UN IPCC head Rajendra K Pachauri, who is not a climate scientist, recently admitted
“We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”
The UK Daily Mail reports
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
How many times have I and other climate realist bloggers noted that this whole thing is about politics, not science? This is just more substantiation of that fact.
But, fine, they don’t want to use 1998? How about 1990? The UN IPCC prognosticated that warming would be .5F between 1990 and 2012. The reality? 0.28F. Phil Jones admitted that there was no “statistically significant” warming since 1995. And let’s not forget that this whole hysteria was based on a warming trend of 12 years. Since the 1850’s the Earth has warmed around 1.4F.
Let’s be clear: climate realists do not argue against the notion that the Earth has warmed. It has. We debate the causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely the actions of mankind. Realists say it is mostly/solely (I come down on the mostly side) nature. You don’t see our side hiding data, changing data, coming up with wild excuses, etc.
I strongly suspected that there was government influence in this “science”. The use of carbon credits allows a significant amount of power to the politicians. They can and have used the system to influence other countries and business. What is amazing is that the thinking people of the world have been sucked in.
I can name a number of other aspects of our society that are thought to be rooted in science but actually have similar foundations of manipulated data. If you want to look at a typical example, check out the concept on cholesterol in disease. There is no correlation between cholesterol and a cause of any disease. This will be an important concept as Obamacare will be requiring that you check your cholesterol and take statin drugs a preventative measures. The fact is, it does not work. Google cholesterol myth.
[…] Since we have been told so often that global warming climate change is real, proven, settled science, it seems that when the data contradict the projections — as in: when the real-world tests do not validate the hypotheses — the data must be hushed up: “Climate Scientists†Told To Cover Up Reality Of No Warming Over Past 15+ Years […]
“We debate the causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely the actions of mankind. Realists say it is mostly/solely (I come down on the mostly side) nature.”
Fair enough. Please explain the natural physical causation of the current rapid increase in the Earth’s temperature. We know it is not the sun. It is not cosmic rays. There is no such thing as magic. What is making the Earth warm?
Jeffrey, it’s not up to me to provide data that backs up 4.5 billion years of the way the Earth’s climate has acted. You Warmists have a hypothesis that it is the actions of Mankind causing the Modern Warm Period, primarily from CO2 released from use of fossil fuels. It’s time to prove it. Which is really difficult when
1. Your computer models have mostly failed
2. You have to keep changing your data to match your rhetoric, including changing data for the extremely warm 1930’s, diminishing the Global Climate Optimum, and others
3. Few Warmists actually practice what they preach, and, in reality, are some of the worst “carbon offenders”
4. You have to call it “climate change” in order to blame cold, snow, every weather event, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc on greenhouse gases
5. You folks say that natural factors are masking the anthropogenic causes: so then why can’t mostly/solely natural effects be the cause of the warming, which has occurred in fits and starts during the Modern Warm Period?
6. Why is this one different from the other warm periods during the Holocene, most of which were actually warmer?
7. Why does every “cure” seem to involve instituting far left progressive doctrine?
8. Why won’t Warmists practice what they preach?
Jeffery,
Do you not understand that the climate of the earth has significant variations? Look up the cause of ice ages and you will find a number of theories. That applies to the climate of interglacial periods as well. What you call deniers think is that certainly the climate is changing. We don’t know if any is associated with humans as even the great scientist are not sure themselves. But what we do know is that the proposed solutions only involve increasing the size of world government and taxes and don’t promise any reduction in climate variation. Likely, we are looking at another ice age. Temperatures spike before such events. What we do know is that we can do nothing about it. Your proposals of “green” energy are bunk, they will cause more pollution than fossil fuels.
Of course, I didn’t mention green energy or call anyone names, such as “denier”. I did ask William to explain what is likely causing the current rapid increase in temperature. Doesn’t that seem a reasonable request? Perhaps you can help, please?
William,
Thank you for your response. A significant difference between scientists and bloggers is that scientists are curious about why things are the way they are. Scientific experimentation and observation do not “prove” hypotheses.
The prevailing scientific explanation of the current unprecedented rapid warming is that CO2 added to the atmosphere by man’s burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to retain more of the sun’s energy.
I simply asked for your alternative hypothesis and you declined. Thank you.
You typed:
5. You folks say that natural factors are masking the anthropogenic causes: so then why can’t mostly/solely natural effects be the cause of the warming, which has occurred in fits and starts during the Modern Warm Period?
Not sure what you meant by “folks say that natural factors are masking the anthropogenic causes”. The cause is green house gases from burning fossil fuels. It is not masked. Obviously, there IS variability in processes that contribute to the measurements, e.g., the impacts of El Nino and La Nina events. Clearly the overall trend is an increase in temperatures.
6. Why is this one different from the other warm periods during the Holocene, most of which were actually warmer?
Would you please supply your evidence that there were warm periods during the Holocene warmer than now? In any event, this one is different in that it is most likely caused by human burning of fossil fuels.
No. As a matter of fact it isn’t.
The reason is that your implication is that unless William has an alternative theory or hypothesis, the currect theory must be correct (even though the data has been manipulated, models don’t fit the data, etc.) Fundamentally, that is dishonest.
You are dealing in semantics to avoid the issues William raised. Scientific experimentation and observation may not “prove” a hypothesis, but scientific experimentation and observation will either lend support or tend to discredit a hypothesis.
The fact that the data does not fit the hypothesis and must be manipulated to fit the hypothesis would tend to discredit the current hypothesis of AGW. Yet even as we see the AGW hoax fall apart, there are those who will cling desperately to the hoax just a people hung onto the idea that the world is flat.
gitarcarver,
The data overwhelmingly support the theory of AGW, so what’s your beef? The claim that data were manipulated is just that, an unsubstantiated claim.
William contends that it is not proven that human-generated greenhouse gases is causing the unprecedented, rapid warming now occurring. I pointed out that it will never be “proven” and asked for an alternate hypothesis. Since there is no magic, reason requires a physical explanation for the current warming. Are we getting more heat from the sun? Is heat escaping from the Earth’s core? Are there exothermic reactions releasing heat from the Earth’s surface? Are cosmic rays generating high altitude water vapor clouds that block the sun’s energy?
Then you haven’t been paying attention, because Warmists have been saying that natural factors are covering up the warming. This notion will be included in the AR5. But, are you saying that fossil fuels cause warming and also mask warming? If that’s the case, have you given up all use of fossil fuels? Because your fellow Warmists haven’t.
Here’s just one paper. And another. Heck, even the UN IPCC stated it was warmer.
We were barely burning any fossil fuels in the 1800’s. What caused the end of the Little Ice Age? If it is all fossil fuels, then why have there been multiple pauses during the Modern Warm Period? And, have you given up all use of fossil fuels? If not, why should we believe you or any other Warmists?
The fact that the data supports warming, but not AGW. That is pretty good “beef” if you ask me.
Once again, you seem to be saying that because William offers no theory that the theory you and others put forth – the one that has data, modeling and other issues – must be true.
As I stated, that is fundamentally dishonest. It is akin to saying that since celestial mechanics was not known or understood, the belief that the god Atlas holding the earth in the sky must be true.
Then it’s not science.
You do not understand science.
wow. how illiterate and ignorant can one person be? It is VERY RARE in science that something is proven. That is typically only seen in the hard sciences like mathematics and physics. To claim to able to “prove” something related to climate science, when we know only 10% of that which can be known, while there is no way to know that which we don’t know, is beyond utter hubris.
Your ignorance belittles any argument you are attempting to make.
First off, how can you ask about rapid warming, when there hasn’t been any?
Again, no current rapid increase in temperatures. Have you not noticed (again I point out ignorance) that current spring and summer temps are below average? And, you err when you state that our climate is not tied to the sun or cosmic rays. There are studies that show a strong correlation between solar and cosmic rays in the function of our ecosystem. And to discount the sun in our world’s warmth is to discount GOD in the creation of the everything.
It’s been known for at least a century that atmospheric CO2 contributes to warming (with no CO2 in our atmosphere our climate would be like the moon’s, +200 degrees during the lunar day and -200 during lunar night!). The measured energy input from the sun has been pretty constant, but the heat escaping from Earth into the upper atmosphere (measured by satellites) is decreasing, and correlates with increasing atmospheric CO2 (which has been definitively shown to come from fossil fuels). Clearly, the heat from the sun is being trapped by our atmosphere, and human-derived CO2 from fossil fuels is far and away the most likely culprit.
Do you have one piece of evidence contrary to the theory of AGW? (Don’t feel bad, neither does anyone else).
The first two papers you cited use northern hemisphere proxies only, not the entire Earth. Other more extensive studies (PAGES 2K, Marcott et al 2013) that look at broad global distributions of proxies demonstrate the current warming period to be the warmest of the Holocene. The IPCC report you cite is from 1990. The field has added much information in the past 20 years.
You base your interpretation of data on whether the scientists use any fossil fuels at all? That’s an interesting strategy.
You are wrong and misinformed on just about every point. I was asked to prove the theory of AGW, and I pointed out (quite correctly) that science doesn’t prove hypotheses. And you changed the subject and finally invoked gods.
nice try to hide. But yet you demand that we provide solid verifiable unfalsifiable proof to defend our theories, yet you hold up your theory of CAGW as the all-answer. Hypocrisy much? Why is your theory better than our theory?
We didn’t change the subject. We addressed your falsehoods.
No I’m not. You are. nananananana!
So does methane, water vapor, sulfur dioxide (and other variants), CO, certain aerosols, etc. What’s your point?
Ummmm…. not even close. Again, your ignorance is only eclipsed by your idiocy.
Is that your scientific analysis? Is that verifiable? Or, has it actually gone up and down? While you claim small increases in CO2 dictate massive and damaging changes to the Earth’s ecosystems, you ignore any possible life-changing affects by such solar changes. Hypocrisy much?
But, you already said that the amount of heat leaving was constant. Which is it? And, btw, there are studies that have shown that for each increase in heat generated internally by our ecosystem, there is an equal increase in heat lost to space – balanced system.
correlates does not mean causation. Did you know that over 68 people were killed in Kenya this weekend? And you were on the net at the same time. I blame you. There is a correlation there. You were on the net while murdering Islamists rampaged a shopping mall. Also, there is no way to tell where a molecule of CO2 came from. Absolutely not. IF you can tell me where each of those molecules of CO2, H2O, Methane, and water vapor floating thru your living room, then I’ll believe you.
We’ve had this argument with another drive-by poster about the origination of CO2. The other poster tried to say that CO2 emitted by a rabbit was carbon neutral compared to CO2 emitted by a human.
You can have your beliefs, but you can’t say it’s science when it fails even the most basic elementary foundation of science.
I have no idea what this brain-fart means. Are you still trying to suggest that CO2 alone is the only reason why our earth has a “greenhouse effect”? Well, if it is, then you should be thanking man-made CO2 for keeping us warm. For without it, we’d be frozen like the moon – per your own statement. Per your statement, CO2 is life-giving. Hypocrisy much?
We’ve stated several that you ignored. Your GIGO models have failed and are thus GIGO. Your model programmers have admitted they have no idea how to model clouds, water vapor, oceans or the sun. Your cult leaders can’t explain why there has been a stagnation in temperature increase over the last nearly 2 decades, and during the 70s, while CO2 has increased. Thus, no correlation!!!!
The upcoming IPCC report is from pre-2005. There has been much information added in the past 8 years. Much of it highlights the collusion, corruption, obfuscation, and lies by your cult leaders.
What is your piece of evidence for CAGW? Now is your turn.
My theory better than your theory? What is your theory? I’ve been asking.
I did not say CO2 was the only greenhouse gas.
I did not say the energy leaving Earth is constant.
You are ignorant about whether one can trace the source of CO2. It is not between rabbits and man but rather between carbon as part of coal, oil, gas vs other sources. The increased atmospheric CO2 originates from fossil fuels, not volcanoes, not outer space, not even rabbit farts. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers on the topic for you to ignore.
What’s my point about CO2 as a greenhouse gas? CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm causing the current warming of the Earth. No, it is not the only greenhouse gas, but it is the one increasing rapidly and it has a long residence time in the atmosphere. Is CO2 the only influence on the climate? Of course not. But it is a very important influence at this time.
Yes, the amount of energy from the sun impacting Earth has been constant for a while. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers on this topic for you to ignore.
Humor me and give me the one best piece of evidence that is contrary to the theory of AGW. Note that the total heat content of Earth has been shown to be steadily increasing (Church et al, 2011; Nucitelli et al, 2012; Levitus et al, 2012) even as the atmospheric temperature increases have slowed. There are other papers on this topic for you to ignore.
The difference between a scientist and a AGW skeptic is that the scientist can be persuaded by evidence. Show me your best evidence breaking the link between man’s burning of fossil fuels and the steady warming of the Earth and I may re-evaluate my position.
Several years ago AGW skeptics denied the Earth was warming. Now, most agree that the evidence for warming is overwhelming, but deny that our adding over 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere over a brief period of time can possibly be a cause. In a few years you will agree that the evidence for this is overwhelming, but you will then claim that it is too late to do anything about it and the cure is worse than the fever.
Hey guys, we got another one here.
A reality-denier that refuses to comprehend what they themselves have previously written or stated, then contradicts themselves within the same blog posting. And then at the same time ignores statements that contradict his firmly held cult’s beliefs.
You are brainwashed Jeffery. You’ve ignored every statement given here when it doesn’t suit your narrowly defined view of “reality”.
You hang yourself on papers that support your view, but completely ignore papers that support the alternative or divergent hypothesis.
We realists see the opposing views and studies as evidence that more science is needed. More studies. More data. So far, nothing has been proven beyond the theory that our world has experienced fluctuations in temperature over its lifetime. It has frozen. It has thawed. It has boiled. It has steamed. It has eaten itself alive with acid.
Tell me why I should be worried that our temps have risen anywhere from 0.4 to 1.4F since WE HUMANS have started trying to keep records!!? (as taken from some random start year).
Wouldn’t you rather be warm, with greater extent of agriculture, more vibrant agriculture, and longer growing seasons? With the means to harvest crops and greater opportunities for efficient and free travel?
Or, do you, like many of the other CAGW’ers, want to take away free travel, eliminate our current lifestyle, take us back to 13th century living, and decimate our agricultural yields by burning our food (Which will only increase CO2 output)?
I understand your frustration. Science is hard. You’re appealing to the mob for backup.
I thought it would take a few years to jump to “it is too tough to change”. It took you a few hours. I assume from your capitulation that you are now persuaded that the Earth is currently warming and it is largely because of human activities.
By all means, if you have better, more relevant scientific papers, please supply them. I am waiting to be persuaded that your theory is good. What was your theory again?
“Why” you should be concerned (and you should be) is that if the climate scientists are right (and they likely are), within a century the Earth as humans have known it for 10,000 years will be drastically changed. We can predict the new ocean levels based on the melt rate of the Greenland and Antarctic ice fields and from the thermal expansion of water. (an aside: If the oceans are not warming why are they expanding?) The atmospheric CO2 partitions into the oceans acidifying them and this will likely lead to disturbances in plankton and coral growth, and could lead to disturbances in the growth of more complex sea life.
Nations and regions that rely on glaciers for fresh water will need new sources. Whereas Canada may have a growing season like present day Iowa, Iowa may have a growing season like Arizona. Overall, climate change is predicted to have a net negative effect on agriculture. The whole of human civilization has existed on an Earth cooler than today. Do you really believe that adding a few more degrees to the mean atmospheric temperature will benefit mankind?
Why do you assume we must eliminate travel, our lifestyles, return to 13th Century life and burn food for energy? We need to stop dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere. We’re a smart people and can figure out a path forward.