Before you read the upcoming IPCC report, note this

The Working Group II IPCC report from the big shindig in Japan this week will be making headlines shortly, but take those headlines with a grain of salt.

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

  • Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

Mr. Tol was part of a team of 70 authors working on revisions to a U.N. report on climate change, to be issued in Japan on March 31. The final draft, which is the copy that Mr. Tol found objectionable, included findings that a warming global temperature will lead to disruption in food supplies and stagnating economies — and that coral reefs and lands in the Arctic may already have suffered irreversible damages, Reuters said.

“The report is a product of the scientific community and not of any individual author,” the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, said in a statement. “The report does not comprehensively represent the views of any individual.”

The U.N. agency also said Mr. Tol advised months ago of his reluctance to participate in the summary writing of the report. He had still been invited to Japan to help with its drafting, however, Reuters reported.

Mr. Tol said many of the other authors “strongly disagree with me,” but that he found the IPCC’s emphasis on climate change alarmism — and focus on risk — came at the expense of providing solutions for the world’s governments to adapt and overcome.

He said, for instance, farmers could grow new and different crops to offset any negative impacts from climate change that impacted food supplies.

“They will adapt,” Mr. Tol said, Reuters reported. “Farmers are not stupid.”

Full story

About these ads

91 thoughts on “Before you read the upcoming IPCC report, note this

  1. Well, what else can we ( questioning the “agenda” ) expect – the warmists will NEVER back away from their agenda ! And the left of liberal media would never let them, even if they wanted to come clean.

  2. The Climategate revelations were the equivalent of a pin-prick in the skin of the great Zeppelin that is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. This revelation is a fist sized hole in the fabric. It won’t bring the monster down but the whole thing has lost its buoyancy and is isn’t flying as well as it used to.
    We will never have the satisfaction of a spectacular ‘fireball’ moment…so we must just sit back enjoy these little triumphs as they come along.
    Mann’s trial will be a sweet moment though.

  3. Yes, just heard the scaremongering on the NZ television news. Increasing temperatures reducing farmers’ ability to produce crops, rising sea levels due to melting ice will inundate several waterside cities. Etc., etc. Even interviewed that charlatan Jim Salinger (of University of East Anglia infamy).
    Excuse me while I just go and turn on all the house lights to oppose that anti-electricity Earth Hour!

  4. There is nothing alarming if the nights at the urban areas of the Northerns hemisphere get a little warmer.

    The ladders in the long term graphs (1880 – 2013) seem to be related to changes of the measurements like the loss of weather stations on Soviet Union.

  5. “The report is a product of the scientific community and not of any individual author,” the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, said in a statement. “The report does not comprehensively represent the views of any individual.”

    That’s true.
    It only comprehensively represents the hysterical mob.

  6. ‘Farmers are not stupid’ – and neither are the rest of us. The proposition that the earth is warming due to the production of CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to be invalid, and the world at large is waking up to the con that has been perpetrated by a mostly political agenda..

  7. “Mr. Tol was part of a team of 70 authors”

    If my calculator is working right, that makes a 98% consensus

  8. The report is a product of a selection of the scientific community, and not even necessarily a majority.

  9. looks like they backslapping already

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26802192

    “There are chapters on human health, on food security and conflict, but also four chapters on how we can adapt to the effects.”

    all the expertise of climate scientists? Is there nothing their expertise doesn’t cover? I know one climate scientist says to save the planet he doesn’t wash which is why he smells. So looks like the future is stinky?

    “We’ve projected climate change impacts at different levels of temperature rise, at levels of 2C and 4C and now beyond,” said Dr Rachel Warren from the University of East Anglia, UK.

    Projections from models? oh happy clappy goody goody. We humbly await these insights from the oracles of the beerosphere .

    “We’ve also looked at how people and biodiversity can adapt to climate change. This notion of vulnerability is embedded in the concept of the report.”

    vulnerability? yes lets talk about that rather than the prove predict standard of science.

    “It becomes much more a question of figuring out what are the smart and effective things to do.”

    like arresting anyone who disagrees?

    Looks like they are building a gun. Hey Joe where you going with that gun in your hand.

  10. The IPCC is gradually withdrawing. Considering the alternative, I say let them. They are never going to admit they have been wrong all along and, if we push them too much, they might yet screw us over even worse.

  11. There has been a crescendo of alarmist nonsense coming out from under the stones over the past week; presumably this is in anticipation of the ‘findings’ of the next IPCC report.

    Amusingly, after being weak all last week European carbon futures went into free fall last Friday, down by 16.2%. Do the punters know something we don’t, perhaps in the upcoming IPCC report?

  12. whatever the 70 wise ones do it will decontextualised from ice age cycles and inter glacial warming. It will be all about ‘the future’. ie eco utopianism

  13. for the umpteenth time on various threads, i shall attempt to post the following:

    MyBarackObama: Organizing for Action
    Climate Change Action Event
    (Climate Change — Action Event)
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be releasing a 5-year study on climate impacts at the end of March. We will be visiting climate change deniers on April Fools Day to show them how foolish being a denier really is.
    Time:
    Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
    Host:
    Blair Lawton
    Location:
    In front of Rep. Paulsen’s Office (Eden Prairie, MN)
    250 Prairie Center Dr
    Eden Prairie, MN 55344

    https://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/climatechangeactionevent/gs8fj4

  14. As yet I have not seen any evidence that there is such a beast as climate science. There is weather forecasting which is pretty good out to four or five days; utterly pointless beyond that as is evidenced by the Met Office’s continuing debacles. There is Atmospheric physics to keep an eye on the soot; useful for me as an asthmatic. There is Oceanography + marine civil engineering (See the Netherlands for hints) We know that trends depend on La Nina/El Nino: PDO/AMO Jet Stream, etc. and are all reversible. We know from the evidence that there are no trends in Hurricanes, Storms, Rainfall, Tornados, Floods, on a global basis, Even a Congressman managed to work that out. We have no real idea if the temperatures are going up/ down or sideways on a global scale. We know some places are a bit warmer perhaps, some a bit cooler, more ice here, less ice there. We have no idea what sea temperatures really are or were. ( I was one of the people taking sea temperatures to the nearest degree in a bucket, now I see them repeated to me in three decimal places.) We think the sea level is rising or is the land sinking….choose your place. Add a foot to the levee every 50 years if you are that worried or stick your posh ocean front palace on stilts. So as far as I can see, climate science is a construct, based on no actual physical evidence. I have been around for a good few years and have yet to see anything in terms of weather, heat or storm that I have not seen before. The only consistent temperature records appear to be European Cities for 400 years plus which show no trend, and we are told they have to be adjusted because the observers were unable to read them properly through their animal skin hats. History gives us grapes in Yorkshire, farms in Greenland, a frozen Thames. Yet we are told to believe that that is flawed because some idiot astrologer is reading tree rings.
    Quite frankly I am disgusted by so called climate science, with its constant parade of computer gamers, soaking up money that should be put in to cancer cures, food distribution and infrastructure in poor countries, education for girls, ( It is known that this is the best way forward in poor countries), fighting malaria, dysentery, HIV, The salary of one Climate scientist would buy enough Mosquito nets to save thousands of children from a lifetime with malaria. The amount of money that has been thrown at that charlatan Hansen would pay for miles of roadway, diesel and trucks to deliver aid to refugees in Somalia. The money spent on the Met office garbage grinder that cannot even tell us if it is a wet or dry summer should be spent on desalination plants in Gaza. I don’t need to go on, you get the drift.
    My answer to global warming/climate change/climate/ disruption/chaos…whatever the hell this weeks buzz phrase might be, is DEAL WITH IT WHEN YOU SEE IT. There are 870,000,000 people in the world who are hungry today, (http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats) , right now, and they really don’t give a rats ass what happens in 100 years time and nor do I.

  15. Promoting apocalyptic claptrap is very lucrative, whether it is TV evangelists seeking a fundamentalist audience or people dressed up as scientists seeking the educated and self-declared progressive.

  16. Well, that 98% alarmists have to follow the word of God’s representatives on Earth such as this one talking a load of drivel

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10732121/Rowan-Williams-warns-of-climate-catastrophe.html

    “Rowan Williams warns of climate catastrophe
    The former Archbishop of Canterbury argues that Western lifestyles bear the responsibility for causing climate change in world’s poorest regions”.
    It really is amazing how little he knows and yet he is not afraid of parading his ignorance.

  17. One of the concepts sadly lacking in the politics of science funding is that of ‘conflict of interest’.

    It is in the interests of all scientists to increase the levels of their funding. Their salaries go up, their institutions like them all the more and their ‘publication impact factors’ go up too.

    We all live in a world where those that control the organs of thought shaping and manipulation are obsessed with extremes of any kind. The biggest, the smallest, the rarest, the most outrageous, the most precise etc etc.

    The reality of the world is that most of the time, most things exist within a window of variance that is not all that great. Things go up and down, shift to the left or the right, expand and contract, increase and decrease efficiency.

    Vigilance must of course be retained to recognise the signals which presage more significant changes, which are those which really do cause problems (since the rate of adaptation can then not match the rate of change).

    However, it is time for the scaremongers to be held to account in all fields from climate alarmism to investment banking bubble creation to extreme accumulations of wealth linked to unacceptable levels of poverty etc etc.

    Conflicts of interest require those who evaluate scientists’ claims to be independent of the process of acquiring future funding streams.

    Only when that occurs can the claims truly be regarded as ‘validated’.

    Mutual back-scratching is rarely the best form of rigorous due diligence, you know.

    Just go ask any folks duped by Wall Street spivs, speculators and salesmen. I’m sure Warren Buffett would be happy to confirm that……….having ignored most of their exhortations for decades……

  18. the BSc Climate Science Course at Uni of East Anglia has 5 compulsory modules. 2 of which are

    GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
    What are the most pressing environmental challenges facing the world today? What are the possibilities for building sustainable solutions to address them in policy and society?

    SUSTAINABILITY, SOCIETY AND BIODIVERSITY
    This module consists of two parts. The first part of this module will consider sustainability in theory and practice. Striking a balance between societal development, economic growth and environmental protection has proven difficult and controversial. The second half of this module firmly rests on Ecology as a science and briefly introduces a wide range of concepts relevant to the structure and functioning of the biosphere, from biomes through ecosystems, communities, populations, and whole organisms, including topics ranging from landscape and population ecology, to behavioural, physiological, molecular, genetic and chemical ecology.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/bsc-climate-science#course-profile

    time well spent for anyone trying to understand climate?
    What would be a good course design for a climate scientist?

  19. Ivor Ward: Well said!

    The IPCC are a scientific irrelevance, their relationship with science is the same as the relationship between Astrology and Astronomy.

    Ivor, I am totally p****d with the Met Orifice too; last week they were telling us that in 25- 30 years time there will be vineyards in England and Southern Europe will be a desert with climate refugees heading North. They told us the same thing 20 years ago, is it currently happening? No.

    They cannot predict the weather from one hour to the next, I have lost count of the number of times I have foolishly cleaned two cars on the basis of the Met Office predicting 0% chance of precipitation later in the day, These clowns cannot produce a forecast a few hours ahead, so what chance have they got of accurate predictions decades ahead?

    They are a national embarrassment!

  20. Frame your comment Ivor Ward. In Well said. 100 years time or so you should get a Nobel prize for scientific, economic and humanitarian insight.

  21. Edohiguma says:
    March 30, 2014 at 2:42 am

    Why is a professor of economics co-authoring a report on the climate?

    The WG2 report deals with the impacts of a presumed-warmer globe. Economics is part of that.

  22. Reckon we do need to hit them hard to turn the tide and get them back tracking. Even if they have to back track on the whole global warming gambit to avoid the whole jig being up(the UN was a fraud from day one to take control of humanity by deception) there are more people who are aware of the deception and humanity has a breather and opportunity to get more aware before the UN tries its next tactic. Still have the issue of massive international debt and destroyed manufacturing infrastructure hanging over the head of humanity.We live in interesting times.

  23. Mods: Apologies for quoting the Archbishop and his use of the ‘D’ word. Will that release me from moderation? (I won’t do it again).

  24. Ivor Ward: “…I don’t need to go on…”

    I wish you would, Ivor. I was enjoying your post. Spot on in every way.

  25. Since the dawn of recorded history we have reports of people predicting the end of the world or great catastrophes that will occur soon if mankind does not stop its sinful ways and reform. (and give a lot of money to the priests proclaiming the doom)

    After nearly 20 years of no warming even according to the lying, cheating, mindless government drones who keep the official records in addition to skyrocketing levels of CO2 we hear that rising level of CO2 will kill all life on the planet! Fry us! Drown us! Make our willies limp! Give up restless leg syndrome! Make our brown rice taste bad!

    Folks, I have never seen a convincing argument that CO2 has much of anything to do with climate. I certainly have never seen any evidence that it is the main driver of climate and yet year after year we hear the same old predictions of doom and gloom. When will it end? I predict that if the entire northeast U.S. were to be covered by 5km of ice we would still hear some “scientists” claim that we are going to die by fire real soon now! It is enough to believe that mankind’s stupidity exceeds the size of the universe just as that famous quote points out.

  26. Ivor Ward, your post should appear in the Opinion section of every newspaper. It’s 100%, spot on.

  27. “It is pretty damn obvious there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,” Mr. Tol said in the Reuters report.

    No wonder he decided this was a con job. Of course there are benefits and they outweigh any of the claimed negative impacts. The benefits
    are not just for the future but have been happening over the last few decades.

    • Fewer cold winter deaths
    • Extended growing seasons
    • Farming at higher latitudes etc.

    The Medieval Warm Period was a bountiful time according to Michael Mann (reference to follow).

    Oh but what about all the extreme weather and property losses?!!!! But there are more properties today and people building on flood plains etc. What about extreme weather of the last century as well as during the Holocene when co2 was below 350ppm?

  28. “Mr. Tol was part of a team of 70 authors working on revisions to a U.N. report on climate change, to be issued in Japan on March 31.”

    Only 70? Usually there is at least one author from each country. Why not even half this time? Either way the politicians don’t have the habit of relinquishing their power to scientists in these types of fora.

  29. We have been told about the negative aspects of global warming. It’s have to get pretty damned hot this century for it to be net negative. There was more farming in Greenland than today, wine growing further north in the UK, did people complain? Did they complain during the Little Ice Age. Not really they just killed witches and died of increased hunger and nasty diseases.

    Paper
    Medieval Climatic Optimum
    Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994). A host of historical documentary proxy information such as records of frost dates, freezing of water bodies, duration of snowcover, and phenological evidence (e.g., the dates of flowering of plants) indicates that severe winters were less frequent and less extreme at times during the period from about 900 – 1300 AD in central Europe……………………

    Some of the most dramatic evidence for Medieval warmth has been argued to come from Iceland and Greenland (see Ogilvie, 1991). In Greenland, the Norse settlers, arriving around AD 1000, maintained a settlement, raising dairy cattle and sheep. Greenland existed, in effect, as a thriving European colony for several centuries. While a deteriorating climate and the onset of the Little Ice Age are broadly blamed for the demise of these settlements around AD 1400,

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

    What happened in the south east?

    Abstract
    Could climatic change have had an influence on the Polynesian migrations?
    The Little Climatic Optimum, with its persistent trade winds, clear skies, limited storminess, and consistent Walker Circulation may have been an ideal setting for migration. The Little Ice Age with its increased variability in trade winds, erratic Walker Circulation, increased storminess, and increased dust from volcanism may have helped [prevent migration. Such changes in climate would influence the migration pattern through physical perception and decision making by the Polynesians, rather than having a direct impact.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-0182(83)90087-1

    What did the Polynesians do during the Roman Warm Period?

    “…..Half a world away in the tropical Pacific Ocean a similar saga unfolded. During the Greco-Roman climatic optimum, the Polynesians migrated across the Pacific from island to island, with the last outpost of Easter Island being settled around A.D. 400 (35)….”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full

    Tol is right to dismiss this alarmist clap trap and get out of this sham.

  30. Some encouraging signs from the UK (besides the “badly timed” nice weather), Judith Curry will be on the BBC tomorrow morning, see her Climate Etc blog for details, not sure if Radio 4 or World Service, though we’ve also had “seawater being turned to acid”, and a lot of “extreme weather = climate change” recently.

    The UN (with C4s Jon Snow in tow) has also managed to find some people who want more ice, a village in Greenland. Stand by for more interviews with children being fed scare stories by the media.

  31. Ivor Ward says:
    March 30, 2014 at 2:20 am

    I was one of the people taking sea temperatures to the nearest degree in a bucket, now I see them repeated to me in three decimal places.

    Ivor, you are a thousand times the man you thought you were.

    I’ve always had the same problem. Temperature data cannot be averaged to yield a more accurate value like other measurements. It is constantly changing, by day, month and year. Temperatures can vary by a few degrees over a few tens of kilometers. To collect a thousand buckets of water from all across the ocean does not give a single value of great accuracy.

  32. The 70’s of the IPPC, does public its results and conclusions as a team to avoid personal legal responsibility in the future. The proposals they made could bring them in front of the court very easily due to the crime to humanity that one conclussion reached with not pure scientific method but other subjected to political influence.

    I’m astonished UK commentariats does not seems this cristal clear.

  33. He is to be congratulated, I suppose, for taking a step in the right direction. But, it’s a little like a member of a gang of thieves and murderers saying “maybe we shouldn’t steal and murder quite as much.” He needs to wake up and smell reality, which is that we aren’t in control of our climate in any way, nor can we even say what our climate is doing now, much less what it will be doing. Cooling, in fact could very well have already begun, and could be in the cards in the coming decades. If we need to prepare for and fear anything it should be cooling, which is far more dangerous.

  34. charles nelson says: March 29, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    We will never have the satisfaction of a spectacular ‘fireball’ moment…

    Perhaps you’re correct, but I’m not so sure. If there is any value left in scientific “credibility”, the “go along to get along”s who currently suck at the CAGW teat will become increasingly circumspect in their survival calculus and will want to remain viable in a post-lunacy scientific afterlife. That handwriting is on the wall, and the increase in “survivalism” is, I suspect, exponential.

  35. Global sea ice anomaly has already turned positive and will remain so for the rest of the year. Record cold events outnumber record warm events by the tens of thousands. The biosphere is increasing and life is flourishing. Every pronouncement of the statist/warmists is found to be false, yet their agenda is advanced by greed and lust for power. The men and women of courage who stand against the ultimate totalitarian thrust of the warmists are thwarted in their efforts at every turn, but the truth is still making inroads into the madness. The world would be a darker place without WUWT.

  36. Just to prepare people for what is likely to happen:

    The IPCC report will be like climate data, very few will actually look at it, they will go to their favourite news sources for a summary, so there will be cherry-picking and endless arguments about whether a particular summary is accurate and balanced.

    The report may move a bit towards climate realism, but don’t expect that to be well reflected in the media. Sorry to be so cynical.

  37. The BS is already flying over at the Guardian , courtesy of their chief climate propagandist, expert mis-reporter of fact Goldberg.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/28/ipcc-report-climate-change-report-human-natural-systems

    To get off to good start she chooses a classic “smoke stack” against setting sun visual LIE and captions it with a written LIE.” Smoke billowing from a plant in Tokyo Bay, ”

    Note the way the “smoke” is transparent where it comes out of the chimney, then turns into a fluffy white cloud. You know it’s almost like it could be water vapour that’s coming out and then condensing. But , hell, who am I to argue with an expert like Goldberg.

    It would be cool if the guardian could find someone who knew shit . At least they could make their lies more convincing.

  38. The IPCC are a scientific irrelevance, their relationship with science is the same as the relationship between Astrology and Astronomy.
    ============
    To equate the IPCC with Astrology is to insult Astrology.

  39. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    Looking at their brief description of WG2 on it’s home page they DO mention positive consequences: “This is the Working Group II website. In its reports, Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues.

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrocure_FINAL.pdf

    But when I begin to look at publications I cannot find any reference at all to “POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES”; it all appears to be slanted towards “Disaster Risk”. If they’re really only looking for trouble – they’re bound to find it!

    They do not seem to be concerned with “positive consequences” at all. If you put a committee of people in a room and ask them to write a summary on: “What’s the worst that could happen?” … regardless of any particular subject, you can be certain that the group is not going to mention anything good and will attack any person in the group who even mentions the possibility.

  40. So, the IPCC concentrates on increased temperature as causing reduced food supply.

    Yet the simple fact is that as the world has warmed and CO2 has increased, food supply has sharply increased. We are grwoing more than double what we were growing before global warming. Directly opposite to what the IPCC are predicting.

    To know the future, look at what the IPCC is predicting, and invest in the opposite.

  41. I will let everyone in on a little secret. The average energy of the earth is a constant but because of the different currents in the world it flows around a bit.

    What that means is that the longer we measure the temperature the more it will regress to its mean, just like rolling die.The gloom and doomers are doomed to failure.

  42. Steve from Rockwood @ March 30, 2014 at 5:30 am

    Temperature data cannot be averaged to yield a more accurate value like other measurements. …. To collect a thousand buckets of water from all across the ocean does not give a single value of great accuracy.

    This is the fallacy of false precision. The error bar should still be +/- 1.0 C, making even the decimal points … err … pointless

  43. The only alarmist position to be taken with the IPCC is this: How can so many smart people and over so many years make such inaccurate and false projections using computer models? That is quite alarming to me.

  44. “The report is a product of the scientific community and not of any individual author,” the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, said in a statement.
    Well, it’s a product, so they got that part right. But, it is more in line with the end-product of the bovine variety. It’s fresh, and ripe, and there’s plenty of it. The rest of their description of the report is just further end-product of the bovine sort.
    “The scientific community”? Please, spare us.

  45. Ivor Ward says:
    March 30, 2014 at 2:20 am

    I was one of the people taking sea temperatures to the nearest degree in a bucket, now I see them repeated to me in three decimal places.

    Ha! Great post.

  46. So basically one scientist out of how many dropped out? *and* he’s an economist, not a climatologist.

  47. Quote:
    Mr. Tol was part of a team of 70 authors working on revisions to a U.N. report on climate change.

    Are they trying to imply that this report is the equivalent of the LXX or Septuagint Bible? The LXX was, of course, compiled by 70 authors.

    Ralph

  48. At 1:10 AM Village Idiot wrote: “If my calculator is working right, that makes a 98% consensus”

    Of village idiots, perhaps.

  49. so when those titled climate scientists [http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/bsc-climate-science#course-profile ] are “building sustainable solutions to address them in policy and society and considering sustainability in theory and practice. Striking a balance between societal development, economic growth and environmental protection and campaigning on topics ranging from landscape and population ecology, to behavioural, physiological, molecular, genetic and chemical ecology WHO is actually coding the climate models they depend on for everything?

    looks to me the term climate scientist is not defined in any way the public would think of it.

    given no one has a model for climate why a student on a climate science course would spend half their time on environmental sustainability lectures from ecologists is baffling.

    is climate modelling going to be solved by people with a focus on hard science or on environmental sustainability?

  50. Thanks, Anthony. Good article.
    andrewmharding said “The IPCC are a scientific irrelevance, their relationship with science is the same as the relationship between Astrology and Astronomy.”
    Do you forget that astrology gave birth to astronomy?
    I bet nothing good will come out of the IPCC.

  51. They are hiding behind a bureaucracy, similar to most governments. Not a single individual would ever take away your individual or civil rights, but gather a groups of hundreds protected behind guarded walls and a disconnect from real people and you get far-reaching plans to impose “sustainable development” policy that rivals the most fascist 1930’s era politics.

  52. Look, this is all very well and we can all dither around the actual point but there is a catastrophe looming. Surely we can all see, with rising horror, that because of its generation of CO2 fermentation will soon be banned.

    Fermentation is the vital component in the manufacture of beer and wine, two of my most favourite compounds. I thought we were safe when they started the old bio-fuels rubbish because that uses fermentation and so generates a lot of CO2 in the process so we would be under the radar so to speak. But I now hear that the IPCC isn’t keen on biofuels anymore. It is obvious to me that this is the beginning of that journey to ban all forms of man made fermentation and quite frankly it is scaring me.

    I know that there are some very big brains out there who are trying like mad to invent a new source of energy that doesn’t use fossil fuel but I think in the interests of humanity itself they need to be redirected towards coming up with a way of making good tasting, alcohol containing, beer and wine that doesn’t create CO2 as a byproduct first. It is just a case of simple priorities so come on men, lets get the pressure on before it is too late and our lives are made completely joyless. Sitting in the dark with no car to get away in, having to listen to the old folks warbling on about how much better things were when we burned stuff will be bad enough, but without beer and wine to enhance our food and companionship life will be downright unbearable.

    Enough is enough gentlemen! It is time to really make a stand.

  53. In the following quote, note the bold text (mine):

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

    Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…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, . . .

    The bold part explains why they need GHGs.
    Some of the rest explains why they need others besides “climate scientists” (sic). They are just following orders. The USA pays for a lot of this and guess who has need of a legacy? Health Care a mess. Foreign Policy a failure. Sea level rise – Ha!. The belief is that the stool still has one leg and the boss and his lackeys are doing their best to keep upright.

    Folks such as Richard Tol do not help the cause. It is a good thing he is not a US citizen. The IRS, the EPA, and the DoJ would be investigating.

  54. on my journey to find the ‘wizard of oz’ behind what clearly is some political agenda i have had to let go some notions. The latest notion i have had to let go is the idea that ‘a climate scientist’ is someone who studies climate. ie Someone who gathers climate data builds models tests them. Given the nature of the climate scientist courses one sees that is not the focus at all and that it is at least equally shared with ecological environmental campaigning for sustainability. which is why the IPCC thinks it has the right to pontificate on everything from ice cores to recycling apple cores.

    now no longer illusioned i began searching for ‘climate science and sustainability’ in google. Bingo.

    http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/inspiring/keythemes/science/climate/

    http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/admissions-and-study/masters-degrees/masters-courses/msc-sustainability-climate-change/

    Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability

    http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/earth+system+sciences/book/978-94-007-4539-1

    and so on.

    so climate science isn’t about maths/physics geeks producing accurate models which seems to be the impression the public gets. Its about sustainability and ‘solving’ climate change.

    climate science seems light of describing the processes of climate change and heavy on the sustainability of ‘solving it’.

    so for me climate scientist is a jedi mindtrick word used to give one impression while engaged in something else. So next time someone tells me i’m not a climate scientist so have no right to speak on climate i can point out those with that title might not be either as the title does not mean what people think it means.

  55. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Climaticm note :
    One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

    “The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

  56. village idiot

    it’s interesting about how a consensus of scientists must be right but even though all climate models were wrong, a consensus, they must still be right.

    Something weird and wonderful in that thinking, a touch of Alice in Wonderland.

  57. siberian_husky says:
    March 30, 2014 at 7:28 am
    So basically one scientist out of how many dropped out? *and* he’s an economist, not a climatologist.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    WG3 is about the science.
    WG2 is about impacts and adaptation and mitigation strategies,
    In other words, the cost of both change and attempts to either stop it or deal with it.
    I other words…. economics.

    Given that WG3 has walked back almost all the serious claims about the impacts (albeit shrouded in the words of silver tongued devils who go to great lengths to obscure that they in fact did say that), there is no reason on earth for WG2 to be alarmist when the science itself isn’t.

    Hence Richard Tol’s principled resignation.

  58. Andres Valencia said: “Do you forget that astrology gave birth to astronomy?”
    Not at all, Astrology however has been transcended by Astronomy. Once it was understood that the the planets and our Moon orbit in the same plane (the Ecliptic) and that the stars within the ecliptic are random patterns that to the imaginative mind, form shapes although the distances between them are enormous, Astrology should have been made redundant. Unfortunately like AGW neither of them have been.
    Ironically one of my favourite pictures is an etching by Flammarian, a 19th – 20th century astronomer which shows how medieval people viewed the heavens. His life story makes interesting reading too, because he tried to expose psychic mediums as frauds. Move on almost a century and we have Anthony Watts and all the contributors to this website trying to expose yet another false belief!.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving

  59. “He said, for instance, farmers could grow new and different crops to offset any negative impacts from climate change that impacted food supplies”

    That’s the right idea but no need to do anything different than we have been doing. Trend line corn yields since 1940 have quadrupled. Hybrids today are much more drought tolerant than a few decades ago and improvements continue.

    A couple decades ago, global warming was predicted to be taking a toll on world food production by now……………funny thing is that increasing CO2 is in fact effecting world food production and its all been greatly beneficial.

    Anybody that states otherwise is blatantly biased and/or delusional.

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

    The IPCC is an entity who’s entire power has been based on wild speculation about the future. Since we are now experiencing the future that was predicted in the 1990’s, all we see is a bunch of exaggerations of extreme weather events(that now include snow and cold) that have all happened in the past before CO2 went up.

    In fact, the physical laws of meteorology are clear that when you warm the higher latitudes, some types of severe and extreme weather DECREASE.

  60. “All your base are belong to us.” I suspect this will get zero play in the media. Climate Change is a juggernaut. Juggernaut: “The figurative sense of the English word, with the idea of “something that demands blind devotion or merciless sacrifice” became common in the mid-nineteenth century… a literal or metaphorical force regarded as mercilessly destructive and unstoppable. This usage originated in the mid-nineteenth century as an allegorical reference to the Hindu Ratha Yatra temple car, which apocryphally was reputed to crush devotees under its wheels.” Nit picking and pin pricks, slings and arrows, have no effect. Or so it seems.

  61. Ivor Ward, please write more.
    Damn fine summation.
    Only 70 experts now? What happened to the 2500? Or was that 0052 and 70 is really 07 as per IPCC numerical dyslexia.
    I am still looking for the killer sound bite.
    CAGW created, promoted and protected from investigation, by our kleptocracy.
    As an intelligence test it has been superb, the fools and bandits who currently infest our bureaucracies are exposed. As failing this simple test.As being fools or thieves.
    What is the solution?
    Parasites protecting ever more odious parasites, does not enhance or maintain civil society.
    Can one “negotiate” with a parasite?

  62. Mike Maguire;
    That’s the right idea but no need to do anything different than we have been doing. Trend line corn yields since 1940 have quadrupled. Hybrids today are much more drought tolerant than a few decades ago and improvements continue.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I’d like to support that comment and double down on it. Few crops we have today could reach their currently levels of production based on nothing but nature, many of them would not survive at all. Not only have we engaged in selective breeding and genetic manipulation, we also fertilize, pest control, irrigate and even greenhouse our crops. We’ve been evolving our food production methods at a rate that climate change does not and cannot keep pace with.

    Add to this a declining birth rate as poverty levels decline, and the only humane course of action to ensure the health and well being of as much of the population as possible is to do what we’ve been doing for centuries.

  63. Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

    That’s a pretty small grain of salt, actually. Better bring a microscope.

  64. Magma says:
    March 30, 2014 at 10:15 am
    Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

    That’s a pretty small grain of salt, actually. Better bring a microscope.

    ————————-

    so is the level of co2 in the atmosphere, according to alarmist accounts a small amount goes a long way in its effect.

  65. siberian_husky says:
    March 30, 2014 at 7:28 am

    So basically one scientist out of how many dropped out? *and* he’s an economist, not a climatologist.

    ==============================================================
    Hmmmm…that does make one wonder just how many others of those involved in this report don’t fit the definition of “climatologist” and just who and how long ago was “climatologist” defined?
    If he was never a “climatologist”, why was he ever involved at all?
    (Are railroad engineers “climatologist”?)

  66. Thanks, andrewmharding, for linking to the Flammarion Engraving, as an astronomer it is a picture I enjoy seeing. I hoped you new of the filial relationship there.
    On the other hand, the IPCC I hope will not be able to procreate more monsters, itself a sibling of the UN.

  67. Seems the IPCC-naughts esp. El Commadante Si Camarlingus Pachauri need a Western History lesson. No doubt that El Si knows a lot of Hindu history, but he’s not making proclamations to the hindi now is he.

    Just look at all the European Wars (including the American Revolutionary War and the Colonial campaigns with natives) that were fought during the Little Ice Age !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1500–1799.

    And the American Civil War and several conflicts between U.S.A. and Mexico were fought near the end off the Little Ice Age.

    If increase global near-surface air temperatures lead to civil conflicts, i.e. wars, then even Western History shows the IPCC-naughts have got it all ass-backwards, again.

    LOL. :-D

  68. First I would like to echo the calls of well done, to Ivor Ward. An excellent post sir which I intend to cite often, if you don’t mind.
    Secondly, I think Village idiot has hit the nail on the head, unwittingly, by pointing out how the 98% consensus can be shown to be so wrong, by just one man with a bit of integrity and nothing to gain by his action, unlike those he has embarrassed and left behind.

  69. So how much do higher temperatures hurt food production? It is not a hard question to answer because we are running a great natural experiment. Brazil, which lines on the equator and is almost entirely in the tropics, is already experiencing high temperatires and a complete lack of sub freezing weather. How has that affected their ability to produce food?

    Here is the answer:
    ==============================================
    Brazil’s Main Agricultural Products and Exports:
    Sugar: the world’s largest producer and exporter.
    Coffee: the world’s largest producer and exporter. It controls about 30 percent of the international market in the bean.
    Orange Juice: the world’s largest producer and exporter. It accounts for roughly one in every two glasses of orange juice consumed in the world today.
    Beef: Brazil has the world’s largest commercial cattle herd of around 200 million head, and is the largest exporter of beef.
    Poultry: With a fast expanding grain belt, Brazil has leveraged its corn and soy production to become the world’s largest exporter of poultry meat. Feed accounts for about 70 percent of poultry production costs.
    Soybeans: the world’s No. 2 soybean producer and exporter, and one day will likely overtake the United States as the leading producer of the oilseed.
    Corn: No.3 world exporter of corn. Until recently it has been only a marginal corn exporter, keeping 95 percent of the 55 million tonnes-plus of corn produced at home to feed its booming pork and poultry industries. But in the past several years, Brazil has exported around 7 to 11 million tonnes a year.
    Cocoa: Brazil ranks sixth among the world’s cocoa growers.
    Timber: With abundant rain, sun and land inside the tropics, Brazil is the world’s lowest cost producer of pulp from timber.
    Cotton: ranks no.4 in world exporters of cotton fibre. Brazil produces close to 2 million tonnes of high grade long fibre cotton lint.
    =============================================

    My conclusion is that higher temperatures will not adversely impact food production. Heck, they might even expand it.

  70. I love the way the IPCC grades people according to what they say. He is not “Dr Tol”, or “Professor Tol” (both of which he is, but “Mr” Tol.

    The odds of them naming people who agree with them including full titles and regalia are unbackable.

  71. Yes johanna, exactly. Professor Tol is backing down, with his last words, “Farmers will adapt”. They will have too, won’t they? As if in Australia we haven’t over the two centuries of trying to adapt! I don’t like kangaroo meat personally, but my dogs do. But that Gonaught told farmers to get rid of sheep and cattle and farm kangers instead. What about our wool production, stupid man! Did he forget that roos are marsupials and defy domestication including jumping fences.

Comments are closed.