Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored: IPCC's Pachauri says "warming is taking place at a much faster rate"

I do not suggest for one moment that what I am about to say applies to Dr Pachauri. But I thought anyone considering leaving comments on the blog of an irrational spouter of claptrap might like to bear in mind a fine old saying: “never argue with an idiot, he will reduce you to his level then beat you with experience.”

FatBigot, I can’t agree more!!!
Brent in Calgary

Didn’t have his glasses that day or his graphs were upside down. Give the guy a break I’m sure it was just an honest mistake. Pray for snow…….
Rick

The “good Doctor” ONLY allows comments from those who AGREE with him– at least he only publishes those that agree. I looked at just about every article, and ALL the posts were about how wonderful he was, what GREAT information he provided, or questions like “what should I do to live a planet friendly lifestyle”
Yes, it is his blog. Yes he is the Editor of his blog and can do as he wants. But he should at least have a disclaimer that says “I only post comments of people that agree with me.”
Personally, at my blog I always post the comments of those who disagree with me–IF they leave a name. I mean really, if you are going to disagree, actually stand up for what you believe. The debate is GOOD. (Plus it increases traffic).

If you’ve not seen this Michael Crichton interview on Charlie Rose last year – you must. Go to minute 20. It’s worth the watch if only to watch Charlie sink to near hysteria when he can’t persuade Michael of the fact of global warming catastrophe.
http://michaelcrichton.net/video-charlierose-2-17-07.html
Crichton died yesterday. I hadn’t appreciated the courage it took to write his book that was critical of the theory. It can get pretty nasty swimming against that tide – as you know, Anthony.

Isn’t this the same Rajendra Pachauri who told the government of India that global warming wasn’t really a problem and that the issue was to be used in order to provide India with a more competitive position in world markets?
From this article in the Financial Post:

In India, growth trumps sustainability
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post ,Published: Saturday, July 26, 2008
India loves the UN’s climate change policies and so does India’s representative at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri.
Why the love-in? The Indian government’s new “National Action Plan on Climate Change,” which Pachauri helped craft, plainly explains why: The UN formally establishes that global warming is a matter of secondary importance to India, allowing the world’s largest democracy to pursue its own best interests.
As the National Action Plan unapologetically puts it, the UN’s climate change convention “recognizes that ‘economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country parties.’ Thus, developing countries are not required to divert resources from development priorities by implementing projects involving incremental costs.”
And India doesn’t. Throughout its National Action Plan, India demonstrates that it will divert precious little of its scarce resources to solving the climate crisis. Where greenhouse gases will be curbed — for example, by aggressively building hydro dams or modernizing industry — the curbs will be a by-product of India’s national security concerns or economic development plans.
The UN’s climate change convention is even better than that — it’s a money-maker for India and a lever with which to obtain western technology. As the Action Plan makes clear, there’s only one condition under which India need spend a rupee to help curb global warming “–(if) these incremental costs are borne by developed countries and the needed technologies are transferred.”
Apart from wanting to develop, and wanting transfers of western wealth, the Indian government has one other reason for putting global warming on the back burner — although it agrees that climate change may one day pose a threat, the National Action Plan states boldly that man-made global warming may not exist, and that if it does exist, its existence may be of no account to India.

Someone else who’s looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication.
Oh the joy of a chaotic system.

Kohl Piersen (21:27:41) :
“And since it appears to be deliberative behaviour, I cannot help pondering upon what the possible motives might be.”
Get even with western civilization? Never underestimate the power of chauvinism.
Also crosspatch (21:03:37) : supports this.

Evan,
I’ve got to look more closely at your comments-points.
I’m just a simple biologist!
Thanks
John D.

He is the consummate con, I mean pitch, no, salesman. He’ll say what he expects the audience to be receptive to. When in India he tells his fellow citizens that AGW is not a problem, at least as far as India’s development priorities are concerned. To the superbly developed West, he points to our excessive consumption, preying on a guilt that’s been well developed over the decades, and warns of coming doom unless we mend our sinful ways. Just shut down the country till you’re left with change…in your pocket.
Cherry picking data to present an alarming graphic is easy; start in the coldest part of the 19th century and run it to around January 2007 {the most recent peak as shown above on the UAH graph}. At first glance, it looks ominous. Then quickly move on to the next slide and just keep the slides moving, giving the audience just a taste without allowing a close look at the light and mirror show. It’s magic.
P.T. Barnum would be proud.

evanjones: And the same is true on longer time scales. The modern thermometer and temperature scale were invented at the end of the Little Ice Age so *all* modern temperature records record the recovery from that event. You will find nothing but general warming from the late 1700’s until the first half of the 1900’s. Then it cools somewhat until the mid/late 1970’s, warms a bit for 20 years or so, then begins to cool again. But to go farther back than 1930 or so guarantees you are going to get a “warming” trend.

The average temperature in October 2008 was 54.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 44th coolest October in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
So that makes October 2008 the 70th warmest in history!

Site http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png.
I see that the Arctic sea ice extent is higher now for this time of year, than for all of the years on the chart back to and including 2002.

Let us harken back to the good ol’ days of 2005. Amidst the clamor over AIT, a Russian solar scientist announced that their data indicated a distinct cooling trend developing going forward that would be well-established in about 10 years. Within days, Hansen and his ilk were saying things like “we must solve the problem immediately because in ten years it will be too late!” (Remember those comments?) It was not lost on some of us skeptics that the AGW core was well aware of the solar scientists’ work. Clearly, the AGW shills needed the Draconian measures sought by the IPCC (UN) put in place so they could claim that their quick action saved the planet from certain peril of GW.
We are three years since the claims and concerns. It appears the AGW wonks got it wrong, but they have enough political traction still to push their agenda before the cooling becomes really obvious.

Last year when it was claimed Antarctica was disappearing and with a few simple clicks you can see the original South Pole station is getting buried you have to start wondering about the human condition.
I agree with the theory we evolved with a tendency to suspend reason and succumb to the group … a strategy which allowed us to eliminate our hominid competition but has also made us suckers for … this stuff.
It has been getting so retarded I really don’t care if there is a debate or discussion. Let that English AGW clown march to the North Pole and freeze to death in February (?), that would be evolution. One less lemming and maybe we can move on to consistently using the scientific method and not keep burning down the library in Alexandria … metaphorically speaking. Let the facts speak.

…He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication…
Nice to know that the research findings concluding CO2 is a greenhouse gas are more than a century old. And the research findings indicating that CO2 is changing our climate are decades old.

BTW it’s “Sydney” (my birthplace), not “Sidney”.

crosspatch (21:06:29) :
So he tells India that there is a good chance that “global warming” doesn’t exist
Did he really do that? Read the article, it says:
….The Indian government’s new “National Action Plan on Climate Change,” which Pachauri helped craft….
The report was created by the Indian government and is their responsibility, not Pachauri’s. He apparently was a contributor, which could be as little as answering one or to questions or writing a small introductory paragraph here and there.
By the way, googling around I could not find confirmation that he indeed ‘helped craft’ the action plan. I could find reports about him endorsing the plan, which does not mean he has to agree with everything written in the action plan.
Without knowing exactly how he contributed to the plan, you can not make this type of judgements.

matty (23:24:30) :

He chooses the latter and now finds himself on some very thin ice

Isn’t thinning ice the inevitable result of warming?

Leon Brozyna (22:18:38) :
He is the consummate con, I mean pitch, no, salesman. He’ll say what he expects the audience to be receptive to. When in India he tells his fellow citizens that AGW is not a problem, at least as far as India’s development priorities are concerned.
No he did not say that. He said that it is of secondary importance. Stick to the facts.
To the superbly developed West, he points to our excessive consumption, preying on a guilt that’s been well developed over the decades, and warns of coming doom unless we mend our sinful ways.
The western countries are for more than 90% responsible for combined CO2 emissions done over the past centuries. It would be morally untenable to not hold those same western countries repsonsible for the problem.
Just shut down the country till you’re left with change…in your pocket.
This is not true. Nobody apart from some extreme environmentalists suggest to shutdown the economy. Wait, you make it even worse, by claiming they suggest we have to shutdown the country.
I have complete faith in humen ingenuity to develop the technology needed to reduce CO2 emissions without sinking our economies or even noticeably affecting our way of life.
Thinking a large reduction of CO2 emissions will mean the end of civilization as we know it, is alarmism of the other kind.

Quote: MICHAEL Crichton
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.”
Found on: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

I don’t think Pachauri is a liar. Like Gore, Hansen and all the others he almost certainly believes this to be the truth, despite the obvious contradictions in the data.
I’m reminded of a tragic accident: the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the U.S.S Vincennes. Although the radar showed with high precision that the Airbus was ascending, the crewman monitoring it continued to report that the Airbus was descending, and so appeared to be on an attack profile.
In the investigation the crewman was unable to explain why this happened. He was unable to explain why he reported the exact opposite of the truth.
There was a psychological explanation: scenario fulfillment. Because the captain and his officers believed they were probably under attack, then strong evidence that contradicted this was ignored. Actually, it wasn’t ignored. The crewman probably really did believe the Airbus was descending, despite the evidence right in front of his eyes. Because of his belief he saw something quite different to the truth.
Could this effect explain Pachauri and all the others? Quite possibly. If the sceptics are right – and I believe they are – then there must be an explanation as to how this delusion has taken over the world, despite the complete absence of credible evidence to support it.
I think the fundamental reason for this huge and damaging delusion – and many other delusions – is very simple: all human beings are fallible. The scary thing is that this also applies to sceptics!
Chris

Has anyone seen the HADCRU/UAH or indeed any figures for the “anomoly” for October yet?

Nitpick: It’s Sydney Morning Herald.

Anne (03:42:29) wrote:
The western countries are for more than 90% responsible for combined CO2 emissions done over the past centuries. It would be morally untenable to not hold those same western countries repsonsible for the problem.
You’re taking it as given that CO2 is responsible for “global warming,” and that “global warming” is a problem. Until it’s proven that the human-produced additions of CO2 to the atmosphere is responsible for “global warming,” western countries cannot be held responsible. Plus studies have shown that warmer temperatures result in climate conditions that benefit agricultural production (e.g., stronger monsoons), while cooler temperatures tend to cause drought and famine. How can “global warming” be considered a problem in that light?

Another inconvenient scientific observation is show on Anthony’s graph, that Arctic sea ice yesterday was greater than during each of the preceding six years on that date.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
And, from the Cryosphere website, the NH negative sea ice anomaly (1979-2000) is exactly offset by the SH positive anomaly; global sea ice is just normal.

Kim,
” Why do they think this hoax can continue, and why do they think that they can continue to get away with it? If they are wrong, and it surely seems as if they are, the judgement of science and society is going to be harsh.”
I don’t think this will happen, at least not likely in our lifetimes. You underestimate the marketing ability of the group as a whole. They have already started making statements to the effect that “This is a temporary downtrend…but make no mistake!…in another few years/decade/several decades, the temps will start going right back up!”
Chris:
“I think the fundamental reason for this huge and damaging delusion – and many other delusions – is very simple: all human beings are fallible. The scary thing is that this also applies to sceptics!
Chris”
They are fallible, yes, and mostly due to misplaced trusts and laziness. I know of no one within the circle of people I have as friends and workmates who has taken the time to actually do 1hr of research on this subject. Another major event in recent history also falls under this same situation.
It’s a 30sec soundbite society.
Jim

Quite right Chris. It is a sociological phenomenon which has happened many times in the past and will happen many times in the future as well documented in books like “extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds” and the more recent “mobs and messiahs”. History shows that it will fizzle out eventually but it won’t be by persuasion or facts so much as by being replaced by the next catastrophe prediction. What will that be? Well I’ve noticed on Andy Revkin’s blog the renaissance of the resource-depletion, population explosion talking heads and it was also subject of a recent feature in the new scientist mag. As a warning shot it’s ok but these types simply refuse to look at the real facts and figures. They rely instead on overly-simplistic logic and fit everything to a magic two variable straight line graph with little or no foundation in reality.
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed too but most, if not all, visions of the future in film or print are either catastrophic or depressing. Maybe it just makes for a more interesting storyline or maybe people are inclined to believe in catastrophes more readily. I’ve certainly noticed that many who are so willing to believe scientists when they predict catastrophe are much the same types who disbelieve scientists when they say something won’t cause any harm – like genetically modified crops for example, or MMR vaccinations, or DDT. It seems to be a deep reactionary conservatism which says that all change (or all chemicals?) is to be feared. Hence the future, being utterly uncertain, is to be feared the most. All you have to do is find the bogeyman which fits your persona, or just follow the latest fashion in fears.

Again, I am embarassed that he holds a degree from the same fine university as I do: North Carolina State.

have you seen this http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm
reporter is a little bias at the end i think?

Fatbigot — two thumbs up.
It is good to see what’s next, the investment in the AGW scam is so high, it’s now just moving forward on 100% lies.
Steve Berry also gets two thumbs up, yep, just a liar.

Anne:

The western countries are for more than 90% responsible for combined CO2 emissions done over the past centuries. It would be morally untenable to not hold those same western countries responsible for the problem.

Here’s the problem: At what point are they responsible? Before the knowledge that CO2 might pose a pernicious emission?
What of the post-War boom in global trade in Asia & the Mid East that went along with the boom in fossil fuel use? Araby sold a great deal of oil & yet they’re exempt as well despite being immediate beneficiaries.
And as the West loses competitiveness to Asia from globalization and Asian industrialization, we’re also supposed to bear green burdens alone? Green taxes will create yet more incentives to move jobs & production abroad. The internal contradiction in your thinking arises almost instantaneously however, since an equivalent good manufactured in China realizes 40% more CO2 emissions than were it manufactured in the West.
So even from a practical standpoint the notion that the West is more culpable in the short term is flawed, never mind the question as to how much threat is in fact posed by CO2 emissions.

The present worldwide economic downturn has affected the extremists’ plans for the near term.
► Expensive solutions to questionable problems requires an excess of capital investment that is not available
► Data defies dogma: enough observational and anecdotal information brings into question the hypothesis of global warming and the notion of the economic soundness of a cap and scam system
► Repetition of incongruities as proof weakens dogma: global warming causes global cooling does not ring true… and becomes irrelevant… when people are facing colder winters with more expensive fuel such as natural gas which is expected to rise 6-10% in cost in many places… and have less means to pay for it.
PE Obama made a major gaffe when he proclaimed that he was willing to bankrupt any company that attempted to build a new coal-fired power plant in the U.S. [though no mention of sanctions against China came out]. We need to suffer for our beliefs… was the message he proclaimed. Economic hardship and a lower standard of living was necessary to offset a hypothetical problem.
Political climate science and economic realities don’t align.
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2008/11/reducing-co2-through-suffering.html

The net result of all of these is to hobble the US economy while the economy of the rest of the world surges ahead. This is all part of the conspiracy by the rest of the world to economically weaken the US, so that the tinpot dictators of the 3rd world can take over and impose their own brands of morality. Pachchauri has already advocated veganism ot solve AGW.
However, Pachchauri can rest now, while the conspiracy to weaken and hobble the US will be lead and directed from the Whitehouse

Katherine (05:17:14) :
You’re taking it as given that CO2 is responsible for “global warming,” and that “global warming” is a problem.
Correct. I believe the first part of this statement is true. As for the second part, it is largely undecided what will exactly happen where and when. I have concluded that that is a gamble I am not willing to take.
Until it’s proven that the human-produced additions of CO2 to the atmosphere is responsible for “global warming,”…
Whether it is ‘proven’ or not is irrelevant. Do you need proof that you will develop serious health problems next year before taking a health insurance? All decisions suffer uncertainties. Excluding information will almost certainly decrease the quality of a decision.
Plus studies have shown that warmer temperatures result in climate conditions that benefit agricultural production (e.g., stronger monsoons), while cooler temperatures tend to cause drought and famine. How can “global warming” be considered a problem in that light?
The consequences of climate change are not all negative. Nobody in the AGW camp disputes that. But the question is: do the postives outweigh the negatives? Do you have proof of that?

JamesG
I’m pretty sure that most of you guys only looked closer at the data for one reason – you don’t like taxes under any circumstances. People with less objections to taxes haven’t looked closer so they believe what the newspapers say: Very natural human behavior.
That is a bizarre, and pretty outrageous claim to make, James. Pretty neat trick, that of branding everyone here, based on nothing more than your own blinders. The truth is people have many reasons for looking closer. I only looked to be better able to refute anti-AGW letters to the editor. My only agenda was proving AGW was true. Surprise, surprise, it was all smoke and mirrors, and yes, lies. Like it or not, repeating a lie which you believe in no way absolves you from the fact that you are spreading lies, no matter what the motivation is. Usually, it’s is some combination money, political power, and professional ego.
Pachauri is a liar whose lies will, and already have had negative impacts on humanity. May he burn in aitch e hockeysticks2, or wherever he’s going.

eric
Re Swindle … Are there any factual errors or any misleading parts of this documentary? For the most part, I can’t find anything to complain about.
There is an analysis of the many problems with the film here …http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/
JP.
REPLY: For balance, here is a detailed analysis of the many problems with Gores Inconvenient Truth movie here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/04/detailed-comments-on-an-inconvenient-truth/
-Anthony

The problem is all the smoothing and all the averaging that goes on.
Pachauri’s chart is a 5-year moving average of annual temperatures. If you cut the averaging off at 2007 (2008 isn’t finished yet of course) you can get a line going up.
But the climate varies alot. It goes up and down and the warmers like to convienently cut out all the downs in their analysis.
The monthly variability should not be ignored since it also contains alot of information that is useful to explaining what is happening.
If you plot the monthly Nino 3.4 anomaly against the global temperature anomaly, there is a very, very strong correlation. Global temperatures follow the PDO – Nino Index (with a 3 or 4 month lag) directly and continuously. The Nino temps vary more than global temps so a good rule of thumb is that changes in the Nino anomaly of 3 months ago times 15% to 20% is very closely matched to the global anomaly change this month. Plot this monthly over 70 years like I have and you will be convinced.
In the last five years (cutting 2008 out of course) we have mostly been in a positive PDO-Nino and thus temps as annual averages have been increasing. They started falling drastically about 20 months ago when a La Nina appeared but the warmers can just ignore that for now.

I don’t see the good Doctor allowing my comment on his blog, but we’ll see. Here is what I submitted.
“I have not seen any evidence that many Americans were voting on the climate change issue, and I also can’t say the American people as a whole have a major difference with the current policies.
Just what is the policy you’d like to see announced? I say this with the knowledge that last six years have shown no warming, and the last year or more indicates a pronounced cooling trend is underway.
I think common ground can be found with the current economic crisis. A crisis with roots deep in risky lending policies, but triggered by a rapid rise in energy prices over the last few years.
Yet I’m fairly certain you are advocating policies that will constrain the supply of energy and further drive up prices. Many proposed initiatives such as carbon trading and sequestration will take limited resources away from renewables and nuclear. These initiatives and policies will constrain supply, force price increases and ultimately lead to further economic turmoil, which will reduce the resources available to new developments.
With the policies you advocate, you can’t get to your destination. You need to find the middle ground, and that is in energy independence. Policies that increase the domestic supply, increase the use of renewables and nuclear, increase conservation, while lowering costs and boosting economy as a whole.”
-George

I think what we are seeing is the beginning of a scientific ‘McCarthiest’ period regarding AGW skeptics. I can well imagine Dr Hansen sitting before the next Congress saying, “I have here a list….”
It seems that the movement to suppress those that do not accept the gospel has begun and, I fear, will become worse as time goes on.

Jack Simms..you’re comparing apples and oranges there amigo. The climate data are illustrative of a linear trend, supposedly reflective of decades of fluctuation, wheras the election results are reflective of opinion at a single point in time..no parallell there at all…whatsoever !! 🙂
Good try though!
John D.

I just went on his blog and gave him a good verbal thrashing! Nothing better in the morning than clubbing a global warming idiot who is doing a great deal of damage the world over! :]

From Jennifer’s blog:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24608324-30538,00.html
Carbon crash hits Europe’s emission trading scheme
* Font Size: Decrease Increase
* Print Page: Print
Carl Mortished | November 06, 2008
“WHILE you were distracted by crashing banks and clashing US senators, you may have missed a small environmental earthquake.
The price of carbon has collapsed.
In only three months, life has become a lot cheaper for polluters. The financial cost of warming the planet has plummeted in Europe’s emissions trading system (ETS) and the effectiveness of such a volatile market mechanism in curbing carbon is being questioned. ”
……
“Carbon’s falling price spells companies going bust, the loss of jobs and the shredding of political reputations. Over the next year, no politician with re-election hopes will back a policy that would triple the price of carbon for industry and raise consumers’ energy costs. There is a wider question about the ETS that must be addressed, and that is whether it is a sensible mechanism to regulate carbon.”

Evan..by the way, those who are unaware of “German Songs” may have children and grandchildren who unwittingly, once again, sing them.
John D.

Anne (07:42:47) Proof that CO2=AGW is irrelevant? You marvelously illustrate that the Precautionary Principle is a paeon to ignorance. Would you pre-emptively remove your colon to make sure you don’t develop colon cancer?
How about trying to gain enough knowledge to make an informed decision. We really need an effective and honest accounting of the costs and benefits of carbon encumbrance. There is nowhere near enough proof that CO2 adversely effects the climate to justify the massive social costs of encumbering carbon, especially now that temperatures are falling and the purported connection between CO2 and climate regulation is unravelling. You fool yourself if you think otherwise.
================================

The fact that the UN IPCC now has a loyal servant in the white House, the biggest economy of the world, clearly makes them over confident.
Especially because this economy is hit by one of the worst economic crises in history.
The Patriot Act and a new formed Civil Army (as introduced by Barack Obama on his speech of the 2nd of july 2008), provide a forward view on what COULD happen to climate deniers and protesters when the use of carbon fuels is regulated by law.
The president already has promised to bankrupt the coal industry, sky rocket the costs for electricity and tax the use of carbon fuels.
There is absolutely no life threatening reason why we should kill the coal industry and confront the US households and the industry with soaring energy prices.
It is my personal opinion that any doctrine based on lies and disinformation of the people should be rejected at any price.
The “agenda” of the UN IPCC, planned for decades, is not democratic and represents a great threat to our existence. (http://green-agenda.com)
The basic philosophy behind the agenda is the threat of over population and use of resources and destruction of habitats.
Their final objective is to create a sustainable society limited to about 500 million to 1 billion inhabitants…
The fastest and most efficient way to achieve this goal is to choke the western world by destroying the carbon energy infrastructure which is the life blood modern society.
Without carbon energy the modern world comes to a stand still.
The result will be human suffering, hunger and starvation on an unimaginable scale.
The UN push for the development of green fuels, a huge mistake which will be corrected by the current crises, is directly responsible for 1 billion people that currently depend on food aid which is NOT delivered.
This is because the world food stocks are at its lowest levels since a long time and the price of food was coupled to the price of carbon fuels.
I personally believe that we can solve our problems very well without a doctrine that intends to artificially take a way our liberties, messing with our way of life and a reduction of 5/6 of the world population.
It could very well be that I have made a completely wrong assessment about the forces that push for carbon taxation.
But one thing is clear to me.
When the the ruling elites in the world use lies to push policies we have to be extremely careful and be prepared for the worst.

