Kevin Trenberth: too bureaucratic IPCC sucks

Alarmist afraid IPCC AR5 won't be alarming enough

The Sydney Morning Herald just (=tomorrow, due to the time zones) published an interesting report on Kevin Trenberth's mood in the IPCC,

Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC.

He thinks that there are too many people now, too much "second-tier science", and it's too bureaucratic.

You must agree that Kevin Trenberth must be pretty slow because he hasn't previously noticed that there were too many people in the IPCC – you know, those "2,500 experts" – who represented second-tier science – you know, it's a climate catastrophe science, the world's least credible scientific discipline after astrology and homeopathy, and most of the members of the IPCC haven't even been researchers in this inferior discipline but government officials and activists with superficial links to science – and that the IPCC has always been about bureaucracy, the barriers in Pachauri's office, Greenpeace, WWF, and other bureaucratic headquarters (including the gang of nasty bullies around Phil Jones and Michael Mann) that have so far prevented any genuine climate scientist from materially influencing the content of the IPCC reports and their summaries in particular which is why the IPCC has so far been unable to even state the obvious, namely that there exists no scientific evidence suggesting a significant climate threat.

So if these were the real reasons, you would be really, really slow, Mr Trenberth. However, the Australian newspaper also tells us what the actual reason why the Gentleman has "lots his faith" is.




The revealing passage is this one:

KT: There are more people, it's more diffuse, it's harder to gain a consensus - quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing. The science is solid, but with a larger group it's harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.

Well, within a smaller group of activists and corrupt scientists who really created the shameful body, it was easy to reach a consensus with Greenpeace, WWF, and other whackos and scum (that constituted most of those "2,500 experts") and claim that their crackpot claims about the climate represent the "consensus".

But when a more representative sample of climate scientists apparently got the green card to join the process – after some scandals that forced the formerly hardcore Stalinist organization to open a little bit – it's suddenly hard to prove that 97 percent of the climate scientists back the crackpot IPCC claims, isn't it, Mr Trenberth? A group of hardcore alarmists whom we know from the Climategate and who constantly pump pseudoscientific misconceptions to the media (just 2 days ago, Trenberth promoted the CO2-caused extreme weather meme) is irritated because they apparently couldn't keep a complete control over the IPCC so they expect a less hardcore alarmist (="blander", in KT's words) IPCC AR5 report. Why don't you use the right words?

The article in the Australian newspapers demagogically avoids the term "fucked-up corrupt asshole" and instead calls Trenberth a "bruised survivor of the Climategate". They quote him as saying that there are no important new results to be revealed by the IPCC and that his semi-criminal activity unmasked by the Climategate has shifted most of the interested laymen, the broader scientific public, as well as politicians closer to the camp of skeptics.