Another leak from the IPCC shows that politicians in Belgium, Hungary, Germany, and the United States attempted to pressure the scientists writing the report to cover up the lack in global temperature rise since 1998.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Another leak from the IPCC shows that politicians in Belgium, Hungary, Germany, and the United States attempted to pressure the scientists writing the report to cover up the lack in global temperature rise since 1998.

[L]eaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve. The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

Two points: First, for this article to refer to any legitimate scientist who questions the theory of human-caused global warming to be called a “denier” offends me beyond words, as regular readers of this website know.

Second, this leak proves once again the foolishness of allowing politicians to get involved in the scientific process. They should be kept as far away as possible, at all times.

Share

14 comments

  • R. Cotour

    Would a “denier” be considered in the same class as a “truther”?

    The only difference being that one is correct in their assertions/science/mathematics/physics and the other, obviously, is incorrect? These labels are so labely and negatively effective. Don’t you agree?

    How are these things determined and who does the determining?

  • Garry

    “denier” was first used in connection with denying the holocaust, and is used by some to express moral equivalence between holocaust deniers and global warming skeptics.

  • And your point? If you click on the links I provided in my post, you will read me rage against this attempt to equate scientific skepticism with the savage genocide of millions. It not only denigrates the most important and honorable aspect of the scientific process, it dishonors the memory of those killed in World War II by the Nazis.

  • Sayomara

    I heard your interview on the Space show the other night Bob. I’ve always thought it odd how pro global warming the “Professional Skeptics” movement is. People like Phil Plait who seem all to eager to encourage the use of “denier” tag and who’s objections often feel like momo’s from the Democratic party than any true thoughts on Science.

    While many of these people might do real science in the personal life’s there public lives seem far more focus on attacking religion and fighting for Democratic status quo ideas. While I suspected it was always more political than scientific it wasn’t until Obama came into office and “Skeptics” had to defend his space plans and other polices that it became completely clear to me there was nothing in this moment of much value and truth be told it has kinda died on the vine since 2009.

    Which is to bad because as you said Bob on The Space Show Science should be skeptical and question assumptions. But professional skeptics moment was never about that. One of the things I like about your work Bob is your not afraid to attack Republicans or Democrats if your think there wrong. Your record shows that and its part of why I respect you so much.

    Thanks as always for the blog and all your wonderful interviews Bob

  • Garry

    I was just trying to briefly explain to R why the term “climate change denier” is offensive, in an attempt to put his question / point in perspective. I was not able to articulate it as well as you did, and have repeatedly in the past.

  • Well, thank you for the kind words.

    A long time ago I was a subscriber to the Skeptical Inquirer because I strongly agreed with their position aka the issues of paranormal and UFO research (which makes my regular appearances on Coast to Coast most ironic). After awhile, however, I found that when it came to certain other issues, such as religion and climate change, this crowd was as religious and as unskeptical as you could get. They assumed that to disagree with them on these issues was to brand you as evil and a fool.

    Note, it wasn’t the facts that offended them, it was that someone disagreed with them on these issues that made them indignant. In subsequent years I have found this attitude just as prevalent in the global warming community.

  • Okay. Sorry if I sounded a bit short. As I said, this subject enrages me.

  • R. Cotour

    Do you believe that science has or will in time describe and quantify all phenomenon that today may seem to indicate either other dimensions or levels of reality? Are there levels of our universe that may be unavailable to us and therefore not understandable?

    As examples: Reincarnation, UFO observations / experiences, astral projection, remote viewing, psychic ability, extraterrestrial life, the existence of other dimensions etc., etc. ?

    Are the examples of the above phenomenon just a function of our limitations and inability to understand and therefore we describe them in terms that we can relate to? What are human limits and how do or can we know what they are?

  • Garry

    It enrages you with good reason, no offense taken.

  • You asked: “Are there levels of our universe that may be unavailable to us and therefore not understandable?”

    Of course. However, when it comes to reincarnation, UFOs, and other paranormal claims, I remain a firm skeptic. I have found that that every time one of these claims is intelligently challenged, they fall apart and are false.

    As a skeptic however I do remain open-minded. I also recognize that the universe is a mysterious place, with many unanswered questions, some of which we will never answer.

  • R. Cotour

    Have you ever had an experience, like a precognitive dream or knowing that something that you could not possibly have pre knowledge of was about to happen and you have been able to eliminate subconscious or other means of your knowing?( Im talking about beyond everyday coincidence.) I have had several, and it is something that can really set back on your heels and get you wondering. Analyzing these kinds of events is a challenge in objectivity and gets you wondering if there in deed is some other aspect of existence that allows you to “see” in some other way. I remain very interested in such events, both to debunk and to verify them.

  • wodun

    It is also used to elevate the alleged dangers of AGW. That if action is not taken, a holocaust will take place and that people who don’t get behind the “solutions” want a holocaust to take place.

    It really is a disgusting tactic on a number of levels.

  • wodun

    Slightly off topic.

    I also listened to the Space Show interview and I have a nit to pick.

    You said something about Bloomberg wanting to spend $20b on preparing NYC for sea level rise and how this was a bad thing. I disagree (Although I don’t know the specifics of what he is proposing). While I am skeptical about AGW and against the proposed “solutions” like raising taxes, I think that hardening our infrastructure to withstand unexpected acts of nature is a good thing. NYC already is a testament to how engineering can mitigate nature and it is reasonable for them to be concerned with the potential for rising water levels, no mater the cause.

    Strengthening our infrastructure to deal with an uncertain future that under normal circumstances will throw many devastating things our way is a good thing to do.

  • First, read my post, Close-minded politicians everywhere!. It was this essay that I was referring to on the Space Show.

    Second, I have no problem with strengthening our infrastructure. My problem is that the present governments, both the federal and in New York, are incompetent at doing it and should be stopped. Bloomberg’s proposal won’t protect New York from anything and will cost billions. Worse, it will line the pockets of the corrupt political elites of New York by picking the pockets of the ordinary citizens of that city.

    We are bankrupt. The last thing we should do is to ask the very people who made us bankrupt to run these expensive projects, especially when they base the need for these expensive projects on the fantasy of a sea level rise of 2.5 feet by the end of the century. To quote my essay:

    There is no evidence that temperatures will rise this much. And the rate of sea level rise has been steady at about 3 millimeter per year for the past two decades. In fifty years that rate would translate into a sea level rise of only 6 inches, not 2.5 feet. [emphasis in original]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *