Newsbytes – the SREx feeding frenzy

From the GWPF, news about the current media feeding frenzy on the IPCC SREx report. Even Revkin in a Tweet (via Tom Nelson) thinks the coverage is “overheated”.

Amid overheated coverage of IPCC climate extremes…

[Revkin] Amid overheated coverage of IPCC climate extremes report, vital to note fine print (via @rogerpielkejr)

For example, this over the top article in the Detroit Free Press:

Get ready for more weather disasters, climate panel says

I really like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s handy gadget ala the Staples “That was Easy” button.


IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where “right” means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while. –Roger Pielke Jr, 28 March 2012

FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? [...]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.–IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.  –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4

Plans to force companies to declare the size of their greenhouse gas emissions have been put on hold and could even be abolished, the environment secretary will tell parliament this week, raising fresh questions over the government’s commitment to fighting climate change. –Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 28 March 2012

Did you know that Poland blocked new European Union emissions targets at a recent meeting of EU environment ministers? Are you aware that there is growing support among Eastern European governments to block any new unilateral climate targets permanently? The reason you may not have heard of this growing rebellion in Brussels is simple: climate policy is no longer a big item on the EU’s agenda and the climate mania is gradually coming to an end after almost 20 years. In the past, Poland’s intractable hostility to green unilateralism was greeted by universal protestation in capitals around Europe. Today, it is hardly noticed by the media while green campaigners have become elderly and limp. Other and more pressing concerns are taking precedence and are completely overriding the green agenda. It looks as if a new political ice age has ascended over Brussels. –Benny Peiser, Public Service Europe, 28 March 2012

QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh’s husband to begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal carbon tax. The showpiece of the Gillard government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is now in jeopardy, after Mr Newman yesterday pulled the plug on $75 million in state funding pledged for the $1.2bn Solar Dawn solar thermal project near Chinchilla, west of Brisbane. –Natascha Bita,The Australian, 29 March 2012

They are responsible for some of the [Australian] government’s most important policies – but staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits. –The Sunday Telegraph, 25 March 2012

Rich deposits of gas have been discovered under the rolling countryside of Melton and the Vale of Belvoir.Shale gas, a natural gas contained in rocks hundreds of millions of years old, has been found by geologists at the British Geological Survey (BGS), just over the Leicestershire border at Keyworth, in Nottinghamshire, as part of ongoing geological survey work. –Leicester Mercury, 28 March 2012

About these ads
This entry was posted in Disaster, IPCC and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Newsbytes – the SREx feeding frenzy

  1. RockyRoad says:

    Well, well, well…

  2. DBCooper says:

    ” …staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits.”

    Now that’s funny!

  3. The role of the press in today’s society is unchanged since the advent of modem printing presses ad publishing systems. That role is to provide the publisher with a profit, the large the better. Today instead of selling information they are selling entertainment dressed up as information. That Bull Shit button is more prophetic then I for one am comfortable with.

  4. Funny how FAQ 3.1 (firstly pointed out by Yours Truly) should kill any and all talks of ‘climate extremes’, and yet the True Believers didn’t even notice it.

    REPLY: I saw your note and read it, but was busy yesterday with a special project, by the time I got back to it this AM, Pielke and others were on to it.

    thanks Anthony

  5. Hoser says:

    Now maybe Ozzies can strap on the second one of the pair and get their guns back.

  6. John W. Garrett says:

    Borenstein— again. He’s an evangelical masquerading as a journalist.

  7. SPreserv says:

    Ah, but you all know how this will be played right ?
    Typical watermelon: “Oh my gaaawd, the deniers have infiltrated the IPCC and are influencing their work from the inside now !”

  8. zanasmith says:

    And of course, on the Weather Channel this morning was (I believe) a segment on disasters that climate change will bring about. And IPCC was noted in the top right corner of the screen. ::sigh:: I usually keep TWC sound muted while I wait for the local radar coverage, I base this only on the visuals, not the voice-over.

  9. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Well I for one always trust the UN.

    Why just this morning I had to dodge big chunks of falling sky . . . just like they predicted would happen. It was in some report “Global Warming causes the Sky to Fall”. Romm covered it, right?

    I think they predicted it, or read it on a blog or something, hmmm maybe.

    Right?

  10. Pointman says:

    When it comes to MSM articles deserving the BS button being pressed, there’s an embarrassment of riches …

    Pointman

  11. DirkH says:

    Dennis Nikols, P. Geo says:
    March 29, 2012 at 8:35 am
    “The role of the press in today’s society is unchanged since the advent of modem printing presses ad publishing systems. That role is to provide the publisher with a profit, the large the better. Today instead of selling information they are selling entertainment dressed up as information.”

    Sometimes I tend to overgeneralize like that as well but it must not be forgotten – there is always a significant market niche for real reasoned journalism, in the US, WSJ or Kirk Myers are notable exceptions, in Germany, Dirk Maxeiner.

    How anyone working at the NYT or the BBC can justify his existence though, is frankly beyond me.

  12. DirkH says:

    DBCooper says:
    March 29, 2012 at 8:26 am
    “” …staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits.”

    Now that’s funny!”

    Consultants? Is “escort service” a dirty word now?

  13. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Dennis: One little correction if you don’t mind. The only reason any publication is in business is to provide an audience for its advertisers. That is done by sensationism and telling bad news again and again and again. You can only tell good news once: “This just in – scienctists conclude world climate is safe and no climate catastrophes are in the offing.” NEXT ISSUE PLEASE.
    It’s now last year’s news and they must search for a new topic to sell more papers rather than riding on the back of a ready-made gravy train.

  14. vukcevic says:

    BBC Horizon did 1hr TV prog called Global Weirding on the extreme climatic events:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01f893x/Horizon_20112012_Global_Weirding/

  15. Alan the Brit says:

    Perhaps they found that ladder after all with which they can extract themselves from the hole they dug themsleves into? Perhaps! I can’t see Auntie Beeb leaving this for some time certainly whilst they put out Horizon programmes like the one the other night! Unless they are looking for a ladder too? ;-)

  16. Pat says:

    Every serious person I know who was a Warmist are now backing off on Global warming. Not one is pushing weather extremes as a symptom of CAGW. Yet we still have these alarmists pushing half-baked ideas that even Warmists know are simply false. What gives?

  17. Caruba-lies says:

    220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries produce a report. WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.

    REPLY: Yes, they had months and I’ve had less than 24 hours in my spare time. I note you are so sure of yourself, you have the courage to not put your own name to you insults. If you don’t like what we post here, then by all means don’t read it, nobody is forcing you to participate here. You know where the door is. – Anthony

  18. Alberta Slim says:

    Pat says:
    March 29, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Pat, they are either ignorant sheeple or watermelons.
    They wont change.

  19. TomB says:

    The AGW alarmist drumbeat of doom is increasing its cadence. At this moment I found on Yahoo’s main page:

    That global warming is on the very tippy-tip verge of becoming irreversible!

    http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-close-becoming-irreversible-scientists-173712450.html

    That we’re all gonna drown!

    http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-pin-down-historic-sea-level-rise-084616609.html

    That I should just shoot myself before the weather kills me

    http://news.yahoo.com/mumbai-miami-list-big-weather-disasters-150359548.html

    And, or course, the “all conservatives are anti-science neanderthals” hit piece

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/study-trust-science-among-educated-conservatives-plunges-133908205.html

  20. Unattorney says:

    Global cooling has demolished mankind in the past and will again in the future.

  21. Rick K says:

    Does this mean normal is the new normal?

  22. RobW says:

    From the CBC website today:
    Weather disasters will only get worse, scientists say

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/29/extreme-weather.html#socialcomments

    So Up Is Down, Black IS White, Warm IS Cold, Wet IS Dry.

    OK so now we know where the the Candian MSM stands on facts.

  23. DirkH says:

    Caruba-lies says:
    March 29, 2012 at 10:21 am
    “220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries produce a report. WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.”

    Give us a chance – give us the same funding those 220 scientist stand-ins get and a year time.

  24. Jay says:

    “WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.”

    Hmmm, I haven’t noticed jibber jabber from Dr. Pielke Sr, usually sound scientific analysis.
    Sorry Caruba-lies….your attacks sound more like jibber jabber than the usually thoughtful analysis and links found here.

  25. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits.

    The floggings shall continue until morale improves.
    We accept your gratitude over the professional floggers not being permanent staff at this time.
    -The Management

  26. Smokey says:

    “Caruba-lies” is a screen name for someone who doesn’t like Alan Caruba, who writes a daily blog:

    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

    The genuine Caruba seems pretty sensible to me.

  27. u.k.(us) says:

    There was a “sound bite” report on a major Chicago radio station yesterday, that indicated the IPCC was predicting more severe storms (they used the 2011 groundhog day blizzard as an example).
    PR, apparently, is not their strong suit.

  28. Robroy says:

    Caruba-lies. Dude, use the brain you’ve been given. Try reading some WUWT “jibber-jabber” you might learn something.
    220 scientists(shills), 62 Countries(money/power hungry governments)

  29. Dave Wendt says:

    Caruba-lies says:
    March 29, 2012 at 10:21 am
    220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries produce a report. WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.

    “Newsbytes – the SREx feeding frenzy
    From the GWPF, news about the current media feeding frenzy on the IPCC SREx report. Even Revkin in a Tweet (via Tom Nelson) thinks the coverage is “overheated”.”

    If one possesses the reading comprehension skills of the average 8 year old it seems fairly obvious that the point of the criticism in this post is aimed not at those who produced this work but at the usual overly hyperbolic coverage it is receiving in the mostly ignorant press. A number of the quotes included in the post actually give credit to the authors for including references in the report that again confirm that there is no discernible link between most of the extreme weather events under study and anything having to do with anthropogenic influences at this point. Although a number of comments consist mostly of snark, most are much more thoughtful than the media blitz on the topic of this report and for that blitz snark is entirely justified and probably overly generous.

  30. Jimbo says:

    Let’s hope that this finally puts an end to the hysterical screams about extreme weather events getting worse. I have pointed out to Warmists time and time again that there are no worsening trends. Yet, time and time again they wave their arms and tell me it is – without any evidence.

    It’s the same sort of screams regarding “a well funded denialist machine” without any evidence to back it up. The last person that tried to back it up is a self confessed liar and is under criminal investigation I think.

    I have just bookmarked this page for quick reference to the IPCC paragraph.

  31. vukcevic says:

    Caruba-lies says:
    March 29, 2012 at 10:21 am
    WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.

    Caruba, I suspect you may have people like myself in mind, since I post a lot, and it may be a jibber jabber, whatever that is, but remember ‘where there’s muck there’s brass’.
    This

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

    you will not find in any of academic submissions, in peer review papers, but it is as important, or even more so, than any of the ‘shaky assumptions’ you find there, since this is reality, and it was shown on WUWT first. It is important because it explains what the ‘220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries’ would dare not to tackle. Do have a go.
    And what is the explanation, again shown on WUWT as:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETGNH.htm

    And if you are one of the ‘220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries’ and in truth interested in science, than I don’t need to encourage or advise you what to do, but I suspect you are not.

  32. It’s Good News Week :-)

  33. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    I thought that was a simple misspelling and should have been “Carnauba-lies” as that wax is good for polishing CAGW-affirming “work” like IPCC Assessment Reports.

  34. katabasis1 says:

    Folks – I’ve been trying to work out how the usual suspects (the Guardian etc) could come to such apparently opposite conclusions to what the report actually says.

    I started casting around for press releases from Greenpeace, the WWF, FOTE etc to run a churn analysis. Imagine my surprise when I found the real culprit:

    It’s the IPCC press release itself and the Guardian et al are running epic cut and pastes from it:

    http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/srex/srex_press_release.pdf

    See what they have done:
    “Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate
    extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.”

    ^ This is being repeated verbatim across the more credulous media outlets. If you read the full press release, they haven’t actually mentioned the findings regarding an anthropogenic link. They just refer to “climate change”.

    See what they’ve done there?

    It’s horribly underhand.

  35. Ally E. says:

    It stands to reason that the alarmists will scream louder as people lose interest. It’s good. I like it. It means people will see them more clearly again, you know, the way a maniac stands out in a crowd.

    As for MSM, raging headlines along the lines of “IT’S ALL A SCAM” and “BIGGEST HOAX IN HUMAN HISTORY” would sell papers. A lot of papers. And just think of the multitude of criminals to look more closely at, week after week, year after year. The shock and horror of this multi-billion dollar crime could be strung out for decades.

    Hmmm… maybe they are holding out and milking the Catastrophe angle for all it’s worth first, saving the Shock-Horror of discovery for later???

  36. Hugh Pepper says:

    Benny Peiser, writing from the UK, I presume, reports that Poland, and other countries in Eastern Europe are objecting to the EU plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 85 to 90%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050, Peiser doesn’t give any details, but this is what the Poles are objecting to. They are not against the long term EU plan, but they have problems with the intermediate goals. They were the only country to object. (see the Huffington POst article, entitled Poland Vetoes EU Carbon Emissions…..)It should also be noted that Poland’s economy is based on coal.

    All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort. We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.

  37. Brian H says:

    Fred N.;
    Here’s another suitable one:

    http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=downer

  38. Wolfman says:

    Hugh Pepper says: “All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort. We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.”
    —————————–
    In reality, the economic basis of the “advanced” European technologies is dominated by rent seeking to reap government subsidies. Some countries are profiting greatly by exporting “green energy” while importing the much cheaper electricity produced by conventional means. In addition to the direct costs, “green” energy solutions seldom capture the whole cost of manufacturing, operating and disposing of the infrastructure required; and the ecological costs (footprints, waste products, habitat impacts, and destruction of wildlife) are not considered with the hostile eye given to conventional energy sources. This is true of electric automobiles, wind power and solar/solar electric–which seem to be the currently fashionable green solutions.

    One example of the horrible poor allocation of capital that is typical of the green agenda: A recent local (North Carolina) news article, touted the use of solar power by a poultry plant. It turned out the the cost of the facility was multiple millions ($15 MM?), and the annual savings in hot water generation costs were $250,000. The viability was from state and federal grants, ongoing tax credits, and subsidies from utilities who could use it to meet green energy goals. The project was proclaimed as visionary and a great example of a green success.

    IF the global warming predictions were validated, then use of many other technologies such as ground water heat pumps, nuclear power (including co-generation), thorium-based reactors, fusion reactors, materials sciences aimed at reducing the weight and energy required for mechanical and electrical systems, and many others offering more potential than the boondoggles currently being pushed.

  39. Streetcred says:

    DirkH says:
    March 29, 2012 at 9:31 am
    DBCooper says:
    March 29, 2012 at 8:26 am
    “” …staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits.”

    Now that’s funny!”

    Consultants? Is “escort service” a dirty word now?
    —————————————————————-

    In Oz, escort services are strictly reserved for union officials … particularly the health workers union.

  40. Follow the Money says:

    It’s all bunk, done to create a “fiduciary basis” for insurance companies to raise rates based on “climate change”.

    Why they go nuts with extremes is like why they go nuts polar bears or glaciers. The thermometers are not giveng them what they need, so they point the finger in the other direction.

    BTW, the commenter on the news “story” about conservatives and “science.” That kind of pr work is not really aimed at “conservatives.” It is made to shame liberals into conformity and non-questioning. It is also “rallying the troops” like agitprop. That is, the global warming money parasitizes the other fears of stupid things American conservatives believe in, (magical tax cuts, etc.) and presents questioning global warming as the same kind of error.

