New IPCC Report to Crush its Own Global Warming Predictions?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who plan to publish a summary of their fifth assessment report next week, are beginning to face the wrath of climate change skeptics. Since the organization began its predictions back in 1990, one of their principal predictions has failed to come to fruition. The IPCC have been banging the drum of global warming for nigh on 16 years, claiming their simulation models suggest an average 0.2° Celsius rise in temperature is due every decade.

The stark reality is that climate change has failed to follow their predictions, and pressure is mounting from all sides, whether justifiable or not. At a time when the IPCC is admitting a slowdown in the heating of the Earth’s surface, has the organization crushed their own predictions on global warming?

IPCC suggests global warming slowdown to be a mirage

The IPCC’s documents were allegedly leaked and obtained by the Associated Press. Ahead of next week’s proposed meeting on climate change, it is claimed that leaders from the United States and various European countries have grave concerns over how to address these issues.

The new report is to highlight a slowdown in the heating of the Earth’s surface, despite a consistent rise in the emission of greenhouse gases.

In spite of these findings, scientists and statisticians are not giving much credence to this apparent slowdown; they believe that this phenomenon is a mere blip in the statistics, resulting from random climate fluctuations and a hot year having been selected as the starting point for measuring temperatures.

It is anticipated the IPCC will continue to toe the line, expounding upon the dangers of global warming, as well as mankind’s own mea culpa.

Reportedly, the tone of the IPCC’s draft report has altered to reflect the scientific community’s rigid belief that humans have contributed significantly towards global warming. According to the Huffington Post, the draft states it is “extremely likely” that over half of all warming witnessed since the 1950s is caused by human beings; this compares to the 2007 report, which claimed it was “very likely.”

Meanwhile, the panel have upped their estimations for the rise in sea level, by the turn of the century, to 26 to 81 centimeters; the 2007 report, on the other hand, placed its predictions between 18 and 59 centimeters.

Are world leaders covering up the slow in global warming?

The United States have directed the authors of the report over inclusion of a “leading hypothesis,” which seeks to explain the apparent reduction in warming based upon the transmission of heat into the oceans. Such a slowdown relates to oceanic cycles, called El Nino and La Nina.

According to Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist working for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, some of the heat absorbed deep within the oceans become trapped for centuries. On the other hand, heat that is trapped near the surface of the ocean can readily flow back into the air; Trenberth believes this is what happened during 1998, explaining the soar in temperature for that year.

According to the Telegraph, Germanyhas urged the group to remove references to the slowdown, stating that a period of 10 to 15 years was highly misleading when considering the influence of climate change; instead, they suggest global warming should be measured over centuries.

Similarly, Belgium issued complaints over the 1998 starting point for collecting statistics on climate change, arguing that it was an exceptionally hot year. They explain this start date skews the statistics, which could potentially downplay climate change.

The global warming denialists

Scientists opposed to the notion that human beings have influenced climate change, or climate denialists as some have dubbed them, maintain the apparent lull in surface warming, since the late 1990s, refutes the IPCC’s current position.

Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, situated inWashington, claims the inconsistencies of the latest report must be addressed as a matter of urgency:

“I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, ‘Look, the IPCC is silent on this issue.’”

On the other hand, Judith Curry, the professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology, remains unconvinced by the global warming scare. She

fails to understand how there can be an unwavering scientific consensus, given the number of uncertainties that surround global warming.

Curry acknowledges that humans add to carbon emissions, and may be having an impact upon climate change. However, she also says we have absolutely no idea how the climate will react over the ensuing decades, so reducing emissions may serve no benefit.

When summarizing her thoughts on the latest draft report, Curry finds it astounding that the IPCC can claim greater confidence in their supporting findings, regardless of the apparent pause in warming. “The science is clearly not settled…” said Curry.

Meanwhile, during an interview with the Washington Examiner, Marc Morano, former Senate Environment and Public Works staff member, and publisher of Climate Depot, was asked about whether the report was full of inconsistencies. Morano had this to say:

“It is, but you have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 have been devastating to its political narrative on global warming.”

He then proceeded to explain why he did not feel global warming was as serious as has been portrayed. Morano describes how both poles possess expanding ice formations, global cooling has continued since 2002, worldwide temperatures have not risen for over 15 years, sea levels remain unaffected, polar bear numbers are increasing and hurricanes and tornado numbers are at record lows.

The implications of the IPCC’s research have been vast. World leaders have implemented key policy decisions off the back of the IPCC’s hypotheses, in a desperate bid to reduce carbon emissions. Renewable energy has been touted the next great step in combating global warming, whilst carbon-based energy forms have been vilified. To stave off climate change, governments have introduced fuel taxes, resulting in non-renewable energy sources experiencing a massive price hike.

The new IPCC report is expected to crush its own past predictions, accepting a slow in global warming. The question remains, with uncertainty beginning to creep into the IPCC’s latest report, will this have any impact on future policy? Will this provide global warming skeptics the opportunity to strike back against the scientific majority? Are skeptics able to present a credible, scientific repost to this consensus? Only time will tell.

UN report takes the steam out of "climate change

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released a report that doesn't find much evidence of "climate change" or "global warming" based on human activity, but nevertheless rushes to assure readers that the problem is still serious. Not so fast, says the Heartland Institute and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change it supports:

"Whereas the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs," the non-governmental panel announced, rolling out a hefty report with a succinct "summary for policymakers" to back up their claim.

In essence, the NIPCC is calling shenanigans on the United Nations panel, accusing them of "departing from proper scientific methodology."

Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Postulates, commonly defined as "something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief," can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011). Observations in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii).

The defense against this criticism amounts to a despairing cry that we can't afford to follow the scientific method when it comes to climate change, because the problem is so potentially severe that we don't have time to find out if it's real. That's a "sociological precept, rather than a scientific one," as the NIPCC points out. I would add that it's also a very useful vehicle for grabbing political power and money. Also, it's pretty rich to hear the people who constantly claim they've got science on their side frankly admit that they do not, but it doesn't matter, because if you just bend and twist the data enough, you can pretend the "crisis" they've been warning about still exists, and we must spare no expense to avoid it.

Looking at the very same data the United Nations used, the NIPCC finds that none of the "climate change" models or predictions have panned out, the minimal temperature fluctuations observed throughout the industrial era are consistent with natural climate variations, and the global climate hasn't warmed significantly during the last 16 years, even though plenty of Demon Carbon has been created by human activity.

Like a growing number of serious climate scientists, the NIPCC sees a higher possibility of global cooling over the coming decades, which may or may not be a good thing, but clearly has nothing to do with the Church of Global Warming's dogma about air-conditioner emissions turning the Earth into a huge TastyBake oven. Furthermore, if natural global cooling is a bad thing, there might not be much the human race can do about it... outside of doing everything the Church of Global Warming has inflicted billions of dollars in economic damage trying to halt, that is. Perhaps Miami will name its first outdoor ice-skating rink after Al Gore.

The report is unsparing in its critique of global-warming activists:

The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of "full scientific certainty" but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility. The weight of evidence now leans heavily against the theory. Invoking the precautionary principle does not lower the required threshold for evidence to be regarded as valid nor does it answer the most important questions about the causes and consequences of climate change. Scientific principles acknowledge the supremacy of experiment and observation and do not bow to instinctive feelings of alarm nor claims of a supposed scientific "consensus" (Legates et al., 2013).

Doubtless the response to this report will involve a great deal of caterwauling about the Heartland Institute, the agenda of the NIPCC, evil special interests, and so forth, none of which addresses the content of the report. Besides, it's absolutely comical to pretend the climate-change fanatics aren't motivated by special interests, greed, and political agendas. The amount of money they stand to lose from the collapse of their man-made global warming con job is astronomical. Gigantic fortunes and political careers are at stake.

There's a lot more evidence to question the integrity of the global-warming crowd than their critics. As luck would have it, the Associated Press broke some news today about pressure on the U.N. researchers from various governments to hide embarrassing data pertaining to that mysterious 16-year-and-counting "pause" in global warming. Politicians are not eager to lose an irrefutable demand for power and control - do what we say or you want the Earth to die, you're no better than a Holocaust denier. By all means, let's have a nice little chat about which side of this debate has greater incentives to distort and misinterpret the data.

Another bit of low comedy at the expense of the global-warming faithful comes from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was asked if those super-expensive job-crushing global warming regulations were affecting any of the 26 indicators the agency laid out to measure our planetary climate crisis. She bubbled out a lot of bureaucratic nonsense about the importance of global leadership... but no, she couldn't say that any of these regulations has actually done a blessed thing to combat global warming.

Reams of taxpayer dollars, spent to no measurable effect other than making politicians and bureaucrats feel good about themselves. Lovely.

We really should have brought the global warming fraudsters up on criminal charges a long time ago. They've gotten away with the crime of the century. But if we're not going to put them behind bars, or at least make them repay the money they appropriated, we can at least swat them off the world stage with a rolled-up temperature chart.

Global Warming "Experts" Admit: We Lied Warner Todd Huston

Global Warming "Experts" Admit: We Lied
Warner Todd Huston

A leaked copy of a UN report on global warming says that scientist's claims that global warming was going to destroy us were drastically wrong.

The Daily Mail reports that in 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that the planet's temperature was going to rise 0.2 Celsius every decade, a claim that governments and scientists all across the world have relied on to make their own determinations.

But now the new report says that the climate only warmed at .12 C per decades since 1951, a rate far, far below what everyone was told.

The new report also notes that scientists had to admit that their forecasts were wildly out of sync with the truth.
Some of the findings that the report contains are as follows:

They recognize the global warming "pause" first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real - and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

• They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD - centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
• The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.Further, these UN scientists now acknowledge that there has, indeed, been a "pause" in rising temperatures, just as so many have said.
  
• A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

And yet, even though the new report admits so many errors, these so-called scientists still pack their paper with apocalyptic scenarios about how global warming is still going to kill us all.

This on top of the fact that the Arctic ice sheet has grown despite folks like Al Gore that said by now all the ice should have melted.

(See also: Obama Blames Global Warming For Recent Firefighter Deaths)
This is why we call the "theory" of global warming globaloney. What do you call it?

The ice is not melting, yet still the scaremongers blunder on!

The real global warming disaster: green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills.

The news that hundreds of scientists and officials from all over the world are this weekend converging on Stockholm to discuss the next 2,000-page report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again highlights what is the most terrifying political conundrum facing our country today. Emerging in instalments over the next seven months, this report will try to convince the world, without a shred of hard evidence, that the prospect of catastrophic man-made global warming is “extremely likely”.

The air is already thick with familiar claims and counterclaims, President Obama quotes yet another laughably silly paper trying to make out that “97 per cent of scientists” support the IPCC “consensus”. Sceptics point out yet again that the lack of global warming over the past 17 years makes a nonsense of all those computer-model projections on which the IPCC has been basing its case for 23 years. And we can only look on this endlessly sterile non-debate with a suffocating sense of déjà vu.

In essence, the argument has not moved on an iota since 2009, when I published what is still the fullest historical account of this greatest scare story the world has known, in a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster. Even then, it was abundantly clear that the IPCC’s computer-model projections were being disproved by what was actually happening to world temperatures. It was already clear that not one of those predictions being made by Al Gore and others in the days when the warming hysteria was at its height was coming true.

Arctic Sea Ice Data Sets

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

ICE AGE NOW: Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 - Gained 19,000 MANHATTANS OF SEA ICE Since This Date Last Year, The Largest Increase On Record!

September 15, 2013 - ARCTIC - Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.

Earth's 100,000-year Ice Age cycle decoded

Scientists have explained a new mechanism behind Earth's 100,000-year Ice Age cycle that points to the alternating influence of continental ice sheets and climate on this global climatic interchange.

Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

Earth's climate cools roughly every 100,000 years, with vast areas of North America, Europe and Asia being buried under thick ice sheets, researchers said.

Eventually, the pendulum swings back: it gets warmer and the ice masses melt. While geologists and climate physicists found solid evidence of this 100,000-year cycle in glacial moraines, marine sediments and arctic ice, until now they were unable to find a plausible explanation for it.

Using computer simulations, a Japanese, Swiss and American team including Heinz Blatter, professor of physical climatology at ETH Zurich, has now managed to demonstrate that the ice-age/warm-period interchange depends heavily on the alternating influence of continental ice sheets and climate.

"If an entire continent is covered in a layer of ice that is 2,000 to 3,000 metres thick, the topography is completely different," said Blatter.

"This and the different albedo of glacial ice compared to ice-free Earth lead to considerable changes in the surface temperature and the air circulation in the atmosphere," said Blatter.

Moreover, large-scale glaciation also alters the sea level and therefore the ocean currents, which affects the climate.

These feedback effects between Earth and the climate occur on top of other known mechanisms, researchers said.

Because Earth's rotation and its orbit around the Sun periodically change slightly, the insolation also varies. If you examine this variation in detail, different overlapping cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years are recognisable.

"It's the first time that the glaciation of the entire northern hemisphere has been simulated with a climate model that includes all the major aspects," said Blatter.

Researchers were also able to explain why ice ages always begin slowly and end relatively quickly. The ice-age ice masses accumulate over tens of thousands of years and recede within the space of a few thousand years.

It is not only the surface temperature and precipitation that determine whether an ice sheet grows or shrinks. Due to the aforementioned feedback effects, its fate also depends on its size, researchers said.

New Global Cooling Super Storms Start Up

Last Updated 09:49 21/09/2013

Communities in southeast Asia have been warned a super typhoon bearing down on the region could potentially be "very destructive".

Usagi, the most powerful cyclone of 2013 so far, could unleash gusts of 180mph, as well as torrential rain and tidal surges, on the Philippines and Taiwan.

Thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes and ferry services cancelled, while the Red Cross has begun stockpiling first aid kits and food packs.

In Taiwan, more than 1,600 soldiers have been deployed to areas most at risk of flooding and a further 24,000 remain on standby.

A spokesman for the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration warned damage could be "very heavy".

"The situation is potentially very destructive to communities," he said. "All travel and outdoor activities should be cancelled."

Usagi, which is more than 1,000km (620 miles) in diameter, was upgraded to a super typhoon as it roared towards the Luzon Strait dividing the Philippines and Taiwan.

The cyclone's northeast quadrant, which usually packs the strongest winds, is expected to clip Taiwan's southern tip as it moves westwards.

In China, 23,000 fishing boats have already taken shelter in Fujian province, after the country's meteorological authority upgraded its typhoon warning to orange, the second highest level.

The storm is expected to weaken as it moves towards Hong Kong, although officials  warned the weather would "deteriorate significantly, with strengthening winds and rough seas".

What The Hell Is A Climate Criminal? The New Bullsh*t Terminology From The Warmist.

Tony Abbot Abolishes Australia's Climate Commission

Tony Abbott, who once famously said that climate change is "crap," has abolishedAustralia's Climate Commission.

The Australian prime minister has been branded a "climate criminal" after he sensationally pushed ahead with his plan to scrap government bodies associated with Labor's carbon pricing scheme and climate change policy.

The commission was set up by former prime minister Julia Gillard in February 2011 as an independent body "to provide reliable and authoritative" information on climate change.

The now former chief commissioner, ProfessorTim Flannery told ABC news the Government will have to find another way to keep the public informed about climate change.

Speaking in Melbourne, Professor Flannery said: "I believe Australians have a right to know, a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change.

But the Coalition Government also wants to dump the Climate Change Authority, which was set up in 2012 to provide independent advice to the government on the carbon price and emissions reductions targets.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday instructed his department to begin drafting repeal legislation to abolish the authority.

The Labor leadership contender Anthony Albanese said in a speech on Thursday the move to scrap the commission was "shameful".

Australia's Green party leader Christine Milnesaid issuing instructions to close the authority was irresponsible in the face of dangerous climate change, The Age reported.

Branding Abbott a "climate criminal" for dismantling the bodies she said "in the context of global warming this action is a crime against humanity."

"In one swoop, [Abbott] has demonstrated his contempt for climate science and for the health and wellbeing of future generations.

"Prime minister Abbott has distinguished himself as one of the only leaders of a western democracy to deny the severity of global warming and to actively undermine infrastructure which is bringing down emissions," Senator Milne said.

"Future generations will look back on this day and remember it as the day Tony Abbott condemned them and their peers to climate chaos."

The Government has also announced it is preparing legislation to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

New IPCC report to retreat on global-warming claims

New IPCC report to retreat on global-warming claims

At least according to the Daily Mail, which heralds the final draft report as a major step back for global-warming advocates. The soon-to-be-released paper from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will admit that the warming rate measured over the last several years is less than half of what had been earlier claimed, and that their models "may have exaggerated" the effects of carbon emissions in impacting climate:

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly "assessments" are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for "renewable" energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade - a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade - a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

NY Times Says Earth Has Unlimited Carrying Capacity, So Forget Climate Change and Party On, Homo Sapiens!

When reading this article, keep-in-mind that our private research shows how ocean temperature regulates C02 levels, NOT human activity. Atmospheric temperature increases with oceanic temperatures. The cause, increased underwater volcanic activity caused by solar and lunar activity and modulation. C02 in the atmosphere is a trace gas and acts like a mirror, reflecting the sun radiation back out into space.

From (iceAgeEarth.com)

Now that's what's really going on. Lets read the article below.

NY Times Says Earth Has Unlimited Carrying Capacity, So Forget Climate Change and Party On, Homo Sapiens!

Memo to Jeff Bezos: If you want to fix the Washington Post, stop publishing anti-science pieces by Bjorn Lomborg

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming over the next century on humanity's current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

In a collective act of media irresponsibility, the New York Times and Washington Post have joined the Wall Street Journal in publishing "don't worry, be happy" articles days before the big UN climate science report will say quite the opposite.

We expect the WSJ to be a haven for disinformation, and as I discussed Sunday,Matt Ridley didn't disappoint. But it's sad when we see at the very same time

Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, "an expert on environmental communications," emailed me this comment on the WashPost and NYT pieces:

My opinion -- irresponsible, one-sided journalism on the part of both papers.

This really looks like the beginnings of the cultural/media counter-offensive against the forthcoming IPCC report.

That said - why are both the Post and Times publishing this nonsense? Either they are being played or are complicit.

Obviously fact checking is not required for op-eds in either of our "so-called" leading newspapers.

Memo to Jeff Bezos: The publication of anti-science pieces like "Don't blame climate change for extreme weather" by Bjorn Lomborg - one of the most debunked confusionists on the planet - is one reason the Washington Post is dying. Here are two quick ways to tell if a proposed op-ed column on climate is worth publishing. Has the author written similar pieces for the anti-science WSJ editorial-page? (see "Bjorn Legacy: Lomborg Urges Climate Inaction With Misleading Stats In WSJ"). Has he or she written pieces for the WashPost that have been repeatedly debunked by climate scientists - see "Climate Science Rapid Response Team debunks Lomborg's Post op-ed" and "WashPost recycles denier WSJ op-ed from Lomborg." As that last link makes clear, Jeff, you have your work cut out for you.

Lomborg has lost the presumption of accuracy. He only makes implausibly sensationalistic (and, as it invariably turns out, inaccurate) claims. In his latest piece, he makes a torturous, semantic argument that because climate change doesn't make every single kind of extreme weather more severe, we somehow can't say that it makes any kind of extreme weather more severe.

One antidote to Lomborg is Kevin Trenberth's 2012 piece in the journal Climatic Change(PDF here, HTML here), which explains:

The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be....

The air is on average warmer and moister than it was prior to about 1970 and in turn has likely led to a 5-10 % effect on precipitation and storms that is greatly amplified in extremes. The warm moist air is readily advected onto land and caught up in weather systems as part of the hydrological cycle, where it contributes to more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring.

Trenberth is senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, inBoulder, Colorado, which is currently suffering through one of those purely coincidental once-in-a-thousand-year deluges.

Global warming also makes the most dangerous heatwaves longer, stronger and more frequent. It makes the worst droughts longer lasting and more intense. It lengthens the fire season and contributes to worsening wildfires. And warming-driven sea level rise makes the most destructive storm surges even more devastating.

So I agree with Brulle that for the Washington Post to publish this Lomborg piece now, days before the big UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, is very irresponsible. Then we have the NY Times' Buzz Lightyear piece ("to infinity and beyond"):

The world population is now estimated at 7.2 billion. But with current industrial technologies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that the more than nine billion people expected by 2050 as the population nears its peak could be supported as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place. Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish.

Why is it that highly trained natural scientists don't understand this?

They probably don't understand this because it's not true. For instance, "In 2009, a group of 28 internationally renowned scientists identified and quantified a set of nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. Crossing these boundaries could generate abrupt or irreversible environmental changes." Unfortunately, we've already crossed some key ones:

Estimates of how the different control variables for seven planetary boundaries have changed from 1950 to present. The green shaded polygon represents the safe operating space.

And as for the claim that we could feed more than 9 billion people in 2050 "as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place," that's like saying we could end poverty if we had the necessary investments in antipoverty programs. Actually, it's worse than that because of climate change, which this piece ignores entirely.

Earlier this year, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released a study that found cheap food is a thing of the past because of such factors as a growing population and "increasing environmental pressures" - which include climate change-fueled storms, drought and flooding that will slow the growth of global food production. InChina, water shortages will be a key problems as aquifers continue to be drained and as rainfall becomes more variable. The report points out:

It is estimated that some 25% of all agricultural land is highly degraded, with growing water scarcity a fact for many countries. Many fish stocks are over-exploited, or in risk of being over-exploited.

Not exactly a rosy scenario

Last year, a report from Oxfam warned that extreme weather events would cause food prices around to world to soar in the coming decades. The report projected worldwide corn prices could spike by 500 percent by 2030!

The NY Times piece makes some handwaving arguments about human history to argue that we can overcome any challenge - but the top figure makes clear we are rapidly heading far outside the bounds of any human experience.

A 2012 review of the scientific literature published in Nature by 22 scientists, "Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere" (subs. req'd). As the news release explained:

A prestigious group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation.

"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," warns Anthony Barnosky, professor of integrative biology at theUniversity of California, Berkeley, and lead author.... "The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."

... "We really do have to be thinking about these global scale tipping points, because even the parts of Earth we are not messing with directly could be prone to some very major changes," Barnosky said. "And the root cause, ultimately, is human population growth and how many resources each one of us uses."

Co-author Elizabeth Hadly fromStanford University said "we may already be past these tipping points in particular regions of the world....

But the NY Times ignores this vast and deep body of research to blithely assert:

The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems. In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make it.

Yes, well, right now what we are making of the environment in some of the world's most arable land is a permanent Dust Bowl.

Three years ago, Lonnie Thompson published a paper explaining why climatologists are now speaking out, "Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."

It may be true in the abstract that the only limit to our creating a sustainable future is our imaginations and our social systems - but it is the height of irresponsibility for the New York Times to fail to point out that right now we are being let down by both and, as a result, headed toward the abyss.

Rather than publishing largely substance-free feel-good articles that just happen to be timed a few days before the latest IPCC climate report, our major media should be informing the public about the clear and present danger to civilization posed by climate change. The unrestricted carbon pollution party needs to end - and soon.

Read This Bullsh*t From The Guardian, The Warmist's Will Never Let Up!!

Read This Bullsh*t From The Guardian, The Warmist's Will Never Let Up!! 

(THE BULLSH*T Reads)

Case for climate change is overwhelming, say scientists

5 hrs ago from The Guardian

Eleven days before the IPCC publishes its latest report, a group of eminent scientists says there is massive evidence of human responsibility

With the IPCC report not yet published, there is already heated debate about what it will say, and about the implications of its findings for human development.

The scientists' statement is unequivocal, and is not based on whatever the IPCC may publish. They say: "The body of evidence indicating that our civilisation has already caused significant global warming is overwhelming."

The statement comes from 12 members of the recently established Earth League, which describes itself as "a voluntary alliance of leading scientists and institutions dealing with planetary processes and sustainability issues".

They say that if humans continue with business as usual, using fossil fuels and pumping out excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, the world will be on track for a planet that is 4C warmer by the end of this century, or even earlier.

The group says assertions that there has been no warming this century are simply wrong. "Regardless of the... (erroneous) claim that global warming has already stopped, evidence is that once well-known impacts from El Niño, volcanic aerosols and solar variability are removed from the observations, the warming trend of the ocean-atmosphere system is unbroken; and that it will continue (potentially towards 4°C) unless serious mitigation action is taken.

"That global warming continues unabated over the last decade is confirmed by ocean measurements. Ninety per cent of the additional heat that the Earth system absorbs due to the increase in greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans, and the global array of thousands of scientific measurement robots in the oceans proves that they keep heating up at a steady pace. Meanwhile satellites show that sea levels also keep rising steadily."

The statement says a 4°C rise would drastically change the Earth. Some coastlines and entire islands would be submerged by rising sea levels, and more extreme heat waves would cause crop failures and loss of life.

It says powerful feedback processes that would very probably raise the warming even higher could be triggered, and might prove irreversible: "Four degrees of planetary warming means some 8°C change close to the Arctic, which will cause even larger impacts on the Eurasian and North American land mass and the surrounding seas."

"...our societies seem to be willing to impose immense risks on future generations."

Already, it says, there is persuasive evidence that immense changes may be under way: "The last two decades were... punctuated by devastating floods (like the Pakistan deluge in 2010) that may be related to an incipient restructuring of the atmospheric circulation.

"The signs on the climate wall as expressed by the accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice and by the retreat of the overwhelming majority of glaciers worldwide are there for all to see. Yet this is just the beginning."

The scientists say: "Although climate science only tells us what might happen and not what to do about it, we feel that inaction is an unacceptable prospect.

"Nations go to war, implement mass vaccinations of their populations and organise expensive insurance and security systems (such as anti-terror measures) to address much fainter threats. However, our societies seem to be willing to impose immense risks on future generations."

The 12 signatories recognise that some people believe it is impossible for human activities to produce a 4°C temperature rise. Others, they say, are already acknowledging defeat by maintaining that the international policy goal of limiting warming to less than 2°C is a lost case.

They write that there is "ample evidence" that the world can hold a 2°C line, and say technology shows that global sustainability is attainable. But they add: "... the evidence demonstrates that the time frame to achieve this is rapidly shrinking."

The signatories of the statement include Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, of thePotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London. The link above lists all 12 signatories.