Greenhouse gases increased 6 per cent during 2010, one of the largest annual increases on record according to the US Department of Energy. In 2010 about 512 million metric tonnes more of carbon was emitted to the atmosphere than in 2009. Total emissions for 2010 were 30.6 Gigatonnes, 5% higher than the previous record year in 2008, according to an International Energy Agency report in June 2011. The latest figures put global emissions on track with the worst case projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report.
Related: Carbon Emissions need to peak this decade to meet 2 °C temperature goal warns new study
Tom Boden, director of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Environmental Sciences Division at the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, described the extent of the increase: "It's big," he said, "Our data go back to 1751, even before the Industrial Revolution. Never before have we seen a 500-million-metric-ton carbon increase in a single year," he told AFP.
More bad news: the International Energy Agency has estimated that 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today. Another reason why new coal fired power stations like the proposed HRL facility in Victoria must be stopped from being built.
“Our latest estimates are another wake-up call,” said Dr Birol from the International Energy Agency. “The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2ºC target is to be attained. Given the shrinking room for manœuvre in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal agreed in Cancun.” he said in a media release on 30 May, 2011.
The major global greenhouse gas emitters are the USA, China and India. But on a per capita basis OECD countries collectively emitted 10 tonnes, compared with 5.8 tonnes for China, and 1.5 tonnes in India, according to the IEA.
Western countries have benefited and raised living standards through building up a climate debt in the atmosphere. About 70 per cent of the Green House Gases currently in the atmosphere have been discharged by industrialised countries since the Industrial Revolution. China and India claim their emissions are improving living standards and in line with global carbon equity.
While China has moved into the role as largest CO2 emitter, eclipsing the USA, China is also committed to reducing its carbon emission intensity by 40–45 per cent by 2020 compared with 2005, and to raising the proportion of renewable energy in total primary energy consumption to 15 per cent. China has now become the world’s largest investor in renewable energy, followed by the United States and Germany.
The USA, the second largest global emitter, and the country with the highest carbon equity debt from past emissions, still lacks a comprehensive policy to reduce carbon emissions.
CO2 has reached 388.5 parts per million in the atmosphere as of August 2011. Visit the Cape Grim Greenhouse Gas Data website run by the CSIRO for the accurate trend over the last 35 years or watch the video below showing the Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years before present until January, 2011.
The IPCC in 2007 predicted global temperatures rising of 2.4 to 6.4 Celsius by the end of the century. But with emissions continuing to increase these predictions may underestimate the extent of the temperature rise.
Some of the impacts listed in the IPCC report for global warming of 3–4°C above pre-industrial levels include:
- Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress
- 30–40% of species at risk of extinction around the globe
- About 30% of global coastal wetlands lost
- Increased damage from floods and storms
- Widespread coral mortality
- Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source
- Reduction in cereal productions
- Increased morbility and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts
We are on track for exceeding these impacts. To avoid serious impacts emission reduction must start this decade. It is a critical decade argues Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber at the 4 Degrees or more? Climate change conference at Melbourne in July 2014.
The only little bit of good news is that the developed countries that did ratify the Kyoto Protocol (The US didn't) have reduced their emissions overall and cut emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. Developed countries now produce about 50 per cent of global greenhouse gases, reduced from 60 per cent in 1990.
Australia was listed as 16th in 2008 for total Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions, but on a per capita basis Australian emissions in 2008 lead the developed world, including the USA, with only a few small countries with higher per capita emissions.
But little action is being taken on the State Level in Australia in reducing emissions. In Victoria, the highest per capita emitters in the developed world's highest per capita-emitting nation, the Bailleau Government has introduced draconian planning regulations to make building new wind farms almost impossible, stalling the wind industry in the state. According to Paddy Manning in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Clean Energy Council estimates $3.6 billion in investment might be lost to the state, as well as making it near impossible to meet the Renewable Energy Target.
The carbon pricing and clean energy legislation passing through Federal Parliament will help in reducing Australia's contribution to global warming as well as assisting Australia's diplomatic efforts at the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Durban, South Africa from 28 November - 9 December 2011.
Louise Hand, Australia's Climate Change Ambassador said that passage of the legislation may very well be seen as a game changer in a very difficult year. "Because if a country like Australia is able to make this significant economic reform with a very powerful and strong future focus then that offers hope to a number of other countries. It is also an overt sign of Australia's commitment to being part of global action on this issue" she said in a video interview conducted by a UN Climate tracker in Panama on October 7.
Sources:
- IEA media release, 30 May 2011 - Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker
- Associated Press Science writer Seth Borenstein Nov 4, 2011 - Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases
- Observed CO2 Emissions vs IPCC Scenarios Graph from Skeptical Science, 3 June 2011 - IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News Caption: Figure 1: IEA global human CO2 annual emissions from fossil fuels estimates vs. IPCC SRES scenario projections. The IPCC Scenarios are based on observed CO2 emissions until 2000, at which point the projections take effect.
- Joe Romm's report on Climate Progress.
Comments
Measuring CO2 output per person is just twisting the story
"Australia was listed as 16th in 2008 for total Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions, but on a per capita basis Australian emissions in 2008 lead the developed world, including the USA, with only a few small countries with higher per capita emissions." when you put it like that you paint a picture that Australia has more pollution than America, China or India which is just plain Bullshit a good example was the Indian F1 GP run last month you could not see the end of the main straight through the smog Australian cities are crystal clear compared American, Chinese or Indian cities.Or we could put things in real perspective and say Australia emits the least amount of CO2 per Square Kilometre in the of the developed World.Australian cities are far cleaner than American cities,Indian cities,and Chinese Cities so to measure CO2 output on a per capita basis is just twisting the story to suit the Alarmists agenda.Australia has less pollution than America China and India because it emits less CO2 per square Kilometre this measurement gives a real insight to what is actually happening in different countries.Why would you try to distort what is actually happening by using a per capita measurement for CO2? the Alarmists can not be trusted to give a honest account on what is happening and this is just one example. Blind Freddy can see they are conning us with their so called statistics
Re: Measuring CO2 output per person is just twisting the story
Hey Blind Freddy,
you obviously don't understand 'per capita' comparison measures. It is used all the time in economics, social statistics, and social sciences. Maybe you need to go back to school to understand basic concepts better, before you start commenting on complex sujects like CO2 emissions and climate change.
I’m alright Jack, what do I care about the rest of the world?
Measuring CO2 output per person shows how much of a polluting pig each person is. By that measure Australians are the worst polluters per person. And that’s only on our own consumption of energy and leaves out of the Australian per-person-count the damage the coal we throw out into the world does. Denying the CO2 head count means, ‘hey, we’ve got huge space, our pollution doesn’t hurt us that much, bugger off with your pesky statistics, I’m alright Jack, what do I care about the rest of the world’.
CO2 not a pollutant, it is part of the animal-plant life cycle
Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing
during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food.That is Basic Science that most of us were taught at school and Uni
World doesn't have to worry about us, we don't impact at all
We do have huge space and our Co2 output does not matter that much because on those huge spaces are things call trees that turn CO2 into O2 places like England, France etc do not have the trees that Australia does so our CO2 is cancelled out, the rest of the World does not have to worry about us because our impact on the world is nothing because of all our state forests and National parks that are owned by us the people of Australia we have our own carbon offset to counter any CO2 we put into the atmosphere.So people of Australia don't let the Alarmists make you feel guilty about how much co2 we emit(which is not a pollutant anyway)our natural bush land and forests cancel out our CO2 output and because it is natural we are not taking away Grazing and farming land so we also have no impact on food supply, we have a natural carbon offset working for the people of Australia.
Big polluters are buying Forests and land to offset the Carbon they emit. Grazing and farming land taken over to offset carbon will cause a food shortage for the world and we can blame the Greenies and the Alarmists when this happens.Now we going to cause a bigger problem to fix a problem (that does not exist)it is "madness at it's best" we want to save the planet for future Generations why?because the way things are going our future generations will have no food to feed themselves because we will have sold off all the farming land to Greedy Corporate businesses like Rio Tinto http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/grazing-and-farming-lan...
It makes my laugh (in a sad way) that most of the people on Indy media support the Occupy Australia movement and the Carbon tax are only going to make the Big Corporate banks like The World Bank richer because we have helped them invent “The world’s biggest commodity market” out of thin air http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/11/04/if-carbon-markets-boom-who-will-b...
This mentality inspires what critics call “fortress conservation’’: non-government organizations and national authorities cordon off land to protect species and institute carbon-offset projects, driving out of their forests the indigenous stewards, who become “conservation refugees.’’ John Nelson, Africa policy adviser for the Forest Peoples Program, estimates that some 150,000 to 200,000 people in the Congo basin alone have suffered this fate.
“Imagine waking up one day,’’ he says, “to find a boundary outside your village — with armed paramilitary guards telling you that you cannot enter the forest.’’ If people cannot go there, they cannot teach their children how to live in the traditional ways, and these ways, with all they might have to teach the larger world about storing carbon and repairing forest ecosystems, will be lost. “Mitigation policies of the developed world,’’ Ramiro Batzin, a Keqchikel Maya from Guatemala, recently told the World Bank, “will kill us before climate change does!’’ http://www.rightsandresources.org/blog.php?id=612
The next time all you Alarmists are at the petrol station and are about to fill up with E10 to save the world remember this choice will cause people less well off than yourselves to starve or go without food http://www.sustainablefootprint.org/en/cms/gebruikerscherm.asp?itemId=379
saving the planet causes famine: the climate crisis melts away but global food shortage is legacy of the foolish rush to biofuels.Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply. That’s the kind of catastrophic cut in food supply that triggers a tipping point so that Third World hunger explodes into mass starvation.http://co2insanity.com/2011/05/12/global-warming-fraud-creates-third-wor...
one last Question how does it feel to be sucked in by big corporate business and helping them get richer while your make the poor poorer and starve them to death?
After reading a lot of Indymedia sites I get the impression you think you are smart people and want to help the 99%. I shake my head in disbelief to see you are doing the exact opposite
Interesting to see informed views from the other side well done
Amazed you make some good valid points it is interesting to see informed views from the other side well done
Like the importation of the cane toad
Ha Ha Amazed what a great point of view you have hit the nail on the head.What the Alarmists and the Greeny's are doing is like the importation of the Cane Toad their fix will cause more problems than the problem they try to fix,what can you say? But what a pack of Knuckle Heads
CO2 emissions created by people miniscule compared to nature's
Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature?
Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature's controlling mechanism causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Photosynthesis is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on other environmental conditions such as temperature and available moisture . More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere available for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a builtin mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man's feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing
during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food.
Based on actual data, CO2 causing global warming is clearly a figment of the IPCC's imagination. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain.Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate and will hurt the economies of the world. Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from
carbon taxes.
http://omsriram.com/No%20Evidence%20to%20Support%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Ca...
Check your science, make sure it's peer-reviewed
"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009)"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions...
CO2 is plant food? It's more complex than that:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
http://takvera.blogspot.com/2010/05/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.html
I think you need to check your science. Can you make sure it is peer- reviewed. We all know what relying on un-peer reviewed material leads to, don't we?
98% 0f CO2 is absorbed
98% 0f CO2 is absorbed Takver your nose will grow if you keep saying those things
Peer reviewed papers mean Jack shit with this type of conduct
IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke
On May 9, 2011, the IPCC announced:
Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
In accompanying interviews, IPCC officials said that the obstacles were not scientific or technological, but merely a matter of political will.
Little of the increase was due to ‘traditional’ renewables (hydro and ‘traditional’ biomass, mostly dung), but to solar, wind and non-traditional biomass.
I, for one, was keenly interested in how IPCC got to its potential 80%. Unfortunately, in keeping with execrable IPCC practices, the supporting documents for the Renewables Study were not made available at the time of the original announcement. (Only the Summary for Policy-makers was made available at the time.) This showed one worrying aspect of the announcement. The report was based on 164 ‘scenarios’ and the ‘up to 80%” scenario in the lead sentence of their press release was not representative of their scenarios, but the absolute top end. This sort of press release is not permitted in mining promotions and it remains a mystery to me why it is tolerated in academic press releases or press releases by international institutions.
The underlying report was scheduled for release on June 14 and was released today on schedule. Naturally, I was interested in the provenance of the 80% scenario and in determining precisely what due diligence had been carried out by IPCC to determine the realism of this scenario prior to endorsing it in their press release. I hoped against hope that it would be something more than an IPCC cover version of a Greenpeace study but was disappointed.
The scenarios are in chapter 10 of the Report. authors of the chapter are as follows (mainly German):
CLAs -Manfred Fischedick (Germany) and Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil). Lead Authors: Akintayo Adedoyin (Botswana), Makoto Akai (Japan), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Leon Clarke (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Ilkka Savolainen (Finland), Sven Teske (Germany), Diana Ürge‐Vorsatz (Hungary), Raymond Wright (Jamaica).
The 164 scenarios are referenced to a just-published and paywalled article by two of the Lead Authors (Krey and Clarke, 2011, Climate Policy). Update – Since this article has been relied upon in an IPCC report, it is liberated here.
Chapter 10 isolated four scenarios for more detailed reporting, one of which can be identified with the scenario featured in the IPCC press release. The identification is on the basis of Table 10.3 which shows 77% renewables in 2050 for the ER-2010 scenatio attributed to Teske et al., 2010. (Teske being another Chapter 10 Lead Author. This scenario is described as follows:
Low demand (e.g., due to a significant increase in energy efficiency) is combined with high RE deployment, no employment of CCS and a global nuclear phase-out by 2045 in the third mitigation scenario, Advanced Energy [R]evolution 2010 (Teske et al., 2010) (henceforth ER-2010).
Teske et al 2010 – online here – is cited as follows:
Teske, S., T[homas] Pregger, S[onja] Simon, T[obias] Naegler, W[ina] Graus, and C[hristine] Lins (2010). Energy [R]evolution 2010—a sustainable world energy outlook. Energy Efficiency, doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.
However, googling the title led me first to a different article with the almost the same
title ‘energy [ r]evolution:A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK’ online here. This version is a joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council, self-described as the ‘umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry’. the title page shows:
project manager & lead author – Sven Teske
EREC Oliver Schäfer, Arthouros Zervos,
Greenpeace International – Sven Teske, Jan Béranek, Stephanie Tunmore
research & co-authors
DLR, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and
Technology Assessment, Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. Wolfram Krewitt, Dr. Sonja Simon, Dr. Thomas Pregger.
DLR, Institute of Vehicle Concepts, Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. Stephan Schmid
Ecofys BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Wina Graus, Eliane Blomen.
The preface to the Greenpeace report is by one R.K. Pachauri, who stated:
This edition of Energy [R]evolution Scenarios provides a detailed analysis of the energy efficiency potential and choices in the transport sector. The material presented in this publication provides a useful basis for considering specific policies and developments that would be of value not only to the world but for different countries as they attempt to meet the global challenge confronting them. The work carried out in
the following pages is comprehensive and rigorous, and even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions that are linked with specific energy scenarios for the future.
Dr. R. K. Pachauri
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE (TERI) AND CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Returning now to the original lead to the IPCC Press Release on renewables:
Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.
The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.
It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.
Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.
This entry was written by Steve McIntyre, posted on Jun 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/
Takver your Peer reviewed papers mean Jack shit with this type of conduct in the IPCC what a JOKE, the IPCC needs to check their science too
Largest carbon dioxide drop in 19 years last year
Carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels recorded their largest drop in 19 years last year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/carbon-emissions-decreas...
Emissions growth took off in 2009 and accelerated in 2010
Hi Glenn,
That Washington Times article is from 2009 and refers to 2008 when global emissions slumped due to the Global Financial Crisis. But emissions growth took off in 2009 and accelerated in 2010. The GFC provided some respite, but emission rates have recovered. Emissions are now tracking towards the upper end of IPCCC scenarios that will mean global average temperature increases of 5-8 degrees by the end of the century, without substantial emissions reduction action taken. Of course this is average temperatures so some places won't warm as much as the average and some will warm much more. It will peak in an increase in the number of hot days and also in an increase in the night-time minimum temperatures.
Global greenhouse gas reduced by 6% despite double-digit growth
Hi Takver
Global Greenhouse Gas reduced by 6% despite double-digit growth in 2010
http://www.sapsustainabilityreport.com/greenhouse-gas-footprint
Global Coal Consumption Jumps Almost 50% – Yet Global Temps Drop!
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/25/coal-consumption-jumps-almost-50-yet-...
Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. dropped 6.1 percent in 2009
http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2011/04/25/weekly1-Greenhouse-gas-em...
A BP report as a reference? You have got to be joking
LOL, Anon. Couldn't even bother with a name, hey?
That first link is about SAP reducing their Greenhouse Gas Footprint by 6% even though they enjoyed double digit growth. It is not about global greenhouse gas reductions at all. So that link doesn't help your position.
The second article I couldn't see any scientific references. A BP report as a reference? you have got to be joking. It's like the IPCC using a non-peer reviewed WWF report on Himalayan glacier retreat...oops. See even warmists have a sense of humour! and acknowledge mistakes are made. More than I can say about anon denialists.
The third link I have no doubt is correct, due to the lingering impact of recession in the US economy from the GFC. Carbon emissions in 2009 in the USA were "the lowest amount since 1995. Since 1990, however, greenhouse gas emissions have grown by more than 7.3 percent." I am not sure how that negates the US DOE and IEA reports of record global emissions for 2010.
Takver & anon mean the same .Too scared to give your real name
LOL,Takver.Couldn't even bother with a real name,hey? you have to use a made up name because when we all see global Warming...oops thats Climate Change now because the world is cooling is a con job you will want to distance yourself from it right? or are you going to give your full name and not hide behind a fake name?
Takver LOL (you could of made up a better name than that to hide behind)can you tell us what you think of these Scientist remarks ?
Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”
Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
http://www.klima-schwindel.com/Hatch_UN_scientists_critical.pdf
You can also read What Scientist say on this site
http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/17/fifty-climate-experts-catch-washington...
Takver LOL,Other people have brought these sites to your attention but you refuse to comment WHY?Be brave and Answer because I too have a sense of humor and need a good laugh just sorry it will be at your expense.Can't wait to see if its too much CO2 in the atmosphere that has hurt these Scientists Brains or could it be the GFC (LOL) has made them tell lies and petrol companies are paying them off or maybe the Devil made them say it.
So takver LOL if we don't hear back from you we can take it you got no argument to put forward
Global warming is not a proven thing
Takver won't touch that one.Takver has avoided commenting about these sites on other Indymedia posts.It just shows that Global warming is not a proven thing when you have scientist that peer review the IPCC reports disputing it,when you give the Alarmists Scientists that don't agree with man made Global Warming they go quiet or they slander the out spoken Scientists.
Here is another site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_...
Thanks David for the Information.
Regard Phillip
Tanver has gone quiet I wonder why?
Tanver has gone quiet I wonder why?