|
Tag Archives: ipcc
British government rebuked for global warming ads with false warning of extreme weather
Scare tactic newspaper advertisements from Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have been banned by a government advertising watchdog agency. Two ads in a series which used child nursery rhymes to warn about the purported dangers of manmade climate change were found to have unsubstantiated claims in them.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) reviewed the ads after receiving more than 900 complaints from British citizens – the most complaints it received on any ad last year.
The two offending ads were based on the nursery rhymes of ‘Jack and Jill’ and ‘Rub a Dub Dub’ and warned of the effects of extreme weather, a claim which has long been disproven.
Without a background in climate science, the ASA relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) reports to determine the accuracy of the ads. In its conclusion, the ASA said the ads failed to meet code based on a lack of substantiation, truthfulness and their environmental claims.
It was the definitive statement that the severe weather events will happen that caused the ASA to take action as they are presented as if there is no doubt.
Al Gore reappears – Says errors in climate science are irrelevant
Former Vice President Al Gore had been conspicuously absent from the public eye recently. Following on the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit and new revelations of errors in key climate science reports, the Nobel Laureate was nowhere to be found. On Sunday he returned with an op-ed in the New York Times discussing the ‘attacks’ on the manmade climate change theory.
As is the norm for his work, Gore as always takes the opportunity to use over-the-top language to push for action against what he describes as an “unimaginable calamity” that will be visited on the earth. He used the liberal ‘Old Gray Lady’ to discuss his thoughts on the errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) work, the Climategate email scandal and took jabs at news organizations like FOX News.
In recent weeks numerous errors in the IPCC’s seminal AR4 report have been discovered. Statements of disappearing Himalayan glaciers, rain forests threatened by global warming, loss of mountain ice and more have been shown to be grossly exaggerated at best or patently false at worst. Further, dozens of citations in the work come from political and activist sources, not scientific research. All of this in what is supposed to be the ‘gold standard’ of research from which leaders are supposed to draw conclusions.
Gore only concedes two of the many errors – the one concerning Himalayan glaciers and another comical one about the Netherlands finding itself flooded. He says science will “never be completely free of mistakes” and says that “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.”
Few would argue that science is perfect in any area of study. However, many would simply expect that if drastic measures are to be taken to combat the purported threat of manmade climate change, the science should be sound before jumping in.
U.N. announces independent review of climate agency
Faced with falling public confidence in climate science, the United Nations announced it would conduct a review of its climate arm, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The panel’s work has come under heavy fire in recent months and its leader, Rajendra Pachauri, now is lacking support from international climate ministers themselves.
Dozens of errors have been discovered in the IPCC’s seminal AR4 report in recent weeks. Claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers, threatened Amazonian rain forests and more have all been discredited. The report which was supposed to be a shining example of peer reviewed science cited dozens of questionable sources from climate advocacy groups.
At a meeting held by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in Bali, ministers recognized the many errors and are seeking to reassure the world their science is sound. Privately, ministers have expressed embarrassment at the errors and frustration at the handling of the issues by Pachauri.
Nick Nuttall, UNEP spokesman, told reporters that details of the review would be announced next week. The makeup of the group “will be senior scientific figures,” he said. “I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October. The report will go there for adoption.”
In a private meeting with the governing council, Pachauri did little to reassure them of his ability to lead the panel going forward. He expressed ‘regret’ for the errors but did not apologize, adding to the frustration of the leaders. The IPCC’s leader further only admitted to the Himalayan glacier error calling the dozens of others ‘misunderstandings.’
Questions arise about U.N. climate panel’s glacier retreat claims
Just three years ago, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the stark claim that it was “very likely” that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. In a blow to its credibility, the IPCC was forced to acknowledge this week that the assertion was incorrect despite being oft repeated by its leaders.
The claim was contained in the IPCC’s seminal “AR4” report that was issued in 2007, the same year the panel and Al Gore won Nobel Peace Prizes for their work combating anthropogenic global warming. The document has served as a guide to policymakers in their efforts to force heavy regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.
The passage in question said, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
Concerns of glacial retreat have been used to provide an exclamation point on the claims that action must be taken immediately to stem man’s purported influence on the climate. According to the IPCC’s methodology, “very likely” is meant to have a 90% or greater chance of occurring. With millions of people in Asia relying on glacial ice for their water supply, the threat was considered to be great.
The claim was said to reference a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a global environmental advocacy group performed in 2005. The WWF’s study in turn cited a 1999 story in New Scientist that contained the claim.
New Scientist had interviewed Dr. Syed Hasnain who was working at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi at the time. No quote is attributed to Hasnain where he mentioned the 2035 date although it appears in the narrative of the story. Earlier this month, Hasnain said that the statement was pure “speculation” and not based in scientific fact.
Dissent about climate change theory highlighted in survey of weathercasters
The American Meteorological Society released the results of a survey of TV meteorologists gauging their opinions on climate change. With a full 50% of respondents disagreeing that man is responsible for global warming, the survey indicates continuing cracking in the ‘consensus’ of the manmade climate change theory.
The survey results, published in the October 2009 issue of “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS), show that a significant portion of meteorologists continue to doubt that man is the driving force of climate change. When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) statement that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagree or strongly disagree. 25% were neutral and a mere 24% said they agreed or strongly agreed.
Similarly, meteorologists doubt the very global climate models on which the anthropogenic global warming theory is based. These models have been shown to be incapable of predicting historical climate changes and their predictions continue to fall outside of scientific norms. Reflecting this, 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with that statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet.” A mere 19% said they agreed with the statement.
Respondents also showed an apparent distrust of many current sources of climate related information. The weathercasters said they wanted “to have access to “independent,” “unbiased,” and “reputable” sources of data and information that present “both sides” of the issue.”
Study: Nature responsible for global warming, not man
A new peer-reviewed study calls into question the so-called ‘consensus’ on the causes of global warming by saying that “Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming.” The new study authored by three Australian scientists and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research says that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) accounts for the vast majority of temperature variability.
Authored by Chris de Freitas (University of Auckland in New Zealand), John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), the new study is sure to cause waves among those debating the causes of global warming. Completely contrary to the mainstream media’s portrayal of climate change, the study says, “little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”
Lead author de Freitas said in a press release, “The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely.”
CNN meteorologist calls manmade global warming theory ‘arrogant’
CNN weather anchor Chad Myers appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight earlier this week and he had had some pretty stark comments on manmade global warming. Calling the theory ‘arrogant’ and declaring that the data on which it is based short-sighted and faulty, Myers adds his voice to a growing chorus of dissenting opinions on the impact man has on the climate and is on the heels of last week’s news of 650 international scientists announcing their disagreement with the manmade global warming claims of the United Nations.
To think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant.
– Chad Myers, CNN Meteorologist
Myers continued:
“Mother Nature is so big. The world is so big. The oceans are so big. I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure. But this is like you said, in your career; my career has been 22 years long. That’s a good career in TV. But in talking about climate, it is like having a car for three days and saying this is a great car. Yes, it was for three days, but maybe in day five, six and seven it won’t be so good. That’s what we’re doing here. We have a hundred years worth of data, not millions of years that the world has been around.”
This was a pretty interesting exchange. Check out the video below. You can also find a transcript here.
| This article was also posted to the Denver Weather Examiner site. Get more local news and information on Examiner.com. |  |