« Time to Live Forever? | Main | Sustainability Quantified (updated 9oct13) »

25 September 2013



OK,, who will be the first to play " the issue is settled" card?
Or " The majority of scientists have agreed".
But in the mean time the EPA is working to close power plants, even CNG power plants will need to meet even more stringent regulations.
Ca. has it's foot on the throttle and is pushing it's carbon tax
full steam ahead. ( I can smell what they are burning to make that steam
in Sac here in PV.)

On another note,, Political signage season is almost upon us. Stock up
on trail and game cameras. From what I have found the Feral Leftist has started early in tearing down "political statements" they don't care for. Even law enforcement is getting in on the action.( maybe not here yet, but that could change too)More than one has been photographed damaging political signs. One supporting the 2ND Amendment in particular.
Lets see how fast we can bag our limit. I have my own prime hunting ground staked out.
After a few get caught, just wait for the cry for hidden cameras to
be banned, just like the evil drone mounted kind.


BTW,,, will the new island off the coast of Pakistan be blamed on AGW?
It wouldn't be the first time. I recall MSNBC asking that question
after the meteor blew up in Russia.

Joe Koyote

Using the Inter-Academy Council’s scolding of the IPCC’s sloppy research to impugn climate change science as a whole, could give the impression that the IAC supports your extremist climate change denial views, which they do not. In 2009 the IAC issued a statement on ocean acidification, signed by 70 members, that states the increase in ocean acidity was due to increased carbon dioxide caused by human activities. While the IAC may be questioning the IPCC methodology, they seem not to be questioning the validity of human caused climate change.

George Rebane

JoeK 611pm - "... your extremist climate change denial views, ..." Wow!

BTW, "increase in ocean acidity" does not equal climate change. Your IAC citation is moot on AGW, but does typify the reasoning brought to bear by the Left on the subject.

Joe Koyote

BTW, "increase in ocean acidity" does not equal climate change." If the increase in ocean acidity is due to, as the IAC claims, increased CO2 levels caused by human activity, isn't that an effect of climate change? Isn't increased CO2 a purported symptom of climate change?

And yes, your views on climate change are only held among a very small percentage of earthlings, and practically zero climatologists. Trying to paint climate change as a collectivist conspiracy of some sort to take away our freedoms rather than a significant global problem than needs to be addressed is, in my opinion, an extreme viewpoint.

Todd Juvinall

The extremist views of people like JoeK are being exposed every day now by the brave men and women scientists telling the truth. Only the rent seekers of government money are telling the lies. I have exposed the hoax since the early nineties and now many people, actually a majority, are climax realists and not believers in the hoaxers like Joe. Truth does will out thank God.

George Rebane

JoeK 745pm - Sorry Joe, neither atmospheric concentration of CO2 nor the pH of seawater are parameters that characterize climate. And you have the causal sequence backward to torpedo your own argument - climate change causes atmospheric CO2 increases?! - I thought all you guys were arguing the other way around. Isn't that why you've passed all the rules, regulations, and laws to limit CO2 emissions? Very strange.

I've listed here the growing numbers of scientists qualified to evaluate IPCC's conclusions, and moreover, to evaluate the policies designed to reverse the purported climate calamity. (I myself am qualified to evaluate large scale computer model design and performance in the prediction of large scale complex system dynamics, and, as the data shows, the government sponsored modelers are suffering from a severe case of hubristic grant writing.) For an update go to Anthony Watts blog (link in right margin). Only a science naif would say that 'the debate is over'.


Gosh I was wondering when you guys would get around to this...the whole denial industry has been gearing up for the release on the 27th for weeks!


Newspapers are actually casting a wary eye on the IPCC this time around. Even the LA Times.
"This unpredicted hiatus just reflects the fact that we don't understand things as well as we thought," said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder and vocal critic of the climate change establishment. "Now the IPCC finds itself in a position that a science group never wants to be in. It's in spin management mode."

Pielke also is getting air on NPR. What is the world coming to?

George Rebane

Only the ignorant and the perfidious have proclaimed that manmade global warming is a certainty. Sadly, they live among us and vote.


Once again, putting words put in mouths here. No reasonable scientist is saying AGW is a 100% certainty, there is always some level of uncertainty. The point is that the level of uncertainty is so small that it is perfidy, not to mention ignorance, self-indulgence and irresponsibility to do nothing.

Todd Juvinall

Read Vaclav Klaus.

George Rebane

stevenfrisch 848am - Not at all Steve. The attributed and now increased probability of 95% that AR5 will report is an admittedly and purely subjective assessment. There is no objective or scientific basis for it. It flies on the hubris of government (sponsored) elites and the ignorance of the sheeple.

Your simplistic use of "denial" is part and parcel of the hubris. You purposely mischaracterize the skeptics (I am one) who can show that the evidence is not there to support the confidence levels in AGW that call for the adopted and contemplated public policy. And most certainly there is no evidence that we know what to do to mitigate AGW were it a significant contributor to climate change. We simply do not know the transfer function of the earth's atmosphere, beginning with the carbon cycle. But then, I and many others have pointed this out for years.

Joe Koyote

George 8:02 --"neither atmospheric concentration of CO2 nor the pH of seawater are parameters that characterize climate." Perhaps, depending on how one scientifically defines climate. However, increases in CO2, again according to the IAC not me, cause increases in ocean acidity. Therefore, if the increase in CO2 is the result of human activity, again as the IAC claims, and the oceans are becoming more acidic as a result (as the IAC claims), you can call it what you want, but the point remains the same, human activity is causing harmful changes in the planet's ecosystems and this needs to be addressed not denied or ignored. Of course, it is easy to be a naysayer when it is not going to effect us directly, as most of the people in this room will be dead in another decade or two, but not our children and grandchildren and it is they who will pay the price for the politically motivated bullcrap that seems to dominate most climate change discussions.


Mr. KKB: "Of course, it is easy to be a yeasayer..."

Fixed it for you. L

George Rebane

JoeK 1048am - Now we've reversed causality and expanded the scope to "the planet's ecosystems". Good enough. But please be advised that this increase in scope also increases the scope of our ignorance, for we know even less about the planet's ecosystems and their complex interactions.

The seminal error in all this is that the scientifically light AGW 'yeasayers' (thank you L) fail to realize that we know little to nothing about the effect of our nostrums on such ecosystems - the problem of 'that which is unseen'. But we have a very good idea already about their effects on our socio-economic systems, and none of that has so far been good.


The AGW gang have come up with an excuse to where all the heat has gone.
" Uh,,, the oceans absorbed it... Ya.. That's what happened, you can take our word on that."
Joe needs to get with the program. Break out the Tums Joe, before you read this.


Here is another swift kick to "South" of the belt line for
the unholy church of East Anglia U, and Minister Al Gore.
This state sponsored religion that all of us are being forced
by law to abide by needs to end.
Just where are the separation of church and state people when we need them? They love holding up that sign in every parade ( Democrat float) " Freedom FROM religion". I guess that doesn't apply to the one they have been forcing down our throat with the help of government.

Joe Koyote

"But please be advised that this increase in scope also increases the scope of our ignorance, for we know even less about the planet's ecosystems and their complex interactions." Very true, which, to my thinking, should motivate people to err on the side of caution rather than risk irreversible harm. This is especially true of polluting the natural environment. At what point does polluted drinking water come into play, or poisoned soil, or any other dangerous substance? Do we, as a society, wait until we have water shortages before we act to prevent water pollution or other similar situations?

George Rebane

JoeK 144pm - It sure appears that you didn't understand anything that I said in my 802pm, 927am, and 1131am. I think I've shot my wad with you on this.


Et tu, Reuters? Courtesy of Voice of America, no less:

"Climate Change Stars Fade"


Russ Steele

JK you need to update your science on the impact of CO2.

Elevated water temperature and higher CO2 boosts growth of key sea star species

Washington, June 2 ,2009 (ANI): A new research by zoologists has indicated that elevated water temperatures and heightened concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) can dramatically increase the growth rate of a keystone species of sea star.

