Global warming, not so bad at all really: says skeptical NIPCC report and thousands of references
Global warming, not so bad at all really: says NIPCC report and thousands of references
I decided that the IPCC Impacts report was irrelevant speculation because it utterly depended on the IPCC science report and the climate models which we already know are wrong. But the dedicated team at NIPCC show that, even if we take the claims of “impacts” working group seriously, they still come to nothing. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, there is little risk of famine due to our emissions or due to global warming. Life in the oceans is likely to adapt reasonably well as so many studies have show, and less humans will die overall as a bonus. For those of you who enjoy well written, well researched arguments, and especially if you are looking for scientific references and the nuance of this debate, there is much to learn. The NIPCC reports are an invaluable reference for me. Careful scientific language is so much more informative than the full-gloss IPCC double-speak about theories which are consistent with uncertainties but not with observations – Jo ———————————————————— Report Finds Global Warming Causes ‘No Net Harm’ to Environment or Human Health Independent review of climate science contradicts “alarmist” views of United […]Rating: 5.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Sent by gReader Pro…
‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Producers Talking Sequel – Climate Depot Responds
…Climatologist Tim Ball’s book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ reviewed – ‘Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong’
Climatologist Tim Ball’s book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science reviewed
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2014/04/climatologist-tim-balls-book-deliberate.html
Alan Caruba reviews climatologist Tim Ball’s excellent book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science: CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be. –“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.
Sent by gReader Pro…
Report: EPA tested deadly pollutants on humans to push agenda
Team of scientists Respond To IPCC Alarmism: In sharp contrast to IPCC’s pessimistic forecast of declining food production, NIPCC’s authors say ‘a future warming of the climate coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost global agricultural production and help meet the food needs of the planet’s growing population.’
NIPCC Respond To IPCC Alarmism
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/nipcc-respond-to-ipcc-alarmism/
By Paul Homewood
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
The NIPCC have published their response to the latest IPCC report. They summarise the main issues below:
And they conclude:
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food production and biospheric productivity is a matter of fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s pessimistic forecast of declining food production, NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost global agricultural production and help meet the food needs of the planet’s growing population.”
They find “the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend to overcome any negative effects associated with changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested public should demand to know why IPCC either hides or is silent about these truths.
The full report can be seen here.
Sent by gReader Pro…
Scientific Idol?! Who wants to be a UN Scientist?! A look behind the scenes of new IPCC scare report: ‘Scientific’ process started with an ‘American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors’
A look behind the scenes of the new IPCC scare report
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-look-behind-scenes-of-new-ipcc-scare.html
Stanford professor Chris Field gives us an interesting look behind the scenes of the new IPCC scare report. It is fascinating to read about how incredibly tough the last five years have been for Field and his team. We are told that he scientic process started with an “American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors and editors”. (Perhaps we will see the highlights on television at some later date?) After probably hundreds of meetings in such hardship locations as Bali and Venice, professor Field and his “idols” finally produced “a 2,000-page report a part of a massive, three-part U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report: In the summer of 2009, Stanford Professor Chris Field embarked on a task of urgent global importance.Field had been tapped to assemble hundreds of climate scientists to dig through 12,000 scientific papers concerning the current impacts of climate change and its causes.The team, Working Group II, would ultimately produce a 2,000-page report as part of a massive, three-part U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which details a consensus view on the current state and fate of the world’s climate. –For Field’s group, the long road began in earnest at a July 2009 meeting in Venice, Italy, where 209 scientific experts and IPCC members from around the world developed a chapter-by-chapter outline of the report. Their outline was later formally accepted at a meeting in Bali, Indonesia.But before Field and his team could begin the heavy lifting of writing the report, they hosted a kind of American Idol-style search for scientists to serve as authors and editors. –“Stanford didn’t see it as a distraction, but as a fundamental function of the university,” Diffenbaugh said. His 9-year-old daughter, however, had a different perspective. Her father, worn out from after-hours work on the assessment, would often fall asleep while reading bedtime stories. –The article also includes some interesting glimpses into the scientific method of the IPCC process: Sometimes, it took pen sketches too. Lobell recalled a group effort to come up with a key summary figure for the chapter he worked on about food security. “We ended up doodling on napkins over dinner, and then I went back and made a version that ended up in the final report. One of the senior authors described that as …
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: IPCC Report Shows Stern Inflated Climate Change Costs
Richard Tol: IPCC Report Shows Stern Inflated Climate Change Costs
http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-tol-ipcc-report-shows-stern-inflated-climate-change-costs/
How much does climate change cost? What will be the impact on our wallets?
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income.
This seems in sharp contrast to the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, which found it would cost 5-20%. How can that be?
The Stern Review was prepared by a team of civil servants and never reviewed (before publication) by independent experts. Some argue that the Stern Review served to bolster Gordon Brown’s credentials with the environmental wing of the Labour Party in preparation for his transition to party leader and prime minister. And in fact next weekIPCC Working Group III will conclude that the Stern Review grossly underestimated the costs of bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.
While interested parties can self-publish whatever they want, such informally publishedgrey literature has no place in the IPCC’s work. Although the Stern Review’s findings were not included in the IPCC’s current, Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the Stern Review draws heavily on the climate change impact estimates of Chris Hope of Cambridge University, whose numbers are peer-reviewed, and were included in the IPCC’s work. Hope calculated a economic loss of 0.9%, slightly lower than the IPCC’s central estimate of 1.1%. So the Stern Review and IPCC AR5 do not contradict one another. If anything, the Stern Review is slightly more optimistic.
Playing with numbers
So how did the Stern Review reach its figure of 5%-20% of income, when in fact its calculations started with an estimate of less than 1%? The reason is an arcane bit ofwelfare economics. Dr Hope’s 0.9% is a conventional impact estimate. If the world warmed by 2.5˚C, the average person would feel as if they had lost 0.9% of her income. If the world warmed by more, the impact would be higher; if warming is less, the impact is lower.
The Stern Review’s 5% is generated like an annuity, taking a stream of payments that vary over time (in this case the predicted impact of climate change) and converting it into fixed annual payments. The Stern Review thus replaces the impact of more than 200 years of climate change – effects that start low and end high – to a …
Report: ‘Environmentally friendly’ wood-burning power plants emit more pollution per megawatt than coal plants
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html…
Ministry Of Truth: Crackdown Ordered On UK Climate Skeptics – ‘Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should ‘shut up’ and instead repeat the Government line on the issue’
Ministry Of Truth: Crackdown Ordered On Climate Change Sceptics
http://www.thegwpf.org/ministry-of-truth-crackdown-ordered-on-climate-change-sceptics/
Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.
The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”.
Mr Miller likened climate sceptics to the Monster Raving Loony Party and said that the BBC should limit interviews with them just as it restricted the coverage it gave to fringe political parties.
In a report published today, the committee criticises the BBC’s coverage of climate change, saying that its news programmes “continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight”.
The MPs say that the BBC should apply the same “stringent requirements” to interviewing climate sceptics as it applies to interviewing politicians. “For example, any proposal to invite politicians to contribute to non-political output must be referred to the Chief Adviser Politics. The BBC could benefit from applying a similarly stringent approach when interviewing non- experts on controversial scientific topics such as climate change,” the committee says.
Speaking to The Times, Mr Miller added that when Lord Lawson appeared, the BBC should make clear that his think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, questioned the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “At the very least, put a caption at the bottom of the screen: ‘the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s views are not accepted by 97 per cent of scientists’,” he said.
The committee’s report says that the Government is “failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public”. It concludes: “All Ministers should acquaint themselves with the science of climate change and then they, and their Departments, should reflect the Government approach in person, in media interviews and online by a presenting a clear and consistent message.”
Mr Miller named Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, as one of the ministers he believed had deviated from the Government line on climate change. Mr Paterson reportedly told a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference last year: “People get very …
UN IPCC LEAD AUTHOR Dr. Richard Tol rips IPCC: ‘The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable’
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10200846380480190…