Former UN Official says climate report will shock nations into action
John Gardner writes in with an entry from the “worse than we thought” department:
The IPCC seems to be pre-empting the growing skeptical science by preparing to issue an ‘its even worse than we thought’ report in 2013, according to a report in the Australian newspaper.
“The Brisbane Times’, which quotes Ivo De Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen talks. He is quoted “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,”
Mr De Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia.
“I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
Oh another IPCC report trying to scare us…how quaint.
Seriously, are they TRYING to make themselves irrelevant? Or do they think “crying wolf” really works out in the end?
So their solution is to lie harder?
I think this will have the opposite effect, as clearly things are not getting any warmer anywhere.
They have cried wolf too often, no one believes them anymore – even Obama is going to use the tax money for general spend.
The ship’s on fire and the rats have already left it.
The delusion continues unabated at the IPCC then. You would have thought that their past errors and ridiculous discredited reports would have taught them a thing or too? I guess the moneys just too good.
I see – it will shock political leaders to see just how craven, dishonest and desperate the climate science community has become.
It doesn’t matter how creatively you cry wolf when there is no wolf.
There needs to be a high-profile “anti-IPCC” report released at the same time, pointing to no warming since 1998, no sea level rise (tide guages) visible at all, recent warming attributable to ENSO alone, doubts about CO2 radiative effects and saturation, nonsense of ocean acidification, no CAGW in proxy record, Climategate, etc. etc…
Credibility approaching zero.
Either he hasn’t read the draft of the IPCC report, in which case he’s making things up, or he has read it, in which case he’s breaking the IPCC rules that say you should not discuss the contents of the draft.
For now, the inmates have overrun the asylum. The only way, IMOP, will be for them to freeze out. To chill out is not enough.
Political momentum, that’s all climate change has ever been about.
They are doubling down on the groupthink. Time to go Galt — it may soon be everyone’s patriotic duty to refuse to pay taxes.
The operative word here is ‘gaslighting’. When people skilled in gaslighting have their backs against the wall they automatically go on the offensive however brazen and incongruous it may be. I find this quite insulting, given the 16 year flatline in temps.
1st cry: “Wolf!”
(nobody sees the wolf)
2nd cry: “Bad Wolf!”
(people start asking ‘Wolf?’ but still can’t see it)
3rd cry: “Big Bad Wolf!”
(people start asking “Where? I can’t see it!”)
4th cry: “There is a wolf coming that is so big, bad, and scary, I can’t tell you about it right now!”
(people start asking “Why are we listening to this twit?”)
Hmm, I accidentally just finished reading the First Order Draft draft of the AR5 SPM, but given that the last two IPCC reports didn’t lead to political momentum or scare the wits out of everyone I am quite sure that this report will not do that either.
With the US re-election of a President, who desires to wield excessive government, all governmental (and international governmental)agencies will now take the opportunity to grab for power and money. Old problems will be brought back and upgraded and new problems will be trumpeted loudly as being the worst things ever to happen. The solution will be as ever: More Urgent Stories, More Fear, More pressure, More Tax, More Rules, More Laws, More misery.
There has been an ongoing counterattack since the leaks from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
http://drtimball.com/2012/climate-science-falsehoods-repeated-with-pr-orchestrated-
counterattack/
One example was the Shakun et al paper claiming the ice core record shows CO2 increase precedes temperature. The paper was dissected and rejected by three papers here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/shakun-the-last-i-hope/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/
The Shakun paper was published with a many authors in the journal Nature.
It will be included in AR5, but was published at a date that made “peer reviewed” counter arguments too late for inclusion. It will be presented as uncontested.
It appears De Boer has disclosed what he knows is going on.
That means they will be lying even more than in AR 4.
Hell with the global atmospheric climate, the global political climate scares the wits outa me.
In your dreams, De Boer.
With the re-election of Obama, you better be scared
I wonder what the forecast for the sea level rise was from the first IPCC for 2010 to 2020. How did that compare with what has really happened? I assume it wildly overestimated what actually happened. As we have seen with some recent sea level articles the data dont support the scare tactics.
If the Speaker of the House caves and submits as he has done on the budget for the last three years, then the USA may indeed respond to this new “crisis”.
“I’m confident those scientific findings” I’m sure that the blogosphere will quickley find flaws in those findings. I’m thinking Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm
He said superstorm Sandy may spur more Americans, and people elsewhere, to consider the risks of climate change, but warned: “It’s a bit like being shocked into stopping smoking when you’ve been told you’ve got terminal cancer.”
They do love bringing up cancer don’t they.
What sort of action seems appropriate?… Tying up and gagging IPCC authors?
Just askin’
Sounds like time for Climategate 3
If it is always “worse than we thought” does that mean that warming is increasing exponentially?
The more they howl ‘Doom’, the more ludicrous they’ll look.
Meanwhile, it’s the costs of “going Green (sic)” which are “scaring the wits out of everyone”.
Edohiguma says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:02 am
The ship’s on fire and the rats have already left it
I suspect AR5 is where the rats swim TOWARD the sinking ship – follow the money
Andi
What really scares me is that politicians take shifty buggers such as de Boer seriously – throwing politicians’ veracity even further into doubt.
Why the surprise? It requires no inside knowledge. Whatever the scientists say the IPCC report will be designed to “scare the wits out of everyone. Follow the money.
Ivo De Boer’s successor is Christiana Figueres, some of whose current financial interest are reported by Wilkipedia as including – Senior Adviser to C-Quest Capital, a carbon finance company focusing on programmatic CDM investments; Principal Climate Change Advisor to ENDESA Latinoamérica, the largest private utility in Latin America with operations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru and Vice Chair of the Rating Committee of the Carbon Rating Agency, the first entity to apply credit rating expertise to carbon assets.
A lady in this posiiion can command large lecture fees and Wolkipedia states that Ms. Figueres is a frequent lecturer on climate policy and negotiations at academic institutions including Yale University, University of Chicago, Georgetown University, College of William and Mary, and Johns Hopkins University; has recurrent public speaking engagements by invitation of the World Bank, Inter American Development Bank, Corporación Andina de Fomento OECD, Carbon Expo, International Energy Agency, UNIDO , LAC Carbon Forum, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, AVINA Foundation, Point Carbon, Environmental Finance, International Emissions Trading Association, PEW Center on Global Climate Chang, Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, etc.
Finally it is matter of pride that she has been trained and authorized by Al Gore to deliver his presentation “An Inconvenient Truth”.
“scare the wits out of everyone” … not
the alarmists, they’re already witless.
SOS~”same old s**t”
Just give me the headline and set on “ignore.”
Next IPCC report will ‘scare the wits out of everyone’
Seems reasonable since the folks promoting the next IPCC report appear to have already had their “wits” removed.
🙂
DemUNcrats.
Schrodinger’s Cat says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:36 am
Sounds like time for Climategate 3
Beat me to it by that much… :).
In general, the greater the magnitude of any claimed catastrophic consequence of global warming, the smaller the likelihood of it occurring. I have recently proposed a framework to rigorously and fairly quick way of assessing the quality of any new evidence presented to gain a proper perspective. If nothing else, it is a means of framing the critical questions.
WillR says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:36 am
“What sort of action seems appropriate?… Tying up and gagging IPCC authors?
Just askin’”
Don’t need to… just stop feeding them and they will leave. The IPCC like every begger animal will not hang around when its not getting handouts.
Well, isn’t “scaring the wits out of everyone” sort of the whole idea behind AGW in order to get people to buy into hundreds of billions of dollars into taxes to send money to the “right” people? Pretty much business as usual as I see it.
