The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

Please see your own #321. Michael Mann is the answer to your question.

 

Sorry, but that's false. I won't call it a lie because I'm not sure you actually read or understood the cited material.

 

It is still possible to fight back. But for how much longer?

Facebook Removed False Label After Scientists Said Climate ‘Alarmist’ Fact Checkers Are Targeting Them
September 25, 2019

 

There will no doubt be more of this.
Facebook and Climate Feedback Sued for Defamation
Charles Rotter
The alarmist group Climate Feedback defamed me twice: First by implying I said something I didn’t, and second by claiming my video is “partly false” even though there were NO…

 

NASA studies Earth as well as space.

Their Earth Sciences Division studies the physics and chemistry of our atmosphere, for example.

Information they develop is used in agriculture.

 

Your own OP is oriented to promoting conspiracy theory concerning suppression of information and promotion of false science.

 

Your post of "Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC" is very clearly about a conspiracy.

In fact, it is a conspiracy of the type that deniers are constantly claiming is going on today.

 

LOL

You sure have a problem separating the two words.....

Definitions might help you here:

Conspiracy:

Consensus:

Not even close.....

You should drop the Conspiracy babble now.

 

That's just another false characterization by you.

 

That's EXACTLY what that article claims.

It claims there was a group of people prominently positioned in the IPCC who conspired to project a view that was counter to science.

That IS a conspiracy.

The catch is that it didn't work, as scientists reacted against it strenuously.

What I point out is that this is an example of why conspiracies such as this face serious opposition from the world wide community of scientists.

 

Curry was pretty darn clear about this.

There was a coordinated attempt to project a false view, false in that it didn't match the science.

Scientists objected.

 

Another falsehood. It was the scientists who manipulated the process.

 

He can't tell the difference Jack, he is hopeless.

 

That's not a reasonable way of looking at what happened.

I'm sure they had some scientists in on their conspiracy. We could go into the various ways this can happen.

The point is that the IPCC conspiracy FAILED, because they did not have the power to prevent the truth from coming out.

The important point here is that scientists from around the world objected.

 

That's just another of your serial falsehoods.

"Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change. . . .
An opinion editorial written by Frederick Seitz ‘Major deception on “global warming” appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 12 June 1996.
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be—it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the NAS and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. . . .
I think Bernie Lewin is correct in identifying the 1995 meeting in Madrid as the turning point. It was John Houghton who inserted the attribution claim into the draft Summary for Policy Makers, contrary to the findings in Chapter 8. Ben Santer typically gets ‘blamed’ for this, but it is clearly Houghton who wanted this and enabled this, so that he and the IPCC could maintain a seat at the big policy table involved in the Treaty. . . .
I hope this history of manufacturing consensus gives rational people reason to pause before accepting arguments from consensus about climate change."

Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

Just another serial falsehood.

 

I haven't proposed that no scientists were involved.

The point is that it didn't work.

You can suggest that it took too long.

 

It did work. That's the point of Curry's cautionary final sentence.

 

See, "The Corruption of Economics" by Mason Gaffney.

Of course not. You simply made that up. People have every right to lie. It just isn't honest.

 

It sure as hell did.

 

No, that's not actually true.

Scientists called out where specific statements were wrong. And, the underlying science was not corrupted.

It would be great if this had been caught faster, obviously. But, the demonstration here is that the scientists from around the world who were studying the numerous fields intersecting with climate didn't change their science - they called the alarm!

 

NASA has no need to be experts in climate.
They have a minor role in weather. And that is reasonable.
Men like Lindzen and Ms. Curry of course do have a professional role in Climate.
They spent decades studying climate and are excellent experts.

 

The price of the book is as much as the cost of a good meal. And in the case of the book, the lesson is lasting.
The story is about the value of land.

Hey, I am a former Real Estate Broker who has sold land, who is willing to consider this. The leader of the land should be taxed and not income has a good case.

 

More from Judith Curry's fine work.

Jack Hays has already given the link to the story.

JC reflections

Bernie Lewin’s book provides a really important and well documented history of the context and early history of the IPCC.

I was discussing Lewin’s book with Garth Paltridge, who was involved in the IPCC during the early years, he emailed this comment:

I am a bit upset because I was in the game all through the seventies to early nineties, was at a fair number of the meetings Lewin talked about, spent a year in Geneva as one of the “staff” of the early WCRP, another year (1990) as one of the staff of the US National Program Office in the Washington DC, met most of the characters he (Lewin) talked about…… and I simply don’t remember understanding what was going on as far as the politics was concerned. How naive can one be?? Partly I suspect it was because lots of people in my era were trained(??) to deliberately ignore, and/or laugh at, all the garbage that was tied to the political shenanigans of international politics in the scientific world. Obviously the arrogance of scientists can be quite extraordinary!

Scientific scepticism about AGW was alive and well prior to 1995; took a nose-dive following publication of the Second Assessment Report, and then was was dealt what was hoped to be a fatal blow by the Third Assessment Report and the promotion of the Hockey Stick.

A rather flimsy edifice for a convincing, highly-confident attribution of recent warming to humans.

I think Bernie Lewin is correct in identifying the 1995 meeting in Madrid as the turning point. It was John Houghton who inserted the attribution claim into the draft Summary for Policy Makers, contrary to the findings in Chapter 8. Ben Santer typically gets ‘blamed’ for this, but it is clearly Houghton who wanted this and enabled this, so that he and the IPCC could maintain a seat at the big policy table involved in the Treaty.

 

LOL - no, NASA has every reason to study Earth from the surface on up. They have had a LONG term directorate established by Congress for that purpose.

Beyond that, there are similar organizations in countries the world over who are also studying Earth's climate.

You can't ignore than by pointing to TWO INDIVIDUALS who have reservations.