Three individuals are involved on all four of these committees.
It’s the same people over and over again. This is concentrated power; a handful of people that shape the entire world of climate change research.
This is not a problem that is resolved by a systematic pursuit of knowledge developed through a new research program, as Skea suggests. It is a problem that is addressed through structural and cultural change.
Disclosure for Cultural Change
If you consider IAM scenarios a research industry, the industry leaders are establishing the standards and narratives that drive the demand of their own products.
Mechanisms of accountability for making decisions about scenarios used by the CMIP and IPCC should disperse power in establishing value priorities for scenario selection, making those selections, developing scenarios, and authoring reports.
The IPCC does not make publicly accessible the COI disclosures of its authors. It should.
It is clear that the same researchers that organize, develop, prioritize, and select scenarios for global climate science are doing the same for major financial institutions and regulators. The same people are also authoring IPCC reports.
There should be great concern that the way the world understands the collective climate future prioritizes special business interests particularly, financial institutions.
Meanwhile, funds to support scenario master planning comes in from advocacy organizations.
A good place to shift the culture of non-disclosure across the climate sciences is within the IAMC and ScenarioMIP. These are important focal point for all of climate change science and improvements at the bottleneck promises to shape expectations of ethical professional behavior across the research enterprise.
As well, disclosure in these locations helps the world understand the business interests served by expertise in this area of science.
All these “scientists” are really just protecting their paychecks and retirement funds, so publish whatever will please their bosses. Their jefes “plan” to make a tonne of CO2 the NEW WORLD CURRENCY, with them being the CO2 bank central administrators in an attempt to control humanity.
For the usual reasons…power and wealth…but people are catching on….
Bureaucrats in lab coats practicing Political Science that has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2.
OMG all those useless (to society) blood sucking leftist parasite bureaucrats doing so much harm and thinking they are helping the world. How I wish I could show them the light.
No, no: they do a great deal to help the world – or, rather, a small portion of the world including, purely coincidentally of course, themselves!
The case of HSBC investment strategist Stuart Kirk (May 2022) needs be recalled. At a climate conference, he stated William Nordhaus conclusions that the economic impact of IPCC estimated climate change over the long haul of decades was minimal — and far outweighed by the GDP growth net welfare improvements coming to us, so long as the nutters a kept at bay.
THIS, he said, was the opinion of his colleagues as well as his clients. Yet in the era of New Censorship dubbed “cancelling” he was soon fired for wrongthink.
The Kirks of the world must kowtow to these evil, “expert” idiots to keep their jobs, as the people endeavor to create that wealth which benefits the multitudes.
What evil times we endure.
LINK to Stuart Kirk’s talk https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s
You can, keep being a realist and don’t fall for the con
“By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current, and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the foundational elements of climate science.” If this were true and paid attention to there wouldn’t be such a vast disparity between models and actual temperatures. It’s always more of the same and obfuscation from the IPCC. Typical propaganda, ignore reality and lie about the narrative.
None of this is about research or understanding, it’s not even about science: it’s simply consolidating their iron grip on the narrative – ensuring their jobs and paychecks are secure and nobody can disrupt it.
“If this were true and paid attention to there wouldn’t be such a vast disparity between models and actual temperatures.”
There isn’t. The multi-model means in all the CMIP model ensembles are close to observations. CMIP3 is pretty much a bullseye.
Please specify ONE model that comports to the actual CO2 to Temperature relationship from its first iteration. One at least 30 years running, since it takes 30 years to represent “climate” to YOUR community of idiots. (To me, it would take 10,000 years minimum to represent climate, and the “models” can’t even “hindcast the LIA or MWP, less than 1000 years.)
Do not use one that has “modified” the inputs and “constants” multiple times since inception.
Using an “average” of multiple different computer games as the “Gold Standard” of climate science projections is somewhat equivalent to using a “consensus” of a$$hat pseudo-scientists as proof that the “science” is settled.
You’re missing the point. The idea of the model ensembles is that no particular model is expected to replicate reality, given all the natural variables. As the IPCC states, the multi-model mean is the best indicator of model skill. The older the model ensemble, the more likely its mean is to represent observations. That’s exactly what is happening. No amount of fringe denial will change that fact.
You are the one missing the point.
There is no model that is even remotely near reality.
They have ZERO SKILL.. period. !
Averaging meaningless models does not give a meaningful result. , EVAH!
Only a mathematical nincompoop would think it did.
The only one in DENIAL of reality here… is YOU. !
The models would be useful as a predictive exercise if they gave the correct answer *all* the time. Then the models would all converge and we wouldn’t need “averages” of ensembles.
In other words, the models are nothing more than curve matching exercises. Curve matching done by changing the weighting factors of the multiple variables used in the model.
Curve matching polynomials can’t predict the future. They can only tell you where you are today. Maybe they can tell you where you’ve been but even that is not a guarantee.
Only fully physics based models can give any kind of a view of the future. And we know the current models are not physics based, they can’t even do clouds correctly let alone all the unknown unknown’s that are not a part of the models.
“CMIP model ensembles are close to observations.”
LOL, there’s that little fantasy land gullibility again. !
Models are all over the place.
You cannot average a huge slab of WRONG models and pretend the average is remotely real.
You cannot adjust surface data to try to make the models look better. (as is done with the already tainted surface data)
That isn’t science, that is PROPAGANGA…
… designed for gooses like you.
Again, using the spread in the models and ignoring the mean. Literally the only way you can dispute them.
Take some rotten tomatoes. some mouldy carrots, some green furry meat, and some blackened half-fermented potatoes.
Stew them all together using fishing boat bilge water.
And VIOLA….. you have a climate model mean fit for the most gullible of AGW zealots.
The mean is meaningless. If the models were at all accurate, if even ONE of the models were accurate, then they should all converge to the same result – every time.
The spread in the models *does* indicate how wrong they all are. It’s the variance of the data being used. The larger the variance the less certain the average becomes. The wide spread in the models today indicates that their average is *very* uncertain!
You are using the same idiotic assumptions that are used in determining the “global average temperature”. Assumptions: 1. Variance in the data can be ignored. 2. All measurement uncertainty is random and Gaussian and therefore cancels.
Close but no cigar. 🤪
None of the useless IPCC models are close to observations – they look like they were done by an 8 year old, on a ZX Spectrum
“ they look like they were done by an 8 year old”
Which is why FN admires them so much.
Greta is an old ha
tto him/her/it now.Why is the IPCC still existing when their Temperature projections are supposed to be accurate and on target for at least the last 22 years from the 2001 report according to our resident IPCC supporter Nick Stokes thus there is nothing more to do when the science is he he he….. “settled” and correct.
No one says there is no more to do with the science.
You completely misunderstood my sarcastic comment.
What do you mean by “settled science”? The only people I see using that term with regard to climate science are ‘skeptics’, sarcastic or otherwise.
LOL your lie is funny.
Seems that FN has less memory retention than a goldfish !
It’s a side-splitter… (?)
Then your memory is faulty. The whole point of the unscientific ‘consensus’ was to push an unproven hypothesis as settled fact. Statements made by proponents of this ‘consensus’ support their idea that the ‘science is settled fact’ at odds with every scientific principle that new data can reinforce or overturn established theories.
What climate scientists have said “the science is settled”?
Er, every alarmist one, you know, the ones that cancel and harass the realists, the non believers
Why haven’t climate scientists publicly called to account the activists and politicians who claim the science is settled. Any professional with integrity would. Foxnews, and Skynews in Oz, would love to have you on to discuss the nonsense that the science is settled.
Roger Harrabin.
Oh, BS.
Algore, every climate maniacal Democrat politician, Biden, etc.
Mikey Mann, etc.
This comment is one of the stupidest YOU have ever posted.
I always love when someone lies, knows he is lying, knows the people he is speaking to know he is lying, but lies never the less.
Bravo TFN. You have reached the pinnacle of AGW fanaticism. You may even be in the running for the equivalent of the Pope of your religion.
“This comment is one of the stupidest YOU have ever posted.”
Yep, it is pretty darn stupid, even for rusty !
But he/she/it is constantly trying too out-stupid his/her/its self
I think even Obama said the science was settled.
So Obama is a climate scientist now?
“So Obama is a climate scientist now?”
He thought he was.
DiPaprio said the same thing… he thinks he is a climate scientist, too.
You only have to be ignorant and self-important, to be a climate scientist. eg Mickey Mann.
“You only have to be ignorant and self-important, to be a climate scientist. eg Mickey Mann.”
Good point! 🙂
Yes he did and he peddled that old debunked 97% consensus rubbish – saying that, he does now have a lovely $11.75Mn MV water front home
You’re talking about politicians, mostly.
Where does Mann say that all aspects of climate science are settled?
(He’d be doing himself out of a job, if so, right?)
So, FN is admitting that claimate science is NOT settled.
Claimate science is, in fact, a toddler in nappies. (taking Greta’s place)
Which is why FN believes in it.
Yes, we all believe Mickey Mann should be out of a job… for incompetence and anti-science…
But incompetence is what you need to be a “claimate scientist™”
That is what gets you the big notes. !
Of course it’s not settled.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman, ‘we’re not absolutely sure about anything and everything we think we know might be wrong’.
Now, apply that logic to your ‘skepticism’.
How do you define skepticism?
“everything we think we know
mightIS wrong”You have just supplied the definition of a climate scientist. !
Well done.
“Now, apply that logic to your ‘skepticism’.”
I do apply logic and science to REALITY.
You still haven’t been able to produce one single bit of scientific evidence that human released CO2 has caused any of the highly beneficial warming since the LIA.
Why should I not be highly skeptical of something which only exists in unvalidated computer
modelsgames and in the addled minds of paid climate non-scientists.It is YOU who is totally UNSKEPTICAL, just unthinkingly regurgitating AGW cult mantra nonsense.
You are apparently totally lacking any comprehension of basic logic…
…. totally lacking any capability of rational thought,
… and totally lacking any scientific understanding.
Wasn’t it Michael Mann who stated on US TV that “…the science behind global warming is as settled as that of gravity.” Seems pretty unequivocal but completely wrong.
FN, are you going to respond to Richard, please?
Shifting the goalposts, eh, from “the science is settled” to “all aspects of climate science are settled”. Michael Mann has repeatedly said that the science is settled, and even purports to want a court to confirm it.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/
I was not referring too politicians; sorry, I should have made that more clear.
Regarding scientists, I don’t know of any who say the science is settled, climate or otherwise.
In fact, I think that would be a very unscientific thing for a scientist to say.
So you still don’t want to talk about Micky E Mann as a scientist? Ok then. 😉
The one thing that’s settled, is that climate science and understanding is far from settled
Informative.
Though I got severely bounced around between whether or not the seeping authoritarianism across committees was a bottleneck or an established feature.
I mean, talk about empire building.
The entire process seems to be, find the pathway we have laid out for you, and to lessen your burden of discover, here are the three who plotted the pathway to lead you into the garden of limited possibilities. “Science” 👌🤣
Thus ensuring that the cycle continues without deviation from the preset path. It’s a completely pointless exercise, totally against science, just a way of keeping the same people and views in charge of the official narrative. And ensuring a job/paycheck for those that do not stray from the true path.
Political and social governance through unelected bureaucratic committees.
What is the cry of the left? Democracy in peril.
It isn’t so much their question, rather the unspoken goal.
Nothing in this digs to the heart of the matter. The concerns voiced lie a few layers above the real base of the problem. What these proposed housekeeping changes do, though, is reveal why a ‘scientific’ consensus exists and why the participants are so mediocre.
Clearly, what this set-up is, and where it is going was decided at the outset by globalist ideologues. Changing the seating plan at the politburo won’t cut it. It needs to be dug out by the roots, buried and disinfected. Then let a free-for-all of legitimate scientists do research and have at it in debate.
Came across a video recently, discusses think tanks and their published “conclusions”. These Rockefeller-run groups eventually evolved into what we know today as Klaus the Schwab’s Davos WEF Transhumanist Bolshevik Wet Scream.
Anyway, turns out the combination of pandemic, widespread war, curtailed industry, corrupted education and, yes, climate crisis was devised in the 1920’s already. That explains the aim.The methodology was enunciated two decades earlier, explaining the existence of the multitude of institutions saving us from Carbongeddon:
Watch them as they hold their elaborate balls and catered get-togethers, handing out prizes and trophies and accolades and mutual worship of each others’ admiration.
They give a fig for you, for me, for all humanity.
Some inmates in an asylum are just barking mad, others though, are simply dangerous to humanity
These hubris filled, mutual pat on the back events, full of private jet types, are not representative of normal people
“…the political process that is (the) IPCC scenario choice.”
Yep there’s yer problem right there. Not science-based.
STORY TIP: Richard Lindzen speaking to Jordan Peterson in a youtube video This Well Known Effect Breaks the Climate Narrative – YouTube
I always enjoy listening to Dr Lindzen.
Regards,
Bob
It is the Greenhouse Effect as a climate driver that is nonsense. The whole concept is flawed. It plays no role in the Earth’s energy balance.
There is a simple truth that can be verified on a daily basis somewhere on the globe. Open ocean surface temperature cannot sustain a temperature above 30C. There might be a period of a few weeks where temperature overshoots as the atmosphere comes into equilibrium with the surface but once convective instability sets in, the surface temperature is limited to 30C.
Right now, Friday Aug 18, the ocean off the west coast of Mexico is slightly above 30C again and the the atmosphere has gone into convective overdrive again -per attached Nucllschool image. This is the 4th time this year in this region where a cyclonic storm has developed..
.
AS usual, scenarios are not understood here. They aren’t predictions; they aren’t policies. All that happens is that the running of GCMs is coordinated so that the results can be compared. You have to have a scenario because future decisions are not within the scope of science.
It’s true that a lot of fussing now goes into developing scenarios, but it’s little different to Hansen’s day, when they had A, B, C, which represented basically, no effort, realistic effort, and very good effort. The scenarios still cover that range, with more letters added. The problem is that folks here can’t get away from just one scenario, A and its descendants. It’s used for bashing IPCC predictions, since it naturally produces more warming than happened (because scenario A was not followed). And it is possible that scenario a-based predictions are similarly somewhat misused in the media (who don’t understand scenarios very well either).
But it is right that CMIP does calculate the full range. They are not trying to guide the future. They are calculating on the basis that the decisions are out of their hands, and so they should cover whatever may happen.
“somewhat misused in the media”
How does this explain the use (apparently used a lot) by climate researchers of something called RCP8.5 [Representative Concentration Pathway] and early on called the “business as usual” scenario? If the researchers did not use it — the media wouldn’t.
The notion that these reports are “somewhat misused” is the understatement of the hour.
The worst case is always something that needs attention, and it may get too much. But that doesn’t mean CMIP shouldn’t calculate it. They should.
The alarmists first port of call is always WCS – it’s the only way they can peddle their wares
Yes they should and it should be clearly labelled as a definite outlier – the probable ‘upper limit’. It should never be used, as several climate study groups have done, as the default, ‘most likely’ scenario. To do so is wilfully fraudulent and scientifically irresponsible simply for the purpose of alarmism.
It is so labelled. If you think some people are misusing it, your quarrel is with them, not CMIP.
I have no quarrel with CHIMPS, no matter how many….
It is just that they are NOT relevant any sort of reality.
They should try simulating something REAL as well.
You know, the fact that CO2 doesn’t cause any detectable warming.
The more CHIMPS they add, the worse the models get. !
The climate models are so inaccurate, they are worse than useless
So True.
Those nonsense models are being used to basically destroy western society.
The mainstay of reliable energy supplies, fossil fuels, are being attacked by the far left, all based on what are effectively just shonky computer games.
“CMIP does calculate the full range”
What a stupid comment !
How do you know that?
Sure, it calculated the full range, (which is MASSIVE), of CHIMP models.
But REALITY is already well below that full range.
Because the full range of possible decisions is known. We can either do nothing or we can cease all carbon production, or we can do anything between those two extremes. So you have bookends and an array of possibilities between them, and we can do a bunch of scenarios based on the space between.
Notice to team “Nick”:
Your latest batch of apprentice trolls are embarrassing you. Save yourself some ridicule, and recruit only actual science students, not humanities and underwater hairdriers.
You little twit, science is all about future decisions, that’s why we have theorems, hypotheses and, eventually, applied science, doing things expecting future results within a very narrow range.
No, really, Nick, if you want to play this game, don’t set children upon us, that’s abuse!
“They aren’t predictions; they aren’t policies.”
Then what use are they? Why run the models into the future if they aren’t providing predictions based on future conditions as laid out in the scenarios?
Why only three base scenarios? Why not 50 or 100? Each and every one assuming different conditions for every possible physical component?
Willfully ignorant. That describes you perfectly. You can’t even admit to yourself what the scenarios actually are.
Rubbish..
This is written as if the input to climate models matters. All the models start with the wrong belief in the way Earth’s climate system works. No manner of massaging inputs will make the output any more useful.
My challenge to any modelling group is to better my prediction of 27C for the Nino34 region over the next 70 years. Any group that can provide reliable, nuanced predictions for just the Nino34 region over a period of say 20 years could make a valid claim that their predictions are useful.
The main objective of climate models is to produce scary warming results. Model support for global boiling is the new target.
Correct – manipulated data, statistics and models can give you any outcome you want
I pulled the 503c from the IRS for one group, Climateworks.
https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/262303250_201912_990_2021021917722241.pdf
Follow the money – how can millions be wired overseas without a name or address.
Why does money move so easily between non-profits? 350.org got a $100k, universities get ~$200k each, Greenpeace $250k,Sierra Club $350k, etc
How come the same people are sitting on the boards of multiple non-profits? As it is, the people working there are raking in $145k-$486k salaries.
It’s never been about the science, it’s about the money.
Privatised welfare/ aid is a huge scam. Had a real libtard friend who countered my every argument with “you’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist”. Tried to explain that no more than 5 cents to the donated buck ever ends up with the pretended target needy.
The argument got very heated, while our other friend, at the time tasked with counting AIDS charity beans for the UN, quietly interrupted and said: “Actually, it’s more like three cents.”
Story tip
No need for modelling, here’s some real life, empirical data regarding Antarctica and goodness me, it’s cold
https://electroverse.info/antarctica-all-time-cold-bbc-rewrites-history-books/
Hopefully it will calm those frayed nerves of the alarmists
You won’t see this on the BBC
I’m actually encouraged when I see how small the community, out of eight billion people, who are causing so much strife.
Whether its driving European and American politics, justice, energy policy, medical ethics, etc. The number of monsters is relatively small as they keep showing up in crime scene after crime scene.
handy to know, just in case the people decide on another French revolution.
UN – IPCC “Their science” is a fabrication, utterly politically compromised, has been for decades.
As I’ve posted before, I believe the UN/IPCC view the world within a hyperreality, a world that is a fiction, a simulation created by mathematical models. This world, its climate and weather has displaced the real physical world.
I think it is time to quote Richard again —
This is ridiculous.