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



PR Wars: IPCC fights for relevance, halves warming, claims to be 95% certain of something vaguer


We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick.

Since 2007 they’ve burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, and getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for 300-year-typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, models being wrong, droughts ending, and ice returning, all the while pouring scorn and derision on anyone who questioned them. The IPCC were being hammered and they had to change tacks. Now, for the first time, the IPCC is making a serious retreat, presumably in the hope of being able to still paint itself as “scientific” and to fight from a different trench. Anything to continue the yearly junkets and to save face. What they hope is that no one will notice that the deniers were right and the experts were wrong, and the “government panel” has helped governments waste billions of your dollars.

They were 90% certain in 2007, which was never a scientific probability, but a hands-up vote. Now, in the most meaningless of ways, they are 95% certain of something more vague: the range has gone from 2°C to 4.5°C, to 1°C to 6°C. (See Matt Ridley in the Wall St Journal). They just made the barn door even wider. In years to come this allows them more room to pretend they hit the target, without acknowledging that they missed it for 23 years. And even that new supersize barn door may still not be wide enough.

They offer no credit to those who were right, and leave themselves room to issue alarming messages: the world might not get as technically warm but look out, now one degree will become a disaster. They will still be issuing bumper stickers saying “Things are worse than we thought”. Emissions will still be higher than expected, but now floods, snow, and the all purpose “variability” will be beyond expectations. The Hydra lives on. Expect press releases saying “we were too optimistic thinking that two degrees was safe”.

The IPCC’s lowest estimate is still too high

According to the papers Anthony Cox and I reviewed, they are still too high — climate sensitivity from empirical evidence is more likely about 0.4°C. Though the skeptics have been right for years that the IPCC models were exaggerating the warming, the IPCC will still call us deniers. The Joe Romm’s and alarmist commenters will attack the IPCC for being too conservative and careful, but this is exactly what the IPCC needs. The protest fog will help cast a veil of  “scientificy-ness” that the IPCC so desperately needs. What is better for it than to be seen to be attacked from both sides? It will feed the idea of a poor but honest agency that is (ha ha)  “in no way alarmist” — despite the evidence that they’ve denied the radiosonde data on model feedbacks since at least 2006, denied the importance of the higher resolution ice core data from 1999- 2003, denied that their 1990 predictions were completely and utterly wrong.

David Evans predicted that they would have to do this four years ago

Dr David Evans (my other half) predicted the IPCC would have to turn down their “climate sensitivity knob” in March 2009 at the Heartland Conference. Here is his slide number 18.

Reducing climate sensitivity solves many issues with the models

Way back then, looking at the evidence for the missing hot spot, it was clear that the IPCC had only two choices 1: Turn back the climate sensitivity knob (whereupon lots of missing pieces would fall into place) or 2: Go full on delusional, rage-against-the-data and go double or nothing.

In a sense they’ve done both. One degree is sensible, six degrees of warming is delusional. They’ve gone double and nothing. By painting a broad canvas over their festering wounds they can crop and edit the picture in future “memorabilia” to highlight opposite conclusions on different days of the week, and simultaneously pretend they hit their target, while never acknowledging the failure of earlier shots.

Bjorn Lomborg covers up for dodgy science

Bjorn Lomborg is doing his best to help the IPCC by (as usual) knowing nothing about the science, pretending to be a critic, but half his message is just saying exactly what the IPCC would want him to say. He ought stick to discussing the economics (which he does so well) and stay right out of the science debate, where he helps to protect and ensure funding to corrupt, low standard institutions that have been captured by lobbyists.

“As climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University tweeted: “Summary of upcoming IPCC report: ‘Exactly what we told you in 2007, 2001, 1995, 1990 reports’”

Why did Lomborg bother to uncritically repeat this banal falsehood, one that is easily provable to be 100% wrong? The IPCC made predictions in numbers in 1990 that are known to have failed. Their “best estimate” of future warming keeps changing, even as they deceptively pretend to be getting more “certain”. The figure that gets repeated is the number they make up: “95% certain”.

Lomborg the apologist strikes again:

This highlights the fact that the IPCC has always claimed only that more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans, although in public discussion it has usually been interpreted as all.

The obvious implication that Lomborg doesn’t say is that the IPCC have been very happy to allow these misinterpretations to stand uncorrected. It’s their modus operandi. They put out double-fog, and quietly nurture those who feed the public debate with mistakes which the IPCC can hypocritically distance itself from at any time it so chooses. The IPCC has never corrected the alarmist commentariat, and it deserves to wear their mistakes as its own.

Watch this debate become all about “impacts”

The actual number of degrees is neither here nor there — as long as the IPCC can still talk of “impacts”, western governments feed them money, and the media treat them as if they have a skerrick of barest credibility left, they will keep distorting markets and corrupting science. The IPCC is finally acknowledging they can’t defend the science of Working Group I in 2007. They concede that fight but will shift to using Working Group II reports. It is a different front, but just another muddy stinky trench.

*Apologies for the apostrophies. Fixed. (I think).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (113 votes cast)
PR Wars: IPCC fights for relevance, halves warming, claims to be 95% certain of something vaguer, 9.8 out of 10 based on 113 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n26hv72

146 comments to PR Wars: IPCC fights for relevance, halves warming, claims to be 95% certain of something vaguer

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Ok. Global warming range from 1 to 6 degrees.

    Next question: How much will be due to human influence and how much due to natural variability?

    Will natural variability totally SWAMP anthropogenic impacts?


    Report this

    161

    • #
      Ed Caryl

      Those numbers are a flat admission that it does.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Indeed, because we can argue that, on a global basis, the anthropogenic portion will remain constant, or as near to constant as to make no difference. :-)

        I will therefore emphatically state, after extensive modelling, using a real scientific calculator, that the anthropogenic portion is 1.414 degrees +/- 0.0001 K.

        Now, having done that, and placed a lump of prime beef under a sod, what we next need is for lots of people to agree with me, or say, “Whateva”, or even “Wot?”, or even “Eh?” and we can build a consensus, sufficient to fool even the most gullible Green acolyte.

        Our lines are open now …


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Jon

      It’s less a precise figure but more focus on normal extreme(bad) weather/climate events?
      Soon they will predict future global temperature, in 100 years, to be +/- 5 degree C from what it is today and that every single bad weather extreme/climate event(mostly natural) is antroproghenic! They can’t predict, only blame?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    farmerbraun

    Hey let’s also have a time range before things start to get really sweaty.
    Let’s say 100-1000 years; plenty of room to be right (or hopelessly wrong) in there.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    handjive

    I’m enjoying this particular quote from Lomborg the apologist :

    “Global warming will also cause more heavy rain; this is clearly more extreme.
    But warming will also help alleviate water scarcity — less extreme.
    About 1.2 billion fewer people are expected to live with water scarcity by the end of the century because of increased precipitation.”
    .
    Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.


    Report this

    150

  • #

    The Three laws of Prophecy and The Payoff

    The First Law of Prophecy: when you guess enough things often enough and for a long enough time, you are certain to be right about something.

    The Second Law of Prophecy: when you are finally right about something, never ever mention anything about when you were wrong.

    The Third Law of Prophecy: cycle through the first and second law of prophecy often enough and many people will see you as a prophet.

    The Payoff: those who see you as a prophet will give you money to foresee their future and, no matter what, they will make your words fit whatever happens.


    Report this

    500

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Sounds like horoscopes. Maybe the IPCC is just a group of astrologers? Climate astrologers.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        I do think there is a lot more history and empirical study within astrology than there is in climate science. Does your star sign suit you?

        True astrology’s predictions of future seem dubious, but their study of personality types and the lunar cycle, are often disturbingly correct.

        Once can’t say that climate science is correct too often.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          The character traits listed in horoscopes are usually phrased in such a way that they fit anybody. And most of the traits are positive (except in the case of Scorpios), so everybody nods and says each trait fits them. “Oh, yeah, generous, that’s me.”

          Thus almost everybody claims to fit their sign, except Scorpios. That covers 92% of everybody. Astrologers probably don’t make a lot of money casting horoscopes for Scorpios.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Jon

            The horoscopes are from Babylon and the BIG problem is that it’s based on the Suns position in the star signs during the year. And that there now, after 2500 years, is a one months difference. So your real star sign is not the one you think it is. That it’s not been updated and still is used is strange?


            Report this

            00

    • #
      RoHa

      The big problem with predictions is that most of them are about the future. This means that they could turn out to be wrong. Predicting the past is usually much safer, as long as you have a good memory or your wife reminds you.
      The best option, of course, is to predict the present. That way you have at least a 50% chance of being partly right.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      In pharmacology there is something called The Placebo Effect. For example, a doctor gives his patient a totally inert pill (say milk sugar) with a forceful statement about the pill curing what ails the patient.

      The patient believes in his doctor so much, he gets well after taking the pill. The usual explanation is that the illness was caused by the patient’s mind so the patient’s own belief in the pill cured him. Time was, the placebo effect was about all the doctors had that was effective.

      It is estimated that 40% to 60% of the effect of any drug is due to the placebo effect. This is why the double blind clinical tests are so necessary for discovering the effectiveness of any drug.

      Something quite close to the placebo effect explains a large fraction of the success of the CAGW scam.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    janama

    Good to see you are onto Lomborg Joanne. I’ve always thought he was show pony that will prance about to any tune that pays him.


    Report this

    210

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      I know it. Why bring up anything from Lomborg anyway? His contribution is multiplication by zero.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Manfred

        On the other hand, I rather think that the Skeptical Environmentalist published in 2001 and in my possession since then was a defining moment for Bjorn. As it turned out, it was an important and rational statement against environmental extremism and one that afforded the rest of us an alternative perspective from the usual flambé of fear and environmentalism, a dish removed from catastrophe. I will always be grateful to Lomberg for putting his head up above the ramparts and showing the world that other interpretations were possible. That he was decried by the institutions of the time was an indictment upon them and a sign of times to come.

        It nearly cost him his career. In the end, it seems he settled a little more for a career than lone maverick. I guess you’re paid your money, you make your choices, but I think he made a worthwhile and useful contribution. I admit that there is a possibility that he may still be obliquely apologising for it now.


        Report this

        192

        • #
          chris y

          Lomborg’s book gave me two insights:

          First, that the gloomy claims made by the various illuminati and glitterati of the enviro world were nonsense;

          Second, that Scientific American, in publishing the idiotic responses to The Skeptical Environmentalist, convinced me to terminate my over-3-decade continuous subscription.

          For these two items I will be forever grateful to Lomborg.


          Report this

          101

        • #
          janama

          Yes that’s true Manfred but since his book in 2001 he has pranced around claiming that global warming is real and due to mankind because he gets in all the papers e.g. the Australian hires him as a regular, he gets published around the world and I would imagine his “think tank” gets adequate funding to keep him above the salary of your run of the mill economist academic.

          He’s no better than Karoly or Steffen as far as prostituting himself to the “cause”.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            Manfred

            I don’t deny there’s a touch of the show pony about him…may be even the old chestnut, trying to be all things to all people and winding up as nothing to anyone? Nonetheless, I’m inclined to think that the Skeptical Environmentalist remains a milestone he’ll never live down and one for which I’m thankful. Personally, I think he goes where the money is. His later environmentalism is opportunistic. His book was far more passionate.


            Report this

            40

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    There is nothing credible from the flea bag known as IPCC, funding and participation in it by Western countries ought to be cut off. I would not be surprised if Mr Abbott’s government will decide to do exactly that.

    IPCC will continue to exist by the participation of 3rd world countries looking for the hand outs they were promised for going along with the scam in the first place. In time they will realize (under duress) that train left the station. Creative thinking will have to be applied to devise some new extortion rackets.


    Report this

    212

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I would not be surprised if Mr Abbott’s government will decide to do exactly that”

      I would. Greg Hunt still Environment minister. D’OH !!!


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Mark D.

      funding and participation in it [IPCC] by Western countries ought to be cut off.

      Why stop there? Lets UN-fund the UN completely.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It’s perhaps not funny that you could replace IPCC with UN.

      IPCC will continue to exist by the participation of 3rd world countries looking for the hand outs…

      The UN will continue to exist by the participation of 3rd world countries looking for the hand outs…


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      There is nothing credible from the flea bag known as IPCC, funding and participation in it by Western countries ought to be cut off.

      And the whole UN too!


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Manfred

    I have to keep reminding myself of the following. The weather ‘extremes’ are more fabrication from the MOWKB to justify increasing, tax laden intervention and a convenient distraction from the chronically failing science. Nice post Jo. Thank you.

    Severe weather occurs where temperature difference is greatest in the shortest distance. Tornado Alley across the central US where cold arctic air confronts hot humid tropical air is a good example. In each hemisphere storms form along the Front as major cyclonic systems migrating from west to east. Storm intensity is determined by the temperature difference.

    IPCC science claims the polar air will warm more than the tropical air, but this reduces the temperature difference across the Front and the potential for severe weather. Reconstruction of weather history shows more severe storms occur when the world is cooling not warming.

    - See more at: http://drtimball.com/2012/claims-global-warming-increases-severe-weather-are-scientifically-incorrect/#sthash.IclrlHYN.dpuf


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Manfred

      Dang. On the other hand, if we are indeed ‘paused’ prior to entering a cooling phase, then we may well, in the fullness of time, witness more ‘extreme weather’. Won’t this play straight to the warmunist choir? Doesn’t it seem like it’s a potential political no-win?

      Hope lies in the idea that the climate driven revenue gatherers will still have to convince and carry hearts and minds to capture the taxes and control to which they aspire. And this is where they’ll lose. It’s already happening…… Australia beginning to shed the shackles. Essentially the scam never found the science to rise above natural variation. What a truly catastrophic waste of time and money. Oh how we might have done so much else that could have been magnificent!


      Report this

      50

  • #

    One of the biggest ‘Impacts’ should be the impact of how much this has cost us, and how much that ongoing cost will still be.

    All of those costs are based upon what the IPCC findings have been.

    The ongoing cost of the CO2 Tax/ETS here in Australia is something that we will all be paying until it is hopefully trashed, and the cost of renewable power is another of those ongoing costs, and while the CO2 Tax can be rescinded, the cost for that renewable power will be with us for decades to come, and in fact increasing.

    Now, while both of these things are often claimed as being totally insignificant by those from the warmist camp, the actual cost of both can be readily seen in the one place at the one and the same time.

    I want you to open this link, and I’ll explain how this shows that cost impact.

    AEMO Average Daily Prices, and this is for June 2013 barely 3 Months back now.

    The two States I will be referring you to are South Australia and Tasmania, both States with very few CO2 emitting power plants, and both States heavily reliant upon Renewable power.

    Note that for each State there are 2 daily costs, one (the left column) gives the average price per MWH for electrical power for the full 24 hour period of the day. The second (right) column shows the cost for what the AEMO terms as Peak Power, not for a couple of days a year, but between 7AM and 10PM of EVERY DAY, so for all you people not yet convinced that Smart meters are a bad thing, then just look at what the Australian Energy Regulator refers to as Peak Power periods of time.

    Now then, why have I picked this Month? I could have picked any of the 2 Months either side of this one, but this is the most indicative.

    I also picked it because SA shut down its one remaining coal fired plant at the end of Summer, so taking a whole lump of CO2 emissions, costed at $23 per ton OUT of the market. So now, SA is reliant almost solely on its vast stocks of Wind Power, and is basically all renewable now, and that 25 to 30% of SA power has been removed as the coal fired plant closed down.

    Right, now, having set the picture, look at Tasmania’s Power costs there. That State is almost completely reliant upon renewable power, in this case Hydro. Because there are virtually no CO2 emitting power plants in Tasmania, notice the difference in price between Tasmania and all other States (except SA) and note that Tasmania is consistently cheaper than those other States.

    That is the difference that the CO2 tax has made, adding to the costs for those other States. In fact, the gap only seems that way, as prior to the imposition of that CO2 Tax, those other States were even cheaper than Tasmania, the cost/MWH averaging in the mid to high $30′s, again something I’m not just saying, as it is easily checked by just opening the same chart for the Month of June 2012, prior to the imposition of the CO2 Tax.

    Now having seen the difference between CO2 emitting and non CO2 emitting, (the cost of the CO2 Tax) look now at SA with its reliance on Wind Power and note how the cost for power is not only consistently higher, but in fact averaging almost double that of the other States, and considering it was once lower, (Pre CO2 Tax) then that cost is averaging triple that of the other States.

    And what was the cost of power in SA with that coal fired plant running? Even with the added impost of that CO2 Tax, SA power prices were cheaper than they are without that coal fired power because there was a constant reliable large amount of power there in place. Again, this is something I’m not just saying, as this too can be checked just by opening up the charts for the three Summer Months, (Dec, Jan, and Feb) and you’ll plainly see that the cost for power was much cheaper, with only five days across that 3 Month period with power spiking up beyond $100/MWH, and compare that to just this chart for June with 12 days beyond that $100/MWH mark, (with one day at $866.41/MWH) and in fact the Monthly average up around $110/MWH for that Peak time period.

    So, here we can see the difference that the CO2 Tax has made in increased costs, and the difference that the renewable of choice (Wind Power) has added to the costs.

    So without the CO2 Tax, electrical power would be cheaper, and without Wind power, the cost for that electrical power would also be cheaper.

    All of this cost thanks to what now looks like a huge scare campaign, instigated by the UNIPCC.

    And as to the cost being borne by the polluters, well, as you can see here, we all pay for it.

    On top of that there are numerous other things that have added considerably to the cost of electrical power, again, ALL of them related to this scare campaign, and again, as with that FIT for rooftop panels, something we will continue to be paying also for decades to come.

    All of these things have been a direct impost on the people, and something we will all be paying for decades to come.

    The UNIPCC says that it’s all about the climate, when in actual fact, it’s really just about the money.

    Tony.


    Report this

    380

    • #
      Tel

      …so for all you people not yet convinced that Smart meters are a bad thing, then just look at what the Australian Energy Regulator refers to as Peak Power periods of time…

      Depends on what you mean by a “bad thing”, for the seller they are bloody brilliant… no more risk! For the buyer, not so much. Interestingly, in the AEMO figures, the difference between peak and off peak is not as big as I would expect. On the standard smart meter tariff the difference is huge.

      By the way, I think when you get a smart meter, you can choose to stay on your old tariff.

      So without the CO2 Tax, electrical power would be cheaper, and without Wind power, the cost for that electrical power would also be cheaper.

      Undoubtedly true, but those AEMO wholesale costs are still only a tiny fraction of the retail cost of electricity. There’s a heap of fat in the middle somewhere. Blame some of it on the Greens, but not all of it.


      Report this

      52

      • #

        Tel,

        in fact, quite a large part of that retail cost for electricity can be sheeted home to Green influences.

        The grid has to be upgraded ….. considerably, to handle not the old half a dozen power plants connected to it, but now, tens and hundreds of thousands of tiny little Rooftop solar power Inverters, all connected to the grid, all now needing to be perfectly in phase with the reference, sub stations to handle all that and more, all of them referred to as what they call Gold Plating the grid, without explaining what that term really means.

        Then there’s the extra cost for renewable power, firstly the up front price paid to renewable power companies at the construction phase, all recovered from the end cost for electricity.

        Then there’s the rebates paid to renewable power companies at a price per KWH delivered to the grid, paid by Governments as incentive for renewable power companies.

        Then there’s the Government subsidy paid for the installation of EVERY rooftop panel system.

        Then there’s the FIT for electricity returned to the grid from each of those rooftop systems.

        Profit margins for the retailers have been cut, and as you can see from the AEMO tables I linked to, then that wholesale price in SA averaged for almost 3 months at well above $100/MWH, when previously it was down around $50 to $60, then that cost is borne by the retailers for as long as it is actually there, so that day when power cost $866.41/MWH that’s power costing the retailers 88.64 cents per KWH, power that they can only sell at 26 cents per KWH, that’s power costing them 3.5 times more than they can sell it for. Those retailers just have to wear that. When the cost stays high, then that cuts into the margins for those retailers.

        So, when you hear that so called green additions make up very little of your end unit cost for electricity, that is what can only be described as an outright lie a furphy.

        We’ll be paying for that long after the CO2 Tax has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Note how as each little thing is added on, the actual percentage that the CO2 Tax component makes up becomes less and less.

        Look at the actual impost of the CO2 Tax on the wholesale price of electricity, raising that wholesale price from the low to mid $30 mark to the high $50 mark, almost doubling the cost for the generation of that electricity.

        Look at this list of the largest CO2 emitters for Australia. There’s 20 Company names on that list. The ones with the black square alongside their name are the electrical power generation companies, and there’s 14 of them. The cost at right is based on a unit cost of $26 , what the price is now.

        ALL of that is recovered from consumers of electricity.

        Tony.


        Report this

        242

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Quote by Fritz Varenholt at No Tricks Zone

          Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.
          Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.
          It is truly outrageous that
          1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska,
          2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and
          3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.
          On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.


          Report this

          100

    • #
      nzrobin

      I reckon Tony’s comment is worth a separate post. Well said Tony. Appreciated the comment.


      Report this

      150

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    A very interesting book that details the whole thing historically is “The Age of Global Warming; A History by Rupert Darwall. Get it from Kindle etc.

    It’s a bit of an eye opener and confirms what I always suspected, that the whole thing was political from the start.

    It’s origins go back decades.


    Report this

    183

  • #
    Ian

    Unfortunately Jo no matter what you and Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre and “Bishop Hill” and Judith Curry and Roger Pielke (snr and jnr) and Richard Lindzen and John Christy and Roy Spencer and many others write and say it will not have much impact on the beliefs of politicians and more importantly, the beliefs of “ordinary citizen” . Every one has heard the claim “97% of scientists agree with AGW” but how many do you think are aware that the “paper” by JohnCook from SkepticalScience that was quoted by Obama and which purports to confirm this “message”, is very largely incorrect? Steve Goreham in the Washington Times notes 193 0f 194 heads of state believe humans are causing dangerous climate change in an article discussing science based rebuttal to global warming alarmism. It all seems too entrenched in the MSM and especially in organisations such as the ABC who can reach millions so easily, that I can’t see much changing as a result of the IPCC Fifth Report. I very much hope I’m wrong but I fear I’m not


    Report this

    200

    • #
    • #
      FarmerDoug2

      Jo, Anthony, Steve, “Bishop” etc … Please don’t give up.
      There is lots of us followers know it’s tough but some of us see a light. I think we are winning.

      Doug


      Report this

      131

    • #

      I disagree – what Jo and Watts write is very important, important enough to topple governments.

      “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
      Victor Hugo


      Report this

      281

      • #
        Ross

        I agree Eric. If they hadn’t been so determined the IPCC would not be writing what Jo has outlined above. The IPCC would have carried on their scam.
        It is only because of Jo , Watts , Monckton and many others that they are having to try to face reality. They know if the try to fudge it ( like had been in earlier years) then they will be caught out, big time.
        So it is even more inportant the pressure is kept on. I hope the 50:1 project video does not get “lost” because it is even more relevant now given what the IPCC are admitting to. Money is something the the politicians will listen to.


        Report this

        132

      • #
        Ian

        Yeah Eric I guess you’re right. Apologies to all and you in particular Jo, for being so downbeat. It just p….. me off so much watching Catalyst and listening to the ABC “greenies” none of whom ever acknowledge the science definitely is not settled, That and all the hype about a “carbon price” in Australia when in reality if Australians stopped burning all fossil fuel tomorrow and cut our emissions to nil, the effect on the global concentration of CO2 would be barely noticeable. Its all so self congratulatory when there are so many in the world who are trying to improve their standard of living and need cheap energy to do so. And look at the effect biofuels, the darling of the West, have had on food supplies to those who can least fend for themselves. If there was half as much money spent on eradicating poverty and disease as there is on CO2 reduction the world would be a lot better for it. Let’s hope someone with some political clout (perhaps Dennis Jensen?) will bring the alternative views expressed here and elsewhere into the mainstream of Australian discussion.


        Report this

        111

    • #
      Manfred

      In the end it boils down to incarceration v freedom, obfuscation v clarity, models v empirical observation. If there’s a cost of ANY sort you better believe that the ducks line up properly in perpetuity!

      I am therefore confirmed in my belief that an increase in cloudiness has a silver lining.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    pat

    jo,

    what a great rant. should be in MSM of course, and your other half should be leading Climate advisor to the incoming govt.

    because i feel some might want to copy your piece, u might want to insert “to” in this under Lomborg:

    “He ought (to) stick”

    personally, i feel your final para will read better with a period after “there” and a capital “A” in “As” plus the hyphen removed.

    “here nor there — as long as”


    Report this

    40

    • #

      I am gob smacked!!! I did not realize until today, this morning(USA), that you and the estimable Dr.Evans were a couple. How lucky and clever you both were in your choice of mates. It is none of my beeswax (American slang) but do you two star crossed lovers have children. Given the vileness of the world I can share your desire to shield them from the evadible slander they would receive (see TA’s daughters), but I would like to watch them from afar. If the gene pool shows true they will be giants of whatever endeavor they choose.

      ————
      Stan, thanks. We do. 3. Got lucky. – Jo


      Report this

      40

      • #
        RoHa

        They aren’t star-crossed. They are happily together.
        “Star-crossed” means the relationship is blocked by the malign astrological influences. Naturally the phrase comes from The Man.

        Two households, both alike in dignity,
        In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
        From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
        Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
        From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
        A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;
        Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
        Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.
        The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love,
        And the continuance of their parents’ rage,
        Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove,
        Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;
        The which if you with patient ears attend,
        What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Well, you can pretty much forget about any backtrack by the IPCC making SFA difference here in OZ.
    From here on in, it’s “business as usual”. Abbott just announced his new ministry.

    Greg Hunt as Minister for Environment.
    Mathias Cormann as Minister for Finance.

    No, Dr Jensen is NOT Minister for Science, as the position no longer exists. Not in Cabinet, not in the Outer Ministry, not even as a Parliamentary Secretary position. One can only wonder at the direction of a so-called “conservative” government, that has a senior cabinet position for “environment”, but doesn’t rate “science” as worthy of representation in government at all.

    Full list here.

    .
    I might just crack that Dimple now.
    The next three years are not looking pretty.


    Report this

    92

    • #
      AndyG55

      But who do you vote for instead. ?

      We desperately needed to get rid of the previous rubbish.

      But is the alternative really an alternative.

      Is their any real alternative? :-(


      Report this

      62

    • #

      There doesn’t appear to be a Minister for Transport either. Maybe this is Infrastructure?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      handjive

      Sadly, the fact that Abbott has eliminated science, but still has an environment minister, should be a heads up where the coalition environmental policy is heading.
      Gird the loins for an epic battle, fellow consensus science rebels, for the battle has just begun.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        They will lose the next election. Too many disaffected Liberal voters.


        Report this

        25

        • #
          handjive

          What do all these people have in common:

          . Brendon Nelson
          . Malcolm Turnbull
          . Kevin Rudd
          . Julia Gillard
          . Kevin Rudd
          . _____________

          That vacant spot is reserved for Tony Abbott.
          Obviously Tony Abbott thinks he is the eco-warrior who will avoid that list whilst continuing the green fraud.
          No green Fraud will avoid that list.
          Enjoy your brief time as PM, Tony Abbott.


          Report this

          15

          • #
            handjive

            In all fairness, after posting this comment, I found this link:

            Point Carbon, 16/9/13: Australia axes ministerial role for climate change

            “The change signals that as expected, the Abbott government will not give climate change the same weight as the previous government,” said Frank Jotzo, deputy director of Australia National University’s Climate Change Institute.

            “The environment ministry traditionally holds less sway in cabinet than many others, and the integration of the climate policy bureaucracy into the Environment department will also tend to diminish its role,” he said by email.”
            .
            I can only hope I am wrong and that link is right.


            Report this

            61

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The ABC news top headline for 4hrs this afternoon was “Abbott unveils male-dominated cabinet”.
      Sounds just a tad judgemental. Their ‘Progressive politics’ bias is unpleasant enough, but this editorialising in the news section has escalated into “telling you what to think” rather than simply “telling you what happened”. They’re still running the “Abbott hates women in authority” line. As of an hour ago the top headline has become “Senior Liberal women dismayed by Abbott’s male-dominated Cabinet”. Heaven help Abbott if anyone remembers that Howard’s 3rd term had three women in his cabinet. Old Johnny might be adopted as Howard the Progressive by the end of the week!

      Abbott says it’s important to have experience in the ministry. Right.
      Ivory Tower Cormann for Finance. Yay WorkChoices Robb for Trade. Poor old Barnaby Joyce gets farmhand duty when he could so clearly diminish the debt and clean up this one-horse bankster kleptocracy with either the Treasurer or Finance portfolios now being held at arm’s length.

      Still no announcement about Science. Jeez, Tony, we’re on the edge of our seats here. Is Jensen’s unrivalled experience in the sciences still leaving some room for doubt? Did Chris Pyne make a terrific bi-carb volcano in primary school or what? Maybe Tonekiel The Prophet has not yet had the personal Revelation that shows him the divine path on the Science appointment. Worry not, Libertopians, have patience and by the end of the week your Faith will be rewarded! (or not)

      Just remember, Lib lubbers, that Tonekiel The Prophet told you quite honestly on the eve of his Ascendency to The Hill “I declare that Australia is under new management and is once again open for business”.
      Open for big business directing the movement of tax money, presumably.
      Call me cynical, but my swirling tea leaves predict SKM to get some major aggie infrastructure contracts in North Queensland as part of Robb’s campaign to feed Asia (which was originally a Katter concept). At least it’s building productive assets, which is more than can be said for the Clean Energy fiasco.

      Out of the fire and into the frying pan – it’s a small consolation.


      Report this

      21

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Some of what you say is true MV and mostly your posts abound in wisdom but dont go all out lefty looney tune negative on us.


      Report this

      21

  • #
    pat

    if David Rose’s article is correct, it is now 1,800 questions tabled. (btw greg hunt stays in his job).

    to our Representatives attending, i say shut down the IPCC…

    “Starting a week tomorrow, about 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus – will hold a four-day meeting in Stockholm, together with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, established in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
    The governments have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause.”


    Report this

    80

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Mary had a little lamb
    Its fleece was white as snow.

    It tried to post on Jo Nova’s site
    But the Auto Mod said no.


    Report this

    32

    • #
      Heywood

      …and yet, Michael the Activist still gets through! Go figure.

      Off Topic – It looks like Jensen didn’t get a run in the ministry.


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Yes, but have they done something really clever, so they don’t draw any flak.

        There is no mention of Science in any Ministry, either in the Cabinet or the outer Ministry.

        Tony.


        Report this

        71

        • #
          MemoryVault

          There is no mention of Science in any Ministry, either in the Cabinet or the outer Ministry.

          Yeah, I posted on that a couple of hours ago.
          Maybe if I am a good boy, the auto-mod will let you read it next week.


          Report this

          21

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Nice to know I’m not the only one being routinely afflicted by the review bot.

            If the bot is purely automated then how did it learn to clamp down on several people simultaneously about the same issue? I’d like to see the Bayesian rule weight set that made that decision.

            But take it as a badge of honour… all good things in moderation. ;)


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Perhaps the moderators have run out of squirrels?

            I understand it sometimes happens at this time of year.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          AndyG55

          “so they don’t draw any flak”

          You want to bet..

          10 emails of disgust sent so far !!


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        It is only 4 days since we were assured that “The history of AGW is quite strong. Everything predicted is occurring” and “our best data, science and observations are saying that AGW is real and already occurring”.

        Now the predictions have been revised.

        4 days from Michael the Realist to Mickey the Gullible; surely an Australasian record.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Tel

    Watch this debate become all about “impacts”

    Unfortunately it has already become mainstream that a small amount of warming will be of nett benefit. Mind you, consensus doesn’t make it real, but historically we have evidence that warm periods were more productive.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Robert G. Brown noted:

    Even completely ethical scientists have to eat, and if the only way they can eat is to get funded, and the only way they can get funded is to submit proposals that seek to prove that CO_2 is bad, guess what they will propose to study? And if they want to get funded AGAIN, guess what they will find? Climate science has been effectively corrupted beyond any hope of objectivity.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    The 95% certainty figure is what? a vote?

    It could be a show of hands by the report writers, granted, but a vote of all the scientists involved?

    Possibly worth checking that it’s not a BBC28gate style bluff or entirely bogus statement.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Mary had a little lamb
    Its fleece was black as charcoal.

    And whenever that poor lamb tried to post
    The auto-mod kicked it up the left leg.

    .
    Except nonsense, of course.
    Which explains why Michael the Ridiculous doesn’t have any problems.


    Report this

    51

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Which explains why Michael the Ridiculous doesn’t have any problems.

      That has just given me a horrible thought.

      What if the auto-mod has pulled a Skynet, and become sentient?
      Totally insane, but sentient nonetheless.
      What if it is now waging a secret war on Man’s sanity, by cunningly posing as Michael?

      .
      At least that would explain some of his/its recent posts.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have just had word that the auto Mod has been reading Catch 22 in its spare time.

      The only comments it is now prepared to let through are those that appear to be by Irving Washington, or Washington Irving.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    J Martin

    I think the crucial thing that will destroy the IPCC and lose them all public and political credibility will prove to be their failure to admit the possibility that cooling may be the future and not warming. The trend for the last 8 years has been one of slow cooling, with the PDO negative, the AMO approaching negative and the sun’s magnetic field on a linear decline to 2020, cooling to 2030 seems unavoidable and much the most likely outcome, especially considering that despite a 25% increase in co2 over the last 17 years global temperatures have not warmed at all.

    2020 to 2030 may prove to be a harsh (cold) experience for the UK.

    I guess if the IPCC were to admit the possibility that cooling may be on the cards then their whole ‘raison d’etre’ has gone and they are effectively disbanded.

    After that mankind can get on with the clear-up, removing windmills and getting Ben Santer, Michael Mann, and others into court to answer for their role in this destructive saga.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    John Gardner

    Hi Jo & David

    Great work guys, keep up the great work. Regarding how the pollies will react to the latest IPCC “leak’ about low climate sensitivity, I suggest that they might find it an excellent excuse to wind back the crazy taxpayer-paid green power subsidies. After all, it is a fine thing for a pollie to put his (or her) full weight behind a good cause, but only until it turns ugly and starts losing them votes! I can sense from recent media reports that there a quite a few pollies in the EU and UK desperately hunting for a reason to kill of the various crazy green schemes they fervently enacted a few years ago that are now giant political and financial albatrosses (think the UK, Spain, Germany, etc, etc.). In fact I can see in my mind’s eye Sir Humphrey saying something like ‘this new IPCC Report might just give us the excuse we need to justify killing off this damned folly that our predecessor enacted’. Pip, pip.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    Reuters’ solution – completely ignore anything that might rock the CAGW boat:

    16 Sept: BusinessSpectator: Reuters: IPCC reveals worsening threat to frontline communities
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/9/16/science-environment/ipcc-reveals-worsening-threat-frontline-communities


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Orson

    On increasing weather extremes, a recent ClimateDepot link refuiting the claimed link to AGW goes:

    …the staff at the Earth Systems Science Center [at the University of alabama at Huntsville] has tracked all the activity of hurricanes, tornadoes and extreme temperatures and found little change during recent decades. “You can see that hurricanes are not increasing,” [John] Christy told [this in newspaper] June, “tornadoes are not increasing, droughts and floods are not increasing, snow cover is still around – in fact, last winter, the northern hemisphere had its largest extent of snow cover measure.”

    http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/global_warming_advocates_may_b.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    There has to be near zero CO2-AGW because the atmosphere self-controls. The real AGW was Asian aerosol pollution reducing cloud albedo This saturated an about 2000.


    Report this

    22

  • #
    handjive

    Omnologos has a post: Whatever happens to old Climate Scientists?

    “They hang on awaiting vindication of their idea, that’s what happens…

    Kukla was co-author of a chapter in the book “Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales” published by the National Research Council.
    Kukla and geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a historic conference, themed: “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”

    Kukla believes all glacial periods in Earth’s history began with global warming (understood as an increase of area-weighted average global mean temperature). He believes Earth’s recent warming is mostly natural and will ultimately lead to a new ice age.”
    .
    Check the comment Shub Niggurath
    20 hours
    Kukla was the first to figure out the “Hide the Decline” fraud. His email is in the Climategate emails: Dear Keith …


    Report this

    100

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    great article Jo and keep up the good work


    Report this

    20

  • #

    They can keep dialling back the so called climate sensitivity until they reach somewhere between zero and negligible. Then they will be closer to reality.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    AndyG55

    Labor can WIN the next election by dumping ALL the climate change agenda, and putting someone “new” in as leader.

    3 years is a LONG time in politics.

    There will be MANY very unhappy Liberal voters who will change very quickly is Abbott et al don’t dump the whole heap of crap, and Labor do.


    Report this

    85

    • #
      Cookster

      As the Centre Left alternative why would Labor do that? It would be totally at odds with Labor party ideology. In fact what is already happening is Labor will tear itself apart on how it grapples with the question of dealing with climate change.

      What will be equally interesting is how our so called ‘conservative’ new elected government deals with this news. By the end of the current government’s term we could be looking at 18 years no warming. How will Abbott, the IPCC and Western policy makers – both ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ deal with that? The wiggle room is going to get even narrower. Break out the popcorn!


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Germany will shortly change direction. Once the current election is out of the way.

      The press have turned against renewable energy. See 8.1.1.1 above.
      Papers that previously supported the IPCC/EU energy line are now outrightly critical. There is at least 1 new party sniping at the Government about energy policy and the EURO mess.

      In the UK there is more agitation about renewable energy than ever, with several papers now critical of the policy and prepared to publish criticism of the IPCC. Many backbenchers want to reverse the policy, even if only to save their seats at the next election. UKIP is the only (major) party against both wind farms and the EU.
      At the local elections recently they out-polled the LibDems and are very likely to do even better in next years European Parliament elections, with over 60% of britons against being in the EU. That will give UKIP more credibility, attract more members (already taking numbers from the Conservatives) and more money. Boris Johnston has “sniffed the wind” and is positioning himself against current energy policy and for a challenge to Cameron.
      With the increasing likelihood of power blackouts this winter, especially if predictions of a long cold winter come true, and the almost certainty of them in the winter 2014/15 before the election in 2015, Cameron will be struggling to remain PM.
      A long, cold winter would be the sixth in a row and the final straw for many voters across Europe, who will want change. The EURO debacle alone could see the breakup of the EU. The costly renewable energy policy will be “thrown from the sled to the wolves” to gain time.
      We are living in interesting times. Be very grateful we (the lucky ones) are living in Oz and have a new Government not composed of loonies.


      Report this

      50

  • #
  • #
    Herr Majuscule

    “The Financialization of Nature”

    http://vimeo.com/43398910

    “The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force.”

    ― Michael Parenti, Against Empire


    Report this

    04

  • #
    Sunray

    From my perspective, I have almost always thought of him as a Trogan Horse, well to be honest, he just bothered me.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dave

    Tropical Cyclone outlook 2012 to 2013 by BOM.

    Australian region 37% 11 High
    Western region 43% 7 Low
    North-western sub-region 42% 5 Moderate
    Eastern region 43% 4 High
    Northern region Near average 48% 3 Very low

    We’ve got less than one month for the 11 cyclones to hit????

    Is BOM now run by IPCC’s Mr. Rajendra K. Pachauri?

    New 2013 to 2014 outlook due on Monday October 14th 2013.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Turtle of Western Australia.

    Non-WA readers ignore.

    Jo, a guy called Corey Watts from the Climate Institute from the Climate Institute was discussing the new IPCC report this morning with Paul Murray on 6PR. Murray is no shock jock – he was laying down the facts about the medieval warming, the models failing etc. Corey was up against the ropes. Not the usual warmist smugness. He was getting defensive. He went for the old Manbearpig is hiding in the ocean and it’s still going to keep warming in the long run etc. Things really are changing.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Turtle of Western Australia.

    Trojan.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dave

    Scientists slam claims of cooler climate

    SBS News 16 SEP 2013 – 8:27PM

    Australian scientists have rejected claims a multi-national climate change body is set to revise down its previous warnings about the rate of global warming.
    The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing to hand down the first part of a major report on the updated science of global warming in Stockholm next week.
    But a series of apparent leaks has sparked media speculation the IPCC’s highly-anticipated assessment could contain an admission it overstated rising temperatures.
    It’s a claim that’s rattled Australian scientists, who say such a finding is hard to believe given it contradicts decades of data and the draft version of the report hasn’t even been finalised yet.
    In particular, they’re furious at suggestions the IPCC will admit it got its numbers wrong and that over the past 60 years the world has been warming at half the rate stated in its previous 2007 report.
    “That is complete fiction,” Professor David Karoly, a review editor of the IPCC report at the University of Melbourne, told AAP on Monday.

    The Aussie scientists are not happy chappies with this leak.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Well children, its almost time for Grandpa MV to lay down his weary head for the night, but before retring I have written you all a grand fairy story. It is here on the previous thread, as more appropriate.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Mrs B looked up Cormann’s website yesterday and according to him he has a law degree and spent a year at UEA, yep the University of East Anglia. Any day now they are hoping to be re rated up to third rate.
      Something is fishy here. Is Cormann an EU sleeper or plant?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Mathias Cormann has a Belgium law degree which is not recognised in Australia.

        Get Mrs B to go to his Wikipedia entry, and then go into the “history” section, right back at its beginning in 2007 when he was first nominated for the Senate. Many “edits” since then to smudge the past, to create the “image” required for today.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Is Cormann an EU sleeper or plant?

        Well the answer “yes” comes to mind. If he’d spent time at the London School of Economics it would be a YES for certain.

        Wait, does UEA and LSE have anything in common?

        Let me see if I take a deep breath and then sneeze out the word Fabian………


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Peter C

    iPCC now says climate sensitivity could be as low as 1.0C, for a doubling of CO2 levels. Jo Nova calculates that it could be as low as 0.4C. How long until it gets to 0C? Could it be that CO2 does not affect climate temperature at all?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Could it be that CO2 does not affect climate temperature at all?

      Sunlight falls on the earth. 70% of it falls on the oceans, heating the water.
      The oceans lose the heat to the atmosphere several ways, a main one being evaporation.
      The evaporated water containing the energy of phase change rises in the atmosphere.
      Eventually the water vapour reaches a cool enough point where the opposite phase change can occur.
      The water vapour condenses into liquid water and precipitates back to earth.
      The energy lost through phase change finds its way into so called greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2.
      The GHGs radiate the energy back into space as IR, thereby dissipating heat from the earth.

      .
      So, in answer to your question, yes, CO2 DOES affect the earth’s temperature.
      CO2 – and the other GHGs, act ultimately to COOL the planet.

      .
      Everything else is largely manufactured BS to support a “theory” conducive to taxation.


      Report this

      150

  • #
    Neville

    I think Jo has been a little hard on Lomborg and his latest info on the 5th report draft does include a very good graph and criticism of the IPCC.

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg

    He has always been a believer in some AGW ( so am I) but he has also become the most hated man by the true believers over the past decade.

    He has copped abuse from the extremists because he has shown the futility of trying to mitigate AGW using present technology.
    He has always prepared his arguments well and at least he has always calculated the maths to prove some of the mitigation to be useless and a waste of time and money.
    Just read the above link and you will understand he is still claiming that mitigation is a waste of time and money. And he’s right.


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Lomborg is common sense on economic matters, and I did indeed admire him. But his approach has been to isolate himself from climate science, and tread this middle line of “economic skeptic” but climate believer. That would be all fine and dandy if he did not comment on the science at all. But he’s called us deniers in order to feed the bullies in the hope they will leave him alone, and I don’t have any respect at all for that approach. He doesn’t have to pander to their campaign of denigration.


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Neville

        But Jo I’ve read “Cool It” from cover to cover and Lomborg always throws in plenty of doubt about the science.
        Just read his research on Antarctica, Greenland , SLR, Hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning strikes and other extreme weather events etc.

        I’ve used his core base in this one book to check out his claims about higher Greenland temps in the 1930s and 1940s and he’s correct. Ditto revelations about Antarctica, SLR etc.
        I agree he is too close to the IPCC line but he helped to open my eyes as have you, Bolt, Marohasy, Carter, Lindzen,Watts, Spencer, Christy, Lawson, Singer,Michaels etc.
        I can assure you he is not just disliked but hated by the true believers.
        And don’t forget just about everyone I’ve listed above believes in some AGW over the last 50 years and most have indeed freely stated that they do.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Lomborg talking to OZ’s most hated sceptic Andrew Bolt about 12 months ago. At 3 min 40 secs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HiFQJmOto

    Bolt has interviewed him a number of times as has Alan Jones and both regard him as a supporter of common sense in regard to AGW mitigation.

    He has also appeared with Lord Lawson in a debate with the Canadian Greens leader and Monbiot just before the Copenhagen conference and boy does she hate him with a vengeance.

    But Bolt and Lomborg just ridicule EU and OZ mitigation in this video and he includes the maths to prove it.
    Lomborg isn’t a sceptic but he has done more than anyone to highlight the idiocy of pouring money down the drain for a zero return.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Dave

    Skeptical Science

    This is their new Escalating Alarmism Meter.

    Courtesy Australian Climate Madness.

    :)


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Tim

    Has the IPCC given any credence to the role of solar activity?

    In a few months there should be a peak of the current sunspot cycle, (which has produced the fewest sunspots in at least 100 and possibly 200 years.) Over the past three sunspot cycles, those fields at solar minimum have been getting weaker, with the weakest appearing during the most recent minimum.

    There’s actually been a fairly steady decline in the strength of the spots’ magnetic fields over a 13-year-period. If the trend is to continue, it could be a spotless sun by around 2022.

    “Nothing to see here folks – move along.”


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      No. They find it too inconvenient, much as they do with clouds. They claim the sun is nearly constant.
      Yet we know from isotopes (O18-O16 ratio for temperature as used with ice core analysis, and either increased C14 or Be10 as measure of reduced solar wind strength) that 5 times in the last 1,000 years the sun has gone quiet, and there has been at least 30 years of cooling. For the last 2 periods we have some actual thermometer readings and a wealth of other information.

      If you date the Little Ice Age from ~1350 to 1850 as the IPCC claim, then it included 4 of these minimums. Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton, with the Spörer and Maunder at the coldest times.

      We have finished just over a 100 years of the highest solar activity for at least 7,000 years. Now we are going into a period of low activity. If cold periods occur during low solar activity, it seems reasonable to assume that warmer times occur during periods of high solar activity. So it seems more than likely that we face 30 or more years of cooling.

      Apart from the disastrous effect cooling would have on the IPCC, it is likely that Asia will be affected by weaker monsoons and drier weather. Agriculture in northern China is likely to be hard hit. The idea of northern Australia as a food basket for Asia might turn out a success.


      Report this

      61

  • #
  • #
    Nathan

    Don’t know who this is but he is brilliant. Enjoy as I did.
    Don’t know why my links don’t publish but google
    Marx on Monday : Climate Change, Gore and Monbiot and look for Bogpaper.com link


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bite Back

    And yet the IPCC lives on.

    I remember a recent comment about the snake only being dead when its head and its body were displayed on two separate platters. When that happens I will rejoice. But until then the IPCC remains a real problem. Its work has cost billions, done no end of harm and done no good at all. It needs to be buried 100 miles down and the grave filled in with concrete. Leave no evidence to show where it was dumped. That will be the day for rejoicing.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Backslider

    EU policy on climate change is right even if science is wrong, says EU climate action commissisoner.

    Doh!


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Mark D.

      Backslider, this epitomizes what we’ve seen with the likes of Michael (TR) doesn’t it?

      Those of us that pay attention know that this isn’t about warming, it’s about a deep seated and misguided belief that humans are the pollutant. Too many of us and too easy a life gets us more of us. This is why we can’t have cheap energy. We just make more of us and things get worse.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    star commentLomberg says

    This highlights the fact that the IPCC has always claimed only that more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans, although in public discussion it has usually been interpreted as all.

    This is incorrect. In the 2007 report was a table showing estimated radiative forcings in W m-2.
    I did some calculations.
    Net forcings are 1.60, of which solar irradiance is 0.12 or 7.5% of the net total. All the rest are human-caused (including land-use changes)
    The total of greenhouse gases are (including ozone) is 3.01, or 188% of the total.
    Aerosols total -1.20 or -75% of the total.

    The UNIPCC estimated that CO2, on its own, accounts for 104% of radiative forcings.

    My conclusion - the the UNIPCC fiddled the figures so
    a) They could talk only about CO2, not greenhouse gases.
    b) So sensitivity could be kept high.

    Lomberg is wrong on this one.

