Global Warming backdown

[Bugs]

This is the delightful sound of top scientists associated with the IPCC backing down, and falling all over themselves to place the blame elsewhere ... Professor Watson is one of the Priests of High Science, and a member (and a defender) of the IPCC.

I'll give the man this -- he's a good sport, and he faces up to as tough an interviewer as he's likely to find.

[waldo]

This is the delightful sound of top scientists associated with the IPCC backing down, and falling all over themselves to place the blame elsewhere ... Professor Watson is one of the Priests of High Science, and a member (and a defender) of the IPCC.

quite a weighty thread title - my gawd, here I thought the science was sound!!! Do you have the abridged version summarizing points of, as you say, "backdown"?

[eyeball]

Global warming backdown...

Isn't that Bluegrass song?

Oh....diddle diddle diddle diddle, diddle diddle diddle diddle, diddle diddle diddle diddle, dee... diddle dum dum diddle diddle dum dum diddle diddle dum da diddle diddle dee...

[William Ashley]

This is the delightful sound of top scientists associated with the IPCC backing down, and falling all over themselves to place the blame elsewhere ... Professor Watson is one of the Priests of High Science, and a member (and a defender) of the IPCC.

I'll give the man this -- he's a good sport, and he faces up to as tough an interviewer as he's likely to find.

Global Warming is Real - explain the disappearance of the ice in the artic and subartics.

There are huge global effects.

Deniers ought to be shot unless they can explain the disappearance of the worlds ice.

The last 10,000 years has been very bizarre in terms of the last half million, with a marked increase in the last 200. This is not normal with the rest of the cycle.

Edited February 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[waldo]

yup - surprise, surprise... once you start to listen:

standard fare, right off the top, as expected, the attack journalist throws out the skeptic/deniers smoking gun quote... that was never actually stated - but don't let that get in the way of objective discourse! After hearing that, fabricated quote, I shut er down... and await the abridged version of said "backdown"

Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen

The quotation has since become the iconic smoking gun of the climate sceptic community. The words are the very first to appear in the "manual" of climate denialism written by the journalist and arch-sceptic Christopher Booker. They get more than a million hits on Google, and are wheeled out almost every time a climate sceptic has a point to make, the last occasion being in a Sunday newspaper article last weekend written by the social anthropologist and climate sceptic Benny Peiser.

The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Even though the quotation appears on about 1.77 million web links, no one seems to know where it originated.

[Keepitsimple]

....and what does Dr. Warson say? Why, he says "there's irrefutable proof that the climate is changing"......Duh! Simple, I know...but that's the crux of the issue. The IPCC is retreating to their last bastion of defense - that Climate Change is Real. How many times have we heard that? We know it's real, thank you.

[Oleg Bach]

No matter what the greedy buggers are saying in their denial or the back peddling of well funded scientists...Human habitation and activity have damaged the planet - be it warming or cooling is of little consequence. The fact is that we have disturbed mother nature to the point that she has become extreme and violent. You just can't keep on burying the place in shit - nor can you continue to turn a blue sky into a green one- Once the sky is green it means you are under the sod and it's a matter of time before you come to the realization that you are in a grave and still breathing...then eventually you suffocate in terror...

[Shady]

Global Warming is Real - explain the disappearance of the ice in the artic and subartics.

There are huge global effects.

Deniers ought to be shot unless they can explain the disappearance of the worlds ice.

The last 10,000 years has been very bizarre in terms of the last half million, with a marked increase in the last 200. This is not normal with the rest of the cycle.

Complete nonsense. Ice hasn't "disappeared." In fact, in some cases, ice is actually growing. And the earth hasn't warmed in several years. Global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. And as it turns out, even the IPCC had grave doubts about the so-called "hockey-stick model", but was talked into including it by several of the most rabid true-believers posing as scientists.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Shady

[Moonlight Graham]

Global Warming is Real - explain the disappearance of the ice in the artic and subartics.

There are huge global effects.

Deniers ought to be shot unless they can explain the disappearance of the worlds ice.

The last 10,000 years has been very bizarre in terms of the last half million, with a marked increase in the last 200. This is not normal with the rest of the cycle.

The earth has warmed in the last 200 years. But it hasn't warmed at a temp or rate that hasn't happened many, many, many times in the past. It's not even the warmest that its been in the last 1000 years.

Generally, the earth seems to be warming the last 2 centuries. But the question is if this warming caused primarily by humans? CO2 levels have been steadily rising the past 8 years yet global temp has remained the steady in these past 8 years.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Shady]

Deniers ought to be shot

I like this part the best. It's a classic case of religious zealotry, threatening to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their religion.

[Moonlight Graham]

I like this part the best. It's a classic case of religious zealotry, threatening to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their religion.

agreed.

It's freaking science! Any good scientist worth their weight in marbles should always be "skeptical" and constantly keep an open mind to new information or evidence.

[William Ashley]

Complete nonsense. Ice hasn't "disappeared."

Is this sarcasm? http://www.planetwater.ca/research/sea-ice/JClimate/9.pdf

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/tropical-sea-temperature-rises-and-coral-reefs-climate-change-scenarios

You appear totally out of touch with reality if not. Read much about the north west passage clearing up

Read much about the melt over the last 50 years?

And the earth hasn't warmed in several years.

Since 1970 the earth ocean tempeture has increased by around 6 degrees. This scale of change

is dramatic.

Global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

I thought you might say god was #1.

And as it turns out, even the IPCC had grave doubts about the so-called "hockey-stick model", but was talked into including it by several of the most rabid true-believers posing as scientists.

Red dog black dog .. fact is, it is still a dog. Also when I can read thousands of reports on envrionmental change such as glacial collapses in Canada, ice breakage and melt of the polar caps I don't need the IPCC to tell

me climate change exists --- it is being experienced here in Canada - and it is only one of many

issues which are developing environmentally that are changing not only our environment but

also food stock and one of Canada's major industries - agriculture.

Edited February 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[August1991]

You appear totally out of touch with reality if not. Read much about the north west passage clearing up Read much about the melt over the last 50 years?

Since 1970 the earth ocean tempeture has increased by around 6 degrees. This scale of change is dramatic.

Did you even listen to that interview? The money quote is "I have absolutely no vested interested in the IPPC process" and yet he has spent his entire career associated with this issue.

There are many, many people who are now utterly confused by what is happening. They are scrambling to deal with skepticism.

William Ashley, surely you are aware of this. You can no longer simply claim that it is a dog and then sit back and have everyone accept your pronouncement.

Take a look at these BBC poll results.

Or how about this?

The head of the UN’s climate change body is under pressure to resign after one of his strongest allies in the environmental movement said his judgment was flawed and called for a new leader to restore confidence in climatic science.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has insisted that he will remain in post for another four years despite having failed to act on a serious error in the body’s 2007 report.

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK , said that Dr Pachauri should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the error, even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.

The Times

And yes, that is the same Pachauri who flies from NY to Delhi for weekend cricket matches and writes soft-porn bodice rippers.

[waldo]

....and what does Dr. Warson say? Why, he says "there's irrefutable proof that the climate is changing"......Duh! Simple, I know...but that's the crux of the issue. The IPCC is retreating to their last bastion of defense - that Climate Change is Real. How many times have we heard that? We know it's real, thank you.

the only retreat is one you relish in your wet dreams... the IPCC I see is aggressively moving to counter these latest rounds of fabricated/fake outrage over inconsequential WG2 report references... I've posted links to a couple of those IPCC statements intended to acknowledge - and refute/counter the concerted denier efforts to purposely cast doubt and uncertainty.

BTW - Watson hasn't had anything to do with the IPCC since 2002... but don't let that stop you from spinning this as another of your fake Concern Troll moments against the IPCC. Of course, it was the Bush Admin/Exxon that worked to oust Watson in 2002... moving to replace him with Pachauri

[wyly]

yup - surprise, surprise... once you start to listen:

standard fare, right off the top, as expected, the attack journalist throws out the skeptic/deniers smoking gun quote... that was never actually stated - but don't let that get in the way of objective discourse! After hearing that, fabricated quote, I shut er down... and await the abridged version of said "backdown"

Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

take them to court for the libel and sue them for any profit made on their books...

[waldo]

Complete nonsense. Ice hasn't "disappeared." In fact, in some cases, ice is actually growing. And the earth hasn't warmed in several years. Global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. And as it turns out, even the IPCC had grave doubts about the so-called "hockey-stick model", but was talked into including it by several of the most rabid true-believers posing as scientists.

you are so hopelessly out of your element... whatever your element actually is???

nothing you've just stated has any validity - none, zilch, nada. But please, go scurry about, find some authority from your school of weak journalism, and post your links to support your sorry statements. There is no greater sport than making you look the fool.

[wyly]

you are so hopelessly out of your element... whatever your element actually is???

nothing you've just stated has any validity - none, zilch, nada. But please, go scurry about, find some authority from your school of weak journalism, and post your links to support your sorry statements. There is no greater sport than making you look the fool.

he does that quite well on his own each time he posts...

[waldo]

Generally, the earth seems to be warming the last 2 centuries. But the question is if this warming caused primarily by humans? CO2 levels have been steadily rising the past 8 years yet global temp has remained the steady in these past 8 years.

huh! How accommodating of you to acknowledge warming... in your backhanded "generalized" reference way. And your favoured natural variation alternative to anthropogenic CO2 would be..... what?

whaaaa! It appears we have someone else from the school of deceptive short trending!

[waldo]

he does that quite well on his own each time he posts...

yes - Shady is the "lawd Monckton" of MLW

[Moonlight Graham]

Red dog black dog .. fact is, it is still a dog. Also when I can read thousands of reports on envrionmental change such as glacial collapses in Canada, ice breakage and melt of the polar caps I don't need the IPCC to tell

me climate change exists --- it is being experienced here in Canada - and it is only one of many

issues which are developing environmentally that are changing not only our environment but

also food stock and one of Canada's major industries - agriculture.

Of course climate change exists. Climate has gone from cold to warm and back again constantly for many millions of years. The IPCC can shove it, they are politically motivated. I'd rather listen to the many thousands of other scientist not involved in that select group. Not talking about skeptics, but all scientists who deal in rationality, not ideology.

Again, the question is whether global warming is caused by humans or if its currently mostly a natural warming. If its human, we need to fix it, if its natural then we can't fix it no more than we can change the weather, but must adapt (which is a huge costly problem we must deal with as well).

[Moonlight Graham]

huh! How accommodating of you to acknowledge warming... in your backhanded "generalized" reference way. And your favoured natural variation alternative to anthropogenic CO2 would be..... what?

whaaaa! It appears we have someone else from the school of deceptive short trending!

Why are you talking about global cooling? Who the hell thinks its cooling? Its been warming over the past century generally, with a cool dip after WWII, then warming again. Who would deny it? Based on our best evidence of temp records thems the facts.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[waldo]

Why are you talking about global cooling? Who the hell thinks its cooling? Its been warming over the past century generally, with a cool dip after WWII, then warming again. Who would deny it? Based on our best evidence of temp records thems the facts.

the previous MLW post link I provided... per it's accompanying linked text... spoke to your predilection towards the relatively short time-frame you mention - 8 years; i.e. an insignificant time to ascertain a legitimate temperature trend. The linked to MLW post also provided direct quotation from NASA representatives that emphasized the overall warming of the last decade.

as I said, your "generalized" phrasing, which you've just now used again, could be interpreted as a begrudging acceptance that warming has occurred... couple that with your statement that, "global temp has remained steady in these past 8 years, and it wasn't clear, to me, where you actually positioned. Thanks for your additional clarification. Your inferred 'pause' (over the short time frame of these last 8 years) is a favoured twist used by some to suggest cooling - notwithstanding, there actually has been no pause; warming has continued, just not at the same accelerated rate. In that regard I will, again, refer you to that same linked MLW post and the NASA quote/link. Additionally, this graphic that I've previously provided, speaks to that same continued warming trend (re: GISS global temperature trends since 1980).

regarding your challenge toward anthropogenic CO2, I note you didn't bite when questioned about your favoured natural variation alternative - just saying...

[Moonbox]

nothing you've just stated has any validity - none, zilch, nada. But please, go scurry about, find some authority from your school of weak journalism, and post your links to support your sorry statements. There is no greater sport than making you look the fool.

Face, meet palm.

There's plenty of evidence supporting the growth of Antarctic ice. There's also plenty of evidence showing the world hasn't really warmed at all in the last few years. These facts aren't even in dispute. Do yourself a favor next time and spend the 30 seconds necessary on Google before you make yourself look like an idiot again.

Half the issue people have with Global Warming theory are the rabid zealots who start wetting themselves if anyone so much as QUESTIONS canonical GW theory. It's as if people aren't allowed to use their brains in this matter. Maybe that's why so many flock towards the cause? LoL

the previous MLW post link I provided... per it's accompanying linked text... spoke to your predilection towards the relatively short time-frame you mention - 8 years; i.e. an insignificant time to ascertain a legitimate temperature trend. The linked to MLW post also provided direct quotation from NASA representatives that emphasized the overall warming of the last decade.

Interesting how you've decided an 8 year time frame is insignificant, but the 10 year one from NASA is? Also, the Earth has warmed and cooled on ~30-40 year cycles for as long as temperatures have been recorded.

The 1920's-1950's were significantly warmer than the 50's to the late 80's. Back in the 70's temperatures cooled and 'scientists' were telling us we were headed for an ice age

Since the late 80's we've started warming up again, and not even very quickly at that.

There are cycles, both long (hundreds or thousands of years) and short (decades) at work here that we can't simply explain by Co2 emissions alone, and thus it's worth questioning what factor they're playing.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

double post

Edited February 12, 2010 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

There are cycles, both long (hundreds or thousands of years) and short (decades) at work here that we can't simply explain by Co2 emissions alone, and thus it's worth questioning what factor they're playing.

It's not that much of a mystery to the scientists, though, who have built models with CO2 and solar factors being the chief drivers. They haven't tried to say it's CO2 alone that drives temperature, as that would be overly simplistic.