Former UN Official says climate report will shock nations into action
John Gardner writes in with an entry from the “worse than we thought” department:
The IPCC seems to be pre-empting the growing skeptical science by preparing to issue an ‘its even worse than we thought’ report in 2013, according to a report in the Australian newspaper.
“The Brisbane Times’, which quotes Ivo De Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen talks. He is quoted “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,”
Mr De Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia.
“I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
Let me guess, the UN has found the millions of climate refugees that didn’t show up this year, and they have all fled to their own homes.
I’m sure that’s their intention. But they will scare only the witless, who by definition have none left to lose by further frightening.
Howskepticalment;
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No point doing crash testing of cars because it would tell us nothing about the cars that weren’t crashed. Some statements are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!
davidmhoffer says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Howskepticalment;
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No point doing crash testing of cars because it would tell us nothing about the cars that weren’t crashed. Some statements are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!
False analogy combined with false logic combined.
I deliberately chose the term ‘state’ of climate, in the context of the discussion a snapshot of climate and not a process of climate or climate dynamics.
So your analogy with a crash test is a false analogy.
Furthermore a crash test is not a state but a process, so you have applied false logic.
Some comments are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!
RK
Howskepticalment says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Demonstrating that a state of climate has happened before tells us nothing except that the state of climate has happened before.
In certain instances, it can tell more–e.g., that a disastrous runaway effect didn’t follow from temperatures warmer than today’s, or temperatures equally warm and for a longer period, such as the MWP, etc.
That moves right along from my starting point (and original direct but limited statement): you have moved from describing a state of climate to describing the state of climate thereafter and making comparisons and drawing conclusions. I am not gainsaying the point you are making but it does not contradict my original statement. It builds on it.
Howskepticalment says:
“Some comments are so dumb that they can’t even be ridiculed!”
Yours is a case in point.
Howskepticalment;
I deliberately chose the term ‘state’ of climate, in the context of the discussion a snapshot of climate and not a process of climate or climate dynamics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, and I can define a crash test right down to a “state” of crash and claim that this is a “snapshot” of the crash and hence not a “process” of crash or crash “dynamics”. And I’d be an idiot to do so.
RK
You’re correct, I’m very out of touch with the specifics there. However, once in office, I wouldn’t trust him to keep to that pledge. Most likely, he’ll fudge things so he can get away with doing the minimum. Certainly his party’s victory would be viewed, around the world, as a defeat for warmism, since the carbon tax was/is such a big deal there.
He would find it difficult not to keep the pledge and maintain his credibility because he has announced numerous times unambiguously in public that he will withdraw the carbon tax. He has affirmed he will implement his $20 billion Climate Action Plan. (He may find an ‘out’ if a senate majority prevents him from getting rid of the tax.)
BTW, the election may be in February but there is no reason for the Government to go early: inflation is within the target range (5%<6%, the Government's tax take as a proportion of GDP is the lowest it has been for decades <23%, the economy is growing at the fastest or equal fastest rate in the OECD and Government debt as a percentage of GDP is around the lowest in the OECD; interest rates are the lower than what this Government inherited from the previous Government: a set of figures most OECD governments would die for.
I’ve read that there’s quite a housing bubble there, just waiting to be burst when a global recession gets going, which it will.
There is quite a lively debate amongst Australian economists. Some say we have a housing bubble. Others say the population keeps increasing so the demand is still there. House prices have come off the boil in most (but not all) housing sub markets in Australia but nothing so far in the nature of a bubble being pricked. Truth to tell, I wouldn’t know one way or another about the bubble but if either the terms of trade for iron and coal collapse, or the Chinese economy stops growing at current astronomical rates, I imagine that there might well be something of a domestric household debt crisis amd that that will be reflected in a very rapid move southwards in house prices.
Contrary to the cries of the economic alarmists Australia’s carbon tax does not appear to have destroyed these good figures. Yet. (Isn’t the current gov’t. backpedaling a bit on implementing its tax, or rejiggering it somehow?)
