The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

united20nations20un20logoBy Joseph Blast

This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Read the rest at Forbes.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Is this what they left out?:

    Arctic sea ice researchers are predicting that sea ice will no longer last through summers in the next couple of years, and even US Navy researchers have predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2016. Whichever year the phenomenon begins, it will be the first time humans have existed on Earth without year-round sea ice in the Arctic, and scientists warn that this is when “abrupt climate change” passes the point of no return.

    • john

      To avoid all the “ad hominum” vitriol, I now confine my rebuttals to sources within IPCC5 itself. Read the UN’s report (not the “Summary for Policy Makers” written by politicians and environmental advocates but t he underlying scientific analyses written by the scientists). You will find no evidence for apocalyptic warnings. Specifically, IPCC5 finds no, or little, evidence for increased hurricanes, global droughts, floods, tornadoes glacial melting or sea level rise. You will find predictions, based entirely on models, that all of these will get worse in a hundred years. You will also find an admission that the models do not work – that they are unable to reconcile with the past 15 years of data – and that the IPCC does not know why.
      The theory assumption of the models is that anthropogenic CO2 influences atmospheric CO2 levels which in turn raises global temperatures. Evidence from ice cores shows quite clearly that increased CO2 levels follow increased temperatures by a few centuries. Data are a higher form of truth than theory. The focus of the IPCC should be in understanding why their models don’t work rather than making ever more fanciful prdictions.

      • Fietser

        Natural warming can’t one on one be compared to human caused warming, they are simply different. CO2 doesn’t lag natural warming by centuries but by around one century. Increased CO2 levels always exagerbated higher temperatures.

        • I’m sorry, but what is your source for that information? It is erroneous. CO2 lags temperature by an average of 800 years. That is a fact from empirical data.

          And how exactly can you separate natural warming from human caused warming? Where is the line of demarcation?
          Hint: you really can’t because it is so small that it is lost in the “white noise” of natural variation, and therefore can not be specifically pointed out.
          Good God man, do some research before you start typing here.

          Update: I’ve taken my own advice and did a little more research. The article I posted above from WUWT is about new research that is saying the lag is a few hundred years at most, and not the 400-1000 years which was previously estimated. Even so, it does not change the fact that CO2 levels respond to changes in temperature, and not the other way around. Nowhere in the climate history from ice core samples is any indication that CO2 drives temperature, and that is the relevant fact. It doesn’t matter if the lag is 1 year or 1000 years, it is clear that CO2 lags temperature.

          • Fietser

            “it does not change the fact”

            There are no facts in science, you should know that. Scientific consensus at best comes closest to a fact. And in that regard your Kochs sponsored WUWT fails in every department.

        • jamesyboy

          Theres no evidence that “Increased CO2 levels always exagerbated higher temperatures.” If Co2 exagerbated temperature then even more Co2 would be released by the ocean (a few hundred years after) exagerbating the situation even more, releasing even more Co2 (a few hundred years after) and the cycle would never end. Infact what the records show is that – Temperature rises – Co2 rises a few hundred years after – Then temperature decreases – Then co2 decreases. No never ending feedback of Co2 exagerbating the situation. This basically shows that the planet is more than capable of regulating itself over time.
          By the way, “Natural warming can’t one on one be compared to human caused warming” as there is simply no way to measure/record/tell the difference. Sure we can program a computer to tell us the difference but we cant tell our selfs then the computer doesn’t stand much chance of being right.
          Its funny that 20,000 years ago there was only around 200ppm Co2, and 150million years ago there was 1500ppm and today is 450ppm. Thats funny because there are multiple species on earth that date back 150million years, not least of which are Crocodiles. They have survived every single climate change for the last 250million years without even evolving. I wonder which species is best equipped to survive a climate change, humans or crocodiles? Bearing in mind humans can see it coming…..(aparently)

          • Hey, don’t forget those cute and cuddly polar bears. How many inter-glacial periods have they survived?

          • michael

            There are negative feedbacks for CO2 levels as well.

            Higher temperatures hasten the weathering of rocks containing lime (CaO). This reacts with CO2 to form CaCO3, which is insoluble in water and gets deposited. This represents a net withdrawal of CO2 from the air.

            Additionally, natural variations in the Earth’s orbit cause temperature change. Cooler oceans dissolve more CO2 and remove it from the atmosphere.

            The existence of a positive feedback loop does not in itself imply a never – ending spiral.

            The two phenomena I described above will be of little help now, since the weathering of rocks takes a while to have any effect and we cannot control the Earth’s orbit.

      • ECJ

        I guess you have not read, or are incompetent to evaluate, the report. If you were conversant on the subject, you would know that the ice core data support the role of CO2 in global warming. Nobody argues that CO2 is the only thing that causes global warming. But what the ice cores show is that when the Earth begins to warm for other reasons, more CO2 is released from the ocean, and rising CO2 levels then drive the increase in temperature, causing over 90 percent of the total warming.

        Nor does anyone show that the models do not work. Indeed, validating them by measuring their ability to predict past changes that we know occurred demonstrate that they work quite well, and that the best fit to the data comes from the models that show the most future change.

        • Why then did the Earth cool again? What you suggest is not accurate. Why do you have periods where the CO2 level still rises yet the temperatures are cooling? If what you suggest were true then, as the rising temperatures create a release of CO2 from the oceans that CO2 would sustain the higher temperatures and you would have a runaway greenhouse effect. That is obviously not the case.
          CO2 and Temperature
          The temperature rises from solar activity, which increases ocean out-gassing of CO2. The temps cool due to solar activity, or lack thereof, and the oceans begin to absorb the CO2 back into the ocean. That is obvious to anyone who does not have an agenda to push, or grant money to pursue. Plus you take into account that there has been no global warming for more than a decade and a half, it pretty much relegates your beliefs to the ash bin of history. Get over it.

    • Why do you bother? This site is for people who arn’t buying your bs. I guarantee you we will have sea ice in 2016 pal. In 2007 or 2009 (cant remember which right now) sea ice in the arctic dropped to the lowest level ever recorded. The next year it was back as strong as ever. Sea levels were unaffected, and thats a FACT. The rss wnd uah satellites show there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998. So in the 16 year period where mankind produced more Co2 than any other 16 year period before, the atmosphere didnt even warm. If you can’t see how that destroys the AGW theory then you ckearly dont even understand the theory

    • ian vandenberg

      what you left out was this is just a normal (every few thousand year) occurrence
      the sun acts up and solar flares dance creating different conditions for our planet these throw off charts that can’t “expect” things that might happen there. so even with no ice which might still happen it is not a huge alarm that will need to ring through out the world it is really just something that will fix itself after a few years. animals my die, but hey we got genetics to create new ones from DNA samples, they could grow them back.
      I’m 15 so ignore any non prove issues I feel strongly about this because its just a too over built subject

      • ECJ

        No, it is not an every thousand year occurrence. We are warmer know tan in many thousands of years, and when the Earth was slightly warmer than it is today substantial portions of both coasts were covered by water. Past warmings are also associated with mass extinctions, including one that ended about 90% of life on Earth. Yes, in a few million years Earth will be fully re-populated, but that will be cold comfort to defunct humanity.

        • I don’t know Tan! 🙂 Look, it’s not 1000 years, it’s 100,000 years look at the chart. And can you name a single mass extinction event that coincided with warming? Which one ended 90% of life on Earth and was caused by warming? I think you don’t have a clue as to what you are saying. I don’t think you can back up what you’re saying with any facts.
          Past warmings have been associated with boon times for humanity. Longer growing seasons are good! There has been massive growth associated with warming periods. Conversely, cool periods had been bad for humanity. You’ve got it all backward.

    • Cole

      Well, the crab fisherman on deadliest catch will find that as good news. No arctic ice will mean better and safer fishing during opilio crab season. Coast gaurd will be happy as well…all is good…

  • Fietser

    You call an independent review something that is sponsored the fossil fuel industry it self?? The link is from the Heartland institute, get real!

    • onlyme

      Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 13 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the 21st Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003) and at the 25th Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006)
      1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
      2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
      3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.

  • Rob N. Hood

    bbbut bbbbut Fiester, the Heartland Institute is is is American. Why do you hate America?

