Meh, same old 'gloom and doom' from the IPCC over new climate report

SRAR5[1]Here is a few newsbytes about the IPCC draft synthesis report. From all indications, it’s going to be a real yawner, rehashing all the alarmism we’ve heard again and again for years. Of course, that bastion of balanced leftist reporting, The Guardian, managed to get an advance copy, and of course, from their perspective we are all going to roast. 

MSM CAGW orgy to follow:

1 Nov: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: UN climate change report to warn of ‘severe, pervasive’ effects of global warming, flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts among likely risks if the world keeps burning fossil fuels at current rates, IPCC expected to say

The world is on course to experience “severe and pervasive” negative impacts from climate change unless it takes rapid action to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, a major UN report is expected to warn on Sunday.

Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts are among the likely risks if temperatures exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will say.

Yet on current trends, continued burning of fossil fuels could see temperature increases of between 3.7C and 4.8C by the end of the century, the report warns, according to a draft seen by the Telegraph…

The final document, which has been agreed line-by-line by international government officials at a summit in Copenhagen over the past week, is intended to provide the clearest and most concise summary yet of the widely-agreed scientific evidence on climate change…

***Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11202987/UN-climate-change-report-to-warn-of-severe-pervasive-effects-of-global-warming.html


 

Lean says it’s worse than the IPCC report suggests!

31 Oct: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Danger: irreversible climate-change forces at work

The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that irreversible consequences could be averted, at surprisingly little cost, if action is taken without delay

Campaigners against global warming and their bitterest opponents are united by one word this weekend: irreversible.

It appears 48 times in the draft of the most important report so far on climate change, being finalised today in Copenhagen, signifying that unless the world takes speedy action to curb emissions of greenhouse gases their dire effect will last for thousands of years, at least…

Yet – even before publication, it is badly out of date – because it results from a cumbersome six-year process, which cannot take recent scientific findings into account. One of the most worrying studies to date, suggesting that the Western Antarctic ice sheet may have begun irreversible collapse – eventually raising sea levels worldwide by some 10 feet – was only published last May, far too late to be considered…

The panel urgently needs to get up to speed, issuing regular, perhaps annual, updates on the science…

Facekinis and fashion masks for China’s ‘airpocalypse’

Stand by for the latest in haute couture – the pollution mask. Designer Yin Peng has just paraded them as part of his spring/summer 2015 collection during China Fashion Week in Beijing.

It’s dressing for the “airpocalypse”, as the Chinese call the ever-more-frequent days when tiny particulates exceed maximum World Health Organisation standards by some twentyfold…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11201482/Danger-irreversible-climate-change-forces-at-work.html


 

31 Oct: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: IPCC report: six graphs that show how we’re changing the world’s climate

A draft of the synthesis report, seen by the Guardian, shows it will repeat the message that there’s no doubt over our role in global warming: “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history,” it says.

It doesn’t mince words on the repercussions: “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”…

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/31/ipcc-report-six-graphs-that-show-how-were-changing-the-worlds-climate


 

31 Oct: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Enough With the Fat Climate Change Reports Already

The United Nations in 1988 entrusted the future of civilization to a loosely confederated, all-volunteer band of Earth scientists and economists. This coterie has a long, bureaucratic name with no memorable abbreviation. It was charged with taking the temperature, so to speak, of the whole planet and advising governments on how big a problem they had their hands. Turns out, a big problem.

Early next week the group drops the last of four massive tomes that together make up its fifth report in a quarter century. In essence, next week’s edition is a synthesis of the thousands of pages of synthesis that started coming out last fall.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific reviews land every six years or so, like the anvil that falls on Wile E. Coyote’s head from time to time…

The question is, do we really need these massive reports, with little new transformative information, that very few people read?…

Here are three ways modern technology could help the IPCC get you to pay attention.

  • Turn on, Log in, Drop by…
  • Front of Mind and Urgent. Every Six Years…
  • Hire Web Developers…

There’s now a cottage industry of websites that explain the main aspects of climate change, from governments (NASA or NOAA), nonprofits (Climate Central) and individuals (Skeptical Science). Researchers at Yale, Columbia, George Mason and elsewhere have learned a lot about effective and ineffective ways to inform people that the world is heating up. It’s easier than ever to find scientific speech translated into human speech.

And that’s great, because as it turns out, the way scientists conduct their research has very little to do with the way people form opinions about it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/enough-with-the-fat-climate-change-reports-already.html

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

176 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 2, 2014 5:09 am

The IPCC is simply creating the hype to justify the political and economic power grab the OECD lays out here. http://newclimateeconomy.report/misc/downloads/ The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Pretend there is a crisis in one to gain bureaucratic control of the other.
It’s no accident Nicholas Stern is involved. And Unilever, Bank Of America, Swiss Re, and the same Mayor of Houston who wants pastors to cough up their sermons.
I deal on my blog and in my book with the links to all the education ‘reforms’ globally tied to this vision. The UN and the OECD just keep getting more graphic about the degree of planning they have in mind. The UN link in that report is through the Stockholm Institute, home to the Belmont Challenge social initiatives and the Future Earth Alliance.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 6:53 am

Conspiracy or no, there is no doubt the UN would like to be a World Government

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 9:38 am

That was the idea, at least on transnational issues. Which, as we know, eventually become internal issues as “equality” of citizenry within the federation becomes an international issue as a natural function of embracing cooperrative interdependence.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 9:41 am

A repeatedly declared coordinated effort certainly fits the documentable facts. As I explain when I speak on education, if I can prove it and the declarations are from people with the power to implement, we are not theorizing and we do get to talk about it.
These people may WANT to rule, but that is no reason for us to roll over and submit.

emsnews
Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 8:13 am

This was all cooked up by the guys at the secret Bilderberg meetings mainly held in Europe.
They wanted a way to tax energy somehow and are worried about the Hubbert Oil Peak which still looms in the future (the planet isn’t a ball of oil to be pumped forever!) and since raising taxes is highly unpopular in first world economies, this tax on energy that is not on the oil or coal but on invisible CO2 can be squeezed from all things requiring energy to be produced or consumed!
A fantastic financial boon for the top 1%! They love this and openly talked about this before clamming up two years ago.

Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 5:20 am

31 Oct: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Danger: irreversible climate-change forces at work
The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that irreversible consequences could be averted, at surprisingly little cost, if action is taken without delay

My bold … Quick guys there is a sale on, buy one get one free !

Gamecock
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 5:55 am

There is little pain when you are spending Other People’s Money.

latecommer2014
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 6:46 am

But wait…. If you buy in now you will also receive, at no extra cost, the pocket fisherman!!

Glen Livingston
Reply to  latecommer2014
November 2, 2014 8:04 am

Do not forget the “buttoneer” , “veg-o-matic”, and “ginsu knives” as potential prizes.

Jimbo
Reply to  latecommer2014
November 2, 2014 8:23 am

The IPCC report is repetitive, verbal diarrhea, and falls flat. Right, let me go light a nice coal fire. Mmmmm.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 9:08 am

BOGOF!

Alx
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 7:43 pm

I am missing something. How can something “irreversible” be averted? I used to think irreversible meant irreversible, I guess not in certain quarters.
Maybe it is like when the transmission on a car goes bad and it won’t go into a forward gear, you simply avert the problem by going everywhere in reverse. That IPCC, they are a clever one, aren’t they?

neville
Reply to  Alx
November 3, 2014 3:10 am

Quite so.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 5:22 am

“Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit”
Left the BBC two years ago? Same Richard Black? The same bloke who banged on and on about climate change on the BBC’s ‘Environment’ pages?
Ridiculous man.

michael hart
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 5:33 am

Yup. And right now the BBC has made this the lead “news” story on their main UK web-page.
They are proselytizing, not reporting news.

Jimbo
Reply to  michael hart
November 2, 2014 8:43 am

The BBC need to take care of their valuable employee investments.

[BBC Pension Scheme]
“The Scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and has signed up to their investor statement.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/aboutthescheme/responsible.html
—–
“The statement is supported by 259 investors – both asset owners and asset managers – that collectively
represent assets of over US$15 trillion.”
IIGCC – November 2010

Cheshirered
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 5:36 am

One and the same. Full-on alarmist.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Cheshirered
November 2, 2014 5:53 am

WTF is the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit when it’s at home? Pretentious overblown arrogant crap if ever there was any!

Curious George
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 12:09 pm

What kind of intelligence? Military intelligence? Does it have anything to do with an IQ?

Harry Passfield
November 2, 2014 5:24 am

Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said…[what] if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…

[my bold]
Yet, today’s children – right up to University age – will not have experienced AGW in the school-lives. That seems to be a bl@dy big elephant to me.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 2, 2014 6:25 am

Actually they will have ‘experienced’ AGW, and especially CAGW because it will have been programmed into the software codes creating the virtual reality gaming experiences and science class modeling that increasingly is to count for K-12 classroom work. Harman Willis in his book Global Mind Change pointed out that the behavioral scientist are aware and gleeful that human perception treats virtual experiences as ‘real’.
Jane MacGonigal of the Institute for the Future and keynoter at the 2013 global ISTE conference bragged about gaming’s ability to change what students will now believe and value. Erroneous beliefs still influence behavior and they are much easier to control if you program it in from the beginning.

Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 6:28 am

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/when-gaming-intends-to-shape-and-distort-our-perceptions-of-everything-around-us-viva-la-revolution/ is the link to what MaGonnigal specifically said. Virtual reality as a means of tying students into the “unfolding social collectives.”
Fits with that New Climate Economy report I linked to above.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 8:53 am

Sheesh!!! Robin, thank you for that link! We often think that our conspiracy theories might seem wild but that one is beyond anything we could dream up and you’ve opened my eyes. I’m speechless…. Thanks again.

DD More
Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 3, 2014 11:34 am

Trick question / comment – keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…
Spin speech translation “Will never need to end fossil fuel use because ‘Todays children will never have a pension to draw, after the collapse of the markets” See Jimbo’s comments upstream.

rah
November 2, 2014 5:29 am

Why do these people have even a shred of credibility with anyone but their fellow scammers and the mentally ill anymore?

tom s
Reply to  rah
November 2, 2014 7:40 am

Because there are a lot of people that are scientifically inept and these dolts cater to the lowest common denomonator. But polls continue to show that ‘climate’ is at the bottom of things to worry about…politcally.

hunter
November 2, 2014 5:30 am

The only way to have written this synthesis is to have ignored the IPCC AR5.

sarastro92
Reply to  hunter
November 2, 2014 8:42 am

That’s amazingly true hunter.. WG-1 and SERX both dismissed claims of an uoptick in Extreme Weather over the past century

David Ball
Reply to  sarastro92
November 2, 2014 11:30 am

More importantly could not tie it to man’s influence, yet this “synthesis” states they are certain that it is all man’s fault. Hmmmmm,…..

richard
November 2, 2014 5:49 am

“violent conflicts are among the likely risks if temperatures exceed 2C”
Cites can be 10 – 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside, with half the world now living in cites, generally most people get along fine.

November 2, 2014 5:50 am

Well, Spiegel Online carries a headline “Alarm trumps accuracy at the world climate council”. The piece is written by their long-time environmental reporter, who has so far mostly toed the alarmist party line.
Ironically, Spiegel’s English site opens with a piece on how climate change is harming French wines.

richard
November 2, 2014 5:50 am

damn – cities!

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  richard
November 2, 2014 5:59 am

wut abot thm?
😉

Bill_W
November 2, 2014 5:56 am

If others get to have input on this report, we may see the rare case of it being toned down – back to a semblance of reality. This would be the opposite of what happened with the AR5 itself. We can only hope that a few people will realize how stupid they will look if the pause continues or if the world gets more ice and temperatures drop a few tenths of a degree. On the other hand, a ridiculously out of touch report followed by a lack of anything they predict, may be the final nail in the coffin. Nothing is quite as effective as laughter and derision when it comes as a natural response by a majority of people. I wish people knew enough to snicker when Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren’s names were even mentioned.

Mike H.
Reply to  Bill_W
November 2, 2014 9:47 am

They’ve achieved what they wanted already. After it gets toned down the general public won’t have the thrill of new found knowledge of first impressions.

Steve (Paris)
November 2, 2014 6:01 am

Fossil fuels must be phased out by 2100 o r we are all doomed says UN.
Sorry no link but is BBC lead,story.
Raving mad

policycritic
Reply to  Steve (Paris)
November 2, 2014 8:07 am

You ought to hear what they are saying on NPR stateside. Michael Oppenheimer was interviewed in the last 90 minutes about this report and said that (CO2) emissions must be reduced to ZERO by 2100, or we’re all doomed.
Meantime, South and North Carolina, as well as New England and New York, are experiencing the earliest snow ever.

policycritic
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 8:09 am

Oppenheimer actually said that crop yields are down. A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.

David A
Reply to  policycritic
November 3, 2014 6:07 am

“Oppenheimer actually said that crop yields are down. A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.”
========================
somewhere in this world they are.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Steve (Paris)
November 2, 2014 12:19 pm

So, we’ve got only 86 years to find something better than burning hydrocarbons to produce energy?
Right, let start panicking now!

Phillipides
November 2, 2014 6:01 am

Presumably the forecasts of the terrible effects of a 2 degree rise in global temperature are based on the same sort of computer models that predicted consistent rises over the last 18 years. If one is wrong why should the other be believed?

richard
November 2, 2014 6:02 am

The delights of city life for a bee.
When asked, 9/10 bees expressed a preference for hotter city life, and are , or thinking of moving to a city.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/23/can-cities-save-bees
“Today, beehives are quietly buzzing in cities all over the globe: Chicago, Toronto, Paris, London and New York are cities where thousands of different species of plants are blossoming in the gardens and parks. Honey produced in the cities is of a better quality than that from the countryside. The cities are becoming a haven; they do not protect the bees from everything, but they offer them a break”
“But surprisingly, the industry has discovered that bees kept in urban areas are healthier and produce better honey”
“As a consequence, it is more and more common to see wild swarms finding refuge in cities, and beekeepers are regularly deciding to move their hives to city gardens and parks. Fewer pesticides and a greater biodiversity are helping bee colonies to thrive here”
Strange to think that at the knees up in Paris next year the temps in the city are between 4- 6 degrees C higher than the surrounding countryside. So with an expected two degrees rise over the next hundred years, the city is already 2-4 degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside will be in a 100 years – and the bees love it!!

beng
November 2, 2014 6:04 am

Well, it is Halloween. Maybe those “scientists” didn’t get their treat, so proceeded to “trick”.

Reply to  beng
November 2, 2014 4:18 pm
cnxtim
November 2, 2014 6:04 am

Let them prattle away, as long as it is THEIR dime – dear Tony A NOTE: no more funds from Australia for these fools, including wasted media expense by the ABC.

rms
November 2, 2014 6:06 am

This “doom and gloom” message repeated over and over on every BBC Radio 2 “news” broadcasts this morning (30 minute intervals).

David Wells
November 2, 2014 6:10 am

If the latest BP energy survey is correct then there is no need for alarm because according to BP we only have 55 years of recoverable proven reserves of oil and gas and maybe worrying for the alarmists 255 years of coal. I would like to live long enough to see Naomi Klein, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Guardian readers and BBC whackos crawling over slag heaps looking for lumps of coal to keep warming during the coming ice age winter, what great fun. Maybe the IPCC is right and if so oil expires right at the point they say we are all going to die and if oil dies then the economy dies so they win. Unfortunately the warmists assume – wrongly – that life can go on without oil, they are of course wrong. No oil no iron ore from Brazil and no neodymium from China to manufacture wind turbines with but of course we must invest in clean energy technology but no one as yet has defined exactly what clean energy we should invest in other than solar and wind and you cant have either without oil, if only these demented chips could think beyond the end of their nose. One day of course finite means exactly that finite, once its gone its gone, the last gunfight at Shell OK Coral!
For the UK to build 90,000 wind turbines to replace 60GW consumes 225,000,000 tons of steel for the towers and another 225,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations and 230 billion tons of steel to replicate what Ed Davey’s goal is for the UK across the planet, not even remotely achievable and India and China will never agree. China will begin installing sea borne nuclear missiles on 5 nuclear submarines and India is retrenching its military capacity to confront China on its disputed borders with India and India is investing in 14 new coal mining ventures to lift more people out of poverty.
China could care less what ban ki moon says and India just don’t believe the hype and the UK don’t have room for 90,000 wind turbines and the first premature baby that dies because there is no wind available to power the incubator would strike dead at a stroke the government who put this nonsense into effect but clearly this childish obsession with environmental claptrap is not over yet because the UN has invested too much face to back off any time soon.

kirby
Reply to  David Wells
November 2, 2014 8:13 am

How many birds would 90,000 turbines kill? Birds, everyone likes birds. Shouting from the rooftops that
millions of birds die every year by wind power generation (globally), will get even the BBC’s attention.

empiresentry
Reply to  kirby
November 2, 2014 10:37 am

Or ‘Streamers’.. the birds that get toasted to a crisp when they are migrating and fly over a solar panel farm.
I don;t know which is worse: that they actually have names for them and ignore it or forget to measure the carbon they are adding to the atmosphere.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Wells
November 2, 2014 8:35 am

David, the oil issue is not recoverable reserves. It is the rate at which those reserves can be extracted, annual production. That peaks and begins declining when something like a third of the recoverable reserves have been extracted (oil field production follows a gamma distribution with a long ‘stripper’ tail). Geophysics what and why are illustrated in several essays in my ebooks, most graphically in Blowing Smoke.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Wells
November 2, 2014 9:44 am

David: “China could care less…”
So China does care, then.

Bob Weber
November 2, 2014 6:12 am

It’s patently obvious the timing and alarming nature of this report is intended for maximum political impact just prior to Tuesday’s election.

JohnH
November 2, 2014 6:16 am

Interestingly, the Guardian’s moderators are deleting any negative comments about this IPCC assessment. I know, because I tried posting three!!
Signs of desperation.

Greg
Reply to  JohnH
November 2, 2014 7:45 am

Guardian illustrate [their] article with three lying photos.
The first a classic power station cooling tower against the sun to make the snow white condensing steam look like dirty black “carbon”. Second, a photo some “haze” in Singapore with the misleading implication that this is somehow linked to “carbon”.
Lastly, a most odd looking blue monochrome shot of US power plant. Anything but a normal shot that shows the pure fluffy white stuff coming out of the chimney.

policycritic
Reply to  JohnH
November 2, 2014 8:14 am

Don’t worry. Any ordinary mortal listening to the fact that emissions must be reduced to zero by 2100 AD is going to snort at the stupidity. Unless the mortal is Bill McKibben who is probably outside trying to dig his driveway out from the snow.

Reply to  JohnH
November 2, 2014 9:13 am

On the 6 graphs post I pointed out that the slope of the temperature graph pre-1950 is the same as the slope post-1950 when most of the emissions occurred. And I suggested that this shows the impact of man’s emissions is very small compared with natural variations.
Posts deleted.
They knew they were lying and they deliberately misrepresented the evidence.
As another example, I suggested they showed a graph comparing 20thC temperature with emissions (man’s impact). A comment was posted linking T to CO2 concentration. I pointed out that that is not the same thing… my response was deleted.
So as it was left to look like I had been rebutted. But I hadn’t been responded to. The Guardian was deliberately trying to deceive its readers into thinking I was answered.
Of course, this wouldn’t fool anyone who could read a graph. But they aren’t going to be persuaded by these six graphs anyway.

Solomon Green
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 11:37 am

This is par for the course for the Guardian. On a totally different subject where the Guardian’s biases are known, a relative of mine, a professor at a leading university, used to blog very polite factual corrections to false statements from a particular source, After a short while the professor was told by the Guardian not to waste time as his corrections would never again be published. Needless to say the false information from the particular source continues to be published.

lee
Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2014 1:24 am

I posted on the 6graphs page. Quoted the piece about changing the underlying science to reflect the SPM, with the ref. Deleted- broke their standards. 😉

Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2014 6:53 am

Lee, the remarkable thing isn’t that they delete posts that are inconveniently well-referenced.
The remarkable thing isn’t that they delete posts that are in compliance with [their] stated standards.
The remarkable thing isn’t that they delete posts that they know are correct – they know they are lying.
How can anyone sink so low?

DirkH
November 2, 2014 6:18 am

“***Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right”
Isn’t he a bit late there? We already know that the projections are wrong.

SAMURAI
November 2, 2014 6:19 am

How can CAGW alarmists still make the silly assertion that ECS could possibly reach 3.7C~4.8C by 2100, when such an absurd claim would require a trend of 0.35C~0.47C/decade starting from….tomorrow…and last for 85 straight years…
Do we live in an age where logic, reason and simple math no longer exist?

Billy Liar
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 2, 2014 9:42 am

Sums are too hard for alarmists – that’s why they all study/have studied subjects that don’t involve numbers.

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2014 6:23 am

At the bottom of page 2 of the SYR is the following:

This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider 1945 – 2010

Yes, their hero, who famously said the following:
“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Says it all, really. The lies not only continue, but become even more shrill and insistent.

Jimbo
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2014 10:02 am

This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider 1945 – 2010

This is a fitting tribute to the scientist who predicted on TV another ‘ice-age’ (glaciation) back in the 1970s. He wrote a book called the “The Genesis Strategy” warning of the coming glaciation! If you got it wrong once I will require clear evidence the next time you tell me what to prepare for. It’s just the way humans work.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Genesis-Strategy-Climate-Survival/dp/1461587581

J
November 2, 2014 6:30 am

I thought such touted disasters as “Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health” were in the SPM (summary), but in the technical parts of the report, these trends were not supported with scientific sources.
Which is it?

John fisk
November 2, 2014 6:30 am

I assume the IPPC want us all to live in mud huts , no fossil fuel means, no plastics, no industrial processes no life! Well me for one is not donning a hair shirt!

emsnews
Reply to  John fisk
November 2, 2014 8:20 am

The super rich want us peasants in mud huts, yes.

policycritic
Reply to  emsnews
November 2, 2014 4:45 pm

tty November 2, 2014 at 11:45 am

I’m not PC. I read history.
You wanna’ watch it? http://www.1001inventions.com

policycritic
Reply to  John fisk
November 2, 2014 8:28 am

Yeah, John fisk. That’s the ticket. They want to reintroduce the Dark Ages that Europe was enveloped in while Islamic Science was producing the surgical tools we use today (1200 yrs ago), the decimal system, libraries, universities, trig, aqueducts, chemistry, mathematics, the telescope, incredible research and learning, the end of Ptolemy (which the Moors sneered at, and Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo first heard about via translations of Islamic Science from Cordova), and Fibonacci (Islamic Science) and Leonardo d Vinci (Islamic Science) also got from Cordova. Too bad we’re so badly educated in this country, and we’ve bought the Frank Gaffney/Steve Emerson/Pam Geller history of Islam. These three make the Real Housewives of Name-Your-City look like einsteins.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 9:39 am

Ah, so you want us to go under Sharia law. Makes sense.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 9:45 am

policycritic
November 2, 2014 at 8:28 am
Yeah, John fisk. That’s the ticket. They want to reintroduce the Dark Ages that Europe was enveloped in while Islamic Science was producing the surgical tools we use today (1200 yrs ago), the decimal system, libraries, universities, trig, aqueducts, chemistry, mathematics, the telescope, incredible research and learning, the end of Ptolemy (which the Moors sneered at, and Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo first heard about via translations of Islamic Science from Cordova), and Fibonacci (Islamic Science) and Leonardo d Vinci (Islamic Science) also got from Cordova.

