Buggered: Aussie traditional electricity users pay $167 million per year to subsidize solar panel owners

JunkScience.com

The Daily Telegraph reports:

View original post 70 more words


Senator Obama Says That America Deserves Better Than President Obama

Real Science

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

– Senator Barack Obama – March, 2006

View original post


US SENATE : 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Screen Shot 2013-10-01 at , October 1, 8.15.04 PM

www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=40826916&CFTOKEN=97077616

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist 
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps 
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda 
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of 
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present 
alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major 
businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” –
Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

•••

  • U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.
  • Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008.

INTRODUCTION:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of manmade climate fears.

Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; PolarBears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded
the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.”

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and
intimidation – LINK & LINK ]
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

•••

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

•••

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.

•••

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.

•••

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
– Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar
interaction with the Earth.

•••

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for
example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of
Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

•••

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

•••

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,
as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide
scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical
and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

•••

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics
to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,
who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of
Monthly Weather Review.

•••

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large
number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian
geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

•••

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less
moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary
balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr.
Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was
once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

•••

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet
is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee
the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who
has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in
Sweden.

•••

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself
solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate
changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC
committee.

•••

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports
and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have
distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed
publications.

•••

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting
warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric
physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in
Pittsburgh.

•••

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give
some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” –
Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,
served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

•••

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present
alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major
businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” –
Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

•••

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

•••

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is
something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of
the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.

•••

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate
may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former
Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,
Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

•••

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored
more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

•••

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack
Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological
Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

•••

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” –
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at
the University of Colorado.

•••

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone
man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data
refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G
LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full
quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

Read Full Senate Minority Report Here »

•••

UPDATE

Teller_Card_100dpi

•••

See also :

Related Articles :

Climatism Related:

United Nations Freedom Related :

NASA / NOAA Climate Fraud Related :

More AGW Quotes :

Shock News : Big Government Money Is Corrupting Climate Science

Real Science

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says the IPCC is taking a huge credibility hit over the hiatus – and its pronouncement that it is 95 percent certain that human activity is responsible for most global warming.

“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”

UN’s massive new climate report adds little explanation…

View original post 7 more words


Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State

Climatism comment : Well said Bob Tisdale.
Though unfortunately Kerry, Obama, IPCC, EU, UN, EPA et al. are not interested in the real ‘science’ of climate change, they are only interested in extending the arm of Government even further into people’s lives in order to control.
CO² is the life-blood of every society, thus the carbon dioxide molecule “has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
Control CO² (energy) and you control everything.

Climatism comment : Well said Bob Tisdale. Though unfortunately Kerry, Obama, IPCC, EU, UN, EPA et al. are not interested in the real ‘science’ of climate change, they are only interested in extending the arm of Government even further into people’s lives in order to control. CO² is the life-blood of every society, thus the […]

View original post


No steel roof required: IPCC dials back the fear of extreme weather

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently” – Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, IPCC Chief

ipcc_titanic

The IPCC have today released their full AR5 climate report after friday’s release of  the “The Summary For Policy Makers“.

The reports conclusions for extreme weather; droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc remain basically unchanged from previous findings that were released last year in the IPCC’s SREX report (Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters). Todays AR5 reports a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.

Official IPCC Words from SREX report released 2012 : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

The IPCC is the United Nations body most responsible for spreading panic about global warming and the body with a strong vested interest in keeping that panic alive. So given the “low confidence” finding between climate extremes and human gases is coming directly from them, indicates just how much the perceived ‘problem’ of climate change has been grossly overstated.

The backflip on extreme weather reaffirms again how misleading the global warming cabal has been with regard to its alarmist fear-mongering and baseless climate alarmism. All the while, society gulled into spending trillions of dollars on junk sciencemothballed desal plants, draconian carbon taxes and useless green energy schemes for literally nothing.

See also : Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: Coverage of Extreme Events in the IPCC AR5

•••

IPCC AR5 analysis via Herald Sun :

No steel roof required: IPCC dials back the fear of extreme weather

October 1, 2012

Global warming – dud predictionsGlobal warming – general

image

Professor Ross Garnaut in 2007, the very peak of global warming hysteria, told his local council he had to build a steel roof on his Melbourne home.

Garnaut, who wrote massive reports on global warming policy for the Rudd Government, argued he needed protection from the extreme weather he was sure we’d get from the change in the climate.

“Severe and more frequent hailstorms will be a feature of this change,” he wrote to the City of Yarra Council, explaining why he had to be excused from the council’s heritage overlay, which required slate roofs.

If I were Garnaut, it would not now read the full report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released yesterday. Reading it would be mortifying. The report is like watching global warming alarmists swallow a chill pill.

It’s important to recall the context for this latest IPCC report – how global warming alarmists have for a decade warned of all kinds of extreme weather events that would smash our cities, kill our citizens and turn farmland into desert. Indeed, the iconic image of global warming was this poster, from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, exploiting the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe to whip up fear:

image

Read The Inconvenient Truth Here.

How many warming scaremongers whipped up the fear of mega droughts and savage storms?



Now for the chill pill.

It was embarrassing enough for the IPCC in the summary released last Friday to admit there has been a 15-year pause or dramatic slowdown in global warming, and that its climate models didn’t predict that or the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

But now the IPCC can’t be sure at all we’re suffering from many extreme weather events, either. It even admits its past warnings of more droughts were “overstated”.

On the hail that frightened Garnaut into demanding a steel roof:

In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.

On droughts:

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.

On heatwaves:


Table 2.13 shows that there has been a likely increasing trend in the frequency of heatwaves since the middle of the 20th century in Europe and Australia and across much of Asia where there are sufficient data. However confidence on a global scale is medium due to lack of studies over Africa and South America but also in part due to differences in trends depending on how heatwaves are defined (Perkins et al., 2012).

This combined with issues with defining events, leads to the assessment thatthere is medium confidence that globally the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century although it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia.

On heavy rain events:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

On cyclones and storms:

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities…

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH).  Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data…

Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins… Several studies suggest an increase in intensity, but data sampling issues hamper these assessments…

Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval).

On the trouble with detecting trends in extreme weather events:

Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature, due to data limitations and inconsistencies between studies, regions and/or seasons. However, increases in precipitation extremes, for example, are consistent with a warmer climate. Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases. Likewise, drought studies do not agree on the sign of the global trend, with regional inconsistencies in trends also dependent on how droughts are defined. However, indications exist that droughts have increased in some regions (e.g., the Mediterranean) and decreased in others
(e.g., central North America) since the middle of the 20th century.

Remember, all these quotes come not from sceptics but from the IPCC, the United Nations body most responsible for spreading panic about global warming – and the body with a strong vested interest in keeping that panic alive.

This report should have had the words “Sorry we scared you” printed in big letters on the cover.  No steel roofs are required, after all. The future is not catastrophic. The fear-mongers must now be held to account.

UPDATE

The full IPCC report also makes much clearer than did the sanitised summary released on Friday that the computer models used to predict our climate are so flawed that they couldn’t even predict the last 15 years of essentially no warming. The IPCC admits they probably exaggerated the effect of man’s emissions on temperatures.

So why on earth should we trust them?

UPDATE

A separate posting on one of the IPCC authors, written by a reader, has been deleted. Several readers thought it unfair, and on reflection I am not sure it isn’t.

From the report:

(c) Model Response Error

The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations… This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence). As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10% (Section 11.3.6.3). This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.

Another possible source of model error is the poor representation of water vapour in the upper atmosphere… However, this effect is assessed here to be small, because there was a recovery in stratospheric water vapour after 2005…

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.

(My emboldening throughout.)

•••

To finish, this comment from Ross McKitrick (environmental economist who famously debunked the infamous hockey-stick graph that catapulted the ‘Global Warming’ scare onto the world stage) sums up nicely the IPCC’s latest junk science report :

Posted on : Reactions to IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers | Watts Up With That?

Ross McKitrick says:

SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.

•••

UPDATE

via Real Science

Shock News : Big Government Money Is Corrupting Climate Science

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says the IPCC is taking a huge credibility hit over the hiatus – and its pronouncement that it is 95 percent certain that human activity is responsible for most global warming.

“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”

UN’s massive new climate report adds little explanation for ‘pause’ in warming | Fox News

•••

Related Articles :

Climatism Links :


No Warming For The Majority Of The Satellite Era

Real Science

NASA satellites have been tracking the Earth’s temperature since 1979. All of the observed warming occurred during the the first half of the record (rebounding from the ice age scare and two large volcanic eruptions) and there has been no warming in the second half of the satellite record. The warmest year was 15 years ago and temperatures have been declining for the entire 21st century.

ScreenHunter_1084 Sep. 29 18.46

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

View original post


IPCC AR5 Conclusion : Views Of Sceptics Now Accepted As Raising Legitimate Questions

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

•••

Following friday’s release of the IPCC‘s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), further commentary from Des Moore, principle of the Institute for Private Enterprise and contributing writer to Quadrant Online  :

Below are selected articles from today’s press on the (incomplete) IPCC Summary published last Friday. I have also included an extract from the US SEPP sceptical organisation, which includes a comment by US expert and sceptic Prof Richard Lindzen suggesting the IPCC analysis is “hilarious”. Unfortunately I was unable to download the excellent critique by Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun.

As expected, Fairfax’s The Age is fully supportive of the IPCC but this does not carry through to the AFR editorial. That carries a number of questions/doubts as do all the others. Bolt aside, none of the articles adopt the view that the IPCC thesis is wrong. But, by contrast with the reactions to the 2007 IPCC report, the views of sceptics can now be said to have been accepted as raising legitimate questions. The heading to the main article in The Australian – A Climate of Contention – captures the general sentiment.

I suspect that once a closer examination is made of the IPCC report, many deficiencies will emerge in public – not least the attempt to explain away the failure of the heat emanating from CO2 concentrations to increase temperatures over the last 15 years by (largely) burying it in the oceans!

It is difficult to see how the report could be portrayed by governments as strengthening the case for action to reduce usage of fossil fuels. However, the uncertainties emerging from the report do strengthen the case for an independent review of the so-called science.

Des

•••

Alarmism has failed the planet

Editorial, AFR, 30 Sep 2013

Over-hyping the risks of climate change has not convinced most of the world’s politicians and voters of the need for quick and radical action. Photo: Getty Images

The fifth assessment of global climate from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms that countries such as Australia should take a deliberate but cautious approach to reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The 36-page summary of a detailed IPCC report by hundreds of scientists expresses unequivocal confidence that human activity is heating up the planet. But it also reduces the likelihood of catastrophic climate change, suggesting that the temperature above the earth’s surface may rise by between 1 and 3.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

It suggests the sensitivity of the atmosphere to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may not be as high as previously feared. And it does not convincingly explain the stalling over the past 15 years of the trend of rising temperatures. Some of the warming may instead have been diverted into the oceans. Or it may just reflect inexplicable natural variation, or something else again.

Continue reading (paywalled) »

•••

Extract from SEPP, 28 September 2013

IPCC: On Friday, the IPCC released its Summary for Policymakers. The report was not yet complete, it referenced graphs that were not presented and will have to be inserted. Therefore, a side-by-side comparison of the NIPCC and the IPCC reports is premature. However, there are some disturbing omissions. As Roy Spencer points out, estimates of the sensitivity of the climate to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are missing. Yet, this is the entire political issue. Is the climate sensitive to human emissions of CO2 or not? Does an increase in the molecules of CO2 from 3 to 4 per 10,000 parts of air make a difference in climate?

Further, the report glosses over the fact that there has been no statistically significant rise in surface temperatures for over 16 years. Instead, it asserts a greater certainty in its work than prior reports. It reduced the uncertainty from 10% to 5%, with no empirical basis.

Richard Lindzen writes “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence – It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”

Prior to issuance of the approved report, Steve McIntyre presented an overview on how the IPCC put itself in a mess, rather than properly addressing the hiatus in warming and the associated discrepancy between model projections and observations. He writes: “One cannot help but wonder whether WG1 [the physical science section] Chair Thomas Stocker might not have served the policy community better by spending more time ensuring that the discrepancy between models and observations was properly addressed in the IPCC draft reports, perhaps even highlighting research problems while there was time in the process, than figuring out how IPCC could evade FOI [Freedom of Information] requests.

The purpose of a physical science is to describe nature, and to understand how it works. It is becoming increasingly evident that IPCC science does not describe nature. Yet, the IPCC intensifies its certainty in its work? For these and other comments see Climategate Continued, IPCC Report, and
http://www.climatechange2013.org/im…

•••

Emissions targets to stay, says Greg Hunt

The Australian, 30 September, Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor

THE Abbott government remains committed to the bipartisan target of 5 per cent for Australia’s carbon emissions cuts, despite the latest IPCC report saying drastic measures are needed to keep global temperature rises below 2C.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report — the executive summary of which was released on Friday — reinforced the government’s support for the science and targets set for emissions reductions.

“The Coalition is committed to the 5 per cent emissions reduction target and to the conditions for any further change.

“This has been our position for over three years now and remains unchanged from opposition to government,” Mr Hunt said.

But Greens leader Christine Milne said the 5 per cent target was not enough and the report — which will be released in full today in Stockholm — should be a priority for the new parliament.

“I will move for an urgent debate into the IPCC’s confirmation that we need to drastically reduce emissions and flick the switch to renewables to have any hope of constraining warming to 2C,” Senator Milne said.

The IPCC report set out a range of future temperature and sea-level scenarios, depending on the level of future human carbon dioxide emissions.

CSIRO research scientist and IPCC lead author Pep Canadell said new ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would be needed to keep future global temperature rises below the critical 2C. Most climate models showed cutting human carbon dioxide emissions completely would not be enough.

The latest IPCC report outlines a range of options to help meet the 2C target but predicts global average temperatures will rise between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2100.

The full report sets out a carbon budget linking temperature rises to increases in carbon in the atmosphere.

The summary report said Australia’s temperature outlook would mirror the global average. There would be more heatwaves and less rainfall in the south and southwest of the continent but heavier rainfall in the north.

Sea levels in northern Australia were expected to continue to rise at about three times the rate of the international average.

The report predicted sea-level rises of between 26cm and 82cm by the end of the century, depending on future emissions.

Mr Hunt said the Bureau of Meteorology had advised that in 2011 Australia’s average temperature was 0.13C below the 1961 to 1990 average.

Last year the average temperature was 0.11C above the 1961 to 1990 average.

This year was on track to be the second-hottest or hottest year since 1910.

•••

A climate of contention

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian, 30 Sept 2013

HAVING strengthened its conviction to 95 per cent certainty that human activity is responsible for changing the Earth’s climate, scientists have delivered politicians a “carbon budget” road map on what to do about it.

To limit global temperature growth to below 2C – the level considered the best-case scenario and safest outcome – by the second half of the century human activity must be carbon negative.

Rather than the 10 billion tonnes of carbon human activity is pumping into the Earth’s atmosphere every year, and rising, humans will have to find ways to pull it out.

For some this means devising new methods of bio-engineering to suck carbon dioxide from the air. For others it means boosting the natural order. Protecting the lungs of the Earth – forests – and making them work harder.

Senior CSIRO research scientist Pep Canadell, a lead author on the latest IPCC report, sees the future in bio-energy.

“We ran 10 models and six of the models said that by the second half of the century you actually have to have negative emissions,” Canadell says.

Continue reading »

•••

And to finish, some classic climate alarmism out of the Melbourne Age :

Reality of global warming is screaming at us

The Age, September 30 2013, Geoffrey Lean

But there’s still not enough action from governments.

The latest giant climate report was met with a dance and a scream.

The dance came when the governments and scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally put the finishing touches to the most important analysis yet of its kind after a series of sessions that allowed them only six hours’ sleep in the last 52. The conference manager, Francis Hayes – a former British Met Office scientist – donned a Russian hat and performed a Cossack caper in celebration.

The mass scream was part of a demonstration outside the former Stockholm brewery in which they had convened by protesters venting their frustration that governments have largely failed to act on previous warnings. They hope that will change. For this is the first in a year-long series of giant IPCC reports to prepare the ground for an attempt to forge an international agreement on tackling global warming in Paris in December 2015.

Mind you, there are those who say the IPCC has long been leading the world a merry dance. As some extreme sceptics see it, a small clique of scientists has been concocting, against all the evidence, one of history’s greatest hoaxes, bamboozling governments into addressing a problem that doesn’t actually exist. But the conspiracy theory fails at the briefest reality check.

Continue reading »

•••

Climatism Links :


IPCC Summary Report – Higher Certainty Suggests Cover Up

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••

Following Fridays release of the IPCC‘s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), some interesting commentary from Des Moore, principle of the Institute for Private Enterprise and contributing writer to Quadrant Online  :

•••

Why has IPCC V claimed greater certainty than in IPCC IV about the human contribution to global warming when the uncertainty has clearly  increased? One answer may be  that it is necessary for the credibility of  IPCCs and associated scientists that greater certainty be claimed in order  to provide a cover for the increased doubts about numerous aspects of the dangerous warming thesis since IPCC IV in 2007. These doubts will be increased by the attempt in IPCC V to explain the pause as being due to more than 90 per cent of the extra heat generated between 1971 and 2010 from the increase in CO2 being absorbed in the ocean instead of causing temperatures to increase. But the sea surface temperature is in equilibrium with the air surface temperature so where or how is the heat hiding? And when will the absorption (and pause) stop?

I have not yet read the report but below is a selection of articles on it from today’s press. I have not copied in any of the programs shown on ABC or SBS TV as they appear to have been a repeat of advice supplied to them by warmist scientists or extracted from IPCC handouts. In short these taxpayer funded organisations continue to be a disgrace and, if they had had shareholders, would have long since been wound up or sold.

By comparison one of the articles below published in the AFR actually included an extract from an interview I had with Gemma Daley. Incidentally, I am told that a lead author at the AFR on climate change (and an aggressive warmist) is no longer working at that organisation. Some other articles include the occasional query or reflect a modicum of scepticism. I have highlighted in red some of these.

Regrettably, the new Minister for the Environment* has stated that the government accepts “the science and the targets set for emissions reductions”. Perhaps he will be able to say which of the IPCC’s four alternative warming scenarios from 2000 to 2100 the government accepts. The fact that such alternatives are offered by the IPCC suggests uncertainty there about the extent of the alleged threat.

Note that only 110 of the 195 “eligible” (whoever they are) countries attended the Stockholm meeting which drafted the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. One could argue that a large proportion of countries have not approved the Summary. Note also that there are more reports to be published.

Des Moore

*Climatism Link

•••

Related press :

Hunt claims vindication on carbon tax

AFR 28 Sep 2013

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Friday night said there was a 95 per cent probability humans are contributing climate change. Photo: Rob Homer

Gemma Daley and James Massola

Australia is on track for its hottest year on record in 2013 and the past decade was the globe’s warmest, according to an international report based on the best scientific understanding of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Friday night said there was a 95 per cent probability humans are contributing climate change, confirming a report in Friday’s The Australian Financial Review, and that temperatures could rise by from 0.9 degrees Celsius at the bottom of a low-emissions scenario to 5.4 degrees Celsius at the top of a high-emissions scenario by the end of the century.

Keep Reading (paywalled) »

•••

Why the pause? IPCC report is unconvincing

AFR 28 Sep 2013, Comment, Mark Lawson

The oceans are absorbing increases in global warming, the report claims. Photo: Glenn Campbell

Well before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the summary of its latest assessment of the physical science of global warming on Friday, experts worldwide were dealing with the fallout of the report.

That included explaining just why average global temperatures have done little in the past 15 years or so when they should have been increasing.

The IPCC, the peak body for the global warming industry, sets out what amounts to the agreed case for global warming in major reports issued every seven years.

These reports underpin a now vast industry in research grants, environment lobby firms and advisory businesses of all types.

The reports also provide the basis for billions of dollars in trading climate credits, many thousands of well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, and an enormous green energy industry.

Keep Reading (paywalled) »

•••

Science solid on global warming, IPCC declares

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor |

The Australian,  September 28, 2013

THE case for a global agreement to limit carbon-dioxide emissions has been bolstered after the world’s top climate scientists increased their level of confidence that humans are changing the climate.

Despite predicting a range of possible temperatures over the century – an increase of 0.3C to 4.8C by 2100 – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth report for policy-makers warns of serious consequences if no action is taken.

“We need to seize the opportunities of a low-carbon future,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last night. “The heat is on, now we must act.”

As expected, the fifth assessment report by the UN body said warming of the climate system was “unequivocal” and there was now a 95 per cent probability that humans were contributing to climate change, up from 90 per cent in the 2007 report.

The IPCC said that since the 1950s many of the observed changes were “unprecedented over decades to millennia”.

“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased,” said the report, released last night. The report said each of the past three decades had been warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The IPCC report conceded the so-called “pause” in average surface temperatures over the past 15 years, but said it was not significant.

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” the report said.

It said “internal variability” – including volcanic eruptions, reduced solar activity and a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean – could explain the observed reduction in surface warming from 1998 to 2012 as compared with 1951-2012.

It conceded there may also be “an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing”.

The report said there were more hot days and fewer cold ones; heat waves had increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia and rainfall had increased in some areas.

As atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to increase, there was rising concern about increasing acidification of the ocean.

The report said continued emissions of greenhouse gases would cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,” it said.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the report’s findings reinforced the government’s “bipartisan support for the science and the targets set for emissions reductions”.

Greens leader Christine Milne said the report confirmed urgent and deep emission cuts globally were needed. She said the government had “no option but to abandon” its direct-action approach and take “urgent and serious measures immediately”.

The director of the Britain-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser, was critical of the report’s handling of the pause.

“It has not only decided to discount the global warming standstill since 1997 as irrelevant, but has also deleted from its draft document its original acknowledgement that climate models failed to ‘reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years’,” Dr Peiser said.

IPCC working groups co-chairman Thomas Stocker said last night the rise in global surface temperatures by the end of the 21st century was likely to exceed 1.5C relative to 1850 to 1900 under all future carbon emissions scenarios.

The most optimistic of four scenarios for warming forecasts an average temperature rise of 1C by 2100 over 2000 levels, ranging from 0.3C to 1.7C.

The highest IPCC scenario has an average additional warming this century of 3.7C, ranging from 2.6C to 4.8C.

Unlike the previous report in 2007, which forecast a range of temperature increases from 0.3C to 6.4C by 2100, the fifth update did not nominate a most likely temperature rise figure.

The likely range for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (how much average global temperature is expected to rise after a doubling of atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations) was now deemed to be 1.5C to 4.5C, a revision from the Fourth Assessment Report, which provided a range of 2C to 4.5C.

By the end of the century, sea levels were projected to rise between 26cm and 55cm under the best-case scenario to 45cm to 82cm under the worst case. In 2007, the rise was projected in a range from 18cm to 59cm.

Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, said the report “finally puts to rest the role humans play in causing global warming”.

“The good news is it highlights we can still avoid two degrees of warming if we deeply and rapidly cut emissions of greenhouse gases,” Professor Pitman said.

CSIRO fellow and IPCC lead author Steve Rintoul said there was “even greater confidence that climate is changing, (that) humans are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last 50 years, and that substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change”.

The IPCC report was approved at 5.30am after a marathon session at the Stockholm gathering of scientists and officials from more than 110 of the 195 eligible countries.

The IPCC document will play a key role in negotiations for a global agreement to cut global carbon-dioxide emissions which includes China, the US and India.

The UN has set a target to reach agreement in 2015 for a plan to take effect from 2020.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said he believed a market mechanism was the key to reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. “We have to put a price on carbon,” Dr Pachauri said. “In the ultimate analysis it is only through the market we might be able to get a large enough and rapid enough response,” he said.

•••

Alarm on global warming

The Age, September 28 2013,
Nick Miller Stockholm and Tom Arup

It is more certain than ever that human civilisation is the main cause of global warming, putting the world on track for dangerous temperature rises, a United Nations panel says.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is “extremely likely” that humans are the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century, with carbon dioxide emissions the main factor.

If emissions remain high, by 2100 temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2 degrees – and up to 4.8 degrees – breaching a threshold agreed by governments as limiting the worst impacts of climate change.

Heatwaves will be more frequent and last longer, the report says. Most wet regions will get more rainfall, and most dry regions less.

Glaciers and ice sheets will continue to shrink, and sea levels will rise more quickly.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said political commitment was needed to keep global temperature rise below the 2 degrees threshold.

”The heat is on, now we must act,” he said.

On Friday in Stockholm, the IPCC released a summary of its fifth major assessment of climate science after a week of debate, and years of work.

“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased,” said Qin Dahe, co-chair of the IPCC working group that compiled the report.

The findings were based on multiple lines of independent evidence, he said, much of it new since the IPCC’s previous report in 2007.

His co-chair, Thomas Stocker, said “substantial and sustained” reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would be necessary to prevent further warming and climate change.

The report found that:

■Each of the past three decades has been warmer than any preceding decade since 1850, and the past 30 years have been the warmest since AD600. Combined land and ocean temperatures rose 0.85 degrees on average since 1880.

■From 1901 to 2010, the sea level rose 19 centimetres, more quickly than the average for the last 2000 years. It is very likely to rise even more quickly during the 21st century.

■Greenhouse gases have reached levels unseen in at least 800,000 years, from fossil fuel emissions and land use. Oceans have absorbed a third of the extra carbon dioxide, making them more acidic.

■It is very likely that Arctic sea cover will continue to shrink and thin, and spring snow cover will continue to decrease through the 21st century.

■It is more likely than not that there will be more intense tropical cyclones.

Evidence for human influence in climate change has grown in the past five years, the report says.

Last night the federal government said it would push ahead with plans to dismantle Australia’s carbon tax. Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the government would repeal the market-based carbon-pricing mechanism set up by the former Labor government and that electricity prices and emissions have risen under the carbon tax.

The coalition would endeavour to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 with a capped $3.2 billion fund on activities that cut greenhouse gas emissions like revegetation and improving soil carbon, he said.

The report has been six years in the making and has involved over 800 scientists from around the world.

The panel was established by the UN to provide scientific assessments of climate change to governments, who get the final sign off on its reports.

The working group went right down to the wire, finishing the substantive parts of the report only hours ahead of its planned release after an all-night debate.

The group has been wrestling with figures that showed a slower rise in global temperatures than expected in the past decade.

The report concludes “with high confidence” that more than 90 per cent of the extra heat generated in between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the world’s oceans.

Commenting on the report, United States Secretary of State John Kerry said: ”This is yet another wake-up call. Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.

”This is science, these are facts, and action is our only option,” Senator Kerry said.

”If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it.”

Asked if the report meant the world could not burn its fossil fuel reserves, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said pricing carbon would an effective way to tackle emissions.

”It’s only through the market that we could get a large enough and rapid enough response,” he said.

Australian Academy of Science president Suzanne Cory said the world could be more certain than ever that human-induced climate change was real and a serious threat to the planet.

The 36-page ”summary for policymakers” released on Friday covers the first part of its assessment looking at the physical science, with the full version to be released on Monday.

It is based on 9200 scientific studies, more than three quarters of which were published since 2007.

Two more reports – looking at impacts and mitigation of climate change- will be released next year.

•••

Like the atmosphere the plot thickens yet again

The Age, Tom Arup, Environment Editor

So what now? Like its previous assessment six years ago, and those before it, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that the planet is warming dangerously and humans are the dominant cause.

In their more reflective moments, the scientists will tell you they wish they were wrong and that the Andrew Bolts of the world were right.

That global warming was not occurring. That warming had stopped. That it was not really that dangerous. That it was all due to natural variation. That it was one big conspiracy.

After all, who would really want to be right about such an enormous, transformative threat? Those working on climate science, of course, do not believe they have erred. The latest IPCC report has lifted the confidence of scientists and governments that humans have caused warming to an almost complete certainty.

