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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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