Climate alarmists accuse IPCC of ‘watering down’ disaster predictions (again) 

Posted: September 23, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, humour, IPCC
Tags:

Credit: planetsave.com


Déjà vu – another amusing outbreak of paranoia from the ranks of overheating climate obsessives who think the weather depends on how much fuel is burnt, or something.

Climate alarmists are alarmed that a new IPCC report to be released on 8 October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will reject their apocalyptic rhetoric and disaster predictions, says The GWPF.

They blame IPCC scientists for deliberately downplaying the danger of global warming in order to placate the Trump Administration and some of its fossil fuel allies.

From The Observer:

Warnings about the dangers of global warming are being watered down in the final version of a key climate report for a major international meeting next month, according to reviewers who have studied earlier versions of the report and its summary.

They say scientists working on the final draft of the summary are censoring their own warnings and “pulling their punches” to make policy recommendations seem more palatable to countries – such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Australia – that are reluctant to cut fossil-fuel emissions, a key cause of global warming.

Exactly the same accusations were made back in 2014 when climate alarmists told the same paper the IPCC had ‘diluted’ its report under ‘political pressure’ to protect fossil fuel interests.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Like Arthur (Dudley Moore) climate alarmists are never satisfied…

  2. ivan says:

    Are they actually including the truth in the report rather than superstitions, guesses and just plane BS. If they are I can see how it would cause exploding heads among the faithful of the Church of Climatology – all their beliefs going up in smoke that isn’t warming the climate.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Science isn’t supposed to be about making lurid headlines, but frontline alarmists don’t want to hear that.

  4. tom0mason says:

    U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception. As he explained in a 1993 comment, …

    “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…”

    With the UN-IPCC backing off slightly with the extreme disaster predictions, will the ‘save the world’ and ‘climate alarmist’ political agenda soon loose it’s sciency sheen. Will Timothy Wirth type advocates’ popular political traction soon wane? Can the alarmist loudmouths now be silenced? On both counts, I hope so.
    Will this be enough to allow academic science, especially climate studies regain some of its lost respectability? Maybe, time and politics will tell.

  5. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:

    Chicken Little has been accused of pulling his punches by the Committed Alliance of Catastrophic Knowledge, a self interest group that polices wrongthink.

    Known apocalyptic zealot, king of hyperbole and cataclysm communicator Bob Ward said

    “Little is known for downplaying the worst impacts of the sky falling down and has led scientific authors to omit crucial information from the summary for policymakers.”

  6. oldbrew says:

    Example of a watered down ‘disaster’…

    ARCTIC SEA ICE MUCH MORE STABLE THAN THOUGHT
    Date: 23/09/18 Ron Clutz, Science Matters

    https://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-sea-ice-much-more-stable-than-thought/

  7. TDR says:

    Why does the actual published NSIDC graph of minimum Arctic Sea Ice look nothing like the above?

    See https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

  8. TDR says:

    Never mind – I realised that the above graph is an excerpt of the record with a much shorter time range. If you look at the whole record on the NSIDC site then the long term trend is clearer.

  9. oldbrew says:

    TDR – yes, but 1979 was a high point in Arctic sea ice, relative to the previous period.

    It depends what is called ‘long term’. Arctic sea ice decline occurred in the 1920s for example:

    [Under date of October 10 1922 the American consul at Bergen, Norway , submitted
    the following report to the State Department, Washington, D. C.]
    The Arctic seems to be warming up.
    . . .
    Observations have, however, been even
    more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional.
    In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The
    expedition all but established a record, sailing as far
    north as 81° 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest
    north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20171001163339/https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    The satellite record is too short to be called long-term IMO.

    NB: ‘The ESSA and NOAA polar orbiting satellites followed suit from the late 1960s onward.’
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite#History

    What did they find?

  10. TDR says:

    I call long term in the case of ~40 years of contiguous records, the entire record. If you look at that record the long term decline in ice volume is clear, and the minimum extent on record is 2012.

    I cant hold much value in or draw any conclusions from a single observation at a single point in time from the 1920s, but noted. I would also note from the long term temeprature record that average global temperatures were also increasing in that period.

    However looking at just Arctic ice extent is a bit limiting. I would suggest considering global average Ice extent as a more meaningful measure. See for instance:

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/global-sea-ice

  11. oldbrew says:

    Not a single observation. The report continues…

    In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is interesting
    to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway
    and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who
    has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says
    that he first noted warmer conditions in 1915, that since
    that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day
    the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same
    region of 1865 to 1917.

    Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable.
    Where formerly great masses of ice were found there
    are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones.

    [bold added]

  12. TDR says:

    (The global trend by the way across the ~ 40 years of contiguous records is an average rate of decline in ice volume of circa 2000 cubic kilometers of ice per decade.)

  13. TDR says:

    OK, so a single comment at a point in time from a single person that claims long term historical experience. It is well known that long term human perception is not a reliable or scientifically accurate measurement method. And even if his comments were accurate, Im not clear what your point is – Temperatures were rising then too.

  14. oldbrew says:

    The point is there are ups and downs. In the early 1970s there was a lot of talk about a new ice age being around the corner.

  15. TDR says:

    Yes, natural short term variations are normal (weather). It’s long term weather trends over decades that are more statistically significant (climate).

    nb – there was never any scietific consensus on “a new ice age being around the corner”. Or overwhelming observable evidence for it.

  16. stpaulchuck says:

    apparently they want to extend their fief and cash flows so they are toning down the alarmism. I’m still waiting for the handcuffs to be slapped on various ‘scientests’ and pols for the billions of wasted money and crony theft of tax money related to this scam.

  17. oldbrew says:

    TDR says: It’s long term weather trends over decades that are more statistically significant (climate).

    We’re going round in circles if there’s no valid data before 1979. Or maybe there is some e.g.:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/09/24/cambridge-university-scientists-create-ancient-tree-ring-diary/#comment-143218

  18. ivan says:

    TDR says nb – there was never any scietific consensus on “a new ice age being around the corner”. Or overwhelming observable evidence for it.

    Two things, 1) science is not done by consensus – that is religion. 2) likewise there is no overwhelming observable evidence for man made climate change – yes, the climate is changing as the earth moves from the last ice age.

  19. oldbrew says:

    Some long term data…

    500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature

    Paper Reviewed
    Davis, W.J. 2017. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years. Climate 5: 76; doi: 10.3390/cli5040076.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/sep/a13.php

  20. oldbrew says:

    Climate scientists reject ‘offensive’ claim of US, Saudi meddling in landmark report
    Published on 24/09/2018, 4:46pm

    An article claiming a landmark report on the consequences of warming past 1.5C had been watered down at the behest of big polluters has been slammed by authors.
    . . .
    “The scientists who produce reports like these try to summarise the latest knowledge, but they have a reputation for being conservative about the worst risks of climate change,” Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Institute, told the Observer. “This time they have outdone themselves in pulling their punches, however.”

    “What Bob thinks [is] skewed others do not,” said [climate physicist] Forster.

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/09/24/climate-scientists-reject-offensive-claim-us-saudi-meddling-landmark-report/

  21. TDR says:

    Sorry but science IS generally done by consensus. Once enough people agree with a theory and enough evidence exists for it, it becomes accepted fact until that changes. Such as the theory of gravity or of CO2 being a greenhouse gas which has been known for over a century..

    Your comment around “out of the last ice age” is amusing. Let’s put the changes and rate of change since then in perspective: https://xkcd.com/1732/

  22. TDR says:

    Interesting graph and article on CO2 versus temperature – it sure looks to my untrained eye like there is plenty of correlation there! It’s even more obvious if you view the Vostok data:

  23. ivan says:

    @TDR you are really clutching at straws using a comic, where the guy follows the cagw mantra, as evidence and how do you get temperatures out of ice cores?

  24. oldbrew says:

    NEW RESEARCH IN ANTARCTICA SHOWS CO2 FOLLOWS TEMPERATURE “BY A FEW HUNDRED YEARS AT MOST”
    Date: 24/07/12

    http://www.thegwpf.com/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

  25. TDR says:

    They do say a picture is worth a thousand words. And see http://bfy.tw/K4J0

  26. TDR says:

    nb – the graph above on Greenland uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

    “Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.”

  27. TDR says:

    “NEW RESEARCH IN ANTARCTICA SHOWS CO2 FOLLOWS TEMPERATURE ”

    Yes because that historical CO2 is not caused by anthropomorphic activities, but by the warming of the planet due to Milancovitch cycles.

    [reply] Vostok data is also ‘historical’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s