Meet ‘One of the World’s Foremost Climate Scientists’
Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.
IPCC Author Becomes Green Party Apparatchik
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
The Journal of Climate & the IPCC
We’re supposed to trust the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusions because it relies on peer-reviewed scientific literature. But many of the people who run scientific journals also write IPCC reports. This is a circular, incestuous process.
Canadian Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund
When hundreds of Canadian scientists – and 12 science bodies – joined a World Wildlife Fund ad campaign they undermined their own authority. They became politically-motivated actors in a political discussion.
Fixed: the IPCC’s Climate Model Evaluation Game
Each IPCC report includes a chapter that evaluates climate models. Is this written by disinterested parties who take a cold, hard look at the strengths & weaknesses of these analytical tools? Nope. It’s authored by people whose livelihoods depend on climate models.
Andrew Weaver vs Tim Flannery
Two activist scientists, both committed to the climate change fight, have starkly different views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One says it’s the most “rigorous scientific process” in which he has been involved. The other says it isn’t good science, but “lowest-common-denominator-science.”
Why Good Judgment Matters
Data is collected, recorded, adjusted & interpreted not by disinterested robots but by people. Because highly-educated individuals can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, the degree to which a person’s judgment can be trusted becomes a central concern.
Politicians Dressed in Lab Coats
When a forensic pathologist testifies at a murder trial he describes bruises, lacerations & bullet holes. He does not decide whether the accused is guilty. Nor does he opine to the media about how such murders might be prevented.
So why do climate scientists think it’s their business to prescribe solutions – rather than telling us about their data and only about their data?