IPCC Summry for Policymakers
AS we’ve discussed a number of times, DIYers are generally ‘thrifty’ People, and we have a hard time throwing away stuff when we find them less that useful.
Consider all the books and reports you have stacking up? Here’s some examples I’m looking at, see above picture.
We guys need to stop and think before we toss stuff, consider this Classic “Martha Stewart’s Christmas Book” Don’t just willy nilly toss it, it’s a Feminine Treasure for Goodness sake! It’s likely something you can trade to a Woman for a Ham Sandwich, or maybe even a Bacon and Eggs Breakfast!
So you’re eyeballing the Hitchhiker’s Guide? My Friend Quinn Farnes bought that for me, and it’s an excellent reference book. It’s also as good as anything for predicting the future and Quinn has proven this many times. Just note a current event you see going on and you can generally read a passage in this book that’ll give you some additional insight into what is about to happen!
As for the IPCC report, at first it seems hopeless to find to find a use… we note the following accredited Scholars who step out in the light of day and risk being black listed from any Grant Awards they might see for the rest of their lives! One can only conclude they feel strongly about what they say. Thoughtful people know this is just the tip of the Ice Berg. If you get bored, keep scrolling down there’s pictures!
77 out of 10,000 Climate Scientists agree with the IPCC report. Here’s just a sample of 50 former IPCC experts, who made it clear they’ve been mis-represented!
1. 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).
2. 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.”
3. 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.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. 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.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible 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.”
9. 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.”
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
12. 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.”
13. 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.”
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”
18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
19. 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.”
20. 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.”
21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
22. 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,”
23. 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.”
24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
28. 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.”
29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
30. 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.”
31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
36. 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.”
37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”
38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”
42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”
44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in whether it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”
BUT! before you toss the IPCC Report in the wood stove on a cold winter day, consider other uses versus the immediate conversion to BTUs, there’s plenty of time for that later.
- IPCC Report Uses
DIYers are indeed practical and creative, perhaps using the Report as a ‘Wheel Chock, as seen above? Or perhaps a better Bird House Roof?
If you read about Bird House Construction, one error often made is too thin of material in the roof, this can cook tiny and helpless baby birds on a hot day. I know, I’ve made the error and killed some Swallow Babies, it was a very sad day, but unrelated to AGW.
Notice in the above example the pages are split evenly to provide good insulation, and the white binder reflects the rays of the sun providing additional insulation and protection from over heating the dwelling. Also note the generous overhang and the fact that binders often have quality plastic covers that make the bird house more waterproof. The higher grade Binders also resist UV damage and cracking, no doubt a Government supplied binder will be ‘top drawer’, after all it was purchased with your taxpayer money, and nothing is too good in exchange.
So next time a Friend scolds you, and tells you something is a flaming piece of Dog Shit, and he’s going to recommend you to be on one of those Hoarder shows, give him this example of what DIYer’s do, it’s a far more sane plan than anything you’ll see at the IPCC.
Visit here http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355 to read more of John Sullivan’s article. We love you John!
All the best,
George B.
It’s probably not more than 1000 feet off a paved road, but the cost of bringing in power was more than Harry was willing to pay. Visiting his place is always fun, when you turn up his drive, you travel through a marsh area that provides privacy and a buffer from the road, you turn left and side hill up about 75 feet above the stream.
Tall Douglas firs, and big Cedar trees grow here, there’s a thick carpet of moss in places, and well worn animal trails leading down to the stream. 
The old cabin looks no different than the first time I saw it thirty years ago.
After giving considerable thought to the placement of the generator set, Harry decided to remove an old homestead structure and use the poured concrete floor that was under all the rubble. There’s some concern about fuel oil and lube oil getting into the spring so he decided to place a pan under the generator and to build the power house out of block and seal the floor and the bottom row of blocks.
Note the spring house to the right of the new powerhouse location. Here’s what’s below the spring house, water runs at more than 20 gallons a minute year around from this spring, I don’t know how much drop there is, but I would think this might spin a micro water turbine. Here’s a better view of the powerhouse floor.
I dropped by Harry’s place to see how he was doing on his generator shed. As a person might expect, if you have waited more than thirty years to install a power source, you can probably wait another year or so to do it the way you want, and the effort should never conflict with fishing, or any other thing you like to do.
About 45 minutes later; we walked from the woods with pounds of fresh mushrooms, what a great way to spend a lazy warm spring day. It’s just possible that Harry will have his generator set up before the end of summer. In between fishing trips, hunting mushrooms, and his busy social calendar; Harry has laid up a few blocks, and has the roof underway.
Question for George: Hi George, I’m also a big believer in big (or heavy) flywheels. It appears that a weighty rotating mass will smooth the output of a genset. Listeroid engines have such flywheels and are blessed in this regard. However, smaller diesel (and gas) engines have much smaller and lighter flywheels in spite of the fact that they may well produce more hp. While I have no formal training in physics, it seems to me that there is a direct relationship between a large rotating mass and and a slower engine speed. At least where a smoother transition in generator loads is desirable.