UN IPCC author: Antarctica’s abrupt glacial melting ‘greatly overestimated’
Dr. Andrew Shepherd, an IPCC author who works at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, said the UOB study used calculations that appeared to have overlooked shifts in snowfall, noting that the “new estimates of ice loss computed (from the thinning of the ice) are far too high, because the glaciers in this sector just haven’t speeded up that much.”…
Jeb Bush: ‘The climate is changing…Human activity has contributed to it’ – Seeks to ‘find solutions’
http://www.bna.com/jeb-bush-takes-n17179934073/
Jeb Bush: The climate is changing; I don’t think anybody can argue it’s not. Human activity has contributed to it. I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core…
I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it. We should not say the end is near, not deindustrialize the country, not create barriers for higher growth, not just totally obliterate family budgets, which some on the left advocate by saying we should raise the price of energy so high that renewables then become viable. U.S. emissions of greenhouse gasses are down to the same levels emitted in the mid-1990s, even though we have 50 million more people. A big reason for this success is the energy revolution which was created by American ingenuity—not federal regulations..
Obama’s carbon rule is irresponsible and ineffective. First, it does virtually nothing to address the risk of climate change. Second, it oversteps state authority. Third, EPA has gone far beyond its statutory authority, regulating how people consume energy. Fourth, it threatens the reliability of the electricity grid. Finally, as proposed, it will unnecessarily increase energy costs on hard-working families and will cause job losses in many states.…
The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%
…Survey of 1800 scientists: The ‘97% consensus’ is now 43% – ‘Less than half of climate scientists agree with UN IPCC ‘95%’ certainty’
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen et al shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty
More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quotes a lot of gray literature itself, as Donna LaFramboise found.)
…
Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.
The IPCC AR5 Statement:
“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} 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. ”
— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.
…
…
The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I daresay, would be much less likely to use the …
Walmart joins White House Climate Pledge: ‘We believe climate change is an urgent and pressing challenge’
…Claim: ‘Global warming deniers are an endangered species’
More States Threaten To Veto EPA’s Global Warming Rule
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/27/more-states-threaten-to-veto-epas-global-warming-rule/…
Clinton spoofs GOP’s ‘mad scientists’ in video
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/249309-clinton-spoofs-gops-mad-scientists
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is out with a new video panning the Republican presidential field as “mad scientists” who deny the effects of climate change.
The new spot centers on the use of the phrase “I’m not a scientist” by Republican candidates when discussing climate change.
“Faced with the threat of climate change, Republicans repeat one chilling phrase: I am not a scientist,” the spot says, before running down instances where former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), and Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) all said the line.
“Feel the terror as they deny established science,” the video continues, as video of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), and Donald Trump all push back against the idea that humans cause global warming or that there’s action that can be taken to prevent it.
“And the scariest part? One of these mad (not a) scientists could be president,” the ad closes.
…
Vatican Environmental Conference: A Marriage of Bad Governors and Bad Science
https://stream.org/vatican-environmental-conference-bad-governors-bad-science/…
‘The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture’
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/07/29/why-organic-agriculture-is-a-colossal-hoax/
Another poorly recognized aspect of this issue is that the vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume are in our diets “naturally” and are present in organic foods as well as non-organic ones. In a classic study, UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.” Moreover, “natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests.” Thus, consumers who buy organic to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on just one-hundredth of one percent of the pesticides they consume.…