AP Reports IPCC Draft: "8 Reasons to Worry About Global Warming" or "Fear-Mongering for Dummies"

Alarmism for kids?

The Associated Press has published a dumbed-down draft of a version of the IPCC’s Reasons for Concern, re-cast as low-information and child-friendly text, minus the “scientific language” and underlying bases for their conclusions of what we should be most afraid of, even if they never come to pass or are highly exaggerated.

A United Nations panel of scientists is joining the list craze with what they call eight "key risks" that are part of broader "reasons for concern" about climate change.

It's part of a massive report on how global warming is affecting humans and the planet and how the future will be worse unless something is done about it. The report is being finalized at a meeting this weekend by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

hosted.ap.org...

The AP story has been picked up worldwide already, and passed along among the various AGW advocacy groups to take full advantage of the weekend ahead of release of the base document.

But a draft of the list - called by the acronym RFCs - includes science-heavy language, caveats and uses lowercase Roman numerals, for example using iv instead of 4.

A boiled-down version of what the scientists say the warmed-up future holds for Earth if climate change continues:

1. Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.
2. Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.
3. Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.
4. Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.
5. Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.
6. Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.
7. Some land animals won't do much better and that's not good for people who depend on them.
8. Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.

“Reasons for Concern” or “RFCs” were first introduced in footnotes to the Working Group II report for the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR).

They have been adopted as an easy relation of underlying studies to general observations that could be readily deployed by the press and others employing the Report to advance AGW policy.

Five integrative reasons for concern (RFCs) provide a framework for summarizing key risks across sectors and regions. First identified in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the reasons for concern** illustrate the implications of warming and of adaptation limits for people, economies, and ecosystems. They provide one starting point for evaluating dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. [...]

IPCC Working Group II government draft

The IPCC is frustrated that growing numbers of their parents are questioning unfounded alarmist sentiments coaxed into their "Policy Summary," despite conflicting evidence; so now they take the dogma and fear-mongering directly to the children and low-information adults.
And we pay for this crap!

Have a great weekend, it may be your last!

It is not surprising they are moving their AGW meme further down the road in time .With sites like WUWT and Climate Audit exposing their nature tricks and pal review process .The Steyn Mann court cases are going to be interesting .The IPCC's bla bla bla stuff is just that ...The models don't work and are useless when it is used to predict ....peace

reply to post by jdub297


The Climate is changing, all right. But as long as politics directs science, the truth will always be twisted.

S&F

200 year ago it was easy to sway a population. Very few people could read and write and thus, many were easily swayed.

Then universal education came along and with that came the mass media to sway our views. World War 2 was a classic example and such tactics held sway through the Cold War.

Now, things are a little different. The internet is the enemy of tyranny. Information and ideas are a powerful combination. The pen is mightier than the sword,.... or is it now the keyboard.

Never before in human history have so many people been educated with a method to communicate ideas.

Global warming is not that hard to put down. None of the models used to date have taken the Sun into account and not doing so is just plain stupid. The Sun powers the Earth.

It only takes a few awake people and the percentage of people that have awakened grows daily and this awakening is feared by our Governments.

Fear us they should for in spite of everything, we outnumber them and always will.

The next step for them is to disconnect the internet and that step frightens the hell out of them, as it should. The educated will not allow that giant step backwards. Governments have only a few arrows in their quiver and the names of those arrows are well known.

Not finding WMD in Iraqi, not finding their scapegoat in Afghanistan were two game changers. More people awaken and see the world clearly.

I wonder when the S will hit the spinning blades. The time when the Tree of Liberty needs watering grows closer and closer. The tree is likely to get a very good soaking.

P

reply to post by the2ofusr1

The Steyn Mann court cases are going to be interesting .

Funny thing, Mann and ("the mssing heat is at the bottom of the oceans") Trenberth are now whining that FiveThirtyEight contributor Benny Peiser has threatened them with litigation for their ad-hominem attacks on a piece he recently published there that criticized their alarmism.

Times and sentiment are indeed changing; but will we let them brainwash our kids and low-information neighbors now, too? (More than they already do.)

reply to post by pheonix358

It only takes a few awake people and the percentage of people that have awakened grows daily and this awakening is feared by our Governments.
Fear us they should for in spite of everything, we outnumber them and always will.

Excellent observations, all.
I, too, believe that although AGW alarmists dominated for 20 years the airwaves, press, and government and NGO policy makers, the failures of their "predictions" and the emptiness of their warnings are now becoming more clear.
The "new media" allows for and nurtures the spread of these facts to those who might not have otherwise been aware.

reply to post by jdub297


Well I think it's like Pheonix358 above has alluded to .We have the web and each new generation of our kids are going to use it much better .The education has had negative effects on ourselves and we broke free .I am sure we will share with our kids the ways of the deceivers ....We now spot their old ways a lot quicker and are not so quick to drink their cool-aid ...Plus having the ability to find decent sources for info and understand the exchanges really helps .Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth worked a little longer then War of the Worlds but now seen as nothing more then fiction other then by the ignorant ...Most of our kids and low informed neighbors are not interested in reading that garbage anymore then we are .Difference is ,is that we can easily debunk it and help educate them if they are truly interested ...peace

PS ...Yea I think the team really does protest too much .The thing about the way they react is , is that guys like McIntyre and the gang are very good at contextualizing it and keeping the file on them .They keep digging and really cant help themselves ...I read it just for the humor lol

Regardless of who is doing the warming....the planet is getting warmer....

Although this was the coldest winter I've had in my life there are areas of the planet which had its warmest. The Earth will do what she wants regardless of us....and with that...it would be foolish to think we don't assist in her decisions.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


If it's a concern to you then by all means turn your heat down2/3% and up on the air conditioner .What the whole AGW meme is about is levying a tax scheme on the whole earth .And this is coming from a group of non elected people .It's not democratic and is tied into Agenda 21 .....peace

Using words to create fear.

1. Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.
2. Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.
3. Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.
4. Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.
5. Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.
6. Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.
7. Some land animals won't do much better and that's not good for people who depend on them.
8. Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.

VoidHawk
Using words to create fear.

1. Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.
2. Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.
3. Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.
4. Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.
5. Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.
6. Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.
7. Some land animals won't do much better and that's not good for people who depend on them.
8. Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.

I guess I am old and cursed with a good memory for my grand dad, father , and even I remember all those things happening.. They used to call it the new ice age coming back in the late 50s but between that and global warming they finally figured it would be a better catch all if they used Climate change! Whoever came up with that should have gotten an agenda 21 bonus!

727Sky
I guess I am old and cursed with a good memory for my grand dad, father , and even I remember all those things happening.. They used to call it the new ice age coming back in the late 50s but between that and global warming they finally figured it would be a better catch all if they used Climate change! Whoever came up with that should have gotten an agenda 21 bonus!

I recently watched an old docu from the 60's. All the same words and tactics were being used as we see today, and it was anouncing (as you said) the coming of The Ice Age!!
I'm getting on a bit too, and I too can remember all the bs, although at that age I didn't know it was bs. I do believe however that an ice age is far more likely than an earth being roasted, its happened so many times in the past and if we believe the data we're about due for another.

reply to post by jdub297


They love placing blame where it doesnt belong to drive a political agenda.
The procession of the equinox is whats happening during this portion of a 26k cycle...the northern hemisphere is tilting towards the sun allowing for 1500 sq mile increase in the North.

Can we just drop it now and respond appropriately?

reply to post by VoidHawk

I do believe however that an ice age is far more likely than an earth being roasted, its happened so many times in the past and if we believe the data we're about due for another.

There was an excellent documentary on the Little Ice Age recently; I believe it was called "The Big Chill" on the Science Channel or some other. They recounted the cyclical nature of "ice ages" and natural (and predictable) global warming and cooling cycles.

One interesting feature was that they started the piece with a review of the period starting around 1300 when temperatures were about 4 to 5 degrees F WARMER than the present; noting how people and wildlife thrived following the end of the Dark Ages, but before the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age.
It appears we, and the Earth, are exquisitely capable of adapting to post-glacial warming, but severely afflicted by drops in the clime.

Of course, when it becomes undeniable that another grand cooling is approaching, the still-extant AGW alarmists will exclaim that WE are causing it!

the2ofusr1
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

If it's a concern to you then by all means turn your heat down2/3% and up on the air conditioner .What the whole AGW meme is about is levying a tax scheme on the whole earth .And this is coming from a group of non elected people .It's not democratic and is tied into Agenda 21 .....peace

Oh I totally agree there are douchebags playing on our fears and trying to push their agenda for it...honestly....I want destruction...I want hardship...because its people like us on ATS that are light years ahead of the general population...let the earth go to crap and Ill just move to a more comfortable place and bust out the survival skills there...the only thing ill miss is ATS

VoidHawk
Using words to create fear.

1. Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.
2. Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.
3. Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.
4. Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.
5. Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.
6. Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.
7. Some land animals won't do much better and that's not good for people who depend on them.
8. Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.

