IPCC on the hotseat…
IPCC Chairman Denies Global Warming Slowdown
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN’s climate panel, dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming. “There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,” he told me. “I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase). I would like to draw your attention to the World Meteorological Organization which clearly stated on the basis of observations that the first decade of this century has been the warmest in recorded history. And I think the rest will be brought out by the report itself when it’s released.” –Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 23 September 2013
==============================================================
Data shows global temperatures aren’t rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics — or hush up the figures. –Axel Bojanowski, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel Online, 23 September 2013
Germany’s Federal Ministry of Research would prefer to leave any discussion of the global warming hiatus entirely out of the new IPCC report summary. The Ministry for the Environment’s identical stance: “Climate fluctuations that don’t last very long are not scientifically relevant.” Germany’s highest-ranking climate researcher, physicist Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, is fighting back against this refusal to face facts. Marotzke, who is also president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany’s top scientific representative in Stockholm, promises, “We will address this subject head-on.” The IPCC, he says, must engage in discussion about the standstill in temperature rise. –Axel Bojanowski, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel Online, 23 September 2013
==============================================================
“Climate policy needs the element of fear,” Ott openly admits. “Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic.” –Axel Bojanowski, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel Online, 23 September 2013
==============================================================
For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force. The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased. A survey conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL found a dramatic shift in public opinion — Germans are losing their fear of climate change. While in 2006 a sizeable majority of 62 percent expressed a fear of global warning, that number has now become a minority of just 39 percent. –Axel Bojanowski, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel Online, 23 September 2013
==============================================================
The Met Office method of predicting climate change contains flaws that cause it to overestimate the warming Britain will experience, according to a report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The conflict between computer model predictions and actual measurements of the temperature is being discussed this week in Stockholm by climate scientists and government officials from around the world. The IPCC’s summary is expected to include an admission that there are weaknesses in the results from computer models which appear at odds with the slowdown in the rate of global warming since 1998. —Ben Webster, The Times, 24 September 2013
==============================================================
The Met Office was unable to say yesterday how long the 15-year apparent pause in global warming would have to continue before it accepted its model was flawed. A spokesman said: “No date has been set at which point you’d say the models are wrong. Short-term fluctuations in global temperature do not invalidate models, or determine timelines for their development.” —Ben Webster, The Times, 24 September 2013
==============================================================
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an image problem. It appears unsure how to regain the trust of voters and politicians, but not of the science it is supposed to assess. This week’s report is expected to conclude with more confidence than ever that humans have caused more than half the planet’s warming in the past 60 years. This may seem provocative in the circumstances, but the truth is that the real question for scientists now is not whether climate change is happening but how fast. So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate. —The Times Editorial, 24 September 2013
==============================================================
So, it’s come down to this — we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the climate models — the only source of scary scenarios — are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. It’s an “insurance policy,” Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement. This is a peculiar species of insurance policy, one where the premiums that we’re being asked to pay total literally trillions of dollars, where the perils that we’re being protected against are ill- or undefined, and where — should any of the perils ever materialize — no benefits will be paid out to us policyholders. –Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, 24 September 2013
==============================================================
Their fear is that the intergovernmental panel might be pulling punches.
It turns out that the Nobel Prize, welcome as it might have been back in 2007, served the same function it has for many other scientists who have won it over the years: it painted a fat target on the committee’s back. The group has been subjected to attack in recent years by climate skeptics. The intimidation tactics have included abusive language on blogs, comparisons to the Unabomber, e-mail hacking and even occasional death threats.
Who could blame the panel if it wound up erring on the side of scientific conservatism? Yet most citizens surely want something else from the group: an unvarnished analysis of the risks they face.
To be clear, even if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ends up sticking with the lowball numbers in these two instances, they are worrisome enough. As best scientists can tell, the question with sea level is not whether it is going to get to three feet and then five feet of increase, but merely whether it will happen in this century or the next.
A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some – Justin Gillis, NYTimes.com
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF and Marc Morano for these sources
We are not to beleive our lying our eyes, but rather the claims of the IPCC.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134#mm-premium
Reference to Pauchauri admitting global temperature pause
To see the BBC image and De Spiegel openly talking about the standstill is quite something. Warmists like to blame the sceptics but I say blame the standstill.
Let’s wait and see what it says when it comes out on Friday.
Five cold hard winters does this. The darkest winter too recently. Yet some Germans recall they were promised milder, less snowy winters. Maybe this is the reason, they are finally coming to their senses concerning predictions.
Pachauri > asbestos > rub > face. Pot calling kettle black.
Resourceguy says:
September 24, 2013 at 12:28 pm
“@Dirk
Okay, Dirk has the details on Germany. There are a few loose ends though. The Greens polled only half of what they had been doing in the latest elections. And Merkel has now got to come to grips with the nuclear wind down and soaring energy costs and utility firms in chaos.”
Merkel largely out-greened the Greens by proactively shutting down the nukes. What damaged the Greens more was that their boss Trittin tried to come across as a finance savvy leftist suggesting all kinds of new taxes to fix the Eurocrisis. He was keen on the finance minister job in a leftist coalition. Even for the German voters his tax hike suggestions proved too much, and Trittin made the Greens appear like the other two leftist parties.
Maybe the first time in his life he was honest. He got punished for that – not that leftist voters don’t like tax hikes, they sure do; but now they had three identical parties to choose from.
What didn’t help the Greens as well were a slew of media reports about their early 80ies attempts at legalizing “consensual” pedophilia.
@Jimbo
Yes, there will be many more harsh winters ahead. The long cycles that count are all turning down together. Populations will wish for a pause in place of global and regional temperature decline.
@Dirk
If Germans are this slow at being outraged by what Greens tried to do in the early 80s, it could take a long time to feel outrage over climate science fraud.
We’re going to need a very large truth and reconciliation court along the lines of post-apartheid times in South Africa to wring out the abuses of global warming fraud. No doubt some of the worst offenders will try to get named to the court to help judge their former peers and condemn them. Others will retreat to their seaside estates built with corporate shakedowns, government grants, and other climate indulgences.
I’m no mathematician, but I would have expected that using Bayes theorem it must be possible to calculate the exact amount of evidence that would cause a posterior belief to change to 95% from whatever it was before. The IPCC should therefore be able to point to precisely the hypotheses and the outcomes of the experiments (natural or otherwise) that have caused them to update their prior beliefs…
Am I missing something?
If temperatures trend down from 1997 through to the next IPCC report it will be very interesting to hear what the new excuse will be. It would surely spell the end of the IPCC.
In the BBC link I see a graph referencing Marcott / Shakun. Roger Harrabin is a worried man fearing ridicule in the years ahead. I feel sorry for him as he contemplates tar and feather.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70019000/gif/_70019040_1_temp_624.gif
‘“There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,’
Most if not all priest also believe god exist , but that does not mean they do. But put it another way ‘ we have increasing belief in the very thing that sustenance our existence ‘ who would not . But its not ‘science’ we see hear but religions like claims and the very human desire for self preservation at work. For ask yourself without AGW what would the head of the IPCC and ‘the team ‘ be ?
Ah, yes. Double Dees.DDs.Frequently drawing admiring attention! But…. the other kind of DDs… Data Den!ers..they get their own justly Deserved Disdain! DDs to you,IPCC!
Billy Liar says:
September 24, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Harrabin is just another pathetic imbecile totally incapable of independent thought or scientific questioning/reasoning. I feel dirty just writing his name, but then again, the BBC, the Met Office, CRU, etc – they are all the same – lying scumbags to a man (or woman)……but the worst part is……..THEY KNOW IT !!
It was a child who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/24/hans-von-storch-on-warming-pause-fellow-scientists-are-very-hard-pressed-for-an-explanation/
“warmist Ministry of Environment Dr. Harry Lehmann is asked if all the uncertainty is a problem for him. He responds with “yes and no“,…”
That’s some kind of surrealist, philosophical joke, right ?
( thanks to J.Curry for the notricks link. )
“Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN’s climate panel, dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming. ”
What would a railway engineer turned sex novelist know ?
It’s a cheap math trick.
Your height, for instance is
– the highest it has ever been, and
– over the average (since the average includes you as a baby)
However, you stopped growing decades ago.
With numbers, in
1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
the 2’s are over average, and the biggest numbers ever above.
Yet they stopped growing….
The only thing that is preventing Climate Science from going the way that Dietary Science went in the 70’s is the internet.
If the underlying science is wrong-and that possibility is implied by the lack of true consensus-then this tendency … to rationalize away all contradictory evidence will make it that much harder to get the science right. Once these authorities insist that a consensus exists , they will make it that much harder to get the science right. The Fat-Cholesterol Hypothesis, “Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes.
“We Believe”
Well that settles it… ITS A RELIGION…!
It’s probably already been mentioned, but I wonder how Hansen et al will explain their data tampering to suit the models now that the 17-odd year pause is recognised.
Hopefully, they’ll all be jailed and let science be the tool of truth again.
Raj, I couldn’t care less what your belief is, and I am totally uninterested in what you think. This may come as a shock to you, but science is based upon real data and putting it together to explain how nature works.
Resourceguy says:
We’re going to need a very large truth and reconciliation court along the lines of post-apartheid times in South Africa to wring out the abuses of global warming fraud.
Screw that touchy feely crap. When this is done, those asshats need to be prosecuted, jailed, and their ill-gotten assets seized.