Posted by Curt on 4 February, 2007 at 11:40 am. 24 comments already!


So this report came out about Global Warming and the media went ape, as they usually do.  An interesting aspect to this report is that it was not the report, but the summary.  You see they, meaning the IPCC, have taken the unusual step of releasing the summary before the actual report so they could continue to tweak the report itself.  Seem a bit fishy?  So does Christopher Monckton:

This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).

And you can count me in as one who believes that this unheard-of tactic for a scientific report is politically based.  But alas, when it comes to global warming we see a lot of strange tactics used by the followers of the temple of global warming.

Anyways, the media has chosen to ignore some aspects of this summary that I will attempt to highlight.  The biggie, that the science of global warming has overestimated the rise in temperature and in effect the panic that was caused by their 2001 report:

The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.

The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

Previous reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist. In the final draft of the new report there is a change in tone. Though carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, global temperature is not.

Figures from the US National Climate Data Center show 2006 as about 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer worldwide than 2001. Since that is within the range of measurement error, global temperature has not risen in a statistically significant sense since the UN’s last report in 2001.

Sources at the center of the drafting say that, though the now-traditional efforts are being made to sound alarmist and scientific at the same time, key projections are being quietly cut.

One says: “Stern is dead. The figures in the final draft of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report makes the recent report of your Treasury’s chief economist on the cost of climate change look like childish panic.”

The UN’s 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a “radiative forcing” of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown as broadly self-cancelling.

In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back to space have a very strong cooling effect.

Are we seeing any of this in our MSM or from the hippies at DU and KOS?  No way.  That would create a calming effect for those who are not totally biased for global warming science.  Meaning those with some common sense.

As a deterrent to direct comparisons between the two reports, the key table of “radiative forcings” – the list of human influences on the amount of heat-energy in the atmosphere – has been rotated by 90 degrees compared with the 2001 table.

The UN also uses a 90% “confidence interval” rather than the 95% interval that is normal statistical usage. This has the effect of giving the UN’s projections a misleading appearance of greater certainty.

The UN’s best estimate of projected temperature increase in response to CO2 reaching 560 parts per million, twice the level in 1750, was 3.5C in the 2001 report. Now it is down to 3C.

The 2007 draft concludes that it is very likely that we caused most of the rise in temperatures since 1940. It does not point out that for half that period, from 1940 to 1975, temperature actually fell even though carbon dioxide rose monotonically – higher every year than the previous year.

Hmmmm, so let me get this straight.  The UN is announcing that we have caused the rise in temperature but failed to note that for the first half of that period temperatures fell while CO2 rose.

You think that would be important to note huh?

Of the UN’s six modeled scenarios, three are extreme exaggerations. Two assume that population will reach 15bn by 2100, though demographers say population will peak at 10bn in 40 years and then plummet. The UN’s high-end temperature projection to 2100, up from 5.8C to 6C, is based on these extreme and unrealistic scenarios.

The new report confirms the finding of the 2001 report that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes, though it may increase the intensity of some storms a little.

Computer models heavily relied on by the UN did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003 – a cooling which demonstrates that neither the frequency nor the intensity of the hurricanes in the year of Katrina was attributable to “global warming”.

The UN’s models also failed to predict the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001. And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998. Without it, the satellite record shows little or no greenhouse warming. Landbased temperature records may accordingly overstate the problem.

Likewise the UN’s models have recently been found to have over-projected the observed rise in sea temperatures, which has had to be corrected downward to allow for over-reading by incorrectly-calibrated instrumentation.

The UN’s draft Summary for Policymakers contains no apology for the defective and discredited “hockey-stick” graph that erroneously abolished the warm climate of the Middle Ages, arousing in some minds the suspicion that the intellectual honesty of the IPCC process is deficient. 

The honesty of the IPCC and the Global Warming Nimrods, or GWN, is deficient in so many ways.  It’s become a industry, this global warming scaremongering, and to keep this industry rolling they have to tweak the science to fit their conclusions.

Dishonest, ignorant, and alarmist.

Which is why China and other developing countries will completely ignore the calls for a reductions in green house gases:

Ambiguities in the report, and considerable discrepancies between it and its predecessor, show that there is no scientific consensus on many points for which consensus is often claimed.

Overall, however, the report is drafted so as to allow environmental extremists to cite its high-end projections as evidence of the need for urgent action.

The ambiguities, together with the conspicuous failure to apologize for the discredited “hockeystick” graph, fully justify the decision of fast-developing third-world countries such as China and India not to yield to pressure from the EU at the recent Nairobi climate summit to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.

China, with 30,000 coal mines, is opening a new pit every week and a new coal-fired power station every five days until 2012. Well before then, China will overtake the US as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Even if a country the size of Britain were to shut down and cease using energy or cars altogether, the growth in carbon emissions in China would more than make up for our sacrifice long before the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012.

Even if the US were to shut down its entire economy, growth in emissions from fast-emerging new polluters such as China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Brazil would replace the US emissions within the next quarter of a century.

So while the alarmists will continue to prop up their industry, their call to form a "consensus" of scientists have caused a report to be issued that ends the "panic". 

In the meantime, there will be continuing pressure from a small but vociferous body of politicized scientists, bureaucrats, and lobby groups to suggest that the 2007 report is more alarming than its predecessors. However, the sharp downward revisions in the values of the two central variables – the human contribution to warming compared with 1750 and the projected rise in sea level to 2100 – indicates that the UN has come to appreciate the dangers that would have arisen if it were to have persisted in its former exaggerations.

The “consensus” clique are displeased at the UN’s new-found moderation, particularly in its halving of its upper-bound projection of the rise in sea level to 2100. But it was they who formerly insisted that the UN, with 2,000 participating scientists, represented the very heart of the “consensus”. Accordingly they find themselves unable convincingly to repudiate the findings of a body whose work they have hitherto represented to us as sacrosanct.

Though the mass media are now well-programmed to focus on the more alarmist aspects of the report, the halving of the sea-level projection is in effect a declaration, from the heart of the “consensus”, that the consequences of warmer worldwide weather will be minor and may be beneficial, that the worst scenarios are no longer probable, and that the panic is officially over.

You think this news will be broadcast through the MSM?  Don’t bet on it.

Now for the moonbats who continue to say that the science is universally accepted I say balderdash: (I like that word, think I will use that a bit more)

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, describes the logic that led him — and most everyone else — to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

But we all know that the peoples temple of global warming will tell their followers to ignore the deniers, even if they’re entirely credible scientists.  I mean global warming just HAS to be true.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Other’s Blogging:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x