    I stated four reasons why (as an accountant) I think the figures are deeply suspect.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Manfred

    Bishop Hill posts a comment made by the
    EU Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard:

    Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices

    I say: “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”

    And whether Marie Antoinette actually said, “Let them eat cake!” is beside the point. The meaning is potently relevant. These bureaucrats are a scourge, a plague, an infestation. I have said many times, as indeed have many others, that in the end all this climate wailing will have nothing whatsoever to do with science. No. It is a belief that fuels an ideology. Possibly the only way to remove this tumour is at the end of a swinging blunt instrument.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      From what Manfred says at #46, there may be double-standards operating.
      If a medical doctor has proscribed a drug, that had not been tested for effectiveness, nor for harmful side effects, according to laid down standards, there would be sufficient grounds for striking them off. If they had not taken due care in the diagnosis, and falsely claimed a terminal illness, there would quite separately be sufficient grounds for striking them off. When they admit to making a false diagnosis and then say that, say the nausea and feinting that the drugs cause are good for the patient (they may cause weight loss for instance), then this would be more than grounds for saying that that medical professional was not acting in the best interests of the patient. If it turned out that medical professional was only advised by the pharmaceutical company who supplied the drugs, and that same business decided the testing criteria those on the left would be calling for an enquiry and the shutting down of the business.
      So why do they not apply the same standards to the environmentalists?


      Report this

      80

  • #
    AndyG55

    The real question is, How far and how fast will the Earth’s temperature drop over the next decade or two?

    How badly will world food supplies be affected, How will places like the UK and other northern countries cope with a greatly diminished energy supply system.

    The world has made a massive big rod for its own back with its idiotic support of unreliable renewables.

    The slight warming and CO2 rise have been mostly highly beneficial. We have had it good for the last several decades.

    Cooling will be the real problem, and the sooner governments around the world realise this, the more chance they have of protecting their citizens against it.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    • #
      Another Ian

      From comments in the BH link – a useful approach IMO

      “@HG54

      “I don’t often say this, but thank heavens the paper is behind a pay-wall.”

      That is both incisive and very funny.
      Well done.

      Sep 16, 2013 at 9:12 PM | bernie “


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I don’t often say this, but thank heavens the paper is behind a pay-wall.

        From the description of it I could wish the authors were behind bars. Don’t you just love ignorance?


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Manfred

      Here is the abstract of the article in question published in the journal ‘Research Policy’
      Boundaries, breaches, and bridges: The case of Climategate
      Garuda et al. 2013

      (my bold)

      ‘We examine the incident known as “Climategate” in which emails and other documents relating to climate scientists and their work were illegitimately accessed and posted to the Internet. The contents of the files prompted questions about the credibility of climate science and the legitimacy of some of the climate scientists’ practices. Multiple investigations unfolded to repair the boundary that had been breached. While exonerating the scientists of wrongdoing and endorsing the legitimacy of the consensus opinion, the investigating committees suggested revisions to some scientific practices. Despite this boundary repair work, the credibility and legitimacy of the scientific enterprise were not fully restored in the eyes of several stakeholders. We explore why this is the case, identify boundary bridging approaches to address these issues, and highlight policy implications’.

      So we see, it’s never about the science, only the perception that the argument from authority remains virgo intacto.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Svea

    Never mind the facts folks! Joanne Nova has simply regurgitated an incorrect article from the Daily Mail without doing her 5 minutes of research. The IPCC 2007 assessment did NOT claim warming was 0.2 degrees per decade. The figure it reported was 0.13 degrees – nearly exactly the same as the figure of 0.12 degrees being reported now. So there is no “global warming is HALF what we said” from the IPCC. For anyone who gives a damn about the truth, read the 2007 statement for yourself here.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html


    Report this

    112

    • #

      Never mind the facts Svea, I didn’t even mention a rate per decade.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      ianl8888

      That’s Karoly’s little sideways, evasive two-boot shuffle


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Svea should get a clue. The IPCC “claim” in question was their model projection, not the measurements. New studies support the same conclusion. According to Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers published in Nature last month:

      Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade …
      By averaging [CMIP5] simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).

      Resilient Earth has the run-down on this paywalled article. The temperature histogram by itself should be enough to give any warmist the hissy fits.

      Peer reviewed research published in Nature admitting the models developed AFTER 2007 are still exaggerating warming by double. Mark the 28 August 2013 in your skeptical calendars as the date a major crack appeared in the IPCC edifice.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Svea looks like another one armed only with ignorance and fear — and will also disappear again too.

      Where do they come from? Sigh! :-(


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I see the daily mail has updated their headline and added more details.

      Instead of saying IPCC Halves warming – David Rose up’d the ante: “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought – and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

      Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
      Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.

      But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade – below almost all computer predictions.

      Well, I’m glad they clarified that : -)


      Report this

      20

  • #
    RoHa

    “claims to be 95% certain of something vaguer”

    I’m 97% certain something is happening somewhere.

    Not so sure what or where.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    tom0mason

    CO2 rising + global temperatures flat = No IPCC money, no CO2 (carbon) reduction money!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    hope this predictions comes true:

    EU delays ruling on CO2 credit eligibility
    LONDON, Sept. 16 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The European Commission has delayed a decision on how many of around 700 million mainly Russian and Ukrainian carbon credits will be eligible in the EU emissions market, it said Monday, a clarification that analysts said could send prices crashing by up to 50 percent…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2575781

    should say “City Banksters” hope…

    British govt expects CO2 price of 76 pounds/t in 2030
    LONDON, Sept 16 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The British government said Monday it expects UK-based power generators to pay up to 76 pounds ($121, 91 euros) per tonne of carbon dioxide they emit by 2030, more than 10 times what they currently pay and what European utilities are forecast to pay at the end of next decade…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2575937?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The British government said Monday it expects UK-based power generators to pay up to 76 pounds ($121, 91 euros) per tonne of carbon dioxide they emit by 2030″

      Seems they are going to try to de-populate the UK, by any means possible. !!

      Emmigrate .. or freeze !!


      Report this

      20

  • #
    pat

    a German perspective!

    German firms lower EU carbon price expectations
    LONDON, Sept 13 (Reuters Point Carbon) – German companies covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) believe the price of permits will hit 15.82 euros ($21.02) in December 2020, sharply lowering their expectations from the 23.45 euros they predicted a year earlier, a survey found…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2571870?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    tom0mason

    I trust that the UN-IPCC’s latest report will define exactly what climate change is, and show, with verifiable methods, how they have managed to differentiate it from natural climate variation.
    They will also explain, with startling clarity, the true role of CO2 in the atmosphere. Additionally they will show how all cloud formation works and it’s affects on weather(both local and global), and the implications cloudiness has on climate.

    /sarcoff


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Waaal, lessee here. If half warming is anthropogenic, and only half showed up, it must be the natural half, since by definition that’s inevitable and unstoppable. Hence the anthropogenic half is zero. QED‼


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I see this piece repeats the mistaken “IPCC halves warming”.

    The Australian has this to say about it:

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

    “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. The earlier version also said incorrectly that the IPCC conducted its own computer modelling. That error was made in the production process.”

    Oops – should be more sceptical of what we read in the tabloids, eh? Why don’t we ask scientists instead?


    Report this

    01

  • #

    [...] The Green scammers were over the moon with the PR for the report, which says something completely different to the findings, so the IPCC released the bad news first so that the Green propaganda machine could go into overdrive with the fear message, yet again. We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick. [...]


    Report this

    00