The study, by zoologists at the University of British Columbia (UBC), is one of the first to look at the impact of ocean acidification on marine invertebrates that don’t have a large calcified skeleton or external shell, and challenges current assumptions about the potential impact of climate change on marine species.

In the lab, UBC researchers, led by Rebecca Gooding, manipulated water temperatures and CO2 levels in sea water tanks containing juvenile Purple Ochre Sea Stars, a species found along much of North America’s Pacific Coast.

An increase in temperature of just three degrees and doubling of CO2 concentrations enabled the sea stars to grow almost twice as fast as they normally would over a period of ten weeks.

“This means the sea stars could potentially reach adulthood in about half the time it would typically take-and consume more mussels, their main diet, at much higher rates,” said Gooding, a PhD student in the Department of Zoology working under the supervision of UBC Assistant Professor Christopher Harley.

At the end of the period, sea stars reared in warmer, more acidic waters weighed 17 grams, compared to control sea stars that weighed an average of only 11 grams.

In contrast, existing studies suggest that an increase in temperature and CO2 levels hinder growth in most species studied so far-usually more calcified species.

Michael Anderson

Precautionary Principle vs. "Let 'r Rip" Principle.

You decide.


Well today is the day, and in the spirit of the day deniers will be pulling out all the stops to try to discredit the findings of the IPCC.

A prime example exists in the main text above written by George.

George says, "the InterAcademy Council identified "significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC's assessment process." It said "significant improvements" were necessary..."

While it may indeed be true that the IAC made those statements, they are a rather typical statement from a body peer reviewing another bodies work, since the purpose of peer review is to use constructive criticism to improve processes. George leaves the reader, the wide body of scientists, scholars and serious students of public policy who grace his pages and read his Olympian pronouncements, with the impression that the IAC does not agree with the IPCC findings.

What George fails to mention is that in numerous reports issued by the IAC they acknowledge the existence of AGW, and propose mitigation and adaptation measures, many of which are exactly THE SAME MEASURES the IPCC recommends.

For example, this quote from their report on the health co-benefits of addressing climate change: "Climate change poses a significant threat to human health. This threat can be decreased by mitigating its causes, particularly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and adapting to its impacts."


Or this quote from their report on tropical forests and climate change:

"Tropical forests and the soils beneath them provide one of the world’s largest terrestrial carbon stores but are being degraded and deforested at the average rate of 8-15 million hectares per year. About 1.5 Gt of carbon, equivalent to 17% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sources, is released due to these activities each year. Undisturbed tropical forests provide a natural carbon capture and storage function – sequestering the equivalent of approximately 15% (1.3 Gt) of global anthropogenic carbon emissions annually. The preservation of this free service should be as high a priority in climate mitigation strategies as the development of expensive carbon capture and storage and bioenergy technologies.


I am wondering if George would be willing to source his statements from the IAC instead of pointing to an interpretation of it found in the Wall Street Journal, so the scholars here can read them in their entirety and original context?

I would encourage everyone here to go look at the IAC reports and read their ideas, particularly their "Questions and Answers About Climate Change". If you trust the IAC as a source, rather than cherry picking a fragment of a line from a statement, you all will be joining our army of climate change activists working to reverse the threat and mitigate impacts at the local, regional, state, national and global level.

If not you can just stay here and talk to yourselves.

Todd Juvinall

There is no credibility to the report now that the underlying lies from these grant seeking "scientists" are exposed. It was always a political endeavor not a science one. So, you libs can sit around your duralog fires and sing kumbaya to each other. No one with a brain is listening.


Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 September 2013 at 08:57 AM

I note, not a single refutation of any of the FACTS I posted. Just more meaningless jabber. But Todd is right about one thing, no one with a brain is listening here!


Just more meaningless jabber.

So says the west coast distributor of "meaningless jabber"!

Admit it Mikey it's all about the revenue ...keeping post docs, bureaucrats and sustainability guys employed. Good luck trying to stop the Indians, Brazilians and Chinese from emitting giga tons of CO2......they're not listening to you...... and they're certainly not the frightened ignoramuses that reliably vote TEAM BLUE to save the environment.

George Rebane

The Summary for Policy Makers of IPCC's AR5 is linked in the 27sep13 update to this post.

My position as an AGW skeptic (known to the Left as "denier") remains unchanged - the IAC's position withstanding. I have seen nothing from the published results that changes the detailed concerns I have outlined in RR (and others have reported elsewhere) about AGW, especially considering mankind's ability to beneficially mitigate any changes in earth's climate.

Note that I don't use the bullshit phrase 'climate change' to describe what the central planners mean when they refer to anthropogenic global warming, which is their excuse for laying new strictures on society and individual liberties. They changed AGW to 'climate change' for the bamboozle effect - 'manmade global warming' or even 'global warming' wasn't selling too well given the daily evidence and the recent record. No one denies that climate is changing - always has, always will.


Once again, James "Gaia" Lovelock on what senior IPCC scientists say in private:

"The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. "

They're now up to 95% certain they aren't just blowing smoke up our arses. That's an estimate of faith, not a reasoned estimate of error, especially since all of the AR4-blessed models have grossly overestimated warming.


Admit it Mikey it's all about the revenue ...

Oops....my bad! That should have been "Stevie" as the west distributor of meaningless jabber!

My apologies to all concerned.

Todd Juvinall

Now that the IPCC has admitted a cooling for the last 15 years, you would think they would claim victory. All their concerns and subsequent provisions and laws to curtail AGW seem to have worked. So why are they continuing? Oh, now it is ocean acidity. More rent seekers like the brainless sycophant from Truckee need support. Too funny.


What did we hear last year? or the year before that?? " It will be the worst hurricane season on record! There will be more of them! More will make landfall!" Uhhh,,, What happened? I bet I could get a better weather computer model down at Staples.
All from the same coop of chicken littles.
The way they were fear mongering, you would think the East Coast maps
would need a full make over by now.


The Germans are down to only 39% fearing global warming, down from 62% in 2006.

The basic problem the scaremongers have is this...

Michael Anderson

Living in a dream state. Amazing.

This one will help you out of the morass: http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame.html

Michael Anderson

One more: http://vimeo.com/74779709


There is great art in being profound with a minimum of words, but Mike (12:19), give it up; you just don't have the knack.

Roy Spencer put the IPCC AR5 in a proper perspective: "We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations." So did Judith Curry:"Oh, my aching head", and "The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me."

Yes, they are both climate scientists, with Curry being the chair of the department at Georgia Tech.

Reality, what a concept.


Josh, the semi-official cartoonist to the skeptic side, created a handy guide to the Latin terms for the arguments made by climate alarmists:


Then there's Lindzen, emeritus professor of Meteorology at MIT :
"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

Mike Anderson, regarding "shame", don't use big words you obviously don't understand.

Michael Anderson

One last comment is required apparently, to sooth the savage "on the spectrum."

Someone vigorously scratching themselves in a dank alleyway, wearing no clothing, speaking obviously to the incessant voices in his head, wrote: "Mike Anderson, regarding 'shame,' don't use big words you obviously don't understand."

"Shame" is not a big word. Five letters. But your confused mind--coupled with your eyes cast downward, slack posture and lowered head--give you away. "Do the work, man!" as they say. Yes, do the hard work.


George Rebane

I see that the AGW debate among the true believers and skeptics has again assumed its traditionally stable locus.


You got it, George. MA didn't even get past the obligatory argumentum ad hominem this time.

In the bad old days, to be scientifically literate, it was expected to actually study science. In some quarters all one need do now is spout the IPCC party line and you've demonstrated your alignment with science.

The good news today is that even the Chronicle buried the IPCC release in small type on the bottom left of page 3.

Mandersonation, you are shameless.


A pop culture reference mandersonation missed was this gem from Erin Brockovich:

"Trust? You want me to trust you? Do me a favor, Ed, don't use big words you don't understand."

Shame, trust, even truth. MA, those really are big words.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad