Scientists Say Science Not Necessary For New IPCC “Climate Change” Report

Consensus is politics

(Mother Nature Network) Climate experts also told LiveScience they would like to see the new report stress the scientific consensus on climate change, and emphasize the link between human activities and global warming.

“I hope this report will stress the virtual certainty among the scientific community that humans are affecting the climate system in profound ways, mainly through burning ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels,” said Jennifer Francis, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “I hope it will emphasize the high confidence in attribution of many aspects of climate change to increasing greenhouse gases, and de-emphasize the discussion of uncertainty. The public hears ‘uncertainty’ and thinks there is no consensus.”

Yet, these same “climate scientists” will take lots of fossil fueled travel themselves. But they want everyone else to Believe. They do have their talking points down: notice so many of the stories surrounding the upcoming AR5 feature rants against burning fossil fuels.

Climate researcher Julienne Stroeve said the final IPCC report needs to communicate the differences between natural variability and long-term climate changes.

“I believe society is often confused about the differences between natural variability and long-term changes,” said Stroeve, a research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “While the models used in the IPCC reports are useful tools for generally expected climate changes, natural variability can be powerful in reversing these trends for several years at a time, which doesn’t negate anthropogenic influences on climate. Better communication of that fact is needed.”

So, natural variability cannot cause long term changes, but driving a car to work can? Natural variability can “mask” the effects of taking a fossil fueled trip to Stockholm for a climate change conference, but cannot be the cause of the changes during the Modern Warm Period? It’s no wonder they want to focus on “consensus”, because the science they’re peddling is shoddy and shaky.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Scientists Say Science Not Necessary For New IPCC “Climate Change” Report”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Science is never settled.

    For example, the Theory of Gravity is still unproven! Yet the evidence for gravity is overwhelming and only a crackpot would deny it. The Theory of Evolution is unproven, yet the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This is the level of consensus the Theory of AGW is approaching.

    There is no money to made denying gravity, but there are trillions to be made denying AGW and blocking any mitigation efforts.

    The Theory of AGW may be wrong and it would be easy to falsify. Present the solid evidence that refutes the link between the human production of greenhouse gases and the increasing heat content of the Earth. Or demonstrate a rational alternative and support that hypothesis with data.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    The problem is Jeffery, that the data doesn’t support AGW. It is far more likely that what we are seeing is part of the natural cycle of the earth. But people like you won’t believe that. Despite data being falsified, despite papers being edited to prevent a point of view rather than science, you won’t believe any other theory. Your position is unscientific and hypocritical, but we have come to expect nothing less.

  3. Jeffery says:


    Nearly every physical scientist and nearly every scientific body on this Earth disagree with you. American Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, Am Association Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, National Science Academies of Canada, France, UK, Russia, Germany, India, Japan etc.

    What do you see in the data that the scientists do not?

    Asked another way, what data would you find convincing?

  4. There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with the “consensus”. There are lots in each of those organizations mentioned who heavily disagree with “climate change”, or, as it was known before they decided to fold snow, cold, drought, flood, volcanoes, earthquakes, and everything that happens under the banner, anthropogenic global warming. Some have resigned from those orgs. over their political beliefs which are devoid of hard, physical proof. Warming is not proof of anthropogenic causation. At one time everyone believed the Earth was flat. They were wrong.

  5. gitarcarver says:


    Your “data” is simply this:

    “The earth is warming. Man caused it.”

    That’s it.

    This blog serves as a good starting point to examine other articles and scientific research into the fallacy of AGW. Teach does a far better job than I ever could on rounding up actual sources but you won’t look at them.

    You seem to think that those who find fault in AGW came to that conclusion based on flipping a coin or some other thing. Many of us read papers, examine data, look at conclusions and say “that isn’t right.”

    You, on the other hand, simply seek to marginalize those who disagree with you. You seem to think that while there may be money in disputing AGW (which is arguably laughable) that there is no money to be made in supporting AGW.

    It only the pure, virtuious people that support AGW that are telling the truth despite the data not supporting it while evil deniers somehow are stupid and ignorant.

    There is a hubris in people like you who think they, and only they, know the truth and the rest of the people are ignorant slobs.

    Enjoy living on your flat earth.

  6. Jeffery says:


    I ask constantly for the evidence and data you guys talk about but never get around to presenting.

    Here’s what we know:

    1. The Earth is warming rapidly (in geological terms).

    2. Human’s burning of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 over 40%.

    3. Atmospheric CO2 is known to contribute to the greenhouse effect.

    These 3 facts lay the groundwork for the Theory of AGW. If you find any of these 3 facts questionable, please elaborate.

    How do we know that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    1. The upper atmosphere is cooling although the total solar irradiation is fairly constant. (The upper atmosphere is cooling because less heat is escaping the Earth because of CO2 trapping).

    2. Satellite detection of infrared (heat) radiation emitted from Earth into space show that the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 have decreased over time. (CO2 is “blocking” heat released from Earth from going back into space).

    What evidence would you require to be convinced that human-generated CO2 is trapping heat on Earth?

  7. gitarcarver says:


    1) is false.
    2) has no time frame and therefore is inaccurate
    3) water vapor has been shown to trap temperature.

    1) that statement is dishonest. Your statement is based on the very flawed theory you are trying to prove.
    2) Once again, this is simply dishonest. You are trying to make statements that cover ages based on less than 35 years of data.

    When you acknowledge the problems in your own statements, then we can move foward.

    Until then, I say again that you should look at and read the links and articles Teach has painstakingly assembled. Your repeated statement of “you haven’t shown me anything” is a symptom of closing your eyes and stinking fingers in your ears.


Pirate's Cove