Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[buctootim]

How many of these "peers" are of independent means, and how many have, or seek, outside funding?

 

How many of the outside funders are of independent means?

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that "man" is damaging the planet in a very bad way. But what the consequences are, or will be, I have no idea. But I certainly do not believe every piece of so-called independent scientific research that I see. But I do get sceptical about people that have to resort to statistics to underpin an argument. A proper valid argument should stand on it's own facts.

 

Why? I get involved in a lot of commercial dispute resolution in various Courts, and employ a lot of expert witnesses. I also examine and cross-examine a few. I know that if I have an opinion I want to make in Court, if I ask enough experts, I WILL find one that agrees with me. Same goes for finding one to disagree with my opponent's expert.

 

All I have to do is pay them.

 

Of course there are always rent a mouths available for a price to say what you need to be said - they're within the 3%. I'm not sure what you mean by independently funded researchers. The vast majority are academics funded by research bodies like NERC or employed by bodies such as the Met Office, NASA, UNEP etc. Research bodies don't have an agenda other than to fact find. Thats why the overwhelming consensus is so powerful.

 

It would be a lot easier for everyone if climate change were not man made. The oil, gas and coal companies and electric utilities who by far have the most powerful lobbyists compared with the much smaller renewables companies could continue as before. Governments wouldn't have to change anything, and change is always unpopular. I guess your subtext is that people are saying what their masters want them to say - but if that were true its would be coal fired power stations and business as usual.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by buctootim

[hutch]

I agree Tim. I like:

 

The vast majority are academics funded by research bodies like NERC or employerd by bodies such as the Met Office, NASA, UNEP etc. Research bodies don't have an agenda other than to fact find. Thats why the overwhelming consensus is so powerful.

 

much more than 97% agree. 97% is subjective, but is intended to appear as fact. "The vast majority" is also subjective, but doesn't pretend to be otherwise.

 

As I say, if the thread said that the vast majority of credible scientific bodies agree that man is damaging the planet, I doubt if I would have bothered to pop in and say hello.

[Minty]

97% just happens to be a statistic which highlights the number of 'proper arguments' that happen to agree with the assertion that man is damaging the planet. I don't think anyone is relying on the statistic or using it instead of such arguments... indeed each and every one of those papers makes it's own clear arguments. This statistic just summarises that.

 

Part of the wider issue is that many people simply don't want to know more about who is researching or funding these studies, hence why it is bottled up in a statistic for easy consumption. I think it would be great if there was more info about who is carrying out the studies, where, how and why, and with what funding, but there is a need to make contact with the wider public to try and increase engagement, and so that stat was produced by distilling key information down to a bite-sized chunk that the public can relate to.

 

I think the issue of funding is a fair question, but I do find it slightly intriguing that it is only this issue that seems to provoke such enquiry and doubt, when in most other aspects of science, it is seemingly accepted with far less doubt or questioning. It is, IMO, simply because of the selfish human nature that most people don't care about science until it impacts upon them directly... and this clearly will impact on everyone. Naturally people do not like what they are hearing, and as a result, some want to disprove it. I understand that, its scary sh!t, but hiding from a consensus of 'proper arguments' won't help IMO.

Edited 8 August, 2013 by Minty

[hutch]

Not by me. I'm just as sceptical about any other type of funded science as I am about global warming. It's not something I lose sleep over, though.

 

What I do lose sleep over (speaking metaphorically of course) is the progressive and insipid creep of spin into scientific fact, to blur the issues in an attempt to mislead the masses. It might just be me, but I do believe that that approach is much more prevalent in areas funded by those promoting a particular agenda.

[Whitey Grandad]

I totally agree, Minty. The more important question is what to do about it. I get really annoyed when I see those signs when you enter Eastleigh Borough which state 'Tackling climate change'.

[buctootim]

Not by me. I'm just as sceptical about any other type of funded science as I am about global warming. It's not something I lose sleep over, though.

 

What I do lose sleep over (speaking metaphorically of course) is the progressive and insipid creep of spin into scientific fact, to blur the issues in an attempt to mislead the masses. It might just be me, but I do believe that that approach is much more prevalent in areas funded by those promoting a particular agenda.

 

There are definitely fashions in research - you get the hot topic du jour attracting lots of study for a while before the spotlight moves onto to something else. Certain researchers may even put a certain interpretation on the findings which accords with their own feelings - but thats the reason for peer reviews. The peer reviews will only allow for publication narrative which is supported by the findings, and climate science is about hard numbers.

 

imo the real problem is the media who need a story - and the scary, shocking, over the top or angry angle at the expense of accuracy always gets more attention than sober honest reporting. Its the reason the Sun sells 3million copies and the Times sells 300,000.

[Minty]

Not by me. I'm just as sceptical about any other type of funded science as I am about global warming. It's not something I lose sleep over, though.

Fair enough, and entirely reasonable. As I said before, scepticism is healthy, I just wish more people would look into things rather than just believing what they are told... it's the lack of reasoned debate I find frustrating.

 

What I do lose sleep over (speaking metaphorically of course) is the progressive and insipid creep of spin into scientific fact, to blur the issues in an attempt to mislead the masses. It might just be me, but I do believe that that approach is much more prevalent in areas funded by those promoting a particular agenda.

On that I agree wholeheartedly - but it's a fine line between trying to increase public engagement on an issue, and it being interpreted and 'preaching' and/or 'spin'. So, how do we promote interest and understanding in it? I don't have an answer, but I think it's an important part of the issue.

[Minty]

I totally agree, Minty. The more important question is what to do about it. I get really annoyed when I see those signs when you enter Eastleigh Borough which state 'Tackling climate change'.

To be honest, so do I... to many grand public statements are made, again, with the intention of raising awareness in the wider public arena, but the way it is done sometimes turns people off from the issue completely. I know that Eastleigh Borough Council have very honourable intentions with regard to their climate impact, which is good, but soundbites and slogans can often be counter productive IMO.

[Minty]

imo the real problem is the media who need a story - and the scary, shocking, over the top or angry angle at the expense of accuracy always gets more attention than sober honest reporting. Its the reason the Sun sells 3million copies and the Times sells 300,000.

Totally with you on that... most peoples opinions are moulded by where and how they heard about it. So many people are lazy, they don't want to find out about something for themselves, they want a few words and a conclusion handed to them on a plate.

 

Critical thinking seems to be becoming a thing of the past...

[hutch]

Ah, but do we really need to increase public engagement on every issue? I can understand that 24hr rolling news broadcasters do, but does that really help us?

[Minty]

Ah, but do we really need to increase public engagement on every issue? I can understand that 24hr rolling news broadcasters do, but does that really help us?

 

Good question. We do not, if our government acts appropriately, but IMO they are not. If Governments are guided (through voting or whatever other means) by the public, then for them to act, I believe the public need to face up to the issue more, hence campaigns like the one I posted the graphic for.

 

I do accept that 'appropriate' action from the Government is subjective, but when linked to the scientific consensus, I believe it is clear that governments aren't doing enough, and the public don't care enough to change that.

[hutch]

Good question. We do not, if our government acts appropriately, but IMO they are not. If Governments are guided (through voting or whatever other means) by the public, then for them to act, I believe the public need to face up to the issue more, hence campaigns like the one I posted the graphic for.

 

I do accept that 'appropriate' action from the Government is subjective, but when linked to the scientific consensus, I believe it is clear that governments aren't doing enough, and the public don't care enough to change that.

That's it, Minty. We've completed the loop. Government will, of course, always follow scientific consensus. They will do what I do (I'm a businessman not a scientist). They will root around until they find an eminent scientist that agrees with whatever policy they are promoting at the time, and parade him in front of the cameras.

 

And then some "public interest" bod with an agenda will appear and tell us that 97% of his peers don't agree.

[Minty]

So, in summary, we're f*cked? Great.

[buctootim]

So, in summary, we're f*cked? Great.

 

Thats what happens when you have a generation of career politicians led by focus groups and opinion polls instead of conviction and persuasion.

[Whitey Grandad]

Putting aside for one minute, all peoples views expressed;

 

For me, the main fact is the RATE at which Climate Change is happening, It IS increasing Big Time, and is escalating as time passes. it is much much faster than it was 200 years ago, and, pro rata, much faster than it was 100 years ago.

 

You can argue about WHAT is causing GW, but you cannot argue about the fact that it is happening.

 

 

There had been no increase for the last 15 years.

[Minty]

To be honest, I've always suspected we're gonna f*ck ourselves up, in one way or another. And I mean 'we' as in the Human Race, not specifically the UK or England. I just find it... well... 'disappointing' I guess... that so few people are able to see beyond their own short term futures. Ho hum.

[Whitey Grandad]

So, in summary, we're f*cked? Great.

 

Not until the next ice age.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/387971/Scientist-predicts-earth-is-heading-for-another-Ice-Age

 

What to do?

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

[hutch]

Thats what happens when you have a generation of career politicians led by focus groups and opinion polls instead of conviction and persuasion.

Nutshell

[hutch]

Well I live 4,620' above sea level

[Whitey Grandad]

Well I live 4,620' above sea level

 

Gonna be cold up there come the next ice age but all being well you should be clear of the glaciers.

[buctootim]

Gonna be cold up there come the next ice age but all being well you should be clear of the glaciers.

 

Its the view of many climate scientists, mostly off the record, that if it wasn't for man made carbon emissions then we would be heading now into a new mini ice age. Its going to be a tricky balance to get it Goldilocks not too hot and not too cold.

[aintforever]

Not until the next ice age.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/387971/Scientist-predicts-earth-is-heading-for-another-Ice-Age

 

What to do?

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

 

I reckon we should ignore the worldwide scientific consensus and go with Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov's theory. That would be the prudent approach.

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142420.htm

 

The planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

[Saint in Paradise]

Far too many Govts and people making a fortune from this situation for my liking.

 

Notice how the subject has quietly been re-named from "Global Warming" to the

new "Climate Change"?

 

Couldn't possible because the Earth is cooling rather than warming surely ?

[scotty]

How many of these "peers" are of independent means, and how many have, or seek, outside funding?

 

How many of the outside funders are of independent means?

