Bianca Jagger, the former socialite, now appearing as a global warming promoter, has told the Lima climate jamboree participants that time is running out:
“Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere, in every nation, in every echelon of society, in the developing world and the developed world,” Jagger said. “We will all suffer the catastrophic consequences of rising sea levels, ocean acidification, food scarcity and political unrest. But some of the most vulnerable communities in the world are bearing a disproportionate burden of the harm without having significantly contributed to the cost. This is a terrible injustice.”
Noting that climate experts predict that 2014 will become the hottest year on record, Jagger warned: “Time is running out. Inaction will lead to severe and irreversible damage
Time may be running out, but fortunately the former socialite still has time for some serious shopping. Here is a recent example:
On Bianca (left): Dolce & Gabbana gold-tone Swarovski crystal coin headband, $2,485; net-a-porter.com; Valentino silk-crepe split-back jumpsuit, $3,690; modaoperandi.com; Tamara Mellon fringed jersey halterneck dress, $1,695; net-a-porter.com; Jimmy Choo charm disco mirror box clutch, $1,050; saksfifthavenue.com; Charlotte Olympia Octavia sandal, $1,020; farfetch.com
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Monday, 8 December 2014
Monday, 1 December 2014
"Thousands of diplomats" gather in Lima in order to fight global warming (which stopped 18 years ago)
It is difficult to imagine a better example of how public money, provided by hard working taxpayers, is wasted:
"For the next two weeks, thousands of diplomats from around the globe will gather in Lima, Peru, for a United Nations summit meeting to draft an agreement intended to stop the global rise of planet-warming greenhouse gases."
(New York Times)
"For the next two weeks, thousands of diplomats from around the globe will gather in Lima, Peru, for a United Nations summit meeting to draft an agreement intended to stop the global rise of planet-warming greenhouse gases."
(New York Times)
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
The Republican victory brings an added bonus: Next year´s climate change jamboree in Paris will most likely be a repeat of Copenhagen
The Republican landslide in the US elections means that sanity prevails also in the "climate change" debate. Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will again become the chair of the Senate´s environment committee. The IPCC and the international climate alarmist community can forget about getting a "meaningful" new climate change agreement in Paris 2015.
This is how one warmist blog summarized the elections already before results were in:
Oklahoma senator James Inhofe would become chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee. The committee has the ability to hold up, change, or scrap any climate change legislation. It also holds regular hearings on matters related to climate policy.
Inhofe describes climate change as a "hoax" and is strongly opposed to Obama's clean power plan. He became known for aggressively questioning the validity of climate science in his previous tenure as the committee's chair between 2003 and 2007.
If the Republican's win, climate skeptic committee chairs such as Inhofe, Ted Cruz, and Ron Johnson could also move to cut funding to those charged with implementing Obama's climate plan, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Combined, the committee chairs would make the Senate altogether less climate-friendly.
That could spook other governments in the run-up to next year's international climate negotiations. If they don't think the US's more proactive approach to curbing emissions is going to last, they are less likely to agree to taking action themselves.
Global issues
The US's efforts to curb emissions and the world's prospects of taking action are largely synonymous.
Those unsure of the Senate's international influence need only to think back to 1997, when a Republican Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That decision meant the world's only binding agreement to cut emissions was hamstrung from the start. Many say it never recovered.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change yesterday spelled out the dangers of failing to tackle climate change in the clearest terms yet. How the US votes tomorrow will have a significant impact on the type of action the world agrees to next year.
That's why environmental campaigners have spent millions promoting climate-friendly candidates. And it's why it shouldn't just be US citizens watching closely when the polls close.
This is how one warmist blog summarized the elections already before results were in:
Oklahoma senator James Inhofe would become chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee. The committee has the ability to hold up, change, or scrap any climate change legislation. It also holds regular hearings on matters related to climate policy.
Inhofe describes climate change as a "hoax" and is strongly opposed to Obama's clean power plan. He became known for aggressively questioning the validity of climate science in his previous tenure as the committee's chair between 2003 and 2007.
If the Republican's win, climate skeptic committee chairs such as Inhofe, Ted Cruz, and Ron Johnson could also move to cut funding to those charged with implementing Obama's climate plan, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Combined, the committee chairs would make the Senate altogether less climate-friendly.
That could spook other governments in the run-up to next year's international climate negotiations. If they don't think the US's more proactive approach to curbing emissions is going to last, they are less likely to agree to taking action themselves.
Global issues
The US's efforts to curb emissions and the world's prospects of taking action are largely synonymous.
Those unsure of the Senate's international influence need only to think back to 1997, when a Republican Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That decision meant the world's only binding agreement to cut emissions was hamstrung from the start. Many say it never recovered.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change yesterday spelled out the dangers of failing to tackle climate change in the clearest terms yet. How the US votes tomorrow will have a significant impact on the type of action the world agrees to next year.
That's why environmental campaigners have spent millions promoting climate-friendly candidates. And it's why it shouldn't just be US citizens watching closely when the polls close.
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
A look behind the scenes of the new IPCC scare report
Stanford professor Chris Field gives us an interesting look behind the scenes of the new IPCC scare report. It is fascinating to read about how incredibly tough the last five years have been for Field and his team.
We are told that he scientic process started with an "American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors and editors". (Perhaps we will see the highlights on television at some later date?) After probably hundreds of meetings in such hardship locations as Bali and Venice, professor Field and his "idols" finally produced "a 2,000-page report as part of a massive, three-part U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report:
In the summer of 2009, Stanford Professor Chris Field embarked on a task of urgent global importance.
Field had been tapped to assemble hundreds of climate scientists to dig through 12,000 scientific papers concerning the current impacts of climate change and its causes.
The team, Working Group II, would ultimately produce a 2,000-page report as part of a massive, three-part U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which details a consensus view on the current state and fate of the world's climate. --
For Field's group, the long road began in earnest at a July 2009 meeting in Venice, Italy, where 209 scientific experts and IPCC members from around the world developed a chapter-by-chapter outline of the report. Their outline was later formally accepted at a meeting in Bali, Indonesia.
But before Field and his team could begin the heavy lifting of writing the report, they hosted a kind of American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors and editors. --
"Stanford didn't see it as a distraction, but as a fundamental function of the university," Diffenbaugh said. His 9-year-old daughter, however, had a different perspective. Her father, worn out from after-hours work on the assessment, would often fall asleep while reading bedtime stories. --
The article also includes some interesting glimpses into the scientific method of the IPCC process:
Sometimes, it took pen sketches too. Lobell recalled a group effort to come up with a key summary figure for the chapter he worked on about food security. "We ended up doodling on napkins over dinner, and then I went back and made a version that ended up in the final report. One of the senior authors described that as the highlight of his career." --
"The challenge is also to communicate things clearly," he added. "For example, it doesn't help much to say, 'Things are uncertain.' It's better to say something like, 'If we knew A, we would know B, but we don't really know A."
The last citation is actually the best summary of the entire report I have so far seen :-)
We are told that he scientic process started with an "American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors and editors". (Perhaps we will see the highlights on television at some later date?) After probably hundreds of meetings in such hardship locations as Bali and Venice, professor Field and his "idols" finally produced "a 2,000-page report as part of a massive, three-part U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report:
In the summer of 2009, Stanford Professor Chris Field embarked on a task of urgent global importance.
Field had been tapped to assemble hundreds of climate scientists to dig through 12,000 scientific papers concerning the current impacts of climate change and its causes.
The team, Working Group II, would ultimately produce a 2,000-page report as part of a massive, three-part U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which details a consensus view on the current state and fate of the world's climate. --
For Field's group, the long road began in earnest at a July 2009 meeting in Venice, Italy, where 209 scientific experts and IPCC members from around the world developed a chapter-by-chapter outline of the report. Their outline was later formally accepted at a meeting in Bali, Indonesia.
But before Field and his team could begin the heavy lifting of writing the report, they hosted a kind of American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors and editors. --
"Stanford didn't see it as a distraction, but as a fundamental function of the university," Diffenbaugh said. His 9-year-old daughter, however, had a different perspective. Her father, worn out from after-hours work on the assessment, would often fall asleep while reading bedtime stories. --
The article also includes some interesting glimpses into the scientific method of the IPCC process:
Sometimes, it took pen sketches too. Lobell recalled a group effort to come up with a key summary figure for the chapter he worked on about food security. "We ended up doodling on napkins over dinner, and then I went back and made a version that ended up in the final report. One of the senior authors described that as the highlight of his career." --
"The challenge is also to communicate things clearly," he added. "For example, it doesn't help much to say, 'Things are uncertain.' It's better to say something like, 'If we knew A, we would know B, but we don't really know A."
The last citation is actually the best summary of the entire report I have so far seen :-)
Climatologist Tim Ball's book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science reviewed
Alan Caruba reviews climatologist Tim Ball's excellent book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:
CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”
“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be. --
“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.
“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.
Monday, 31 March 2014
The warmist Guardian on the new IPCC report: "The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings"
Today the IPCC's latest scare report gets its usual share of publicity in the mainstream media. But even The Guardian, one of the main bastions of the global warming religion, admits that we have heard it before:
The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings
The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago.--
There will likely be more floods, more droughts and more intense heatwaves, says the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, natural ecosystems come under extreme stress with "significant" knock-on effects for societies.
"Changes in the availability of food, fuel, medicine, construction materials and income are possible as these ecosystems are changed," says the report.
But in the words of that great British band The Smiths, you can now stop me if you think you've heard this one before.
That's because all of the above comes not from today's blockbuster IPCC report on the impacts of climate change, but from the first one started in 1988 and published in 1990.
Fortunately, the new IPCC scare report will soon be forgotten - just as its predecessors - and responsible authorities and organizations will be able to concentrate on solving real environmental problems ...
There will likely be more floods, more droughts and more intense heatwaves, says the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, natural ecosystems come under extreme stress with "significant" knock-on effects for societies.
"Changes in the availability of food, fuel, medicine, construction materials and income are possible as these ecosystems are changed," says the report.
But in the words of that great British band The Smiths, you can now stop me if you think you've heard this one before.
That's because all of the above comes not from today's blockbuster IPCC report on the impacts of climate change, but from the first one started in 1988 and published in 1990.
Fortunately, the new IPCC scare report will soon be forgotten - just as its predecessors - and responsible authorities and organizations will be able to concentrate on solving real environmental problems ...
Thursday, 27 March 2014
The IPCC admits: "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately"
The credibility of the IPCC is in tatters:
Humans have shrunk the habitats of many life forms, through unsustainable agriculture, fishing or hunting. And it is going to get even worse. Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.
But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the IPCC's new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama, Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further "increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century" is to be expected. On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.
'Crocodile Tears'
At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.
Ragnar Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, says essential data is missing for most other life forms, making it virtually impossible to forecast the potential effects of climate change. Given the myriad other human encroachments in the natural environment, Kinzelbach says, "crocodile tears over an animal kingdom threatened by climate change are less than convincing."
The draft report includes a surprising admission by the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species extinctions. "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that "forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated."
In the last assessment report, Climate Change 2007, the IPCC predicted that 20 to 30 percent of all animal and plant species faced a high risk for extinction should average global temperatures rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit). The current draft report says that scientific uncertainties have "become more apparent" since 2007.
Read the entire article here
Humans have shrunk the habitats of many life forms, through unsustainable agriculture, fishing or hunting. And it is going to get even worse. Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.
But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the IPCC's new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama, Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further "increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century" is to be expected. On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.
'Crocodile Tears'
At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.
Ragnar Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, says essential data is missing for most other life forms, making it virtually impossible to forecast the potential effects of climate change. Given the myriad other human encroachments in the natural environment, Kinzelbach says, "crocodile tears over an animal kingdom threatened by climate change are less than convincing."
The draft report includes a surprising admission by the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species extinctions. "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that "forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated."
In the last assessment report, Climate Change 2007, the IPCC predicted that 20 to 30 percent of all animal and plant species faced a high risk for extinction should average global temperatures rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit). The current draft report says that scientific uncertainties have "become more apparent" since 2007.
Read the entire article here
Friday, 31 January 2014
R.K. Pachauri discloses the IPCC's secret weapon against errors - "a formal protocol for any errors that have to be corrected"
R.K. Pachauri reveals the IPCC's secret weapon against errors: "a formal protocol for any errors that have to be corrected"!
What lessons were learnt from the controversies over the previous report, such as the overconfident predictions on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers? The fact is that this is a human undertaking, which involves literally thousands of scientists and, therefore, we need to be prepared for the possibility of some errors.