Climate action at the Federal level in Australia (or lack of it, depending on how far back you go) has arguably already cost two prime ministers and at least one leader of the Opposition their jobs. It will probably help cost the job of another leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister after the next election because there is little doubt that the next election will once again be fought around climate change action as one of the key (but not only key) issues.
The main issue within the Government at the moment is whether or not to withdraw requirements for generators to meet a mandatory minimum renewable targets (RETs). There is also a lively public debate about the contribution of the carbon tax and other drivers of what has generally been a remarkable increase in electricity costs to consumers.
pat says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:16 pm
fairfax media’s main papers are The Age in melbourne, Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra Times all of which carried this “exclusive”, plus they have a number of regional newspapers and radio stations around australia, which are no doubt pushing this as well. mind u, Fairfax is going under financially, as are most MSM, and it’s likely, in part, because of their relentless doom & gloom CAGW reporting, but that’s another story
This may be correct. However, it only tells part of the story. The print media in Australia is, arguably, in the process of disappearing altogether.
To fill out your story and give it some balance, The Australian newspaper which has a history of providing extensive column inches to individuals such as Nobel Laureate Lord Moncton and Dr Bjorn Lomberg, is only kept afloat by a direct injection of funding by the proprietor.
I posted somewhere that most WUWT posters seemed to be from the Northern Hemisphere. This does create some ‘upside down’ discussions and a strong focus on Northern Hemisphere issues. I much prefer a la Nina to an el Nino.
Also, the Indian Ocean Dipole is quite a significant player in our agricultural fortunes in any one year.
I have read somewhere that when we get dry spells related to the IOD, hospital admissions for malaria in eastern Africa are higher than normal because they get wet spells.
davidmhoffer says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Howskepticalment;
I deliberately chose the term ‘state’ of climate, in the context of the discussion a snapshot of climate and not a process of climate or climate dynamics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, and I can define a crash test right down to a “state” of crash and claim that this is a “snapshot” of the crash and hence not a “process” of crash or crash “dynamics”. And I’d be an idiot to do so.
Definitions matter. I used mine and I was clear about it. You jumped to a false conclusion about it and embarrassed yourself. Your response is to make up an hypothetical and to colour it with personal abuse.
My original statement stands.
If we are scared enough, do we get exempted from being called “deniers”?
Gondo says:
November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am “It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans”
Takes one to know one eh? You could learn to spell too, then your posts might carry a bit of credibility (might).
it would not suprise me if PM gillard gave him a order of Australia medal in supporting her and the labour party in helping to destroy australia through the carbon tax fraud
tango says:
November 8, 2012 at 1:23 am
it would not suprise me if PM gillard gave him a order of Australia medal in supporting her and the labour party in helping to destroy australia through the carbon tax fraud
Who? Oh, Mr Abbott, for fraudulently not admitting that his 5% by 2020, $20 billion Climate Action Plan is to be funded from general revenue aka our taxes?
Excellent suggestion.
Gallopingcamel says: “Most of the IPCC’s scientific working group reports (AR5 WG1) contain nothing that is the least bit alarming but you can bet that the “Summary for Policy Makers” will ignore the science and present another totally implausible alarmist scenario.”
That is probably a very accurate precis of the situation. Most important, the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers will deliberately merge/confuse the subjects of AGW and CAGW.
AGW is a mildly interesting phenomenon, which has been largely beneficial for mankind, while CAGW is no more than poor quality, science fantasy, aka L Ron Hubbard.
Fear of CAGW is the fuel for the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train. As it is clearly science fantasy, it has to be mixed up with something real in order to have credibility,
A minority of sceptics unfortunately blankly refuse to believe AGW is happening, they may be right, but it is unlikely. Alarmists only consider AGW in terms of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, while reality suggests the effects of farming, irrigation and UHI could each be equally important factors.
Anyhow, AGW is dwarfed by natural climate cycles and is nothing to worry about, while CAGW – if it had any basis in hard scientific facts – would be something to worry about. Remember, the IPCC is all about not derailing the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train, so AGW and CAGW will be smoothly merged into one subject.
It probably has do do with having exhausted the horror film genre. We’ve gone through the gamut. Dracula, Frankenstein, werewolves, vampires, paranormal activity etc.. Even Halloween is tame and disaster movies are predictable.
Step in the IPCC to flll the void and produce some fictional excitement
Peter Wilson
Are you a clairvoyant? You agree with galloping camels précis of Ar5 (admittedly qualified with a ‘probably’), but neither of you have read it as it hasn’t been released yet. Could you at least wait until it is released and then make a comment on it. Your comments are speculation and no basis for the comments you make later.
Howskepticalment said:
“BTW, the election may be in February but there is no reason for the Government to go early: inflation is within the target range (5%<6%, the Government's tax take as a proportion of GDP is the lowest it has been for decades <23%, the economy is growing at the fastest or equal fastest rate in the OECD and Government debt as a percentage of GDP is around the lowest in the OECD; interest rates are the lower than what this Government inherited from the previous Government: a set of figures most OECD governments would die for. "
Yep fuelled by massive exports of coal and iron ore to China. But coal mined from the same mines and used in the Australian steelmaking process is subject to the Carbon Dioxide Tax which when it morphs into a carbon credit market will kill of an industry already struggling against an over-valued dollar. But hey its less CO2 in the atmosphere. I take it you have never worked on a blast furnace or part of our manufacturing industry. People like you are beneath contempt. Happy to profit from the export of fossil energy and happy to put thousands of hard working Australians out of work with nationally suicidal carbon dioxide taxing policies. Come the day cobber when we get a vote. We are just waiting.
Howskepticalment –
i “balanced” it myself…did u not read…”as are most MSM”
Wow. I wish I was as optimistic as many of you seem to be. Of course the next IPCC report will be complete rubbish, if we’re to believe the early reports, but those who think this is going to be a non-event, I’m afraid, are e graveyard. Did anyone watch the election earlier this week? America has turned the corner. A majority now think they like the idea of getting goods and services from the government paid for by the taxes of the minority. The power given to government to do that implies the power to act on this report – and with this administration you’d better believe they will. Hope that the Court will fix it? Think again. With at least two more appointments looming we’ve lost the Court as well. Get ready for carbon taxes and the long slow slide. There is scant little hope this can be reversed at this point. This isn’t a problem of ignorance that can be corrected, this is abdication of responsibility on the part of the American people. We were it. The last firewall. No more.
That last message should say whistling past the graveyard.
Have I mentioned about 100 times how messed up this text editor is when accessed via Android mobile?
If at first you don’t succeed lie, lie, and lie again. When are these scammers going to realise that the ship has left the port?
sounds like it really is far worse than we thought when it comes to the ipcc plans. actually, it sounds like the ipcc is only a part of that plan and it would amaze aldous huxley and the other great dystopian writers.
Gondo says:
November 7, 2012 at 11:12 am
The Arctic changes are scary. Greenland has lost 3000km3 of ice since 1995 (the ice-sheet was in balance before that) and the continuing collapse in sea ice volume is bewildering. This years huge surface melt in GReenland is a symptom that the mass-loss is continuing. It’s scary that there are still wingnut morans who think that the Arctic is not warming up!”
I think everyone knows there has been warming. It’s those that think a few ppm of CO2 is the cause that are the true idiots. Scientists can’t tell me specifically why millions of years ago there was no ice on the planet at all, and then why there was an ice age several thousand years ago and now we are in a relativley ice free zone except the poles. Why is the Arctiv decreasing in ice mass but the Antarctic increasing?
Without definitive answers to these questions you’d have to be a total moron to believe any current melting anywhere is due to a few ppm increase in CO2. Might as well believe the tooth fairy is doing it.