Just this past week there was quite a disturbance in the AGW aether, when it was discovered that an additional 2 degrees C might NOT result in mass extinctions, after all!
Some knave within the clique had the audacity to point out how that differed from the TAR and FAR gloom and doom propositions, which had filtered into the 5th version, despite evidence to the contrary.

From Der Spiegel:

In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.
...
The draft report includes a surprising admission by the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species extinctions. "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that "forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated."

UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?

Oh, My!
But wait, there's more!

From Nate Silver's new liberal blog, FiveThirtyEight:

Since the early 1990s, scientists have understood in theory how a population could evolve fast enough to outrace extinction. Then, about five years ago, a group at McGill University saw it happen in the lab: Evolution saved populations of yeast from deadly concentrations of salt. The conditions under which this type of “evolutionary rescue” succeeds are narrow, but that hasn’t stopped scientists from modeling and collecting data to see just when and how it works.

fivethirtyeight.com...

And, as if the news for the fear-mongers couldn't get worse, comes this:

"Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects."

The United Nations' IPCC will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.
...
According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.

It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.

... There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it.

In short, the warming we experienced over the past 35 years—about 0.4C (or 0.7F) if you average the measurements made by satellites and those made by ground stations—is likely to continue at about the same rate: a little over a degree a century.
...
Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers," such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller.

Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare. Studies such as by the IPCC author and economist Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University in Britain show that global warming has probably done so already. People can adapt to such change—which essentially means capture the benefits but minimize the harm.

Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm


Oh, no! There goes some of the best arguments for all those needed billions of taxpayer dollars.

But do not despair, alarmists. The WG II report is being "revised" as I write this for the "Policy Makers' Summary," which will no doubt minimize or eliminate the science in favor of more politically and monetarily expedient "conclusions." Give the politicians at the IPCC credit for their unflinching willingness to take scientific facts and morph them into money-making fodder for the MSM, other politicans, and the low-information public.

cosmicexplorer

the2ofusr1
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

If it's a concern to you then by all means turn your heat down2/3% and up on the air conditioner .What the whole AGW meme is about is levying a tax scheme on the whole earth .And this is coming from a group of non elected people .It's not democratic and is tied into Agenda 21 .....peace

Oh I totally agree there are douchebags playing on our fears and trying to push their agenda for it...honestly....I want destruction...I want hardship...because its people like us on ATS that are light years ahead of the general population...let the earth go to crap and Ill just move to a more comfortable place and bust out the survival skills there...the only thing ill miss is ATS

What are you going to believe, facts or your lying "experts?"
Run for the hills; but empty your wallet first, please.

Satellites have recorded a roughly 14% increase in greenery on the planet over the past 30 years, in all types of ecosystems, partly as a result of man-made CO2 emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.
...
it appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold.

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population "bomb," pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.

Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm

Deny Ignorance!

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Have to go out, will follow those links when I get back home.

If the IPCC would talk a bit less, we'd have a measurable reduction in hot air expended to the atmosphere. We could talk about the IPCC conventions and seminars in spots dotted all over the planet, and usually in nice, enjoyable spots to call a proper vacation between conferences to attend. Not all of them, but they are all well scattered, which means....how much nasty jet fuel and other factors making a 'carbon footprint' do they stomp down to come up with these conclusions?\

Do as I say, not as I do. Ahh... I must remind myself of the motto which makes them go around.

It's warmer! ..they cry...while this winter broke records all over North America and not just in isolated areas or cases...but consistently from the "1,000 records broken in a single week" that started the season off in headlines (I'd happen to run a thread on that one) to the snow storms running right up to the end in areas. On the other side of the world (in proper summer season) Australia roasted in their own records.

It's warmer? It's BROKEN.......just flat friggen BROKEN. It's both warmer AND colder entirely dependent on where one happens to be for which extreme is being experienced at record levels. Broken....is the only way I'd describe the weather regulation our planet has been running along with, smoothly, for a few hundred years at least (there was that mini-ice age thing to consider).

When the IPCC considers more than just how to make people feel so bad, they open their wallets, like giving to a TV Preacher on a bad night? I might give them more of my attention than I have time to verify their every last claim for. Right now, they are the "urgency builders" to the international push on carbon taxes, exchanges and all manner of scam to take our money into a global money pit.

Ice Age Scare

Stephen Schneider "man-made global warming alarmist " warns of The Coming Ice Age,,,which bandwagon will he jump on next ?

1989 Stephen Schneider told Discover Magazine

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to
the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are
not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd
like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates
into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic
change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture
the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of
media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be
solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.