Tom Nelson points this out –
IPCC sausage-making details: Saudi Arabia cautioned against “giving policy makers the message that CO2 drives global warming”
Summary of the Twelfth Session of the IPCC WGI and IPCC-36, 23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
Saudi Arabia proposed clarifying that evidence of future climate change is based on models and simulations only.
…
Concerning the evidence that the key findings of the report are based on, Saudi Arabia suggested adding “assumptions” or “scientific assumptions” to the list. The addition of “scientific assumptions” was supported by Brazil and opposed by Austria, Canada, Germany and Belgium. The latter underscored that assumptions are already implicitly included in the already-listed theory, models and expert judgement. The Group rejected the insertion.
…
On the headline statement, which states that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since 1950, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, Saudi Arabia said the statement was “alarmist,” urged qualifying the terms “unequivocal” and “unprecedented,” requested using the year 1850 instead of 1950, and called for a reference to slowed warming over the past 15 years.
…After some discussion, Saudi Arabia agreed to accept the statement as presented.
…
On lower rates of warming in the last 15 years, there was broad agreement on the underlying science as well as on the importance of addressing the phenomenon in the SPM, given the media attention to this issue. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding how to communicate the underlying scientific explanation clearly and in an accessible manner to policy makers to avoid sending a misleading message.
…
Addressing the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, Saudi Arabia cautioned against “giving policy makers the message that CO2 drives global warming” and further highlighted that not all CO2 emissions result from fossil fuel combustion. Many delegates attempted to clarify and simplify language, while Argentina urged participants to “save energy for more controversial chapters.”
…
On Thursday morning, Germany and the UK said that their objections were not noted the previous evening when a sentence on overestimates in some models introduced by Saudi Arabia was adopted. Saudi Arabia, supported by Sudan, expressed grave concerns in opening up agreed text, emphasizing that “we are in dangerous waters,” while Sudan added that opening up agreed text raises the issue of equal treatment of countries. No changes were made to the text.
…
The allegations of climate skeptics of a global warming slowdown in the popular media had some bearing on the emphasis placed on communicating the messages of the SPM. Many delegations highlighted the possibility of climate skeptics misrepresenting, or “cynically” taking sentences out of context. This in turn led to extra-careful deliberations and some time-consuming wordsmithing around the key findings. Delegates debated at length to find the clearest language possible to explain that a claimed “15-year hiatus” is based on a single variable (global mean surface temperature), too short a period of observation for climatic significance, and sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15-year period is calculated.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
richardscourtney says:
October 2, 2013 at 3:55 am …………….
I agree with your main points.
The others are nitpicking ….. [as in; “your shoelace is untied”]
Good post.
Just an observation on “sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15-year period is calculated.” When dealing with the leading edge of a data set (in this case, the present, which keeps moving forward year by year), this criticism is not, and can not, be valid — except for the length of the period. It will always be starting NOW and going back XX years.
This criticism is thus an obfuscation — trying to impugn the obvious, necessary logical choice of “the most recent XX years” (in which you can only select the length of the period) with the cherry-picking involved in selecting only the XX year periods in the past that give the desired result.
It is logical nonsense. It is the reverse that is cherry-picking. Insisting now on 30 year periods or whatever. Or, like nearly all GMST graphs created to illustrate Global Warming. starting in 1850 (or 1750), instead of 1950, when GW is supposed to have started.
Well, it’s nice to see that NASA’s Muslim outreach program is paying off.
Saudi Arabia is walking a fine line between increasing the cost of their product by backing the global warming hoax and forcing people into using alternative fuels.
Oil companies like the green movement because it increases the price of oil, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace are backed by oil companies. I’m sure the Saudis appreciated Greenpeace for trying to stop the Russians from offshore drilling, a fall scarcity increases the price.
On the other hand they know if they push the green agenda too far it might force the market to actually look into viable alternatives to oil and not just wind and solar.
As Richard Courtney points out
richardscourtney says:
October 2, 2013 at 2:20 am
The IPCC was founded as a political body to keep the “science” focused on human caused global warming and to serve governments and there has been no pretense about that (and to control the message, of course). What is appalling to me is that the scientists in the IPCC flock have allowed themselves to be used and shepherded in such a shameful way for so long. They started out probably trying to do science and when IPCC abuse became evermore evident, some of integrity got themselves out of the pen, but what can we say about those who stayed and are now rushing around trying to shoehorn present inconvenient developments in actual climate to fit the CAGW meme. I hope, when the IPCC stuff is finally seen for what it is that these charlatans don’t escape history. Its too late for a “truth commission” apology from these guys given the enormity of the damage done to the world economy and science, and the dark age end game planned from the beginning. I suppose a defense pleading abject stupidity could be believable for most, but there is dozen or so too amoral for a defense.
Brian H says:October 2, 2013 at 1:02 am
Silver Ralph;
A quibble, but bowing from the waist is not the same as “prostrating”, which means lying prostrate on the floor, face down.
_____________________________
Yeah, we know.
But in presidential terms, that was a prostration. Do you think any other senior world leader or senior monarch (past or present) would genuflect in that fashion? Especially to a minor monarch of a flyblown desert land? No, precisely. It clearly indicated that Obama felt subservient to the Saudi royalty, and by implication America is also now subservient to the will of the Saudi monarchy.
Sad times.
Imagine a world where the last super-power will capitulate and cede it’s Divine Providence and snuff the Beacon on the Hill at the behest of The Seychelles and Sudan ,Saudi Arabia and all other despotic juntas..
Oh, wait, We don’t have to imagine.
. Does North Korea get their say too
Gerry – England:
At October 2, 2013 at 5:50 am you provide your revisionist version of the destruction of the UK coal industry.
I do not intend to start or engage in a discussion of that side-track. However, there may be some people interested in the true history of how and why Thatcher destroyed that industry. I provided a brief account on WUWT here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/weekend-open-thread-6/#comment-1274534
Please note the PS of that post.
Richard
A grain of truth maybe among the usual tired left-wing rhetoric, Richard.
Gerry – England:
I am offended by your trolling which ends in your offensive post at October 3, 2013 at 6:08 am.
My account is factually accurate. Your distortions are merely political and propagandist revisionism from someone who was not involved.
Richard
Take a look at comment #37 on this thread: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/unforced-variations-oct-2013/
Major cognitive dissonance!
Richard, You might enjoy this U. S. tale of political spin. (A joke that went viral)