The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth

Guest post by Indur M. Goklany


In an earlier post, The IPCC: Hiding the Decline…, I argued that even more egregious than the IPCC’s mistaken claim that Himalayan glaciers would be mainly gone by 2035, was the willful omission in the IPCC Working Group II’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the fact that global warming could reduce the net global population at risk of water shortage. That this was a willful decision on the part of the authors of the of the IPCC SPM is suggested by the fact that one of the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).”

In this post I will show that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. I will show that there are other sins of omission which are also very unlikely to have occurred due to ignorance of the impacts literature or careless reporting, and that it was probably due to a conscious effort to tell the truth, but not the whole truth.

Before identifying other sins of omission, I should note that over the years, our political leaders, e.g., President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, President Sarkozy, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today.  While there is no scientific or economic basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here), it does show that policy makers ought to be very interested in how the impacts of global warming compare against other problems afflicting society.  [Without such a comparison how could one know that it was ( or was not) the most important problem or issue facing humanity?]  Therefore, one would think that any Summary for Policy Makers would be eager to shed light on this matter.

Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Hunger

Among the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, (see page 28, Item A) was the following:

We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of CC; however, they also indicate that many more millions would be at risk whether or not climate changes. (see [sic] Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context. Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios. In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme.  [Emphasis added.]

To which, the IPCC writing team responded thus:

This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted. Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2 give greater insights into risks of hunger etc, with full confidence range from negative to positive changes.

But if we go through the current SPM, there is nothing that indicates that even in the foreseeable future, the contribution of global warming to hunger would be substantially smaller than that of non-global warming related factors. Any such statement would, of course, imply that, with respect to hunger, climate change is a smaller problem than proponents of drastic GHG controls would have us believe. That is, regarding hunger, at least, other problems should take precedence over global warming.

Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Malaria

On page 63 of Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, it is noted:

First, most of the information on these lines is based on Table 20.4. However, there are several problems with that table that need to be fixed; after that is done, these lines in the SPM should be fixed. The problems we have with Table 20.4 are the following:

A. Table 20.4 omits critical information that would provide a context in which CC impacts should be viewed. This information, which is also available in Arnell et al. (2002) — the same source used to construct this table — is the millions of people that are exposed to the stresses highlighted in this table (i.e., the population at risk) in the absence of climate change. This information should be included in an additional column. This compilation has already been done by Goklany (2005a) for the 2080s. It shows that for hunger, water stress and malaria — which inexplicably is not included in this table, although the data are available in Arnell et al (2002) — the population at risk in the absence of climate change exceeds the population at risk under the “unmitigated” or the S750 and S550 cases. This suggests that for these stresses through the 2080s (at least), non-climate change related factors are more important than climate change, and that existing hurdles to sustainable development would outweigh additional hurdles due to climate change (through 2085, at least). Reference: Goklany, I.M.: 2005a. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667- 680.

B. The implications of the relative magnitude of the populations at risk for the hazards noted above with and without climate change should be noted in the SPM (see Goklany 2005a).

C. This table only provides information on the millions of people for whom water stress is increased without providing a parallel estimate of the millions for whom water stress would be reduced.

The IPCC SPM writing team’s response was:

Text has been deleted and replaced by headline on page 18 line 16 and the following text. In particular, lines 25-29 in the old SPM, which were based on Table 20.4, have been deleted.

Table SPM-1 now presents broadly the same information in a more rigorous format. Full range of stabilisation and SRES profiles for 3 time slices are shown, together with examples of impacts related to various temperature changes.

And if one looks at the current SPM or Table 20.4 in the IPCC WG II report, it is silent on the fact that impacts analyses show that through the foreseeable future:

  • The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,
  • The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,
  • Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.

Noting these results from global impacts analyses would have undermined the case for drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions.

What’s truly remarkable about the above-noted comments on the SOD is that they are based on work done by Parry, Arnell, and their colleagues. But Parry was the Chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, and both were on the writing team for the SPM!  It wasn’t as if the comment was saying anything that they didn’t already know, since it was all based on their papers (and, in fact, had been brought to their attention a few times previously – but that is another story ). What seems to have been lacking was candor. Perhaps they didn’t want to get crossways with their political masters.  But if that was the case, what function does the SPM serve other than rubber stamp political leanings?

Regardless, they committed sins of omissions and, it seems, with due deliberation.

The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth

Indur M. Goklany

In an earlier post, The IPCC: Hiding the Decline…, I argued that even more egregious than the IPCC’s mistaken claim that Himalayan glaciers would be mainly gone by 2035, was the willful omission in the IPCC Working Group II’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the fact that global warming could reduce the net global population at risk of water shortage. That this was a willful decision on the part of the authors of the of the IPCC SPM is suggested by the fact that one of the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).”

In this post I will show that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. I will show that there are other sins of omission which are also very unlikely to have occurred due to ignorance of the impacts literature or careless reporting, and that it was probably due to a conscious effort to tell the truth, but not the whole truth.

Before identifying other sins of omission, I should note that over the years, our political leaders, e.g., President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, President Sarkozy, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today.  While there is no scientific or economic basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here), it does show that policy makers ought to be very interested in how the impacts of global warming compare against other problems afflicting society.  [Without such a comparison how could one know that it was ( or was not) the most important problem or issue facing humanity?]  Therefore, one would think that any Summary for Policy Makers would be eager to shed light on this matter.

Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Hunger

Among the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, (see page 28, Item A) was the following:

We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of CC; however, they also indicate that many more millions would be at risk whether or not climate changes. (see [sic] Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context. Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios. In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme.  [Emphasis added.]

To which, the IPCC writing team responded thus:

This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted. Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2 give greater insights into risks of hunger etc, with full confidence range from negative to positive changes.

But if we go through the current SPM, there is nothing that indicates that even in the foreseeable future, the contribution of global warming to hunger would be substantially smaller than that of non-global warming related factors. Any such statement would, of course, imply that, with respect to hunger, climate change is a smaller problem than proponents of drastic GHG controls would have us believe. That is, regarding hunger, at least, other problems should take precedence over global warming.

Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Malaria

On page 63 of Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, it is noted:

First, most of the information on these lines is based on Table 20.4. However, there are several problems with that table that need to be fixed; after that is done, these lines in the SPM should be fixed. The problems we have with Table 20.4 are the following:

A. Table 20.4 omits critical information that would provide a context in which CC impacts should be viewed. This information, which is also available in Arnell et al. (2002) — the same source used to construct this table — is the millions of people that are exposed to the stresses highlighted in this table (i.e., the population at risk) in the absence of climate change. This information should be included in an additional column. This compilation has already been done by Goklany (2005a) for the 2080s. It shows that for hunger, water stress and malaria — which inexplicably is not included in this table, although the data are available in Arnell et al (2002) — the population at risk in the absence of climate change exceeds the population at risk under the “unmitigated” or the S750 and S550 cases. This suggests that for these stresses through the 2080s (at least), non-climate change related factors are more important than climate change, and that existing hurdles to sustainable development would outweigh additional hurdles due to climate change (through 2085, at least). Reference: Goklany, I.M.: 2005a. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667- 680.

B. The implications of the relative magnitude of the populations at risk for the hazards noted above with and without climate change should be noted in the SPM (see Goklany 2005a).

C. This table only provides information on the millions of people for whom water stress is increased without providing a parallel estimate of the millions for whom water stress would be reduced.

The IPCC SPM writing team’s response was:

Text has been deleted and replaced by headline on page 18 line 16 and the following text. In particular, lines 25-29 in the old SPM, which were based on Table 20.4, have been deleted.

Table SPM-1 now presents broadly the same information in a more rigorous format. Full range of stabilisation and SRES profiles for 3 time slices are shown, together with examples of impacts related to various temperature changes.

And if one looks at the current SPM or Table 20.4 in the IPCC WG II report, it is silent on the fact that impacts analyses show that through the foreseeable future:

· The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,

· The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,

· Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.

Noting these results from global impacts analyses would have undermined the case for drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions.

What’s truly remarkable about the above-noted comments on the SOD is that they are based on work done by Parry, Arnell, and their colleagues. But Parry was the Chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, and both were on the writing team for the SPM!  It wasn’t as if the comment was saying anything that they didn’t already know, since it was all based on their papers (and, in fact, had been brought to their attention a few times previously – but that is another story ). What seems to have been lacking was candor. Perhaps they didn’t want to get crossways with their political masters.  But if that was the case, what function does the SPM serve other than rubber stamp political leanings?

Regardless, they committed sins of omissions and, it seems, with due deliberation.

About these ads

163 thoughts on “The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth

  1. Will all those people saying that the IPCC is the authority in climate science change their minds? … I hope so!

  2. If there were saying that our quality of life was to increase due to global warming, then they wouldn’t be alarmist, be seen as saviors, and no one would want to have their babies.

    It’s all about crying wolf so that the population thinks they have the ability of protecting you from danger. I wish you made an evolutionary psychology article on why being alarmist could be an adaptation, and thus every alarmist could be seen as inherently biased.

  3. All of this tells me three things:
    - the ipcc has a clear agenda, overriding science, responsibility, accountability
    - many politicians are more than willing to just talk about historical challenges instead of working on their everyday responsibilities
    - Lomborg’s economical approach to get issues resolved in a rational order is the way to go, not ideology and propaganda. Politicians have to learn this lesson finally.

  4. Given the tight interconnections of IPCC with the “green bussiness” it looks to me more like not “sins of omissions” but crimes of fraud (without apostrophes).

  5. The IPCCF seems to be “truth stressed”

    Shortages of truth and disclosure seem to be pandemic.

  6. Which is worse?

    1. Emitting plant-feeding carbon dioxide

    or

    2. Omitting any reference to the beneficent effects of warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide concentrations

  7. The IPCC was never an authority on climate science, they had originally made that very clear.
    Gather information only relavent to “human-induced” climate change.

    “”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”

    Again, they have changed that.

    Now the same paragraph reads:

    “The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.”

    But their mandate did not change.

  8. I posted the following under – “Pachauri must resign – his position is untenable” but maybe here is more OT considering as Richard Heg just said “Sins of Omission by those who preach of Sins of Emission.”

    In 2008 NASA’s James Hansen called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”
    In 2007 environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”
    In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”
    In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics.
    In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”
    In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
    In 2007, an internal EPA E-mail threatens to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth)
    In 2007 a UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” .
    In 2007 a Virginia State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)
    In 2007 a skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor Excerpt: “State Climatologist George Taylor, does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
    AND – October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options:…..

    And there were many more but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting to see any of them rushing to the confessional.

  9. Global Warming cost the Minnesota Vikings a Super-Bowl Birth! I asked Danny Glover and he Concured. So there you have it, more evidence of Man Made Global Warming. Oh and Joseph Romm said the Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis was also caused by AGW………You can’t Make this stuff up. But the Alarmist do on a daily basis……….Sincerely (well partly Sincere)……..John….

  10. The sun has suddenly developed lots of sunspots, but because of the high levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, has also started to spin very very fast, causing the spots to blur into stripes. I don’t have a peer-reviewed paper on this yet, but it should be included in the next IPCC report as “grey” data. After all the camera does not lie.

  11. To Indur M. Goklany–
    You write:
    I should note that over the years, our political leaders… have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific … basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here)”

    So, in your opinion, the three links you supply at the end of this statement constitute a scientific refutation of the technical conclusions of the IPCC Fouth Assessment Report? Yes or No? And if no — then what do you mean by “scientific refutation” and why does that not apply to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?

    Looking at the links, I do not see what I assume you are suggesting. More details would be valuable.

    (Note to all: the ellipses “…” only remove the 1) the names of some political leaders, and 2) “or economic” because I am asking a question purely on the scientific — meaning natural sciences — question.)

  12. So, would anybody that ever believed our H2O would simply disappear please raise your hand? That warming causes malaria, please raise you hand? Or that warming cause the population to forget how to irrigate, please raise your hand?

    In my mind, it isn’t a revelation that the IPCC was blowing smoke up our (insert body orifice), but the revelation to me is that someone out there actually believed this tripe.

    Any of the above issues denies historical knowledge and proven basic science. H2O doesn’t go anywhere, it evaporates, turns to a gas(vapor) forms clouds and then falls to the earth again. And we, once again, enjoy a fresh drink of water. (Yes, an oversimplification, but true nonetheless.) Malaria? Sigh, even without modern medicine, we knew how to combat the disease. Check out the work the U.S. did while building the Panama canal. Any one following the warming issue should know that the risk of world hunger is greater by perpetuating the warming mythology and the various laws passed to prevent the alleged warming rather than real warming, which would likely result in more arable land, not less. (See Greenland and other similar places.)
    Anyway, that’s my rant for the day.

  13. When I was young and started studying medicine, we called them sociopaths. When the hippie movement and protesting began, the shift was toward looking at protestors as really having something. Hansen and Romm have an anti society agenda. Whether Hansen says we need to hurt coal company employees or Romm says warming broke the bridge and people with cars need to physically pay for the sin, we do not see science. They hijack some pieces of scientific info to justify their expression of “social justice” and the war against humanity.

  14. This is what we have come to expect from the IPCC, black and grey propaganda,some truth mixed with half truths mixed with lies and massaged data.
    Very little of what they produce in the way of trends,predictions ,guesstimates ,scientific”papers!,peer reviews,are factual ,repeatable or believable.
    IPCC have ,with the complicity of others,in the UN and in Soveriegn States,World based charities,greenies everywhere,tried to BLACKMAIL governments into spending amounts totalling Trillions over the years to mitigate a false scenario of Global Warming.
    To do this they have over years poisoned the minds of children with frightening predictions,and persuaded the feeble minded politicians to TAX US ,Triple our energy costs ,make us spend thousands on climatising our houses,increasing the cost of our food, and radicalising the poorest in the world into believing the Industrialised World is responsible for All their woes ,through CO2.
    CONSPIRACY is the only word thay describes this whole story.

  15. Global warming is real!
    Anthony Watts is not a scientist. Who are you going to listen to, a blogger or thousands of scientists?

    REPLY: Well at least I’m not an anonymous coward, using fake names and fake email addresses as you have. Note our policy page requires that you use a valid email address.

    adsfasvgsdv@yahoo.com that you used is not a valid email address, nor are the email addresses for the other angry missives you’ve submitted here under the bogus handle “someone”:

    2010/01/25 at 9:31am “OOOH! look! cold weather. See global warming isnt real its all a hoax. Oil companies are far more reliable that scientists.”

    2010/01/25 at 9:29am “Look at the overall trend, genius. Its WARMING!”

    2010/01/25 at 9:27am “Global warming is real. Read up on the science instead of listening to a blogger.”

    If you have something substantial to say, put your name on it, or at least use a valid email address, otherwise it’s the bit bucket for you. Note also that I don’t deny global warming has occurred in the last century, as you erroneously assert, but I question the primary causes, as do many here.

    Also, I’ll point out that Al Gore is not a scientist, yet millions listen to him. Are the few thousand people that read my blog really so threatening? Is everybody up there in Hanover as angry and as childish as you? You don’t speak well for your cause when you write the way you do. Oh and a final note, this particular post is authored by Indur Goklany, – Anthony

    [Reply to “Anthony Watts is not a scientist.” From my handy Mac on-line widget dictionary: Scientist: n. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. ~dbs]

  16. I’ve never been able to figure how a warmer world leads to more drought. A warmer world has less ice and therefore more water circulating in the liquid and gaseous phases. Sure, some places might get drier, but they will be outnumbered by those that get wetter. And some of the minority of places that get drier might be places that are already very wet.

    As for glaciers, they are a store of water – replaceable by reservoirs.

  17. Shouldn’t the headline be “More Signs of Omissions”?

    Just wondering, “sins” could of course be relevant as well. ;)

  18. They are called “lies of omission”. That’s when you deceive by not telling the whole truth. Sins of omission are a broader category. If deception is involved it’s a lie of omission.

  19. Alan Haile (09:08:04)>> I don’t understand why MSM publish these reports from private think tanks, whithout a big warning sign, like: “NOTE! This is based on a biased paper from a lobby organisation!”

    No matter what the opinions being put forth are, this should be mandatory.
    It’s almost like when advertisments are disguised as articles inbetween news.

    This happens all the time with Greenpeace and a lot of other NGO:s, here in Sweden also.

  20. The AGW followers reminds me of the Cargo Cult.

    So, the name Carbon Cult seems appropriate.

    Typical Carbon Cult, no sorry, Cargo Cult;

    “The inception of cargo cults often is defined as being based on a flawed model of causation, being the confusion between the logical concepts of necessary condition and sufficient condition when aiming to obtain a certain result.”

    hehe

  21. It went down this way: after howling about the terrible dangers of warmth, the CAGW-ers held their big do in Bali. Caviar and champagne in the tropical Blue Lagoon.

    But a hue and cry went up — if warm is so awful, why do you all prefer Bali? So the CAGW-ers next selected Amsterdam in winter. We’ll show those denialiacs that CAGW-ers have some integrity (haha). And they froze their rutabagas off.

    It’s all a giant farce. Fraud yes, but also farce, buffoonery, theater of the absurd.

  22. ” Alan Haile (09:08:04) :

    A new article from the BBC which I am sure you will find interesting. Apparently there must be no more economic growth or else the sky will fall very soon etc.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8478770.stm

    However they actually include a dissenting comment right at the end.”

    Send them to Beijing immediately to discuss it with the Communist Party Of China. And film it. That would be fun.

  23. Milwaukee Bob (08:24:59) :

    Your important listing shows the worst outcome of what misused science is causing.
    These are reminders of worst times, in Germany before ’45 and East Germany before ’89.

  24. Alan (09:08:04)

    That’s a good example. As Tom’s comment notes, NEF at least reveals their true intention. A psychotic lust for apocalypse.

  25. Alan Haile:

    I heard this piece on “Today” this morning. The guy quoted at the end of the article is right and economics is not a zero sum game. If “They” have more it doesn’t mean I have less, on the contrary, it means They can afford to buy what I want to sell them!

    And even if we were frying the planet with CO2, and seawater was washing 5 miles inland, it doesn’t mean the end of economic activity. We would sell more solar panels and wave-energy generators, and houses on stilts.

    The guy who wrote the article hasn’t enough imagination to think outside a very restricted box. How VERY 20th Century.

  26. Good piece, lots of new insight.

    It would help if you distinguished between your own words and the quoted texts, by indentation, bold or italic. I found it hard to work out, in places, the boundary between the IPCC responses and your commentary on them.

  27. I doubt anything will be done about this, except the UN will appoint an intergovernmental panel to investigate — the IPIPCC. (Pronounced “ip’-ip-kak,” which sounds appropriately like an emetic. ) Of course, this investigation will take 12 years, cost a billion dollars, and produce no firm conclusions.

  28. someone (09:27:34) :

    “Global warming is real. Read up on the science instead of listening to a blogger.”

    We have been looking for ‘the science’ but all we seem to be able to find are lies wherever we look. RealClimate lies, CRU lies, WWF lies, IPCC lies, lies, lies , lies. Just a pack of lies.

    It is indeed sad, I pity you.

  29. Remember:

    We live in “interesting times”, and in these times happen interesting things…
    Remember that everytime and everywhere, where it begins to smell fishy or rotten, everyone, almost inmediately begins to blame the other as the source of such an ugly smell.
    What should we do?….wisely….just buy more popocorn and watch.

  30. JonesII (10:21:54) :

    “almost inmediately begins to blame the other as the source of such an ugly smell.”

    People like that should buy a dog. Wasn’t me, must have been the dog.

  31. Anthony writes:

    I’ll point out that Al Gore is not a scientist, yet millions listen to him.

    FACT: What Al Gore says and writes is backed up by a 40+ chapter scientific report that took several years to write, is the work of hundreds of scientists and which references thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers to reach its conclusions.

    QUESTION: Do you have anything like that to back up where you believe the facts of the science genuine are?

    REPLY: Ah better living through trolling….are you referring to the IPCC report? If so, take a look around, its about to go down the tubes. -A

    UPDATE: Well Herman, or whomever you are, you’ve earned yourself a penalty box status. You’ve been switching around your handle and email address, a no-no here. You’ve been “Steve K” using a different email address. One of the great things about wordpress is that it provides reports on such things. Settle on one name, one valid email address- A

  32. Indur, there is no doubt that the entire AGW saga is a meticulously planned, managed and very nearly successful campaign. Its authors have used an ingenious strategy of weaving a multi-dimensional fabric containing layers of interwoven truths, half-truths, omissions, facts and fancies. I believe its authors would have anticipated a degree of skepticism and possibly even included a strategy to accommodate opposing “fans”. However I think that they were a little too cock-sure in their control of the MSM and underestimated the difficulty of controlling information via the web. They will learn from their mistakes and might even be in the process of slowly withdrawing, hence the rearguard offerings of dispensable pawns. No doubt their next endeavor, and there will be another, will have plugged the holes. The first obstacle though will be control of ALL forms of communication, especially the internet.

  33. In the word of real science the discovery that some of the data is wrong, deliberately or accidently, would lead to a reappraisal of the conclusions. In the world of ‘climate science’ as practiced by the high priests of Global Warming that is to be resisted to the last breath.

    Science v Religion

    Religion
    1. Not evidence based but consensus based. There are thousands/millions of people with the same opinion. Comfort in numbers.
    2. Does not change in the face of new or revised evidence.
    3. Believers always dismiss anything contrary with the view that it is overwhelmed by all of the other reasons to say it is true even if there are no such reasons. They generally don’t bother to look.
    4. Has holy scripture which cannot be questioned. Dismisses and ignores other writings which have not made it into the approved canon.
    5. Older writings have precedence over newer.

    Science
    1. Evidence based. Consensus does not equal truth because again and again a consensus has been overturned in the face of new knowledge and understanding.
    2. New or revised information demands a reassessment of previous assumptions and conclusions.
    3. Has to account for all of the evidence. Does not dismiss contrary views but aims to explain all apparent anomalies and special cases within the overall theory.
    4. Nothing is automatically immune to being reviewed and revised.
    5. Newer writings are often preferred to older conclusions because generally they depend on better and more up to date evidence.

    I submit that Global Warming fits religion better than it fits science. The fit are not exact but there are a few close parallels. For example the holy scripture of the Global Warming ‘Peer Reviewed’ literature. The canon is jealously guarded by the priests and acolytes of the creed.

    We have a good example with glaciergate. The attitude is: So what if this evidence is bogus? There’s a lot more evidence (where that came from?) so no need to question the ‘consensus’. Same with the lack of hurricanes, the recent cool summers, the northern hemisphere freeze up and record amounts of Antarctic ice.

    I expect we will get the same response from the true believers if arctic ice rebounds further this summer and even if glaciers start growing again.

  34. So, we no longer have to worry about droughts, malaria, extreme weather, himalyan glacier melt and sea level rise is estimated to be around 210mm over 100 years – nothing verry serious – so what then are we supposed to be worried about? What are we spending so much money on to avoid???

    The argument to “act now” has never been weaker, it seems they no longer having anything in their arsenal for alarming us and the case for adaption is far far stronger!

    Lets end this charade now before we are too comitted, in NZ we are already damned with a carbon trading system, end it before it happens to you!

  35. deniers suck (09:24:52) :

    “Global warming is real!
    Anthony Watts is not a scientist. Who are you going to listen to, a blogger or thousands of scientists?”

    Sigh, one does get so tired of the appeal to authority argument. But for the sake of argument, can you name at least 100 “scientists” that haven’t engaged in the “washing or homogenizing”(see fudging) the temp numbers? Or hasn’t used a modeling program that will bring you the same result regardless of the numbers input? Or hasn’t engaged in deleting or hiding data that didn’t agree with their hypothesis? The THOUSANDS, where are they? Who are they? And if they haven’t engaged or used these PROVEN fraudulent numbers or methods, how did they come to their conclusions? Did they get their conclusions from reading a WWF article? Please produce these THOUSANDS of scientists.

  36. Milwaukee Bob: “In 2007 a Virginia State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ”

    Fortunately that governor is gone from the state. However he is head of the DNC now.

  37. Herman L (10:36:27) :
    Have you not read the article you’re commenting about? The several articles recently wrote(here and several other places on the web and traditional media outlets) regarding the veracity of the IPCC report? You know, the one where they’ve admitting to entering information that was based on fantasy as opposed to fact based science?

  38. Steveta_uk (07:58:08) :
    Yea, he doesn’t look good today, but been feeling a bit blank for a couple of years now. Maybe send him a get-well card!

  39. The warmists love to accuse skeptics of being financed by big oil. But reading Pielke Jr on natural disasters and insurance, I was curious and looked on google, in Portuguese, the term global warming and the first suggestion was a sponsored link for a … insurance! (Allianz). Do the warmists do the work to increase insurance premiums on natural disasters for free?

  40. jaypan (09:58:27) :

    Interesting AND chilling comparison. A lie is a lie, “spoken” by fanatical despots and foisted (and believed by many) on local populations, or “published” by modern-day fanatical ideologues (and believed by many) on the world, they are still lies….. lies that result in millions dying…… which has always been my greatest concern, NOT that some or another political policy will turn on the Rule of Unintended Consequences and kill millions, but that one of those “believers” will be in the right/wrong place and in there wild-eyed fanaticism to sve the world from a lie – - kills us all….

    “SCIENTIST CREATE NON-BACTERIA THAT CAN EAT CO2 OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING”

    REPLY: Trees work just as well if not better. -A

  41. After reading Horner’s book “Red Hot Lies”, I have come to the conclusion that the IPCC/AGW is really after population reduction. Thier view of technology is as a threat to GAIA, and every soul born on the planet into consumer society is another evil polluter.
    I have oft posed this question: Are these people actually human?

  42. IPCC: “We have good news and bad news about global warming.”

    World: “OK, give us the bad news first.”

    IPCC: “Global warming will lead to environmental harm, financial losses, and excess deaths in some parts of the world.”

    World: “OK, now give us the good news about global warming.”

    IPCC: “No.”

  43. When you are fed poo long enough, you begin to like the taste of poo, and when someone tries to tell you there is something better than poo, you say “no thanks, i like this poo just fine”.

    I know people, that in spite of all of these revelations about scientific fraud and outright lies, still swear by the poo they have been fed and simply refuse to taste the truth, poo is just fine with them. Very frustrating.

  44. REPLY: Ah better living through trolling….are you referring to the IPCC report? If so, take a look around, its about to go down the tubes. -A

    You didn’t answer my question. I hear again the phrase that “The IPCC is all wrong,” yet none of the scientific minds behind that assertion have provided me with the report that proves that. So, you are making a prediction that some scientists are on the verge of coming out of the woodwork after two years in hiding and will present their findings that the IPCC 4AR is wholy and completely wrong? When can I see that publication? And who are these (with apologies to Steven Speilberg) “TOP MEN?”

    UPDATE: Well Herman, or whomever you are, you’ve earned yourself a penalty box status. You’ve been switching around your handle and email address, a no-no here. You’ve been “Steve K” using a different email address. One of the great things about wordpress is that it provides reports on such things. Settle on one name, one valid email address- A

    You seem to spend a lot of time worry about people’s names when they disagree with you rather than what they have to say. Send me an email and I will be glad to reply back to prove it’s a real address (after I finish gnawing on a bone I just dug up inthe yard).

    REPLY: The issue isn’t that of a valid email address, it is why do you need two personas? Which one is real? Why should we trust anything you say when you take on the role of a shape shifter online? People that I also agree with get the same treatment here, if you play shenanigans, you get the penalty box. See the policy page.

    I think you are unable to see beyond your own biases. When the scientist that made the report with 2035 glacier melt date admits they knew of its falsity, and admits they used it for political pressure, and then when you see NASA removing it from their web page without notice, and you see Lord Stern’s report quietly changed, you don’t need a peer reviewed report to see what is going on.

    Herman/Steve/person I feel sorry for your inability to grasp what is happening, and for your need to play games with your identity. Most importantly however, my answer does not matter, your opinion is cemented, and you can’t see beyond debating minutiae, such as your argument over the use of the word “more”. So discourse is a waste of time. – Anthony

  45. Here we have two more of the projected injuries due to global warming alleged in Massachusetts v. EPA invalidated, water shortage and disease.

    From the Injury section of the majority decision:
    “…significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and important economic consequences,. ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease…”

    In the last 24 hours four of the alleged injuries that were used to justify EPA regulation of CO2 have been shown to be invalid.

    1. Glacier retreat.
    2. More hurricanes.
    3. Fresh water shortages.
    4. Spreading disease.

    That should be enough for the Supreme Court to revisit the decision. But better to wait until the IPCC is discredited as an organization and take away the appeal to authority argument that carried the day in2007.

  46. TerrySkinner (10:51:43) : If the Climate Change Creed expects to succeed, it needs, right now, martyrdom, a lot of martyrs….

  47. Moderator:

    RE: Herman L (10:36:27) :
    “You’ve been switching around your handle and email address”

    And we have been wondering who these thousands of scientists are.

    We should have known they don’t exist; they are made of the same kind of fiction and lies as the ‘Herman L’, likely an astrophysicist whereas ‘Steve K’ is clearly a marine climatologist (whatever that might be). They have many hats, perhaps ‘Herman L’ is really ‘Bartholomew Cubbins’; he had 500 hats. Few more like that and thousands become easy.

    Lies, lies, lies.

    Where exactly is the list of names, titles and places of work for these thousands of scientists? If someone has the details please point me at them, I’d be worth a scratch under the surface at least.

  48. From my Insurance Industry perspective (good money, great job; it’s the last great people industry!) , companies like Allianz and Munich Re talk up catastrophe to keep reinsurance premium high (that’s the premium insurance companie spay to cover their own backsides against catastrophes that would otherwise bankrupt them).

    There’s no doubting that natural disasters are big ticket items to reinsurers, but it’s equally obvious that the potential costs in this sector are generally due to human encroachment on nature – living on flood plains, in the paths of hurricanes, building in countryside prone to wildfires and burns, etc. In terms of AGW they’d have a vested interest in the scare story to justify risk pricing.

    They’d be accessing the same research everyone else is though, and the IPCC reports would be much more likely to be on the desk of the climate team than a link to WUWT.

  49. I think the Germans ought to hear what the rest of the world thinks. So please do send your comments to the klimazwiebel (climate onion) blog link I just potsed above.
    IT’S IN ENGLISH.

  50. I’m starting to feel sorry for the true believers in CAGW.

    Must be difficult for them to keep the faith when their prophets of doom turn out to be liars and cheats. However, the good news is that they can turn the central heating back up and trade in the Prius for a decent SUV :-))

  51. Nihilistic Luddite sociopaths such as Hansen et al. (see Erhlich’s “Population Bomb” of 1968, review “Science Czar” [sic] John Holdren’s characterization of humanity as “a mass of seething maggots” [1974]) are the apocalyptic horseman of Copenhagen’s New World Order– a Green Gang of death-eating Climate Cultists bent on subverting global energy economies for their own benefit.

    Not only Pachauri’s indelibly corrupt, incompetent IPCC but the kakistocratic UN itself is ripe for dissolution. Since Dag Hammarskjold’s assassination in 1964, this organization has consistently acted in bad faith, under false pretenses, to exacerbate every crisis from Arab-Israeli conflicts to Cambodian and Rwandan democides, enabling rogue regimes from Iran to North Korea to threaten nuclear exchanges akin to Sarajevo redux.

    As global demographics crater, as Earth’s current Holocene Interglacial Epoch fades to Ice Time before a looming maunder Minimum, the very last thing anyone needs is a clutch of conspiratorial Warmist dolts profiteering at society’s expense. Climategate has already lasted much too long and gone way too far.

  52. Jeef (11:48:20) :

    There are a few insurance companies in the list of funders for the CRU. Shocking isn’t it.

  53. ” Gary Hladik (11:24:10) :

    World: “OK, now give us the good news about global warming.”

    IPCC: “No.” ”

    Gary, that was priceless. It would make a wonderful late night talk show dialog opening line.

    John

  54. The person posting under “someone” and other names is using the logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. I’ve tried to have a rational discussion with these people but it is impossible since their entire argument is based on those in authority are right, and if you disagree, you are wrong. No amount of contrary evidence that you present causes them to waiver.

    They believe that those of us who have not spent our lives professionally studying the subject cannot have any understanding of it at all and any contrary arguments we make are to be dismissed out of hand.

    Not in my world.

    I’m not a believer in the idea that without a PhD after your name, you cannot have obtained at least a general understanding of the subject.

    People earn my respect and become authorities on a subject because they make rational arguments which are proven to work in the real world. But they always need to be monitored and questioned to make sure they continue to deserve to be regarded as authorities.

  55. Mr.Goklany

    Thanks for another excellent piece. I always appreciate your analyses, perhaps because they tend to reinforce my personal prejudices on these matters. I have thought from the very beginning, intuitively at first but continuously enhanced as I explored deeper, that even if you were to stipulate to all the BS[bad science] of CO2 as a primary driver of global warming trends, even the most rudimentary kind of opportunity cost analysis shows that the planned prescriptions are exactly wrong.

    For me, the CAGW controversy has always broken down into GW[likely, but uncertainly quantified], A[arguable, but with increasing evidence tending toward unlikely], and C[almost intuitively obviously completely wrong].

    WUWT has been one of my favorite websites for a long time. It’s almost always educational, enlightening, and frequently entertaining. But I do find it frustrating at times that the focus on the statistical minutiae of the GW and A aspects the argument often misses the implicit truth that, given the lamentable state of our present observational tools, even the most rigorously conducted statistical analysis will still leave you with something that is more than several removes away from reality. Something which may provide valuable hints, suspicions and indications about what is happening in the real world, but is probably years or maybe even decades away from providing anything that could reasonably be classified as “knowledge”. Indeed, given the agenda driven distortions introduced into “climate science” over the last several decades, I think an argument can be made that, despite investing more than the combined costs of the Manhattan and Apollo projects in the effort, we are now further from actually “knowing” anything about the climate than when we began.

    This is frustrating because the kind of analysis you, Mr. Lomborg and others provide offers a more compelling, more easily understood, and therefore more devastating deconstruction of the CAGW charade than any breakdown of proxies, maladjustments, homogenizations, manipulations, etc. could hope to equal.

    Thanks once again for you efforts.

  56. “P Gosselin (11:47:14) :

    Now this is AMAZING:
    The German Spiegel magazine actually reporting on the shortcomings of the IPCC!!!! This is historic!
    I fell off my chair, rubbed my eyes, pinched myself a dozen times – and the report was still there! It really is from Der Spiegel.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673944,00.html

    and it’s written by von Storch, Roger Pielke and Richard Tol.
    von Storch is in Hamburg and Der Spiegel is in Hamburg. (and me ATM ;-))
    and this is the 2nd time von Storch writes for them. They seem to get along…

  57. someone (09:27:34) :

    “Global warming is real. Read up on the science instead of listening to a blogger.”

    Let’s see, the last ‘alarming’ glacial retreat on Mt Rainier happened in the 30′s, follow by an advance that continued until the late 70′s…then we had another retreat begin in the 1980′s.

    Conclusion…we had warming then we had cooling now we have warming and soon we will have cooling again. It’s called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Otherwise known as ‘natural variation’ or ‘the weather’

  58. Anthony:

    I hope you can “bounce” Mr. Deniers Suck. It should be noted that “words do have power”. Interestingly I’ve run into these types at my 5 “Atmospheric Physics” lectures I’ve given in the last 3 months.

    My standard response is to politely ask them to defer their questions until the end of my presentation. Result: Stunning silence on their part. Oh, I did have one fellow who kept asking me “You don’t believe in Global Warming??” I kept reciting the Apostle’s creed. (Much to the delight of several other people in the room.)

    I finally started asking in response to his persistent question, “What was the TITLE of my Presentation?” When he finally mumbled, “Atmospheric Physics”…I said, “Did I use the term ‘Global Warming’ anywhere in my presentation?” He answered, “I think so…” I pointed out my presentation NEVER uses the term. Then I pointed out, “Since I never use the term, I find your question a “non-sequitor” and it merits no answer.

    At this point the individual stalked out of the room saying, “I guess you just won’t answer that question…” To which one of the other bystanders said, “He’s got to be pretty dense. I figured that out when you recited the Apostle’s Creed!”

    Max

  59. A thought to ponder… We know that the CRU where actively trying to get funds out of Big Oil in 2000. Yet, we are the people they accuse of being from Big Oil to fund research.

    “…The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to
    get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer)
    just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all
    this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us…”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt

    “…I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference for 20th. Trevor could also make both days if necessary. By then we will have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?)…”

    “…Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re.
    >climate change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise
    >that potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term
    >actions. Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research needs
    >doing. I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try
    >to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. Uncertainty and risk
    >analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal…”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=167&filename=957536665.txt

    Why haven’t we had any articles about this series of obvious conflicts yet? They habitually accuse skeptics, of what they are in fact doing themselves.

    Its time to call them on being funded or seeking funding from Big Oil, the next time they bring up the topic. It seems they are guilty of being the loudest denier in the room.

    Jack Barnes who has never received money from Big Oil In Oregon

  60. I still don’t see how this report changes the fact that glacier are retreating in most parts of the world .

    Carry non blogging to yourselves folks but the fact is this is a non article ( just like the so called climategate) .

  61. A version of the story has appeared on Fox news. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/25/climate-panel-knowingly-inaccurate-statements-says-insider/
    foxnews.com isn’t exactly the nightly news on TV, but its building. Or as an earlier story stated, “growing legs”.

    BTW, I wouldn’t worry so much about Deniers Suck or Herman or whatever she wants to call herself. She(he?) hasn’t made a valid point yet. It’s kind of fun to watch a “CAGWer” invalidate themselves. It saves us a lot of time if we just let them hang themselves.

  62. PeteM (13:13:27):

    “I still don’t see how this report changes the fact that glacier are retreating in most parts of the world .”

    Out of approximately 162,000 glaciers on the planet, how many are advancing and how many are retreating?

    Or are you just giving your opinion and calling it a “fact”?

  63. Ahhh! Sorry all, that should have been – “NANO-bacteria” that eats CO2 out of the air and yes trees (and corn, and wheat, and…..) do work better and do NOT get carried away like some lab created “thing” could… now where is that article about some “scientist” doing… I had it here somewhere….

    got to get this mess organized – - before it eats ME….

  64. Jack in Oregon (13:02:02) :

    “A thought to ponder… We know that the CRU where actively trying to get funds out of Big Oil in 2000.”

    Jack;

    Trying to?

    They were started with money form Big Oil in 1974 and they have been funded by Big Oil to this very day. We don’t need to look at any emails, it is right on their own web site, in public, always has been. The believers simply choose not to look.

    At the bottom of this page

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
    It includes:

    British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
    The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
    Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
    UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
    Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
    Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
    KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’

    You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.

    This is all about making Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol more cost competitive.

    They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for, the results that you accept, and drive you to demand low CO2 products. They have the products you now want so desperately, and they are ready to deliver.

    The raw data, the computer models and the methods used by the CRU have not been released, only the results. The CRU does not do science; they are in the anti-CO2 business.

    I do not see a difference between this and Merck, their ‘researchers’ and Vioxx, the government and ‘thousands and thousands’ of doctors believed them, as did a lot of people.

  65. W. Earl Allen (08:19:41) :

    Which is worse?

    1. Emitting plant-feeding carbon dioxide
    or
    2. Omitting any reference to the beneficent effects of warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide concentrations”

    And that is the point, the benefits of (1.) are known and strong. Right now we have 10% to 20% more food worldwide then if CO2 was 100 PPM less. (read that again)

    Stated another way it would take 10% to 20% more land and water to grow the same amount of food at 280 PPM verses the 380PPM we now have. These benefits are known!!!

    The drought disasters are projections via disputed climate models.

  66. PeteM (13:13:27) This story and climategate, shows how myself and yourself have been intentionally misled. Did you read the e-mails? It showed many things that have been covered in many places including this site. Data manipulation, collusion, hi-jacking the peer review process, obfuscation and destroying data and documents, ignoring data that contradicts their hypothesis…ect. Did you read this story? Where the IPCC intentionally attempted to mislead the world? These are non-stories?

    Petey, at what point does it have to go before you’d say it is a story? Maybe if historical data had been manipulated to show warm…..no wait, that’s already been shown to have happened. What else is left? Petey, let go and come over to the light side. Put down the hate, put down the lies, and put down the guilt. Just let it go, man. It’s ok now.

  67. PeteM (13:46:43),

    How do you explain the claim that droughts will increase with global warming? Keep in mind that local climates naturally fluctuate, the same as always. But a warmer planet means more evaporation, which means more rainfall. Globally [which is the issue] a slightly warmer planet will have more precipitation, not less.

    And you still haven’t explained where you got this: “I still don’t see how this report changes the fact that glacier are retreating in most parts of the world .”

    …the advance of the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers, which contain more than 90% of the world’s glacial ice, completely contradicts previous predictions that warming would cause these glaciers to retreat. [source]

    Glaciers have nothing to do with CO2. The primary factor in glacier growth/retreat is precipitation [snow] at higher altitudes.

  68. J S — nice spin but I reckon your claim is simply making ‘a mountain out of a mole hill ‘

    What will it take for me to change my view — well perhaps polar icecaps not melting , glacier ranges expanding , spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating , ocean acidification, perma frost not melting , average global temperatures not increasing , .. irrelevant things like that …

    A few emails and a selective ‘cherry picked ‘ blogging won’t …

  69. Oh, and PeteM, why on Earth did you link to the Australian Bureau of Meterology site?

    I couldn’t find any commentary on Australia’s glaciers receding, even though it’s summer down here.

    QED – Australia’s glaciers are NOT receding.

    Or, maybe, Australia doesn’t have any glaciers.

    Why then the link?

  70. Kaboom — see J from Norway pointing out colder tha normal in some parts of the world …. and in other parts it’s warmer …

  71. PeteM

    I”m not trying to convince you to do anything other than check for yourself. Here’s a good read on those “few” (over 1000) e-mails. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
    Look, check out the work done here on this site. People from all over the world checked out the surface stations. Just look around and see what they found. It’s a big problem for anybody that would deal in climate. Thermometers setting by air-conditioners?? As far as I know, not one AGW alarmist has even mentioned fixing these kind of things. If you’re any kind of critical thinker, you’d have to ask yourself, why. They know the temps aren’t accurate and yet, they use the numbers generated by them as the final word. They dropped perfectly good surface stations from the database without any explanation. Now they’re doing a proximity trick that absolutely makes no sense, and you don’t even ask why?

  72. to Milwaukee Bob (08:24:59) :

    Have you got any of those references… ie web sites where these are quoted?

    I would be very interested in getting some of these off to our local mainstream media, and to pass on to other blogs

    Thanks

  73. James Sexton – Here’s how I look at this . Glaciers , polar ice , plants , and so on (entities who don’t read emails or websites ) are responding in a way consistent with a warmer planet .

    I don’t see why anyone pointing out there is a lot of information supporting the idea of a warming planet is an alarmist . ( I’m sure there’s some confusing data about smoking somewhere but I don’t hear the term tobacco alarmists )

  74. Just a note that this thread was picked up at the web site of the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus.

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/

    While the site is mostly devoted to religion & public life, it has references to Dr. North.
    The site has a lot of visitors, as Fr. Neuhaus got a half page obit in the Wall Street Journal. That was very rare.

  75. PeteM (14:05:55) :

    “What will it take for me to change my view — well perhaps polar icecaps not melting , glacier ranges expanding , spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating , ocean acidification, perma frost not melting , average global temperatures not increasing…”

    This won’t change Pete’s mind. When cognitive dissonance takes hold like that, it will require an epiphany for the scales to fall from his eyes. But for everyone else, let’s deconstruct:

    “Icecaps not melting”: What Pete is cherry-picking is only the North polar ice. The South polar ice has been steadily increasing at a faster rate than N.H. ice has been declining: click. And if the polar ice caps are ‘melting’, show us where: click. [This blink gif shows the "adjustments" made to the data - which calls into question the claim that global ice cover is decreasing]: click

    Next: “glacier ranges expanding”. Yes, they are:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    click6
    click7
    click8
    click9
    click10

    “spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating” Credible citations that Spring is happening earlier and Winter is occurring later, please – based on global data. [Don't forget to include the 2009-2000 N.H. Winter].

    “ocean acidification”: The ocean is not acidifying. Its buffering capacity is for all practical purposes unlimited. However, pH does fluctuate: click

    “perma frost not melting”: on a global basis, true. Again, the southern half of the globe is disregarded.

    “average global temperatures not increasing…”: True: click

    PeteM actually appears to believe all those things are happening. That’s the difference between scientific skeptics and true believers. The AGW believers don’t let facts sway them, while skeptics are happy to be convinced by the facts – as long as there is full transparency of all data and methods.

  76. Matt Kamp (14:32:07) :

    “The IPCC needs to double-check all major statistics they officially report, especially when it directly applies to a country (like in this case). A 15 year difference in estimations is quite significant.”

    Where is the data saying that the IPCC meant 2050 rather than 2035?

    This is just arrant nonsense, and just as intellectually bereft as the IPCC claim of 2035!

    Try harder, troll.

  77. PeteM (14:05:55) :

    What will it take for me to change my view — well perhaps polar icecaps not melting , glacier ranges expanding , spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating , ocean acidification, perma frost not melting , average global temperatures not increasing , .. irrelevant things like that …

    From this I take it that you would view increasing areas of the planet covered by increasing amounts of ice, later arriving Springs, earlier arriving Winters, and declining areas suitable for living things as positive developments for the planet. An interesting perspective, to say the least. Just a hint Pete. ICE IS NOT NOW NOR NEVER HAS IT BEEN, OUR FRIEND! Except for putting a nice chill on a bottle of Dom or very dry martini.

    Perhaps you can help me out. I’ve asked this question here on a number of occasions and have yet to receive a cogent answer, maybe you can provide one. If in the increasingly unlikely possibility that the Arctic sea ice does completely disappear at some point in a future summer, what exactly will be the catastrophe that will manifest itself from such an occurrence?

  78. Smokey – I’ve got to give you full marks for your determination to believe these changes are not actually happening despite the evidence .

    Luckily , it won’t matter what gets put in this blog because the reality of physical processes will have the last say .

  79. PeteM— I use the term alarmist because, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a case made that even if the earth is warming significantly that there would be all the doom and gloom predicted. In fact, many of the predictions are contradictory. Case in point, water. H2O doesn’t go anywhere. It’s either solid, gas or liquid. If it warms, then there is less solid H2O. But, more for the liquid and gas. So, it stands to reason that there would be more rain. So we can’t all live in a desert if we’re to have more rain. Follow? So, what then, about the “we’re all going to drown” scenario?(solid H2O occupies more space than liquid). It simply hasn’t happened like they predicted. By now, with the reported warmth, we are suppose to have island refugees. We don’t. In fact, if the glacial melting is going on as reported, then where did the H2O go? It isn’t in sea level rise. So, they were wrong. If they are wrong on this point, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we should examine all the other things they are saying with a more intense scrutiny? And when we do examine, we find all of the above mentioned malfeasance. Pete, we’re not all going to die because we’re a tad warmer. In fact, much can be said about the possibility of a much more pleasant place to live if it were to get warmer. Of course, then A generated CO2 would likely decrease and make us cooler again. (Less CO2 for the less energy required for warmth necessary for human existence.) When one really thinks about it, it’s a none issue. And that’s only if the earth is really getting warmer. With all the washing and homogenizing and proximity averaging, no one can say with any certainty that we are warming or cooling.

  80. PeteM (15:41:31) :
    “of physical processes will have the last say ”

    Which is why we await the results of the Cloud experiment at CERN.

  81. PeteM (15:41:31) : “Luckily , it won’t matter what gets put in this blog because the reality of physical processes will have the last say .”

    Hey, look! Something alarmists and deni– er, hereti– er, skeptics can all agree on!

  82. PeteM,
    Yep, glaciers are receding in GlacNP, but where’s the evidence that temperature is causing it?

    NatGeo story says the glaciers will melt 10 years sooner because: “Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model,” Fagre said. “What we’ve been saying now is 2020.”

    OK, GHCN mean temp for that area – Kalispell/Glacier in 1992 was 7.2C.
    Only hotter year since then was 1998 @ 7.5C, while 12 years were colder at 4.7C to 6.9C. That’s colder, not warmer. Let’s see … the NEGATIVE temperature rise was twice what was predicted???

    Actually the temperature of that area has been FLAT for the last 110 years. See:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020080900110AR42572779000x

    Hmm, now where’s the warming that’s causing these GlacNP glaciers to melt?

    Guess it’s just an anomoly, huh?, or maybe virtual temp rise?, or maybe the measured temperatures were wrong and we need to adjust the data to fit the expected result? Yea that’s it, let’s make it colder in the past and warmer now, so we can prove our theory that glaciers are melting because of global warming.

  83. At least PeteM is not one of the radical AGW religious. He seems to at least be calm and rational, even if he is in denial.

  84. Re: starzmom (09:39:36) :

    Gomer Pile’s bestest ever comment was, “Shazaam!”.

    Here’s a map of the current Northern Hemispheric sea ice coverage
    from Environment Canada:

  85. PeteM (15:41:31) :

    “Smokey – I’ve got to give you full marks for your determination to believe these changes are not actually happening despite the evidence .”

    Belief has nothing to do with skepticism. And what ‘evidence’? All you’ve given is your opinion.

    Give us some alarmist citations to deconstruct. Or deconstruct the ones I provided above, if you can. But baseless opinions mean nothing here.

  86. There is no bigger lie than a truth half told, it is in fact worse than telling straight out PORKIES (i.e PORK PIES = LIES….SPARE RIBS = FIBS…..RED MEAT = DECEIT…..BAD DICTION = FICTION )…..All rhyming slang used by Cockneys, Australians and Kiwis…and most of us really enjoy eating a good PORK PIE ! and washing it down with an ice cold BEER = PIGS EAR. I am not going to get into the rest of the vocab like SEPTIC TANK….TROLLY and TRUCK…..PONY and FLOAT…but you can all no doubt guess what they mean !
    At least we all now know that AGW is the BIGGEST PORK PIE SPARE RIB RED MEAT LOAD OF BS EVER TOLD !

  87. The only thing I find surprising about the rapidly toppling dominoes at the IPCC is that anyone is surprised about the true nature of that body being finally exposed.

    Perhaps the fact that it has “Climate Change” in its name is a clue to its purpose? Similarly, many of the professorial mouthpieces that spruik in its wake, not to mention the nominated government Ministers in many nations, also have “Climate Change” in their official titles.

    For those who value their handsomely paid jobs and enterprises in that long-burgeoning industry, the last thing they want to admit is any sign of absence of climate change, and therefore they can all be expected to remorselessly spin the message to suit their purpose. What more could we expect of politicians? Or university types, for whom internal politics about promotion, peer respect and grant funding is their daily fare?

    Despite the ugly name-calling that has often characterised the debate, initially from the pro-AGW camp and now, finally relishing their revenge, from the skeptical side, there is actually a common thread that unites all intelligent and reason-oriented minds: we want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    What we actually need is an IPC, an International Panel on Climate, a body that has no agenda other than to discover the absolute truth to the best of our collective ability. This issue is too important for any “sides” to carry the day. We have to know whether we are in trouble or not, and if we are, whether we actually have the capacity to avoid it or should instead concentrate our efforts on mitigating the effects. And if we’re not in trouble, the doom-mongers can all STFU and go and depress someone else.

    What we also absolutely deserve is the whole truth from our elected leaders. We need them to tell us why they have so enthusiastically jumped onto this bandwagon, for bandwagon it so transparently is.

    Is it about “world governance” as some suspect? Or is it about purely national agendas, currying favour with the green-inclined electors who in many countries hold the balance of power – first frighten the kiddies, then offer to save the world for them? Is it about wresting wealth and resource control from the Middle East? Is it about keeping a lid on China and India, to slow their inexorable march to the top? Or is it just a terrific new way to levy taxes on we poor mug punters who get to pay for everything?

    You may note that these are all cynical motives that I ascribe to our glorious leaders. Well, perhaps that’s because we’re talking about politicians here, and I personally find that’s the best way to deal with ‘em. And anyway, “a cynic” is merely an optimist’s name for a realist.

    It is perfectly possible that many politicians and climate scientists truly believe that we are in deep s**t, and that they are simply doing their heroic best to save us from ourselves using whatever means they have at their disposal. There is also absolutely no doubt that we need to find long-term solutions to reliable, high capacity energy provision, and fast.

    But please, all of you – Barry O’Barmy, Gordon Clown, Krudd, Angular Merkin and the rest – tell us the truth: what’s your game? We CAN handle the truth.

    And please, lay off the CO2. It’s harmless. Ask any plant. (You could get Prince Charles to do that.)

  88. It might be possible to enter a plea with a Lord. The Lord can approach the Crown but the Crown can’t take action. It none the less would a put the matter before the houses and be deemed of public interest.

    Cases bought before the court that are deemed of public interest are not subject to court costs.

  89. Herman L (08:43:48) :

    To Indur M. Goklany–
    You write:
    I should note that over the years, our political leaders… have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific … basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here)”
    So, in your opinion, the three links you supply at the end of this statement constitute a scientific refutation of the technical conclusions of the IPCC Fouth Assessment Report? Yes or No? And if no — then what do you mean by “scientific refutation” and why does that not apply to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?
    Looking at the links, I do not see what I assume you are suggesting. More details would be valuable.

    RESPONSE: First, Herman, you seem to be unclear as to what it is that the IPCC has done, or what it is that I claimed that they did. The IPCC didn’t conclude — nor did I say they did — that global warming is the most important policy issue or for that matter, “one of the most important” policy issues. They could NOT make such a conclusion because the studies they relied upon do not allow one to make such a conclusion – and the references that I linked to in the above show this explicitly. Instead the IPCC WG II report withheld information that would show readers, including policy makers, that other problems are more important to human well-being than global warming.

    What happened was that policy makers, ostensibly acting on the advice of their advisors/handlers, claimed that global warming is one of the most important policy issues, etc., despite the lack of any basis for this.

    Second, you seem to think that there is a scientific basis for the claim that global warming is (one of) the most important policy issues facing the world? Where is this scientific basis expounded?

    To my knowledge, the only people who have even asked and tried to answer this question are Lomborg and myself. And both of us have concluded that other things are much more important. And the funny thing is that both of us start with the general assumption that the analyses relied upon by the IPCC are generally correct, whether or not they are.

    Herman L (10:36:27) :

    FACT: What Al Gore says and writes is backed up by a 40+ chapter scientific report that took several years to write, is the work of hundreds of scientists and which references thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers to reach its conclusions.
    QUESTION: Do you have anything like that to back up where you believe the facts of the science genuine are?

    RESPONSE: Quantity is not a substitute for quality. And the problem is that there is a lack of candor in the IPCC’s WG II report, which is exacerbated by poor quality control (as revealed by the sections on Himalayan glaciers and natural disasters).

  90. deniers suck (09:24:52) :

    Global warming is real!
    Anthony Watts is not a scientist. Who are you going to listen to, a blogger or thousands of scientists?

    RESPONSE: This posting, although on Anthony Watts’ blog, is by Indur Goklany. I am more of a scientist than one who labels a dissenter a “skeptic” or a “denier,” thereby proving that (s)he simply has no grasp of the scientific method.

    BTW, you want to see good science, check out this link: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf.

    The surprise is that we have all these “scientists” using temperature data, without ever having checked the data quality. That’s not science. There’s more to science than being able to solve a mathematical equation or doing statistical analysis correctly. If one can do these well, it proves one is a good technician and has a good grasp of the tools of science, but to be a scientist one has to be able to bring the scientific method to bear, and that means being skeptical of everything — the evidence, the explanations, the conclusions, etc.

    KPO (10:43:35) :

    Indur, there is no doubt that the entire AGW saga is a meticulously planned, managed and very nearly successful campaign.

    RESPONSE: I am generally skeptical about conspiracies. But I am a firm believer in the power of self-interested individuals to self-organize into groups of like-minded individuals. In fact, that’s how free markets (in goods, ideas, etc.) organize themselves, as well as the various groups that congregate on the internet. Everyone who has bookmarked WUWT or RealClimate (or whatever) is, for example, participating in such self-organization.

  91. The morale of the warmists must be near zero by now. Time to kick em whilst they’re down (I’m not interested in playing fair with this mob)

    Thousands of us should click across to Realclimate.org and cut n paste the following…

    “The IPCC science is ROBUST” hahahha hahahah hahahahh hahahahah

    There is a thread titled “The IPCC is fallible..shock”

  92. @Bob Highland (18:25:06)

    Excellent, post, Sir!

    As far as I know, all of we “deniers” who are not in the pay of Big Oil or Big Tobacco, are rationalists and followers of logic.

    We are prepared to listen to sensible, coherent and verifiable argument on the science.

    We are not prepared to listen to appeals to authority, we are not prepared to accept the bland regurgitation of CAGW beliefs, and we are not prepared to accept propaganda from vested interests, falsified and deleted records, and other scientifically fraudulent practices.

    We are sensible people – provide us with the evidence, we will listen and consider. If the evidence is sufficient, we will change our opinion. That is what reasonably intelligent people do, when confronted with a viable and verifiable argument, which meets the criteria of logic. Indeed, to do otherwise would be symptomatic of insanity.

    If there is a verifiable danger to the Earth, which could be avoided, then we certainly want to know about it, and actively seek remedies.

    For all you trolls and apologists for the CAGW carpet-baggers, here is a challenge. Please formulate a simple, coherent argument, in similar fashion to the logical precepts of the Scientific Method, which you consider may be persuasive to those of us in the “denier” camp, and post it as a “guest” post or whatever.

    I am fairly sure that our host would consider a well-presented guest post from the Dark Side.

    Go on, knock yourselves out.

  93. Herman L (11:29:51) :

    You didn’t answer my question. I hear again the phrase that “The IPCC is all wrong,” yet none of the scientific minds behind that assertion have provided me with the report that proves that.

    RESPONSE: No one says that the “IPCC is all wrong”. But at critical junctures, it fails to give all the information, and in some places it is wrong.

    PeteM (15:03:54) :

    James Sexton – Here’s how I look at this . Glaciers , polar ice , plants , and so on (entities who don’t read emails or websites ) are responding in a way consistent with a warmer planet

    RESPONSE: First, I am inclined to believe that the world is warming. That is unremarkable, especially since we came out of a multi-century long Little Ice Age only a century and a half ago. The question is what portion of that warming is due to human beings, and of that, what fraction is due to well-mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2 (and that does not include soot, aerosols). If you don’t knowe the answers to these, then you have no method of knowing whetehr or how much good reductions in CO2 and other WMGHG emissions will do.

    Second, with respect to glaciers and polar ice, what fraction of the melt, if any, is due to well-mixed greenhouse gases, and what fraction is due to soot?

    Regarding plants, yes, plants are being affected, but so what? The fact that it is being affected doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily for the worse. In fact, we have more vegetation today than we had a couple of decades ago, and the biological world’s net primary productivity has increased. Not only does this mean more food for humans, it also means more food for all other animals that feed on vegetation (directly or indirectly). Is that a bad thing?

    Check out this link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/another-al-gore-reality-check-%E2%80%9Crising-tree-mortality%E2%80%9D/

  94. Smokey (17:36:49) :

    I’ve got to find more before & after pictures of seacoast to drive home the point:

    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm

    And the point is that
    a.) if there is melting of icecaps & glaciers runaway
    b.) I can’t see it in the ocean levels.
    Whomever did the picture of the Lost Coast in Calfornia was an intrigued person, who upon seeing the 1940′s shoreline, got in a plane and took another one in 2009.
    Even taking into account the tides, there is no evidence that sea levels have risen to eat more of the soil away from the land next to the beach.
    What global warming? What sea level rise?
    Gore is telling whoppers.
    I support you, Smokey.

  95. from http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm:

    A short time ago, [the interviwer, Eleanor Hall] put it to Professor Pitman [an IPCC reviwer] that the recent revelations have left the IPCC’s reputation in tatters.

    ANDY PITMAN: As far as I understand it, there is [sic] two paragraphs that have been questioned in a 1600-page document and I would like any of your listeners to have every written any document of 1600 pages long, two years ago, that after two years they haven’t found one or two paragraphs that they might with to rewrite.

    ELEANOR HALL: But these are just not typographical errors. These are errors of fact.

    ANDY PITMAN: Yeah, so after two years people have been going over that report with considerable care and have found a couple of errors of fact in a 1600-page document. I mean, we ought to be talking about the other 1599 pages that no one has found any problems with. …

    However we should be very clear on what the IPCC does. It writes a report that is fully open to external review by any of your listeners. They can each read over individual sections of the report and send in credible comments.

    We, each author, has [sic] to comment and reply to every single one of those comments. It is overseen by an additional independent editor and by government. So each government tries to pour over each of the statements to find fault with them and at the end of that process, future drafts are produced again with opportunities for external examination and feedback and you end up with a final report which in this case some people have found one or two errors with after two years.

    I reckon that is a standard that most organisations would absolutely celebrate.

    ELEANOR HALL: Well, you say they are just a couple of mistakes. You say they are not significant and don’t damage the reputation of the IPCC but how much ammunition do you think it has given to the climate change sceptics?

    ANDY PITMAN: Oh considerable but that is a very different issue. The climate sceptics, most of the climate sceptics particularly those that are wandering around publicly at the moment, don’t base their arguments on the science. They probably never read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. They aren’t writing papers in the peer review literature. They don’t update their arguments when their arguments are shown to be false so they’ll have no problem at all using this ammunition inappropriately and out of context to further their aims in exactly the same way as people did when they were trying to disprove the relationship between smoking and human health.

    It is clear that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing climate change but it certainly won’t stop the sceptics misusing the information for their own purposes.

    ELEANOR HALL: How much damage then do you think this sort of sloppiness on the part of the IPCC has done?

    ANDY PITMAN: Oh, my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them.

    All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily for no funding and no pay* whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job I think. They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.

    * from Prof. Pitmann’s own website: “2004-7 
Australian Greenhouse Office (for costs incurred as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $48,400.”

  96. deniers suck (09:24:52) :

    Global warming is real!
    Anthony Watts is not a scientist. Who are you going to listen to, a blogger or thousands of scientists?

    Mr Suck,

    I doubt you stuck around. I choose to listen to thousands of scientis…(From an earlier post of another) “My sources on AGW are worldwide, (not outside of mainstream science) and from far more PHD scientists then represented by the IPCC, which in the end (those who write the summaries at least) is a political body with many of the valid fallacies constructed by the critics of religion, equally present in this UN organization. I could quote from among peer reviewed literature, papers by Lindzen, Pielke, Christy, Spencer, Eschenbach, Scafetta, Myhre, Akasofu, Douglass, McIntyre and many others, all of whom have robustly challenged the dogma of a few cloistered warmists. These are not “big oil shills” as some try to claim, nor are they nutters. They are all eminent climate scientists who are showing that observations do not support the hypothesis that CO2 is significantly warming the planet, a hypothesis that is predicated on the false premise that historical climate has remained fixed for millennia, which is in contradiction of overwhelming evidence that temperatures were warmer than today a thousand years ago. I could point to 100 more papers that show that the medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than today – a mountain of evidence against the warmists broken hockey stick. Additionally these scientist are unafraid to reveal their methodology and data, unlike many deacons high in the AGW hierarchy. The fact that climate alarmists reject the Scientific Method means that they are political advocates first, and mendacious scientists second.”

  97. You like thousands… more than 31,000 U.S. scientists (over 9,000 PHDs) have already signed the OISM Petition, which states:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

  98. “prijo (11:25:14) :
    When you are fed poo long enough, you begin to like the taste of poo, and when someone tries to tell you there is something better than poo, you say “no thanks, i like this poo just fine”.

    I know people, that in spite of all of these revelations about scientific fraud and outright lies, still swear by the poo they have been fed and simply refuse to taste the truth, poo is just fine with them. Very frustrating.”

    More frustrating is your repetition of baby language rather than the usual Anglo-Saxon word.

    Have a nice day.

  99. I just read all the 600+ comments on the most recent IPCC thread on Real Climate and I can tell you it’s a relief to get back here, and find a bit of humour (as opposed to lip-curling sarcasm), civility (as opposed to – well you know what) and common sense and intelligence rather than swivel-eyed fanaticism, ranting and raving, and scarcely believable blinkered arrogance. One of the mods there remarked on the low quality of the dissenting voices these days – who can wonder, as no scientist who didn’t believe in AGW would choose to descend into that bear-pit. You’d be wasting your time, just to be insulted.

    Joking apart, it was quite frightening: but I wanted to see whether even a tiny chink of light was penetrating the glazed certainties of those self-appointed (and enormously self-congratulatory) messiahs. But not a bit of it – Gavin and his ilk still refuse to admit that there is any problem with what’s been revealed over the last few days (or weeks). Their followers continue to blindly believe in the ‘science’ of their computer models; and think that reiterating ‘it was just one typo’ over and over will silence all doubters (or ‘deniers’ as they persist in calling us). The IPCC can do no wrong – and if it does it doesn’t matter (it was only a typo, see…)

    What is frightening, is that they continue to have the ear of policy makers everywhere, esp in the EU, UN and most governments, and also in large swathes of the MSN; so it’s still going to be a long haul to counter their unremitting barrage of insult and dishonesty. Comment to one sceptic from Gavin: ” The IPCC does not argue for measures. The reports are policy neutral”. Yeah, right!

    A fairly typical comment, indicative of the general level of abuse, from Josh Cryer at 120:
    “I doubt that the majority of skeptics are publicly funded, however, it is clear that some of the make huge amounts of money through ad revenue (WUWT), and most of them are misled by lobbiests whose sole goal is to spread doubt…. [snip] …. I always say, and it’s really simple, if people have a problem with the data, then submit it to peer review. Lindzen and Choi (2009) show that if you can make decent arguments you can get through the peer review, so objections about corruption in the peer review are garbage, on the face of it. The fact is the vast, overwhelming, majority of arguments by “skeptics” are very weak and usually based on an intrinsic misunderstanding of the data, or a concerted effort to make stuff up.”

    And there was much worse…
    I need a bath, I feel like I’ve spent six hours in a sewer pipe

  100. Smokey (15:05:58) :

    You kill me with your “clicks”, Smokey. You really do.

    I bookmark all of your references but there are so many graphs and charts on my bookmarks bar thanks to you that I now need hire a secretary to organize them.

    Why can’t you be like the Church of the CAGW and just make your statements, vague, simplistic, and without content or substance?

    Or better yet, rather than address the specific questions at hand, like you so fastidiously do, why not throw out a few strawpeople (politically correct term) as easy diversions??

    It would certainly let me be able to go to bed earlier because there is less material I have to read.

    And I really don’t want to learn anymore anyways, because my scientific mind is made up by Big Brother IPCC, for me.

    I mean….Pachuri (or however the hell you spell it) says it is so, then it must be so, no?

    My scientific mind is made up, Smokey. Why do you muddy the waters??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  101. SteveK = Herman L

    deniers suck
    someone
    PeteM

    then PeteM quotes Herman L

    This is a troll daisy chain.

    One goal of such trolling is to take up blog space and put
    distance between semi-coherent and possibly logically linear
    entries on the thread.

    A second is to lower the ambiance of the thread by interjecting
    sharp, fallacious and spurious claims, then whipsawing back and
    forth between the trolling claimants.

    Regular participants on WUWT can expect this and other forms
    of trolling to happen more often as the MSM and blogosphere
    news disappoints all the young Warmistas followers.

    Do Not Feed The Trolls

  102. WOW! The CAGW crowd are quaking in their boots at the strength and funding of we sceptics. There must be very little behind their front. They feel victory slipping from their grasp.
    the times we live in are getting very interesting

  103. Sam (22:03:42)……lol, I feel your pain!!! I just got back from there. My comments are still in “moderation”. Sigh, and I thought I was fairly innocuous. The fact is, we can chase these assertions in perpetuity. Every time they charge that some glacier dying is proof we’re all going to die, they’re shown the assertions isn’t factually based. Or polar bears are dying, or penguins, or millions of species, or world floods or deserts or malaria or starvation or whatever depending on the dire prediction of the day.

    None of it matters. They have us chasing their tails. It boils down to THREE questions. The order is significant but is it 1 or 3?
    1. Are we getting warmer?
    2. Is it man caused?
    3. Does warmer matter?
    If the answer to 3 is no, 1 doesn’t matter, ergo 2 doesn’t either.
    If the answer to 3 is yes, 1 and 2 matter, but an entirely different issue.
    So 3 should be the first question? Not unless a warmer/colder environment was called in question.
    At any rate. To my satisfaction, or to any reasonable person(IMHO) Questions 1, 2, and 3 haven’t been answered to any certainty.
    I’m out of beer.

  104. R.S.Brown (22:44:35) :
    I know, but I can’t help myself at times!!!! Sometimes, they’re fun to play with.

  105. James, LOL! You have more stamina than me, my head hurt so after reading all that vitriol and garbage, I couldn’t be bothered to post! So you are awaiting moderation on RealClimate?

    I know I shouldn’t, but may I re-post this gem, which was put up on RC six days ago, with no comment from Gavin nor any of the mods, so clearly fits their ‘scientific’ criteria?

    From rosie hughes — 19 January 2010 @ 8:04 PM

    “27 “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all this fixation on get-it-right, got-it-wrong is obscuring the real issue: the truth is what we define it to be, and the truth is that mankind is a scourge on the planet. The sooner we can limit the right to breed, the sooner the planet will recover. If glacier data is a little incorrect but helps that effort, then the data is true in all but a very narrow and clinical scientific sense.

    Common people don’t really understand science. But they understand not having enough to eat and not being able to sit down on a too-crowded subway. if we can educate people not to reproduce there will be many seats and the fewer people will be happier. Indeed, as the capitalist economies of scale are reduced, the atisfaction from making your own clothes and embracing a low-carbon vegan diet will be so intense, reproduction will come to be seen in the same category as child abuse.

    I yearn for the day when i might not have been born! ” “

  106. @TerrySkinner

    The map between “science” and “religion” needs redrawing, because what really counts isn’t what the book says, but how people interpret it. Actually, what we usually call “religious” in a derogatory sence, is people who don’t know that they are making interpretations when they read. In effect, people who don’t question themselves and what they think. People who are not cognitively inquiring the nature of truth. People who simply take things as “given”.

    I want to labour thus point because you can find people with varying ability to inquire into things and their own opinions and interpretations, you can find people like that on both “sides”, both in religion and in science. Which is why the map between science and religion needs scrapping and redrawing. Some people take religious texts literally, but some take religious texts as an act of interpretation. They interpret the stories as a means of inquring into the nature of life. Of course, it is about the human condition, and it won’t be anything about how matter is affected by gravity—that is the domain of science.

    But note that some who take an interpretative enquring approach to myths and stories, it could be The Gita, it could be Shakespear, tend to revel in the mystery of life, which is to say, they delve into the feeling that they know that they don’t know. So they look at the world and feel awe. That’s a “religious” feeling. But it is very different to those who’s minds cam only take things literally and dogmatically, and as we see, we can find many “non religious” people, like greenie activists, who appear to be like that.

    It’s the dogmatic unquestioning people we need to worry about. Some of those belong to a religion but many do not.

    Sent from my iPhone (please excuse the typos).

  107. R.S.Brown – Wow – you really are paranoid if you think I’m part of some conspiracy / multi thread attempt to deliberately disrupt your views .
    For folks determined to accuse the ‘other side’ of bias / blinkered views / being trolls and so on you are certainly showing an interesting approach.

    Basically my view is that if the IPCC haven’t got it 100% right this is not a major problem that is being claimed by so many of the contributions on this blog. Curiously, that is how many of the people see it as well . There is a stack of other evidence ( some of which I have seen firsthand) showing the planet is warming . This is inline with the concept of GW due to greenhouse gas emissions ). The policy implication is obviously that the sooner we get controls on man made greenhouse gas emission the better.

    Also , as an outsider to this debate , the approach of hacking email sites , attacking IPCC individuals seems very sinister and reminiscent of tatics of less pleasant governments or organisations.

  108. Direct from Wikipedia:

    “In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an on-line-discussion forum, chat room, or blog with the primary intent of provoking other users into an response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
    (emphasis added)

    Please see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

    Troll + Troll = Troll

  109. PeteM (00:33:02) :
    There is a stack of other evidence ( some of which I have seen firsthand) showing the planet is warming . This is inline with the concept of GW due to greenhouse gas emissions ). The policy implication is obviously that the sooner we get controls on man made greenhouse gas emission the better.

    How would you know if you are wrong? How do you test that?

    Consider the phenomenon of synchronicity. How can you tell if it is merely coincidence? Many people become convinced by synchronicity and the implication of paranormal connections. Their coincidence is inline with the concept of the mind as a radio receiver, and not located in the brain. Do you agree that they are 90% correct ? The evidence fits the concept.

  110. PeteM:

    “There is a stack of other evidence ( some of which I have seen firsthand) showing the planet is warming .”

    Models are not evidence of anything.

  111. R.S Brown – looks like the speed with which you reach for the word troll for someone not agreeing with your view is , well , selectively onesided.

    Steffan – I think a better analogy is to consider smoking . If you find some individuals (say 10% of smokers) who live a long life without getting any unfortunate disease does this undermine the whole concept of smoking related diseases .
    I see the evidence as multi-sourced and not necessarily always100%

    Interesting question about how you test ? In the context of the ‘correctness’ of IPCC and its predictions – I really would prefer not to run the experiment ( ie – find out if putting greenhouse gases in to the atmoshpere has a bad outcome for the human species ).

    Looking across a range of indicators most are pointing to a warming planet .

  112. With so many inaccuracies being found on the IPCC reports, I wonder how long it will be before an insider on the IPCC Working Group will come clean about the way in which they have been directed to produce reports that are falsely framed to support the Gobal Warming scam. It must surely happen soon.

  113. Here is an easy argument that may help trigger critical thinking in a “believer” of AGW:

    The lack of terrestrial warming in the last 15 years has been said by IPCC scientists to be masked by cooling from natural causes. If cooling “powerful” enough to mask CAGW on such a long time scale can be natural, why can’t significant and prolonged warming be natural ?

    It is not logical to conclude that cooling is natural but that warming is man-made.

    In fact, IMO, this is one of the most crucial issues that should be specifically addressed in AR5 (if the IPCC still exists by then).

  114. Pete, you are deluded.

    The research demonstrates that the incidence of carbon in the atmosphere FOLLOWS warming, and which in turn follows certain cycles of solar activity (among other natural phenomena). This is a very simple concept whcih can be seen at its most graphic in – guess what – graphs. Coincidence is not cause.

    It can also be demonstrated that mankind and indeed nature as a whole flourishes when there is MORE carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and is liable to famine etc in times of cooling. Luckily more and more people are grasping these simple truths.

    We here are at a loss to understand why the CRU/IPCC/Met/NASA lot cannot face the truth of these FACTS and see that their notion of causality may be fatally flawed. We cannot understand why they continue to peddle misinformation about eg sea levels, glacial growth/loss, polar ice, hurricanes, etc etc. We’ve ALL seen a lot of the evidence; and we’ve all followed the dodgy manner in which data has been gathered and manipulated, and evidence cherry-picked etc etc. We have informed ourselves, from both sides of the divide, and come to certain conclusions as to which side is more trustworthy.

    You either read up on all the stuff (lots of it to be found here in the sidebars) or you go away. Posting your AGW opinions over and over with no back-up to an informed readership is bound to get you labelled as a troll. Sorry.

  115. Even in some German newspapers you can read the whole story about Lal, WWF and IPCC with clear details, somewaht very ney hear to write in contrast to the maistream.
    My fear is, that’s only to feed the journalists with the IPCC stories, and to hide behind the data and temperature manipulations of GISS, CRU etc.

  116. Francois GM

    “If cooling “powerful” enough to mask CAGW on such a long time scale can be natural, why can’t significant and prolonged warming be natural?”

    Because, when they remove the CO2 effect from models and run them again, they don’t get any warming. Ergo: CO2 causes all the warming.

  117. PeteM (06:31:46) :
    Steffan – I think a better analogy is to consider smoking . If you find some individuals (say 10% of smokers) who live a long life without getting any unfortunate disease does this undermine the whole concept of smoking related diseases .
    I see the evidence as multi-sourced and not necessarily always100%

    I’m not asking for the sake of analogy. I’m asking how would you solve that particular issue of synchronicity fitting the theory that the mind is beyond the brain. Does it mean that specific theory is correct? If I said to you, one day I happened to have a thought that predicted the exact time that somebody on the other side of the country would call me, and ten or so hours later, I sit by the phone, and wait and at the precise minute plus 20 seconds, the phone rang and it was them, would that synchronicity prove to you that the mind is non-local?

    I’m interested in how you think about these things. And incidentally that story is true.

    Then perhaps we can talk about smoking, where by the way, most smokers don’t get lung cancer. And those that do are considered to be a mixture of multiple factors, including genetics, diet, environment, etc. ie. it only fits partially, much like skeptics argue that CO2 only fits partially.

  118. Steffan – The scenario you describe suggests there is some transmission of information from what we (humans) would descibe as a future event to a past event . While this is something allowed by certain aspects of quantum mechanics one wouldn’t necessarily expect this to apply outside of the subatomic world .

    You could consider many possibilities covering everything from deliberate deception , unintended subliminal effects , a new form of information transfer , pure concidence, a special individual , a new scientific discovery and so on . You would construct a series of tests to try and determine which of these paths could explain the reported phenomena . Probably , a good idea to involve experts in the appropriate area to help develop and run these tests.

    Does that answer your point ?

    The point about smoking is that it’s not something you would chose if you wanted to keep the odds in your favour for a long and healthy life – even though we know there are exceptions . This is where I have a different view from many of the comments this blog . My point is that just because something isn’t 100% complete ,or cast iron accurate doesn’t mean you can ignore the range of information from multiple sources.

  119. Sam – No delusion here .

    - How about anotherr explanation , CO2 entering the atmosphere causes warming that releases further CO2 .

    - What a crass claim about being able to demonstrate that more CO2 is of benefit to humans and nature .

    - I notice you don’t mention ‘acidification’ in your list of disproved facts.

    - And about going away – I didn’t realise you were running a closed members only club.

  120. PeteM (12:53:09) :
    Steffan – The scenario you describe suggests there is some transmission of information from what we (humans) would descibe as a future event to a past event . While this is something allowed by certain aspects of quantum mechanics one wouldn’t necessarily expect this to apply outside of the subatomic world .

    You could consider many possibilities covering everything from deliberate deception , unintended subliminal effects , a new form of information transfer , pure concidence, a special individual , a new scientific discovery and so on . You would construct a series of tests to try and determine which of these paths could explain the reported phenomena . Probably , a good idea to involve experts in the appropriate area to help develop and run these tests.

    I agree, we would need to consider multiple possibilities and test them. But here’s the problem; whilst many people report instances of “psychic” events (I have, my friends have, so it must be very common), almost no-one seems able to reproduce these at will. They always happen spontaneously. So it is not possible to run controlled tests. All we have is:

    - evidence from multiple independent sources
    - evidence manifested in a variety of ways
    - evidence gathered over many years, even centuries
    - evidence which in every case is not repeatable

    And here I will draw an analogy with climate change; we can’t go back and test the planet in a lab controlling the variables. We can’t repeat the Earth experiment, we only have the evidence as it happens, from multiple sources. And we conclude that it “fits” a theory, therefore that theory is correct for practical purposes?

    By that token, the mind is indeed a non-local being which transcends time and space. Are people willing to accept that theory? It fits. Nothing else can explain it. Therefore it is the preferred theory. Therefore it is likely correct. May as well throw in reincarnation to boot.

    Yet such stuff is considered to be pure pseudoscience, mumbo jumbo, nonsense. Why is that?

    Regarding your point about avoiding smoking to increase life span, the problem with energy is that energy has extended our life span. More energy extends our lifespan. Now the BBC just did a programme about water, the finite resource, but made curiously no mention of desalination plants. Perhaps they require energy? Perhaps energy is needed more than ever for survival and life extension?

    CO2 is about consumption, but can we generate more energy than we do now, without fossil fuels?

  121. PeteM, I’m only too happy to remind you and everyone else of your
    initial entries on this thread and give comment on them directly:

    Topic: The IPCC and more sins of omission

    PeteM (13:13:27) :
    I still don’t see how this report changes the fact that glacier are retreating in most parts of the world .

    Comment: Unsubstantiated “fact” & off topic remark

    Carry non blogging to yourselves folks but the fact is this is a non article ( just like the so called climategate)

    Comment: Off topic while flaming the subject article

    PeteM (14:05:55) :
    J S — nice spin but I reckon your claim is simply making ‘a mountain out of a mole hill ‘

    Comment: Denigration of writer’s point – flame

    What will it take for me to change my view — well perhaps polar icecaps not melting , glacier ranges expanding , spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating , ocean acidification, perma frost not melting , average global temperatures not increasing, .. irrelevant things like that…

    A few emails and a selective ‘cherry picked ‘ blogging won’t …

    Comment: It’s 1,000s of emails. More off topic mewlings and another flame

    PeteM (14:17:17) :
    Smokey – yep more snow because it’s warmer which mean glaciers can grow (until it warms a bit more …

    But you’re not always so lucky .. ( perhaps a new name is called for this Park)

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090302-glaciers-melting.html

    Comment: Non-responsive in part and then leading far off the article’s topic of IPCC and more sins of omission

    PeteM (14:18:48) :
    Kaboom — see J from Norway pointing out colder than normal in some parts of the world …. and in other parts it’s warmer …

    Comment: Non-responsive Re: 12 Glaciers & frivolous finale

    PeteM (15:03:54) :
    James Sexton – Here’s how I look at this . Glaciers , polar ice , plants , and so on (entities who don’t read emails or websites ) are responding in a way consistent with a warmer planet .
    Unsubstantiated generalizions and a flaming kicker
    I don’t see why anyone pointing out there is a lot of information supporting the idea of a warming planet is an alarmist . ( I’m sure there’s some confusing data about smoking somewhere but I don’t hear the term tobacco alarmists )

    Comment: Unresponsive change of subject and faulty parallelism

    PeteM (15:41:31) :
    Smokey – I’ve got to give you full marks for your determination to believe these changes are not actually happening despite the evidence .
    A soft flame with unspecified “evidence”

    Luckily , it won’t matter what gets put in this blog because the reality of physical processes will have the last say .

    Comment: Flaming the blog… and smokey

    When you put them together they spell T R O L L.

    No more troll feeding.

  122. R.S.Brown – So what do you make of the following comments …

    “It’s all a giant farce. Fraud yes, but also farce, buffoonery, theater of the absurd.”

    “Must be difficult for them to keep the faith when their prophets of doom turn out to be liars and cheats. However, the good news is that they can turn the central heating back up and trade in the Prius for a decent SUV :-))”

    Are you sure you’re not being selective about who you decide to label as troll ?

  123. R.S Brown (I hope this isn’t a duplicate) — what do you think of the following comments ….

    “It’s all a giant farce. Fraud yes, but also farce, buffoonery, theater of the absurd”.

    “Must be difficult for them to keep the faith when their prophets of doom turn out to be liars and cheats. However, the good news is that they can turn the central heating back up and trade in the Prius for a decent SUV :-))”

    Are you calling these the comments of a troll ?

Comments are closed.