    Another example is Heyhoe, the evangelical. She is not really funded to convince the hicks that questioning the consensus is unscientific, she is funded to present the idea that someone is talking to the hicks. I.e., she presents the opportunity for American liberals to snark and sneer, a common way they inflict conformity on themselves. Kind of like how “conservatives” get into a huffy roar when anyone suggests the gunning down of a black kid who was trying to protect himself from a creepy stranger on the street might have a racist element, or at least the decision not to charge the gunner and let a court figure it out..

  41. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Hugh Pepper on March 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm:

    All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort.

    Yes, they have gotten much closer to financial insolvency, credit ratings at junk levels, and complete fiscal collapse than the US. They have advanced so far ahead of us we may never catch up.

    Benny Peiser, writing from the UK, I presume, reports that Poland, and other countries in Eastern Europe are objecting to the EU plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 85 to 90%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050, Peiser doesn’t give any details, but this is what the Poles are objecting to. They are not against the long term EU plan, but they have problems with the intermediate goals. They were the only country to object. (see the Huffington POst article, entitled Poland Vetoes EU Carbon Emissions…..)It should also be noted that Poland’s economy is based on coal.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/poland-blocks-eu-political-statement-on-co2-reduction-goals.html

    Poland Blocks EU Political Statement on Carbon Emission Reduction Goals
    By Ewa Krukowska – Mar 9, 2012 12:34 PM ET

    Poland, which relies on coal for about 90 percent of its electricity generation and blocked an EU declaration on climate policies in June last year, has repeatedly said it would oppose any more stringent climate policies than those already agreed. Poland also opposes any decisions on post-2020 goals before Europe gets more clarity on a global emissions-reduction deal that countries worldwide agreed to achieve by 2015.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-eu-environment-idUSBRE8281DV20120309

    Poland blocks EU efforts on carbon limits
    By Barbara Lewis
    BRUSSELS | Fri Mar 9, 2012 5:45pm EST

    BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Coal-reliant Poland on Friday vetoed European Union efforts to move further towards a low carbon economy, pitting itself against the rest of the 27-member bloc.

    Denmark, holder of the rotating EU presidency, has placed the environment at the heart of its leadership, backed by the Commission and the business community on the need for clear direction on EU climate policy beyond an existing set of 2020 goals.

    But Poland, which relies on carbon-intensive coal for more than 90 percent of its electricity, said it could not agree to any inclusion of milestones for future carbon reductions in an EU text debated at a meeting of environment ministers.

    http://www.wbj.pl/article-58495-eu-carbon-emissions-reductions-poland-had-no-choice-but-to-veto.html

    Warsaw Business Journal

    EU carbon emissions reductions: Poland had no choice but to veto
    19th March 2012

    Last week Poland stood alone in casting its veto against further cuts in carbon emissions. On Friday, March 9, Poland’s Minister of the Environment vetoed the European Commission’s proposal to cut the emission of greenhouse gases beyond the current 20 percent reduction goals now in place. Poland’s veto is the second in less than a year it has cast to block the EC’s effort to impose further CO2 reductions on member states. The proposal, if adopted, would have obligated Poland to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050. At present Poland is committed to reducing its CO2 emissions by 20 percent (as compared to 1990 levels) by 2020, together with the other member states.

    In reality, Poland had no choice but to veto the proposal. Poland relies on coal-fired power plants to produce nearly 95 percent of all its electricity. If the EU were to adopt more stringent CO2 reduction goals, Poland would be faced with the monumental task of revamping its entire power sector in order to achieve the more ambitious CO2 reduction targets. No other EU member state relies on coal to the extent Poland does to produce its electricity. If Poland were forced to reduce its CO2 emissions by more than 20 percent, it would have to shutter many of its existing power plants, as well as shelve its current plans to construct not fewer than 12 new coal-fired power plants within the next 10 years.

    Poland will abide by their existing committed goals for 2020, but refuse to commit to anything beyond 2020. You say they have problems with the intermediate goals but not the long-term EU plan. What plan are you referring to? That somehow, someday, many generations from now in the far-flung future of humankind, they’ll finally achieve a carbon-neutral economy?

  42. Retired Engineer says:

    Even better, you can buy the “Bad Science” (to paraphrase Teller & Penn) button on eBay, and from several other sources.
    I’m not about to believe the AGW crowd has or will throw in the towel, there is too much money and power at stake. The form and message may change a bit, but the basic thrust for more control will remain. As long as governments and various foundations continue to throw money at them, they will rake it in.

    For some unknown reason, Big Oil has yet to send me anything. Guess I’m not a big enough skeptic. A big problem, as I will need more batteries and candles when the EPA shuts down my local power plant.

  43. katabasis1 says:
    March 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Good work finding that. But it has always been the IPCC’s mode of operation to say one thing to a scientific audience and say another to the non-scientific.

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort. We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.

    What nonsense. Perhaps you should consider a career in real estate where you still might find a few mugs who’ll believe ‘You better buy now, because the price is sure to go up’.

  44. Allan MacRae says:

    Posted 7 hours before I read Roger Pielke Jr.’s comments on the IPCC’s SREX report:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/25/weather-is-climate-or-loaded-dice-or-something/#comment-938160

    Allan MacRae says: March 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Yesterday (Tuesday 27Mar2012) I had the pleasure of attending a talk and having lunch with my friend Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a veteran climatologist who has spent much of his career studying extreme weather events.

    Based on Madhav’s lifetime of work and my own research, I am confident that warmists’ recent claims of more extreme weather events due to alleged manmade global warming are false.
    I further believe these warming alarmists’ claims are not only false, but are known to be false by the claimants.

    These claims of extreme weather are not based on scientific evidence, but rather are a transparent attempt to fabricate a scary story to encourage further action to combat alleged manmade global warming, based on the current global warm temperature “plateau”, while trying to ignore the fact that despite increased atmospheric CO2, there has been NO net global warming for a decade.

    In summary, these claims of increasing “extreme weather” are false and fabricated scaremongering and have no basis in science.
    ____________

    Allan MacRae says: March 29, 2012 at 5:31 am

    BING! (Great timing by the IPCC, wrt my above post Thanks for the support!)
    Source: GWPF
    1) IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

  45. rogerkni says:

    “We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.”

    That might have made some sense four years ago, before shale gas came on so strong. Now we’re set for the next 50 years–there won’t be any rising costs of electrical production.

  46. TomB says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    …we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.

    In my experience, the cost of implementation of any technology drops – significantly – after the first adopters work out all the bugs and deployment becomes more widespread.

    But your hand wringing is well in line with your believe that feedbacks are positive.

  47. Caruba-lies says:

    “220 scientists(shills), 62 Countries(money/power hungry governments)” from Robroy.

    Insanity on parade.

  48. William McClenney says:

    Caruba-lies says:
    March 29, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    “Insanity on parade.”

    Shift the geomagnetic poles and we can settle on “agreed”.

  49. Samurai says:

    I think a lot of what passes for, “BREAKING NEWS:” these days, could more accurately be described as, “BREAKING WIND:”….

  50. Gene L. says:

    They have now identified all the issues so that research may begin anew, seeking ways to describe how this report was wrong and to use model output as evidence of more prevalent extreme events due to CAGW. [sarcasm ends]

  51. Gene L. says:

    @Fred from Canuckistan

    It was in one of their modeling reports… I think it was the one several years ago that also predicted severe weather in the central Ohio Valley each Friday in March of 2012.

  52. Joe Geary says:

    How do we square what the report actually says:

    There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.

    With what the IPCC press release says it says????

    Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate
    extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.

    This looks like the politicos at the IPCC spinning the message of the scientists again

Comments are closed.