This is a bullet point collection of reactions as they come in, it will be updated throughout the day by adding new items to the list. It is also a sticky post – new stories will appear below this one.
My first reaction was: That IPCC had a golden opportunity, and blew it due to being unable to adapt to reality.
My second reaction was due to a tweet from the vice chair of the IPCC, who was so tired, he couldn’t even get the website right:
There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?
My third reaction after reading the SPM is this: Looking at claims, it strikes me that the damaged credibility of the IPCC remains intact.
When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while the IPCC referenced models fail to model reality, and this has been pointed out worldwide in media, it becomes a “jump the shark” moment where the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.
Here are other reactions:
================================================================
Marcel Crok: AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity; breaks with a long tradition; good news is hidden from policy makers
One of the most surprising things in the just released SPM is the absence of a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The SPM now says this:
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
So from a footnote we have to learn that no best estimate “can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. How strange this is. Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters. It determines largely how much warming we can expect. If there is lack of agreement between different methods/studies, we want to know all about it. However, apart from this footnote, the SPM is silent about it. Hopefully the full report, which will be released on Monday, will give all the details.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/
=============================================================
Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:
Ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving are the general themes of the Summary for Policymakers, just released this morning.
You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.
…The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/thoughts-on-the-spm.html
=============================================================
Donna Laframboise:
9,000 Nobel Pretenders | NoFrakkingConsensus
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
=============================================================
Bob Tisdale at WUWT:
Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:
Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.
Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best
=============================================================
Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
==============================================================
Jimbo says:
We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..
Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……
—–
There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.
==============================================================
Dr. Judith Curry:
The IPCC has officially (and anti-climactically) issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers. I haven’t had time to go through the report in detail, I mainly looked for these two statements. Note the changes in these two statements from the final draft discussed last week:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”
These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast. Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say it is all AGW: ”The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?
=============================================================
Douglas Fischer – The Daily Climate What we’re seeing now: Climate scientists get Swift-boated
Six years after the IPCC’s massive Fourth Assessment Report was excoriated for a handful of errors, four years after the uproar over leaked emails put scientists on the defensive, the climate denial camp still controls the message.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/09/swiftboating-climate-scientists
=============================================================
Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger – Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the physical science volume of its Fifth Assessment Report. The SPM is the most widely-read section of the IPCC reports and purports to summarize and highlight the contents of the thousand-odd pages of the full report. The SPM is agreed to word by word by the international attendees of the IPCC’s final editorial meeting which concluded as the SPM was released.
The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the “consensus of scientists” has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again.
http://www.cato.org/blog/band-aids-cant-fix-new-ipcc-report
==============================================================
Climate panel: warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made
By KARL RITTER
Associated Press
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists now believe it’s “extremely likely” that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in a report on the causes of climate change, prompting calls for global action to control emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
“If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
===============================================================
Models of misinformation — climate reports melt under scrutiny
A last-ditch effort to refute climate “skeptics”—people unconvinced that we need to spend trillions to reshape our economies to halt or slow “climate change”– has failed.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/26/dont-be-fooled-latest-attempt-to-discredit-climate-skeptics-flops/
===============================================================
Stefan Rahmstorf – Man’s role in global warming is rock solid, and natural variability’s role is close to nil.
“Natural internal variability and natural external forcings (eg the sun) have contributed virtually nothing to the warming since 1950″
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/
================================================================
Simon Donner
“It is probably the largest, most comprehensive scientific assessment in history. Not just of climate change, but of any scientific subject”
http://simondonner.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-pause-in-public-understanding-of.html
================================================================
Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS
Warming has slowed in the last 15 years, but not stopped. (If the slow down in warming persists, it would suggest a problem with the models.)
“The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.”
(Kenji asks: so, when then?)
http://blog.ucsusa.org/hot-topics-for-ipcc-release-surface-temperature-speed-bump-and-the-latest-on-extreme-events-253
=================================================================
Dr. Roy Spencer: IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”
The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.
The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).
================================================================
It’s been six long years of relentless torment inflicted by Neanderthal skeptics. Worse, the public was even starting to become hopeful about the future once again, and were becoming less afraid of climate. For the climate catastrophe everything had been looking so bleak as the pesky real observations kept glaringly contradicting the modeled catastrophes 15 years long.
But happy days are back again – the catastrophe is coming, the UN reassures the world. The 15 years of model failure are not significant after all. In fact the UN now says the models are better than ever and the climate scientists are now 95% confident that the climate catastrophe is coming and that our living standards are responsible for it. Never before have scientists been more confident.
================================================================
Climate skeptics have seized on the fact that the rate of warming over the past decade or so has been less than climate scientists predicted given the continued increase in carbon emissions. The IPCC report address the warming “hiatus,” as it’s been called, raising a number of possible explanations—the ocean absorbing the warmth, changes in the solar cycle, volcanic eruptions that cause cooling—without pointing the finger at a single one. Which just underscores how complex the climate system remains, even as we keep experimenting on it. The scientists will keep working on those questions and others…
Climate Scientists Issue Their Report. Now It’s Our Turn | TIME.com
======================================================
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report:
‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’
Updates will follow, readers are welcome to point out other reactions in comments.
Vince Causey says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:04 am
The IPCC SPM has become a parody of itself. Widening the estimate of climate sensitivity from the previous 2 – 4.5c range to a much broader 1.5 – 4.5, is sold as an “increase” in certainty. Same goes for the admission that they haven’t a clue how to derive a central best estimate – “increased certainty” again.
=================================
Vince they are more certain because they widened where the temp could actually fall.. All i could do is laugh at this deception they are spouting. They also widened the dates back to 1750 as the start of the proposed human induced warming trend.. (funny that 0.8 deg C has already occurred to meet their 1.3 Deg C projection now)
It amounts to playing darts on the side of a barn… Its all red (center of the target) and you cant miss it
Everyone needs to read Judith Curry’s latest.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm
“@ur momisugly Robert of Ottowa: “I’m a delusional liar,” is your case against clean energy? So, anyone who doesn’t agree with the point of view held by most at this site is insulted and dismissed as a liar?”
Grey, I think by now you are gaining some understanding of where you have ill-advisedly strayed. WUWT is not a site for the faint of heart or the thin-skinned. It is not a lazy walk in the park. It is not a Kumbaya-let’s-get-together-and-exchange-our-pleasant-thoughts type of community site. It is a tough, ruthless, hard-hitting scientific site, one, among a few, that have brought the end-of-the-world climate types down halfway back to reality (and has caused IPCC itself to chop climate sensitivity by half [there is still a ways to go], reinstated the embarrassing little ice age, the medieval warm period and natural variability of climate in general, forced consideration of oceanic temperature oscillations, the negative forcings of clouds, the beneficial aspects of moderate warming and higher CO2, plus many other factors). The few have been responsible for trashing the poor science and methodologies of the many using solid science to do so. It has led to retractions of some of the worst scientific articles on climate and forced revisions on others because even acquiescent editors couldn’t ignore the short comings pointed out. Here at WUWT or the likes of Climate Audit, skeptics are not even immune to the withering scrutiny of steely-eyed mathematicians, physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, logicians, economists, etc who root out bad analyses or improper use of statistics to support fairy tale theses. I’ve had my skin burned here a few times. This “Navy-Seal” environment is not for gentler folk like yourself.
Now, also unlike at most blogs on climate, everyone is welcome here and everyone is free to disagree (but I advise that you have scientific support and real data to accompany your contribution). Best of all, there is an enormous free education to be had on a site that brooks no B.S. You obviously have let others do your thinking for you (the large majority of people fit into this category so don’t feel bad about it) as regards windmills and solar for saving the planet, so I would admonish Robert of Ottawa (normally a well mannered, although a little on the acerbic side, and and intelligent contributor) to apologize for calling you a liar. You, yourself, clearly had nothing to do with the opinions you expressed. One should never call a parrot a liar. He should have directed his epithet at the perpetrators of the scam itself.
WUWT SCORES A DIRECT HIT ON THE BBC
Today, in a program where the public are invited to comment on an earlier program called “Question Time”, somebody called Phil (sorry I did not catch he surname) read out Ross McKitrick’s comment from this thread : September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were
right about the Arctic,
wrong about the Antarctic,
wrong about the tropical troposphere,
wrong about the surface,
wrong about hurricanes,
wrong about the Himalayas,
wrong about sensitivity,
clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends.
And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
This Phil guy was calm, well informed and dominated the debate for about five minutes, putting across a series of simple reasons why the IPCC report should not be trusted by the public or politicians.
Also on the same program other contributors from the public were allowed to make sensible comments about AR5, and why the case put by the IPCC for AGW should not be trusted.
Interestingly the BBC presenter divided the contributors into being either “believers” or “non- Believers” and showed himself to be well aware that the Sceptics do have strong support from Judith Curry and others for their case that the IPCC is failing to present all sides of the science about recent warming trends.
Of course this wa a small skirmish, but it was historic in the sense that the BBC showed it is at last recognising that the sceptics are not a minority group of outsiders who can simply be insulted and then ignored. This, and the recent Andrew Neil interview some weeks ago, indicate to me that the work of WUWT, Climate Audit, Bishops Hill, Jo Nova and many others is now having a big impact on how the IPCC reports are handled by the media at large – CONGRATULATIONS and THANK YOU.
I’m surprised that the IPPC haven’t got a link to the ‘Flat Earth Society’……both are convincing but effectively, wrong….
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions
ps. I got banned from posting to the BBC years ago!
Billy Liar says:
September 28, 2013 at 10:36 am
Julia Gillard is said to be continuing to promote her carbon tax; apparently she likes to blog using the screen name ‘Grey Oz’.
Ah, that explains a lot; particularly her concern for “ocean assification”.
Phil’s Dad says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Auto says on September 27, 2013 at 8:38 am (in response to my earlier post)
“Where’s the science?”
Just for the avoidance of doubt when I say “read the science” I am not saying read the IPCC report.
richardscourtney says on September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
“P.S. PHIL’S DAD, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?”
Every word sir, and I find nothing in what you say with which to disagree. I would go further and say the IPCC was set up initially to undermine the coal industry (no pun intended).
=================
Noted & appreciated, and now appreciate you did not really need my emphasis.
All my blessings, & best regards,
Auto..
The Phil in quesion on Any Answers was me as it happens and indeed I hope McKitrick will excuse my use of his excellent summary!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bbcaq
Picking up our visiting friend:
“Grey OZ” says:
“Sure Richard, you can read the Hansen paper “Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” published by the Royal Society, the Mathematical, Physical Sciences, and Engineering Journal, on the link at my post @ur momisugly 3:10 the link, look at the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” ”
Hansen believes earth could become like Venus. Hansen is wrong. Earth WAS like Venus 4.3 billion years ago: >96% CO2, no O2, at 100 bar. Since then CO2 has been drawn down into [limestone], other carbonates, into the biosphere where the C from CO2 was in turn [sequestered] into fossil fuels: gas, oil, coal. During the Cambrian Explosion, CO2 was still around 30%, O2 35%. During the time of the dinosaurs it was still ~ 5% and atmospheric pressure around 3 bar – allowing the pterosaurs to fly. We are now down to CO2 at 0.04% @ur momisugly 1bar. We are near borderline extinction, such that life on earth will not survive the next big Ice Age as there will be no more CO2 left to sustain life.
[Thank you for your time, your efforts, and your respect. Mod]
I’d like Grey Ooze or anyone at the IPCC to define just what is “Normal” and then explain just how they could possibly know that.
Without defining “Normal” then how can anything Man is doing be disrupting it? How can they tell?
You might notice that the tipping point has now been certified as when 1T tonnes of carbon has been burned, which should be at a concentration of about 519 ppm, which doesn’t seem to have much to do with 350 ppm. That noise you heard was Bill McKibben & tribe being thrown under the bus. I wonder how they feel about that? That should be in 2044, by which time everyone that is extremely confident will be safely retired. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though.
Another major contradiction is this: the IPCC now limit both natural “forcing” and “variation” to 0.1 degree in half a century – astonishing hubris for them to go on record with this derisory figure. But at the same time they invoke decadal variations to account for the current “Mannopause” of static temperatures.
From this figure:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-923937-548145.html
the divergence between current temperature and the 2007 IPCC projection is already 0.3 degrees!
Did the
2000800 IPCC scientists include anyone with a math major?How can a summary for policymakers text be negotiated by the policymakers if they are scientifically illiterate politicians? How can they be guided by the science? Yes, I know they have advisors, but wouldn’t the advisors have to comb through the thousands of pages, tables, data sets, calculations….There are several contributors on this site that have 1st hand knowledge who could educate us on this process.
minarchist says:
John@EF:
You will get much further here in discussion if you state a position and clearly support that position with data / evidence. This is not the Huffington Post.
Most of us here are technically-trained in the hard sciences to one degree or another, as scientists, engineers etc. So, please post, but save the alarmist spam for some other venue.
Exactly right. Fact-free bluster like ‘JohnEF’s’ is a hallmark of the alarmist crowd. Since they cannot win the debate based on facts, they fall back on the ad hominem fallacy. That may work in their thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs, where everyone is a head-nodder. But it doesn’t work here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, where all points of view are posted, and only those with verifiable facts and evidence remain standing.
JohnEF is way out of his league, and that is not just our opinion. That is what the planet is telling us: there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. It has all happened before — and to a much greater degree. In fact, we have been fortunate to be living in a “Goldilocks” climate. With any luck, that will continue for a while longer.
JohnEF also ridicules the fact of the Little Ice Age. But the LIA is universally recognized by real climate authorities [many more such charts posted upon request].
The alarmist crowd hates the LIA because it destroys their religious belief in the magic “carbon” molecule. But the fact is that the LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene. It cannot be wished away; it happened — and it happened when CO2 was much lower than now.
Just like the Medieval Warm Period and the Minoan Warming, when the planet warmed significantly more than it has currently, and when CO2 was very low. Those facts show conclusively that with a static, low CO2 level, the planet warms and cools naturally — and much more than it has over the past century with high CO2.
The entire AGW scare is based on the demonization of “carbon”. But verifiable, real world facts and evidence show that the alarmist view is completely wrong.
Judith Curry says:
After several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.
The politically charged rhetoric has contaminated academic climate research and the institutions that support climate research, so that individuals and institutions have become advocates; scientists with a perspective that is not consistent with the consensus are at best marginalized (difficult to obtain funding and get papers published by ‘gatekeeping’ journal editors) or at worst ostracized by labels of ‘denier’ or ‘heretic.’
Decision makers needing regionally specific climate change information are being provided by the climate community with either nothing or potentially misleading predictions from climate models.
Will this be a turning point?
Philip Foster: Earth’s atmosphere my have once been somewhat similar to that of Venus, but not its temperature. Being roughly 26 million miles closer to the sun than Earth tends to make a planet warmer!
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Mesozoic air pressure wasn’t much different from now, according to best available evidence. There was of course a lot more CO2 & somewhat more oxygen in the Cretaceous (third period of the Mesozoic Era) & preceding Late Jurassic.
Pterosaurs didn’t need a three times thicker atmosphere to fly:
http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-air-density-make-difference.html
Jtom;
Yes I agree earth would have been less hot or life could not have started. Also what we don’t know (or at least I don’t know) is whether Venus’ rotation has been like it is now, 243 earth days, which means it rotates slowly backwards adding to the overall cooking from the sun. Did it rotate like earth and Mars at one time and had some glancing bolide encounter which changed its rotation?
milodonharlani
Judging air pressure is more difficult than composition. Pterosaurs doubtless could glide (like fruit bats) in our thinner atmosphere, but could fly better in a thicker one.
One clue much further back about air pressure is, as I understand it, that ancient barytes, dated at ~2.4Ga contain CO3 intrusions which geologists calculate would have required pressures for CO2 in excess of 60 atmospheres.
Slippin’ and a slidin’, peepin’ and a hidin’
Been told a long time ago
Slippin’ and a slidin’, peepin’ and a hidin’
Been told long time ago
I been told, baby, you been bold
I won’t be your fool no more
Oh, big conniver, nothin’ but a jiver
I done got hip to your jive
Oh, big conniver, nothin’ but a jiver
I done got hip to your jive
Slippin’ and a slidin’, peepin’ and a hidin’
Won’t be your fool no more
The claim now is that there is a 95% confidence by the scientists that humans are causing global climate change. However, the IPCCs predictions have never been more misleading when compared to the actual events and recent deveolpments in climate. This means, as far as I can see to this simple conclusion: The IPCCs scientist are 95% confident that the models, which time and time again have been proven wrong, are right. Do we need such scientists?
John Cristy was right, in The Global Warming Swindle: The IPCCs 95% confidentiality boils down to (somewhat adpted): “Our models are correct , it is the real world that seems to get it wrong, and we can’t explain why..”
Fact check: No. The “big oil” and Big Business and Big Energy you so vehemently deny (GE, BP, EXXON, MOBIL, Texaco, Shell, and, by the way, ENRON started the carbon-trading schemes with Al Gore before they folded into corruption, and Duke, Southern Company, etc.) have donated (at last count) billions to the enviro lobby and democrat lobbies paying them off with grants, direct money, sponsorships, and research. At 1/1000 to one, “some” independent oil independent owners (most notably the two (count them!) two Koch Brothers) have spent some 200,000.00 in sponsoring open political forums and meetings for generally conservative groups meeting about all issues relevant to the economy – many of which, concern your CAGW religion.
SHOW US THE MONEY, if you claim otherwise.
Now, then again, after sending their democrat sponsors millions in donations, the “big oil” and “big energy” companies like GE and BP received billions in contracts for wind, solar, research, and new work at a time when the rest of the economy starved to death. But, you claim – falsely -that “big oil” is paying the unpaid! skeptics while ignoring the 100 billion paid directly and deliberately to the government-sponsored, government-selected, government directed, government-controlled, government-paid “academic” researchers working in government labs to produce government research justifying government taxes (1.3 trillion) in new revenue and the ENTIRE democratic energy and social and economic programs?
Be specific now.
How much money does it take to corrupt a “scientist”?
You claim in straight text and bare words that the skeptics are well-funded and therefore are not to be trusted with “any” scientific conclusions.
Fine. We know – because skeptics are NOT funded and ARE demoted and ARE punished for their honesty and integrity that you are lying. Perhaps fooled by deliberate propaganda, but you are lying. As an argument, let us assume that you were right: That money corrupted people and their scientific judgement could be clouded by money, peer recognition, promotions, national prizes, international press, international peace prizes, international travel and meetings with the powers-that-be, numerous TV and sympathetic press releases and press interviews, the “feeling” that they were doing “good” and “were serving a higher purpose” and were “above common prey” of simple day-to-day life and paychecks and budgets. Let us assume that they were not “on a mission” to the world and were not “dedicated to a higher purpose” …. (All true attitudes and attributes within your CAGW religion, by the way, not of skeptics, but mere facts seem also irrelevant to your religion.)
How much money does it take to corrupt a scientist? How do you determine when a scientist is corrupted and his/her word and decisions and judgements are to thrown out?
If the source of money is to serve the interest of the money, then – who do we trust? The government who reject morals and promotes those who demand innocents die? Or a person with morals who can provide life?
Do we trust government “scientists” who were paid hundreds of billions of dollars to create reports and services and laboratories solely to create and service the CAGW industry so the government can collect trillions in controlling taxes?
Lars Tuff, to paraphrase your statement, the IPCCs scientist are 95% confident that the 5% of their models, that not have been proven wrong, are right.
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm
There is no reason to imagine that air density was much greater in the Mesozoic than now, despite baseless claims you may find on the Net.
As for air pressure billions of years ago, also no dice. Best evidence suggests at most twice as dense as now 2.7 Ba:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22456703
The earth’s first atmosphere could have been & probably was much denser than now, but the H2 escaped to space & CO2 was incorporated into rocks & eventually living things. It might have had twice as much N2 as now, but of course next to no O2.
But please post any evidence you have to the contrary, ie that Precambrian, Paleozoic & Mesozoic atmosphere was many times denser than now.
Largest pterosaurs were capable of powered flight in atmospheric conditions similar to now:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013982
That they did fly is shown by fossils from marine beds. That Cretaceous air pressure was about the same as today is shown by every possible line of evidence. Oxygen & CO2 were higher than now, but not enough greatly to increase density.
Several years ago there was a boomlet in papers arguing that the largest pterosaurs would need 3-5 bar to fly, but they were based upon assumptions since shown false, such as weight & power of Quetzalcoatlus.
If pterosaurs still lived, they could still fly, hampered more by less oxygen than by lighter air.
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
We are near borderline extinction, such that life on earth will not survive the next big Ice Age as there will be no more CO2 left to sustain life.
================
correct 100%