From: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_SOD.pdf
2012/15/ST
IPCC STATEMENT
14 December 2012
Unauthorized posting of the draft of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report
GENEVA, 14 December – The Second Order Draft of the Working Group I contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (WGI AR5) has been made available online. The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review. We will continue not to comment on the contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress.
The Expert and Government Review of the WGI AR5 was held for an 8-week period ending on 30 November 2012. A total of 31,422 comments was submitted by 800 experts and 26 governments on the Second Order Draft of the Chapters and the First Order Draft of the Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary. The author teams together with the Review Editors are now considering these comments and will meet at the Working Group I Fourth Lead Author Meeting on 13-19 January 2013 in Hobart, Tasmania, to respond to all the comments received during the Expert and Government Review.
The IPCC is committed to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment. That is why IPCC reports go through multiple rounds of review and the Working Groups encourage reviews from as broad a range of experts as possible, based on a self-declaration of expertise. All comments submitted in the review period are considered by the authors in preparing the next draft and a response is made to every comment. After a report is finalized, all drafts submitted for formal review, the review comments, and the responses by authors to the comments are made available on the IPCC and Working Group websites along with the final report. These procedures were decided by the IPCC’s member governments.
The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion because the text will necessarily change in some respects once all the review comments have been addressed. It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future (15 March 2013). The text that has been posted is thus not the final report.
This is why the IPCC drafts are not made public before the final document is approved. These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts of the WGI AR5. Each page of the draft makes it clear that drafts are not to be cited, quoted or distributed and we would ask for this to continue to be respected.
For more information:
IPCC Press Office, Email: ipcc-media@wmo.int
Jonathan Lynn, + 41 22 730 8066 or Werani Zabula, + 41 22 730 8120 Follow IPCC on Facebook and 
Twitter
IPCC Secretariat
c/o WMO · 7 bis, Avenue de la Paix · C.P: 2300 · CH-1211 Geneva 2 · Switzerland
telephone +41 22 730 8208 / 54 / 84 · fax +41 22 730 8025 / 13 · email IPCC-Sec@wmo.int · www.ipcc.ch
Note for editors:
The IPCC provides governments with a clear view of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation, through regular assessments of the most recent information published in scientific, technical and socio-economic literature worldwide. IPCC assessments are policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive.
For more information on the IPCC review process, go to:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/review_of_wg_contributions.pdf
For more information on the Fifth Assessment Report, go to:
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml
To see the Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports go to:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
To see the drafts and review comments of the IPCC’s latest report, go to:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/review-comments-disclaimer
‐ 2 ‐
” The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review.”
Sunshine interferes with the process. Their words.
Note the contradiction in the first 2 paragraphs:
The leak interferes with the review process …. which ended on November 30th.
If the comment period ended Nov 30, how is the literature cut-off date still in the future? Do they write more content that is not subsequently open to comments? What are the openness and transparancy rules for this? Since this is still a draft, will they now take out the offending sentence from the final report?
“The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review by preventing us from burying without trace things that might not meet the Party Line”
Dear IPCC, fixed that for you 🙂 ^^^
There is a reason that some States and municipalities have Sunshine laws.
What is even more regrettable, is that organizations such as the IPCC feel that they must shroud their activity in secrecy… away from the gaze of those who fund much their activity and personnel.
Specifically… the public.
Who else likes to work in secrecy? “criminals.”
The horse has bolted. The IPCC is gradually making its way over to shut the gate.
It will be interesting to see what changes there are between this draft and the final published/released version.
Thankfully now that it is in the open this will be easy to check. Lets see how “open and transparent” they really are.
I hope they don’t delete anything important /sarc
How exactly does having more people read what you are doing make it harder to review what you wrote ? The world wonders….
As the IPCC is adhering to governmental procedures, using the tentative scientific outcomes as a preferrred (CAGW, the human race has donnit) direction finders, thus preventing as they say “confusion”, they make the terminal mistake to make the (often sloppy) science as leading instead of using the consequences of science derived “scenarios”. In that case the trade offs of the various scenarios should be leading. In other words the solidity of the scientific procedure will continue in the scenario selection procedures.
I’m not convinced that it was a good idea to leak this report. It will at least make them think hard before editing out the embarrassing bits.
Good on yer, Alec. Keeps the Warmists’ feet to the fire of accountability and rigor.
run rabbit run, dig a hole, forget the sun…..
There is currently a push by other governments for UN control of the internet. They will use this to plead that case. Fortunately, the U.S. has opposed.
Haste makes wastrels all the more apparent! Open your mouth and change feet, IPCC!
cross posted from the original thread:
Folks, let’s not get entirely focused on the GCR thing. Yes it is important, but my quick skim of just a few pages reveals that there is plenty more dubious science in this document. Gems like:
o they have a high level of certainty that ground level ozone in the future will be higher, lower, or about the same (yes, they actually said that!)
o they have a 95% confidence that the models are in agreement…. with each other. Wow. What about being in agreement with the temperature record?
o they do have some verbiage about forecasting, for example they ran their models with 1960 and 1980 data and show they have some skill. Wow, using data and models written in 2000, they can correctly model 1960 forward and 1980 forward. Big deal. What I want to know is how well models written in 2000 did compared to 2012. I haven’t found that kind of comparison yet, and I know of no model that predicted the cooling period we are currently experiencing.
o they predict LESS severe weather in Ch11, in opposition to everything they’ve been saying until now.
That’s just from a few pages of Ch11! My point here is that they are meeting again in January (see their just released statement) to consider revisions.
So let’s hammer them. Find the mistakes, find the obfuscation, the misdirection, document it and publish it. They’re behind the 8 ball and they know it. They either have to back down in the final draft, or they have to knowingly publish false information. They are scr*wed either way if we get down to work and start documenting this utter bullsh*t.
And let’s not leave the Summary for Policy makers out of it. Shred that too, turn up every instance you can of disparity between the science and the summary. Blog about it here or anywhere that you can get the issues made public. They’ll be forced to back down on those issues too for the final draft if we seize this opportunity and make the most of it.
The IPCC provides governments with a CLEAR VIEW of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation, through regular assessments of the most recent information published in scientific, technical and socio-economic literature worldwide.
Emphasis mine.
That sounds good, but see what Robert Watson has to say at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29#cite_note-WebsterPagnamenta2010-6
In 2010, he warned the IPCC against overstatement:[8]
“The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
As a writer, one of my talents I’m told is my ability to make long drawn out explanations more concise. Thus, here is what the IPCC actually is saying, without so many unnecessary words getting in the way:
“You IDIOTS! You interfered with THE PROCESS!!!!!!!!!”
[snip. Persona non Grata — mod.]
davidmhoffer
Head over to The Blackboard. Lucia has done quite a good job of analyzing how well the models have been doing since the year 2000 moving forward.
@ Bloke down the pub
I’m not either, but Jo Nova’s comment makes a good argument for it. I’d hate for Alec to end up being portrayed as our Gleick, but when you have the MSM in your pocket almost anything can be equated. I expect “Noble Cause Corruption” accusations will be flying our way now; as in if he’s willing to break the “terms of review” then what else will he do for “the cause”. Yes, I know, it’s a ludicrous comparison but this is a world where “A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy”.
All you have to do is to leave out the stuff in the middle, and you get:
I’ve never understood the need for scientific secrecy of this type. If I ran the IPCC, I’d publish every draft as it came off of the presses, along with the reviewers comments, in real time. I’d do it on the web, blog-style, so other interested parties could comment as well.
What is there in the review process that requires its work to be done in darkness? What secrets are they afraid might be revealed? What are people saying that they wouldn’t say in public?
Finally, yes, dear IPCC, we do realize it is a draft …
w.
IPCC’s Counterproductive Secrecy
While IPCC promised an “open” and “transparent” review process, in practice it has reverted to an even more secretive process by dishonest means. The 2010 InterAcademy Council (IAC) Report reviewing IPCC procedures strongly affirmed that processes and procedures be “as transparent as possible”:
Steve McIntyre addressed Another IPCC Demand for Secrecy
(emphasis added).