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that "man" is damaging the planet in a very bad way. But what the consequences are, or will be, I have no idea. But I certainly do not believe every piece of so-called independent scientific research that I see. But I do get sceptical about people that have to resort to statistics to underpin an argument. A proper valid argument should stand on it's own facts.

 

Why? I get involved in a lot of commercial dispute resolution in various Courts, and employ a lot of expert witnesses. I also examine and cross-examine a few. I know that if I have an opinion I want to make in Court, if I ask enough experts, I WILL find one that agrees with me. Same goes for finding one to disagree with my opponent's expert.

 

All I have to do is pay them.

 

Another futile argument trotted out as a matter of course. The climate scientists may well have funding that could sway their findings. As opposed, of course, to the oil producers who are entirely uninterested in profit, and are only producing it as a philanthropic exercise to benefit mankind.

[Saint in Paradise]

Australia has seen the light and has scrapped their Climate Commissioners whom it would

appear were always wrong with their predictions about Global Warming.

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_sacked/

 

:lol:

[solentstars]

My view on this is fairly well-known but I'm simply going to ask people to read this site to get answers to some of the many questions that keep coming up:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

If people are genuinely interested in learning more about this subject there is tonnes of evidence out there, and for those with a genuinely open mind about the subject, it is fascinating stuff. Unfortunately, a lot of people have made their mind up on the back of very little information, very flimsy arguments, and a 'la la la, I'm not listening' attitude if something they read challenges their own pre-conceptions. (On both sides of the argument.)

 

Science faces a real struggle when the first things that get mentioned are 'It's an excuse for higher taxes' and it's a shame. If we really are supposed to be an intelligent race, we should be welcoming all research on this subject rather than using it as yet another reason to argue about politics and money and oneupmanship.

 

Good post unfortunately a lot of posts are from the. Bonehead brigade who have very closed mind's.the melting of the ice cap in the arctic is very worrying development.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[buctootim]

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report. Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

[Minty]

Australia has seen the light and has scrapped their Climate Commissioners whom it would

appear were always wrong with their predictions about Global Warming.

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_sacked/

 

:lol:

 

Why is it funny? That's what bugs me the most about Climate science... instead of simply wanting to learn more about it, so that we can take appropriate action, the political nature of the endless discussions about the climate only seem to generate black and white polemics, and claims of 'victories' and 'defeats' for those involved, and a notion of laughing at those who were wrong, and smug feelings from the 'other side'. Forgive me for thinking that we're actually all in this together, and that any wrong predictions simply take us ALL back a few steps in the realm of trying to predict the impact of climate change, and how we plan to adapt to it.

 

I've read one of Tim Flannery's books, and he did make predictions about where the climate could be headed. Scientists do so all the time. They're often wrong, but that's the nature of science. If they are wrong, we should actually be encouraging them, and all others in the same field, to look more closely at their methods, the science behind things, to make more accurate predictions in the future. At the same time, we need to remember that they will never be exact... we are dealing with something that we're learning about all the time and that we cannot control. Irrespective of a (any) government decision to sack these guys or any other action, our entire future existence still depends on learning more about the climate and how it will affect us.

 

Sadly, it seems a lot of people are only concerned with their short term finances, rather than the ability of our planet to support our very existence, but hey, each to their own I guess. As I've said before, I would rather that governments took a more precautionary approach, for the sake of my kids and grandkids, than to relegate its importance in favour of achieving 0.3% growth in GDP in the next year, or whatever else they think is going to get them voted in for another 5 years.

[Wurzel]

Why is it funny? That's what bugs me the most about Climate science... instead of simply wanting to learn more about it, so that we can take appropriate action, the political nature of the endless discussions about the climate only seem to generate black and white polemics, and claims of 'victories' and 'defeats' for those involved, and a notion of laughing at those who were wrong, and smug feelings from the 'other side'. Forgive me for thinking that we're actually all in this together, and that any wrong predictions simply take us ALL back a few steps in the realm of trying to predict the impact of climate change, and how we plan to adapt to it.

 

I've read one of Tim Flannery's books, and he did make predictions about where the climate could be headed. Scientists do so all the time. They're often wrong, but that's the nature of science. If they are wrong, we should actually be encouraging them, and all others in the same field, to look more closely at their methods, the science behind things, to make more accurate predictions in the future. At the same time, we need to remember that they will never be exact... we are dealing with something that we're learning about all the time and that we cannot control. Irrespective of a (any) government decision to sack these guys or any other action, our entire future existence still depends on learning more about the climate and how it will affect us.

 

Sadly, it seems a lot of people are only concerned with their short term finances, rather than the ability of our planet to support our very existence, but hey, each to their own I guess. As I've said before, I would rather that governments took a more precautionary approach, for the sake of my kids and grandkids, than to relegate its importance in favour of achieving 0.3% growth in GDP in the next year, or whatever else they think is going to get them voted in for another 5 years.

 

IMO the two bold phrases are why some find it funny. What is the point of taking a precautionary approach for something we can not control. ? Plan ahead by all means - i.e flood defences if it's proved sea level will rise being one example - but restrictions on industry/taxes/levies etc (which I assume is what you are referring to as you relate it to GDP) are pointless as a defence against something we can not control and nothing more than disguised taxation

[badgerx16]

IMO the two bold phrases are why some find it funny. What is the point of taking a precautionary approach for something we can not control. ? Plan ahead by all means - i.e flood defences if it's proved sea level will rise being one example - but restrictions on industry/taxes/levies etc (which I assume is what you are referring to as you relate it to GDP) are pointless as a defence against something we can not control and nothing more than disguised taxation

 

Whilst we may not be able to 'control' it, we can adjust our behaviour now to mitigate the future impact. The problem with the deniers and those following short-term selfish interests is that they want to simply carry on as we are and 'damn the torpedoes'.

[Minty]

IMO the two bold phrases are why some find it funny. What is the point of taking a precautionary approach for something we can not control. ? Plan ahead by all means - i.e flood defences if it's proved sea level will rise being one example - but restrictions on industry/taxes/levies etc (which I assume is what you are referring to as you relate it to GDP) are pointless as a defence against something we can not control and nothing more than disguised taxation

 

Yeah, my wording was actually poor there... I should've said we don't know for certain if we can control it... I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that we CAN potentially control it, by virtue of the fact that we have contributed to it in the first place, and helped create the situation. Therefore by amending our behaviour accordingly, we might be able to 'control' it, or at least lessen the impact.

 

To assume otherwise is akin to sounding the 'abandon ship' alarm IMO.

 

If viewed in isolation, then its easy to see why "restrictions on industry/taxes/levies etc" are viewed as a negative thing by some, but the point is that they need to be put into context more clearly as to why they are needed. Bottom line is that ongoing research is needed to learn more about what is happening, why, how etc, etc, for the sake of us as a race. Money for that has to come from somewhere, and so it is usually in the form of a levy or tax... these are not 'defences', but means to help us understand better what we face, and how we can adapt to it, or make changes to ensure our survival.

 

At the most basic level, I simply don't understand why people think we should not continue to research Climate Change while at the same we would all agree that we should continue to search for cures to diseases/Cancer etc? What, actually, is the difference when it comes to the future of the human race?

Edited 19 September, 2013 by Minty

[Saint George]

Well look what's come along and well and truly butt f#cked the hand wringers while they weren’t looking…...

 

IPCC holding emergency meetings to try and cover up..i mean concoct an explanation to save face….Mass panic in the carbon credit markets……Governments making policy U turns……Sheez they only had to ask.....I could have put them straight years ago…..

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-breaks-all-time-record-for-ice-expansion-increasing-to-19-512-million-sq-km-and-beating-last-years-record-high-of-19-477/

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/arctic-ice-cap-growing-at-tremendous-rate/

 

So it seems the Polar Bears get to live another day....wait! ....Weren't they all s'posed to have drowned by now?

 

Stay warm peeps

[badgerx16]

Well look what's come along and well and truly butt f#cked the hand wringers while they weren’t looking…...

 

IPCC holding emergency meetings to try and cover up..i mean concoct an explanation to save face….Mass panic in the carbon credit markets……Governments making policy U turns……Sheez they only had to ask.....I could have put them straight years ago…..

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-breaks-all-time-record-for-ice-expansion-increasing-to-19-512-million-sq-km-and-beating-last-years-record-high-of-19-477/

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/arctic-ice-cap-growing-at-tremendous-rate/

 

So it seems the Polar Bears get to live another day....wait! ....Weren't they all s'posed to have drowned by now?

 

Stay warm peeps

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

"This is not surprising, as climate models consistently project that there will be large variations in summer ice extent from year to year. A cool summer can help to retain a thin layer of ice, increasing the overall ice extent. Conversely, a warm summer can help to remove much of the thin ice cover."

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html

 

"

Just what 'crisis meeting' is being referred to here? Well, the IPCC's website sets out the timetable and procedure for reviewing the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5):

Step 1: First Review (by Experts)

Step 2: Second Review (by Governments and Experts)

Step 3: Government Review of Final Draft SPM

Step 4: Approval/Acceptance of SPMs and Working Group Reports

Under step 4, the sub-timetable is as follows:

For each Working Group report, the full reports will be accepted at the Working Group Session and their SPMs approved by IPCC member governments at the Working Group Session and then accepted at a Session of the Panel. These will take place as follows:

 

WG I

23-26 September 2013, Stockholm

, Sweden

WG II 25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan

WG III 7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany

The dates for these meetings were set in 2009, as can be seen via the timetable, dated Novermber 3rd of that year, here (PDF). So there's your 'crisis meeting'. Working Group One's session, scheduled four years ago, for acceptance of its report."

Edited 20 September, 2013 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

'Crisis meeting' doesn't have to mean that it was arranged in a hurry, it could mean that at this scheduled meeting they will be discussing a crisis.

[aintforever]

'Crisis meeting' doesn't have to mean that it was arranged in a hurry, it could mean that at this scheduled meeting they will be discussing a crisis.

 

How does that tie in with "This rapid change in the world’s climate caused the climate change body of the UN to call a crisis meeting."?

[Whitey Grandad]

How does that tie in with "This rapid change in the world’s climate caused the climate change body of the UN to call a crisis meeting."?

