A few days ago, I had posted what presumably was an “outreach” effort on the part of powers that be at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This unmitigated propaganda with its “three key messages” hasn’t exactly gone viral. This isn’t surprising considering that – as Paul Matthews had noted in his review – the general … uh … consensus seems to be that:
[…] It’s nine minutes of climate cliché bingo. I lost count of the number of crumbling blocks of ice, dried out lake beds, floods, and dark backlit water vapour shots, all delivered in a fast, almost “subliminal advertising” style. The only disappointment was the lack of stranded polar bears on ice floes. The commentary regurgitates all the usual mantras […]
Anthony Watts, at WUWT had also posted the video, as had Reiner Grundmann at Die Klimazwiebel and Pierre Gosselin at his NoTricksZone blog.
More recently, IPCC “insider”, economist Richard Tol has posted a poll (you might want to cast your vote, if you haven’t already done so!)
Turns out that, apparently, the powers that be at the IPCC are still dancing as though it is 2007, when from their cloistered view of the world, communication was only a one-way street. This was back in the good old days, when inconvenient comments of “expert reviewers” could be haughtily ignored except when the number thereof were being paraded as “evidence” of the “thoroughness” “inclusiveness” and “transparency” of their “process”.
As I had noted in my earlier post no acknowledgement or credit was given to the contributions of those who donated their time and expertise to participate in the IPCC’s much vaunted “Review Process”. Here’s a screen-cap from their self-glorifying “background“:
Impressive, eh? But obviously not impressive enough to rate a mention in The Movie.
This scornful attitude towards reviewers and their comments has now been (somewhat belatedly) demonstrated once again in response to ratings and comments on The Movie. As WUWT commenter, Scute observed:
Comment and ratings were on until at least 2:00 UTC today (25th Nov). They obviously couldn’t take the heat of all the critical comments and downratings were a third of the total.
And sure enough, if you go to the ‘tube you will find:
Talk about hiding the decline, eh?!
But, not to worry. At least Thomas Stocker’s “three key messages” made it into at least one decision of the COP flop in Warsaw’s “achievements”:
on ADP 2-3 agenda item 3
Implementation of all the elements of decision 1/CP.17
Version 2 of 20 November 2013 at 17:00 hrs
Draft decision proposed by the Co-Chairs
The Conference of the Parties,
Expressing serious concern that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, as indicated by the findings contained in the contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Warning that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet,
Also warning that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system and that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,
Underlining its grave concern about the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,
And by the time this draft reached Version 4 of 22 November 2013 at 05:45 hrs, the above had been slightly modified, to read:
Expressing serious concern that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, as indicated by the findings contained in the contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Warning that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system and that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,
Underlining the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,
Look at the progress between version 2 and version 4, folks! Two warnings rolled into one, and no more “grave concern” about the “significant gap”.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
A somewhat related footnote: The list of the Warsaw COP participants (as of Nov. 20) is now available in a 228 page pdf, with the arcane filename of FCCC/CP/2013/INF.4. In case you were wondering, here’s a screen-cap of the “official” head-count (my highlight added):
7 thoughts on “IPCC’s AR5 “The Movie”: No comments or ratings allowed”
That’s good stuff. Thanks very much.
Meanwhile back at the IPCC PR ranch-branch, on Nov. 19 (while all eyes were on the Warsaw shenanigans), yet another Movie was released: AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers “The Movie”. From the ‘tube blurb:
Notice the familiar tick-tick, boom-boom, doom-doom soundtrack. But no “scientists” in sight.
[Comments and ratings still permitted as of 11/28/2013 06:21 PM PDT]
The Tol-Poll currently shows 65 dissing the flic, and 29 approving it, all told. The bumpf bubble has burst, baby!
IGBP provide a transcript below the video, which doesn’t completely match the narrative, as it has “This marks a vast transformation of our planet” (just after the sentence about a four-degree rise by 2100), which doesn’t appear in the video. Not a very significant difference, perhaps, but I wonder why it was left out.
I wasn’t familiar with IGBP but it appears they have been around since 1987 (the year before IPCC was founded), although they’ve only just started using YouTube. I haven’t seen all the videos yet (they have two with Hans Rosling, who’s always worth watching), but have just seen the first few minutes of one with Thomas Stocker in which he explains that they spent hours and hours designing the front page of the book with the WGI report (NB. maybe that’s why they were all up so late!)
Their partners in making the data visualisation video were Globaia, another organisation I hadn’t heard of, but are an NGO based in Quebec:
From their mission statement: “By combining art and science, Globaïa seeks to touch the sensibilities of citizens and enrich their conscience in order to give rise to a global, unified vision of the socio-ecological issues that are transforming our world.”
From their Vision page:
“We are convinced that a global education, presented from a historical and planetary perspective and aiming at fostering a sense of Earth citizenship and universal responsibility, will contribute to enlightening our choices and creating a more united, fair and sustainable world. This is Globaïa’s chosen approach, at a time of global changes that are influencing the joint destinies of humanity and nature. In this context, Globaïa is making scientific culture accessible to all. Its expertise is dedicated to awareness-raising, to sensitization and to the dissemination of knowledge about the world so that a global, coherent and unified vision may emerge.
Our medium is worldview – vision du monde, in French, cosmovisión, in Spanish, weltanschauung, in German. Each of us has built our own worldview, a patchwork of elements inherited from our education, environment, experiences and the era in which we live. This worldview exists in our subconscious, deeply-rooted inside us and difficult to define. Still, it shapes each of our behaviors, choices and decisions. Along with institutions and technologies, worldviews are powerful tools for those seeking to engineer societal changes.”
One world, one people, one vision! ;)
Don’t miss Willis E’s comment at 6:56pm on
Plus some other interesting ones in that comment stream
You might appreciate this from http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-spin-translated-between-the-lines-in-their-leaked-synopsis-97-of-models-fail/#comments
December 11, 2013 at 1:31 pm · Reply
Ron, your cautionary note was received too late to prevent me from swilling a celebratory glass of Baileys and retiring for the evening.
I had no patience to read their whole document (which admittedly has been the cause of much of society’s legislative ills in recent decades). Now that you’ve highlighted their excuses I can see your point. But as much as they wish people would only invoke solar variability to explain cooling, the awkward questions will be asked about the preceding warming. As always, they have brushed off TSI without admitting that TSI is not the only type of solar variability. But they have now admitted that cosmic rays are part of the picture so they can’t pretend they didn’t know about this effect.
More astounding is where they say…
“The effect of cosmic rays on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei is too weak to have any detectable climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium evidence, high agreement).”
They’re true to form! The consensus “agreement” is much stronger than the proxy evidence on that opinion. The evidence I’ve seen so far all points the other way. When the evidence for the climatic strength of cosmic rays becomes too widely known, the total absence of cosmic rays in the aerosol component of all prior IPCC climate models will become a thorny issue.
Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization.
I.G. Usoskin, N.Marsh, G.A. Kovaltsov, K.Mursula, O.G. Gladysheva
==> Cosmic ray flux changes caused a detectable change in low cloud cover over the last two solar cycles.
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.
Danish National Space Center, Scientific Report 3/2007 [PDF]
==> High energy cosmic rays caused a detectable change in tropospheric temperatures over the last four solar cycles.
It’s not much of a stretch to conclude that the detectable low cloud cover change is what caused the detectable temperature changes via a cosmically-induced albedo change. That’s the exact opposite of what the IPCC has “high agreement” about. tsk! tsk! tsk! All of their Natural Climate Change Denial is going to cook the IPCC’s global warming goose.
_ _ _ _ _
For those keeping score at home, the solar cycle cat has escaped from the natural variability bag and has released the Svensmark genie which is about to cook the global warming goose. Sorry to be so formal.
I expect the Unprecedented Dish to run away with the Hockey Spoon very shortly.”
From comments at http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-spin-translated-between-the-lines-in-their-leaked-synopsis-97-of-models-fail/#comments
The doubling up on source above comes as a result of whatever the hell it is that WordPress Northern Hemisphere inflicts on us in the south (not only you). Already I have the email site etc overlaying the bottom of this post and if it gets any longer we’ll be back in find where you want to add the next paragraph. Plus I don’t have to use ^V to copy. And part of this is probably below as it “disappearwed” to quote one of our boys when young> And it it is in the message it is below the email and name line
Plus I don’t have to use ^V
Doesn’t happen with say Jo Nova and Jennifer M who are also WordPress