UNFCCC citation below, 'Institutional loyalties' subhead. "‘Consensus police’: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry reveals scientists trying to ‘stifle skeptical research’," Climate Depot. "My treatment at the hands of the consensus police has apparently discouraged some other scientists from publicly following suit." Dr. Curry
8/20/13, "Scientists and motivated reasoning," Dr. Judith Curry, Climate, Etc.
"Curry is the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology."
Excerpts from Dr. Curry's essay by Climate Depot:
"…at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.
These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.
…
So do I think IPCC scientists are policy advocates? They seem mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has become central to their professional success, funding, and influence. Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view the policy as part an parcel of the IPCC dogma that must be protected and preserved at all cost, else their success, funding and influence will be in jeopardy.
Early on in my statements about Climategate, I became aware that my statements were looked upon very unfavorably by some scientists, particularly those that were vocal advocates of the IPCC and UNFCCC policies. As an example, Peter Webster related a conversation at a professional meeting in 2010 with a young scientist who said something like: ‘You know, Judy is REALLY unpopular among the scientists at lab. I’m not sure, but I think she might be right. I can say that to you but of course I wouldn’t dare say that at the lab.’
…
My ‘ostracism’ from the IPCC advocacy ’tribe’ has been noted by other scientists that are quietly sympathetic to my position. As an example, several years ago at a conference, one of the speakers was quite critical of one piece of the conventional IPCC wisdom, but prefaced the talk with the statement something like this: ’While my talk contains some evidence that challenges some of the findings of the IPCC, I want to state up front that I support the IPCC consensus on climate change.’ After the talk, I asked this scientist why he felt the need to preface his talk with a statement of IPCC allegiance, when his research was rather devastating to part of the IPCC’s argument. He stated ‘I don’t want to have to put up with what you have had to,
so I make it very clear that I support the IPCC consensus.’
…
My treatment at the hands of the consensus police has apparently discouraged some other scientists from publicly following suit. On the other hand, perhaps I have helped to pave the way for the emergence of a Tamsin Edwards. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. And all this is why I regard the institutionalization of climate tribalism such as evidenced by the recent AGU statement on climate change to be so pernicious to the field of climate science.
…
Climate change is arguably a unique case in all of science owing to magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts of both the problem and the proposed solutions and the massive institutionalization of a consensus that has been manufactured by the IPCC.
… Private funding, the internet, and the emergence of scientists from outside the traditional community (not just Muller’s team but also Steve McIntyre, Nic Lewis etc.) bodes well for improving the integrity of climate science in the 21st century and diminishing the effectiveness of the consensus police."
------------------------------
"Also see: ‘Flashback 2010: ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’", " Climate Depot
-------------------------
The "Institutional loyalties" subhead from Dr. Curry's 8/20/13 essay, "Scientists and motivated reasoning," begins with a paragraph about formation of the UNFCCC and IPCC based on self fulfilling prophecy, ie, not a search for truth. The goal was to regulate CO2 by international law. Much of this subhead is included in above excerpts. Here is the subhead in its entirety:
"Institutional loyalties" (subhead)
"In the early days of this blog (11/3/2010), one of my more controversial essays was Reversing the positive feedback loop, which lays out motivated reasoning associated with institutional loyalties. Excerpts (with some slightly toned down wording):
"Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.
Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.
Especially in the renascent subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.
Further, the institutions that support science use the publicity to argue for more funding to support climate research and its impacts. And the broader scientific community inadvertently becomes complicit in all this. While the IPCC proponents loudly cry out against the heretical skeptical scientists and the dark influences of big oil and right wing ideology that are anti-science, we all join in bemoaning these dark forces that are fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics.
So do I think IPCC scientists are policy advocates? They seem mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has become central to their professional success, funding, and influence. Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view the policy as part an parcel of the IPCC dogma that must be protected and preserved at all cost, else their success, funding and influence will be in jeopardy."
Back in 2010, this post raised the ire of a number of people. My response to people that were angered by my post: ‘If the shoe fits, wear it; if it doesn’t, don’t.’
The existence of an institutionalized consensus further complicates the issue, and an additional motivation comes into play. In my paper No consensus on consensus, I used this quote from Jean Goodwin:
“Once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.”"...
==========================
Comment: Among the billions of US taxpayer dollars transferred yearly to the UN on a no-strings basis, is at least half the budget of the UN IPCC. GAO says no one knows the total we pay because it's given out in numerous ways, eg through the State Dept., through the NSF, USGCRP, etc.
.
On 2/19/11, The Hill reported US taxpayers give $12.5 million a year to the UN IPCC. The funds are used to jet set around and lecture us that we must reduce our lifestyle and not jet set around:
.
2/9/11, "The IPCC receives about $12.5 million per year from the government." The Hill
.
==========================
In 2013, $13 million US taxpayer dollars went to the UN IPCC just from the State Dept.:
4/12/13, "Despite sequester, State Department ups support for the UN," George Russell, Fox News
"State Department contributions to “International Organizations and Programs” include a 30 percent hike, to $13 million, for the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose assessments of global warming have been sharply criticized by skeptics."...
===========================
2012 GAO report, US taxpayers pay 50% of UN IPCC bills:
In 2012, CNS News reported GAO stated we pay about half the UN IPCC budget, named a lower figure than the 2011 but as stated above, it's impossible to know the total:
1/3/12, "U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel," CNS News, E. Harrington
"In a Nov. 17, 2011 report, “International Climate Change Assessments: Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding,” the GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years -- $31.1 million so far.
The IPCC runs an annual budget of $7 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, making the United States a major benefactor
- for its global warming agenda....
After facing “key challenges” in determining the amount of funding to the IPCC, the GAO now recommends that U.S. funding be reported annually to Congress with “accurate and consistent information.”
The report said documents on U.S. financing for the IPCC were “not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the
- agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress.”
A 2005 GAO report entitled “Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete” found that federal funding for climate change was not adequately accountable. “Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time,” the report concluded.
The report also found federal funding for global warming had increased by 116 percent between 1993 and 2004, to $5.1 billion.
The $3.1 million annual U.S. funding goes towards the IPCC’s “core activities”: meetings of the governing bodies, co-ordination meetings, support for the developing country co-chairs, the IPCC Web site and Secretariat. The IPCC assesses scientific information, but does not conduct any research of its own.
According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the United States “has made the world’s largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research” with
- a total of nearly $20 billion over the past 13 years....
The organization has been the subject of controversy in the last several years when thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were stolen and released in 2009, and again in November 2011, on the eve of climate talks in Durban, South Africa."...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment