IPCC – Wrong and Too Conservative – RealClimate

IPCC under fire in blogosphere for 'sealevelgate' | guardian.co.uk From RealClimate, part of the Guardian Environment Network In its latest report, the IPCC has predicted up to 59 cm of sea level rise by the end of this century. But realclimate soon revealed a few problems....IPCC would never have published an implausibly high 3 meter upper limit like this, but it did not hesitate with the implausibly low 59 cm. That is because within the IPCC culture, being "alarmist" is bad and being "conservative" (i.e. underestimating the potential severity of things) is good. Why do I find this IPCC problem far worse than the Himalaya error? Because it is not a slip-up by a Working Group 2 author who failed to properly follow procedures and cited an unreliable source. Rather, this is the result of intensive deliberations by Working Group 1 climate experts. Unlike the Himalaya mistake, this is one of the central predictions of IPCC, prominently discussed in the Summary for Policy Makers. What went wrong in this case needs to be carefully looked at when considering future improvements to the IPCC process. And let's see whether we learn another lesson here, this time about society and the media. Will this evidence for an underestimation of the climate problem by IPCC, presented by an IPCC lead author who studies sea level, be just as widely reported and discussed as, say, faulty claims by a blogger about "Amazongate"? Ummm - The RealClimate story is three years old and didn't get any traction then. And this resurrection attempt smacks of desperation.

Paying for the fantasy

Energy bills to go up with tough EU clampdown on greenhouse gas emissions - Times Online Energy bills will rise but thousands of jobs could be created in green industries under a European plan to impose the world’s most stringent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. The Government will today support a proposal tabled in Brussels for a new, much more onerous EU target for cutting carbon dioxide...The EU has already gone farther than the rest of the world by making a legally binding commitment to cut emissions by 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. It is now preparing to raise the target to 30 per cent despite the failure of December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has calculated the cost to Britain of its contribution to the 30 per cent target but is refusing to publish the research. A DECC spokeswoman said: “It is the UK’s view that, given the right conditions, the EU should move to 30 per cent.” She said that the DECC had rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details of the cost of moving to the 30 per cent target “because we feel it would weaken the UK negotiating position in climate negotiations”. The EU at Work, The Planned Destruction of Our Industry, The Belief in Subsidised Jobs, CO2 Reduction Targets, Official Secrecy and The Cavalier Attitude to Our Money - where to start?

Sir John Houghton – We Aren’t Alarmist Enough

We climate scientists are not ecofanatics If the IPCC has a fault, it is that its reports have been too cautious, not alarmist John Houghton The IPCC is not a self-selected group of scientists with a political agenda.... The IPCC is too big an organisation to be captured by an ideological cabal or fall foul of group-think... I was chairman or co-chairman of the Science Working Group from 1988–2002, through the first three IPCC reports.... We had no preconceived agenda regarding our conclusions. The IPCC process also makes it impossible for green propaganda to be slipped in... a report from Greenpeace or any other campaigning body would not be included because the science would not be considered robust enough. A further myth is that the IPCC is alarmist. In truth, it’s far easier to find what now looks like excessive caution in IPCC reports. Perhaps there is a criticism that can be made of IPCC scientists: they have been too slow publicly to defend their integrity. They have not been willing or able to hit the airwaves or make their case in newspapers. But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change. We scientists have facts on our sides — we must not be afraid to deploy them.

Act on C02 Bedtime Story OK Because IPCC Says So

Read the ASA adjudication on climate change adverts | guardian.co.uk As the little girl says...

ManBearPig to Eat All the Polar Bears

US to lobby for endangered species listing for polar bear | Environment | guardian.co.uk "Sea ice changes will likely negatively impact polar bears by increasing energetic demands of seeking prey. As changes in habitat become more severe and seasonal rates of change more rapid, catastrophic mortality events that have yet to be realised on a large scale are expected to occur." It adds: "A precautionary approach, which includes polar bears in Cites appendix I, is necessary to ensure that primarily commercial trade does not compound the threats posed to the species by loss of habitat." Can you spot the weasel words which give away the truth that problem they want to solve doesn't yet exist?