From the GWPF, news about the current media feeding frenzy on the IPCC SREx report. Even Revkin in a Tweet (via Tom Nelson) thinks the coverage is “overheated”.
Amid overheated coverage of IPCC climate extremes…
[Revkin] Amid overheated coverage of IPCC climate extremes report, vital to note fine print (via @rogerpielkejr)
For example, this over the top article in the Detroit Free Press:
Get ready for more weather disasters, climate panel says
I really like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s handy gadget ala the Staples “That was Easy” button.
IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme
The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where “right” means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while. —Roger Pielke Jr, 28 March 2012
FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? […]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.–IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters
There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses. –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4
Plans to force companies to declare the size of their greenhouse gas emissions have been put on hold and could even be abolished, the environment secretary will tell parliament this week, raising fresh questions over the government’s commitment to fighting climate change. –Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 28 March 2012
Did you know that Poland blocked new European Union emissions targets at a recent meeting of EU environment ministers? Are you aware that there is growing support among Eastern European governments to block any new unilateral climate targets permanently? The reason you may not have heard of this growing rebellion in Brussels is simple: climate policy is no longer a big item on the EU’s agenda and the climate mania is gradually coming to an end after almost 20 years. In the past, Poland’s intractable hostility to green unilateralism was greeted by universal protestation in capitals around Europe. Today, it is hardly noticed by the media while green campaigners have become elderly and limp. Other and more pressing concerns are taking precedence and are completely overriding the green agenda. It looks as if a new political ice age has ascended over Brussels. –Benny Peiser, Public Service Europe, 28 March 2012
QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh’s husband to begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal carbon tax. The showpiece of the Gillard government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is now in jeopardy, after Mr Newman yesterday pulled the plug on $75 million in state funding pledged for the $1.2bn Solar Dawn solar thermal project near Chinchilla, west of Brisbane. –Natascha Bita,The Australian, 29 March 2012
They are responsible for some of the [Australian] government’s most important policies – but staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits. —The Sunday Telegraph, 25 March 2012
Rich deposits of gas have been discovered under the rolling countryside of Melton and the Vale of Belvoir.Shale gas, a natural gas contained in rocks hundreds of millions of years old, has been found by geologists at the British Geological Survey (BGS), just over the Leicestershire border at Keyworth, in Nottinghamshire, as part of ongoing geological survey work. —Leicester Mercury, 28 March 2012
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits.
The floggings shall continue until morale improves.
We accept your gratitude over the professional floggers not being permanent staff at this time.
-The Management
“Caruba-lies” is a screen name for someone who doesn’t like Alan Caruba, who writes a daily blog:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com
The genuine Caruba seems pretty sensible to me.
There was a “sound bite” report on a major Chicago radio station yesterday, that indicated the IPCC was predicting more severe storms (they used the 2011 groundhog day blizzard as an example).
PR, apparently, is not their strong suit.
Caruba-lies. Dude, use the brain you’ve been given. Try reading some WUWT “jibber-jabber” you might learn something.
220 scientists(shills), 62 Countries(money/power hungry governments)
Caruba-lies says:
March 29, 2012 at 10:21 am
220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries produce a report. WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.
“Newsbytes – the SREx feeding frenzy
From the GWPF, news about the current media feeding frenzy on the IPCC SREx report. Even Revkin in a Tweet (via Tom Nelson) thinks the coverage is “overheated”.”
If one possesses the reading comprehension skills of the average 8 year old it seems fairly obvious that the point of the criticism in this post is aimed not at those who produced this work but at the usual overly hyperbolic coverage it is receiving in the mostly ignorant press. A number of the quotes included in the post actually give credit to the authors for including references in the report that again confirm that there is no discernible link between most of the extreme weather events under study and anything having to do with anthropogenic influences at this point. Although a number of comments consist mostly of snark, most are much more thoughtful than the media blitz on the topic of this report and for that blitz snark is entirely justified and probably overly generous.
Let’s hope that this finally puts an end to the hysterical screams about extreme weather events getting worse. I have pointed out to Warmists time and time again that there are no worsening trends. Yet, time and time again they wave their arms and tell me it is – without any evidence.
It’s the same sort of screams regarding “a well funded denialist machine” without any evidence to back it up. The last person that tried to back it up is a self confessed liar and is under criminal investigation I think.
I have just bookmarked this page for quick reference to the IPCC paragraph.
Caruba-lies says:
March 29, 2012 at 10:21 am
WUWT and its bloggers produce jibber jabber.
Caruba, I suspect you may have people like myself in mind, since I post a lot, and it may be a jibber jabber, whatever that is, but remember ‘where there’s muck there’s brass’.
This
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
you will not find in any of academic submissions, in peer review papers, but it is as important, or even more so, than any of the ‘shaky assumptions’ you find there, since this is reality, and it was shown on WUWT first. It is important because it explains what the ‘220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries’ would dare not to tackle. Do have a go.
And what is the explanation, again shown on WUWT as:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETGNH.htm
And if you are one of the ‘220 ACTUAL scientists from 62 countries’ and in truth interested in science, than I don’t need to encourage or advise you what to do, but I suspect you are not.
http://news.yahoo.com/mumbai-miami-list-big-weather-disasters-150359548.html
Press that BS button!!!
It’s Good News Week 🙂
I thought that was a simple misspelling and should have been “Carnauba-lies” as that wax is good for polishing CAGW-affirming “work” like IPCC Assessment Reports.
Folks – I’ve been trying to work out how the usual suspects (the Guardian etc) could come to such apparently opposite conclusions to what the report actually says.
I started casting around for press releases from Greenpeace, the WWF, FOTE etc to run a churn analysis. Imagine my surprise when I found the real culprit:
It’s the IPCC press release itself and the Guardian et al are running epic cut and pastes from it:
http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/srex/srex_press_release.pdf
See what they have done:
“Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate
extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.”
^ This is being repeated verbatim across the more credulous media outlets. If you read the full press release, they haven’t actually mentioned the findings regarding an anthropogenic link. They just refer to “climate change”.
See what they’ve done there?
It’s horribly underhand.
It stands to reason that the alarmists will scream louder as people lose interest. It’s good. I like it. It means people will see them more clearly again, you know, the way a maniac stands out in a crowd.
As for MSM, raging headlines along the lines of “IT’S ALL A SCAM” and “BIGGEST HOAX IN HUMAN HISTORY” would sell papers. A lot of papers. And just think of the multitude of criminals to look more closely at, week after week, year after year. The shock and horror of this multi-billion dollar crime could be strung out for decades.
Hmmm… maybe they are holding out and milking the Catastrophe angle for all it’s worth first, saving the Shock-Horror of discovery for later???
Benny Peiser, writing from the UK, I presume, reports that Poland, and other countries in Eastern Europe are objecting to the EU plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 85 to 90%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050, Peiser doesn’t give any details, but this is what the Poles are objecting to. They are not against the long term EU plan, but they have problems with the intermediate goals. They were the only country to object. (see the Huffington POst article, entitled Poland Vetoes EU Carbon Emissions…..)It should also be noted that Poland’s economy is based on coal.
All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort. We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.
Fred N.;
Here’s another suitable one:
http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=downer
Hugh Pepper says: “All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort. We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.”
—————————–
In reality, the economic basis of the “advanced” European technologies is dominated by rent seeking to reap government subsidies. Some countries are profiting greatly by exporting “green energy” while importing the much cheaper electricity produced by conventional means. In addition to the direct costs, “green” energy solutions seldom capture the whole cost of manufacturing, operating and disposing of the infrastructure required; and the ecological costs (footprints, waste products, habitat impacts, and destruction of wildlife) are not considered with the hostile eye given to conventional energy sources. This is true of electric automobiles, wind power and solar/solar electric–which seem to be the currently fashionable green solutions.
One example of the horrible poor allocation of capital that is typical of the green agenda: A recent local (North Carolina) news article, touted the use of solar power by a poultry plant. It turned out the the cost of the facility was multiple millions ($15 MM?), and the annual savings in hot water generation costs were $250,000. The viability was from state and federal grants, ongoing tax credits, and subsidies from utilities who could use it to meet green energy goals. The project was proclaimed as visionary and a great example of a green success.
IF the global warming predictions were validated, then use of many other technologies such as ground water heat pumps, nuclear power (including co-generation), thorium-based reactors, fusion reactors, materials sciences aimed at reducing the weight and energy required for mechanical and electrical systems, and many others offering more potential than the boondoggles currently being pushed.
DirkH says:
March 29, 2012 at 9:31 am
DBCooper says:
March 29, 2012 at 8:26 am
“” …staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff’s flagging spirits.”
Now that’s funny!”
Consultants? Is “escort service” a dirty word now?
—————————————————————-
In Oz, escort services are strictly reserved for union officials … particularly the health workers union.
It’s all bunk, done to create a “fiduciary basis” for insurance companies to raise rates based on “climate change”.
Why they go nuts with extremes is like why they go nuts polar bears or glaciers. The thermometers are not giveng them what they need, so they point the finger in the other direction.
BTW, the commenter on the news “story” about conservatives and “science.” That kind of pr work is not really aimed at “conservatives.” It is made to shame liberals into conformity and non-questioning. It is also “rallying the troops” like agitprop. That is, the global warming money parasitizes the other fears of stupid things American conservatives believe in, (magical tax cuts, etc.) and presents questioning global warming as the same kind of error.
Another example is Heyhoe, the evangelical. She is not really funded to convince the hicks that questioning the consensus is unscientific, she is funded to present the idea that someone is talking to the hicks. I.e., she presents the opportunity for American liberals to snark and sneer, a common way they inflict conformity on themselves. Kind of like how “conservatives” get into a huffy roar when anyone suggests the gunning down of a black kid who was trying to protect himself from a creepy stranger on the street might have a racist element, or at least the decision not to charge the gunner and let a court figure it out..
From Hugh Pepper on March 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm:
Yes, they have gotten much closer to financial insolvency, credit ratings at junk levels, and complete fiscal collapse than the US. They have advanced so far ahead of us we may never catch up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/poland-blocks-eu-political-statement-on-co2-reduction-goals.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-eu-environment-idUSBRE8281DV20120309
http://www.wbj.pl/article-58495-eu-carbon-emissions-reductions-poland-had-no-choice-but-to-veto.html
Warsaw Business Journal
Poland will abide by their existing committed goals for 2020, but refuse to commit to anything beyond 2020. You say they have problems with the intermediate goals but not the long-term EU plan. What plan are you referring to? That somehow, someday, many generations from now in the far-flung future of humankind, they’ll finally achieve a carbon-neutral economy?
Even better, you can buy the “Bad Science” (to paraphrase Teller & Penn) button on eBay, and from several other sources.
I’m not about to believe the AGW crowd has or will throw in the towel, there is too much money and power at stake. The form and message may change a bit, but the basic thrust for more control will remain. As long as governments and various foundations continue to throw money at them, they will rake it in.
For some unknown reason, Big Oil has yet to send me anything. Guess I’m not a big enough skeptic. A big problem, as I will need more batteries and candles when the EPA shuts down my local power plant.
katabasis1 says:
March 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Good work finding that. But it has always been the IPCC’s mode of operation to say one thing to a scientific audience and say another to the non-scientific.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm
All Western European countries have made significant strides towards developing carbon free economies and accordingly, they are several years ahead of us in this effort. We will pay a large price for being slow to change, because not only are we failing to produce the required technologies, but we will soon have to to adapt when the price of change will be much higher.
What nonsense. Perhaps you should consider a career in real estate where you still might find a few mugs who’ll believe ‘You better buy now, because the price is sure to go up’.
Posted 7 hours before I read Roger Pielke Jr.’s comments on the IPCC’s SREX report:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/25/weather-is-climate-or-loaded-dice-or-something/#comment-938160
Allan MacRae says: March 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Yesterday (Tuesday 27Mar2012) I had the pleasure of attending a talk and having lunch with my friend Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a veteran climatologist who has spent much of his career studying extreme weather events.
Based on Madhav’s lifetime of work and my own research, I am confident that warmists’ recent claims of more extreme weather events due to alleged manmade global warming are false.
I further believe these warming alarmists’ claims are not only false, but are known to be false by the claimants.
These claims of extreme weather are not based on scientific evidence, but rather are a transparent attempt to fabricate a scary story to encourage further action to combat alleged manmade global warming, based on the current global warm temperature “plateau”, while trying to ignore the fact that despite increased atmospheric CO2, there has been NO net global warming for a decade.
In summary, these claims of increasing “extreme weather” are false and fabricated scaremongering and have no basis in science.
____________
Allan MacRae says: March 29, 2012 at 5:31 am
BING! (Great timing by the IPCC, wrt my above post Thanks for the support!)
Source: GWPF
1) IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme
That might have made some sense four years ago, before shale gas came on so strong. Now we’re set for the next 50 years–there won’t be any rising costs of electrical production.
In my experience, the cost of implementation of any technology drops – significantly – after the first adopters work out all the bugs and deployment becomes more widespread.
But your hand wringing is well in line with your believe that feedbacks are positive.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
“220 scientists(shills), 62 Countries(money/power hungry governments)” from Robroy.
Insanity on parade.