back to article IPCC: Yes, humans are definitely behind all this global warming we aren't having

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it's more certain than ever that humanity is warming the planet dangerously - despite the fact that a long-running flat period in global temperatures is well into its second decade. The IPCC released a brief "Summary for Policy Makers" today (go here) a teaser for its hefty …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. yt75

    Let's not forget that in a dual way or "in parallel" to the CO2

    and climate aspects, there is also the "access to resources constraints aspect", and even though it is less talked about,

    in "trivial economics terms" it has already probably more direct impacts, the situation :

    Or in other words, current crisis isn't "financial", it is also if not primarily a monstruous oil schock, and only the beginning of it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      What are you trying to say?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: um?

        He's talking about "Peak Oil" - the belief that at a certain point in time, estimated to be about the year 2020, we will have maxed out global access to cheap supplies of oil and that access starts to significantly decline - and we all start on a nasty international economic downturn.

        Basically, "Petroleum Man will be virtually extinct this Century, and Homo sapiens faces a major challenge in adapting to his loss."

        Originally, some researchers thought Peak Oil would not be a problem, because we would invest in alternatives well in advance of that point, and decrease our global use of oil. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, and our global use of oil is still increasing at an alarming rate of 6.9 million barrels per day:,38080,en.html

        Basically, if Peak Oil hits in 2020 and we aren't ready, global warming could be the least of our problems. We could all be completely f**ked economically. Masses of people could starve to death or die in oil wars long before they get the chance to die from rising tides.

        1. Nym

          Re: um?

          See John Brunner; the collapse economically is probably inevitable, simply because the model is incorrect. He only predicted such things a la 1975 or thereabouts incidentally; he's even a Brit. Was. Was. Damned cad had the nerve to die on me. Our economy (the presumed First World) simply wasn't adapted to those darned third-worlders having the nerve to do business on their own and even challenge the Supreme United States...

      2. TheVogon

        Re: um?

        "all this global warming we aren't having"

        It hasn't stopped - the oceans are still warming.....The ice is still melting, the sea is still rising...

    2. LarsG

      Let's be realistic, we will wipe ourselves out one way or another, meteor, virus, bacteria, atomic war, super nova, alien invasion.....

      What's so worrying when a bit of global warming is thrown into the mix?

      1. Allan George Dyer


        If you think there is a chance of us wiping ourselves out by a meteor, super nova or alien invasion, I suggest you stop throwing asteroids around, stop fly-tipping into unstable stars, and definitely stop making rude faces at passing UFOs!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Such a waste of time and paper.

    Humans may, or may not, be behind changes in climate that we may, or may not, be experiencing but that is insignificant against the genuine and undisputed damage we are doing to the planet by our over population through destruction of habitat and our emptying of rivers and seas.

    While 18,000 people are counting rings on trees and worrying about glaciers sliding back a few feet, they would do much more good campaigning about family planning in Africa and Asia.

    1. Steve Crook

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Population will take care of itself if we let it. Development leading to raised standards of living, education and freedom for men and women to use contraception will all contribute to a stabilising and eventually, falling global population. It's worked in lots of places, including many that are supposed to be dominated by a religion that abhors contraception.

      1. Allan George Dyer

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        Doctor: It's cancer

        Patient: Is it curable?

        Doctor: Well, I generally find it will take care of itself if we let it.

        Patient: What?

        Doctor: The cancer kills itself. I mean, it keeps growing until you die a painful death, and, as a consequence, it dies.

        You will only get raised standards of living, education and contraception if someone puts time and effort into making it so. It is not just the end result, but the route to it that matter.

      2. Panicnow

        Wealth follows small families not leads!

        Please stop repeating the great myth that education and wealth leads to smaller families.

        It is, and has always been the reverse. That is why the landed gentry carry on enjoying priviledge, How China has transforming its wealth demographic, and why Nigeria isn't

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wealth follows small families not leads!

          "It is, and has always been the reverse. "

          [citation needed]

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wealth follows small families not leads!

          > Please stop repeating the great myth that education and wealth leads to smaller families.


          There are loads of very obvious examples and the reasons are pretty well known and established.

          Over population is mostly driven by the need to have surviving offspring in areas where there is high infant mortality. China is a particularly bad example for your argument because the vast majority historically have been cripplingly poor, have low education and highish infant mortality.

      3. RonWheeler

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        No it won't - we're at 7 billion and counting. The figures vary, but we're way over the long-term sustainable population for the planet as it is. Take several generations more of selfish scum popping out sprogs and we're screwed.

    2. cyborg

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      It's kind of a problem that solves itself in the long run.

      As with all such problems. It's really only our way of life at risk. And I think it's probably hard to accept for most that it was probably never going to be realistically sustainable.

      Unless you get some real heavy-duty terra-engineering technologies going.

      1. PassingStrange

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        " It's really only our way of life at risk."

        If by that you mean our descendants staying alive, I agree. Otherwise, no. Collectively we're disturbingly like yeast in a fermenting vessel, gobbling up the resources around us as fast as we can and destroying the very environment that keeps us alive. In a worst case scenario (given that we show absolutely no signs of being able to cooperate as a species to even begin to actually stop doing the damage) we'll push one critical system or another past a tipping point, the planet will see a mass extinction bigger than than the one we're already causing - including us - and there will be nothing we can do but watch.

    3. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      "that is insignificant against the genuine and undisputed damage we are doing to the planet by our over population"

      There is no overpopulation - who came up with that nonsense? How do you even define overpopulation? Is it by absolute number, by density?

      How do you determine carrying capacity of the environment for humans when humans are able to modify their environment to increase the carrying capacity when they hit any limits?

      "do much more good campaigning about family planning in Africa and Asia"

      Developing their economies and raising their living standards (that includes consuming much more energy per capita) will naturally limit the population growth, just as it already did in the "developed world", where the real growth is negative and the apparent one is mostly due to inflow of immigration.

      If anything, we need more people, not fewer.

      1. Dr Stephen Jones

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.


        "Developing their economies and raising their living standards (that includes consuming much more energy per capita) will naturally limit the population growth, just as it already did in the "developed world", where the real growth is negative and the apparent one is mostly due to inflow of immigration."

        Such commonsense.

        Here you'll be down-voted by the superstitious and the bedroom fascists: the Unabombers in slippers.They only want to hear mankind is wicked and we're all doomed.

      2. TheWeenie

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        You don't own shares in a company called Soylent, do you Vladimir? :)

        On an unrelated note I had a dream a few days ago where we reached a situation far more terrifying than Peak Oil.

        Peak Bacon.


    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: they would do much more good campaigning about ...

      Since, as you point out, there are an awful lot of people on the planet, we can probably afford to have some of them counting rings on trees AND some of them campaigning about family planning!

    5. Scott Broukell

      Don't worry Anon (15:35GMT)

      Nature will reduce human population all in good time. It won't be a very nice Pay-Back to live through but it will happen, if, as you point out, we fail to seriously address the matter ourselves.

      BTW - I understand that throughout large parts of Africa and Asia it remains very difficult to obtain family planning and the taking of such responsibility is still largely frowned upon anyway. All that good effort and funding gone to waste, really sad.

      It remains to be seen who might prevail, in terms of race and ethnicity, when things settle back down again though. Who has the best chance do ya think.

      (Enjoy a cold beer, it's Friday)

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      > While 18,000 people are counting rings on trees and worrying about glaciers sliding back a few feet, they would do much more good campaigning about family planning in Africa and Asia.

      Indeed. This obsession with possible problems that we may or may not be causing and may or may not be able to do anything about is bizarre and bordering on religious zealotry.

      Meanwhile there are very real demonstrable problems that are definitely happening, there are solutions for, and we are fully capable of solving.

    7. Piro Silver badge

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Well, yes, over population is the real problem, from every possible angle.

      Even if we had had some effect on the climate, crippling our economies to make a worthless impact would be foolish in the extreme.

      1. gromm

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        "crippling our economies to make a worthless impact would be foolish in the extreme"

        Possibly, maybe "crippling" our economies for a higher purpose (like cleaner air, which has its own benefits) sure beats *actually* crippling our economies for the lulz, like what happened in 2008. And in 2001. And in 1990. And in 1981, 1980, 1973, etc, etc, etc.

        Oh, and if higher electric rates are a definitely surefire way of crippling the economy, someone should tell the Germans. They don't seem to have gotten that memo.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      and capitalism / neo-conservatism may or may not require a forcibly empovrished population who's resources can be plundered.

      1st world problems require 1st world solutions, 3rd world problems, well, they just aren't 1st world problems.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Whilst you make valid points about habitat destruction and pollution, campaigning about family planning in Africa and Asia will do no good. They already practise family planning, they plan on having large families because lots of their children will die before they reach 5 years old and they need some surviving children to look after them when they get old.

      If you want to reduce what you see as 'overpopulation' then providing clean drinking water, vaccinations against common childhood diseases and a rudimentary social safety net will reduce the propensity for large families within two generations.

      Of course if you do that then where will you source the young productive people to provide for your old age.

      1. JeffyPoooh

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        "...they plan on having large families because lots of their children will die before they reach 5 years old and they need some surviving children..."

        Wow. I'm impressed. Well done. That counter-intuitive relation - where high infant mortality CAUSES over-compensation and therefore results in very high population growth - is essentially unknown. Even though it's been staring us in the face for centuries.

        Healthy and wealthy: you want two kids, you have two babies, you end up with two kids.

        High Infant Mortality: you want two kids, you have eight babies* but half +/- die, you end up with four +/- kids.

        * The uncertainty means they need to aim high to reduce risk of no kids.

        With certainty of survival, parents can play it closer to the bare minimum of replacement.

        Obviously this relationship falls apart if the infant mortality rate goes extremely high.

    10. Yes Me Silver badge

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Er, some people can hold two ideas in their head at once, like trying to reduce human impact on the climate *and* limit population growth. And there's a bit of a problem here, too: we know that family sizes get smaller as people get richer, so the people of Africa and Asia need to get richer and less polluting simultaneously. Put that in your pipe and don't smoke it.

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Families are social security for the poor parts of the world. Let's see how popular abolishing state and private pensions in the West is, shall we? At the same time, we could convert all the houses to mud huts and abolish savings accounts.

      The point is taken however. Efficient production methods destroy the environment. Deforestation without chainsaws is rather slower. Mass tobacco monoculture is pointless without factories to produce cigarettes and global distribution systems. Efficiency leads to evil because we are naturally greedy and not satisfied with putting food on the table. Efficiency doesn't lead to lower consumption, just higher profits or greater production. It appears we are incapable of stopping ourselves. We've pretty much fished some species almost to extinction in some oceans - mostly due to very efficient fishing methods.

      Not to worry though, we've allowed our politicians to borrow so much on our behalf so much that even a small uptick in interest rates will bankrupt most of the West and we'll go the way of Greece and Cyprus.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

        ...Deforestation without chainsaws is rather slower....

        Not exactly. It's done in Indonesia by the simple process of throwing a match into the forest.

        Works rather rapidly, and is very labour-saving. Possibly one of the most efficient industrial processes ever... :)

    12. Eddy Ito

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      One of the things that happens when people start to live longer is that they tend to have fewer children. If you have a look at the data you'll see that birth rates are dropping as life expectancy increases and if you look hard you'll also see that as general education levels increase the birth rates also decrease. Sure health and education may not be as easy as giving a man a fish condom but it's a longer term solution than preaching about the evils of sex.

    13. oolor

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      I have to agree with you AC. My thoughts are that this CO2 bullshit is a farce from the perspective of the earth, however, on a local level, large concentrated populations where ever more people live in the developed world have very serious issues with the concentrated pollution.

      I think that this is one of those false dilemmas so that we don't have to deal with the much larger issue of how we control and tax materials and pollution in a way that ensures better outcomes while still allowing the market to work its magic. Those who claim 'capitalism' works fine are overlooking the true cost because they only focus on today instead of the net present value of the system (and I am far to the right of center when it comes to financial issues). This tragedy of the commons is nothing more than a form of fraud (and I am more responsible for being part of this fraud than the average person).

      To give governments powers to control carbon in general rather than in specific locales and to use money in general funds rather than to mitigate ill effects where they are felt (and perhaps help poorer countries in these areas) is an absolute sham. Ineffective controls that don't directly address real issues, place poor incentives that distort the market, and place power in the hands of those who are not accountable is far from an ideal solution (or much of a solution at all).

    14. noominy.noom

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Don't know whether to upvote or downvote ya. I agree with your first paragraph and I think it is well stated. I think your second paragraph is simplistic. It would be good if all humans able to procreate would put some thought into it before they do so. But I don't think it is the answer to the world's problems. Might help a smidgeon, but no more.

