The Complicity of Journals and Magazines in Pushing Flawed IPCC Climate Science

Very interesting. Another timely reminder: Don’t believe everything you read,no matter how credible it might seem.

Watts Up With That?

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The public face of climate science practiced by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and their offspring the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were for a political agenda and only secondarily for the money it engendered. However, their methods were made much more effective by magazines and journals who promoted their flawed science primarily for money and sometimes secondarily for politics. Magazines and Journals, often with considerable influence, latched on like giant sucker fish to further themselves not to promote truth, accuracy, and public understanding.

There was a time when Scientific American (SA)occupied a unique niche on the newsstands. It was a magazine about science for the public. It was genuine science usually written by scientists, not a popular pseudo-science magazine like all the others. It was interesting because most people did not understand much of what was written…

View original post 1,548 more words

About Neil van Dokkum

Neil van Dokkum (B. SocSc; LLB; LLM; PGC Con.Lit) Neil is a law lecturer and has been so since arriving in Ireland from South Africa in 2002. Prior to that Neil worked in a leading firm of solicitors from 1987-1992, before being admitted as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa (a barrister) in 1992. He published three books in South Africa on employment law and unfair dismissal, as well as being published in numerous national and international peer-reviewed journals. Neil currently specialises in employment law, medical negligence law, family law and child protection law. He dabbles in EU law (procurement and energy). Neil retired from practice in 2002 to take up a full-time lecturing post. He has published three books since then, “Nursing Law for Irish Students (2005); “Evidence” (2007); and “Nursing Law for Students in Ireland” (2011). He is an accredited and practising mediator and is busy writing a book, with Dr Sinead Conneely, on Mediation in Ireland. His current interest is Ireland’s energy policy and its impact on the people and the environment. He is also researching the area of disability as a politico-economic construct. Neil is very happily married to Fiona, and they have two sons, Rory and Ian.
This entry was posted in EirGrid; Insurance; Law; Cancer; EMF. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Complicity of Journals and Magazines in Pushing Flawed IPCC Climate Science

  1. Pat Swords says:

    As a scientific person, it is tiring to listen to so many people and their emotional beliefs about this so called environmental doomsday of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. In particular when you attempt (and that’s as far as it gets) to engage them on the so called justifications for it, you find out that they cannot articulate a reasoned analysis of it. However, as Johnathan Swift pointed out some three centuries ago; ‘It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.’

    However, I wouldn’t be alone as a scientific / technical person, who became very dismayed and annoyed after having spent some time researching the quality of the documentation produced by the IPCC:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breaking-global-warming-taboos-i-feel-duped-on-climate-change-a-813814.html

    People should not buy hype; bad weather has always been with us and will continue to do so. There is no catastrophe out there other than political mismanagement on a massive scale. We should just ‘hold tight’ and quietly observe Mother Nature over the next few decades, as making radical assumptions on flawed and incomplete ‘science’ is a complete recipe for disaster.

  2. Owen says:

    Having researched Irish temp data and past publications, there is no doubt that warming occurred in the 30s and 40s, cooling in the 60s and 70s and then warming in the mid 80s/90s. We are in a warm period and as sure as snow is white, we will soon enter another cooling period.

    This proves that CO2 is not the main driver of temperature but only one element in a myriad of drivers and far from being the important one.

    Science has sold out to hysteria as this article proves . How science can recover from this I do not know.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s