Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Reforming the IPCC: how to do it properly!



Dear readers,
Following the mercilessly critical report from IAC about the IPCC there have been plenty of discussions about what to do with the IPCC. It might be tempting to just disband the thoroughly discredited organization. However, I am an honest broker who only wants to mediate between the two sides in the climate controversy. I take no sides - I just want the objective truth. Fairness and balance are very important valued to me. After a careful and informed analysis of the situation, I have come to the conclusion that a thoroughly revised IPCC might be instrumental in finally putting the AGW scam to rest in a coffin full of nails. The IPCC could be turned into a powerful weapon against the eco-fascists. As they are inherently authority-believing, the eco-fascists might change their minds if the IPCC stated that there is no AGW problem (that is provided that their belief in authority is stronger than their hatred towards mankind). The following measures are intended to turn the IPCC and its future assessment reports into vehicles for Truth and Reason instead of vehicles for Eco-Fascist Fraud and Deception, as they have been so far.


  1. No communists like Hansen and Mann should be allowed to participate. Only politically independent and objective people should be allowed. Thus, alls participants must have read and memorized “Atlas Shrugged”.

  2. No people who receive grants for doing climate science should be allowed to participate. Such people will just make up scary things so they can get even more grants. Only economically independent people should be allowed.

  3. Likewise, no people who publish climate science articles in peer-reviewed journals should be allowed. They just want to cite their own papers and those of their tribe.

  4. No Chinese or Indians, who just want to weaken the competiveness of the West. Tricky bastards!

  5. No previous IPCC participant can participate in the new IPCC (in particular not Pachauri)! . As everybody who has any experience with management knows, if you want to change an organization the first thing you must do is to get rid of all members/employees.

  6. All previous IPCC participants must release all the email correspondence they have ever had. Releasing email correspondence is vital for the auditing of science and to guarantee repeatability and transparency.

  7. All IPCC prisoners must be released and all weapons of mass destructions must be disarmed.

  8. Any IPCC participant that claims that CO2 can affect the climate must, in order to be credible, abstain from travelling in airplanes and in cars, living indoors, eating warmed food and breathing.

  9. No use of models. Good science is based on empirical observations, and not models. In particular, any “predictions” and “projections” about the future must be entirely based on observations, and not models. If Galileo and Newton and Maxwell and Einstein had bee diddling with models, science would never have progressed.

  10. No use of temperature data. Temperature data, whether from thermometers on the ground or those mounted on satellites, are notoriously unreliable and affected by the urban heat island effect.

  11. Likewise, sea level data, carbon dioxide data, precipitation data, arctic ice volume data and climate proxies must be avoided, as they are inherently unreliable and unscientific.

  12. Climate data from other planets must be included, so we can compare the warming on Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Haley’s comet and the iron-core Sun. No theory that cannot explain all these warming incidents should be taken seriously.

  13. Anecdotal evidence, such as medieval Chinese fleets navigating around the North Pole, should not be dismissed unless proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. To rely more on instruments than on human observers and chroniclers is elitistic and in its essence anti-human.

  14. No references should be allowed to any shady grey literature, like WWF reports. Only shiningly white NGOs working for the benefit of mankind, like the Heartland Institute, should be referenced. White humans are more important than grey frogs!

  15. No references should be allowed to journals like Nature and Science, which have been participating in the suppression of AGW-skeptical papers. Only truly openminded and unbiased journals like Energy & Environment should be referenced.

  16. For each unbalanced alarmist reference, there must be at least one skeptical reference in order to assure fairness and balance.

  17. Uncertainty should be specified according to the scale “Uncertain”, “Highly uncertain”, “Extremely uncertain” and “Completely wrong”.

  18. The best science nowadays is done on blogs, were new ideas easily can be proposed and peer review is instant. Hence, the focus of the assessment reports should be moved from reviewing what is published in the ivory-tower journals to what is published on the blog science blogs. The blogs belonging to journals like Science and Nature do not count – they are just ivory tower blogs masquerading as blog science blogs.

  19. The assessment reports should not exceed 20 pages, and all information should be presented as comic strips. In that way, even illiterate people with a limited attention span will be able to comprehend it. (Like Al Gore, he he!)

  20. In order to ensure its independence, the IPCC should not receive any funding from governments. Instead, it has find its own financing, for instance by selling advertisements in the assessment reports. The taxpayer money that is saved can be used for more important things, like eradicating malaria and giving tax cuts for productive citizens.

You might ask yourself, dear reader, “Why did they not do like this from the beginning? These proposals are bloody brilliant!” There are many answers to this, but I believe that the most important ones are:


  • IPCC was started by eco-fascists driven by a hatred for mankind.

  • They did not involve anybody who really knew how to do things the right way, like me. After all, they were all ivory-tower academics with no experience from real life.

  • They are not nearly as intelligent and well-informed as us sceptics.

  • IPCC has been a gigantic and self-generating bureaucracy, and a gray-train for those incapable of sustaining themselves out in the real world.

But will the IPCC cabal not try to resist these very reasonable, objective and balanced changes? No, they are simply too stupid and gullible to understand what the consequences will be. They could get away with their IPCC idiocy the first time only because we thinking people didn’t take them seriously enough. After their reign of terror, we will not make that mistake again. This time we will be on top of things!

Alea iacta est!

6 comments:

  1. Your list is incomplete. No numbers. More Latin.

    Numbers distract real thinkers from unconstrained opinion.

    Latin shows just how clever real thinkers are.

    adelady

    ReplyDelete
  2. Numbers have been added. Now I'm almost like Martin Luther, who had 95 theses against the Inquisition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ragged Edge of Reality TV9 September 2010 at 14:22

    Indeed. Nail those bad boys to the IPCC main entrance door Baron. Let the reformation begin!

    p.s. relative to #8: No decomposing upon death either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is uncanny, Baron as apart from the sorely needed structural changes you're so eloquently advocating, the question of streamlining AR5 (and any future reports) has been on my mind.

    I think it was Shakespeare who said "If you can't whistle it, it's not a good tune". Or it might have been Biggs 'Bing' Hopley my songwriter neighbour, but the point is it could have been. So - why not reduce the next ICCCP report to an A4 flyer? Two sided of course.

    With the gravitas emphasised by a 100pt title headline, it could also feature a large photo of some bare-breasted popsies. I find that as in the serious newspapers, there is nothing like a good set of norks to reduce the impact of any stray suggestion of global warming with a hint of the catastrophic that may sneak it's way into the report, despite the most stringent editing. Plus readers are always interested in how Monique (or whoever) likes to spend her time cultivating both world peace and fabulous nipples. And mark my words, becoming the next AR model could, with the right handling, become as sought after a gig as who plays the next Bond girl or is in the Pirelli calendar. You can trust me on this.

    A further half side devoted to an advert by a leading car or oil company could also see the report not only become self financing but possibly even a profitable collector's item.

    There should therefore be ample space left for a well chosen, concise 300 words which are easily enough to impart more than enough complex true science concepts, whilst not taxing anybody's attention span unduly.

    "Give me brevity or give me death" said Patrick Henry and we'd be fools not too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. At number 4, you forget to mention that muslins should also be banned because they hate the west and burn our flags. And of course, from now on the ICPP should acknowledge the authority of the Bible in climate science!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ionic disturbances12 September 2010 at 07:30

    Dear Baron von HofenMoncker,

    A 20 point program? Fie on that, I say.

    The scientific doctrine 'Simplicity in all things' demands: Merely appoint David Koch and James Inhofe to read and edit any future IPCC publications. And if reading proved too time-consuming for these average citizens, issue each a rubber stamp reading "No, its not!"

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to comment on my blog, dear reader.