However, to eliminate errors, we have certainly made sure that all the authors are clearly cautioned about being very careful in assessing any literature, making sure that whatever they include in the report is robust and defendable.
So we are taking extra steps, but we still do realise that, in any human undertaking such as this, errors can occur. And, therefore, to deal with them, we now have a formal protocol for any errors that have to be corrected.
So rest assured, even if "errors can occur" in "any human undertaking", the IPCC's magic protocol is there to fix it! Hopefully railway engineer Pachauri will soon give us some examples of how the protocol has been applied.
What lessons were learnt from the controversies over the previous report, such as the overconfident predictions on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers? The fact is that this is a human undertaking, which involves literally thousands of scientists and, therefore, we need to be prepared for the possibility of some errors.
However, to eliminate errors, we have certainly made sure that all the authors are clearly cautioned about being very careful in assessing any literature, making sure that whatever they include in the report is robust and defendable.
So we are taking extra steps, but we still do realise that, in any human undertaking such as this, errors can occur. And, therefore, to deal with them, we now have a formal protocol for any errors that have to be corrected.
So rest assured, even if "errors can occur" in "any human undertaking", the IPCC's magic protocol is there to fix it! Hopefully railway engineer Pachauri will soon give us some examples of how the protocol has been applied.
Sunday, 29 December 2013
With the IPCC almost forgotten R.K. Pachauri is now concentrating on something he is good at
 |
| Better as a bowler |
Now that only a handful of global warming zealots remain interested in the activities of the IPCC, Indian railway engineer R.K. Pachauri is finally able to concentrate on something he is good at:
A little known but fascinating facet of his character is the fact that Dr Pachauri is a keen cricketer with particular skills as a seam and swing bowler. His vision has led to the creation of TERI Oval (later known as Patchy Greens) —one of the finest and most scenic cricket grounds in India—which is now recognized as a venue for first class matches. Several International, national and indeed corporate cricketers enjoy visiting and playing at Patchy Greens. Dr Pachauri’s remarkable achievement of 600 wickets in corporate cricket for TERI is a milestone few can aspire to match in the foreseeable future.
Dr. Pachauri has been a driving force in not only developing interest in cricket in TERI, but also among various corporate who have participated in the tournaments conducted at Patchy Greens. Annually, the ground holds five to six corporate cricket tournaments and has been instrumental in keeping the interest among working professionals. Dr. Pachauri himself is a fitness conscious personality and plays for team TERI as its premier bowler.
He has bowling, mostly during power-plays, and has now brought 600 wickets in his corporate cricket career. He has been maintaining a stunning strike rate of just 14 balls per wicket since the last two years and in the duration of less than two years he added 100 more wickets (from 500 to 600) to his tally. It is not only his swing which is difficult for the batsmen to handle, but his skill to read the batsman's mind that does the trick. Although, he is a non-interfering on the cricketing fields, but he is ready provide strategic inputs to the captain and coach. Team TERI recently won the 8th Madhao Rao Scindia Cricket Tournament, the 16th D.G Phadkar tournament the Ist Krishna Maruti Tournament, and the 2nd Tiger Pataudi Cricket Tournament beating the leading corporate cricketing teams.
PS
If Pachauri gets tired of bowling at the "lush green outfields", he can use another of the first class TERI facilities in Gurgaeon (although the local town planner does not seem to be quite so enthusiastic about it):
Here, it runs a five-acre golf course as part of the 69 acres of institutional land it acquired from Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1985 to build a residential training facility for executives called Retreat. Work on the golf course began in 2005.
According to Gurgaon's district town planner Vijender Singh Rana, commercial activity through sports on institutional land is illegal. "HUDA gave this land to TERI for institutional or public and semipublic purpose," Rana said. "Though they have asked for change of land use (CLU) regularly from HUDA, permission cannot be given for any sporting activity. If TERI is selling golf course memberships, it is wrong." Rana said the conditions for use of institutional land were clear.
"If TERI uses it for its own purpose, there is no problem. But it cannot use it commercially and sell golf memberships," he said.
A TERI spokesperson denied it was making commercial use of the course. However, when MAIL TODAY anonymously contacted the course officials, they offered memberships for Rs.25,000.
