The Climate Change Report for Government Officials: a Meaningful Glance at the Meaningless

I did not get a D in Physics in high school. What happened is that I missed the exam and the teacher did not know me so, he did not give me any grade. It feels good to get this off my chest, finally. I maimed two birds with one pebble, so to speak because this confession also re-affirmed something I have been admitting ad nausea: I don’t have even minimal credentials in any field that would be related to climate or temperature. I am a “denier” but I am not arguing much with any of the real scientists who are said to believe that:

  1. There is significant, non-cyclical warming of the atmosphere that is more or less global in scope;
  2. That is principally caused by human activity;
  3. That we, collectively, need to worry about now or very soon.

I am not arguing with the specialized studies by scientists for scientists. I don’t read them, of course. This does not necessarily make me illiterate. I know quite a bit about statistics and about probabilities. And, I have 100% vision for good study design. (It’s the same in all empirical research irrespective of the discipline). Mostly, I don’t easily get awed by experts, neither real experts nor pretend-experts. That’s a powerful asset. And no, I never got a big check from the Big Oil Corporations but I am hoping.

In keeping with my lack of technical credentials, I turned to the non-technical part of the latest (September 2013) United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. It’s entitled: “Approved Summary for Policy Makers.” Policy makers would include presidents, parliamentarians and, of necessity, even mayors of cities and councilmen and council women.

Now, I am not sure about the mayor of Santa Cruz, California where I live but I will bet I am as smart as the average Congressman (and woman) and better read than some presidents of the US. So whether or not I understand text written for officials by official climatists is a legitimate test of the Panel’s clarity. The extent to which you understand it is also a valid test.

Remember, what I am going to show you is not addressed to scientist, to specialists. It’s intended to help ordinary but powerful people with average intelligence act right with respect to the dread of climate change.

Before I finally implement my threat, let me admit to a strong bias I have as a teacher and as a writer: If several smart and well educated people do not succeed in expressing something clearly, it’s probably poppycock or, they are so trying to obfuscate that they trip themselves up.

Of course, everyone who wants to know, knows by now, that there has been no global warming in the past fourteen or fifteen years. Whether this is a significantly long interval in connection with the validity of the climatist vision, I don’t really know. However, I note that they sometimes volunteer illustration based o the next hundred years. Fifteen years is fifteen% of that duration. At any rate, the climatists-in-charge seem to feel compelled to address the issue, perhaps because it’s been often raised in the “denier” media.

Here is what the part of the IPCC report addressed to non-scientists says on this topic on P. 10:

“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).

The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).”

Got it?

Now, remember this is supposed to help you make wise decisions if you are President Obama, or a city councilor in Santa Cruz California, or in Podunk, Kansas. And how are you doing so far?

I think any group or association or agency that offers a product in judgment should be judged precisely exactly by the quality of its products. That’s what the UN special- purpose agency in charge of summing up scientific knowledge on global warming/ climate change did. I suspect that either they don’t know what they are talking about or that they are so busy hiding something that they manage to confuse themselves.

Let me try to translate (again, I have as much right as any decision-maker to do so – See above) :

“There is global warming caused by human activity except when there isn’t.”

And how about that guy with the Indian name that used to head the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Is he still doing consulting on the side ( but giving away all the proceeds to a foundation that bears his name) ?

See also my other postings on the general subject:

Note :The links below send back to essays in reverse chronological order (not that it matters much).

One of these days, I will tell you why I spend so much time fighting the warmist system of superstition rather than other superstitions.

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Cultural Studies, Socio-Political Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Climate Change Report for Government Officials: a Meaningful Glance at the Meaningless

  1. McHenry says:

    I think future guidelines for decision making should be written as metaphors. We could assign politicians a short essay contest on the rhetoric and intended meaning of the authors, and probably come away with better policy.
    I can honestly say I understood none of that excerpt above.

  2. McHenry: You are exceptionally honest. Is it a recurrent problem in your life?

    NB The writer, commenter has a degree in a scientific discipline from a good university.

  3. McHenry says:

    It is a recurrent problem, but only in terms of consequences. Otherwise, it is a hobby in that I am more curious to see what others do with my strangest honesties than my white lies.
    For example, on one occasion I accidentally bought my girlfriends favorite wine for myself. Before I could open it, a friend came by who for no reason had a couple wilting flowers that dropped pedals leading to my doorstep. He also stunk from work so after he left, I decided to light a scented candle to prevent a lecture, and still forgot the bottle. Just like that my girlfriend got home from work to follow a trail of pedals to a candle lit and a bottle of the right wine.
    I told her the real story because I’d already seen the ending to the usual one.

  4. Great story. You are old enough that a man cannot light scented candles by himslef without suffering some consequences. I am concerned the woman in your life might have stumbled and hurt herself on the pedals’ sharp metal angles.

  5. McHenry says:

    Damnit. While I feel shame at poor vocabulary, in this case it is offset by a more primal manly pride for unknowingly substituting te mechanical pedal for flower petals.

  6. Pingback: Global Warming, Soot Pollution, Mayor Bloomberg, the Paris Conference (forthcoming): So Confusing, So Confused! | FACTS MATTER

  7. Pingback: Global Warming, Soot Pollution, Mayor Bloomberg, the Paris Conference (forthcoming): So Confusing, So Confused! | Notes On Liberty

  8. Pingback: Climate Change Denier by Jacques Delacroix | Posted on Liberty Unbound on June 27, 2019 Part I | FACTS MATTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s