JamesCurran wrote:
um... Could you please point out where in that link you posted it shows ANYTHING that I said was wrong?
I said he got a degree in physics 50 years ago and hasn't worked in the field since. That page shows that he got a degree in physics 50 years ago and hasn't worked in the field since.
I said he works in marketing; that page says he works in the "corporate office" of Eurochannel (A TV station).
I originally got my information from his LinkedIn page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-catt-05872/And I do not "believe anything the government will tell you". *I* believe in the collective wisdom of experts in the field, who universally agree on human-caused climate change. *YOU* however, will believe anyone who confirms what you want to believe (and falsely elevate that person to "Expert" regardless of their qualifications)
Also, here's another article correcting that guy:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/countering-bogus-climate-claims-made-on-british-television/um... Could you please point out where in that lin... (
show quote)
Your last article cited leans heavily on the biased musings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (iPCC) who throw around untruths like “every major scientific organization agrees…”. This organization is primarily sponsored by the UN and benefits politically its members. Humans obviously have some effect on the condition of this planet but to what extent and is it fair placing extraordinary costs on United States citizens while China, India and all third world nations are going to burn whatever it takes to produce energy. (Maybe you should focus on plastic, in all of our water and recently even measured in the Sierra snow pack)
Here is an opinion written by Jason S. Johnston:
Since 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has produced regular assessments of the state of climate science and also provided reports on particular aspects of climate science when requested by the United Nations, its primary sponsoring entity. The IPCC has long advertised itself as an unbiased and objective reporter on the state of cli- mate science, and even otherwise independent-minded people often base arguments about the consequences of climate change on IPCC numbers. By explaining the origins, structure, process, and output of the IPCC, this essay shows that such reliance on the IPCC is badly misplaced. The IPCC is not and has never been an objective science assessment organization.
It was created by and has always been controlled by the governments of countries that perceive political benefits from international regulatory ac- tion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC is a scientific advocacy organization. It presents science that supports costly regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while suppressing or ignoring entirely scientific work that shows that the costs of such action is likely far higher and the benefits far lower than advertised.
As this study shows, while the IPCC advertises its reports as pro- duced by a process involving peer review by thousands of outside review- ers, not only are many “outside” review comments actually submitted by authors or contributors to IPCC reports, but the IPCC has no mechanism to ensure that outside review comments have any impact. Authors of IPCC reports are overseen only by review editors who are themselves chosen by and responsible not to scientists but to IPCC government officials. In any event, IPCC authors have complete discretion to disregard review editor comments—and any external review comments.
Predictably, this process has generated assessment reports that repeatedly ignore published scientific work that contradicts or qualifies the methodology and conclusions drawn by those reports. For example, in its most recent 2021 report on the the physical science of climate change, the IPCC says with “high confidence” that surface temperatures over
the last 50 years have increased at the fastest rate in the last 2000 years. What the IPCC report completely fails to say is that because instrumental surface temperature measurements only became generally available in the
fraserinstitute.org / i
ii / The Hand of Government in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
fraserinstitute.org
late nineteenth century, “measurements” prior to that time are not meas- urements but reconstructions from temperature proxies such as tree ring growth records. Different temperature reconstructions vary enormously, and according to several such reconstructions, temperatures today are not higher than temperatures reached during the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago. Even worse, the 2021 IPCC report fails entirely to note that recent surface temperature increases are much larger than trends in the troposphere measured by satellites, a divergence that many scientists take as indicating that surface temperature trends do not reliably measure the influence of rising atmospheric greenhouse gases, but rather have been caused by the vast and rapid urbanization and land conversion that oc- curred throughout the world in the latter half of the twentieth century.
IPCC reports are highly selective, typically ignoring or dismissing scientific work that questions the methodology or contradicts the con- clusions drawn by such reports. Summaries of IPCC reports, which are widely disseminated to the media and general public, are written line by line not by scientists, but by the government officials who comprise the IPCC panel, and such summaries must receive unanimous approval from those officials before release. These summaries often make claims about climate science that are completely unsupported by the full reports they ostensibly summarize and often even contradict material included in the summaries themselves.
For example, in the Summary for Policymakers of its 2021 report on the physical science of climate change, the IPCC stated with confidence that “human induced climate change” has caused increases since 1950 in the frequency of both heavy precipitation events and severe drought. But the figures and data in the summary itself do not support these headline claims. The data and figures show that in the vast majority of regions in the world, there has been no increase in the frequency of either type of severe weather event. Likewise, the figures and data actually report that
in few if any regions of the world (to be precise, 2 out of 47) is there any evidence of a human contribution. Thus the headline statements in the summary are not even supported by the summary, let alone the full report ostensibly being summarized.
International climate policy should be based on a full and fair assess- ment of what is known and not known regarding the causes and conse- quences of global climate change. The IPCC has never produced such an assessment, and its structure and processes ensure that it never will. The IPCC in fact misleads more than it informs, and its continuing existence is harmful to sound policy design.