Exciting new "Climate Change" acknowledgement.

[olger]

London, 22 February:

"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) welcomes that Dr Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average temperatures. (see interview with Dr Pachauri in The Australian 22 February).

The GWPF has been highlighting the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Recently, Nasa’s James Hansen also recognised that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

“Even though the scientific case for the standstill is secure, and well represented in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it will surely help the climate debate now that the IPCC chairman has confirmed its existence,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the GWPF’s science editor.

The post-1997 global annual average temperature standstill is one of the most important aspects of current climate science. Its recognition by the chair of the IPCC means there is now growing pressure that this empirical fact will receive full analysis in the forthcoming AR5 report.

The GWPF points out that Dr Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of “30-40 years at least” to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. “The 17-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for much longer it will demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its assumptions are inadequate,” Dr Whitehouse said."

As I said,

Gcwjr

[BobRyan]

So when someone says "the king has no clothes" then someone else is allowed to suddenly "see it"??

[JoeMo]

I read recently in either the NY Times or WSJ that the arctic ice buildup over the 2012 - 2013 winter is the largest since they started keeping records; and Antarctic ice, in spite of it being the end of summer, is above average.

[Igakusei]

Can someone explain the aversion to climate change science? I understand why Adventists have trouble with evolution, given direct statements by EGW and lots of theological arguments concerning incompatibility with the traditional Adventist understanding of God's character and his relationship with the human race, but I really don't understand the commitment to denying the science of climate change.

If anything, shouldn't the theological belief that the human race can't survive without God and that we're barreling towards imminent destruction easily lend itself to scientific findings that indicate we're at serious risk of making large portions of our planet uninhabitable for our great grandchildren?

This article isn't even news, because acknowledging that a trend line drawn from 1997 forward shows a flat or negative trend is not the same as acknowledging that the warming trend has stopped:

[JoeMo]

Igakusei,

Quote:

Can someone explain the aversion to climate change science?

I can't speak for everyone; but my aversion to climate change science is that much of it is pure BS. I'm not gonna sit here and say that climate change stonewallers are as pure as the driven snow; but there is much evidence that data supporting climate change has been manipulated, modified and politicized by climate change scientists themselves (google "climate change data falsified" for thousands of articles on it). Climate forecasting models have a history of being wrong, even using BS for data.

Recent data shows a record arctic ice refreeze and a much colder than normal winter. (you can google that, too).

I am a risk manager for a large energy company; and one of our biggest risks is climate risk; so I follow this stuff as a professional; not as a casual observer. Admittedly, I'm somewhat biased because the prevailing thought that CO2 is the main culprit driving global warming; and our primary fuel for generating power is coal. Coal is out of vogue these days - mostly because of political and media pressures to demonize it as an earth destroyer; and media supression of the fact that it is by far the most economic energy source on the planet.

Do you honestly think that there is a net benefit to forcing people to more than double there payments for energy due to a change of 1 or 2 degrees in average global temps? Is there a net global benefit for the U.S to put out trillions of dollars that we don't have to cut CO2 emissions by 20% over the next decade while major developing countries (like China and India) will more than double their emissions during the same time frame?

IMO religion has nothing to do with it - it's simple economics.

Energy = Prosperity

To severely curtail efficient energy production in the name of marginal (at best) benefit to the climate is just plain bed economics. Wouldn't it be cheaper to adapt to climate change (should it happen) rather than try in vain to prevent it? I would much rather move north, uphill, and/or away from the coast and have plenty of energy than spend all the money in the world to lower my standard of living and end up freezing in the dark.

[phkrause]

Can someone explain the aversion to climate change science?

I agree with you 100% Igakusei on this. Personally I don't really care what its called, global warming, climate change or whatever. I can remember when a kid living in NYC and the first few years living up in MA, when it snowed it stayed all year. It was cold from Oct to May, at least in MA. In NY maybe around Mar-Apr. the last number of years the winters have been cold than warm, cold and again warm. Never can remember winters getting above 50 degrees. This year has especially been a crazy winter, got days where the temp got into the high 50s and hardly any days around 0 or even in the teens. Used to be January was always in the single digits, even Dec and Feb would get some really cold weather, not in the last 10 or so years. Not even gonna get into why many if not almost all SDAs don't believe in this issue. Actually on this forum its actually turned around, more seem to believe that there is climate change that has been going on for the past 20/30 years, give or take a few each way.

[CoAspen]

Researching the web site shows that it is a private organization with no way to check contributers. There have been links to energy/coal concerns in Europe. It was started to counter climate warming claims and that is its only concern. I think you have been given the main, most important answer to you question, it's all about the money, now! What most people against warming seem to be saying, let the future take care of itself, today is the most important. Mineing of the facts is one of the biggest ways to discounting warming, example and surprised it hasn't been used, is that the latest stats for the US have shown that snow cover has been the highest in rest times, percentage of land mass covered at one time. What is left out when people quote that stat, that is an expected effect of warming because the over all snow depths are LESS. Less moisture in the atmosphere to fall. The 2nd fact to be misused are more severe blizzards, another expected result of warming, ie, change in weather patterns to more extremes.

Of course you already know that many religious nay-sayers simple just demonize it all by assigning it to an extreme enviromentalism/pagans/devil worshiper/etc. What is ignored is the fact that the God Christians believe in told them to take care of their world. The counter is usually that God gave it to man to be fruitful and live off of. There are some effects being seen currently that are being attributed to warming but the greatest threat is to the future. Since many Christians believe that their future in heaven is close at hand, what happens to the earth is not a really big concern.

But really, I think that outside of religious circles, it is all about money. Wether one believes in it or not, I simply want to hear facts, not half truths, etc. We all 'hear' what we want. For me, the more I read and learn about the issue, I lean toward it, warming, as really happening. Who or what is the real culprit/s is still being debated.

[phkrause]

Researching the web site shows that it is a private organization with no way to check contributers. There have been links to energy/coal concerns in Europe. It was started to counter climate warming claims and that is its only concern. I think you have been given the main, most important answer to you question, it's all about the money, now! What most people against warming seem to be saying, let the future take care of itself, today is the most important. Mineing of the facts is one of the biggest ways to discounting warming, example and surprised it hasn't been used, is that the latest stats for the US have shown that snow cover has been the highest in rest times, percentage of land mass covered at one time. What is left out when people quote that stat, that is an expected effect of warming because the over all snow depths are LESS. Less moisture in the atmosphere to fall. The 2nd fact to be misused are more severe blizzards, another expected result of warming, ie, change in weather patterns to more extremes.

Of course you already know that many religious nay-sayers simple just demonize it all by assigning it to an extreme enviromentalism/pagans/devil worshiper/etc. What is ignored is the fact that the God Christians believe in told them to take care of their world. The counter is usually that God gave it to man to be fruitful and live off of. There are some effects being seen currently that are being attributed to warming but the greatest threat is to the future. Since many Christians believe that their future in heaven is close at hand, what happens to the earth is not a really big concern.

But really, I think that outside of religious circles, it is all about money. Wether one believes in it or not, I simply want to hear facts, not half truths, etc. We all 'hear' what we want. For me, the more I read and learn about the issue, I lean toward it, warming, as really happening. Who or what is the real culprit/s is still being debated.

Exactly CoAspen.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

IPCC chief calls for ‘sane voices’ in local climate debate

Cathy Alexander | Jan 15, 2013 12:51PM

The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks to Crikey on the need for sanity and fair reporting in media coverage of climate change — and explains why Australia should care.

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”.But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.

“So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.

While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

Despite the persistence of scepticism, Pachauri was upbeat about global acceptance of the science of human-induced climate change. He thought some prominent sceptics were changing their minds: “I hope that will be the case once they see all the compelling scientific evidence, in this country and in other parts of the world.”

Here is the more of the conversation that was not reported by the 'anti site' that started this thread....

Quote:

Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.

"The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions," Dr Pachauri said.

"If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.

"What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.

"This is not to say you won't have ups and downs - you will - but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions."

He said that it would be 30 to 40 years "at least" before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.

"If you look at the last century, records tell you that the increase in average surface temperature has been 0.74C," he said.

"If you have five or 10 years when you don't have the same trend, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are deviating from the trend - you are still around the trend."

Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer - following a record melt last winter - was consistent with the current understanding of climate change.

[CoAspen]

I am not sure why 'anti' people get caught up in the false reporting from such blatant untruthful web sites. It only takes a small amount of research to find the real facts. I guess it is assumed, by those sites, the average person will not go and check out the 'reported stories' for the actual facts and words. But in this age of trash talking and slander, par for the normal!

[JoeMo]

Quote:

The GWPF points out that Dr Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of “30-40 years at least” to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. “The 17-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for much longer it will demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its assumptions are inadequate,” Dr Whitehouse said."

I'm not gonna insist that I'm right here. There are two sides to every debate. As I infer from the above quote, time will tell.

