The dark history of the climate debate

Part 1: Big Bang to Present

Science says that climate change, which is real, is caused by human activities.

But not everyone is convinced science exists. Some even call it a hoax—a story told to frighten small children and academics.

The history of this fascinating controversy has been told before. Unfortunately, all previous attempts (see Part I and Part II) are undermined by an almost tongue-in-cheek tone that verges, at times, on the semi-facetious. At CliScep we believe the past is no giggling matter, so we’re proud to present the first truly scholarly timeline of the intractable tragedy that is the climate debate thus far. Enjoy learn!

Oreskes on the anticonsensus movement 034

The most boring thing about understanding history, yawns Naomi Oreskes, is that you have to understand the past. The Harvard academic is the world’s first historian of scientific consensus, a concept she made up in 2004.

c. 4.1–3.8 bya

As the Hadean gives way to the Archaean, the Earth begins to cool; the autotrophs begin to drool.

c. 200,000 BC

The first humans act, causing human activity which then changes the Earth’s previously-immutable climate.

1642–1727 AD: Newton, Sir Isaac 

“MY RÔLE model? Newton, no question.

“There’s an old saying in science, which we came up with in 2009 after the contents of our emails became public knowledge: ‘Hey, gravity doesn’t stop working just because Newton was an asshole!’ My illustrious countryman taught me all I ever needed to know about being a decent person, and why it’s not necessary.”

Prof. Phil Jones
FOI critic

1872

First ‘Green Revolution’

The last whale ever murdered for its oil is laid to rest. From now on, civilized people will have the peace of mind that comes with knowing every drop they use is sourced from ethical, nature-friendly dinosaur juice.

Like all human progress, this is a bad thing. The new “fossil fuel industry” may have solved one problem for the planet but it will ultimately create a much graver one: anthropogenic global warming (also known as man-made climate change) skepticism.

1880–1930: Wegener, Alfred Lothar

“MY BIGGEST inspiration? I’d have to say Alfred Wegener, father of the scientific consensus on plate tectonics. Wegener’s faith in mainstream geology was so unwavering that he stood up for our ruling paradigm even when all around him ridiculed it—a lone voice for accepted science in a sea of contrarian rejection. His example teaches us the preciousness of majority science, a flame we must never suffer to be extinguished.

“Speaking out for the consensus can be lonely work, as Alfred Wegener learned the hard way.”

Naomi Oreskes
Professor of Majority Opinion in the Earth Sciences, Harvard University
Author of ‘Wegener: How One Man (Eventually) Won the War on Continental Drift Deniers

1894

In a “jabbering” address to Lords, Victorian pseudonaturalists warn that with brillig brilling earlier each day, mome raths may be forced to grib farther outwards in search of the toves that make up the bulk of their yearly snatch. An air of uffish mimsy whiffles through the House as Little Timmy, the leading orphan of the period, gimbles forth to perform An Ode To Silent Spring for the edification of the Marquesses and Marquessesses in attendance. The song pre-mourns the chortle of the last Jub Jub, say scholars of Late Middle Gibberish.

1922

Naomi Oreskes shat from Beelzebub’s cloaca, already fully-malformed and 5000 years old.

1951–1953: Search for the Double Helix 

“MY FAVORITE lesson from history? The power of positive visualisation.

“That’s what I take from the amazing story of Watson and Crick, who dubbed themselves the Double Helix Team and embarked on a 3-year scientific quest for the shape of DNA… which turned out to be a double helix! (What I wouldn’t give to be at that Cambridge pub when the dynamic duo burst in to announce drinks were on them—they’d found the sought-after spiral at last!)

Conceive It, Believe It, Prove It: if there’s a better definition of the Scientific Method, I’ve never heard it!”

Prof. Michael E. Mann
Captain of paleoclimatology’s Hockey Team

c.1962

Trouble on Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill!

Bristlecone pines, nature’s ’canary in the goldmine,’ have acted as a proxy for climate stability since time immemorial, but sometime during the Kennedy administration they become the first casualty of climate change when their physiology suddenly “flips”.

Climate skeptics can’t explain the inversion, which should be taken as an admission that the theory of climate skepticism is wrong.

1975

John Cook conceived

Stephan Lewandowsky, a Wisconsin psychologist, ingests a neurotoxic potion that makes the vilest gorgon look like the fairest maiden in the land, allowing her to seduce him.

By the time the alcohol wears off, Lewandowsky is alone in his bedchamber. The succubus—who gave her name only as Naomi Oreskes—has stolen silently away, carrying his precious seed within her. He never even knew her academic title.

The fruit of their drunken coupling, a boy-child named John Lewandowsky-Oreskes, will change his initials to those of the Antichrist when he comes of blogging age. Thus will the ancient projections be validated.

Lewandowsky tries to put the tryst behind him, but his fate is entwined with Oreskes’ forever. The couple are destined to lie together again, and again, and again (albeit mainly in the peer-reviewed literature).

1984

In the severest case of science denial in the annals of psychiatry, Tennessee preacher A. A. Gore persists in selling tobacco despite his own sister’s death from lung cancer.

1988

Climate science discovered

Thanks to testimony by James Hansen—who tampered with the air conditioning last night in order to emphasize the facts—Americans become aware of something called climate science. Loosely based on the natural sciences, this can be defined as ‘the human attempt to understand the atmosphere by surveying the beliefs of humans who believe they understand the atmosphere.’

IPCC created

Tasked with producing new science from nothing but existing science, IPCC authors will eschew such traditional solutions as meta-analysis and systematic review, finding they can achieve higher levels of science per gram via novel processes like ‘Summary,’ ‘Synthesis’ and other forms of stapling.

Heads of state everywhere are worried that the science may be too heavy to hold aloft whilst saying “this is the science,” so the IPCC plans to issue an ergonomic ‘Policymaker’s Digest’ version of each report before writing it.

1990

Conservative War on Science hatched

Wartime consiglieres for North America’s oil, ivory and landmine-dealing families today announce a major summit to conspire against science. The strategy sitdown, at an unnamed family restaurant, is thought to be the first time all five bosses have ever met in one McDonalds.

What emerges is a plan—in the argot of organized crime—to “make them an argument they can’t refute.”

In what pundits describe as “an idea so crazy it just won’t work,” all five families will spend the next 40 years concentrating their entire firepower on science’s strongest point—climatology—knowing that once it falls, the other, less-solid fields will put up little resistance.

1989-1994

Glaciers, icecaps and other ice-based objects continue to melt—a disturbing and unprecedented phenomenon we can only explain by admitting The Science™ is right.

1996

When a neighbor’s cat leaves its half-eaten prey on Dr Ben Santer’s porch, decades of hilarious paranoia, misunderstanding and climate hatred ensue!

Clinton-Gore ticket wins

Vice President Gore’s last-minute blueprint for saving the atmosphere has to be postponed for another 4 years when America refuses to let him leave the White House. 

Behind the scenes Gore is said to be furious at the planet’s setback, chewing his campaign staff out for making him “so goddamn f______ likeable.” But according to pollsters, the true drawcard for Dem voters was the Clinton ’96 ticket’s law and order platform (‘Sex Molesters Should Get Four More Years’).

1998 

GarageGate

Opponents of the climate—unable to counter the increasingly overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that science is real—resort to the OISM Petition.

This naked appeal to numbers (the ad populum or ad consensum fallacy), a manoeuvre to which no self-respecting scientist has stooped since the Lysenkoists, becomes the butt of immediate ridicule. Everyone from mainstream climate scientists to up-and-coming comedian Jon Stewart lambasts the gambit as “a sign of desperation” and “the mating call of  the evidentially bankrupt.”

Start of hiatus

Global warming—an incontrovertible, paradigmatic truth of nature on par with gravity or evolution—briefly stops being true.

Fearing a collapse of public trust in science itself, climatologists have no choice but to keep quiet about the ‘pause.’ Concealing the truth goes against every fibre of their being, but their courage is today credited with having prevented a worldwide orgy of looting and arson. 

1999

Michael Mann is the first victim, as well as the discoverer, of what he calls the ‘Serengeti Strategy.’ The besieged scientist takes comfort in the little-known fact that predators never go after the lame runt, the invalid gimp or any other vulnerable member of the herd, so it stands to reason that nobody would audit a paper to bloody shreds if they thought it was sub-par in any way.

2000

Contrary to the widespread lie, it isn’t the climate establishment but Frank Luntz—the Wunderkind of Republican propagandology—who this year tricks the world into using ‘climate change’ as a euphemism for ‘global warming.’ Luntz’ coinage is such a stroke of memetic genius that it even propagates backwards through time, convincing the United Nations to set up the IPCC (not the IPGW) twelve years ago.

2001

First reports emerge of a new, ahypothetical form of evidence. Scientists believe this substance—dubbed simply ‘the evidence’—may be capable of ‘piling up,’ gaining ‘weight’ and ‘pointing to’ various scientific and political conclusions.     

2002

Well-known secret Bush operative Rajendra Pachauri obtains strategic control of the IPCC, placing him perfectly to take down the climate-political process from within. But you have to get up pretty early in the morning to trick the world’s 2500 top scientists, who spring into action and give Pachauri the boot within days of discovering he’s a text predator in 2015.

2003

Mann broken but not bent

It’s back to the drawing-board for a demoralized Hockey Team, whose eponymous curve has somehow been invalidated by a work of “pure scientific fraud.” At their lowest ebb they joke about changing their name to The Happy With Any Signal We Find In Nature So Long As It’s The Truth Team.

In the end, though, the decision not to throw out their team T-shirts will prove remarkably prescient when new, improved science finds the exact same answer their old, spurious methods had spat out, essentially! 

2004

Naomi Oreskes, intellectual superstar of the climate movement, publishes her most profound thinking in a one-page essay on the mystery that has exercised some of history’s greatest minds: Do most scientists reject the majority view within science? Her finding—that they don’t—can only be described as “remarkable,” so she does.   

2005

Hurricane Katrina ushers in the misleadingly-named Age of Superstorms. Some of North America’s more excitable meteorologists even call her the continent’s “hurricane to end all hurricanes,” which will turn out to be accurate, if not necessarily the way they think.

At the Movies: You can’t handle the Inconvenience

Al Gore releases An Inconvenient Truth. The film’s most iconic graph indelibly burns into our consciousness the synchronized dance of CO2 levels with global temperatures. To avoid confusing viewers, Gore uses Mike’s Nature trick to hide the lag.

Evidence has officially jumped the ‘field barrier’: scientists everywhere go to the cinema only to learn that their papers are answering a question they didn’t ask.

The documentary is an instant hit with school teachers. Unfortunately, skeptics seize on a number of isolated lies to imply they somehow discredit the whole movie.

2006

When asked to explain “the scientific purpose” of his new expedition, oceanographer Steve Zissou says simply, “revenge.” The one-word answer provides a good laugh to moviegoers, a meme to the Internet and several grant applications to Stephan Lewandowsky.

Lewandowsky nodding contentedly colored

Face of a philanthropist: Few have done more to help climate skeptics understand their flawed thinking processes than Prof. Stefan Lewandowsky (pictured above, at centre). He often receives letters from recovering deniers thanking him for his research. “That’s what keeps me going. I certainly don’t do this for the money,” says Lewandowsky, who refuses to take a salary.

2007

Justice Burton of the High Court of England and Wales finds it unlawful to show An Inconvenient Truth in UK schools without ‘guidance notes’ alerting children to the film’s “political bias” and “errors of science.” Eager to win back the British education market, Gore’s editing team experiments with cutting all falsehoods and/or dishonest statements from the film. But the new, deception-free version tests poorly with schoolteachers, who complain that its 12-minute runtime isn’t even enough to waste a period.

2008

At the movies: Mainstream science finally hits the mainstream

Filmmaker and skeptic-hater James Cameron brings us the story of a band of noble savages and their fight to save a world-wide web of teleconnected trees from the rapacity of an evil mining executive. Not only does it make mad money, Avatar also dethrones An Inconvenient Truth as the most scientifically-accurate movie about the Hockey Stick to date.

2009 

Deniergate happens

Australians scandalized, misinformed when Gillard Government Chief Climate Commissioner Distinguished Panasonic Sustainability Professor Timothy J. Flannery, PhD denies the last decade of climate change, claiming on national TV that “there hasn’t been a continuation of that [former] warming trend.”

Computer scientist Andy Pitman is forced to write an op-ed explaining that the Hauptklimakommissar was being “silly,” and reminding the public not to trust anyone but a climate scientist.

Climategate is committed

The so-called Climategate affair (a nontroversy whipped up by the right-wing media) succeeds only in revealing the impeccably kosher and professional quality of the work done by scientists at the University of East Anglia, which is why almost none of them consider killing themselves.

