Re: Klarenberg: 'Wikipedia and UK Government move to censor climate debate' Archived Message
Posted by John Monro on July 27, 2023, 10:15 pm, in reply to "Klarenberg: 'Wikipedia and UK Government move to censor climate debate'"
The IPCC is promoted as the last word on climate change, but unfortunately it isn't and it never has been the case. The IPCC reports always represent the minimum acceptable science to the world's political and business community, not the most severe, not even the median or mean. IPCC projections are constantly being challenged by reality. Every report the IPCC makes has to meet the challenge of governments and representatives who include some frank climate denialisms and sceptics, they are under instructions by their respective governments to ensure they don't rock the economic or fiscal boat. One of the worst offenders in this regard is "clean green New Zealand", whose representative, James Shaw, leader of the Greens here, went almost naked to the Glasgow COP, bearing promises from the NZ government of total and cynical inadequacy. I wrote to James Shaw that he should resign from his ministry of climate change, which I have to add wasn't even in cabinet, that's how important the labour NZ government thinks this matter is. Previous delegates from NZ have attempted to water down findings and responses in prior meetings and IPCC reports, most notably Tim Groser, an out and out climate denier. The IPCC's inadequacy can best be illustrated by sea level rise, which for the most part totally ignores rise due to melting ice - because of "uncertainties" and has been predicted solely on the basis of the expansion of sea water due to heat.The prediction even now is about 0.5 metres in the mid-emissions scenario. At the same time James Hansen is pointing out that melting ice could, if what he called the doubling time is accelerating, be as much as 2 metres. But this pertains pretty much to the entirety of its reports Articles in the Scientific American another resources repeat this criticism many times, though the ones that I've found mostly date from around 2008 and 2010. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/ But here's a more recent critique 2017 https://futurism.com/ipcc-underestimated-future-warming-trends So the likelihood that some sort of government controlled oversight or editing of publicly available information, whether Wikipedia or elsewhere, does not fill one with confidence that the urgency of climate change and the dramatic and revolutionary changes that we need to undertake, now, will receive any attention at all. For instance, there'll be stress on the imponderables and uncertainties, as the tobacco lobby and the oil lobby have employed for decades, there'll be exaggeration of the ability of technical fixes to deal to climate change, there'll be the choice of underplaying the problem as the IPCC have done since it was founded, there'll be exaggeration of the costs of change, and underplaying of the costs of global warming, etc. The Media Lens duo put it rather more succinctly "It would be an amazing intellectual failure to imagine that a state-corporate system psychopathic ( I think a better word would be sociopathic) deceptive and self-destruction enough to create this disaster would not bring this sickness to its reposes...." Exactly.
|
|