Reaktioner på klimaraporten

Diverse — Drokles on September 29, 2013 at 3:52 pm

En vejrmand tweetede ifølge Daily Mail, at han var brudt grædende sammen da han stod i lufthavnen og tænkte over den seneste klimarapports skræmmende perspektiver. Aldrig mere ville han tage en flyver, svor han og han overvejede endda vasektomi. Det kan jeg anbefale alle klimatosser, hvor ville vores børn få det rart. Men der har også været mere velovervejede reaktioner. Steven Goddard konstaterer tørt at klimapanelets overbevisning om global opvarmning er steget som den globale temperatur er faldet


Og Goddard konstaterer også at at der ikke har været global opvarmning i 70% af klimapanelets levetid! Dr. Det har været det helt store problem for klimapanelet, hvad skal man fortælle offentligheden når man ikke har noget at berette. Under forhandlingerne om de endelige formuleringer i klimarapporten var der stor uenighed, regeringerne imellem fortalte Telegraph. Tyskerne ville slette alle referencer til den manglende temperaturstigning, belgierne at man regnede fra et særligt statistisk fordelagtigt år og amerikanerne at man fandt på en masse bortforklaringer. Som Lubos Motl, ridsede op, så var europærerne for censur, mens amerikanerne ville lyve. Alle var de bange for, hvorledes skeptikerne kunne udnytte det. Det var et dilemma, som ikke havde nogen løsning og det er ikke så overraskende at resultatet er under kritik. Benny Peisler siger til Express

Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, branded the report “insincere hype” and “scare tactics”.

He said: “This is nothing but a political statement to cover up the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC said global temperatures would rise by up to 0.2C [0.36F] a decade and this is not happening.

“This is a political attempt to divert attention away from the fact that they would otherwise have to admit they were wrong. This report is not a scientific, ­honest assessment of their performance in the past or the performance of climate.”

Marc Moraneo siger til Daily Caller

“You have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 has been one of the most devastating to the UN’s political narrative on global warming,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a climate skeptic website.

Morano added that “[b]oth poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing,  wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity,  Gore’s organization is flailing and losing donors amid layoffs, former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day.”

Heller ikke den australske geolog Bob Carter er imponeret, som han fortæller i et interview med BBC ifølge Scottish Sceptic, mens han forsøger med lidt simpel indføring i basal videnskabelighed

That the IPCC has an idea. It is not actually their idea it was why they were set up. They were told to go away and consider the business, not of climate change in the round, but of climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what it does it that it goes out and looks for evidence, for humans having a dangerous impact on climate. Now real science doesn’t work that way.

Now as you probably know science proceeds in general by setting up what is called a null hypothesis which is the simplest hypothesis. And that is: we look out the window and we see everyday change in the weather and in the longer term the climate. The distribution and patterns of nesting and flowering and so on of animals and plants. So we know the real world is variable the whole time.

The null hypothesis therefore is: that those changes we observe are due to natural variation. And the NIPCC report tries to invalidate that hypothesis. And the really interesting thing is that after looking at several thousand papers just like the IPCC, we come to the opposite conclusion. One of our conclusions is that climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change: of temperature; of ice-volume; of sea-level, or of extreme weather events.


The problem with what you just said to me about 95% probability is that it is hocus pocus science. In science the phrase 70% probable or 90% probable had definite meanings. They imply controlled trials, they imply numerical quantitative information objectively assessed. If you ask the IPCC they will tell you that when they use the term 95% probable it is based on the expert opinion of a group of people gathered around a table. It is completely wrong to use probability terminology to describe what is albeit an expert opinion.

Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post

So what, says Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s Commissioner for Climate Action. “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

So, it’s come down to this — we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the models — the only source of scary scenarios — are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. It’s an “insurance policy,” Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement.

This is a peculiar species of insurance policy, one where the premiums that we’re being asked to pay total literally trillions of dollars, where the perils that we’re being protected against are ill- or undefined, and where — should any of the perils ever materialize — no benefits will be paid out to us policyholders.

This is also a peculiar species of insurance because the insurance industry has traditionally insured on the basis of past experience — this is the tradecraft of actuaries, who ground their assessment of risks on the likelihood that “actual” events that have occurred will reoccur. But in all of known human history — some 5,000 years — and even what’s known of human pre-history — some 200,000 years — none of the many periods of global warming that we’re aware of has led to human harm.

Judith Curry er også direkte i sin vurdering af, hvor stort dilemmaet er for FN’s klimapanel, fortæller Fox News

Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was even blunter.

IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.

Og tvivlen breder sig midt i medie hysteriet. BBC’s seere blev nogle dage inden rapportens offentliggørelse konfronteret med denne simple sandhed (h/t Watts Up With That)


Og tyske Der Spiegel skrev

For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force.

The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased. A survey conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL found a dramatic shift in public opinion — Germans are losing their fear of climate change. While in 2006 a sizeable majority of 62 percent expressed a fear of global warning, that number has now become a minority of just 39 percent.

One cause of this shift, presumably, is the fact that global warming seems to be taking a break. The average global temperature hasn’t risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists’ computer-simulated predictions.


The researchers’ problem: Their climate models should have been able to predict the sudden flattening in the temperature curve. Offering explanations after the fact for why temperatures haven’t increased in so long only serves to raise doubts as to how reliable the forecasts really are.

Despite this, most Germans have not yet lost their faith in climate research. According to the SPIEGEL survey, 67 percent of Germans still consider the predictions reliable.


Environmental policymakers within the IPCC fear, though, that climate skeptics and industry lobbyists could exploit these scientific uncertainties for their own purposes. The IPCC’s response has been to circle the wagons. To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.

This despite the IPCC’s promise for more transparency after hair-raising mistakes in the last assessment report — from 2007 — emerged three years ago and tarnished the panel’s credibility. One result of that scandal was a commitment to avoiding future conflicts of interest. Yet scientists who previously worked for environmental organizations still hold leading roles in the creation of the IPCC report. This includes at least two “coordinating lead authors” who are responsible for individual chapters of the report.

Times skriver i sin leder bl.a

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an image problem. It appears unsure how to regain the trust of voters and politicians, but not of the science it is supposed to assess. This week’s report is expected to conclude with more confidence than ever that humans have caused more than half the planet’s warming in the past 60 years. This may seem provocative in the circumstances, but the truth is that the real question for scientists now is not whether climate change is happening but how fast. So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate.

Det bliver mere normalt for medierne at fortælle om global opvarmning, med den bemærkning at temperaturen ikke er steget i 17 år. Man vil spørge guruerne, i hvis skrækscenarier man tidligere har betrygget sin verdensopfattelse med og de vil i bedste fald væve og ævle udenom. I værste fald vil de optræde så tåkrummende pinlige at selv ikke medierne kan lade være med at blive ved med at spørge. Den anden Irakkrig huskes jo for Komiske Ali.

2 Kommentarer »

  1. En god artikel at holde op det gode arbejde.

    Comment by Scottish Sceptic — September 29, 2013 @ 11:45 pm
  2. Vejen til Helvede er brolagt med gode intentioner.

    Klimahystaderne minder mest af alt om en ny-religiøs bevægelse. Tænk blot på den behandling, som kætteren Svensmark fik.

    Comment by Hr. Naturli' — October 2, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress