Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[up2u2]

Too slow canuck already debunked mate

Please elaborate

Happy too.

My question to you canuck is why would you publish this image? It is absolutely fraudulent and the assertions it attempts to imply if presented as peer reviewed science would be deemed as being scientific fraud. You got this image from Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier website wattsupwiththat and the actual graphic is from Don Easterbrook discredited ramblings.

Why Climate Scientist Richard Alley doesn't launch legal proceedings is beyond me.

As I mentioned earlier using Greenland Ice Core data to imply what may have been going on globally is flawed. It is 'proxy data' only. If you look at the Vostok Ice Cores over the same period you will find them to be in total conflict with the GISP2 Ice Cores. Easterbrook has basically taken GISP2 data and tacked on GW temperature rises up to 2009. Even the 'Years Before Present (2000)' is a blatant lie. GISP2 data only includes data up to 1885.

Here is an in-depth review explaining why Easterbrook's assertions are misleading. http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Glaciologist Richard Alley is a real genuine guy. Here is a video of him explaining Milankovitch Cycles and just some basics on Climate Change.

Also Dr. Alley has responded specifically to the misuse of his GISP2 Ice Core data:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

I'll break it down for you: 'Absolute unadulterated bunkum'

I have no idea why you persist in disseminating this discredited Climate Denier commentary from 'wattsupwiththat' when you know it has been scientifically discredited without a shred of fact behind its assertions.

[canuckamuck]

Thank you for elaborating. It seems there is disagreement between what Easterbrook believes the timeframe GISP2 data covers and what the In group of climate industry funded scientists says it does. As far as I can see Easterbrook understands that the GISP2 continues past 1885 because it is logged using annual dust layers.

This is what I have read anyhow, since you made your post.

I have no ability to prove or disprove if Easterbrook is correct.

So I guess you can go ahead and put on another cartoon or a video of a dancing cat, once again inferring anyone with a different opinion is retarded. It is the way important topics are discussed these days.

[Somtamme]

Eliotness, agreed the debate over CC is not the issue here, but how to invest in a more more sustainable future. It's not about how to correct unsustainable lifestyles and birth rates, this implies a defeated attitude.

Let me explain by way of example. In the UK for example, there were feed-in tariffs (now scrapped by new administration) for renewable energy sources.

However, there is still a huge potential for hydroelectric schemes, that would provide a much greater return with correct help from Govt's. Hydro schemes however, can have riparian issues (shared ownership) issues, but there are others out there in possible public ownership that are perceived more as a liability, than an asset, but which just need promoting to attract capital investment.

Currently, the U.K. obtains around 20% of its energy from renewable sources, but much much more needs to be done, across all sectors. This should be the focus, for Govt, not bailing out the corruption of failing financial institutions.

[up2u2]

Thank you for elaborating. It seems there is disagreement between what Easterbrook believes the timeframe GISP2 data covers and what the In group of climate industry funded scientists says it does. As far as I can see Easterbrook understands that the GISP2 continues past 1885 because it is logged using annual dust layers.

This is what I have read anyhow, since you made your post.

I have no ability to prove or disprove if Easterbrook is correct.

So I guess you can go ahead and put on another cartoon or a video of a dancing cat, once again inferring anyone with a different opinion is retarded. It is the way important topics are discussed these days.

If you insist. Here is a video by actual scientists involved in producing peer reviewed scientific evidence on GW / CC unlike the sideline, Fossil Fuel funded blogsite commentators that you post from:

I am not saying that Easterbrook is retarded or he isn't entitled to present any foolish theory he wants but when it is shown to be manifestly fraudulent it should not be continued to be published in an effort to deceive people.

The exact same lack of knowledge base Congresswoman Blackburn derives her views from.

[phycokiller]

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

it is of interest, and I think its accepted that normally we would be heading slowly towards the next ice age, it had been cooling for several thousands of years until the human intervention of the last century, I dont see how this contradicts AGW

The Earth has been WARMING not cooling since the last Glaciation some 10K years ago. Earth is currently in an Inter Glacial the next Milankovitch Cycle that would generally take Earth into the next Glaciation is 13K years time. These cycles are VERY weak and effect seasonal shifts more than Global Temperatures they certainly do not have the forcing to overcome elevated greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. So the predicted 70's Ice Age is of no interest to people who understand the science on GW / CC. You also have to be very cautious using the Antarctic Vostok and Greenland Ice core data as these are 'proxy indicators' and have to be merged with many other factors to extrapolate the data to interpret Global temperature / CO₂ anomalies.

no it hasnt, its been cooling the last 6000 years or so

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D

[eliotness]

Eliotness, agreed the debate over CC is not the issue here, but how to invest in a more more sustainable future. It's not about how to correct unsustainable lifestyles and birth rates, this implies a defeated attitude.

Let me explain by way of example. In the UK for example, there were feed-in tariffs (now scrapped by new administration) for renewable energy sources.

However, there is still a huge potential for hydroelectric schemes, that would provide a much greater return with correct help from Govt's. Hydro schemes however, can have riparian issues (shared ownership) issues, but there are others out there in possible public ownership that are perceived more as a liability, than an asset, but which just need promoting to attract capital investment.

Currently, the U.K. obtains around 20% of its energy from renewable sources, but much much more needs to be done, across all sectors. This should be the focus, for Govt, not bailing out the corruption of failing financial institutions.

Sorry my friend but I can't see how you can invest in a more sustainable future without correcting unsustainable lifestyles and birthrates. This is not a defeatist attitude as you suggest but rather a realistic one.

I do agree with your comment on the demise of feed-in tariffs, such a pity.

Hydroelectric schemes are great, but only if you have the right geology in remote areas. So Norway great, Scotland in a few places, Switzerland no because every valley is populated.

Tidal power is potentially massive but avoided by most governments. Not sure why, perhaps you can explain.

Wind power has helped but its efficiency is poor and hundreds of windmills are, quite frankly a blight on the landscape.

I do also agree that the current governments are a problem, but they are all the same, votes count. Much more needs to be done to address these problems, e.g. ISO 14001 accreditation shouldn't be voluntary it should be compulsory. That would be a start. Actually the ISO 14000 series has many standards that, if followed would make a difference.

[thaibeachlovers]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

What an inane post. Nobody is suggesting we all move back into caves but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to do something about it.

Practical suggestions then. So far, the only thing governments do is put taxes on things.

I suggested video conferencing instead of flying to Paris. That would save a few zillion tonnes of CO2. What do you do to "do something about it"? I use a small car as little as possible, and don't go to sports games.

[thaibeachlovers]

Eliotness, agreed the debate over CC is not the issue here, but how to invest in a more more sustainable future. It's not about how to correct unsustainable lifestyles and birth rates, this implies a defeated attitude.

Let me explain by way of example. In the UK for example, there were feed-in tariffs (now scrapped by new administration) for renewable energy sources.

However, there is still a huge potential for hydroelectric schemes, that would provide a much greater return with correct help from Govt's. Hydro schemes however, can have riparian issues (shared ownership) issues, but there are others out there in possible public ownership that are perceived more as a liability, than an asset, but which just need promoting to attract capital investment.

Currently, the U.K. obtains around 20% of its energy from renewable sources, but much much more needs to be done, across all sectors. This should be the focus, for Govt, not bailing out the corruption of failing financial institutions.

Without reducing global population, there is no possibility of reducing pollution to acceptable levels.

If governments wanted to reduce pollution, they could bring in free public transportation powered by electricity in cities and quadruple the cost of petrol, but they won't, because they are all talk and no action.

Even building nuclear power plants would make a difference in real terms, but they don't want to, like the Japanese, who won't restart their reactors, but use oil generation instead.

[eliotness]

. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

I think you have confused Climate Scientists with Meteorologists.

Please check the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "Meteorology", I think it's you who are confused.

eliot really? A qualified Meteorologist deals in the forecasting of short to medium term specific WEATHER conditions. A Climate Scientist deals with average weather for an extensive regional zone averaged out over substantial periods of time. If you want the weather forecast for a city or small regional area for tomorrow or a 'guestimate' for next week you will be guided by a Meteorologist. Two very different disciplines.

W

Goodness me eliot.

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

[eliotness]

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Paris France Nov. 30th - Dec. 11th is probably one of the most crucial Global Government meeting in respect of addressing GW / CC since the Kyoto Protocol 18 years ago. Nations are expected to enter their respective, legally binding CO₂ emissions reduction schemes and targets. To suggest that these crucial meetings between Governments and Nations around the World can be 'skyped' in, is amusing. The Carbon 'footprint' of this meeting would have absolutely ZERO effect on Global CO₂ emissions. The various commitments of Nations Governments will dictate the extent of GW / CC over the next 15 years. The higher the CO₂ emissions targets the higher the amount of GW and the higher degree of CC and the higher the potential of extreme weather events, reduction in Polar caps, higher sea levels and greater Ocean acidification. So these effects can certainly be managed if based on the scientific research. Far from meaningless.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is the 'Merchants of Doubt' like Congresswoman Blackburn will be ramping up the GW / CC misinformation in an attempt to protect Fossil Fuel polluters from being effected.

"....BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence......."

As someone who accepts the scientific evidence of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

I hate to disappoint you, but with all the conflicts going on in Syria, Iraq, Afgan, Ukraine and the threat from Iran, all the problems with mass migration, the global economy and much more, do you really honestly believe the current politicians will do anything concrete. If you think so, then again I say, very seriously, with no humour this time, "go outside and smell the coffee".

[up2u2]

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

"....Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess"...."

I think this topic is beyond you eliot. Climate Scientists do not predict the weather next week. Meteorologists do. Maybe you need to check a dictionary.

meteorologist

ˌmiːtɪəˈrɒlədʒɪst/

noun

noun: meteorologist; plural noun: meteorologists

an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster.

[thaibeachlovers]

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Paris France Nov. 30th - Dec. 11th is probably one of the most crucial Global Government meeting in respect of addressing GW / CC since the Kyoto Protocol 18 years ago. Nations are expected to enter their respective, legally binding CO₂ emissions reduction schemes and targets. To suggest that these crucial meetings between Governments and Nations around the World can be 'skyped' in, is amusing. The Carbon 'footprint' of this meeting would have absolutely ZERO effect on Global CO₂ emissions. The various commitments of Nations Governments will dictate the extent of GW / CC over the next 15 years. The higher the CO₂ emissions targets the higher the amount of GW and the higher degree of CC and the higher the potential of extreme weather events, reduction in Polar caps, higher sea levels and greater Ocean acidification. So these effects can certainly be managed if based on the scientific research. Far from meaningless.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is the 'Merchants of Doubt' like Congresswoman Blackburn will be ramping up the GW / CC misinformation in an attempt to protect Fossil Fuel polluters from being effected.

"....BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence......."

As someone who accepts the scientific evidence of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

The Carbon 'footprint' of this meeting would have absolutely ZERO effect on Global CO₂ emissions.

How can you say that? Multiply the number of persons attending from overseas with the amount of jet fuel they use and their "footprint" will be substantial. Unless of course they intend to use magic carpets.

Why could they not video conference? I suspect the real reason they want to go in person is for the food, the booze and the sex.

While I don't accept the scientific "evidence" is proven one way or another, I also think that even if it is man made, nothing will be done that makes any difference, no matter how many conferences they hold.

You say The higher the CO₂ emissions targets the higher the amount of GW and the higher degree of CC and the higher the potential of extreme weather events, reduction in Polar caps, higher sea levels and greater Ocean acidification. So these effects can certainly be managed if based on the scientific research.

How can the effects be "managed" without reducing carbon production? Ergo we need to stop using cars and flying to make a difference, but no government will do that.

I am certainly ready to listen to any suggestion that would reduce carbon production without limiting car use and flying, but so far there haven't been any realistic suggestions.

[RickBradford]

It seems like most people are "ignoring the Pope on climate."

August 25, 2015: Washington Post: "For Pope Francis’s D.C. visit, environmental rally of up to 200K planned’ – Several environmental groups are planning a major climate rally that will draw hundreds of thousands to the National Mall on Sept. 24, the day Pope Francis speaks to Congress and is expected to address the public afterwards.

September 24, 2015: "Pope’s Visit To D.C. Inspires Hundreds To Rally For Climate’ Rally – ‘On Thursday morning — as Pope Francis prepared to make history by addressing Congress — hundreds of activists gathered on the National Mall.

That's the eternal Green/Left for you -- the warm glow of righteous narcissistic fantasy always gets replaced by uncomfortable reality.

[Linky]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

[eliotness]

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

"....Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess"...."

I think this topic is beyond you eliot. Climate Scientists do not predict the weather next week. Meteorologists do. Maybe you need to check a dictionary.

meteorologist

ˌmiːtɪəˈrɒlədʒɪst/

noun

noun: meteorologist; plural noun: meteorologists

an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster.

Your assertion sir is slander and the worse sort of personal attack. You have no idea of my qualifications and experience and you refuse to read the Oxford English Dictionary.

Please Moderators block this individual who is reverting to insulting personal comments rather than staying on topic.

[eliotness]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK I agree with you, now please quantify the part of the cause humans are responsible for and how that is to be addressed.

[Linky]

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

"....Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess"...."

I think this topic is beyond you eliot. Climate Scientists do not predict the weather next week. Meteorologists do. Maybe you need to check a dictionary.

meteorologist

ˌmiːtɪəˈrɒlədʒɪst/

noun

noun: meteorologist; plural noun: meteorologists

an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster.

Your assertion sir is slander and the worse sort of personal attack. You have no idea of my qualifications and experience and you refuse to read the Oxford English Dictionary.

Please Moderators block this individual who is reverting to insulting personal comments rather than staying on topic.

Unless you were part of the hundreds of scientists that reported to the UN after considering thousands and thousands of pages of evidence then I dont believe your qualifications matter.

The deniers provided all their info, it was considered. The science is settled.

[up2u2]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK I agree with you, now please quantify the part of the cause humans are responsible for and how that is to be addressed.

The solution is pretty simple to understand. Simply begin to reduce the CO₂ levels to 350ppm by 2030 which will limit the GW to 2^OC and avoids catastrophic CC. A gradual transition to Clean Energy away from Fossil Fuels. So far we have wasted 15 years doing very little. The longer we wait to begin slowly transitioning the faster and more extreme the transition will be required.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post and reply have been removed.

[Linky]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK I agree with you, now please quantify the part of the cause humans are responsible for and how that is to be addressed.

If you are that interested read the report, the eminent scientists made that determination that man is having an effect.

If you do not agree I suggest you provide your credentials to the UN and request they re analyse the thousnds of pages of data so you can add your lone dissenting voice.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Linky

[notmyself]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK I agree with you, now please quantify the part of the cause humans are responsible for and how that is to be addressed.

If you are that interested read the report, the eminent scientists made that determination that man is having an effect.

If you do not agree I suggest you provide your credentials to the UN and request they re analyse the thousnds of pages of data so you can add your lone dissenting voice.

Forget the UN. Everything about 'reason' would have to be thrown in the bin. The entire method we use to discern between fact and fiction would be wrong.

[up2u2]

no it hasnt, its been cooling the last 6000 years or so

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D

Yes over the last 6,000 years the Temperature anomaly does show slight cooling. That is absolutely natural variability. Not a huge problem for humans as the slight cooling over a time frame of 6000 years isn't difficult for us to adapt too. If there was slight warming of 0.4^OC over the next 6000 years that would not be of concern but a massive 6^OC increase in temperature over a short period of 100 years would be catastrophic.

However, from the Antarctic Vostok Ice Core data above you can see the southern Polar Cap combined with other Proxy Data would indicate overall the Earth has warmed since the last combination of Milankovitch Cycles. Caution on that specific graphic, although it looks like CO₂ mirrors perfectly with the change in Temperature Anomaly it actually lags the Milankovitch Cycle by some 800 years. As the Earth gradually warms more greenhouse gases are released slowly (approx. 800 years) increasing the Earth's temperature . It is a very slow process. Also if you compare the Greenland Ice Core GISP2 Ice Core data for the same time frame it would be a little in reverse as the Earth would be changing its 'nod aspect' (Axial Tilt) in relation to the Sun combined with 'shape of orbit' (Eccentricity) and 'Earth wobble' (Precession).

This is just one of the reasons scientists are confident that it is what we are doing that is causing the increase in Global Temperatures as normally increases in CO₂ will lag behind Milankovitch Cycles at the moment CO2 is leading the way.

[pitrevie]

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

"....Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess"...."

I think this topic is beyond you eliot. Climate Scientists do not predict the weather next week. Meteorologists do. Maybe you need to check a dictionary.

meteorologist

ˌmiːtɪəˈrɒlədʒɪst/

noun

noun: meteorologist; plural noun: meteorologists

an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster.

Your assertion sir is slander and the worse sort of personal attack. You have no idea of my qualifications and experience and you refuse to read the Oxford English Dictionary.

Please Moderators block this individual who is reverting to insulting personal comments rather than staying on topic.

Well certainly his request for you to consult a dictionary is correct, I think you are referring to libel not slander.

[Linky]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK I agree with you, now please quantify the part of the cause humans are responsible for and how that is to be addressed.

If you are that interested read the report, the eminent scientists made that determination that man is having an effect.

If you do not agree I suggest you provide your credentials to the UN and request they re analyse the thousnds of pages of data so you can add your lone dissenting voice.

Forget the UN. Everything about 'reason' would have to be thrown in the bin. The entire method we use to discern between fact and fiction would be wrong.

You seem to have the mistaken belief the UN considered the evidence and came to a conclusion. They didnt.

What they did was commission the top scientists of the world to consider all evidence then report the findings.

The only role the UN had was to get all eminent scientists to make a determination then release the report.

[RickBradford]

IPCC reports are not produced by scientists, as a quick look at the IPCC's own process charts clearly demonstrates.

Take AR5, which was finally released in mid-2014. IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay? So that bureaucrats from over 100 countries could haggle for days over every line so that it reflects their own interests, as best as possible.

As an IPCC insider said (answering an internal IPCC survey):

This was an agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments. The political intrigues which appear to be well known on the international scene are popping up again and again. The behaviour of the delegations from individual countries certainly reflects a completely different mindset than my own as a scientist.

Anyone who has not been involved in this process would scarcely believe how this meeting is managed; the expense, the length of the sessions, and the apparent pickiness of some of the discussion would strike many as a very poor way to conduct international business.

IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle.

An insight into the haggling process can be found at http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12581e.html

[up2u2]

"....Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess"...."

I think this topic is beyond you eliot. Climate Scientists do not predict the weather next week. Meteorologists do. Maybe you need to check a dictionary.

meteorologist

ˌmiːtɪəˈrɒlədʒɪst/

noun

noun: meteorologist; plural noun: meteorologists

an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster.

Well certainly his request for you to consult a dictionary is correct, I think you are referring to libel not slander.

A fundamental requirement to begin an understanding of GW / CC is to be able to differentiate between Climate and Weather. As the Dictionary clearly describes a Meteorologist deals in the forecasting of Weather. If you asked a Climate Scientist what the Weather in a City may be during the following week he will refer you to a Meteorologist for the predicted Weather forecast. If you ask a Meteorologist what the expected Climate over the next ten years will be for a particular region in the World he will refer you to a Climate Scientist.

The best example of the misunderstanding between Weather and Climate is Republican Sen. Inhofe when he produced a snowball in the US Senate. What he failed to comprehend is what he had in his hand was Weather NOT Climate or a representation of GW. What he needed to have in his other hand is the one in a thousand year drought on the East Coast of USA, the unprecedented heatwave in India that killed some 1500 people, the record breaking floods in Texas. He also failed to appreciate the severity of the Polar Vortex is the destabilisation of the Arctic Polar Cap caused by GW that produced the snowball he had. It was a clear demonstration of a fundamental 'knowledge gap' required to form a view on GW / CC.

Sen. Inhofe Rep. Oklahoma 1st District

Well I didn't think it was possible to get further Conservative Right Wing than Congresswoman Blackburn but Sen. Inhofe seems to have achieved it. Lets not forget Sen. Inhofe reflects the views of his constituency that is really the only way to be elected.

The good folks of Oklahoma 1st District. (OK-1 on the map)

His 6 year Term ends 2020.

[up2u2]

IPCC reports are not produced by scientists, as a quick look at the IPCC's own process charts clearly demonstrates.

Take AR5, which was finally released in mid-2014. IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay? So that bureaucrats from over 100 countries could haggle for days over every line so that it reflects their own interests, as best as possible.

As an IPCC insider said (answering an internal IPCC survey):

This was an agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments. The political intrigues which appear to be well known on the international scene are popping up again and again. The behaviour of the delegations from individual countries certainly reflects a completely different mindset than my own as a scientist.

Anyone who has not been involved in this process would scarcely believe how this meeting is managed; the expense, the length of the sessions, and the apparent pickiness of some of the discussion would strike many as a very poor way to conduct international business.

IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle.

An insight into the haggling process can be found at http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12581e.html

and you demonstrate precisely why the IPCC is overly cautious in its deliberations. You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

First the IPCC publishes a 'draft report' the reason they do this is so EVERY single global entity can carefully and methodically go through the document and provide feedback. IPCC reports are proving to be extremely scientifically accurate and if anything are deemed to be a little underestimating GW / CC due to political pressures to reduce the need for Governments being forced to act on GW / CC.

Out of some 17,000 peer reviewed Papers confirming AGW 2013 - 2014 there is ONE SINGULAR Paper that rejects AGW. From this the Climate Denier blogasphere totally reject there is a consensus on AGW. 'The jury is still out'

From this ONE SINGULAR unnamed response to the IPCC process the Climate Denier blogasphere reject in its entirety the IPCC report handed down by thousands of scientists.

[RickBradford]

You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

You are free to invent arguments about things I didn't say and then disagree with them. If that's what makes your day. I'm amazed you forgot to accuse me of being paid by Big Oil or having been brainwashed by Fox News.

Politicians like fighting climate change. It appeals to their egos. It casts them as heroes. It’s more gratifying and glamorous to rail against climate change than to spend one’s time balancing the budget or fixing the school system.

[thaibeachlovers]

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK, you believe it, but what are YOU going to do about it? Any ideas? I don't think it's reversible, so I don't feel obliged to do anything I wouldn't do anyway. Reducing pollution is a good thing.

.

BTW your hundreds of scientists haven't come up with any practical suggestions to reverse it.

.

Judging by the rising snow line on the alps of the south island of New Zealand there has been G W since at least 1973.

Whatever, whether it's man made or not, the only thing that counts is what, if anything, governments will do in response.

So far, the only things done are to build some renewable energy structures which account for no more than 10% of requirements and invent/ raise taxes.

The vast majority of the world's population only wants to use more electricity ( don't care how it's generated ) and own a car. They don't give a rat's bottom for anything the UN report says and will ignore it

Edited October 4, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[up2u2]

IPCC reports are not produced by scientists, as a quick look at the IPCC's own process charts clearly demonstrates.

Take AR5, which was finally released in mid-2014. IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay? So that bureaucrats from over 100 countries could haggle for days over every line so that it reflects their own interests, as best as possible.

As an IPCC insider said (answering an internal IPCC survey):

This was an agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments. The political intrigues which appear to be well known on the international scene are popping up again and again. The behaviour of the delegations from individual countries certainly reflects a completely different mindset than my own as a scientist.

Anyone who has not been involved in this process would scarcely believe how this meeting is managed; the expense, the length of the sessions, and the apparent pickiness of some of the discussion would strike many as a very poor way to conduct international business.

IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle.

An insight into the haggling process can be found at http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12581e.html

You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

You are free to invent arguments about things I didn't say and then disagree with them. If that's what makes your day. I'm amazed you forgot to accuse me of being paid by Big Oil or having been brainwashed by Fox News.

Politicians like fighting climate change. It appeals to their egos. It casts them as heroes. It’s more gratifying and glamorous to rail against climate change than to spend one’s time balancing the budget or fixing the school system.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.