The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Nothing More Than a…

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Anthony Watts’s post Meh, same old ‘gloom and doom’ from the IPCC over new climate report at WattsUpWithThat prompted this one. I started to write a comment on that thread that began with, The IPCC is nothing more than a… and I went on from there, trying with some success to limit my word count. But I didn’t post it. I figured it would make for a great topic of discussion all by itself, with everyone adding their own continuation to that preface.

So to start the ball rolling, here’s what I came up with.

The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:

  1. that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve an political-agenda-driven goal
  2. that relies on politician-financed climate models that were designed, and continue to operate, with the single-minded intent of showing bad things will happen in the future if we continue to consume fossil fuels.

The IPCC and their reports provide no value to anyone other than the politicians who created that body.

That was a first attempt, pretty much rolled off the keyboard with a few tweaks.

So, if you would, please add your continuation of, The IPCC is nothing more than a…

And if you like, consider adding to another preface, If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…

I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
533 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave
November 2, 2014 11:32 am

The IPCC is nothing more than living proof the Three Stooges had kids.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Dave
November 2, 2014 12:07 pm

With each other.

BillyV
Reply to  Uncle Gus
November 2, 2014 1:04 pm

+1

Reply to  Uncle Gus
November 2, 2014 9:30 pm

AAA

TrappedInIL
Reply to  Dave
November 2, 2014 1:33 pm

Hey, leave the Stooges alone!!!!
Long time lurker, first time poster, but I couldn’t let this one go. The Stooges were entertainers (par excellance) and never hurt anyone. Read up on their life stories. Nobody ever needed a written contract with them, their work was as good as gold. And they brought joy to millions.

Reply to  TrappedInIL
November 3, 2014 4:07 am

+1
Maybe they should have said the Keystone Kops.

Tom O
Reply to  TrappedInIL
November 3, 2014 7:19 am

At a time when Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam were under attack because they showed children too much violence, are you trying to tell me that Moe hitting Curley over the head with a hammer wasn’t as well? In fact, I don’t think children would identify with a cartoon character as fast as they would human adults poking each other in the eyes and hitting each other with weapons. I never considered them “entertainment” and still don’t. the Keystone Cops, on the other hand, were.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  TrappedInIL
November 3, 2014 12:13 pm

The Stooges’ favorite law firm: Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. Sometimes, you had to think to get the humor.

M Courtney
November 2, 2014 11:40 am

The IPCC is nothing more than the answer to the politicians scientific illiteracy. Having heard there was a problem the politicians wanted a clear, simplistic assessment of the impacts and probabilities.
The IPCC were the experts who hit the jackpot with providing a simplistic explanation of the problem.
But the IPCC was never asked if the problem was real.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 12:13 pm

Reminds me of some thing that happened on a project I was working on once. We were each asked how long it would take to fix a particular problem. Management went with the guy who said “one week”, very definitely. He spent three months on it, and then they gave it to me. Did they complain about him? Did they heck. They complained about me, because I couldn’t give them an exact time estimate. Even after I fixed it.

Abuzuzu
Reply to  Uncle Gus
November 2, 2014 3:23 pm

management demands numbers. They do not have to be correct you but have to pretend they are correct even when they are not correct

Jim pruitt
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 6:42 pm

Illiteracy would indicate that in some fashion they were privously capable on learning.

Brian H
Reply to  Jim pruitt
November 3, 2014 12:49 am

A literate person would have written “previously” and “of learning”.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 9:33 pm

The IPCC was only asked by politicians how much money can we and our “friends” make off of this and how much power can we grab with this scam? You have to admit, the IPCC has been very good at achieving those goals.

Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 2, 2014 10:32 pm

The IPCC has been “very good at achieving these goals” in the sense of being skilled at applying the equivocation fallacy in reaching false or unproved conclusions from arguments that are perceived to be illogical and misleading by very few people.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 7, 2014 6:47 am

“Politicians” is being far too simplistec. Leftist Politicians.

rtj1211
November 2, 2014 11:40 am

1. A bunch of self-serving shysters bringing the good name of science into disrepute through peddling distorting propaganda on the basis of scientific reports peppered with ifs and buts.
2. A vehicle for the organised transfer of wealth from the USA and Western Europe to India, China and others based on nothing more than a bunch of lying grant-chasers bullshitting GIGO science for the best part of 25 years.
3. A bunch of self-absorbed, overpaid assholes constantly on the look out for the next jolly.
4. An organisation with a share of voice only matched by the North Korean Government and whose preachings and strictures have about as much relevance to reality as those coming out of Pyongyang.
5. A clear manifestation why the lofty goals of the UN’s original intentions have been subverted by tammany hall global politics by third rate scroungers to the detriment of all decent people who hoped for better but have learned to expect nothing.
6. an organisation whose time has past, whose executive must be fired and whose funding streams must be cut off, yesterday.

Reply to  rtj1211
November 2, 2014 3:01 pm

rtj: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the IPCC has subverted the UN’s “lofty goals”. After all, the brief given to the IPCC was to find that human activity is causing global warming…er, “climate change”. Or is it just pollution nowadays.

Ron
Reply to  rtj1211
November 2, 2014 4:44 pm

I agree. What troubles me the most however, is that these people are so completely invested in this deception, in terms of their reputations, funding, possibility of tenure, their jobs and their Socialist world view that they will never admit they are wrong. Warming is their religion. I listened to John Coleman today on CNN. He made some good points, doing the best he could do in a hostile environment. CNN then brought out a Warmer, with a smug smile, making condescending comments about Mr. Coleman’s ideas, dismissing him as a denier, and parading out again the phony 97% consensus. The CNN moderator was all smiles.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Ron
November 2, 2014 9:37 pm

If I had been him I would have told the warmest, anyone one who does not think the climate is changing is a fool, about a 100% of us skeptics believe it is, since we now have answer that question and has put you stupid 97% consensus to rest and we have a question for you why is it your consensus not 100%, after all I believe it should be 100% of every human should believe that the climate is changing. The real problem that you fools ask the wrong question and to hold up a 97% consensus on that question and when that answer should be 100% you must be a fool. Only a fool would think that the climate can remain the same, because when in the history of the earth did it remain stable? Now I put to rest that the climate is changing which it is, now I will as you the real questions, the real question is not if the climate is changing after all it is! the real questions what the cause, how much will it change and which direction is it going to go and for how long is it going to go that direction! To any intelligent person there should be about 100% consensus that we don’t know the answer to any of those questions. Anybody who think they know are truly fools. Actually we all should be telling the world and all the warmest the above, I think we been trying but maybe we are not blunt enough about it.

Brian H
Reply to  Ron
November 3, 2014 12:53 am

It’s “warmist”, Mark. You blew it twice.

November 2, 2014 11:41 am

Bob, I totally agree that the IPCC is merely a report-writing entity. For far too long, we’ve been led to believe this is a scientific body. But it’s actually just a UN bureaucracy, prone to all the normal excesses and shortcomings.
Some of my own thoughts on the new document appear here: IPCC Links New Report to Sneering Stephen Schneider
The climategate e-mails reveal the late Schneider to be rude, intolerant, and an enemy of free-speech. Unbelievably, the IPCC chose to dedicate this new document to his memory.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Donna Laframboise
November 2, 2014 1:39 pm

Apropos, no?

Reply to  Donna Laframboise
November 2, 2014 1:57 pm

Unbelievably. Sadly, all too believable, Donna, in the Alice in Wonderland world of the IPCC.

Stacey
Reply to  Donna Laframboise
November 2, 2014 2:21 pm

Oh Donna
Schneider was interviewed years ago I’ll try to find the link. Anyone with a brain cell could see how fragrant he was. Global cooling was his thing

Dave N
Reply to  Stacey
November 2, 2014 2:54 pm

Schneider appears at 6:04, here:

Though it’s worth watching all 3 parts to remind ourselves about how “extreme” the cold was in the late 70’s.

Brian H
Reply to  Stacey
November 3, 2014 12:57 am

fragrant = flagrant? Duh.

notfubar
Reply to  Stacey
November 7, 2014 10:12 am

Peddling bovine excrement does leave one fragrant.

DavidR
Reply to  Donna Laframboise
November 2, 2014 2:45 pm

The IPCC is a peer review body. As such, it’s job is to synthesise the prevailing scientific literature on climate related topics.
Or we could just rely on bloggers.

Reply to  DavidR
November 2, 2014 3:04 pm

Uh, yep, “synthesize”.

Mario Lento
Reply to  DavidR
November 2, 2014 3:15 pm

@DavidR November 2, 2014 at 2:45 pm”
+++++++++++++++
David: You miss characterize their goal, completely and in your own words, you do not understand their mission! Here it is stated from their own words and a link if you don’t believe what they write:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=61
1.4 Global Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation
Figure 1.6: The global-sustainability perspective.
In Sections 1.2 and 1.3, we examined literature that was motivated primarily by concerns of global cost-effectiveness and global equity respectively. We now turn to a third category of literature, which is motivated largely by considerations of global sustainability. This literature views the climate problem as a component of a larger problem, namely the unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption, and explores a broad range of options for moving the world towards a sustainable future (Figure 1.6).

garymount
Reply to  DavidR
November 2, 2014 4:35 pm

Donna Laframboise has done a great job of exposing that the second to last IPPC 5 year report contained 40% non-peer reviewed material.

geologyjim
Reply to  Donna Laframboise
November 2, 2014 8:13 pm

I had the illuminating experience of being Steve Schneider’s next-door neighbor in Boulder CO in the late 80s-early 90s, just as he was transitioning from “nuclear winter doom” to “global warming doom”
He was clearly entranced with Carl Sagan’s notoriety over the nuclear winter thing. His obsession with public relations and media coverage was conspicuous.
Ego overcame personality, and his lovely wife Cheryl dumped him in the early 90s. No surprise. Hope the kids came out all right.
If IPCC is attempting to gain stature by invoking Schneider’s name, they have failed on both historical and scientific grounds.

Curious George
November 2, 2014 11:44 am

I left the following comment at a discussion of a methodology of finding a root cause at.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/23/root-cause-analysis-of-the-modern-warming/ :
Compared to this boring and tedious procedure, I find the IPCC approach refreshingly streamlined and efficient:
Start with point 3 – assemble a body of carefully vetted experts. The declare that an excursion has occurred (satisfying point 1) and select carefully vetted data to support that position (point 2).
Replace points 4 to 8 with declarations and a democratic vote of experts. Not only does it confirm a root cause, but it yields an additional benefit of a confidence level: when 29 out of 30 experts vote that the “global warming” is “catastrophic anthropogenic”, they have reached that conclusion on a 97% confidence level.

Tony B
November 2, 2014 11:48 am

Sounds like a question for “Family Feud”. We polled 100 people and received the top 7 responses to:

November 2, 2014 11:49 am

The IPCC is the political incarnation of ‘begging the question’.

nielszoo
November 2, 2014 11:49 am

another avenue for the Progressive and liberal “elites” to bend our lives and livelihoods in the direction they, with their “superior wisdom” believe we should be going… no matter what we want, what reality says, and in spite of their actual ignorance.

November 2, 2014 11:51 am

IPCC AR5 TS.6 was written by folks who didn’t get the memo. TS.6 Key Uncertainties pretty much says they haven’t got a clue about most of it and made up the rest.

Old England
November 2, 2014 11:52 am

The IPCC is nothing more than a Trojan horse seeking a world government by stealth and deception.

Reply to  Old England
November 2, 2014 5:58 pm

You nailed it. That is their goal and writing endless reports is their initial method to achieve it by trying to convince people and politicians to pursue a path of economic suicide through the banning of life-giving fossil fuels. These are NOT mis-guided individuals but are ideologues with an agenda that is in reality anti-capitalism and therefore anti-life. If it looks like a Marxist, acts like a Marxist then you can bet it IS a Marxist.

markl
Reply to  objectivistken
November 2, 2014 6:57 pm

+1 I’m usually not into conspiracy theories but CAGW makes me a believer. The depth of insincerity and deception exhibited is an eye opener.

M Courtney
Reply to  Old England
November 3, 2014 1:56 am

A new world order?
There are levels of global cooperation; why jump to the most sci-fi?
Many would like to see a more equitable distribution of the world’s resources. An extra 50p to the world’s poorest has far more impact than to a Westerner.
So many will support the proposed remediation techniques regardless of the science behind it. Without wanting a new Imperium.
I do think you are a conspiracy theorist. And I do think you are wrong because you have no limit on your suspicions. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy – some international cooperation will not lead inexorably to a global government

yam
November 2, 2014 11:54 am

The IPCC is nothing more than a…
…collection of ideologues being ideologues.
Politicians are just hustlers but these people are truly dangerous.

Kevin
November 2, 2014 11:54 am

The IPCC is nothing more than a method of transferring power and money into the hands of the UN.

Amr Marzouk
November 2, 2014 11:57 am

Parasites.

joelobryan
November 2, 2014 11:57 am

The political success of the Montreal Protocol emboldened the Left to reach for the Holy Grail of environmentalism. Which is Full control and throttling of economies and resource production.
I say political success, because as is becoming clear, the science linking the Antarctic ozone hole and Manmade CFCs is starting to look questionable.

Brian H
Reply to  joelobryan
November 3, 2014 1:02 am

It was instantly discredited when the Hole closed up right away, 20 years before emissions reductions could have taken effect high in the atmosphere.

November 2, 2014 11:58 am

…an International Political Conspirators Conference.

November 2, 2014 12:01 pm

The thing is the DATA does not support any of the claims they are making. In addition the climate has been very stable for the last 100 years compared to other periods of time.
The best part is going forward global temperatures will be trending down not up which should finally end their nonsense.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
November 2, 2014 9:44 pm

I doubt it, Slavatore. That is why they changed the name from AGW to Climate Change to Climate Disruption. They want to be able to blame any changes and any weather event on Climate Change/Climate disruption. They will never admit they are wrong. As Dennis Prager says, “Being on the Left means never having to say you are sorry”.

November 2, 2014 12:01 pm

nothing more than a panel of left-wing propagandists, trying to scare the general populations into relinquishing their wallets, in order to save our planet from alleged boogiemen…. Pathetic!

Cosmic Puppet
November 2, 2014 12:03 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a fifth column against humanity.

Tim
Reply to  Cosmic Puppet
November 3, 2014 3:26 am

Chev,you are correct,but it is not just our wallets that they want.Like all totalitarians,they want everything!

Scottish Sceptic
November 2, 2014 12:03 pm

I’ve already said
… is nothing more than a lawyer’s wet dream … hundreds of people who have no clue about their personal liability giving advice which is almost certainly wrong and for which they are personally liable.
Hence my other accolade:
International Panel of Climate Clowns.

asybot
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 2, 2014 7:23 pm

Intentional People of Crowd Control

Malc
November 2, 2014 12:04 pm

I think politicians and other leaders like vast, nebulous ‘problems’ like human induced climate change so they can look like they’re doing something whilst utterly lacking the vision to make a difference in people’s lives where it counts

Ken L.
November 2, 2014 12:09 pm

The IPCC report is nothing more than a not too subtle variation of the BIG LIE propaganda technique.
If governments really want to do something for the future, they should stop hemorrhaging money into an impractical and exaggerated climate agenda and direct their efforts at economically feasible future energy sources, such as newnuclear, that save carbon resources for our chemical needs long into the future

Ken L.
Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 12:16 pm

Apologies.Rushed my edit, but you get the idea.

Mike Smith
November 2, 2014 12:10 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than an institutionalized development of the hippie movement.

Mike H.
Reply to  Mike Smith
November 2, 2014 12:42 pm

+1

Dobes
November 2, 2014 12:13 pm

At least we’re back up to 86 years before the world ends. I was starting to worry.

Editor
November 2, 2014 12:14 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than … a bureaucracy that between major reports has to find other ways to get attention and remind everyone they’re still around.
If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet … they would shed their “CO2 is a demon gas” mindset and encourage scientists to study “natural variability” instead.

Jimbo
November 2, 2014 12:16 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a group of self-serving climastrologists.
The IPCC is nothing more than a bunch of people who deny observations.
The IPCC is nothing more than a bunch of people doing whatever it takes to protect the pool of research grants.

ChipMonk
Reply to  Jimbo
November 2, 2014 8:37 pm

Here here… bravo… slight correction to point #2 – “…who deny or do not understand observations.”

Otteryd
November 2, 2014 12:16 pm

A device whereby data can be hidden from the thoughtful person, and that which cannot be hidden can be adjusted, and computer models can be presented as data of the future; consensus can be cynically claimed and presented as science and alternative interpretations regarded as at best criminal and at worst irreligious. Or should that be the other way round?
Whither logic and common sense? ‘Reverse’ climate change? Perleaze!

Denby Bob
November 2, 2014 12:17 pm

…clear-cut and irrefutable evidence that individual man’s need to be seen as ‘relevant’ trumps the modern world’s standards of morality and ethics. Corollary: “..the Emperor has no clothes!!”

Mario Lento
November 2, 2014 12:19 pm

Bob: Your ability to track down the heat, is honest and clear. I don’t think I can better your conclusions that complete the following, “The IPCC is nothing more than a…” However, let me add the following.
1) “The IPCC is nothing more than a”n avenue for politicians to use fear of CO2 (a life giving compound) to funnel money to them. Fear has always been used to drive humans towards political gain. This, IPCC agenda, is at the expense of humans’ ability to thrive.
2) “The IPCC is nothing more than a…” way to distract the world from true ecological advancement which could be attained by focusing on actual clean technologies which focus on actual pollutants. With one of the outcomes being that CO2 is now considered a pollutant by some, nothing good can come from that false outcome! The damage caused by the IPCC, vis a vis a distraction of focus on true pollution controlling techniques, is real and present. An example is how the term “clean coal” now means using coal such that it sequesters CO2 in the process of harnessing its energy. The focus should be on removing the resultant pollution, not CO2.

November 2, 2014 12:22 pm

…scam.

csanborn
Reply to  mikeweatherford
November 2, 2014 3:02 pm

A test scam. If they can float the “plausible” ‘carbon is bad for the environment’ meme for their nefarious purposes, just think of the other sadistic liberal-minded possibilities.

jwl
November 2, 2014 12:23 pm

A political organization that must be studied in future years. Never have I thought that Lysenkoism can be brought to this level in the Western world nor have the basic scientific test of cause and effect been so distorted. They have done a brilliant job of crafting their PR.

R. Shearer
November 2, 2014 12:27 pm

…feelings, nothing more than feelings.

Chip Javert
November 2, 2014 12:28 pm

Current USA public discussion is subject to ever escalating streams of Orwellian double-speak from our so-called leaders. The spectrum runs from “Fast & Furious”, victory in Iraq, no corruption at the IRS, the non-economic recovery, success of Obamacare website, “if you like your doctor…”, “we know how to handle Ebola”, to “we’re all gonna die from climate change”.
The average citizen reacts by tuning out and losing faith in previously highly regarded institutions (Justice Dept, medical system, CDC); there appears to be no accountability or consequence for willingly and knowing lying, just like Baghdad Bob of Iraq war fame. Political evangelism replaces critical thinking.
This same dark cloud of distrust will settle on science and academia as the public realizes how fearlessly they have been lied to regarding CAGW. Not just on the bad guys – it will settle over all science and academia.
Yea, it’s important to win the CAGW argument, but victory will come at a heavy price. The world won’t wake up the next morning and return to rational thought.

Stephen Richards
November 2, 2014 12:32 pm

The IPCC would not exist or have zero credibility if not for the likes of Betts, Schmidt, Trenberth, Stott, Dame Slymgis, Pachi and all the other hangers on from the met offices of the western government. Without taxpayer’s money being taken at every point in this stinkingingly corrupt process, both at the point of revenue and the point of energy use, none of these slimeballs would be in work.
Let’s get rid of the socialists and stop wasting public money on these shisters. Put them on the dole now or better still the street.
We needs the stocks of the medieval period to put these people in and the poor and elderly to chuck horses d’oeuvres at them.

hunter
November 2, 2014 12:35 pm

Whatever the IPCC is, they are apparently oblivious to an important disconnect. This political report does not reconcile with the content of the science the IPCC has just reported on.
It is as if this political statement that we are now reading was written without regard to the reality.

Amatør1
Reply to  hunter
November 2, 2014 1:18 pm

It is as if this political statement that we are now reading was written without regard to the reality.

As if?

Jazznick
November 2, 2014 12:38 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a ‘bent’ copper looking to frame CO2 for a crime it did not commit.
Compliant informants can be bought – contrary evidence can be ‘lost’, laws, both legal and scientific can be
sidestepped, witnesses can be silenced or sacked, evidence can be enhanced.
They just need to get poor innocent CO2 ‘banged-up’ , then the way is clear, the science settled – the IPCC and it’s UN masters will be in full control of all your energy supplies and will decide on your future life: or lack of it, in the proper undemocratic manner (as it’s extremely profitable)
The unelected socialist elite will then have a legal mandate to run the world in their image regardless of what you think are your sovereign rights.
Now run along..be a good citizen..pay your subsidies and they won’t take it further. They wouldn’t want anything ‘unfortunate’ to happen to you would they ? After all they are doing all this for your own good aren’t they ?
Well you KNOW they are – it’s on the BBC so it all MUST be true.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jazznick
November 2, 2014 9:23 pm

Lovely molecule ya got ‘ere. Hate to see anyfin’ ‘appen to it.

November 2, 2014 12:38 pm

Are 95% certain it’s getting hotter , they are just not sure where .

Reply to  Vic Wieland
November 2, 2014 9:51 pm

Mercury, maybe?

November 2, 2014 12:38 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a corrupt bunch of undemocratically appointed bureaucrats who report to the corrupt bunch of undemocratically appointed bureaucrats at the UN..

Dr Burns
November 2, 2014 12:40 pm

It’s surprising how many alarmists I’ve met who don’t believe it’s a governmental body … until I remind them of the title.

November 2, 2014 12:41 pm

If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…
They would totally ignore the IPCC and virtually any other environmental activist organization.

John Fisk
November 2, 2014 12:44 pm

Idiotic, Pathetic, Complete, Clots?
Increasingly, Pandering, Climate, Clowns?

H.R.
November 2, 2014 12:46 pm

If the IPCC really wanted to help the planet they could start by decarbonizing themselves.

H.R.
November 2, 2014 12:50 pm

And here is an advance photo of the Paris attendees (H/T to suggestions above).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YGl95mKBfkw/T350ze3IBZI/AAAAAAAAB7M/JnUzDRUd84Q/s1600/SendInTheClowns.jpg

Chip Javert
Reply to  H.R.
November 2, 2014 1:09 pm

Oh man[n], you win the daily double with that photo.

John F. Hultquist
November 2, 2014 12:58 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a reason, either #55 or #56, for discarding the U. N. into the dust bowl of history.

cnxtim
November 2, 2014 12:59 pm

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Crepehangers

Björn from Sweden
November 2, 2014 1:01 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:
-That is the PR apparatus behind an attempt by a political and financial elite to take control over the global economy by means of deception and taxation.
-That is the modern day prophets(scientists) proclaiming doom unless we mortals pay offerings (carbon tax) to the priests (politicians) and the temples (banks) to please the gods (the weather). A many millenia old con-scheme.
-That is attempting a Guinnes world record in stacking coins. The goal could be to tax 1 metric tonne CO2 100$.
Just to put the ridiculous numbers in perspective I will apply school-math to the problem:
I guess 35 000 000 000 tons of co2 are emitted every year. Im not extrapolating in future africa and india here when this becomes reality make it 50Gton then. A dollar coin is 2 mm thick, 500 dollars make one meter. This is fun, just like math in school, right? We divide 35 000 000 000 by 500 and get 70 000 000 million meter, or 70 000 km. the moon is 380 000km from earth and we will thus reach the moon with our dollar stack in less than 6 years (70 000 x 5 is 350 000 etc). NASA watch out, you have competition.
(I never was very good at math in school, so so guaranties that the numbers add up correctly)

Gunga Din
November 2, 2014 1:01 pm

With no “Sandy” looming and elections looming, The IPCC is nothing more than a group that knows it’s time for a “report”.

Mike Bryant
November 2, 2014 1:06 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-science, anti-life, anti-poor, anti-logic murderers.

Rob Dawg
November 2, 2014 1:10 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a failed actor who wants to direct.

November 2, 2014 1:14 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a collection of equivocators who, through applications of the equivocation fallacy, imply that they are supplying policy makers with information about the outcomes of climatological events when they are supplying policy makers with no such information. If politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet they would fire all of these people and indict some of them.

November 2, 2014 1:22 pm

Well, Bob allow me to enter the definition from my climate change dictionary:
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change = A panel consisting of individuals with minor mental capacity and major egos instigated with the purpose of determining the cause of Climate Changing beyond that of normal ordinary seasons in order that the remainder of mankind can be found to be in dire error and guilty of partaking in a criminal involvement against nature so as to be cajoled into paying for all imaginary misdeeds done since the start of the Industrial age, the volume of payment yet to be determined beyond that of the amount remaining which may yet be extracted from the pockets of ordinary men and women by way of their governments, less of course that amount remaining in Governmental coffers after having been extracted by way of taxes, dues, fines and fees. A pseudo scientific organization on par with those who perform the art of the séance and astrology, their purpose is to stamp unbelievable rubbish with the lexicon of authority so as to become believable to the ones whose pockets are being picked in order to pay the salaries of those doing the picking and the salaries of those encouraged to develop the rubbish delivered to the panel to stamp with their authority, as well as any family, friends or acquaintances who have participated in this folly as well as any family friend or acquaintance who would have liked to have participated. At no time is any actual participation in scientific research allowed since such research would be counterproductive to the objectives desired by the panel to be achieved which is in primary the spending of copious quantities of money for the purpose of determining how it can be demonstrated that any normal and otherwise ordinary change in climate change must in fact be an undesirable consequence of some act of mankind.
The rest of the dictionary can be found here:
http://wp.me/p4MyHW-2M

ChipMonk
Reply to  wyoskeptic
November 2, 2014 8:42 pm

Haaa…. a PHD thesis in one paragraph… please submit to Harvard for your degree. 🙂

Hlaford
November 2, 2014 1:24 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than an Ivory tower of the obsolete science of this age.
Previous ages enthusiastically enjoyed eugenics that also did in the poor.

Reply to  Hlaford
November 2, 2014 10:00 pm

Eugenics was also an idea of the Progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson who loved it and, the elites of the day. It was all based on “science”, you know. From these Progressives, especially those in California, Hitler got the idea of extermination of the undesirables. He even wrote them a letter thanking them. In the US, blacks were the most common target for being declared an undesirable. Hitler chose different groups, one in particular, as we know.
Hitler, Genocide, & the California Connection
Started by ForRizzle , Apr 25 2005 04:35 PM
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39183
The Progressives have not changed much in all these years.

beng
Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 3, 2014 7:06 am

Right. Goebbels got his propaganda techniques from freely-available US university/government & Hollywood publications. The N*zi party was well aware that Germany had badly lost the propaganda “war” to the US & British during WW1 & meant to correct it.

DavidR
November 2, 2014 1:25 pm

If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet… they would pay heed to their national scientific academies and advisers.

Jeff Todd
November 2, 2014 1:31 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a self-licking lollipop; existing only to produce reports at taxpayers’ expense justifying it’s own continue existence at taxpayers’ expense.

Tim
November 2, 2014 1:31 pm

The IPCC is an organization promulgated by a corrupt organization run by unelected people looking for more power and more money.

Bladerunner56
November 2, 2014 1:33 pm

HL Mencken : “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins , all of them imaginary.”

Reply to  Bladerunner56
November 2, 2014 3:51 pm

Yes, and the IPCC was created to scam up the biggest series of hobgoblins yet. They have been successful at their task.

Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 1:34 pm

Just had my comment censored on BBC …
I politely corrected someone who suggested that the the pause is in the imagination of the den****
So I suggested they look at UAH, RSS as these temperature records are based on the real world. This is obviously too much to handle for the poor old BBC.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 1:59 pm

The days of the Biased broadcasting company are clearly numbered.

DavidR
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 2:15 pm

When did the pause start in UAH?

DavidR
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 2:17 pm

UAH is the warmest of all the global data sets over the past 18 years.

DavidR
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 2, 2014 2:35 pm

Warming in UAH since 1998 is +0.10C/dec. That’s faster than the average rise recorded by surface stations over the 20th century.
How is that a ‘pause’ in warming?

M Courtney
Reply to  DavidR
November 3, 2014 8:04 am

Oh , I see.
The pause is a statistical measurement. Temp goes up and down all the time – is the trend significant?
According to the IPCC (AR5) – No. It is not.
Also, the more important issue is that the models predicted warming. Again, according to the IPCC they are statistically significantly wrong. So even if the warming begins again we can’t say we understand why. If the models explained the warming they wouldn’t be wrong.
But the pause is real. t is measured. Denial of observations is not scientific.
And the models are wrong. It is confirmed. Denial of a comparison between the models to observations is not scientific.

Ian H
November 2, 2014 1:36 pm

The IPCC is a bastard child of politics and science inheriting the worst problems of both and the virtues of neither.

Reply to  Ian H
November 2, 2014 5:04 pm

+1!

November 2, 2014 1:40 pm

The IPCC is the Nationalized,Pseudo scientific.political organization,created for the purpose of advancing their legalized conflict of interest agreements,among themselves.

johann wundersamer
November 2, 2014 1:48 pm

The IPCC is
nothing more than a retarding element in mankinds proceedings.
If the
politicians were truly interested
in helping humanity and the
planet they’d recognice we’ve entered 21.st ctry ALREADY!
time to go!

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
November 2, 2014 1:59 pm

The ipcc is JUST ANOTHER retarding
element in mankinds
proceedings.
If the
politicians were truly
interested
in helping humanity and the
planet they’d recognice we’ve
entered 21.st ctry ALREADY!
time to go!

derekcrane
November 2, 2014 1:48 pm

The IPCC is nothing but an expensive mouthpiece for a cabal on internationalist grifters who plan to sting the world for $trillions.

jorgekafkazar
November 2, 2014 1:48 pm

The IPCC is nothing less than the envy of Hitler, Stalin, and Goebbels.

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2014 1:49 pm

Clinking clanking collection of caliginous jawboning junk science-spewing nincompoops.

scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 1:49 pm

This feels like a comedy central roast. You guys can say what you want, 2014 is still tied for the hottest year to date on record. Arctic sea ice is disappearing, and Antarctic/Greenland land ice is melting and going into the sea. Convince me with data that those claims are false, and then we can talk about hoaxes.

David Ball
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 2:16 pm

If you aren’t convinced by now, I doubt anything anyone says will sway you from that.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  David Ball
November 2, 2014 2:21 pm

Please, enlighten me. I’m open minded. Tell me why you’re so sure that despite the clear rise of surface temps over the post industrial period, that despite clear trends in ice melts, despite clear sea level rise, that it is absurd for me to think the earth is getting warmer.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  David Ball
November 2, 2014 2:23 pm

In other news, smoking is actually good for you and leaded gasoline cures cancer.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  David Ball
November 2, 2014 2:30 pm

in short:
retardet!
brg Hans

Reply to  David Ball
November 2, 2014 2:33 pm

scienceinpolitics,
Please stop misdirecting the debate. Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] know that the planet has been warming naturally since the LIA — not just sine the ‘post industrial period’, whatever that is. FYI: we are still in the industrial age. You just don’t like the [verifiable] fact that global warming has stopped, while industrial emissions are ramping up. That kinda destroys your belief, doesn’t it?
And who said the planet has not been warming since the LIA? Only Michael Mann and his acolytes, who preposterously believe that there was no warming until human emissions began [the long, straight shaft odf his hockey stick].
You can now be enlightened. But you won’t be. Because you have made up your mind, and all the facts in the world are not enough to change it. It would be ‘absurd’ to think so.

derekcrane
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 2:25 pm

Any melted Arctic ice is more than made up by the expanding Antarctic ice.
Hottest year to date? Since when? The trend line of global temps has been slightly downward since 1998.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  derekcrane
November 2, 2014 2:31 pm

Its not, antarctic sea ice gain is 1/3 of arctic ice lost. But that misses the point. Anarctica is a continent. Continents have land. Antarctica has lost a shit ton of land ice that coal companies like to ignore.
In response to 1998, thats not how u draw a trend line. You dont draw it from a temperature spike. Take it over 30 years, 100 years. Look at temperatures over the last 1000 years. There is clearly anomalous warmingg.
And you still havent addressed sea level rise.

Reply to  derekcrane
November 2, 2014 2:42 pm

scienceinpolitics says:
…antarctic sea ice gain is 1/3 of arctic ice lost.
Every post of yours has been based on incorrect assertions like that. But the fact is that the Antarctic has ten times the ice volume of the Arctic, so your assertion is nonsense.
Next, keep the “coal companies” out of the debate. That only displays your political agenda.
Next, you are far from being up to speed on this subject. The trend lines are computer-drawn, typically by sites like WoodForTrees.
Finally, you obvioulsly don’t know about the Little Ice Age. Global temperature has been recovering from the LIA, which was one of the coldest episodes of the Holocene [past 10,700 years].
I suggest you spend a couple of months reading the archives here; keyword: sea ice, and CO2. You are truly a novice, parroting talking points that have been debunked long ago. Education would help you immensely. Right now, you just don’t understand, so it is very easy to counter all your baseless assertions.

derekcrane
Reply to  derekcrane
November 2, 2014 3:55 pm

@scienceinpolitics
Trend lines can be drawn from anywhere the researcher chooses. The warmists often choose 1979 since that year was a low point in global temperatures. Any warming afterwards would look massive and ominous.
Yes there is warming over the last 100 years. There is actually warming from after the “Little Ice Age” which ended around 1850. Nothing anomalous about it. The earth has been warming and cooling since earth first developed an atmosphere.
As the great meteorologist, Tex Antoine, was fond of saying, “If global warming is inevitable, just relax, lie back and enjoy it.”
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached its maximum extent—its widest halo around the continent—in 2014 on 22 September: more than 20 million square kilometers, which also set a record for the highest extent of sea ice around the continent since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s. Not a good stat for you grifter warmists.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 2:26 pm

scienceinpolitics,
You should change your screen name to something more accurate: politicsinscience.
Global warming stopped many years ago, so enough with the pointless arm-waving over ‘this year is the hottest’. By which particular data base? The one you cherry-picked?
Arctic sea ice is not disappering. That is a flat out lie. Where do you think you’re commenting? At Grist? Get real.
Arctic ice is fluctuating, as always. It declined for several years, but this year it is above it’s long term average. That is not “disappearing”.
Global ice cover [we’re discussing global warming, see?] is rising above it’s long term average, as seen here.
Arctic/Greenland ice is always melting and going into the sea. If you need something to be alarmied about, worry about asteroids or something. Polar ice is not worth worrying about.
You claim that you want data? No, you don’t:
Global ice is at it’s 30-year average [the red line].
While Arctic ice has declined, Antarctic ice — which has 10X the volume of the Arctic — is steadily rising.
Earlier in the current Holocene, the Arctic was likelyt ice-free — before human emissions were a factor.
You claim you can be convinced with data. But I think you will reject any and all data provided. Why? Because your mind is made up and closed tight.
Prove me wrong. If you do, you will be the first. Otherwise, keep politicizing science. You’re good at that.

M Courtney
Reply to  dbstealey
November 2, 2014 2:32 pm

Good point. Please ScienceinPolitics, consider the evidence that is presented by dbstealey.
And consider how much certainty we need before raising the cost of energy.
Higher costs kill the poor.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 2, 2014 3:08 pm

1) I base my claim that 2014 is tied for the hottest year to date on record from the NOAA’s same claim
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9
But that’s not the point. It’s more important that this is the hottest decade on record. There’s a clear,anomalous warming trend over the last 100 years.
2) I actually am sad that our Southern Hemisphere asteroid observatory just closed. It’s a shame that we have no advantage over dinosaurs to spot asteroids in the southern hemisphere.
3) Only Antarctic sea ice has increased. And while it’s more massive, it’s still increased less than Arctic sea ice has declined. However, most importantly for you to realize, Antarctic land ice has significantly declined.
4) I admit that I didn’t know that 7000-8000 years ago the Arctic didn’t have as much ice. I’d like to know what the sea levels were like then, and what sort of economic impact that climate would’ve had on human activity. You’ve given me something to look into, thanks.
5) You still haven’t explained rising sea levels. Tell me why my sea levels are rising. I hope it’s due to solar energy farms, because they’re not as economical as coal in most places.

tomwys1
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 2:26 pm

Looking for data? Try this piece written by an ex-NASA data using colleague – Roy Spencer, who I see briefly a few times during the year at one or another climate conference.
http://sppiblog.org/news/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record#more-11879
He takes a very valid “pot shot” at some people taking advantage of their ability to “cherry pick” RSS data midway through the piece, so I’m sure you’d appreciate that!
Missing, however, is the observation that NOAA’s claimed and measured rising temperatures mask one of the real problems with the thermometer based data set. The problem is that the maximum highs are tracking consistently flat, while the maximum lows are still slowly rising (albeit measured in hundredths of degrees). The rise of the maximum lows is evidence of Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects, where pavements, buildings, etc. radiate and release residual heat during the night so that min-low just doesn’t drop, and the measured average, of necessity, must rise.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  tomwys1
November 2, 2014 2:42 pm

I like data. Thank you. I will look into the UHI thing. The trend of both methods, no matter the mechanism, still seems postive. I want to know what I can do to stop my seas from rising the way they are.

Reply to  tomwys1
November 2, 2014 2:49 pm

scienceinpolitics,
Good luck stopping your sea level rise. BTW, what color is the sky on your planet? It’s a nice cerulian blue here.
also, our sea level rise is not accelerating. It is rising no faster than it has since the LIA, and it likely is decelerating.

M Courtney
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 2:28 pm

Warmest is not Warming. That’s Daffy Duck Logic.
It warmed, yes. We measured that.
Then it stopped warming – but the emissions didn’t stop. If the emissions were the main cause of the warming then the warming should have continued.
The warming should have accelerated after WW2 as the emissions grew. But look at the temperature graph. It has the same slope before 1950 as after. Man’s impact is negligible compared with the natural variation that ended the Little Ice Age.
Finally, consider this. If the evidence was there it would be publicised.
Have you ever seen a graph of Global Temperature vs man’s CO2 emissions (or all man’s greenhouse gas emissions). Of course not. It could prove the case against man’s emissions, if AGW was right.
But it doesn’t. That’s why you never see it.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 2:35 pm

This is the most logical argument on here ive seen. I hope youre right. I really do. But 2014 is tied for the hottest year to date ever recorded. This decade is the warmest ever recorded. Its not like temperatures have dipped at all since like 1940.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 2:51 pm

scienceinpolitics,
This year I am tied for the tallest ever recorded to date: 6’2″. At the rate I’m rising, I should be 8’9″ in twenty more years.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 2:52 pm

It’s not like temperatures have dipped at all since like 1940.

Well, give or take a decade around the 50s, that’s true – no argument.
But how long is significant? The temperature would be expected to go up for a few centuries and down for a few centuries unless the temperature is constant at a rate that is shorter than centuries. In geological time would that make sense?
No-one truly believes that the climate has such strong negative feedbacks that the global temperature reverts to the “right” level within a couple of decades. Can you imagine what they might be? I can’t. Nor can anyone else.
So how quickly would you expect the direction of a trend in ‘average global temperature’ to change
And why?

Andrew
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 3:11 pm

Where is this “warmest decade” rubbish coming from? Decade to 2011 was cooler than Dt2010. Dt2012 was cooler again. Dt2103 was cooler again. We had a graph just the other day showing both UAH and RSS temps nowhere near 1998, or even 2010. In fact RSS temps fell off a cliff in August. And anyone who claims sea ice is net falling is outright lying – there is no possible interpretation / opinion / data source issue here. Every data source shows a vast increase and a big uptrend in global sea ice. There’s a page with live updates on WUWT!

David Ball
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 3:14 pm

I am sorry guys, but how many have come to WUWT and spewed this same nonsense? Why should we be ones who have to support his alleged fixation for data. Should be the other way around. Next he will post some ridiculous graphs showing just enough of the truth to support his baseless arguments. We will post things to refute and they will be ignored. How many times do we have to go through the same old dance? Their theory has crashed and burned, yet they cling to the same old tired BS. Soooo boring.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 3:38 pm

I’ll graciously acknowledge Andrew catching me being lazy. He may be right about decade temps going down. I know that 2001-2010 was the hottest of any previous decade, but I can’t find the data since then.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/03/past-decade-hottest-on-record-marked-by-extremes-un/
Where Andrew is wrong is about global sea ice. It has remained steady, -1.43% per decade since 1978. Again, where there is no land all the sea ice is melting. Antarctic land ice is melting. Overall ice is being lost, and sea levels are rising.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2014 3:47 pm

scienceinpolitics, I could quibble over sea-ice for these reasons:
1) The Antarctic sea-ice extent is greater in the Antarctic winter than the summer so it can’t be caused by land-ice melting.
2) The sea-ice around Greenland is not growing so the warming cannot be causing the growth in sea-ice, in general.
3) Ice is just one parameter anyway. Why not Global Surface Temperature? That is what the catastrophic feedbacks are modelled to depend on. Why not the snow on Kilimanjaro, the Himalayan glaciers, the Caribbean hurricanes..? They have all been forgotten but were once the poster boys for disaster. If you bet on every horse you will always be winner; If you bet on every horse you will always be poor.
But I won’t so quibble. These time periods are too short to make any clear judgements.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2014 1:25 am

And thinks to Lasse on another post, here is the graph:
It clearly shows the two warming trends – before 1950 and after – with the level offset for a side by side comparison. Yes, they latter one is warmer because it has warmed. But the warming is indistinguishable.
So how big an impact has man’s emissions made?

Ken L.
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 2:37 pm

The temperatures have in essence and on average been tied for the hottest temperatures on record (over an archaeologically infinitesimal period) for close to 18 years – that’s what happens when the data reaches a plateau. What will you say if temperatures next drop like they did in the 1940s – 1950s after their increase in the first half of the century?

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 3:11 pm

I would be happy, believe it or not. I want you to be right. You’re not drawing a trend line though with the 1998 thing. You’re picking a maximum, and drawing a horizontal line. You’ll agree that the trend since the industrial revolution has been clearly positive, right? So it’s not crazy to think the Earth is warming?
And please explain to me why sea levels are rising.

M Courtney
Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 3:53 pm

Sea levels have been rising since records began. That is since after the end of the last ice age. If the glaciers were returning then we would be re-entering an ice age so we can be quite grateful that sea levels are rising.
But how fast are they rising?
About a foot every 100 years in the last century (high estimate). And the rate hasn’t discernibly changed. So from a policy viewpoint we can cope.
The Dutch solved this problem in the 16th century.

juan
Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 4:00 pm

@M Courtney.
..
You failed to answer the question.
Why are sea levels rising?

I don’t think it is because the Klingon warbirds are emptying their wastewater tanks into or oceans.

Care to offer a suggestion or two?

Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 4:07 pm

juan,
sea levels have been naturally rising since the LIA. That rise has not accelerated, although CO2 has recently increased by more than 25%. What does that tell you?
It tells me that the putative culprit, CO2, is not to blame for global warming.
In fact, global warming has stopped.
When the facts change, reasonable people change their minds. What do you do?

juan
Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 4:10 pm


..
“sea levels have been naturally rising since the LIA”

Yes, I agree with you that they have. but why?

Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 7:43 pm

juan,
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last great stadial. See here. Also, SL rise has been decelerating; see the Nature link here. Sea levels follow temperature, right? Therefore, the MWP and the LIA are reflected in the sea level.
Nature also suggests that groundwater storage and other anthropiological effects have an impact. They don’t say it’s due to global warming.
Here is another view of sea level changes. I do not see anything to be alarmed about. Do you? For more info, see here.
For a funny chart, this one tells a good story.
I hate to be the one to tell you [not really], but the government “adjusts” its charts to scare people. Here is an example. More, isostatic adjustments.
According to satellite altimetry, the sea level has been rising naturally at about 1.3″/century — hardly something to be alarmed about. And Holgate shows that the sea level rise follows a natural, decelerating curve.
Conclusion: the “accelerating sea level” scare is just another debunked alarmist prediction. Like every other alarming prediction, it has failed.
So… when will you throw in the towel, and admit that the ‘carbon’ scare and all it’s manifestations are pseudo-scientific nonsense? Ever? The alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything. Not one of their scary predictions have come true.
When, if ever, will the scales fall from your eyes? When will you see that the entire global warming scare is a money-fed hoax? When will you be a scientist, and go by the facts, instead of listening to the IPCC and its ilk? It’s time, bro…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ken L.
November 2, 2014 8:35 pm

@Juan,
The graph you posted is from 2 October… a month old. Here is the latest.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Arctic Sea Ice in 2014 is doing what is should be doing… growing… fast….and that is what it most assuredly has done for thousands of years, and will do for many 1000’s, ne 10,000, ne 100,000, ne 1,000,000 of years hence It will always grow dramatically in the lengthening cold arctic night air, dumping countless KJ of heat to space as LWIR on cold clear nights.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 5:15 pm

Arctic ice is not disappearing!
Antarctic land ice is not melting and going into the sea, except in very narrow marginalized places on top of volcanoes. This can be checked very easily against ‘sea level rise’ which has slowed recently and even gone into sea level decline periodically.
You found the falsehood singers yourself and convinced yourself even with their lack of data. Now use the information sources themselves!
Prove that the arctic ice is in a death spiral…
Prove that water is draining anywhere from Antarctic interior ice into the sea except for a very short summer season.
Do you personally know anywhere on Earth that was at it’s hottest ever during 2014? Let alone for most of 2014?
You’ve made the claims, now prove any part of them and then prove the rest.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 5:24 pm

I think everyone here agrees arctic sea ice is receding. If we cant agree on that trend we wont agree on much. Sea level change is also a clear trend. Please point me to sea level data that shows a decline in sea levels.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 5:39 pm

scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 at 5:24 pm
I think everyone here agrees arctic sea ice is receding. If we cant agree on that trend we wont agree on much.

Gee “science” …
1. I guess I agree that arctic sea ice is declining. (At least from 1979 through 2012.) Last few years it has actually been increasing since 2007’s low point, and has been within 2 standard deviation of the “normal” all year this year.
Which means that it really has not declined outside of normal at all, has it?
2. Oh, by the way, arctic summer temperatures at 80 north latitude – where the ice actually is when the sun is shining up in the Arctic – has been steady since 1959, declining just a bit since 2000.
3. oh, by the way, just what has Antarctic sea ice been doing sicne 1992? Been increasing the whole time, hasn’t it? Or are you ignoring a different Antarctic sea ice historical record than i have the past few years?
4. The Antarctic sea ice set an all-tim record HIGH this June with a 2.05 million square kilometers “excess” above normal. Now, just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice was the area the size of Greenland … Did you notice any headlines in your classes screaming that fact?
4. Show me the math that calculates any loss of Arctic sea ice from today’s levels anytime between August 22 and March 22 actually causes more heat to get in the exposed Arctic ocean.

juan
Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 6:00 pm

@ RACookPE1978

Here are a few facts to correct your perception of Arctic sea ice.
..
1) The “low point” was not 2007, it was 2012
2) Yes, the last two years have been higher than 2012, but remember, 2012 was a extreme year.
3) 2014 was less than 2013 (see link)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/asina_N_stddev_timeseries.png
..
4) Yes, it has been within 2 standard deviations this year. It was last year. (see link). However, from a statistical point of view, if you look at the graph, the last time the Arctic sea ice extent was ***AT*** the 1981-2010 average (grey line in graph) was 2001. Now, assuming that the ice extent is randomly distributed, you would expect that half the time it would be above average, and half the time below. What is the probability of it being below the average 13 years in a row? (Hint: same probability as flipping a coin 13 times and getting heads all 13 times….. 0.00012%)

Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 6:06 pm

scienceinpolitics says:
Please point me to sea level data that shows a decline in sea levels.
Gad, you people are frustrating! WHO SAID sea levels are declining?? Name names, please. Name ONE person here who said that.
Instead of parroting the talking points you get from stupid alarmist blogs, try to pay attention to what people here are saying. It is not what you think we are saying.
If your reading comprehension is that bad, why don’t you just practice reading and not commenting for a few months. Then take the good advice of one of our published, peer reviewed scientists here, and if you comment, QUOTE OUR WORDS. Verbatim. Cut and paste whatever you are commenting on. Because the things you write make you sound like a lunatic.
Really, quote the words, verbatim. Cite sources. Pay attention. Please! You’re driving me to drink — and I don’t drink.

juan
Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 6:09 pm

Correction 0.012%, the probability is 0.00012

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 6:16 pm

juan
November 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm (replying to)
@ RACookPE1978

Here are a few facts to correct your perception of Arctic sea ice.

Details worthy of note, thank you.
Now, for each month of the year, on the 22 of each month, please show me which is more important to the earth’s heat balance across the 24 hours of that day: The loss of 1,000 square kilometers of arctic sea ice, or the gain of 1,000 sq kilometers of Antarctic sea ice?
“Science” above claims that losing even a little arctic sea ice from today’s sea ice areas is much more important to the earth’s heat balance. He/she/it claims that “total sea ice area” is a symptom of a crisis that requires the deliberate killing of millions of innocent humans just so he/she/it can make a futile attempt to try to get the Arctic sea ice to recover to the 1979 values. Do you agree?

Reply to  ATheoK
November 2, 2014 7:18 pm

“dbstealey November 2, 2014 at 6:06 pm

“scienceinpolitics says:
Please point me to sea level data that shows a decline in sea levels.”

Gad, you people are frustrating! WHO SAID sea levels are declining?? Name names, please. Name ONE person here who said that…”

I’m the cause dbstealey; though not the perpetrator of the falsehood. Any detailed graph of actual sea level measurements show up/down movement with a long term upward movement. Sea levels are not static nor are they ever higher and higher; just to measure sea levels one enters a realm of constant up/down movement.
Within very recent history (new millennium basically) sea level rise stalled and even declined for short periods; that is, until the powers got together and decided that they were missing a steadily rising component of sea level, something NOAA and Colorado call adjustments. Which is what, something like 3mm a year?.
Oxymoron’s misstatement is deliberate though. As is Oxymoron’s continued avoidance of answering any pointed questions regarding their ‘proof’ coupled with absolute blindness towards learning ‘new to them’ science.
As with so many other trolls, their main determination is not to participate in discussion nor even argue points but to spew misinformation, distract from the thread’s main topic, spurn all offers of knowledge, ignore all informed questions and demean everyone that attempts to apply or keep to the scientific methods.

lee
Reply to  ATheoK
November 3, 2014 1:04 am

The 2012 Arctic low was at least partially caused by a cyclone. That is a weather event. Consider it an outlier.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 10:05 pm

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Not Going To Have To Worry About The Arctic Ice”…Arctic Scare Melting Away! -See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/01/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-not-going-to-have-to-worry-
about-the-arctic-ice-arctic-scare-melting-away/#sthash.OS4lKN4D.dpufArctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 3, 2014 5:42 am

I appreciate the fox news link that uses data. But per their same source, Arctic ice is going down 10.4% per decade.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
Please explain to me why I should use one particular year to year change vs. a trend line over 30 years.
The AMO might account for a very small portion of the Arctic ice melting, yes. But not much. For one, the AMO graphs have been decoupled from global warming. From wikipedia: “The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis.” Once you put that warming trend back in there, the amplitudes of the AMO signal are drowned out.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=288
Both DMI and GSS signals show a consistent .38 degree Celsius per decade increase in Arctic temperatures since 1958. Once again, tell me why my sea levels are rising, please.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 7:41 am

Any statistician will tell you that 4 data points is not robust enough for a trend. By grouping the data into “decades”, you have effectively created 4 data points. Where is the data from the 70s, 60s, 50s? The Cherry picking is also on your own head and referencing the pretend N@z1 site of SS does not bolster your case.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 3, 2014 7:46 am

It’s not four data points, it’s thousands. Would you rather me express the results in percent change per hour? Because Arctic sea ice is declining 1 ten thousandth of a percent per hour (if my mental math is correct). Over four decades that equates to 10.4% per decade, or over 40% every 40 years.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 12:00 pm

No SIP, it is not. You moved the goal posts from 40+ years to “decadal trends”. That is the only way you can get a straight line of decrease. If you use annual, you see more a sine wave. And if you use hourly, you get garbage. As everyone knows the earth has seasons.
So when YOU changed it to a “decadal” trend, you eliminated all statistical meaning, as you only have data for 4 of them. Data exists for more than 4, but you will not use it because then you would not get your nice decreasing line. And you will argue (truthfully) that other decades are not as comprehensive due to lack of global observations. That does not change the data, only our knowing what it is.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 3, 2014 8:14 am

So “politics” is worried about losing Arctic sea ice?
Why?
Well, so am I for that matter. From today’s Arctic sea ice extents, for every day of the year between August 22 and March 22, losing additional Arctic sea ice means that even ore heat is lost from the newly-exposed Arctic ocean waters than is gained from the low angle arctic sun.
When sea ice is missing from the Arctic up at latitude 76, 77, and 80 north, heat losses from the open water by long wave radiation, evaporation, conduction and convection are all increased.
On the other hand, increasing sea ice around Antarctic between latitudes 58 south and 68 south EVERY day of the year means increased reflection losses of solar energy. And a colder earth.
And increasing and record-breaking snow on over millions of square kilometers of land at latitude 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 on the first weekend of November is an even greater heat loss!

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 2, 2014 10:15 pm

You might want to consider this before you become too alarmed.


The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

The Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.

Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as
far north as 81° 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

The character of the waters of the great polar basic has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

AP — Washington Post Nov 2, 1922

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 3, 2014 6:05 am

If I relied on anecdotal evidence from 1922, I would come to some weird conclusions. By the same logic, I would agree with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that marijuana caused [….. cut it out .mod] (their words not mine), and thus should be deemed illegal. The point is that anecdotal evidence, especially from a long time ago, isn’t the same as satellite measurements or DMI observations.

markl
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 11:08 am

Sometimes anecdotal is all there is. So you’re saying the lack of satellite temperature measurements disproves the fact that grapes grew in Greenland centuries ago? Often common sense is more valid than bogus theories.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  markl
November 3, 2014 11:12 am

Are you saying we got surface temperature measurements in 1890 by going around and asking people how warm they felt?

mpainter
Reply to  Macrena Sailor
November 3, 2014 9:12 am

scienceinpolitics:
reports from the past should not be so despised. The reports of those who were familiar with the Arctic should be taken seriously, especially reports of the temperature of the Gulf Stream made by Dr. Hoel.
Your deprecatory remark in this regard reveals you as somewhat lacking as a scientist.

Gunga Din
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 11:48 am

Adjusted or unadjusted year “on record”?
The Arctic and Antarctic ice disappearing?
It happens every year. It comes back latter. Depending on the season. Yes, “climate” changes annually. (The “Ozone Hole” does the same. The Sun seems to something to do with that.)
PS 2014 is only “tied” for the hottest year on record? The hype is that it is the hottest year on record.
PPS “Convince me with data” that CO2 that Man has expelled has anything to do with the unobserved “Global Warming”?
PPPS Didn’t somebody say the heat was missing?

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 3, 2014 11:57 am

1) Yes, and to your point- sea ice levels have remained stable. But Antarctic and Greenland land ice, over time, has diminished
2) What is the argument?
3) Basic chemistry tells us that doubling CO2 leads directly to 1 degree Celsius temp rise. That is indisputable. We have the highest greenhouse gas concentrations in 800,000 years. Greenhouse gases make us warmer for the same reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury. There are indirect effects of concentrated greenhouse gases as well, like the effect of CO2 concentration on water vapor concentration.
Global warming is observed. There’s been a clear trend over the past 100 years that is much different than any recent previous century.
4) There’s more heat in the upper ocean than we thought? That’s increased over time too, and the lower ocean has remained constant. Tell me why my sea levels are rising. Tell me why my oceans are getting more acidic. I feel like point #3 does a satisfactory job of explaining it, but I welcome your hypothesis.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 4, 2014 4:38 am

Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Sorry SIP, that is just plain wrong. Venus is hotter for the same reason Jupiter is hotter. Atmospheric pressure.
Since Mars has the same concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere as does Venus, your assumption would dictate that Mars is hotter than earth. Yet it clearly is not.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  philjourdan
November 4, 2014 4:53 am

Mars barely even has an atmosphere? Which is warmer, a thick blanket, or one that is paper thin? If we cant agree on why venus is hotter than mercury despite being 2x the distance from the sun, were not going to agree on earths climate change

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 5, 2014 5:10 am

DUH! And neither does Mercury! Venus has one, that is 90 times as dense as that of earth! And of course Jupiter has a mighty one! That is much more dense than earth, Venus, or any other planet! And hence why the surface temperature is 9700º C!
But the CONCENTRATION of CO2 in the Mars Atmosphere is IDENTICAL to Venus. Yet it is not hot. So CO2 is NOT the answer. It may be a very small part of it, but the facts say it is merely a bit player in the temperature of Venus.
As Thadeus said, I feel like I am playing with someone wearing ankle weights. Keep up SIP, Keep up.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  philjourdan
November 5, 2014 6:01 am

Are you arguing CO2 isnt a well understood greenhouse gas?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 5, 2014 9:47 am

LOL! You will do anything to get out of admitting you have no clue what you are talking about.
Re-read my posts if they are too complicated for a first reading understanding. I said what I meant.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  philjourdan
November 5, 2014 9:47 am

That’s a simple yes or no question

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 6, 2014 4:51 am

No, it is a non sequitur since that is not the subject of my comment. Do you need me to repeat it in smaller words?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 3, 2014 12:26 pm

1) A “pause”? Wasn’t the Arctic supposed to be ice free by now?
2) What is the hype?
3) And the data than Man has much or anything to do with it? (Data, not theory.)
4) Still searching for the “missing heat”.
Hansen was wrong. Mann was wrong. But politics still clings to their “science” into politics.

juan
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 5, 2014 6:11 am

@philjourdan

Jupiter does not have a surface temperature of 9700 C.
The surface of our sun is at 5600 C.

“With an average temperature of minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 145 degrees Celsius), Jupiter is frigid even in its warmest weather ”
..
http://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html

Reply to  juan
November 5, 2014 9:50 am

If you lie Juan, you lie another:

Descend further and hydrogen becomes hot enough to turn into a liquid and the temperature is thought to be over 9,700 C.

http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/
I was not talking about the Sun. Are you?

juan
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 5, 2014 9:58 am

@philjourdan
..
You posted: “the surface temperature is 9700º C!”

You can “descend” all you want, you were wrong to claim the surface was that hot. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the word “surface”

Reply to  juan
November 6, 2014 5:05 am

From Miriam Webster: Surface – the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body
On Jupiter, that is the boundary between the gas and the water (kind of like 70% of earth).
Your problem is that I am quoting reputable sources. (see that linky thing) So you have no comeback except diversion. “get a dictionary”??? Please! Go back to grammar school if that is all you have.

juan
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 6, 2014 11:33 am

@philjourdan
“The gaseous nature of the planet makes a solid surface impossible.”
.
and
.
” Scientists theorize that the center of Jupiter is a dense core of liquid metallic hydrogen ”
http://www.universetoday.com/22719/surface-of-jupiter/

So, technically, there is no “surface”

Reply to  juan
November 7, 2014 6:13 am

LOL! So Juan, there is no “surface” for 70% of the Earth? Where did you go to school?
Liquid has no surface. Now that is a real laugh riot!

seedy
November 2, 2014 1:55 pm

……..is a committee with a solution (anthropgenic global warming) to a problem (how to prevent the extraction and combustion of hydrocarbon fuels). Remember which came first.

Paul Evans
November 2, 2014 1:57 pm

The UN IPCC are nothing more the socialists masquerading as environmentalists.

Tim
November 2, 2014 2:07 pm

The IPCC is probably the worlds best funded lobbying body, designed to introduce legislation to governments around the world to make renewable technology compulsory. Don’t be fooled by their supposed scientific ignorance, there are some very clever and rich people behind the IPCC and its agenda.

James Abbott
November 2, 2014 2:08 pm

Well lets keep our fingers crossed that you are all right in your ability to see into the future and that all those climate scientists are wrong.

M Courtney
Reply to  James Abbott
November 2, 2014 2:13 pm

Well, the IPCC (AR5 Box 9.2) says that the models are wrong.
You may think you know better than the scientists – the politicians who wrote the SFPM do too.
But I am not a politician.

David Ball
Reply to  James Abbott
November 2, 2014 2:14 pm

They’ve been wrong about everything so far. I see a trend. But you still believe they forecasted correctly, don’t you, James?

Admad
November 2, 2014 2:14 pm

The IPCC is… summed up pretty well in this little number

Kevin Benn
November 2, 2014 2:14 pm

“The Intergovernmental Panel was founded –
Not a scientific body, please note –
Whose reports were a foregone conclusion
For which responsible nations could vote.
‘This gas must become a pollutant!’
The task for the Panel was clear:
‘Feed Apocalypse Now to your models
And print off the profile of Fear!’
This ploy has proved grossly successful
To give credit where credit is due:
Respectable, Earth-loving persons
Now feel bad about CO2.
Every heat-wave is proof of the pudding,
Every tidal-wave out on the sea;
Whether ice-sheets are waxing or waning,
We’re the cause of it all, you’ll agree.”

Kurt in Switzerland
November 2, 2014 2:20 pm

From the SPM, page 4: “On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010.”
This is new to me. Does anyone know from where this claim was supposedly derived?

DavidR
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
November 2, 2014 2:32 pm

A reference to the report is provided for that comment (1.1.2, Figure 1.2). Did you check that?

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  DavidR
November 2, 2014 3:36 pm

The SPM has no hyperlinks. The long version has hyperlinks, but when I click on them, the following text pops up: “404 Error. File Not Found”
Since I hadn’t seen claims about the top 75m of the global ocean, this struck me as odd. The claim of four decades of continuous rise of 0.11 deg C / decade also would appear to contradict what earlier reports I’d seen (published one to two decades ago), which focused primarily on the incompleteness of the data gathering and on the broad spatial differences.
I’m wondering whether another non-rigorous, but conveniently fearsome claim has made it into an IPCC report, “despite best efforts…”

Jack.
November 2, 2014 2:26 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a politburo that is saving the planet for themselves, while the rest of us live in caves.
The IPCC is nothing more than a PR campaign for socialists. It ranks along baked beans for gas emissions.

November 2, 2014 2:33 pm

The IPCC is
Nothing other than a salacious bunch of nobodies falsely claiming to be guided by science about which they know virtually nothing.
Their claims about being concerned for the environment are not only baseles but nothing other than malicious. since they have done more damage to the environment via wind farm and solar panel farms than any other body in the history of mankind.
There is no way to combat them other than to coninue invoking a genjuine scntific approach that is based on actual observations and reproducibility.

johann wundersamer
November 2, 2014 2:39 pm

Bob Tisdale,
ideas!
enlightens breathing.
Thx – Hans

Spice Cat
November 2, 2014 2:45 pm

The IPCC is the raison d’etre for the UN subsequent to thier failed World peace keeping role.

KNR
November 2, 2014 2:46 pm

‘The IPCC is’ dead meat without AGW .
Like most UN bodies its parasitical in nature with no actual interest in ‘solving’ the issue , there by killing its host body , but with a great deal of interest in ‘its worst then we thought’ there bye increasing its power and budget. Now figure out the chances of them producing any report that does not support ‘the cause ‘ .

mwh
November 2, 2014 2:46 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a collection of scientists convened to support the general consensus of politicians worldwide concerning climate change. Currently all funding is concentrated on proving anthropogenic influence on global warming. Should the temperature start to decrease over a period of more than one governmental cycle then all funding will be switched to anthropogenic influence on global cooling and the catastrophic consequences thereof. At no time is funding to be used for preparation for these consequences (!!)
If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…….they would look to improve the living conditions of the worlds poor so they may develop the luxury of caring about the future of the planet during their lifetimes, rather than surviving the next few days.

Francisco
November 2, 2014 2:50 pm

Found this on our local paper (digital edition, not actual paper, so it does not pollute /sarc) http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/world/climate+panel+says+emissions+need+drop+zero+this+century/10346708/story.html

November 2, 2014 2:55 pm

The IPCC is a classic bureaucracy run out of control (can no one put it out of it’s misery?). Like most large and unaccountable bureaucracies, it has lost sight of its purpose, and now its prime purpose has become its own interests and the extension of its life and imperium. In addition, in this case its original purpose was fundamentally flawed, as its remit seems to have been to prove that man-made CO2 was the cause of catastrophic global warming. NB Not to enquire whether…

jwl
Reply to  jack1947
November 2, 2014 3:13 pm

The GOP may take over the US Senate along with the House, we will know for sure this Tuesday and I plan to do my part.
Inhofe may take over the chair for Environment and Public Works. He along with other GOP members have questioned why US have given some much funding to the IPCC. Especially when the data does not correlate to the IPCC findings.

Reply to  jack1947
November 2, 2014 6:58 pm

We have a winner.
Jack 1947 you nail it.
Bureaucracy is a cancer, unchecked (as in watched constantly and ruthlessly pruned) it soon goes out of control.
The UN bureaucracy is the worse example ever as no one oversees these fools and bandits.
The Useless Nutjobs must be disbanded and preferably banished.

Mike Bryant
November 2, 2014 2:56 pm

The IPCC want to implement the commandments on the Georgia guidestones. First commandment, maintain the earth’s population at 500,000,000. Guess what? To all the people here who are eating up the IPCC propaganda… You don’t have a place at the table. Wise up and live.

November 2, 2014 2:59 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a device to take advantage of PR insights gained by the success of the Club of Rome / Limits to Growth manipulation of political classes using computer outputs as if they were written on tablets of stone from the gods. This being to further the emerging cause of ‘environmentalism’, a kind of mish-mash of smart-alec glibness about environmental policy, smug self-aggrandising portentous planet saviourism by the anointed ones, and a takeover of the fledgling, tiny field of climate science by ambitious geographers and others of modest intelligence but huge ambition. The pioneering climatologist Hubert Lamb was trampled in this rush, and the greatest living meteorological scientist, Richard Lindzen, was marginalised. The non-cooperation of the climate system to the simple-minded ‘CO2 drives all before it’ tactic has led to many contortions, spins, and sundry tricks to keep both the scientific players happy with layers of cautions and reservations, and the political players happy with soundbites that seem to cut the mustard for policy makers. The IPCC, in other words, has been a disgrace to both science and to politics. We ought to be ashamed of it.

Greg Woods
November 2, 2014 3:05 pm

‘And if you like, consider adding to another preface, If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…’
They are not.

Ed
November 2, 2014 3:09 pm

My all-time favorite description of the UN is “an organization dedicated to taking money from the poor people in rich countries, and giving it to the rich people in poor countries.” I agree with jack1947 that the IPCC’s function, as it was first explained to me, was to generate and consolidate world-wide political support to enectmeasures to counteract the ongoing problem of man-made global warming. At the IPCC’s inception, CAGW was already a fact in thier minds.

Greg Woods
November 2, 2014 3:15 pm

And I don’t know this fellow I. P. Ceecee, but I believe he is in need of some serious therapy, perhaps a guillotine.

johann wundersamer
November 2, 2014 3:16 pm

if’s appropriate 2 answer in my inborn austrian/innviertlerisch/bavarien speak –
can’t even believe that green scam gets list’ning –
‘heasd, no hö auf da plattn. Des glaubst?’

Manniac
November 2, 2014 3:20 pm

The IPCC?
The Councils of Nicaea 2.0

Tom in Florida
November 2, 2014 3:27 pm

If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet they would quit being politicians and dedicate themselves to personal actions that actually help someone besides themselves

zenrebok
November 2, 2014 3:29 pm

The IPCC is like a Political Wing of ISIS (ISIL,IS,Arab Caliphate)
1. Recruits the feeble minded – CHECK!
2. Promotes a medieval world view – CHECK!
3. Decapitates its enemies – (symbolically) CHECK!
4. Plunders others resources to further its goals – CHECK!
5. Uses social media to effectively brain wash its recruits – CHECK!
6. Attracts comfy suburbanites from major European cities to its cause – CHECK!
7. Corrupts an existing framework to legitimize its claims – CHECK!
8. Reduces prosperity, opportunity and development – CHECK!
9. Threatens a Global governance with extreme prejudice – CHECK!
10. Thrives under strong philanthropic & corporate funding, fizzles without – CHECK!
Coming to a town near you?…..

JJB MKI
November 2, 2014 3:35 pm

Probably already been said, but..
The IPCC is nothing more than an answer looking for a problem.

jakee308
November 2, 2014 3:36 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a prime example of what you get from a committee on weather.
(run by a railroad engineer.)
(with data provided by those who know how to write a grant proposal but not how to do good science)
The IPCC does nothing but talk about the weather and wants someone else to do something about it. Whether they need to or not. (or even can)

November 2, 2014 3:38 pm

The IPCC is nothing but a threat to liberty!
They should be fought on every front.

Pat Frank
November 2, 2014 3:39 pm

The IPCC would never have succeeded at anything, nor would a partisan press been able to propagandize their politics, nor would the NGOs have been able to issue oracular pamphlets of doom, had not certain scientists put politics ahead of science, some actively lying in that effort, and had not the leadership of the major scientific organizations lobotomized themselves into an otherwise incomprehensible acquiescence.
The primary fault lays with the leadership of the mainline scientific institutions.

johann wundersamer
November 2, 2014 3:41 pm

you wan’t find an appropriate interpreter; just plain talkin home.
Thx for trying + forget about. Hans

Goldie
November 2, 2014 3:50 pm

Group of people who gin their importance and power by finding climate change. The worse it is the more important and powerful they become.

Scarface
November 2, 2014 3:54 pm

The IPCC was created to deliver the problem. The solution was already available (= deindustrialisation).

November 2, 2014 3:58 pm

As Murray Rothbard pointed out decades ago, the state (government) is a gang of thieves writ large. Rather than allow voluntary mutual cooperation among men exercising their free will, the state seeks to exercise control over you via force, fraud, and coercion. In violation of the Golden Rule (or the non-aggression principle) the state uses aggression to run your life. You are the slave of the state.
The IPCC is a creature of the various states run through the vehicle called the UN. What more does one need to know about the evil it will do?

derekcrane
November 2, 2014 3:59 pm

The IPCC = GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out)

Leo Smith
November 2, 2014 4:03 pm

An agency designed to produce an ‘assumptive close’ on climate natters, to enforce two broad policy guidelines
– to ensure energy is expensive and controlled by international agencies
– to ensure that the average joe gets poorer and rich oligarchs get richer.

Keeping Things In Perspective
November 2, 2014 4:07 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a bunch of clueless climate clowns.

ldd
November 2, 2014 4:15 pm

IPCC an organ for powerful liars and idiots alike to speak “loudly” while robbing us all blind.

Hangtown Bob
November 2, 2014 4:20 pm

If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet………………
they would all commit suicide. A side benefit is that their personal “carbon emissions” would be reduced to zero.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Hangtown Bob
November 2, 2014 4:46 pm

I was going to suggest that was going too far, but then I realised that as I’ve said I will stand in the UK as an independent if I can get the money … I might just have my own self interest at heart.

JBP
November 2, 2014 4:52 pm

that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve a permanent entity that has enough superficial credibility to back political pet projects ($$$$ and power).

November 2, 2014 5:05 pm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Nothing More Than a…
minuscule group of hoax-perpetrating political appointees.
Thanks for the lead, Bob.

Green Sand
November 2, 2014 5:12 pm

The IPCC is a nightmare in search of a dream

November 2, 2014 5:44 pm

UN is the epitome of ‘design by committee’ and their misbegotten offspring known as the IPCC is one of their political committees of speculative design.
IPCC combines several spurious and nefarious concepts for delivering their assignment.
a) Sponsors can purchase specified results with funding.
b) Political powers are promised and receive specified results based on power(s) or allocations received.
c) Subcommittees are primarily based on political interests
d) Subcommittees are comprised of multitudes of workers hashing, rehashing and regurgitating preferred reports. This has been described as the ‘infinite chimpanzees at infinite typewriters’ method of writing.
Science never had a chance with the IPCC because the IPCC never intended to utilize science to accomplish anything beyond selling the message politicians and the wealthy purchased.

mac davis
November 2, 2014 5:44 pm

If Martin Heideggar and Franz Kafka had a child, it would be the IPCC. The IPCC “challenges forth” a new perspective based on humanity’s so-called technology paradigm. That new perspective grasps at the control of the climate as humanity’s ultimate responsibility. Climate control is modern man’s greatest duty to future generations. And this duty cannot be left to individual simpletons; only the best bureaucratic minds can weave the necessary byzantine rule and endless regulatory labyrinths necessary to wield such power.
Behold humanity’s newest and greatest Tower of Babel: Control of the Earth’s climate system. At it’s heart, the IPCC is trying to convince people they can control the climate…a fool’s errand (in my opinion).

Cary Morris
November 2, 2014 6:22 pm

The IPCC is nothing more than a 97% consensus that PT Barnum’s theory “That there is a sucker born every minute” is a fact.

davidmhoffer
November 2, 2014 6:44 pm

scienceinpolitics November 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm
I would be happy, believe it or not. I want you to be right. You’re not drawing a trend line though with the 1998 thing. You’re picking a maximum, and drawing a horizontal line. You’ll agree that the trend since the industrial revolution has been clearly positive, right? So it’s not crazy to think the Earth is warming?
And please explain to me why sea levels are rising.

You seem to be one of the few warmists who is open minded, so let’s dig into some of your concerns.
1. Arctic ice. Yes, Arctic ice has receded in recent times. But is it currently receding. Those are two different things. I’d suggest you take a look at the WUWT Sea Ice page and get familiar with the data conveniently graphed for you directly from the top research facilities in the world:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Even if you disagree and conclude from those graphs that Arctic ice is continuing to recede, you cannot argue that it has disappeared, which is what the climate scientists predicted would happen by now. This speaks to the crux of the argument, which is what is sensitivity? If it was high, the Arctic ice would undoubtedly be gone by now. But it isn’t, and the rate of “decline” had dropped to near zero. This suggests that sensitivity is not high, but low, and if that is the case, then indeed we have little to be concerned about.
2. Antarctic ice. Scroll down far enough, and you’ll get to the Antarctic section. Easy to see that Antarctic ice is hitting record levels. So, do record ice levels in the Antarctic mean that an ice age looms? Of course not. No more than low ice levels in the Arctic are indicative of massive warming. But the facts that we are hitting record Antarctic ice levels while at the highest CO2 levels ever again suggests that sensitivity it low, well within natural variability.
3. 1998. You complain about this “cherry picked” date a lot. The “pause” in rising global temps is not calculated from 1998. It is calculated as the length of time when temperature increases could be classed as insignificant. That is, so small that they are smaller than what we can actually measure given natural variability (and if they are THAT small, again, nothing to worry about). For most temperature data sets, the calculated period for which this is true actually starts BEFORE 1998. So 1998 is neither here nor there from a skeptic perspective.
4. Hottest decade. Well let’s put a dollar in a jar every day for 100 days. On day 101, we start putting in a penny a day. On day 101, we would now have $100.01 in the jar, more than ANY day in the past. In fact, the last ten days would be the highest ten days in the 101 day record. See the problem? The statement is true, but there is not practical difference between $100.00 and $100.01. The same is true of the temperature record. It has been rising at pretty much the same rate for 400 years. Well, until about 18 years ago when it stopped. Point being that 25% of all the CO2 released by man since the industrial revolution began was during that time. Again, this suggests that natural variability is much larger than sensitivity to CO2, which in turn is very low.
5. The reason the pause is so important to understand is because the climate scientists said so. It was the top scientists at HadCrut (one of the two official land based temperature records in the world), a Dr Phil Jones, who said that if temps flattened out for more than 10 years, it would mean that the models (and the science upon which they rested) were wrong. As 10 years approached, Dr Ben Santer (associated with NASA and GISS, the other official land based temperature set) said it was actually 15 years that would prove such a thing. Then he changed his mind again and said 17 years. So, according to the climate scientists themselves, the models and the science upon which they are based, are wrong. Cleverly hidden in IPCC AR5 is an actual admission that this is the case.
6. I suggest that you find out what Stefan-Boltzmann Law is and learn how to apply it. One curious thing you will learn is that climate science suggests a direct sensitivity to CO2 of Doubling=3.7w/m2=1 degree C. Do the math, and you’ll discover that at an average surface temperature of 15C, that translates into only 0.6 degrees. Which one is correct? They both are. The trick is to understand how much the temperature changes in the warm parts of the earth versus the cold parts. What you will discover is that most of the warming happens at the very coldest temps, and very little at the warmest temps. So, the number is correct, but misleading.
7. Note in point 6 above the reference to “doubling”. CO2 is logarithmic, hence the doubling reference. So, the warming from 200 ppm to 400 ppm is exactly the same as 400 ppm to 800 ppm. Se the problem? Pre-industrial levels were 280. So, the IPCC likes to mislead you by referring to sensitivity to CO2 increases in terms of pre-industrial levels. But the truth is we’re not AT pre-industrial levels. We’re currently at close to 400 ppm and we can’t even measure enough warming to say with any certainty that it is even statistically valid, it is that small. So, given that we are adding 2 ppm per year, it will take us another 200 years to double CO2 from where we are now. Given how small the measure temperature increases are, if they even ARE increases, in the context of natural variability, this is the same as zero.
I could go on, but I think you should get the drift by now. It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong, it is a matter of putting them in their proper perspective. Once one does, there is very little to be concerned about, and certainly not enough evidence to condemn, with a great deal of certainty, billions of people to starvation, poverty and death in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Until there are viable alternaitves to fossil fuels, that is precisely what you would be doing by dramatically cutting CO2.

rd50
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 3, 2014 1:20 am

Thank you for taking the time, great way to explain what is happening.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 3, 2014 7:41 am

David, you are a person I can talk to, especially because of your appreciation of Stefan-Boltzmann. I hope you can objectively view my rebuttals, and at least concede that I’m not crazy to think that the Earth is warming due to anthropological causes (which you kind of do when you say “It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong”).
1) Global SEA ice has been constant. Where there is no land, ice has been lost. However, where there is land, the sea ice has increased (for a net change near 0). What about land ice? What about Antarctic land ice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
2) Again, you’re not paying attention to land ice. Land ice melt is not within natural variability.
3 & 4 & 5) “For most temperature data sets, the calculated period for which this is true actually starts BEFORE 1998”. Yeah, like 1997. There is a major point I want to make. If you take the maximum in 1940, it took 40 YEARS for temps to get above that point again consistently. That means that from 1940-1980, you would’ve had a field day talking about pauses. I don’t know the exact numbers, but would you agree about 15% of man made CO2 was released over that 40 year period?
And most importantly, most centuries I only accumulate or lose $5. Why such volatility, why do I all of a sudden have $100 (which is nice)? Will I be so lucky as to have $100 next century? Because I really can’t explain the last $100 without humans.
6 & 7) We agree a lot on these two points. First, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is awesome. It was very closely related to the foundation of quantum mechanics.
Anyway, I haven’t proposed any cuts to CO2 on here (I’m trying to get people to agree that the Earth is warming). Yes, I do think we have to cut emissions, but the results will be two generations from now. One major point, India provided electricity to about 50% of it’s people, which is a lot of people, and only raised their carbon emissions 15% (excuse me for linking to my own blog).
http://scienceinpolitics.com/2014/10/19/improving-electricity-access-doesnt-significantly-increase-greenhouse-gases/
I think what you’re trying to do albeit briefly is estimate climate sensitivity empirically, but we simply can’t do that yet because there is too much margin of error (which I think we can agree on).
I think the best summary of climate sensitivity you’ll find (for a doubling of CO2) is here:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
And this shows agreement about 3 degrees Celsius. Let’s not forget that we’ve doubled methane too.
Lastly, I’m kind of pressed on time, but I want to make sure to address your summary:
“It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong, it is a matter of putting them in their proper perspective. Once one does, there is very little to be concerned about, and certainly not enough evidence to condemn, with a great deal of certainty, billions of people to starvation, poverty and death in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Until there are viable alternaitves to fossil fuels, that is precisely what you would be doing by dramatically cutting CO2.”
I completely agree with every statement in this paragraph, except “there is very little to be concerned about”, and “that is precisely what you would be doing by dramatically cutting CO2”. I think you can cut significant CO2 emissions from people who can afford it (like Americans and Canadians) because that’s where most of the CO2 is coming from anyway. I think Americans can afford it and live the same way because our military budget is entirely too high, and that can be efficiently reallocated to subsidize renewable energy costs (I’m also libertarian when it comes to foreign policy). I agree that we have very little to be concerned about in the short term, but I don’t agree two generations from now have very little to be concerned about. Just because it’s in the future doesn’t mean we should ignore it. We’ve shown that in the next 30 years there will be some positives due to global warming, but with current trends there will be a grotesque cost in 100 years.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 8:04 am

Climate sensitivity is a pseudoscientific concept that links an observable (CO2 concentration change) to an unobservable (equilibrium temperature change). A legitimate science is built on observables.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Terry Oldberg
November 3, 2014 8:20 am

Please expand on equilibrium temperature change being an unobservable. I want to know what you mean by that.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 8:41 am

scienceinpolitics:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. The equilibrium (aka steady-state) temperature is a theoretical construct that can be computed but not observed. If a climate system could be described by a set of differential equations (a big if), the equilibrium temperature could be computed by setting the values of all partial derivatives of the temperature with respect to the time to nil. In making it sound as though the equilibrium temperature can be observed climatologists have been guilty of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. They have confused abstract with concrete objects.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Terry Oldberg
November 3, 2014 10:59 am

You sound like a mathematician. They have enviable standards for concreteness. I hope I understand what you’re saying correctly.
Our knowledge of greenhouse gases is concrete. We can directly compute with physical laws that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a one degree Celsius of global warming (a strangely simple result). We can directly compute the contribution of each greenhouse gas to the warming of the Earth, and that is also very concrete.
You’re right, we don’t completely understand all the other variables. There are clear positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops, and concentrations of other things, like aerosols, are also changing. However, we know those indirect effects do exist. I don’t think it’s pseudo-scientific to attempt to incorporate those indirect feedbacks ( the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback) into models. Those are all feedbacks that have scientific merit, albeit with some degree of uncertainty. That’s why we have confidence intervals. 95% confidence doesn’t satisfy a mathematician, or even a physicist, but it is worthy of consideration for policy.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 11:53 am

scienceinpolitics:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. In the description of the fallacy called “misplaced concreteness,” the terms “abstract object” and “concrete object” have different meanings than the ones you assume in your blog post.
The author of the book “The Enigma of Probability and Physics,” Lazar Mayants, addresses these meanings in detail. He explains that a “concrete object” is a physically existing object; it has a number of different properties and differs in the value of at least one property from every other concrete object in a class of concrete objects. Thus, as you and I are both concrete humans we differ from each other and from every other concrete human in the value of at least one of our properties. if you, like me, are a citizen of the U.S. then we differ in the values of our social security numbers, for example.
An “abstract object” is formed from a class of concrete objects through abstraction (removal) of the description of it from properties in which the values of these properties vary among the members of the class. Thus, for example, the abstract “cow” has no color for concrete cows vary in their colors while the abstract “U.S. citizen” has no social security number for concrete U.S. citizens vary in their social security numbers.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 8:17 am

and at least concede that I’m not crazy to think that the Earth is warming due to anthropological causes (which you kind of do when you say “It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong”).
Well no, you’re not crazy, provided that we stick to the direct effects of increased CO2. The question is what are the feed back responses? How large are they? Are they positive or negative? You suggested a link to an article at SkS which claims about 3 degrees. I’ve learned a long time ago to discount heavily anything on that site because when I ask tough questions of them, or point our errors, my comments get deleted.
That said, the most recent studies on sensitivity have been hovering around the 1.5 degree mark. If you search on WUWT you’ll find at least a dozen papers in the last year reporting about the same number. These are reports that are based on data, not on computer models. Only the computer models are coming up with sensitivities higher than 2 degrees, and even the IPCC has recently admitted in their own report that the models are running much hotter than reality and need to be re-thought. In fact, in addition to the papers showing low sensitivity based on actual data, there are now 52 papers coming up with excuses as to why the models are wrong. I’ve read most of them, and they are so full of holes that one can only be surprised that they passed peer review at all. But the point is that the best climate scientists in the world have come up with 52 different explanations as to why the models should be right and the data wrong. They can’t all be right. If even one of them is right, that means the other 51 are wrong. Does that sound like a consensus to you? Does it not seem more likely that they are all wrong and the data is right?
So, we have models that the IPCC admits are wrong, and the climate scientists trying to claim a consensus while having 52 different reasons as to why the models are wrong.
The most likely conclusion is that sensitivity is low, period. We are left with taking action that will crich economies and throw billions into poverty and starvation NOW to fight something that MIGHT happen generations from now. The notion that we simply cannot adapt to such small changes in temperature over a period of generations is simply illogical.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 3, 2014 9:23 am

Okay, Ill look at climate sensitivity studies this afternoon or tomorrow.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 6, 2014 5:49 am

I like that you avoid attacking specific claims of the IPCC

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 6, 2014 10:11 am

scipol,
I like that you are incapable of posting any measurements of AGW. That is the same proiblem the IPCC has.
That is specific, no? Neither you nor the IPCC really has anything. Without a measurement quantifying the percentage of global warming attributable to human emissions, they’ve got nothing. Neither do you.
Every physical process can be quantified [unless it is so minuscule it is down in the noise]. So what the IPCC is claiming is just a giant head fake: a scare, intended to give them more money and power. Only those who can’t think it through fall for it.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 3, 2014 8:02 am

Forgot to address your point that heat gained due to CO2 is logarithmic. Yes, but we are keeping pace to double CO2 often enough for the temperature change to be scary within 100 years. I know long term problems aren’t important to politicians though.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 8:26 am

sci-pol,
You completely ignored davidhoffer’s point that global warming stopped almost twenty years ago. All your speculating founders against the rocks and shoals of that central fact. You cannot explain how or why the alarmist crowd was so totally wrong in their predictions of runaway global warming.
Regarding the log-log response of T to CO2, by now any further rise in that harmless trace gas will cause no measurable warming — as the real world is showing us: despite the rise in CO2, global warming has stopped.
The alarmist crowd is running around in circles and clucking like Chicken Little about the rise in CO2. But we cannot get it through their thick heads that CO2 has risen from 3 parts per 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — in over a century. They look very foolish trying to convince us that matters. It doesn’t, as the planet is making clear.
You continue to cherry-pick whatever you can find that feeds your confirmation bias. If you would just relax and try to look at the situation objectively, you would see that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. In the recent geologic past, global T has fluctuated by tens of degrees, within only a decade or two. So, now we are supposed to go crazy over a mere 0.7ºC fluctuation, over a century or more?? Don’t you have a million better things to worry about?
The global warming scare has run it’s course. Don’t be the last jamoke to finally see the light.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 10:46 am

Global warming hasn’t stopped. Like I said in another comment somewhere, it took until 1980 for temps to be consistently above where they were in 1940. Was that a 40 year pause?
Despite that 40 year “pause”, there’s this new thing called a trend line that allows us to show that the Earth still warmed anomalously over the 20th century compared to any recent centuries. I’d like you to convince me that a similar surface temperature trend, or even more positive one, won’t happen again this century.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 8:41 am

Forgot to address your point that heat gained due to CO2 is logarithmic.
Wrong. The amount of heat gained due to CO2 increases is almost zero. There’s a substantive difference between heat gain and modification of the energy flux profile from TOA to surface. You need to understand the difference in order to have this conversation.
As for the EPA, I get my data straight from the Manua Loa web site where it is clear that we’re doing about 2 ppm per year with slight acceleration. Very slight. We’re 200 years to the next doubling, and with sensitivity so low, that’s a rounding error. Nothing to do with being a politician.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 3, 2014 10:41 am

Here’s a 2009 MIT study that projects a doubling of CO2 by 2100:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf
Their analysis seems more rigorous than yours, although I admit I haven’t gone through it point by point.
I think moving forward we’d have to agree on two numbers. One, climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. My current understanding is that we are 95% sure that number is 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius, and you think it has a good chance of being 1.5. Like I said before, I’m still looking into this, so you could be right.
Two, we’d have to agree on how much temperature change is dangerous. The IPCC says 2 degrees Celsius over pre industrial levels is a dangerous threshold we don’t want to cross. Do you disagree with that?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 11:02 am

Given that the magnitude of the climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement, when a person states that he is 95% sure that the true magnitude lies between 1.5 and 4.5 isn’t this person spouting scientific nonsense?

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  Terry Oldberg
November 3, 2014 11:16 am

I disagree that climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement. Weve used multiple lines of evidence to narrow it down to 1.5 to 4.5.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 12:30 pm

scienceinpolitics:
The Skeptical Science article to which you link states inaccurately that “a wide variety” of methods are used in assignment of numerical values to the climate sensitivity. Actually, there are two. One is to use climate models. The other is to use Bayesian parameter estimation with global temperature and/or proxy data.
Use of climate models does not result in a value being assigned to the probability that the correct value for the climate sensitivity lies between 1.5 and 4.5. Use of Bayesian parameter estimation does this provided that a prior probability density function over all of the various possible climate sensitivity values is supplied. Prior PDFs of this description are of infinite number. Each prior PDF yields a different value for the probability. There is not a logically justifiable basis for selection of a particular prior PDF from among the many possibilities. If one is a professional climatologist with a mortgage to pay and kids to put through college the smart but dishonest thing to do is select a prior PDF that suggests a high sensitivity and to hide the fact that selecting a different prior PDF would have yielded a low sensitivity.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 11:14 am

sci-pol says:
Global warming hasn’t stopped.
I wish I had a magic wand that could eliminate confirmation bias. You would be the first customer.
Global warming has stopped, about eighteen years ago. Your cherry-picking of 40 years is only an attempt to avoid that fact. The planet has been waming in fits and starts — naturally — since the LIA.
Dr. Phil Jones shows that in this graph.
Next, you say:
I’d like you to convince me that a similar surface temperature trend, or even more positive one, won’t happen again this century.
I’d like you to convince me there isn’t a black cat hiding under your bed. We’re mighty tired of “what if” speculation. Deal in facts and evidence, please.
Next, after reading it, I think your linked MIT paper is nonsense. It reads very much like the Sokol paper. I note that MIT’s head of atmospheric studies, Prof Richard Lindzen, is not one of the co-authors. I wonder why not? Maybe it’s because as the paper makes clear, the goal posts are always being moved.
Lindzen writes:

Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.

That paper reeks of grant trolling. Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. Best if you stick with scientific evidence, and be aware that evidence consists of verified obseravtions and raw data. Anything else can easily lead you to wrong conclusions.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 11:39 am

Dr. Phil Jones’ graph still shows warming, the first half of the graph is nearly completely under the 0 line, and past 1975 it’s nearly all above it.
And your 18 year window isn’t cherry picking data, yet my 40 year window is?
I’ll admit I got lazy when I said “I’d like you to convince me otherwise”. Better put, the warming trend and sea level trend convince me that the earth is currently warming at an unnatural rate.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 11:41 am

sci-pol says:
I disagree that climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement.
Then by all means, POST A MEASUREMENT of AGW! Make sure it quantifies the percentage of overall global warming that is specifically attributable to human emissions.
After asking for a couple of years now, no one has ever been able to produce a testable, verifiable measurement showing the % of AGW. If you can post such a measurement, you will be the first.
Every physical process is measurable, except those that are below the background noise level. Signals swamped by background noise are just too minuscule to measure. But they are also irrelevant.
You made the claim, science politician, now let’s see your measurement.
Next, I have explained to you that Dr. Phil Jones designated the year 1997 as the start year. Go argue with him if you don’t like it. And your ’40 year’ cherry-picking is simply more confirmation bias. You found a “40 year” factoid that you mistakenly believe validates your argument. It doesn’t.
Finally, define “unnatural”. Keep in mind that global temperatures have been on the order of TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two, and that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past. Explain to us that those were “unnatural” events. Explain to us how the current *tiny* 0.7ºC fluctuation, over a century, is “unnatural”. You made the claim. Back it up.
All your posts are the same. You desperately want to believe in something that just isn’t there. That’s not science, that is just wishful thinking.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 12:19 pm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
tell me that the past 100 years did not involve a relative spike to previous temperatures. The spike is unnatural, and we can explain it.
Agw is easy to prove
1) did humans increase greenhouse gases?
Yes
2) are greenhouse gases higher than they have been in a really really long time?
Yes
3) do greenhouse gases warm a planet?
Yes, check venus
Is the earth gaining heat content?
Yes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 4, 2014 4:42 am

@SIP – YOu must be new to the debate. Wiki for Climate science, really? Have you not heard of William Connolley? Please get some reputable material.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  philjourdan
November 4, 2014 4:54 am

Okay, Ill start using the 9,000 peer reviewed IPCC papers. What do you want to contest?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 5, 2014 5:59 am

Why did you not use them in the first place instead of Wiki?

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  philjourdan
November 5, 2014 6:01 am

Because I was on mobile, and I can be lazy. What graph, table, or claim in the IPCC AR5 do you want contest?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 5, 2014 9:45 am

If the use of a mobile device proves to be too restrictive for you, perhaps you should think more, and react less. And then post when you are sitting at a computer. lazy, sloppy, incompetent, or just wrong. The result is the same.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  philjourdan
November 5, 2014 9:48 am

Do you agree with the AR5 conclusions?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 6, 2014 4:54 am

I agree with science, not voodoo. If you can show the science behind their conclusions, then you are have no clue what you are talking about. As there is none. Show me the work they used to arrive at a 95% confidence level. Statistics is not a “made up” branch of math. The equations are well documented and known. Yet the AR5 only claims that confidence level, it never shows the data or the calculations to arrive at it.
You are free to believe anything you want. But belief belongs in a Church, not a science lab.

juan
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 12:02 pm


You claim “of TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two,”
..
Can you please post a citation to the physical evidence of this?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 12:09 pm

juan,
Of course I can. If I do, will you concede the point?

juan
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 12:18 pm



I have to examine the evidence first.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 4:41 pm

sci-pol says:
tell me that the past 100 years did not involve a relative spike to previous temperatures.
No problem:
The past century did not involve a relative “spike” in global temperature.

Over the past ≈150 years, global T has fluctuated by about 0.7ºC. That is nothing. If you want to see a spike, observe the short term [natural] change in the RB Alley chart below.
Next, you say:
Agw is easy to prove…
Well, if it is or it isn’t, you certainly have proven nothing with your assertions. And I am still waiting to see that “measurement” you claim to have.
Next, ‘juan’ says:
I have to examine the evidence first.
Copout. Let’s call a spade a spade: no matter what evidence I provide, you will squirm around and never concede anything.
That is the sign of a closed mind. You have one. Cures are few and far between.
But for the benefit of other readers, here is ice core evidence as provided by Prof R.B. Alley in a peer reviewed paper:
http://postimg.org/image/423wa6glr/
Global T fluctuated both up and down by more than TEN degrees. That puts the current Chicken Little clucking into some needed perspective.
Global temperature is never static. It is never completely flat. Climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT writes:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.
The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in hundred-thousand year cycles for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced, to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al) suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 4:56 pm

.7 degrees is significant, and 2 degrees is where we are headed. Your Alley spike can also be significant. Im sure a 15 degree change correlates with dramatic atmospheric changes and extinctions.
Just because the climate changes abruptly every once in awhile without humans doesnt mean humans didnt cause this spike. Greenhouse gases are still being released into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

juan
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 5:01 pm



I’m sorry, your evidence does not prove that global temperatures can have “TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two”

You know better. One geographical location is not a good proxy for global temperature. Your evidence fails

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  juan
November 3, 2014 5:02 pm

Juan is right. I didnt catch that was in just one place

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 5:05 pm

juan says: [ ” … ” ]
Do I have your number, or what? I had you pegged exactly:
no matter what evidence I provide, you will squirm around and never concede anything.
Next, pol-sci says:
.7 degrees is significant
Another baseless assertion. No, 0.7º is not significant in any way. So, who should we believe? Prof Richard Lidndzen of MIT? Or some anonymous know-nothing?
That’s what they call a ‘no-brainer’ question.
Read Lindzen’s bolded statement in my post above, Mr Know-nothing.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 5:12 pm

You shouldnt believe anyone based on their credentials alone. Thats why i havent used the argument that so many scientists agree on climate change (i hate when people use that). I care about data, although over the course of this discussion i have been somewhat sloppy. Anytime im sloppy you point it out, and i appreciate that.
Im not sure why this website and its users have a sense of superiority though. I havent called you anything, i dont know why you have to disgrace this debate with personal attacks.

juan
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 5:15 pm

.

How come there is no corresponding data from Antarctica that can confirm the Greenland data?

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 3, 2014 6:56 pm

sci-pol,
I didn’t appeal to any vague ‘consensus’, I made a direct comparison between your view and that of Prof Lindzen. You cannot both be right. So once again: who should we believe? You? Or MIT’s head of atmospheric sciences?
Sorry bud, you lose that contest hands down. You are wrong and Lindzen is right: A tiny 0.7º fluctuation is certainly insignificant. Time for you to stop digging your hole.
juan says:
How come there is no corresponding data from Antarctica that can confirm the Greenland data?
‘How come’, eh? The fact is, there is plenty of evidence. But when I offered you evidence before, you waffled, and welshed. Then when I posted peer reviewed evidence, you did exactly as I predicted: you squirmed around trying to avoid the box you’re in.
You do not debate in good faith, Mr. juan. Like most climate alarmists, you have made up your mind, but now that you’ve been proven to be flat wrong, you don’t have the cojones or the decency to man-up and admit it. You play word games instead.
So you can go dig up the Greenland and polar data yourself. I have it in my ice core folder, and I can post it. And I would, but as I pointed out, you don’t debate in good faith. So go do your own homework.
That’s your job, anyway, since the man-made global warming conjecture is yours. Skeptics only have to falsify it, which we have, repeatedly and decisively. We have torn that nonsense to shreds. Planet Earth is doing the same thing: global warming stopped many years ago.
So now you are too impotent to do anything except run interference. You have no credible facts that would rescue your belief system at this point. You lost the debate.
You have one chance to rescue your position. You can try to find at least one measurement of AGW. Just one, showing the percentage of man-made global warming, out of the total [very minor, natural] global warming of only 0.7ºC. Show us the percentage. Good luck with that.
I don’t think you can do it. And if you cannot post even one such measurement, then your entire conjecture is based on evidence-free assertions, and thus it crashes and burns. You are no different from a religious acolyte; you are certainly no scientist; really, you’ve got nothin’.
If you can’t post at least one (1) verifiable, testable measurement of AGW, your entire conjecture is falsified. So either man-up and post one measurement, or man-up and admit you have nothing.

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 7:30 pm

A tad dramatic, are we?
Einstein once said the universe isn’t expanding. Are we to believe him, or me when I say it is? Newton once said the reason planets don’t collide with each other is due to God (when talking about the three body problem). Which do we believe, Newton or me when I say it isn’t due to God? I can find doctors that said smoking was good for you, and I can find scientists that didn’t find anything wrong with leaded gasoline. This isn’t because I’m smarter than any of these men. It’s because of the evidence that we’ve come to accept.
As for AGW, please check section 8.5.2 of the IPCC report, especially figures 8.18, 8.19, and 8.20. Figure 8.19 decouples natural RF from anthropogenic 🙂

scienceinpolitics
Reply to  dbstealey
November 3, 2014 7:58 pm

Also, I can make a direct comparison between Prof. Lindzen and an international panel of scientists with an awesome conflict of interest policy:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf
As well as a means of addressing alleged errors:http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf
So please, if Lindzen has any qualms with the IPCC report, please have him report COI or any alleged errors 🙂

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 4, 2014 3:43 am

sci-pol,
If anyone needed solid evidence that you are a complete know-nothing, your last post confirms it beyond any doubt.
What you did was trot back to your alarmist blog for some [irrelevant] talking points. Your ‘conflict of interest’ link does not apply to Prof Lindzen, which you would know if you had read it. Lindzen is the internationally recognized and esteemed expert on the climate, with more than twenty dozen peer reviewed publications to his credit. All you did was throw out some nonsense that doesn’t apply.
But it does apply to the IPCC itself. Being a noob, you probably don’t know that the IPCC was caught red-handed using about 40% of their input from an NGO/QUANGO that has ulterior motives; the World Wildlife Fund [WWF]. So thanx for indicting the corrupt UN/IPCC. They deserve it.
The alarmist crowd hates Dr. Lindzen because he has destroyed their arguments. But they can’t touch him because he is head of the atmospherics sciences department at MIT — arguably the world’s premier engineering school. MIT would not have kept Dr. Lindzen in that lofty position if he was the kind of scientist despicable know-nothings like you and your pals allege.
On the other hand, you are trying to defend an anonymous bunch of self-serving climate rent-seekers riding the world’s carbon scare gravy train. Furthermore, the IPCC has been wrong on every last one of it’s predictions [which they pretend are “projections”, but we know better — if they had been right, they would have been crowing about their predictions].
All you have been doing here is posting nonsense. Your comments reek of cherry-picking, confirmation bias, and endless appeals to always-wrong authorities. Until you can post even one measurement showing the % of AGW, you have absolutely nothing but baseless assertions.
Run along now back to your alarmist blog. You need some new talking points, because the ones you’re using here are old and busted. Better yet, read the WUWT archives for a few months, like you’ve been advised. You are so uneducated that you need a lot of basic information just to get up to speed on the subject. We have to deal with know-nothings all the time here. If you want to run with the big dogs, at least get a basic idea of what you’re talking about. Right now, you don’t know.
Come back when you can post a measurement of AGW — or when you are man enough to admit you don’t have one. Because right now you have zero credibility.

juan
Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 4, 2014 3:45 am



I asked for evidence, and you did not provide it. You’ve lost the argument. One geographical ice core does not proxy the entire globe. You post ” I have it in my ice core folder,” yet you are not capable of answering why there is no corresponding data from Antarctica.

Reply to  scienceinpolitics
November 4, 2014 4:16 am

juan,
I told you I have plenty of information, but since you don&