Dueling reports: Team of international scientists release global warming report countering UN
Excerpt: The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.
Here’s what the reports say:
IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”
NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”
IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”
NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”
NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”
NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”
IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”
NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and …
UN IPCC report ‘predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels’
…Despite IPCC doom report, this dataset of datasets shows no warming this millennium
…Lead author of UN climate report removes name from report: Says colleagues ‘drifted too far to the alarmist side’ & were likening climate change to the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’
IPCC Challenged: ‘The empirical evidence and peer reviewed research is indisputable – essential food production has dramatically improved while CO2 levels and global temperatures increased’
…Al Gore: ‘The costs of carbon pollution are clear: decreasing crop yields, more destructive storms, the spreading of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, rising seas, more climate refugees, failures of governance, increasing floods, deepening droughts, more destructive fires and heat waves’
http://blog.algore.com/2014/03/statement_by_former_vice_presi_1.html…
Sen. Barbara Boxer doesn’t need IPCC report: ‘We can just look out the window to see climate change’s impacts’ – I can see climate change from my house. Who knew Babs Boxer could see farther than Palin?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/i-can-see-climate-change-from-my-house.php…
UN Climate Report Writer Resigns, Report Issued Today ‘Too Alarmist’
UN Climate Report Writer Resigns, Report Issued Today ‘Too Alarmist’
Richard Tol, a professor of economics at Sussex University in England, has resigned as one of the writers of a climate report for the IPCC (the U.N.’s climate change organization), arguing that the drafts “became too alarmist.”Speaking to Reuters, Mr Tol explained his rebuke of the report’s climate change alarmism, while acknowledging that some other authors “strongly disagree with me.”Mr. Tol said many of the other authors “strongly disagree with me,” but that he found the IPCC’s emphasis on climate change alarmism — and focus on risk — came at the expense of providing solutions for the world’s governments to adapt and overcome.He said, for instance, farmers could grow new and different crops to offset any negative impacts from climate change that impacted food supplies.“They will adapt,” Mr. Tol said, Reuters reported. “Farmers are not stupid.”He also decried the fact the U.N. report downplayed possible economic benefits of warming. For example, he said: Warmer winters could mean fewer deaths among the elderly and possibly better crop growths in some areas.“It is pretty damn obvious there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,” Mr. Tol said in the Reuters report.Adding to his disdain for the IPCC report which he had his name removed from, on the morning the report was released he tweeted:I found only 3 of the 4 Horsemen in the IPCC headlines #IPCCbingo— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) March 31, 2014This is not the first time something like this has happened, Richard Landsea, a U.S. meteorologist, pulled out of the last report published in 2007, accusing the IPCC of overstating evidence that global warming was aggravating Atlantic hurricanes. He turned out to be correct.Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://www.jeffdunetz.com
Sent by gReader Pro…
The warmist Guardian newspaper on the new IPCC report: ‘The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings’
The warmist Guardian on the new IPCC report: “The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings”
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-warmist-guardian-on-new-ipcc-report.html
Today the IPCC’s latest scare report gets its usual share of publicity in the mainstream media. But even The Guardian, one of the main bastions of the global warming religion, admits that we have heard it before:The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warningsThe latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago.–There will likely be more floods, more droughts and more intense heatwaves, says the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.As human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, natural ecosystems come under extreme stress with “significant” knock-on effects for societies.”Changes in the availability of food, fuel, medicine, construction materials and income are possible as these ecosystems are changed,” says the report.But in the words of that great British band The Smiths, you can now stop me if you think you’ve heard this one before.That’s because all of the above comes not from today’s blockbuster IPCC report on the impacts of climate change, but from the first one started in 1988 and published in 1990.Fortunately, the new IPCC scare report will soon be forgotten – just as its predecessors – and responsible authorities and organizations will be able to concentrate on solving real environmental problems …
Sent by gReader Pro…
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term ‘risk’ – ‘The IPCC has bastardized the use of the term ‘risk’
Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/hey-ipcc-quit-misusing-the-term-risk/
The latest report of Working Group II of the IPCC, entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, was approved yesterday. In it, the concept of the “risks” posed by human-induced climate change figures prominently.
Now, I can understand using terms like “possibilities” when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It’s theoretically possible that the average warming of the last 50+ years was mostly human-caused, and it’s possible that the slight sea level rise over this time was more human-caused than natural (sea level was rising naturally anyway). But we really don’t know.
And the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is even more sketchy. Mostly because there is little or no objective evidence that these events have experienced any long-term increase that is commensurate with warming. (It’s possible they are worse with globally cool conditions…we really don’t know).
But the main point of my article is that the IPCC has bastardized the use of the term “risk”. Talking “possibilities” is one thing, because just about anything is possible in science. But “risk” refers to the known tendency of bad things to happen as a result of some causal mechanism.
Walking across the street raises your risk of being hit by a car. We know this, because it has happened many thousands of times.
Cigarette smoking raises your risk of lung cancer. We know this because it has happened millions of times (and is consistent with other medical evidence that human tissue exposed to repeated injury, anywhere in your body, can result in the formation of cancerous tissue).
But when it comes to climate change, there is no demonstrated causal connection between (A) an extra 1 CO2 molecule per 10,000 molecules of air, and (B) any resulting observed change in weather or climate.
There are theories of how the former might impact the latter. But that’s all.
You cannot use the term “risk” to describe these theoretical possibilities.
The fact that the IPCC has chosen to do so further demonstrates it is an organization that was political in its intended purpose, with the ultimate mission of regulating CO2 emissions, and operates within an echo chamber of like-minded individuals who are chosen based upon their political support of the IPCC’s …