The IPCC’s current secrecy “language was almost singlehandedly introduced by Stocker”. ClimateGate revealed that Phil Jones emailed Stocker “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”
McIntyre highlighted:
“The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review”
What they really mean is they regret not being able to leak out juicy cherry picked bits of info to be used by the pro CAGW alarmist MSM like CNN and the BBC before the report goes public. The BBC and the green taliban has always managed to get advance notice of contents so they have time to produce the tsunami of supporting model derived clap trap. In the past there has always been sufficient time for the pseudo science manufacturers to produce numerous ‘its worse than we though’ scaremongering featuring green taliban spokesmen like Roger Harrabin.
Takes only one big old giant gorilla in the room.
“Climates Change”
Takes only one big old ugly gorilla in the room.
“Climates Chage”
“Change”
old eyes, old fingers, to much work
[snip. Too much snark, Mr. Seitz.— mod.]
Willis Eschenbach said: ” If I ran the IPCC, I’d publish every draft as it came off of the presses, along with the reviewers comments, in real time. I’d do it on the web, blog-style, so other interested parties could comment as well.”
The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.
The drafts aren’t secret. They’re available to anybody who signs up to be a reviewer (that’s how they got “leaked”). They don’t publish the drafts so as to prevent a scenario where several versions are flying about the internet at the end of the process. Is that actually difficult to understand?
This is little more than “trust us. We are committed to repeating the statement that we are transparent. We will be transparent at all stages of the process which come after the point at which we have finished colluding in secret to create a document which supports the position we have held since 1998. P.S. we’ll need the public to get behind us if we are going to get more funding to repeat this process ad nauseum”
Translation: The only way the IPCC and properly manage all aspects of this process to keep as tight a control as possible over everything and everyone; otherwise the predetermined political outcome will not be as we desire it.
“The IPCC is committed to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment.”
Who are these idiots trying to fool?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
The leak interferes with the review process???
” The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review.”
Our evil scheming must be kept secret!
And what does the BBC have to say about the leak?
No mention of Alec Rawls being one of the IPCC’s 800 expert reviewers. He’s just a blogger who knows not what he does. 😉
Please try to bring ALL of this IPCC:eists, including ALL directly/indirectly involved persons, to a/any/ court of justice!
Garrett says: “The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.”
The implication that what the IPCC is doing is “science” is laughable. Until they empirically prove that human activity is changing the climate in any meaningful way, it’s not science. It’s a false consensus based on correlation, dubious models and green propaganda.
Hobart, Tasmania… To minimize their “carbon footprint” I suppose…
Garrett says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
[…]
The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.
The IPCC isn’t science, either. It’s a policy body.
Mmmmm …. that was a good bag of popcorn. Time for another!
XD
I would not rule out IPCC-CCCP’ers using InterPOL, FBI and varied government bodies to prosecute and litigate on this; including web-site take downs, letters to a lot of people (reviewers) demanding silence (under threat of litigation and detention and loss of money) and to Media outlets to pay $$$$ for editorials (words of indignation) in support of IPCC.
Hay, IPCC Bartender ! Where is my 100,000 euros for not reviewing the AR5. Ha! I knew it would be ‘junk’. XD
“All comments submitted in the review period are considered by the authors in preparing the next draft and a response is made to every comment.“
That sentence shocked me, because, as an expert reviewer, I submitted over 100 comments to the FOD, and got no responses back at all. So I wrote to the IPCC this morning, and asked, where are the responses to my comments? They replied promptly:
When is a “response” not a response? When the person to whom it is addressed isn’t permitted to see it!
I’ve written back, objecting to the policy of not letting the expert reviewers see the “responses”[sic] to their reviews, and asking that I be sent copies of the responses to my FOD & SOD comments before it’s time to review the TOD.
Yes but is it science when blogging untimately gets a paper withdrawn? 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/gergis-et-al-hockey-stick-paper-withdrawn-finally/
The third paragraph, second sentence of the IPCC statement reads :
“That is why IPCC reports go through multiple rounds of review and the Working Groups encourage reviews from as broad a range of experts as possible, BASSED ON A SELF-DECLARATION OF EXPERTISE.” (The ALL CAPS are mine.)
So, I can “slef-declare” myself an “expert” ? Surely I have misunderstood.
The IPCC is transparent. Yeah, right. At least we can see right through them, but not because of any assistance from the IPCC. Let’s rip the lid off their “Sacred Box”.
