UK Press Turns Up the Heat on IPCC for Weeks

We have to give thanks to the press in the UK for doing its job and doing it well. As if the “Climategate” findings weren’t enough, for the past couple of weeks it seems that UK papers, specifically the Daily Mail, are constantly calling out the IPCC and the climate change movement as bad data continues to stain their image.

Some links below are from Dennis Prager’s Show blog.

  • Daily Mail 1/24/10: The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. 
  • Daily Mail 1/24/10: THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
  • Daily Mail 1/31/10: A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

Why has the IPCC lost much of its credibility in my eyes? First off, any UN panel by default has a strike against it because they are the UN. But as for the IPCC specifically, its because they’ve let the environmentalists pollute the waters when it comes to providing scientific evidence for their theories. They’ve taken data from groups of people that are not scientists, they are environmentalists and activists. I am having a hard time deciding whether or not these people are true believers or if they have an ulterior motive, like growing the size of government and diminishing American sovereignty or both.

Some scientists are just as bad. Scientifically speaking, a scientist should always be open to the idea that their theory is wrong and go where the evidence leads. But, because they get government funding and public support by providing results, or proof, that climate change is happening, they have a motive to fudge the numbers and provide their own evidence. That may not always be the case, but I bet it does motivate some. And to make things worse, I think that some scientists are simply just left wing environmentalists in their own right and support global warming theories and leftist theories on government. Again, not all, just some. I’m sure there are some out there that are quite objective. So you have this mix of pure belief, a desire to get funding and leftist ideologies that corrupt the whole process.

C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called “The Funeral of a Great Myth” an essay on “Evolutionism,” not the scientific theory of evolution, but more the activist form of evolution. In it he talks about data collection, and it applies to this argument as well. Just note that when he speaks about the “myth” he is not talking about climate change, but rather “Evolutionism and Developmentalism,” climate change is a theory that I think had yet to pop up.

C.S. Lewis “The Funeral of a Great Myth”:

What the Myth uses is a selection from the scientific theories – a selection made at first, and modified afterwards, in obedience to imaginative and emotional needs. It is the work of the folk imagination, moved by its natural appetite for an impressive unity, it therefore treats its data with great freedom selecting, slurring, expurgating, and adding at will.

These groups, both the scientists and the activists, have done a good job of galvanizing the people. They’ve made it so that dissent to catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change is not ethical. They’ve said that the debate on the issue is over, they have an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is real, and they are acting on that evidence. But as this public relations campaign goes on and on we start to see how they morph the words to work in their favor. They do exactly what Lewis is talking about, they modify the argument. What was once “global warming” is now “climate change.” The topic becomes broader and broader and allows for more results, until you end up getting to the point that no matter what happens, whether its hot or cold, raining or snowing, windy or calm, its all related to global “climate change.”

So activist groups like World Wildlife Fund submit data to the IPCC and the IPCC takes this data as truth, because they are hungry for evidence. Once you have the IPCC backing the opinion it gets introduced into the political arena, politicians and pundits then start citing the IPCC because of its “credibility” and no matter if its true or false, if its said enough times it becomes “truth.” The only way to fight that is to show the IPCC for what it really is, and call them out, essentially ruin their credibility. At that point “skeptics” pick the most opportune time to break a story and change the debate. They did just that with the release of the Climategate papers right before the Copenhagen summit. Because the story broke in the UK I think the UK is more tuned in with the issue, hence the reason why all of this is breaking out of the UK.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: