Why is nobody listening to the IPCC itself?
By L Michael Hohmann
To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said,
"The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns."
I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself.
The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute."
EPW POLICY BEAT: 'SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND'
If you've ever wondered why the international community convenes climate meetings in far-flung locales (Cancun, or perhaps Bali), then look no further than Otto Edenhofer, a German economist and an official with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Such grand confabs are not, as one would suppose, about climate change, its causes, or actions to avert and adapt to it.
In fact, as Edenhofer sees it, such things are irrelevant, as the climate conference is "not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." Indeed.
What does he mean? In an interview with German media outlet Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Edenhofer said that developed countries, i.e. the United States, have "expropriated the atmosphere of the world community." "But one must say clearly," he asserted, "that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." In other words, as one debunked economist might have put it, the expropriators should be expropriated.
If that doesn't put it bluntly enough, Edenhofer goes on to say: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." [Emphasis ours.]
It apparently has a lot to do with the American taxpayer, who would be part of the expropriated class. The big winner, in Edenhofer's view, would be Africa, "and huge amounts of money will flow there."
Edenhofer's remarks are of a piece with former French President Jacques Chirac, who said in 2000 that Kyoto Protocol was the "first component of an authentic global governance." And Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's former Environment Commissioner, who said in 2001 that Kyoto is about "trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world." Which is to say that Cancun is about something other than saving the planet from the ravages of humanity.
Rather, it is about using climate change as a stalking horse for more regulation and control of the private economy, and about redistributing wealth from American taxpayers to, among others, China and India. For Cancun is based on the principle that, as one Presidential candidate famously put it, when "you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Note to sicklebug - shove your 'no politics in climate science' UP YOUR A$$.
University Dumps Climate Change ScepticThere are those who tell me that there is NO politics in science, especially climate science. As one who has followed the argument for many years, literally putting thousands of hours into reading in both the science and the politics of it, I say BS!
Current research continues to point towards reduced hurricanes.
Current research indicates NO increasing trend in tornados.
The Earth's temperature increase has now been flatlined for 17 years- and this year is going to push the trend further. Santer of the IPCC himself said, that such a trend would need to last 17 years, in order to indicate problems with the UNproven theory of 'man-made' global warming. Phil Jones of the MET CRU, said 15 years. NASA said 15 years.
We're heading for 18 years.
But as they continue to push the meme, science is pushed to the back burner, and replaced by advocacy. And that advocacy is starting to push out scientists who's work indicates MAJOR problems with the UNproven theory.
Climategate RevisitedA brief breakdown of Climategate, and the changes it brought about.
Revisiting Climategate as Climatism Falters
by Steve Gorham
June 6, 2013
Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate, is on the wane. Once riding high, the ideology of man-made climate change is losing its influence in governments across the world. Climategate, the release of e-mails from the University of East Anglia, called the science of dangerous warming into question and turned the tide of global opinion.
On November 19, 2009, and unidentified hacker or internal whistle-blower downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom and posted them on a server in Russia. Within hours, these documents were accessed by websites around the world.
These e-mails were a subset of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the United Kingdom, the United St
The new '97%' paper Continues to Die a Slow Death.They keep trying to come up with '97%' And they keep FAILing.
As per usual, links below.
The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds
Posted on June 2, 2013 by Anthony Watts
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
That is from Charles Mackay in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds first published in 1841.
I think it is an apt description of the process that led to Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature because that paper is in fact, a product of a crowd evaluating a crowd. As an example, Dr. Richard Tol has just discovered that using Cook’s own data, the consensus number Cook should have published is 98%, rather than 97%.
Dr. Tol writes in a critique of the Cook et al paper:
In fact, the paper by Cook et al. may strengthen the belief that all is not well in clima
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMINGMYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for
I'm exhausted. Cyclical dreams, full of images that make no sense, keep waking me up. Why is this being such a rough week!?!