So, all the authors are flying down to Tasmania in January for a week? Must be nice to get out of the winter weather for all of the northern hemisphereans.
“The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion”
Well I think that previous final reports have led to confusion so what’s the problem?
The raison d’etre for the IPCC, namely mitigating actual and projected global warming caused by CO2 emiited by human activity, no longer exists. AR5 should be its last report and then it can be wound up.
Garrett says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
The IPCC is indeed not Wikipedia. Blogging may or may not be science. None of that is a reason for secrecy. The people who are writing the report would be free to ignore any and all comments from the public … but on the other hand, they (and you) might actually learn something from public comments as well.
Let me see if I understand you. The drafts aren’t secret, because they are available to anybody who promises to keep them secret and not say anything publicly about them …
As I said, I did not sign up as an expert reviewer because I was unwilling be bound by their draconian secrecy pledge, and now you are trying to tell me the drafts aren’t secret … you really aren’t clear on this idea of “transparency”, are you?
They are trying to prevent “several versions” from “flying about the internet”? That’s the reason for the secrecy? That’s the problem? Here, let me solve it for them. It is their freaking draft. They put the official version up on their web site. Anyone can compare any version to the official version … OK, problem solved. Can we move on?
Dang, I’ve heard some rationalizations for an aversion to sunlight, but yours are up there with the best. The IPCC has instituted a culture of secrecy that even extends to the lack of conflict-of-interest statements. They have fought desperately in the past from revealing things that might not reflect golden light on their posteriors, and to keep their secret machinations buried forever from public scrutiny.
And yet here you are, desperately fighting the good fight against IPCC transparency …
Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the IPCC desperately needs disinfecting. How about you join the side of the angels, and start demanding that the IPCC folks actually live up to their promises of transparency?
w.
Davidmhoffer says
I know of no model that predicted the cooling period we are currently experiencing.
————-
David you are comparing an ensemble of model runs with an individual real run of the earth’s climate.
It’s quite likely that one of the individual model runs will have shown a cooling period similar to what is observed for the real climate.
There is only one weather god, and his name is Sun, and his prophet is Svensmark.
Game, set and match. Svensmark.
Garrett says:December 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
“The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.
The drafts aren’t secret. They’re available to anybody who signs up to be a reviewer (that’s how they got “leaked”). They don’t publish the drafts so as to prevent a scenario where several versions are flying about the internet at the end of the process. Is that actually difficult to understand?”
We say that we are entitled to review the drafts and state our views on them here. Why do you object?
You say blogging is not science. You are incorrect. Science issues are taken up and discussed world-wide in all fields of science and on innumerable blogs devoted to science, with expert scientists taking an active part in such discussions. Your statement flatly dismisses such scientific discussion as “not science”. Perhaps now you wish to amend that comment.
“Note for editors:
The IPCC provides governments with a clear view of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation, through regular assessments of the most recent information published in scientific, technical and socio-economic literature worldwide. IPCC assessments are policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive.”
This is in direct conflict with their mandate which states:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.”
Their mandate ASSUMES “human-induced climate change” so it is hardly likely that they are actually interested in “a clear view of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change …”
Nothing further need be said.
Hard to follow Willis’s comment as almost anything I’d state is less efficiently stated and perhaps similar in intent.
Oh what the _ell-hay, imitation is the sincerest form of a compliment, right?
Must be, because you have completely mis-understood and likely mis-interpreted.
Let’s see, you believe the IPCC chosen, can edit their final copy in private. Submit their final version and allow it to be published, before contributing authors can see the final copy? Which basically has been the process. A process that has allowed editors responsible for final chapters to completely change the contributing author’s language to something ‘acceptable’ to the big green elephants trumpeting disaster and other unproven science.
We believe, (at least I believe) that transparent should be transparent. Especially science sent to that unholy parasitic maelstrom called the IPCC. All drafts should be published, in full on the IPCC site along with the entire commentary process. Science must be legitimately vetted with the final draft representing honest science that survives criticism, not because so-and-so over-ruled submissions they didn’t like. Allow individual author’s to choose whether their contributions are identified as theirs. Of course, at some point every statement of cetainty, science, code, prediction, certification, etc. should be identified as to the author. Joint effort doesn’t mean anonymous nor anonymosity as that is neither science or honest.
Speaking of “…honest science that survives criticism…”. It just might be that there will not be an IPCC if this is followed. Scientists can return to real science and $80 billion plus can be used for real science; science that has all code, data and assumptions publlished; and is independently replicable by anyone willing to invest the time, cost and effort.
Over the last decade, I’ve lost the whole concept of what peer review process was supposed to accomplish; that is, ever since pal review, pay walls, and very accomodating cooperative editors poisoned the supposed peer review method. Transparency seriously impairs illegitimate ‘pal processes’, including those of the IPCC pals.
I find fault with Atheok’s caveat/implication that “80 billion dollars plus” has been devoted to pseudo-scientific pursuits by governments/movements…… worldwide, it’s in the neighborhood of approximately 300 billion dollars…. and I recieved not a penny of their redistribution of your tax dollar “investment” for which you have never voted.
Nice try IPCC, but the reason these reports are leaked is to get rid of the bullshit doctoring of the text on each round of review. If you guys were really transparent and accountable, people wouldn’t need to do this, but in any event, there is no harm done is making each step of the process more widely known.
LazyTeenager:
Your post at December 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm says in total
“Quite likely”? You say “quite likely”?!!!
You don’t know. You are guessing. You are making stuff up.
The fact is that In 2008 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in its State of the Climate Report for 2008 (page 23)
The models don’t “rule out” something which “individual model runs” “have shown”. So, the modellers say that in reality what you claim is “quite likely” HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Your post demonstrates the desperation of warmunists when exposed to the cold light of reality.
Richard
The IPCC has a somewhat ambivalent communications strategy-
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session33/ipcc_p33_decisions_taken_comm_strategy.pdf
“The following set of principles should guide the IPCC approach:
Objective and transparent. The Panel’s communications approach and activities should, at all times, be consistent with the IPCC overarching principles of objectivity, openness and transparency.
Timely and audience-appropriate. In order to be effective, the IPCC communications approach and activities should be aimed at ensuring that timely and appropriate information enters the public domain – both proactively to communicate reports, and reactively in response to questions or criticism.
Broader audiences, such as the UN, IPCC observer organizations, the scientific community, the education sector, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the business sector and the wider public, also have an interest in the work and assessments of the IPCC. While these are not primary audiences of the IPCC communications efforts, the IPCC should look for ways to ensure that information is available and accessible for these audiences.
The IPCC encourages the science community, including those involved in producing its reports, to engage with wide audiences on an ongoing basis.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session33/ipcc_p33_decisions_taken_comm_strategy.pdf
The IPCC also has a large number of Observer Organisations including Transparency International, WWF, Greenpeace and Women for Climate Justice.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/observers-as-of-june-2012.pdf
“Representatives of observer organizations may attend sessions of the IPCC and the plenary sessions of the IPCC Working Groups. Observer organizations are also invited to encourage experts to participate in the expert review and government/expert review stage of IPCC reports.”
The IPCC cannot have it both ways. Either they are entirely transparent or they are a secretive and propaganda driven organisation. Transparency means only one thing, that all the activities of the IPCC and the way they compile their reports is available online to anyone, at all stages of the process. Anything else is secrecy which allows for gross errors, manipulation and deceit.
1) Which model showed cooling?
2) This is the problem. No matter it warms, cools, stays flat – one of the models will show it.
Alas my friend, your time is running out and has run out. We are currently at 16 years of statistically insignificant Warming – after adjustments. ;>)
Has everyone heard that ” Richard Windsor ” is a secret e-mail account held by Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA ? At least Congress thinks so and wants to know about it.
“The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with our process of making up lies and propaganda”
I regret that my tax dollars go to the corrupt UN and again I demand that our government withdraw all funding from the UN.
theduke says:
December 14, 2012 at 11:12 am
Garrett says: “The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.”
The implication that what the IPCC is doing is “science” is laughable. Until they empirically prove that human activity is changing the climate in any meaningful way, it’s not science. It’s a false consensus based on correlation, dubious models and green propaganda.
____________________________________
It is not even a Consensus!!!
From Lucia’s Blackboard on AR4.
Also see open letter – Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
This comment seems very appropriate with regards to the IPCC, Phil Jones, Mike Mann ….
What we are seeing in climate science is a return to Alchemy with the IPCC leading the way.
I can imagine that the final version of AR5 which we all await with bated breath, will certainly choose phrasing and tone at the summary levels that continues to encourage fear. But the draft’s Figure 1.4 (of observed global temperatures compared to prior IPCC projections) posted by Anthony and others is difficult to expunge, as is the IPCC’s tacit admission of evidence for solar forcing beyond total solar irradiance (TSI).
We have to keep at it. Eventually the tide of understanding will turn for the better. In my view, there has been some observable change in the public arena this calendar year, despite Doha with all its brouhaha. I suspect there are many good scientists out there, not involved in the IPCC juggernaut, who feel unable to protest because to do so is likely to constrain their careers, and certainly limit research funding for useful projects. Of those still involved in the IPCC process, I suspect there are many who are similarly fearful, while some are fools, and I wonder whether there are some at the top of the chain who may suspect that the main thesis of AGW has now proved to be fraudulent.
As for many of the educated lay people, I wonder how many have their views governed by their political persuasion, and/or their socio-psychological tendency to accept blame for all that happens in our world’s environment. I find many people confuse pollution with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; many have forgotten that carbon dioxide is a great plant food; most don’t realise how much of this useful gas is released in the decay of vegetable and animal matter. In fact, there is much ignorance out there among the educated, I believe. Politically, I’m generally in the middle; some of my left-of-centre very rational friends, won’t even look deeper into the issues.
I’ve been reading Lawrence Krauss’ “A Universe from Nothing” recently. When he writes of the finding by the High-Z Supernova Search Team that the universe is accelerating, he writes of the speed with which the scientific community accepted the new findings. “Almost overnight, there appeared to be universal acceptance of the results, even though, as Carl Sagan has emphasised, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.” This is a telling comment about the propensity of humans to reach agreement, including that group of well-educated scientists who should be trained in the business of doubt, probability, and possible certainty. I think this whole AGW saga reflects very badly on many segments in our community, particularly on those who ought to know better.
Climate change is a reality, not an axiom.
Also human activities affect this process like any of organic creatures existing does on specific levels, stopping a natural process of a planetary degradation by drumming up particular carbon-tax-obsessions is mere nonsense well-contributing the directly benefiting from such pseudo-relief only.
Pointing in a leaked IPCC paper at “the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is highest in 800000 years” unwittingly testifies to a natural history factotum which is the changing settings of planetary magnetic poles, occurring at least every 800000 years as estimated and proven already scientifically.
More: “The X-Challenge: Realm of Senses” http://www.eduois.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2282%3AThe-X-Challenge%3A-Realm-of-Senses&catid=71&Itemid=33
Michael Kerjman
Michael Kerjman,
Not many here dispute that human activity has an effect on temperature. There is the Urban Heat Island [UHI] effect. The problem is that AGW is vastly overestimated. It is a puny 3rd order forcing, and it is so small that it is unmeasurable. There are no empirical measurements of AGW.
AGW can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. It has very little effect. The catastrophic AGW scare is driven by huge amounts of public funding, not by scientific evidence.
DBoehm,
Thanks for sharing my understanding of a very political roots of this “saving the planet” fas driven merely with own clan interests on a usual expence of daily strugglers.
theduke says:
December 14, 2012 at 11:12 am
Garrett says: “The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.”
The implication that what the IPCC is doing is “science” is laughable. Until they empirically prove that human activity is changing the climate in any meaningful way, it’s not science. It’s a false consensus based on correlation, dubious models and green propaganda.
IPCC is NOT a scientific body! It’s brief is to advise governments on actions necessary to combat global warming. The “global warming” bit is taken as read in the brief.
@ Wayne Delbeke says:
Their mandate ASSUMES “human-induced climate change” so it is hardly likely that they are actually interested in “a clear view of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change …”
The MANDATE discrepancy is so true, I cannot believe that one little fact is not brought up more often in any discussion about the IPCC…
That one quote should precede any comment pertaining to the veracity of IPCC “science”, for or against…
“open and transparent”; “not to be cited”.
Apparently they’re in possession of a cure for terminal Cognitive Dissonance! How else do they survive?