Quotes About IPCC

the IPCC now spoke comfortably of consensus and endorsed those mysterious concepts of sustainability and energy that renewed itself. We even thought that this way somehow we could save the planet and grow richer as well, a more pleasing outcome than the uncomfortable truth.

The difference between the long-term average of the graph and the ice age, 12,000 years ago, is just over 3°C. The IPCC 2001 report suggests that the line of the hockey stick graph might rise a further 5°C during this century. This is about twice as much as the temperature change from the ice age to pre-industrial times.

Bring down Mike Mann and we can bring down the IPCC, they reckoned. It is a classic technique for the deniers' movement, I have discovered, and I don't mean only those who reject the idea of global warming but those who insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer or that industrial pollution isn't linked to acid rain.

The IPCC report explains that every single metric ton of carbon dioxide we prevent from entering the atmosphere lessens the severity of the impacts we bake into the system. Our assessment meticulously describes how every fraction of a degree of warming matters—the scale and severity of impacts begin to compound and cascade with higher levels of warming.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process [IPCC process] that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

I wanted to repeat we cannot vote confidence at any point on a confidence motion in a government that fails to have a climate target that's ground in science and consistent with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we must do.

Climate change is real and anthropogenic; and the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC has left the deniers little room for manoeuvre, but they are swiftly morphing into a new breed that accept the climate is changing but like to suggest this may have positive benefits.

All handling by IPCC of the Sea Level questions have been done in a way that cannot be accepted and that certainly not concur with modern knowledge of the mode and mechanism of sea level changes.

Let me state what the official IPCC prediction is: Sea levels could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that.

A few weeks after the Climategate emails were released, Dr Sprigg spoke at the 13th Energy & Environment Expo in Phoenix177: Focusing closely on the Climategate scandal, in which leaked emails revealed IPCC gatekeepers hid, manipulated, and destroyed scientific data that contradicted claims of substantial human-induced global warming, Sprigg said the scandal has harmed the movement's scientific credibility.

the UN IPCC desperately needs this graph.

have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got", how did the IPCC know it's hotter than it's been for a thousand years?

Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the Mann et al hockey stick analysis when it first appeared? I cannot help but conclude that it's because they wanted to believe it.

We have to be aware that the scientific community throws up tons of different hypotheses and at a certain point we'll find out who was right and who was wrong. But we have to go with the best information right now, which I would claim to be the IPCC reports.

Teehalt looked at him sidewise. "You are very interested in Malagate." Gersen shrugged. "One hears many strange tales." "True. But I do not care to document them. And do you know why?" "No." "I have changed my thoughts about you. Now I suspect you of weaselry." "If I were a weasel," said Gersen smiling, "I'd hardly admit it. The IPCC has few friends Beyond.

No, no. I just can't accustom myself to that kind of talk, here on the esplanade, in peaceful Avente. But I suppose I'm actually enjoying it. If you're not a criminal, who or what are you?" "Kirth Gersen." "You must work for the IPCC." "No." "Then you must be on the Institute's Special Committee." "I'm just Kirth Gersen." He rose to his feet. "Let's walk for a bit.

We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.

We wrote, "The constancy of these somewhat independent results encourages us to conclude that 21st century warming will be modest and near the low end of the IPCC TAR [Third Assessment Report] projections.

IPCC authors were exaggerating or misrepresenting the science for effect.

In response to the IPCC's decision to let the exaggerators write the Summary for Policymakers, Tol resigned. "I simply thought it was incredible," he said. "I told Chris Field, the chairman, about this, and I quietly withdrew.

Two crucial developments during the presidential campaign year of 1988 changed climate science forever. The first was the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The second was the announcement by climate modeler James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, that anthropogenic global warming had begun. An organized campaign of denial began the following year, and soon ensnared the entire climate science community.

The IPCC explicitly addressed—and rejected—the Marshall Institute argument for blaming the Sun. The upper limits on solar variability, they explained, are "small compared with greenhouse forcing and even if such a change occurred over the next few decades, it would be swamped by the enhanced greenhouse effect."75

All handling by IPCC of the Sea Level questions have been done in a way that cannot be accepted and that certainly not concur with modern knowledge of the mode and mechanism of sea level changes.