Norwegian Study Reveals IPCC and MSM Fearmongering; Global Warming Downgraded!

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Despite the recent politicized reporting from NOAA, NASA and the US Global Change Research Program (USGRCP), independent studies have provided clear contradictions to the hype and extremism.


GLOBAL warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change.

The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.
www.express.co.uk...

The lead scientist, and author, claims that exaggerated responses to a warm 1990s caused instittutions such as rthe IPCC and NASA to grossly overestimate projected warming and rendered their "modeling" highly suspect and inaccurate.

“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).

“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”
Doubled CO2 means just 1.9°C warming, says Norwegian gov

Others in the scientific community have acknowledged the imact of the study upon models and projections once considered to be accurate, but now on skaky ground.


The Research Council of Norway: Global warming less extreme than feared?
Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.

Internationally renowned climate researcher Caroline Leck of Stockholm University has evaluated the Norwegian project and is enthusiastic.

“These results are truly sensational,” says Dr Leck. “If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”

www.forskningsradet.no...

Tellingly, a comparison of the various warmist/alarmist model projections reveals that they exaggerated temperature rise by a factor of 2 - 5X!



Skeptics have adopted an, "I told you so," stance, as facts and data come in to show how far off the extremists have been:


“This research confirms what we have been saying all along. The global warming standstill of the last 16 years is having a dramatic effect on climate models and predictions. The Met Office should now reassess its own, flawed ­computer models and tone down the alarmist pronouncements which are no longer trustworthy.”

The Met Office last month predicted cooler than expected temperatures for the next five years leading to claims global warming is stalling.

Global Warming Less Extreme Than Feared

Even so, we see "predictions" of calamity and contradictory press releases and foisted upon a credulous and gullble public, willing to accept "official" staements and reports over critical analysis and common sense.

Warming over this century is projected to be considerably greater than over the last century. The global average temperature since 1900 has risen by about 1.5°F. By 2100, it is projected to rise another 2 to 10°F.

globalchange.gov...
globalchange.gov...
ncadac.globalchange.gov...
globalchange.gov...

One hopeful sign is that, desp[ite all the hype, very little concerted action has been taken. Outside of the EPA's draconian regulatory attacks, most of the international community has been less strident in their responses.


However, even the previous IPCC imminent doom scenario completely failed to produce any serious action (apart from some dishonest machinations which artifically force up electricity bills to pay for pointless windmills). With the recent gradual scientific acceptance - even among scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the subject - that global warming is simply much less significant than had been thought, the chance of anyone caring enough to take action is now even lower

www.theregister.co.uk...]Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE

Surprisingly, even the founder of the "green" movement has tepped away from the extremism, and acknowledges that the hype and fears may have been overdone in light of data and rationality.


I am James Lovelock, scientist and author, known as the originator of Gaia theory, a view of the Earth that sees it as a self-regulating entity that keeps the surface environment always fit for life… I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

www.bishop-hill.net...

Are we finally coming to our senses?

jw




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
One can pick either side of the climate argument and find a scientist (or 100) that will use science just like a statistician uses statistics, To prove the point of those financing them. That rapid changes are effecting humanity is a fact. The how and why is of little importance in the overall scheme of things. Humans will not stop driving cars, buying I-pads and new cars every few years, etc etc.

This world will sooner or later look like Beijing. I love those pictures of the pollution as they show the lack of effect us humans have had on climate change (sarcasm). They recently had a factory fire that went unnoticed for three hours due to blending in with the smog.

Do you know why deniers deny? They simply don't like the carbon tax program. Despite my being a firm believer in climate change (I was a Delegate at the California Governors Conference on Climate Change) I don't agree with the carbon cap & trade/tax programs. It is a process that has been fraught with cons and abuses.

Just once I wish these denier types would simply admit they are deniers because they are afraid it will cost them money......

In closing, follow the money that paid for the studies before you assume them to be correct. That goes for both sides, believers and deniers.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Mamatus because: gwammer and speeeeling



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 

As is often the case, when confronted with data that discredits their faith, AGW faithful resort to ad-hominem and
"kill-the-messenger" attacks.

All, while the AGW foundation is cracking beneath their feet, and the dogma is steadily discredited.

Even the New York Times, among the staunchest of the MSM advocates of extremist AGW hype, had to acknowledge the credibility of this peer-reviewed and published paper, funded 100% by the Norwegian government; itself no enemy of the AGW religion.


New York Times January 27, 2013
DOT EARTH
ANDREW REVKIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change January 26, 2013
Weaker Global Warming Seen in Study Promoted by Norway’s Research Council

Purveyors of climate doubt have seized on a news release from the Research Council of Norway with this provocative title: “Global warming less extreme than feared?” The release describes new research finding that global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases will be on the low end of the persistently wide spread of projections by other research groups.

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...< br />
Poor Andrew!
Even after he, too, initially criticized the study, he had to publish today's "retraction" when he was shown to have falsely mischaracterized the Study (not unlike Mamatus).

Even when he resorted to casting about for other AGW advocates to support his efforts to dicredit and deny the "deniers," he conceded that they were on the right track. The best he could do was to quote a fellow AGW believer at RealClimate who acknowledged the findings were part of the legitimate science creating uncertainty in the basic tenets of the AGW relisgion:


Gavin Schmidt describes the different approaches to the question, and why there are essentially two conclusions, both surrounded by different kinds of uncertainty. His takeaway line:

[T]he ‘meta-uncertainty’ across the methods remains stubbornly high with support for both
relatively low numbers around 2ºC and higher ones around 4ºC, so that is likely to remain
the consensus range.

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...< br />
So, (to paraphrase Edward G. Robinson) "Where's your consensus now, Moses?"

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 27-1-2013 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Who the F cares? Why do you people insist on constantly arguing over this meaningless topic? This horse is dead, its bones turned to dust, and you're just slapping the dust around, making the rest of us sneeze.

By the time your scientists agree on the reality or falsehood of anthropogenic climate change, it will already be too late to change anything.

I'll be nice and tell you exactly what you should be discussing:

There is one fact that no honest scientist will ever argue, and it is this: EVERY ECOSYSTEM ON THE PLANET IS EXPERIENCING SEVERE DECLINE IN BIODIVERSITY AND OVERALL HEALTH CAUSED BY UNSUSTAINABLE HUMAN ENCROACHMENT AND RESOURCE EXTRACTION. If you deny this statement, you are a complete fool. There is no debate on this FACT within the scientific community.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I've always said that AGW is alarmist bullcrap.

You wanna save the planet? Focus on pollution reduction.
You can't sell Co2. Nothing to see. And the effects will be felt sometime down the road.

But you can sell pollution reduction. Especially when you show old people and new borns suffering from it's effects.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew
There is one fact that no honest scientist will ever argue, and it is this: EVERY ECOSYSTEM ON THE PLANET IS EXPERIENCING SEVERE DECLINE IN BIODIVERSITY AND OVERALL HEALTH CAUSED BY UNSUSTAINABLE HUMAN ENCROACHMENT AND RESOURCE EXTRACTION. If you deny this statement, you are a complete fool. There is no debate on this FACT within the scientific community.


Such "absolutist" claims are NOT scientific, and any idiot with half a brain who can thinlk for herself knows this.

Given that we have explored less than 20% of the Earth's surface (which includes all land covered by water), much less developed or "encroached" upon it, such a statment can best be charaterized under the scientific nomenclature as "hogwash."

Hype never relies upon facts, but upon capitalization and hysteria.

Funny thing, just 3 days ago the UK and OZ were abuzz with a new study decrying pathetic claims of global extinction!


In the past scientists have warned that up to five per cent of species are at risk of dying-out as a result of climate change, deforestation and development.
But a new analysis by the University of New Zealand found that this figure was five times greater than reality because the number of animals living in the wild in the first place had been over estimated.
This meant that conservationists assumed that rates of decline were much faster, as they were starting from a higher point.
In fact the rate of extinction is much slower, with just one per cent of animals in danger of dying out globally.

Extinction of millions of species 'greatly exaggerated'


Some years ago I testified at an oversight hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The topic of the hearing was on the impact of science on public policy. I focused on various failed apocalyptic environmentalist predictions, one of which was the allegedly imminent extinction of a huge percentage of the Earth's species. Specifically I reviewed a number of earlier such [failed] predictions:

Global Extinction Rates Have Likely Been Exaggerated

See also:
www.theaustralian.com.au...

www.theaustralian.com.au...

www.theaustralian.com.au...

uk.news.yahoo.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Extremeists and the scientifically ignorant tend to rely upon emotions; fear, helplessness and anger, most often, to disract those who really care and who haven't armed themselves with facts instead of superstition.

jw



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
It doesn't take a weather-man to know which way the wind blows. Anyone can see for themselves that the weather has been anomalous. Deny it or downplay it, and you just look like a fool with an agenda, imo.

edit on 28-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


1. 3 of those articles you posted are the same.

2. Every one of those articles claims global climate change is a reality and will have an increased effect on extinction rates. Considering this, it means you believe them when they say extinction rates are not as high as thought, but you think they are fear mongering and liars when they make claims about global climate change. This is hypocritical. Make up your mind.

I think you may want to read articles before posting them. Its obvious you just cherry picked a handful of articles with titles that matched your agenda, without reading them. Otherwise you would have realized that they are the exact same articles posted on different websites, and that the same people cited as saying that extinction rates are not as high, also state in those same articles that global warming will increase extinction rates. Total fail on your part.

You call me scientifically ignorant? You're the one citing MSM articles as proof of your agenda, right after claiming the MSM is fear mongering. News articles are worthless in the scientific community. So which is it?

My statement is based on scientific published research and a decade of involvement in wilderness protection in the United States. I work with biologists and ecologists almost on a daily basis, many of them are my personal friends, and they are all very concerned about the current state of human expansion.

From the article you posted uk.news.yahoo.com...:



The paper conceded that Earth was in the midst of a "human-caused mass extinction phase" but reached more optimistic conclusions on biodiversity than other researchers, such as those at the California Academy of Sciences.


This quote is in reference to the same paper that stated extinction rates have been somewhat exaggerated. You didn't bother to read the article at all, did you?

And from the article you posted here www.theaustralian.com.au...:



While the research suggests that species are more likely to be discovered than go extinct, the authors do not underplay the threats to species and their habitats.

The combination of over-hunting, habitat loss and climate change mean that extinction rates could increase rapidly in the future.
edit on 28-1-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)


And then from the third article you posted www.telegraph.co.uk...:



Despite their reassurances about the plight of life on Earth, the scientists said there was no room for complacency.

"Climate change will dramatically change species survival rates, particularly when you factor in other drivers such as over-hunting and habitat loss," said Prof Stork.

"At this stage we have no way of knowing by how much extinction rates may escalate.

"But once global warming exceeds the two degrees barrier, we can expect to see the scale of loss many people already believe is happening.

"Higher temperature rises coupled with other environmental impacts will lead to mass extinctions."


So as you see, you completely failed to disprove my point, and instead completely validated it without even knowing it. Thanks. Who is ignorant now?
edit on 28-1-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
And all this time Obama, the Dems, Al Gore and these so called climate scinetist not once used facts but ESTIMATES, theories and other underhanded tools to force the world into their green agenda.

I wonder if this will cause any of those so called Carbon taxes being charged in Europe to be droped seeing they were misled into it by false data?

Will the UN ask for an inquiry into this fiasco and slight of hand maneuvering that has been done by these so called scientist and political activist?

Will anyone of them lose their credentials, titles and or respect in the world?

I trow not!



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I'm still waiting for a response to my complete destruction of your argument. But I guess its just easier to abandon the thread and say nothing than to admit you were wrong.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
It doesn't take a weather-man to know which way the wind blows. Anyone can see for themselves that the weather has been anomalous. Deny it or downplay it, and you just look like a fool with an agenda, imo.


"Anomalous" compared to what?

What makes you think there weren't droughts, fires or tornado swarms before 1880?
Or, 10,000 years ago? What of "the Little Ice Age," or the "Medieval Warming?"
Why do idiots assume that 1950 is the "correct" or "normal" climate?

We are in an "inter-glacial" period; which implies that warming is part of the environment as well as that glaciation is just as "normal" as anything man has experienced.
Where does the "great dying" come into your logic? It was 100% the result of natural processes!

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew
 

Every one of those articles claims global climate change is a reality and will have an increased effect on extinction rates. Considering this, it means you believe them when they say extinction rates are not as high as thought, but you think they are fear mongering and liars when they make claims about global climate change.


As with most AGW fearmongers, you conflate "climate change" and "catastrohic" to suit your beliefs.

No one denies that the Earth's climate is dynamic and afects all biology; witness "The Great Dying," which was the largest recorded extinction event, and 100% NATURAL.

Alarmists rely upon "could be," might contribute" and other speculations about natural inevitabilites, and seek to turn them into an indictment of mankind and technologies.

ANY change win climate.affects life; to extrapolate that to the extremes you, Hansen and other AGW alarmists do is un-scientific and hyperbole. Speculative at best, irresponsible and destructive at worst. Many are drawn to the worst possible speculation to fit their outlooks and biases.
jw.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


That's right, ignore the difficult questions I asked, ignore my complete dismantling of your cherry picking propaganda. Even the people you think agree with you, don't agree with you.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


How am I an anthropogenic global warming alarmist? I said explicitly that the AGW debate is essentially meaningless. This is why you are full of it, because you think everyone who supports wilderness preservation and a conservative attitude toward wilderness and wildlife are "global warming alarmists."

What I am alarmed about is the massive deforestation, exploitation of natural resources, and widespread pollution that is taking place globally. Like I said, there is no scientist who will argue with my assessment, and you have completely failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. Instead you resort to calling me an alarmist and cherry pick articles with headlines that support your flawed argument, not even bothering to notice that the scientists who stated extinction rates are not as high as thought, ALSO that there indeed is a massive extinction taking place, and that it is in fact being caused by humans.

Its not speculation that humans are having a massive negative impact on biodiversity and ecological systems across the globe. As I said, you have completely failed to provide any evidence disproving my assessment. As such, the only thing left for you to do is call it speculation and unscientific, when in truth you don't know what the hell is going on because you are so focused on proving AGW to be false.

edit on 2-2-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew
reply to post by jdub297
 

How am I an anthropogenic global warming alarmist? I said explicitly that the AGW debate is essentially meaningless.


You didn't "say" anything.
You SCREAMED:


EVERY ECOSYSTEM ON THE PLANET IS EXPERIENCING SEVERE DECLINE IN BIODIVERSITY AND OVERALL HEALTH CAUSED BY UNSUSTAINABLE HUMAN ENCROACHMENT AND RESOURCE EXTRACTION.


What a pathetic exaggeration.
You know, but choose to ignore, that man himself is part of "every ecosystem of this planet;" we (and our ancestors) have been for millions of years. We are not separable, despite your luddite dreamscape.

Your rantings about the "severe decline n biodiversity" could have been made at any of several periods in the past (see, the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and K/T extinction events); none of which Man was responsible for. Mass extinction events occur over periods of thousands of years, not an indistrial revolution.

Moreover, your assumption that the Anthropocene bioma is experiencing "severe decline," is a hallmark of the AGW faithful. You adopt their exaggerated catastrophic conclusions, even if you claim to pray to different gods. Citing "unsustainable ... resource extraction" is just another way of saying "burning fossil fuels."
It just as easily applies to the prayed-for scramble for rare earths and other natural materials necessary for imaginary "renewable" sources of energy.

Of course, you give no credence to the argument that as Man progresses, he becomes more conscious and conservative of his environment. The"Kuznets Curve" indicates that if we want to preserve the environment, we must not regress, but move forward.

As incomes go up, people often focus first on cleaning up their drinking water, and then later on air pollutants like sulfur dioxide.

As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy. This global decarbonization trend has been proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.
www.nytimes.com...

The spectacular failures of such "control" and repressive policies as EU and UK carbon-trading and the Kyoto Protocol reveal the emptiness of a logic that persists in false premises and seeks to justify exaggerated doomsday forecasts.

And what of the cartastrophic forecasts that have failed to materialize? Even AGW disciples and envitronmental activists recognize the "Quaternary Conundrum:

Current forecasting methods suggest that global warming will cause many extinctions, but the fossil record indicates that, in most regions, surprisingly few species went extinct during the Quaternary (from approximately 2.5 million years BCE to the present)—in North America ... . We refer to this contrast between the implications of modern forecasts and the observed fossil record as the “Quaternary conundrum.” The resolution of this conundrum is key to improving forecasts of climate-change effects on biodiversity

www.danielbbotkin.com....


This is why you are full of it, because you think everyone who supports wilderness preservation and a conservative attitude toward wilderness and wildlife are "global warming alarmists."


I am a life-long rancher and resource manager; but I am not a wild-eyed alarmist. Your rant is little more than alarmist hype.

As for your "argument, it is false on its face and desrves no response. But, if you want to see where the facts lead, try these:
Extinction reports are greatly exaggerated


A projected wave of extinctions of plant and animal species this century may have been overestimated because the most widely used scientific method can exaggerate losses by more than 160 percent, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature
.
Hidden assumption hypes species-loss predictions

What you believe about AGW doesn't matter. The problem we face is not ourselves, but those who beleive that man is rthe source of all evil. (and those who blindly follow them).

Happy now?
jw

[/quote
edit on 2-2-2013 by jdub297 because: close quote





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join