Sunday, 29 September 2013
Voice of America on "fading Climate Change Stars" Gore, Pachauri and others
The warmists are clearly deeply disappointed. The latest IPCC scaremongering "assessment" gets a big yawn from ordinary citizens - and a large part of the international media. Even the usually pro IPCC Voice of America published this article about "fading" "Climate Change Stars" (Gore, Pachauri, Nasheed, Obama, Merkel ...):
Much of the "glamor" has gone since Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian chair of the IPCC, and Gore proudly showed off the Nobel gold medals in 2007, a time when firm global action on reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses seemed feasible.--
The problem proved intractable in the financial crisis. A U.N. summit in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to work out a deal, and many voters may simply have tired of hearing of global warming.
It is a sign of the times that some of the world's most powerful figures such German Chancellor Angela Merkel - a former environment minister - U.S. President Barack Obama or Chinese Premier Li Keqiang appear to have put the issue on the backburner to focus on domestic economic issues.
Even former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, who made global headlines in 2009 with the world's first underwater Cabinet meeting to highlight the threat of rising sea levels to his small islands, was forced from power in domestic turmoil.--
" ... Gore has also been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them.
His later ventures have been less high profile. He sold his struggling cable channel, Current TV, to Al Jazeera in January."
Well, what can you say. Pachauri, Gore and all the rest had their moments of (vain)glory. Now they are fading, and the international community has fortunately began to focus on real problems ...
Much of the "glamor" has gone since Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian chair of the IPCC, and Gore proudly showed off the Nobel gold medals in 2007, a time when firm global action on reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses seemed feasible.--
The problem proved intractable in the financial crisis. A U.N. summit in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to work out a deal, and many voters may simply have tired of hearing of global warming.
It is a sign of the times that some of the world's most powerful figures such German Chancellor Angela Merkel - a former environment minister - U.S. President Barack Obama or Chinese Premier Li Keqiang appear to have put the issue on the backburner to focus on domestic economic issues.
Even former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, who made global headlines in 2009 with the world's first underwater Cabinet meeting to highlight the threat of rising sea levels to his small islands, was forced from power in domestic turmoil.--
" ... Gore has also been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them.
His later ventures have been less high profile. He sold his struggling cable channel, Current TV, to Al Jazeera in January."
Well, what can you say. Pachauri, Gore and all the rest had their moments of (vain)glory. Now they are fading, and the international community has fortunately began to focus on real problems ...
Saturday, 28 September 2013
Professor Michael Oppenheimer on the "high level of certainty" in the new IPCC assessment
Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, and a leading member of the IPCC, boasts about the level of certainty in the new climate report in a PBS interview:
There's a big central focus on this issue on many facts, that the Earth is warming, that the warming will continue, that the dangerous warming is coming close, and that if we don't do something about emissions, we will be there pretty soon.
All of that is now known with a -- there's a consensus about all of that. Scientists are very careful. Scientists tend to be skeptical, of course, and here we have thousands of them getting together and being able to agree on this high level of certainty.
There is no environmental problem that is characterized by that level of certainty.
Somewhat later in the interview Oppenheimer addresses the issue of the lack of global warming during the last 15 years (which he prefers to call a "slowdown"):
And that is believed to be because the climate is quite variable. If you look at the long-term record, there are bumps upwards, there are bumps downwards, and there are plateaus like this one. After every bump downward or every plateau, the climate change then accelerates again. Now, we can't be sure that is going to happen, but it's a good bet.
The best possible -- the best -- the leading explanation of this is that heat tends to hide in the ocean sometimes. But when heat hides in the ocean, it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere, and then warming resumes faster than before. We don't know this for certain. We will find out over the next few years.
(bolding by NNoN)
Oppenheimer's reply pretty well summarizes the "high level of certainty" that characterizes the science behind the new IPCC report.
I, for my part, prefer this "summary" of the new IPCC report:
"All the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years have predicted global warming much greater than has been observed.
There's a big central focus on this issue on many facts, that the Earth is warming, that the warming will continue, that the dangerous warming is coming close, and that if we don't do something about emissions, we will be there pretty soon.
All of that is now known with a -- there's a consensus about all of that. Scientists are very careful. Scientists tend to be skeptical, of course, and here we have thousands of them getting together and being able to agree on this high level of certainty.
There is no environmental problem that is characterized by that level of certainty.
Somewhat later in the interview Oppenheimer addresses the issue of the lack of global warming during the last 15 years (which he prefers to call a "slowdown"):
And that is believed to be because the climate is quite variable. If you look at the long-term record, there are bumps upwards, there are bumps downwards, and there are plateaus like this one. After every bump downward or every plateau, the climate change then accelerates again. Now, we can't be sure that is going to happen, but it's a good bet.
The best possible -- the best -- the leading explanation of this is that heat tends to hide in the ocean sometimes. But when heat hides in the ocean, it later comes out and reappears in the atmosphere, and then warming resumes faster than before. We don't know this for certain. We will find out over the next few years.
(bolding by NNoN)
Oppenheimer's reply pretty well summarizes the "high level of certainty" that characterizes the science behind the new IPCC report.
I, for my part, prefer this "summary" of the new IPCC report:
"All the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years have predicted global warming much greater than has been observed.
"This represents a problem because what it means is all these insistent
claims they have been making that we need to take urgent measures now to deal
with this unprecedented problem seem to be based on junk science.
"The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence
out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the
imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists
who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem
"What we see in this report is that the models aren't working, which suggests the entirety of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is flawed."
"What we see in this report is that the models aren't working, which suggests the entirety of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is flawed."
Friday, 27 September 2013
Even warmist George Monbiot admits that the scaremongering is failing: The IPCC report is "greeted with indifference and guff"
The IPCC warmists think that they can get away with their hoax
The IPCC warmists made it easy for themselves:
One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with a purported slowdown in warming in the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this “hiatus” casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change. --
In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don’t in general reflect long-term trends.
This is supposed to be cutting edge science? They must be joking!
One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with a purported slowdown in warming in the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this “hiatus” casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change. --
In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don’t in general reflect long-term trends.
This is supposed to be cutting edge science? They must be joking!
Thursday, 26 September 2013
IPCC cannot explain why global warming has stopped
No matter how much the IPCC and the alarmist media try to spin the new Assessment Report, they cannot produce a convincing explanation for why global warming has stopped.
James Delingpole's column is - as always - worth reading:
At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.
To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.--
Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.
Read the entire article here
James Delingpole's column is - as always - worth reading:
At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.
To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.--
Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.
Read the entire article here
Friday, 20 September 2013
Politicians told IPCC scientists to "cover up" the lack of warming
This is nothing but a scandal:
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft. --
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The politicians who wanted to cover up the lack of warming should of course be named and relieved of any duties related to (imaginary) human caused climate change - and voters should punish them in the next elections!
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The politicians who wanted to cover up the lack of warming should of course be named and relieved of any duties related to (imaginary) human caused climate change - and voters should punish them in the next elections!
Monday, 9 September 2013
The global warming establishment in a state of shock: The Planet is cooling!
The UN led global warming establishment is terrified. A secret memo to the IPCC reveals that the planet is getting cooler, not warmer:
The extraordinary “reverse” of global warming has led to a 60 per cent rise in ice-covered ocean. Just six years ago, some scientists were predicting that all of this ice would have melted away by 2013.
The extraordinary “reverse” of global warming has led to a 60 per cent rise in ice-covered ocean. Just six years ago, some scientists were predicting that all of this ice would have melted away by 2013.
The big chill has persuaded some experts that temperatures will keep falling for decades and throws fresh doubts on claims that global warming will devastate the planet.
Details of the latest twist in the debate emerged in a secret memo to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It says that a chillier-than-usual summer has left a thick ice layer stretching from the Canadian islands to the northern coast of Russia. The ice prevented dozens of yachts and a cruiser getting through America’s North-West Passage.
The memo surfaced days before the Arctic freeze is about to begin and six years after warnings that global warming would melt the ice by this winter. An ice-free Arctic was boldly predicted in a 2007 BBC report, which quoted Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
He said his grim but conservative estimate was provided by the most realistic computer models. Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams added: “This is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.”--
The UN memo’s authors say they are “95 per cent confident” that global warming has been caused by greenhouse gases, which have risen by 90 per cent in the past six years.
But US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said carbon dioxide is less influential and ocean temperatures are more important, leading to a period of cooling.
She said the world might be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when temperatures fell over a longer period – leading some scientists to predict a new ice age.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.
