Based on the actual IPCC science findings, the factual empirical evidence and climate reality, Roger Pielke Jr. comes close to using the dreaded four-letter word: L-I-A-R ... the IPCC corruption of science regarding climate change is never ending it seems
Read here. Does misrepresenting a science this badly in Congressional testimony constitute perjury? Stating one's opinions is one thing (and quite acceptable), but misleading by omission of key facts and inaccurate statements is a whole 'nuther ball game.
"The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate."
"This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blatantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong."
"Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period."
"Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States."
"Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's tabulation. The billion dollar disaster meme is a PR train wreck, not peer reviewed and is counter to the actual science summarized in the IPCC."
"In fact, there has been no trend in US hurricane frequency or intensity over a century or more, and the US is currently experiencing the longest period with no intense hurricane landfalls ever seen. Field fails to report any this and invents something different. Why present testimony so easily refuted?"
"Field fails to explain that no linkage between flood disasters and climate change has been established...In fact, floods may be decreasing worldwide and are."
"However, it utterly irresponsible to fundamentally misrepresent the conclusions of the IPCC before the US Congress. He might have explained why he thought the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions, but it is foolish to pretend that the body said something other than what it actually reported."
Conclusion: A principal reason that the American public consistently puts "global warming" and "climate change" as low priorities is the well documented lies, misrepresentations and omissions that the IPCC and its Climategate scientists choose to put forth, and the climate realities they choose to hide. As a result of this style of science corruption, the public does not believe this branch of science any longer. The U.S. Congress would do the nation a huge favor if it defunded climate science research by about 50%, with new marching orders to clean house and come back for new funding when objective, empirical-based climate science is paramount.