There is nothing unique about the following, but I include it as an example of the unbelieveable exaggerations that are being bandied about concerning climate. I was doing some research on the Salton Sea for a post at Coyote Blog and ran accross this letter from the California Audobon Society. It says, in part:
Although there is uncertainty about what the precise impacts will be, there is no longer legitimate scientific disagreement about the fact that the climate is changing and that those changes will accelerate over the next century.
One of the classic rhetorical tricks is to say "it cannot be denied that" followed by two statements. The first statement will in fact be undeniable, setting up the reader to blindly accept the second, which is much more contentious. In this case, there is indeed no doubt that Climate is changing. Climate is always changing, else we would still have glaciers in Minnesota. However, it is far, far from given that the changes will "accelerate" in the next century. In fact, the relationship between CO2 and warming is in fact a diminishing return, making "acceleration" difficult in all but a looney universe dominated by positive feedbacks.
But the real whopper comes in the next paragraph:
According to recent analyses, California is projected to experience temperature increases of at least 4-8 degrees Fahrenheit (if global emissions are significantly curtailed) and more likely temperature increases of 9-18 degrees Fahrenheit (current emissions path) over the next centur
Really? First absolutely impossible to reconcile 9-18 degree F with the approximately 1F (0.6C) warming we have seen in the last century. CO2 rose 100ppm in the last century and produced 1F, but adding another 200ppm in the next century will produce 9-18F?? This implies an upward sloping curve that is exactly opposite of the relationship everyone agrees CO2 and warming have. 18F implies almost two degrees a decade, a huge number considering the warming over the last decade has been close to zero and no decade has had warming of more than about 0.3F. Further, I am sure the Sierra Club found someone who actually produced such a study, but the IPCC "consensus", which I think is exaggerated, calls for only about 4-6F increases in the next century. Five degrees F is probably bad enough, do they really have to outright exaggerate?
And the whole IPCC “consensus” is a joke. Using your links, I came across an article by Dr. Vincent Gray, who sits on the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel, calling for the abolition of the IPCC:
”Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition. “
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
Consensus:
“Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member’s considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members’ discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships.”
This is obviously not the case with global warming “science.”
“do they really have to outright exaggerate?” Yes. Otherwise people won’t vote for their socialist or just plain human-hating programs in hysterical fear.
A little known fellow, name of Al Gore, some kind of politician, I think, who made some movie… had this to say about said movie:
“…unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
here’s the link
What does an “over-representation of factual presentations” mean? Is he simply wanting more presentations? Or is he exaggerating the problem in the hopes of gaining supporters?
gmee: This was the movie with the 20-foot sea level rise, right? As compared to 20 inches predicted by the IPCC, who are themselves global warming advocates but also somewhat of scientists. So, what do you think?