Inside Job
Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2011
One thing which is abundantly clear from the emails is the incestuousness of the climate consensus. Of course they fail to see the problem but that is what happens when you are blinded by the goal. Below is a particularly honest statement by Hulme on Pachuri’s election to head the IPCC. He is fully aware that the IPCC is not really about the science. DEFRA’s (UK version of the EPA) support of Martin Parry is particularly interesting as you can find internet references of him sitting in front of DEFRA later on to make reports back. So they put him in place and receive reports back on issues which are more about energy and money than science.
I suppose people will tell us that there is nothing wrong there.
#0660
cc: s.raper
date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:44 2002
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Phil,
I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.
If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).
Mike
Grzegorz Staniak said
“why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science”
“He is fully aware that the IPCC is not really about the science”
Since when engineering/economics is not “about the science”? What do you think WG3 is there for, Jeff? Can’t you see Hulme is talking about the geographic spread of impacts? And what do nominations for IPCC head positions have to do with the reports? You’re not going to argue that Pachauri researches/writes anything, or even directs the work, are you?
“I suppose people will tell us that there is nothing wrong there.”
It’s good to see that at least you’re aware of it, Jeff.
Anonymous said
While there are reasons to criticise Pachuri, surely being an engineer isn’t one of them.
AndyL said
While there are reasons to criticise Pachuri, surely being an engineer isn’t one of them
kim said
Classically, the train engineer’s effectiveness was measured by his ability to motivate the coal shovelers.
=============
Mark T said
I always thought train engineers were the ones that drove the train.
Mark
Jeff Id said
“I always thought train engineers were the ones that drove the train.”
I know! Imagine my disappointment after seven years of engineer school.
kim said
Pachauri Jones you better, watch your speed.
===============
Frank K. said
“…so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and MONEY, than natural science.”
BINGO! Kaching! It’s the Climate Ca$h talkin’…
BobN said
Excellent allusion Kim!
kim said
I’m sad to say, BN, I first made that up several years ago. I feel like I’m tied to the tracks.
=============
kim said
Burlington Northern Tracks. Carrying Coal. Ouch!
===============
kakatoa said
It certainly looks like Dr. Hulme’s had moved past any concern about uncertainties and missing natural variables- including their interactions and emergent properties- built into the CC models to the science is settled viewpoint by April of 2002. As a True Believer, as defined by Hoffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer , in the settled science- with what appears to be aspirations of authority similar to a CEO (or President)- it makes perfect sense for him to get the best Sr. VP of marketing to get the message of his version of what the settled science of CC means.
How he grapples with the occasional “Inconvenient Truth” with the advancements of science (the missing natural variables and the uncertainties in the models)……………………..
kim said
Chanute rests easy,
As railyards on bed of Kaw.
Holes wind through the sand.
============
Robert said
I think this should be bolded too:
If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really surprised?
Why does no one consider this important
Jeff Id said
Robert,
It is important but there are dozens of similar remarks by Hulme in the emails too.
DaveJR said
“Why does no one consider this important”
It’s just a sentence in one email out of thousands. Without putting it into proper context, why would anyone consider it to be important?
Oliver K. Manuel said
Hi Jeff,
Science became a tool of government propaganda about ten years after former President Eisenhower specifically warned of this danger in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
Today society is dangerously unstable, frightened by growing evidence of deceit and duplicity in government..
I contributed to the unrest by pointing out reliable experimental data that were ignored in astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, environmentalism, nuclear, particle, space and solar physics . . .
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf
Governments and laws have always been flawed:
“The law is an ass.” — Charles Dickens (Oliver Twist, 1838)
But nuclear rest mass data in the “Cradle of the Nuclides” and E = mc^2 convey a message of hope not fear:
“Fear not, the universe is in good hands” :
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
As former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the public in his Inaugural address on March 4, 1933:
“This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Jeff Id said
Dave,
Yup, it’s not in context and we can’t possibly know the context because the context is impossible to know.
j ferguson said
One of my early disappointments was finally realizing that my dad, the engineer, did not drive trains. neither did Pachauri, he was/is a railroad mechanical engineer – pencil driver possibly slide-rule, but not engines.
TerryS said
Re: Grzegorz Staniak
A few posts ago you said the following:
Now that you know that it wasn’t Jeff Id’s beliefs you were criticising but, according to the emails, the beliefs of Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Scott Rutherford, Michael Mann, Tom Crowley, Keith Briffa, Keith Alverson, Edward Cook and Jonathan Overpeck could you confirm that that you still think the above will believe just anything, as long it fits the prejudice?
Jeff Id said
TerryS,
He hasn’t replied to any of the corrections issued. His goal seems to be to put the critique in comment 1 and disappear.
Cosmic Ray said
What does CC stand for?
“since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.”
IMO, it’s always been more about money (redistribution of wealth from the North to the South) and energy (the equitable per-capita use of oil).
Jeff Id said
CC is for climate change. It is the international panel of climate change and the cc issue is the key.