Monday
Aug302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill IAC report reactions
Aug 30, 2010 Climate: IPCC I'll update this post as I see things.
Climate change predictions must be based on evidence, report on IPCC says.
(Chance would be a fine thing)
GWPF Calls On IPCC To Implement Fundamental Reforms Without Delay
Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.'s Climate Group
U.N. climate panel urged to reform and stick to science
Rajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign
Reader Comments (61)
steve2
Far from “distancing themselves from doom and gloom alarmism” I think the Guardian is taking Lomborg on board as the kind of respectable sceptic they are willing to engage with, thus meeting the criticism that they are not showing all sides of the argument. The editorial is in the worst tradition of doom and gloom, entirely ignoring the lessons of climategate and the IAC report; the two lukewarm articles on Lomborg saying essentially “he believes in warming; he’s not a denier; we can talk to him” are accompanied by an unbelievably crass hatchet job by Friel. The IAC report is by a reporter with no knowledge of the environment, despite the fact that the paper has two environment specialists based in the USA. And the dozen or so regular warmist writers, (some of them, like environment editor Adam with science PhDs) are nowhere to be seen.
ps my apologies to Pravda for the unflattering comparisons.
Another oddity in that Indie article is the reference to the necessity "to limit the warming to C above the pre-industrial level. This is widely considered the most that human society can stand without serious consequences".
What does "C" mean? I assume it's the dreaded 2 deg C level we heard so much about from politicians at Copenhagen. That struck me as odd: I don't believe even the IPCC has defined 2 deg C as the level above which we will be overtaken by catastrophe. So I was interested to come across this article in the excellent Number Watch Forum.
Robin, that is a very good link. I particularly like this quote they found in stopclimatechaos: "In the UK coastal flooding will impact up to 170 million people."
Original here: http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/why-2-degrees-C-so-important
So maybe they're implying that climate refugees will cause the UK population to treble! (As per James Lovelock's "Lifeboat UK" prediction, perhaps?)
Further to my post above, this article (from Spiegel Online and referenced by Number Watch Forum) explains the origin of the 2 deg C scare. And thoroughly rubbishes it as "scientific nonsense".
Here's a thought: if the greenies accept (as they must if the 2 deg C limit is to have any meaning) that "average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution" (see the Spiegel article), that means they accept that temperatures must sometimes have been higher than 2 degrees (without, it seems, catastrophe ensuing). And, if that's the case, why is the 20th century increase (the "hockey-stick"?) of a mere 0.7 deg C so alarming?
Robin Guenier
On the mysterious “C” (which reappears in the Mark Lynas article in the Independent) see my last comment of-n the first page of comments here.
Alex
I love the quote from StopClimateChaos. They claim to be “the UK’s largest group of people dedicated to action on climate change” with a combined supporter base of more than 11 million. A taciturn lot, though. They were last twittered six days ago. Another endangered species?
Robin, Alex, what a great quote! Thank you.
It is only when a report like this is published or some emails are released can the media (grow some spine) and take a whack at the climatees. Shortly enough, we can expect them to fully back the consensus again.
Yes, Josh, it's a great quote. But, in my view, the Spiegel article is far more interesting and important. After all, the 2 deg C "target" is seen by politicians as something of overriding importance. Yet it seems it may have no scientific basis at all.
Stephen Lewis
I genuinly do not believe that many (if any) of the people who post on this blog would be prepared to change their views for a seat on the gravy train ^.^
The stopclimatechaos page ends with a useful display of logos of charities to which one should never again wittingly contribute. Many of these are the usual suspects or else tiny outfits whose names immediately reveal their agenda (e.g., the 'Tipping Point Film Fund'). But I was saddened to see the inclusion of The Salvation Army. Perhaps the prospect of 170m half-drowned derelicts needing dry clothes, blankets and spiritual sustenance was just too much for them to resist.