A false revisionist statement does NOT become “true” when it is repeated. I will be charitable (not a trait supported by today’s 7th century Muslim adherents by the way) and assume that you have been falsely taught by those who hate and despise the west and western cultural advances. after all, despising western civilization (or seeing it frozen back in the Dark Ages is a trait of the anti-industrial college campus and federal bureaucracies and the government-academic-complex today.
To summarize, none of those claims you just made is true. All Islam as a culture has done was transfer the information from cultures they conquered, to a static and unchanged state, then transferred out later when their despotic and slave-supported society was ended by a different civilization. The Islam tribes themselves did not “create” anything, but did frequently and effectively “copy” what they conquered by blood and by the sword.
In detail, even in Roman Spain, not only were the aqueducts and canals and bridges and roads that I’ve have walked across built and designed BEFORE the Islamic conquests, but those that had survived from 200 AD to the conquest were – where they were not themselves destroyed as abominations before Allah – were never repaired and even maintained functional.
I’ve read the histories of Copernicus original book – Islam did nothing to develop those ideas, nor those others.
The zero was Indian – and not even Mogul (Islamic conquered) Indian. Algebra? Worthy of the Arabic name, but the name only. It came from the Arabic texts about algebra, but the idea and invention was not Arabic. Slavery? Muslim slave trade continued until the 20th century. Continues today even. The FIRST culture to fight slavery politically and successfully was British, then American, fundamentalist Christians!
Reading? Writing? Islam today kills the women who try to learn to read and write. Who try to leave their rapist husbands or relatives.
Their buildings? Even the Alhambra was a result of the Islamic DENIAL of art! They refuse to draw or inscribe or use living things in their art and architecture; thus, the very DENIAL of beauty forces them to use arbitrary but highly regulated curves and loops across everything. If I deny you permission to use red, orange and yellow, can I claim that your blue and green painting is “beautiful”?

Hoplite
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 10:51 am

– ‘Reading? Writing? Islam today kills the women who try to learn to read and write. Who try to leave their rapist husbands or relatives.’
What an utterly bizarre statement and demonstrates a profound and troubling ignorance of the Islamic world. Is it true to say that all Christians go to the funerals of soldiers killed in action to denigrate their memory and mock their families in their grief? I know of a Christian community in the US that does just that. Hardly representative of Christians in the world generally.
The Taliban and their ilk represent only a tiny fraction of the world’s population of Muslims. Stop believing everything you hear and see in the media.

policycritic
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:06 am

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) and RACookPE1978
Spare me. What you spout is as stupid as the CO2 aficionados. Start reading: For your time’s sake, start at page 188
https://archive.org/stream/makingofhumanity00brifrich#page/188/mode/2up/search/188
If you have any interest in knowing, read to page 202.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:18 am

Hoplite says:
What an utterly bizarre statement…
It is a true statement.
There is a night and day difference between Islam and Western civilization. Islam is a dead end that has never evolved beyond the 700’s A.D. Winston Churchill had plenty to say about it in his History of the English Speaking Peoples. What he wrote applies today. Islamists proselytize extremely well. They murder like nobody’s business. But really, when all is said and done, what good are they?
Islamists would evolve and progress, if they had the capacity for self-criticism. But we can hardly find any Muslims that will stand up and state publicly that their co-religionists actions are wrong. Silence is consent.
The world will be better off when Islam is crushed, or at least forced to bend to civilized values. They are the bad fruit of a poison tree. The only practical answer is to extreminate Islam, root and branch. They need to go, and the sooner the better.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:28 am

dbstealey (November 2, 2014 at 11:18 am)
You can’t exterminate a people for how they live their life – their beloved beliefs and deepest felt morality.
It was tried in the 1940s.
It didn’t work then and it still isn’t right.

juan
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:32 am


….
“The only practical answer is to exterminate Islam”

Someone tried that little trick with the Jews in the late 1930’s and early 40’s

tty
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:45 am

I don’t doubt that you are extremely PC but you are also most remarkably ignorant of the history of science.Virtually none of your examples is true.
the decimal system: indian
libraries: greek
universities: france/italy
trig: greek
aqueducts: roman
chemistry: greek/spanish
mathematics: babylonian/greek
the telescope: dutch
the end of Ptolemy (which the Moors sneered at) …but never improved on
Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo first heard about via translations of Islamic Science from Cordova) …odd in that case that the first latin translation was made from a greek copy.
Actually moslem science tended to be rather imitative and largely derived from Syrian and Byzantine sources, though there were some real advances in chemistry, astronomy and purely descriptive geography (but not theory, moslem map-making for example is extremely crude compared to e. g. Ptolemy). And in any case virtually all scientific activity dried up in the thirteenth century (with Ibn Khaldûn and Ulugh Beg as two possible exceptions). Generally speaking however, the moslem world has been an intellectual disaster area for the last 700 years.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 12:18 pm

Yo, polycritic! I spent ten years reading up on islam in the 90s. Shove your histrionics.

Hoplite
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 12:24 pm

– stick to the issue in hand db. Please backup the statement that Muslims generally prohibit the education of women. That is the implication of what RACook wrote and what I challenged. Your response was a complete non-sequitor.
BTW I see you’re quoting that great ‘historian’ Churchill. That explains your ‘civilisation’ remark in another thread. Churchill is great for those chest-swelling-teary-eyed-wrap-the-flag-around-you moments but isn’t a serious historian. His writings may have been extremely popular but that is a very different thing. Thatcher loved him and really believed in the largely fictional British Uniqueness and Greatness he created in his writings but most have moved well on from that sort of thing. It didn’t serve her well in the long run.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:24 pm

M Courtney says:
You can’t exterminate a people
I’m not advocating mass murdering or extermination. I wrote:
The world will be better off when Islam is crushed. The religion. I am advocating a religionectomy. A group’s religion can be made so costly and inconvenient that all but the most radical adherents accept a substitute.
@Hoplite:
I replied to Mr. R.A. Cook’s comment:
Islam today kills the women who try to learn to read and write. Who try to leave their rapist husbands or relatives.
There are so many stories like that, that I don’t feel the need to dig any out. No doubt you have heard the same news reports. If not, I will find and post some for you.
Also, thank you for your opinions on PM Churchill and PM Thatcher. But contrary to what you believe, Churchill was a recognized historian, and Thatcher was an extremely successful UK Prime Minister. I get it that you don’t like them. But their accomplishments speak for themselves.
Finally:
ISLAM DELENDA EST!
The world will be a better place.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:31 pm

dbstealey, what makes a people but the “their beloved beliefs and deepest felt morality”?
Genetics can be altered. Bastards dilute the heritage.
It is what we love that matters.
On another thread, I have greatly supported you in debate with scienceandpolitics. I disagree with you on this But that is not disrespect. Even though I an now going to leave debate and head to bed.

policycritic
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:40 pm

Islam is a dead end that has never evolved beyond the 700’s A.D. Winston Churchill had plenty to say about it in his History of the English Speaking Peoples.

Omigod. What ignorance.What Islamic science accomplished after 700 AD is what allowed western civilization to flourish. You cite Winston Churchill? The drunk?

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:42 pm

M Courtney says:
…what makes a people but the “their beloved beliefs and deepest felt morality”?
Well, how about their culture? There are lots of religions in America, but the American people are one national culture. I think people can be persuaded to alter their religious beliefs, that happened many times in Europe over the centuries. Problem is, there is no real persuasion going on vis-a-vis Islam.
Finally, I don’t see any disagreement. If you think I’m advocating genocide, I’ve said that I’m not. But if you disagree, that’s OK.☺ 
When we’re done with religion, we can MovOn and disagree on politics…
@policycritic:
Yes, I cited Churchill the drunk. Also the historian, and also the Prime Minister. Also the guy who just about singlehandedly kept English speakers speaking English.
Now before we go on, have you read Churchill’s 4-volume history?

policycritic
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 5:14 pm

dbstealey November 2, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Yes, I cite Churchill the drunk. Also the historian, and also the Prime Minister. Also the guy who just about singlehandedly kept English speakers speaking English.
Now before we go on, have you read Churchill’s 4-volume history?

And i doubt you have , too, He’s turgid.
No, I haven’t read all four volumes. But I have read what Churchill didn’t, which pre-dated him: Briffault, McCabe, real historians, I have read what you (and Churchill, obviously haven’t read and) you should too. Where do you think Copernicus got the idea?
This website is about telling the truth, no matter how painful. Where are you?

sean2829
November 2, 2014 6:31 am

The evidence piles up that the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much less than the IPCC predicted only a few years ago, so they RAISE the projected warming prediction. They blame the cold US winter of 2014 and the record antarctic sea ice on warming. Politicians who are campaigning on taking painful steps to mitigate climate action are doing very poorly. The cost of poor energy policy solutions are showing up in people’s utility bills in Europe and some US states and people are angry. And every pole of the general population on climate rates it at the bottom of the priority list. This report is a desperate, high risk, one last roll of the dice by the climate consensus folks at the UN to use the weather to justify a new level of international authority. No ones buying.

1 2 3 4