 

I don't know, but if the date was set some time ago perhaps the wording should have been "call this a crisis meeting"? Who has used the term 'crisis'?

[badgerx16]

I don't know, but if the date was set some time ago perhaps the wording should have been "call this a crisis meeting"? Who has used the term 'crisis'?

 

Follow the trail from Georgie boy's links. The Daily Fail has "The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2fQEQuJMt

"

Edited 20 September, 2013 by badgerx16

[Minty]

Crikey, George is back. That's good, we all miss his reasoned debate and open-mindedness...

[Saint Paul C]

IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail

 

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

 

The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error for around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years. The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span.

 

Something big is about to happen. Models predict one thing and the data show another. The various attempts in recent years to patch over the difference are disintegrating. Over the next few years, either there is going to be a sudden, rapid warming that shoots temperatures up to where the models say they should be, or the mainstream climate modeling paradigm is going to fall apart.

 

Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 17 September 2013

 

That climate models and predictions are out of sync with reality is not that much of a surprise. Many experts in climate and economic modeling have warned for years that the models are flawed and based in large part on self-fulfilling programs. The IPCC meetings at the end of the month are intended to install the science foundation for later meetings next year in Japan and Germany on adaptation and mitigation. The question then becomes: To what are we adapting and mitigating?

 

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 17 September 2013

 

The recent pause in average global surface temperature rises made lifting confidence in the extent of the human contribution to climate change “incomprehensible”, a leading US climate scientist has said. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, yesterday published her analysis of a leaked IPCC draft report that has sparked an international furore. “If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 (2013 report) relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4 (2007 report) then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux,” Professor Curry said. “Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident.”

 

UN Hid Research Showing That Nature, not Humanity, Controls the Climate

 

OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013

 

"As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision," said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). "Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN's view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?

 

"With today's release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II - see http://climatechangereconsidered.org/, a 1,200 page report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approach," continued Harris. "Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong."

 

Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia, explained, "NIPCC's CCR-II report uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability. Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring."

 

CCR-II Lead Author for the extreme weather chapter, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, agrees, "When the earth was generally cooling between 1945 and 1977, there were as many extreme weather events as there are now, but climate scientists did not attribute this to human activity. The perceived link between global warming and extreme weather is primarily due to greater media attention on violent weather today than in past decades. Earth's climate is robust and is not being destabilized by human-added CO2."

 

Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology and Geochemistry at the University of Oslo, Norway, Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, added, "CO2 is 'the gas of life'. The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the 'greenhouse effect'. Clouds have much more influence on temperature."

 

Segalstad, a CCR-II Contributing Author, also pointed out, "The ocean has a very large buffer capacity. Hence the pH of the ocean will not be significantly changed from the relatively small contribution of anthropogenic CO2."

 

NIPCC Chapter Lead Author, Dr. Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, describes the new report as "the most comprehensive report yet on all the issues surrounding climate and climate change." Lupo worked on the climate models chapter about which he said, "It represents the problems and benefits of working with computer models as well as highlighting the current techniques, strategies, and shortcomings."

 

"There is a climate problem," Carter admits. "It is the natural climate-related events that exact very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must prepare for, and adapt to, all climate hazards when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on CO2 controls in a vain attempt to stop these events from occurring reduces the wealth of societies, and so our capacity to address these and other real world problems."

 

ICSC Energy Issues advisor, New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan Leyland, concludes, "Governments should welcome the NIPCC CCR-II report. It provides them with the scientific evidence they need to justify ending the expansion of ineffective alternative energy sources and other expensive and futile strategies to control climate. Then they can focus on supporting our most powerful energy sources—coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro-power—in order to end the scourge of energy poverty that afflicts over one billion people across the world."

 

SOURCE International Climate Science Coalition

[badgerx16]

IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail

........

SOURCE International Climate Science Coalition

 

A fine group of CC deniers you have there.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/international-climate-science-coalition-s-lacks-credibility

 

"The self-proclaimed experts at the International Climate Science Coalition have today launched another fanciful flight into the realm of climate denialism and United Nations conspiracy theories."

[aintforever]

"The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant"

 

[Wurzel]

Yeah, my wording was actually poor there... I should've said we don't know for certain if we can control it... I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that we CAN potentially control it, by virtue of the fact that we have contributed to it in the first place, and helped create the situation. Therefore by amending our behaviour accordingly, we might be able to 'control' it, or at least lessen the impact.

 

To assume otherwise is akin to sounding the 'abandon ship' alarm IMO.

 

If viewed in isolation, then its easy to see why "restrictions on industry/taxes/levies etc" are viewed as a negative thing by some, but the point is that they need to be put into context more clearly as to why they are needed. Bottom line is that ongoing research is needed to learn more about what is happening, why, how etc, etc, for the sake of us as a race. Money for that has to come from somewhere, and so it is usually in the form of a levy or tax... these are not 'defences', but means to help us understand better what we face, and how we can adapt to it, or make changes to ensure our survival.

 

At the most basic level, I simply don't understand why people think we should not continue to research Climate Change while at the same we would all agree that we should continue to search for cures to diseases/Cancer etc? What, actually, is the difference when it comes to the future of the human race?

