Posted on 09/03/2010 2:34:16 AM PDT by iowamark
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet." Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science. Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This is the greatest and greediest hoax ever perpetrated by the left, which also makes it the greatest and greediest hoax ever perpetrated in world history.
I’ve noticed many “Hottest Summer Ever” articles here in the east (and it has been a scorcher) have made no reference to global warming. For quite a few years , there couldn’t be a 50 degree day in January without the obligatory spin about carbon dioxide.
Venus and Mars , both atmospheres dominated by Carbon Dioxide. On Earth it's a trace gas with less than one molecule in a thousand. Why? Because life eats it up, it loves the stuff, it has to have the stuff, it is based on carbon! Carbon dioxide far from being a pollutant is ESSENTIAL to life on earth. As usual liberals have got the truth backwards!
Yet the agenda moves forward in various governments.
Can you imagine how silly you would feel if you actually paid money for these?
Check out one of the many, many websites that sell them (and I am sure Al Gore gets a cut of each). Basically, you tell us how badly your house, car, boat, lawnmower, air travel, clothes, food, etc contribute to Global Warming, and we'll sell you indulgences.
The IPCC was indeed rebuked by the by the InterAcademy Panel (IAP), which said that various errors by the IPCC had dented its credibility, according to former Princeton University president Harold Shapiro, who led the review of the IPCC. But the IAP did not go so far as to attack the basic findings of the IPCC:
“Shapiro said the key recommendations in the climate report ‘are well supported by the scientific evidence.’”
Lest there be any doubt about where the IAP stands on the threat posed by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, here is their statement from June 1, 2009:
“The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), called on world leaders to:
• Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above;
• Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification;
• Recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009;
• Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter;”
Looks like the IAP is still solidly in the global warming camp, for whatever difference that makes.
BM
LA yesterday tied its all time record low for the day.
Reports are coming out of South America of massive fish die-offs in the rivers because of unprecedented cold air masses coming off the Antarctic.
So it’s hot in DC and they are coming to conclusions, while ignoring the rest of the country.
Nuthin new about that!
ALL OF THE CLIMATE RECORDS INDICATE WE ARE AT THE END OF A WARMING CYCLE AND DUE TO PLUNGE INTO AN ICE AGE!!!
At any rate, we did not lose millions of marine animals last winter in Florida and this winter in South America to high acidity. It was a cold water problem.
Crazy stuff. We were at 100 degrees here today just 1 hour inland from Los Angeles. Was a dry heat though. Not that bad. Last summer was hotter for us though. The Cold PDO and Strong La Nina are keeping the west coasts of North American and South America cold. Inland was a different story.
Tried to correlate recent El Nino/La Nina events with US temperature trends using NOAA historic temperature data and came to the conclusion that our atmosphere temperature historic records are worthless. Almost no correlation, which is impossible. We should have been using the metric atmospheric heat content. Much more accurate.
And yet, in the past, the CO2 levels have been far higher than now, and the oceans continued to thrive. They must have, because we're still here, as is the rest of life on the planet.
OTOH, sunspot activity is ‘way up, telling me that in two years (atmospheric mixing time) we will have dramatic rises in global temperatures. They will be blamed on carbon dioxide. Wrongly.
Dramatic? A little overstatement perhaps?
Thinking like a journolist.
If we get the above high end predicted curve, wont see any warming until winter 2012-2013 earliest. Right now we are guaranteed to have a colder winter in 2010-2011 and a cold winter in 2011-2012.
Years ago I did a simple correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures, without discriminating methods or anything like that. Covered 100 years. Got a 5* correlation with the temperature three years *after* the sunspot measurement was made. Hypothesize that atmospheric mixing is involved, which takes place over about two years (can’t remember the source of that number, sorry).
That’s why I said that two years from now we would see “dramatically” higher global average temperatures. I don’t think the effect of sunspots is instantaneous.
There is definitely a delay. Three years sounds about right. It seemed to be 90 degrees out of phase to me. Atmospheric temperatures began to rise at peak sunspot point. Atmospheric temperatures began to fall at minimum sunspot point. This cycle however, the peak magnitude will be much less then the last cycle 23. So the magnitude upwards movement, if it occurs, will be less then the last cycle.
Love it,....thanks for posting that.
Checking WUWT:
*****************************************
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
