IPCC 95% Certain – hold on to your wallets

As part of the runup propaganda for the IPCC’s latest summary report on climate, to be released in September, the media are abuzz with the IPCC’s latest dire wild guesses.  Reuters, for instance writes this:

“Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.”

95 percent certain?  I wonder how they can tell.  Anthony Watts, proprietor of WUWT blog, has devised a little quiz.  Below are two graphs of temperatures, one from 1895 to 1946 when warming was due to Nature with little or no influence from carbon dioxide, versus a graph from 1957 to 2008 when warming was supposedly due to human carbon dioxide emissions according to the IPCC.  Can you tell which is which?

temp-test

Did Nature stop working in 1950?  The Arizona Daily Star parroted the propaganda in an editorial.  Within that editorial is this statement: “The past three decades were probably the hottest in 800 years.” Even if that statement were true, it reflects disingenuous cherry-picking which gives one a false impression of the state of things.  That’s because the “800 years” stops short of including the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago when temperatures were warmer than now.

TempHistory21

The Star editorial contains innuendo without providing proof “The draft is appropriately careful when discussing global warming’s effects. The sea is rising faster in recent years than before.”

The rate of sea level rise is cyclical and related to the 11-year solar cycle.  NOAA puts normal sea level rise as cycling between 1 to 3mm per year, about the thickness of one or two pennies.  The higher rate, if it continued until the year 2100, would produce a scary sea level rise of 10 inches (See Sea Level Rising?).

Star: “Climate change probably has caused more extreme weather events, such as heat waves.”  But real data shows no trend in droughts, wet weather, hurricanes, heat wave, or snow fall.

IPCC predictions are based on computer modeling rather than physical evidence and they have yet to present any physical evidence to back up their contention that global warming is “likely” caused by human carbon dioxide emissions.

P.S. On the quiz, I think the left graph is the more recent since it seems to show the temperature spike from the super El Nino of 1998.

See also:

Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé

The Assumed Authority

New study shows that 50% of warming claimed by IPCC is fake

The new IPCC climate report is already in trouble

20th Century temperatures explained as natural recovery from Little Ice Age

How Mother Nature Fools Climate Scientists

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. interesting how the US military thinks climate change is real enough to warrant intense planning for the expected consequences. the insurance companies also have no doubts. then, how about all the shipping companies who are looking forward to the melting of the sea ice in the arctic to open the long-sought “northwest passage”? on balance, i’d say there’s a pretty strong consensus about the reality of the effects of anthrophomorphic global warming. only those who shill for the resource-extraction industries are adamant — at least in print — that it’s not happening. but then, they’re getting paid to say so. frankly, the water would have to rise up to their nostrils and they still would be adamant that there’s not a problem, because as far as they’re concerned, it’s not worth spending 5 cents to mitigate the effects from the burning of fossil fuels. which is fine, if that’s how they feel. i just wish they’d just man up and admit it.

  2. HAVING THE RAW
    MATERIALS AND RIGHT CONDITIONS TO SUSTAIN LIFE doesn’t mean that life can
    originate by chance or from non-living matter.

    Proteins can’t come into existence unless
    there’s life first! Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that
    individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence
    by chance. But, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a
    precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning
    protein molecules. If they’re not in the right sequence the protein molecules
    won’t work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together
    into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is
    made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

    Also, what many don’t realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that
    shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed,
    otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed
    in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller’s experiment.

    There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with
    one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any
    other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one
    another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they’re
    directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our
    genetic code.

    A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) can’t wait millions of years for chance
    to make it complete and then become living!

    Please read my popular Internet articles listed below:

    ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, NATURAL
    LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, WAR AMONG
    EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition), NO HALF-EVOLVED DINOSAURS, DOES GOD PARTICLE
    EXPLAIN UNIVERSE’S ORIGIN?

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Sincerely,

    Babu G. Ranganathan*

    (B.A. theology/biology)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM
    GREEK ROOTS

    * I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis
    “Who’s Who In The East” for my writings on religion and science, and
    I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards)
    defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and
    students at various colleges and universities.

  3. “95 percent certain”, that is, until debunked by that other5%. The more the promoters of AGW pushtheir same old agenda, the less credible they become. A 2012 Washington Post-Stanford University
    poll found that trust in climate scientists has dropped in recent years. Just 26% said of Americans said they trustclimate scientists completely or a lot; while more, 35%, said they trustscientists only a little, or not at all. Interestingly, more than one-third ofthe public believe climate scientists
    who say global warming is real make their conclusion based on money and
    politics.

  4. Erik is right that we have been getting not so steadily warmer as the planet warms up from the Little Ice Age, He claims that the comparison graphs use two different vertical scales, so here are the data on one graph, looks almost identical to me:

    1. And, for a longer perspective, look at the Central England temperature since 1659, no detectable influence of
      CO2:

Comments are closed.