Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

22 September 2013

Is The New IPCC Report 'Doomsday' For EnviroNazis?





The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's next report will 'dial back the alarm.'


By Byron York

Talk about bad timing. Last month, environmental activists launched a well-funded new attack on Republican "climate change deniers" in hopes of making global warming a big issue in 2014. But as the campaign gets underway, a new report from the world's leading climate scientists could leave environmentalists on the defensive, and the "deniers" more confident and assertive.

"HOLDING CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ACCOUNTABLE" read the headline of a League of Conservation Voters press release announcing a $2 million barrage of ads aimed at Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, as well as GOP Reps. Mike Coffman, Dan Benishek and Rodney Davis. "We're changing the terms of the climate change debate," said an LCV spokesman. "It's no longer acceptable to be a member of Congress and deny basic science."



'There's no way Congress will consider upending the American economy with far-reaching tax or regulatory schemes on the basis of flawed computer projections about a phenomenon that may or may not require any action at all.'



Organizing for Action, the permanent arm of the Obama campaign, joined in, staging events and running an ad — 'CALL OUT THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS!!!' — targeting House Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Marco Rubio, among others.

The goal is to place opposition to the global warming agenda — heavy environmental regulation, a cap-and-trade or carbon tax program, massive "green energy" expenditures, huge international wealth transfers — outside the realm of polite discussion. But the discussion is about to change.


On Sept. 27, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its fifth report on global warming. Earlier IPCC assessments — the most recent was in 2007 — were the foundation for reams of alarmist reporting. For example, after a 2009 update, the Washington Post ran a story headlined "New Analysis Brings Dire Forecast," reporting that a predicted 6.3-degree Fahrenheit increase in world temperatures "is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change.

That was then. Now, the new IPCC document will "dial back the alarm," in the words of a Wall Street Journal preview. According to the Journal, the report will state that "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007." The computer forecasts used to produce those forecasts, it turns out, were wrong.

The effect could be enormous. If scientists now predict that the earth will warm less, and less quickly, than earlier thought — and also concede that the planet has not warmed at all in the last decade or so — the position of the environmental activists, and groups like Organizing for Action, will be significantly weaker. They'll have a harder time arguing for drastic and immediate action.

The downgrading of the warming threat, writes the Journal, "points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet." It will be hard to argue for a doomsday scenario on the basis of that.

But after more than a decade of increasingly frantic predictions, the activists will not fold their tents and go home. "The climateers have been doing vigorous 'battle space preparation' ahead of the report," says Steven Hayward, a conservative scholar who writes frequently about the politics and science of global warming. "They're priming the media to say 'we're still doomed,' even though the case for doom has been badly eroded over the last couple of years."

Given how deeply the IPCC is invested in the issue — it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007 — there's little doubt the report will give environmental activists at least something to work with. For example, it appears IPCC scientists will declare even more forcefully than before that they are absolutely certain human activity is causing warming. They will repeat previous calls for action against warming on a global scale. There will still be dire warnings.

But the political debate will change. There's no way Congress will consider upending the American economy with far-reaching tax or regulatory schemes on the basis of flawed computer projections about a phenomenon that may or may not require any action at all. The activists can produce as many ads as they want. They can call opponents "deniers" all they like. It just won't work.



SoRo:   Let's take a stroll down Henny Penny Lane:





'October 2008 had the hottest global temperatures on record.'

- James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute Space Studies






FACT:  No, it wasn’t.  In 2007, NASA was forced to correct a serious mathematical error, and "1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.   Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.'



JAMES HANSEN: 'Damn!  Damn!  Damn!  How did I make that mistake?  I truly, truly, truly promise that I didn’t mean to use corrupted Russian data from September.'



'1998 was the hottest year in over a century.'

 
- James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute Space Studies




FACT:  No, it wasn’t.  1934 was.  See above, as well.



HANSEN:  'Slap upside my head!  Slap upside my head!  I really, really, really am telling you the truth when I say that I didn’t intentionally hide the decline and overlook the fact that 5 of the top ten hottest years in the last century -- 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, and 1939 – before jets, SUVs, mass air conditioning, etc.  I swear.  Would I lie to you?'



 



'Global temperatures have continued to rise every year.'
 

- James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute Space Studies





 
FACT:  No, they haven’t...more than 15 years.



HANSEN & GORE:  'Well, we didn’t mean continuously.  Global warming means that there will also be periods of prolonged global cooling.'







'The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.'
 

- James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute Space Studies, 1988





 

FACT:  I can see it.  It’s not.  And, if you really did mean 40 years, that water had better start rising because it actually hasn't changed at all.



HANSEN:  'Um, is anyone else warm?  I’m getting a little warm.  Can someone turn the air down?'




'Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.'


- James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute Space Studies

 




FACT:  No, there's still plenty of water available....tap, fizzy, or specially-made sparkling tap water ... prices for the latter two available upon request.




HANSEN:  ‘Um, I am really, really beginning to feel uncomfortable.  May I get a glass of water, please?’




 


global cooling


 

'The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035.'


-  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report







FACT:  No, they aren’t.  The 'prestigious' IPCC cribbed that hysterical charge from a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report on panda bears (see p.11), which it had palmed from an article  titled "Flooded Out" in the New Scientist magazine (not a journal, but a sort of Popular Mechanics for the DIY science community).  The original article quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming."  The fact that Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal was disregarded, overlooked, obscured, undisclosed, secreted, sequestered, shrouded, and suppressed by the “consensus” of the IPCC.

Professor Syed Hasnain later said the comment was 'speculative' and blamed the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist and is on the record saying, 'the magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures' and 'it is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers.'




GAIAN CULTISTS:  “OK, well, Chairman Pachauri was really, really busy trying to get Harlequin Romances to publish his enviro, smutty bodice-ripper, shag fest, GaianPussyGalore book, “Return to Almora,” so it was just an accident.  OF COURSE, it is correct in spirit, even if it is off by hundreds, if not thousands or millions of years.'



'55% of the Netherlands is underwater.'


- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report






FACT:  Not exactly.  Only 26% is and that land is largely protected by the most sophisticated lock and levee system in the world.



GAIAN CULTISTS:  “Stop being a flat –earther, denier, anti-science, Christian, Fascist hater!”






  'Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.…'


 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report







FACT:  Lie.  Claim based on fraudulent information from the WWF and based upon non-peer-reviewed article written by one green activist and one journalist - neither of which is a scientist - that has been exposed as a fraud.



GAIAN CULTISTS:  "Well, it COULD happen…Besides, you just hate the poor, oppressed minorities of the world!!!"


 



'The polar bears are becoming extinct.'


- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report






FACT:  No, they aren’t. The population has increased. Hint: Next time that you see a polar bear on a small piece of ice, remember that polar bears can swim and like to sun themselves.



VAN JONES & CHARLES MONNETT:  'You are just a racist!  If we were talking about the Black Bear or the Brown Bear, you would be singing a different tune.  Oh, wait…'






'Sea levels are rising and will cause islands to disappear (if they don’t capsize first because of the American military).'


- South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1999






FACT:  Sea levels have fallen between 2004 and 2010.


JAMES, MICHAEL, IPCC:  'You lie! La-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you!'





'Children just aren’t going to know what snow is...within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.'


- Dr David Viner, Senior Research Scientist and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, 2000






FACT:  No.  This statement was made before one of the worst winters in 100 years, which was followed by the second coldest winter (2010-11) since records began in 1659.  The chilliest on record was 1683/84, when the average was -1.17C and the River Thames froze over for two months.  In Europe, the 2010-11 winter was predicted to have been the worst in 1,000 years.



GAIAN CULTISTS:  'Liars, Damn Deniers, and Statistics!'


 
'Global warming means no snow or cold weather in DC.'

  

  -  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., September 2008






FACT:  That was 15 months before DC was frozen under tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of snow.



RFK:  'But, global warming means MORE snow, not less, silly!  By the way, dude, do you know where I can score some really good smack?  Did I ever tell you about how I used to grow eco-friendly poppies out on The Compound?'






'We have less than 100 months to stop climate change disaster.'

- Prince Charles, March 2009






FACT:  The imagined catastrophe he hopes to avoid is otherwise due in July 2017 and he obviously didn't realise what a disaster that President Barack Obama would turn out to be.  If Obama is reelected, the world won't have to wait until July 2017 for Armageddon.