The doomsday prophets will without doubt try to continue their scaremongering, but with their credibility badly diminished, we will soon witness a major u-turn by the mainstream politicians, who have allowed themselves to be misled by the global warming lobby.
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Rajendra Pachauri's newly found "tolerance" towards global warming skeptics is only a smoke screen
IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri is has recently changed his tune with regard to global warming skeptics. During his visit to Finland Pachauri had this to say about criticism of the soon to be published next Assessment Report:
The IPCC will reveal the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report in Stockholm in late September. Its director is bracing for a range of criticism of the report -- or perhaps even looking forward to it.
"We love debate, after all science only drives under debate. We welcome it, as long as it's objective and well-intentioned," says Pachauri.
It is not so long ago, when the same Pachauri was less tolerant of critical views:
Q: What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there
Pachauri Answer: There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.
Pachauri's newly found tolerance is of course only a PR trick. The former railway engineer will most certainly continue to label all criticism non-objective and not "well-intentioned".
The IPCC will reveal the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report in Stockholm in late September. Its director is bracing for a range of criticism of the report -- or perhaps even looking forward to it.
"We love debate, after all science only drives under debate. We welcome it, as long as it's objective and well-intentioned," says Pachauri.
It is not so long ago, when the same Pachauri was less tolerant of critical views:
Q: What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there
Pachauri Answer: There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.
Pachauri's newly found tolerance is of course only a PR trick. The former railway engineer will most certainly continue to label all criticism non-objective and not "well-intentioned".
Friday, 15 March 2013
Leading German climatologist: "Climate research was hijacked by politicians"
"Climate research was hijacked by politicians, in order to make their decisions look scientifically given and without any alternative". That is the key message in German climatologist, IPCC lead writer Hans von Storch's new book "Die Klimafalle: Die gefährliche Nähe von Politik und Klimaforschung" (The Climate Trap: The dangerous closeness between politics and climate research), which he has written together with social scientist Werner Krauß.
Von Storch is highly critical of the IPCC reports, which he describes as "co-productions between science and politics". By accepting the "one truth only" basis for political decisions, scientists have made themselves "clandestine advocates", says von Storch. A blend of apocalyptic rhetoric and politically exploited science has driven climate research into a dead end. "It was extravagant to claim, that such a complicated problem as climate change was 'solved', and that there was a consensus about it", von Storch and Krauß write.
The authors also say that it was "scandalous" that Michael Mann and the rest of his "hockey team" broke the scientific free exchange of information rules. The trench warfare damaged science - "open debate, the engine of scientific progress, was abandoned". The loss of credibility has not only damaged climate research - but also the protection of the environment, the authors say.
Although von Storch does not want to be called a climate skeptic, his argumentation is still an important and most welcome step forward towards a meaningful discussion of climate change/global warming. One must hope that his criticism is read - and understood - by the hundreds of climatologists and other scientists who have allowed themselves to be used as tools in a political game.
Read the two Der Spiegel articles here (in German).
Von Storch is highly critical of the IPCC reports, which he describes as "co-productions between science and politics". By accepting the "one truth only" basis for political decisions, scientists have made themselves "clandestine advocates", says von Storch. A blend of apocalyptic rhetoric and politically exploited science has driven climate research into a dead end. "It was extravagant to claim, that such a complicated problem as climate change was 'solved', and that there was a consensus about it", von Storch and Krauß write.
The authors also say that it was "scandalous" that Michael Mann and the rest of his "hockey team" broke the scientific free exchange of information rules. The trench warfare damaged science - "open debate, the engine of scientific progress, was abandoned". The loss of credibility has not only damaged climate research - but also the protection of the environment, the authors say.
Although von Storch does not want to be called a climate skeptic, his argumentation is still an important and most welcome step forward towards a meaningful discussion of climate change/global warming. One must hope that his criticism is read - and understood - by the hundreds of climatologists and other scientists who have allowed themselves to be used as tools in a political game.
Read the two Der Spiegel articles here (in German).
Thursday, 20 December 2012
IPCC expert reviewer: Modest rise of temperature will do more good than harm
There is not going to be the kind of large temperature rise that IPCC alarmists have predicted. The estimated modest rise of no more than 1 C will will actually do more good than harm. Matt Ridley, writing in the Wall Street Journal/Australian, has been talking to Nic Lewis, an expert reviewer of the leaked draft IPCC Scientific Report:
In short: we can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.
