The death of climate science?

Well, at least the gravy train as we know it.  There's an intersection of two events that looks suddenly to be putting at risk the billions of dollars of grant money for the current scientific establishment.  Item 1, the soaring costs of green energy:

The German conundrum is reminiscent of the early supersonic fighter aircraft that shot itself down with its own cannon. Merkel and the Greens have lofted a huge array of poisoned arrows that are rapidly descending upon their path. They survived the bullet of the election. Their own poisoned arrows may be another matter.

Supporters of giant wind farms and huge solar installations are full of happy talk about “clean energy,” “free energy,” “replacing carbon sources,” and other self-deceiving delusions. When their ideas are tried in the real world and allowed to play out for a decade or two, the end result is giant rusted junkyards of failed dreams.

German electric rates are twice the rates in the USA.  German chemical manufacturers are planning big new plants in the USA, to take advantage of cheap natural gas from fracking.  The German Greens got expensively paid off (to get their political support), and now the true costs are becoming apparent.

Item 2, it's no longer possible to hide the decline:

There is much in the news about how IPCC will handle the growing discrepancy between models and observations – long an issue at skeptic blogs. According to BBC News, a Dutch participant says that “governments are demanding a clear explanation” of the discrepancy. On the other hand, Der Spiegel reports:

German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies.

According to Der Spiegal (h/t Judy Curry), Joachim Marotzke, has promised that the IPCC will “address this subject head-on”. Troublingly, Marotzke felt it necessary to add that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.

Unfortunately, as Judy Curry recently observed, it is now two minutes to midnight in the IPCC timetable. It is now far too late to attempt to craft an assessment of a complicated issue.

The IPCC chose to continue the rope-a-dope strategy that they pursued last time, sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet.  This is perhaps the best evidence that there's little to be had from the IPCC establishment - it's about grant funding and nothing but the grant funding.

But 17 years without warming is cutting the legs out from under them.  Governments are demanding answers to why the models missed in such a fundamental way, because the policies that they implemented based on past IPCC analysis hare being seen as increasingly painful.

I get the distinct impression that politicians are angry, because they think that they've been played for suckers.  That is a new development, and one that does not bode well for the IPCC and the "Consensus" scientific establishment.