Glaciergate transpires

Fundamentalist Feynmanites, Popperian puritans and other Methodist groups—adherents to a discipline they call ‘the scientific method‘—insist the IPCC should abandon its hypothesis in the wake of revelations that it made a false prediction about the Himalayan glaciers.

Jubilation breaks out when the Panel announces it will hold onto its dire theory of the world regardless. (A Guardian headline captures the ecstatic mood: Apocalypse Cancelled? Not!)

Legal spokesmen for the IPCC explain that—with its headquarters on international soil—the Turtle Bay, N.Y. organization has diplomatic immunity to the rules of science, and therefore “wouldn’t reconsider its hypothesis even if somebody remembered what it was.”

2010 

Operation Nonspiracy launched

The climate leadership begins a concerted drive to hose down conspiracist ideation by removing all appearance of secrecy about its ambitions to re-engineer the world.

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, explains in precise German that, “we are in fact redistributing the world’s wealth by climate policy… one must free oneself of the delusion that climate policy is [about] environmental policy.” It’s a message repeated ad nauseam by public figures from Tim Flannery and Christina Figueres to Pentti Linkola, Gina McCarthy and Jacques Chirac. But it seems that no matter how openly the agenda is spelled out, how often or in how many different languages, skeptics will continue to portray it as some sort of clandestine plot.

CRU cleared

Last year’s so-called Climategate emails revealed nothing suspicious at all, which is why thirty-seven independent inquiries have been held to make sure.*

Their resounding conclusion is that “quotes from” the emails “have been [cherry-]picked [out of context] by” skeptics “of [climate] change,” who “are… wrong” (source: SkepticalScience). Most importantly, the science is “…not. Corrupt…,” in the verdict of wind-farm multimillionaire Lord Ron Oxburgh.

*Independent of each other, not of the university under investigation.

In the Literature: Merchants of Doubt discovers, corrects flaw in Western knowledge

It’s almost laughable today, but just a few years ago, before Naomi Oreskes’ revelation that knowledge is nothing but ‘the ideas accepted by the fellowship of experts,’ most people fell for Aristotle’s lies about ‘justified true belief.’

Penn State leaves scandal behind for good

Penn State University—the corporation for which ‘Climategater’ Michael Mann works—carries out a thorough investigation into his conduct, methods, data and publications, concluding that they’ve brought in $4.1 million.

Mann is vindicated and will always treasure the glowing character reference he receives from his superior, the highly-competent sexologist Graham Spanier.

In The Literature: The Hockey Stick & The Climate Wars launched

Despite the denialist preoccupation with Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, the groundbreaking graph is actually a minor footnote and the conversation urgently needs to move on from Hockey-Stick-this, Hockey-Stick-that—a point to which Mann devotes several chapters of The Hockey Stick & The Climate Wars, his new bestseller about the unimportance of the Hockey Stick.

Look for it in the autohagiography section of your nearest legitimate bookstore.

2011

A blog post by Chris Mooney dated June 27 makes the earliest known mention of the theory that “better math and science education” would only make climate skepticism worse. Perversely, perplexingly and paradoxically, ‘the science’ (mainstream opinion in climatology) is thought to be the only correct belief system that’s less convincing the more you know about it—with the possible exception of religion, with which it has nothing else in common at all.

BackwashGate washes back on Gore

In a secretly-recorded, profanity-laden address to the Aspen Institute in Colorado, former Vice President Gore pronounces the top three skeptical arguments as listed at SkepticalScience.com to be “bullshit!” and blows the lid on perhaps the most diabolical plot in history: “They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists!”

The claims are immediately rejected by peak pseudoscience groups, who threaten to sue over the aspersion on their integrity. “Mr Gore, we are not for sale,” says a Union of Insouciant Pseudoscientists press release. “We ‘pretend to be scientists’ for one reason: because that’s what it means to be a pseudoscientist. We have never asked for a cent, though we’re happy to accept a small gratuity when clients feel our services are exceptional.”

In a letter to the Huffington Post, Prof. Richard Müller admits that “I was never a climate skeptic”—debunking his own claim to be the first scientist ever cured by closer examination of the evidence.

Senator Barbara Boxer [Dem., pro-science] treats fellow lawmakers to an oration on the devastating effects of atmospheric CO2 on our children’s ability to breathe, a problem the world’s scientists and doctors have managed to keep secret… until now. Babs earns the seal of approval from the RealClimate team, who find that she Gets The Science Right, Give Or Take—the highest category of praise a non-scientist is eligible to win.

Climategate 2.0 is perpetrated. The reprise of 2009’s cyber-probing traumatises the climate community afresh. “It feels like being violated, scrutinized and gloriously exonerated all over again,” says one climate scientist, who feels too dirty to give his or her name.

2012 

Keenly aware of the power of a catchy title, Stephan Lewandowsky seeks funding for a study he plans to call ‘NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax.’

Mark Steyn describes the Hockey Stick as fraud, making the costly mistake of forgetting to say “pure” and “scientific” first.

Panic breaks out at the ANU Climate Change Department after a retiree wields a document at a dinner event. Staff demand relocation to a “more secure” facility. 

In The Literature: The Republican Brain published

Scientifically-illiterate English grads everywhere marvel at neuroscientist Chris Mooney’s ability to somehow speak at their level.

Bodyguard of Lies doctrine unveiled

“Truth is so precious that she should be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” argues Stephan Lewandowsky by way of Winston Churchill in a seminal Conversation piece. The article goes on to recommend between 12 and 20 lies per truth, depending on the monetary preciousness of the latter.

The relevance of the Churchill quote practically speaks for itself, since—much like climate scientists today—the great man was engaged in a total war of mechanised murder against a population of millions.

Readers vote Lewandowsky’s piece as one of The Conversation’s most thought-provoking stories this year. “I’ll have to think twice, three times before believing anything a climate scientist says now,” reads a typical comment.

The core thesis—that science is war, and war is deception—is now considered mainstream, consensus Science Communication.

Setting aside our differences for the first and last time in the Climate Wars, the two camps come together to tut-tut Heartland’s Unabomber billboard. The beautiful, short-lived truce attracts comparisons to Christmas Day soccer in no man’s land 98 years earlier.

And lo, he saw a pillar of fire

In what scientists are calling “the new normal,” a Biblical vortex of flame that springs up from the shrublands of Curtin Springs, NT, Australia is captured by TV cameraman Chris Tangey.

While ordinary twisters are definitely a thing of the past, scientists warn that it may not always be possible to say in advance whether a given freaknado is made of fire or sharks.

In the Literature: The Brain That Changes Itself published, deplored

Legitimate scientists condemn the neurology bestseller by Norman Doidge, MD as “empowering” and “chang[ing] the way we think about the way we think.”

Vocal critic Naomi Oreskes warns that most people’s brains aren’t qualified to change themselves, adding, “I’m a legitimate scholar and I still get my brain changed by professionals.”

Chris Mooney, who says he gave up at the title, pans the book as “lazy.”

Mooney, the man-child behind such science-communication hits as The Wrong Right: What Science Says About the Science of Why They Don’t Believe in Science, points out that credible authors always use subtitles, allowing them to convey the nuances, complexities and qualifications they can’t fit in the main title.

Firenado (c) Chris Tangey

This is what climate change looks like, if anyone asks. (c) Chris Tangey

2013

For people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], especially those still reeling from a diagnosis of ALS—not to mention the army of unsung heroes who care for ALS sufferers—there’s probably no bigger problem in life than climate change. That’s what John Cook tells himself as he prepares to empty a bucket of polar icewater over his head, with proceeds going to help struggling climate researchers.

Rapid polar weirding traps climate scientist Chris Turney’s ship in unseasonal sea ice. The expedition is seen as an embarrassment for skeptics of the science of man-made global weirding [MMGW].

2014

On September 22, thousands march to send a simple message: that the world is ignoring the climate issue. The demonstration is more successful than intended.

2015

TataGate bursts wide open

The previously scandal-free climate world is now rocked by reports that forgers unconnected to Peter Gleick have been impersonating Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, while sending lascivious texts to his female staff.

In Delhi’s Lodhi Colony Police Station, a special task force (codename: Denuded Slopes) is sworn in and charged with bringing Pachauri’s extortionists to justice. The 20-detective squad starts by investigating groups that might feel threatened by the science of railway engineering.

Anti-inoxxer movement born

Drawing on the latest findings from the quasiscience of immunoanalogy, John Cook announces the ‘inoculation’ principle of climate communication: that you should only expose readers to an attenuated, or ‘straw-man,’ form of the arguments you’re trying to rebut. Pro-science bloggers take their lead from SkepticalScience, scrupulously pre-nerfing the virulent ideas they disagree with.