The conclusion - taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake - is this: a doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6-1.7C.
This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3C.
Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.
Given what we know now, there is almost no way the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30 per cent rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1C."
A cumulative change of less than 2C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good - that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly; growing seasons will lengthen; Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.
Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Centre and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6C.
The big question is this: will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC's existing 2-4.5C "likely" range for climate sensitivity? Sadly, this seems unlikely - given the organisation's record of replacing evidence-based policymaking with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.
Read the entire article here
Friday, 19 October 2012
Donna Laframboise: " IPCC is filled with environmental activists"
Alarmist mainstream media continue to portrait the IPCC as a body made up of the world's top scientists and experts. Donna Lafromboise, the Toronto based investigative journalist, has found out that the reality looks somewhat different:
So what did Laframbois find? Yes, “a number of talented and experienced scientists have indeed helped to write IPCC reports over the years. The problem is that many other IPCC authors don’t come close to being leading scientists at the top of their profession,” said Laframbois to the crowd made up of many geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists.
On the screen, Laframbois flashed the photos of three “20-somethings,” who were lead authors and even co-ordinating lead authors of entire chapters of the IPCC Climate Bible that directs the governments of 185 countries into actions like raising gasoline prices, imposing carbon taxes and the like.
Richard Klein, for instance, was 23 in 1992 when he completed his master’s degree in geography and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, he was a lead author for the IPCC. Since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports, and beginning in 1997, he was promoted to co-ordinating lead author — the IPCC’s most senior author role — at the age of 28. “That’s six years prior to him completing his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts,” she said.
Laurens Bouwer was a lead author for the IPCC in 1999-2000, BEFORE earning his master’s degree in 2001.
The most egregious example is Sari Kovats. In 1994, Kovats was one of 21 people “in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter” looking into the affects of climate change on human health.
But she wasn’t anywhere near being one of the world’s top scientists or experts in her field. Indeed, she didn’t publish her first academic paper until three years after she acted as an “expert” and she didn’t earn her PhD until 2010 — a whopping 16 years after being tagged as one of the top 21 experts in the world.
And it gets worse. The IPCC is filled with environmental activists, not objective scientists measuring data and coming to conclusions.
Among a list of people she cites, Laframbois notes that Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the World Wildlife Fund’s chief spokesperson on climate change and then in 2010 the IPCC appointed her “to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous and balanced.”
Indeed, two-thirds of the chapters of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. Two-thirds! Laframbois calls that a “full-scale invasion.”
Read the entire article here
So what did Laframbois find? Yes, “a number of talented and experienced scientists have indeed helped to write IPCC reports over the years. The problem is that many other IPCC authors don’t come close to being leading scientists at the top of their profession,” said Laframbois to the crowd made up of many geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists.
On the screen, Laframbois flashed the photos of three “20-somethings,” who were lead authors and even co-ordinating lead authors of entire chapters of the IPCC Climate Bible that directs the governments of 185 countries into actions like raising gasoline prices, imposing carbon taxes and the like.
Richard Klein, for instance, was 23 in 1992 when he completed his master’s degree in geography and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, he was a lead author for the IPCC. Since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports, and beginning in 1997, he was promoted to co-ordinating lead author — the IPCC’s most senior author role — at the age of 28. “That’s six years prior to him completing his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts,” she said.
Laurens Bouwer was a lead author for the IPCC in 1999-2000, BEFORE earning his master’s degree in 2001.
The most egregious example is Sari Kovats. In 1994, Kovats was one of 21 people “in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter” looking into the affects of climate change on human health.
But she wasn’t anywhere near being one of the world’s top scientists or experts in her field. Indeed, she didn’t publish her first academic paper until three years after she acted as an “expert” and she didn’t earn her PhD until 2010 — a whopping 16 years after being tagged as one of the top 21 experts in the world.
And it gets worse. The IPCC is filled with environmental activists, not objective scientists measuring data and coming to conclusions.
Among a list of people she cites, Laframbois notes that Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the World Wildlife Fund’s chief spokesperson on climate change and then in 2010 the IPCC appointed her “to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous and balanced.”
Indeed, two-thirds of the chapters of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. Two-thirds! Laframbois calls that a “full-scale invasion.”
Read the entire article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)