Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State

September 30, 2013

The Honorable John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Your press release dated September 27, 2013 Release of the Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly expresses your beliefs about climate science. It included:

This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians.

It’s science.

Excuse me if I make a few clarifications. In reality, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report was initially written by climate scientists for politicians. The language of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers was then amended by politicians during days of negotiations in Stockholm prior to publication.

Additionally, the vast majority of the scientific research reflected in that document was funded by governments. As a result, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers presents only research efforts that adhere to the agendas of the political entities that financed it.

Simply stated, the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers was bought and paid for by politicians for political purposes.

You concluded your press release:

We do so because this is science, these are facts, and action is our only option.

I would have to guess that you have confidence on the IPCC’s projections of future climate. Climate models are used for those predictions. Those predictions are based on projections of future emissions of manmade greenhouse gases and of other anthropogenic factors. But, climate models are not facts; they are computer-aided speculation.

Further to climate models, the predictions assume the models properly simulate climate on Earth. I hate to be the bearer of bad news: the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report simulate Earth’s climate so poorly they are not fit for their intended purposes.

I am an independent climate researcher, Mr. Secretary. I receive no funding other than from book sales and occasional tips from generous souls. I publish my findings at my blog Climate Observations and at the award-winning science blog WattsUpWithThat? I recently presented the modeled and observed warming rates of global land surface air temperatures and of global sea surface temperatures, covering the past three decades. That blog post was Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates. The cross post at WattsUpWithThat is here. (See that post for the specifics on the datasets, model outputs and the time period used.) I compared the warming rates in a table, but the relationships are much easier to see in the two time-series graphs that follow.

Figure 1 compares the warming rates of the modeled and observed global land surface air temperatures over the past three-plus decades. The models performed well. They only overestimated the observed warming rate of land surface air temperatures by about 25%. The problem: they achieved that similarity in trends with skewed climate dynamics within the models.

Figure 1

The vast majority of the warming of global land surface air temperatures, Mr. Secretary, is in response to the warming of the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans. [See Compo and Sardeshmukh (2009) “Ocean Influences on Recent Continental Warming.”] In order to achieve the close match with the observed warming rate of land surface air temperatures, the modelers had to double the observed rate of warming of the surfaces of the global oceans over the past 31 years, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

That clearly indicates the basic underlying physics within the models are unsound. Therefore, there are no reasons to believe the climate model-based predictions of future climate or any study that attempts to use climate models to attribute global warming and climate change to human influences.

In my earlier post linked above, I presented what appear to be the reasons why the modelers needed to force the oceans to warm at twice the observed rate. I won’t bore you with the details here. But, in summary, the climate models used by the IPCC do not — cannot — properly simulate the naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause the surface of the oceans to warm and cool over multidecadal timeframes. (See Guilyardi et al. (2009) and Ruiz-Barradas, et al. (2013))

Those climate model failings stem from the focus of the climate science community on human-induced global warming and climate change — not on global warming and climate change regardless of the cause.

I have been publishing comparisons of data with climate models outputs for about two years. The climate models used by the IPCC clearly cannot simulate Earth’s surface temperatures, precipitation or sea ice area. Additionally, there are numerous scientific research papers that are very critical of how climate models perform specific functions. Looking at those papers independently, the faults do not appear too bad, but collectively they indicate the models are fatally flawed.

In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate models, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models. I would be happy to forward a link to a free copy of Climate Models Fail to your offices for your personal use. Please have one of your staff members leave a comment at my blog Climate Observations if that interests you.

In closing, I would like to ask a favor. I will ask that you help to change the focus of climate change research from “understanding the scientific basis of [the] risk of human-induced climate change” to “understanding the scientific basis of the risk of climate change”. (See IPCC organization History webpage)

The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) is concerned about the IPCC’s focus. See their document titled Submission by The Netherlands on the future of the IPCC. Under the heading of “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles”, KNMI begins:

We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.

Now consider that suggested change of focus came from a country with 20% of its land surface below sea level and about 50% of it only a meter above sea level. If any country should be concerned about climate change, it’s the Netherlands, and they have asked for a better understanding of natural climate change. I suggest to you that the United States should also ask for that same change in research scope.

With that change of focus, I personally believe, based on my own research, that climate researchers will find that the global warming and climate change we’ve experienced over the past three decades is primarily a response to naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, not manmade greenhouse gases. I also believe with the change in focus that, to the relief of most persons, future global warming and climate change will not be found to be catastrophic, but that we will have to plan for a long-term, naturally occurring rise in sea level. Sea levels were 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher during the Eemian (the last interglacial period) than they are today. (Refer to the press release for the 2013 paper by Dahl-Jensen, et al. “Eemian Interglacial Reconstructed From a Greenland Folded Ice Core”.) It would be prudent to plan for those same sea levels during this interglacial. Thankfully, with the slow rate of sea level rise, there should be loads of time to make sound economic decisions.

The people of the United States should be receiving honest appraisals of human-induced and naturally occurring global warming and climate change, not politically motivated conjecture.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Secretary.

Sincerely,

Bob Tisdale

About these ads

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in IPCC AR5 Report, Opinion, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State

  1. Howarth Rowe says:

    How do you know when someones lying to you? When its Political.

  2. AleaJactaEst says:

    bon chance Bob, I don’t think we have a snowball in hell’s chance of affecting any of these clowns way of thinking. As you state, theirs is a religion and a way to tax; ours is science. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  3. This damn thing is a religion for the Left. Kerry has it backwards.

  4. pokerguy says:

    Hey Bob,

    So far out of Kerry’s worldview that in the very small to vanishing chance that he reads it, he’ll regard it was the ravings of a lunatic. Still, worthy effort. Appreciate your fine work.

  5. azleader says:

    You were doing great, right up until you tried to explain the details.

    Secretary Kerry is a politician. He has got a lot more on his plate than global warming at the moment. His recent comments were totally wrong, of course, but he will stop reading as soon as he sees the first graph.

    It might have been better served if you just referenced him to the NICCP “Summary for Policymakers” report and left it at that.
    http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

    He probably wouldn’t even read that, but it is closer to the language he understands.

  6. E Martin says:

    There is a 95% probability that Kerry is incapable of understanding this.

  7. PRD says:

    Fantastic letter, Bob. You’ve stated a case and supported it with data.

    I wouldn’t expect Lerch to spend much time contemplating it though.

    You’d likely have better luck with some fence sitting coastal, Red State Democrat senators. Landrieu of Louisiana maybe? Alaska has a (D) senator.

  8. Ivor says:

    Thank you very much for your effort.

  9. PRD says:

    And these Red State democrats are up for reelection in ’14. Every one of them is vulnerable.
    The USA, much like many European countries, is tiring of the wastefulness of government. This one is like no other and the liberal party will probably be looking to hold on to any seats they can.

  10. Bob is misrepresenting the meaning and intention of what the KNMI said. I asked the KNMI for a clarification and this is what they sent me:
    ===
    In response to your question, I must inform you that the mandate of the IPCC (Principles Governing IPCC Work) states the following:

    “2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of *risk of human-induced climate change*, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

    So here they only (explicitly) mention the anthropogenic component. We (the Dutch IPCC delegation) believe it is important that the scope of this statement should be widened, namely that natural variability should be explicitly mentioned in the mandate of the IPCC.

    In practice, the IPCC reports (WG1 and 2) on climate change mention natural and anthropogenic factors, simply because of the fact that the human factor only gains credence when compared to natural changes.

    The proposed change from the Netherlands is that the mandate of the IPCC should be much more in line with what they’ve been doing for years. This also makes clear that the response in the media is not true, namely that the Netherlands find that natural variability is more important than the human influence. As this isn’t the intent of the Dutch submission.
    ===

    In other words this is about changing the IPCC mandate so that it matches what the IPCC already is doing in their reports.

  11. ConfusedPhoton says:

    Didn’t Hansen support Kerry’s presidential bid?
    Didn’t Hansen receive a large sum of money from an organisation headed by Kerry’s wife Teresa Heinz?
    Surely he will never read this!

  12. JA says:

    Maybe if you had written your letter to that elitist, arrogant buffoon in French AND you had signed it as the mullah in chief of Iran, he perhaps would have attempted to read it; n’est pas?

  13. Alan Robertson says:

    So, we’re trying to convince John Kerry that his words are untrue and that he has been duped? No! John Kerry knows his words are untrue and he thinks that you have been duped. The fact that this thread was attempted, proves John Kerry is right. We are dupes to think the truth matters to those people.

  14. herkimer says:

    Bob

    Well said . The graph that persuaded me of the major impact of oceans on our climate was your Detrended Sea surface temperature Anomalies for the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans Pole to Pole. The peaks in this graph around 1880, 1940 and 2005 and the troughs near 1910 and 1975 match so closely the world global temperature swings . The interesting observations from this graph is that the ocean cycle seems to have peaked and may be heading to a trough by 2045? Cooler weather indicated if ocean SST anomalies are heading down.? This makes a lot more sense to me than a rising co2 which is supposed to raise global temperatures but has not done so for 16.8 years. now. IPCC is projecting temperatures to rise again by 0.2 C per decade . I don’ see this except in isolated El NINO years and even then , there are fewer strong climate altering El Ninos during global cooling cycles[ only one per decade]. The Arctic shows signs of starting to cool , the sun cycle is low and could be so for at least 2 decades more., so there is nothing on the horizon that may raise global temperatures by 0,2 C per decade for the next 20 years . I think Ipcc has dug them selves a hole that will be difficult to get out of .

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png

  15. Marcos says:

    i was taught many years ago that letters to politicians should be short and direct (no more than 5 paragraphs) or they will pretty much be ignored. something with this much detail will cause them to go into TL;DR mode (too long; didnt read)

  16. GeoLurking says:

    E Martin says:
    September 30, 2013 at 8:04 am

    There is a 95% probability that Kerry is incapable of understanding this.

    That probability is actually very very low. Some people are mentally incapable of comprehending facts even when you hit them up the side of the head with a 2 x 4. Mules can understand a 2 x 4, John Kerry can not.

    I hate to break it to you, but Bob, but you are talking to a rock. LITERALLY.

  17. Claude Harvey says:

    It would be a better world for us all if the administration had the least interest in what you’ve written. But that’s simply not the case. “Truth” for a politician is whatever supports his or her political agenda. To this administration, your pants are on fire, Bob. The President (and therefore Kerry) has clearly announced that he’s “lost patience” with truth-tellers such as you.

  18. GeoLurking says:

    Almost forgot…

    There is nothing “Honorable” about John Kerry. “Traitorous?” Yeah, that might fit. It definitely applies to his predecessor and current boss, who both willingly allowed 4 US citizens to die because of another gun running scheme.

    My guess is that the “dead ambassadors can’t testify before congress” rule played quite heavily in their decision to pull the plug on rescue attempts.

  19. wellingtonx1@btinternet.com says:

    Kerry is a fully paid up member of the church of the resurrection so getting him away from conjecture about Co2 has about the same chance as him denying God or Jesus ever did exist and there is no use showing these guys numbers or giving them graphs because the just don’t understand or recognise the subtlety of evidence they only have the capacity to comprehend what is said to them by people that they trust and that will not relate to anyone who says AGW is a fraud any time soon. Even if the ocean shrinks and the sky falls in it will not change their minds because as you well know when it comes to fanaticism America is more fundamentalist than Iran ever could be. Different subject but amplifies the issue, New Zealand has just banned an advert relating to breast cancer because they have rules about nipples being exposed on TV, you remember Janet Jackson mistakenly or deliberately exposed a nipple American TV and there was a huge outcry this from a nation that creates and produces two thirds of the planets pornography with my lap dancing clubs per head in the bible belt than again anywhere else on the planet. Hypocrisy is the key here but so is loss of face all of these guys have investment unlimited rhetoric in the promotion of AGW and Co2 being – no pun intended – the anti Christ politicians and the majority of the media come from the same gene pool the one that dictates if you have half a brain no talent but want to be noticed and get paid for doing mostly nothing worthwhile become a politician or a journalist or write Harry Potter books where a wizard can walk through walls but needs a key to open doors. You are dealing here with human nature at its most base level and they will need to be dragged kicking and screaming with ice a mile thick and still they will defend AGW because you cannot argue with belief and remember Obama is far worse than Kerry every could be he’s a lawyer!

  20. Collin Maessen:

    Your post at September 30, 2013 at 8:12 am quotes the Role of the IPCC but either misunderstands or misrepresents how the IPCC fulfils that Role.

    I have recently explained this on other IPCC threads and do so here again for the benefit of others who have not seen it.

    The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

    The IPCC considers natural factors affecting climate only in so far as those natural considerations support the contention that “of human-induced climate change” is dominant.

    This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    Near its beginning that document says

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
    The IPCC exists to provide
    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
    and
    (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

    Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

    The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

    Richard

  21. vukcevic says:

    Mr. Tisdale
    With respect, the Secretary of State is a busy official preoccupied with all sorts of problems, and is unlikely to consider reading and even less attempting to analyse your detailed communication.
    I would write:
    Dear Sir
    You may reconsider if to be more cautious in accepting report written by people who are likely to perpetuate previous erroneous reports with the aim of preserving their financial and employment circumstance.
    Sir, as long as the IPCC reports are unquestionably accepted by the powers to be, the report authors are answerable to no one, while you sir, may well reconsider if to put your reputation on line at their behest.
    Regards …

  22. Jim G says:

    Bob,
    You forget an important point. Stupid people do not know they are stupid, because they are stupid, and if rich and powerfull, are continuously told by those seeking favor that they are smart. So, it is not likely the Secretary will even understand what you have said. And, in the unlikely event that Kerry is not stupid, he will still support those policies which increase his power and control, irrespective of the truth which you have so skillfully laid out for him. But, nice try.

  23. Charles.U.farley says:

    Measure emissions of co2 from major volcanic events, compare with whole human emissions since industrialisation, sit back and laugh at ipcc assertions of 50% human attribution for temperature risies…..

  24. Edohiguma says:

    GeoLurking, took my thoughts straight out of my head.

  25. Edohiguma says:

    vukcevic, Kerry is predominantly occupied with making a complete arse out of himself on the global stage and making the Russians laugh.

  26. Jim Cripwell says:

    I am sorry, but good as Bob’s letter is, it wont do any good. In the bible, there is the story of David and Goliath. David had a sling shot, and a well aimed stone hitting Goliath on the forehead, knocked him out.

    We skeptics are David fighting Goliath, without a slingshot. We do not have the firepower to defeat the RS, tbe AMS, the WMO, and all the rest. Until we get a significant academic institution on our side, who is prepared to use their firepower on our behalf, all our efforts, for all their scientific validity, are absolutely useless.

    I asked this question on Climate Etc. “Who is going to bell the cat?”.

  27. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    John Kerry came over here to England earlier in the year, and frankly made himself look a bit of an idiot.

  28. Bob Tisdale says:

    Collin Maessen: You keep stating that I’ve misrepresented what KNMI wrote, when I have not. You presented the same lame argument at my website:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-13137

    I quoted KNMI, from a document from their website. Note the website address is http://www.knmi.nl:
    http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

    I did not quote them out of context. They wrote exactly what I presented. You, on the other hand, have presented no document from the KNMI website. Maybe you should read what they wrote in that document instead of trying to make excuses that do not hold up to scrutiny

    Have a nice day.

  29. Philip Lee says:

    Alan Robertson said at September 30, 2013 at 8:19 am:
    We are dupes to think the truth matters to those people. among other things. As much as I agree with his sentiments, he has forgotten the purpose of these debates. No one should believe their purpose is to change the mind of your opponent (Kerry here), but should understand they are intended to influence the minds of third parties. Influence enough third parties and you change the mind of most politicians.

