It needs catastrophe scenarios to sell their ideas
By Rupert Darwall (writing at NRO)
With the clock ticking toward December 2015 and the last chance to conclude a global treaty at the Paris climate conference, the job of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to ratchet up the alarm. This it did in its report, released at the beginning of the week, on the impacts of climate change. It scored a bull’s-eye in the Financial Times: “Climate change harms food crops, says IPCC,” the headline ran. “Climate Signals, Growing Louder,” the New York Times opined, though the reality is that the volume is being turned up by the IPCC, not the climate itself. For the IPCC, this is mission accomplished — at considerable cost to the body’s residual credibility and integrity.
The IPCC’s Working Group II, tasked with assessing the risks and impacts of climate change, could have chosen to make amends for its previous effort in 2007, which was widely panned for bias and numerous errors. Such was the outcry over the 2007 report that the Dutch parliament ordered the country’s Environmental Assessment Agency to carry out an audit. It found that the working group was dismissive of the potential benefits of climate change, and it criticized the group’s process for being insufficiently transparent.
…
Its most eye-catching claim (in the new WGII report) is that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields are more common to date than positive impacts are. [Note: covered here at WUWT -Anthony]
This improbable claim finds only the weakest support in the main body of the report, with its qualification that climate change played a “minor role.” It is, the report states, “extremely difficult” to define a clear baseline from which to assess the impact of climate change, and many non-climate factors are often difficult to quantify.
More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports.
In attempting to attribute changes in farm output to climate change, the IPCC makes heavy use of models linking climate to agriculture, most of which assume that farmers don’t change their behavior as the climate changes.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374742/why-ipcc-report-neglects-benefits-global-warming-rupert-darwall
============================================================
Rupert Darwall is the author of The Age of Global Warming: A History.
Having read it, I highly recommend it. – Anthony
CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
IPCC is an inter government organisation that has the ‘last word’ on the already tightly directed reports based on 12,000 reports done by researchers for free [personally i would have felt like a ‘useful idiot’ doing political work for free for the govt hiding behind the mask of ‘science’ even if i did a get a nobel prize]
the ipcc do as they are told so who is doing the telling? who is the wizard of oz conducting this show trial of co2 to sell social ecology?
Actually, IPCC AR5 is a huge walkback from AR4. On the level of Napoleon’s walkback from Moscow.
If we see any more “advances to the rear” like this, they will disappear up their own rear.
For the skeptics, AR5 is what victory looks like. These things take time. After all, Rome wasn’t burnt in a day.
evanmjones says:
April 2, 2014 at 8:49 am
Actually, IPCC AR5 is a huge walkback from AR4.
Yeah, a “walkback” being promoted as “it is worse than we thought”.
Any admission of the benefits of global warming or the benefits of higher atmospheric CO2 levels will cause debate and the IPCC folks, as we all know, do not want that.
evanmjones says:
April 2, 2014 at 8:49 am
Actually, IPCC AR5 is a huge walkback from AR4. On the level of Napoleon’s walkback from Moscow.
If we see any more “advances to the rear” like this, they will disappear up their own rear.
For the skeptics, AR5 is what victory looks like. These things take time. After all, Rome wasn’t burnt in a day.
Unfortunately, the authors of the ‘Summary‘ for Policymakers are prepared to misrepresent what science there is in the WG reports in order to keep the gullible media publishing unsupported scare stories. The UN and politicians are fully aware that nobody reads the actual reports so they will continue to claim that ‘The Science’ provides full support for their malthusian policies based only on the reported ‘summary’. The main loser here is Science as trust in science is inexorably destroyed.
Re Ian W. “The main loser here is Science as trust in science is inexorably destroyed.” You are right, ‘science’ is now about non-science, alchemy, quackery, palm-reading, shouting, grant $, tenure, and fear-mongering to build up ever-more governmental control over the peasants. A true dark-age. Climate is a convection system, with about 1 million many:many relationships, a fact I remember learning in grade 9 science. IPCC + warmtards = grade 8 level thinking.
@Evan Jones. I enjoyed that. No, Rome wasn’t burnt in a day. But it certainly did burn 😉
Huge benefits,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
So sad to see science used this way, but it is life as usual. Those seeking more power will use anything they think will give them more power.
How about this, from the International Food Policy Research Institute:
http://www.ifpri.org/pressrelease/agricultural-technologies-could-increase-global-crop-yields-much-67-percent-and-cut-foo
AR5 WG2 is actually reasonable in many of the details. I have been scrutinizing 4.3.2.5 on extinctions for a different purpose. But the summaries up get increasingly biased and distorted, so that by the SPM the statements made bear almost no relationship to the underlying information.
The detailed extinctions text recignizes many other causes, that the only climate ‘evidence’ in the literature is in central American amphibians, and that the attribution there is dubious because of invasive fungal disease chytrodiomycisis. Yet the SPM still talks about mass climate change driven extinctions. The only climb down was not providing a percentage estimate as in AR4 (since that is provably wrong). Just like no AR5 ECS estimate, because it would have been revised substantially downwards. The PR is worse than the SPM, and the SPM is much worse than the underlying actual evidence supports.
Next up for detailed scrutiny will be ocean acidification (corals and calcification).
Global warming = longer growing season = more production.
Global cooling = shorter growing season = less production.
The devastating effects of a cooling climate are well known.
evanmjones says:
If we see any more “advances to the rear” like this, they will disappear up their own rear.
Great visual, thanks for that. The IPCC is climbing down, and it must be very painful. But they were completely wrong, and they must acknowledge it. Otherwise, they will look like swivel-eyed fanatics, impervious to scientific evidence.
But not so with their True Believers, who have invested their time, their money, their reputations, and their egos in the carbon scare. Those people are being cast adrift by their Authority’s climbdown. This will make them really go ballistic, because they are incapable of admitting they were wrong. We see it here all the time.
The fact is that CO2 is harmless. There is no scientific evidence showing any global harm due to the rise in that tiny trace gas – from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000, over a century and a half. It has made no measurable difference at all. Global T is not rising, but Michael Mann is still insisting that carbon is gonna getcha.
CO2 is not only harmless, it is also very beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. The planet is measurably greening as a direct result of increased CO2.
That fact puts the alarmist cult in an unbearable position. All of their predictions have turned out to be wrong. The only results of more “carbon” are beneficial results. There is no identifiable downside.
The IPCC needs to climb the rest of the way down. That will require a few more IPCC scientists to publicly admit what the rest of us know: the IPCC was simply wrong.
Ottmar Edenhofer knows the real IPCC agenda — and it isn’t to protect humanity and the biosphere from ‘carbon’. The IPCC exists to legitimize expropriating the earned wealth of U.S. and Western citizens, and hand it over to those who didn’t earn it. The IPCC just needed an excuse. Fortunately, Planet Earth is sticking their excuse right where it belongs.
From the article:
Perhaps the recent crop of juvenile delinquents didn’t know about the effects of some of their predecessors’ policies. We should give them an “off-ramp”
The IPCC will be proven wrong by what really happens in the weather and overall climate of the earth. Unfortunately, most of us now living more than likely will not be around to see that day. The IPCC is becoming wise by making more cautious and long-term predictions.
The only climb down was not providing a percentage estimate as in AR4 (since that is provably wrong).
Don’t let’s forget how AR5 SPM gave “extreme weather” the old heave-ho.
That was huge.
The IPCC is climbing down, and it must be very painful.
I feel their pain. And I confess I am finding it enjoyable.
Maybe some day the IPCC will invite some farmers to submit their thoughts for inclusion in the next official report. Oh, wait… farmers are too busy to waste time on that kind of nonsense. Never mind.
/snark
Rud Istvan says:
Agreed.
“The Large Print Giveth, the Small Print Taketh Away.”
We see again a familiar pattern in this round of IPCC releases, this time the WGII SPM and Report. As previously, the SPM features alarming statements, which are then second-guessed (undermined) by the actual science imbedded in the report details.
For example, I looked the topic of ocean acidification and fish productivity. The SPM asserts on Page 17 that fish habitats and production will fall and that ocean acidification threatens marine ecosystems.
WGII Report, Chapter 6 covers Ocean Systems. There we find more nuance and objectivity:
“Few field observations conducted in the last decade demonstrate biotic responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification” pg 4
“Due to contradictory observations there is currently uncertainty about the future trends of major upwelling systems and how their drivers (enhanced productivity, acidification, and hypoxia) will shape ecosystem characteristics (low confidence).” Pg 5
“Both acclimatization and adaptation will shift sensitivity thresholds but the capacity and limits of species to acclimatize or adapt remain largely unknown” Pg 23
“Production, growth, and recruitment of most but not all non-calcifying
seaweeds also increased at CO2 levels from 700 to 900 µatm Pg 25
“Contributions of anthropogenic ocean acidification to climate-induced alterations in the field have rarely been established and are limited to observations in individual species” Pg. 27
“To date, very few ecosystem-level changes in the field have been attributed to anthropogenic or local ocean acification.” Pg 39
I am finding much more credible the Senate Testimony of John T. Everett, in which he said:
“There is no reliable observational evidence of negative trends that can be traced definitively to lowered pH of the water. . . Papers that herald findings that show negative mpacts need to be dismissed if they used acids rather than CO2 to reduce alkalinity, if they simulated CO2 values beyond triple those of today, while not reporting results at concentrations of half, present, double and triple, or as pointed out in several studies, they did not investigate adaptations over many generations.”
“In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling and pH (ocean pH about 8.1) changes are a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling (pH about 7.59-7.8) appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater (pH about 4-6) into an estuary.”
They are sounding ever more like panicked politicians.
To say the IPCC is climbing down is to have not read the chapters on adaptation. IPCC is calling on local levels from mayors to regional commissions to school districts to regulatory frameworks to implement its human development , anti-inequality, look out for developing countries and impoverished groups approaches to get to equity without so much as a By Your Leave.
Chapter 20 even says “In considering possible needs for transformational pathways, extreme weather occurrences such as major floods, wildfires, cyclones and heat waves may focus societal attention on vulnerabilities and stressors and provide a ‘policy window’ for major changes.”
What is being changed first in the name of Climate Change and adaptation are values, beliefs, capabilities [levelling], deference to indigenous beliefs, and other aspects of what the report admits are human behaviors and the current socio-economic and political systems.
Well, CO2 levels are up and the weeds are taking over my yard. It is a terrible problem. I have to hire people to come pull the weeds to keep up.
It continues to baffle me that the ACGW crowd keeps saying that increased CO2 levels will cause declines in crop yields. And they say skeptics are “anti-science”!
Increased CO2 levels are how you improve crop yields. Anyone who asserts otherwise is going against settled science.
My bold in the quote below:
“Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
Because “benefit” does not equate to “risk”, expecting UN documents to acknowledge anything positive would not be in keeping with their directive.
A longer tomato ripening season would be a benefit. Not there. See?
Ron C. says:
April 2, 2014 at 10:47 am
“I am finding much more credible the Senate Testimony of John T. Everett, ”
That, I think, is this (15 page PDF; dated May 11, 2010; with charts, photos, and references):
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16
I have never been a fan of dishonesty. Even the so called benefits of a little white lie are dubious at best. Many people, including myself, will lie out of fear and ignorance. While those lies have no redeeming value, they are at least understandable. But the blatant, manipulative, premeditated lying for the purpose of screwing people over, just makes my skin crawl. Its lying with a hefty helping of narcissism; where the liar feels completely justified in lying because they feel so superior and view everyone else as too stupid to matter. History tells us that these kinds of liars cause the most human disruption, including economic suffering, physical suffering and death.
First came the AR5 SPM and yesterday (here in the US) we witnessed the Obamacare miracle, where the complete debacle of the Affordable Health Care Act is miraculously transformed into a vibrant, shining example of Washington benevolence for the rest of the country. Of course, all the numbers were generated by the perpetrators, much like the AR5 numbers. And in both cases, the media immediately treats the numbers like Gospel, even when they are so obviously blatant lies told by blatant liars with a long history of blatantly lying!
My gobsmacked meter is pegged,
Even those who recognize the complete dishonesty still use caution and respect as they unfold the charade, saying things like “Time will tell if these numbers will hold up or not.” or, “There is very little evidence to support these claims.”
It is time to be blatantly honest about all of these liars. It is time to precede every discussion about the liars with the simple truth: They are lying for the sole purpose of controlling us, and the only reason why they think they will get away with it is that, up to this point, we have let them get away with it. It is time to call lies what they are…lies. They are not mistaken or confused. They are lying.
Do you really think that Richard Tol was the only one who understood the level of dishonesty in the AR5 report? I am quite sure that everyone involved is too intelligent to think that they actually published the best the science has to offer. Everyone of them knows they are lying to the world, but somehow rationalizes that elite control of the masses is justified, despite its dismal and deadly failure throughout human history.
Yesterday’s headlines gleefully shouted that 7.1 million uninsured have signed up for Obamacare. A far more honest and accurate headline would read: ‘Obama and the Media Hope American People Are Morons While Making Outrageous Unsupportable Claims!’ For climate change, simply substitute the ‘IPCC’ for ‘Obama’ and ‘global population’ for ‘American People’.
So far, the young men in their crisp uniforms carrying their shiny rifles are not herding us into railroad cars, but the are building fences, polishing their guns and pressing their trousers.
‘For the IPCC, this is mission accomplished — at considerable cost to the body’s residual credibility and integrity.’
Integrity? when did they EVER accrue any of that commodity?
And just what Global Temperature do the cretins in the IPCC think is best?
Today’s?
That 200 years ago?
At the Holocene Optimum?
In the middle of the last Ice Age?
The Earth’s bioproductivity at these different times should give these numpties a clue.
I think it’s time to remind the IPCC about the disadvantages of one cold climate period. Would you want to be around at this time or during the “hottest decade evahhhhh?”
SOME EFFECTS OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE.
Soured from Google Scholar and Google search engine.
Rupert Darwall (at NRO),
Your article begs a most fundament question; why did the IPCC charter exclude the assessment of benefits from anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuels?
That is the key question that needs to be answered.
My thought leads me to answer that question not in a trivial political context but a broader context of the philosophy of science. The charter for the IPCC seems to be based on a postmodern philosophy concept of science along with post-normal science view. I think those two theories have created a new prototype of science process and purpose which I think is embodied in the IPCC assessment process and goals. The new science they emulate is for science to serve as compliant handmaiden to ‘prove’ a desired ‘a priori’ premise. The new science concept is not to understand reality objectively; it is to provide only research that proves a desired predetermined view.
To remove the subjective and myopic new concept of science from the IPCC then there needs to be a new charter for the IPCC based on the traditional theory of science as objective finder of reality with total openness and transparency.
John
On food to fuel here is corn: “40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol”, yet the IPCC misses this.
Higher food prices and possible starvation are the remedies for the global warming disease. The ‘cure’ is worse than the disease without actually curing it!
Blatant misrepresentation with clear intent that in a just world would throw the perpetrators in prison for the harm caused.
Not just to the minds of the brainwashed and the trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet to hijack science and put it into the hands of zealots with a fraudulent cause but to the lives of those that will suffer in measurable ways from ruinous policies that they are trying to force on the world…….ironically, for the false claim that they are trying to save that world.
Increasing CO2 is the best thing that has happened to the biosphere and vegetative health of this planet in the last 200 years.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
Just like the Fire triangle:
http://www.timcorubber.com/images/resources/fire-triangle.gif
there’s a Photosynthesis triangle:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2f0al9s.jpg
Photosynthesis triangle update:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2hcgvgi.jpg
The thing is the more trees and plants that grow the more CO2 they absorb but also throw out oxygen. It’s a natural cycle, but they need rain and nitrogen too. If the balance is right they grow better or if it is lacking in some element, they don’t grow as much. Such as in winter deciduous trees go dormant when they lose their leaves, and even evergreens don’t grow much either till the soil warms up in spring. I know folks I grow bonsai.
Jimbo says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:44 pm
On food to fuel here is corn: “40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol”, yet the IPCC misses this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did they? What makes you think that isn’t part of the plan? An unintended but beneficial consequence to their stated mandate (from their perspective)? Dunno. Just speculating.
Some have suggested IPCC and their directors have that much forward thinking. I doubt it since reading the previous two SPM’s and AR’s, I believe they don’t think that people will see the disconnect. Con men like Maurice Strong however, do have the ability to think long term big picture.
But the MSM sure won’t see the disconnect and its been there in black and white all along. Trouble is, almost all the media just quotes the press releases, AP and Reuters and never read the original information. The SPM maybe, but surely not the WG’s. And given many of the elevated discussions on this site that include higher mathematics and statistics, there isn’t a snowballs chance in H that graduates from journalism will have a clue and won’t wade through the AR’s to see what they say compared to the SPM’s.
It’s been years since I used any higher level math or statistics so I trust that reading the reviews here will be sufficient. I have a decent B.S. meter so I can get a pretty good feeling of what is likely to work and what won’t along with 50+ years of engineering, construction and business experience.
I’m not big on conspiracy theories. But as Patrick Moore in his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” notes, a small group of dedicated people can indeed affect change. However as he also noted, it doesn’t matter if you are Castro, Mao, Che Guevara, Ghandi, Mandela or Greenpeace; success or perceived success changes what you are as new people join the group. Organizations become organic and take on a life of their own, they become “great machines”.
Love your detailed list of references, Jimbo. Thanks to you and many others here for my continuing education.
What the use of talking benefits of Global Warming when the warming doesn’t materialize.
