Hayhoe said she would work in a different industry if money were a primary concern but admitted that she does for-profit “climate-focused consulting” while she is not teaching. She is the Founder and CEO of ATMOS Research & Consulting, whose listed clients include the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Federal Highway Administration.
Hayhoe did not immediately return a Western Wire email seeking comment.
In response, Pielke said, “It wasn’t disclosed… It just creates unnecessary vulnerabilities for the national climate assessment.”
Pielke added that he has “catalogued a whole range of issues—from relying on Tom Steyer-funded research, to elevating the most extreme case, to having a review editor who used to be John Podesta’s chief climate advisor, now to the lead scientist having these undisclosed conflicts of interest. These are all things that should have been avoided.”
In his 2018 bestseller, author Marc Morano charges that the UN IPCC is not a scientific body. The book documents the fraud. He quotes a plethora of scientists, many of whom worked at one time with the IPCC. Among them are:
1. Prof. John Brignell: “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.”
2. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori contends that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
3. Climatologist Judith Curry on the new IPCC report: “Same old, same old”. “The IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5 C warming.”
Morano writes in his book: “The notion that ‘hundreds’ or ‘thousands’ of UN scientists agree does not hold up to scrutiny.”
5. The UK Guardian reported on how the sausage is made for the UN IPCC reports: “Nearly 500 people must sign off on the exact wording of the summary, including the 66 expert authors, 271 officials from 115 countries, and 57 observers.”
This is allegedly a scientific process. And yet it somehow features “government officials” having a say in each line of the report’s summary.
UN IPCC Leader Author Dr. Richard Tol agreed with President Trump that there is a good reason not to "believe" the economic projections of the new federal climate report. After Trump declared, "I don't believe it" about the dire economic warnings of the National Climate Assessment, Tol wrote, "Even Trump is occasionally right."
"The 468-page report released by the USGCRP is filled with speculative claims presented as if they are established science. The authors use “expert Judgement” to support their conclusions. The experts have an obvious financial and emotional stake in global warming doomsday scenarios. If the global warming doomsday is shown to be imaginary, the experts will lose their financial support and in many cases their jobs...
Its reports imitate the style and approach of the United Nations International Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). The USGCRP uses the IPCC as a trusted source."
The report is full of "supposed experts with only one point of view, that we are threatened by doomsday global warming."
UN Report: "There is a tendency for citizens to question problems if policy solutions challenge their world views." The assessment of human psychology, unusual for the otherwise traditional, policy-heavy report, comes five days before negotiators and envoys head to Poland to negotiate the finer details of implementing the 2015 Paris accord. The message is stark: In order to hit the agreement’s most ambitious goal, 1.5 degrees Celsius, national targets must be made five times more ambitious than those initially pledged.
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: “By presenting cherrypicked science, at odds w/ NCA Vol,1 & IPCC AR5, the authors of NCA Vol.2 have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy,” Pielke Jr. wrote in a tweet Friday shortly after the White House released the report. “Embarrassing.”
The report came from a team of 13 federal agencies and was cobbled together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 scientists. They used a Representative Concentration Pathway adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth Assessment Report (AR5) to make their conclusions. The so-called RCP creates a trajectory for future damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. A White House statement Friday said the report was “largely based on the most extreme scenario” of global warming and that the next assessment would likely be more balanced.
The findings of the Resplandy et al paper werepeer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations. Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming. Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected. Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.