IPCC in transition

From Pachauri's resignation letter:

"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

Yes, the IPCC – which we're told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling. Even here, at the end, Pachauri fails to grasp that science and religion don't belong in the same sentence; that those on a political mission are unlikely to be upholders of rigorous scientific practice.

https://es.noticias.yahoo.com/blogs/apuntes-naturaleza/escepticos-cambio-climatico-convierten-profetas-085141403.html


...

Facing extinction... to make 'green' fuel

Orang-utans face becoming the first species of great ape to become officially extinct, with 6,000 left in Sumatra
Their numbers are reducing rapidly because their habitat is being ravaged to make way for mass plantation of palms
Palm oil is used increasingly in chocolate bars, biscuits, soaps, cooking oil and 'green' bio-diesel fuel
The EU says 10 per cent of transport energy must come from renewable sources including bio-fuels by 2020
British zoologist Dr Ian Singleton nurses the orang-utans back to health after their habitats are destroyed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_n8ZjV7dhc

¡Y todavía hay quienes sostienen que todo el asunto del "cambio climático" (antes conocido como "calentamiento global antropogénico", no lo olvidemos) no tiene nada que ver con la política:

Don't believe in global warming at the state level? FEMA will yank your Federal disaster money

Y como les falla la ciencia, y la naturaleza los desmiente, lo único que les queda es imponer su ideología a la fuerza.

Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths of a degree, if at all'

The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.
The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.

Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share."

His conclusion: "Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all.

Evidentemente los paises de Latinoamerica no tienen otras cosas de que preocuparse.

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/03/31/actualidad/1427754298_491495.html

7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years

- Christy: NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, those are agencies. Agency leaders are appointed by the government, by the current administration. They do not represent objective independent scientific organizations. They can't. They are appointed by the head. They try. People who come out with different views in their organizations are found to be squashed. There is an agenda in those agencies, so it does not surprise me when they go full bore on something like climate change. They are marching to the drum of the administration.
- Spencer: Those organizations, NASA and NOAA, they are part of the executive branch. So the White House has some influence over what direction they go. The heads are political appointees so you have political influence from the top down on scientists. And that's a problem.

- Christy: I am for any energy source that is affordable and doesn't destroy the environment. If carbon dioxide was a poisonous gas, I'd be against it. Carbon dioxide makes things grow. The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem.
Why would you go to wind energy that is so much more expensive or solar? The point here is that if it's not economically sustainable, it's not sustainable. And you have to have an energy plan that's sustainable, that people can afford. Right now, wind and solar, you can't afford. And so the only wind and solar that exists is because of huge government subsidies.  I'm not against renewables or any other source of energy. Can we afford it? Solar and wind are so low density that it takes acres and square miles to do anything. And that's not environmentally smart.

- Christy: Where is the biggest response to greenhouse gases? It's in the atmosphere, not on the surface. So if you want to measure the response and say that's the greenhouse gas response, you would look in the atmosphere. That's precisely where satellites measure it. So the scientific to how does the world respond is found here. The response of the climate system is stronger in the atmosphere than on the surface.


 

El Dr. Roy Spencer contesta a Ron Bailey:

Answering Ron Bailey's Question: "What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?"

Regarding his list, he seems to believe they are independent evidences of manmade warming. Wrong. To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.
These things would all occur together anyway, no matter the cause of the warming, Ron. And causation is, indeed, the question which science so far cannot answer.

Cita de: HrizzoEl Dr. Roy Spencer contesta a Ron Bailey:

Bonita pregunta. En realidad Spencer no "se moja" demasiado. Descalifica -con razón- las evidencias que presenta Bailey, y dice que cualquier escéptico serio acepta la idea de algún "calentamiento antropogénico". Que el problema es cuánto.

Yo sí aceptaría responder más directamente a la pregunta. Aceptaría como evidencia si la temperatura real pasara por alguna de estas puertas o dianas que señalo en el gráfico. Me bastaría con una sola, si definimos "temperatura real" por ejemplo la media de cinco años.

Cita de: plazaemeAceptaría como evidencia si la temperatura real pasara por alguna de estas puertas o dianas que señalo en el gráfico.

Parecería una pretensión lógica, ya que estaría basada más o menos en las predicciones de la conjetura CGA. Un buen punto, ciertamente.

Evidentemente, esto no es ciencia sino ideología intolerante y totalitaria:

Another call to arrest climate "deniers"

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

Weinstein bases his claim that man made climate change "kills a lot of people" on a WHO page, which estimates that 150,000 people per annum are dying because of climate related extreme weather and other problems, such as crop failure.

However, this claim simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Even the IPCC has failed to establish a link between CO2 and extreme weather. In addition, the rise in CO2 has so far been strongly beneficial for crop yields – satellites have detected a substantial greening of the planet, thanks largely to the fertilisation effect of the rise in atmospheric CO2.