 

Note to self: Don't try and join in a debate on 3 posts a day.

 

Not sure what category you file me in. I do believe research into climate change should continue for the sake of accurate predictions. But I do not believe it is something we can possibly control so to tell industries that they can or can't do certain things or must pay extra because of it is, in my view, wrong to the point of deceitfulness.

 

I appreciate that you have read up far more on the subject than I have, but I have seen nothing yet that will convince me any recent change in our climate is man made. It has heated up before, it has cooled down before and will do so again, all on it's own without our help. So why should, for example gas, oil, aviation industries be made to foot the bill? Are peat burners or logging companies contributing? Or the beef/dairy industry? Why am I forced to buy crap light bulbs that harm my eyes?

 

As I say I do believe we need accurate predictions. If - big IF - it can be proved sea levels are rising then defences need to be built, and future homes need to be built on higher ground. If temperatures are rising/falling we may need to rethink locations of crop plantings, make buildings warmer or cooler etc. If the Earth is to become unlovable then look into moving to a new planet and starting again. But to think we can control it is, in my view, ******** (I think that's the correct non-scientific expression) and to be honest makes us guilty of thinking we are far more influential in the ways of mother nature / the vast solar system / universe / whatever than we really are.

[aintforever]

from the Independent...

 

Halfway to climate change catastrophe: Total amount of carbon burnt since the industrial revolution must not exceed one trillion tonnes, say scientists

 

Experts have calculated that about 570bn tonnes, or 57 per cent, has been burnt in the past three centuries - meaning the tipping point on carbon emissions is now only 30 years away

 

The world has already burnt more than half the maximum amount of fossil fuel that can be consumed if catastrophic levels of global warming are to be avoided, scientists have calculated. In a finding expected to be included in the most comprehensive report ever made into climate change, researchers also warn that we are on course to use up our entire global carbon allowance within 30 years.

 

Scientists estimate that if global warming is to have an above-average chance of remaining below the crucial 2C level – beyond which the consequences of climate change are expected to become increasingly devastating – the total amount of carbon burnt since the industrial revolution must not exceed one trillion tonnes.

 

This is because CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for more than 200 years, giving the greenhouse gas a cumulative impact.

The scientists calculate that about 570bn tonnes, or 57 per cent, of the trillion tonnes has been burnt in the past three centuries.

However, the rapid economic growth in developing countries has put the world on course to burn the remaining 330bn tonnes at accelerating speed – by about 2040, unless drastic action to curb emissions is taken.

 

Although the final numbers may differ slightly, they are among the key findings likely to be published next week in the most authoritative report ever conducted into climate science – the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment, known as AR5.

This section of the report will be strongly influenced by two papers co-authored by Professor Myles Allen, of the University of Oxford, who is also a lead author on the forthcoming IPCC report. He would not comment on next week’s report but his research – published in Nature and the Journal of Climate, in 2009 and 2013 – is known to form an integral part of the study.

 

The publication of the IPCC report on Friday will come five months after the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere breached the symbolically important level of 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in five million years after rising at its fastest rate since records began.

 

Experts blamed most of the increase on rising emissions from China and India, which still rely heavily on coal for their energy, but said other factors could also be partially responsible, such as reduced absorption by forests and plants.

 

About 50bn tonnes of CO2 is emitted globally a year, with the average global citizen producing 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide, compared to about 10 tonnes in the UK.

 

Scientists estimate global emissions need to come down to about 20bn tonnes a year if the world is to have a fair chance of limiting global warming to 2C.

 

Professor Allen stressed that with so much still unknown about climate change, the findings in his research and, by extension, the IPPC report, deal in probabilities rather than certainties. However, the vast majority of scientists agree that the fundamental trends are clear.

Next week’s IPCC report is expected to make clear that scientists have never been more certain that humans are causing climate change. According to a sentence in a draft of the report, which could still change: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

Edited 20 September, 2013 by aintforever

[Minty]

Not sure what category you file me in. I do believe research into climate change should continue for the sake of accurate predictions. But I do not believe it is something we can possibly control so to tell industries that they can or can't do certain things or must pay extra because of it is, in my view, wrong to the point of deceitfulness.

I put you in the category 'People I choose to know in real life' which means you automatically have my respect even if (as I obviously know before now) we have a different opinion.

 

You don't believe it is something we can control - fair enough - but there is, whether you or I like it or not, plenty of evidence out there to say that we certainly influence it. So at worst, placing restrictions on industry is IMO 'over-cautious', and with entirely honourable intentions. I cannot see how it can be called deceitful as that implies it is being done with entirely alternative motives in mind.

 

I appreciate that you have read up far more on the subject than I have, but I have seen nothing yet that will convince me any recent change in our climate is man made.

Fair enough, and nothing I say will change that, unless you choose to read up more in your own time. As you know, I'm not the kind to preach to others, I just provide links and information I have read, where it is welcomed, for others to judge on their own terms.

 

It has heated up before, it has cooled down before and will do so again, all on it's own without our help. So why should, for example gas, oil, aviation industries be made to foot the bill? Are peat burners or logging companies contributing? Or the beef/dairy industry? Why am I forced to buy crap light bulbs that harm my eyes?

Well this is an interesting point - I actually agree that everyone who is potentially contributing should contribute to the bill but naturally a spotlight falls on industries that are deemed to contribute more to climate change. I don't think that is right - it is a far bigger problem than just those specific industries, and we all, myself included, use them and many other things that contribute. Every business uses electricity after all, and that has to be produced somehow, mostly with fossil-fuels, so it is wrong to only focus on certain industries. The key is, IMO, not necessarily to punish those industries or those who use them, but to help make cleaner alternatives more attractive, so that the decision to de-carbonise becomes a sound business decision, not a result of being beaten with the carbon stick.

 

As for light bulbs, there's plenty of decent ones out there now, so you buying crap ones is your own fault. ;-) We just replaced 4 x 70W tubes in the shop, with 8 x 5w LED bulbs... 280W of energy vs 40W... it's a no brainer from an electricity bill point of view, and the lights are fine.

 

As I say I do believe we need accurate predictions. If - big IF - it can be proved sea levels are rising then defences need to be built, and future homes need to be built on higher ground. If temperatures are rising/falling we may need to rethink locations of crop plantings, make buildings warmer or cooler etc. If the Earth is to become unlovable then look into moving to a new planet and starting again. But to think we can control it is, in my view, ******** (I think that's the correct non-scientific expression) and to be honest makes us guilty of thinking we are far more influential in the ways of mother nature / the vast solar system / universe / whatever than we really are.

 

Maybe we are, but what if we're not? To assume we're not is far more arrogant IMO, because it means we're essentially granting ourselves licence to do what we please, and sod the consequences. I'm just saying we need to keep looking into it so we know more. I don't think we'll ever have truly accurate predictions, just the best that we can come up with based on our knowledge at the time.

 

Like many things in life, it's one big risk assessment... if we wait for incontrovertible proof, it may be too late. Hence my 'precautionary principle' stance. Given that there is already a lot of evidence out there that support the AGW theory, what evidence would you require to actually convince you? Do you have in mind something specific? Given that you or I aren't experts, how do we decide when we've seen enough evidence to convince us?

 

And personally, I think the thought of treating the Earth as 'disposable' like a carrier bag is far more arrogant than looking into how we have influenced it's climate, and wanting to perhaps make amends if we have done so. What right do we have to just up sticks and potentially go and ruin another planet? As a supposedly intelligent race, I think we have the capability to assess our actions and behaviours and amend them where we can see we have done harm. If we hadn't done that in the past, we might all still be cannibals or still at war or doing god knows what that we stopped years ago.

 

Anyway, far more interesting than talking about VAT eh?

[Wurzel]

I put you in the category 'People I choose to know in real life' which means you automatically have my respect even if (as I obviously know before now) we have a different opinion.

 

You don't believe it is something we can control - fair enough - but there is, whether you or I like it or not, plenty of evidence out there to say that we certainly influence it. So at worst, placing restrictions on industry is IMO 'over-cautious', and with entirely honourable intentions. I cannot see how it can be called deceitful as that implies it is being done with entirely alternative motives in mind.

 

 

Fair enough, and nothing I say will change that, unless you choose to read up more in your own time. As you know, I'm not the kind to preach to others, I just provide links and information I have read, where it is welcomed, for others to judge on their own terms.

 

 

Well this is an interesting point - I actually agree that everyone who is potentially contributing should contribute to the bill but naturally a spotlight falls on industries that are deemed to contribute more to climate change. I don't think that is right - it is a far bigger problem than just those specific industries, and we all, myself included, use them and many other things that contribute. Every business uses electricity after all, and that has to be produced somehow, mostly with fossil-fuels, so it is wrong to only focus on certain industries. The key is, IMO, not necessarily to punish those industries or those who use them, but to help make cleaner alternatives more attractive, so that the decision to de-carbonise becomes a sound business decision, not a result of being beaten with the carbon stick.

 

As for light bulbs, there's plenty of decent ones out there now, so you buying crap ones is your own fault. ;-) We just replaced 4 x 70W tubes in the shop, with 8 x 5w LED bulbs... 280W of energy vs 40W... it's a no brainer from an electricity bill point of view, and the lights are fine.

 

 

 

Maybe we are, but what if we're not? To assume we're not is far more arrogant IMO, because it means we're essentially granting ourselves licence to do what we please, and sod the consequences. I'm just saying we need to keep looking into it so we know more. I don't think we'll ever have truly accurate predictions, just the best that we can come up with based on our knowledge at the time.

 

Like many things in life, it's one big risk assessment... if we wait for incontrovertible proof, it may be too late. Hence my 'precautionary principle' stance. Given that there is already a lot of evidence out there that support the AGW theory, what evidence would you require to actually convince you? Do you have in mind something specific? Given that you or I aren't experts, how do we decide when we've seen enough evidence to convince us?

 

And personally, I think the thought of treating the Earth as 'disposable' like a carrier bag is far more arrogant than looking into how we have influenced it's climate, and wanting to perhaps make amends if we have done so. What right do we have to just up sticks and potentially go and ruin another planet? As a supposedly intelligent race, I think we have the capability to assess our actions and behaviours and amend them where we can see we have done harm. If we hadn't done that in the past, we might all still be cannibals or still at war or doing god knows what that we stopped years ago.

 

Anyway, far more interesting than talking about VAT eh?

 

You type too quick for me

[Sheaf Saint]

Well look what's come along and well and truly butt f#cked the hand wringers while they weren’t looking…...

 

IPCC holding emergency meetings to try and cover up..i mean concoct an explanation to save face….Mass panic in the carbon credit markets……Governments making policy U turns……Sheez they only had to ask.....I could have put them straight years ago…..

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-breaks-all-time-record-for-ice-expansion-increasing-to-19-512-million-sq-km-and-beating-last-years-record-high-of-19-477/

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/arctic-ice-cap-growing-at-tremendous-rate/

 

So it seems the Polar Bears get to live another day....wait! ....Weren't they all s'posed to have drowned by now?

 

Stay warm peeps

 

Nice try George, but utterly wrong I'm afraid. The 'report' (I use the term loosely because it all stems from a 'Journalist' (again, term used loosely) in the Mail on Sunday) which claims the Arctic sea ice has grown by 60% and that the IPCC held crisis talks is completely discredited. The 60% growth claim is in fact a staggering example of 'cherry-picking data to support your argument', and the crisis talks did not happen.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

[Whitey Grandad]

The 60% growth claim is in fact a staggering example of 'cherry-picking data to support your argument', and the crisis talks did not happen.

 

There's plenty of cherry-picking on both sides of the debate.

[aintforever]

There's plenty of cherry-picking on both sides of the debate.

 

Of course there is, there is such a HUGE motivation for governments, companies and people to not believe climate change is happening, scientists have been trying to get the message across for donkeys years and people just don't want to listen.

 

Back in the 70's and 80's scientists were warning about climate change, that was years and years before the 10 warmest years on record (all since 1998 ) - maybe they were psychic, or maybe they just know what they are talking about?

 

Problem is this;

 

Scientists warm of climate change - No one takes the slightest notice

Scientists emphasise the possible worst case scenario to try and get the message across - people actually listen

 

Now, when the worst case scenario hasn't happened straight away the ignorant use it as an excuse to attack the science which is perfectly sound.

 

If you want to learn about climate change ignore the cherry picked data, politicians, headlines and the newspapers and read the scientific papers.

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ipcc-report-scientists-are-95-certain-humans-causing-climate-change-8843573.html

 

IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans causing climate change

Most comprehensive report on climate change ever leaves little doubt that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up

 

Scientists are more certain than they have ever been that humans are causing global warming, according to the most comprehensive report ever conducted into climate change, which predicts with 95 per cent certainty that people’s greenhouse gas emissions are heating the world.

 

This is the main finding of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fifth assessment report, known as AR5, which was published in Stockholm this morning.

 

The degree of certainty leaves little doubt that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for climate change and compares to a finding of 90 per cent certainty in the previous - fourth - assessment six years ago. This, in turn, was a significant increase on the 66 per cent certainty reached in 2001's third assessment and just over 50 per cent in 1995.

 

AR5 has 840 main authors recruited from 38 of the IPCC's 195 member countries, with British and American scientists making the biggest contribution.

 

At more than 3,000 pages, the report is so big that it will be released in three parts over the next 14 months. The first part, released today, covers the physical science of climate change. The second instalment will concentrate on the impacts of climate change and how to adapt to them, while the third will examine ways to curb the warming.

 

As with the other IPCC reports, AR5 is a synthesis of the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from the past few years. It comes at a crucial time in global climate change politics since it will be the last IPPC report published before the Paris summit in 2015, when the world's governments have pledged to reach a hugely ambitious and legally binding targets to reduce their emissions in a bid to limit global warming to 2C compared to pre-industrial levels.

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry backed the report's findings, and pledged action on cutting emissions.

 

He said: “Boil down the IPCC report and here’s what you find: Climate change is real, it’s happening now, human beings are the cause of this transformation, and only action by human beings can save the world from its worst impacts.

 

"This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians.

 

"It’s science."

 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said: "This new report will be essential for governments as they work to finalise an ambitious legal agreement on climate change in 2015.

 

"To add momentum to this process, I will convene a climate summit in September 2014 at the highest level. The heat is on. Now we must act."

 

The report’s launch today follows intense last-minute discussions in Stockholm last night to finalise the wording of the summary for policymakers.

 

Governments around the world are exercising extreme caution to ensure that the report doesn’t contain a significant error that could be seized upon by climate sceptics to discredit the research. The previous report in 2007 mistakenly claimed that the glaciers of the Himalayas were very likely to disappear by 2035, a point which the IPCC was forced to admit was wrong.

 

Last night’s discussions were largely concerned with how to present and explain the slowdown – or hiatus – in global warming over the past 15 years. This is a development which climate sceptics have used to further their case, but which the vast majority of scientists believe is only a blip in a clear long-term trend.

 

Scientists involved in the talks, said governments have been particularly careful about the wording of this report to make it as difficult as possible for climate sceptics to capitalise on any errors.