JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



More media pressure finally forcing the IPCC to cut the spin

The race in the media continues: The UK Daily Mail (again), The Spectator, The UK Express. The headlines the IPCC must hate  just keep coming, now in major newspapers and magazines. Finally, maybe, some of the media is starting to get it. At last also the IPCC is feeling the pressure to explain the halting of global warming and the poor performance of its climate models.

This is all well and good, but before we celebrate, ponder that if science journalists had been doing their job 10 years ago, the IPCC would have been put on the spot before before the wild evangelistic doom-fest of 2007 where national GDP points were roasted with every chapter. Billions could have been saved.

As I keep saying: The media is the problem. With good journalists, and real reporters, everything else gets better. Shine the light…

The UK Daily Mail  Tamara Cohen

World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years

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.

A German climate scientist – Stefan Rahmstorf, who reviewed the chapter on sea levels – yesterday admitted it was possible the report’s authors were feeling under pressure to address the slowdown in warming due to the ‘public debate’ around the issue.

 The Spectator

Finally, the IPCC has toned down its climate change alarm. Can rational discussion now begin?

It is difficult to over-emphasise the significance of this report. The IPCC is not simply a research body making reports and declarations which are merely absorbed into political debate. Its word has been taken as gospel, and its research has been used to justify all manner of schemes to make carbon-based energy more expensive while subsidising renewable energy.

What is clear from the new IPCC report is that the science is not nearly advanced enough to make useful predictions on the future rise of global temperatures. Perhaps it never will be.

As Lord Lawson, former editor of this magazine, once pointed out, the time to be most fearful in politics is when a consensus emerges. It usually means that an argument is not properly probed, and desire to sign up to a fashionable cause supplants the proper rigour which policymaking requires. We certainly saw this with the Climate Change Act, which committed future governments unilaterally to slashing Britain’s carbon emissions to a fifth of what they had been in 1990. The bill was passed in an atmosphere in which sceptics were likened to flat-earthers, with no one stopping to ask what it would achieve for the environment, and at what cost to Britain. Those were the days when Gordon Brown solemnly declared he had 50 days to save the world before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

UK Express

What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up

CLIMATE change scepticism is rapidly increasing in the UK with a FIFTH of people now unconvinced the world’s temperature is changing.

A report from the UK Energy Research Centre also shows the number of those who resolutely do not believe in climate change has more than quadrupled since 2005.

The Government funded report shows 19 per cent of people are climate change disbelievers – up from just four per cent in 2005 – while nine per cent did not know.

If science journalists had been doing their job in the eighties perhaps the IPCC might never even have been created. Science journalists need to cultivate an ethos of serving science and the public rather than serving scientists and their own desire for affirmation.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (86 votes cast)
More media pressure finally forcing the IPCC to cut the spin, 9.5 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lyfrwbd

92 comments to More media pressure finally forcing the IPCC to cut the spin

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Maybe I have been too pessimistic. But in any case, the more heat they feel, the better. :-)


    Report this

    60

  • #
    GeoffC

    Jo,

    You may like to add this to your list of media finally applying a critical eye to the IPCC.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2536082


    Report this

    21

  • #

    Media waking up, not just in the English-speaking world. A commenter at NoTricksZone points to a new article at the German Spiegel magazine site.

    (quick-and-dirty translation of extracts)

    Arguments with Researchers: Politicians want to ban the Pause in Warming from Climate Report
    Researchers and government delegates will be negotiating over the world climate report in the coming week. Spiegel has information that the German delegates want to exclude the pause in warming from the summary report but are running into opposition from scientists.

    Secret sessions at the conference in Stockholm are to negotiate the creation of the 30-page Summary for Policymakers (SPM) from the 1000-page climate report. Delegates are being sent by governments in order to influence the messages contained in the SPM; Germany is sending representatives from its Environment and Science Ministry.

    I notice that Spiegel magazine makes it quite clear that the SPM will be a result of politics; first a negotiation with the scientists as to the contents and secondly, the emissaries sent forth by many governments to ensure that “the right messages” will be communicated in the SPM.

    Will the interim delegate from Myanmar be in the room? ;-)


    Report this

    190

    • #
      handjive

      Great link @ NoTricksZone:

      “The fallout surrounding the profound failures of the climate models used by the IPCC continues.
      If the German media is anything to go by, then IPCC science is virtually disintegrating before our very eyes.

      Die Welt writes that “global warming is currently advancing considerably more slowly than assumed a few years ago” and has stalled over the last 15 years and that “scientists are unable to explain why“.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Jon

      The 30-page Summary for Policymakers (SPM) has always been made by politics. First they establish and fund institutions and research that is UNFCCC conform only. Then the politics sensors this SPM so that it’s even more UNFCCC conform.
      It’s not a scientific Summary for Policymakers(SPM). It’s more like a Policymakers Summery(PS)?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        The significant problem for governments will see out of this is a lack of scientists who will produce The Science to support their policies. Generously-filled troughs have attracted quite a few candidates but their effluent keeps fouling the landscape and the people are noticing the sweet, pungent smell; and can’t be convinced that it’s perfume.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Jon

          Well today in Norway on the morning news, Arctic could get up to 15 deg C warmer if we don’t “act”. This must be the most silly one I’ve heard so far? There are also a lot of activists researching to prove the UNFCCC right.
          They don’t have the choice? If they don’t prove the UNFCCC right there is no need for them? Just like a priest in a church?


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    When the IPCC was formed back in 1987 or 1988, underdeveloped countries were reluctant to go along with the per-determined IPCC message because, they believed this would only be used to limit their growth.

    “Progressive” nations in the UN told the 3rd world they would be compensated for their possible “substitution” of fossil-fuel energy with renewable energy, and in the long run, would make out better with such gifts from developed nations.

    Now the 3rd world is left holding an empty bag with no fossil-fuel future and no goodies they were promised. (Tough luck, I could have told them not to trust those dirt bags in the UN in the first place.)


    Report this

    361

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      What was that saying? Oh yes, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” But Heinlein said it best, “TANSTAAFL.” “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

      He might have added TANSTAAHG. There ain’t no such thing as an honest government. And the UN very much assumes that it has the right to govern rule the world. God bless their black little hearts. :evil:

      I’m afraid the real evidence is that they care more for the welfare of the fruit fly that got some discussion in a prior thread than they do for our welfare.


      Report this

      170

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        The UN has been a [SNIP] from its inception.

        (Moderators! Moderators please!!! Brian called the UN a “[SNIP]“)

        —–
        Brian, if one person drops the crass lines, pretty soon, everyone does. No thanks, Jo


        Report this

        191

  • #
    AndyG55

    Notice that it is POLITICIANS asking for the IPCC NOT to report the non-warming.

    Tells the WHOLE STORY, doesn’t it. !!


    Report this

    311

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Name a contributing “scientist” to the IPCC

      (present, not former, such as Paul Reiter)


      Report this

      41

    • #
      Jon

      Find out who the politicians are? I mean if it’s like I think it is, ministers of environment dept or their representatives, it is more understandable? They need “problems” to get funded. No significant global warming for the last 17 years is a real BIG inconvenient truth to them so they will do all they can to hide it.
      Norwegian “climate scientist” forecast 15 deg C warmer Arctic if nothing is done? :-)


      Report this

      10

  • #

    The Daily Express article only looks at the press release and then speaks to UK Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, who says

    Of course, however, the 72 per cent of the public who acknowledge the climate is changing are backed overwhelmingly by the scientific evidence.

    If they had clicked on the second link on point 3 (of 5) in the “Notes to the Editors” (below where it says - Ends -) labelled “national survey”, they would have opened up the 62 page “SURVEY FINAL.pdf”. If they had then gone to Appendix B, they would have found the full results of all 72 survey questions. The following is relevant

    Q3. How concerned, if at all, are you about climate change, sometimes referred to as ‘global warming’?

    “Very” or “Fairly” concerned 74%
    “Not very”, or “Not at all” concerned 26%
    Don’t know 1%
    However, this should be more relevant.

    Q5. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion?

    CC is entirely or mainly caused by natural processes 16%
    CC is partly caused by natural processes and partly caused by human activity 48%
    CC is entirely or mainly caused by human activity 32%

    The survey shows that two-thirds of the public disagree with the “scientists”, and thus disagree with a necessary condition to justify policy – that climate change is a non-trivial problem. The press release hides the real story in obscure places that no journalist has time to find.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      CLIMATE change scepticism is rapidly increasing in the UK with a FIFTH of people now unconvinced the world’s temperature is changing.

      When I read that I thought “Poor deluded fools.” The absolute fact is that the world’s temperature has changed – just as it has done for all time. Climate has also changed. And now that the AGW scare is unwinding, the real danger is that we no longer look for means of adapting to natural variation. We need to better understand what is happening in the natural world so that we can respond appropriately.


      Report this

      31

      • #

        We need to better understand what is happening in the natural world so that we can respond appropriately.

        Well said Grant. Climate is incredibly complex, so if it is changing in an adverse fashion, then we should try to forecast ahead. For example consider this

        By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition.

        Suppose that it was a proper forecast. Policy-makers would want to know which countries were affected. That it referred to Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria is important, but only available from the references. They are middle income countries, so less vulnerable to famine than in most of sub-Saharan Africa. If policy-makers had acted without checking, limited aid resources could have been focussed on the wrong areas.
        When the IPCC starts publication of AR5 in the coming week, checks need to be made against any major claims. We need to unpick the public relations rhetoric to see if there is a real, scientifically-based, message. If there was a genuine issue with climate, the IPCC’s mode of presentation would be a liability towards reducing the impacts.
        One immediate way is to check the references and detail to any new claims, as I did yesterday with a UK opinion poll on climate attitudes.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Cookster

    As I keep saying: The media is the problem. With good journalists, and real reporters, everything else gets better

    Yes, the media is the problem. But the media’s (and governments’) bedrock has been by default the IPCC and the so called scientific consensus. If that consensus finally collapses due to weight of evidence (or lack thereof) then the war will truly have been won and just maybe research dollars can be diverted into fields that really might be beneficial to the progression of humanity. Likewise global economies can begin to heal. We can only hope what we are seeing now continues to build like a snowball. I for one remain optimistic.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    I can’t believe the Daily Express’s one-fifth sceptics (up from 4%). I don’t know anyone (here, in UK) who believes that climate change is mainly driven by human activity. I think that the survey was too broad, taking in too many people who still remember only the wild scare stories of a decade ago. Or maybe if they disagree with me they know they’ll start me on another rant; or at best a disjointed “lecture”.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Peter Miller

      I agree. I know no one who believes in CAGW and I know more than a few real scientists.

      With prime minister David Cameron being such a rapid greenie, spurred on by his Greenpeace card carrying wife and his odiously greedy father in law (who pockets hundreds of thousands of pounds annually in wind farm subsidies), there is little chance the truth on climate will ever be officially allowed to emerge in the UK


      Report this

      120

    • #

      The divergence between what you know from experience and the Daily Express tale is due to the press release and the real story from the questionnaire, as I point out at #6


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Far from warming, the earth entered a cooling trend in 2003 which is likely continue for 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that. For an estimate of the timing and amount of cooling see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    How did the IPCC and the UK Met Office get it so wrong? The answer is simple.Their climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
    Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
    Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole.
    The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
    “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
    What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway.
    These statements of uncertainty were totally ignored in the uncertainty estimates in the AR4 Summary for Policy Makers and look likely to be ignored in the AR5 SPM also.
    In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.
    The entire IPCC effort has been a propaganda exercise to misrepresent the science to support a political agenda.


    Report this

    400

    • #
      AndyG55

      Hi Norman. One thing you omitted..

      They hindcast the model (ie calibrate) to Giss or Hadcrut.

      Both these records have an artificial warming trend built into them.

      Any model calibrated must, by this fact alone, end up projecting higher than reality.

      Fun thing is, they will always project high, UNLESS they admit that Giss and HadCrut have this artificial trend.

      But then the whole edifice comes crashing down.

      A self built Catch 22 :-)


      Report this

      180

  • #
    Robert JM

    For years 2degC was claimed as the level of global warming that was unsafe (ie 350.org) If the new estimate is 1.5 (+/- 0.5) then we need to draw to attention that the IPCC has just stated that a doubling of CO2 is not dangerous!
    This is the only message we need to get out in this end game stage.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Angry

    A very enlightening story which demonstrates what the global warming FRAUD is really about…..

    UN IPCC Official Admits ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’:-

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz2fP9Iw82a


    Report this

    70

    • #

      Thanks for the link to the 2010 news story.

      I agree, redistribution of wealth was the goal.

      The reputations of the United Nations, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, world leaders, mainstream research journals and news outlets have been damaged, but that goal was achieved.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The MSM is usually pretty cut throat with each other in a media race, but this would have to be the bloody slowest race in history!
    You’d think watching grass grow, paint drying or Grand Designs was painful enough but no for now we have,
    “How to back out of supporting a cult, without looking like a bigger dildo that you’ve already become.”


    Report this

    80

    • #

      Yonniestone,

      I wish you would not compare climatology with watching paint dry. For a number of years I worked (as an accountant) at a chemical site where one of the major products was drying agents for oil-based paints. Without such drying agents, standard household paints would never dry, but remain sticky, collecting dirt and passing flies. There was a small laboratory who specialised in scientifically analyzing the drying agents of paint. This was by placing a measured drop of paint on a smooth glass slide at a precise incline. There is a huge chasm of difference between this (admittedly non-exciting and mundane) science of the properties of drying paint, and the motivated rear-guard action against the evidence that falsifies a weak hypothesis.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Errm I didn’t compare or even mention climatology in my comment, my comparison was meant to be of how slow the media is going to be in retracting from the obvious bias towards AGW over the years.
        BTW I do understand and appreciate the importance of trial and error testing, I’ve been married twice.


        Report this

        30

  • #
  • #
    Manfred

    Handjive #3.1

    IPCC science is virtually disintegrating before our very eyes

    Indeed. The IPCC politics masquarading as virtual science is disintegrating. With each passing moment they look increasingly stupid, like their political masters upon whom the liability for culpable ignorance has yet to acquire full realisation.

    The Emperor never had any clothes on to start with so washing his filthy underwear in public is even more ridiculous. The teetering edifice of Babylonian arrogance that would be the UN sponsored IPCC, the fawning Green elite, the absurd bearers of titles like ‘Minister of Climate Change’ are in the process of disappearing up their own collective rectae, not unlilke the Oozlum bird

    It is thus far, the spectacle of the century.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s a top post from the Bolter about the clueless groupthinkers and witchburners plus a good quick summary from Judith Curry about the IPCC 5th report.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/on_david_marr_and_the_greatest_failure_of_modern_journalism/#commentsmore


    Report this

    20

  • #
    janama

    This morning’s letters to the editor in the Australian sums up the situation today. Normally there may be one or two letters about climate in a week’s worth of letters.
    This morning two of the 3 letters sections are devoted entirely to the sacking of Tim Flannery with the majority applauding it.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    krunel

    Maybe it’s worth thinking: what are the aims and goals of science? Compared to: what are the aims and goals of blogs such as this?

    One example: when scientists report information that Jo can align with her beliefs she reports it the way she would report a triumph. When the information does not align she reports it as being invalid, biased or politicised science.

    If the atmospheric warming trend for the past 15 years was higher than predicted I wonder if Jo might suggest things such as:
    a) Take care when looking at trends because the start and end points can have a strong (and potentially misleading) influence.
    b) 15 years is probably not a long enough time span to reliably indicate a change to a longer trend.
    c) Atmospheric temperature is only one part of the warming/cooling picture; all parts need to be considered.
    d) Climate processes are not fully understood by current science and therefore we can not make reliable predictions about the data that we have.


    Report this

    18

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      Hi Krunel,

      Your “what if … ” scenario drifts off into the nether regions of fantasyland rather quickly. Truthfully, ‘what if … ‘ is a game for children.

      This is deadly serious stuff we are dealing with.

      Groups such as the UN and its minion, the IPCC, are (or have been) engaged in a life-threatening game of ‘stop the warming’ because of a mistaken belief that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere controls global temperature, and hence, global climate.

      Blogs such as Jo’s are, and have been, pointing out the that ‘science’ upon which this hypothesis is based, is itself, baseless. Anyone familiar with the geological sciences should also know that Earth’s climate has always been in a state of flux, either getting warmer, or colder, over all time intervals. They should also know that the rate and magnitude of those changes have been orders of magnitude greater than the one or two degrees Celsius over the past 100 – 200 years, so what is happening now is not out of the ordinary.

      If anything, the IPCC et al have been fairly apoplectic that this warming trend IS unusual, and in contrast to true science (which looks for patterns and tries to deduce the cause), they have decreed that there IS ONLY ONE CAUSE, and that cause is human use of fossil fuels.

      I am a scientist by training, and a Mathematician by trade, and decades of observing the pronouncements of “groups” of ‘scientists’ has made me realize that what we do not know about is immense. The history of science is replete with the “consensus” being completely wrong.

      Witness continental drift, and it’s evolution from the 1920′s to the 1970′s.

      The global climate system is a coupled, non-linear, dynamic system. A coupled system can be modeled, with varying degrees of success, if both (or all) elements of sub-systems are well-behaved and well-known.

      My grade for “Climatology” on this: D+

      A dynamic system can be modeled, but is only valid for a very short period of time. By definition, a dynamic system is ever-changing, so trying to predict how it acts over long time frames is not possible.

      My grade for “Climatology” on this: F–

      A non-linear system is not subject to modeling at all. It is not even possible to assign a grade to “Climatology” for this. I think the best representation of a non-linear system, understandable for the layperson, is in the movie, Jurassic Park. The scene where Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), Dr. Ellie Sadler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Niell) are beginning the automated ‘tour’ in the electric vehicles. Drs. Malcolm and Sadler are discussing chaos theory, and [Jeff Goldblum] says:

      “A butterfly in [Beijing] flaps its wings, and they get rain in Central Park instead of sunshine.”

      Instead of implying that people like Jo are … well,… ‘ne’er do wells’ for lack of a better term, spend some time here and other places where science is the focus. Look back at the entirety of the history of the Earth, and see what has happened, and when, and why. Jo herself was once a believer, but found the “science” lacking when she started taking a good look at it. At the risk of having this post moderated out, I would also point you to Anthony Watts blog. He too was once a believer, but found that the claims of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming crowd have something other than a scientific basis.

      To answer your premise, if the ‘trend’ had continued warming for the past 15 years, then there might be something for the CAGW crowd to stand on. As it is, your ‘what if … ‘ has not materialized, and the “true believers” are desperate to explain why their vaunted “science” is on the verge of failing miserably.

      It is failing because it is not science — a quest for understanding and the betterment of all mankind.

      One thing that would make it better for all of us is if plants had all the resources they need to do their job. One of the most essential things we can do for plants is give them their most basic food — carbon dioxide.

      My best regards to you and yours,

      Mark H.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Backslider

        because of a mistaken belief that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere controls global temperature

        I don’t for a moment believe that its a “mistaken belief”. They know its a crock, but a good excuse to roll out their agenda.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Greetings Backslider,

          My mistake. I may have been thinking that I should give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt. I agree with you and your assessment.

          Mods: In paragraph #6 in my response to Krunel, I left off a phrase; the end of the first sentence should read: “… what we do not know about [any given subject] is immense.”

          Thanks!

          Mark H.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    ianl8888

    The ABC TV/radio will not report any of this until someone (Karoly, likely) supplies it with some figment of plausible deniability


    Report this

    41

  • #
    pat

    lessons for Australia, tho i can’t imagine why Prof Schmidt would still be saying “so we can’t fail”:

    19 Sept:UK Telegraph: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Germany industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral
    Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control.
    “We need a drastic policy shift,” said Christoph Schmidt, chairman of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts. “They haven’t paid any attention to costs. These are now huge.”
    The government has vowed to break dependence on fossil fuels and source 50pc of all electricity from wind, solar and other renewables by 2030, and 80pc by mid-century. But cost estimates have reached €1 trillion (£840bn) over the next 25 years.
    “It is a worthwhile goal, and the whole world is looking to see whether Germany can do it, so we can’t fail. But there have been so many mistakes,” Professor Schmidt told the Daily Telegraph.
    He said Germany has no margin for error since its own growth “speed limit” has dropped to 1pc, and the country will face an acute aging crisis over the next decade.
    The concerns were echoed by Germany’s powerful industry federation, the BDI, which said it can longer remain silent as green romanticism plays havoc with German power supply…
    The report said feed-in tariffs for new wind and solar installations should be abolished, and demanded a “strategic reserve” of fossil fuels to ensure a dependable base of power stations for the German grid…
    The “Energiewende” has already led to chaos, with surges of subsidised wind and solar power overwhelming the grid. Utilities E.ON and RWE have threatened to shut down plants producing 23,000 megawatts.
    German electricity costs are ratcheting up faster than elsewhere in Europe, and are now twice US levels. Households and the “Mittlestand” backbone of the economy are carrying the burden, paying cross-subsidies to exempted sectors of heavy industry. “Spiralling energy costs will soon drive us into the wall. It has become dangerous,” said the German Chemical Industry Association.
    Fears that power bills could cripple German industry combine with growing angst over US shale output, which has slashed American gas costs to a quarter of German levels. German chemical companies are switching plant to the US…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10321173/Germany-industry-in-revolt-as-green-dream-causes-cost-spiral.html


    Report this

    10

    • #
      ROM

      My ancestral and genetic heritage is german from both sides so I can assure you that germans, as is suspected by most, are quite thick skulled and it takes a while for sentiments of an imminent disaster in the making to get into that collectively thick skull

      The Germans are just being Germans when they refuse to back off relying on all their power from renewable wind and solar energy in a place like Germany .
      History shows they seem to have to go to the brink of a disaster or have a real one to realise that they have to or are forced to make a drastic reversal in direction if they wish to get a bit further on in the scheme of things.

      Looks like they are living up to that thick skullness with their pathological and rigid fixation of trying to rely on renewable wind and solar power for all their national energy needs in the future.
      Or at least they will until they have a major energy collapse some time in the not very distant future, probably during mid winter and lose a lot of people as a consequence.
      But thats Germans or at least thats their politicians in action.


      Report this

      10

      • #

        I can assure you that germans, as is suspected by most, are quite thick skulled and it takes a while for sentiments of an imminent disaster in the making to get into that collectively thick skull

        Oi, watch it! I’m a transplanted Kraut.

        Germans are a resilient folk; adept at seeming to comply. At worst, one observes that they predominately cultivate a disproportionate trust in authority; an unrealistic belief/hope that those entrusted to do the right thing, will do the right thing. Yes; gullibility was it seems, encouraged by successive governments; perhaps moreso since the 1970′s.

        When the peoples’ hopes aren’t realized at the hands of the authorities, the people switch to another mode; believing that nothing that they can do will make any difference against the system. The population becomes cynical.

        At least in the latter, they will make some effort to look after themselves instead of trusting others to do it.

        Of course; a stereotype applies imperfectly to particular individuals and; in the case of Germany, there is still strong cultural diversity between the regions.

        Stubbornness must not be mistaken for “thick-skulled”. Germans do not give up easily as long as they believe. That is a trait that the Anglo Saxons of Britain also exhibit.

        Politically, there are two serious, minor political parties in their federal election today. Parties that didn’t exist at the previous election but which have grown out of the dissatisfaction with big government; the problem of EU dominance over national government that is corroding their federal system and unconstitutionally stripping rights from Germans; the incessant “rescues” of foreign banks out of German taxpayers’ pockets (and soon, their savings and pension funds); corruption, misappropriation and waste of taxpayers’ funds; the “Energiewende” energy transition that is killing the manufacturing industry and defacing landscapes with useless, expensive wind farms; …

        That said; even if all the candidates from the two minors are elected, they still won’t have nearly enough to form a government. But then, none of the traditional parties will be able to govern without a coalition.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Gordon of 2902

      A Green Dream is well known in veterinary practice. My four-legged friends rest in peace.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Leo G

    Looks like even the Fairfax media are starting to crack under the pressure. This header and contradicting opening paragraph from Tom Arup in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:-

    Halfway point already reached before emissions danger zone
    Humans have already released half the total carbon dioxide emissions they can to ensure the planet has a good chance of not warming to dangerous levels, a draft United Nations scientific assessment says.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ROM

    There has been years of a slow, very impatient on the part of the skeptics, build up to what is increasingly looking like a rapidly accelerating and major collapse of the Catastrophic Climate Change consensus and the whole IPCC highly artificial consensus construct.

    Along for the ride to another cult eternity will go the IPCC’s scientific and political advocates, adherents and groupies with all the nefarious baggage they now carry.
    And along with the eventual demise of the IPCC will go an an entire and highly destructive catastrophic global warming science industry.

    Go back only a year or so and we would see that there was very. very slowly, a level of doubt about so much of the claimed global warming science starting to creep into some very limited sections of the climate science industry [ and I use the term "Climate Science industry" quite deliberately ] and the media and the political and govermental institutions across a whole range of countries.

    What nobody anticipated is what is increasingly appearing to be a wholesale collapse in the whole catastrophic global warming / climate change meme that is currently getting underway and developing with what seems to be an almost irresistible momentum

    Past history of course has regularly seen such collapses in what on the surface always seems to be an unchallengeable ideology and a set of beliefs set in stone until some small event, usually after long years of subtle pressure from layers of the somewhat more skeptical populace well below that of the level of the ruling claques, suddenly surfaces leading to a collapse of the entire former, set in stone, ideological system.

    This time around it was the anticipated release of the IPCC’s AR5 in October which has concentrated scientific, media, political and popular consideration on the type of science which the IPCC is advocating. In doing so a whole gamut of alternative or questioning of the IPCC’s claims have surfaced in other climate science papers.
    And that questioning of the IPCC’s advocated science has originated from so very highly qualified climate researchers so cannot just be dismissed and thrown away as immaterial to the whole debate.

    So quite suddenly we see the science of the major ideological support structure for the entire total CAGW meme, the Catastrophic global warming meme of the IPCC being both questioned, being dismantled by further climate science advances, being dismissed as wrong, irrelevant, misleading, corrupted and just pure advocation of a particular meme, again by senior and highly qualified climate researchers.

    To accentuate the IPCC’s and the catatstrophic global warming cabals advocacy problems and increasingly shaky position, for many nations the outcomes promoted by the IPCC in previous reports are becoming unacceptable, are now seen to be increasingly unaffordable and increasingly seen as being utterly ineffective and unnecessary or much worse as in being highly deleterious and destructive to citizens, industries, the economies and the social structures of so many countries.

