Global Warming is 95 Percent Man-Made Up

Painting by Tom Stewart. Copyrighted image reprinted courtesy of the Alaska Geographic Society

This is a bullet point collection of reactions as they come in, it will be updated throughout the day by adding new items to the list. It is also a sticky post – new stories will appear below this one.

My first reaction was: That IPCC had a golden opportunity, and blew it due to being unable to adapt to reality.

My second reaction was due to a tweet from the vice chair of the IPCC, who was so tired, he couldn’t even get the website right:

IPCC_vicechair_tired_tweet

There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?

My third reaction after reading the SPM is this:  Looking at claims, it strikes me that the damaged credibility of the IPCC remains intact.

When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while the IPCC referenced models fail to model reality, and this has been pointed out worldwide in media, it becomes a “jump the shark” moment where the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.

Here are other reactions:

================================================================

Marcel Crok: AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity; breaks with a long tradition; good news is hidden from policy makers

One of the most surprising things in the just released SPM is the absence of a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The SPM now says this:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

So from a footnote we have to learn that no best estimate “can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. How strange this is. Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters. It determines largely how much warming we can expect. If there is lack of agreement between different methods/studies, we want to know all about it. However, apart from this footnote, the SPM is silent about it. Hopefully the full report, which will be released on Monday, will give all the details.

http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/

=============================================================

Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:

Ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving are the general themes of the Summary for Policymakers, just released this morning.

You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.

…The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/thoughts-on-the-spm.html

Read the rest at –Watts Up With That?.

Related:

About Albert N. Milliron 6991 Articles
Albert Milliron is the founder of Politisite. Milliron has been credentialed by most major news networks for Presidential debates and major Political Parties for political event coverage. Albert maintains relationships with the White House and State Department to provide direct reporting from the Administration’s Press team. Albert is the former Public Relations Chairman of the Columbia County Republican Party in Georgia. He is a former Delegate. Milliron is a veteran of the US Army Medical Department and worked for Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Psychiatry.

2 Comments

  1. I find it difficult to understand how the effects of nature and those of man can be isolated. And yes, I am generally conservative. It might surprise some to know that my wife and we recycle, compost, use only efficient lighting and appliances (when possible) ,fuel efficient cars, and when ever possible, try to do the least harm in general. We love trees, clean water, and good food.

    What worries folks like us, is that some intend to use these claims as an excuse to restrict freedom(s).

  2. The final report was written with pressure by member countries that objected to the initial findings of the report. After all many countries have invested in green energy, and carbon reduction. Anything that would detract from that agenda would be devastating for them, especially since it has resulted in carbon taxes and higher energy costs.

    The Washington Post writes:

    One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal
    with a purported slowdown in warming in the past 15 years. Climate
    skeptics say this “hiatus” casts doubt on the scientific consensus on
    climate change.

    Many governments had objections over how the issue
    was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted
    altogether.

    In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the
    issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records
    are sensitive to natural variability and don’t in general reflect
    long-term trends.