Dr Andrew Glikson, earth and paleoclimate scientist at ANU, writes: The end of the IPCC?
Just last week, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.
Let me offer some examples of the ‘rationale’ in the background of this vote:
Representative Luetkemeyer (Missouri) said: “Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”
US Congress Representative John Shimkus (Illinois) said: “Today we have about 388 parts per million [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere… I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” He goes on: “The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.
The Representative is correct in pointing to the wealth of fauna and flora in the age of the dinosaurs.
The only error he makes is in overlooking the fact that humans, as a part of nature, are the product of environment changes associated with cooling of the Earth since the mid-Pliocene about 3 million years ago, followed by the glacial-interglacial eras during which H. sapiens and civilization arose. The other error is that rapid shifts between climate states result in mass extinctions.
But then its not clear how many of the new House majority accept Darwinian evolution?
Representative Joe Barton (Texas), who is competing for the position of chairman of the Congress Energy and commerce Committee states: “Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.”
Never mind that in nature winds move air from cold high pressure to warm low pressure zones, such as in onshore sea breeze or the polar vortices.
E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, argued that because the “biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God, humankind couldn’t possibly be affecting the climate.”
Some are happy with ongoing carbon emissions, since they apparently serve as “plant food”, in what some of them regard as a “carbon starved world”.
A new kind of science is being invented, free of data and unrelated to the basic laws of physics and chemistry.
Just in case those who reject the science may not be correct, at least Congress continues to support space research programs. In search of habitable planets when Earth is no longer suitable for human life?
Defenders of the IPCC are in retreat. Representative Waxman (California) stated: “The US contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without US support.”
In Noam Chomsky’s view: “All of this combines the latest election a couple of days ago…. You could almost interpret it [the Republicans victory in the Congress elections] as a kind of a death knell for the species.”
How consistent is Noam Chomsky’s prediction with climate science projections?
With rising global and in particular polar temperatures:
And the acceleration of extreme weather events (Figure 3), predicted by the IPCC, the rise in energy levels of the atmosphere-ocean system, evaporation and precipitation, are increasingly expressed by a series of extreme weather events – cyclones, floods, snow storms, heat waves.
The emission of >320 Gigaton carbon over the last two centuries leads to a shift in state of the climate (>2 Watt/m2; +0.8C mean temperature; ~2 ppm CO2/year) on a scale unknown from former interglacial periods and the last 3 million years of geological history.
How should Noam Chomsky’s claim the return of the Republicans constitutes “a kind of a death knell for the species” be interpreted?
Is Chomsky referring to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the “rupture” by fundamentalists? Is it the ideology of human mastery over nature, vested fossil fuel interests, well funded “conservative” think tanks, media cover-up, cowardly politicians, the basic reluctance of people to face global issues beyond human power, or all of these factors combined?
Hopefully the Representatives are correct and Chomsky is mistaken. As “internet science” tells, the world is not warming or, at least, not due to human factors, and climate research organizations (Hadley-Met, NASA-GISS, Colorado-NSIDC, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM) and peer reviewed science are all in error?
Should this not be the case and the future lies in the hands of those who reject the scientific method, claiming authority to speak in God’s name, this would herald the end of the enlightenment, an era of intellectual, scientific and cultural life emerging from the 18th century where evidence and reason are the basis for legitimacy and authority.
242 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
Yeah, the political corruption of the state of virginia’s attorney general was found to be inconsequential. You. Still. Loose.
Alec Rawls probably sums up the IPCC corruption best: “What I found interesting in the IPCC report is how blatant the statistical fraud is, omitting the competing explanation from the models completely, while pretending that they are using their models to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming. These people are going to hang on to their power grab until the bitter end.”
It’s called protecting everyone in the system.
Those who approved his application, those who approved the paymenst, University staff who knew it was fraud etc
and with no relevant or correct scientific evidence to show we get back to nutjob paranoid conspiracy theory. You. Still. Lose. Looser.
No I don’t.
Copenhagen was CANCELLED.
Spain has finished with the romance of “free energy from the sun”.
Every politician that breathes on Earth is trying to work out how to avoid getting caught up any further..
Ah!! What about Malcolm Turnbull you say. A man of moral courage.
Do you mean Malcolm Turnbull the BANKER whose former bank stood to make squillions out of carbon trading??
And so on.
Well if you take climate change from a scientifically illiterate point of view, I guess you can either trust 150-200 years of accumulated scientific knowledge, or if you’re of an insanely delusional persuasion, you can pretend it’s all a massive conspiracy from the illuminati, jewish bankers or whatever. Yawn.
Quote kdkd “150-200 years of accumulated scientific knowledge”.
Are you kidding?
There is evidence of serious scientific skills going back more than 4,000 years.
Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
. “Peer Review” has generally become a laugh, as the Hoaxters now all review each other’s work, and the cash register keeps ringing.
yeah, well we get to the point were idiots like danr can be shown to not understand the subject, and that they’re paranoid nutjobs who have opted out of reality. And at this point we can leave them to disintegrate into a mumbling mess, as it’s been clear for some time that they have no worthwhile contribution to make.
(I think that danr and tones9 are the same individual posting under different accounts btw)
danr,
as scintillating as your contributions are, I reckon you could probably combine them into a single post and not lose any impact.
If this thread is going to break the Rooted record for number of posts it’s only fair it does so for the right reasons.
danr, how did all those colluding scientists convince the glaciers to take part in the conspiracy?
Rohan what’s the record?
Let’s go for it.
This transcript should be kept for historical evidence of cognitive dissonance.
the record is a bit over 2319 coments. Again on a pointless discussion of climate change science. The delusionals in this case had better understanding of science than danr/tones9 and quickly lapsed out of totally psychotic madcap conspiracy theory ramblings when they realised they’d overstepped the mark.
danr and tones9 have nothing at all worthwhile to say though, so it’s not worth the effort.
thanks rohan
oops. everyone’s on board to save the planet.
4% swing in 2 weeks.
JULIA Gillard’s carbon tax plan has sent Labor’s primary vote support reeling to its lowest level on record, with the Prime Minister also suffering a significant slide in her personal standing.
The latest Newspoll survey, conducted exclusively for The Australian, reveals Labor’s primary vote has fallen from 36 per cent two weeks ago to 30 per cent, below the 31 per cent record when Paul Keating was prime minister in 1993, as the Coalition rose four points to 45 per cent.
On a two-party preferred basis, based on preference flows at last year’s election, Labor now trails the Coalition 46 per cent to 54 per cent after being tied at 50 per cent support two weeks ago.
Do you think they smell a rat??
no, it’s a dirty stinking turd.
it’s a bit obvious when westpac announce they can’t wait to make billions out of carbon trading
BHP and RIO are rubbing their hands together trying to work out their claim for compensation.
Who do people in this blog think will pick up the tab if not BHP?
Yep. The taxpayer.
If you had any background in the scientific areas that underpin the “science” of global warming you too would see that the claims about human involvement in “global warming” are fanciful.
The basic atmospheric physics supposedly supporting AGW does not exist.
There is more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the re-radiated and reflected ground IR many times over. This , of course is only for the spectra covered by CO2. What this means in practical terms, which the IPCC doesn’t want you to know about, is that adding more CO2 will not trap any more heat energy than is currently being trapped.
If solar output is held constant and CO2 is increased, guess what happens. Nothing.
By contrast if you hold CO2 constant and increase solar energy output then the atmosphere will heat up.
Of course this is all meaningless because we have left out the major factor in all this: water vapour.
I feel sorry for those who have been conned into doing “Climate Change Studies” at Universities without a proper grounding in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Orbital Mechanics and the modeling of complex interactive physical and chemical systems.
Having a PHD in plant biology or economics and a big computer just doesn’t work.
The scam goes on.
Well I have some background in using scientific method for situations where classical experiments are not possible, and from that I can see that your understanding of climate science is fanciful. However these comments pages are not the place for a scientific debate as you have amply demonstrated, so you can go away and be delusional somewhere else please.
danr, you have made a strong statement in 220. You must have based it on a something. Do you mind telling us what science stream you have studied, to what level and where?
PeeBee:
same as everything he has to say. He pulled it out of his arse.
“Well I have some background in using scientific method for situations where classical experiments are not possible,”
Just as I thought. No education past high school and inane claims like the above.
Mumbo jumbo.
Respiration IN; 380 ppm CO2.
Respiration OUT: 40,000 ppm CO2.
And yet no one dies from CO2 poisoning.
What’s going on fellas?
Sitting in the movies or a crowed hall: 10,000 ppm CO2. No one dies.
According to the US EPA we should all be dead from the excess CO2?
Has the US EPA been bought by a political interest group?
However these comments pages are not the place for a scientific debate”
There is no need for any more debate.
The IPCC argument all hinges on fanciful science like the supposed runaway CO2 effect which is unknown to mainstream science.
There is no such thing as “amplification” or “feedback” effect of CO2.
This is a political / financial construct which has been deliberately confused so the public can’t understand it.
More money for those in the right places.
Holidays in Tahiti.
Bzzt! Wrong. Positive feeback is not the same as a runaway positive feedback. Your ability to understand the science is clearly woefully deficient, and this forum is not the place to correct your lack of education. so go away and stop polluting the place with your imbecilic crap, please.
No education past high school
Explains everything.
I’m positive that there is no such thing as positive feedback.
danr: then you must be dead then as the biochemical processes that keep you alive rely on positive feedback
Worthless. Moronic. Drivel. An attempt at humour makes you look like even more of a dick than we already thought.
“Well I have some background in using scientific method for situations where classical experiments are not possible,”
Now I know what you mean
Positive CO2 feedback
Energy from nowhere.
Magic.
Perhaps even Voodoo
or maybe just Dog Doo
danr
Please continue. you’re displaying your ignorance and stupidity rather nicely. Me? I’m just displaying that I’m sick of ignorant stupidity emanating from idiots like you.
kdkd,
danr has to be a bot because even idiots would that.
because even idiots would not write that.
danr is clearly at least partly a bot. It posts completely out of left field statements like
“Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.”
and continues to reiterate the same ridiculous sensationalist unscientific nonsense, despite it having been verified over and over that the audience here will not fall for that talkback radio crap.
This is astroturf, people. You’d be better off NOT FEEDING THE ASTROTURF TROLLS.
I’ve got to admit that statements like:
““Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.”
are a bit over the top and not related to the real issue of science at the core of what I am supposed to be focused on.
It may gives some people on this site to experience what it’s like when the boot is on the other foot; ie dealing with pre-packaged crap.
This troll danr seems to be even more clueless, delusional and imbecilic than your average denier, and that’s saying something. Wisely, it looks like many contributors here have realized that and have stopped trying to reason with that moron. What idiot, without presenting any evidence, would claim that climate scientists don’t have “a proper grounding in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Orbital Mechanics and the modeling of complex interactive physical and chemical systems.”? And this from someone who probably didn’t even do high school science. Over at RealClimate, they send those really stupid, conspiratorial posts which add nothing to the debate to a section called “the Bore Hole”, but I think even that’s too lofty for him.
We deal with pre-packaged crap all the time. Just yesterday Nick Minchin said the globe was cooling.
“Just yesterday Nick Minchin said the globe was cooling.”
I agree with you. Everyone knows there has been little measurable temp change in the last 50 years. Minor fluctuations like those he mentions are part of the normal temp flux.
Inconsequential.
So you agree that the world hasn’t cooled then. Because I disagree with Minchin.
Or you could just be putting words in my mouth, be trying to obfuscate the argument further, and are actually agreeing with Minchin, a non-Climate Scientist and Economist claiming another non Climate Scientist and Economist doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Minchin had better be careful, otherwise his comments like “[Garnault] is on the Government Payroll, and is being paid to tow the Government line” might come back to bite the Reactionary Right when they have a Government employee ‘towing the line’ on, say, workers rights, or fossil fuel subsidies, or moar roads, or less regulation, or foreign ownership.
But Nick also believes Tobacco isn’t addictive or harmful.
“But Nick also believes Tobacco isn’t addictive or harmful.”
yeah Yeah Yeah
we’ve seen that sort of claim on every warmer posting site.
Hit them anywhere but in the science.
How can Andrew Bolt say that man made global warming is not real when governments have spent billions worldwide to research the problem.
There are thousands of PHDs who know that AGW is very real and will lead to runaway global temperatures far too soon for us and our children.
As Shane says above, “Australia has the worst pollution record in the developed world” and we must take action now.
Surely. He cant be serious when he questions the ABC. The ABC is a Government funded institution and has the benefit of all Government scientific resources at its disposal.
If it pushes a certain view it is because it must be so confident of it’s position that there is no need to be impartial.
It’s just more convenient that way.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All