    15. JeffyPoooh

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      Latest predictions put the peak of human population at about 11 billion, or perhaps just 8.7 billion with what is probably a better model. Hardly frightening.

      Like the problem of traditional air pollution (CO, HC, NOx) from modern cars in the Western world, the human population explosion is pretty much sorted.

      Relax. Have some cake.

    16. Vociferous

      Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

      I firmly believe that global warming is real and caused by human activity, but I 100% agree with you: it is NOT the most acute or biggest threat facing humanity or biodiversity, and the myopic focussing of ALL environmental effort on global warming is incredibly damaging.

      To date not a single species has been wiped out by global warming. Meanwhile, species are wiped out almost daily by hydroelectric power dams and by converting rainforest to soy or oil palm plantations.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Such a waste of time and paper.


        To date not a single species has been wiped out by global warming. Meanwhile, species are wiped out almost daily by hydroelectric power dams and by converting rainforest to soy or oil palm plantations.

        How do you know that no species has been wiped out by Global Warming? Do you maintin all the species lists going back to the time of the start of the Industrial Revolution?

        Global warming IMHO started when we humans started industrialisation on a big scale. Do you know the word 'Bedlam'? Well there is a place where the noise and polution from the blast furnaces was so bad that it was called Bedlam. People couldn't hear themselves think.

        I could cite dozens of cases where industrialisation has caused irrecovable damage and change to the Environment. This goes back to the 18th Century. Who can say if all this pollution has not caused speciates to die out? You can't say for certain. No one can.

        Hydro schemes may well have caused species damage in the past. In the west billion pound projects are now delayed because of a few newts or bats. They get surveyed and moved to a new location. Then once built, they can produce power and water at virtually zero pollution or CO2 Emission.

        I know that I'd rather have power generated from Hydro rather than from burning Coal or Gas.

        1. Vociferous

          Re: Such a waste of time and paper.

          > How do you know that no species has been wiped out by Global Warming?

          People do try to keep tabs you know, even if you don't. There is to date one single species where global warming MIGHT have been involved in its extinction: the Panamanian Golden Toad. It lived on a single mountain top, and then suddenly it didn't live there any more. It was speculated that global warming might have changed the rain pattern on the mountain - but on the other hand there was no change in vegetation, and the disappearance coincided with the fungal disease chytridiosis hitting the area. Chytridiosis is the *mother* of all plagues, the most destructive disease ever recorded: it's wiped out a dozen species of frog, and is threatening 1/3rd of all remaining species.

          You then go on to talk about pollution and industrialization. Yes, both have wiped out species, and NEITHER IS GLOBAL WARMING. Global warming aka climate change isn't the pollution, it's the change in climate.

          Hydropower is, incidentally, the most environmentally damaging form of energy production there is. No other form of energy production is even in the same ballpark when it comes to number of species extinguished. It's in a destructiveness-league all of its own, but thanks to massive propaganda and the fact that it's renewable it's viewed as somehow "environmentally friendly". Give me nuclear power any day over hydropower. Hell, I'll take coal power over hydropower.

  3. Longrod_von_Hugendong

    Somebody is in need...

    of some new funding.

  4. Antony Riley

    If the last 15 years are an anomaly, how can they be sure the 20 years of data from 1986-2005 they threw into their computer models is any better?

    1. TheVogon

      "If the last 15 years are an anomaly"

      The are likely due to natural ocean cycles. It is a near certainty that the respite is only temporary and average surface temperature will start climbing again:

      The average ocean temperature is still increasing by the way - so there is still warming going on....

      1. Squander Two

        > The are likely due to ...

        Sorry, no, any thought process that starts like that is getting the science backwards.

        You have a theory that gives you predictions. The predictions tend to come mostly true most of the time, which vindicates the theory. The history of mostly-trueness allows you to come up with further hypotheses of why the occasions when the predictions are wrong arise, and why those failures don't necessarily undermine the theory in general. That's science.

        Climate scientists, however, have a broad history either of predictions that have failed to come true or of predictions that are yet to come true. They simply don't have that broad background of being mostly right most of the time. When they give us explanations of why the recent non-warming doesn't contradict their theory, they're not talking about a minority of failed predictions amongst a large number of successful predictions; they're talking about the failure of their primary theory to predict exactly that which they claim it can predict. And that is not science; it's faith.

        > The average ocean temperature is still increasing by the way - so there is still warming going on

        Doesn't matter. That wasn't what the AGW climatologists predicted. The prediction regarded global temperatures, and it stated clearly that they would keep rising as long as atmospheric CO2 kept rising. Then CO2 kept rising and global temperatures didn't. The prediction was wrong. Saying after the fact that actually it's proven right by some other results, not the ones predicted, is, again, not science.

        I'm with Feynman on models.

        1. Fluffy Bunny

          Talking about models ... has anybody noticed the confusion between theories and evidence? Reports constantly start talking about new evidence. Then when you read further, they get it from models. Models, whether computer or not, are not evidence. They are just another way of putting a theory.

    2. Fluffy Bunny

      Of course they are an anomaly - why do you think the same years are always quoted. Talk about cherry-picked data.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The warming trend on the chart has slowed but until it swings the other way can we really say that warming went away?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't want it to go away!!!!!

      Warm = good

      Cold = bad

      You should try living some place where it's really fucking cold. Trust me, a couple of degrees warmer is way better than the most probable climate catastrophe on the horizon - "Ice Age"

  6. nsld

    Time to celebrate

    by roasting a zebra over a pyre of tyres and fridges.

    1. Havin_it

      Re: Time to celebrate

      Hmm... Tyres black ... fridges white (unless you're posh) ... zebra black and white ...

      I'm convinced you just said something devastatingly witty, but I'm just not quite there. Give us a clue?

      1. nsld

        Re: Time to celebrate

        It was more of a historical reference to the times when Kings and Queens threw lavish banquets to celebrate a victory.

        What better way to celebrate another successful report that underpins many of the taxes currently wrecking our economy with a cook out on the very things said to be killing us, the Zebra was just a handy add in to wind up the tree hugging soya latte fuelled eco mentalists.

  7. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Let's decide.

    Defn: Science. A process whereby observations are made, theories are drawn up and tested by means of experiment. The experimental results are then used to gain a consensus regarding the accuracy of the theory in question.

    Religion: A belief system where faith and doctrine are formulated, depending on various factors: real or imaginary. That doctrine is then promulgated by an appointed (or self-appointed) leadership. The lack of a testable foundation makes refuting the articles of faith very difficult for the non-beleiver, but acts to strengthen the resolve of the true followers.

    1. WhoaWhoa

      Re: Let's decide.

      So, scientists vs. deniers.

    2. JeffyPoooh

      Re: Let's decide.

      @ Pete 2

      You Climate Skeptic. SKEPTIC! SKEPTIC! SKEPTIC! Burn him! Burn Him! BURN HIM!


      Yes, I've noticed that the Concerned Climate Scientists and their followers have adopted the vocabulary and techniques of religious persuasion.

      Do ye have faith? Or are ye a skeptic?

      Their religious approach to a scientific debate is dripping with so much religion/science irony that the irony itself may raise sea level by another eight feet.

    3. Denarius

      Re: Let's decide.

      overly simplistic. One religion and spinoff explicitly claim to be based on history. Ironically, most of the spinoff professional management seem to be adamant that their $deity is incompetant and unable to say what it means, so they adopt the entire belief system of its current proposed successor. Mind you, that successor claims to be based on hypothesis, experiment and subsequent theory, except it is impossible to falsify as its devotees adapt it to explain anything while ignoring data that demonstrates it fundamental assumptions are false. An exercise for the few educated thinkers to work out which formal religions I refer to. Any naming of them before thought and question tends to cause intellectual blindness to set in.

      In short, as a few philosophers of science have pointed out, what you believe depends first on what model of existence you chose. Also known as prior assumptions. So materialism is as a much a religion as one of the Hindu cults, say original Buddhism or greenism/ we all gonna burn/die/starve IPC reports. No doubt Andrew will be swamped with wasted electrons over this. One must not question the faith. Fire extinguishers to the ElReg border gateway. Must be smokin!

    4. Nial

      Re: Let's decide.

      > The experimental results are then used to gain a consensus

      I'm not sure if you're being ironic but consensus has no place in science.

      Any computer models run on how you think things work and varying the inputs isn't "experiment".

  8. Dan Paul

    RE: Such a Waste (of EVERYTHING)

    It is time that people beat the living snot out of these lying coniving thieves at the IPCC, UN and elsewhere that are causing the first world to do VERY COSTLY things that are completely unneeded and don't do anything.

    It is quite clear that the effect of humans is only a drop in a bucket compared to all the natural sources of greenhouse gases and they still lie but let's consider what cleanup would givew the greatest bang for the buck.

    Place a STEEP environmental control tarriff on products manufactured in countries that do not already control air pollution. China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, most of South America, Russia Eastern Europe etc do almost nothing. They burn coal without even basic air fuel ratio controls, no scrubbers, no opacity monitoring and OF COURSE they have an atmosphere that looks like smoke, because it is.

    The first world moved heavy manufacturing to these countries because "emmission control is too costly".

    Let's make it too costly for them to pollute BEFORE we do any more control in the 1st world!

    In fact, if all that manufacturing had stayed in the US and elsewhere, there would have been less pollution even if new standards were never implemented as our BASIC standards are far better than NO STANDARDS in the 3rd world.

    God forbid that one of those sanctimonious bastards would ever exhibit a gram of common sense and do the right thing instead of lying about global warming when it is NOT HAPPENING or trying to push control that has a payback of hunreds of years when fixing the 3rd world would have a HUGE IMMEDIATE payback.

    Those self serving douchebags with "green" agendas are making beaucoup cash squeezing blood from our turnips. They will never force the 3rd world to do even basic emission control where a small investment will make the GREATEST DIFFERENCE only because they CAN"T MAKE A BUCK FROM IT.

    Perhaps we should start an open burn pit in front of the UN and use so called "Scientists" aznd Politicians for the fuel. Maybe that will get the point across!

  9. scrubber

    Your models repeatedly fail to predict climate, your models about what will happen to countries 'in danger' have proven to be flawed, there is no serious prospect of redistributing any carbon-esque taxes to those who actually suffer from changes to the climate so... yeah, let's retool our entire economy, starve millions, and cost countless future economic benefits so that governments can impact consumer behaviour and further snoop into our lives.

    Let scientists do science, let economists tell the politicians likely economic impacts and then, and only then, let the politicians decide which of the available options are most palatable to the populous.

  10. Mage Silver badge

    Ok, for a moment say 100%

    Let's say it was 100%, probability of 1, totally certain and proven that Global Warming is Man made.

    But what does that give us? There has never been any verified prediction of actual warming, climate change, ice changes or sea level change. Not Ever.

    Those are the important bits. Till there is model that actually remotely matches reality so that what is forecast for 5 years and 10 years time is at all close, the models are useless and thus planning about what to do is largely points as there is no way to gauge the effect until a decade has passed.

    So everyone needs to calm down, collect better data and better analyse it. The predicted "up to 84cm sea level rise by end of century" at present seems to be a guess even if we are all 100% convinced that it's 100% proven there is man made global warming.

    1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

      Re: Ok, for a moment say 100%

      Let's start with the easy one - sea level rise:

      As you're so catastrophically wrong on that one, I guess we shouldn't pay too much attention to anything else you said, either.


      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ok, for a moment say 100%


        Despite the fact that I did not read it, and for all I know the page supports the view that sea level rise and rates thereof have not changed significantly in hundreds of years (the anti-warmist scientific view), quoting Wiki as a source for anything related to climate science is probably stretching your own credibility, given that it has been shown that a small cadre of "warmists" hijacked the wiki pages in this area long ago.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ok, for a moment say 100%

          Oh, remind me of the order of credibility of sources again, I thought it was peer reviewed science, books, peer reviewed websites, journalists, bloke I met in a pub, voices in my head,? But i guess if the the voices in your head are really loud and have red bushy tails, that bumps them up the list?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ok, for a moment say 100%

        Wiki as a source, Geoff?

        " I guess we shouldn't pay too much attention to anything else you said, either."

        You said it, pal.

        1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

          Re: Ok, for a moment say 100%

          It seemed a good jumping-off point for further reading. Mea culpa, fancy assuming anyone would make that effort. I should know better by now...


          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Ok, for a moment say 100%

            My point, which you failed absolutely to grasp, is that it is in fact a very bad point to start, by definition.

  11. Mage Silver badge

    Over population & Family planning

    There is no Over population nor would more Family planning education fix anything. The human issues are down to greed and corruption. South America is good example as is Africa.

    1. WhoaWhoa

      Re: Over population & Family planning

      And North America? Don't forget the elephant.

  12. David Kelly 2

    "Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment".

    Statistical analysis of faulty computer models somehow yields superior results?

    Its like trying to teach capitalism to a socialist. No matter socialism has never raised the poor, only profits those in power, and that capitalism and free markets is the only means any society has ever risen out of poverty. The socialist's superior brain power has analyzed the situation and reached an error free conclusion no matter one has never worked for a living outside academia. Just as with the IPCC.

    1. Philip Lewis

      "Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment".


      We sat around the table and played a game of cards and agreed that 95% was a good number.

    2. WhoaWhoa

      "Its like trying to teach capitalism to a socialist. No matter socialism has never raised the poor, only profits those in power, and that capitalism and free markets is the only means any society has ever risen out of poverty."

      That would be the capitalism that has earned the US the biggest national debt in the history of the planet, rising yearly and exponentially?

      Should be quite a firework display, one day.

      1. WhoaWhoa

        Socialists always end up stabbing each other in the back.

        With capitalists it's the other way round.

        1. Nial

          > With capitalists it's the other way round.

          They stab themselves in the front?

    3. D 13

      "No matter socialism has never raised the poor, only profits those in power, and that capitalism and free markets is the only means any society has ever risen out of poverty. "

      Apart from the 1.3 billion people in China who have seen their standards of living improve dramatically over the last few decades.....

  13. btrower

    Rivaling Lysenkoism Now

    The Alarmist "Climate Science" is Rivaling Lysenko-ism Now for its longevity.

    You get what you pay for. We pay people to raise a ruckus about Global Warming, so that is what they do. I am certain the alarm will die down very quickly once we stop paying them.

    It is true that we have adverse impacts on the environment. That does not mean that any remedy is appropriate. It does not mean that we should be funding pseudo science and paying Shaman.

    If you really give a rat's pants about the environment you should be throwing your weight behind the pursuit of plentiful energy. With enough energy we can do almost anything we wish. That includes, if we are stupid enough to pursue it, messing with the weather.

    The misappropriation of resources for the sterile pursuit of 'Climate Science' is not free. It comes at a cost that diminishes us. It ultimately condemns people in parts of the world to poverty and death.

    Much of our activity is relatively destructive. That will not be cured by impairing one of the few positive side-effects of our activity (production of plant nourishing CO2).

    Rather than waste resources on a fake problem introduced by charlatans and fools we should be directing our attention to very real problems about which we can do something. There is no shortage of them.

    I have no doubt that many of the people behind this movement are sincere. They are either deluding themselves because they are at the trough or they are logically challenged. We can fix the problem with the trough and profit in the bargain. The logic thing appears to be a huge problem in that camp. Peeling back the arguments in 'Climate Science Alarm' is a lesson in logical fallacies. It is hard to be a real leader in science if you have difficulty with logic. If they cannot be educated in Logic, we should probably move them to some place they can do less harm.

    Below is a real Scientist speaking about real Science. Climate Science is the antithesis of that.

    "There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science." It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

    Richard Feynman "Cargo Cult Science", adapted from a commencement address given at Caltech (1974)

  14. Bluenose

    Funnily enough

    The BBC also reported on this report and pointed out that the committee say that the pause is to short to actually make any comment on in terms of the period over which warming is actually happening. Moreover they also say that the committee believe that human activity is the dominant reason but not the only one. They even suggest that humans are responsible for more than half the temperature rise.

    So in terms of this report versus the BBC I think we can safely say that climate change is occurring, that there have been increases in the temperature of various parts of the planet and whether it is through human actions or natural phenomena we are looking at a pretty challenging period in planet history and one which will require all our human ingenuity to resolve. Using less resources and producing less pollution would probably be a good way to start.

    1. ChilliKwok

      Re: Funnily enough

      That's stange. You appear to believe the BBC is an impartial disinterested party in all this. When in fact the BBC is packed with hard left tax & spend marxists who correctly view climate change hysteria as an excellent trojan horse for their anti-capitalist policies. These 5th columnists have been promoting the climate change scam for decades via every channel available to them: google 'BBC 28 gate' to read how the BBC organised internal climate change brainwashing seminars for producers from every department - including comedy and children's TV. Truely sickening.

      1. JeffyPoooh

        Re: Funnily enough

        BBC's "...anti-capitalist policies."

        Yes, I heard about that on one of the BBC Business shows. Just after the stock market report, and just before Top Gear came on. Bloody trade unionists.

      2. John Hughes

        Re: Funnily enough

        "the BBC is packed with hard left tax & spend marxists"

        Hello to our visitors from America!

  15. Mike VandeVelde

    "according to Bjorn Lomborg"

    "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem."

    Can't find the consensus with all these agreeing scientists drowning it out with all their agreeing.

  16. 100113.1537

    Political summary before the scientific reports...

    Hmmmm, not the way I would do it, but then I am only a scientist.

  17. Hud Dunlap

    The weather sites are going crazy

    Dr. Jeff Masters also said of climate gate " So he hid some data, so what".

    The above quote is as well as I can remember but I would say it is 95% accurate.

    Beer, because I need one after this nonsense.

  18. DocJD

    It was all explained here

    I wish I could find it, but probably 5 or 6 years ago The Register had a story where a graph of temperature data was shown and the authors broke it up into a slow gradual increase on top of which was a sin wave.

    The gradual increase was attributed to the CO2 increase, though it was not fast enough to result in "we must act now" horror stories.

    The cyclical wave was due to some major ocean current cycle. It properly showed the decrease in temperature back when Newsweek ran the historic "Global Cooling" cover story. It showed the increase in the '90's which was (ignorantly) extrapolated into the "hockey stick" predictions of the global warming cult. It showed the level period we are now experiencing, where the downward part of the cycle is balancing the long term upward trend. It also predicted temperatures would start to rise again around 2020 when the sin wave turns back up.

    If anyone can locate that story, it should be reprinted.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Climate is more than the surface temperature

    "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says its more certain than ever that humanity is warming the planet dangerously - despite the fact that a long-running flat period in global temperatures is well into its second decade."

    and this, of course, completely bypasses one of the main conclusions of this year's report: That the oceans have heated up considerably, the consequences of which not many are able to able to understand.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Climate is more than the surface temperature

      errr. No, they haven't.

      [citation needed]

    2. John Deeb

      Re: Climate is more than the surface temperature

      But that ocean heat was not part of the equation before. It's introducing a relatively new element without much historical record either. Don't you see the sliding slope here? The rise is in the Southern hemisphere not in the Northern right now. But this might easily be a reaction to earlier heating not that of the last decade. The precise mechanism is not established yet as scientific theory and should therefore be conservatively applied.

      Global sea level rise has been shown to be rather constant over more than 100 years of measurements and might have completely different causes and anyway the question is not if there's a long term temperature rise but how much human forcing is involved. This is why the ultimate number is not temperature trends here or there but climate sensitivity as a whole.

      From the IPCC report it's clear that now for the first time a "best estimate" for climate sensitivity can be given any more. In other words: increasing doubts and diversification of evidence. It's a big change in concept stacked away in a footnote:

      Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

      16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Climate is more than the surface temperature

        "Don't you see the sliding slope here?"

        Yes I do. My reaction was to the implied flat-out denial that global temperatures have risen. Temperatures *have* risen and the *climate* is warming up. Even if the *weather* isn't. We are in agreement. (I think; I suspect that your 3rd paragraph is lacking an important "not").

        1. Nial

          Re: Climate is more than the surface temperature

          > Temperatures *have* risen

          As they have been doing slowly since ~1850.

          And they rose as fast between 1910 - 1940 as they did from 1970-2000!

          1. John Hughes

            Re: Climate is more than the surface temperature

            "[temperatures] as fast between 1910 - 1940 as they did from 1970-2000!"

            Why do some people find that amazing.

            Was there no rise in atmosperic CO2 levels between 1910 and 1940?

            1. Nial

              Re: Climate is more than the surface temperature

              > Was there no rise in atmosperic CO2 levels between 1910 and 1940?

              Very little compared to the 1970-2000 levels which supposedly drove the almost identical amount, and rate, of warming.

  20. Anonymous Coward

    I am 99% certain they are talking bollocks.

    And since my percentages are higher, I must be correct

  21. Vociferous

    Let's play Spot The Pause!

    Spot the pause:

    You can't find it? Looks like a nice steadily rising graph with some variation around the mean to you?

    There's a trick to being a good denier and seeing the pause, this is how it works:

    No joke. That's really how the "global warming has paused since _insert year here_" argument works.

    1. blah111
      Thumb Down

      Re: Let's play Spot The Pause!

      Yes, lets:

      Funny. No trend since at least the turn of the century.

      But more importantly the climastrologists have failed basic stats:

      1. John Hughes

        Re: Let's play Spot The Pause!

        What, no trend you say?

        1. Nial

          Re: Let's play Spot The Pause!

          If what we're seeing is the top of a sinusiod, with the peak centred at 2010, your "analysis" will show a warming trend for the next 30 years of cooling!

          What are you trying to justify?

    2. James Evans

      Re: Let's play Spot The Pause!

      You're really having trouble seeing the pause? Try exploring the data for yourself:

      It's not hard.

    3. Nial

      Re: Let's play Spot The Pause!

      > Spot the pause:

      > You can't find it?

      You're not looking very hard if you can't find it, in fact is that a down-tick at the end? :-)

      And as we're looking at the big picture, as before, why was the amount of warming between 1910 and 1940 the same as between 1970 and 2000?

      > There's a trick to being a good denier

      Aye, it's refusing to admit there's been a lull in the warming for the last 17+ years!

  22. Mike Flex

    Interesting how the swap to decade-average temperatures neatly hides the lack of warming since 1998.

    It doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the report's conclusions.

  23. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    Logic suggests if *no* model predicts a global temperature plateau, they *all* need work.

    So saying their confidence has gone up sounds highly suspicious.

    Like some Jade* activists have had their hands on the manuscript.

    *Jade --> hard green.

  24. NomNomNom

    If you have a period where CO2 has increased but temperature hasn't increases, it follows that the CO2 will explain a larger proporiton of the total temperature change than it had.

    Eg if a 30% increase in CO2 was responsible for 0.3C of the 0.6C warming from 1950 to 2007, then a 40% increase in CO2 is going to be responsible for 0.4C of the 0.6C warming from 1950 to 2013.

    So the % attributable has increased from 50% to 66%. I actually think the attribution to the warming since 1950 is closer to 100%, so I find the IPCC statement of 95% certainty that more than half is, conservative.

    1. Nial

      > If you have a period where CO2 has increased but temperature hasn't increases, it

      > follows that the CO2 will explain a larger proporiton of the total temperature

      > change than it had.

      In the real world it would be seen as evidence that the 'theory' was wrong.

  25. Hairy Airey

    In other news - Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

    Call me a cynic - it's only since governments twigged that they could add extra taxes for "climate change" that the idea has gained any traction. As I understand it there are underground fires around the world that should be put out as they are contributing just as much CO2 as the motor car.

    As for anonymous cowards idea that population is a bigger problem - just do the maths on worldwide population. If mankind had been around for millions of years our population would be in the trillions now. Notwithstanding that the fastest growing economies have the highest birth rate.

    1. Vociferous

      Re: In other news - Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

      You're not cynic, you're anti-science.

    2. John Hughes

      Re: In other news - Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

      Because Margaret Thatcher was a well known tax and spend lefty.

      1. Nial

        Re: In other news - Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

        > Because Margaret Thatcher was a well known tax and spend lefty.

        Who saw the light and recanted much of her earlier belief in AGW.

  26. Charles 9

    What I'd like to know is how they arrive at this level of confidence and how they can rule out (with a high degree of certainty) other, more natural factors.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Who knows, maybe they actually dedicated a bit of time and effort and actually studied the issue, made measurements, carried out experiments and modelled the physics. Then took the results of thousands of research projects, argued about it, and eventually came up with a clear consensus.

      Or maybe they just 'knew' that the answer was right, on the word of a random bloke they read on the internet, because it's obvious innit?

  27. Jim O'Reilly

    What's wrong with the IPCC model:

    Doesn't handle current hiatus in warming

    Over-estimates carbon dioxide impact

    Over-estimates ice melt/sea level rise

    Over-estimates warming rate (by own admission)

    Doesn't handle Sun variations

    Period of warming used to justify story is shorter than the hiatus

    The head of IPCC makes $5million per year from consulting...go figure!

    1. JeffyPoooh

      What's wrong with the IPCC model:

      ...and they fail to include macro biological responses in the feedback. We can't blame them because they're unpredictable.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Do you realise that the IPCC is a meta-study of all available peer reviewed science, there is no such thing as "the IPCC model".

  28. armster

    Who said global warming stalled

    What most climate skeptics fail to realize is that global warming has not stalled in the past 15 years. The atmospheric part of it has stalled, but looking at good old Earth that really is just an incredibly tiny fraction of the globe. If you look at the global deep sea temperatures things are moving along just fine. So just because some ocean circulation patterns have changed, moving more heat into the deep end is not a reason to say 'there is no problem'. If I were sitting in Britain I would be rather more worried about changing circulation patterns...

    1. Nial

      Re: Who said global warming stalled

      If the models that are all "based on physics to they must be right" didn't predict this then what use are they?

      The oceans have only warmed within the error limits of the measurements, if at all.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As leaks had suggested, the IPCC has increased its "confidence" that the noticeable warming experienced in the last part of the 20th Century was predominantly man made - but sidesteps explanations of why it went away.

    What more of an explanation do you want - the Summary states:

    "The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean."

    1. blah111
      Thumb Down

      The models supposedly include radiative forcing (and it's claimed to not be that big to begin with) so the fact that the models include that term and still couldn't predict the pause is a problem, don't you think? And if natural variability is of a magnitude to stall the human component of warming, then it's of a magnitude to double the perceived warming of the 80-98 period which has nearly all of the warming that has the warmists wetting themselves over. Recall that temps were flat or cooling for about 30 years ending in the mid to late 70's.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        While you may not agree with the explanation to the trend in warming given in the Summary, the report definitely does address the issue. If the author's claim that the Summary 'sidesteps explanations' is demonstrably untrue, how much more of his reporting sidesteps veracity to further the author's agenda?

    2. Nial

      "The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012,"

      Why the sudden chance to 1951?

      It couldn't be because there was a period of cooling from 1951 to the start of the 1970's so the trend from then is much lower than the previously used 1970 -> 2000 ?

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This last quote reminded me of something Burt Rutan wrote, so I wasted several seconds of my life and added imperceptibly to the world's CO2 supply by googling.

    I found this wonderful piece of work.

    I couldn't find the quote I was thinking of, but it was something to the effect that "If I said that this airplane is about 95% sure to stay aloft, would you fly in it?"

  31. Slawek

    The models have been consistently overestimating:

  32. ScissorHands
    IT Angle

    Sometimes, ElReg's redtop heritage is too much for me...

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Would pointing out the company that El Reg's climate denial department keeps in the form of the lunatic fringe right wing in the US cause any soul-searching amongst a commentard contingent normally dismissive of such American drivel, I wonder?

  34. Captain DaFt

    Enough already!

    I'll ask someone I can trust!

    Hey, Wino Woody, what can you tell us about global warming?

    Wino Woody:

    >Adjusts tinfoil hat<

    >Drinks pint of Mad Dog<

    >Spreads bread crumbs around to attract pigeons to act as audience<

    >Pisses self<

    >Climbs up on milk crate<


    Think 'bout it, Everah year we goes on daylight savin's time for six months, theh we goes back to regulah time the rest ah teh year.


    Think abowddit, we'd hafta go back TWO hours to use them hours we saved up, but we nevah do, WHAT's THE GIBBIMIT DOIN" WITH ALL THAT DAYLIGHT!?

    They's storing it! Puttin' it all in big ol' underground silos out in teh midwest, an' tellin' everah one it's a noo-clear-ya missles ta keep people from gettin sush-pick-shush!


    Teh hole gawdam time them communists was running Russia, THEY WUZ ON DAYLIGHT SAVIN'S TIME TEH HULL TIME!! YAR IN AN' YAR OUT!! Jes' a-pilin' all that sunshine in big ol' warehouses in Siberia!

    An now? AN' NOW?? I'LL TELL YOU 'BOUT NOW!!

    The pas' twenny years er so, them silos aaaaaaan' warehouses is a startin' ta break down! All tha' extra sunshine's a bin leakin' owt, a heatin' things up, and NOW IT'S JES' GONNA GET WORSE!!

    WE'S A GONNA DIE a heatstroke an' cancer, AN' TEH POLAR BEAR'S A GONNA GET US!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

    >passes out and falls off milk crate<


    Ok, I'm sure you all found that as edifying as I have.

    Check back again in about 30 days (He should out of rehab and back on the street again by then) When I'll see if I can arrange for him and Mr. Orlowski to have a debate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Enough already!

      I definitely look forward to hearing more from Mr. Woody. He makes about as much sense as most of the posters here, but he's a hell of a lot more fun.

  35. Vociferous

    The Reg: a den of dense denialism?

    It's usually a place of unusual rationality (and occasionally even critical thinking).

    It's usually also a place where people know how to read graphs:

  36. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    What you *should* expect is a *narrowing* of the uncertainty bars.

    Which seems to have happened with some models.

    I wonder if anyone has pulled out a copy of the original reports from 21 years ago and compared them with the current crop?

    Because (if people are doing science, not religion) that's what should be happening.


  37. Anonymous Coward

    "but the main process is paid for by national governments, who also select the scientists who write the first drafts."

    The governments select and pay the scientists eh? How very convenient - it's more like 'we're confident because we're paid grants to be confident'. Ah well, so much for the IPCC.

  38. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

    Damn, lost the bet.

    I was sure Lewis Page would get there first.


  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pascal's wager

    1. So in what other part of your life would you take a 1 in 20 bet on something really important (and the office Grand National sweepstake doesn't count)?

    2. And if the you don't trust models and the measurements and the theory, what possible reason do you have for thinking reality will turn out better than the predictions? After all it's not as if pundits/politicians etc ever got any predictions wrong. 'I've abolished boom and bust' - ' the war will be over by Xmas' - ' the polls are wrong, we will win easily' .

  40. PeterM42
    Thumb Down

    Scientifically Speaking

    When I worked on commissioning and testing of scientific instruments, the sort of SMALL VARIATIONS in readings that are bandied about about as "Global Warming/Cooling" and "Ocean Levels" were usually recognised as NOISE in the reading equipment and, thus, were ignored.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Scientifically Speaking

      Oh, wow, well that's sorted it all out then - we didn't think about instrument error. guess we may as well wrap it up and go home. Sorry to have bothered you, we realise that we probably didn't properly calibrate the seaweed. Argument from personal incredulity is always a strong starting point in complex issues.

      'At what point did you reject the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand how good the idea is?


  41. Ubermik

    The IPCC is really just a government lobbying group whose main aim is to get the easily led to believe that man made global warming is real with a religious zest and to en masse support new industries based around taxation that will further widen the gap between the 95% of the planet and the wealthy 5%

    The scientific community itself (real scientists that is) admit they know barely nothing about the real long term cycles and influences of the sun and its variety of cycles and patterns on our ecosystem as well as only recently beginning to study the effects the sea has on the global temperature patterns and cycles which it also barely understands both of which are extremely fundamental parts of our climate and ecosystem and both of which not being understood completely removes ANY scientific value from any model used by anybody

    Its a bit like somebody trying to model the fuel efficiency of a car without having any understanding of how the combustion engine works or any knowledge of drag and friction and those two areas are far from the only areas of our ecosystem that isn't just not "fully understood" by scientists, but which have only recently began to be studied by them

    As for many of the claimed effects of global warming they are infact man made but not by global warming. Much of the frequently mentioned droughts and dry wells around the world are due to a variety of things like large companies pumping billions of gallons of ground water out to make soft drinks and bottled water leaving surrounding village wells dry

    Much of the new desert land isn't caused by a drier atmosphere or warmer temperatures but is the result of many countries massive dam building projects which has the side effects of causing downstream deforestation, erosion of top soil and increased water run off into the sea resulting in shrinking water tables and aquifers. The resulting sandy banks where once greenery existed is then often blamed on global warming despite "actual scientists" knowing the real causes

    The increased weather and flooding we are allegedly having is also overly stated. Some of the worst floods in Europe happened in the 1950s long before any man made effects on the ecosystem could possibly have occurred but theyre rarely mentioned nor compared to new Orleans as a modern comparison whose real causes lay in the lack of upkeep and maintenance of their flood defences as is a common state of affairs in much of the US as well as a lack of quick mobilisation or availability of flood resources after the fact

    Bangladesh has been suffering a drought for decades along with flooding due to it being below sea level which is too often linked to global warming, Yet their flooding from the rainy season has been well documented for thousands of years and the increasing shortage of water is due to india building dams or diverting the rivers that fed into the country.

    Bangladesh is likely to lose the river that provides around two thirds of its 160 million population with water and as a result food when India completes a dam and canal that routes the river around the outside of Bangladesh. THAT is a real ecological problem that most people will ignore in favour of screaming about the latest bit of flaky ill founded writings from the IPCC and other scaremongers

    And something that has no real science to back it up will be religiously and blindly followed by millions the world over whilst other millions die due to lack of access to clean water and food because of REAL man made problems that are actually real and COULD actually be averted

    Some perspective seems to be severely lacking in the world.

    But when the people who own most of the money also own the media and whilst most people think the media doesn't lie that's not really surprising

  42. Duke2010

    I feel hot today so they must be right

  43. julianh72

    RE: "All this global warming we aren't having"

    I know you shouldn't use local data and anecdotal commentary as evidence for or against global trends, but I can't let the assertion of "global warming we aren't having" go unchallenged.

    Australia has just gone through the warmest year on record (our "climate year" goes from October to September - spring to spring), including an extraordinarily warm winter. (And you don't need access to Bureau of Meteorology databases to know that, if you live in Brisbane - the simple fact that we only needed our winter doonas for about three nights his year is evidence in itself!) Maybe all of the northern hemisphere's "missing" global warming has migrated to Australia?

    It's even been reported in Murdoch's "The Australian", which usually runs a pretty solid anti-climate-change agenda:

    1. Ubermik

      Re: RE: "All this global warming we aren't having"

      That's weather not global warming

      When the alarmists want it to they WILL use localised weather that is hotter than average to try and prove their point but for "global" warming to be proven you need the GLOBAL average to be increasing steadily in line with CO2 increases seeing as that is what is being blamed as the culprit as well as also matching the predictions of the models that claim to show how the global warming WILL occur

      So it can be 3 times the "normal" temperature anywhere in the world and it proves nothing unless the average global temperature including that spike is also higher and fitting into a trend. Other wise its just an blip like all the other inconvenient blips the alarmists ignore like when GLOBAL temperatures have either stayed level or have decreased despite steady CO2 increases or where large increases in GLOBAL temperatures have occurred throughout history despite no increases or even dips in CO2 and god forbid they ever factor in times when CO2 has been at its lowest or highest and GLOBAL temperatures have been immense but life on earth has thrived rather than died as a result

      So no offence but whether Australia was baking in the hottest winter ever or covered in snow all summer doesn't in a "global" sense have any relevance whatsoever although the pro AGW media will I'm sure claim otherwise and hope nobody bothers to actually think about the claim in any depth

      Otherwise the US having some of the harshest winter weather it ever had in what are normally warm areas would have already disproved global warming wouldn't it. But obviously the alarmists only tend to advertise the stuff that supports their theory (as its not quite scientifically enough grounded to even be called a hypothesis just yet as they lack understanding of so much of our ecosystem at the moment)

    2. Fluffy Bunny

      Re: RE: "All this global warming we aren't having"

      Your anecdotal evidence would mean more if the papers didn't say that every winter.

      PS, Brisbane didn't need doonas for those three nights either. You're just a bunch of wimps. Try Perishers for cold.

  44. Ubermik

    China is an anomaly though as the state rather than individual families decide how many offspring are allowed so its a total straw man argument with no validity and no logical link to the topic of infant mortality and its relation to family size due to there being no freedom to breed

    But in pretty much every other country the world over infant mortality which tends to be linked to both education and wealth does vary and on average the larger family sizes do tend to be in the poorest countries with the highest infant mortality rate, the worst health care, least education AND the least access to, or willingness to use contraceptives

    Whereas in most weater countries birth rates are small and falling for everyone EXCEPT immigrants from poorer countries with little to no health care that have higher infant mortality rates

    WOW, who would have thunked it

    Theres a few other anomalies but theyre not in the west and are driven by long standing cultural influences that have remained to some extent even where wealth has increased, But in the west there is a clear link between family sizes, education, wealth and access to healthcare and contraception

    The US however is looking like its about to have a baby boom due to it changing its education system and sexual health education back to something last seen in the middle ages but again that's a state driven effect and not a social one so its irrelevant

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like