If it proves out that man-made climate change is for real, is humanity vain enough to realisticly think that they can reverse the trensd in time to "save" the planet? Is there a net benefit for the planet bankrupting itself trying to prevent climate change rather than accomodate it? Are you willing to totally trash your standard of living and that of your children and grandchildren in the name of 1 or 2 degrees over the next century? How do we know that climate change is all bad?

[Bravus]

Quote:

Can someone explain the aversion to climate change science? I understand why Adventists have trouble with evolution, given direct statements by EGW and lots of theological arguments concerning incompatibility with the traditional Adventist understanding of God's character and his relationship with the human race, but I really don't understand the commitment to denying the science of climate change.

Explanation: Christianity climbing into bed with the political right and corporate interests. No scripture, no doctrine, just politics.

[phkrause]

Explanation: Christianity climbing into bed with the political right and corporate interests. No scripture, no doctrine, just politics.

Right On

[Restin]

A term that helped me most about the debate for or agin "global warming" was from an anchorman on one of the TV channels. He called it "Global Weirding".

[fccool]

To be fair, from personal experience with Adventism, quite a bit of Adventists that I came across understand that man-made climate change and environment pollution is a problem.

I've been to several churches that had various awareness actions and reminders like recycling for their members.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I can't speak for everyone; but my aversion to climate change science is that much of it is pure BS.

guess we're going to have to wait to see.

"Then the fourth [angel] emptied out his bowl upon the sun, and it was permitted to burn (scorch) humanity with [fierce, glowing] heat (fire).

People were severely burned (scorched) by the fiery heat, and they reviled and blasphemed the name of God, Who has control of these plagues, and they did not repent of their sins [felt no regret, contrition, and compunction for their waywardness, refusing to amend their ways] to give Him glory."

Revelation 16:8,9 AMP brackets parenthesis theirs' LHC

God cares!

[phkrause]

I like that one

[CoAspen]

Joe, just google '2 degree climate change' and you will find many links to articles giving you answers about the subject. There really is a truck load of data with which you can find answers to your questions, original sources. Then you can make up your own mind.

[JoeMo]

Thanks CoAspen - I'll do that after Sabbath!

[Kyran]

guess we're going to have to wait to see.

"Then the fourth [angel] emptied out his bowl upon the sun, and it was permitted to burn (scorch) humanity with [fierce, glowing] heat (fire).

People were severely burned (scorched) by the fiery heat, and they reviled and blasphemed the name of God, Who has control of these plagues, and they did not repent of their sins [felt no regret, contrition, and compunction for their waywardness, refusing to amend their ways] to give Him glory."

Revelation 16:8,9 AMP brackets parenthesis theirs' LHC

My bet is that it's going to be the sun farting in the wrong direction.

[Bravus]

Simply not true that the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice is at a record high this year... and the minimum extent has been hitting new record lows for a while now.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[Narcah]

I for one welcome global warming. It's been happening since glaciers carved out Yosemite...

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Simply not true that the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice is at a record high this year.

Hey Bravus,

If this is a response to an earlier post of mine, I never said (or meant to say) that the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice is at a record high. I said the growth of arctic ice (i.e., the change in the area of Arctic ice between Oct. 2012 and present) is a record. Not really evidence that global warming is false - a one-year record doesn't mean much. We'll have to see what the melt is this summer.

[Bravus]

Ah, OK: quite possible I misread.

Yes, there are new records being set for rate of growth. This is because the summer minima have shrunk a long way, so the start point for the growth is a lot lower. The maxima are also getting smaller, but at a lower rate, so to grow in a season from a much lower start point to an only slightly lower end point requires faster growth. This is evidence *for* climate change, rather than against it.

The other issue is that what is measured is ice *extent* (area), not ice volume. The area is growing fast (at the beginning of winter) and shrinking faster and further in spring. But the ice is thin, which allows it to grow fast and shrink fast. The old thick ice is gone.

I know it's not *you*, JoeMo, who is doing the cherry-picking here, but you are being misled by people who should know better. Trumpeting 'the ice is growing at record rates, disproving climate change' (or, as you correctly said, suggestive but needing more evidence) is simply not accurate.

[LifeHiscost]

I know it's not *you*, JoeMo, who is doing the cherry-picking here, but you are being misled by people who should know better. Trumpeting 'the ice is growing at record rates, disproving climate change' (or, as you correctly said, suggestive but needing more evidence) is simply not accurate.