Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Global Warming: Rhetoric goes up while some predictions are revised downward
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, February 08, 2007

Licia Corbella, writing for the Calgary Sun, splashes a little of the cold water of reality on the latest Global Warming (TM) scare engendered by the IPCC report:
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summary released last Friday inflates the language of doom even as it deflates its predictions of temperature and sea level increases from previous reports.

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts world temperatures will possibly rise 1.8C to 4C (3.25 to 7.2F) from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise 28 to 43 cm (11 to 17 inches).

Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker.

The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by .09 to .88 metres (3.5 to 34.6 inches or 9 to 88 cm).

In other words, in just six years, predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!
Got that? In 6 years of doing nothing, we've somehow managed to cut the top predicted temperature increase by 1/3 and the top predicted sea-level increase by 1/2. Pretty impressive, no?

And that wasn't all that was overestimated the last time the IPCC trotted it's data out there:
Another measurement has had to be slashed by one-third as well.

In 2001, the UN body said the global net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with radiative forcing of 2.43 watts per square metre.

Oops. Now they're saying it's 1.6 watts per square metre.

Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong?
You'd think. But no, the same suspects who've now accepted consensus among scientists as scientific proof are sticking to their, well, consensus. The "doom and gloom" rhetoric has been ratcheted up even while the dire predictions have been revised down.

Meanwhile, as Lance reports at A Second Hand Conjecture, skeptics are coming to be viewed as heretics and in various places, authorities are attempting to remove them from their positions because they demand scientific proof instead of consensus. Sounds like GW(TM) is becoming a religion to me. Nothing could be more dangerous to science as a discipline than that.

UPDATE: Speaking of skeptics, an interesting link.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

No no no. You’re being irrational, disagreeing with established solid science because of your own political bias.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
"In other words, in just six years, predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!"

It’s working! The fight against Global Warming is getting results, no thanks to the close-minded and scientifically illiterate dissenters. Think how much it would improve if you d#%& skeptics would just do your part.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

Do it for the children.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Transition from Marx to Gaia to Mohammed, all within 50 years.
Written By: Post from the FUTRE
URL: http://
You don’t understand, Bruce.
Ya see... it’s because of "Global Warming", that the climate is so unpredictable.....


Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Far be it from me to defend the IPCC, but if you look at the data, the real prediction reduction is much smaller - the mean temp has dropped ~20%, and the mean sea rise has dropped ~35% ; the large drop in the maximums is simply an artifact of tightening up the range. This is to be expected as further data and refinement is achieved. They’re just reporting what their models tell them.

There are a number of valid critiques of their methods and protocols, but the real problem with all of this is that they want to force me to make drastic changes in my life and economic wellbeing based on completely unproven assumptions about CO2s effect on climate. Their proof for these assumptions is some basic physics calculations which are made using initial conditions that are plucked out of someone’s nether regions, and therefore result in an error band larger than the effect, and a historical correlation of CO2 proxies with temperature proxies, ignoring inconvenient other forcing factors.

I deal with a manufactured product with over 2000 components, and I’m quite aware of six sigma necessity to consistant quality. The GW alarmists want to change a world with hundreds of thousands of components based on sub two sigma data of less than 100 of them.
Written By: bud
URL: http://
Oh Bud, you’re just talking reasonable science now....this is about consensus, you denier!
Written By: looker
URL: http://
According to Tim Lambert, who has actually read the report: "The IPCC report says that the range [of rise in sea levels] is 18 to 59 cm if you ignore ice flow changes, and 28 to 79 cm if you include an estimate for ice flow changes."

The difference is apparently due to recent criticism over the adequacy of modeling Greenland ice flows. The earlier IPCC report described the sea rise levels including the ice flows; the most recent one breaks out and reports separately the sea rise with ice flows included.

Written By: Francis
URL: http://
and 28 to 79 cm if you include an estimate for ice flow changes
79 cm is still lower than the previous upper prediction, no?

According to the new IPCC Summary for Policymakers
Models used to date do not include...the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking...Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. (pp. 14-15)
The chart of sea level predictions is on page 13 (Table SPM-3).

The Summary for Policymakers contains no specific figures for higher sea level projections (taking into account ice flow dynamics). Why do we think that is? Just to make Lambert look stupid?

Let me also remind people of the statement that keeps showing up in each report — in this case on p. 17 of the Summary:
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Skeptics are getting a little boring. Taking on the whole of scientific thinking requires a little more than right-wing convictions.

Each of the most common fallacies (’arguments’) expressed by climate change denialists is tackled in lucid detail here:
Written By: MCope
URL: http://
Will you help support global warming issues?
We have a small logo that you can use to show your support on your blog or myspace!


Spread the word -
Written By: Globalwarming Awareness2007

I will not.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Why won’t the proponents of anthropogenic global warming discuss the issue of an alternative to their "solution" to the alleged pending catastrophe,namely,adjustment?
Written By: Robert Henry
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks