ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Translates the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

It’s been months since I’ve wandered over to the ClimateProgress wing of the political blog ThinkProgress.  The title of the November 4, 2014 blog post by alarmist Joe Romm is truly remarkable.   Please sit.  Put down your coffee, unless you want to spritz your keyboard. (I have a standby keyboard from my old computer just in case I run into something like this.) Here it comes, ready or not.

The title is IPCC Scientists Emphasize Immorality Of Inaction By Focusing On ‘Irreversible Impacts’.

Told ya’.  It’s a doozy.

Odd thing, I don’t recall the IPCC being tasked with preparing reports about the ethics of hypothetical human-induced global warming and climate change.   Do you?  Referring to the IPCC History webpage, the IPCC I know was tasked with preparing reports that (my bold):

…assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

If the IPCC is policy neutral, one might suspect it is also ethics neutral.   In other words, it is not for the IPCC to decide what is moral or immoral.

Recall, the IPCC is only a report-writing arm of a political organization.  They are not a scientific body.  The reports are written for a political body—by like-minded scientists, granted—but they are prepared only to support that political body’s agendas.

On that IPCC History webpage, they also note:

The scientific evidence brought up by the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 underlined the importance of climate change as a challenge requiring international cooperation to tackle its consequences. It therefore played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change.

That’s also odd.  The first IPCC assessment report wasn’t very conclusive. In fact, the IPCC admitted, at that time, they could not detect the impacts of manmade greenhouse gases on global mean surface temperatures. Yet somehow, the UNFCCC was created based on those inconclusive findings in the first IPCC report.

This has led many persons to conclude the UN was going to proceed with their agenda of stabilizing “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” by creating regulations intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases…regardless of the findings of that first IPCC report.  In other words, there was never any real need for the IPCC, never any real need for governments around the globe, since the founding of the purposeless IPCC in 1988, to continue to waste billions of dollars annually on climate studies. All of that time and money has been wasted.  The politicians had already decided what they were going to do.

But I’ve gone off on a tangent.  Back to Joe Romm’s IPCC Scientists Emphasize Immorality Of Inaction By Focusing On ‘Irreversible Impacts’.

The title of that post did its magic.  I clicked on it.

It turns out that Romm performed an in-depth study on the use of the word “irreversible”, finding that it was used “only 4 times” in the IPCC’s full 4th synthesis report but used “31 times” in the IPCC’s new full 2014 synthesis report. To Joe Romm, the almost 8-fold increase in the use of one word in 100+ page documents was a clear message that “world’s leading scientists” were emphasizing the “immorality of inaction”.

Or it could indicate the politicians for whom the report is written have grown increasingly more frustrated with their own failures and have directed the report writers to ramp up the rhetoric.

Joe Romm then quoted portions of, possibly, a past synthesis report, and a 5-year-old NOAA study, and, assumedly, the recently released IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report, though I haven’t bothered to confirm the quotes or their sources. Then Romm proceeded to translate those quotes, all according to the Romm beliefs in the immoralities of failing to act on the computer-model projected impacts of hypothetical human-induced global warming, while failing to consider that those climate models cannot be falsified, because the models, purposely, are not representative of Earth’s climate.

I have no further comment about Romm’s post, but I’ll be happy to read yours.

Related:

Pierre Gosselin of NoTrickZone reports on “contradictions, falsehoods and distortions“ in the new IPCC Synthesis Report, which were discovered and documented by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).  See Pierre’s post EIKE: IPCC Synthesis Report “In Crass Contradiction To Almost Every Measurement And Trend In Nature”.

Additionally, maybe you recall the blog post or news story from recent days.  It was by a science reporter who had documented that many portions of the IPCC’s new synthesis report weren’t supported by their year-old 5th Assessment Report (AR5).  If you have a link to the original article, please leave it for me in comments.  I’d like to discuss it (introduce it) in this post as part of an update.

Thanks.

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Translates the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report

  1. It seems:
    You take the cold hard science and add a pinch fear and assertions of certainty to arrive at AR5.

    Then you take AR5 and add a dose if alarm to get to the synthesis report.

    Then you give this to ‘communicators’ who spin it, adding threats.

    By the time it gets to the press and the politicians the only message that comes across is “WE ARE ALL GOING TO FRY BY 2100”

    • No, you take a cold hard fear and assertions and add a pinch of science. Then throw away the science part.

    • Hey Mark! “Lying liars continually perpetrating their fraud….”

      It is said that to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. A corollary of that, is that to a man with a sociopathic talent for lying, every problem is an opportunity for remorseless fraud.

  2. Thanks Bob, I think we all know that the IPCC is a corrupt organization backed by corrupt politicians intent on trying to steamroller a world government. Thankfully America has come to its senses and voted the GOP back. Sen. Inhofe is rubbibg his hands in glee. UK/Europe may follow the US trend but I am not holding my breath.

  3. The “almost 8 fold” increase of a term says more about the lack of science of the report than of anything else. Hysteria is not science, but that is what the alarmist crowd has been reduced to. No facts, no data, just hysteria.

    Prozac futures are soaring in Geneva.

    • Alarmist rhetoric has shifted from “the next 5, 10, 15 years” to “the end of the century”, where it is safely out of reach of embarrassing present-day evidence. No more “snows are a thing of the past” or “here comes the rain/drought stuff, just “trust us — the end of the century is going to be bad”. Isn’t this in itself a retreat?

      • It is a retreat from the science, but not from anything else sadly. As long as there is good money to be made climate change will always be at the edge of irreversibility.

    • It turns out that Romm performed an in-depth study on the use of the word “irreversible”, finding that it was used “only 4 times” in the IPCC’s full 4th synthesis report but used “31 times” in the IPCC’s new full 2014 synthesis report.

      This follows a well trodden path of ramping up the hype while the science stays stagnant. Over 50 excuses for the temp standstill and counting.

  4. I had some interaction with Joe on his site but he wholesale censorship of responses makes any conversation impossible. He is a true believer, a true Climate Jihadist.

    This is more of the same from him. He is utterly irrelevant, like a chicken that runs around the farmyard for epeeiod unaware its head has been removed from its body.

    • He probably is not, he just plays the role and gets paid for it. The lies he tells and the total absence of any logic in his reasonings make me think that it is all just faked.

      • Nylo, I think you are correct. If he were a true believer, convinced that his arguments were irrefutable and overwhelmingly true, he would not censor and delete sceptical counterpoints.

      • I’ve watched him in action on vid, and I’m sure he’s totally sincere. He probably has sane opinions on other subjects, like sports. But I wouldn’t bring up ice hockey, if I were talking to him.

  5. The more time passes, the more climate models will diverge from reality and the more strained will be their attempts to hold onto their discredited theory. According to Kuhn, there should occur a sudden and dramatic paradigm shift. Nobody can say when that will occur, but I hope I’m still around to witness it.

    • In actual fact, the deep oceans will continue to absorb the heat. So the oceans should be “on the boil” in about 10 years time – which will not be much fun for surfers.

      • According to the IPCC Technical Summary TS 6.1 Key Uncertainties WG1:

        • Different global estimates of sub-surface ocean temperatures have
        variations at different times and for different periods, suggesting
        that sub-decadal variability in the temperature and upper heat
        content (0 to to 700 m) is still poorly characterized in the historical
        record. {3.2}

        • Below ocean depths of 700 m the sampling in space and time is
        too sparse to produce annual global ocean temperature and heat
        content estimates prior to 2005. {3.2.4}

        • Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still
        limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global
        ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quantification
        of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level rise.
        ______________
        The ARGO system was not complete until 2007. So ocean temperature data was very sparse prior 2005 as noted above. 20th Century ocean heat content data is simply not robust.

      • “Too bad the deep oceans have been cooling for the last 2 decades”

        So that would rule out submarine volcanoes being responsible for the warming oceans hey!

        “The average September temperature for the global oceans was record high for the month, at 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for September. This also marked the highest departure from average for any month since records began in 1880, breaking the previous record of 0.65°C (1.17°F) set just one month earlier in August. This is the third time in 2014 this all-time monthly high temperature record has been broken. Record warmth was observed in parts of every major ocean basin, particularly notable in the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean.”

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

      • The average September temperature for the global oceans was record high for the month, at 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for September. This also marked the highest departure from average for any month since records began in 1880

        Global ocean records since 1880? Does NOAA think we can’t read?

        From the ARGO website:

        Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?

        In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.

        That step was Argo.

  6. It’s amazing…just amazing, that he still has a platform from which to spew.
    But then again, so do most of the religious figureheads…which is basically the same thing.

  7. “Or it could indicate the politicians for whom the report is written have grown increasingly more frustrated with their own failures and have directed the report writers to ramp up the rhetoric.”

    There is one English word that captures both the AR5 SPM and the recent 2014 synthesis report: sophistry

  8. I’d like to see the electorate vote on Joe Romm’s statements and conclusions. I bet the results would be the same rejection we saw of this administration’s policies last Tuesday.

    Some things are so transparently false.

  9. “To even start reversing the irreversible, we have to go far below zero net emissions to actually sucking …”
    I stopped it about there :)

  10. …we have unleashed myriad amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks that make the job of getting to even zero net emissions doubly difficult.

    Except that is the opposite of what the SPM says.

    The latest science says that the “pause” is caused by heat entering the deep ocean. The feedbacks require heat to be in the atmosphere, doing something.

    A correct quote would be “…we have unleashed no change for over a decade and thus presumably myriad nullifying feedbacks that make the job of getting to even zero net emissions doubly pointless”.

    • Sorry – misformatted:

      …we have unleashed myriad amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks that make the job of getting to even zero net emissions doubly difficult.

      Except that is the opposite of what the SPM says.

      The latest science says that the “pause” is caused by heat entering the deep ocean. The feedbacks require heat to be in the atmosphere, doing something.

      A correct quote would be “…we have unleashed no change for over a decade and thus presumably myriad nullifying feedbacks that make the job of getting to even zero net emissions doubly pointless”.

      • M Courtney says:
        “The latest science says that the pause is caused by the heat entering the deep ocean”

        No need to wonder any longer about where this fellow has his head.

        Courtney, your comrades have posited, in the literature, fifty some odd reasons for the so-called pause. You are far behind ward in the matter.

      • Well even so. Regardless of which guess you pick for where the heat went (if it exists at all)…

        If it isn’t in the atmosphere (GASTA) then the hypothesised feedbacks that the models predicted no longer apply.

        And so the catastrophic feedbacks can’t occur.

  11. The BBC mentioned the “31 uses of the word irreversible” in a news report. It was our wonderful Science and Environment reporter, Matt McGrath (he of the thousand photos of silhouetted cooling towers belching black ‘smoke’). So he either read Joe Romm, or sat there counting the “irreversible”s for Joe to pick up on. Maybe they follow eachother on Twitter, brothers in arms, fighting the good fight.

  12. I think it was Lao Tzu who said:

    “To know that you do not know is the best.
    To think you know when you do not is a disease.
    Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it.”

    It offers some profound wisdom for the true believers in this eternal debate!

    • There are a zillion translations of Lao Tse. Most of them give no hope of a cure for that particular disease.

    • “It offers some profound wisdom for the true believers in this eternal debate!”

      .. .or it will leave them scratching their empty heads about what on earth Lao Tzu was trying to say, thereby keeping them preoccupied and out of our faces for awhile.

  13. Just wondering what happened to”dealing with the consequences of climate change”. Conveniently forgotten probably because it is a lot harder to make money from building dikes and keeping runoff channels clean. Beside, it may actually save a few lives.

    • Yes I wondered on another thread how you do what you do. And now you’re pumping it up?
      Whole departments do not generate the deliverables you produce.

      There should be a government grant on auto pay for you.

  14. Donna Laframboise did the analysis of grey literature cited in the earlier report – I did one chapter. / mark fraser

  15. The very name of the IPCC, Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, embeds the conclusion that climate change is happening.
    For example, it isn’t called the ‘Inter-Governmental Panel on Nothing Much Happening’ or the Inter-Governmental Panel on the Plateaupause. The bias is inbuilt so don’t hold breath waiting for their next ‘scientific’ report.
    If indeed the effects are irreversible then good! – we can all relax because there is nothing we can do it about it.

    • Actually, there is no pause; climate continues to change just as it has always done, albeit at times imperceptibly to short-lived humans.

      If the IPCC were ever to have a shred of legitimacy—which of course it couldn’t by the fact that it is “inter-governmental” (don’t you love that term and all it implies?)—it should direct its energy towards solving problems engendered by the normal and natural shifts in climate and weather. Think of all the millions flushed down the loo that instead could have gone towards maintaining the decaying infrastructure in this country and abroad. How many tragedies could be averted by shoring up dams, levees, bridges and the like?

  16. Everytime the “Think Progress” or “Climate Progress” blogs are mentioned, it needs to be pointed out how intensely political these groups are through and through – they are paid arms of the Democratic National Committee – and that is no exaggeration, it is easily proved.

    “Climate Progress” and “Think Progress” are the online outlets of the “Center for American Progress”. John Podesta is the former President, and now the Chair and Counselor for the Center for American Progress. John Podesta hired Joe Romm, and John Podesta is now also the personal Counselor to President Barak Obama.

    Again, that is ultra-important and opens up the can of worms here for all to see – Joe Romm’s boss is President Obama’s personal counselor. It’s not much of a stretch to say that *Everything* published by Joe Romm is coordinated with the official Messaging strategy of the White House.

    When we say that “Climate Change” is now completely a political issue, THAT is what we are talking about.

    (Luckily their strategy is going down in flames on that front!)

    • With less of a “6 degrees of separation”, we already know that MSNBC and CNN clear their content with the white house. So the progress sites are just easier as they do not clear anything – they get their orders from there.

    • As an addition, John Podesta’s daughter is a lawyer–owns a lobby firm named after her in DC–her company is there to “help” corporate CEO’s to meet the right people to get “things” done in DC. An incestuous lot, I might say.

  17. Based on the results of last Tuesday’s election. Next year I think there is going to be a big change in the funding of climate change research in the U.S.

  18. First, you have to understand that the IPCC was created to further the purposes of the United Nations, not to actually create anything useful. That is, the United Nations, fur years, has acted as if it should be a “government of governments,” much as the United States is a government of states. And like that last comparison, the United Nations wants to have dictatorial powers, as the federal government has over the individual states.

    To further the comparison, you have to have external threats to hammer the constituent parts into total submission. With the United States, it is the now eternal “war on terror” as it used to be the Cold War, and with this, the laws passed have changed the relationships between government and governed.

    With the United Nations, the external threats have to be “world wide” as they aren’t likely to be extraterrestrial., not that they actually could do anything if they WERE extraterrestrial in nature. So they have contrived “global warming,” and have backed it up with the threat of infectious disease. With this two prong approach, they will attempt to hammer the individual nations into submission “for the benefit of humanity.”

    It is all about creating themselves as the unelected and all enforcing world government, and that is all. The European Union was, to me, the trial balloon as to see if you can take individual nations and generate true subservience to an appointed “super government,” and it appears to have been successful, at least up until recently. The UN merely wants to take that concept to a world level instead of just a continental level. They want every nation to give up sovereignty, as the EU has done in Europe, thus they, and ONLY they, can determine the best use for land, water, or population.

    “You say that farm has been in your family for generations? Too bad. We have determined that its best use to humanity is to lie fallow. Go somewhere else. Compensation? Sorry, we don’t give compensation when it is “for the good of humanity.” “

    • . . .That is, the United Nations, for years, has acted as if it should be a “government of governments,” much as the United States is a government of states. And like that last comparison, the United Nations wants to have dictatorial powers, as the federal government has over the individual states.

      It should be pointed out that, under the Constitution of the United States, the federal government is explicitly denied “dictatorial powers” over the individual states. It has been through a perversion of constitution prerogatives (especially the Commerce Clause) and the vast proliferation and expansion of federal bureaucratic agencies with quasi-legislative and enforcement powers, that the federal government has been able to insinuate itself into every aspect of American life.

      This process is not inevitable, and, though the odds may be against it, can still be reversed. Read Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments, and take hope—or better yet, take action.

      /Mr Lynn

      • ‘…under the Constitution of the United States, the federal government is explicitly denied “dictatorial powers” over the individual states’

        Yes, but federal agencies such as the EPA are easily able to circumvent the Constitution. Acting under Presidential edict they have ways of disguising dictatorial power;
        ‘…With the EPA, there’s regulations. They are not actually laws. They never go through Congress and are never voted on by our representatives. That creates soft tyranny because we have no choice in the matter.” (Gary Howell – R- W.V)

        Soft Tyranny indeed.

  19. “If the IPCC is policy neutral, one might suspect it is also ethics neutral. In other words, it is not for the IPCC to decide what is moral or immoral.”
    ============================================================

    No. Indeed. However, it is Mr. Romm’s job – and he has, of course, history – to lecture us all about right and wrong. Me, I’d prefer it if he kept schtumm, but there ya go.

  20. The greatest immorality of the IPCC is the prostitution of science by the political class. The greatest immorality of the scientific community was to be the prostitute.

    Eisenhower was right…. From his farewell speech…
    =========================================================================

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    It is our free society that the IPCC would sacrifice on the altar of climate change.

  21. The idiotic EU plan is to sign up for AGW mutual economic destruction which they hope will encourage other countries to sign up for AGW economic destruction. The EU has no surplus money to spend on green scams that do not work, even if more EU money could be created with a magic wand, the developing world or the US is not going to follow the EU to mutual AGW economic destruction.

    The EU countries are all running massive deficits which is not sustainable and they are doubling down on job killing regulations and policies. That is the EU crisis, not AGW.

  22. IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. They are uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. Like the 3” drought that hit Phoenix. They are uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. They are uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. They are uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 17 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference.

  23. “The latest science says that the pause is caused by the heat entering the deep ocean”

    Seems to me that is opposite the way heat flows according to 1st & 2nd laws.

    • It works in theory.
      Osmosis drives the currents.
      It’s thermohaline.

      So missing heat found?
      No, just where it isn’t ignored.
      Heat may not exist.

  24. I’ve noticed an 8 fold increase in use of the word “cold” in national weather reports. Pretty much tears it for me!

  25. Douglas Adams was writing about the IPCC all along in the 5 volume Hitchhiker Trilogy.

    Funny Friday.

  26. I dont know what to say. The IPCC report is a political tool to enslave us under carbon tax. And Romm is right, of course they use language as a weapon and load it with apocalyptical sounding words like “irreversible” to emphasis that we must tax carbon or else….. irreversible stuff happens.
    Thats the whole idea behind the IPCC that grew out of the 1987 Brundtlandreport that scared us with global warming, desertification, overpopulation, failing agriculture, and horror after horror of wich none has happened. Sure there has been warming but it seems to have benefited us, deserts are greening perhaps because of extra carbondioxide in the athmosphere. Its so funny, I was reading the document the other day just to put the hysteria in perspective, and this is how they explain the failure to implement UN programs to counter desertification:
    “…. lack of involvement of grass-roots communities”
    I think it is a deliberate choice of words, I think they hate humans and behind closed doors, make jokes about how we must die to save the planet. I really do.

    http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-05.htm#II

    • “I think it is a deliberate choice of words, “, well of course, they could also have used their favorite word stakeholder here, by which they mean NGOs like Greenpeace, self appointed -and UN certified- representatives of “the people”, but in reality a controlled opposition in the Hegelian sense, and not even an opposition calling for sanity but one calling for MORE insanity.

  27. I’ll never understand climate alarmists. They’ve advocated for decades a pause or even reversal of the climate and now that it’s here they’re in denial. It should be pretty obvious now even to the main stream press that the goal was not a stable climate but the gutting of American industry. If you’re Joe Romm it is a travesty that the pause has come along well before our lawless president could take us too far down that path.

    But Joe doesn’t matter, never did. He’s a useful tool and nothing more. But he’s also a distraction – rather than reading what is balled up in his empty head we should be picking apart what is in Senator Inhofe’s head and learn where he is taking us and what we need to do to make sure it is the better path. It is time to turn our attention away from the climate reality deniers and start moving the ball down field. The years of obstructionist tactics are over and it is long past time to affect where grant money goes, dispatch the “team” leadership that has gamed the system for decades and install climate realists and energy pragmatists at every critical position.

    Let’s move forward and take back our economy, climate, and education system. Symbolically I’d start by banning AlGore’s AIT from public schools except that it may be used to teach our kids how to recognize how damaging misinformation is used to advance an otherwise unsupportable agenda.

  28. Um, I think Joe Romm’s inability to spell certain words correctly has led many to misunderstand him. You see, he didn’t mean the “immorality of inaction.” What he really was the “immortality of inaction.” It’s funny how merely one letter of the alphabet completely changes the meaning of two words that would otherwise appear identical. What good ole’ Joe means (I’m not talking about Biden here) is that if inaction on climate change doesn’t retain an immortal character about it, well then, the effects on the careers of incumbent politicians will be “irreversible” if that inaction assumes a sudden death by being eaten alive by the birth of a blood dripping carnivore called ‘action on climate change.’ Remember y’all, politicians are voted into office and paid a salary, not by the UNIPCC, GISS, NASA, NRDC, Tom Steyer, or all the rest, but instead by U.S. taxpayers – a lesson we all learned on Tuesday. On that I think we can all find common ground.

  29. Thanks, Bob,
    “the IPCC is only a report-writing arm of a political organization. They are not a scientific body. The reports are written for a political body—by like-minded scientists, granted—but they are prepared only to support that political body’s agendas.”
    Well, yes, and we know from where they write, the left. They also write for advancing that ideology. Nothing new, but worth noticing from where this scam is coming from.

  30. The string uncertain occurs 57 times in the AR4 synthesis report, but 94 times in the AR5 one, a 65% increase in 7 years. If this trend is going to be continued, uncertainty is projected to increase a thousandfold in a century. I daresay it’s worse than we thought.

  31. Why are the IPCC & UN not first caring for the Poor?
    A business leader is advocating that “cheap and abundant coal should be used to drive economic growth and help the world’s impoverished improve their lives.”

    “It’s pretty strange that, globally, not only the UN, but developed country leaders are spending so much time on, quote, climate change,” . . . “They aren’t focusing on how you eliminate poverty, eliminate energy poverty, and start driving global economic activity.”

    That is a major priority in our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization.

    How far the IPCC’s “global warming” and “climate change” agenda has diverted/corrupted us is that the reporter of this quote commits the genetic logical fallacy by titling this: “Coal’s Defender-in-Chief Tries to Shift Debate About Fuel” because it was by Greg Boyce, chief executive officer of Peabody Energy Corp. – the world’s biggest publicly traded coal company.

    Reducing Poverty
    Energy is essential to reducing poverty. People living in 34 of the most advanced countries used an average of 4,176 kilograms of oil-equivalent energy per capita in 2012, according to the World Bank. That compared to just 339 kilograms of oil-equivalent energy in 2011 in the places that make up the UN’s list of “least developed countries.” . . .
    Bjorn Lomborg . . . routinely argues that fossil fuels are the easiest way to deliver electricity to developing nations. Bill Gates endorses that view. A June 25 blog post that featured two videos of Lomborg laying out that thesis, the world’s richest man said poor countries can’t afford today’s “expensive clean-energy solutions, and we can’t expect them to wait for the technology to get cheaper.”

    Harming the poor in the name of caring for the planet worships Nature rather than stewarding the earth while adhering to theWest’s foundational religious/ethical principles. Contrast Advance Energy for Life
    Greg Boyce observes:

    . . .I submit that we cannot continue to allow these conditions to persist. The greatest human and environmental crisis we face is this crisis of energy poverty. Solving the problem does not require research. It does not require a miracle medical cure. As leaders in energy, industry, policy and government, solving the problem requires our will.
    Alleviating energy poverty in the developing world must be a top priority. If the issue of global energy access can be solved, other goals for society become far more possible. . . .

    Here ye!

    • @David L. Hagen – what you have to realize is that the UN could not care less about “people”. They are only concerned about “governments”. Where the government is of, by and for the people, it naturally transfers to the people as well. Where the government is a brutal dictator, their caring stops there.

  32. It turns out that Romm performed an in-depth study on the use of the word “irreversible”, finding that it was used “only 4 times” in the IPCC’s full 4th synthesis report but used “31 times” in the IPCC’s new full 2014 synthesis report. To Joe Romm, the almost 8-fold increase in the use of one word in 100+ page documents was a clear message that “world’s leading scientists” were emphasizing the “immorality of inaction”.

    Or how about the desperation/corruption/bias of the IPCC?
    Has reality been about an 8-fold departure from it’s “projections”?

  33. Well now that they bring up the “immorality of inaction”, paging all honest citizens and competent scientists within the Climatology fold.
    Finally these amoral fools have spoken on a subject of which they do have some experience and expertise.
    Immoral inactivity.
    Climate Gate exposed them.
    The inactivity of all concerned is certainly immoral.
    I too am immensely cheered by the American election results, as a canadian I am cheering for the house cleaning and budget cutting soon to come.
    For where the USA goes our spineless politicians follow, so our PM will finally be able to raze a few of our parasitic institutions .

  34. Why do you continue with this unethical immoral outlandish attack on science? Your impact could be irreversibly irreversible. /sarc off

  35. I am going to intentionally increase my carbon emissions. Next year I am going to start using my gas powered lawn mower instead of using the push mower. I might drive a car once in a while. I am going to have a shower tonight, my 4th one of the year, after I go for a run (I am not making this up).

  36. Apologies, but I don’t think Romm is much worse that Paul Farrell over at the WSJ:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-win-spells-doom-for-overheating-cities-2014-11-07?link=mw_home_kiosk

    Republican Win Spells Doom for Overheating Cities.

    I didn’t get past the first page. If you’ve read one of his climate doom articles, you’ve read them all. No science, no facts … just emotionalism, fear-mongering, and all the usual blame-game and name-calling we’ve come to expect from the worst of the alarmists.

  37. Makes you wonder if Farrell has spent a summer in San Francisco or Seattle, which among Washington DC, Chicago, and others he writes will become hell holes due to irreversible global warming by 2047-2049. This is far enough in the future that he probably won’t be around to lose face for his predictions. I trust that his alarmist pronouncements will not be forgotten with the passage of time.

Comments are closed.