At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future (called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions.
According to the New York Times, in November 2012, one month after stepping down from the hedge fund he led, Steyer gathered environmental leaders and Democratic party leaders around the kitchen table at his ranch in Pescadero, California. Among those in attendance were Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, and John Podesta, who had founded the Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2003 to promote progressive causes.
Each of Steyer, Bloomberg and Paulson contributed $500,000 to the initial project, which was focused on “making the climate threat feel real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world.”
For instance, soon after the initial Risky Business report was released in 2014 the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson funded work was the basis for 11 talks at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, which is the largest annual gathering of climate researchers. The next step was to get the analyses of the project published in the scientific literature where they could influence subsequent research and serve as the basis for authoritative scientific reviews, such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment. For instance, a 2016 paper published in the prestigious journal Science from the Risky Business project introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing “business as usual” (RCP 8.5) and “strongest emissions mitigation” (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited 294 times in other academic studies, according to Google Scholar. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has received little or no criticism.
Let me be clear about what is going on here. There is no hidden conspiracy, all of this is taking place in plain sight and in public. In fact, what is going on here is absolutely genius. We have a well-funded effort to fundamentally change how climate science is characterized in the academic literature, how that science is reported in the media, and ultimately how political discussions and policy options are shaped.
The corruption of climate science has occurred because some of our most important institutions have let us down. The scientific peer-review process has failed to catch obvious methodological errors in research papers. Leading scientific assessments have ignored conflicts of interest and adopted flawed methods. The media has been selectively incurious as to the impact of big money on climate advocacy.
Wash Times: Czech physicist Lubos Motl, who called the extreme-weather narrative a “pseudo-scientific scam” in a Tuesday post, while Climate Depot’s Marc Morano argued that record cold “does not disprove ‘global warming,’ but it certainly did not cause it.” “Predictions of less snow were ubiquitous by global warming scientists,” Mr. Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” “But once that prediction failed, the opposite of what they predicted became — what they expected. So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming.” ...
Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, said the polar-vortex phenomenon isn’t new. “These southward movements of part of the vortex have always occurred,” said Mr. Pielke in an email. “With respect to climate, a strong polar vortex occurs when it is particularly cold at higher latitudes. The colder the troposphere at the higher latitudes, the stronger is the polar jet stream. So if anything, these extreme Arctic outbreaks suggest global warming has little effect on them.”
A top-line claim in the latest U.S. government climate report is based on research funded by groups tied to Democratic donors.
The new National Climate Assessment claims the U.S. economy could take a 10 percent hit from global warming. However, that claim is based on research funded by groups founded by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg.
The Bloomberg-Steyer-funded study found future temperature rise could cost “roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per [additional one degree Celsius increase] on average.” At the most extreme high-end, that could add up to 10 percent of GDP by 2100.
Pielke called the use of such an extreme scenario “embarrassing” because it’s based on a future that’s 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer — in other words, twice what the United Nations’ most extreme scenario projects.