    It isn’t clear who Tisdale intends to influence, but I agree he fails at the first graph. While you may be able to persuade scientists with truth, that mostly fails with politicians. If it takes more than about 90 words in three points to state your refutation, you’ve lost.

    So, a refutation might be:
    The IPCC assessments and predictions depend on models which have worked poorly and failed to predict the current 17 year pause in warming.
    IPCC scientists no longer agree on fundamental model parameters such as the temperature sensitivity to CO2 doubling and the effects of cloud feedbacks.
    So far, the measured climate is well within historic norms for temperature, sea level rise, ice melt, and CO2 and no immediate action is currently needed by governments.

  30. Bob, I’m quoting from an email I got from the KNMI, something I clearly stated in my original comment. On your website I clarify further that this response was written by Rob van Dorland, who is part of the KNMI IPCC delegation that wrote the very document you’re citing.

    I also said to contact the KNMI if you don’t believe what I’m saying. That way you can verify that what I’m saying is an accurate depicting of their response towards me, and so you can verify that what you’re saying is correct or not.

    I’m not the only person who got the same response from the KNMI when asked for a clarification on the passage that you’re citing:
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/the-dutch-view-on-the-future-of-the-ipcc-what-it-does-and-what-it-does-not-say/

    There’s no need to call what I say a “lame argument” when I’ve told you who gave me that statement so you can verify everything.

  31. Pamela Gray says:

    Dear Honorable John Kerry:

    As long as a single AGWing chicken little politician from any party (who is elected, hired or appointed), feeds at the public trough, I will not vote for a left of center politician.

    You should take note of this. I used to be a registered democrat and voted left of center almost exclusively. The ONLY reason why I changed my voting record is because of AGWing nonsense. And its complete demise will be the only reason I switch back.

    Sincerely,

    Pamela Gray, B.S., M.A., M.S.

  32. jorgekafkazar says:

    Brevity is the soul of wit. But then, a letter to Kerry of any length would be over his head, so it doesn’t matter. Nice effort, Bob, as always. You, too, Vuk.

  33. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Talking to Kerry is akin to expecting a perfect climate model forecast.

  34. Collin Maessen:

    I read your link in your post at September 30, 2013 at 9:56 am.
    It is nonsense.

    If you want to know WHY and HOW it is nonsense then please read my post addressed to you in this thread. This link jumps to it
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-1431875

    Richard

  35. Jesse G. says:

    John Kerry has a long history of twisting facts to suit a personal agenda.

  36. krb981 says:

    In the US you make jokes about the Polish. In Britain the Irish are usually the butt of our humour. The Irish makes jokes about Kerry..men. I suspect your Mr Kerry is simply too stupid and too politically indoctrinated to understand any of this.

  37. Jim Clarke says:

    Bob,

    I think Collin is correct in relaying the position of the KNMI, but as Richard pointed out, that position is dead wrong. Collin writes:

    “In practice, the IPCC reports (WG1 and 2) on climate change mention natural and anthropogenic factors, simply because of the fact that the human factor only gains credence when compared to natural changes.”

    We all know that the IPCC reports do not even begin to address the natural factors at play, and only speak about a few minor natural factors to try and convince the world that they are all negligible. This blatant concealing of the compelling science of natural climate variability is a vital cog in the IPCC argument, namely that ‘it must be man-made because we can’t think of anything else it could be.” (The fallacious ‘Argument from Ignorance’)

    The KNMI is not asking the IPCC to stop ignoring the vast majority of natural climate change science. It is asking the IPCC to push the obfuscation even harder, to make the fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’ more compelling!

    It is so twisted, that it appears the KNMI has suddenly become more interested in science than in politics, but I am afraid that is not the case.

  38. eyesonu says:

    Good letter Bob. I do hope you sent this to Kerry.

    But I do admit that he is a waste of time.

  39. Chazz says:

    Secretary Kerry:

    Many of us who are interested in the world’s long term climate were quite impressed with your personal commitment to to the “science” in the latest IPCC report and thus your willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. No doubt it was not easy for you to decide to permanently dock your recently purchased diesel powered yacht, the Isabel, but it was certainly the right thing to do.

  40. John Whitman says:

    From Collin Maessen’s open letter to Bob Tisdale,

    “. . . The KNMI isn’t saying that the IPCC should shift its focus to provide a “better understanding of natural climate change.” This is about changing the IPCC mandate so that it matches what the IPCC is already doing. That this is their intent is stated very clearly in the following response I got from them when I asked about their intent with this passage (translated from Dutch, emphasis and link mine):”

    ‘ . . .

    The proposed change from the Netherlands is that the mandate of the IPCC should be much more in line with what they’ve been doing for years. This also makes clear that the response in the media is not true, namely that the Netherlands find that natural variability is more important than the human influence. As this isn’t the intent of the Dutch submission. ‘

    - – - – - – - -

    Collin Maessen,

    Thank you for pointing out that the IPCC is not inherently or explicitly precluded by its original mandate from addressing / assessing the natural climate; that it has been providing, quite within its mandate and necessarily, some naturally variability context for any assessments of potential anthropogenic components of climate. And I think making natural variability wording explicit in the IPCC mandate would probably cause much needed research funds to flow in the direction of studying natural variability. Good thing. So the Dutch (KNMI) idea is beneficial, I thank them.

    Speaking of changing the the IPCC mandate, its limitation of explicitly looking at anthropogenic risks of climate without also explicitly and equally assessing the benefits was absurd / irrational. It contained a fatally false premise; namely, fatal to the IPCC’s credibility.

    My above views not withstanding, the IPCC is not fit (by its affiliation and structure) for objective integration and/or balanced critical review of climate research. It should be disbanded. A non-governmental inter-university consortium of strictly volunteer participation should quite naturally come into existence within the free marketplace of scientific ideas. . . . I think this is already a grassroots endeavor.

    John

  41. TRBixler says:

    Bob
    There is control to be gained in regulating CO2. It is not interesting from a political point to cause increase of jobs or to stop world hunger. But just think of magical CO2 and its tax and regulation implications. Now this is the stuff of true political power.

  42. Solomon Green says:

    Messrs Courtney and Tisdale should give way to Mr. Maessen. They do not speak double Dutch. He does.

    ‘ “2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of *risk of human-induced climate change*, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.’”
    So here they only (explicitly) mention the anthropogenic component. We (the Dutch IPCC delegation) believe it is important that the scope of this statement should be widened, namely that natural variability should be explicitly mentioned in the mandate of the IPCC.
    In practice, the IPCC reports (WG1 and 2) on climate change mention natural and anthropogenic factors, simply because of the fact that the human factor only gains credence when compared to natural changes.
    The proposed change from the Netherlands is that the mandate of the IPCC should be much more in line with what they’ve been doing for years.’

    Mr. Maessen does not seem to realise that it is because “for years” the IPCC has concentrated on the “risk of human-induced climate change” and only include natural variability as a secondary factor, usually only where it is necessary to support their thesis, that the change suggested by KNMI is needed.

  43. Brian Johnson UK says:

    There’s more glue on the Secretary of State’s wig than science in the IPCC report……

  44. Amber says:

    Good and appropriate effort however it is akin to asking a bank robber to stop robbing the bank as he walks out the door. The good news is the IPCC already has been dumped in a filing cabinet
    because the public is ahead of the politicians directing the man made global warming scam. polliticians like John Kerry permanently trash their “legacy” by uttering such nonsense.Hiding behind some white coat credibility to justify the scam is cowardly. The USA is better than that.

  45. John Leon says:

    An excellent letter Mr. Tisdale, unfortunately the Secretary of State is a politician and therefore suffers from the attention span of a fish, let alone has the intellect or integrity to be able to understand and then accept he is wrong, only when his career is in jeopardy and he is frantically looking around in panic for something to save him will he become aware that an adoption of the truth might be a worthwhile exercise, sadly for most of us not in the enthrall of the great IPCC scam, in his case I believe him to be beyond redemption.

  46. Solomon Green:

    I fail to understand your post at September 30, 2013 at 11:16 am.

    It begins saying

    Messrs Courtney and Tisdale should give way to Mr. Maessen.

    and concludes saying

    Mr. Maessen does not seem to realise that it is because “for years” the IPCC has concentrated on the “risk of human-induced climate change” and only include natural variability as a secondary factor, usually only where it is necessary to support their thesis, that the change suggested by KNMI is needed.

    I see no reason for me to “give way”.

    As I have repeatedly explained, the IPCC is tasked by its “Role” to justify political “options” based on the assumption of a “risk of human-induced climate change”. The IPCC only considers “natural variability” in so far as the consideration is used to justify the asserted “risk of human-induced climate change”. The KNMI proposal supports the existing “Role” of the IPCC and argues that the “Role” should be strengthened.

    I oppose Lysenkoism and oppose its being strengthened.

    Richard

  47. J Martin says:

    Nice try, but, your letter will probably get as far as one of John Kerry’s minions who will email one of his under minions to send you standard response (rejection) letter ‘f’.

    Either that or you will be taken to the nearest mental health secure unit and incarcerated there for an indeterminate amount of time.

  48. Bruce Cobb says:

    Kerry: “It’s science.”
    What he means: “I wouldn’t know science from my own arse.”

  49. Alan Robertson says:

    Philip Lee says:
    September 30, 2013 at 9:39 am

    …”he has forgotten the purpose of these debates. No one should believe their purpose is to change the mind of your opponent (Kerry here), but should understand they are intended to influence the minds of third parties. Influence enough third parties and you change the mind of most politicians…
    So, a refutation might be:”

    _____________________________
    As you say, a refutation of AR5 may best be aimed at third parties. Many citizens think that it is too late for refutation to matter at all.
    The current administration is purposely lying about this and many issues. Some think that this administration is operating under the belief that they have reached the point of political invincibility and that no amount of truth or reason will deter them. Many US citizens disagree and have abandoned faith in the government and the institutions of the media which are charged with exposing tyranny in our midst. Has anyone noticed the nation’s current extraordinary and prolonged demand for ammunition? It might be folly to ignore it.

  50. Considering his collusion with the Syrian chemical weapons false-flag, we can probably opt to leave the “honorable” part off of any further responses to him.

    Is it really going to keep on like this? Truth comes out about the non-issue of global warming/climate change/blah blah, and these nitwits will continue prevaricating?

  51. dbstealey says:

    GeoLurking says:

    “There is nothing ‘Honorable’ about John Kerry. ‘Traitorous?’ Yeah…”

    I was in the jungles of Viet Nam just before Kerry and Jane Fonda went to North Viet Nam, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and posing for publicity photos with the people who were killing American soldiers. Kerry told endless lies in his “Winter Soldier” propaganda; lies that undoubtedly cost the lives of young American soldiers.

    I am still astonished that such a traitor has acheived his current position. If it were up to me, Kerry would be lucky to be serving a life sentence at hard labor, with no possibility of parole.

  52. Thanks, Bob. Good try!
    Useless I’m afraid, but who knows?

  53. Bob Tisdale says:

    Collin Maessen: Let me try again. One last time.

    1. Contrary to what you wrote, I did not misrepresent what KNMI stated in the KNMI document I linked. The document I quoted is available from the KNMI website. Anyone can confirm that I have not misrepresented what KNMI presented.

    2. You have provided a quote from the IPCC that does refute what was written by the KNMI.

    3. Regardless of what someone emailed to you, you have provided nothing to indicate that what I quoted was a misrepresentation of what KNMI wrote in that document from their website.

    4. I will ask that you correct your blog post to reflect the above.
    http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-bob-tisdale/

    5. I will ask that you end this discussion. You are wasting your time and mine.

  54. Owen says:

    Bob Tisdale. You got one thing wrong. John Kerry is not honourable. Other than this major error, I agree with everything you stated in your letter.

  55. geran says:

    Thank you, Bob!

  56. numerobis says:

    In the US, the GOP, controlled both houses of congress from 1995 to 2004 (except for the senate, temporarily); the GOP controlled the presidency from 2001 to 2008. So a party that is quite opposed to any claims of global warming controlled the purse strings for 10 years, the executive for 8 years, and both simultaneously for 4 years.

    How did this alleged climate lysenkoism survive that?

  57. numerobis:

    Your post at September 30, 2013 at 12:55 pm asks

    In the US, the GOP, controlled both houses of congress from 1995 to 2004 (except for the senate, temporarily); the GOP controlled the presidency from 2001 to 2008. So a party that is quite opposed to any claims of global warming controlled the purse strings for 10 years, the executive for 8 years, and both simultaneously for 4 years.

    How did this alleged climate lysenkoism survive that?

    I answer:
    It is because the US is not the UN.

    And the US refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol but the UN adopted it.

    Funny how some Americans fail to understand that the US doesn’t rule everything.

    Richard

  58. Like he cares.
    How’s ketchup sales?

  59. Alan Robertson says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    Funny how some Americans fail to understand that the US doesn’t rule everything.”
    __________________________
    While the US is vast enough and diverse enough that any aspect of human consciousness is likely to be held by someone, somewhere, you are out of line for making that statement.

  60. Barbee says:

    John Kerry: Honorable?

  61. Gunga Din says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    September 30, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    richardscourtney says:
    September 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    “Funny how some Americans fail to understand that the US doesn’t rule everything.”
    __________________________
    While the US is vast enough and diverse enough that any aspect of human consciousness is likely to be held by someone, somewhere, you are out of line for making that statement.

    =================================================================
    Maybe I’m wrong (I know Richard would not be averse to telling me if I am.8-) but I think you misunderstood his point. He said that in the context of authority that has been ceded to the UN. Too many Americans do not realize that is happening.

  62. Gunga Din says:

    Owen says:
    September 30, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Bob Tisdale. You got one thing wrong. John Kerry is not honourable. Other than this major error, I agree with everything you stated in your letter.

    =====================================================================
    8-) “Honorable”, in the US, is the proper address to the position of Secretary of State.
    But you are right about the person presently holding that position.
    There are many “Joe-six-packs” who comment here that are more deserving of the adjective, let alone the posters and, of course, the host of this blog.

  63. Gunga Din:

    re your comment at September 30, 2013 at 1:47 pm.

    Yes, of course you are right: I thought my meaning was clear from its context.

    The funny thing is that the response from Alan Robertson illustrated my point.

    Richard

  64. Alan Robertson says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 30, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    Gunga Din:

    re your comment at September 30, 2013 at 1:47 pm.

    Yes, of course you are right: I thought my meaning was clear from its context.

    The funny thing is that the response from Alan Robertson illustrated my point.

    Richard
    ______________________

    How did my words illustrate your point?

    For Gunga Din, et al:
    I’d appreciate it if you let Richard answer in his own words (before you chime in.)

  65. Sunspot says:

    It’s not about AGW at all. It’s all about internal revenue. Tony Abbott now realises that the majority of us voters here in Oz are right onto it.

  66. Jon Jewett says:

    dbstealey says: September 30, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Dittos

    In Anatoly Dobrynin’s (Soviet Ambassador to Washington) Memoirs “In Confidence”, he relates two occasions, one with Secretary of State Dean Rusk and one with Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Both times they told Dobrynin that newly elected President Johnson wanted out of Vietnam. Johnson wanted the Soviets to broker a peace deal to include a mutual withdrawal from Vietnam and then the United States would walk away. So much for poor John Kennedy’s promise about Bearing any Burden….. to keep freedom alive yada yada yada.

    The North Vietnamese Politbureau had voted to keep the war going as long as they were winning and they understood that the war was mostly political.. So, between Johnson’s half hearted waffling and the liberals (especially Kerry and Fonda) Johnson’s power was undercut. Kerry and Fonda and others like the Clintons caused the war to run on another ten years. They were responsible for killing many of the 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Vietnamese.

    Nixon ran on a platform to end the Kennedy/Johnson war in Vietnam. Unfortunately, he quickly found that his authority had also been undermined. The only way he could get the Communists to negotiate in good faith was by massive bombing. When the cost became too high for the
    Communists, they finally did negotiate.

    By the way, we never did lose a battle in the Vietnam War. By the time Tet as over, the Communists had ceased to exist as a force in South Vietnam. Unfortunately the fools in the Pentagon and the White House and the media (Walter Cronkite) just didn’t see what the Communists saw. The political aspect was even more important than combat. That’s why the war museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) on the war has a “Hall of Heroes” with photos of Jane Fonda and John Kerry.

    When the South finally fell, it was to a conventional invasion force from the North with tanks and columns of troops. There were no “insurgents” left in the South.

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  67. Alan Robertson:

    I am replying to your post at September 30, 2013 at 2:14 pm . This will be my last post on this side-track.

    If you had read my post then you would have seen its true meaning. At least one other did see its true meaning because Gunga Din said he did.

    My point was that what happens in the US does not rule what happens in the UN and other places. Indeed, I said that with illustration. And I added that some Americans fail to understand that.

    You took offence that I said that truth. Clearly, your post demonstrated that some Americans fail to understand that truth: indeed, you claim to be offended that I mentioned it!

    Richard

  68. Gunga Din says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    September 30, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    For Gunga Din, et al:
    I’d appreciate it if you let Richard answer in his own words (before you chime in.)

    ========================================================================
    OK. Just trying to put out a fuse he didn’t mean to light.

  69. Gunga Din:

    re your post at September 30, 2013 at 2:40 pm.

    I understood that, and I should have thanked you for it. I do now and apologise for my oversight in not doing it earlier when I confirmed your understanding of my words was correct.

    I hope the matter is now ended.

    Richard

  70. Alan Robertson says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    “And I added that some Americans fail to understand that.”
    _______________________
    Yes this is a sidetrack, regrettably. ”
    —————————————————-
    richardscourtney says:
    September 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    “I answer:
    It is because the US is not the UN.

    And the US refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol but the UN adopted it.”
    ____________________________
    That much is perfectly agreeable.

    The next sentence was a subtle whack at Americans, whether you want to be big enough to admit it, or not, you used your words in a clumsy way which can be taken as a subtle insult. I called you on it and you escalated the insult to a personal level.

    No need to go further…

  71. Alan Robertson:

    I had hoped this matter was ended, but at September 30, 2013 at 2:46 pm you proclaim that I made some kind of “subtle insult”. I DID NOT! I merely stated a truth which you chose to illustrate.

    My having corrected that untrue accusation, I now hope the matter can be over.

    Richard

    PS When I make insults they are not “subtle”.

  72. R. de Haan says:

    Thank for the initiative Bob Tisdale.

  73. Cargosquid says:

    As a non-scientist, I have noticed one thing.
    This discussion about the IPCC acknowledging natural causes vs man made causes for any climate change or warming…its missing the obvious point.

    The IPCC cannot acknowledge or suggest natural reasons. If they did so, then THEY would have no reason to be busybodies. Thus, they have every reason to be biased.

  74. Alan Robertson says:

    Richard,
    I called you on these words: “Funny how some Americans fail to understand that the US doesn’t rule everything.” You now state that you meant no insult with those words, but merely used them to illustrate your point. Fine. You should have left it there… but you didn’t.

    Now, Are you stating in a public forum that I said something untrue (that your words could NOT be misconstrued as an insult)? Are you saying that I personally illustrate how some Americans fail to understand that America doesn’t rule the world?

    LOL

  75. dp says:

    Quoting John Kerry from before he became an inside the beltway elitist:

    “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

    See more at Willis’ brilliant description of the dark side of climate hysteria at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/expensive-energy-kills-poor-people/

  76. Alan Robertson:

    I am writing as a courtesy to inform you that I read your idiotic twaddle at September 30, 2013 at 3:05 pm.

    Richard

  77. Alan Robertson says:

    dp says:
    September 30, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Quoting John Kerry from before he became an inside the beltway elitist:

    “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

    See more at Willis’ brilliant description of the dark side of climate hysteria at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/expensive-energy-kills-poor-people/
    _____________________
    Needs repeating… John Kerry, et al are engaged in genocide and so are many of those who would normally just be considered Mom and Pop environmentalists. They may be ignorant as fenceposts and horrified at the suggestion that they support genocide, but they can be led easily to such an admission. I just had a short conversation with such people, this past weekend. They very quickly got mad at the things I pointed out to them and soon were saying that yes, the human population needed to be reduced to save the planet. When I asked which of their friends and family they’d like to see go first, they threw me out of their house.

  78. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 30, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Alan Robertson:

    I had hoped this matter was ended, but at September 30, 2013 at 2:46 pm you proclaim that I made some kind of “subtle insult”. I DID NOT! I merely stated a truth which you chose to illustrate.

    My having corrected that untrue accusation, I now hope the matter can be over.

    Richard

    PS When I make insults they are not “subtle”.

    =======================================================================
    Richard, I had to read your last line twice and then look at the context to see it wasn’t meant as an insult. Sometimes the actual words we type don’t communicate what we meant them to, thus my attempt to “defuse”. Your last line could be taken as a “subtle insult” by someone not more familiar with your comments and style. I had to read it twice.
    Alan, give him a break. He didn’t mean it as you think he did.
    (Do I need to duck now?)

  79. Gunga Din says:

    OOPS! Missed the close to my italics.

  80. Jim G says:

    Pamela Gray says:

    “You should take note of this. I used to be a registered democrat and voted left of center almost exclusively. The ONLY reason why I changed my voting record is because of AGWing nonsense. And its complete demise will be the only reason I switch back.

    Sincerely,

    Pamela Gray, B.S., M.A., M.S.”

    I hope you are very young as you have, in spite of your degrees, much to learn if AGW is the only issue keeping you from voting to the left. I am surprised as you are generally very well spoken and very logical in your posts.

    Jim G, B.S. Eng., MBA

  81. Alan Robertson says:

    Jim G says:
    September 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    ______________
    Leave her alone, why dontcha. She’s redheaded.

  82. Sisi says:

    Bob,

    Collin is right, at least I have no reason to doubt his interpretation. This has been discussed elsewhere months ago, e.g.

    http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/07/24/dutch-meteorological-institute-knmi-critical-of-ipcc/

    or

    http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/dutch-advice-to-ipcc/

    If you think the KNMI is wrong in interpreting their own statements, then ask them yourself, and get back to us when you get an answer.

    So you are saying Collin needs to correct his blog, although he has emails to prove the point? And then asking to end the discussion? What? Afraid it might be you that is wrong? If he is wrong you can announce victory. If he is right, simply admit you read it differently than it was intended. No harm in that now and then.

  83. Sisi says:

    And an addition, if the IPCC has to figure out the anthropogenic part of climate change, then there is no way to do this but by separating the anthropogenic part from the non-anthropogenic part. How else could you do this? (This is true independent of you believing in humanity causing climate change, you have to figure out what is or can be natural, and what is not or can’t be. (Applying here: humans caused = not natural; non-human caused = natural; Others may use other definitions of course.))

  84. R2Dtoo says:

    Kerry is all in on the progressive UN agenda. Did he not just sign the small arms trade initiative for the US, after all internal gun measures bombed (pun intended). He and the POTUS hope the Senate will ratify it, and again the US Constitution is circumvented. CAGW is of course UN.

  85. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jim Clarke says: “I think Collin is correct in relaying the position of the KNMI…”

    It’s really difficult to misinterpret what KNMI wrote:
    http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

    And I can assure you that I have not misinterpreted it.

  86. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sisi says: “Collin is right, at least I have no reason to doubt his interpretation….”

    I’ll repeat for you what I wrote to Jim Clarke:
    # # #
    It’s really difficult to misinterpret what KNMI wrote:
    http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

    And I can assure you that I have not misinterpreted it.
    # # #

    Additionally, Sisi, the fact that Collin discussed it earlier in blog post is meaningless. As is your comment!!

    As to the WottsUpWithThat post you linked, did you bother to read it? Obviously not, unless you were providing it as additional misdirection, assuming no one would bother to click on your link.

    The author of that WottsUpWithThat post was wondering why KNMI wrote their recommendation. In other words, WottsUpWithThat did not understand it. But that’s not surprising. WottsUpWithThat obviously fail to grasp much of what goes on in climate science.

    Have a nice day.

  87. Matt in Houston says:

    John Kerry cannot legally serve as Secretary of State, yet he is. Beyond that he is a scoundrel and an idiot with shoes he cannot fill like most all democrats. Good effort Mr. Tisdale, thank you for your efforts, but I am afraid they will fall on tyrants ears.

  88. Adam says:

    Ha ha, nice one! John “Kohn” Kerry… the honest broker for peace in Syria and the wider Middle East… who acts independently of any and all lobby groups …. and he *really* cares about the Environment too. Ha ha, sorry, almost falling off of my chair here. Ask him how many depleted Uranium bombs he plans to “save the planet” with in Syria!

  89. Patrick B says:

    “It would be prudent to plan for those same sea levels during this interglacial.” This is a stupid statement – planning for anything happening more than 50 years out shows a lack of understanding how the world works. So many things change over a 50 year period that planning for a longer period than that is a waste of time. Yes some buildings last longer etc., but in reality time has shown we are incapable of guessing what will change over such a period.

  90. dadgervais says:

    In 1988, while stationed at Hanscom Field, MA, I had the misfortune to brief Senator Kerry concerning research and development of speech digitization telephony systems being conducted at the COMSEC Speech Laboratory where I worked. To judge from his questions/remarks, he impressed me as a dolt!

  91. Jon says:

    “This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document
    produced by politicians.
    It’s science.”
    “We do so because this is science, these are facts, and action is our only option.”

    If it’s like he claim it is, Why does he have to say it? I mean are there reasons to belive that the report is a political document based on policy based science and the only and real object with it all is radical political action?

    ?

  92. Obama, Kerry and the IPCC Have Put Humanity On Trial For Crime Of Progress and Found Humanity Guilty. Humanity’s Sentence Is Poverty & Servitude

    Kerry and Obama do not want to know the truth. The truth would destroy the delusion they are fighting on the side of the people when the exact opposite is true. Obama and Kerry are on the team of the 1% who have put humanity on trial for the crime of progress. Fossil Fuel is the enemy that must be destroyed because “if everybody’s raising living standards to the point where everybody’s got a car, and everybody’s got air conditioning, and everybody’s got a big house the planet will boil over” Obama, Kerry and their cohorts in the IPCC have found humanity guilty of destroying the planet and for the crime of progress humanity is sentenced to a life time of poverty and servitude.

  93. bushbunny says:

    The new Prime Minister the Honorable, Tony Abbott, is no fool. He has decommissioned the climate change commission and Tim Flannery, will attempt to stop and reverse the carbon tax, but right now is embroiled in the illegal asylum seekers coming to Australia, and the number who are dying or drowning on route. Of course the MMS are finding every way to discredit him and his ministers and pushing the climate change debate again. He has also stopped the clean energy bank that holds 10 billion dollars for clean energy projects, and a wind turbine project destined for the Northern Tablelands, NSW. It had been approved but they want more information. 189 turbines, well the land owners won’t be pleased, 15 k a year rental per turbine, they might as well give up farming for a living or curtail it. But in the USA are all senators and congressmen favor the type of nonsense the IPCC are churning out over the years, and the collapse of the solar panel industry some years ago? Best of luck maybe similar letters can be sent to other European and world leaders.

  94. Yo, someone cross check poster “oz” with Sec. of State John F. Kerry ip addresses very good chance Lt. Kerry was here with us of late.

    He does have a CIA hat you know, keeps it in his brief case.

  95. Brian H says:

    Bob;
    At several points, it is clear you could not resist the temptation to dive into the data and analysis. Be assured all such detail will be ignored. Only political considerations flowing from espousing error are of interest to him. If that.

  96. Bob says:

    Bob Tisdale:
    I appreciate your effort to impart some reasonable information to Secretary Kerry, but he will assuredly never read the article. His arrogance is legend, and he would never, never, never deviate from his current position. The man knows no shame, and he doesn’t want to know the truth. Truth doesn’t pay on his side of the aisle.

  97. Jon Jewett says:

    Miss. Pamela is a red head??

    Oh.

    Steamboat Jack

  98. bushbunny says:

    Just heard your USA government has closed down? Wots up, surely not the Obama health care legislation? This is a dreadful state of affairs?

  99. Mario Lento says:

    Bob: I think your opening and closing paragraphs will be read and they are very good. He will glaze over the science you present, but at least he’s been exposed to it, by someone expert in the science of natural climate change.

    You’ve given him the opportunity to see truthful rational science. If he reads this and dismisses it, he will at least know that we know he’s been exposed to the truth… that is, that he is certainly incorrect in what he said publicly about IPPC’s so called science. And there is a good chance, he will need to face the wrath of public scrutiny if we continue on cooling or not warming for a number of years.

    I think if nature decided she were going to warm continuously, Kerry would not need to possibly face this wrath he so well deserves. He’d just go on believing the political fodder.

  100. Alan Robertson says:

    peopleneedpower says:
    September 30, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    “Obama, Kerry and the IPCC Have Put Humanity On Trial For Crime Of Progress and Found Humanity Guilty. Humanity’s Sentence Is Poverty & Servitude”
    ______________________________

    Look a little closer and find genocide. The words of well- known elites are easy to find; words often filled with selfish intent of mortal destruction on vast scale. Genocide is a word too ugly for them to use, so they speak in acceptable terms; “population reduction”, “saving the planet”… They are speaking in code to each other, in plain sight, unnoticed by the people they would “reduce”.
    The elites have many co- conspirators who will tell you as much, but only in terms with which they can hide the horrors of their own thinking, (especially from themselves.)
    For any who would excuse the rhetoric and actions of those calling for genocide, don’t take it personal when you find yourselves suffering the fate you believed was only for those lesser than you- it’s for a good cause- your usefulness was appreciated.

  101. Janice Moore says:

    @ Bushbunny (re: 10:23pm) — not to hijack thread, but to direct you to a very brief answer to your Q:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/01/now-what-who-goes-and-who-stays-during-government-shutdown/

    The military and essential services go on.

    The main cause: Democrats wanted it ALL their way or … . The Republicans, GOD, BLESS THEM, said, for once, “No.” This is the best thing to happen for a long time. Shut that whole stinking hellhole of lies and socialist tyranny down. Hopefully, in the end, Dopebamacare WILL perish, but, for now the Government Medicine crowd is still grinning with delight. No, I’m not a member of the G.O.P. (Grand Old Party = Republicans), but I vote that way.

  102. Bob Tisdale says:

    Patrick B says: “‘It would be prudent to plan for those same sea levels during this interglacial.’ This is a stupid statement…”

    Actually it’s not.

    Patrick B continued: “…planning for anything happening more than 50 years out shows a lack of understanding how the world works.”

    I didn’t put a time period on my statement. You did. Did I say one needs to plan for the entire rise in one step? Nope.

    Regards

  103. Bob Tisdale says:

    Bob says: “I appreciate your effort to impart some reasonable information to Secretary Kerry, but he will assuredly never read the article.”

    I really didn’t expect him to, but one never can tell what some people might read on a given day. To tell you the truth, the open letter was a gimmick to get more people to look at a model-data comparison post. And it worked. This post got A LOT of views yesterday here at WUWT and at my blog.

    I get visits at my blog from the State Dept occasionally, according to the stats software I use. (No idea what level bureaucrat. It could be a guard just eating up time on the internet for all I know.) Regardless, so far there have been no visits from them (at my website) for this post. But I’ll give them a day or two.

  104. Climatism says:

    Let’s all go for a ride on Kerry’s 76-foot yacht, or his private jet!
    Another carbon hypocrite.

    John Kerry, “the Ted Williams of climate change advocacy”, with Exxon stock, five luxury homes, 76-foot yacht, SUV, and a private jet: “I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means” http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/01/john-kerry-ted-williams-of-climate.html

  105. AleaJactaEst says:
    September 30, 2013 at 7:49 am
    “He who pays the piper calls the tune”

    Unfortunately this is not the case here, politicians are “paying the piper” with taxpayers’ (our) money, so it is we, the taxpayers’, who should be calling the tune.

  106. Ed Mertin says:

    Yes, bushbunny, it is official. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-24.pdf
    The party of NO has responded to their constituency and are playing with fire again. And this does not bode well for the debt ceiling clash too, for sure. So our country will likely get another credit downgrade. The bulk of GDP growth will be cut for the forth quarter. Job growth definitely will be tabled. All because some crazy people don’t wish us to have affordable healthcare and are scared to death we might actually like it.

  107. Jim G says:

    Alan Robertson says:
    September 30, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    Jim G says:
    September 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    ______________
    “Leave her alone, why dontcha. She’s redheaded.”

    Oh, no! I’ll need to be looking over my shoulder for quite sometime, possibly forever, as she is also a woman and they never forget. My wife can tell me date, time, where we were, and what I was wearing last time I pissed her off.

  108. Ed Mertin says:

    That Janice, she really turns me on with being the political animal. That is extra sexy! Tell you what, everyone take a note, if Janice will send this guy some money to repeal The Affordable Healthcare reform, I will officially become a staunch Republican supporter again. I will document my journey back and maybe Simon and Schuster or somebody will publish it. Yipper!

    http://once.unicornmedia.com/now/od/auto/3aaae01e-e0f4-439d-aa7a-8d5e3e774105/db6630fb-4bb5-45b9-ba6e-04014bcf7f30/n_maddow_1care_130918/n_maddow_1care_130918.once?UMADPARAMsite=47422&UMADPARAMzone=182329

    Your path to success
    Is one phone call away
    Are you ready?
    Give all of your money!
    If you truly believe
    Act now to reserve your seat
    Are you ready?
    Send all of your money!
    Give me all of your money
    The less that you know is
    To profit from ignorance
    Are you ready?
    Taking all of your money!
    Televise fear in the home
    Don’t believe everything you read
    Pay attention!
    You’re giving all of your money!
    Give me all of your money!

  109. Solomon Green says:

    Sorry, RichardCourtney I was being sarcastic.
    I wrote “Messrs Courtney and Tisdale should give way to Mr. Maessen. They do not speak double Dutch. He does.” I thought that only someone qualified in double Dutch could interpret the KNMI statement in the way that he does but I see that others also do not read it in the same way as I do..

    “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change. ”

    I understood this to mean that the IPCC should focus on attempting to understand natural climate change (if such is possible) and the part that humans play (if any) rather than focussing on what is supposed to be CAGW. and only looking at natural sources in so far as they might add or detract from CAGW.

  110. Patrick B says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    October 1, 2013 at 12:21 am

    Patrick B says: “‘It would be prudent to plan for those same sea levels during this interglacial.’ This is a stupid statement…”

    Actually it’s not.

    Patrick B continued: “…planning for anything happening more than 50 years out shows a lack of understanding how the world works.”

    I didn’t put a time period on my statement. You did. Did I say one needs to plan for the entire rise in one step? Nope.
    Bob Tisdale says:
    October 1, 2013 at 12:21 am

    Patrick B says: “‘It would be prudent to plan for those same sea levels during this interglacial.’ This is a stupid statement…”

    Actually it’s not.

    Patrick B continued: “…planning for anything happening more than 50 years out shows a lack of understanding how the world works.”

    I didn’t put a time period on my statement. You did. Did I say one needs to plan for the entire rise in one step? Nope.

    Regards

    Bob Tisdale,

    Well Bob, your statement is stupid – and yes, by implication you indicated a time period. So aside from using a child’s argument (“…is not.”) you are wrong. You said we should plan for a sea level rise of 13 -26 feet. So at today’s rate, how far in the future is this? That’s one hell of long time away – I used fifty years because it’s so much shorter, and my argument is still true – society and much of our physical plant turns over in that time. The argument becomes even stronger if you use 100 years – which is still a small fraction of the time it will take to get 13 -26 feet of sea level rise. So Bob, how long will it take to get that rise? Over a 1,000 years at today’s rates? So you think it makes sense to plan for an event more than 1,000 years out? As I said, that’s just stupid. Your failure to immediately recognize the absurdity of your statement means I have to question the rest of your work – even though I agree with its premise.

    [Cut-and-paste repeats in the above make little of it clear, and few quotes readable. Do you want to delete and try again? mod]

  111. Bob, you’re ignoring what I received from the KNMI that explains that what you’re saying about the passage you’re quoting is a (accidental) misrepresentation. I can understand that you might not want to take my word that this is an actual statement from the KNMI. But ignoring it isn’t a valid response, taking me up on the offer to verify this message would be.

    I’ve explained it a bit more in my follow up blog post:
    http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/10/01/cant-reason-climate-sceptics/

    I will not correct my original blog post (reasoning for that is present in the blog post I referred you to). However, what I am going to do is disengage with you on this issue as there’s nothing further to gain if you are not interested in listening to constructive criticism.

  112. highflight56433 says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    October 1, 2013 at 1:42 am

    Bob says: “I appreciate your effort to impart some reasonable information to Secretary Kerry, but he will assuredly never read the article.”

    I really didn’t expect him to, but one never can tell what some people might read on a given day. To tell you the truth, the open letter was a gimmick to get more people to look at a model-data comparison post. And it worked. This post got A LOT of views yesterday here at WUWT and at my blog.

    I get visits at my blog from the State Dept occasionally, according to the stats software I use. (No idea what level bureaucrat. It could be a guard just eating up time on the internet for all I know.) Regardless, so far there have been no visits from them (at my website) for this post. But I’ll give them a day or two.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    My suggestion is to get 31,000 scientists to sign your letter. :)

  113. Chad Wozniak says:

    Kerry is part of the cabal that plans to institute a Soviet-style one-party dictatorship, along with Harry Reid, who has revealed the sale of his soul to der Fuehrer in the Fuehrercare fight in Congress. And the IPCC (Invariably Perverse Corrupt Cabal) report will be cited by these miscreants as justification for their actions.
    Bob, I applaud your efforts but as other posters here have said, you’re talking to a lump of coal. The fundamental tenet of the global warming/leftist religion is, never listen to anything that contradicts your dogma. These people cannot be reached by reason and facts, and because they are determined to trample the Constitution and silence all dissent at every level, it will be difficult if not impossible to get through to them by any means short of armed force.
    Just wait for der Fuehrer to issue executive orders to silence Fox News, this blog and any other dissenters. It’s coming.

  114. Sisi says:

    Hi Bob,

    I see Collin gave a response to you above. Here is another blog about the intention the KNMI had with the quote you use:

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/the-dutch-view-on-the-future-of-the-ipcc-what-it-does-and-what-it-does-not-say/

    That confirms Collin’s findings. There you can find from the horse’s mouth the following:

    “With the Dutch proposal, the IPCC’s mandate will be much more in line with what is already common practice for years.”

    So it is not about a change of focus, it is about getting the official mandate to agree with common practice (i.e. considering both natural influences on climate and human caused changes on climate, which is what the IPCC already does to separate one from the other; see my second comment on this thread).

    Further above you respond to Collin:

    2. You have provided a quote from the IPCC that does refute what was written by the KNMI.

    No, it was not a quote from the IPCC, but from the KNMI’s IPCC delegation. Those who made the quote you used in the first place. Them saying what they meant with it.

    3. Regardless of what someone emailed to you, you have provided nothing to indicate that what I quoted was a misrepresentation of what KNMI wrote in that document from their website.

    That someone being from the KNMI’s IPCC delegation. Those who made the quote you used in the first place. Them saying what they meant with it.

    It’s really difficult to misinterpret what KNMI wrote:
    http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

    And I can assure you that I have not misinterpreted it.

    Well, when you say that “The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) is concerned about the IPCC’s focus.” and “…they have asked for a better understanding of natural climate change.” and then compare that to what the KNMI say when they explain what they meant with the quote, some people (me included) might have some doubts about your self-assuredness.

    Additionally, Sisi, the fact that Collin discussed it earlier in blog post is meaningless. As is your comment!!

    Nice one Bob!

    As to the WottsUpWithThat post you linked, did you bother to read it? Obviously not, unless you were providing it as additional misdirection, assuming no one would bother to click on your link.

    Read it some time ago, including the comments (you see Collin there again btw). I assume there is always someone who clicks on a link, so you are wrong on both accounts.

    The author of that WottsUpWithThat post was wondering why KNMI wrote their recommendation. In other words, WottsUpWithThat did not understand it. But that’s not surprising. WottsUpWithThat obviously fail to grasp much of what goes on in climate science.

    Yes, and No. There was someone wondering about what that paragraph was supposed to mean. How it should be interpreted. Asking his readers if someone knew more about the reasoning behind it. Someone willing to listen to arguments. Not someone saying “And I can assure you that I have not misinterpreted it.” which would be the hallmark of someone convinced by his own infallibility.

    I actually included the link to show that interpretations of certain texts can be unclear. I am sorry that I did not spell this out more clearly. There was me thinking a sharp mind as yours would grasp this immediately.

  115. Jeff says:

    Rather than Kerry’s opinion
    “This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political
    document produced by politicians. It’s science.”

    It would be better stated (with apologies to Dorothy Parker)
    This isn’t a run of the mill report to be tossed aside lightly.
    It should be thrown, and with great force…

    Another of her remarks that would be applicable to AR5 is
    “You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.”

    The truth probably lies closer to
    “This isn’t a scientific document produced by scientists. It’s politics”….

    Here’s hoping more and more folks (including those in government) get a clue and see through the “damned lies” being foisted upon us via faulty “statistics” of IPCC et. al.

  116. Bob Tisdale says:

    Patrick B: Are you aware that building codes (FEMA) have changed recently for shoreline communities? The adaptation is already underway.
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-22/femas-new-flood-maps-pressure-homeowners-to-raise-their-houses

    Have a nice day.

  117. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sisi and Collin: You’re wasting your time here. Anyone with reading comprehension skills can understand the KNMI statement I linked and further understand that I have not misrepresented that document. What you claim to have quoted from your email does not change the document from KNMI.

    Adios.

  118. Mario Lento says:

    Ed Mertin says:
    October 1, 2013 at 5:15 am
    Yes, bushbunny, it is official. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-24.pdf
    The party of NO has responded to their constituency and are playing with fire again. And this does not bode well for the debt ceiling clash too, for sure. So our country will likely get another credit downgrade. The bulk of GDP growth will be cut for the forth quarter. Job growth definitely will be tabled. All because some crazy people don’t wish us to have affordable healthcare and are scared to death we might actually like it.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Ed: perhaps you miss the point. You conflate Obamacare with affordable health care. This means you are confused. It’s not affordable and that’s the point. If it were affordable, it would not need “massive funding” The point is that it has directly made insurance as a whole cost much more. It also is leading to job losses or people being moved to 30 hour weeks. The unions want out of it… You know this right? Or maybe you do not know this.

    If you think spending 7 trillion (more than we’ve collected in tax revenues) in 4.5 years is a good thing, you’d be one of the crazy people. Debt was less than 10 Trillion then and is not 17 Trillion. When interest rates rise, the interest on the debt will be crushing –or did you know understand this either?

    Mario

  119. Lars Tuff says:

    In 98% of the runs, the IPCCs climate models fail to reproduce observed land temperature for the period 1951-2012. Based on this, it is only fair to say that, in general, IPCCs climate models are a total failure. If these models cannot reproduce past climate, they are absolutely useless in predicting future climate.

    This fact alone should be enough for the UN to dismantle the IPCC as it is today.

    Instead we see that politicians have a renewed confidence in the IPCC.

    The IPCC has tried but totally failed to explain why there has been a temperature standstill for the past 12+ years in land temperature. They have used volcanoes and hiding warmth in deep oceans as excuses. They have not admitted that their models are flawed and useless, and that all recent experiments and observed data reduce CO2s plausible force as a greenhouse gas, and that there are no evidence for a positive forcing.

    The media has covered the IPCCs report with the usual lack of in-depth scrutiny. The bandwagon of payed-off scientists and politicians have once again popped up and repeated the mantra of their propagandist dogma. After this the media have all shut up about the matter.

    Now, instead of action we see inaction from this mambo-jambo media circus. This is not science. These are not the facts. But still the IPCC, the International Providers of Climate Cheating, live.

    But slowly the public is getting educated, and slowly they begin to see the truth, Australia has thrown the Carbon tax in the garbage can. Saudi-Arabia is beginning to request changes to the SFPP. And more will follow.

    A lag of 12+ years in temp rise, whilst CO2 rises as before, will not go unnoticed by the public. And from now on, it is down hill for temperature, according to solar scientists and geologists. Mr. Secretary John Kerry may believe that his lack of common sense will be trusted by the public. But I think they are ALL turning skeptics, as they see that this dogma has gone from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ to ‘No change’.

    The public will see that the skeptics were right all along. Even if John Kerry will not.

  120. Brian H says:

    Lars Tuff says:
    October 2, 2013 at 12:26 am

    In 98% of the runs, the IPCCs climate models fail to reproduce observed land temperature for the period 1951-2012.

    In a valid modeling project, that would mean only the 2% would be kept, and variants of them tried for future forecasts. But that will never happen, for 2 reasons.
    1) It would put most climate modelers out on the street.
    2) The 2% are the ones with the lowest CS, and the IPCC is not prepared to accept that.

  121. RobRoy says:

    A one act play entitled “Science, John Kerry Style”
    The Cast:Government funded Climate scientists and Enviro NGO activists play the Greedy Charlatans
    John Kerry and his progreesive ilk play the Dark Ones
    The Plot:
    A theory of doom clung to by Greedy Charlatans despite the theory having been disproved by empirical evidence. The falsification of the theory represents good tidings for all Earthlings, yet the greedy charlatans don’t like it; because they were being paid to perpetuate the fear and alarm behind the false theory.. The people who had arranged payments to the Greedy Charlatans are the Dark Ones. The Dark Ones don’t care about Earth per se. They care about controlling the Earth, politically through central planning. Central planning where the Dark Ones are the Planners.

    Loathe and prove wrong the Greedy Charlatans
    Identify and fear the Dark Ones.

  122. Sisi says:

    “You’re wasting your time here.”

    This could very well be the case. I see two possibilities. The first is that you are not capable of understanding what others try to tell you (for whatever reason: incapacity, tunnel vision, misunderstanding, conspiracy thinking, overly big ego, etc.). In this case there would be a chance that I am not wasting my time by explaining it to you again. I’ll pass! The second is that you do not want to understand what others try to tell you because it does not fit your narrative. In that case any discussion here would only benefit onlookers, but would be a waste of time if my goal was to let you take in any arguments you don’t like.

    Onlookers may decide for themselves. For the benefit of the onlookers I give this link to your reaction to Collin on your own blog:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-13151

    In which you say:

    I’m tired of having you repeat the same tired message. If you repeat it again, your comment will be deleted.

    Which to me means you want inconvenient discussions to just go away.

    Ciao.

Comments are closed.