Are we taking facts or are we in the business of making short stories long?
Just asking.
From GWPF April 3, 2014: Matt Ridley: The IPCC Just Agreed With Nigel Lawson
… But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all.
…
Lawson pointed out that adaptation had six obvious benefits as a strategy, which mitigation did not share. [ I reformat to a list ]
It required no international treaty, but would work if adopted unilaterally;
it could be applied locally;
it would produce results quickly;
it could capture any benefits of warming while avoiding risks;
it addressed existing problems that were merely exacerbated by warming;
and it would bring benefits even if global warming proves to have been exaggerated.
…
It is remarkable how far this latest report moves towards Lawson’s position. Professor Field, who seems to be an eminently sensible chap, clearly strove to emphasise adaptation, if only because the chance of an international agreement on emissions looks ever less likely. ….
….
… Chapter 20 even acknowledges that ‘in some cases mitigation may impede adaptation (e.g., reduced energy availability in countries with growing populations)’. A crucial point, this: that preventing the poor from getting access to cheap electricity from coal might make them more vulnerable to climate change. So green policies may compound the problem they seek to solve.
…
In short, there is a great deal in this report to like. It has, moreover, toned down the alarm considerably. …. New Scientist noticed that ‘the report has even watered down many of the more confident predictions that appeared in the leaked drafts’.
Last night I caught on the Nat. Public Radio: The TED Radio Hour, the piece about Allen Savory: How Can Deserts Turn Into Grasslands? WUWT covered this last year (March 8, 2013 A Bridge in the Climate Debate: How to Green the Worlds Deserts and Reverse Climate Change
From the TED Radio Hour Blog: “[Desertification] is mostly caused by livestock. Everyone knows this, says Savory. Scientists have known it for decades. Livestock damage the land, leading to dry ground, leading to desert. This makes sense, and turns out to be quite wrong.
Juxtapose for a moment two euphonies:
1. Allan Savory once was responsible for causing a horrifying act of eugenics, the killing of 40,000 elephants and other pachyderms, in order to “save” the grasslands of the new African National Parks. But he found out the problem only got worse. It was the wrong solution. The proper course is to promote LARGER herds, greater density of foraging animals and carnivores, that migrate to keep from eating grass soiled by their own dung.
2. The shift from AR4 to AR5, as expressed above in the Matt Ridley GWPF piece today. The message of AR4 was to save the planet we must commit “before it is too late” to a ruinously expensive, totally ineffectual, steal from the poor to subsidize the rich, totalitarian, collectivist, world-government-necessary, kill-if-we-have-to, pipedream of climate mitigation via carbon pollution control and transforming society to renewable resources by force. AR5, according to Matt Ridley, is much more favorable to the idea that adaption is superior to mitigation because it is cheaper, more likely to work, requires less coordination, and works whether it will get warmer, colder, drier, or wetter.
Just as it was folly to decimate elephant herds to save the savannah despite the herds of environmentalists who felt it necessary if tragic, it was and is today folly to support the decimation of this planet’s human population and wealth in vain plans of mitigation to save the climate.
CAGW Skeptics should take this opportunity to embrace AR5 WGII, at least important parts of it, as a victory. “At last, some signs of intelligence and humanity emanating from the IPCC!” Adaption instead of mitigation. It’s what we have been saying all along.
The political jujutsu possibilities that arise by using the AR5 to support the Skeptic viewpoint could be powerful.
Here is the true UN/IPCC agenda:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~Ottmar Edenhofer, Chair, IPCC WG-3
Science has nothing to do with it. Science is the false veneer laid over the UN’s intent to get it’s fingers into the pockets of ordinary citizens.
What we need are more honest scientists, who are willing to speak out. This is difficult, because as Upton Sinclair wrote:
It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.
Difficult, but not impossible. There are enough scientists involved with the IPCC that there must be a few who put honesty above their paycheck. Dr. Tol is one. There must be others. Because the entire carbon scare is based on pseudo-science. That has to bother scientists who were raised to be honest.
Errata to my 9:55 am above:
Juxtapose for a moment two
euphoniesepiphanies:One of the sotto voce admissions of the Warmists is that CC is likely to be beneficial up to some limit, and only then turn negative. The “limit” is pulled out of thin air, or rectally polluted air, and even then contains a fallacy. The cumulative benefits up to that flexion will, by definition, have fortified the economy and world to deal with any negatives that follow it. Possibly by a significant margin (ratios of 50:1 or more have been suggested).