Excerpts from BJØRN LOMBORG article in today’s WSJ:
… And while warming will mean about 400,000 more heat-related deaths globally, it will also have positive effects, such as 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths, according to the only peer-reviewed global estimate, published in Ecological Economics — something that is rarely reported. …
… Germany, the leading consumer of solar panels, will end up spending $156 billion by 2035, yet only delay global warming by one hour by the end of the century. …

Anne: Excluding information will almost certainly decrease the quality of a decision.
Correct. In addition to lying, excluding information is precisely what AGWers habitually do.
I have complete faith in humen ingenuity So do we. It will prevail, despite the incredibly wasteful stupidity of believing the AGW lie.
You should learn to spell, BTW.
[REPLY – We can’t edit our posts. Typos are to be expected. ~ Evan]

Anne: “Whether it is ‘proven’ or not is irrelevant. Do you need proof that you will develop serious health problems next year before taking a health insurance? All decisions suffer uncertainties. Excluding information will almost certainly decrease the quality of a decision.”
To provide a more correct analogy, I would require substantial proof that one of my legs is suffering from an incurable and spreading infection before I submitted to having the leg amputated.

Less money in the pockets of the western consumer is already having an effect on China. This is without US cap and trade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7713594.stm
Cap and trade will just make life more expensive. In Europe there seems to be a bottomless pit of carbon credits.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12378
If you need some there’ll aways be some to buy.
Just how will the Chinese government manage an unemployment problem

Anne (07:42:47) wrote:
Whether it is ‘proven’ or not is irrelevant. Do you need proof that you will develop serious health problems next year before taking a health insurance? All decisions suffer uncertainties. Excluding information will almost certainly decrease the quality of a decision.
If paying for that health insurance means I won’t have enough money for food, yes, I’d demand proof first. After all, what good is that insurance if I’m so weak from hunger I pass out on the street and get run over by a truck?
The consequences of climate change are not all negative. Nobody in the AGW camp disputes that. But the question is: do the postives outweigh the negatives? Do you have proof of that?
Since historical records have shown that climate change is natural and cyclical, it’s up to the warmists to first prove that this time the cause of the change is unnatural. Until they have proven that, no problem exists. That would be like advocating a glass of clean water be used to wash your hands when a person beside you is keeling over from dehydration.

“Without knowing exactly how he contributed to the plan, you can not make this type of judgements.”
I do know that he was the one presenting the plan to the Indian government and that he was responsible for it and that he offered no caveats. To attempt to find some weasel language to allow him to escape responsibility for his own report seems a but of a reach and more likely an improper judgment.
And this isn’t the only example of which I have heard where he has spoken domestically that AGW isn’t really a problem but could be used to the benefit of India to obtain a better global competitive position. It was simply the first example that came up on a not very exhaustive web search.

…meanwhile, look at that ice go!

Roy Spencer said;
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
evanjones (22:53:48) said:
But the reason I like the break points I mentioned is that from 1976 or so to 2001, the “Big Six” cycles (PDO, AMO, NAO, IPO, AO, AAO) went from cold to warm phase one by one. The climate warmed.
Joe D’Aleo said:
La Nina is gradually returning. The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) has dropped to -0.74 in October, well into weak La Nina territory. The tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures all the way from South America to beyond the dateline are back below normal. The North Pacific as a whole remains strongly in the cold mode (negative PDO). The Atlantic is weakly in its warm mode (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is positive).
Dr Leif said:
There is good evidence that solar activity has not increased steadily over the past 300 years.
Anthony Watts said:
As many readers know, the predictions for record low sea ice minimums in 2008…
Sorry: the repetition
FM

JamesG (09:56:27) : “M. Jeff, I respect your views on DDT… ”
I did not mention DDT.

G Alston
If you’re trying to pigeonhole me you’ll fail. I’m a skeptic’s skeptic and apolitical. But if I’m wrong just tell me so. Actually if Anne is the same Anne from “Economists view” then we do pretty much agree on most things, except climate change of course. We were both very adamant there that there was a massive financial collapse coming due to the unsustainable nature of the debt-based economy. Bingo. My own credo is the search for truth and you often have to wade through piles of ideological manure from both sides in order to get to it. I see the way ahead is on clean, green energy solutions based on cost-benefit and I’m sure we can all agree on that at least. There’s nothing wrong with being anti-tax though, so don’t be ashamed of it 🙂

Follow the money trail…if they’re getting funding for ‘Climate Change’..they have to lie to continue to receive the money…shameful..very shameful….
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com

Wow Evan,
That was a nice clear explanation, with plenty of data to support it.
Mitigation is supposed to be a low cost way to prevent large losses. If a hurricane is coming, you board up the windows. If the gate is open and the cows might get into the highway, you close the gate.
Somehow, mitigation has been turned upside down. It’s as if we must burn down the house to prevent hurricane damage, or kill/cripple the cows to prevent accidents.
We are being asked (ordered?) to pour the wealth of our nation down a black hole to delay warming for a few months a hundred years from now.
In the new logic, mitigation is an extremely high cost action designed to prevent very manageable outcomes.
Adaptation is the correct response to global warming. Mitigation? Sure, if the price is right.

Lifted from the register.co.uk – because I like it:
By Charles Manning Posted Thursday 6th November 2008 00:36 GMT
” The aim of all scientists is to secure funding and the easiest way to do it these days is to somehow tie your research area to Global Warming. Sure many scientists think Global Warming is a crock (or at least is not “proven” — whatever that means), but you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
If you were in the CIA then you’d know that your funding and power depends on the commie/Islamic threat. Therefore you fan the commie/Islamic flame. The last thing anyone in the CIA wants is peace because that would do them out of jobs.
If you’re an IPCC scientist then you know that your funding & conferences etc depend on keeping the threat alive. Same deal.
The unwashed masses seem to love drama and the scientific community are always keen to play along. Just look at the list we’ve had over the last few years:
* AIDS: We were supposed to all be dead by now weren’t we. Sure, some people die, but for the most part so long as you don’t play silly buggers with needles or todgers you’re OK.
* SARS: 774 deaths in a few years. It was supposed to go around the wold in a killing spree.
* Bird Flu: 243 deaths. Mostly in Indonesia where people live with poultry walking around in their houses.
* Mad Cow Disease: About 150 deaths
Yet boring and less newsworthy stuff kills far more of us:
* Cars: Hundreds of thousands per year.
* Tuberculosis: 1.5 million per year”
All so true!

OT?…. New Zealand just elected a conservative government… I think it means the end of the crazy green idea of cap and trade scheme.

evanjones (10:43:44) :
You touched a fundamental problem, which usually results in an endless discussion because it is a matter of opinion, simplified to its essence:
1. If you want to change human behaviour then you have the burden of proof.
2. If you want to change the composition of the atmosphere then you have the burden of proof.

Stefan (10:19:17) :
I very well understand and appreciate your point of view.
Blaming people is definitely counterproductive. As is blaming yourself. But there is this a third option: feeling responsible for your own actions, which has nothing to do with guilt.
Since the western countries are the ones taking the initiative in both climate change awareness and mitigation efforts, I do not feel they are blaming themselves, they are taking responsibility for their actions.

I have one question, do Pachauri, Gore and Hansen
(a) really believe everything they say is true?
or
(b)believe some things they say are untrue but justify it in their minds?

To Dr. RK Pachauri
I was surprised to hear of your talk at the University of NSW. In it you are quoted as saying “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate” than before, and presenting a graph that shows global temperatures continuously rising since the beginning of the 21st century.
Is this true? If not, could you please correct the record?
If so, could you provide me with a reference to your source of temperature data?
All of the sources of global temperature data that I have used (hadcrut, giss, the various satellites) show little or no change in global temperatures since the dawn of century.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that global warming has stopped. There are a variety of possibly explanations that are completely consistent with the hypothesis of AGW driven by greenhouse gas emissions.
But if the allegation that you are misrepresenting global temperature trends is true, it could have a material impact on your credibility and that of the IPCC.

Anna, it’s easy for you to find the evidence that the theory is false. Just look at a Mauna Loa graph of rising CO2 and compare it to the big 4 climate centres temperature graphs. What you will see is CO2 going up and temperatures staying stable and since 2007, reducing. No other proof is required to throw that theory out of the window.

Anne wrote:
Blaming people is definitely counterproductive. As is blaming yourself. But there is this a third option: feeling responsible for your own actions, which has nothing to do with guilt.
Since the western countries are the ones taking the initiative in both climate change awareness and mitigation efforts, I do not feel they are blaming themselves, they are taking responsibility for their actions.

Yes, option three is wise and I feel that is really the way forward. It is the one that is about leading by example.
A lady once asked Ghandi to please instruct her son to stop eating sugar. Ghandi said to come back in two weeks. The lady brought her son back two weeks later, and Ghandi told the son quite pointedly that he must stop eating sugar for it is very bad for his health. The lady thanked Ghandi, but asked, why did she have to wait two weeks? Ghandi replied, “because two weeks ago, I was still eating sugar.”
You may have heard the story, I’m sure it is quite famous. It also illustrates that leading by example is a slow process. But it is also the most effective way, as we avoid getting into conflicts about guilt and hypocrisy.
Someone said that we have been moving to progressively lighter and cleaner technologies for thousands of years–instead of burning down forests we burn oil, and more lately gas–it is a question of whether we can continue the slow move towards cleaner technology, which has been progressing anyway, or whether we actually have to stop further development until a new clean infrastructure is created?
If the accumulation of CO2 is not an immediately severe problem, then we can continue the gradual slow lead by example towards cleaner technology, and India and China can continue their gradual development using the materials they have most cheaply available, even if that is coal, until they can later progress to cleaner technology as that becomes available in the future. This is the path of least conflict, blame, and aggression.
But if the situation is truly dire and we need immediate cuts, then leading by example is not an option–much as we may desire it–instead it will look a lot more like a messy divorce, with winners and losers. And right now the industrialized nations are the ones with the upper hand in any such conflict. At least, that’s how I see it.
Everyone wants a clean environment and lighter footprint and more efficient energy. It is a matter of at what speed we have to go to get there? Are we in a dangerous crisis, or are we just eagerly anticipating a clean future? Most conflict in these debates seems to hinge on what speed people think we need to go at.

Anne (10:12:28) :
“Since historical records have shown that CO2 and climate change are deeply linked, it’s up to the skeptics to first prove that this time the change of CO2 levels will not cause climate change.”
I agree that CO2 and climate change are linked because long term (200-800 year) ocean cycles bring old cold water to the surface that is full of CO2 and also because overall sun induced ocean surface temperature changes lead a change in CO2 (CO2 lags ocean temperature change rates) with about a 5 year lag, but the linkage relations are not well quantified/modeled. CO2 lagging ocean temperature makes sense because that’s where most of the carbon sits, dissolved in the oceans.
The 2nd part of your sentence seems to be based on a different CO2/climate change linkage then what I based my agreement with you on, so I will now disagree but based on what I think you meant. Its up to the warmists to prove that CO2 does not primarily lag ocean temperatures over the last interglacials. I believe that because they can’t, they misdirect and propagandize instead.
Also, I assume that you use “climate change” in lieu of “Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming”. Any reason for that?

Stefan (11:09:24) :
This is something that puzzles me. World energy use is something like 60% oil and coal. How do you stop this?
The right question would be: “How do you replace this?”
You can see that one coming: the usual enviro-hippie 😉 view. Reduction and renewables. Perhaps even nuclear if the renewables don’t fulfill their promise. CCS may become viable, or biofuels (algae-based or something else not competing with food production). There are many options, and there is only one way to find out which are the best.
The main problem holding back renewables is cost. If you see what mass manufacturing does to cost of nearly everything imaginable (cars, telephones, televisions, air travel, computers and even space travel), then there is only one way where that cost is heading: down. That is why I believe that nearly all renewables will become cost-effective sooner or later.

Dr. RK Pachauri suggested that the west should pay the price as we are the greatest producers of CO2.
Has anyone done a study on the amount of CO2 produced by 1 billion Indians burning cow dung and firewood?
the Dr’s speech is here:
http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/wallacewurth.html
His interview here:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399649.htm

So Rajendra DOES HAVE an agenda!
(Love the alliteration too)
Let’s call him Ragenda Pauchauri

I have to share this:
Last month, I had breakfast with a friend and we talked about global warming. He said that global temperatures are rising. So I asked how he knew that and he replied, “Thousands of scientists say so.” I asked who they were and he said he heard about them on Air America. I then told him about the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, and Secretary General of the WMO (World Meterological Organization), Michel Jarraud, both of whom acknowledge there has been no warming so far this century. That did not change his mind. Temperatures are still rising. I pointed out that the four major satellite temperature tracking systems (NASA/GISS, UAH, RSS, Hadley) recorded that temperatures have actually dropped about a half degree since 2007. Right over his head. “Temperatures are rising and if we don’t cut back on CO2 emissions, it will be disaster.” I then asked him if the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) agreed with Pacharui, Jarraud and the tracking systems, would that change his mind. “No it would not. There’s no point in you trying to change my mind.” Finally, I asked him if the scientists he heard about on Air America should contact the IPCC, WMO, NASA and NAS to inform them they are wrong. “Yes, they should.”
This story is true, honest injun.

Stefan (12:38:21) :
I couldn’t agree more that most conflict hinges on what speed people think we need to go at.
If we assume the warmists possess cognitive dissonance or haven’t done ALL their homework, as they are still just reading from the Cliff Notes, then they will likely not change their opinion. However, they could still agree on a more measured pace of change based on the arguments about;
a) future value of money,
b) the expectation that future technological advances will arise,
c) the current projections that natural cooling cycles will dominant for 10-30 years, and
d) the concept that we can adapt relatively easily as long as we are thinking of 20 to 100 year time frames and much of our infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life.
If I was a climate catastrophe warmist, these arguments would seem very pragmatic to me. That warmist don’t consider these makes me think they are either irrational, have other agendas or are in negotiation mode, wherein they are ready to back off from stopping energy generation in the western world dead in its tracks (while the rest of the world laughs at our insanity.
BTW – I wish the catastrophers hadn’t given ‘warmist” such a bad name, because I was one under the definition that a warmist believes a few more degrees is a very good thing.

He’s not accepting any comments on his blog. Perhaps he’ll allow them in his next life.

Right now, the actual cost of producing ethanol is about $1.50/gal. That’s without Any subsidies.
There is approx. One Billion Acres of abandoned farmland in the world (from a study by Stanford University.)
It costs less than $100.00 to make a vehicle flexfuel.

Smokey (12:50:07) :
…“…the average lifetime of a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, before it is captured by vegetation and afterward released, is about twelve years.” The quote is by Prof. Freeman Dyson. [source]”
I read a recent compilation of studies that indicated closer to 5 years for the residence time (?) of a molecule of CO2 based on a given CO2 perturbation, and that most of it goes into the ocean. I think that of those studies, 12 years was at the upper range. Perhaps that was based on ignoring the oceans and just looking at land based vegetation absorption and decay.(?)
On top of that 5 year cycle, throw in the long term ocean cycles and the annual northern hemisphere vegetation cycles, a volcano here and there and a 3% anthropogenic contribution .. did I miss anything?
BTW, when can we move on from the CO2 BS?

Pops (14:13:21) It’s presumptious to suggest it, but at this rate he’s losing merit so fast he won’t rate blogability in the next life. Enlightenment of himself and others seems not to be on his agenda. Let’s hope he comes to dwell in the land of those who sweep the path before themselves, so he’ll have a little longer to improve, next time. Jai guru deva om.
=============================

JamesG (09:40:23) I have heard your skeptical voice on many boards.
Re: WMD The most recent evidence is that Saddam bluffed everyone about WMD in order to keep the Persians at bay. Everybody thought that Saddam had plenty of WMD. Even Joe Wilson claimed in a 2/6/03 op-ed in the LATimes that we should not invade Iraq for fear Saddam would use his chemical and biological WMD on our troops. Yes, that Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame.
The need to depose Saddam arose most acutely in 1991. I blame Powell for not getting it done, but it is true that Bush only got allied support for freeing Kuwait, and not for deposing Saddam.
So please, quell your fantasies about the impetus for the war.
============================================

Pete (12:41:19) :
I agree that CO2 and climate change are linked because long term (200-800 year) ocean cycles bring old cold water to the surface that is full of CO2 and also because overall sun induced ocean surface temperature changes lead a change in CO2 (CO2 lags ocean temperature change rates) with about a 5 year lag, but the linkage relations are not well quantified/modeled. CO2 lagging ocean temperature makes sense because that’s where most of the carbon sits, dissolved in the oceans.
The 2nd part of your sentence seems to be based on a different CO2/climate change linkage then what I based my agreement with you on, so I will now disagree but based on what I think you meant.
One thing doesn’t preclude the other. In the process of emerging from an ice age, CO2 is a feedback. The higher temperatures increase the global CO2 levels, increasing the temperature further, etc. Well you know what a feedback is. This does not invalidate the current claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Its up to the warmists to prove that CO2 does not primarily lag ocean temperatures over the last interglacials.
You can wait long for that. They won’t even try. Because they agree with you on the fact that CO2 lags temperature on prehistoric timescales.
Also, I assume that you use “climate change” in lieu of “Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming”. Any reason for that?
I can answer that question if you tell me exactly what you mean by “Catastrophic”

Bob B (13:46:34) :
CO2 has been shown to follow temp and not the other way around!
Yep, see my answer to Pete above.

Anne — “What is often overlooked is the fact that the market for renewable energies may be the main growth area for the next decades. If you want a piece of that pie, better start developing the technologies. ”
Given that I’m merely a dull-witted engineer, I’d be fascinated to learn how one goes about “developing the technologies.” Surely by now you must know that scientists and engineers worldwide are already working on energy problems and have been doing so for… well… decades, and are doing this for the motivation of making a pile of cash. Few things are better at motivating. The first engineer who can figure out how to get 200 mpg out of a standard car is going to make a great deal of money. The first team who can figure out how to power a home full time for a $10k investment is going to likewise make a lot of money. Funny thing, these things haven’t appeared yet. I wonder why.
Surely you’re not suggesting that you simply mandate that these technologies that need developing and we wake up and poof them into existence, are you? (“Yeah, we could have made vehicle batteries that can power a Chevy Volt 1000 miles for 5 cents years last year, but gee, we didn’t knew it was required. That surely makes all the difference. Let’s build that battery, boys.”) Sounds like technology creationism to me. Must be nice to have that much faith that government can do what the lure of riches beyond the dreams of avarice cannot.

OK, I know this is low…
Would you buy a used car from this man?
Look at him… Doesn’t he look suspiciously like Rael, another hoaxer who has been at it for decades?
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/inoverie/rael/index.htm

Not a single indicator the models have predicted of CO2 caused greenhouse warming has happened. In particular would be the atmospheric temperature profile. If CO2 warming was happening, we should see an increase in temperature in the middle altitude of the atmosphere. We aren’t seeing that. Remember that CO2 absorbs IR in both directions, from the sun and from the Earth. In increase in CO2 should reduce the IR reaching the Earth’s surface and conserve that energy as heat. It should also trap IR leaving the surface of the Earth, again conserving that energy as heat. There is currently no evidence that is happening and in fact the evidence shows pretty clearly that is not happening.
Also, current CO2 content of atmosphere is still pretty close to an all time low in the history of Earth’s atmosphere. If it gets much lower than it was at about the turn of the 20th century, plants would begin to have trouble existing. In fact, CO2 depletion due to erosion is expected to be what causes the demise of life on Earth. As the Earth cools, volcanism slows. As volcanism slows, natural CO2 injection slows. As CO2 injection slows, available CO2 continues to be bound up through erosion of exposed rock causing a drop in CO2 until plants can no longer survive. When plants die, the animals that depend on them die.
As the Himalayas rose up from the collision of India into Asia, the amount of CO2 removed due to erosion of rock skyrocketed.
I also want to know why people have this emotional attachment to polar ice. For most of Earth’s history there has been no polar ice. The current ice age that we are in a brief (and probably closing) respite from is only about 2 million years old. Ice at the poles of Earth is an anomaly, not the usual condition.

Katherine:”You’re taking it as given that CO2 is responsible for “global warming,” and that “global warming” is a problem.”
Anne: “Correct. I believe the first part of this statement is true. As for the second part, it is largely undecided what will exactly happen where and when. I have concluded that that is a gamble I am not willing to take. ”
Anne, that is a fear based response. Are you unwilling to gamble on whether a near Earth object will hit and cause major changes in our Planet? Are you campaigning for more funding to find a way to prevent that? Are you unwilling to gamble on whether aliens will come to our Planet and enslave us? Why are you not out campaigning for funding to prevent that? I could probably list a hundred other cases where someone would not be willing to gamble on the outcome of a scenario. Do we need to fund all of those also?
Should we just try to “human proof” our Planet? Perhaps we should all live in a hole, never venture anywhere, never attempt to live a full life, never take a chance, never experience the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat (thanks to ABC Sports for that one). A little warming would be a good thing, in fact I would love to never see a temperature below 70 degrees again. Why not get off the high horse and just enjoy the ride, it’s short enough as it is.

Old Coach (15:43:29) :
“There is a logical theory that postulates that baseline climate is dependent on the positions of continents around the globe. ….”
I would love to see ocean circulation modelers get to the point where they could simulate (with independent verfication) scenarios where the continents are in different positions in, say, 200,000-1,000,000 years. Alternatively, suppose we get to the point where we can confidently predict the next ice age starting in, say, 500 years and one of our kids comes along and proposes a geo-engineering project, that can be validated with the models, that proposes to increase equator to poleward ocean circulations to offset this real catastrophe.
I don’t know what would do it. Perhaps some strategically placed giant breakwaters or an expansion of the Bering straits to open up Pacific to Arctic circulation….