It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In December, a draft of the IPCC’s fifth assessment, due for final publication in September 2013, was leaked to the press by climate sceptic Alec Rawls.
The IPCC confirmed the draft was genuine while lamenting the leak. The media furor that followed, however, focused on a section of the report that suggests what some key climate scientists, including Dr Henrik Svensmark in the excellent The Chilling Stars, have said all along: that the influence of cosmic rays (the Sun) could have a greater warming influence than mankind’s emissions.
Rawls describes the relevant section as “an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and main conclusion of the full report, revealing the dishonesty of the whole”.
Just last year, the UK Met Office Hadley Center confidently predicted the average global temperature must rise incrementally by around 0.2oC decade by decade driven by CO2 rises.
Then on Christmas Eve, something curious happened. The UK Met Office posted a note on its website announcing it was downgrading its assessment.
The BBC’s pro-alarmist David Shukman interpreted the downgrade as meaning “there won’t have been much global warming for the past 20 years”.
But other parts of the UK media have clearly had enough. The Daily Mail pulled no punches citing the Met Office’s clumsy attempt to cover up the scale of its gross error as “a crime against science and the public.” The Sunday Telegraph editorial described it as a “betrayal of proper science”. And David Rose of the Mail on Sunday, in the wake of various attempts to exonerate this latest screw up, wanted to know “Who are the deniers now?” Labour MP Graham Stringer further noted how the field of UK energy and environmental policy was “dominated by individuals with commercial interests in renewables”, singling out Tim Yeo, chairman of the relevant Select Committee as “a director of several renewable firms.”
In a paper published Tuesday, no less an authority than NASA scientist James E. Hansen wrote, “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
The GWPF has been right all along. In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade.
This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives.
The bottom line is that the recent global temperature standstill is a real event. It is explained in a hand-waving way as due to natural climatic variations masking the long-term trend, even if we do not understand those natural variations. Some believe the standstill might be pointing the way to a deeper revision of our understanding of climate. One thing is clear the stuff you heard until very recently about mankind’s signal of warming being the strongest (and getting stronger) is wrong. The standstill has already taught us that.
The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as "completely ridiculous" by one of the report's lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."
The leaked draft "summary for policymakers" contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics' interpretation.
It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."
By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.
Given that, and the fact that the usual climate “models” have been affirmatively established to be worthless, why do we still let politicians and grant-hungry AGW advocates continue to bleed us dry to serve their false agendas?
without global warming as an excuse they cannot use the weather to their advantage in a war.
they can covertly use technology to manufacture the weather to cause mudslides and other "natural" events to harm other countries.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Kali74
Geoengineering is done at the EU level. It has already been determined that countries cannot act alone on the issue of climate change. Most of the geoengineering being conducted today is happening in Africa. Africa is a good testing ground because nobody rarely looks in that direction.edit on 18-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
It should be very telling that 'climate denial' doesn't conduct it's own research.
Originally posted by Kali74
They don't do any research at all, they have no instrumentation, no one out in the field... they simply take the data that others have labored for and cherry pick it to an extreme degree.
Of course, you ignore the fact this is not based upon "spin," but on the AGW priests' OWN FINDINGS!
Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
I don't like oil billionaires casino owners and giant Corporate talking heads telling me it's not warm.
Or that the weather isn't extreme.