    Toss into this mix the major role of the skeptic’s blogs and their constant questioning of the CAGW claims and meme and the ever increasing depth of background knowledge the skeptic blogs are bringing to the table for discussion and debate,
    All enabled by the pervasiveness of the internet and the rigid structure of the IPCC and the closed mindness and inflexibility and lack of will and ability to adapt to new science and circumstance inherent in the fixed for all time IPCC structure and in the CAGW advocates rigidity and you have the perfect ingredient mix for a major collapse in the IPCC’s and the CAGW meme which takes not only the bad parts of the curate’s egg with it but also some material that would useful and of benefit in the future. .

    History will write the role of the skeptic blogs such as JoNova, WUWT, Steve Mcntyre’s Climate Audit [ that guy should get a major recognition for his work climate analysis and his debunking using nothing but intellect, sticking to simple and honest principles and pure analysis and science, of so many past false and straight out fraudulent claims in what passes for global warming science ] a late arrival, Judith Curry’s Climate etc, the NIPCC, GWPF, P Gosselin’s NoTricksZone, Roy spencer, Bob Tisdale, THE HOCKEY SCHTICK, the late John Daly, Lucia’s The Blackboard and many others.
    All of whom have had a role, often quite disheartening and all of whom have suffered gross abuse , threats and discrimination against them because they dared to challenge the very dark heart and soul of the whole CAGW ideology.
    And in doing so they threatened the very central heart and rigidly held ideological beliefs of the adherents and advocates of mankind’s central role in catastrophic global warming with all it’s dark doomsday prophecies of untold levels of disaster falling upon this Earth all due to mankind gross criminal sinning against the planet and Gaia.

    Those same skeptic bloggers and all those climate [ and other ] scientists who put personal integrity ahead of popularity and advancement up the greasy totem pole of status are now starting to see the fruits of thir labors and suferings after all these years as we watch the collapse of the whole ricketty catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ideology slowly collapse before our eyes.\

    I’m an old man now but to the younger ones here, take this message into the future and take the lessons you have learn’t from those truly dedicated scientists and bloggers who refused to sell their principles and their souls for the sake of a much bigger plate of what is now becoming a very highly soiled pot of stinking porridge .


    Report this

    50

  • #
    tom0mason

    The other thorn that is irritating UN-IPPC AR5 is that sea-levels are not rising anywhere near what they, and there pet alarmists, were forecasting. At the moment Suyts Space has a nice write-up about this at http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/vindication-for-suyts-new-tidal-gauge-sea-level-paper-out-reports-1mmyr-sea-level-rise/#comment-97177

    It is based on a 2010 paper TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE that is linked there. Note that a later NASA paper comes out with similar results of 1.6mm/year (+/-0.8mm error range).

    http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf


    Report this

    30

  • #

    This is really just all about the money now.

    In 1988, they set up the UNIPCC, and then in 1992 (wef 1994) they set up the UNFCCC, which held yearly meetings. (COP)

    In 1997, at COP3, they brought into effect The Kyoto Protocol, which called for the reduction of CO2 levels to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990. 23 (Annex 2) of 40 (Annex 1) Countries were required to do ALL of the heavy lifting. (now 24 of 41 Countries)

    Those 23 Countries were required to lower their emissions to the required level, and the other 150+ Countries (classified as Undeveloped) need do NOTHING other than report their emissions.

    Another one of the big parts of that was that those 23 Countries had to set up a method to place a price on those CO2 emissions, and also the emissions of 24 other gases, all calculated as multipliers of CO2. The intent of that pricing of CO2 was that the money raised from it would be used to pay ALL the costs involved in those other 150+ Countries to implement measures to lower their emissions.

    All well and good. Fine intentions.

    However, what has happened in the interim is that Governments from those 23 Countries have seen how much money COULD ACTUALLY be made from placing that price on those emissions of GHG.

    So now, those Governments, while offering lip service to the cost requirement, and introducing that cost as per the Protocol, are now looking to the money raised ….. not to send off to the UN for those other 150+ Countries, but to bolster their own bottom line.

    From that they can then divert some of it for other altruistic looking things to comply with the requirement, while keeping the bulk of the money for their own bottom line.

    Now, those other entities in receipt of part of that Government money have a rolled gold source of income.

    Renewable power entities also have a source of income as their projects are virtually just rubber stamped for approval no matter that the engineering behind them is bogus.

    The whole of everything associated with all of this has now snowballed, with virtually endless sources of huge amounts of money.

    All of this process originates right back at what the UN came up with, be it the IPCC, the UNFCCC, or The Kyoto Protocol.

    Now, if there’s even the slightest hint that all of this could be jeapordised by an adverse report from the IPCC, then all you are going to hear is screaming, from virtually every point of the compass, because the average man in the street, the one who has to eventually pay for all this now sees this adverse report and questions where his money has really gone, seemingly all based now on false original findings.

    Jaepordise a shirtload of money and the screaming will be so loud, and from every direction that you won’t know where to turn ….. or what to believe.

    That’s what the screaming is all about, because so many entities are reliant on all that money, especially Governments, the source of all that money, as they raise it from the emissions, keep most of it, and dole out some of it.

    Now that the realisation of what was originally well intentioned is actually seen, no one wants it to slow down, let alone end.

    And as to what The Kyoto Protocol called for, the HEADLINE thing above all, a lowering of emissions to a level 5% lower than what emissions stood at in 1990, well, no one even got close to that, so that part was watered down to what is now a lowering of CO2 emissions to a level of 108% of what they were in 1990. Still no one comes close, so now it’s changed to a hoped for reduction of 5% by 2020, still difficult to achieve. So, now they say that Kyoto (version number insert number here) resolves to keep the temperature rise to less than 2C.

    Oh, and can you now see why Kyoto was impossible to replace?

    When you have 150 Countries that need do NOTHING other than report their emissions why would they ever want to change that. When you have 150 Countries expecting all that money from 23 Developed Countries, why would they want that tap turned off, not that they will ever get even the tiniest percentage of that, because, now, Governments in those 23 Countries know how much they get, and will do everything they can to keep the vast bulk of it.

    And everything goes all the way back to square ONE, the UNIPCC Science findings.

    And if the UNIPCC now seeks to, umm, clarify those original findings, and do a Fonzie …. “Maybe we were wr, wr, wr….” then listen for the screaming to begin.

    The Science means very little to those Governments screaming now, because it’s only about the money.

    Always was, always will be.

    Tony.

    PostScript: Australia is one of those 24 Annex 1 Countries, (the ones who pay) and China and India are in the 150+ Countries who need do nothing.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    It is important to keep in mind just how sneaky the Left are at this sort of thing. I suspect that Climategate II, the revelation that governments (the usual suspects) are ‘objecting’ to how the IPCC deals with the unexplained warming, is a deliberate leak designed to divert attention from the fact that all of their past predictions, about which they were so emphatic, have been shown to be grossly inaccurate, or indeed, out and out lies. They are hoping to distract us from the realisation that:

    1. The science is far from settled;
    2. The models are flawed (I used to be a computer programmer and without even looking at the models I know they are flawed, because, ultimately, a computer program produces the outcome it is told to produce);
    3. The ‘scientists’ (or political appointees whose opinions are bought and paid for) can’t explain why there has been a pause; and
    4. More broadly, they cannot even begin to explain any of earth’s complex climate systems, such as El Nino and La Nina.

    They are sneakily downgrading the alarm to make their predictions sound more plausible and they are referring to these outcomes as being ‘extremely likely’. They are hoping that if they distract us with ‘leaked’ emails we won’t notice that they have NO POSSIBLE MEANS to arrive at this new conclusion, because the so-called models they use have been demonstrated to be flawed and they have shown that they cannot explain earth’s climate systems.

    The same thing applies to the fiction they are now putting forward about warming in the oceans explaining the lack of atmospheric warming. It is the perfect con; it sounds plausible and it cannot be proved or disproved. Okay, so tell us how you know this? Given that your models are flawed and you cannot explain earth’s climate systems, tell us how you are able to determine that suddenly, magically, the ‘warming that was happening in the atmosphere has gone into the deep oceans? And, for that matter, how did it get there? Note also the use of the expression ‘deep oceans’, with deep’ giving it a more menacing tone. You have to remember that these political activists are experts at deception – quick everyone, run and huddle in your caves, there’s a boogie man in the deep oceans. Hollywood has made a fortune out of scaring us, and now climate ‘scientists’ are doing the same. Pathetic isn’t it!

    Alarmist climate scientists are like judges: they decide the outcome they want – based purely on their personal views, prejudices and ideologies – and then they find a creative and plausible way to explain how they arrived at that outcome.


    Report this

    51

  • #

    [...] the GWPF and Joanne Nova point to an article in Thursday’s Daily Express which [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Gordon of 2902

    When will the main stream media listen to the NIPCC?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    CC Squid

    “In sciences that are based on supposition and opinion … the object is to command assent, not to master the thing itself.” Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1602

    It appears that there is nothing new under the sun. This quote was taken from page 42 of, Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Chester

    Hey People, your talk of scams, frauds, socialist agendas, the collapse of AGW is trash. You know it. But you come here to seek the affirmation of those that are Believers just like you. You tell yourselves you’re smarter than all those courrupted scientists, that you are the ones that see truly, that you are good and they are evil. You tell lies (“the halting of global warming”) and you ignore the lies of your tribal fellows.

    You’re deluded. And you are willfully self-deceived. Look at Jo’s banner. One day perhaps you, like she, will come to realise that you have become and indulge in what you say you most despise. Could there be a bigger failure?


    Report this

    07

    • #

      Chester, ponder that I could say exactly the same as you, so I will mirror it. The sites you usually visit talk of fossil fuel collusion, profit making agendas designed to hurt the little guys while the rich guys get richer. They talk of the end of fossil fuel power and the inevitability of warming – but it is just talk by people seeking affirmation of the Believers just like you. You tell yourselves you’re smarter than all those stupid bloggers, that you are the ones that see truly, that you are good and they are evil. You tell lies (“the models made accurate predictions”) and you ignore the lies of your tribal fellows.

      You’re deluded. And you are willfully self-deceived. Look at how petty your friends are, even calling senior scientists and Nobel prize winners “deniers”. One day perhaps you will come to realize that you were gullible, and tricked and that all along you were unwittingly helping large financial houses make billions from carbon trading, and assisting b-grade scientists to get accolades, junkets and grants they never deserved. Maybe you will even realize (as I did) that green intentions were helping to keep the poor in poverty, starving Haitians, killing kids in Brazil from burning cane-field pollution to create ethanol, and razing forests in Indonesia. Could there be a bigger failure?

      Chester, this form of argument gets us nowhere. It’s a dead loop of endless confirmation bias. What solves it?
      There is only one way out. You have to look at the data — the evidence about the climate.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Chester

    No, Jo. I am not doing as you do. I haven’t started a propagandist blog, where I misrepresent and defame scientists and the scientific process. I don’t try to claim I know more than scientists that are experts in their field. I don’t cherry pick data and cliam halts in global warming when the statistical data does not say that at all.

    I don’t lie.

    I am not trying to discredit well established science through a blog and the internet rather than through the scientific process.

    I am not taking money from people that don’t even believe what I do (do you really believe that there is a giant scientific conspiracy to bring about socialist reform – why do you encourage and not counter such arguments, then? Because you take the support of all the conspiracy theorists…because you are nothing without them.)

    I don’t claim I’m fighting Group Think while perpetrating my own Group Think.

    Sorry, Jo, your mirror claim is yet another self-delusion. I am nothing like you and I never will be.

    [All those things you don't do - you must be very busy not doing things - would you like to tell us what you do achieve in your free time?] -Fly


    Report this

    06

    • #

      Poor Chester. It’s hard as the faith collapses isn’t it? No, I haven’t started a propagandist blog. I started a science blog. I post evidence and keep alive the original tenets of science. I speak the truth (And you have no evidence otherwise).

      I am not trying to discredit “Well established science”. If it was well established you could provide empirical evidence for your “settled” science.

      You lie to yourself Chester. Because you can’t show I’m wrong with scientific evidence you deceive yourself that I must be paid, I’m evil and a liar. Instead I am the honest grassroots scientist with integrity acting out of concern, and it’s cost my family thousands to try to highlight the way science is being exploited. But nothing I say will make any difference to you will it? You’ve created an imaginary creature called Jo Nova that you hate. Cognitive Dissonance is coming your way. But thanks for visiting — at least you have the gumption to turn up. That’s more than most haters do.

      No maybe you are not like me Chester. But with one day of rational thought, if you really look at the evidence, you could join us… and you’d be welcome.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Chester

    And Jo. You aren’t looking at all the evidence – you are looking at only the evidence that you think supports your counter claims.

    The latest is the cherry picked 15 years of decelerated warming (to use the scientifically accurate interpretation) and the Arctic ice “recovery”. You know as well as everyone that these are evidence of natural shorter term cycles overlaid on a real and scientifically validated long term trend – even your friend Monckton has said he expects the trend to resume and is just making hay while the sun shines (excuse ironic metaphor).

    When was the last time you went to SkepticalScience and tried to debate their rebuttals of all(!) the skeptical arguments (and please don’t try the standard mocking dismissal of SS – it’s childish).

    Here I am at your site. I’ve hung out at WUWT for years. I laughed as Watts’ UHI theory crumbled into dust and his embarrassing about face on the BEST study unfolded.

    I sincerely wished you guys had something. I know you won’t believe it but I love modern society, modern civilisation and modern technology as much as anyone here I’ll bet. I’m a true conservative because I really do want to retain those things. Indulging in high risk recklessness through inaction that endangers that way of life and those opportunities is just foolishness.

    You’re not a conservative, Jo. You’re a radical and an advocate of outrageous risk taking. And, clearly, you don’t even see it.


    Report this

    03

    • #

      You can’t name any evidence I will not discuss.

      As for “15 years of decelerated warming” — that’s not accurate. There has been statistically insignificant warming, and recently, statistically insignificant cooling. Neither of which tells us anything for sure except that the models were wrong. The world may well get warmer in future. I’ve never said otherwise. You are in denial that the scientifically valid long term trend (which I agree with) started long before our CO2 emissions, and was caused by something else, and the modelers don’t know what it was.

      When was the last time I debated Skeptical Science? I methodically took apart Cook so categorically and definitively he gave up and ran away. He never replied. He can’t. And he hid that from his readers because he was too ashamed to debate me. The fact that you don’t know how completely he was defeated in debate just shows how threadbare the scientific integrity of your Gods are.

      And no, I’m not a conservative. I’m more libertarian. I’m damn smack in the centre advocating the radical idea that we do a cost benefit analysis before we spend billions and risk modern civilization on a religious whim disguised as “science” which will hurt the poor and leave our children with a mountain of debt.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Chester

        No, I don’t hate you either, Jo. Please stop making stuff up – that’s the problem.

        Debating? Science? Clearly you don’t know what either is.

        Do some real science, publish some papers where you submit your empirical evidence disproving the AGW theory and you might gain some respect from someone other than your Group Think chums.

        Meanwhile I’ll continue to think of you as I believe you are: a propagandist.


        Report this

        04

        • #

          Glad to hear you don’t hate me. Can I suggest that if you call your average acquaintance a liar and paid propagandist, you won’t have too many friends?

          I see you concede that calling me a liar was a cheap insult you can’t back up. Likewise your false claim that I’m paid.

          Your apology is accepted.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      MemoryVault

      When was the last time you went to SkepticalScience and tried to debate their rebuttals

      About four years ago.
      It was on a post named “The Thermal Inertia of the Oceans”, or some such.

      After five posts I had many of the locals reluctantly agreeing with me.
      At that point all my comments were “disappeared” (NOT “snipped” as sometimes happens here), but entirely “disappeared”.
      It was as if I had never existed.

      Furthermore, from that moment on, I have been unable to post on the site.

      .
      So excuse me, Chester, but I’ll stick with my “mocking dismissal” of the SS site.
      It is, as you say, a childish site.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Heywood

      “15 years of decelerated warming (to use the scientifically accurate interpretation)”

      If you want to be scientifically accurate, you should know that the term ‘deceleration’ is not the correct term.

      Acceleration is defined as the rate at which the velocity of a body changes with time. So if you want to be ‘scientifically accurate’, the warming is accelerating negatively.

      When you speak of deceleration, mathematically it is acceleration in the opposite direction to that of motion.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    John O'Hagan

    Just thought I’d check in to see if there was any acknowledgement here that the Daily Mail “leak” was all wrong, forcing The Australian to retract their front-page “IPCC got it wrong” story. But the rest of the Murdochracy, along with the shock-jocks, kept on repeating the story, unperturbed by the facts. So you’re in good company.


    Report this

    01

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Just thought I’d check the Daily Mail to see if there was any acknowledgement that their “leak was wrong”. Nope. Nothing.

      But the rest of the climatcraptocray kept on posting fake comments on blogsites like Jo Nova, repeating the fake claim, unperturbed by the facts.

      .
      So you’re in predictable company, John.


      Report this

      21

      • #
        John O'Hagan

        You really are completely impenetrable, aren’t you? :) Did I say the Mail retracted their story? But as I said, The Australian did, after being exposed by Media Watch. They’ve pulled the online version of the article and put a correction in the weekend edition.

        Here’s the retitled, toned-down version from The Oz with the “clarification” at the bottom:

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

        In case you don’t bother to follow the link, here is the text of the correction:

        “CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story contained errors that have been corrected. The earlier version said the IPCC had dramatically revised down the rate of global warming over the past 60 years. In fact, the new rate of 0.12C every decade is almost the same as the IPCC’s 2007 figure of 0.13C every decade over the 50 years to 2005. The report was based on a British media article that has since been corrected…”

        And in the unlikely event you’re bold enough to venture outside your little groupthink bubble, here’s a thorough account of the whole “leak” debacle from The Guardian:

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/sep/18/climate-change-ipcc-sceptics-leak-report-murdoch


        Report this

        12

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          If I had known you were quoting an article in the Guardian, written by Graham Readfern, I wouldn’t have bothered even replying. Even I have some intellectual standards. Let’s ignore what Readfern claims the IPCC said, and cut straight to the chase and and QUOTE them:

          For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

          Emphasis added. Source document.

          See how it’s done? The IPCC DID in fact state “warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected”. They THEN went on to SPECULATE that IF, and only IF greenhouse gases could be held to 2000 levels, THEN warming of about 0.1°C per decade WOULD be expected.

          Well, we DIDN’T hold greenhouse gases at 2000 levels, they have markedly increased. So the IPCC’s SPECULATION of what MIGHT have happened, is irrelevant. We are left with the IPCC’s PROJECTED warming of about 0.2°C per decade.

          Now from the latest leaked IPCC “Report”, we have an OBSERVED rate of “warming” over the last 15 years of 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade.

          I’ll repeat: 0.05 °C per decade.

          And that, my mathematically challenged friend, is just a QUARTER of the IPCC’s 2007 projected figure of 0.2°C per decade. And that is over 15 years, not a decade. How wrong do they have to be, before klutz’s like you and Readfern accept the fact.

          .
          The journalist at the Australian who allowed himself to be bullied into making an incorrect “correction”, should be fired for incompetence.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            John O'Hagan

            So I’ll take that as a no on the acknowledgement then. Easier to just fire journalists for being honest about their mistakes than to acknowledge them.

            The point at issue was past warming rates over 60 years, not 15 years and not projections. It would appear you’d also prefer to change the subject than acknowledge the error; nice attempted segue from accusing me of making the whole thing up.

            Come on, just acknowledge it, you’ll feel better!

            But actually, now I think about it, I’m sorry to refer to the Guardian like that. I had been labouring under the misapprehension that it was one one the world’s finest, most trusted and independent newspapers; thank you for lifting the veil from my eyes, so that I can now see it’s all part of the global UN conspiracy to create a World Government to CONTROL ALL LIFE THROUGH CARBON, because ALL LIFE IS MADE OF CARBON!!!!!!!! And the Murdoch press never takes orders from anyone and is the only true source of information – especially FOX NEWS – because RUPERT IS OUR FATHER and he CARES FOR US!!!!

            I am now ready to join you.


            Report this

            02

            • #
              Heywood

              Are you off your meds again John??


              Report this

              10

              • #
                John O'Hagan

                Just trying to fit in, Heywood – you guys have taught me everything I know, about science, the media and the UN, not to mention punctuation and capitalisation.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              MemoryVault

              The point at issue was past warming rates over 60 years, not 15 years and not projections.

              No.

              The point of the original story was that the IPCC’s projection of 0.2°C per decade was hopelessly wrong by a factor of FOUR (two in the original story). People like you will clutch at any straw to avoid the bleeding obvious: – that the world is NOT heading to hell in a handbasket, never was, and all the claims by you, the IPCC, Readfern and all the so-called “climate scientists” to the contrary, NOTHING untoward is happening.

              And I don’t need a cabal of crazy conspiracy theories, led by Evil Murdoch, to understand the motivation of pure and simple GREED.

              Well, sorry, the gravy train has ground to a halt.

              Grow up and get a real job.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                John O'Hagan

                “And I don’t need a cabal of crazy conspiracy theories…”

                except for this one,

                “all the claims by you, the IPCC, Readfern and all the so-called ‘climate scientists’…”

                and this one:

                “The motivation of pure and simple GREED. Well, sorry, the gravy train has ground to a halt. Grow up and get a real job”

                Please keep this stuff coming, you’re cracking me up! :)


                Report this

                00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                As I said, no need for a conspiracy theory.
                Simple greed pretty-much covers it.

                If you think simple greed is a “conspiracy”, go for it.
                I don’t mind if you are as wrong about that as you are about everything else.

                As for “cracking you up” here’s some “humour” right up your alley.
                Have a good laugh.

                And here’s some fun, like-minded fun folk you can share the joke with.
                Intelligent crowd, aren’t they?

                Bit like yourself?


                Report this

                00

  • #

    IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri says there has been a 17 year pause in temperature rises. I suppose you call him a liar too?

    More liars eh?
    Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita: “we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level”

    In denial Chester.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Chester

    Except Jo, Pachauri doesn’t say that at all, does he? He was verballed by The Australian journalist – what a surprise.

    More dishonesty from The Australian and you.


    Report this

    12

    • #
      Chester

      And you link to your own article where you use the word “pause”.

      You just can’t be honest, can you? Even when you cherry pick some data that you know contains an El Niño induced aberration, the trend still isn’t significantly different from the rest of the dataset – as I pointed out before – but you’re censoring my posts. There is no halt and there is no pause and no reputable scientist claimst there is. Only grassroots propagandists.

      Dishonest.


      Report this

      12

      • #
        Chester

        And here’s something that nicely demonstrates my point:

        http://bit.ly/1gTAJNx

        Will you apologise for your deceit?

        [Jo, this IP address is from Switzerland and has been used previously by "TheEnquirer" and "TAboat", with the same MO. Always insulting, always rude, always troll like. I recommend the sin bin permanently. There are two more of Chester's posts in the trash if you need more insults. They take up too much room here.] ED


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Chester, you call me a liar, and yet you can’t even explain the so-called “deception” yourself. And you talk of deception while hiding your identity because you are too ashamed to admit you write these irrational raving comments.


          Report this

          21

      • #

        There is little point in continuing this conversation. You appear unable to speak English. “Pause” = “Halt” = “Stagnation” = “Plateau”. Do you think your word games fool anyone? Everyone on “your team” admits the models haven’t predicted global surface temps well over the last 15 years. I’m not censoring your posts, my moderators are fed up. Your comments are not rational.


        Report this

        31

    • #

      Chester your obsessive denial is a sign you may need help.

      It’s not only Pachauri, but the UK Met office “Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.”

      Every major dataset on global surface temperatures shows the models were wrong.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Heywood

        Even the ABC admitted it on the midday news today. They had a “climate scientist” say that it was possbly due to increased industrial pollution masking the sun and/or that the warming is hiding deep in the ocean. They even had a short interview with Andrew Montford from Bishop Hill.

        I know. I nearly fell out of my chair too.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Chester

    No, I’m not in denial of the fact that the rate of warming is less after 1997 than the rate before it. The link I gave shows you exactly why this cherry picking disinformation is irrelevant and deceptive. The escalator graphic of SS demonstrates this, which is why you have worked so hard to try and mock it and discredi it – but failed.

    But, tell us Jo, why is this warming rate reduction more meaningful scientifically than the other half dozen that have occurred over the past 100 years? What has changed in the physics. Will you guarantee the world that the next El Niño won’t lift surface temperatures higher than ever? Are you predicting cooling?

    You says the science and the scientific process is flawed or corrupt. Well then, tell us how it can be fixed and what fixing it will do to climate science.

    And I’m rude?

    I’ve read many of your posts and they are not framed in a debating, sceptical style – they are mocking, rude, arrogant, accusatory and defaming of legitimate scientists and advocates.

    So that you’ll understand what I’m saying: you started it and you get exactly what you deserve from the ” other side”.


    Report this

    10

    • #

      Chester, I said you were in denial of the pause, and you prove my point in your first line. The link to Tamino demonstrates nothing. He sets up a strawman, and knocks it over with cherrypicking. We non-cherrypickers start with the present (whatever it is) and count months backwards to see how long the pause is. Then we compare it to the models, and CO2 emissions. He does a post hoc pick to get the largest trend he can. Yawn. I’ve never said the pause means anything other than the models were wrong, and Hans von Storch agrees with me, so who will you go with … the climate scientist or your cherry picking blogger – tamino?

      why is this warming rate reduction more meaningful scientifically than the other half dozen that have occurred over the past 100 years?

      Exactly my point. It isn’t. The long term warming rate hasn’t gone up. The CO2 emissions have.


      Report this

      01

  • #
  • #
    Kim

    In all this output from the IPCC one thing I consistently fail to see is any calculation of error margins on measurements . This is basic science & engineering . If we are talking about a 0.12′ rise that would be well within the error margin – the noise band .

    Further what I don’t see is the basic science – the hypothesis’s – the lab. experiments . Before conclusions can be drawn everything must be proved and , ultimately , it must be proved in the field .

    They talk about CO2 – 0.04% by volume as a solid – even less as a gas . They don’t talk about the effect of , say , Nitrogen 78+% by volume as a solid . CO2 is somehow this magical molecule on whom all effect concentrates . It just seems so much like another feudal manifestation .


    Report this

    00