Charles Rotter
Roger Pielke Jr.s “A takeover of the IPCC” offers a prompt post-mortem over the one that is left of the scientific accuracy in the most influential climate assessment of the world, from which Pielke Jr. has long been a supporter. The article not only records a change in the staff at the IPCC, but also a seismic shift of methodology and purpose -a transformation that is best described as an enemy takeover by supporters of the “Extreme Evalance -Attribution” (EEA). The effects on public order, scientific integrity and even the basic credibility of climate science are amazing and long overdue for public control.
Pielke is clearly from the opening lines:
“The long -term framework of the IPCC for recognition and assignment looks in AR7 Doa.”
The gravestone picture, which characterizes the death of the IPCC recognition and attribution framework, 1988–2025 ”, sets the tone. What we experience is the funeral, not a bureaucratic process, but one of the last traces of disciplined scientific skepticism in IPCC.
He explains
“The list of authors for your chapter 3 – Changes in a regional climate and extreme and its causes – it is found that the IPCC from its long -standing focus on recognition and attribution (D&A) shift from extreme events to a focus on” extreme event attribution “(EEA)”.
This is not an arcane distinction. The traditional D&A frame included the slow, often frustrating, but necessary work, in order to look for many decades according to actual changes in the statistics of the weather and then try to assign causes – normally with a healthy dose of uncertainty and humility about what could not or could not be said.
Here was the former D&A approach of the IPCC
“Scientifically strict, in accordance with the definition of the IPCC of climate change and treats extreme events in the same way as other phenomena such as global temperatures and increase in sea level.”
In contrast, Pielke explains
“The EEA approach is scientifically problematic, in contradiction to the findings of the IPCC to extreme weather and expressly based on the climate lawyer.”
In other words, we are dealing with disciplined science against press releases, advocacy and more insidious ammunition for climate disputes.
Pielke makes sure to document the make -up of the new IPCC author list for Chapter 3.
“The list of authors of the chapter shows that it is stacked with people who attributed to extreme events -able to exceed their presence in the field. With the help of Google Scholar and Chatgpt, I have created the following table, which shows that 9 of the 20 authors of the chapter focus on extreme event attribution. Two of the three coordination authors concentrate. Publications on recognition or assignment ”.
The table shows this visually: only a minority of the authors has a background in the original detection and attribution method. Instead, there is a flood of “attributionists” students whose careers are not based on the understanding of long-term climate shifts, but rather to draw direct lines from today’s weather headings to anthropogenic climate change. This is not a “science as a conversation”, it is science as a megaphone.
Pielke offers a textbook example with the latest reporting on floods in Pakistan.
“The global weather attribution (WWA) in the media (August 6, 2025): ‘Every tenth of warming leads to a heavier monsoon rain that emphasizes why a quick transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies is so urgent.” The WWA analysis (not checked as a press release) was claimed that the historical trends in connection with global warming in the observation data sets are now about 22% more intensive and intensive.
But as Pielke emphasizes, this narrative falls apart under the actual scientific examination. A new study published by experts, which was published on July 9, 2025, Castle: “”[U]Nderanding, as the climate change affects monsoon regions in South Asia, is not easy, contrary to the suggestions of some media commentators, that the Pakistani floods were reported in 2022. “Still still, their projections point out that” a non -significant reduction was meant by about 5% of the ensemble. And a 2022 study for flooding?
As Pielke notes, these claims are “impossible to agree”. Is Pakistan’s flooding worse? Is it bound by climate change at all? Is the precipitation up or down? Are emission reductions relevant for monsoon behavior? Science – if it overlooked the headlines and the advocacy representation – simply does not support the extensive security, which is promoted by extreme event attributionists.
He notes that media are involved in this shift and repeat EEA interview points without a critical examination. The New York Times, for example, reports: “Once a source of life and renewal, the Monsun in Pakistan causes death. Climate change has brought the country a catastrophic new normality.” Pielke replies: “In reality there is no” new normal “. Pakistan was one of the most flooding and affected nations on the planet for a long time. “Table 1 supports this and lists fatal floods that go back for decades – a dark but factual memory that disasters are a characteristic of history, no“ new ”by -product fossil fuels.
What really happens is that “extreme events have become a political football. Climate interest representation has highlighted the combination of extreme events with climate change and the idea promotes that” every tenth conclusion “of the global temperature increase is associated with more extreme events. The deaths of disasters have dropped the lowest case in human history.
This is a hand loop: instead of improving the resistance, strengthening the infrastructure or investing in risk reduction – things that actually save lives – Policy is diverted to the dead end of emission controls and carbon balance. According to Pielke, EEA is now “central to such a representation of interests”, and the takeover of the IPCC chapter ensures that this will be the party line for the coming years.
Perhaps the most important snack is that this transformation is not just a “scientific debate”. It represents the replacement of scientific skepticism by group hink and advocacy, all of which are disguised as specialist knowledge. “The scientific assessment can be a challenge under the best circumstances. If an assessment is adopted to serve politics, it is no longer evaluated and becomes something else.”
In short, Pielke’s article is a wake -up call. The so -called “defined science” is more insecure than ever, and it is precisely the structures that are supposed to present an honest evaluation for the attorney. The costs are inevitably paid in public trust, incorrect drive resources and in a continued failure of the actual drivers of the disaster risk.
There is an old saying in science: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, the new IPCC seems to be satisfied with extraordinary press releases. The public deserves better. It is time to ask loudly, the interests of which are really served by this shift – and to request a return to real scientific skepticism before the last credibility functions have finally disappeared.
3.7
3
Voices
Article evaluation
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
Comments are closed.