Essay by Eric Worrall
MEET Climate scientist Peter Stott lament Climateand that time he was ambushed by Russian Academy of Scienceswas tricked into a room containing people who disagreed with him.
The long battle against climate change
A wide range of climate change deniers have sought to downplay the importance of global warming and the role humans play in driving it.
October 20, 2022
When climate scientist Peter Stott checked in for a flight from London to Moscow in July 2004, his excitement gave way to shock when a colleague explained that their agreed schedule had been torn. ripped.
They were expected to compare findings and forge relationships with their counterparts in Russia – but discovered the main promoters of the unscientific view that humans are not important. in promoting climate change has also been invited.
“It was an ambush,” Stott said.
The meeting at the Russian Academy of Sciences was altered by then-Russian President’s adviser Andrei Illarionov, an ardent critic of the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 United Nations agreement on emissions cuts, pending Russian ratification.
“He is using scientists as tools in his life,” said Stott, who specializes in identifying man-made and natural causes of climate change at the UK Met Office and the University of Exeter. its propaganda.
Stott and his colleagues were tasked with debating the skeptics, including Richard Lindzen, a climate responder who was working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the time, and disruptive weather forecaster. Controversial British Piers Corbyn. Stott described the experience of having to defend climate science in Russia as “very threatening”.
…
One of the biggest setbacks in the fight against climate denial, says Stott, occurred in 2009 with the scandal known as “Climategate.”
…
“We took at least six years [of progress] during that time,” says Stott – a serious delay that leads scientists to assume that emissions that are still growing must now be cut by almost half from current levels by 2030.
…
Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/10/20/the-long-fight-against-climate-change-deniers
I’m not sure why Stott seemed to think the Paris Agreement was such a success. The world is currently burning a record amount of coalso I think we can safely add the Paris Agreement to the list of failed climate initiatives, regardless of the political rhetoric.
As for Russia, Russians may have been skeptical of Western climate science ever since Western scientists ignore Russian advice because there is no evidence of unusual warming in the 20th century.
In 1998 scientists Rashit Hantemirovof the Institute of Flora and Fauna Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences, tried to explain Keith Briffawho helped Michael Mann built its iconic hockey stick, that the location of the pole wood line, the northernmost point where trees can grow, is the tree measure that Russia uses to measure historical changes in temperature in the Arctic. Hantemirov’s advice to Briffa was “… There is no evidence of moving the polar forest line to the North in the last century…“. That same pole woodline data shows evidence of significant movement during the medieval warm period, and other well-documented historical cooling and warming events (email Climategate 0907975032.txt).
Western scientists seem to prefer tree rings — but even Mann’s colleagues concede among themselves that the rim is a dubious measure of historical temperature. Climate scientist Tom Wigley wrote an email to Professor Michael Mann in 2003 in which he explained how his son performing a high school science experiment demonstrated Mann’s tree ring data is capable of measuring changes in precipitation rather than changes in temperature. (Email Climategate 2 0682.txt).
We can only guess what Russian scientists think about this nonsense – but the evidence suggests they decided it was funny to watch Western climate scientists act like idiots , to make a serious attempt to interrupt the joke.
Of course, the Russian Academy of Sciences joke can’t go on forever – someone in the Russian government has probably decided the Western climate warning movement is starting to do real harm. So Russia staged “ambush” in 2004, in which they tried to put Western climate alarmists in the same room as other Western scientists who disagreed with them.
Those cowardly Russians, they just don’t understand that’s not how Western climate science works. What a ridiculous, dirty trick that puts well-qualified people, who have different interpretations of data, together in the same room, to see if they can work out their differences. or not.
In my view, we have a lot of evidence Western Climate Science does not disagree or criticize. Just look at the wild differences between climate model predictions. There seems to be a consensus that Climate Science is a special field of science, one that is governed by politeness, not unlike those barbaric sciences in which humans challenge and try to refute other people’s ideas. An area of science for which no theory or model seems to be ruled out, no matter how far it differs from observations – providing model predictions that remain safe above minimal climate sensitivity recommended by the IPCC.
In any other field of science, the most grotesque divergence patterns will be quietly dismissed. But this does not appear to be the case in Western climate science.
“People underestimate the power of patterns. Observational evidence is not very helpful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.“ – Scientist MET John Mitchell, reported by The Register in 2011.
Related
