Thom Hartmann's 'Last Hours' video negated by IPCC AR5

From The End is Near department comes this video documentary from lefty talk radio guy Thom Hartmann that claims we are on the verge of a “mass extinction” due to climate change. Only one problem; the IPCC says “no” to his scenario. Ooops.

From the YouTube description, bold mine:

“Last Hours” is the first in a series of short films that explore the perils of climate change and the solutions to avert climate disaster. Each subsequent film will highlight fact-based challenges facing the human race, and offer solutions to ameliorate these crises. The initial short film series will culminate in a feature film to be presented prior to COP21, the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.

An asset for the climate change movement, “Last Hours” will be disseminated globally to awaken modern culture worldwide about the various dangers associated with climate change.

“Last Hours” describes a science-based climate scenario where a tipping point to runaway climate change is triggered by massive releases of frozen methane. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, has already started to percolate into the open seas and atmosphere from methane hydrate deposits beneath melting arctic ice, from the warming northern-hemisphere tundra, and from worldwide continental-shelf undersea methane clathrate pools.

Burning fossil fuels release carbon that, principally through greenhouse effect, heat the atmosphere and the seas. This is happening most rapidly at the polar extremes, and this heating has already begun the process of releasing methane. If we do not begin to significantly curtail the use of carbon-based fossil fuels, this freed methane threatens to radically accelerate the speed of global warming, potentially producing a disaster beyond the ability of the human species to adapt.

This first video is designed to awaken people to the fact that the earth has experienced five major extinctions in the deep geologic past — times when more than half of all life on earth vanished — and that we are now entering a sixth extinction. Industrial civilization with its production of greenhouse gases has the ability to trigger a mass extinction; in the extreme, it could threaten not just human civilization, but the very existence of human life on this planet.

The world community and global citizens urgently need to chart a path forward that greatly reduces green house gas emissions. To take action and follow the pathway to solutions to the climate crisis, you can explore this website and you can also sign-up for future updates. Thank you.

It’s the old “methane emergency” meme again.

But here’s the problem.

Apparently Thom never got the memo from the IPCC AR5. Note the third and fourth items in Table 12.4 from the IPCC:

IPCC_catastrophe_table

Definitions for this table can be found in the section “TFE.5: Irreversibility and Abrupt Change” in the draft report. They say:

Abrupt climate change is defined in AR5 as a large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.”

But alas, IPCC says Clathrate methane release is very unlikely, and they have high confidence in that assessment. Permafrost doesn’t seem to be much of a problem either, as it doesn’t seem to have the potential for abrupt climate change.

Looks like Thom Hartmann will have to rework his video.

Advertisements

74 thoughts on “Thom Hartmann's 'Last Hours' video negated by IPCC AR5

  1. Why should he revise his video? The purpose of this propaganda piece was to gin up the skeer on AGW. It was never about science or the truth. It’s like calling back the cannon ball once the cannon is fired. All the damage has been done and you can’t undo it. “An Inconvenient Truth” was debunked how many times? It’s still playing on some cable channels and lots of people still believe it.
    Being totally debunked, exposed as a hypocrite and exposed as a money-grubbing charlatan numerous times hasn’t hurt Gore’s credibility with the faithful, so why should Hartmann worry?

  2. From what I have been reading on the internet, it is severe cold we have to worry about, not CAGW!
    For anyone who is taken in by this rubbish, can you please recollect the following: Y2K, SARS, AIDS, Mad Cow Disease, a new Ice Age! The human race has survived all of these things, the Earth has not warmed for 17 years. The only thing that may finish the human race off is panic if we all take as literal all the predictions of impending doom!

  3. It’s the last days of the CAGW movement (Hartmann’s own word), and that’s all it ever was. They are becoming increasingly desperate to simply hang onto the faithful True Believers, who are the only ones left who are brainless enough to belief this sort of crud.

  4. This is getting to be like listening to the people who believe “The Rapture!!!” is about to occur on the 27th of next month. It’s a purely religious belief that depends on their on psychological pathology, and has no relationship with reality, or even with rationality, for that matter.
    There’s really no point in trying to talk directly to them, you’re not going to make any headway with people who have gone round the bend, psychologically speaking. It is a shame they work so hard to prey upon the gullible, but then this kind of act is as old as witch doctors.

  5. The threat of a mass extinction is an effort to rush through energy control and rationing globally despite the climate not co-operating with previous scare stories.
    The first I heard of it was when Bob Geldof’s outburst was publicised.
    He is at the heart of the celebrity culture that supports the ‘alarmosphere’ so if he comes out with it in public one can be sure that it is an agreed strategy that is likely to be given a very hard push in the media in the near future.
    It is now all about the manipulation of public perceptions in order to accrue power.

  6. I expected some nice disaster porn and all I got was a 10 minute wavetable synthesizer drone (is it still 1990?) and a bunch of Lovelock wannabes.
    More explosions and dying critters; and please license Requiem For A Dream or something like that, guys.

  7. Everything in the video will come true if…
    And my granny would be a wagon if… she had wheels.
    I’m gonna back the IPCC this time and go with highly unlikely for the video and my dear old granny.

  8. According to Table 12.4 from the IPCC, there is nothing catastrophic which will happen with any level of confidence, other than the melting of the Arctic sea ice within the next few decades. The IPCC is not suggesting catastrophic climate change at all. I guess the IPCC leaves the nonsense up to the nuts gone loose in society.

  9. BTW, the Lovelock wannabes still have to explain why the Methanocalypse didn’t happen during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Each subsequent climate optimum including today got progressively colder.
    The Methane clathrates do not care why it’s warm; they should have dissolved 8000 years ago already.
    As the cltathrates are under the sea they can’t know what temperature the atmosphere has. The heat capacity of the oceans is 1,200 times the one of the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere warmed up by 6 deg C, it would take a while for the ocean to swallow that heat; and only result in a warming of 0.005 deg C.
    Well, let’s see whether the climate pornsters get the public mobilized. Interest in climate change in google trends still at a 6 year low after the peak in 2007 (when Al Gore was warning of the housing crisis end of the world).

  10. A couple of other Extinction Events;
    – the Ordovician which was probably the coldest period on Earth in the last 600 million years (-7.0C with CO2 at 4,500 ppm or what should have been +12.0C according to global warming theory) which was caused by glaciation on Gondwana as it was centred over the South Pole at the time; and,
    – the Triassic-Jurassic extinction which lead to the rise of the dinosaurs and was probably caused by the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province which erupted in the centre of Pangea and lead to its unzipping/splitting apart, eventually creating the Atlantic Ocean.
    http://s14.postimg.org/7keqi3mwx/Ordovician_Extinction_Temp_CO2_Zoom_In.png
    http://s22.postimg.org/ohnz5qvch/Triassic_Jurassic_Extinction_Temp_CO2_Zoom_In.png

  11. JimS says:
    October 13, 2013 at 7:50 am
    “I guess the IPCC leaves the nonsense up to the nuts gone loose in society.”
    The IPCC itself is a political organisation, controlled by governments and subverted by their Green NGO goons. The IPCC and the climate pornsters are both controlled by the same puppetmasters and form the extremes of the dialectic; where the IPCC is made to look reasonable by contrasting them with the climate pornsters. This is designed to obfuscate the fact that the IPCC itself is already a propaganda organisation.
    In fact, the know-nothing little believers still take the IPCC seriously and still trust government science; so that part of the manipulation strategy works. (I know because several colleagues were all worried by the latest “findings” of the IPCC. Of course they only read some journalistic processing of the summary for policymakers where the journalists cooked up the hysteric points and ignored everything else.)

  12. Another ‘mankind is doomed’ extinction event disaster is pending, you say?
    Yawn….
    Just another spiv / cheat / liar / conman / snake oil salesman / tax inspector / agenda pusher / political activist / dickhead*.
    Put on ignore list.
    *Indicate as appropriate.

  13. “Last Hours” describes a science-based climate scenario where a tipping point to runaway climate change is triggered by massive releases of frozen methane. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, has already started to percolate into the open seas and atmosphere from methane hydrate deposits beneath melting arctic ice, from the warming northern-hemisphere tundra, and from worldwide continental-shelf undersea methane clathrate pools.

    What is runaway climate change? I know what runaway warming is but that is soooo yesterday.

    “Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
    IPCC
    http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
    “There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”
    Sir John Houghton
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/68/6/R02

  14. What a loathsome and despicable video. Is this the way tyrants, dictators, genocidal maniacs, claimed the fears and imaginations of their adherents? Sure looks like it doesn’t it? Sounds like it too, with that appropriately religious hymnal replicating, but foreboding soundtrack. So people, give up all the hard won freedoms are ancestors fought for. Give them up to this god of carbon mitigation. Give up your low cost and readily available means to travel, to move. Give up the ability to choose where to live. Give up your ability to choose your own home and how you wish to ornate it. Give up the ability to choose the temperature you wish to set your own habitation at: Shivering in the winter? – live with it. Sweat stinging your eyes; prickly heat on your chest; gasping the heavy air; too bad; don’t turn on the AC – live with it. Change your diet. And tithe the vast majority of your hard earned money to the administrators, the prophets of this god of doom. Do so and be spared. Oh, and don’t speak out against this, don’t criticize it. Do not blaspheme the god. That is not allowed. It is an emergency after all.

  15. I have to wonder about the Eemian interglacial and methane hydrate release. This is because the quote above says it has already started and we are doomed.

  16. The IPCC is a poor standard for comparison. Both it and Thom Hartmann are selling snake oil, but Thom at least gives us some excitement in his pitch.

  17. wws says:
    ”This is getting to be like listening to the people who believe “The Rapture!!!” is about to occur”
    In addition, like bible code “researchers”, climastrologists egg the rapture doomsayers on by finding all sorts of alarming signals hidden in the noise.

  18. From the YouTube description of
    a video documentary by Thom Hartmann,
    {Note: following bold emphasis by me – JW}
    ” . . .
    “Last Hours” is the first in a series of short films that explore the perils of climate change and the solutions to avert climate disaster. Each subsequent film will highlight fact-based challenges facing the human race, and offer solutions to ameliorate these crises. The initial short film series will culminate in a feature film to be presented prior to COP21, the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.
    . . .”

    – – – – – – – – –
    Well more than 26 months planning.
    An impressive far point strategy is pretty evident by the intellectual leaders of the ideology behind the CAGW movement.
    It begs the question of where is the far point strategy of the broader skeptical intellects in the general climate science community if they are not complicate in the ideology?
    Who is strategically watching where the scientifically skeptical hockey puck is going to be 2 to 5 years from now and 5 to 10 years from now?
    The word fragmented floats to the surface of my consciousness, unbidden.
    John

  19. I sent Thom the link to this post. thom@thomhartmann.com it didn’t come back so the address is good.
    He used to have me blocked, the addy turned off or something. I was always reminding the weasel that half of his comments about historical political subjects were incorrect.

  20. The supposed Sixth Mass Extinction Event is utter garbage, completely without any basis in reality.
    After the End Permian, the second biggest MEE was the End Ordovician, caused by glaciation, in which about 85% of marine species perished, along with whole genera, families (more than 100 families of marine invertebrates) & whole orders. The land had not yet been significantly invaded by multicellular organisms.
    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.331?journalCode=earth&
    Nothing remotely close to that has happened during the so-called “Anthropocene”, which is what alarmists like to call the Holocene, even when you include the demise of much of the Pleistocene megafauna. Some isolated orders have gone extinct, eg. New Zealand moa, due to human predation, but there is no planet-wide mass extinction event going on now or looming in the future.

  21. This Hartman fellow is is rather strange. He is filled with hatred and anger and really needs to take a rest.

  22. …Looks like Thom Hartmann will have to rework his video….
    Why? The video looks like acceptable evidence to me that we’re all going to die of methane poisoning in short order. The IPCC will just have to rework their table to take into account this new evidence.
    That’s how Climate Change is done…

  23. I think that the general public in many western countries has tired of the whole “we are going to die by fire and then drown” routine. I know many skeptics have tried to tell the public the truth and given them real data and that effort, no doubt, helped a lot. But I think the continual “chicken little” heifer dust like this fellow’s crap is the [b]main[/b] reason. For 30 years they have been crying that we are doomed, doomed, doomed — and yet the climate is little different from what its was in the 1980s.
    God please — let them continue to make fools of themselves. 🙂

  24. “COP21, the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.”
    In 2015, the British electorate will go to the polls. This last couple of weeks has seen the nonsense of AR5 being discussed in the media, and, following Milliband’s(leader of the opposition) pledge to freeze fuel prices if they get into power, stimulated by a recent 8% increase in electricity prices by one of our electricity providers, two thirds of which is reported to be due to green taxes, the issue has become a major one in the media.
    With another couple of rounds of energy price increases to go before the election, which could see us paying considerably more than we are now, I wonder how many of our wonderful political leaders will be rushing to endorse COP21

  25. “Only one problem; the IPCC says “no” to his scenario.”
    But in the post-normal, bayesian world of today this means he’s more likely to be right than if IPCC had said ‘yes’. (;>)

  26. Science Fiction writers explored all of these fictional scenarios much better a long time ago.
    That faux scientists and ‘comunicators’ are exploiting(derivatively) this sort of stuff is more a comment on the lack of imagination of these rent seeking expolitative AGW promoters.

  27. *raises hand* Ooooh! Ooooh!
    I know what the answer in the videos will be before even seeing them!
    More political power and control in the hands of people who share an ideology with Thom Hartmann.
    That’s always the answer, no matter the problem.

  28. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 13, 2013 at 7:34 am
    The threat of a mass extinction is an effort to rush through energy control and rationing globally despite the climate not co-operating with previous scare stories.
    The first I heard of it was when Bob Geldof’s outburst was publicised.
    He is at the heart of the celebrity culture that supports the ‘alarmosphere’ so if he comes out with it in public one can be sure that it is an agreed strategy that is likely to be given a very hard push in the media in the near future.
    It is now all about the manipulation of public perceptions in order to accrue power.

    E.M. Smith has coined a term for the ‘alarmosphere’: Fuddites FUD plus Ned Ludd.
    See http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/fuddites/

  29. CRS, DrPH says October 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
    …If we want to spend money we don’t have, we should spend it to harden our grid against a massive CME.

    Miss the memo? This is already handled by the transmission operators … I’ve been over this subject at least a dozen times …
    .

  30. Garfy says:
    October 13, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    Thanks!
    Short version of comments by IR radiation-specializing physicist & author of “The Innocence of Carbon”, François Gervais: CO2 has increased since the 19th century from 300 to 400 ppm, but the greenhouse effect from CO2 is now saturated. Since temperature fluctuations precede those from CO2, we have mistaken a consequence for a cause.

  31. I enjoy listening to people I don’t agree with, and I turn to Hartmann’s radio show frequently. He seems to be a broadly knowledgeable guy but IMO, he will almost always puts politics ahead of intellectual honesty. He may actually believe this though; I don’t think it’s difficult to convince him of things that fit with his political agenda. That being said, I don’t believe he is open to considering any evidence to the contrary.
    He grasps enough of the science to talk with an authoritative tone to his average listener who has next to no relevant scientific knowledge and is inclined to believe in AGW for reasons other than climate, but that’s about it.

  32. This just goes to prove yet again that they are not interested in reports and will even ignore the IPCC if it doesn’t say what they want it to say. Their rule of thumb seems to be “Make it up and pretend all the world and all authority is behind the message.”
    They are masters of bluff, not realizing that the mask has slipped and they are on full public display for what they are. Pathetic really.

  33. JimS says:
    October 13, 2013 at 7:50 am
    According to Table 12.4 from the IPCC, there is nothing catastrophic which will happen with any level of confidence, other than the melting of the Arctic sea ice within the next few decades.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    It is good to see that the IPCC has such a remarkable ‘faith’ in the Arctic sea ice disappearing, because the Arctic seems intent on regrowing it,s boundaries. At the DMI site the sea ice regrowth is rising close to the 1979/2000 mean value line. JAXA also shows similar and both show about a 2 million km2 gain over the last 30 days since the low. A large % of land temperatures around the Arctic basin are at 14F or lower, 32F is the high in a few areas. Greenland is at -4F over most of it,s surface, while the entire Russian coast is at 14F or lower, with sizeable regions of -4 showing up in the interior. The “unusual” 2012 Arctic melt convinced all of the cagw supporters that the end was near. Their conviction became certainty, written in stone.
    The really great aspect to this story is that when the volume of sea ice regrows as it is now starting to do, then this important high profile talking point will become a counter against their arguments, and one that the public can readily comprehend.

  34. So this doofus puts together a video to visualize methane plagues causing Warmageddon that his own Global Warming bible refutes. What a bozo. Yet ten to fifteen thousand of the world’s penultimate hypocrites will burn thousands of tons of fossil fuels flying to Paris, being chauffeured around, and staying and meeting in comfortably climate controlled hotels and auditoriums for a useless “climate conference” in 2015 that bozo wants us to support. Is this not close to the most stupid, most idiotic thing one can imagine?

  35. It is really sad to watch those who ordinarily espouse separation of church and state acting like a cheap backwoods preacher.
    All that’s left is to wait for dogs and cats to start living together.

  36. given the track record of the IPCC….if they say methane release is “very unlikely”….watch out!!

  37. “Jimbo says:
    October 13, 2013 at 8:05 am
    “Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
    IPCC
    http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
    I see this argument levelled at me all the time by alarmists because the atmosphere is mostly CO2. More CO2 = more warming, more warming breaches a “tipping point” leading to a runaway GHE etc etc. Well, Mars *also* has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, but it’s so cold there. Excluding planetary distances, I suggest they go look up some gas laws, that have been around and proven for a couple of hundred years, in particular the ones relating to pressure and temperature. The surface temperature of Venus is stable for the conditions ON Venus. There is no runaway GHE. I learnt this when I was 8.

  38. I see this argument levelled at me all the time by alarmists because the atmosphere is mostly CO2.

    Read that and had to chuckle. That was a mistake in wording wasn’t it? Or maybe that meant the alarmists were saying our atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide… now that makes more sense. The way it stands, I seem to be able to read it either way and you think that. 😉

  39. I guess it could be read either way however, in context it relates to the Venus analogy in the IPCC document Jimbo linked to. Alarmists who I’ve talked with mention Venus and how CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere is “causing” a greenhouse warming runaway effect while ignoring IPCC’s own statement that that is not likely due to says…a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”.

  40. Ah, you were speaking of Venus’s atmopshere. Couldn’t gather that from the context, but that sentence did stand out and thought it may need attension. 😉

  41. wayne:
    This thread is about a video which presents alarmist nonsense as though the AGW-scare were still at its height although natural events have forced even the IPCC to admit the worst AGW fears are “unlikely”.
    I write in hope of helping you in your future endeavours.
    When attempting concern trolling it is necessary to be credible in what you write.
    But your post at October 14, 2013 at 1:37 am says in total

    Ah, you were speaking of Venus’s atmopshere. Couldn’t gather that from the context, but that sentence did stand out and thought it may need attension. 😉

    Sorry, but “that sentence” was very clear from its context.
    And your misrepresentation of “that sentence” is also clear from its context: i.e. you were trying to deflect the thread onto discussion of semantic trivia and away from the reality that ‘scary videos’ about AGW are now laughable.
    Richard

  42. “wayne says:
    October 14, 2013 at 1:37 am”
    Ok, my spelling and syntax may have been off, I was not wearing my glasses (That’s my excuse and I am sticking to it) however, it’s clear, to me at least, that I am making reference to Venus (As the IPPC are too in the linked article) and runaway warming “induced by anthropogenic activities” (On Earth).
    Every alarmist, and I mean *every* alarmist focuses on the CO2 component and the amount in tonnes humans are adding and then, mention Venus (Ignoring Mars), tipping points and “runaway warming”. They always ignore physical realities such as volume and pressure in relation to temperature. Earth, ~1bar with 0.039% CO2 (Nice). Venus, ~95bar with ~95% CO2 (Hot). Mars, 0.005bar, ~95% CO2 (Cold). CO2 on Earth is clearly NOT a problem!

  43. The disconnect doesn’t matter to the principal warmists. People like David Suzuki have already decried the current IPCC as flawed, better in its earliest days, not true to the data that says we shall all burn in hell before we die.
    The important point in the eco-green argument, one that hasn’t changed since the 1800s, is that the Earth cannot sustain our lifestyle at our numbers. Whether CO2 finishes us is not relevant: if it isn’t CO2, it will be ocean acidification, or lack of fresh water, or manmade or man-concentrated diseases or global wars resulting from the stresses of too many people going after not enough resources. Erhlich, Strong, Suzuki, the Sierra Club/Greenpeace etc (I don’t include the opportunistic Gore-Hanse-Mann triplets) all come from the same position: our lifestyle as a consuming, industrialized, secular (vs naturalistic-pagan) society is a deadend for our species. We will not outlive what we do to the world.
    The rejection of the IPCC as too conservative by the self-appointed moral leaders of the dayis a wonderful sign that meaningful social and economic adjustments to the globe will not happen. When your prophets rail against the ones they first set up to lead the people to salvation, you know they have become too extreme (or always had an agenda they didn’t share with you). It is reminiscient of the axiom about the first act of the revolution: to kill the revolutionaries.

  44. You’ve got it backwards. Now that the IPCC has been rebuked by the grey literature, it will have to fall into line.

  45. Doug Proctor says:
    October 14, 2013 at 10:41 am
    “The rejection of the IPCC as too conservative by the self-appointed moral leaders of the dayis a wonderful sign that meaningful social and economic adjustments to the globe will not happen. When your prophets rail against the ones they first set up to lead the people to salvation, you know they have become too extreme (or always had an agenda they didn’t share with you). It is reminiscient of the axiom about the first act of the revolution: to kill the revolutionaries.”
    Doug, the separation between the flat-out lunatics like Suzuki or Mann vs. the IPCC is not real. It is a dialectic. The role of the lunatics is to make the IPCC appear sane.
    You set up the thesis (IPCC) and the antithesis (lunatics) and arrive at your preconceived synthesis (something somewhat more insane than the IPCC).
    Repeat this over and over again and you shift the perception of the mindless populace straight into insanity. (These days, homosexuality is taught to Kindergarten kids, for instance, and the seculars think that that is sane.)

  46. I find it interesting 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is real and caused by man yet 99% of you dopes disagree with them.

  47. Ditto to you Louie V. If we were in any other country, all these goofy comments wouldn’t be appearing. But we’re in America where Fox News and the Heartland Institute can create fake information to counter anything in the science world. The Heartland Institute has supposed true scientists, like Fred Singer or Seitz. These same scientists often quoted on Fox and Limbaugh are the same guys who denied cancer could be caused by cigarrettes and said second hand smoke wasn’t harmful. Back then, they worked for another “think tank” funded by other super rich people who wanted to sell harmful products….and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was debunked? That’s a new one on me. How about National Geographic’s “Six Degrees Could Change the World” created in 2012? Was that also debunked by the Heartland Institute?

  48. It’s too bad none of these naysayers actually listen to Hartmann on a regular basis. Calling him a “Bozo” and other names is not an argument. You’ve probably never listened to him debate conservatives on his show on a huge range of issues. He is well respected in the political punditry community and well versed debater. Enough said, I think he is the smartest talk show host out there and that’s not because I share his politics which I do. I also have respect for a few right wing talk show hosts. So again, calling him a dummy or any other names shows you have no real argument and that the sources you listen to have dumbed down our discourse. Truly sad. 🙁

  49. Adam,
    Wake up and read the article. It is Hartmann who was debunked.
    You write:
    If we were in any other country, all these goofy comments wouldn’t be appearing.
    So you crave the censorship of opinions other than your own, little dictator wannabe that you are. But it is alarmist blogs that do the censoring. That is because they do not have a leg to stand on scientifically. Lame head-nodding mouth breathers like you are the only ones who populate alarmist blogs, because they censor the uncomfortable scientific truth posted by skeptics.
    It’s clear you crave national censorship. Sad, and un-American. But that would be the only way you could prevail in your pseudo-science. And your stupid “second hand smoke” nonsense has been deconstructed here too many times to mention. Search the archives, read, and see how wrong you are.
    Run along now to whatever echo chamber you get your talking points from. The adults will handle things here.

  50. Does this mean Mr. Watts and his colleagues have given up trying to misrepresent, and otherwise punch little fact-holes in the IPCC AR5?

  51. Sue and Fukishima is not melting down either. Thomm Hartmannn is the smartest guy talking on the radio and quite successful. Hartmann has had many very successful business ventures and has written may very smart, thoughtful and fact based books. He has no need to peddle video’s for money besides that is not what drives this man of integrity. When you can buy scientists you can buy the science those in the dirty energy busines have a vested interest in the people of the world not understanding the destuction their greed has brought upon us and all of our future generations.

  52. Let me get this straight,
    when the IPCC says that global warming is real (as in Gore’s movie), they’re wrong
    but when the IPCC (seems to) says that methane can’t bubble up out of the ocean, they’re right.
    You guys are hilarious.

  53. Oh, so now you deniers BELIEVE the IPCC?!
    Can you keep it straight — or is it that you only support/believe that which backs-up your own belief system? Unfuckingbelievable.
    REPLY: No, that’s’ your anonymous, angry, take on it. We simply think this is one thing they got right int he report. There are a couple of other things, but much of the reports is deeply flawed, such as their radiation imbalance. – Anthony

  54. @gettingonmysoapbox
    How about this.
    #1 – There are no deniers here
    #2 – The scientists here seek the truth wherever it can be found
    #3 – Only ignorant superstitious people fear the truth because of the source
    Just for the record, you fit #3 to a Tee

  55. Table 12.4 is being widely cited in the blogosphere because it downplays the probability of all near-term catastrophes. However, all this proves is that, thanks to government-appointed reviewers, the IPCC remains overly-optimistic. However, if so, this falsifies the notion that environmental alarmism is a scientific conspiracy; and renders the Heartland Institute’s NIPCC completely redundant.
    William Nordhaus does not seem so optimistic: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/

  56. Given that conservatives should be into conservation, why is that anyone who says that the Earth has a finite capacity to recycle our waste products (such as all the geospehric carbon we are adding to the biosphere as CO2) must be labelled “lefty”? James Delingpole’s Watermelon fallacy is childish and anti-scientific fairy tale: All sparrows are birds but not all birds are sparrows.

  57. Apologies for my typing error: “geospheric” = fossilised = carbon that has not been in the biosphere for millions of years and takes millions of years to be taken out of circulation too (which is why burning it is such a problem). Asserting the efficacy of the Law of Conservation of Mass is not a left-wing thing to do either!

  58. Having downloaded both the SPM and Chapter 12 as PDFs, I have at last found Table 12.4 lurking in the middle of the chapter. Table SPM.1 (p. SPM-23) examines the probability of extreme weather events increasing in frequency (and is generally very pessimistic). Table 12.4 (p. 12-78) examines the potential of rapid, non-linear, catastrophic and irreversible changes (and is generally very optimistic). Having read the text, I still find the juxtaposition of these two Tables makes very little sense. This is because:
    1. The conclusions presented in Table SPM.1 appear entirely reasonable given the analysis of historical data such as that presented in the ‘Climate Dice’ paper by Hansen et al. last year.
    2. The conclusions presented in Table 12.4 appear totally counter-factual given that the Greenland Icecap is now melting at least six times faster than it was only a decade ago (i.e. 1990s average compared to 2000s average) – a pattern repeated with the vast majority of the Earth’s glaciers (i.e. some having retreated as far in the last decade as they did in the entire 20th Century).
    The latter indicates that rapid, non-linear changes are already happening; and it is very hard to justify disputing that they will be anything other than irreversible and catastrophic (although buying shares in reverse osmosis/desalination companies could be a smart move for all you technological optimists out there).

  59. Martin Lack says:
    October 27, 2013 at 10:38 am
    Why would you assume changes to be irreversible & catastrophic which have occurred so many times in the past? Retreating glaciers around the world have revealed remnants of plants that grew there during & human artifacts from the Medieval, Roman & Minoan Warm Periods & the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which were subsequently covered up by advancing ice.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jq06XaBVeoFDw8ema5tW2JrEl1mg
    The above is marred by the obligatory quoting of UN’s CACA spewers suggesting without basis that glacial retreat will continue until at least 2100. That may or may not happen, but there is no compelling reason to assume that it will. Climate always changes, so why assume that the trend of the moment will continue, especially as temperature & CO2 trends have so dramatically diverged since c. 1996?

Comments are closed.