Would not read much into “brisbane Times” Just a cheap Australian rag newspaper run by the extraordinary Australian Greens IQ equals 0
Please do not scoff or think that anyone is going to change his mind just because we are plunged into a Little Ice Age or contrary scientific evidence is demonstrated. Once Mrs Thatcher started the AGW idea as a means of subduing the miners in UK, the conversations literally took on a life of their own. A supra-human organism was born and is now reproducing itself in all the ancillary conversations that it has spawned. Contrary evidence, crushing argument and refutation serve not to stop this colonisation of minds but to accelerate the rate at which it generates more conversations.
This has nothing to do with science any longer. It has escaped from politics and is now roaming the world, changing its terminology as it goes. The greenhouse effect and global warming are now embraced by climate change; weather has become conflated with climate and so on. I was informed by a UK politician that unless draconian measures are taken the ‘climate change will soon be spiralling out of control’. Note the notion that somehow in the past it was ‘in control’ and that soon there will be a state change – stuff about tipping points and all that – letting loose the forces created by man’s past sins to devastate future generations etc.
My point is that the AGW paradigm is unlikely to die out for several generations. As noted here and elsewhere, teachers and children are now engaging in the AGW conversations and once this language becomes embedded in everyday conversation, it will take generations for an alternative myth to squeeze it out. It will be adopted by other belief systems that can use it to fuel their fear engines so that adherence to its precepts becomes a moral imperative – and heresy will be interpreted as carelessness for the future of mankind on earth and punished appropriately – maybe by inquisition and persecution on earth and, as if that was not enough, in whatever afterlife is on offer.
Time for Atlas to Shrug….
Looking forward to see the reaction from IPCC, this was a rather high-strung claim, so how will they reply?
IPCC seems to be somewhere between a rock and a hard place in this situation; if they deny this or play it down, the sceptic side may gain from it. And if they don’t reply at all, they will look rather stupid. Surely this kind of extreme claim cannot have been a deliberate leak?
Hum, from some of the comments this normal IPCC junk it would appear that the sky is falling from all sides of the political spectrum. That tells me that no matter what is done by anyone it will be of benefit to the plutocrats of the world and no one else.
Its not their reports which scare me I find them hilarious. What scares me is how a corrupt incompetent organisation can be taken seriously?
In a way – I really hope it is ‘more stupid’ and unbelieveable than the last one. Look at it this way:
1) had the IPCC been far more ‘scientific’ in its predictions and pronouncements, we would never have looked into it too deeply (well, I wouldn’t anyway). The softly softly approach of removing cash from our npockets would have gone on undertected by the average man for much longer?
2) having made their past furore, without any subsequent real warming – any future furore will need to be backed up with actual evidence – I mean, it’s all well and good saying its getting warmer with pretty graphs and figures – but the more they claim and the less it happens, the more stupid THEY look.
3) the political backlash from all the wasted AGW scam money will be immense. Imagine in another 5 years, when we are severely ‘cold’ how the public are going to react at the mere mention of IPCC? The Occupy movement will be a mere drop in the proverbial ocean – and as for all those countries that use Carbon taxes – well, I dread to think of the outcry!
When you’ve got a one trick pony, you’ve got to depend on that one trick for all effect. Over and over and over again, only with bigger headlines each time.
Reality is likely to spoil Ivo De Boer’s wet dream – De Boer was the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen talks and is now a consultant for carbon trading.
Obviously the economic collapse of the EU and the US will dampen the enthusiasm for wasting trillions of dollars to battle climate change. Deficits do matter in the end.
As there should be observable cooling, followed by significant cooling due to the interruption in the solar magnetic cycle, the scientists that were pushing the extreme warming paradigm will have some explaining to do. It is rather difficult to convince the general public of extreme AGW when the planet is cooling. (There is a 10 to 13 year delay in cooling when the solar magnetic cycle changes from the most active cycle in 10,000 years to a Maunder minimum. The physical cause for the delay is the reason for the increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.)
The Arctic changes are scary. Greenland has lost 3000km3 of ice since 1995 (the ice-sheet was in balance before that) and the continuing collapse in sea ice volume is bewildering. This years huge surface melt in GReenland is a symptom that the mass-loss is continuing. It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans who think that the Arctic is not warming up!
I wouldn’t dismiss this. Obama’s reelection changes things. He is perfectly capable of using a report like this to gin up support for all sorts of save the planet legislation. Remember, he is a deep Goreite believer in global warming or whatever it’s called now.
Mostly it scares the remaining wits out of the AGW cheerleaders with how little it will spur anyone into action.
Appropriate action? How about public ridicule? Let Mann’s suit go to court. The process will require him to prove the insinuations against him are false, which he patently cannot do. His inability to refute the ‘libel’ will become a matter of court record, as well as challenges to his ‘Stolen Valor’ claim to be a Nobel Laureate.
The response is simple:
1) Scan the report for all grey literature and pull it and its associated claims out and hi light them as BS.
2) Take the remaining literature and pull in all the research which contests their conclusions but was excluded from the report.
3) Crowd source the writing of a contesting report, chapter by chapter, point by point.
Simple in plan, execution would take more time and effort obviously, but it’s very doable.
lie as much as you can — give the money so Obama can give it to the world.
How about the missing hot spot and other nice things…
“I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
With Western economies bankrupt for all intents and purposes, kept alive only by playing the big con game, good luck with that. Or to put it another way – we can all be Greek one day.
It doesn’t matter what the IPCC says. What does matter is that bankrupt governments all over the world need more money to give to their friends. Carbon taxes will be applied everywhere. Coal fired generators will be banned everywhere. There will be no “fracking” for gas. Electricity rates will skyrocket and capitalist economies will shudder to a stop. Western democracies will slide slowly into a modern form of fascism. We live in very perilous times indeed.
Climategate 3 – The Release of the Password!
Hmmm not so sure that this won’t have an impact
Whilst the science and statistics are flakey and get more so, the counter-reformation gathers pace. AGW is mainstream – remember.
IPCC is still highly rated in many circles. Sceptics are still regarded as odd folk. Nothing like a good scare story to pursue the agenda(s). And when was the last time you met a politician you would employ to do something useful? All I’m saying that being right doesn’t mean you are winning the argument.
Those who have wits so easily scared have suffered that loss already – on a very large scale across the political class. Those whose wits are made of stronger stuff will no doubt find further sources of interest, wry-amusement, anger and dismay in whatever comes next out of the IPCC machine and its associated amplification and exaggeration system.
Classic ‘climate science’ has always required that conclusions are reached before the ‘research’ is done.
So, Ivo De Boer is doing the correct thing by representing ‘climate science’ as it really is.
We all know the next IPCC report will be a hugely biased document whose sole goal will be that of supporting the gravy train of the obese, gross Global Warming Industry.
Translation of “New political momentum” = Increase funding for the gravy train.
Study explains slow down in global warming
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/07/3627632.htm
Lindzen has retired? Looking forward to WUWTV anyway.
it’s called self-justification. peoples’ minds have a very hard time accepting they are wrong, so instead their minds keep on digging a deeper hole; continuously convincing they are right. The only way to do that is to lie more in this case. The first step towards fixing this is acknowledging you are wrong. Nobody else can do that, besides the person/group. As long as they don’t then the more others -in this case skepticals- say they are wrong, the more they -in this case IPCC- is convinced they are right…
“I’m confident those scientific, er political, findings will create new political capital, er, momentum.”
I’m betting that AR5 will be more rational than a lot of people think. It took several years for all the garbage in AR4 to be debunked. In fact, it take several years before people started going through it systematically to expose everything from melting glacier claims to the use of gray literature to even beginning to understand that much of the AR4 science said something very different from the SPM, that things like their own LOSU pretty much stated that they don’t know the radiative physics to any great certainty, and that the models they used have widely diverging values for forcing by aerosols.
They’ll not have such luxury this time around. The blogosphere is now “running awake” and they know it. They’d be insane to engage in another round of trickery and obfuscation because it will be debunked this time in months, perhaps weeks.
Mind you, I’ve predicated many decisions in my life on rational behaviour by human beings, much to my detriment. Sigh. Guess we’ll wait and see.
Tim Ball:
You could be correct that De Boer knows what is going on, but it’s just possible that he’s doing what they’ve been doing with the SREX report: Pretending that it was really scary when it was anything but. That’s been fairly successful, at least in my country. If they’re going to hide the actual report behind a massive wall of propaganda, they’d better start now.
It won’t be long before the climate commissars try to pass laws to ban any dissent from the party line. What next? A climate inquisition with skeptics herded into ghettos by the sea and forced to wear a big yellow D…
Oooh! I’m really scared of bad computer modeling.
Just announced by AAAS:
Here is a September briefing of Congress by NCAR proposing a National Weather Commission
Wasn’t the last IPCC report full of “smoking guns” or some such nonsense that was supposed to shock nations into dancing to their tune? Sounds like the same old same old all over again… wake me when it’s over.
And to answer WillR’s question, “What sort of action seems appropriate?” The simplest action of all — stop funding the IPCC. Once the money stops flowing, the “climate crisis” will vanish.
Also just announced by AAAS:
Climate change and US and global security. Of course, we know the conclusion ahead of time….
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/climate-security-report/
Will all the graphs stop at 1998?
I agree with Randian striking.
But don’t embrace Randianism unskeptically for her naivete in matters philosophical, epistemological and scientific. Leonard Peikoff has turned it into a closely held cult not unlike “scientology”.
Look at who wrote it, somebody riding the Carbon gravy train. Choooo, Chooooooooooo!
Peter Hannam
Carbon economy editor
The “report is going to scare the wits out of everyone”, because only the witless will be scared.
You guys just keep the Constitution in mind at all times. Don’t let the Obamas abuse it, change it or destroy it. The constitution is there for just such an occasion as this: to protect you from those in power that want to bring you down. And yeah, Climategate III couldn’t hurt!
It’s been standard practice in my area of concern for a long time: if people are having difficulty believing ridiculous claims, simply come out with claims even MORE ridiculous … and then a lot of people, seeking the middle ground, will then accept the ridiculous claims they initially rejected. Eventually the “accepted folk knowledge” takes those initial ridiculous claims as simply being “irrefutable fact” since they’ve been repeated so often and since they obviously make more sense than the new and even crazier claims coming from the extremes.
I think the old saying went, “Ask for the stars and be happy with the moon.” ?
– MJM
report will ‘scare the wits out of everyone’
Andrew
It has been proved conclusively, beyond all doubt, that people will believe just what they choose to believe.
Just because something is “bullsh*t” doesn’t mean there won’t be a ready market for it!
Re:
I’m sure others here are as surprised as I am that there are any wits left to be scared out of the AGW crowd.
We must not fool ourselves. The US eklection result should tech us one lesson. People believe what the main stream media says. Immaterial of all the Obamin debacles, double deficit, 8% unemployment figure writ in stone, Benghazi, cronyism, Solyndra etc…… The lie was turned into a sort of ‘truth by the media. The people were impressed resulting in reelection of the one who is de-wealthing the USA.
I assure you that De Boer’s crying wolf will be beieved by the people, and exploited by the left-wing politicans scaring the wits out of the taxpayers and voters.
The media are funded by trillionaires such as George Soros who has practically singehandedly but succesfully financed the Lie. It is ironic that a person who fled communism, became a US citizen, used the free-enterprise system to become the richest man in the US and used that same money to scuttle the free-enterprise ship.
We need to get the MSM on the side of truth. Otherwise there is no chance of the truth coming out to the citizens of the democratic west, and the world will suffer. It is already suffering. Look at the EU, it is already financially destroyed. Next stop: USA; then the tyrannical countries will only need to bayonet the wounded.
Terror is the last remaining weapon in their arsenal. Reason and Science have fallen from their grasp. It is the costs of Going Green which really scares the wits out of everyone nowadays.
Antarctic sea ice is in excess of the norm and in the current group think is that this is supposed to be a good thing. Not if you live down south it ain’t.
Arctic sea ice is below the norm, which seems rather odd as Arctic air temperatures are around the norm so this has to be down to wind direction, sea water temperature or a combination of both. The Arctic ice deficit is where the North Atlantic ocean meets the Arctic Ocean, I have a feeling this is just a transient event and cooler water is now flowing into the North Atlantic but I am very concerned that pressure groups will try to make capital out of this current shortfall in Arctic sea ice.
To see what I am observing visit Anthony’s excellent sea ice page.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Once they’ve scared the “wits” out of everyone, it will be easier for them to scare the “crap,” then the “bejesus,” followed by the “living hell” out of everyone. There is a plan here…be afwaid, be vewy, vewy afwaid…
So, Ivo De Boer says the 2013 UN IPCC report is going to “scare the wits” out of us. What a fine guy. A truly magnificent human being. I mean, words to adequately express my admiration for his respect for us lesser beings cannot be found. I mean, c’mon, undoubtedly the Boer guy would have loved to have used the tools of argument, thoughtful persuasion, counter argument, debate, and discussion so as to instill in us a recognition that we must return to an era of want, hunger, short lifespans, and other minor inconveniences so as to save the earth and ourselves with it. But no, the Boer guy has to instead use the base primal emotion of fear on us plebs.
How that must pain him. And it poses a risk. If he’s going to scare the ‘wits out of’ us, he must guess how many wits that may be. The volume of wits may vary from one person to the next. He may scare an adequate number of wits out of one person, but the next person may have wits to spare. And if he extracts enough wits to deplete the highly witted person he may possibly over extract the lesser witted person. And this over extraction may sap energy that will have to be used if and when he encounters the super highly witted person, not to mention the super duper highly witted person. See what I mean? It’s quite an undertaking to scare the wits out of people. May I humbly suggest society devote its energies to writing a global wit change computer program. The least we can do is show mutual respect and help Boer guy out.
The latest issue of Scientific American, which arrived at my sister’s house the other day, has a five or six page article that is an assemblage of all the things that are “worrying climate scientists.” It’s a precursor of what we’ll see in the popular media in the aftermath of AR5.
OTOH, the Australian federal election is in February, and Labor will be replaced by a party whose leader has pledged to repeal the carbon tax, so that should put a spoke in the wheels of the would-be bandwagoneers. By that time, too, the wheels should be coming off the pumpkin in the EU (and its renewable energy fantasy). The skids are greeced.
Mike B. says: “The delusion continues unabated at the IPCC then.” Indeed it does! But that’s their job. They’d be unemployed otherwise. The whole idea is to generate alarm. Period. Who cares about the truth? Since when did that ever matter to the IPCC?
It’s time the IPCC took things to the next level, releasing a 20 year old report over and over again is not going to scare anyone.
Maybe a new chapter on the increased risk of a zombie apocalypse to add to the rest of the fiction.
Wow. Scary eh! Like Exorcist VI ?
Will de Boer twist his head right round through 360 degrees maybe?
oooooooooooohhh!! sacaaaarrryyy!!!
(pity we are actually paying taxes for this amateur rubbish)
The Brisbane Times? Never heard of it until now. Not a mainstream news organisation in Brisbane. Googled it- A Fairfax offshoot trying to break in but up against it apparently. I wouldn’t get my knickers in a knot over it.
Ken
The Global Left is now working overtime to crash economies via fear-mongered regulation and taxation, with the end-goal being global control of formerly sovereign nations. Power-mad Zombies will find their precious prize a smoking ruin.
Re an earlier comment by Rob Crawford:
It has been announced that a new Bruce Willis movie is in production: Lie Hard.
Without revealing too many details, a gang of Warmistas, led by one M. Mann, and his best butt-f’ing friend, Billy the McK, take over an Exxon office tower, demanding that the production of all hydro-carbons, world-wide, be halted immediately. Willis, who is in the role of a New York meterologist…
Its the last role of the dice they have no choice but to double down if their going to survive, for remember no AGW no IPCC.
The good news may be they will be so OTT that it proves to be counter-productive .
I wonder if the Chicago Carbon Exchange will be unshuttered. Al Gore must be champing at the bit. Screw those few hundred million…let’s talk $ billions.
I don’t understand how people would allow the Chicago Mob to control our checkbook, allow Holder to define what is justice and Jackson and to say the IPCC has proven CAGW is a fact and the earth will be destroyed because of that poison CO2.
Boggles the mind.
My wife said she would never vote for anybody who thought they had a right to control her body.
Boggles the mind.
cn
I am impressed with the knowledge of contributors to this post. So many errors pointed out and yet not one of youhaveseen the report. I think you could at least wait until you have read it before making judgements. Your are undermining the credibility of your arguments by going off prematurely.
Gondo says:
November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am
“The Arctic changes are scary. Greenland has lost 3000km3 of ice since 1995 (the ice-sheet was in balance before that) and the continuing …”
My dear Gondo, don’t be afraid. At the end of the last ice age, 50 million km^3 of ice melted when we numbered a million or so hardy folks and CO2 was about 250 ppm at the time. So lets see, 3000 puny km^3 is 3000/50,000,000, we have lost 0.006% of the big number in 20 years. The reason why people can get scared is they don’t do the simple calculations within the capability of everyone to put things in perspective – its a big big world out there. The alarmists know this will scare you. Oh yeah and sea level rise from the big melt? 120 metres – now that was big, not like puny 1.5mm a year. Oh, and you know the inhabitants of any of the Pacific islands if there were any? They didn’t notice the sea level rise because coral grows to keep up with sea level and the lagoon floor rises with the deposition of weathered coral washed in. Also, deltas like the Ganges similarly rise as the sea rises: the sea tries to move up the delta but the river, burdened with silt and sand hits the still water and drops its burden, building up the delta. If the sea goes down, waves cut the delta down to its level again. These people are going to have wet feet no matter which way the sea level goes. I hope this small tutorial will help you put IPCC scares into perspective. The rest of the climate topics you are interested in also have sober explanations if you want to look for them.
LetsBeReasonable says:
November 7, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“Your are undermining the credibility of your arguments by going off prematurely.”
This could be a legit point if the IPCC had any credibility… since the IPCC has zero credibility its not overly important that one not prematurely declare they will fail again.
Roger Knights says:
November 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm
The latest issue of Scientific American, which arrived at my sister’s house the other day, has a five or six page article that is an assemblage of all the things that are “worrying climate scientists.” It’s a precursor of what we’ll see in the popular media in the aftermath of AR5.
OTOH, the Australian federal election is in February, and Labor will be replaced by a party whose leader has pledged to repeal the carbon tax, so that should put a spoke in the wheels of the would-be bandwagoneers. By that time, too, the wheels should be coming off the pumpkin in the EU (and its renewable energy fantasy). The skids are greeced.
You may have forgotten that the Australian Opposition Leader has a Climate Action Plan which has exactly the same 2020 target in CO2 emission reductions as the current Australian Government. This will be funded from general revenue (that is from all taxes rather than from a specific tax).
If I recall it correctly, the Opposition has costed their CAP at around $20 billion – all to be raised from taxes because the CAP lacks completely a user-pays source.
You may also have forgotten that the Australian Government’s carbon tax is an introductory phase in the establishment of a carbon market pricing mechanism.
Unfortunately, the Australian Opposition Leader, despite leading the pro-market parties, intends to replace the market mechanism with top-down government decision making by of grants and direct purchases. This will, no doubt, be less efficient than the market.
It is a topsy turvy world in Australia when a centre-left Government favours the use of a market mechanism while the pro-market, small-government, conservative Opposition favours bigger government, more taxes, eschews the market, and intends to manage big spending programs directly.
BTW, the election may be in February but there is no reason for the Government to go early: inflation is within the target range (5%<6%, the Government's tax take as a proportion of GDP is the lowest it has been for decades <23%, the economy is growing at the fastest or equal fastest rate in the OECD and Government debt as a percentage of GDP is around the lowest in the OECD; interest rates are the lower than what this Government inherited from the previous Government: a set of figures most OECD governments would die for.
Contrary to the cries of the economic alarmists Australia's carbon tax does not appear to have destroyed these good figures.
August 2013 or September 2013 are more likely dates for the next Federal election in Australia.
What “scientific findings”? Perhaps “It’s even hotter than we measured!”
I notice de Bore talked of the Sandy SUPERSTORM , because he couldn’t talk of a hurricane.
WE’RE DOOMED!
(Could someone out there please make a You Tube compilation of every time John Laurie said it? The best I could find was this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo )
I know people who voted for Pres Obama because he “takes global warming seriously”. And, given that the media parrot whatever he and his allies utter, well, who knows what insane policies the PC governments of the world will pursue.
A fool would believe fear works to motivate people, my thought is most everything my ancestors feared is now extinct, so is fear a sane tool?
How can it be scary?
There is no warming in the climate for going on 20 years now.
The climate models are off by 50% to 75% in terms of temperature rise versus predictions.
Sea level rise is going to be revised down to 16 mms/10 years or 0.16 metres per hundred years with no apparent acceleration.
Antarctic and Greenland glacial melt is going to be revised downward by 50% based on the newer more accurate GIA models.
It is so scary that no recent election campaigns have mentioned it at all.
What is scary is how many people have staked their reputations to this theory and now fear being outed for how wrong they were.
Not in John Laurie’s class, but still worthwhile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5XOIMs6D0
The Brisbane Times is an online news source. We don’t have any real newspapers in Brisbane.
@ Gondo:
People who can’t spell “moron” should, perhaps, think twice before applying the term to others.
john robertson says:
November 7, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“A fool would believe fear works to motivate people, my thought is most everything my ancestors feared is now extinct, so is fear a sane tool?”
If you go back far enough I am reasonably sure that some of your ancestors feared bad weather.
Is bad weather extinct?
Courage and fearlessness are not the same thing. The truly fearless are insane.
Big lies worked for Hitler.
RE: Next IPCC report will ‘scare the wits out of everyone’
That must mean that they hired some better fiction writers!!!!
Graham says: ”even Obama is going to use the tax money for general spend”.
Graham, you are wrong in this department; lots of money he gave to subsidize solar panels and for wind-farms – has boomerang back for his re-election funds; he will not forget that help, from the most loyal supporters.
He was avoiding to debate the phony GLOBAL warming during the election campaign – because he would have lost lots of support. now that is over -> he will be fattening his cronies, more than ever before. He will be borrowing money from China – to buy ;cheap Chinese solar panels – and will subsidize, to be installed… stick around and you will see.
Gary Pearse
So lets see, 3000 puny km^3 is 3000/50,000,000, we have lost 0.006% of the big number in 20 years. The reason why people can get scared is they don’t do the simple calculations within the capability of everyone to put things in perspective – its a big big world out there. The alarmists know this will scare you. Oh yeah and sea level rise from the big melt? 120 metres – now that was big, not like puny 1.5mm a year.
The issue is not just whether larger, bigger, smaller, less intense or more intense, climate parameters have happened previously. Obviously, if you dig through the past 4 billion years, you will find that most things have happened already. It is not particularly meaningful, in terms of the choices we face, to know that sea level has changed by 120 m… just as it is not particularly meaningful to know that there are marine fossils where I live – over a thousand metres above sea level.
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before. It certainly does nothing to illuminate decision-making about the risks of doing something versus the risks of doing nothing today.
The critical issues are:
(1) the rate of change
(2) the nature of the change (all climate parameters, some climate parameters, highly volatile, linear)
(3) the geographical coverage of the change
(4) whether changes are synergistic or whether they cancel each other
(5) thresholds in any of the parameters.
(6) the degree to which anthropogenic forcings are involved
(7) sorting the risk management, cost/benefit equation with respect to the central policy choice between AGW prevention and AGW adaptation.
Unskeptical says:
“The issue is not just whether larger, bigger, smaller, less intense or more intense, climate parameters have happened previously. Obviously, if you dig through the past 4 billion years…”
Strawman fallacy.
Every climate parameter has been exceeded during the Holocene; the past 10,700 years. Obviously you do not understand the concept of the Null Hypothesis. And you have zero empirical evidence of AGW, which is just a conjecture.
Mr De Boer said “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone, I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
Does this mean they’ve found the Caps Lock key?
I expect that statement says quite a lot about what will be left out of AR5 as much as anything.
Most of the IPCC’s scientific working group reports (AR5 WG1) contain nothing that is the least bit alarming but you can bet that the “Summary for Policy Makers” will ignore the science and present another totally implausible alarmist scenario.
http://www.gallopingcamel.info/Docs/WG1-Ch2.doc
http://www.gallopingcamel.info/Docs/WG1-Ch3.doc
http://www.gallopingcamel.info/Docs/WG1-Ch4.doc
‘t’is tricky to scare the wits out of everyone when you’ve done that already!
Is this the New, improved campaign that builds on previous campaigns such as ‘it’s worse than we thought’ or ‘No, it’s even worse than we thought’ or, even, ‘we knew it was bad maybe cataclysmic but we were far too optimistic’
If it gets any worse then, I for one, may have to seriously consider chewing out my eyeballs just to remain slightly optimistic about our future!
Next IPCC report will ‘scare the wits out of everyone’
Apparently it has already scared the wits out of Mr de Boer. If he had any left, that is.
In reply to Gondo says:
November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am
The Arctic changes are scary. Greenland has lost 3000km3 of ice since 1995 (the ice-sheet was in balance before that) and the continuing collapse in sea ice volume is bewildering. This years huge surface melt in GReenland is a symptom that the mass-loss is continuing. It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans who think that the Arctic is not warming up!
Gondo,
Your fears can be assuaged. The planet is about to cool. The ice core data proxy data indicates the ice sheets warms and cools cyclically with the Greenland ice sheet warming and the Antarctic ice sheet cooling or vise versa which paleoclimatologists call the polar see saw. The next cooling cycle appears to be a special Bond type event (the once every 1500 year cooling cycle or a Heinrich event.)
The following is a link to a paper by Svensmark that explains the mechanism.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
So, it “will scare everyone?” Seriously?
These nimrods never learn, do they?
fairfax media’s main papers are The Age in melbourne, Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra Times all of which carried this “exclusive”, plus they have a number of regional newspapers and radio stations around australia, which are no doubt pushing this as well. mind u, Fairfax is going under financially, as are most MSM, and it’s likely, in part, because of their relentless doom & gloom CAGW reporting, but that’s another story.
Can we call this an IPCC blitz of lies?
They will announce that CAGW has morphed into the especially terrifying “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Pausing” – CAGP
It will be the fault of human industrial emissions of CO2 that the world has not warmed in the last 16 years.
The climate models will say so…
@ William
“The next cooling cycle appears to be a special Bond type event”
So we can blame it on MI6?
You’re correct, I’m very out of touch with the specifics there. However, once in office, I wouldn’t trust him to keep to that pledge. Most likely, he’ll fudge things so he can get away with doing the minimum. Certainly his party’s victory would be viewed, around the world, as a defeat for warmism, since the carbon tax was/is such a big deal there.
I’ve read that there’s quite a housing bubble there, just waiting to be burst when a global recession gets going, which it will.
Yet. (Isn’t the current gov’t. backpedaling a bit on implementing its tax, or rejiggering it somehow?)
I’d read here that the election was scheduled for February. Oops. (I should have realized that Feb. would be too soon after the previous election.)
In certain instances, it can tell more–e.g., that a disastrous runaway effect didn’t follow from temperatures warmer than today’s, or temperatures equally warm and for a longer period, such as the MWP, etc.
Could this possibly have anything to do with climate talks which start in Doha in – ooh let me see now – three weeks?
/sarc
Let me guess, the UN has found the millions of climate refugees that didn’t show up this year, and they have all fled to their own homes.
I’m sure that’s their intention. But they will scare only the witless, who by definition have none left to lose by further frightening.
Howskepticalment;
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No point doing crash testing of cars because it would tell us nothing about the cars that weren’t crashed. Some statements are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!
davidmhoffer says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Howskepticalment;
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No point doing crash testing of cars because it would tell us nothing about the cars that weren’t crashed. Some statements are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!
False analogy combined with false logic combined.
I deliberately chose the term ‘state’ of climate, in the context of the discussion a snapshot of climate and not a process of climate or climate dynamics.
So your analogy with a crash test is a false analogy.
Furthermore a crash test is not a state but a process, so you have applied false logic.
Some comments are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!
RK
Howskepticalment says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before.
In certain instances, it can tell more–e.g., that a disastrous runaway effect didn’t follow from temperatures warmer than today’s, or temperatures equally warm and for a longer period, such as the MWP, etc.
That moves right along from my starting point (and original direct but limited statement): you have moved from describing a state of climate to describing the state of climate thereafter and making comparisons and drawing conclusions. I am not gainsaying the point you are making but it does not contradict my original statement. It builds on it.
Howskepticalment says:
“Some comments are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!”
Yours is a case in point.
Howskepticalment;
I deliberately chose the term ‘state’ of climate, in the context of the discussion a snapshot of climate and not a process of climate or climate dynamics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, and I can define a crash test right down to a “state” of crash and claim that this is a “snapshot” of the crash and hence not a “process” of crash or crash “dynamics”. And I’d be an idiot to do so.
RK
You’re correct, I’m very out of touch with the specifics there. However, once in office, I wouldn’t trust him to keep to that pledge. Most likely, he’ll fudge things so he can get away with doing the minimum. Certainly his party’s victory would be viewed, around the world, as a defeat for warmism, since the carbon tax was/is such a big deal there.