The science-doubting community, by contrast, proves to be every bit as anti-inoculation as it is anti-climate. The conclusions of pseudovirology pose an obvious threat to their libertarian faith in the primacy of rational discourse, honesty and individual deliberation, so skeptics refuse to stop quoting and accurately paraphrasing live opponents (an unhygienic practice that continues to this day).

2016

No change.

When we continue: what does the future hold for the climate debate? We can finally tell you, thanks to the latest in Forecasting The Facts technology.

14 thoughts on “The dark history of the climate debate

  1. A fair summary, Brad, although the grammer left much to be desired and in particular your usage of the word ‘it’s’ which, on 5 occashuns, lacked it’s mandatory apostrophe!**@

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s no good, even when you make it funny, my blood pressure still rises when I see those names. Every time I get to about 1999 I need to bite someone.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Dr Mann recognizes the importance of qualifiers such as “pure” and “scientific”. I also recognize their importance. This is why I always make sure to reference Stefan Lewandowsky as a “transparent” charlatan, but I’m not as qualified as Dr Mann in such matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I salute your qualifications, Canman—lexical precision is a dying art.

    Just don’t call him a “transparent obscurantist.” That would clearly muddy the waters.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. 2003
    Mann broken but not bent

    Brad,
    You possess a real knack for creative writing and wit, but my ignorance has me wondering about the origin of the above subtitle regarding Mann. ‘Bent but not Broken’ is a book title that has been exploited by multiple authors, and there are variations such as ‘Bent not Broken’, ‘Bent, not Broken’, etc. But…’broken but not bent’ has me puzzling a bit. Is this Brit double-meaning humor? I was thinking that perhaps ‘cracked but not broke’ might be a more appropriate characterization of Mann.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Dave L,

    it’s a bit like when you’re boxing and you’re “[knocked] out but not down.” Does that help?

    Like

  7. To my mind the fact that there is no evidence as such, merely lines of evidence, is what makes the science of AGW so undeniable. Random evidence can never be as convincing of evidence that comes in lines.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. 2007 “Justice Burton of the High Court of England and Wales finds it unlawful to show An Inconvenient Truth in UK schools without ‘guidance notes’ alerting children to the film’s ‘political bias’ and ‘errors of science’.”

    This is where I came in, shocked that a judge should be deciding what schoolchildren should be allowed to see. I’d read some (or maybe all three) of the articles in the Guardian on the subject, not one of which indicated how Justice Burton came to his decision: by comparing the statements in “An Inconvenient Truth” with those in the most recent IPCC report. Justice Burton, reasonably (if not very scientifically) chose to believe the IPCC over Gore.

    One week later Gore and the IPCC shared a Nobel Peace Prize (a bit like Henry Kissinger and the North Vietnam Foreign Minister). Everyone was happy, except me, since I’d meanwhile discovered Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Bizzarley, Brad, Ballydoyle’s Sir Isaac Newton has just won the Wolferton Handicap at Ascot.
    But while Ballydoyle may own Sir Isaac Newton, Chicago claims James Watson, not the British.

    [Francis Crick remains the sole property of Weston Favell, Northampton, capital of God’s own county.]

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.”

    Check out: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/controlling-the-science

    “Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change, which is a sub-panel of the NAS “America’s Climate Choices” panel. The reports are basically a re-hash of IPCC reports, which is not surprising when so many IPCC authors are on the panel, but with few actual climate scientists on-board.

    It includes for example Dr Richard H Moss, who is Vice President and Managing Director for Climate Change at the World Wildlife Fund. He is a former Senior Director for Climate Change and Energy, United Nations Foundation. The UNF was founded in 1998 with $1billion from Ted Turner, its President is Timothy Wirth, who helped to launch James Hansen into global warming fame in 1988.

    Moss has been a member of the IPCC since 1993. He is a Review editor for IPCC AR5 WGII Ch. 14, “Adaptation needs and options”. From 2000 to 2006, he served as director of the coordination office for the United States Climate Change Science Program. His doctorate is in Public and International Affairs.”

    There’s more……

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Michael Hart,

    hint (belatedly) taken. I’ve removed the description of Watson and Crick as “the Brits who…”

    Thanks!

    Like

  12. Pingback: Call that a Conversation? That’s not a Conversation; this is a Conversation. | Climate Scepticism

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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