Real Climate Science the IPCC doesn’t want you to see

A good article on the basic situation is found at Watts up with That. There is nothing I wish to add.

Here is a tiny little vignette of how it works in climate la-la land.

A close relative is a budding glaciologist. One of her potential PhD supervisors had the following deal for her. Give up actual measuring of ice from satellite information and on-the-ice drilling and observation, said the prof. In exchange, she would get a $20,000 bursary to develop her skills at mathematical modelling of ice coverage. She declined the offer. Poof goes the $20,000 bursary.

In short, the climate scientist she was dealing with was not interested in actual measurement of facts. To the contrary, the real sexy portion of the profession is in modelling. How do you know the model works? By its predictive capacity to show that changes in the real world correspond to outcomes in the model. How can you know the model works if you do not measure how the real world works? But measuring the real world of ice would disturb the picture presented in mathematical models.

Science is becoming Platonic; actual facts are far less interesting, and presumably important, than models, which we have every reason to think, are increasingly political constructs designed to show that global warming is occurring and that we are causing it.

Thus is science corrupted. When I use the term “climate science”, I always have air quotes around the term.