THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) commissioned a review of its processes and procedures with a report handed down in October 2010, but only just now made publically available at its website.[1]
I’ve only just started to examine the 100 plus page document, but my first impressions are that finally we have an official report that may impose a level of accountability on the IPCC.
OK. I’m expecting too much!
Well at least the report highlights past errors and acknowledges that they have been significant.
The section on “Evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty” includes comment that:
Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left, incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented…
Assigning probabilities to an outcome makes little sense unless researchers are confident in the underlying evidence…
The Working Group II Summary for Policy makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of ‘high confidence’ that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put in perspective, or are difficult to refute. The Committee believes it is not appropriate to assign probabilities to such statements.
The section on “Governance and management” includes comment that:
The IPCC does not have a conflict-of-interest or disclosure policy for its senior leadership (i.e. IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), Working Group Co-chairs and authors, or the staff of the Technical Support Units…
The lack of a conflict –of-interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals…
Questions about potential conflict of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s services as an advisor to, and the board member of, for-profit energy companies, and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.
The report includes a case study on “Himalaya glaciers” and “the performance of the IPCC’s report review process” (page 22). The assessment refers to this “error” in the fourth assessment report by Working Group II and how the IPCC review process “failed”.
The IPCC should have released this report when it was first handed down in October 2010. Now, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must report on it! But I’m not holding my breath.
****
1. Climate Change assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, October 2010 by InterAcademy Council. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
One of the topics discussed is “transparency” – not much displayed by the IPCC in keeping this under wraps until they responded to it.
“Uncertainty is characterized and communicated by describing how much is known about a topic (i.e., the quality and nature of the evidence available) and the probability that a particular event will occur.”
I’d say it should be “characterized and communicated” by focussing on what is uncertain, not what is known. Uncertainty is not restricted to predictions, as this statement implies, but also (mainly?) to collected data, the analysis of that data, and conclusions drawn.
“Each key conclusion in the Summaries for Policymakers is accompanied by a judgment about its uncertainty.”
No, it’s accompanied by a judgement on its certainty. Nit picking, maybe, but let’s get it right.
AR5 will be nit picked for errors from the beginning of the official release, but I’m sure this time the IPCC will be fully aware of this baseball bat response.
I’m sure there will be many Donna Laframboises out there just waiting for the opportunity to constructively put in the boot.
Any AR4 kid’s stuff and delusional nonsense will be exposed and struck down within the first few weeks of release.
What’s the bet this study won’t be in AR5. Could our slight warming of the past 100+ years of 0.7c be even less? What about only 0.4c.
Can’t wait for the MSM to loudly trumpet this within the next 24 hours all around the world. NOT holding my breath.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/new-paper-blames-about-half-of-global-warming-on-weather-station-data-homgenization/#more-67591
Neville of course nit-picking is nit-picking isn’t it ! The extent of ill will revealed !
Surely the main issue is whether the broad findings are broadly the best analysis of the science. As a planetary citizen that’s what you want to know. Not stunts and mis-direction from the usual sideline players.
The IPCC is a highly complex task run on volunteer labor.
But any complex international undertaking can always benefit from improved practices and more transparency.
Alpha Centauri Beta to Luke – They are to be called “fellow earthians”. Keep telling them a CO2 tax is a good thing until the mother ship arrives – we have put extra super in the tank so we can get there before the next election. In the meantime continue with the propaganda and dont reveal your true identity until we arrive.
IPCC – a bunch of so called “scientists” sit down and “agree” on the liklihood of something happening and then present it to the public as a “probability”.
This is politics not science.
It was Dr Pachauri who responded to the “galciergate” claims by saying critics were engaging in “voodoo science” – and then it turns out the ctitics were correct.
The IPCC has been producing “voodoo science”.
Improved Practices – improved propaganda you mean. Games up Luke – the scam is drawing to a close – but AGW zombies will keep it going and cause as much damage as you can with your scorched earth policy (a bit like Gillard linking AGW to tax cuts to make it harder to unpick – but it will be unpicked – and eventually become a bad memory).
Mindless sp – simply mindless. What a bellicose collection of stupid comments. I’ve been hearing games up for 20 years.
“The IPCC is a highly complex task run on volunteer labor.”
Rubbish, most if not all are doing the work whilst retaining their govt salaries or are being subsidised by their employe,r as is the case with Railway Engineer, porn producer, and serial obfuscator and incompetent, Chairman Pachauri.
I bet Karoly and his mates dont do it for altruistics reason’s
Luke – a bellicose collection of stupid comments.
What was bellicos about the comments? War like, war mongering? ….. bellicose!!!
My dear fellow Earthian, I think you are stressed – using the wrong words (bellicose .. for gawds sake).
And as for hearing games for 20 years – I guess thats what they do on Alpha Centauri, or perhaps you just cant spell.
By the way – is Pauchari a volunteer (who works for nothing) – or is he paid by the …. WELL WHO?
sums up their deceit!! Imagine how we’d be if they HAD published it in 2010.
and you still don’t get it!!
GAMES UP Luke.
Luke?
Surely the main issue is whether the broad findings are broadly the best analysis of the science. As a planetary citizen that’s what you want to know.
For your benefit please read this bit again:
Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left, incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented…
Assigning probabilities to an outcome makes little sense unless researchers are confident in the underlying evidence…
What is it we want to know?
Th IPCC admits that the IAC report is right and promises to do better next time.
But what about the trillions that have been wasted as a result of those four dud reports?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20pStqHvE
The western world is prepared to squander its economy on this madness without even a serious discussion and insulting anyone cautious enough to ask for an audit or investigation.
A group of Stanford scientists have predicted that 1300 Japanese will die from Fukushima nuclear contamination.
Predictions were based on climate modelling software.
The IPCC is caught playing a cynical lucrative game and the usual suspects blame the skeptics.
AGW is a mind numbing corrupting belief system.
Thanks, Jennifer
I look forward to your further analysis. It appears that there is a growing tide of dissent now being articulated, as observations of climate (especially temperature, ocean levels and ice volume) are becoming better understood and accessed by more people, together with better understanding of climate in its geological timescale.
Nevertheless, I have been surprised at the barriers to this awareness among the well-educated, including my friends and associates. In the academic arena, these barriers include a narrow concentration within the known physics of the atmosphere and its associated mathematics, with the assumption that the understanding is sufficiently complete, and properly and sufficiently expressed in the climate models. Then we have the consensus trap and its associated chimera of peer review, and claims that the science is settled. In addition, there is the call that only “climatologists” are competent to examine scientific claims. As well, it is career-limiting to oppose, and research funds from a government now committed to this scam will dry up immediately if you do object. Finally, the best action when you can’t or won’t debate the science, is to attack the messenger – “ad hominem” to the fore!
Many of us who are non-scientists, confuse pollution with carbon dioxide and methane. We are unconsciously influenced by our political persuasion, and by our circle of friends or colleagues. We have been conditioned in our schools for 30 years to accept that humans are guilty of mucking up so many things, in particular the climate. We feel guilty, and because we have caused the problem, we are sure we can fix it, if only we could all agree.
I think the denouement to the whole CAGW saga will come not with a bang, but a whimper. AR5 next year will be far more careful, with more caveats. The extent of warming in projections will be reduced and spread over longer time periods. This will allow the real “deniers” to continue claiming that observations “fall within the lower boundary of IPCC projections”, in a valiant attempt to assert the validity of all IPCC pronouncements, while conveniently ignoring its earlier dire prognostications.
My forecast (sorry, no model to support this, no maths, just a guess), is that by 2017, many scientists who have gone along with this travesty of proper science, will be looking to hide. It’ll be a bit like the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes; many ordinary people will be saying “well, I never really believed it anyway”. But what a waste of energy, angst, and money, when we could have put all that into constructive measures about dealing with the real, regular and natural climate change that the Earth has always been dealing with (apart from major asteroid collisions).
And as an afterthought, what can you tell us about the 1975-1985 developing hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic? The hole that appears to have been addressed by our cutting out the use of CFCs? Did we get that right, but got global warming all wrong? Or did we rush to judgement about ozone in the stratosphere back then, and did our fears and our actions then serve as a trial run for our CAGW saga?
Ah piffle – the report is hardly condemning. Do better it says. And that’s fine.
Expression of uncertainty is necessary and difficult.
As it says:
“Scientific debates have always involved controversies
over the value and importance of particular
classes of evidence, and this can be expected to
continue. Moreover, all scientific knowledge
always contains some level of uncertainty, and any
action based on scientific evidence inevitably
involves an assessment of risk and a process of
risk management. Finally, given the dependence of
major facets of IPCC assessments on vast data
collections and complex models whose parameters
are especially difficult to assess independently, risk
assessments are especially challenging. However,
as the resulting controversies gained some
momentum, they tended to expand beyond the
IPCC assessments and raise issues ranging from
the proper role of science [and scientists] in policy making
to the dangers of ‘group think’ or
consensus building as a general proposition.”
and
“As I consider IPCC as an organization, it seems to
me that its large, decentralized worldwide network of
scientists is the source of both its strength and its
continuing vitality. However, climate science has
become so central to important public debates that
accountability and transparency must be considered
a growing obligation, and this alone would require
revisiting IPCC’s processes and procedures. In fact,
IPCC has shown itself to be an adaptive organization
in the past, in the sense that it has adjusted
processes and procedures in response to scientific
developments and as a result of lessons learned over
the years. I expect that it will continue to do so and
that the fifth assessment is certain to reflect some
continuing change. Nevertheless, its overall management
and governance structure has not been modified,
and in my view this has made it less agile and
responsive than it needs to be.”
Doesn’t sound like “IT’S OVER” to me ….
And guess what – there will be some errors in AR5 – very very hard to something this big and get 99.99999%
As for sp and John
Really redneck. It’s just abuse from ignorant clowns. Abuse of really good people. Top flight scientists.
Of course they should be paid salary for their time as they have been nominated by their governments and organisations to be representatives. However it doesn’t compensate for the vast amount of additional personal time and hours and hours in stinky hotel rooms and committees – hardly fun – and answering redneck sceptic dross comments and sheer stupidity.
Why would you want to do these jobs – you’d have to be committed? Only to be libellously abused by the likes of sp and John. Shame on you.
Luke,
Without the government dipping their hands into our pockets, most of these climate scientists would be unemployed. It is in the scientists’ interest to keep the circus of carbogeddon going.
As for abusing scientists, we only ask for their work to be made public as we paid for it. Some seem most unwilling to share and like to think we are too stupid to understand their work. If they consider it a chore to interact with the community outside of goverment and academia then I consider it a chore to have part of my taxes pay for their intellectual elitism.
With regards to suffering in stinky hotel rooms, if they don’t like their employment conditions and are unwilling to negotiate for the better then change jobs.
Shame on them Luke
Shame claiming everything is peer reviewed when it isn’t
Shame claiming all lead authors are leaders in their professions when some don’t even have a PhD
Shame having so few references to their politically biased conclusions.
And shame on you for being led by the nose and defending them!
You really should have attended Donna’s talk on the subject.
Shame on you Luke – you claimed they were volunteers – now admit they are paid.
You just say whetever suits you. Your a stanger to the truth
Oh diddums… the resident sychophant feels he has to rush to the defence of the climate science fraternity, and somehow us evil sceptics cum denialists or whatever you like to all us, should turn a blind eye to their abject failings
How much evidence would you like sunshine, 1 page or 20+
How about we just mention just a few things:
1. Failure to speak up in the face of statements being made that would have been known to have been lies when they were made eg:
a) Pachauris claim that the IPCC only used Peer Reviewed material,when at least 1/3rd was activists glossies and propaganda ..some science heh
b) That the IPCC represented 4000 of the best GW scientists in the world when in in fact the documents was written by fewer than about 1/10th of that.
c) Peer Review as applied was/is pure when in fact it was nothing more that a mates review
d) The endless number xyz-Gates pointing to some clearly is not well with the system …shonky would be being polite.
e) or, that the repeated claim of a consensus is nothing more than a survey that went out to near 11,000 with only 77 replying and 75 saying it was real. Some survery, some science ..some consensus.What an absolute fraud that was. Real numbers hidden just use percentages they had plenty of practice at that sleight of hand havnt they?
f) or, the hypocrisy of 90 m tonnes of cyanide being poured into the sea off PNG for free, but 90 m tonnes of Co2 will cost us all over $2bn, but if anyone farts within a foot of piece of coral the poor dears feel compelled to rush off to the media with yet another doom and gloom story….. meaning nudge nudge— wink wink we need more money.
g) or, the corruption of the temperature data bases such that it is now looking more likely that the measurements have been biased..guess which way…a chocolate frog if you can get it near right
But then we would also have to over look the way the uncertainties involved in the science has not stopped most them fronting the media for an alarmist sound bite with an adoring and ever compliant leftard ABC….and no retractions when papers get pulled for grave flaws
Then we would have to also over look the conflicts of interest with leading scientists also being environmental activists as well.
Or the idiotic predictions made by Flannery who was rewarded for his efforts by being made a Fellow of the AAS ie FAAS… bang goes its status as being anyting of credible value
..Need I go on
Oh BTW as for feeling sorry for all the after hours work these poor darlings have do in smelly hotels etc
Well whoopy do…. welcome to the real world, but then you wouldnt know anything about that would you, secure in your little bolt hole some where …never risked a dollar or made or managed anything significant in your life I bet.
Dear little Lukey,
I can remember back in the day when you were so puffed up over PEER REVIEWED LITCHURCHUR!!!! It would appear that it has taken a beating since then with all the problems found that should NOT have made it through a process as described by YOU!!!
I would just mention that the previous reports’ most extreme findings were all Grey Litchurchur and that Pachauri, Train engineer and porn star, has informed us that they will continue to use that garbage.
Dear Little Lukey, you and the IPCC are a joke!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
All just libellous sceptic dross from those who are not involved.
There are no abject failings. The majority of the findings are intact. You’re just recycling your talking points and memes hoping it will stick.
It’s simply an orchestrated denial campaign. Here’s your techniques….
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
why didn’t you just post the wiki link Luke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
Just how spineless can you get….? Cuts and pastes from the “Mein Kampf” Handbook for Radicals without giving the reference, and that is his sole defence to the charges made.
Says it all really.
Nothing more than over educated intellectual pigmies on the take, sporting pretentious titles and pompous post nominal acronyms,
…. in the hope that this will hide the fact that they can manipulate and consort with their mates in the ABC media and NGO’ville, and with the “papers” they produce, Peer Reviewed of course… snort… snort.
… they think they can hood wink the public, and ignorant politician lawyers into believing any old dross, they dish up as science.
…and particularly that bit about carbon dioxide being a pollutant, which Gillard Combet and Wong repeat ad nauseum, and on cue.
… despite the fact that it is saturated as a GW heating agent, and remains essential for life.
And then continue on to destroy the one main competitive advantage we have, cheap power, but continue to allow the export of the main source of that advantage to others, in the vain hope that the Co2 they produce somewhere else in the world isn’t a pollutant in that part of the world, and won’t do any harm.
What a joke….and what terrible harm they have wrought upon our country for absolutely no outcome economically and temperature wise.
The Village Idiots Collective could not have done it better…
And now for an encore, this same class of activists and academics are active in the push to place curbs on our Freedoms of Speech.
This will go down the history books as the period when Australia entered the Dark Ages.
Jennifer; you may be interested in these on the IAC’s audit of the IPOCC:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29880.html
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2846
Judith Curry also did an interesting analysis of what the IAC concluded, which was basically 1/2 of the IPCC science was garbage and the other 1/2 not worth reading.
Minister, are you saying that our coal exports (400-500 million tonnes) are just being burnt? Surely not. It’s likely another redneck skeptic meme.
Look, even if they are getting burnt, it’s happening in the Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese atmospheres. I don’t know if these countries maintain their own separate atmospheres or just share, but there’s no way their gas could leak into our atmosphere. That’s why we’ve got our own super-expensive carbon credits. It’s like what Julia Gillard has just pointed out about freezer doors in supermarkets: insulation, separate atmospheres and so on.
Those Asians are going to feel so silly when they realise they’ve been cooking their sky. Meanwhile, our sky will be as cool as a hipster’s favourite obscure band.
Some more on the consensus – that comes from reading the references
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/#more-60090
Are you saying the report lacks substance or porrf?
Luke said:
“It’s simply an orchestrated denial campaign”
Purrlease! What a tired piece of nonsense that is! No one here or on other blogs is “orchestrated”, not even you Luke.
Let’s measure Luke’s own comments here against his list of “denier techniques”….
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Something you’re doing ALL the time, Luke, day in, day out, comment after comment.
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
Endlessly posting statistics and links to papers and articles, knowing that few will read any of them. Overwhelm with volume, rarely debate a point in detail.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
At least you’re consistent in your attacks – keep the pressure up – score: 100%
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
“Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario” – IPCC, CSIRO, NIWA, NAS and countless others, including authorities who publish maps showing the inundation of a 5-metre sea-level rise, or predictions of “deaths from heat” (never mentioning from cold). “Large ice island breaks off Petermann glacier” – so what? If that didn’t happen regularly, the “glacier” (though what’s discussed is actually an ice-shelf) would stretch across the Arctic ocean to the Bering Strait.
“The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization” – exactly what realists and sceptics are fighting against.
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
… and if you push a piece of non-science long enough and hard enough it becomes fixed in peoples’ minds as fact. “We know that X is happening even though we haven’t got concrete evidence for it”. Garbage about Polar bears, claimed increase in number and severity of “extreme weather” events with ZERO evidence to back it up. Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is “climate change” or “global warming”.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
… and you would know all about such tactics “Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works”.
I enjoyed the ABC drum piece till I read Lysenko – stopped reading. It’s the same level of delusion as mentioning Galileo. It’s the Anthony and David show – no papers, no hats, no cattle
Tony memes flat out – look at him go. Wot drivel. Just keep reading from the hymn sheet.
“Just keep reading from the hymn sheet.”
it’s no far Luke and you’ll think for yourself.
…………persevere
Maybe this gets a mention in the IPCC review. One of the big problems is the time lag involved so new alarming evidence like the Greenland story does not make the cut. Also a lot of risks are treated as independent when they are obviously not. I suppose you could argue that the time lag means a lot of non-confirming evidence that it is not CO2 gets left out too. But is there any?
“new alarming evidence like the Greenland story”
What story is that?
This must be it cohers
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-07-19/giant-iceberg-breaks-from-greenland-glacier/982822
Our trusty old ABC on the job again trying desperately to make drama out of a naturally ocurring event but not quite making it
Seems to me the 97% medical science consensus that gave us Thalidomide is doing a reprise with climate science (sic).
Maybe if there were a few more sceptical 3%-ers around like the Jennifers, Judiths, Jos and Donnas speaking out with some healthy, hard questioning back then, the world would have dodged that tragic Thalidomide bullet.
“Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeating them”
Here’s a big Greenland story for the next 300 years, in fact all the models until 2300 showing positive for SLR. (10% of the planet’s ice)
But wait that big northern fridge is countered by that BIGGGG southern antarctic monster ( 89% of planet’s ice)) showing negative for SLR.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html
Rather stuffs the dangerous SLR theory beloved by Bazza and all the alarmanisters.
Say what? Neville quoting an AOGCM model. Well I never.
Just using your arguments against you Luke. I mean your argument is based on modeling so just thought I’d give all the models for you to ponder over.
Of course if the planet warms slightly for the next 300 years I suppose that means more evaporation and more precipitation.
BTW you don’t think this modeling is valid I presume?
“Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeating them”.
Mick in the Ills at least got the quote correct. The other view ( how topical can you get) is that writing history is like trying to work out what shape the iceblock was, when all you have is the puddle.