“Paying someone to misinform you about the future…” perfect PA.
Mosher’s comment reveals the ‘climate service provider’ business-model (which doesn’t exist but he seems to think so let’s roll with it) is the same model as astrologers and tarot card readers.
Lost the debate, but still winning the war for hearts, minds and wallets:
“Thursday, June 04, 2015
Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually.”
Not a good issue for the greeny Democrats. Keystone pipeline rejection is another nail in their coffin. When the Donald gets a hold of the pen and the phone, the coal trains of death will roll again.
I omitted one section from the report of Report of the second session of (IPCC) 28 June 1989:
“The panel invited interested UN organizations, regional or global intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and private institutions that wish to to contribute in the matter, to collaborate with appropriate analyses. …. The panel invited the contribution from these organizations in order that its own work may be improved.”
It seems like IPCC had a strategy from the very beginning to welcome the contribution from non-governmental organizations – activist organizations. The risk for biased research because of that strategy doesn´t seem to have occured to UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program), WMO (World Meteorological Organization) or IPCC.
Do you happen to have a link to some further information about: “Greenpeace and the WWF have a presence at the IPCC meetings, participate in the press conferences, have provided some of the “scientific literature”, and drafted some of the language.”
What’s troubling about this WMO community paper, or whatever it’s status is,
are the opening pars:
“Climate services have the potential to contribute to human security by improving our ability to enhance societal benefits, and reduce losses, related to climate.”
Srsly? “The potential to contribute to human security.” Not the ability to contribute. Just potential. Might contribute, might not and all points imbetween. Who knows! And “the ability to enhance societal benefits related to climate”. Not enhancement. Just the ability to enhance. And srsly, what ‘societal benefits related to climate’? Breathing? Who knows!
It’s just boilerplate academic climate alarmist verbiage, means nothing, can’t stand up to any scrutiny.
And then this:
“Climate services offer tools, products and information to help users anticipate and address the immediate, intensifying and potentially dangerous impacts of climate variability and change. Developed in collaboration between information users and providers, climate services are built on human relationships that open the process to a range of ethical conundrums. Climate information providers and the scientific products they generate operate from a position of trust and should be held to the highest ethical standard. Climate service providers that do not consider the consequences of their actions and information may implicitly contribute to poor decision-making and to maladaptation, with all the attendant implications.”
More dreadful writing. But boil it down and it means this:
~Climate services deliver information to enable users to anticipate climate variability and to address it in the context of their business. Information accuracy is the foundation for the supply of climate services to a paying customer-base. Inaccurate information relied on by customers to their determinant will result in litigation.~
My reaction too. A “cohesive ethical framework” based on honesty and integrity should be inherent.
Nice put Beththeserf
I further think the reason so many get it wrong is that the scientific is counterintuitive.
A theory is corroborated and merited by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived. And not at all by inductive reasons in favor of it. Hence, in addition to creativity in coming up with the theory, a skeptical attitude is required to design and conduct proper tests.
Those who get it wrong are easily revealed as a consequence of the method being counterintuitive. Any proponent of the United Nations climate theory who calls their opponents “skeptics” demonstrates a lack of understanding of and respect for the scientific method.
“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.”
– Freeman Dyson
“… what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival. ”
– Karl Popper
@PA: However to this point the global warmers have been pretty much incorrect across the board.
Instead of denying, PA, how about affirming how brilliant a job the climate deniers have done in predicting future climate?
Without that you can’t show that your predictions are any better than tossing a coin.
If even that given your confirmation bias.
Your claim that scientifically made predictions have not been borne out have been borne out only by demonstrably unjustifiable techniques.
Let’s try to have a little more scientific rigor here, shall we?
@DM: Por ejemplo, you have been observed engaging in shenanigans right here all by your lonesome.
¿Vive cerca de la frontera, Don?
Might explain a lot. Recuerde el álamo.
I hear that sort of thing a lot in academia. My response is always, I’d like to hear your fellow academics back you up on that.
More than ever today the currency of academic dissension is the strawman argument where you accuse your colleagues of something they simply didn’t say!
Let them speak for themselves.
Popper’s (and Einstein’s) demarcation btw
science and assertion, btw test and trust me.
It might be a good idea to explain to the readers what the trendy term “climate services” stands for. There seems to be some confusion about it.
You can’t be sure the CO2 will be ethically sourced and not used for experiments on hyper-carbonating Fanta or Dr Pepper. Geoengineers are mostly in the pay of Big Silly, though some work for Big Potty.
It could mean the estimates of other sources are off.
3.0 has been the value for a long time (incl AR4). However, the divergence between the climate models and energy balance methods considered by AR5 rightfully resulted in their declination to indicate a ‘best’ or median value. Note AR5 WG3 didn’t get the memo until too late, and they used 3.0
At least some of the coral damage is due not to acidification, but to orals are exposure to oxybenzone, an ingredient in sunscreens.
3.2 is not higher than CMIP5 models
OK. My bad. I’d had that wrong in my head for a long time.
My motivated reasoning, I guess.
Thank you.
The Cold Sun Rising article is a bit of comic relief designed to cheer up the skeptics in the face of all the facts around them. It concludes that at least the violins will be good. What is this stuff?