  • Hamin’ X

    “…it will be the first time humans have existed on Earth without year-round sea ice in the Arctic…”


  • Matt

    You deniers are very, very confused about the science

    • I’m not a “denier” I am skeptical of AGW, and the IPCC.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Aren’t you the one who gets all hot and bothered by the way “global warming” was altered to “climate change” and “climate disruption”? You sure are oddly sensitive to basic designators personally. Denier/skeptic- whatever- one just sounds better than the other doesn’t it? I agree that we all could and should be more polite to each other in as many ways as possible, including this kind of name-calling, however accurate it may be. It’s just another human habit for labeling for simplicity but also for demeaning each other. But it goes both ways doesn’t it? We all need to work on improving the dialogue of respect in all areas of modern life.

        • neilio

          You know darn well what the issue surrounding the term “denier” is. I will not be directly, nor indirectly linked to people who say the extermination of Jews during the holocaust never happened. I know it happened, I toured one of the concentration camps when I was stationed in Germany. I saw the showers, I saw the ovens. So don’t even try to put me in with that bunch.

          • Tab Numlock

            Did these showers have blue cyanide staining? And why shouldn’t a labor camp have crematoria? Does working in one make people immortal?

          • I’m sorry, I don’t understand the questions Tab. Are you trying to be funny? Because you are not. Not even a little.
            They first used carbon monoxide, and later zyklon B, a pesticide. And the place I toured had 8 gas chambers (showers), and 46 ovens. There were countless eyewitnesses including advancing allied troops that saw first hand what was being done to the Jews, and there were also accounts from diaries and journals of various Nazi officers including Himmler about various methods used to kill Jews, and other non-desirables.
            Then there is the photographic evidence. And if you didn’t know they didn’t have photoshop back then so, though not impossible, it was very hard to fake photos.
            So let me just finish by saying, (and I’m breaking a rule of this site by saying this, but) you’re an idiot!

    • Dan

      So easy to throw around terms learned by rote and not back them up with any hard data, isn’t it? “Denier” is akin to “racist,” or “bigot” in the left’s lexicon. Meaningless words meant to disparage and shut down opposition opinions. Very “democratic” of you to compare people who question some VERY questionable science with loons who deny that the extermination of Jews, homosexuals and other people deemed “undesirable” by the Nazis ever occurred.

      Post some verifiable, observed data here and we can talk. Until then, we’ll think of you as a “denier” of reality in preference of personal political convenience.

    • Cole

      Co2??? are the scientists really suggesting that 350 parts per millionth has an effect on earth? 350 parts per millionth of anything is so diluted you can consider it non-existent. And….of that 350 parts per millionth, only 1% of it is produced by man according to the IPCC…Hook, line, and sinker…you swallowed it…

  • Rob N. Hood

    Or we will not exist- at that point. The total results of the CO2, methane, etc. effects won’t culminate until 40 years from now. 2054. Humans may be extinct by then or getting there. Nature has her ways. But what the hell, we’ll all be long gone by then, eh? No worries.

    2013 was the sixth warmest year on record (tied with 2007), and that there has been no let-up in global warming. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years have occurred since 2000 and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, with the decade 2001-2010 being the warmest on record, according to the WMO.

    • neilio

      Oh, the WMO. OK! It must be the bear bones truth if the WMO says it.
      Wait, is that the same WMO that along with the UNEP created the IPCC, is it?
      Oh yeah I’ll trust that, about as far as I can spit.

    • Brandon Ruiz

      I will be around then, and I will have children by then, and eventually they will have children. Or do you just care about your generation sir?

  • Vince

    I gave up arguing with the deniers, truthers, birthers, and all affiliated faith based tom foolery. I’ve heard wildly inaccurate, easily verifiable information, passed as gospel truth. When reality is forced upon them they will stick their fingers down their figurative throats to prevent ingesting anything that might not conform to their old testament earth. I just shake my head and wait for the second death of the John Birch Society.

    It’s going to get awful warm in the meantime.

    • Sure it will (get baking hot, that is). Upon what do you base your predictions? As a guy who has been around and around near every political debate, I can tell you with absolute certainty that every side lies. I’ve learned to rely on personal observation more than what people tell me. If I decide to engage in a debate, I research all sides first. I run it through the filter of my own experience and use logic to find and dismiss the lies.

      What’s your process to arrive at your absolute faith in the unlikely conclusion (based on hundreds of thousands of years of geologic records) that we’re all going to be simmering soon? From whence does your gospel derive?

    • Well that’s interesting that you say you have had these arguments before, because you have not done so here. Your first post here is one claiming victory in the debate, when the debate has not taken place. That is weird.
      I, for one, would like you to identify what wildly inaccurate, easily verifiable information, is passed as gospel truth. I would really like to know because, you see, I am interested in truth. And if you have evidence that shows that what I believe is not true, then I would really like to see it. I would really like to have that discussion with you. I think that is what is called a debate.
      I’d say you have come here with a very closed mind on the subject. It is very hard to debate when one side won’t even listen to the other. Which is essentially what you are saying.
      I think it is probably more like you’ve given up debating us because you got tired of losing. Yes?

    • Brandon Ruiz

      True vince, but you gotta still try and fight for whats right, no matter how ignorant people born in the 50s and 60s are today. No one said change would be easy my friend.

  • Pingback: The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science | THE RIDGEWOOD BLOG.()

  • Rob N. Hood

    There are basically two groups of human: one group that is commons-minded (cares about others) and the second group that cares for themselves and immediate loved ones. The US exemplifies, and has for decades, the market-driven (capitalistic) selfish model for the world. It is based upon individualistic consumerism over everything else (an ever growing profit, i.e. capitalism). Because it has created the most wealth the human world has ever experienced it is envied by the rest of the world and emulated, even though more primitive societies were very successful in maintaining relative peace and happiness, and sustainability, for most of human history. The for-profit model (individual-based consumerism) is destroying nature and causing the greatest number of extinctions the planet has seen since the dinosaurs died out. But hey, one thing can’t have anything to do with the other- so let’s all party like it’s 1999- who gives a damn right? You (we) can’t do anything that will change the way we consume!! God forbid! (God help us!)

    • So, your true colors are showing today. All shades of red.

      • Getzlaf

        Neilio I can’t even finish reading half your comments on this pointless site they’re so irrelevant. Thanks Rob for perfectly articulating the problem with today’s society and how it has brainwashed millions of people. Almost everything is now driven by individualistic views and we are all guilty of living in this way, however until you admit that and try and change for the better you remain the poor guy like who Neilio perceives to be on the internet. You’ve made it apparent you’ve never done field research nor worked with anyone credible in climatology or geography so what’s the point of getting all passionate about a personal opinion.

        • So, I’m a little confused by your post. Who are you addressing in the second part of the post? Me or RNH? It must be RNH because you address me only in the first sentence. You refer to me later but it seems that you are still addressing RNH. Is this not correct?
          I don’t know why you would call my comments “so irrelevant” that you can’t read half of them, and then proceed to comment on them. Your post just makes no sense. Or maybe it’s not your post, perhaps it’s just you.
          And if this site is so pointless, why are you reading it?

      • Rob N. Hood

        “Red” as in communist? Awww, ain’t you the cute throwback. The 50’s are calling you comrade Neil.

    • Brandon Ruiz

      Well said sir, this is the biggest problem in this country. The people who are in their own lil business bubbles, focused on nothing more than there own profit. Then when something progressive or world altering tries to get done (climate change), it doesn’t matter how relevant the facts may be (IPCC Report), if the change will hurt a person’s business then that person sees the move as nothing but an attack on them. Republicans always want to fight for independent business and how it stimulates economic growth overall as a country, but it also stimulates an economic way of looking at everything. It is sad as a college student in physics at 23 and seeing how money driven everyone is. Everyone knows this problem is a political one more than anything. When house and senator republicans were polled a month ago only had 13 percent of them agreed that global warming has been proved. Politician ignorance is the most frustrating thing to see.

      • I think you mean anthropogenic global warming, don’t you? I mean, global warming requires no proving from anyone. It is obvious that the Earth warms, and the Earth cools in cycles naturally. This is basic fact in Geology, Planetology, meteorology, and Physics.
        Anthropogenic Global Warming, however, is the theory that CO2 produced by humans by industrial processes, but mainly fossil fuel combustion, will cause the Earth to warm unnaturally and produce a runaway greenhouse effect. This theory has never been proved, and in fact only exists in computer models. In the real world it has not been seen to be actually happening because as CO2 levels have continued to rise throughout the last 17 years, global average temperatures have remained flat. If the theory had any validity at all we would see some warming due to the increased amount of CO2, but we don’t. There is no evidence that increased CO2 will cause warming.
        I know that everything that you are exposed to is telling you that AGW is real, and it’s happening, and we have to act now before it’s too late to stop it. But I would say to you to look at what the evidence that you are being shown actually is. I’m willing to bet that every paper, every scientific peer-reviewed study you are shown is actually a product of computer models. Or, a metadata study of computer models. And that practically none of them contain any observational data. Tell me I’m wrong.
        Global warming, and climate change are terms used to create confusion. Both are known to occur. The planet does warm naturally. The climate does change naturally. You have to be careful when using these terms when talking about AGW, because AGW is the one with the question mark, not the other two. In order to be concise you must be specific, and require specificity.

  • Kate Charon

    I read an interesting fictional book by Michael Crichton,…’State of Fear’ which deals with global warming and ice melt. An interesting and thought provoking read.

  • Rob N. Hood

    As CO2 (theoretically) warms things up, either via AGW, or nature herself, METHANE is being freed up in the frozen (thawing) north (e.g. Siberia and the Arctic sea-bed), at an ever increasing and alarming rate. Methane is hundreds of times a greater greenhouse gas than CO2 is. At a certain point it will be released in huge “explosions” creating warming very quickly and dangerously. It is believed that methane could be the reason for at least two, if not all, the great mass extinctions the earth has experienced. The point is this: no matter the cause for initial global warming, it can and probably will, have a catastrophic outcome for all major organisms on the planet. What should we do no matter our personal beliefs/prejudices? Reduce warming now. In fact, it is the only thing we can do to prevent this from happening. Or we can trust the fossil fuel industry and it’s lobbyists and fight for our right to kill ourselves and everything else on the planet just because we can, and want to.

    • This is another issue where you are being led by fear. It’s a good example of a few facts leading to the wrong conclusion because you don’t have all of the facts.

      “CH4 is 20 times more effective an absorber than CO2 – in those bands. However, CH4 is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. The amount of CH4 must increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O.”

      I know, it talks about absorption bands, probably something you don’t understand. But it is fundamental to understanding how a “greenhouse” gas absorbs radiation, and fundamental to understanding why some of us think the whole global warming scare is a total scam.

      • Brandon Ruiz

        Neilio your whole talk about being led by fear is a typical republican attitude. It is sad and ignorant. Stubborness is really all republicans are claiming themselves to be when they say they won’t be led by fear. Id personally love to hear what you due for a job talking bout absorbtion bands like you are some genius yourself because you might have an idea about absorbtion bands. I need to drop some realization on you. CH4 doesss contribute some to the global warming effect, but CO2 is obviously the major contributor and what this argument should focus on instead of methane, which is much less harmful to the atmospheric change at this point in time.

        • Well Brandon, I work in the HVAC&R field, that is Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, & Refrigeration. I have an AAS degree in HVAC&R technology. I understand a great deal about heating and cooling. That’s what I do.
          I understand that energy exists as wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. And I understand that certain wavelengths of infra red radiation are absorbed and re-emitted by certain gases. As it turns out, specific gases absorb only specific wavelengths of IRR, and some gases have overlapping bands that absorb the same wavelengths which is the topic of the story I posted.
          I have never claimed to be a genius, but you don’t have to be a genius to learn things that you are interested in. I am not a stupid person. When I did go to school I was on the deans list every semester. My GPA was 3.7-3.8. So, a genius? No. But I’m not an idiot either.
          As far as my assertion that you, and your brethren are allowing fear to lead your reasoning, you never did say that I was wrong. And if that’s what you think a typical Republican attitude is then you don’t have any idea what Republicans think. And by the way, I am not a Republican. I am Conservative, yes, but more of a Libertarian than anything else.
          Here is my argument for you being led by fear.
          You have been told that humans are contributing way more CO2 to the atmosphere than it can handle. And that CO2 will warm the planet, and cause all kinds of nasty things to happen like: sea level rise, famine, war, climate refugees, mass extinctions, drought, floods, hurricanes, diseases, on and on, so on and so forth. Right? Forgive me if I’ve left anything out.
          Are you not afraid of sea level rise? Are you not afraid of: famine, war, climate refugees, mass extinctions, drought, floods, hurricanes, diseases, so on and so forth? I bet that you are. And because you are afraid of these things you are willing to go along with what the “experts” say we should do to stop it. Right?
          Well I suggest that you do some research on methods used to control people. You will find that one of the greatest tools in that toolbox is fear. Fear keeps you unfocused, off balance, and paralyzed. It makes your will malleable.
          The trouble is that they’ve been saying all these things were going to happen for your whole life. They were saying these things would be happening already now, when you were a baby. But the trouble is that they have not happened, and they keep pushing it out farther, and farther.
          Think I’m lying?

        • Rob N. Hood

          The Right are masters at using fear. In this case it’s the fear of higher taxes. That is the Rights greatest fear of all (greed and selfishness is the basis of their value system). They dress it up in many different ways (freedom, liberty, etc.) but they use fear as a tactic much more than the Left does, by a long shot.

          • It’s sad really. You want your socialist utopia. I get that. But have you considered what you’re doing to yourself in order to facilitate it? You’ve already admitted, years ago, that you go along with AGW because, even if it’s not true, it was a way to achieve your political views. What does that make you? Are you willing to do anything, say anything to achieve your political goal, your perceived utopia? The ends justify the means? Up to and including making up total lies? Because that is what you just did. There is not even a shred of truth, or reality in what you just said above. Zip, zero, nada, nill.
            Be careful that in your pursuit of utopia that you don’t create your own hell.

    • Hamin’ X

      “There you go again” with the Alinski tactic of trying to put fear in the place of reason, where the threat is worse than the reality. Never give up. If one charge is proven false, or doesn’t gain traction, throw out another one. Overwhelm the opposition by keeping them constantly on defense.

      Your entire post can be summed up in three words: “It is believed”. Sounds like religion, doesn’t it?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Fear? Methane and CO2 are greenhouse gases, that are increasing and will continue to do so based on the science, unless something changes. Should anyone be afraid of this, if the basic premise is believed ? (which you do not so, for those who do…) Yes, to be afraid of this is rational and logical. Does this mean we have to panic and/or make irrational decisions? Of course not. But so far, this country, among most others, have done little to nothing about it. So what are you afraid of? Nothing is being done, so I guess that means believers have a greater right to be afraid than non-believers do. Logically speaking of course.

    • See, but this where your lack of understanding comes into play. I’ll try to explain it so that you can understand. Do you like the Beatles? Let’s say there are only 4 wavelengths of IRR (infra red radiation), we’ll call them John, Paul, George, and Ringo. So, you fill a room with a gas, gas A, and have the Beatles walk through it, but you notice that only John, Paul, and Ringo come through the other side. So where is George? Well, George couldn’t make it through that gas, he’s stuck in there getting bounced around on pool bumpers. He has been absorbed by gas A.
      So let’s try a different gas. Gas B. This time only John, and Ringo come through the other side. Paul, and George are being bounced around on the pool bumpers this time. So Paul, and George have been absorbed by gas B.
      So, gas A, and B have an overlap in the wavelength of George.

      This is basically what the post is saying. That the wavelengths, or bands, of IRR that are absorbed by Methane overlap with bands that are absorbed by water vapor, so adding more methane has primarily no effect because those wavelengths are already absorbed by water vapor.

      The other point that I have been trying to make is that once a wavelength of radiation is absorbed completely, it doesn’t matter how much more of the gas is added it just can not absorb any more of that wavelength.
      It’s like firing a bullet into a phone book. The bullet will only make it so far and then it will stop. Will it matter if you put another phone book behind the first one? Will it matter if you put a 3rd, or a 4th phone book behind those? No it won’t matter at all because the bullet will be stopped by the first phone book every time.

      I know these are simplistic analogies but it is obvious that you don’t understand the basic principles of the science. And when you do understand the basic principles it is easy to see that the basic premise of AGW is a false premise.

    • Eric B

      Just be glad that US policy makers do not act upon the IPCC report that is based on bend science. In Europe policy makers are killing the economy by CO2 trading schemes, other energy taxes and green subsidies. Companies are driven out of Europe because of it.

  • Rob N. Hood

    It wouldn’t just be me who doesn’t “understand the basic principles of the science” then. The majority of actual scientists also apparently don’t get it either. Pray tell where does the “absorbed” radiation go oh-wise science-guy?

    • This is why I called them simplistic analogies. The radiation that is absorbed is re-emitted and re-absorbed by other molecules but it is spread out in all directions, some is converted to thermal heat so the warming that is caused diminishes as it spreads out. The re-emitted radiation will continue to do so until it can escape, or is converted to heat, This is known as diminishing returns. It is true that adding more of the greenhouse gas affected by the specific wavelength(s) of IRR will cause more warming but that increase in warming diminishes exponentially which renders any increase from additional gas insignificant.

      The only way to increase the warming from additional gas added is to increase the amount of radiation being added to the system, but the only way to do that on Earth is to increase the volume of solar radiation, so………..

  • Rob N. Hood

    It’s a shame you are just a HVAC technician. Perhaps the Koch brothers could somehow get you a position on various think tank advisory boards and/or refurbished as an expert on teevee and other media outlets as your in-depth scientific abilities are apparently being currently wasted. While there is admittedly a bit of sarcasm here you do seem to be a little underemployed and the rightwingers and Libertarians need all the articulate true believers they can.

    • Hamin’ X

      Amazing, not one relevant thought on the topic in the above post. But then, I guess that I’m guilty of same in this one. Perhaps we should return the subject?

    • I see what is going on here. You don’t understand the science at all. So you have to attack me because you can’t possibly attack the science. But of course a mere technician couldn’t possibly know more about something than you, which is why you speak to me with snide, condescending arrogance.
      Here, I’ll try to help you along your way. A molecule is the smallest portion of a compound consisting of the elemental structure of the compound. For example, one molecule of CO2 consists of one atom of carbon, bonded with two atoms of oxygen. 🙂

      • Rob N. Hood

        Wow, sensitive much? (yes). It was actually more of a compliment than not. I’ve done so before with you and you never fail to resort to your right-wing fall back position of playing the victim and lashing out defensively. Some things never change. But my point is other than being a likely candidate for lucrative employment of certain individuals or groups that seek to sustain the eminence of the fossil fuel industry, you, a “modest” technician with a two year degree (honestly nothing wrong with that) purport to know more and better than many folks with PhDs. I realize this is part and parcel of the David and Goliath mythology that the Right loves to pretend to love, but c’mon dude. Talk about tilting at windmills. You are Don Quixote-esque to be sure. My only hope is that global warming/climate change will effect all strata of society the same. I’m democratic about my views of course, unlike the wealthy elite who despises democracy and seeks to undermine it more and more all the time. Even if their money is able to buy them some initial advantages such as larded bunkers for example, they won’t like what is left over after the next global extinction occurs. By then though it will be too late, even for them. Or at least that is my hope for them anyway.

        • Perhaps if your compliments weren’t couched in such an insulting manner, I might take them as such.

          • Rob N. Hood

            sensitive wittle thing

  • Fietser

    The title says “Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science”. But the article fails to point out what that is…

    • It doesn’t? Really? Are we reading the same article? Perhaps it’s your reading comprehension level.

      • Fietser

        Enlighten me.

        • Sorry, but I’d rather go beat my head against a wall. It’s in the article. Read it.

  • Heisenburg

    [Comment edited by moderator for a complete lack of taste, humor, and human decency.] Damn Nazis ruined our climate.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Fascism, laissez-faire capitalism and the resulting plutocracy is ruining the planet, yes. Keep it clean and get your thoughts in here, it isn’t that hard to do. Unless you’re just trolling, which is fine too, but troll politely please. You just make us other trolls and liberals look bad.

  • Nigel

    jesus if you guys care so much about the environment stop arguing with each other and go clean up garbage or something that will actually help earth. they’re not gonna be convinced so id say its a lost cause.

    • Are you posting from a cell phone? I can use capitalized letters and apostrophes with mine, Can’t you? Really, it makes me wonder how much you understand about complex concepts if you don’t seem to grasp basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If you want to be taken seriously you have to, at least, seem to know how to communicate using written language. Take the last six words of your post; “id say its a lost cause.” When you are talking about yourself you should capitalize “i”. Now, where you say “id”. In Freudian theory, the id is the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs. But I think you mean id as the contraction “I’d”. A contraction is two words commonly used together condensed into one word. “I’d”, is a contraction for “I would”. Its, is a word but the “its” without an apostrophe between t, and s, would be used to describe the characteristics if an inanimate object. Take a house for example you could say “its floors are crooked, or its paint is peeling.” But when you are trying to say the contraction for “it is” you have to use an apostrophe.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.