IPCC: NGO Climate Alarmism is causing a Credibility Gap
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to IPCC lead author Professor Myles Allen, the strident alarmism of some climate NGOs is “unhelpful” to the cause of convincing the general public that climate change is an issue.
According to the National Post, Prof Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of a major new report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
“NGOs have at times been alarmist over climate change … but the IPCC has been very clear and measured throughout. I think alarmism on any issue is unhelpful.”
He suggested this had resulted in the general public believing that
“climate change is just all about melting ice caps and the Arctic” even though “the reality is climate change is about the weather changing in many parts of the world including where many people live.”
In my opinion, its difficult to see whether Myles is genuinely worried that NGOs are presenting a significantly more alarming position than the IPCC, or sees an opportunity to claw back some credibility by tossing a few of the sillier NGO groups overboard, in an effort to present his view as the voice of reason. Either way, it is difficult to think of anything any NGO has said which is more absurd than some of the “official” positions taken by the IPCC, which still persists with its nonsensical position that climate sensitivity could be in excess of 3c / doubling of CO2.
The Cretaceous period, which ended 66 million years ago, had an average temperature of 4C higher than current temperatures, and an average CO2 level of 1700ppm, more than 4x today’s level. As we all know, the age of dinosaurs was a difficult time of sparse heat damaged vegetation, dead fish, dangerous acidified oceans, and life clinging onto the fringes of a broken eco-system. All those images we were fed as kids, of luxurious jungles and vast creatures thundering through vibrant varied environments brimming with life are no doubt based on old fashioned science, from back in the days when scientists based their statements on evidence.
” its difficult to see whether Miles is genuinely worried that NGOs are presenting a significantly more alarming position than the IPCC, or sees an opportunity to claw back some credibility by tossing a few of the sillier NGO groups overboard, in an effort to present his view as the voice of reason”
Myles Allen is protecting his own backside and funding. He is a man who has gained hugely from the alarmist meme! I doubt he has given anything much thought!
Earth’s Atmosphere – Colouring In the 100 Squares
This is fun and accurate. Firstly, clear a 3 x 3 metre floor area (9’10” x 9’10”)!
Allowing for a 5mm border all around, print one A4 sheet of graph paper full of 5mm squares. Your sheet of paper will contain 2,280 squares (A grid of 40 squares x 57 squares = 2,280 squares). Yes, all this will fit on an A4 piece of paper. Trust me.
Now print off another 13 sheets of the same A4 graph paper and, laying them all in ‘portrait’ fashion, carefully stick them together with adhesive tape. You now have a horizontal row of 14 sheets of A4 graph paper.
Now repeat this exercise to create one enormous sheet of square graph paper made up 10 horizontally assembled rows of 14 x A4 sheets. Total number of sheets = 140. Total number of 5mm squares = 140 sheets x 2,280 squares = 319,200 squares. Total size = 9 square metres. Looks impressive, eh?
Imagine that the enormous sheet of graph paper is the Earth’s atmosphere.
This may take you a while but, starting from the top left hand corner, shade in 249,050 squares (about 109 of your A4 sheets). This represents Nitrogen.
Now do the same with another 67,050 squares (about 29 of your A4 sheets). This represents Oxygen.
As you’ve coloured in 138 of your sheets, you now only have 2 sheets of A4 graph paper left to fill.
Shade in another 2,980 squares. Go on. This, incidentally, is Argon.
You only have 120 squares left to go . . . . so shouldn’t take too long. You know where this is going, right?
Shade in just 8 squares for Methane.
Then, 7 squares for Neon
Another 2 squares for Helium
1 square for Hydrogen
And 1 square for Krypton
You have only 100 squares left to go. Start by shading in 96 of the remaining squares. This represents naturally occurring CO2 – nothing to do with man, all natural, nothing we can do about it.
You have 4 squares left. This is entirely your fault. This is man’s contribution to CO2 and, apparently, it’s a substantial amount. A lot. And THIS is why we’ve got to build more wind turbines.
(All calculations based on atmospheric percentage concentrations to the nearest unit of 319,200 units. CO2 calculated at 0.0314% of our atmosphere not 0.040%. Nitrogen is actually 800 squares higher than shown – but that would mean printing an extra third of A4 graph paper!. Spelling is all UK English.)
GeeJam
Another version is to take the length of a rugby pitch – 100 meters.
The first 70 meters represents nitrogen, and so on. The last 40mm is CO2.
Your version is more fun!
Did you leave out water vapor, the most important “Greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere?
Hi Tom V. S, how are you doing?
If the area of a soccer pitch represented the atmosphere, then the amount of CO2 is roughly the area of the four little arcs in the corners (1yard).
I posted this as a ‘filling a swimming pool’ analogy a few years back on WUWT with many fellow sceptics leaving nice comments including regulars such as M Courtney, Jimbo and Janice Moore. Since then, WUWT has rapidly grown in followers and, because of its tremendous popularity, the useful (easy to understand) stuff becomes diluted and buried in amongst the posts. Just means you need to search harder I guess.
The Failure of Green Energy Policies
This post has proven very popular this side of the pond:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/low_carbon_percent.png
If I focus on the green colour wedge the renewables contribution is 2%. This yields $850 billion per percentage point. Thus we can extrapolate to $85 trillion for 100 %. An additional $154 trillion in batteries and we have reached the holy of enviromental targets.
Disclaimer: the contents of this post are intended for a green audience, if you are seeing this by mistake please erase your memory.
Eric, you just pre-empted by next article. Back to the drawing board …
Pointman
I’ll split the big oil cheque… 🙂
We’re not allowed to divide by zero, but fortunately we’re allowed to divide zero by two …
Pointman
Quite 🙂 – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/23/claim-dark-money-conspiracy-star-deniers-are-scripted-performers/
Eric, do you have sources for Cretaceous 4˚C warmer and 1700 ppm CO2? I have found the following charts on ocean pH to be particularly instructive:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pH-TCO2.png
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pacific_ocean_pH.png
The numbers are from the Wikipedia page on the Cretaceous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
There are plenty of studies around which suggest spectacular CO2 spikes in the Cretaceous, approaching 3000ppm during some periods, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539811
Sometimes I wonder if the mid Cretaceous to Eocene warm period may not have been triggered by the increase in shallow mid latitude ocean surface? Does anybody have those statistics?
The big think that happened at the end of the Cretaceous (in addition to the big meteor that did for dinosaurs) was the opening of the Atlantic and resulting creation of Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains and Andes and eventually the establishment of current thermohaline circulation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous#mediaviewer/File:Blakey_105moll.jpg
Click on ? to get plate tectonic reconstruction for 105 million years ago – mid Cretaceous.
Euan I’m not sure the Himalayas are late Cretaceous or Paleocene age. And I was thinking of intra continental seas so widespread in the Cretaceous through the Eocene. Inland seas have lower albedo, release water vapor and ought to increase temperature which in turn…forces the ocean to release CO2, or absorb it less efficiently if there are large volcanoes in action. Couple that with a large set of lava burps and the result is a fairly hot world.
Fernando, I agree with you also that a probable larger ocean / sea surface area would give rise to lower albedo and higher water vapour. If you look at the paleo reconstruction (under the ?) you’ll see India attached to Madagascar in the mid Cretaceous. It broke free and went hurtling N during the Tertiary at enormous rate, smashing into Asia to form the Himalayas where the continental crust is currently twice as thick as normal.
Fernando,
I too think that the extensive Cretaceous seas had much to do with the climate of the age. The central plains of NA was a broad sea, from the Gulf of Mex. to the Arctic, with open ocean at both poles.
Euanmeans :
Very interesting charts.
It is with such data that the climateers have calculated a decrease of 0.1 pH of the oceans. More junk science.
I was pretty astonished when I came across these charts. Each ocean basin has different pH and pH profiles. Deep water is always more acid than shallow and has higher CO2 / HCO3 content. The reason is billions of tonnes of rotting plankton at depth. The natural pH variations dwarf the tiny surface effect from CO2. As far as I can tell, these profiles preclude the operation of a solubility pump since diffusion goes from high to low concentration and mixing deep with shallow water would lead to a reduction in the deep water C content.
I’m also pretty sceptical about the so called silicate weathering sink, which I also think is junk. As far as I can tell, most CO2 is removed from atmosphere by photosynthesis.
The globull warming alarmists I know completely ignore all facts and evidence that do not support their views.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable. They will shout “WE MUST ACT NOW!”. Then turn a blind eye to todays new information like it doesn’t exist.
This field has become so highly politicized that the evidence is disregarded. It has become a religion to some of the alarmists.
A religion to all the Alarmists IMO.
Not religion but tribalism. The tribe must be united no matter how stupid it gets.
Myles Allen was at one stage suggesting an 11 degree C sensitivity / CO2 doubling.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=70
He went on to defend the 11 degree C number in an interview at the BBC.
And he is now concerned about others being alarmist. Does he think we have short memories?
Then do have epic levels of ego and so think that others are much dumber than they are , so you may be right that he simply cannot believe people remember his own past BS statements .
Great Link! Way to bust his hypocracy Keith!
So many Myles Allen quotes in that interview, I particularly liked this one:
“make sure that a press release could be used by the sort of hard-working journalists in the Oxford Times who don’t have time to go and read the whole story,”
A journalist who doesn’t read the whole story before publishing sounds like a lazy person, not a “hard working” journalist. A hard working journalist by his standards sounds incompetent. Oh wait…
Hard working journalists sometimes don’t have time to go and read the whole story, believe me.
But any half-decent one will very quickly learn who the people are who will try to “finesse” their way past in the way that Allen is talking about here and the word soon gets round.
“Environmental correspodents”, so-called, are a different matter altogether. Some of them are quite likely to add their own spin to a story which is one reason why everything continues to get “worse then we thought”.
They simply make it worse than the original press release!
His actual right on this , but its not an idea we should encourage for the madder they come across to the public the better is for sceptics. That is why Mann is such a gold mine.
As for Allen like most of ‘the Team’ he find it hard to get a job teaching at a third rate high school if ‘the cause ‘ falls so he filling his boots while he can hopping that retirement occurs before this , now that is what we call motivation .
The link in Josh’s picture is unfortunately wrong. This seems to be the correct one: http://stevebrodner.com/2013/06/23/the-mad-men-of-climate-denial/
How on earth can a cartoon be “wrong” except in the mind of a half wit.
Would you accept that the link is stale? What do you think it should be?
“climate change is about the weather changing”
Never seen the weather change before! We’re doomed!
Hhh…hmmmm. The National Post is a major CANADIAN newspaper.
Yes, for some reason I had British newspapers in my mind when I wrote this sorry.
National Post, a major British daily Newspape
Not to my knowledge.
[not to ours either, typo removed -mod]
The really sad situation imho, is that nothing will change in so much as these people like Prof Myles Allen, will be considered as having done their best to help change an impure & imperfect World, thus they shouldn’t be named & shamed for their self-enrichment practices at taxpayers expense, but be allowed to quietly take early retirement in a face-saving exercise which we will ALL pay for, one way or another! Really sad, how fortunate they are to be allowed to make pronouncement upon pronouncement time & again, be shown to have been wrong on numerous occasions, & yet not be held accountable for any of it!
Is it me or are many of the AGW liars trying to reposition their doctrine.
First there was the Betts et al tearoom “I”m a nice guy really” then comes Myles “11°C” Allen and then the more recent BBC radio broadcast with ‘sceptics’.
Translation: We need to be careful about how we go about telling the Biggest Lie In Human History. It needs to be crafted carefully, to give it the aura and patina of science so people will be fooled. In short, lying is an art which shouldn’t be left to those with lesser abilities than we “professionals”.
NGO’s are simply translating the supplied science fear-gobbledegook into readable, spoken English.
The ‘Gobbledegookers’ would rather it be left as it is. By using totally nifty scientific terminology (that the average Jo Six-pack can’t decipher), the message is: ‘we know that you can’t understand the reasoning, but we sound so bloody clever that you just need to believe our conclusions.’
Sorry, Miles, but “climate change is about the weather changing in many parts if the world” is the standard phrase of climate alarmism. You don’t seem too different from the other alarmists, broadcasting such a remark.
Climate alarmism is a spent force in Germany.
Global warming is finished but the alarmist hype continues. The gullible are diminishing and the rest of Europe will follow Germany.
Weather change is supposed to frighten us!
Tell us, Miles, what is the latest on climate sensitivity?
“Climate alarmism is a spent force in Germany.”
Tell that to the German political caste. They are either extremely slow learners or masters in deception.
Why else would they have switched to coal-fired power generation, the squawks and squeals of the Greens notwithstanding? Am I wrong?
Notice that environment minister Barbara Hendricks, SPD, wants them shut off, as she said , I think yesterday, in response to the IPCC’s latest ransom note.
So yes, they ARE completely insane, or they PLAY it very convincingly.
The issue with global warming is not a concern about the catastrophes predicted by AGW zealots but the difficulty that even a modest amount of temperature rise could cause fro all of us. Relatively modest rises in sea level could require very expensive adaptations in coastal cities. Relatively modest changes in weather patterns could cause expensive changes in agriculture. We witnessed the Dust Bowl of the 30s. What if that became a common occurrence and what effect would that have on food supplies.
Fortunately recent evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is at the more benign end of the spectrum . However that does not provide a rationale fro complete complacency. We must be vigilant against poor activist-driven science. But equally we must be open to what competent audited science has to tell us.
TAG
November 4, 2014 at 5:41 am
“Relatively modest rises in sea level could require very expensive adaptations in coastal cities.”
Is that “expensive” as in “spending 1 percent of GDP on subsidizing solar and wind which do not reduce CO2 emissions at all” as Germany currently does?
TAG
November 4, 2014 at 5:41 am
“But equally we must be open to what competent audited science has to tell us.”
Yeah, that’s a good one, can you please provide a link to the validation of the climate models, TIA.
We have seen no sea level rise so far, nor any change in climate. Do not let yourself be fooled by climate alarmism. Food supplies are increasing, the US has record yields this year,higher than ever.
Your phrase “competent, audited science” has a hopeful quality to it.
We have seen a rise in sea level.
It is exactly the same rise in sea level since the LIA ended.
It is fair and true to say that we have seen no sign of any acceleration in the rise in sea level though.
Still, let’s not exaggerate.
Let us be calm and considered like Prof Myles Allen and his 11°C sensitivity / [CO2] doubling.
M Courtney,
See NOAA Mean Sea Level Trends for the US. These show no rise for several decades, except where there is subsidence.
For example, NOAA west coast gauges show no rise for ~30 years. Other stable coastlines in the world also show flat or very slight trends.
Who will maintain that a general rise in sea level has simply bypassed NA?
Not I.Would you?
Measuring the sea level us difficult.
This Analysis of global linear mean sea level (MSL) trends, including distance-weighted averaging seems to agree with me.
But I would certainly agree that the sea level rise is:
A) Too small to measure easily.
B) Hard to distinguish from subsidence.
C) Definitely not accelerating.
Tactically, I don’t approve of pushing strong sceptical positions without very strong proof… and there isn’t that much good knowledge of sea-level rise.
M Courtney, I understand, but I feel that my assertion cannot be refuted. As I pointed out, who will argue that general sea level has been rising everywhere except on the coasts of NA?
NOAA tide data is reliable. It can’t be fixed or cooked.
The “30s Dust Bowl” was caused to some extent by extended drought conditions yes, but a more powerful trigger was the ploughing up of grassland for corn production by farmers cashing in on the high wheat prices caused by the low yields resulting from this drought, together with high demand for export following the devastation in Europe from World War 1. Grass roots, being larger and more cohesive, would have stabilised the soil and prevented the dust bowl catastrophe. In fact the government solution to the dustbowl was restoration of the grasslands in the late 30s. Typically the lesson was not learnt – during World War 2 the government paid a subsidy to wheat growers to stimulate production. The exact same grasslands were ploughed up again, and the exact same dustbowl conditions subsequently prevailed.
My point is that your comment about the “Dust Bowl” is – mildly – alarmist. We know how to handle the
drought conditions now, we can adapt our behaviour to reduce the impact of severe drought. As with
climate responses the key word is adapt.
Eric, you mention that The Cretaceous period, which ended 66 million years ago, had an average temperature of 4C higher than current temperatures, and an average CO2 level of 1700ppm, more than 4x today’s level.
It appears that some game changing studies have past along very silently but currently, this overview suggests that only few estimates exceed 1000 ppm, the average seems to be in the ballpark of 700mm
http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/RadiationBal/CretaceousGreenhouse.jpg
Very interesting is also:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Giraffe_Pipe_CO2_AJS.pdf
Scroll down one page to figure one and notice that current CO2 estimates during the warm Paleocene are around 500ppm while it increases to around 1000ppm at the end of the cooling Eocene. I wonder why alarmists never show these figures.
The Wikipedia numbers are based on the following reconstruction (details below the image):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
According to the description, the graphic references 3 models, including the GEOCARB III model, which suggests a substantial CO2 level during the Cretaceous. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt
The graphic was created by Robert A. Rohde who, according to his Wiki description, is lead scientist for Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature. http://berkeleyearth.org/team/robert-rohde
If you are interested in chasing down the detail of the Cretaceous CO2, why not contact Rohde directly, maybe write the response as a “submit story” to WUWT – I would be very interested in reading the results of your research.
Eric, it’s not so much about challenging the sources, but look here, Geocarb is from 1991,1994, revised 2002. Doria et al is from 2011, using reconstructions from multiple proxies which mutually agree, painting a totally different picture. That’s why I said “It appears that some game changing studies have past along very silently
Just a decade or so ago, these guys were telling their friends that they had to remove all doubt from any statements they make to the public and present only the worst case scenarios because they had to build support amongst the public for action.
Now they are saying that being alarmist is counter productive and only unprofessional people would engage in such behavior.
They sense that their gravy train may stop its nice delivery schedule.
Because they can see alarmism does not work. The public are bored stiff of the subject – alarm fatigue.
Speaking of the IPCC and its ever-increasing army of UNEP-approved NGOs … did you know that even before the IPCC issued the first iteration of its “climate bible”, in 1989 the Canadian Wildlife Federation (amongst others, no doubt!) was:
Details at (shameless plug alert) Battle for bucks on backs of bears, birds, buffaloes, beavers … & rats
Hilary, did you know we only have 10 more years to solve global warming?
The temperature during the early to middle Cretaceous is largely irrelevant to the debate between alarmists and skeptics. The reason is plate tectonics. During two-thirds of the Cretaceous the Tethys Seaway was still open, which connected the tropical Indian Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean around the latitude of Spain.
To give some perspective, the net energy imbalance estimate by James Hansen was 0.6 Wm-2. This is so little that the uncertainty in the estimate is 28 times greater as you can read here:
http://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/
Since Stephens et al did the study discussed, Norman Loeb, also of NASA has revised Hansen’s estimate of energy imbalance to 0.5 Wm-2. That makes the uncertainty 34 times the energy imbalance.
More, 0.5 Wm-2 is the estimated energy imbalance compared with 340 Wm-2 total downward energy flux. The imbalance is 0.15% of the total solar energy. That is 15 parts in 10,000.
The size of the uncertainty is so great that scientists cannot be as confident as they claim that the net imbalance is positive. The imbalance might be zero or negative or switch back and forth.
The imbalance is so small that heat sinks might hide the excess kinetic energy in the form of potential energy. Latent energy from increased water vapor; latent energy in the form of increased vegetation, or increased formation of carbonates by foraminifera. .
The temperature during the early to middle Cretaceous is largely irrelevant to the debate between alarmists and skeptics. The reason is plate tectonics. During two-thirds of the Cretaceous the Tethys Seaway was still open, which connected the tropical Indian Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean around the latitude of Spain.
To give some perspective, the net energy imbalance estimate by James Hansen was 0.6 Wm-2. This is so little that the uncertainty in the estimate is 28 times greater.
Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012
Since Stephens et al did their, Norman Loeb, also of NASA has revised Hansen’s estimate of energy imbalance to 0.5 Wm-2. That makes the uncertainty 34 times the energy imbalance.
(Loeb et al, Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nature Geoscience VOL 5 February 2012.
More, 0.5 Wm-2 is the estimated energy imbalance compared with 340 Wm-2 total downward energy flux. The imbalance is 0.15% of the total solar energy. That is 15 parts in 10,000.
The imbalance is so small that heat sinks might hide the excess kinetic energy in the form of potential energy. Latent energy from increased water vapor; latent energy in the form of increased vegetation, or increased formation of carbonates by foraminifera. .
“convincing the general public”
If they haven’t achieved that after 30 years, with a head start of at least 20 years before the science skeptic websites came along, then they never will.
The strategy of using every event or trend as evidence of CAGW has been the downfall of the warmists. While some have been more measured in the significance of extreme weather, most have jumped on the bandwagon to say “See here is AGW before you” . Of course then all one has to do to falsify CAGW is point to the last 20 years of no increase in the rate of sea level rise, or the lack of increase in incidence of tornadoes, or the 3,000 plus days since a Cat 3 hurricane struck the US, or the evidence that this warming is not unusual or many other observational data. A much smarter strategy would have been to simply say that if forecasts for warming etc continue until 2100 then these are the things that will happen. As it is, the day in and day out observational data just destroy their argument that what is going on now is proof of CAGW.
Too late by many years, Myles. From the IPCC down, all the climate weirdos have gone extreme. Best ignore them, I say, and if you meet one, suggest urgent medical attention for obsessional disorders.
“but the IPCC has been very clear and measured throughout” Is this supposed to be funny?
Myles Allen: “climate change is just all about melting ice caps and the Arctic” even though “the reality is climate change is about the weather changing in many parts of the world including where many people live.”
Does he honestly expect weather and climate to be static?? It should always rain the “proper” amount on Tuesday afternoons. Exactly the right amount of snow in the Alps every winter. This is a climate scientist???
Unbelievable.
He’s complaining that the general public isn’t convinced that climate change is an issue. My God! They’ve had over twenty-five years and more than $40 Billion to make their case.
Professor Allen is on the right track. He will achieve success when he connects the final bits and realizes that since alrmism is not warranted, climate is in fact not a significant issue.
Credibility gap? It really is the ’60s again.
Discovering after all these years that alarmism has run its course, Prof Allen is signaling the devout that it’s time to move into a new phase. Few buy that the world’s going to end, so it’s time to ‘save your soul’ by doing the ‘right thing’ and continuing to practice the anti-CO2 ritual.
Sorry but it’s too late for moderate messages now, when the smell of blood (money) is in the water. Make that other people’s blood and money. My prediction–over reach scare tactics and attacking science-based questions will escalate. And you can keep your insurance policy too.
you might consider reading some science on the Cretaceous.
#1. you dont calculate sensitivity to doubling by merely looking at C02 since there are other forcings.
#2. The way its done is clearly outlined in many papers, including Nic Lewis who is a far bit smarter lukewarmer than the OP.
A) you need to look at ALL FORCINGS and the change in temperature.
B) that will give you the sensitivity of the climate to any changes forcings.
C) multiply that number by 3.7
educate your self on sensitivity and the cretaceous
http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/2012%20Royer_Geobiology.pdf
“C) multiply that number by 3.7”
ROTFLMAO!
Any temperature estimate of the Cretaceous (you really should capitalize properly. Oh, I forgot, you’re an English major, therefore you suck at English) is a wild guess. And if they’re presenting a single line for the whole planet, it’s a completely useless guess.
After a lengthy google, I have to assume that NGO means Non Governmental Organization. Geez I fricking hate it when an author assumes we know.
Then you’re going to like QUANGO.
There are multiple examples through history that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate. The latest is that CO2 has increased by 30% of the 1800-2001 increase while the average global temperature trend has not increased. Prior examples are at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html
The reason why CO2 change has no significant effect is explained by what happens after a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon. It takes 10 microseconds for the molecule to ‘relax’ by emitting a photon but only 0.0001 microseconds for the added energy to be thermalized, i. e. thermally conducted to other atmospheric molecules. This science and what happens next are explained further at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
James Annan has an interesting blog on this-
“Pot, meet kettle
‘Alarmist’ green groups made ‘exaggerated’ claims about global warming, UN climate change scientist says
Like suggesting that climate sensitivity might be 11C?”
[He’s referring to simulations using the public’s computers, that Myles Allen was leading, where only the top end of the results was reported]
Oh nos! The weather will change…where people live!
I vividly remember, when I got into this ten years or so ago, sceptics who commented that the freezing weather (then) showed a lack of AGW were told quite forcibly that weather is not climate.
How times change. Now we’re being told that weather is climate.
yes it is odd how now every extreme , but not usual , weather event is now jumped on as proof . Almost has if they are rather desperate to find proof , which is doubly odd given we where told it was ‘settled science ‘
As Carl Sagan said: “Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
What is unhelpful is claiming that temperature data is ‘accurate’ when it is contentious, doctored, inconsistent and arbitrarily incorporated with an artificial gradient.
“NGOs have at times been alarmist over climate change … but the IPCC has been very clear and measured throughout. I think alarmism on any issue is unhelpful.”
But isn’t the IPCC the definition of a NGO. As part of the UN, a joint bureauocracy, the are a Non-Government.
from Merriam-Webster – Full Definition of BUREAUCRACY
1a : a body of non-elective government officials
b : an administrative policy-making group
2 government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation
Dave in Canmore,
Thanks for comment on link. I was in your town a couple times last year while on temporary assignment in Calgary.
best wishes, Keith