IPCC

And another scientist abandons the fraud that is Climate Change

They are dropping like flies, now that they realise that their scare-mongering and lies are being called.

James Delingpole reports at Breitbart on another turncoat from the “cause”.

One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith – up to and including the belief that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift – “I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are” he recently told Germany’s Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an “alarmist” – his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.    Read more »

The political manipulation of climate change busted

A top US academic has revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own agenda. This will bring fresh scrutiny onto the IPCC and the undue alarmism for political purposes contained in their reports.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.

Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.

Prof Stavins, Harvard’s Professor of Business and Government, was one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of a key report published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this month.

His chapter of the 2,000-page original report concerned ways countries can co-operate to reduce carbon emissions.

IPCC reports are supposed to be scrupulously independent as they give scientific advice to governments around the world to help them shape energy policies – which in turn affect subsidies and domestic power bills.   

Prof Stavins said the government officials in Berlin fought to make big changes to the full report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. This is the condensed version usually cited by the world’s media and politicians. He said their goal was to protect their ‘negotiating stances’ at forthcoming talks over a new greenhouse gas reduction treaty.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’    Read more »

The climate essay warmists are trying to suppress

NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.

Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” 

Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?

In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).    Read more »

Want to combat global warming? You need to agree to fracking and nuclear power

I wonder if Gareth Hughes would care to comment on this news.

To be consistent with the MSM breathlessly reporting all doomsday IPCC predictions (most of which never eventuate) will we see headlines of fracking saving the environment and insightful comment from global warmists backing the IPCC findings ?

I think probably not.

Climate scientists have backed Britain’s shale gas revolution – saying it could help to slow  global warming.

The world’s leading experts on climate change say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions and should be made central to the country’s energy production.

It will help the UK move away from ‘dirty’ coal and contribute to saving the environment, according to a report by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report says it is ‘quite clear’ that fracking is ‘very consistent with low-carbon development’ and the technology could ‘significantly’ reduce emissions.

The unexpected endorsement from 235 eminent United Nations scientists and economists will be a welcome boost to David Cameron, who is a keen advocate of the new technology.

It is also a blow to green activists, who seek cuts in greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about the effects of fracking.  Read more »

Christopher Booker on climate fraudsters and charlatans

Christopher Booker writes at the Telegraph about climate scaremongers who are still twisting the evidence over global warming:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.  Read more »

Mitigation or adaptation, choices with Climate Change

The left wing wants to push ahead with mitigation policies for climate change, it is their unerring belief that the state and governments can control the climate through control and taxes.

The other side says that the climate will always change and we should look at adaptation rather than expend vast quantities of cash on ultimately futile efforts.

Las Vegas couldn’t exist without air conditioning, neither could Dubai or other cities in the middle east. Human beings are great at adaptation, it is why we are top of the food chain.

Still there is no evidence yet presented that the predicted climate changes have actually happened, or if they are happening at the rates the alarmist have stated. In fact he opposite is true.

So what is it to be? Mitigation and huge costs, or adaptation?

The latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due out next week. If the leaked draft is reflected in the published report, it will constitute the formal moving on of the debate from the past, futile focus upon “mitigation” to a new debate about resilience and adaptation.

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP – and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks.

And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP. At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.

Those are massive costs…I doubt the world could sustain them, let alone have them work at all.  Read more »

Patrick Moore’s testimony to US Senate in climate change

Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change.

This is his submission. It is well worth your time to read.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

February 25, 2014

“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.    Read more »

Tony Abbot’s chief business advisor says Australia is “hostage to climate-change madness”

A massive furore has erupted in Australia because someone has finally had the gumption to challenge the fraud that is climate change.

Check this out from The Australian.

THE unprecedented cost of energy driven by the renewable energy target and the carbon tax had destroyed the nation’s competitiveness, Tony Abbott’s chief business adviser has declared.

Maurice Newman also says climate change policies driven by “scientific delusion” have been a major factor in the collapse of Australia’s manufacturing sector. “The Australian dollar and industrial relations policies are blamed,” Mr Newman said. “But, for some manufacturers, the strong dollar has been a benefit, while high relative wages have long been a feature of the Australian industrial landscape.”

In an interview, Mr Newman said protection of climate change policies and the renewable energy industry by various state governments smacked of a “cover-up”.  Read more »

Guest Post – Kevin Hearle – NZ’s Kyoto commitment (a farce) and here is why.

iraqi

The New Zealand Kyoto commitment as measured by the Government fell to Zero in April of 2013 the actual commitment in Millions of Units was 29.1M Units but because the value of these Units is linked to the price in Euros of a CER on the European Exchange and that fell to €0.01 effectively zero our units are deemed to be worth less than a CER (though why a unit of carbon is worth less in NZ than it is in Europe is beyond me) this made our 29.1 million credit worth nothing.

Let’s consider that we can actually measure our commitment with any certainty for the moment.

The price of carbon has fallen from around € 12.00 in 2008 to effectively zero €0.01 in April 2013. This fall is due to the manipulation of the market by the EU in allowing the market to be flooded with CER’s  and now by the complete loss of credibility of the UN IPCC and the Catastrophic Anthropogenic  Global Warming  scenario painted by that organisation.  The IPCC’s 5th Assessment report has been bagged by scientists and the press alike.  James Delingpole’s article in the Telegraph  headlined “The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy” sums it up.

Delingpole quotes  IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen as saying  the IPCC has  “sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence.” Nigel Lawson has called it “not science but mumbo jumbo”. The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC’s panel as “evasive and inaccurate” in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that it is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we’ve been warned about these last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now  graded by scientists to somewhere between “low confidence” to “exceptionally unlikely;” .   Read more »

Chart of the Day – 90 climate model projectons versus reality

Maybe the IPCC 95% certainty was right...just not the conclusion

As seen in the following graphic, over the period of the satellite record (1979-2012), both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends which are below 87 of the 90 climate models used in the comparison.

So, about 95% (actually, 96.7%) of the climate models warm faster than the observations. While they said they were 95% certain that most of the warming since the 1950s was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, what they meant to say was that they are 95% sure their climate models are warming too much.  Read more »