He would find it difficult not to keep the pledge and maintain his credibility because he has announced numerous times unambiguously in public that he will withdraw the carbon tax. He has affirmed he will implement his $20 billion Climate Action Plan. (He may find an ‘out’ if a senate majority prevents him from getting rid of the tax.)
BTW, the election may be in February but there is no reason for the Government to go early: inflation is within the target range (5%<6%, the Government's tax take as a proportion of GDP is the lowest it has been for decades <23%, the economy is growing at the fastest or equal fastest rate in the OECD and Government debt as a percentage of GDP is around the lowest in the OECD; interest rates are the lower than what this Government inherited from the previous Government: a set of figures most OECD governments would die for.
I’ve read that there’s quite a housing bubble there, just waiting to be burst when a global recession gets going, which it will.
There is quite a lively debate amongst Australian economists. Some say we have a housing bubble. Others say the population keeps increasing so the demand is still there. House prices have come off the boil in most (but not all) housing sub markets in Australia but nothing so far in the nature of a bubble being pricked. Truth to tell, I wouldn’t know one way or another about the bubble but if either the terms of trade for iron and coal collapse, or the Chinese economy stops growing at current astronomical rates, I imagine that there might well be something of a domestric household debt crisis amd that that will be reflected in a very rapid move southwards in house prices.
Contrary to the cries of the economic alarmists Australia’s carbon tax does not appear to have destroyed these good figures. Yet. (Isn’t the current gov’t. backpedaling a bit on implementing its tax, or rejiggering it somehow?)
Climate action at the Federal level in Australia (or lack of it, depending on how far back you go) has arguably already cost two prime ministers and at least one leader of the Opposition their jobs. It will probably help cost the job of another leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister after the next election because there is little doubt that the next election will once again be fought around climate change action as one of the key (but not only key) issues.
The main issue within the Government at the moment is whether or not to withdraw requirements for generators to meet a mandatory minimum renewable targets (RETs). There is also a lively public debate about the contribution of the carbon tax and other drivers of what has generally been a remarkable increase in electricity costs to consumers.
pat says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:16 pm
fairfax media’s main papers are The Age in melbourne, Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra Times all of which carried this “exclusive”, plus they have a number of regional newspapers and radio stations around australia, which are no doubt pushing this as well. mind u, Fairfax is going under financially, as are most MSM, and it’s likely, in part, because of their relentless doom & gloom CAGW reporting, but that’s another story
This may be correct. However, it only tells part of the story. The print media in Australia is, arguably, in the process of disappearing altogether.
To fill out your story and give it some balance, The Australian newspaper which has a history of providing extensive column inches to individuals such as Nobel Laureate Lord Moncton and Dr Bjorn Lomberg, is only kept afloat by a direct injection of funding by the proprietor.
I posted somewhere that most WUWT posters seemed to be from the Northern Hemisphere. This does create some ‘upside down’ discussions and a strong focus on Northern Hemisphere issues. I much prefer a la Nina to an el Nino.
Also, the Indian Ocean Dipole is quite a significant player in our agricultural fortunes in any one year.
I have read somewhere that when we get dry spells related to the IOD, hospital admissions for malaria in eastern Africa are higher than normal because they get wet spells.
davidmhoffer says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Howskepticalment;
I deliberately chose the term ‘state’ of climate, in the context of the discussion a snapshot of climate and not a process of climate or climate dynamics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, and I can define a crash test right down to a “state” of crash and claim that this is a “snapshot” of the crash and hence not a “process” of crash or crash “dynamics”. And I’d be an idiot to do so.
Definitions matter. I used mine and I was clear about it. You jumped to a false conclusion about it and embarrassed yourself. Your response is to make up an hypothetical and to colour it with personal abuse.
My original statement stands.
If we are scared enough, do we get exempted from being called “deniers”?
Gondo says:
November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am “It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans”
Takes one to know one eh? You could learn to spell too, then your posts might carry a bit of credibility (might).
it would not suprise me if PM gillard gave him a order of Australia medal in supporting her and the labour party in helping to destroy australia through the carbon tax fraud
tango says:
November 8, 2012 at 1:23 am
it would not suprise me if PM gillard gave him a order of Australia medal in supporting her and the labour party in helping to destroy australia through the carbon tax fraud
Who? Oh, Mr Abbott, for fraudulently not admitting that his 5% by 2020, $20 billion Climate Action Plan is to be funded from general revenue aka our taxes?
Excellent suggestion.
Gallopingcamel says: “Most of the IPCC’s scientific working group reports (AR5 WG1) contain nothing that is the least bit alarming but you can bet that the “Summary for Policy Makers” will ignore the science and present another totally implausible alarmist scenario.”
That is probably a very accurate precis of the situation. Most important, the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers will deliberately merge/confuse the subjects of AGW and CAGW.
AGW is a mildly interesting phenomenon, which has been largely beneficial for mankind, while CAGW is no more than poor quality, science fantasy, aka L Ron Hubbard.
Fear of CAGW is the fuel for the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train. As it is clearly science fantasy, it has to be mixed up with something real in order to have credibility,
A minority of sceptics unfortunately blankly refuse to believe AGW is happening, they may be right, but it is unlikely. Alarmists only consider AGW in terms of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, while reality suggests the effects of farming, irrigation and UHI could each be equally important factors.
Anyhow, AGW is dwarfed by natural climate cycles and is nothing to worry about, while CAGW – if it had any basis in hard scientific facts – would be something to worry about. Remember, the IPCC is all about not derailing the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train, so AGW and CAGW will be smoothly merged into one subject.
It probably has do do with having exhausted the horror film genre. We’ve gone through the gamut. Dracula, Frankenstein, werewolves, vampires, paranormal activity etc.. Even Halloween is tame and disaster movies are predictable.
Step in the IPCC to flll the void and produce some fictional excitement
Peter Wilson
Are you a clairvoyant? You agree with galloping camels précis of Ar5 (admittedly qualified with a ‘probably’), but neither of you have read it as it hasn’t been released yet. Could you at least wait until it is released and then make a comment on it. Your comments are speculation and no basis for the comments you make later.
Howskepticalment said:
“BTW, the election may be in February but there is no reason for the Government to go early: inflation is within the target range (5%<6%, the Government's tax take as a proportion of GDP is the lowest it has been for decades <23%, the economy is growing at the fastest or equal fastest rate in the OECD and Government debt as a percentage of GDP is around the lowest in the OECD; interest rates are the lower than what this Government inherited from the previous Government: a set of figures most OECD governments would die for. "
Yep fuelled by massive exports of coal and iron ore to China. But coal mined from the same mines and used in the Australian steelmaking process is subject to the Carbon Dioxide Tax which when it morphs into a carbon credit market will kill of an industry already struggling against an over-valued dollar. But hey its less CO2 in the atmosphere. I take it you have never worked on a blast furnace or part of our manufacturing industry. People like you are beneath contempt. Happy to profit from the export of fossil energy and happy to put thousands of hard working Australians out of work with nationally suicidal carbon dioxide taxing policies. Come the day cobber when we get a vote. We are just waiting.
Howskepticalment –
i “balanced” it myself…did u not read…”as are most MSM”
Wow. I wish I was as optimistic as many of you seem to be. Of course the next IPCC report will be complete rubbish, if we’re to believe the early reports, but those who think this is going to be a non-event, I’m afraid, are e graveyard. Did anyone watch the election earlier this week? America has turned the corner. A majority now think they like the idea of getting goods and services from the government paid for by the taxes of the minority. The power given to government to do that implies the power to act on this report – and with this administration you’d better believe they will. Hope that the Court will fix it? Think again. With at least two more appointments looming we’ve lost the Court as well. Get ready for carbon taxes and the long slow slide. There is scant little hope this can be reversed at this point. This isn’t a problem of ignorance that can be corrected, this is abdication of responsibility on the part of the American people. We were it. The last firewall. No more.
That last message should say whistling past the graveyard.
Have I mentioned about 100 times how messed up this text editor is when accessed via Android mobile?
If at first you don’t succeed lie, lie, and lie again. When are these scammers going to realise that the ship has left the port?
sounds like it really is far worse than we thought when it comes to the ipcc plans. actually, it sounds like the ipcc is only a part of that plan and it would amaze aldous huxley and the other great dystopian writers.
Gondo says:
November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am
The Arctic changes are scary. Greenland has lost 3000km3 of ice since 1995 (the ice-sheet was in balance before that) and the continuing collapse in sea ice volume is bewildering. This years huge surface melt in GReenland is a symptom that the mass-loss is continuing. It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans who think that the Arctic is not warming up!”
I think everyone knows there has been warming. It’s those that think a few ppm of CO2 is the cause that are the true idiots. Scientists can’t tell me specifically why millions of years ago there was no ice on the planet at all, and then why there was an ice age several thousand years ago and now we are in a relativley ice free zone except the poles. Why is the Arctiv decreasing in ice mass but the Antarctic increasing?
Without definitive answers to these questions you’d have to be a total moron to believe any current melting anywhere is due to a few ppm increase in CO2. Might as well believe the tooth fairy is doing it.
Here’s a prime reason why I don’t take these scare mongers seriously. As a child in the early 1970’s I remember one evening my parents were burning brush in the back yard. They were using some old magazines to get the fire going. I picked one up and it had a cover scene showing a brownish haze in a city where a family was putting groceries in their car. Each person was wearing a big gas mask. Even the dog had a gas mask. The title was something like how this is is going to be the world in a few years. It was an aweful picture and I was terrified. I can still see that image to this day.
And it was total BS. Just scare mongering. Maybe it was things like that magazine that inspired me to become a scientist and check out stuff for myself, and to be a critical thinker. Anyone who buys the party line and just reiterates the rhetoric without critically thinking for themselves and checking on the facts is a fool. I’ve been critically thinking of the climate change hypothesis since the early 80’s and I can’t find even the smallest amount of compelling evidence. that makes me stop and think “there actually might be something here”. What the IPCC is going is nothing more than than what that magazine I threw on the burn pile 3 decades ago was aiming to do. And that’s where the IPCC report belongs…on a burn pile contributing it’s CO2 to our climate…because you know, I like it warmer than colder.
cba says:
November 8, 2012 at 4:48 am
“sounds like it really is far worse than we thought when it comes to the ipcc plans. actually, it sounds like the ipcc is only a part of that plan and it would amaze aldous huxley and the other great dystopian writers.”
Aldous Huxley’s brother was Julian Huxley; both were socialists. So they knew everything about central planning and had the desire to do just that. Julian Huxley was the first director of UNESCO and the founder of the WWF.
George Orwell was a socialist. 1984 was his satirical version of the Soviet Union. He was all for centralized control, only disagreed slightly about how the Soviets were doing it. He worked at the BBC. Room 101 in the novel was inspired by a conference room in the building of the BBC where he worked.
(Now some nitpickers might tell me that it is possible to be a socialist yet refuse centralized control; in which case I would say, read your Marx again and how he defines socialism.)
Howskepticalment says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm
“Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before. It certainly does nothing to illuminate decision-making about the risks of doing something versus the risks of doing nothing today.”
A GCM is a deterministic state machine. When it reaches a state it has reached before, it must proceed to follow the same path again.
NOW! You will of course say, but this doesn’t take into account that Chinas emissions are rising. Granted. But that is something that is fed into the state machine as an external input and it is an unwarranted assumption, hence the name scenario.
So I would say, warmists, do something logical for a day. Go to China and demonstrate in Beijing for a stop to CO2 emissions. Or go to Washington DC and demand import tariffs on Chinese goods. Or elect a president that would impose such tariffs. Uh, you had the chance and you didn’t do that? Why not?
Because CO2 is not really what you’re interested in. You’re only interested in control.
Howskepticalment;
Definitions matter. I used mine and I was clear about it. You jumped to a false conclusion about it and embarrassed yourself. Your response is to make up an hypothetical and to colour it with personal abuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes you did. You created a definition so narrow that is makes all information about the past useless, which is ridiculous. So I ridiculed it. I ridiculed it because it is a blatant attempt to dismiss valid information about climate on the basis of a contrived definition that is of no meaning in the real world of actual data and actual scientific analysis. That you continue to maintain that the data from the past can in this way be invalidated and dismissed out of hand is a highly misleading statement. If you continue to maintain this position, I can only assume that you do so out of outright ignorance, or deliberate attempt to deceive. If you are simply ignorant, then I apologize, and instead recommend that you get some education in the scientific method. If you are deliberately attempting to deceive, then the personal abuse is well deserved.
Anyone who can be scared out of their wits usually didn’t start out with many to begin with.
DirkH says:
November 8, 2012 at 6:04 am
“George Orwell was a socialist”
Orwell like pretty much everyone of that time was a socialist. However after growing older and watching hitler and stalin and others turned away from socialism.
Orwell is much like Mr Watts in starting out believing something and then seeing the reality and changing views. Sadly due to college “education” this is a common event. Being a socialists has been all the rage for 100s of years for people coming out of college. Some people grow out of this… most do not.
‘scare the wits out of everyone’ – yes in Mr. De Boer’s world maybe
Yvo de Boer aka The crying Dutchman:
Floods of tears as climate change ‘hard man’ breaks down at summit
“He wasn’t just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears,” said one observer.
“Three colleagues – one of them a woman – formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic.”
Mr de Boer’s breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502563/Floods-tears-climate-change-hard-man-breaks-summit.html#ixzz0fuEYYpMQ
Gondo says: November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am
The Arctic changes are scary. Greenland has lost 3000km3 of ice since 1995 (the ice-sheet was in balance before that) and the continuing collapse in sea ice volume is bewildering. It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans who think that the Arctic is not warming up!
—————————————————————-
Hi, Gondo. Did you mention that Antarctic ice is at its greatest ever extent, and that the southern continent is cooling?
No?
We would not be cherry-picking, would we?
Howskepticalment says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm
“The skids are greeced.”
Was that a clever pun or a lack of education?
“Contrary to the cries of the economic alarmists Australia’s carbon tax does not appear to have destroyed these good figures.”
Is that why Juliars running around in ever decreasing circles screaming about the rise in electricity prices that she wanted increased to reduce our use of power?
Do anyone else read AR5 as arse ?
So scared that we may all die laughing.
DirkH:
Your post at November 8, 2012 at 6:04 am displays so much ignorance and misunderstanding that a book would be needed to correct it all.
However, you explicitly state the basis of your error so it is sufficient to point out that mistake and the rest of your post collapses. You say
It is not “nitpicking” to point out that you are plain wrong, especially when you admit you are wrong but assert your error is “nitpicking”.
Socialism predates Marx and he gave his description of it: he did not define it. We socialists don’t need to read Marx more than any other economist and most socialists are not Marxists.
Richard
Methinks it will scare only the witless.
temp:
At November 8, 2012 at 8:06 am you say
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) wrote under the pen-name of George Orwell. He was a socialist who – in common with all socialists – opposed H1tler (a fascist) and Stalin (a communist). Indeed, he went to Spain and joined the socialist partisans against the fascists in the Spanish civil war. During his visits to Yorkshire he attended communist and fascist meetings to research his books notably ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’. This research resulted in his being put under observation by the Special Branch.
He remained a staunch socialist throughout his life. His novels ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ were attacks on totalitarianism, and ‘Animal Farm’ was a parody of communist Russia. One of his earlier books (i.e. Burmese Days) could not be published in the UK for fear of libel but was published in the US.
A good account of his life is on wiki at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Life
We now need a new Orwell to write a satirical novel about the IPCC and AGW.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
November 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Not completely clear on what your arguing about but socialism always equals central planning. Central planning is basically another name for socialism.
temp:
At November 8, 2012 at 2:13 pm you say to me
Obviously you are clueless about socialism which does NOT equal “central planning”.
I am “arguing” that it is plain wrong to assert AGW and/or the IPCC is supported by – or supports – any one political philosophy. It is wrong in fact because there are people who support ‘IPCC science’ and people who oppose ‘IPCC science’ who can be found among adherents of all political philosophies. And, very importantly, it is wrong tactically because it insists that only those who adhere to certain political philosophies can ally in opposition to ‘IPCC science’ and its objectives.
Divide To Destroy is best used against opponents and not allies.
Richard
temp;
Central planning is basically another name for socialism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On science, richardscourtney and I frequently agree, on CAGW in particular. On politics, we’re pretty much polar opposites. On this matter however, I’m 100% with Richard. Socialism and central planning are hardly the same thing. I think the matter becomes confused because we have glaring examples of things like Communism which devolved nearly instantly into totalitarianism from socialist beginnings. Central planning is a totalitarian thing, not a socialist thing, and Communism as we knew it through the cold war was totalitarian in every respect, socialist in none.
There are (IMO) very few successful implementations of purely socialist governments to point to as examples, but I would suggest considering the kibbutz and mochav farming collectives that are common in Israel as examples of how successful (and clearly not totalitarian central planning) truly socialist governments can be.
richardscourtney says:
November 8, 2012 at 1:57 pm
wiki is hardly a valid source when dealing with a topic such as orwell.
“Obviously you are clueless about socialism which does NOT equal “central planning”.”
I’m afraid it is much the opposite. I’ll get to it later.
“It is wrong in fact because there are people who support ‘IPCC science’ and people who oppose ‘IPCC science’ who can be found among adherents of all political philosophies.”
Really I don’t know any capitalists that believe in global warming… its pretty clear that IPCC whole idea of fixing the problem is socialism.
“Central planning is a totalitarian thing, not a socialist thing, and Communism as we knew it through the cold war was totalitarian in every respect, socialist in none.”
All socialism is by default totalitarian and all totalitarians are default socialists. Its impossible to have one without the other.
“kibbutz farming collectives”
Are perfect displays of central planning and totalitarianism. Which is why they generally started failing once people woke up to the old “vote yourself more benefits” problem among other things.
As to the “mochav farming collectives” They have a much more fascist/Chinese style which does work but is hardly ideal. Since its not heavily socialist is not heavily totalitarian.
The biggest problem with both of these is of course neither are a country or independent city-state. Which means they are at best pseudo-socialism. One could argue that hong-kong is a successful display of communism by this metric.
By definition socialism is where the government owns and controls the means of production… being neither of you seem to fully grasp what that truly means(aka totalitarianism) I ask you what is the most basic “means of production”?
temp;
I’m a capitalist and I know plenty of capitalists who believe firmly in cagw. Richard’s point was that we as skeptics have allies across the political spectrum on the cagw issue. I was trying to reinforce that. I’m certainly not going to argue the merits or definitions of socialism vs capitalism with you.
temp:
At November 8, 2012 at 4:38 pm you again proclaim your ignorance of socialism when you write
Strewth! You invent a “definition” that has no relationship to what you are talking about and then attack your invention. I suggest you investigate the logical fallacy of ‘straw man’.
This thread is about the IPCC and not your delusions – be they real or pretended – about a political philosophy of which you clearly know nothing. I strongly commend that you return to the subject of the thread.
Your continued presentation of your political prejudice could only be trolling to disrupt the thread.
Richard
It’s interesting that the comments about the new report were not about the science, but about the politics. It’s not “The Earth is warming faster than projected.” The emphasis is on “This will scare people into action.”
I am not getting into the political debate here. Already have too much of that on three other sites. 🙂
Stephen:
At November 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm you say
Yes. Thankyou.
It is the validity of the “scare” and the proposed “action” which require consideration. And it is far too easy to forget that.
There is another WUWT thread now active which discusses Carbon Tax. The threat of such a tax is one of the damaging “actions” we need to be addressing.
Richard
Perhaps the people who will be scared are those who read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
and fear that observations, not models, demonstrate that, despite known man-made carbon emissions increasing during and since the industrial revolution, the airborne fraction of these emissions has NOT changed since the 1850s nor in the last decade. Could all the consensual climate modellers be on the streets soon?
Ye canna ding facts!
davidmhoffer says:
November 8, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Really? Seem like you are just trying to avoid the topic after stepping into it. I don’t know any capitalists that believe in global warming. I know some centrists/conservatives who like to pretend they are capitalists but are really nothing of the sort that believe in global warming.
richardscourtney says:
November 8, 2012 at 5:12 pm
“You invent a “definition” that has no relationship to what you are talking about and then attack your invention. I suggest you investigate the logical fallacy of ‘straw man’.”
Then do give me your “invented” “definition” of socialism.
“This thread is about the IPCC and not your delusions – be they real or pretended – about a political philosophy of which you clearly know nothing. I strongly commend that you return to the subject of the thread.
Your continued presentation of your political prejudice could only be trolling to disrupt the thread.”
Talk about strawman… you clearly have no idea what your talking about and clearly refuse to debate… I have forgot more about how socialism works then you we ever learn. You can keep refusing to debate but this is of course a classic marxist tactic to avoid reality…
temp:
You write to me
I doubt you ever learned anything about socialism but I am willing to accept your claim that you have forgotten it.
Now clear off and stop disrupting the thread.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
November 9, 2012 at 11:01 am
lol to quote a quote “Run little man, Run”.
I always find it funny how all you have to win a debate against a socialist is simply to ask them to explain socialism. Marx rule 1 seems hard-coded into pretty much every socialist.
temp:
Your post at November 9, 2012 at 11:36 am is silly.
This thread is about the IPCC AR5 and NOT your political prejudices.
I have debated socialism at length in a thread of WUWT but this thread is NOT a place to repeat that. If this were an appropriate thread then I would take great pleasure in demolishing your nonsense.
And your suggestion that I would “run” from an anonymous little troll like you is ridiculous. Your arguments suggest you have the knowledge of a midge but are easier to swat.
Richard
They’re going to print the report IN ALL CAPS ’cause everyone knows that means it’s more important….
richardscourtney says:
November 9, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“I have debated socialism at length in a thread of WUWT”
I note a lack of links…
“And your suggestion that I would “run” from an anonymous little troll like you is ridiculous. Your arguments suggest you have the knowledge of a midge but are easier to swat.
Richard”
“Run little man, Run”
The scariest part will be where they get the conclusions from because as normal the science content never supports it.
Perhaps the IPCC has been leaking details of their report to business
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/temperatures-may-rise-6c-by-2100-says-study-8281272.html
“Temperatures may rise 6c by 2100, says study”