Meh, same old 'gloom and doom' from the IPCC over new climate report

SRAR5[1]Here is a few newsbytes about the IPCC draft synthesis report. From all indications, it’s going to be a real yawner, rehashing all the alarmism we’ve heard again and again for years. Of course, that bastion of balanced leftist reporting, The Guardian, managed to get an advance copy, and of course, from their perspective we are all going to roast. 

MSM CAGW orgy to follow:

1 Nov: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: UN climate change report to warn of ‘severe, pervasive’ effects of global warming, flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts among likely risks if the world keeps burning fossil fuels at current rates, IPCC expected to say

The world is on course to experience “severe and pervasive” negative impacts from climate change unless it takes rapid action to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, a major UN report is expected to warn on Sunday.

Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts are among the likely risks if temperatures exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will say.

Yet on current trends, continued burning of fossil fuels could see temperature increases of between 3.7C and 4.8C by the end of the century, the report warns, according to a draft seen by the Telegraph…

The final document, which has been agreed line-by-line by international government officials at a summit in Copenhagen over the past week, is intended to provide the clearest and most concise summary yet of the widely-agreed scientific evidence on climate change…

***Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…


Lean says it’s worse than the IPCC report suggests!

31 Oct: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Danger: irreversible climate-change forces at work

The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that irreversible consequences could be averted, at surprisingly little cost, if action is taken without delay

Campaigners against global warming and their bitterest opponents are united by one word this weekend: irreversible.

It appears 48 times in the draft of the most important report so far on climate change, being finalised today in Copenhagen, signifying that unless the world takes speedy action to curb emissions of greenhouse gases their dire effect will last for thousands of years, at least…

Yet – even before publication, it is badly out of date – because it results from a cumbersome six-year process, which cannot take recent scientific findings into account. One of the most worrying studies to date, suggesting that the Western Antarctic ice sheet may have begun irreversible collapse – eventually raising sea levels worldwide by some 10 feet – was only published last May, far too late to be considered…

The panel urgently needs to get up to speed, issuing regular, perhaps annual, updates on the science…

Facekinis and fashion masks for China’s ‘airpocalypse’

Stand by for the latest in haute couture – the pollution mask. Designer Yin Peng has just paraded them as part of his spring/summer 2015 collection during China Fashion Week in Beijing.

It’s dressing for the “airpocalypse”, as the Chinese call the ever-more-frequent days when tiny particulates exceed maximum World Health Organisation standards by some twentyfold…


31 Oct: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: IPCC report: six graphs that show how we’re changing the world’s climate

A draft of the synthesis report, seen by the Guardian, shows it will repeat the message that there’s no doubt over our role in global warming: “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history,” it says.

It doesn’t mince words on the repercussions: “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”…


31 Oct: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Enough With the Fat Climate Change Reports Already

The United Nations in 1988 entrusted the future of civilization to a loosely confederated, all-volunteer band of Earth scientists and economists. This coterie has a long, bureaucratic name with no memorable abbreviation. It was charged with taking the temperature, so to speak, of the whole planet and advising governments on how big a problem they had their hands. Turns out, a big problem.

Early next week the group drops the last of four massive tomes that together make up its fifth report in a quarter century. In essence, next week’s edition is a synthesis of the thousands of pages of synthesis that started coming out last fall.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific reviews land every six years or so, like the anvil that falls on Wile E. Coyote’s head from time to time…

The question is, do we really need these massive reports, with little new transformative information, that very few people read?…

Here are three ways modern technology could help the IPCC get you to pay attention.

  • Turn on, Log in, Drop by…
  • Front of Mind and Urgent. Every Six Years…
  • Hire Web Developers…

There’s now a cottage industry of websites that explain the main aspects of climate change, from governments (NASA or NOAA), nonprofits (Climate Central) and individuals (Skeptical Science). Researchers at Yale, Columbia, George Mason and elsewhere have learned a lot about effective and ineffective ways to inform people that the world is heating up. It’s easier than ever to find scientific speech translated into human speech.

And that’s great, because as it turns out, the way scientists conduct their research has very little to do with the way people form opinions about it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 2, 2014 5:09 am

The IPCC is simply creating the hype to justify the political and economic power grab the OECD lays out here. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Pretend there is a crisis in one to gain bureaucratic control of the other.
It’s no accident Nicholas Stern is involved. And Unilever, Bank Of America, Swiss Re, and the same Mayor of Houston who wants pastors to cough up their sermons.
I deal on my blog and in my book with the links to all the education ‘reforms’ globally tied to this vision. The UN and the OECD just keep getting more graphic about the degree of planning they have in mind. The UN link in that report is through the Stockholm Institute, home to the Belmont Challenge social initiatives and the Future Earth Alliance.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 6:53 am

Conspiracy or no, there is no doubt the UN would like to be a World Government

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 9:38 am

That was the idea, at least on transnational issues. Which, as we know, eventually become internal issues as “equality” of citizenry within the federation becomes an international issue as a natural function of embracing cooperrative interdependence.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 9:41 am

A repeatedly declared coordinated effort certainly fits the documentable facts. As I explain when I speak on education, if I can prove it and the declarations are from people with the power to implement, we are not theorizing and we do get to talk about it.
These people may WANT to rule, but that is no reason for us to roll over and submit.

Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 8:13 am

This was all cooked up by the guys at the secret Bilderberg meetings mainly held in Europe.
They wanted a way to tax energy somehow and are worried about the Hubbert Oil Peak which still looms in the future (the planet isn’t a ball of oil to be pumped forever!) and since raising taxes is highly unpopular in first world economies, this tax on energy that is not on the oil or coal but on invisible CO2 can be squeezed from all things requiring energy to be produced or consumed!
A fantastic financial boon for the top 1%! They love this and openly talked about this before clamming up two years ago.

Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 5:20 am

31 Oct: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Danger: irreversible climate-change forces at work
The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that irreversible consequences could be averted, at surprisingly little cost, if action is taken without delay

My bold … Quick guys there is a sale on, buy one get one free !

Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 5:55 am

There is little pain when you are spending Other People’s Money.

Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 6:46 am

But wait…. If you buy in now you will also receive, at no extra cost, the pocket fisherman!!

Glen Livingston
Reply to  latecommer2014
November 2, 2014 8:04 am

Do not forget the “buttoneer” , “veg-o-matic”, and “ginsu knives” as potential prizes.

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 2, 2014 8:23 am

The IPCC report is repetitive, verbal diarrhea, and falls flat. Right, let me go light a nice coal fire. Mmmmm.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 9:08 am


Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 7:43 pm

I am missing something. How can something “irreversible” be averted? I used to think irreversible meant irreversible, I guess not in certain quarters.
Maybe it is like when the transmission on a car goes bad and it won’t go into a forward gear, you simply avert the problem by going everywhere in reverse. That IPCC, they are a clever one, aren’t they?

Reply to  Alx
November 3, 2014 3:10 am

Quite so.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 5:22 am

“Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit”
Left the BBC two years ago? Same Richard Black? The same bloke who banged on and on about climate change on the BBC’s ‘Environment’ pages?
Ridiculous man.

michael hart
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 5:33 am

Yup. And right now the BBC has made this the lead “news” story on their main UK web-page.
They are proselytizing, not reporting news.

Reply to  michael hart
November 2, 2014 8:43 am

The BBC need to take care of their valuable employee investments.

[BBC Pension Scheme]
“The Scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and has signed up to their investor statement.”
“The statement is supported by 259 investors – both asset owners and asset managers – that collectively
represent assets of over US$15 trillion.”
IIGCC – November 2010

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 5:36 am

One and the same. Full-on alarmist.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Cheshirered
November 2, 2014 5:53 am

WTF is the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit when it’s at home? Pretentious overblown arrogant crap if ever there was any!

Curious George
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 2, 2014 12:09 pm

What kind of intelligence? Military intelligence? Does it have anything to do with an IQ?

Harry Passfield
November 2, 2014 5:24 am

Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said…[what] if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…

[my bold]
Yet, today’s children – right up to University age – will not have experienced AGW in the school-lives. That seems to be a bl@@dy big elephant to me.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 2, 2014 6:25 am

Actually they will have ‘experienced’ AGW, and especially CAGW because it will have been programmed into the software codes creating the virtual reality gaming experiences and science class modeling that increasingly is to count for K-12 classroom work. Harman Willis in his book Global Mind Change pointed out that the behavioral scientist are aware and gleeful that human perception treats virtual experiences as ‘real’.
Jane MacGonigal of the Institute for the Future and keynoter at the 2013 global ISTE conference bragged about gaming’s ability to change what students will now believe and value. Erroneous beliefs still influence behavior and they are much easier to control if you program it in from the beginning.

Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 6:28 am is the link to what MaGonnigal specifically said. Virtual reality as a means of tying students into the “unfolding social collectives.”
Fits with that New Climate Economy report I linked to above.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Robin
November 2, 2014 8:53 am

Sheesh!!! Robin, thank you for that link! We often think that our conspiracy theories might seem wild but that one is beyond anything we could dream up and you’ve opened my eyes. I’m speechless…. Thanks again.

DD More
Reply to  Harry Passfield
November 3, 2014 11:34 am

Trick question / comment – keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…
Spin speech translation “Will never need to end fossil fuel use because ‘Todays children will never have a pension to draw, after the collapse of the markets” See Jimbo’s comments upstream.

November 2, 2014 5:29 am

Why do these people have even a shred of credibility with anyone but their fellow scammers and the mentally ill anymore?

tom s
Reply to  rah
November 2, 2014 7:40 am

Because there are a lot of people that are scientifically inept and these dolts cater to the lowest common denomonator. But polls continue to show that ‘climate’ is at the bottom of things to worry about…politcally.

November 2, 2014 5:30 am

The only way to have written this synthesis is to have ignored the IPCC AR5.

Reply to  hunter
November 2, 2014 8:42 am

That’s amazingly true hunter.. WG-1 and SERX both dismissed claims of an uoptick in Extreme Weather over the past century

David Ball
Reply to  sarastro92
November 2, 2014 11:30 am

More importantly could not tie it to man’s influence, yet this “synthesis” states they are certain that it is all man’s fault. Hmmmmm,…..

November 2, 2014 5:49 am

“violent conflicts are among the likely risks if temperatures exceed 2C”
Cites can be 10 – 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside, with half the world now living in cites, generally most people get along fine.

November 2, 2014 5:50 am

Well, Spiegel Online carries a headline “Alarm trumps accuracy at the world climate council”. The piece is written by their long-time environmental reporter, who has so far mostly toed the alarmist party line.
Ironically, Spiegel’s English site opens with a piece on how climate change is harming French wines.

November 2, 2014 5:50 am

damn – cities!

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  richard
November 2, 2014 5:59 am

wut abot thm?

November 2, 2014 5:56 am

If others get to have input on this report, we may see the rare case of it being toned down – back to a semblance of reality. This would be the opposite of what happened with the AR5 itself. We can only hope that a few people will realize how stupid they will look if the pause continues or if the world gets more ice and temperatures drop a few tenths of a degree. On the other hand, a ridiculously out of touch report followed by a lack of anything they predict, may be the final nail in the coffin. Nothing is quite as effective as laughter and derision when it comes as a natural response by a majority of people. I wish people knew enough to snicker when Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren’s names were even mentioned.

Mike H.
Reply to  Bill_W
November 2, 2014 9:47 am

They’ve achieved what they wanted already. After it gets toned down the general public won’t have the thrill of new found knowledge of first impressions.

Steve (Paris)
November 2, 2014 6:01 am

Fossil fuels must be phased out by 2100 o r we are all doomed says UN.
Sorry no link but is BBC lead,story.
Raving mad

Reply to  Steve (Paris)
November 2, 2014 8:07 am

You ought to hear what they are saying on NPR stateside. Michael Oppenheimer was interviewed in the last 90 minutes about this report and said that (CO2) emissions must be reduced to ZERO by 2100, or we’re all doomed.
Meantime, South and North Carolina, as well as New England and New York, are experiencing the earliest snow ever.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 8:09 am

Oppenheimer actually said that crop yields are down. A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.

David A
Reply to  policycritic
November 3, 2014 6:07 am

“Oppenheimer actually said that crop yields are down. A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.”
somewhere in this world they are.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Steve (Paris)
November 2, 2014 12:19 pm

So, we’ve got only 86 years to find something better than burning hydrocarbons to produce energy?
Right, let start panicking now!

November 2, 2014 6:01 am

Presumably the forecasts of the terrible effects of a 2 degree rise in global temperature are based on the same sort of computer models that predicted consistent rises over the last 18 years. If one is wrong why should the other be believed?

November 2, 2014 6:02 am

The delights of city life for a bee.
When asked, 9/10 bees expressed a preference for hotter city life, and are , or thinking of moving to a city.
“Today, beehives are quietly buzzing in cities all over the globe: Chicago, Toronto, Paris, London and New York are cities where thousands of different species of plants are blossoming in the gardens and parks. Honey produced in the cities is of a better quality than that from the countryside. The cities are becoming a haven; they do not protect the bees from everything, but they offer them a break”
“But surprisingly, the industry has discovered that bees kept in urban areas are healthier and produce better honey”
“As a consequence, it is more and more common to see wild swarms finding refuge in cities, and beekeepers are regularly deciding to move their hives to city gardens and parks. Fewer pesticides and a greater biodiversity are helping bee colonies to thrive here”
Strange to think that at the knees up in Paris next year the temps in the city are between 4- 6 degrees C higher than the surrounding countryside. So with an expected two degrees rise over the next hundred years, the city is already 2-4 degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside will be in a 100 years – and the bees love it!!

November 2, 2014 6:04 am

Well, it is Halloween. Maybe those “scientists” didn’t get their treat, so proceeded to “trick”.

Reply to  beng
November 2, 2014 4:18 pm
November 2, 2014 6:04 am

Let them prattle away, as long as it is THEIR dime – dear Tony A NOTE: no more funds from Australia for these fools, including wasted media expense by the ABC.

November 2, 2014 6:06 am

This “doom and gloom” message repeated over and over on every BBC Radio 2 “news” broadcasts this morning (30 minute intervals).

David Wells
November 2, 2014 6:10 am

If the latest BP energy survey is correct then there is no need for alarm because according to BP we only have 55 years of recoverable proven reserves of oil and gas and maybe worrying for the alarmists 255 years of coal. I would like to live long enough to see Naomi Klein, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Guardian readers and BBC whackos crawling over slag heaps looking for lumps of coal to keep warming during the coming ice age winter, what great fun. Maybe the IPCC is right and if so oil expires right at the point they say we are all going to die and if oil dies then the economy dies so they win. Unfortunately the warmists assume – wrongly – that life can go on without oil, they are of course wrong. No oil no iron ore from Brazil and no neodymium from China to manufacture wind turbines with but of course we must invest in clean energy technology but no one as yet has defined exactly what clean energy we should invest in other than solar and wind and you cant have either without oil, if only these demented chips could think beyond the end of their nose. One day of course finite means exactly that finite, once its gone its gone, the last gunfight at Shell OK Coral!
For the UK to build 90,000 wind turbines to replace 60GW consumes 225,000,000 tons of steel for the towers and another 225,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations and 230 billion tons of steel to replicate what Ed Davey’s goal is for the UK across the planet, not even remotely achievable and India and China will never agree. China will begin installing sea borne nuclear missiles on 5 nuclear submarines and India is retrenching its military capacity to confront China on its disputed borders with India and India is investing in 14 new coal mining ventures to lift more people out of poverty.
China could care less what ban ki moon says and India just don’t believe the hype and the UK don’t have room for 90,000 wind turbines and the first premature baby that dies because there is no wind available to power the incubator would strike dead at a stroke the government who put this nonsense into effect but clearly this childish obsession with environmental claptrap is not over yet because the UN has invested too much face to back off any time soon.

