CAUTION: Heavy on sarcasm.
Unfortunately, there are alarmists who don't see a light at the end of the tunnel and find it convenient to conclude it must be a train coming the other way blocking the light. With some limited data, and what they see as infallible computer programs, they then make their conclusions fit their expectations. The conclusions dovetail nicely with the fears of many of the train’s passengers and if a few alarmists start standing on seats shouting "We're all gonna die!", before long there is a full blown panic and a stampede to the driver to “Stop and turn around!”
Never mind that with a little time for keen observation by cooler heads, the hasty conclusions of the fear promoters is seen not to match the initial catastrophic conclusion of a colliding train rushing in from the other direction. Never mind that on further evaluation, the input into the alarmist’s models is found to be incomplete, missing, kept behind locked doors or otherwise unavailable so that their experiments cannot be replicated. Never mind that the growing evidence appears to indicate the light is not evident because of natural reasons; perhaps the tunnel curves and is extremely long or there might be other possible reasons. Never mind that email leaks indicate the fear promoters have modified some data deliberately to create additional panic and have taken advantage of (manipulated?) the peer review process and actively silenced dissenters. Never mind that catastrophe-predicting, eye catching press releases are released well in advance of acceptance of relatively mundane final reports. The passengers are in panic. The fear promoters have the crowd behind them. The crowd is looking to the alarmists for answers. The alarmists can rely upon the panicked passengers to put them in the driver's seat.
The alarmists stated very publicly that increasing CO2 concentrations would cause runaway increases in temperature. They were emphatic in stating that temperatures were linked to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. We were approaching a tipping point and soon it would be too late to go back. Al Gore and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the runaway global increase in temperatures, the coming extinction of the cute and cuddly polar bear, disappearing glaciers, melting icecaps and sea levels rising 20 metres by the end of the 21st century and inundating low lying island communities and all the world’s major coastal cities.
What started as fears of “global warming”, evolved into “climate change” because some areas weren’t showing any warming (roughly 1/3rd of the earth). Community fears could be better developed if there was a practical response to every global weather extreme. Cyclones/hurricanes? Climate change! Drought/floods? Climate change! Tornadoes/storms? Climate change! Heavy snowfall? Climate change! Hot summer temperatures and cold winter temperatures? Climate change!
After a few more years of observation, the data once again showed that these events weren’t matching with alarmist predictions either. Cyclone and hurricane numbers are down. Tornado and storm numbers are relatively stable. Nothing appears out of the ordinary either with flood or drought characteristics around the world. The Russian heat wave and the Australian and Texas droughts were convenient events in support of climate change for a while, but then some non-cooperative USA government killjoys said they had/have nothing to do with climate change either.
Now we have observations that the world temperatures haven’t changed much in 13 or so years, and look like they are starting a prolonged
decline. 10 years of temperature declines were seen as acceptable to the pro-warmers. That's been extended to 17 years by Santor. Now the IPCC has extended that to 30 years.
Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain
Oh dear! The fear wheels are coming off the bicycle. That's longer than global warming has been around! Solar physicists and oceanographers seem to have a better idea of global climate than so-called climatologists. Ocean levels are decreasing. Polar ice caps haven’t done much. The Antarctic ice coverage is showing no major change to historic coverage and the Arctic ice cap, while down, is showing signs of recovery. Natural variation, an oft-repeated argument from sceptics and blown off as only a minor influence causing occasional temperature declines by the pro-warmers has received heightened importance now that temperatures are not rising. The alarmists are construing the discussion to make it appear like they have been considering natural variation for a significant period of time. Only when it has suited their conclusions! The major arguments supporting catastrophic manmade climate change are suffering a significant lack of real-world support.
With waning supporting evidence for a global “catastrophic” link between CO2 and world temperatures, the IPCC is shifting strategy once again. This time, it’s morphed away from a global view of climate change towards a more localised “extreme climate events” scenario. Same fear promotion…just a different reason. The global fears have little support left in reality. This time, a local argument might be a safer bet for the IPCC. Past records appear to indicate more severe weather events linked to cooling global temperatures.
The problem for the IPCC now is how to successfully reposition itself from endorsing a (false), sole causative link of rising CO2 directly to rising world temperatures, to a translucent link of man’s fossil fuel activities with local weather extremes while maintaining a seemingly legitimate influence on world government. There has been very little research on airborne aerosols allowing for considerable manuevring with innuendos, rumours and half-facts. My guess is that the IPCC argument will shift slightly from manmade CO2 alone causing temperature increases to a combination of human produced CO2 and human produced aerosols related to the burning of fossil fuels, of course, (each over-riding the influence of the other at the appropriate time, one heating and one cooling, the interactivity which is difficult to predict without additional funding and support, of course) possibily causing extreme weather conditions. That should buy the IPCC and climate scientists in support of AGW another 10 or 20 years of employment and community and political gullibility to come up with another argument against fossil fuels, capitalist market ideals, and individual countrys' self-government.
In the convenient words of Konstantin, the IPCC and global warming community is:
A gravy-train confluence of interests which has evolved into a Too Big To Fail construct…
I am amused by the following quotes from The Australian article:
Professor Palutikof said it would take a while for the effects of climate change to become visible. But without action, she said, "gradually, over time, that signal will emerge with resounding clarity".
"If we don't do something now to prevent it, by the time we get to 2070, we will see the impact clearly," she said.
So she admits that climate change is not evident? It might look like the emperor has no clothes. But just wait. The tailor is working hard. What's wrong with you? Can't you see? Believe!!!! Believe!!!!!! Like the climate priest Palutikof, you'll see the beautiful suit too.
The federal government's climate science adviser, Will Steffen, has acknowledged there is no statistically significant evidence that there has been a change in the behaviour of tropical cyclones.
However, Professor Steffen told the Ten Network's The Bolt Report at the weekend that most experts agreed we would see an increase in intensity in cyclones as the warming continued.
What warming? The religion of global warming continues. We believe that it's happening. We are taking actions to stop it from happening. The evidence for global warming will become apparent as global warming becomes apparent. WTF! An image of a dog chasing its tail comes to mind. Sums up the Labor party too.
I do agree with De flieger above. The Liberal Party has flip-flopped on policy choices, but still maintains support for global warming for fear of losing its votes. I've never voted National, but would do so at the drop of a hat next election to send a message to the spineless Liberals as well.