Pittsburgh Tribune editorial calls the IPCC 'climate-clucking Chicken Littles'

Slowly, sanity is returning as witnessed by this pragmatic editorial on Sept 2nd:

chicken-little

The world’s loudest climate-clucking Chicken Littles foresee grain harvests diminishing, Greenland’s ice sheet melting, sea levels rising and extreme weather increasing. And there’s less time than ever to head off disaster by submitting to IPCC orthodoxy.

But even the loudest clucking can’t drown out contrary facts. U.S. temperatures haven’t risen in a decade. Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Prior warming was within natural variability. The IPCC’s main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, isn’t a pollutant. And humanity’s climate impact is negligible, so top-down “solutions” are pointless and economically harmful, as shown by Australia repealing its carbon tax in favor of voluntary clean-energy incentives.

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Pittsburgh Tribune editorial calls the IPCC 'climate-clucking Chicken Littles'

  1. Hey, that is GREAT, An-tho-ny!
    GO, PITTSBURGH!
    (and GO SEAHAWKS!! — both teams to the Super Bowl….
    Seattle 42 Pittsburgh 41)
    #(:))
    A tribute to that wonderful town,
    home of an EXCELLENT EDITOR!
    “You Know You’re from Pittsburgh If…”

    • I grew up in the South but moved from Orlando to Pittsburgh in 74 to get a thousand miles from my mother-in-law and have been here since. It is a friendly place.
      I never got into the yinz all though from time-to-time I do slip and say ya’ll. The one that got to me in you video link was the one that said you will talk to people who dial a wrong number. I do that once in a while. My home number is close to the number for the Plum Senior Center so I get calls quite often.
      Thanks for the smile.

      • Charplum,
        Thank you for saying so. I’m glad and you’re welcome.
        THAT (the talking with wrong numbers) was the one thing I REALLY WONDERED ABOUT! Where I grew up and am still living (about an hour north of Seattle, WA), people are too dismayed at having made a mistake and at having bothered someone and VERY quickly apologize and get off the phone (after any clarifications are made) in a polite hurry. That’s neat that yinz (from “you ‘uns,” I’m guessing…) are so friendly.
        And it IS “pop.” Soda is what some people add to their whiskey.
        Thanks for giving ME a smile this morning,
        Janice

    • Peter
      “Owned by fossil fuel billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife
      I could not help noticing this in your reply. Do you apply the same description to Tom Steyer who is funding democrats to stand against the pipeline from Canada?
      To be truthful, I do not know how Scaife acquired his wealth. It is clear your intention was to denigrate the man. All I would ask for is that you be consistent.

  2. The temperature is more likely to rise 1deg by Jan than the Pittsburgh making it to the Super Bowl. Nice thought behind you post though.

  3. Top Leaders From China, India to Skip UN Climate Change Summit
    Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi will be absent from the September 23 world leaders’ summit on climate change.
    Reports indicate that neither Chinese President Xi Jinping nor Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi plan to attend a U.N. summit of world leaders on climate change. The Climate Summit 2014, to be held on September 23 in New York, was organized by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “to galvanize and catalyze climate action.” U.S. President Barack Obama, as well as other leaders from developed nations, are expected to attend, but the absence of leaders from the world’s two largest developing nations has some worried that the summit will fall flat.
    http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/top-leaders-from-china-india-to-skip-un-climate-change-summit/

    • Russia and the BASIC countries will become the new economic order. The OECD countries can either cooperate or else go fly a kite

    • “Reports indicate that neither Chinese President Xi Jinping nor Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi plan to attend a U.N. summit of world leaders on climate change. The Climate Summit 2014, to be held on September 23 in New York, was organized by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “to galvanize and catalyze climate action.”
      Is this what is called, in the USA, as a “cluster-cluck”?

    • There will be many other nations that will not attend. They are recognizing that the AGW theory is a hoax as the temperatures did not increases as expected from the IPCC–AGW scientists phony computer models.

  4. “Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years.”

    I’m beginning to thing Gaia has a sense of humor. Alarmists thought they had every possibility covered when they stopped using “global warming” and switched to “climate change.” That’s because either an upward or a downward trend in temperature is indicative of a changing climate. A flat temperature trend, on the other hand, is the only thing that doesn’t raise concern. It’s getting harder and harder to alarm the world about climate change when the climate hasn’t changed in 17 years.

    • From the ClimateGate emails, they were already very very nervous by AR4 (circa 1997).
      They knew then temps had stopped rising for 5-7 years and were concerned enough to change global warming to climate change. Problem is they had beat the “Global Warming” meme so thoroughly in the public consciousness that there is no retraction possible on that meme.

      • I refuse to use the phrase “Climate Change.” The people who got attention by using the words “Global Warming” should not be allowed to wiggle out from under the weight of their own folly.

    • The earth quits warming so they change the mantra to “climate change”. Surely they can point to any extreme event and blame Man. But then a funny thing happened: nothing. Tornadoes aren’t more frequent; Hurricanes and cyclones are down, wildfires down, floods down, droughts down, world crops are doing well if not increasing, world ice normal, sea level rise not increasing. How depressing this must be!
      The only things interesting happening all point to a cooling world. More world ice, colder winters, cooler summers, more snow.

      • “wildfires down, floods down, droughts down, world crops are doing well if not increasing”
        So you admit there is Climate Change!
        /sarc

    • Next year it will be 18 years.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months/
      All the talk of extreme weather trends getting worse has been gently plucked from outta their arses. The only thing they can say is that atmospheric co2 is the highest in blah, blah years and the Arctic has been trending down since its last MAXIMUM on the satellite record. The death spiral appears to have ground to a halt and that extra co2 has had one sure effect – greening the biosphere.
      Otherwise there is nothing to see here. Even ocean acidification is the joker’s last card and worthy of laughter.
      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/ocean-acidification-scare-debunked-from.html

  5. Another small sign of a changing political climate, like the first real melt of early spring, when ‘snow drop’ crocus push up to bloom….. A small thing, but portents of better days ahead, m’thinks.

  6. “Slowly, sanity is returning..”
    …“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
    ― Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds c1845

  7. But…………..
    Near the end of the intro it states; “Australia repealing its carbon tax in favor of voluntary clean-energy incentives.”
    Thus the are inferring that CO2 is not “clean” and is a pollutant.
    This is unsatisfactory …. IMO.

    • I work for a major high-tech company in California. They are holding an annual event later this year, and I needed to register for the event. As I went through the online registration process, I got a real chuckle at the very end.
      The last screen to come up had a box that was checked by default, asking me if I wanted to donate $10 of my own funds to offset my C02 that would be added to the atmosphere as a result of my trip. That was enough to offset a coast-to-coast flight and 3 nights of hotel rooms.
      Anthony, that’s a funny state you live in 🙂
      Jim

  8. I refuse to use the phrase “Climate Change.”
    ==============
    I find it works wonders when someone says “Climate Change”, to reply “Oh, you mean Global Warming”. No matter what they say, they have lost the day.
    Do they deny and become a Global Warming Denier? Or, do they agree and then have to defend the name change.
    Why change the name except to hide the decline, to save face? Of course we are all very sympathetic to the scientists and politicians involved, so many predictions gone wrong, so much money down the drain. We all understand it was for a good cause, but of course the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

  9. I am reminded of an old routine done by the Smothers’ Brothers on their variety show. I have amended it in tribute to this editorial:
    My old man’s a Climate Cluckin’ Finger Lickin’ Chicken Plucker,
    What do you think about that?
    (Tommy: You better not make a mistake.
    Dick: Let’s hope not)
    He wears a Climate Cluckin’ Finger Lickin’ Chicken Plucker’s collar,
    He wears a Climate Cluckin’ Finger Lickin’ Chicken Plucker’s hat.
    He wears a Climate Cluckin’ Finger Lickin’ Chicken Plucker’s raincoat,
    He wears a Climate Cluckin’ Finger Lickin’ Chicken Plucker’s shoes.
    And –
    (Tommmy: You’re lucky)
    – every Saturday evening,
    He reads the Climate Cluckin’ News.
    And someday, if I can,
    I’m gonna be a Climate Cluckin’ Finger Lickin’ Chicken Plucker just like my old man.

    • Please note, everyone:
      Janice and Janice Moore are NOT the same person.
      Sincerely, MOST sincerely #(:)),
      Janice (Moore)

      • Should I start all my posts with something like “I am not that other Janice that posts here”? I only ask, because you have done this several times, Janice M., and I don’t want to be pretending to be someone I am not, and it would save you the trouble of distancing yourself from my sometimes irreverent postings. The moderators have become somewhat used to me over these many years, and seldom flag me anymore [thank you, moderators].
        Sincerely,
        “I am not that other Janice that posts here” Janice

      • Hi, Janice,
        Sorry for not responding sooner — just saw your comment about our fine name :),… .
        If you would be willing, I’d be very grateful if you would add a last initial to your name (unless it is “M”, heh) or some other distinguishing prefix or suffix.
        Thanks and KEEP ON POSTING (what you post is just fine, just, sometimes, not “me”…)!
        Janice (Moore)

      • Well, Janice M., I will try using “Janice the Elder” because I already use that in a few other places. Besides, which, that will establish my matronly status, and also excuse some of my posts (hopefully).

      • Oh, Janice, thank you! That was very gracious and kind of you.
        Janice the Elder — I like it!
        You may or may not be my actual elder, but your queenly disposition and lovely, strong, personality, makes the title a perfect fit.
        Janice, Junior (lolololo)

      • “… make the title… .”
        (pride and concern for the English-not-first-language WUWT readers….. (ahem) mostly pride (eye roll))

  10. The concluding sentence of the editorial by Pittsburgh’s ‘The Tribune-Review’ published Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014, 9:00 p.m is,
    {bold emphasis mine – JMW}
    “. . .
    Still, there’s value in this draft report [the IPCC report, due out in final form in early November].
    It shows how much at odds with reality the IPCC is — and how far climate science is from being “settled.” “

    – – – – – – – – – –
    I think the problem is the view of reality held by IPCC Bureau’s intellectuals; their position on the nature of reality; their fundamental concept of metaphysics.
    If one holds a view of the nature of reality where the physical world of reality is not independent of human cognition, then you get the IPCC’s report manufacturing processes. With that view of the nature of reality you get the IPCC’s report manufacturing processes where the IPCC can know an ‘a priori’ reality exists where man’s use of fossil fuel must be dangerous so it facilitates emphasis only on evidence and methodologies confirming their view of reality.
    John

    • richardscourtney on September 6, 2014 at 9:24 am
      – – – – – – – –
      richardscourtney,
      Given that the IPCC produces reports supporting the international treaty on climate change which is called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), then please do cite specific evidence that the intellectuals in the IPCC Bureau (who create and implement the assessment processes) are explicitly mandated by the either the treaty and/or by the IPCC sponsors (UN Assembly, UNEP, WMO) to find ‘a priori’ a general AGW significance or a net AGW harm or a net AGW dominance or any AGW catastrophe.
      Going back to my position in my original comment, it is the processes created and implemented at the ideological discretion of the IPCC Bureau’s intellectual leadership that “. . .shows how much at odds with reality the IPCC is . . .”. Where the problem is their irrational concepts of the nature of reality wrt man’s cognition. I am saying they could, within the treaty guidelines and within the sponsoring orgs guidelines, have rationally and with multiple line of reasoning found a low significance of AGW. And I am saying it was the choices of the intellects in the IPCC Bureau that were the causes of the reports being at odds with reality; they had a choice.
      John

    • richardscourtney,
      In responding to my comment (John Whitman on September 6, 2014 at 9:11 am) you offered (richardscourtney on September 6, 2014 at 9:24 am) to cite evidence that the IPCC Bureau’s intellectual leadership has a publicized written mandate imposed on it from outside of itself by either the treaty (UNFCCC) or from the guidelines of the sponsoring organizations (UN Assembly, UNEP, WMO) to find and report that there is a general AGW significance and/or a net AGW harm and/or a net AGW dominance and/or iminent AGW catastrophe. So, I asked you in a consequent comment (John Whitman on September 6, 2014 at 1:48 pm) to cite evidence. In your response comment to me (richardscourtney on September 7, 2014 at 12:03 am) you provided as a piece of such evidence this IPCC quote,

      Excerpt from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
      “ROLE
      2. The role of the IPCC is 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. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

      That is a quote from the IPCC, it is not citing either the treaty (UNFCCC) or the guidelines of the sponsoring organizations (UN Assembly, UNEP, WMO) who imposed the IPCC with its publicized written mandate. That quote was produced by the IPCC Bureau’s intellectual leadership.
      In the rest of your comment (richardscourtney on September 7, 2014 at 12:03 am) you offered no cites from the treaty or sponsoring organizations as evidence that the IPCC has imposed mandates that were publicized in writing from outside of itself to find world threatening AGW, but you did provide two more IPCC quotes as your evidence as follows,

      The then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
      “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report [AR2] agrees with the summary”

      And

      Appendix A of the most recent Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
      “4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
      Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .”

      Those IPCC quotes are not evidence of a publicized written mandate to report AGW alarmism imposed on the IPCC from outside by the treaty or the sponsoring organizations.
      The quotes indicate to me that the IPCC Bureau’s intellectuals themselves are the originating source of alarmism in their ARs, not the external publicized written mandates imposed on it from outside of the IPCC by the treaty or the sponsoring organizations. The source of the IPCC originated alarmism is derived fundamentally, I think, from within the IPCC by their Bureau leadership’s false metaphysical concept. That false concept is (from my original post John Whitman on September 6, 2014 at 1:48 pm) a view of the nature of reality where the physical world of reality is not independent of human cognition.
      John

  11. John Whitman
    You write

    I think the problem is the view of reality held by IPCC Bureau’s intellectuals; their position on the nature of reality; their fundamental concept of metaphysics.

    Rubbish!
    Mystical and metaphysical “concepts” have nothing to do with it!
    The IPCC is tasked to provide so-called ‘scientific information to justify political policies excused by an assumption that man-made global warming is a problem.
    The IPCC does what it is tasked to do.

    Do I really need to again copy the pertinent IPCC documents on the IPCC “Role”?
    Richard

    • John Whitman
      I understand your verbiage beginning

      Given that the IPCC produces reports supporting …

      To be a request for me to again explain the function of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
      The IPCC only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows.
      It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
      Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

      We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

      This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
      This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
      Appendix A of the most recent Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

      4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
      Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

      This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
      The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
      The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
      This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

      These are stated at
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
      Near its beginning that document says

      ROLE
      2. The role of the IPCC is 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. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

      This says the IPCC exists to provide
      (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
      and
      (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
      Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
      The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
      1
      amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
      2
      by politicians approving the SPM
      3
      then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
      All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

      Richard

  12. Jimbo: Actually NH ice was much lower in 1974. The’ve just omitted this to make it appear that its melting by starting the data from 1979 (highest) check out Goddards site on this (I think its been posted here as well)

  13. The UN: “That congress of 3rd world dictators, parking ticket scofflaws and number one patron of premium NY prostitutes”.
    -Me

  14. No Chicken Little story, or cartoon, is complete without Foxy Loxy saving Chicken Little and friends by giving them shelter in his den.
    They were never seen again.
    End of story.

  15. My God! The power to be must block out such information by hiring political correct editors to do that. The MSM must be in control of all papers, not only the big ones. Look to Russia and how they do similar things successfully when it comes to subjects like Ukraine, NATO, the EU and non combatant Russian troops.

Comments are closed.