Reply to  David Wells
November 2, 2014 8:13 am

How many birds would 90,000 turbines kill? Birds, everyone likes birds. Shouting from the rooftops that
millions of birds die every year by wind power generation (globally), will get even the BBC’s attention.

Reply to  kirby
November 2, 2014 10:37 am

Or ‘Streamers’.. the birds that get toasted to a crisp when they are migrating and fly over a solar panel farm.
I don;t know which is worse: that they actually have names for them and ignore it or forget to measure the carbon they are adding to the atmosphere.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Wells
November 2, 2014 8:35 am

David, the oil issue is not recoverable reserves. It is the rate at which those reserves can be extracted, annual production. That peaks and begins declining when something like a third of the recoverable reserves have been extracted (oil field production follows a gamma distribution with a long ‘stripper’ tail). Geophysics what and why are illustrated in several essays in my ebooks, most graphically in Blowing Smoke.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Wells
November 2, 2014 9:44 am

David: “China could care less…”
So China does care, then.

November 2, 2014 6:12 am

It’s patently obvious the timing and alarming nature of this report is intended for maximum political impact just prior to Tuesday’s election.

November 2, 2014 6:16 am

Interestingly, the Guardian’s moderators are deleting any negative comments about this IPCC assessment. I know, because I tried posting three!!
Signs of desperation.

Reply to  JohnH
November 2, 2014 7:45 am

Guardian illustrate [their] article with three lying photos.
The first a classic power station cooling tower against the sun to make the snow white condensing steam look like dirty black “carbon”. Second, a photo some “haze” in Singapore with the misleading implication that this is somehow linked to “carbon”.
Lastly, a most odd looking blue monochrome shot of US power plant. Anything but a normal shot that shows the pure fluffy white stuff coming out of the chimney.

Reply to  JohnH
November 2, 2014 8:14 am

Don’t worry. Any ordinary mortal listening to the fact that emissions must be reduced to zero by 2100 AD is going to snort at the stupidity. Unless the mortal is Bill McKibben who is probably outside trying to dig his driveway out from the snow.

M Courtney
Reply to  JohnH
November 2, 2014 9:13 am

On the 6 graphs post I pointed out that the slope of the temperature graph pre-1950 is the same as the slope post-1950 when most of the emissions occurred. And I suggested that this shows the impact of man’s emissions is very small compared with natural variations.
Posts deleted.
They knew they were lying and they deliberately misrepresented the evidence.
As another example, I suggested they showed a graph comparing 20thC temperature with emissions (man’s impact). A comment was posted linking T to CO2 concentration. I pointed out that that is not the same thing… my response was deleted.
So as it was left to look like I had been rebutted. But I hadn’t been responded to. The Guardian was deliberately trying to deceive its readers into thinking I was answered.
Of course, this wouldn’t fool anyone who could read a graph. But they aren’t going to be persuaded by these six graphs anyway.

Solomon Green
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 11:37 am

This is par for the course for the Guardian. On a totally different subject where the Guardian’s biases are known, a relative of mine, a professor at a leading university, used to blog very polite factual corrections to false statements from a particular source, After a short while the professor was told by the Guardian not to waste time as his corrections would never again be published. Needless to say the false information from the particular source continues to be published.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2014 1:24 am

I posted on the 6graphs page. Quoted the piece about changing the underlying science to reflect the SPM, with the ref. Deleted- broke their standards. 😉

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2014 6:53 am

Lee, the remarkable thing isn’t that they delete posts that are inconveniently well-referenced.
The remarkable thing isn’t that they delete posts that are in compliance with [their] stated standards.
The remarkable thing isn’t that they delete posts that they know are correct – they know they are lying.
How can anyone sink so low?

November 2, 2014 6:18 am

“***Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right”
Isn’t he a bit late there? We already know that the projections are wrong.

November 2, 2014 6:19 am

How can CAGW alarmists still make the silly assertion that ECS could possibly reach 3.7C~4.8C by 2100, when such an absurd claim would require a trend of 0.35C~0.47C/decade starting from….tomorrow…and last for 85 straight years…
Do we live in an age where logic, reason and simple math no longer exist?

Billy Liar
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 2, 2014 9:42 am

Sums are too hard for alarmists – that’s why they all study/have studied subjects that don’t involve numbers.

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2014 6:23 am

At the bottom of page 2 of the SYR is the following:

This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider 1945 – 2010

Yes, their hero, who famously said the following:
“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Says it all, really. The lies not only continue, but become even more shrill and insistent.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2014 10:02 am

This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider 1945 – 2010

This is a fitting tribute to the scientist who predicted on TV another ‘ice-age’ (glaciation) back in the 1970s. He wrote a book called the “The Genesis Strategy” warning of the coming glaciation! If you got it wrong once I will require clear evidence the next time you tell me what to prepare for. It’s just the way humans work.

November 2, 2014 6:30 am

I thought such touted disasters as “Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health” were in the SPM (summary), but in the technical parts of the report, these trends were not supported with scientific sources.
Which is it?

John fisk
November 2, 2014 6:30 am

I assume the IPPC want us all to live in mud huts , no fossil fuel means, no plastics, no industrial processes no life! Well me for one is not donning a hair shirt!

Reply to  John fisk
November 2, 2014 8:20 am

The super rich want us peasants in mud huts, yes.

Reply to  emsnews
November 2, 2014 4:45 pm

tty November 2, 2014 at 11:45 am

I’m not PC. I read history.
You wanna’ watch it?

Reply to  John fisk
November 2, 2014 8:28 am

Yeah, John fisk. That’s the ticket. They want to reintroduce the Dark Ages that Europe was enveloped in while Islamic Science was producing the surgical tools we use today (1200 yrs ago), the decimal system, libraries, universities, trig, aqueducts, chemistry, mathematics, the telescope, incredible research and learning, the end of Ptolemy (which the Moors sneered at, and Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo first heard about via translations of Islamic Science from Cordova), and Fibonacci (Islamic Science) and Leonardo d Vinci (Islamic Science) also got from Cordova. Too bad we’re so badly educated in this country, and we’ve bought the Frank Gaffney/Steve Emerson/Pam Geller history of Islam. These three make the Real Housewives of Name-Your-City look like einsteins.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 9:39 am

Ah, so you want us to go under Sharia law. Makes sense.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 9:45 am

November 2, 2014 at 8:28 am
Yeah, John fisk. That’s the ticket. They want to reintroduce the Dark Ages that Europe was enveloped in while Islamic Science was producing the surgical tools we use today (1200 yrs ago), the decimal system, libraries, universities, trig, aqueducts, chemistry, mathematics, the telescope, incredible research and learning, the end of Ptolemy (which the Moors sneered at, and Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo first heard about via translations of Islamic Science from Cordova), and Fibonacci (Islamic Science) and Leonardo d Vinci (Islamic Science) also got from Cordova.

A false revisionist statement does NOT become “true” when it is repeated. I will be charitable (not a trait supported by today’s 7th century Muslim adherents by the way) and assume that you have been falsely taught by those who hate and despise the west and western cultural advances. after all, despising western civilization (or seeing it frozen back in the Dark Ages is a trait of the anti-industrial college campus and federal bureaucracies and the government-academic-complex today.
To summarize, none of those claims you just made is true. All Islam as a culture has done was transfer the information from cultures they conquered, to a static and unchanged state, then transferred out later when their despotic and slave-supported society was ended by a different civilization. The Islam tribes themselves did not “create” anything, but did frequently and effectively “copy” what they conquered by blood and by the sword.
In detail, even in Roman Spain, not only were the aqueducts and canals and bridges and roads that I’ve have walked across built and designed BEFORE the Islamic conquests, but those that had survived from 200 AD to the conquest were – where they were not themselves destroyed as abominations before Allah – were never repaired and even maintained functional.
I’ve read the histories of Copernicus original book – Islam did nothing to develop those ideas, nor those others.
The zero was Indian – and not even Mogul (Islamic conquered) Indian. Algebra? Worthy of the Arabic name, but the name only. It came from the Arabic texts about algebra, but the idea and invention was not Arabic. Slavery? Muslim slave trade continued until the 20th century. Continues today even. The FIRST culture to fight slavery politically and successfully was British, then American, fundamentalist Christians!
Reading? Writing? Islam today kills the women who try to learn to read and write. Who try to leave their rapist husbands or relatives.
Their buildings? Even the Alhambra was a result of the Islamic DENIAL of art! They refuse to draw or inscribe or use living things in their art and architecture; thus, the very DENIAL of beauty forces them to use arbitrary but highly regulated curves and loops across everything. If I deny you permission to use red, orange and yellow, can I claim that your blue and green painting is “beautiful”?

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 10:51 am

– ‘Reading? Writing? Islam today kills the women who try to learn to read and write. Who try to leave their rapist husbands or relatives.’
What an utterly bizarre statement and demonstrates a profound and troubling ignorance of the Islamic world. Is it true to say that all Christians go to the funerals of soldiers killed in action to denigrate their memory and mock their families in their grief? I know of a Christian community in the US that does just that. Hardly representative of Christians in the world generally.
The Taliban and their ilk represent only a tiny fraction of the world’s population of Muslims. Stop believing everything you hear and see in the media.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:06 am

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) and RACookPE1978
Spare me. What you spout is as stupid as the CO2 aficionados. Start reading: For your time’s sake, start at page 188
If you have any interest in knowing, read to page 202.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:18 am

Hoplite says:
What an utterly bizarre statement…
It is a true statement.
There is a night and day difference between Islam and Western civilization. Islam is a dead end that has never evolved beyond the 700’s A.D. Winston Churchill had plenty to say about it in his History of the English Speaking Peoples. What he wrote applies today. Islamists proselytize extremely well. They murder like nobody’s business. But really, when all is said and done, what good are they?
Islamists would evolve and progress, if they had the capacity for self-criticism. But we can hardly find any Muslims that will stand up and state publicly that their co-religionists actions are wrong. Silence is consent.
The world will be better off when Islam is crushed, or at least forced to bend to civilized values. They are the bad fruit of a poison tree. The only practical answer is to extreminate Islam, root and branch. They need to go, and the sooner the better.

M Courtney
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:28 am

dbstealey (November 2, 2014 at 11:18 am)
You can’t exterminate a people for how they live their life – their beloved beliefs and deepest felt morality.
It was tried in the 1940s.
It didn’t work then and it still isn’t right.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:32 am

“The only practical answer is to exterminate Islam”

Someone tried that little trick with the Jews in the late 1930’s and early 40’s

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 11:45 am

I don’t doubt that you are extremely PC but you are also most remarkably ignorant of the history of science.Virtually none of your examples is true.
the decimal system: indian
libraries: greek
universities: france/italy
trig: greek
aqueducts: roman
chemistry: greek/spanish
mathematics: babylonian/greek
the telescope: dutch
the end of Ptolemy (which the Moors sneered at) …but never improved on
Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo first heard about via translations of Islamic Science from Cordova) …odd in that case that the first latin translation was made from a greek copy.
Actually moslem science tended to be rather imitative and largely derived from Syrian and Byzantine sources, though there were some real advances in chemistry, astronomy and purely descriptive geography (but not theory, moslem map-making for example is extremely crude compared to e. g. Ptolemy). And in any case virtually all scientific activity dried up in the thirteenth century (with Ibn Khaldûn and Ulugh Beg as two possible exceptions). Generally speaking however, the moslem world has been an intellectual disaster area for the last 700 years.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 12:18 pm

Yo, polycritic! I spent ten years reading up on islam in the 90s. Shove your histrionics.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 12:24 pm

– stick to the issue in hand db. Please backup the statement that Muslims generally prohibit the education of women. That is the implication of what RACook wrote and what I challenged. Your response was a complete non-sequitor.
BTW I see you’re quoting that great ‘historian’ Churchill. That explains your ‘civilisation’ remark in another thread. Churchill is great for those chest-swelling-teary-eyed-wrap-the-flag-around-you moments but isn’t a serious historian. His writings may have been extremely popular but that is a very different thing. Thatcher loved him and really believed in the largely fictional British Uniqueness and Greatness he created in his writings but most have moved well on from that sort of thing. It didn’t serve her well in the long run.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:24 pm

M Courtney says:
You can’t exterminate a people
I’m not advocating mass murdering or extermination. I wrote:
The world will be better off when Islam is crushed. The religion. I am advocating a religionectomy. A group’s religion can be made so costly and inconvenient that all but the most radical adherents accept a substitute.
I replied to Mr. R.A. Cook’s comment:
Islam today kills the women who try to learn to read and write. Who try to leave their rapist husbands or relatives.
There are so many stories like that, that I don’t feel the need to dig any out. No doubt you have heard the same news reports. If not, I will find and post some for you.
Also, thank you for your opinions on PM Churchill and PM Thatcher. But contrary to what you believe, Churchill was a recognized historian, and Thatcher was an extremely successful UK Prime Minister. I get it that you don’t like them. But their accomplishments speak for themselves.
The world will be a better place.

M Courtney
Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:31 pm

dbstealey, what makes a people but the “their beloved beliefs and deepest felt morality”?
Genetics can be altered. Bastards dilute the heritage.
It is what we love that matters.
On another thread, I have greatly supported you in debate with scienceandpolitics. I disagree with you on this But that is not disrespect. Even though I an now going to leave debate and head to bed.

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:40 pm

Islam is a dead end that has never evolved beyond the 700’s A.D. Winston Churchill had plenty to say about it in his History of the English Speaking Peoples.

Omigod. What ignorance.What Islamic science accomplished after 700 AD is what allowed western civilization to flourish. You cite Winston Churchill? The drunk?

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 4:42 pm

M Courtney says:
…what makes a people but the “their beloved beliefs and deepest felt morality”?
Well, how about their culture? There are lots of religions in America, but the American people are one national culture. I think people can be persuaded to alter their religious beliefs, that happened many times in Europe over the centuries. Problem is, there is no real persuasion going on vis-a-vis Islam.
Finally, I don’t see any disagreement. If you think I’m advocating genocide, I’ve said that I’m not. But if you disagree, that’s OK.☺ 
When we’re done with religion, we can MovOn and disagree on politics…
Yes, I cited Churchill the drunk. Also the historian, and also the Prime Minister. Also the guy who just about singlehandedly kept English speakers speaking English.
Now before we go on, have you read Churchill’s 4-volume history?

Reply to  policycritic
November 2, 2014 5:14 pm

dbstealey November 2, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Yes, I cite Churchill the drunk. Also the historian, and also the Prime Minister. Also the guy who just about singlehandedly kept English speakers speaking English.
Now before we go on, have you read Churchill’s 4-volume history?

And i doubt you have , too, He’s turgid.
No, I haven’t read all four volumes. But I have read what Churchill didn’t, which pre-dated him: Briffault, McCabe, real historians, I have read what you (and Churchill, obviously haven’t read and) you should too. Where do you think Copernicus got the idea?
This website is about telling the truth, no matter how painful. Where are you?

November 2, 2014 6:31 am

The evidence piles up that the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much less than the IPCC predicted only a few years ago, so they RAISE the projected warming prediction. They blame the cold US winter of 2014 and the record antarctic sea ice on warming. Politicians who are campaigning on taking painful steps to mitigate climate action are doing very poorly. The cost of poor energy policy solutions are showing up in people’s utility bills in Europe and some US states and people are angry. And every pole of the general population on climate rates it at the bottom of the priority list. This report is a desperate, high risk, one last roll of the dice by the climate consensus folks at the UN to use the weather to justify a new level of international authority. No ones buying.

November 2, 2014 6:32 am

I take it now that the science is “settled” and it’s now “up the politicians”, the IPCC will be disbanded and no further climate research funding is required.

Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 6:36 am

I could have bought a copy of the Bible for warnings of plagues, pestilence, disaster, famine and war.
Repent ye of thy sins, sayeth the IPCC.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 7:43 am

I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t need to buy one.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 9:51 am

I could have bought a copy of the Bible for warnings of plagues, pestilence, disaster, famine and war.

And just about as accurate.

Tom in Florida
November 2, 2014 6:37 am

” that if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…
Two points:
1. the elephant in the room is the word “if” .
2. The IPCC should set the example and lead the way in ending their use of fossil fuels by shutting down and disbanding.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
November 2, 2014 6:39 am

“ill health and violent conflicts” Oh, I wonder what buzzword IH&VC they refer to there? eBola (lower case intended) and IS(insert second half of acronym here)?
Watching John Kerry’s convoluted tying-together of climate change and poor, suffering, disenfranchised little islamic boys is painful and irritating, yet there he is muddling along.
They are completely in LaLa Land.

Bill Marsh
November 2, 2014 6:42 am

***Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…
But, the model projections are NOT correct, are they?

Reply to  Bill Marsh
November 2, 2014 10:12 am

I think Richard Black has been smoking funny tobacco. He really is living in Fairy Wonder Land.
What if the projections are WRONG? THAT is the elephant in the room and he is now and 18 year old charging bull elephant who refuses to fly! Black wants us to bet trillions on what has so far failed!

November 2, 2014 6:42 am

The dangerous man-made global warming alarmists will never give up their “mission to save us from a tipping point” until they have succeeded in getting a global treaty on fossil fuel energy-use, and international control over CO2 emissions.
It is incredible to think that we are only talking about just 3% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere each year from human activity on the planet (Source: IPCC AR4, 2007). 97% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is from natural sources such as the oceans, volcanic activity, bacteria, etc.
In the words of former Polish physicist, Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski (October 17, 1927 – November 12, 2011), “This man-made 3% of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12%. Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.”

November 2, 2014 6:45 am

When the industrial revolution started world population was around 1 billion. Today, world population is well above 7 billion. About half that population live in just three countries; China, India and Africa. Those three countries are excused from CO2 reduction efforts. Somewhere in the region of about half that population of those three countries have never had access to electricity. They want it NOW! Just how will they get it without increasing global CO2 levels way beyond the present?

Reply to  Richard111
November 2, 2014 7:00 am

Africa is a continent not a State, containing well over 50 countries.
The UK has a large Aid programme aimed at providing electricity to millions of poor people in many African states. Sometimes this will be by provision of solar, which may be a sensible option in some countries.
However fossil fuel provides a great deal of portable energy for the mass it occupies and will remain the only option for millions more. India for example is currently opening up vast coal fields in order to bring electricity to some 400 million people..

Bill Marsh
November 2, 2014 6:46 am

I expected the line from “Ghostbusters” —- “Cats & Dogs sleeping together” to be thrown amongst the prognostications of doom and gloom.
What they are really saying is ” let all those kids in Africa and India continue on in abject poverty like they do today, they need to take one for the planet.”

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bill Marsh
November 2, 2014 6:58 am

We should all be so poor, they say. Except for the Tranzies of course.

Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2014 6:57 am

Isn’t there another International AGW expense account party coming up in Paris this month?

Michael Spurrier
November 2, 2014 6:59 am

Gosh the Guardian really do delete anything that is not pro AGW – I just asked a question about the pause in warming – asking could someone please explain it – very polite, no controversial tone and it lasted 5 minutes before it was disappeared……

tom s
Reply to  Michael Spurrier
November 2, 2014 8:05 am

The guardian and their ilk can go blank themselves.

November 2, 2014 7:08 am

IPCC may fuel the global warming debate all it wants , but the observable trend is for colder winters globally which will lead to colder spring and fall seasons and ultimately colder summers as we have just seen during 2014.
There is no doubt that winters have been getting colder in most parts of the world. According to NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data, the trend of GLOBAL LAND and OCEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES has been declining since 1998 at 0.6 C /decade. So has the WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for the NORTHERN HEMISPHER declined at o.11C /decade since 1998.
The trend of WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES for CONTIGUOUS US declined at 1.79 F/decade since 1998 . In United States,10 months of the year have a trend of declining temperatures and only 2 months temperatures are rising [March, June}
Annual Contiguous US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998. This is happening in 7 of the 9 climate regions in United States. Only the Northeast and the West both of which receive the moderating effect of the oceans, had slight warming trend of 0.2 and 0.3 F/decade respectively. Theses 16 year annual temperature declines illustrate that despite any summer warming , the cooling during winter , spring and fall offsets any summer warming resulting in the annual temperature declines
The WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for CANADA declined from an average of + 2.6 C during 1998-2000 to -0.4C by 2014 winter , or a cooling of 3 degrees. A winter cooling trend is also apparent in EUROPE, and NORTHERN ASIA. I see this pattern continuing until 2035/2045 as the oceans enter their cool phase as they did 1880-1910 and again 1945-1975.
This winter will bring more of what we just had in 2014

tom s
Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 8:05 am

Apparently you did not read the Telegraph. Cold winters are a sign of global warming. Sheesh! Get with it!

Reply to  tom s
November 2, 2014 8:26 am

Yep. Snow in South Carolina on November 1. I need to buy a heavier coat if the global warming continues.

Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 12:05 pm

It is still going to be declared the hottest year on the record.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 2, 2014 8:58 pm

God, I hope so. Nothing will do more damage to their rep here in Indiana then having them publicly crying that the last year has been the hottest ever. All this cold is already sending more and more people looking online for answers as to where all the warming is, and when they find out it’s all hiding at the bottom of the ocean, or can only been found by ‘reanalyzing’ their guesses for how much warming is happening in the deep arctic where we couldn’t measure it in the first place, most of the people realize that it never was real problem.

Curious George
Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 12:19 pm

A debate is the last thing the IPCC wants. Science is settled, shut up – and pony up!

November 2, 2014 7:08 am

The BBC article on the IPCC report includes a link to a very ‘helpful’ article called “Q&A: Climate change”. The photo at the top of this page inevitably shows a polar bear. It also tells us why we are still seeing snow despite that ‘scientist’ chap telling us that snow was a thing of the past:
“In some places, mass may actually increase as warming temperatures drive the production of more snows.”
But we shouldn’t take temperature data too seriously as that gives the wrong impression. We should be looking elsewhere:
“On the other hand, climate scientists point out that the hiatus occurs in just one component of the climate system – the global mean surface temperature – and that other indicators, such as melting ice and changes to plant and animal life, demonstrate that the Earth has continued to warm.”
Methinks that some folk at the IPCC and the BBC have been watching too many videos of ‘Das Boot’ (see 1.41):

November 2, 2014 7:10 am

Well, at least the hole they’re digging is really deep. When it comes to getting out of it they’ll need an elevator.
“Fossil fuels should be ‘phased out by 2100’ says IPCC”
But do expect to hear that the Little Ice Age/Global Cooling is being caused by global warming.

November 2, 2014 7:13 am

“Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”…
“…if the computer model projections are right…”
And world governments are going to base their energy policies and the life or death of their citizens on an “if”, from demonstably failed computer models, eh Richard?
‘Intelligence’ unit?

Chris Riley
November 2, 2014 7:29 am

What we need is a government program that funds the production and distribution of an amount of Thorazine(tm) sufficient to contain the epidemic of schizophrenia that the CAGW movement has become. We are dealing with a suicide cult here.

tom s
November 2, 2014 7:29 am

These people make me sick. Politicized weather and climate….ARGHH!! Weather and climate extreme’s that have always occurred, with a very large envelope of variability can now be blamed on our energy use. But the only saving grace is the majoriy of the public does not buy it and hopefully with a Republican sweep this week we can stem the Obama adminstrations idiotic climate control aspirations.

November 2, 2014 7:39 am

IT seems to me that the annual and seasonal temperatures in UNITED STATES are dropping not rising .despite the extensive use of fossil fuels. I wonder why IPCC neglected to mention this fact.
The following are monthly temperature anomaly trends per decade for Contiguous US or 48 states as calculated by the NCDC/NOAA Climate at a Glance web page for the last 16 years [1998-2014]. The figure reflect the linear trend in Fahrenheit degrees per decade per NCDC/NOAA web page data using base period of 1998-2013
DEC -1.22 F/decade (declining)
JAN -1.52 F decade (declining)
FEB -2.77 F/decade (declining)
MAR +0.57 F/ decade (rising) but dropped 10 degrees F since 2012 alone
APR -0.28 F /decade (declining)
MAY -0.47 F/decade (declining)
SUMMER (+0.23 F/ DECADE)-RISING( flat)
JUN +1.02 F/decade (rising)
JUL -.08 F /decade (declining) flat
AUG -0.24 F/decade (declining)
SEPT –o.24 F/decade (declining)
OCT -0.61 F/decade (declining)
NOV -0.76 F/decade (declining)
10 months temperatures are declining and only 2 months temperatures are rising [March, June]

Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 9:45 am

Interesting stats: what are they for the globe? If strong 2 month rises create, mathematically, a 12 month rise, one could easily question the global impact in a time-sense.
Regionalism, IMHO, is a problem that is only a “global” situation through computational means. But regionalism, I see now, has a time component: perhaps all areas of the planet are only warming during specific months, even if they are not the same months, which suggests that CLOUD COVER reduction has been/is the true global issue.
Very, very interesting.

Billy Liar
Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 10:03 am

We also know that temperatures before 1998 have also been declining due to man:

November 2, 2014 7:47 am

Look at this climate nonsense from the lying Canadian public broadcaster CBC. It’s like they are ramping up the hysteria in preparation for the end times. Their mendacious claims have reached an all time high.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Sean
November 2, 2014 9:45 am

More insulting is that the CBC is paid for by taxpayers. They take their budget from me without my consent and leave me zero recourse to demand that I recieve any value for it. Disgraceful. For all the prattle about “social justice” on this network, the elephant in the room is that they steal from me to produce fairy tales passed off as news.
Helpless outrage is apparently the only action available to me.

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2014 7:59 am

From page 5 of the SYR:

Topic 1: Observed Changes and their Causes
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Big Lie sandwich, throwing a Warm Herring in the middle about greenhouse gases. Nice.

November 2, 2014 8:03 am

Well, I am very encouraged by the fact that only ONE of these stories (Gosden’s Telegraph offering) was accompanied by a photo of a polar bear.
I think this indicates polar bears are well on their way to loosing AGW icon status because of their striking failure to die off in droves as predicted.
If you haven’t seen it yet, this recent post is worth a read:
Susan Crockford, PolarBearScience

Rud Istvan
Reply to  polarbearscience
November 2, 2014 9:01 am

Susan, you are cited prominently in my essay on polar bears in my new ebook on energy and climate. Your blog is even hyperlinked. The essay was mostly about whether polar bears are a true species, their ability to alter foraging habits to be more like their brown cousins when necessary, and their stubborn insistance on not dieing off to suit Greenpeace CAGW marketing. Highest regards to the truly scientific anti-Sterling.

Reply to  polarbearscience
November 2, 2014 9:54 am

I take back my statement above – I followed the link Sean provided above to the CBC story (just above my comment) and noticed that while they do not lead with a polar bear photo, one is included in their montage of 15 images (that starts with a wild fire photo, half way down the page).
So that makes two, not just one.
The CBC photo caption says:
“Polar bears in Canada’s North continue to be threatened as climate change shrinks their icy territory.”
EXCEPT, the polar bear in Canada is NOT considered “threatened” by climate change – it is a “species of concern” according to our Species at Risk Act (SARA), a big step below “threatened.”
Has the CBC confused our country with the US again?

Reply to  polarbearscience
November 3, 2014 1:40 am

But be happy … it is no longer the “canary in the coal mine” of AGW.

November 2, 2014 8:05 am

Just to illustrate how IPCC exaggerates the non existing threat. They now claim that the global temperatures will rise by 3.75-4.8 C by 2100 if we do nothing. The current trend SINCE 1998 of the GLOBAL LAND AND OCEAN TEMPERATURE ANOMALY per NCDC/NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE WEB DATA is rising at 0.04 C/ decade. With this trend we can expect to be at about 0.36C higher by 2100. As we can see there is an exaggeration factor of 10 times of what may really happen.

Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 3:57 pm

We? By 2100, I expect to be seriously dead.

November 2, 2014 8:06 am

Here is the 1 November 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT – IPCC Summary For Policy Makers
They say:

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence).

I decided to take a look at what others have found regarding the MWP and the Northern Hemisphere. I found a paper from Dr. Michael Mann. He says the following:

Medieval Climatic Optimum
Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994). A host of historical documentary proxy information such as records of frost dates, freezing of water bodies, duration of snowcover, and phenological evidence (e.g., the dates of flowering of plants) indicates that severe winters were less frequent and less extreme at times during the period from about 900 – 1300 AD in central Europe……………………
Some of the most dramatic evidence for Medieval warmth has been argued to come from Iceland and Greenland (see Ogilvie, 1991). In Greenland, the Norse settlers, arriving around AD 1000, maintained a settlement, raising dairy cattle and sheep. Greenland existed, in effect, as a thriving European colony for several centuries. While a deteriorating climate and the onset of the Little Ice Age are broadly blamed for the demise of these settlements around AD 1400,

Ken Paulson
Reply to  Jimbo
November 2, 2014 9:27 am

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, who attempted to show that the MWP and the Little Ice Age never existed. Is there actually another person of the same name at the University of Virginia? Or has Professor Mann moved from PSU to UofV? Or, …?

Reply to  Ken Paulson
November 2, 2014 10:05 am

It’s that very same Mann of Hockey Schtick fame.

Bill Illis
November 2, 2014 8:11 am

The solution?
Give up cars, tractors, transport trucks, airplanes, lawn-mowers, winter home heating, 80% of electricity, cement, pavement, manufacturing, grocery stores, ultimately your job. No cost at all.
Just so they can keep up their myth-making personal passion to protect the environment and keep their climate scientist jobs.

Scottish Sceptic
November 2, 2014 8:27 am

They crossed the line at which shouting “wolf” louder and longer just made them look more silly a long time ago.

November 2, 2014 8:43 am

I love the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio has a seat on richard bransons spaceship…perhaps he could flick through the ipcc’s report while he is waiting to take off.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Letelemarker
November 2, 2014 12:23 pm

It would just be page after page, each containing one word: DOOM.

JJM Gommers
November 2, 2014 8:51 am

It’s clear this indoctrination has to continue to persuade the people the necessity of higher energy bills.
The last 5 years another scare issue was introduced , dependency on Russian oil and gas. Recently Europe declared no longer to depend on Russia and the Middle East. It’s now a battle between East and West.
This means support of the people at home is required

Rud Istvan
November 2, 2014 8:52 am

Almost every one of the conclusions (assuming the MSM reports of them are accurate) are specifically countered in essays in my new ebook Blowing Smoke. Model unreliability (in principle and in practice), lower sensitivity (written before Lewis and Curry appeared), ‘ abrupt’ sea level rise, extreme weather, polar bears, other ‘climate extinctions’, spreading pestilence, ‘ocean acidification’, crop yields,…
Each and every ‘catastrophe’ is a provable crock, fully debunked using facts, scientific papers, and examples ignored by ‘consensus selection bias’. Poor science at best, and provable academic misconduct at worst, accompanied by misleading or deliberately false PR about the research, all aided and abetted by the usual MSM suspects.
We struggled to get the book published as a counter before this synthesis came out. Made it by just two weeks by sacrificing a last editorial review.

November 2, 2014 8:52 am

IPCC Report – SPM
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.

Oh crap, we are doomed.

Insufficiently Sensitive
November 2, 2014 8:55 am

that if the computer model projections are right,
So far, they’ve been about a good as reading tea leaves. But the IPCC plugs along, drafting and re-drafting their victory speech before the election’s even been held. Despite that the computer model projections for the last twenty years have been seriously wrong…

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
November 2, 2014 8:56 am

A much easier solution, and one that does not take 75 years to achieve, is to get rid of Bon Ki Moon and the other cultists of doom (IPCC/IFCCC) from the UN and the White House/EPA/NOAA.
Perhaps we should look at the “Ban Fossil Fuels” movement as a latter-day version of the Temperance Movement from the 1800s.
In today’s Ban Fossil Fuel movement, the latest “Accord” from Copenhagen has adopted Teetotalism (total abstinence) to cure the ills of the CO2 drunken world. Removing the cultists from the White House/EPA/NOAA we can avoid constitutional-level prohibition laws and the disruption to society that the 1919 prohibition law and others at the state-level caused.

November 2, 2014 9:13 am

You mean snake oil salesman write report saying how good snake oil is and if we don’t buy snake oil we are all going to die ?
Funny as the difference between reality and the claims grows wider the need becomes more urgent , it almost as if they are worried that if they don’t pull this BS of now they known they have no chance of doing so in the future when the BS really starts to smell , and what is ‘urgent ‘ is the closing window of opportunity of them getting their ideas enforced before they get kicked into the long grass by people and politicians who no longer buy into it .

November 2, 2014 9:16 am

I tried to make this comment twice with a source to the link, both times deleted.
The IPCC choses which science meets their agenda.
“(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. 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, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
They hate the truth

Reply to  tolo4zero
November 2, 2014 12:31 pm

On The Guardian I mean

November 2, 2014 9:22 am

Once again, thank goodness for the internet, it seems most comment sections where they allow free speech are giving the report a kicking. I can feel a “downfall” parody coming on.

November 2, 2014 9:31 am

Oh for goodness’ sake!! Just look at how far technology has come in a hundred years. Form the Wright brothers to the moon and beyond. From mechanical adding machines to quantum computing. From steam to nuclear energy to tentative steps towards fission. I have little doubt that we won’t be using fossil fuels in 2100, but that will be because clever people will have figured out better ways of generating energy, not because of alarmist claptrap like this. The ancestors of these alarmists are those who, a hundred or so years ago, worried about cities drowning in horse manure. Then along came the internal combustion engine, which none of them had foreseen, and the problem went away.

November 2, 2014 9:32 am

Oops – I meant ‘tentative steps towards FUSION’ of course!

November 2, 2014 10:10 am
Stephanie Clague
November 2, 2014 10:14 am

The UN IPCC? Snake oil for sale, who will buy my snake oil? The decline and fall of Western civilisation as the elites chase the insane dream of a new world order whatever the cost.

November 2, 2014 10:28 am

What does “Meh” mean?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  phlogiston
November 2, 2014 10:36 am

It’s like what your (or anyone’s) reaction would be upon hearing that Al Gore was going to be making an appearance in a nearby city.

Reply to  phlogiston
November 2, 2014 10:45 am

My handy online dictionary says: meh = expressing a lack of interest or enthusiasm.
[To get a definition, do a search using “define:word” with no spaces. In this case, ‘define:meh’]

Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 4:22 am

“Muddled Environmental Hubris”

November 2, 2014 10:47 am

This drivel is also the lead story on the Irish State Broadcaster RTE all day. RTE is a carbon copy of BBC in its unquestioning “right on” take on the man made global warming theory.

November 2, 2014 10:53 am

What would we do without those intellectuals who KNOW BETTER?
Below is what C.P. Snow wrote in 1959. Change “Industrialisation” to “access to affordable energy” and he could have posted it on todays blog.
“For, of course, one truth is straightforward. Industrialisation is the only hope of the poor. I use the word ‘hope’ in a crude and prosaic sense. I have not much use for the moral sensibility of anyone who is too refined to use it so. It is all very well for us, sitting pretty, to think that material standards of living don’t matter all that much. It is all very well for one, as a personal choice, to reject industrialisation—do a modern Walden, if you like, and if you go without much food, see most of your children die in infancy, despise the comforts of literacy, accept twenty years off your own life, then I respect you for the strength of your aesthetic revulsion. But I don’t respect you in the slightest if, even passively, you try to impose the same choice on others who are not free to choose. In fact, we know what their choice would be. For, with singular unanimity, in any country where they have had the chance, the poor have walked off the land into the factories as fast as the factories could take them.”

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Bernie Hutchins
November 2, 2014 11:03 pm

I always liked C.P. Snow. he was a clear, far-sighted thinker.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
November 3, 2014 10:47 am

Not to mention that in ONE word, his own last name in fact, he has incidentally yet correctly predicted the future climate!

Peter Miller
November 2, 2014 11:04 am

The bits I like most about these reports is the number of ‘ifs’, ‘maybes’, ‘coulds’ and the references to inaccurate biased computer models.
But the bit I really like is the fact – according to official IPCCspeak – that all natural climate cycles ceased in the 1950s. They have been around for many, many hundreds of millions of years and then suddenly they stopped in the 1950s – amazing, absolutely incredible!

November 2, 2014 11:05 am

Folks have some fun and hop over to this site and add comments. The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, home of David Suzuki is very very biased in their climate reporting.

November 2, 2014 11:10 am

Former British MP, Ann Widdecombe, wrote a short piece in the Express newspaper last week about the Climate act passed some years ago…….a few ‘robust’ comments in such a short piece of writing.
….ignore the items that follow it.

November 2, 2014 11:27 am

I see you have also noticed that Canadian CBC is very biased about global warming. They openly claims that global warming is anthropogenic and only this will dominate their coverage of climate change They are not a valid source for climate news giving a balanced picture of what is happening in the climate debate but now seem to be just a mouth piece for global warming alarmism and special interest groups

David Ball
Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 12:31 pm

The CBC are bias about a great many things. Ridiculously so.

Curious George
Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 12:42 pm

Of course they are a valid source for climate news. They say so.

Phil Brisley
Reply to  herkimer
November 2, 2014 12:51 pm

herkimer, it’s more than the CBC. It’s almost all media, all three levels of government, all three levels of education, I could go on…it’s everywhere. Anybody who is anybody needs to be on board the good ship AGW, they can’t be branded a “denier”, after all this is about saving the world.
Don’t get me wrong, IMHO it’s obvious the anthro CO2 bite on longwave IR really doesn’t have the teeth required to noticeably increase temps or change climate. Longwave retention in the lower atmosphere is largely a water vapour affair. And if adding CO2 raises the ERL, then the new level has a larger surface area to radiate from (as if an expanding balloon) so there really isn’t that much disturbance to the equilibrium where outgoing longwave balances incoming shortwave.

November 2, 2014 11:59 am

Musings of A Denier and That I’m Too Simplistic In My Approach
The world is supposed to warm up 2° C and this is supposed to be catastrophic? Right?
Region ‘A’ has an average temperature of 22° C (Low 17° C and high 27° C = Average 22° C).
Region ‘B’ has an average temperature of 26° C (Low 21° C and high 31° C = Average 26° C).
Can someone please tell me how region ‘B’ is able to cope with 4° C higher average temperature and then explain to me why it is not catastrophic?
I’m trying to be a believer, but because of my limited scientific knowledge, am I being too simplistic here to fully grasp how this is supposed to work?
Not to mention the big swings between night and day. How do we cope? Why is it not catastrophic?
Then again, there’s that stupid seasonal issue that I’m still trying to understand. Where I live, it can get to 32° C+ in the summer time and several years ago, with the wind chill it dropped to over -50° C. That’s an 82° C swing. How do we cope with this and why is it not catastrophic?
I know I’m short on scientific knowledge and understanding but these questions puzzle me and I’ve never come to terms with these issues because no one wants to explain this to me. Appears that I’m a ‘denier’, or I’m being too simplistic in my approach.
‘Climate Scientists’ ™ studying these issues employ a whole bunch of acronyms that are way over my head. It apparently is much more complicated than my simple mind can process. Then I got banned from a couple of sites for some reason. Can anybody tell me what I said that was wrong?
I only wanted a reasonable explanation so that it would make sense to me. Oh, and then there was the question of how CO2 ties in to the different regional temperatures, the night and day stuff and the seasonal stuff.
I wonder if a non-scientist PhD like me would qualify for a grant to study ‘Climate Change’ ™ down at the local pub – oh, and I will take a walk to the local park a couple of times a day to wear off the alcohol and check to see if the sun is shining, or if it is raining, or whatever the weather (errr…climate change) is doing. I promise I will report back in a couple of years about my findings after the grant money has run out!

David Ball
November 2, 2014 12:40 pm

In fact google Sun News coverage of the Jian Ghomeshi scandal. It all seems so eerily familiar, somehow.

November 2, 2014 12:47 pm

“same old ‘gloom and doom’” — “Revelations” for progressives.

Michael Spurrier
November 2, 2014 1:43 pm

Already dropping out of the headlines in the UK – forecast cold next week.

November 2, 2014 2:07 pm

The elephant in the room? surely it’s that the GCMs are all complete and total phish and you have based your entire hypothesis and argument on something that has failed miserably and people are now waking up to the level of subterfuge employed in selling us a toxic lemon? Nope, of course not, so silly of me.
I also notice how ‘irreversible’ is the new ‘unprecedented’, just how is any change irreversible seeing as the planet has been far warmer and for longer, yet we are in a rare cold period in the planet’s history? That there, is an unprecedented level of stupid burning, which is however reversible, not that the IPCC will ever own up to misleading and lying to serve their agenda which has little to do with science let alone actual scientific observation.
I caught an item on Sky News about the report, lots of video footage of the record Antarctic ice whilst some douchnozzle blathered on about potential temp rises of 5°C. Pretty much says it all.

M Courtney
Reply to  DDP
November 2, 2014 2:11 pm

In fairness, “irreversible” has always been part of the justification for the Precautionary Principle.
We can’t wait for evidence as it will be too late… act now before the evidence comes in.
This fall back to “irreversible” is proof that the models don’t work and there is no evidence and so, PANIC!

Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2014 4:19 am

Too right! and then fallback…”Oh well, it didn’t happen. We saved you, see”.

November 2, 2014 3:30 pm

For goodness sake, are the people that do and support the IPCC for real!
The boy(IPCC & Co) have cried wolf so very much, most folk surely will just
ignore it all, get on with life and do something productive for society instead
of wasting huge monies on an almost non-problem!

tolip ydob (There is no such thing as a perfectly good airplane)
November 2, 2014 4:28 pm

“Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts”
All predate fossil fuel usage.
This would also be a future risk if we were herbivores consuming zero fuel.

November 2, 2014 8:20 pm

The reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. The primary greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to charges in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect they might have on climate. The climate change we are experiencing today has happened before. The IPCC’s plethora of models based on the idea that an increase in CO2 causes warming have all failed to predict today’s global temperatures. They have predicted global warming that has not occurred. They are wrong. Models have been generated that are based on the idea that climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans that have corrected predicted today’s global temperatures. These models do not include any CO2 effects. The IPCC’s political statements are in deference to the science. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

November 2, 2014 9:36 pm

Here is a bit of good cheer amidst the doom and gloom from the IPCC. I saw this in a Seattle news site…
Three cheers for Abbott and his administration.

Larry in Texas
November 2, 2014 11:02 pm

More of the same error, fact-distorting, and false hysteria. The IPCC must be done away with. I will vote for any American presidential candidate who says they will end American funding to the IPCC, and who will actually follow up without being intimidated by the Warmist ideologues.

Richard Keen
November 2, 2014 11:21 pm

“The final document, which has been agreed line-by-line by international government officials”
Need I know more?
The IPCC is a bunch on sciency-looking charts and color maps approved by government officials, and is no more science than is Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, or Dreams of my Father. Or the 1000 pages of the Affordable Health Care Act, for that matter.

November 3, 2014 2:51 am

This morning CNN International had a short bit about the IPCC report, followed by a young man discussing super hurricanes in the Pacific. During his discussion he mentioned the number of “superhurricanes” had doubled (he didn´t describe a superhurricane as such). He also mentioned the increase was attributable to higher Pacific Ocean temperatures, and waved his hands over a sector around and just south of the equator and about 160 to 170 degrees East longitude. As he waved his hands he claimed the surface temperature in the Pacific (presumably in this sector) had reached “31 to 32 degrees C”.
This led me to look at the NOAA/NESDIS map published in October 2014, and the current Argo buoy data (I get it updated every morning from the Argo system). Interestingly I am seeing a mismatch between the NOAA color palette temperature and the Argo buoys. This repeats my previous experience with NOAA temperature maps in the Indian Ocean (something I pointed out a few days ago).
If somebody could explain whether I´m making a mistake comparing the NOAA sea surface temperature presentations with the Argo buoy data I would appreciate it.
But neither the (distorted) NOAA maps nor the Argo buoy data showed sea surface temperature “between 31 and 32 degrees” as claimed by the CNN International report. Based on what I can see they seem to be putting up a short bit about the IPCC report, then they pile on with misleading information. I saw a similar approach at the BBC, but I couldn´t identify an outright lie. I guess I´ll try to see if my other European channels are following the same pattern…
[Thank you. .mod]

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 3, 2014 9:46 am

CNN is no longer available on my cable feed (of the DISH sat. service). Now I’m kind of getting a clue about why…
Oh, and how do I get a few copies of that IPCC report? It looks very large, and solid. As this winter is being record cold in Florida, I could use a few free copies for the stove…

November 4, 2014 1:49 pm

if I had to sum up this b.s report into two words, it would be:
We believe.
That’s how we should be interpreting this garbage. Its their opinion, that’s all. Its carefully written in a way that screams- WE BELIEVE!.
notice how many times they used “likely” in the freakin report.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights