The IPCC changes the climate

Sometimes people write asking why we are less than impressed by claims of catastrophic global warming – after all, the IPCC says so!

Well, yes, so they do but they haven’t always done so (despite its being their raison d’être).

In fact, Working Group I (the scientific basis) undertook a complete revision of Earth’s recent climatological history under the lead authorship of Michael Mann, going from this uncontroversial and long accepted climate history:

Figure 7.1, IPCC FAR, chapter 7, p202

Original Caption, in case it is not clear: Figure 7.1: Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations since the Pleistocene on three time scales (a) the last million years (b) the last ten thousand years and (c) the last thousand years. The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.

About which there’s nothing even slightly controversial or eyebrow-raising concerning such depiction of contemporary climate history since it concurs with written historical accounts, societal crop, tax and trading records and so on.

And then the IPCC underwent Mannian revisionism, moving on to this very imaginative reinterpretation of history:

IPCC TAR figure 2.3

Mann eliminates the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, inventing a past of "stable climate" and recent sudden warming

Beyond this heavily disputed (and actually long debunked) “evidence” we have the output of climate models (weather models on steroids), which are nothing more than PlayStation® climatology and the wild imaginings of those who program them. As process models they help us understand our observations but as prognosticators of future climate states they have zero known ability and produce a wide variation even in the expected unperturbed temperature of the planet.

So no, we are not impressed by claims of catastrophic global warming. We are not convinced anything out of the ordinary is taking place. We are, however, concerned about misdirected and obsessive focus on one marginally possible risk and excluding preparedness for the far more likely and definitely more deadly risk of catastrophic cooling. This is particularly so since we have insufficient energy supply and infrastructure to protect the populace. Crop development efforts are also wrongly focussed on model-generated and imagined heat stress and drought when cold conditions and excessive cloud and moisture caused famines and extreme hardship in our relatively recent history. This is dreadfully poor risk management, especially as realistic risk from enhanced greenhouse is a broadening of the tropical and temperate zones toward the poles, as has been generally ongoing since the retreat of the last great glaciation began some 15,000 years ago and an increase in the arable portion of the globe as opposed a reduction in primary productivity and increased difficulty feed the global population should the world cool. It’s actually no contest – we should devote most effort to ensuring abundant cheap energy and protection against cold while also increasing water impoundments for irrigation and protection against flood or drought.

Either way a pogrom against carbon dioxide emissions is of no value to current or future generations.

Develop or die. And do so with a “no regrets” policy because it is the only one that provides any human and environmental benefit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s