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”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11202987/UN-climate-change-report-to-warn-of-severe-pervasive-effects-of-global-warming.html


 

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…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11201482/Danger-irreversible-climate-change-forces-at-work.html


 

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.”…

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/31/ipcc-report-six-graphs-that-show-how-were-changing-the-worlds-climate


 

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.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/enough-with-the-fat-climate-change-reports-already.html

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

176 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.

Jimbo
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.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379113000553-gr7.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/2014/10/27/younger-dryas-analysis-no-evidence-at-all-co2-drives-temperature-paper-used-sloppy-data-methods/

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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
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.

knr
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

richard
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.

TonyK
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.

TonyK
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.

phlogiston
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’]

Patrick
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 4:22 am

“Muddled Environmental Hubris”

Chris Lynch
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.

Bernie Hutchins
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.”
………
C.P. Snow THE TWO CULTURES (1959)

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.

Bernie Hutchins
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!

nc
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.

Mick
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.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/528569/Ann-Widdecombe-on-Climate-change-Ched-Evans-and-Fiona-Woolf
….ignore the items that follow it.

herkimer
November 2, 2014 11:27 am

nc
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.

PeterK
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.

Toto
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.

DDP
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.

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!

Patrick
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”.