The IPCC instigated this fear-based mass-alarmism. That some governments aren’t falling for it entirely actually shows “democracy” may actually be working to keep some hot heads in check. It is sad though that even NASA and the White House have jumped on the scientific-credibility-undermining demagoguery bandwagon. in regards to changing climates.

“Rational and balanced” government policy ideally attempts to build upon what reputable scientists allegedly agree about. If the scientific community comes to a strong consensus and makes recommendations, it looks really bad when politicians ignore these recommendations. If a political body (like the U.N.), however, assembles a group of scientists to manufacture the impression of a strong consensus in order to further their personal beliefs and preferred policy changes… then, I think, we might end up in dangerous waters. Through concerted press releases and stirring up emotions, it’s easy to turn the manufactured scientific consensus into widespread manufactured public consent for certain policy changes. THE primary organization that is making recommendations, and which is being regarded as authoritive is the U.N.’s ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (IPCC).

In their own words: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm “The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

So, to summarize: among other purposes, one of the main reasons for the IPCC’s existence is “to provide the decision-makers with information relevant to human-induced climate change and options for mitigation.”

The KEY PHRASE of the the Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) of the last (2007) IPCC report, AR4 (Assessment Round #4), is that the IPCC declares a > 90% confidence (in the media often translated as ‘certainty’) that most of the observed warming over the past half-century is caused by human activities. In short:
According to the IPCC it is >90% likely that >50% of warming is due to human activity.

Then they proceed to attribute the antropogenic aspect to be primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions, in particular CO2 (carbon dioxide), but also NH4 (Methane) and NO3 (Nitrous Dioxide). And then from there on forward come the predictions and the policy recommendations. The seriousness of all the IPCC recommendations is build upon the authority manufactured by the “90% likely”, which is politically near-unquestionable.

The “over 50%” comes from tinkering with computer models, in which this value did a great job of corresponding with the warming of the second half of the 20th century. (Note: The computer model used considers climate variations caused by cosmic ray flux, and other possibly major parameters, as negligible, completely ignoring many recent scientific findings.). My question was: how did they arrive at the 90%? First thing I found out is that the “90% likely” or “90% certainly” are expressions of confidence. Second I found is that this expression of confidence what not arrived at through tests, calculations or statistics, but simply expressed “the expert judgment of the authors”. In other words, it reflects the subjective opinion of the authors about their own work. Since most people, expert or not, tend to be fairly confident when they publish something, this isn’t saying much, unless of course we’re dealing with a very large group of experts. So, then I wondered how many people we were talking about here…

There were 619 contributing authors for the IPCC AR4 WG1, of which 152 lead authors. It’s the lead authors that determine the confidence level. While 152 people isn’t exactly overwhelming, or particularly difficult to come to consensus with (particularly given the fact that the IPCC is by-invitation-only and the greatest expert critics of the IPCC findings aren’t invited), the picture is actually worse…

The” >90% likely >50% of warming is antropogenic” is arrived at over 3 chapters:
In Chapter 7, “Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry”, the link between greenhouse gasses and temperature is established. In Chapter 8, “Climate Models and Their Evaluation”, the used climate model is covered and Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, deals with attribution.

C7: Coordinating Lead Authors + Lead Authors: 18
C8: Coordinating Lead Authors + Lead Authors: 13
C9: Coordinating Lead Authors + Lead Authors: 9
C7+8+9 = 40 people

So, when the IPCC’s “thousands of scientists from all over the world” declared “in unison” their “consensus” that humans are “the main cause of the warming” of the climate over the last 50 years, it actually boils down to thousands of scientists and politicians having FAITH in the subjective confidence of less than 4 dozen “experts”. That’s all it means.

All the rest is demagoguery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967096.stm

I would suggest “Duarf.” As in “fraud” spelled backasswards.

You can always organise some Direct Action on her. As a socialist she surely can’t object to working people taking action on someone abusing a powerful position :p

Could be. But if it’s in the budget bill it means it doesn’t get debated. Different procedure. If it comes up in the normal way of things it has to stand or fall on its own.

The EPA angle is worrying, though.

evanmjones (02:07:19) :
Here’s a link. I was slightly mistaken: Obama didn’t do the decoupling, himself — congress did it for him!

But carbon caps are out of the budget bill.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2928-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m3d25-House-and-Senate-Omit-Obamas-Carbon-Trading-Market-from-Budget

However, this is but a temporary reprieve. The anti-CO2 steamroller will proceed down the legislative pike, as the Examiner article indicates:

“I think some may argue that the political economy of getting climate change done this year may actually be better outside of the budget resolution than inside of it,” said Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, in a press briefing this morning.

The budget can function without cap & trade, and the proposal can then be taken up in individual legislation.

“With regard to climate change, there’s already legislation that is being considered on the House side. The Senate is also active. The fact that it’s not treated in the budget resolution the same way that we proposed in no way means that the House and Senate can’t take the legislation up,” Orszag said.

With Democrat majorities and ‘moderate’ Republicans (including John McCain) on board, the only obstacle to draconian ‘carbon’ taxes and/or cap-and-trade (another form of taxation) will be the reluctance of Congressmen from fossil-fuel producing states to go along, and a strong public challenge to climate Alarmism by Realist scientists.

Next month Carol Browner at the EPA is going to promulgate rules to ‘regulate’ CO2 as a ‘pollutant’. The only thing that can stop her is legislation, or legal action by affected parties (that will be you and me, when they come after our trucks and backyard grills).

We need someone prominent, whom the media cannot ignore, who is willing to stand up and declaim, “CO2 is NOT a problem! STOP the madness!”

Who will that be?

/Mr Lynn

But carbon caps are out of the budget bill.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2928-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m3d25-House-and-Senate-Omit-Obamas-Carbon-Trading-Market-from-Budget

Which argument, and why does Hansen’s endorsement of Kerry harm it?

Phil. (07:38:23) :

Including the US Bill of Rights, see English Bill of Rights, 1689.

To the best of my knowledge, though, Britain does not have a “First Amendment” [i.e., the first of ten of our Bill of Rights] as referred to by Mr. Dias and about which my comments were made.

Actually it does, see for example “Human Rights Act 1998″.

Thanks for the heads up on the English Bill of Rights; I stand corrected. On recollection of history classes many years ago, this piece of information was lurking there somewhere in my memory.

I have only just now finished briefly reading through the “Human Rights Act 1998″ you referenced. So far I cannot agree/disagree definitively there is a First Amendment that is analogous to the US First Amendment in meaning and intent.

Just Want Truth: “One last question : is James Hansen a climatologist, or meteorologist?”
Adolpho : He is a revolutionary!. If the US Congress doesn’ t approve Cap and Trade he will make a ‘coup d’etat” :)

Ah, be fair. Hansen is on record that he does not want Cap and Trade. It is too slow in its effects. He wants direct taxation.

Soon he will need restraints. He believes he has the truth and will save us whether we want to be saved or not.

When there are plenty of other reasons to fire the [man]…oversight of deliberately falsified data, willful misrepresentation, malfeasance, woeful incompetence, megalomania, and insanity….the Hatch Act is irrelevant.

I think you are not distinguishing here between what he should be fired for (all of the above) and should be TRIED for (violation of the Hatch Act).

I am just saying fire him, not try him.

On second thought….lol

CHRIS
Norfolk, VA