Free Markets, Free People

New UN IPCC report drops AGW as the cause of climate change

Roger Pielke Jr notes that the new IPCC report covering climate change seems to take the skeptical argument to heart and stick much more closely to actual facts and what is really known  empirically.  Says Pielke:

The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where "right" means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while.

His examples from the report:

A few quotable quotes from the report (from Chapter 4):

-"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

-"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

-"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:

-"Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research.

Maybe he’s right.  Maybe, finally, science will “win out”.  And I also hope that the administration that has said it will use science in its policy making process will now actually do so. 

Hello, EPA?


Twitter: @McQandO

7 Responses to New UN IPCC report drops AGW as the cause of climate change

  • So, the witch-doctor religion of Gorebal Climate Thingy is being beaten back.

    Someone needs to get the memo to the Obami…

  • Color me sceptical… they seem to be strictly talking about attributions to “losses” and “impacts” to either “natural” or “anthropogenic” causes. Let’s see what they say in the AR5 and how far some good science goes in the real nitty gritty against hockeysticks and dodgy GCM simulations.

  • Wait a minute…..the polar bears aren’t deal already?

    • @The Shark Nope. “Alaska bears” (as my children termed them) are doing famously well. They would REALLY like for you to come play…

  • No problem, simply invoke the precautionary principle. Just because it is not currently happening doesn’t mean it can’t happen and since *we all know* that climate change is real then it is best you give up your energy freedom and independence, not to mention the contents of your wallets to a global government that can defend you from this potential threat.


  • Truth finally got its boots on.