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.
Grey Oz:
The Stanford “study” you cite is an article in Anti-Scientific Un-American magazine, too glossy to be of any use as a bird cage liner.
Every sentence of it is sadly, yet hilariously false. If wind & solar were as economical today as fossil fuels, why does China, the country that makes wind mills & solar panels & also has giant hydro projects, rely so heavily on coal & want to control South China Sea oil? Why does every other country heavily subsidize its everywhere failed wind & solar experiments?
The authors fail to include building electrical transmission lines in their alleged analysis. They blithely assume that hydro can back up wind & solar, without apparently ever having studied the place in the world where that hopeless system has been tried on the largest scale, ie the Pacific NW. Backing up wind there leads to generation of less hydro, waste of huge quantities of water & damages migrating fish & birds.
Maybe in their study they show their work, but the article is nothing but spew.
To mention just a few of your own many false assertions, Antarctica is not melting. Its ice mass is increasing, along with the sea ice extent around it, which reached a new “all-time” high this year. Many studies in recent years have found this to be the case, such as this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
By “all time” of course is meant since 1979, when satellite records of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice began, along with observations of the “temperature” of the atmosphere from space. So when you claim that the past ten years are the warmest decade ever, you’re talking about three decades. What you fail to understand is that 1) the surface temperature record is an “adjusted” fabrication, & 2) use of raw data show that the ~1920-40s were actually hotter than the recent warm spell of 1980-2000, roughly. The warming during that period also occurred at the same slope as the recently ended period, without benefit of increased CO2.
Since the depths of the Little Ice Age Cold Period c. AD 1700, the planet has warmed in 20-30 year spurts, then cooled a little for a similar time frame, as it has begun doing again now, then warmed for two or three decades, etc. But we seem to be peaking, since the 1930s & 1990s were globally about equally as warm.
The Arctic didn’t melt, as you fear, during the much longer & warmer previous interglacial, the Eemian, nor during the thousands of years in our current Holocene interglacial when it was warmer than now, as it was during Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP & the Medieval WP, each hotter than its predecessor (as shown by proxy data from around the world), as the Medieval was than the Modern WP.
Arctic sea ice extent was similar to now during the 1930s, when the USSR used the ice free summers to steam the Siberian coast, again without benefit of elevated CO2 levels. Ocean heat content oscillates naturally on a multi-decadal basis, as was discovered in 1997 by a PNW fisheries researcher, not by the raving lunatic Hansen of GISS. The earth has enjoyed CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, not just 400 ppm, in the past 550 million years without turning into Venus, as that liar spouts.
It is also untrue that 97% of “scientists” sign on to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. The Cooked books claimed 97% of “active climate scientists”, a phony number arrived at by excluding all but 77 of the responses of a survey sent to about 10,000 scientists, then asking two question to which many skeptics might have answered yes. In the event, 75 of them did, hence the bogus number for which you’ve uncritically fallen hook, line & sinker. Were you a more frequent reader of this blog, you could have saved yourself that embarrassment.
There is no human fingerprint in unadjusted data & little even in the heavily adjusted fake data. In any case, CO2 is beneficial to life on earth. The planet has greened as a result of the gain since 1945.
Dear Grey Oz (re: 4:31pm, today),
1. Ignoring your first two questions to Mr. Cobb as not worth spending WUWT space on, re: #3 — 97% of peer-reviewed science does NOT support this position. For evidence, search WUWT using such terms as “Cook,” “consensus,” and “97% consensus.” You will discover what Bruce Cobb already knows: there is no evidence FOR the alleged 97% consensus, only MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST it.
2. Re: the conjecture in your second paragraph:
1) There is no evidence that fossil fuels per se are causing “damage to the environment.”
2) Cite evidence from, not unsupported generalizations v. a v. “the Stanford Study,” all the evidence I have seen from reading excellent science papers and comments on WUWT supports the opposite conclusion: “clean energy,” not including hydropower, is still “expensive.”
3) Further, you have provided no evidence that “clean energy” causes less “damage”* to the environment than fossil fuels do.
*If by “damage” you mean CO2 emissions — CO2 causes NO DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, it benefits it (do your own research). There is no evidence that human CO2 (or natural CO2) emissions damage the environment.
You provided no supporting documentation for your assertions and I am not going to do the research you could easily do to verify the truth for yourself, but here is a small sample for you re: wind power:
Windpower Is a Perpetual Negative ROI (Return on Investment) Scam
“… once allowance is made for the additional costs associated with wind-power, … For both near-term and medium-term projects, onshore wind ceases to be a competitive technology. … There is no economic case for wind-power. … .” Lea, Ruth, “Electricity Costs: The Folly of Windpower,” Civitas (January, 2012) at 19.
Link: http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
Wind Power Causes Net CO2 Increase
(not that this is a rational basis for concern; just to inform you of the facts)
“Moreover, there is not even a CO2-cutting case for wind-power.” Ibid.
“… wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires (a) conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) … CO2 emissions associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines.” Ibid at 29.
“… (fossil-fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role… Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally.” … “…wind-power … not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes (CO2) cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation..” Ibid at 29-30.
*****************************
If you are a sincere seeker of truth, I wish you well, Grey Oz. Ask genuine questions with a demonstrated desire to find out the truth and WUWT commenters will gladly answer (when they have the time). You may not have intended to do so, but the tone of your writing makes you come off as a mere disingenuous poseur.
Best wishes to you if you are on a true search for science truth,
Janice
P.S. Hybrid Cars cause net CO2 increase (given that you think this is a problem).
(you can do the research for that one yourself)
Was enjoying a beverage this afternoon at a rather liberal watering hole when ABC news came on. The IPCC report was, surprisingly, not the top story. When the subject came up, about six or eight minutes into the broadcast, there was not much interest, and one person was basically calling bs – said the videos and graphics were scaremongering. I was pleased. Of course, this was being viewed within ten miles of UAH, so maybe Spencer and Christy are making some gains…
PS: The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains most of the land ice on earth, quit melting about 6000 years ago. I had previously read that soil at its edge was radionuclide-dated to 3000 years ago (end of the Minoan Warm Period), but this more recent study moves the end of its post-glacial phase melt to the middle of the Holocene Climatic Optimum:
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-cosmic-rays-radionuclides-contribution-east.html
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Each decade is warmer than the last..
===
uh no, can you read a NOAA ice core graph?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Oz, why is it that at the one point that CO2 levels should have had the most effect…
…temperatures went down?
“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.”
That’s pretty much the climate debate in a nutshell.
According to Al Gore, a leopard cannot change its stripes.
If it is already posted, I apologize. The gang that shoot straight in the Vomitorium.
Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
I think its obvious Bill that the IPCC are no longer stretching the truth or distorting it.
They are now flat out lying and cheating, Hansen is still adjusting and cant get GISS to hit Scenario C.
…etc.
====================================================================
Grey Ooze, you know, kool-aid isn’t good for you. It can rot more than your teeth.
Everyone ease up on Grey Oz, please. He’s just looking for the Wizard:
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain
I’d unravel any riddle
For any individ’le
In trouble or in pain
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I’d sit and think some more
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
Anthony Violi says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
—————————————————-
Nice graph Sir, thanks.
I think, however, that you meant “conjecture” not “theory”. Whatever it was, it had little chance of trumping the Second Law of Thermodynamics, right from the get-go.
Australian media are saying by 2100 the world will be 2 C warmer than today due to human activity. Well that won’t be too bad, if it gets colder in the mean time.
I work in the mines here in Australia, so I always set my TV to turn on in the morning for my alarm. I always have Sky News as the channel I watch as I like to see what’s happened in the world overnight. The first leading story at 5:30 this morning was “Scientists are in ‘no doubt’ that man is heating the climate” then almost in the presenters next breath she mentioned the 95% concencus. I’m sorry but if there is no doubt, that 95% should have been 100%! Sure enough I tweeted to @SkyNewsAust asking them should that be right, then sure enough the next half hour bulletin there was no mention of the ‘no doubt’! Sky News is just another media network wanting to keep the climate change dream alive!
It’s confusing. I distinctly remember that at least one of the previous Assessment Reports essentially ruled out that changes in Solar radiation could possibly have any impact on Earth temperature. It was soooo small that it just couldn’t. Now, suddenly, one reason for the pause is “…the recent solar minimum (a period of low solar activity)”, according to Andy Pitman here: http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367. How could it cause a pause if it doesn’t have any impact? And if it does have an impact, could it have raised temperatures in the past?
As for the heat hiding in oceans: Where did the heat go 18 years ago, before the pause started? Why, and when, did it suddenly developed urges to hide in deep ocean? And how does it get there without warming ocean’s upper layers – Harry Potter’s heat transfer?
Climate changes due to human activity is good media hype, particularly as the new government is halting one wind farm due in Glen Innes and Inverell areas. 189 wind mills. I hope we don’t hear their noise by near by residents will soon get annoyed, hoping that the 15 k a year rental will keep them wealthy farmers.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm
@ur momisugly Gunga Din: 97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it
You must be a troll. that 97% line has been debunked a long time ago, why are you still clinging to that lie?
Bob,
Thanks for the vid, notwithstanding it making the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Watching this very cult like operation drives it home that in fact we are dealing with people who are in fact “zombies” now so deep is the control they have lost over their minds. Not sure they gave into greed or the lies. Does not matter, scary as can be. I my former line of work I was able to ambush the bad guys and deal with them direct. These ones are defenseless and not worthy of an ambush plan or even a jury trial. They have managed to bring us Oz as evidence of the power of the cults lies and fraud. The real evil is not these poor usefull fools zombie talking the script they were handed, the real evil is the ones in Washington D.C. and other places of power who fool the Oz’s into giveing up life and liberty for a redistribution of wealth con job.
Thanks any how.
let’s face it, they were never going to admit they were wrong. the public might ask for some accountability!
27 Sept: ABC: Ursula Malone: New South Wales desalination plant deal to cost consumers $10 billion over 50 years
Sydney’s privatised desalination plant, which is costing residents more than $500,000 a day to keep on standby, will not be needed for at least another four or five years.
The sale of the plant last year to a private company for $2.3 billion means residents are locked into paying about $10 billion in fees for the next 50 years, whether the plant is operating or not.
Not one drop of water has come out of the Kurnell facility since it stopped operating more than a year ago.
With dam levels at 93.4 per cent, the plant has been placed into “water security” mode, a long-term shutdown which is likely to continue for some time…
The buyer was a consortium split 50-50 between Hastings Funds Management and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, based in Canada.
Between now and 2062 they are guaranteed inflation-linked payments of about $10 billion from Sydney Water…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/nsw-desalination-plant-deal-costing-customers-10-billion/4985168
@ur momisugly fobdangerclose: People should only come here if they agree with your point of view? And why do you have to insult me for disagreeing with your point of view?
for Australians, another waste of money & an eyesore to boot:
25 Sept: Gold Coast Bulletin: Andrew Potts: Tate desal plan rejected
A GRAND plan to convert the mothballed Tugun desalination plant into a tourism facility has been labelled “unrealistic” by stunned civic leaders.
The $1.2 billion “white elephant” facility, which has been used only twice since it was completed more than three years ago, is under the microscope as part of the Newman Government’s review of its manufactured water assets, which may look at decommissioning the plant…
Among the possible tourism ventures proposed were the conversation(sic) of its outlet pipes to become an offshore dive site and creating a bungee-jumping attraction…
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/09/25/458795_gold-coast-news.html
——————————————————————————–
I just checked back in and Grey Oz is getting stuffed. Duh.
But no, GO, what about the birds and bats being killed by windfarms?
How are we supposed to kill them?
Where is the trumpeting of hydro-power? The only clean form of energy there is?
Can’t do that, makes too much sense.
Solar power creates too much shade in the desert for some kind of beetle.
I’m not picking on you, I just wish that someone would come up with a viable in-expensive alternative that doesn’t do more harm than good.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978:
“Because the world’s climate so-called scientists are being paid billions of dollars to make CO2 and CAGW the propaganda campaign that it started as, stayed, and will likely remain until those so-called scientists stop denying the science and the measurements. Governments program their money to support the agencies and the scientists and the research that will provide those governments the answers they want and the taxes they are desperate for.”
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this? Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Isn’t it more likely oil and gas companies are waging a massive disinformation campaign to protect their industry, as they don’t want to transition to other energy sources?
“It can be no insult if the statement is true.”
It’s not what one says, it’s how they say it.
“Show that any of your claims are valid. We do, however, sympathize at the effectiveness of your brainwashing.”
So, now I’m brainwashed because I don’t agree with your point of view and all the peer-reviewed science is falsified?
“False. The current global warming is largely natural and cannot be stopped by denying men life, food, fuel, fodder, feed, and energy for safe water, clean air, and efficient farming.”
How come there is no cause for this “natural global warming”? In the past, we see super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and other events that cause global warming. What is it that is causing this “natural global warming?” We are in a solar minimum currently. Also, warming is accelerating and measurable over decades instead of centuries. What is causing that? And no one wants to deny anyone life, food, fodder, feed, energy, safe water, clean air, or efficient farming; they want to transition these activities to be powered by energy sources that don’t dump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere on a massive scale daily.
“And, by the way, the is no threat to life on this planet except from global cooling. There is NO HARM from global warming”
Once we hit a two degree increase in temperature (measured from before the industrial revolution), carbon and methane frozen in ice, permafrost, and ground stores will melt and enter the atmosphere, and more than double the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere currently. This will accelerate warming and put us well above a six degree increase (more if we continue with our current rate of emissions), which will be catastrophic to civilization. This will also likely lead to “runaway global warming, which will make the planet inhospitable to life [Hansen].
Some must resist the urge to attend to the paid posters.
They are actually paid by the responses.. Don’t forget that part of the equation.
I must say, upon watching my limited exposure to today’s support for the IPCC’s output, it is not only well organized, it is unpresidented. File that!
Remember that …….
Share links to the info you deem appropriate. They do, no matter how much resistance they find at the destination.
I have always believed in working smart!
Video redacted to help with distractions.
Oh Dear,
The IP-CCCP have painted themselves into a ‘Check’, ‘Mate’ and ‘Match.’
And all by themselves! By their own hands.
Astonishing.
That “Principle #2” also a curious creature to me since the ’90s. It reads as if “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” or even “Climate” ARE the artifacts of human activity! Did not the Earth exist 4.8 billion years ago; which by simple quotient would show how insignificant human beings are to the Earth as a ratio of years present.
Oh well. SETI@Home has yet to identify intelligent life on Earth and NSA@Home will suffer likewise with their presumptions of “Terrorists” in the “internet” and telephone networks and ATM networks and such; perhaps THEIR “Terrorists” are the shadows lurking in THEIR bathroom mirror in the mornings.
Religion
Ah! Religion has been always keen to find human beings guilty of all sorts of misbehavior throughout human history, thou significantly insignificant that history is. The Roman Catholic Church on 22 June 1633 (Solstice) found Galileo was “vehemently suspect of heresy,” was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition and the following day was commuted to house arrest, and his treatise “Dialogue” among others was banned and publication of any of his works forbidden including any that he might write in the future from that day on.
How wonderful it is that universities world wide teach the Heliocentric theory as a cornerstone of modern astronomy in their astronomy classes. Galileo WON!
Strange the IP-CCCP. Humans, to them, ARE the cause of Climate, Climate Change and Global Warming. Using their logic, for world Government, i.e. the UN, to eliminate Global Warming, the UN must sanction the mass slaughter of … [Drum Roll] … Human Beings! This is because the most illustrious Beloved Academia, the IP-CCCP, foretell that Human Beings are “very likely” GUILTY though evidence is not in their hands nor need be for such is divined by faith and a Religious Proclamation ordained.
QED