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
I hope Pachauri screams louder and louder from every rooftop he can find. The more he whines about it, and the more confidence he claims in it, the more people question the IPCC as an organisation, him being a fraud who has made money off unprovable IPCC claims, and a failed model driven hypothesis that has cost us billions in taxes for a problem that never existed.
The media have an agenda, always have and always will, but they don’t like being taken for mugs furthering somebody else’s. Especially when it it politically driven and makes them look bad, and for viewers to point fingers at their role in propagating a myth..
‘Nuts”
I love how the Warmunistas have replaced the word warmING with warmER, given no warmING for the past 17 years. Are they going to change the name of their scam from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global WarmING to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global WarmER?
If they were honest, they would…
It’s absolutely hilarious to watch the Warmunistas dance the two-step waffle, which simply involves denyING the complete lack of warmING for 17 years and repeating their new idiotic mantra of, ” The last decade is warmEST decade in (fill in the blank) years.”
For low-information cultists, such obfuscation passes for science. To anyone with a respect for the Scientific Method, it has you rolling on the floor laughing your frigging butt off.
Dr. Pachauri should be fired. It’s painfully obvious that under his “leadership” the IPCC will never produce trustworthy scientific data. It’s become a political institution whose sole purpose is to be an apologist for the CAGW hypothesis and paid $billion to do so.
Clueless and/or nefarious political hacks then use IPCC’s spurious data to implement insane “sustainable energy” (aka wasteful) policies that cost the world $trillions for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Call CAGW a hoax, a scam, a misunderstanding, a swindle, an honest mistake, etc., it doesn’t matter at this stage. It’s merely time to call call it OFF!
Rajendra Pachauri:
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. Speaking of warm, is it just me or is it getting hot in here?” [removes shirt and wipes brow with it]
Sorry for the visual. I was channeling my inner romance novelist. As a writer and narrator of fiction, Raj is well prepared for his role as head of the IPCC, where a fictional account of our future is spun for global consumption, models marching down the runway disguised as reality. The real world’s a stubborn thing Raj and I’m afraid the Age of Alarmism is no longer in fashion. Too many folks have woken up to reality and it bodes not well for the Chicken Little routine. Underneath the layers of obfuscation and masked uncertainty is the naked truth: CO2 does not drive climate. Have a bite of that apple. Bitter? Who is the denier here folks?
Since Raj raises the zombie “warmest decade in history” talking point, I reiterate my comment from a week ago when WUWT posted this story about the AR5 SPM. Using the IPCC decadal average graph of temperature anomalies since 1850 (Figure SPM.1), I once again board my CliMate-chine to gather some quotes from the past:
Token alarmist, circa 1880:
The decade of 1870 to 1880 has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and is the warmest on record.
Token alarmist, circa 1930:
The decade of 1920 to 1930 has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and is the warmest on record.
Token alarmist, circa 1940:
Each of the last two decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the decade of 1930 to 1940 has been the warmest on record.
Token alarmist, circa 1950:
Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the decade of 1940 to 1950 has been the warmest on record.
There is nothing new under the sun. Cheers!
“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.”
Give me a break. That’s the Protestants.
Oh, and you forgot to mention that those evil Catholics burned Galileo (very slowly), the “Father of Science” (trademark).
You might care to read a little about Jean Buridan – “a French priest who sowed the seeds of the Copernican revolution in Europe.” (What?! You mean there were people doing ‘science’ before Galileo? Cease and Desist with that nonsense, sir!)
And leave the Catholics alone. If it wasn’t for them there would be no science and the world would be Islamic. Would you have wanted that?
Sigh. Climate scientists and journalists often seem to know so little else.
The lies and politics have failed. Nature, science and real data cannot longer be ignored.
DirkH says:
September 24, 2013 at 9:13 am
///////////////////////
Germany appreciates that it has gone too far down the green/renewable road, and that this is causing and wil continue to cause significant uncompetiveness to its industrial base. This is a real concern to Germany which is the industrial powerhouse of Europe and relies on this as the mainstay of its economy (unlike for example the UK which is a service based economy) Germany is already losing its chemical industry (and Germany is a big player in this field) with chemical companies relocating to the US because they are energy intensive industries and energy proces in the US is low. This is causing loss of jobs, loss of tax revenues and increased welfare payments.
The problem for Germany is that its high energy costs and uncompetiteveness will become more extreme if others do not follow suit. It needs other countries to press on with green/renewable energy policies so that those other countries are also saddled by high energy costs.
The reasoning is simple; if all countries are saddled with high energy costs then suddenly German companies are not prejusticed by their own high energy costs and their competiveness is restored.
So it is not so much that the German government believes in the global warming mantra, nor that they themselves consider that windfarms and solar and the like are the way forward, but rather unless everyone else adopts that expensive technology, Germany will be screwed. It is for this reason that Germany wishes to hide the pause. Not because it is not relevant, but rather they do not want to see anything which may encourage other countries not to commit economic suicide.
Adrian O says:
September 24, 2013 at 5:40 pm
///////////////////
It may be a cheap maths trick, but the problem is that most people are not mathematically literate and do not immediately see through the ruse that it is.
I suspect that many fall for the ruse, since if one does not give a second thought to what is being said it sounds reasonable and sensible, and this why it is the PR response of choice to the argument that warming has stopped. How often have you heard a reporter who interviews a scientist etc claiming that this is the warmest decade on recond retort by saying that means nothing when you get to the top of the hill you are always at the highest point. Even when you begin to descend the hill, you are higher than you were for say 90% of the time?
I consider it to be a successful PR trick.
I’m a writer. I write science fiction. My science fiction is more honest than CAGW pseudo-science or any of the alarmist crap. At least I RESEARCH.
The Precautionary Price makes Warming Woes look Wimpy.
German efficiency will win the day even if others try to catch up. Or down?
The woman in your picture at the BBC is Fiona Bruce. It seems apt that she should have the banner headline behind her stating “Global Warming. No rise since 1998”
Fiona Bruce was the person who abused Anne Widdecombe, one of only five MPs who voted against the UK Climate Change Act, by saying that Widdecombe was a “Flat Earther.” I hope Fiona Bruce now has the decency to apologise.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/385446/Even-scientists-are-cooling-on-climate-change
Resourceguy says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm
“@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.”
95% of Germans are brainwashed and irrational. When you challenge their belief systems they start calling you a Natsi, which is the current label for people with inkorrekt opinions. The Euroskeptic AfD was smeared in that way and several good friends suspected that I was a Natsi because I expressed my decision to vote for AfD. The ability to argue or think logically has largely been replaced with simple functioning in most Germans, and believing whatever the state media tell them.
When the state media broadcast that Global Warming never happened the opinion of this majority of the population will switch 180 degrees. But not before that. The talking heads of the state broadcaster are the good friends and family members of the atheist Germans; and the dummy box their god.
I wished I was joking but I’m not.
The mid- 20th century warming hiatus lasted 3 decades and, before warming resumed, prompted Guy Callendar to concede his carbon dioxide theory of climate change had been shown to be false.
If the same 30-year non-warming period with steadily increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide isn’t sufficient to falsify the reincarnated AGW theory, why should a more recent 15-year hiatus be sufficient?
Leo G says:
September 25, 2013 at 5:56 am
“If the same 30-year non-warming period with steadily increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide isn’t sufficient to falsify the reincarnated AGW theory, why should a more recent 15-year hiatus be sufficient?”
Who is the self-appointed judge over that, and why should we obey his orders?
@ur momisugly DirkH says: September 24, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Not that it surprises me, but do you have a source for that?
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.”
no relevant, except when it shows what you want and then it suddenly is relevant. I.e. 17 years of no warming = not relevant. Similar number of years previous that show warming = relevant.
Jokers.
philjourdan says:
September 25, 2013 at 6:33 am
“Not that it surprises me, but do you have a source for that?”
Many; just do a google search on news.google.de for
Trittin Pädophilie
or
Volker Beck Pädophilie
example:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/paedophilie-debatte-neue-vorwuerfe-gegen-volker-beck-12583033.html
Basically what happened was that homosexuals entered the Green party during its founding and formed a “forum” and formulated a list of demands; which simply became part of the party program, key player was a Volker Beck.
@DirkH – Thanks for the link. It is frightening, but as I said, not surprising.
Just wondering, how much money does the U.S. give to the UN to finance the IPCC?
DirkH:
Your post at September 25, 2013 at 7:33 am includes an unsubstantiated smear that homosexuals promote pedophilea.
I am not aware that homosexuals have more tolerance of or predisposition to pedophile behaviour than any other sector of society. I am purely heterosexual but my homosexual friends show no signs of such proclivity.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 25, 2013 at 8:12 am
“Your post at September 25, 2013 at 7:33 am includes an unsubstantiated smear that homosexuals promote pedophilea.”
I don’t know what gives you that idea. I am merely recounting the facts as they happened for those who are too lazy to use google translate to read through the evidence.
Take it up with the German press.
“There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible”
Belief DOES NOT EQUAL science. Which might just self-label IPCC as a non-scientific … “gathering”
Almost all p are h, but not almost all h are p. Logic 102.