A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

[frobert]

Here are the latest findings from the NIPCC CCR-II Report

Here is what the scientists found:

• There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
• Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
• Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
• The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.

Here is what this means for public policy:

• Global warming is not a crisis. The threat was exaggerated.
• There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
• It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
• Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.

Bad climate science in US schools: an open letter to Heartland & NIPCC

The NIPCC report claims to be a ‘scientific’ document ‘faithful to the scientific method’. When you represent it, perhaps it would be better to use terminology that is equally faithful? Global warming may, to the popular media, be synonymous with ‘climate change’, but in climate science they are two different things. Global warming is a process, climate change is the result. It may seem like a small point, but science is irritatingly full of them. When discussing a curriculum with our educators, accuracy is a great virtue. It would be unfortunate if teachers were to gain the impression that such casual laxity was representative of the entire NIPCC report.

…Let’s hope they take your sage advice. The NIPCC report is indeed important, as is its origin, the reason for its production, and the motives of its sponsors – but mainly for the qualities of the science it describes. Conventional climate change science, the kind documented by the IPCC, is a paradigm accepted by 97% of the world’s climate scientists. It is worthy and noble of Heartland to lend its clarion voice to the other 3%.


Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience

How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship.

The IPCC (no N) produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online.

Does the NIPCC fairly and robustly assess the science? No. It is all too easy to find “debunked” papers getting a second life in latest NIPCC report.

…Sea levels around Australia have risen by roughly 100mm during the past century, but Boretti (2012) claimed sea levels rose by only 50mm over that period. However, John Hunter and I found that Boretti’s own flawed analysis gives an answer of 78mm. While Boretti himself grudgingly accepts that 50mm is wrong, this erroneous value is reported as fact by the NIPCC.

 

[Poptech]

Bad climate science in US schools: an open letter to Heartland & NIPCC

The NIPCC replied to Graham’s slightly more recent post at “Skeptical Science” but it is filled with the same nonsense as his blog rant.

Reply to Graham Wayne, “US school infiltration attempt by Heartland’s IPCC Parody,” October 30, 2013

Graham Wayne, a journalist with the UK’s Guardian, apparently wrote this “review” of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science for the anti-skeptic blog SkepticalScience.com without bothering to read the book. There are many statements in this article that require correction:

First, the NIPCC is not an IPCC “parody” and its correct name is “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” not “Not the International Panel on Climate Change.” Just a couple sentences later, Wayne mistakenly says the NIPCC report “run to thousands of pages.” It is, in fact, just over 1,000 pages long.

Wayne is confused by the number of authors, contributors, and reviewers of CCR-II. There are 47, as stated in the promotional material for the book. Some appear more than once on the title pages of the SPM and the book because the same author (e.g., Craig Idso) is a lead author and a lead chapter author. The labeling of each set of authors and contributors makes this easy to understand, but not, apparently, easy enough for Wayne.

Wayne says “no contributors to IPCC reports are paid for their work.” This is nonsense. Hundreds of scientists and thousands of government bureaucrats work “on the clock” on the IPCC reports, attending countless meetings held at universities and at fancy resorts all around the world. They aren’t volunteers. While most of the contributors and reviewers of the NIPCC report are volunteers, some of the coauthors were paid.

Wayne says “NIPCC was created by the Heartland Institute,” which is false. As is clearly reported on the first page of the SPM as well as the NIPCC web site, NIPCC was created by S. Fred Singer in 2003. Singer and his coauthors approached The Heartland Institute to publish the NIPCC reports.

Wayne claims The Heartland Institute has “significant connections to the fossil fuel industry” and was “previously associated with campaigns funded by the tobacco industry to discredit science attesting to the damage caused by smoking tobacco.” This is an unfortunately routine attempt to smear Heartland that has been debunked repeatedly. NIPCC receives no corporate funding at all.

Wayne claims that “16 of the listed contributors are retired e.g. emeritus positions,” and seems to believe this makes these scientists less credible. In fact, emeritus status is a mark of distinction and recognition of a successful academic career, and many of these contributors have long lists of publications in the climate field. Because most of them no longer are seeking research grants, they are not dependent on government agencies for funding. This makes them independent and more objective than most of the IPCC’s contributors.

Wayne points out that “the IPCC purposefully seeks representation from developing countries” whereas the NIPCC report has authors from “only” 15 countries. Wayne probably doesn’t know that practicing affirmative action adds no value to scientific research.

Wayne claims the research cited by the NIPCC authors “is highly selective. The report claims to be ‘independent’, yet its authors constantly cite their own work, that of other contributors, and frequently quote each other. Numerous papers widely discredited within climate science are still cited by the NIPCC.” This is all nonsense. CCR-II quotes nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed journal articles. It was written and peer reviewed by distinguished scientists. It defies credibility, even imagination, to claim that research this inclusive is nevertheless “highly selective.” The authors occasionally “cite their own work” because they are leading authorities in these fields, as is common in all academic publications. The publications Wayne thinks are “discredited” are those that contradict his dogmatic views on the issue.

Perhaps Wayne’s most surprising criticism is what he calls “a flaw so basic it would not be condoned in the submission of a 1st year science student,” which is that quotations are followed by the author and date in brackets with complete source citations appearing in bibliographies at the end of each section of each chapter. Apparently, Wayne was looking for footnotes. In fact, the referencing in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science is the preferred style for scientific documents and identical to the method used by the IPCC. Only a journalist unfamiliar with scientific literature would make such an elementary mistake.

Finally, Wayne claims that only conservative and skeptical blogs covered the release of CCR-II. Not quite. The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, Bloomberg, and hundreds of other “mainstream” media covered it, along with hundreds of Web sites and blogs. Go here for a representative sample of that coverage, and here for endorsements by prominent scientists.

Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute

 

[Poptech]

Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience

The NIPCC replied to Michael’s nonsense as well.

Michael J.I. Brown, “Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience,” September 26, 2013

Michael J.I. Brown is an astronomer at Monash University (Australia), and this review originally appeared on a blog called “The Conversation.” He calls Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science “partisan pseudoscience,” yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: “We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.” This claim has been debunked too many times for a real scientist to repeat it without shame.

Brown follows this blunder with another: “Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data.” Climate Change Reconsidered explains why climate models fail to accurately describe climate conditions, forcings, and feedbacks (Chapter 1) and how their forecast have failed to predict the lack of warming during the past 16 years (Chapter 4).

Brown claims the IPCC “produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online.” This is contradicted by many accounts of the IPCC’s procedures, including by the prestigious InterAgency Council (IAC). The IPCC is first and foremost a political organization, not a scientific organization. No scientific organization would allow politicians to determine who can participate, allows politicians to rewrite its reports line-by-line in closed door sessions, or allow lead authors to disregard extensive criticism provided by reviewers. The IPCC is guilty of all these things, and worse.

Brown correctly observes that NIPCC offers its views as a “Team B” to the IPCC’s “Team A,” but claims “this approach only works if the intended audience can effectively assess the arguments presented. Can a general audience or policy makers distinguish truth from fiction when it comes to technical aspects of climate science?”

We answer “yes,” and ask in return, “Can an astronomer distinguish truth from fiction when it comes to technical aspects of biology, climatology, economics, geology, oceanography, and physics?” If he can, how? And why can’t other nonspecialists do the same?

As I wrote recently for Heartland’s blog at somewhatreasonable.com,

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

Uncertainty about these matters is pervasive in the science community. If the alarmists are wrong about even one or two of them, human greenhouse gas emissions move out of the realm of a nuisance requiring a response — whether by governments or via a (presently nonexistent) global property rights regime — and into the realm of speculation. For example, if modest warming and the fertilization effect of CO2 have boosted agricultural output around the world — something biologists have no doubts about — then the Third World owes the First World an enormous debt of gratitude for that positive externality of the Industrial Revolution, though that is not a debt the First World is entitled to collect.

Brown says “the IPCC’s comprehensive approach to evaluating climate science makes sense, with experts providing an overview of the science for policy markers. It also explains why the minority wishing to delay action are promoting an adversarial approach.” But the IPCC’s approach isn’t “comprehensive.” It deliberately minimizes and hides uncertainty and consideration of forcings and feedbacks that are well known in the scientific community, in order to serve its political masters. Those working to expose these shenanigans are not a “minority wishing to delay action.” They are arguable a majority of the scientific community just trying to see the truth get revealed.

Finally, Brown claims the NIPCC report relies on “’debunked’ papers,” so-called “dead science” because subsequent publications have found errors or contradicted the earlier paper’s findings. Brown says “it is this deliberately partisan, selective, and uncritical approach to evidence that marks the NIPCC report as a work of pseudoscience.” Brown is either dishonest or incredibly naive in accepting articles rushed through broken peer review processes to refute any research that might threaten the politically correct current paradigm. Why is it that only findings that challenge global warming alarmism are “debunked” and “dead”?

…]

 

[Poptech]

…]

Only a scientist blinded by pseudoscience would refuse to look at more than a few of the nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed academic articles reviewed in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical that point to greater uncertainty and a small role for man-made greenhouse gases than announced by the Solons at the United Nations. Like other alarmists in the climate debate, Brown is satisfied with repeating the sound bites and self-serving pseudoscience of those at the extreme end of the scientific debate, and dismisses the extensive research that contradicts that view.

Brown may be a fine astronomer, but he misunderstands the climate debate entirely. He should read Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science and get up to speed on the real scientific debate before criticizing those who have already studied the issue deeply.

Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute

 

[frobert]

The NIPCC replied to Graham’s slightly more recent post at “Skeptical Science” but it is filled with the same nonsense as his blog rant.

Reply to Graham Wayne, “US school infiltration attempt by Heartland’s IPCC Parody,” October 30, 2013

The purpose of the report was nothing more than to rally the troops with 2 1000 page volumes. Sounds impressive doesn’t it? The report did get it 15 minutes of fame on the winged blogs and on forums like here. It received little notice in the scientific community. The number of climate scientist linking to it are probably in the single digits. Here is a google search in “scholarly articles.” In other words it has been largely ignored by climate scientist, if the report had much redeeming merit it would not have been ignored.

If you read the 2 volumes let us know how it goes.

 

[frobert]

Poptech:
The paper was not a scientific study it was an opinion paper. I linked to 2 opinions on the opinion paper. My opinion rests with the scientific community that did not find much weight to it other than the weight of the volumes.

 

[frobert]

Only a scientist blinded by pseudoscience would refuse to look at more than a few of the nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed academic articles reviewed in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical that point to greater uncertainty and a small role for man-made greenhouse gases than announced by the Solons at the United Nations. Like other alarmists in the climate debate, Brown is satisfied with repeating the sound bites and self-serving pseudoscience of those at the extreme end of the scientific debate, and dismisses the extensive research that contradicts that view.

Notwithstanding Joseph Bast’s ad hominemt the report was nothing more than an opinion paper by a biased group and not a scientific study. Why should a scientist waste his/her time?

 

[dvdjs]

i think it’s evident to all you are deflecting, the definition of mean is well understood and candidly not disputed by either skeptics or alarmists.

If you lack a background in stat on the definition of mean, this is not the place to educate you. If you have an objection to how scientists use the term, make your supported points.

You missed the point. If the mean is constant and the variance is growing, then the increaing high temperatures are likely to have effects wildfires, aridity, etc., notwithstanding the constancy fo the men. The mean value of some variable is often a good marker, but sound inferences typically require information about the variable’s distribution function.

 

[dvdjs]

The purpose of the report was nothing more than to rally the troops with 2 1000 page volumes. Sounds impressive doesn’t it? The report did get it 15 minutes of fame on the winged blogs and on forums like here. It received little notice in the scientific community. The number of climate scientist linking to it are probably in the single digits. Here is a google search in “scholarly articles.” In other words it has been largely ignored by climate scientist, if the report had much redeeming merit it would not have been ignored.

Yes.

Poptech’s bringing up this report gave me a profound feeling of fremdschämen.

 

[Theo520]

Did you watch the video I supplied, and understand the significance?

I will not engage in red herrings.

look, you can answer my questions or not, its up to you. your opinion, and for that matter anyones, wont stop whats already happening.

but frankly to resort to insulting me so you can win a point is uncharitable.

either answer my questions about using MEAN and its impact, or scroll on by. either way works for me.

my background, my work is easy enough to figure out, given I have stated it more then once. and strange thing, i have access to any journal artical, conference proceeding, dissertation you want, or people continually spew forth as abstracts because they cant access the rest.

To whomever thinks there is no significance, again in the MEAN temp rising by 1 degree, celcius. what is the maximum rise that climate bodies are looking at. and why?

its not enough to spew forth stats. they must have meaning.

statistically sharks eat more people on days icecream consumption is higher.

 

[frobert]

Yes.

Poptech’s bringing up this report gave me a profound feeling of fremdschämen.

:thumbsup:Thanks, I learned a new word.

 

[dvdjs]

:thumbsup:Thanks, I learned a new word.

This is a good discussion of the word.
germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/GIC/TWIG__WoW/2013/41-fremdsch_C3_A4men.html

I was surprised to read that it is a new word. I remember seeing the emotion, decades, ago, in the faces of European colleagues as I somehow managed to provoke the response.

 

[Theo520]

Perhaps you didn’t read the articles which are chuck full of FACTS

You are confusing evidence and projection

**Fact Sheet: Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change **
Your fact sheet admitted there was not global increase in cyclone activity that was statistically significant. The global trend is what matters, not cherry picking a period of time for Australia that may be statistically significant. Since it wasn’t supported globally I expect there are other regions that could make the opposite point, that cyclone activity is down as demonstrated by their statistics.

Fact Check: “Clean Coal” & Turnbull’s Energy Speech
I have no desire to defend or debate what this politician said, but I’ll comment on the article:

• what different people mean by ‘clean coal’ is a valid discussion point
• LNG if used for electricity generation would be more reliable than wind and solar
• Renewables do tend to result in higher prices, they skirted the real issues.
• Jobs, I’ve seen no evidence renewables create living wage jobs. The panels are made in other countries which leaves temporary installation work on par with roofers (bottom of rung)

got bored of the analysis by this point, they were making good discussion points but had an obvious agenda.

No real evidence in your ‘comic history’ link

An official welcome to the Anthropocene epoch
Yes, we may have entered the Anthropocene epoch but what’s that got to do with MMGW or evidence of it’s impact in Australia.

Gave up on your links, none supported Australia has demonstrated evidence of AGW.

Read post #141 for more FACTS

post 141 had not evidence of mmgw in Australia. Don’t deflect with red herrings.

 

[Theo520]

I’ll humor your deflection

Definition
Average surface temperature of the earth is the combined temperature of the near-surface air temperature and the sea surface temperature. It is an important measured quantity in analyzing global climate change.

The left switched to using the more vague ‘climate change’ because ‘global warming’ was false advertising.

I suggest you start using a spell checker before you critique the intelligence of people you are debating, which is an ad hominem deflection by you. It will improve the impact of your ad hominem.

Answer my question.

What does mean measure.

Btw we have long since outgrown the term global warming. We use climate change. You might want to question why.
Do you propose
We ignore the future like a bunch of future eaters?

And do you understand that study at all? Yes i will be picky, about the education of those rwading that data.

Especially if they cant answer questions about what mean temperature is and what its ability is to give a picture of climate change.

So answr my questions theo.

 

[Theo520]

Now for a bit of humor, follow the link to YouTube video.

Save Our Snowmen | A Film About Climate Change
More than 4,000 species of snowmen are threatened every year by climate change. In 2016 alone, large Avalanches of snowmen have been seen migrating thousands of miles away from their yards of origin to colder climates. With safe havens like The Global Snowman Sanctuary few and far between, we need your help to provide a cold shelter from the excruciating warmth. The planet can’t wait and neither can they. Learn how you can provide a cold and helping hand by visiting: SaveOurSnowmen.org

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Doing my part on this 90 degree day. I wanted to air out the house, but I also want it to be 68 inside. So the added benifit of running my AC with the windows open is I’m cooling off the neighborhood. If we all chipped in imagine the difference we could make.
You are welcome people!

 

[frobert]

You are confusing evidence and projection

**Fact Sheet: Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change **
Your fact sheet admitted there was not global increase in cyclone activity that was statistically significant. The global trend is what matters, not cherry picking a period of time for Australia that may be statistically significant. Since it wasn’t supported globally I expect there are other regions that could make the opposite point, that cyclone activity is down as demonstrated by their statistics.

Fact Check: “Clean Coal” & Turnbull’s Energy Speech
I have no desire to defend or debate what this politician said, but I’ll comment on the article:

• what different people mean by ‘clean coal’ is a valid discussion point
• LNG if used for electricity generation would be more reliable than wind and solar
• Renewables do tend to result in higher prices, they skirted the real issues.
• Jobs, I’ve seen no evidence renewables create living wage jobs. The panels are made in other countries which leaves temporary installation work on par with roofers (bottom of rung)

got bored of the analysis by this point, they were making good discussion points but had an obvious agenda.

No real evidence in your ‘comic history’ link

An official welcome to the Anthropocene epoch
Yes, we may have entered the Anthropocene epoch but what’s that got to do with MMGW or evidence of it’s impact in Australia.

Gave up on your links, none supported Australia has demonstrated evidence of AGW.

post 141 had not evidence of mmgw in Australia. Don’t deflect with red herrings.

Temperatures are world wide and last time I checked Australia is part of the world

I am sure you mean well and believe have the facts straight but you are the one deflecting and cherry picking. It is called projection.

 

[frobert]

The left switched to using the more vague ‘climate change’ because ‘global warming’ was false advertising.

Do make that up or get it from a winged blog?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Do make that up or get it from a winged blog?

Changing nomenclature is a tactic of public control. Any business will tell you that.

 

[frobert]

This is a good discussion of the word.
germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/GIC/TWIG__WoW/2013/41-fremdsch_C3_A4men.html

I was surprised to read that it is a new word. I remember seeing the emotion, decades, ago, in the faces of European colleagues as I somehow managed to provoke the response.

Thanks again. Fremdschämen is what I often feel on here.