Yes, warming has slowed in the past 15 years to below the long-term average. And no, scientists do not have a lot of confidence in explaining exactly why (it is probably a mix of ocean heat shifts, volcanos, aerosols and solar variations).

But nor has it got any cooler. Each of the past three decades was warmer than any preceding decade since records began.

This is a cautious, and largely technical report. Yet the IPCC still sets out strengthened evidence across all elements of the climate system.

The oceans, the ice sheets, extreme events of weather are all changing at an accelerated rate. These are significant warning signs of what is to come.

There are only so many times this message can be delivered to world governments before the reluctance to act conjures the words ”willful ignorance”. The last legally binding treaty on climate change to be drawn up was the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, covering developed countries.

Since then the world has tried and failed to hammer out a stronger, more encompassing treaty. Famously, the 2009 Copenhagen talks ended in disaster, stuck in self-interest and mistrust.

But self-interest will only go so far. That nagging science does not seem to be going away. And in the end, the atmosphere will not discriminate.

There have been some encouraging signs in recent years, particularly out of the US and China, which are making tentative steps to get their mammoth emissions under control. And the world will have another go at signing a full climate treaty at negotiations in Paris in 2015.

But we are cutting it fine to get our act together and begin making the changes needed: the reduction and end to conventional fossil fuel use and a halt to widespread clearing of forests.

•••

Good policy cuts out the climate extremists

AFR, 28 Sep 2013, Warwick McKibbin

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report by Working Group 1 which forms part of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will be much discussed in coming days.

The final AR5 Report is not expected to be finalised until October 2014 but the ideological and political noise from all sides surrounding the release of the latest report has been and will be deafening.

Some people will argue it supports the view that a climate crisis is approaching and a major restructuring of the global economy at whatever cost should be undertaken. Other equally intelligent and passionate people will argue the report is finally a recognition of the failure of climate models to predict a levelling of temperature changes that is currently being observed, and thus proving the entire body of climate science wrong.

Keep Reading (paywalled) »

•••

 

Climate Depot Round Up: UN IPCC Exhumes, Brings Climate Catastrophe Back From The Grave…Politicians, Activists Dancing Like It’s 2007!

Climate Depot Report on Reaction to New IPCC Report

Marc Morano Statement: “It appears the UN IPCC rejected advice from many to deal with discrepancies between man-made global warming claims and climate reality. The UN chose to double down and act as though Climategate never happened or the global temperature standstill for 15 or more years does not exist. The UN IPCC has stuck to the same old script. However, less and less people are now willing to buy what they are selling. Global warming skeptics have thus far prevailed in this debate by relying on science, data, and healthy doses of skepticism. The UN IPCC — steeped in politics — appears incapable of producing a report that would challenge its government mandated narrative claiming man-made global warming is a  threat.” For an alternative to UN claims, see: CLIMATE STUDY COUNTERS UN IPCC: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report #

•••

Climatism Links :


Scientists Recommend Having Earth Put Down

We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

•••

Screen Shot 2013-10-01 at , October 1, 12.42.19 AM

FORT COLLINS, CO—Claiming that it is the humane thing to do, and that the planet is “just going to suffer” if kept alive any longer, members of the world’s scientific community recommended today that Earth be put down.

“We realize this isn’t the easiest thing to hear, but we’ve run a number of tests and unfortunately there’s really nothing more we can do for Earth at this point,” said leading climatologist Dr. Robert Wyche of Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science. “Earth’s ecosystems have hung in there for a while, and you have to hand it to the old gal for staying alive this long, but at this point the chances of a recovery are, I’m sorry to say, incredibly unlikely. It might be time to say goodbye.

“Earth is in a lot of pain, folks,” Wyche continued. “Time to think about sending it off peacefully, for its own sake.”

Scientists Recommend Having Earth Put Down | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source

•••

Evil man’s contribution to carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is 12 parts per million or 0.0012%. That is enough greenhouse gas to make “it” so sick that there has been no global warming for the majority of the satellite era or around 17 years :

trend

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The water in Fort Collins has been intoxicated with carbon pollution.

H/t to Craig Havenaar 

•••

Climatism Links :