Dissent from Global Warming orthodoxy spreads to IPCC

By Robert Maynard

There are numerous scientists who dissent from the group think of global warming orthodoxy, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is seen as the single most prominent source of that orthodoxy.  When members of the IPCC dissent from its findings, and even ask that their name be taken off the latest reports, people should take notice.  The BBC News has carried the story of such dissent:

Senior scientists and government officials are meeting in Japan to agree a critical report on the impact of global warming.

Members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish their first update in seven years on the scale of the threat.

Leaked documents speak of significant effects on economies, food supplies and security.

But some attendees say the summary, due out next Monday, is far too alarmist.

Just how concerned are these scientists about the report’s alarmism?

But some researchers are decidedly unhappy with the draft report.

Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex, who has been the convening lead author of the chapter on economics.

He was involved in drafting the summary but has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.

“The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together,” he told BBC News.

“This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.”

So, the original draft was changed to create a story about the “four horsemen of the apocalypse.”  In an attempt to spread their alarmist propaganda, some have resorted to what critics have labeled as “silliness”:

Critics say that some aspects of the projected effects are “alarmist”, such as the impact on conflict and migration caused by climate change.

“You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true,” said Prof Tol.

“But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons – that is just silliness.”

It is getting harder to take these people seriously.