UN climate panel: Hmm, how can we selectively edit these inconvenient truths to outwit those anti-science denialists?

posted at 7:01 pm on September 21, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

In a sneak preview of their first big “landmark” report on climate change since 2007, the big-government, progressive, eco-radical, globalist types on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the United Nations revealed in August that they are absotively, posilutely 95 percent super-duper certain that global warming is definitely happening to a dangerous degree and that human activity is the overwhelming cause behind it.

The flaw in their master plan, however, is that Planet Earth has recently been presenting some counter-narrative quirks to their hotly anticipated findings (I’m not sure who is hotly anticipating them, but I read somewhere that people are, so it must be true), such as the lack of significant warming over the past fifteen years and the “unexpectedly” aggressive growth of arctic ice — and that’s rather inconvenient for a report that considers itself the definitive guide to Settled Science That Is Beyond Contestation.

Exactly how to communicate, if at all, these sensitive data points is rather a delicate matter, via the AP:

Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the purported slowdown ahead of next week’s meeting of the IPCC. …

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. In fact, every year after 2000 has been warmer than the year 2000.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics. …

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the content of the report because it hasn’t been made final, but said it would provide “a comprehensive picture of all the science relevant to climate change.”

Wait… does this mean that — gasp — politics often play a role in science?!?! How can this be???

Perhaps anyone who doesn’t immediately and vigorously seize upon the eco-radicals’ predetermined conclusions about the imminent catastrophes climate change — as well as their recommendations that we must quickly and forcefully self-depress our economies from the top down, spending money we don’t have and making people poorer — is forever destined to be lumped into the oh-so-heinous category of a stubbornly flat-earth-society, knuckle-dragging climate “denier.” Never mind that there are a million and one factors that go into the causes and effects of the planet’s climate (as the UN acknowledges with excuses factors like volcanic ash, solar activity, and oceanic heat-trapping after the utter failure of their own climate models), and that some more rationally-interested parties might advocate for less poverty-inducing and more free-market solutions — there is clearly no room for nuance here. It eludes me, however, as to why these extremists are surprised that anyone is suspicious of their motivations, when they spent decades doubling down on cataclysmic doomsday predictions that never came true whilst engaging in academic and political hostage-taking.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Jam?

Bmore on September 22, 2013 at 7:57 PM

“Global warming” is not science, it is a scam.

Their followers don’t understand science. They think “science” is “a bunch of ‘scientists’ said this” so they believe it. They don’t know about the other scientists who disagree because our corrupt media filters out inconvenient truths.

To truly be a part of today’s psychotic Democrat Party though, they then must slime people who understand science as “anti-science flat Earthers”.

These people who destroy children’s live in Democrat Party schools call people who want to fix our educational system, “anti-school” or “people who hate children”.

The media is the root of the problem in this.

GardenGnome on September 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I’m 100% in agreement with Erika here. However I want to remind any readers that while the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has not been proven, it has not been disproven either. I’m sure there are honest and honorable scientists working to better understand the effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Perhaps it will turn out that there is zero effect or, more likely, that there is some effect but that it is much less than previously predicted. Remember, this is science and history shows us that it is best to hold theories and beliefs lightly. Otherwise we become as rigid and dogmatic as the those we are currently mocking.

Fafhrd on September 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM

I’m 100% in agreement with Erika here. However I want to remind any readers that while the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has not been proven, it has not been disproven either. I’m sure there are honest and honorable scientists working to better understand the effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Perhaps it will turn out that there is zero effect or, more likely, that there is some effect but that it is much less than previously predicted. Remember, this is science and history shows us that it is best to hold theories and beliefs lightly. Otherwise we become as rigid and dogmatic as the those we are currently mocking.

Fafhrd on September 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Absolutely. This is pretty much my position on the issue, at least as far as the science itself is concerned. I do feel pretty safe in declaring that the most alarmist predictions of unmitigated catastrophe are almost certainly false.

NukeRidingCowboy on September 23, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2