Very interesting. I've been explaining to people for a while now that IPCC is not a science organization, it's a political consensus organization. This well-researched article fills in some of the gaps helping to understand the conflicts of interests that work below the surface to distort and politicize/financialize climate science/policy.
I didn't recognize any of the names on the lists of committee members. Has anyone requested disclosures of conflicts of interest, and so forth, that might reveal bias or the possibility for undue influence.
I'm also trying to understand if this is a bad thing, unless it does reflect improper influence. The IPCC's failure to admit the implausibility of RCP 8.5 suggests that there may be shenanigans afoot.
COI in climate science is a long standing problem. In 2010, there was much ado about COI in the IPCC which then revisited their policy around 2011. It's an off and on topic of discussion.
IMO, the COI problem is coming to a head because of the extent to which climate change science is being embedded into the global financial system: central banks, mortgage lenders, asset managers, regulatory standards, etc.
Thank you. This was an interesting post. It was ironic that much of this question has arisen because of testimony before Congress. I draw a parallel between the COI issue in science and the controversy surrounding SCOTUS.
It is also amusing (to me, anyway) how Congress is more than willing to police everyone else, but not themselves.
Thank you again, and please keep up your good work.
I do not recognize any of them, either. Of course there should be quite a few names unfamiliar to me, since I am not a specialist in this science area, but at least 1/4th or so should be well known for their contributions to basic climate science.
Well, well, well. Of COURSE we can trust these few elite 'scientists' to be TOTALLY objective. They would NEVER do anything reprehensible like push their own products or the products of the organizations that pay them the big bucks - that would be UNETHICAL - the horror!
Now we can add 'Climate Emergency' to the long (and growing longer by the day) of 'conspiracy theories' that have turned out to be factual. It is absolutely amazing to me that ANYONE believes these guys anymore - - except for the fact that the entire industry's payola depends one everybody staying in lock-step with each other, regardless of how badly their pronouncements reflect reality.
From the days of Kyoto when it was written that the cleanest, largest source of CO2-free electricity would not be eligible for carbon credits, it was clear that the entire project had nothing to do with actually lowering CO2 emissions.
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
GHE theory says Earth w or wo atmos/GHE/30% albedo: 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler, -18 C, is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR consequence of a 30% albedo not the result of a GHE.
Without GHG water vapor there is no 30% albedo.
30% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 240 W/m^2 & 255 K.
Lunarific 10% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 308 W/m^2 & 271 K, 16 C warmer.
Black magma covered Earth 0% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 342 W/m^2 & 278 K, 23 C warmer.
288 K is a measured surface temperature.
255 K is a calculated equilibrium OLR at ToA.
These two numbers cannot be compared.
396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR is the theoretical “What if?” BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic that emissivity is: 0.16 = 63/396. SURFRAD & USCRN also incorrectly assume BB.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and lower radiation.
Less kinetic action produces warmer temperatures and higher radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
In 2011 Occupy Wall Street started to get public recognition of the unbalanced power banks are wielding and the inherent problems for democracy when wealth is over-concentrated and wages are kept stagnant.
In what seems like moments, it disappeared and was replaced by well funded movements to focus all attention on gender and race issues and the banks went on their merry ways, gathering power and furthering their campaign to force us all to live in tiny high rise apartments, give up personal transportation or, indeed, personal travel, and to eat bugs.
If the IPCC is being driven by the big banks, no good can come from it.
Very interesting. I've been explaining to people for a while now that IPCC is not a science organization, it's a political consensus organization. This well-researched article fills in some of the gaps helping to understand the conflicts of interests that work below the surface to distort and politicize/financialize climate science/policy.
Just one big “ good old boys network “. Who would have ever thunk it?
I didn't recognize any of the names on the lists of committee members. Has anyone requested disclosures of conflicts of interest, and so forth, that might reveal bias or the possibility for undue influence.
I'm also trying to understand if this is a bad thing, unless it does reflect improper influence. The IPCC's failure to admit the implausibility of RCP 8.5 suggests that there may be shenanigans afoot.
This is a look at climate change science's 'back of the house.' For whatever the Reuters "Hot List" ranking is worth several of the researchers on my chart are ranked including three in the top 10 (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/).
COI in climate science is a long standing problem. In 2010, there was much ado about COI in the IPCC which then revisited their policy around 2011. It's an off and on topic of discussion.
IMO, the COI problem is coming to a head because of the extent to which climate change science is being embedded into the global financial system: central banks, mortgage lenders, asset managers, regulatory standards, etc.
Thank you. This was an interesting post. It was ironic that much of this question has arisen because of testimony before Congress. I draw a parallel between the COI issue in science and the controversy surrounding SCOTUS.
It is also amusing (to me, anyway) how Congress is more than willing to police everyone else, but not themselves.
Thank you again, and please keep up your good work.
I do not recognize any of them, either. Of course there should be quite a few names unfamiliar to me, since I am not a specialist in this science area, but at least 1/4th or so should be well known for their contributions to basic climate science.
Well, well, well. Of COURSE we can trust these few elite 'scientists' to be TOTALLY objective. They would NEVER do anything reprehensible like push their own products or the products of the organizations that pay them the big bucks - that would be UNETHICAL - the horror!
Now we can add 'Climate Emergency' to the long (and growing longer by the day) of 'conspiracy theories' that have turned out to be factual. It is absolutely amazing to me that ANYONE believes these guys anymore - - except for the fact that the entire industry's payola depends one everybody staying in lock-step with each other, regardless of how badly their pronouncements reflect reality.
From the days of Kyoto when it was written that the cleanest, largest source of CO2-free electricity would not be eligible for carbon credits, it was clear that the entire project had nothing to do with actually lowering CO2 emissions.
Rev 6
“the Inconvenient Skeptic”
John Kehr
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
GHE theory says Earth w or wo atmos/GHE/30% albedo: 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler, -18 C, is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR consequence of a 30% albedo not the result of a GHE.
Without GHG water vapor there is no 30% albedo.
30% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 240 W/m^2 & 255 K.
Lunarific 10% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 308 W/m^2 & 271 K, 16 C warmer.
Black magma covered Earth 0% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 342 W/m^2 & 278 K, 23 C warmer.
288 K is a measured surface temperature.
255 K is a calculated equilibrium OLR at ToA.
These two numbers cannot be compared.
396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR is the theoretical “What if?” BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic that emissivity is: 0.16 = 63/396. SURFRAD & USCRN also incorrectly assume BB.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and lower radiation.
Less kinetic action produces warmer temperatures and higher radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no GHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
Terrifying.
In 2011 Occupy Wall Street started to get public recognition of the unbalanced power banks are wielding and the inherent problems for democracy when wealth is over-concentrated and wages are kept stagnant.
In what seems like moments, it disappeared and was replaced by well funded movements to focus all attention on gender and race issues and the banks went on their merry ways, gathering power and furthering their campaign to force us all to live in tiny high rise apartments, give up personal transportation or, indeed, personal travel, and to eat bugs.
If the IPCC is being driven by the big banks, no good can come from it.
May I repost this on wattsupwiththat.com, with credit, link back to original, and a call to subscribe to your stack?
Of course. Thanks for asking!