AR5 press cuttings

Marcel Crok says that the good news in AR5 is being hidden.

Bob Tisdale says that the way the pause is being shown is comical.

Matt Ridley was on the Daily Politics, up against some of the slimiest creatures in British public life.

Judith Curry has fun explaining to a journalist how the IPCC gets to that 95% certain figure. She also gets a mention in the WSJ coverage.

The Today programme featured a piece with Chris Rapley and Lord Stern and another with Chief Scientist Sir Mark Walport, who thinks (believe it or not) that climate science needs new communication strategies. I kid you not. In a later section, John Ashton (former Foreign Office climate bod) and Connie St Louis (sci journalism person) discussed a range of issues on the periphery of the climate debate. Mostly this was a case of publicly funded officials trying to silence dissenting voices.

Update on Sep 28, 2013 by Bishop Hill

More links added:

The Shelagh Fogerty show on Five Live featured Emily Shuckburgh, Peter Stott of the Met Office and yours truly.

Benny Peiser was on BBC World News Today (from 9mins), up against Jeremy Leggett.

Meanwhile I was on Good Morning Scotland, up against Richard Dixon of Friends of the Earth.

FiveLive Drive had two slots, one with Jo Haigh and another featuring Ed Hawkins and Tamsin Edwards.

Tamsin E. has posted a page of all her media appearances here.

Comments

[son of mulder]

Just heard Prof Bob Carter on BBC Radio4 World at One. Brilliant interview putting a sound sceptical perspective on the IPCC report. Well worth a listen again when it is available.

[Trefor Jones]

Just listened to World at One on Radio 4 - Peter Stott given a grilling and he did not sound very convincing. Prof Carter given 5 minute slot on the alternative view - I see a certain fox being slowly shot.

[Jimmy Haigh]

I accidentally - typographically - came up with a superb name for it yesterday: "Slimate Science".

[Paul Matthews]

After Bob Carter, normal BBC balance is redressed in this piece.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24296204
11 warmists and one lukewarmer.

[Chris Long]

Re: the 95% certainty figure, this seems to get used (deliberately or accidentally) in a misleading way. Susan Watts did it on the Newsnight piece the other day - reporting that 'scientists are more certain than ever' (or words to that effect) that climate change is real. Well, duh, pretty much everyone has been agreed on that for years. However, the levels of certainty and the levels of expected climate change are two separate things, and the reporters don't explain or explore this. For example, scientists may have gone from being moderately certain that AGW will cause more than 3 degrees of warming, to now being very certain that AGW will cause more than 2 degrees of warming. If you hear someone quoting a level of certainty without also quoting what the certainty relates to, be suspicious.

[chris y]

Jimmy Haigh-

I think you may be onto something.

climate slimate- a person who supports ad hominem arguments used by another over climate science.

example-
"Cook and Lewandowsky are climate slimates."

[Stephen Richards]

The BBC 24news has just given Pachi a hell of a slot without reply. It was all there.

Global warming humans' fault
Must act now
planet has warmed since 1950 the most in recorded history
the 2000s have been the warmest decade
The trend is clearly up, no flatening.

[Stephen Richards]

I still believe this fight is lost unless and until we see major governemnt change in europe and that is not going to happen for at least 10 yrs and almost certainly a lot longer.

Breast naked women march in support of Greenpeace, in paris.

[Bobby P]

The Daily Politics, unfortunately probably the least watched of the shows, gave Matt Ridley a good say against the odious Greg Barker and, amusingly, Polly Toynbee. He stuck to the science and economic arguments of course, whereas both Toynbee and Barker, in their opening salvos, immediately went for poor old Matt's unfortunate track record at "analysing risk" in his Northern Rock days. It was textbook ad hominem from them, and - as usual - meticulous rational argument from Ridley. I'd hope any sentient viewer would see the difference.

Still, vaguely pleasing to see a decent sceptic on that show, as well as Carter on World at One. Be interested to see who Newsnight et al bring out, if they run with this. Is the dam of BBC bias breaking just a little?

[Joe Public]

@ Stephen Richards at 2:27 PM

"Breast naked women march in support of Greenpeace, in Paris."

? Looking for support??

[Scooper's]

Just seen Prof Belcher from the Hadleigh Centre on BBC news. His comments on AR5 were pretty hard to stomach, the only descrption of it being advocacy and not science. At some point, people on the public payroll who make such disingenuous commentary should be held to account.

[oakwood]

There are certainly some good articles to keep for posterity (like our old friends: 'snow is a thing of the past' and 'barbecue summer')

Damian Carrington has an article headed:

"Global warming pause is a mirage: the science is clear and the threat real - the pause claimed by IPCC critics an idiotic sideshow"

Talk about the Emperor's new clothes!

Despite the demoralising nature of the IPCC report, there remains plenty to keep us positively entertained.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/sep/27/global-warming-pause-mirage-ipcc

[agouts]

The scale of the problem confronting us poor beleaguered sceptics is surely no better summed up than by Sir Mark Walport's blithe assertion that 'the evidence [in favour of ACGW] is absolutely rock solid'.

What evidence, Sir Mark? As you must know – and if you don't you are merely a buffoon rather than a dangerous buffoon – is that there is no evidence. At all. None.

[The Leopard In The Basement]

Looking at the BBC News feed the story is 0.3 - 4.8 C projection - when that is illustrated this is shown with an icon showing the 4.8 C number in 200 pt!

My other observation is that the concept of probability distributions on sensitivity is totally missing. In fact the 0.3 to 4.8 number has been finessed into meaning only that the lower number is what will be likely if we cut emissions.

So missing some quite meaningful subtleties.

[geoffchambers]

From the Today programme this morning: Chris Rapley:

Well you have to hand it to the climate sceptics, they’ve ran [sic] a very effective and impressive campaign. They’ve been on the front foot, they’ve been persistent and consistent, and their messages have attacked specifics of the science when in fact it’s the big picture that matters, and they’ve also attacked the integrity and the professionalism of the scientists, and in doing so they’ve framed the political discussion in such a way that we’re kind of backed into the cul-de-sac of doubt and inaction.

and Lord Stern:

We must stop wavering and vascillating as some people are doing, particularly in Europe. We risk going far outside temperatures which human beings as homo sapiens have ever seen. Those risks are immense, they could rewrite the relationship between human beings and the planet, and delay is dangerous. We have to take notice.

[Marion]

I think this ably sums it up

"Ross McKitrick says:

September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am

SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right. "

[jamspid]

Watching Fred Singer being interviewed by Gavin Eisler onBBC News 24

Thing is they were showing VT of flooding Snow storms and land slides

Just normal weather patterns nothing to do with Climate Change.

[geoffchambers]

Walport on Radio4 this morning:

James Naughtie: It won’t put the argument to sleep of course, but how important a moment do you think this is?
Sir Mark Walport: Well, it’s an extremely important moment because the IPCC report really crystallises and makes even clearer than before that humans, through the carbon dioxide emissions from burning energy are altering the climate and the evidence is absolutely rock solid, so between 1900 and now the temperature has risen by about 0.9 °C
JN: You know, and we all know, that there is a great deal of scepticism out there about this, that many people just don’t buy it. Some people of course campaign about it very vigorously, but others in a more passive way if you like, just say: “Look, I don’t believe it.” Now, what is the challenge to the scientific community, which is overwhelmingly convinced that this evidence is conclusive that’s posed by that scepticism?
MW: I think its a communication challenge actually, because at the end of the day, this isn’t a matter on which we can vote or have opinions. There actually is a right answer to the question as to whether humans are contributing to climate change, and I think some of the nomenclature is very difficult. We’re dealing with very large numbers on the one hand, so ten gigatonnes of carbon, what does that mean? It’s very difficult to grip that. Ten billion tonnes, ten thousand million tonnes, that’s an awful lot of sacks of coal, that’s what we’re emitting every year. And the other side if I may is that 0.9°C doesn’t seem like very much, but actually, it’s not evenly distributed, and I think that the terminology of sort of global warming, climate warming isn’t the right one, it’s climate disruption.
JN: Well that’s right, because one of the point that is being made in advance of this report being published is that it is likely to suggest that because of changes in the gulf stream in the Atlantic, in this country climate change will actually result in a drop in temperatures, it will result in a change in our weather, but it’s not going to get hotter necessarily, so global warming as an expression is rather a misleading one isn’t it?
MW: And of course the climate that manifests itself in weather is very different in different parts of the world, we know that. But of course, the bottom line is if you look at the Arctic ice for example, it’s 40% lower at it’s minimum than it was in the 1980s on average.
JN: Just looking back at the last six or seven years since the last big report in 2007, it’s surely fair to say that there are two big problems in advancing the case that you’ve made. One is that some of the predictions turned out to be wrong and there were mistakes in the way it was put, and that has allowed people to say, well look, if they get things wrong like this, why should we believe them? The second thing that’s happened is of course, for one reason or another, there has been a slowdown in the predicted warming in the last few years. So people say: “Well, hang on, it’s not happening. Why are they telling us the world is about to end when it isn’t happening?” Now how do you answer those sort of very deep-seated suspicions that people have of the whole thing?
MW: Well I think, there are two things to say. Of course, it’s easier to measure the past than it is to predict the future, and there are real uncertainties when you look to the future, there always are going to be. But if you look at the pattern of climate, there always have been periods when it’s been steady, periods when it’s gone up. We’re dealing with very very complicated systems where ocean currents - the oceans are an enormous heat sink - and as I say the challenges of communication, when it’s not actually doubt as to what’s happening.. Can we predict the future with absolute certainty? Of course not, but we do know that we’ve emitted half a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide, and if we’re going to keep global, if we’re going to have a chance to keep temperature rises below 2°C, we’ve got to keep it below that trillion figure.
JN: From your perspective, do you think that the - I was going to say, the heat has gone out , unfortunate way of putting it in this context - but do you believe that the political impulse on governments to respond in a way that the scientific community in general would want them to respond has slackened?
MW: Well I think, you know, the issue is that scientists have got to communicate this. There are a whole series of policy decisions, and I think that’s where there’s been confusion, because I think that there are some people that don’t want to confront the policy decisions, and the easiest way to do that is to say, ok then we can rubbish the science. They can’t do that, the science is absolutely robust. It’s now up to the policy makers to decide, and we’ve got three choices; we can mitigate the climate change; we can adapt to it; or we can suffer. And the challenge is to optimise that ratio, if I can put it that way.

[RB]

I agree, Bobby.

What struck me about Barker, and particularly Toynbee is the lack of maturity of thought and their babyish reasoning (quite aside from the immediate predictable adhoms). Toynbee is all over the place rushing from one "aspect" of science through to policy not making any sense in any area and concluding that we're headed for catastrophe. Its really not very edifying.

Ridley is telling them what the report actually says - they're not interested - and in fact despite this they then say that the report says what they are saying and plead the authority of the scientists who wrote it. Its just weird.

[RB]

The other thing I wanted to say is that almost all of the commentary Ive heard today from people being interviewed on the BBC is that it all just screams confirmation bias (not that Im saying this is limited to "warmists" - just that Ive heard a lot of them today and they're all at it in a big way).

[geoffchambers]

Guardian scoop: All Climate Scientists and Environmentalists are Cretins and Idiots.
According to Damian Carrington, the debate about climate "sensitivity" is a “mirage”, and concentrating on the surface temperatures is “willful idiocy” and “cretinous”, and he quotes John Cook’s “four Hiroshima nuclear bombs every second” of extra energy to prove it. “By choosing to focus on air temperatures critics are ignoring 99% of the problem” he says.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

This is maybe a comment for discussion another day, but I have listened to more warmists today than anyone should really have to suffer. They fall into various categories.

There is the establishment official full of pompous importance, "Everything is settled and the sceptics should be shot," sort of rhetoric. Then there is the convinced believer, probably an environmentalist, they just lap up the whole thing without question. Then we have the scientists who quote the zillions of scientists and infinities of papers that show without a shred of doubt (or even evidence - no that is my comment) that we are all going to fry.

Now, I can forgive the first two and believe me, that takes superhuman effort, but the scientists should know better.

Controversy in science is not new. Also, climate science is a difficult discipline for conducting decisive experimentation, but normally science is objective enough for much of it to be agreed, and for the controversial parts to be defined. It is usually possible to agree the tests to establish the truth, even if the methodology does not yet exist.

These scientists today seemed to be from a different planet.

Now, I am aware of the pressures of funding, political agenda, peer pressure, etc. but most of these people appeared to be immune to all the scientific facts and observations that ring all the bullsh1t alarm bells in my head. Do they believe their own propaganda? Do they believe all the inconvenient facts are wrong? Do the believe their models are more reliable than observations? Are they scientists?

Now, I realise that all aspects of my comment are open to sarcastic confirmation, but I really do wonder how such a broad topic as climate science can have totally opposing views, beliefs, interpretations on just about every supposed "fact".

Are there any people reading this, close enough to true believer climate scientists, who are able to enlighten me on how these scientists seem unable to exercise normal scientific objectivity when assessing facts that challenge their beliefs?

[John Shade]

Just finished watching the Daily Politics clip. Civil discussion. Masterfully managed by the chair, Jo Coburn. I don't watch much TV so I have not seen her before, but she impressed me very much. Of the others, Matt Ridley stood out like a sentinel of informed reasonableness. The inputs of Polly Toynbee and Greg Barker were mechanical (regurgitating what they have been led to 'think') and superficial in comparison. Surely that would have been clear to the man on the Clapham omnibus watching this on his tablet? I don't think it was just my predisposition to regard those two as lightweights of the worst kind - influential ones! The fourth speaker didn't say much, and I had not heard of him either, but he was staying perched on some fence as I recall. Anyways, well done Matt Ridley!

[James Evans]

You know, this reminds me of the English Civil War. They chopped off Charlie's head, not because of the war, but because he started it up again when all was obviously lost. That really, really pissed people off. He had already lost the war. But he wriggled out of it and started it all over again, and many people died. That's why he was hated.

That's where we are now with AR5. The warmists have gone "all in" as they say in poker. They have lost the scientific argument. Everyone knows that. The planet just isn't doing what they said it would. But they are going to keep on fighting. They are going to screw the economy for as long as they possibly can. And I don't think we should forgive the little shits for that.

[John Shade]

Thanks for that transcript, Geoff (5:57PM). Naughtie seems to have picked up a little of the reservations which are in order when listening to climate alarm, and that's a good sign. Walport comes across as yet another Climate Zealot, intent on defending the faith come hell or high water.

But, here's my main hope. You will have found some additional inspiration here to do some more writing on Apocalypse Close, or a sequel soon.

Your demolition of Emmott's histrionics and hyperbole and general incompetence has been wonderful to see, but ultimately it is a bit of a downer to see that such people are in positions of some influence. Apocalypse Close, on the other hand, has been unalloyed delight throughout.

For more on Emmott and lots of other things, and Apocalypse Close, I urge readers to drop in on http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/

[Schrodinger's Cat]

geoffchambers - Walport is clearly out of his depth.

As Government Advisor and new in the job, he can't very well point at the IPCC and laugh at their shiny new report.

However, he could have done some objective homework and given a considered view.

He failed comprehensively. Not a good start.

[Philip Bradley]

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

What jumped out at me in AR5 is that they are more certain about a vaguer claim. In AR4 the claim was about anthropogenic GHGs. In AR5 it's anthropogenic GHGs and other unidentified stuff.

Increased certainty about a vaguer claim means you are less certain about your previous claim.

[Bobby P]

Unfortunately the R4 PM programme bucked the welcome trend of allowing sceptic voices on the Beeb today. A nauseating hagiography of the IPCC and the "science" by Eddie Mair - who seemed to have have taken a pub bet on how many times he could utter the words "95% certainty" in a short piece - followed by his most sycophantic interview ever with Chris Smith and some other, nominally scientist, noble eminence grise about the how scientists and politicians interact (or collude, if you had an iota of journalistic integrity or curiosity on the subject). Utterly bereft of a single dissenting comment in the entire piece, which was the lead item on the show - and then followed bizarrely by a really really long story about the restoration of THE WICKER MAN (a very slow news day!), but at least that item was informed and in-depth (as I can attest as a film producer and fan of the movie).

Would that they could turn their undoubted journalistic skills to an investigative story on climate science, but they clearly can't ever have read a single dissenting paper or website. Astonishing.

[Pharos]

Judith Curry in superb form with gems like 'dissonates my cognitives' and 'Oh, my aching head' !

''These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast...Oh, my aching head...Well, I have no idea what goes on in the sausage factory. 95% – take it with a grain of salt (or a stiff whiskey). That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it. Uncertain T. Monster is not happy.'

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

The IPCC process is nothing but cynical propaganda theatre.

[geoffchambers]

Guardian scoop: All Climate Scientists and Environmentalists are Cretins and Idiots.
According to Damian Carrington, the debate about climate "sensitivity" is a “mirage”, and concentrating on the surface temperatures is “willful idiocy” and “cretinous”, and he quotes John Cook’s “four Hiroshima nuclear bombs every second” of extra energy to prove it. “By choosing to focus on air temperatures critics are ignoring 99% of the problem” he says.

[geoffchambers]

Sorry about the double post. Thanks John Shade for the plug. Yes, Apocalypse Close will continue, soon to be followed by “Co2man the Contrarian”. I hope.

May I also put in a plug for Paul Matthews whose
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/
should become a focus for the kind of statistical analysis which is beyond me and many here?

Something I’d like to see recorded here is the number of quotes from scientists and other experts who use the word “dangerous” or its synonyms. I seem to remember Richard Betts saying that he dissociated himself from such language. I’ve seen two scientists so far today using the word.
And Walport saying: “if we’re going to have a chance to keep temperature rises below 2°C, we’ve got to keep it below that trillion figure” and seconds later, “It’s now up to the policy makers to decide.. we can mitigate the climate change; we can adapt to it; or we can suffer”. That’s the official voice of science speaking to our elected leaders: “You’ve got to do this; now you choose.”

[Pharos]

Mark Walport manages to have earned a rather uncomplimentary concluding paragaph in his wiki CV

'Commentators have observed that Walport's actions mark a new role for the UK's Chief Scientist. Formerly, the purpose of that position was to provide objective scientific information and advice.'

And who, of all people, do we have to thank for that quote? - George Monbiot in

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/beware-rise-government-scientists-lobbyists

in which Monbiot concludes

'In defending science against political pressure, he is, in other words, as much use as a suit of paper armour. For this reason, he'll doubtless remain in post, and end his career with a peerage. The rest of us will carry the cost of his preferment.'

[Alex Cull]

Just back from the pub - bloody hell, such a lot to catch up on! One observation, from the news items I was able to catch during the day and evening - is it just me or is the word "pollution" being used far more often than before on the news when they talk about CO2 emissions?

[geoffchambers]

James Evans

You know, this reminds me of the English Civil War. They chopped off Charlie's head, not because of the war, but because he started it up again when all was obviously lost.

The other parallel is that those who won the war physically and morally lost politically at the famous Putney debates, where Cromwell’s grandees outmanouvered and outvoted the disorganised rabble of Diggers, Levellers, Ranters who retired into obscurity and eventual extinction. It’s one of history’s totally normal ironies that certain Greens have assumed their mantle.

[Philip Bradley]

Looking through the Summary for Policymakers, I noticed this.

B.1 Atmosphere
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3

Under the atmosphere section, its all about surface temperatures. The only mention atmospheric temperatures gets is this,

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century.

No mention of the period we have comprehensive satellite measurements for. Just virtual certainty for a period we don't have comprehensive measurements for just some patchy radiosonde balloon coverage with instruments that had multiple error sources well over 1C.

The whole thing is just junk pseudo-science.

[Radical Rodent]

A quick peek at the Daily Politics. Matt Ridley held up quite well – three against one: “…that’s what happened in the financial crisis; everybody was following models rather than looking at reality…” Matt Ridley, referring to the financial crisis of 2007-8. Hmmm. You don’t think we could learn something from that, do you?

“Anything above 2 degrees is very, very dangerous and we have to manage that…” Greg Barker. Is it? Can you prove it?

“To spend a little bit more becoming self-sufficient in energy is not a huge price to pay…” Polly Toynbee (obviously with full access to the Crystal Ball of Doom™, as later comments will show. BTW, I wonder what her idea on fracking is); “the catastrophic is what they are predicting… if the Gulf Stream moves away … which it may well do…”

“…We’re killing more than 200,000 people every year by raising food prices…” a glimpse of the reality we are charging into! From Matt Ridley.

“…but nothing like the proportion of pain that is predicted by the great majority of scientists as being 95% likely…” Crystal Ball of Doom™ again. Oh, look; from Polly Toynbee!

“…there is always a chance that sun will not rise tomorrow…” Toynbee, again! – just what planet is this cu.. person on? The more I saw her, the more I wanted to slap her.

“The cost of on-shore wind is £9 out of £1300.” Greg Barker. Yes? Once more – can you prove that, when it is known that the cost of electricity from the bird-mincers is >£100/kWh, while coal and gas is about £55/kWh?

Having seen these slimeballs, I shall have to go and have a long, hot bath.

[Fay Tuncay]

AD TO PRESS CUTTINGS: GREATER ROLE FOR IMF & WORLD BANK

You might have missed Christiana Figueres (UNFCCC) - Press Conference
26 Sep 2013 - Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Figueres mentions risk of climate change as if we were at war against the climate. Figueres also talks up a greater role for the IMF and World Bank in energy subsidies. I think there might be a risk of the lack of private sector funding for Green energy being plugged by an IMF or World Bank loan added to our national debt.

It sounds like the World Bank is willing and all the right-minded personnel are in place for this option, which would mean a massive wealth transfer from the public to the pockets of wealth landowners and consolidate ideological power in the hands of the Gaia faithful.

VIDEO http://webtv.un.org/media/watch/christiana-figueres-unfccc-press-conference/2697810856001

[Micky H Corbett]

I'm sorry I haven't watched the TV today so I've only been able to glean some points from WUWT and here. Probably a good idea after watching Brian Cox the other night.

One thing I wanted to say is that this looks like a small victory for the "theorists" in the seemingly eternal battle with the "empiricists" - the use of computer models often sways theorists (like Julia Slingo) into believing they are right because why wouldn't they be right. Look we can model it. The problem is of course Mother Nature doesn't work that way and her slapdown is often humiliating.

There also seems to be parallels with the current Fed inaction over tapering. They are just burying their heads in the sand and not keeping their word. It's as if this age is the age of "la la la" fingers in my ears.

But as a poster here quoted recently: "then they fight you". So we'll just wait for the agreeing phase.

[Pharos]

Fay Tuncay

Act 1 Milestones to Disaster -The Gathering Storm ( IPCC FAR-SAR-TAR tiddly BLA BLA)
Act 2 Alone -The Twilight War ( Climategate- Copenhagen)
Act 3 The Grand Alliance (Supra-national (global) governance intervenes to 'save the planet'.)
Act 4 Triumph and Tragedy ( Sceptics vindicated- economic devastation and poverty)

Apologies to Churchill 2nd WW Condensed Ed in 4 v.

[Robin Guenier]

I suspected the fuss might be short-lived. But it seems to be fading even faster than I expected: on the BBC website it's slipped to headline number 5 - two places below the Prince George christening announcement.

[Manniac]

Its a pity Ross Mcitrick wasn't invited for interview. He does a passable impression of Sir Mortimer Long-Bore...

[geoffchambers]

On press cuttings;
Guardian Environment /Climate Science has 24 articles on the IPCC report so far today, with two hours still to go. I recommend their live coverage at
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-ar5-live-coverage
whch looks like being a handy source of quotes to be repented at leisure.
Whatever “the science” says, AR5 has exploded the myth of levelheaded scientists being misquoted by excitable green activist journalists. The scientists are just as anxious as the weirdest green hippy to get a quote into the Graun. Take respected expert climate and water scientist Peter Gleick, who tweets:
“Here is the #IPCC message: We are as certain that humans are radically changing the planet's #climate as we are that tobacco causes cancer.”
Or Sir Paul Nurse:
“Those who predict imminent disaster are probably overstating the case, but equally those who claim that we can carry on regardless are likely to be burying their heads in the sand”.
[Interpretation: “Disaster is not imminent. But it’s on the way”]
Damian Carrington got this quote from Prof Tim Palmer, Royal Society research professor, University of Oxford:
"The report is further reinforcement that there is an unequivocal risk of dangerous climate change"
and from Prof Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London:
"Carbon dioxide has probably not been this high in the atmosphere for 3 million years. We understand the greenhouse effect, so what more information do people want?"
Then there’s Monbiot talking of “catastrophic climate breakdown” and Government Chief Scientific Advisor Mark Walport who says the right term is “climate disruption”.
And Damian Carrington quotes Skepticalscience’s “four Hiroshimas a second”. Isn’t that dangerous? Do we have no respect for the charred bodies of thousands of dead babies?

[David Jay]

Radical@8:51: "the cost of electricity from the bird-mincers is >£100/kWh, while coal and gas is about £55/kWh"

Perhaps you mean MegaWh???

[Dolphinhead]

clutching at straws here I know but Greg Barker just interviewed on Newsnight suggests that the rest of the world needs to catch up rather than GB soldiering ahead. He seems to get the point that what we have at the moment is pointless. There was also reference to a headline in the Times tomorrow that our beloved chancellor is going to cut back on green taxes - whatever that may mean.

This was not for the fainthearted. The odious toe rag that is Huhne was also in the studio.

[Curfew]

Matt Ridley must have needed a long, hot shower after chatting with that slimey bunch!
He did well considering, and at least he had that opportunity.

Toynbee is a truly poisonous individual.
Barker, well he is clearly out of his depth (and deluded!).

[Mooloo]

I still believe this fight is lost unless and until we see major governemnt change in europe and that is not going to happen for at least 10 yrs and almost certainly a lot longer.

If temperatures remain flat for ten more years global warming alarmism is dead in the water forever. Can you imagine how hard it would be for IR7 to explain 25 years of no increase? Even very gentle warming would be too much for them to bear.

If by some miracle Arctic ice starts to increase it will take considerably less than that, since that is about the only successful prediction they have.

The longevity of AGW is in the hands of the weather gods. What we must do is to try to avoid being impoverished unnecessarily in the mean time.

[geoffchambers]

One of the most useful things we can do now is surely to destoy the myth of rational, unbiassed scientists emitting neutral, factual information, only to see it sensationalised by activists.
The Shelagh Fogerty show features a quote from
Thomas Stocker:

Climate change challenges the two primary resources of humans and ecosystems, land and water. In short, it threatens our planet, our only hope.

This is meaningless green drivel. Why wasn’t Stocker laughed off the podium?

[Marion]

Re: Sep 27, 2013 at 10:03 PM | Manniac

Thanks for the chuckle.... unfortunately all too true of so many warmist critiques!!

[Radical Rodent]

David Jay (Sep 27, 2013 at 10:45 PM):

Meh… what’s a misplaced decimal point or two? Never seems to stop some scientists.

[lapogus]

I have just listed to the Shelagh Fogerty show, and am astonished at what Peter Stott and Emily Shuckburgh were allowed to get away with unchallenged, e.g. Shuckburgh stated there is strong evidence of AGW, and then cited changing rainfall patterns (which patterns, where and over what period, is there any data over a 30 year period which supports this claim?) and then the stated that the missing heat has gone into the deep ocean, again for which there is no evidence, due to a complete lack of data. If there is evidence for changing rainfall patterns, or how the laws of physics must have changed to make the heat from 1975-1995 warm the atmosphere, but the heat from 1995-2013 go into the ocean, don't call us flat-earthers, SHOW US IT. No honesty over the missing troposphere hotspot, no mention of the failed models or climate sensitivity, the record Antarctic sea ice extent, just weather and spurious model projections for rising sea levels of up to 80cm by the end of the century? That's nearly 1cm per year, and the current rate is about 1/5th of that at the most? At best this is just agenda-driven junk science, and Shucks and Stott will have a lot of explaining to do if global temperatures fail to rise in the next 5 years.