1. CO2 drives temperature change

 
This is a the central belief of the AGW theory. If you don't believe CO2 controls temperature, then the increase in mankind's emission poses no threat.

2. Strong positive feedbacks exist

 
Even if you believe that CO2 drives temperature change, this isn't enough. Without strong positive feedbacks the temperature increase is minimal. The fear from future climate change arises from the belief that the slight temperature increase will lead to positive feedbacks (such as water vapor) that will further increase the temperature.

3. The temperature record is reliable

 
The .7c degree increase over the last century is usually considered proof of the AGW theory. After all, CO2 emission have risen quite a bit in the last 50 years, so temperature should have risen as well. To use this evidence, the temperature record must be taken as valid.

4. Life on earth is not very adaptable

 
If you fear climate change, then you must believe that it will negatively affect life on the planet. This assumes that life will be unable to adequately adapt to the future change in temperature.

Conclusion

 
This isn't an exhaustive list and there may be some who fear climate change who don't hold all four of these tenets. However, if you throw out any one point then fearing climate change makes little sense. If CO2 doesn't drive temperature change, then increasing CO2 isn't a problem. If there are no positive feedbacks, then the minimal rise in temperature from CO2 isn't a threat. If you don't believe the temperature record, then there is absolutely no observational evidence for the AGW theory. If you believe that life on planet earth is sufficiently adaptable, then an increase in temperature isn't something to fear.

I would simply point out that CO2 hasn't driven temperaturesin the past, positive feedbacks are completely theoretical and very controversial, the temperature record is notoriously unreliable, and planet earth has already shown its incredible adaptivity in the past through several ice ages and other temperature fluxes.

Don't fear climate change.

It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the fires is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.

Had the IPCC read this, they would have not used it as their source for the claim of lost tourism revenue. I don't know if they read the source at all, but perhaps if they did they simply overlooked this important point. Shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt?

No. Because this particular issue was brought up in the review. Not once, not twice, but three times. From the Second Order Draft, Expert reviewers comment E-14-255 (page 42):

Section 14.2.7 Tourism and Recreation - there is a need to distiguish between impacts on the sector as a whole and impacts on individual operators or locations. It is obvious that severe climate events will prevent people from visiting a specific location, but it is less clear whether they will simply decide to travel somewhere else or not recreate at all. In the former, most likely, case there is no significant impact on the sector.

This is what was discussed in the previous source. What is the response to this reasonable clarification?

M- This is the litererature avaiable

First of all, why can't these people spell? If I had a nickel for every spelling error IPCC scientists make, I could recover my server cost and then some. Second, this isn't really a response at all. He just blames the 'litererature'. The next complaint is more in depth, the reviewer actually spells out what should be added to the section in order to clarify. Comment E-14-261 (page 43):

Append the following to the end of the para: "It's important to note that a decline in tourism in one area at a specific time for a particular activity may be made up by greater tourism in another area at another time from another activity. Thus, while tourism revenues may be redistributed in space, time and activity, the net effect on the economy might be small in either direction. It should be noted that in each of the examples offered below regarding the climate-related impacts on tourism, no estimates are provided regarding areas or activities that might have been the beneficiaries of tourism activities."
(Indur Goklany, US Department of the Interior)

Mr. Goklany hit the nail on the head. A very reasonable addition, just so there is no confusion. The response?

M- Cut material from this section to meet page limits cannot add more text

There just isn't enough room in this 3000 page report for a paragraph which would clarify an otherwise incorrect claim.

There was one more chance to make the correction, a brief and to the point comment E-14-430 (page 63):

Tourism overall should be unaffected. Some places will gain, others will lose.
(Thomas Gale Moore, Stanford University)

Short and sweet. Common sense. Response?

Insightful comment. One objective is to figure out the potential ‘winners and losers’ so that adaptation might commence.

I'm uncertain why this comment is more insightful than the longer but essentially identical comments above. Perhaps this was a different author? Regardless, this 'insightful' comment was not included in the final report, and neither were the others. Let's look at the IPCC review process for this particular claim:

1. The AR4 draft makes the claim that wildfires in Canada reduced tourism revenues.
2. They use a source that does not support their claims.
3. One reviewer points out that local impacts are different than regional impacts.
4. Author blames 'litererature'
5. Another reviewer wants an addition to the paragraph making clear that tourism, as a whole, may not be affected by wildfires.
6. Author claims the section is already too long, can't add anything.
7. Yet another reviewer points out that tourism will be unaffected overall.
8. Author calls this comment 'insightful', but doesn't include in final report.
9. Final report is issued with claims not matching the source and reviewers totally ignored.

Gold standard? More like Plushenko platinum.

After looking around the documents section of the CRU leak/hack, I noticed a few interesting PDFs. Both were made by (or with) DEFRA. The first is named "Your guide to Communicating Climate Change", and the second is named "Rules of the Game : Evidence base for the Climate Change Communications Strategy" They both are guides for how to communicate the dangers of climate change to others. Let's look at some excerpts, first from 'Your Guide':

I'm sure that the educated readers who visit climate science blogs won't need me to tell them that this is terribly inaccurate scientifically. But I will anyways.

"The blanket of gases (not a 'blanket') that keeps the surface of the earth warm and able to sustain life is getting thicker (not really), trapping (not 'trapping') in more heat. This is caused by the
release of greenhouse gases as we burn fossil fuels for energy and cut
down forests (cutting forests doesn't release CO2)...Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (not nearly), (awkward comma) which causes climate change."

They've started off on the wrong foot with poor science. They then reveal what they think of the public:

This is an arrogant and frightening section. First, they claim:

Research shows that among the general public, few people understand what is actually causing climate change.

This assumes that DEFRA fully understands what is "actually causing climate change", and anyone who disagrees with their complete knowledge, well, they just don't understand. Arrogant.

It is also frightening:

The first and most important thing is
to change the way people think about
climate change. Then we can try to
change their behaviour...

These are the challenges we need to
face, but something can be done. Firstly,
we need to change these attitudes.

This is a government agency! They are openly trying to change the population's attitudes, behaviors, and even their thoughts. How exactly do they recommend changing people's thoughts and behaviors? Here are two of their points:

Wow. "Don't create fear about climate change" is an excellent way to start a sentence, but then they add "without showing what people
can do about it." In other words, it's acceptable (desired even) to scare people with horrible climate change predictions, as long as you give them something to do about it. I think Al Gore would heartily agree. Their second point is even more revealing, and really funny:

Don’t rely solely on logic, facts or even money-saving incentives – people need to be inspired and provoked.

This could be the alarmist's motto. "Don't rely on logic or facts!" I do think the 'even' before money is interesting, they seem to think money is far more motivating than silly things like logic or facts. Their rationale for their dismissal of logic and facts is this: "people need to be inspired and provoked." I think this quote in addition to their previous reliance on fear says it all.

The second document, Rules of the Game, is no better. It starts off with one 'uberprinciple' about communicating climate change:

While I'm not even sure what this means, it seems condescending to say the least. Convincing us to use soap? Is this implying those who don't believe in climate change are unwashed masses? Let's look at their first two points:

"Don’t create fear without agency", sound familiar? Fear is alright, as long as they can do something about it. Even more interesting is their treatment of 'detractors'. "Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant." There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. We are annoying, but unimportant. They should just ignore us. Forget about the unwashed, fearless detractors, full steam ahead! Here is my last point from these documents:

The unwashed masses don't understand information, they need emotions and visuals. Picture books. Movies with lots of slides showing drowning polar bears. Here is an example they put together themselves:

Again, shoddy science wrapped in fear.

We should be concerned when agencies, with the full coercive force of government behind them, cross the line from their bureaucratic duties into outright advocacy. Obviously DEFRA crossed that line years ago.

1. Reason 1: It isn't just conservatives

   Obama starts off by saying "When the conservatives..." Yes, lots of conservatives are skeptical of climate change, but to imply that all conservatives are skeptics or that all skeptics are conservatives is false.

2. Reason 2: Snow doesn't disprove climate change, but lack of snow proves climate change

   Obama claims that the five feet of snow in DC shouldn't be used as evidence against climate change. He then uses the lack of snow in Vancouver as evidence for climate change. Oops

3. Reason 3: The earth isn't currently warming

   Obama said "I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean every place is getting warmer -- it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer." Except, it isn't. As Phil Jones recently admitted, the world hasn't warmed significantly in 15 years, and it has actually cooled (slightly) the last 8 years.

4. Reason 4: Obama is just as qualified as his opponents to talk about climate science

   Obama ends by saying "That's just one aspect of the science that I think everyone should understand." Maybe you disagree, but I certainly don't understand any aspects of climate science more clearly than before Obama explained it. Why does Obama believe he is more qualified to talk about climate science than those crazy conservatives? I'd wager that the majority of those in the climate-skeptic blogosphere understand climate science far more than most politicians.

Review of UK Climate Change Indicators

Contract EPG 1/1/158
June 2003
(Revised Jan 2004)
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

It then lists the main contractors and the subcontractors. The University of East Anglia CRU is one of the subcontractors. Here is the rationale in their words for the report:

An update of the current set of UK indicators was also necessary, along with a reappraisal to assess whether :
- the original set of indicators was still appropriate;
- new indicators should be devised;
- indicators should be removed from the set

Ok, so they are determining if the original indicators are valid, whether there should be new indicators, and if some should be removed. They did decide that some needed to be removed based on unavailable data (such as potato yields and salmon populations). Mostly they decided that their indicators were good, and that they needed a new 'socio-economic' indicator. Actually, they were told they needed a new indicator by DEFRA. On page 7 (if viewing as pdf):

The Defra publication Foundations for our Future (June 2002) presents a variety of sustainable development indicators. Climate change is considered a cross-cutting theme within the report, and is reflected in two of the indicators :
• Emissions of greenhouse gases (UK emissions indicator); and
• Socio-economic impacts of climate change.

The second of these indicators had not yet been developed and Defra has a commitment to produce an appropriate indicator in time for the first revision of the Foundations for our Future report (publication expected June 2003).
This project explicitly identified a headline indicator of the socio-economic impacts of climate change indicator for inclusion in the report.It highlighted the reasons why this particular indicator was chosen above others, according to a defendable methodology.

So the real reason they are creating a new 'socio-economic' indicator of climate change is because they want a 'headline' in an upcoming DEFRA publication. The document then notes the actual meeting that took place to determine this new indicator, page 9:

A meeting was held on 27 March 2003 at Defra with the following objectives.

• To indentify and consider the lists of climate change indictors produced by the European Environment Agency, the UK Devolved Administrations, the Environment Agency and other relevant sources.
• To consult with representatives of the UK Devolved Administrations, the EA and UKCIP.
• To elicit views on gaps and weaknesses in the 1999 list of UK Indicators of Climate Change, covering climate, the natural environment, socio-economic and marine indicators.
• To consider the headline indictor required for the Defra publication ‘Foundations for our Future’

Spelling errors aren't mine. Here is what they wrote about the socio-economic indicator:

Headline socio-economic indicator

UEA has considered each of the main socio-economic indicators in the 1999 report.
The meeting considered indicators that the UK ‘can do something about’ such as (i) planning application refusals for building on flood plains, (ii) uptake of guidance for 20% increase in flood risk when making coastal defence plans, eg number of schemes taking this into account, and (iii) number of water management plans that take account of climate change. However, all these indicators presented difficulties in obtaining consistent data which could be interpreted with confidence. It was concluded that the insurance claims indicator met most criteria and was most robust, especially if new data sources could been identified

It doesn't end there. The document then notes each groups response to specific indicators, and one group responds to the possible socio-economic indicators, page 12:

7. Socio-economic Indicators (Jean Palutikof and co-workers)

- Indicator 12 (insurance claims) might be extended to include claims for flood damage, using Association of British Insurers’ statistics.
- Indicators 13-16 are OK
- Indicator 17 (lyme disease) should stay (despite criticism) but maybe look at European trends and add a new indicator on the number of notified cases of food poisoning.
- Indicator 18 (human mortality) stays.
- Indicator 19 (irrigation water use) stays, but a new indicator might be added on household water use – taking into account the EA indicator and going back before 1992.
- Indicator 20 (percentage potato area irrigated) - there have been no data since 1995, so this may be dropped.
- Indictors 21 and 22 stay.
- Indicator 23 (forage maize) should be dropped.
- A new indicator should be sought on the sale of air conditioners; maybe there is a trade association.
A new indicator should be sought on sales of beer and soft drinks.

Wow. That seems a bit reaching to me, the sale of air conditioners, beer, and soft drinks? Also, note the recommendation of adding an indicator for increased food poisoning. That comes up again.

The report then moves back into the existing indicators, and on page 28 they show an interesting chart. It is entitled 'Potential "New" ECN Climate Impact Indicators'. The list contains such things as Frog Spawning date and Bat Activity, and then lists such attributes as climate sensitivity and data availability. Another attribute is worth noting. 'Public Resonance' is listed, on a scale of one to three. Some issues are shown to have low public resonance, such as ground beetles, and some high, such as water quality. However one issue, the "Genetic" changes of beetles, does not land on the scale but says: "Low unless hyped up." Hyped up? Is this a technical term?

This focus on public perception continues. Perhaps the most blatant is on the issue of warm weather crops. In their summary on current indicators, page 63:

Warm weather crops (grapes and forage maize)
These indicators may be showing trends that are unrelated to climate, but they have public resonance and should be retained.

Well, if they have 'public resonance' then by all means, retain them. Who cares about their link to climate change? This is a revealing sentence, clearly the perception of impact from climate change is more important than the actual impact. This mindset reveals itself once more. Remember the recommendation for an new indicator of food poisoning? The last section of the report starts by saying (page 64):

11. Headline Socio-economic Indicator of Climate Change

UEA was asked to develop a ‘headline’ socio-economic indicator of climate impacts for inclusion in the DEFRA publication Foundations for our Future, which will undergo its first revision for publication in June 2003.

The UEA was asked by the UK's government agency DEFRA to create a 'headline' socio-economic indicator of climate impacts. This does not seem like un-biased science to me. They are specifically looking for a socio-economic indicator, presumably one which the level of 'public resonance' is already high and doesn't need to be 'hyped up'. So, what is one of the socio-economic indicators that the report recommends? Page 64:

11.1 Evaluation of potential new indicators

We have considered the possibility of adding an indicator on food poisoning occurrence. This would satisfy criteria related to policy relevance and public resonance. Moreover, the data are readily available. The time series contains three components:
i. an exponentially rising trend over time – by far the dominant influence;
ii. a seasonal cycle, peaking in summer and reaching a minimum in winter; and,
iii. interannual variability linked to temperature fluctuations.
We would only be interested in the third of these. Thus, the series would have to be detrended before it could be used as an indicator, making it difficult to explain to a general audience without being misleading. The long-term rising trend is likely to be due to failures in public and domestic hygiene.

Wait a minute. They are considering the indicator of food poisoning, and yet they admit the 'long-term rising trend is likely to be due to failures in public and domestic hygiene'. That would seem to exclude the indicator automatically, but again, the link to public perception is far more important than the actual link to climate change. Also, they say that food poisoning would 'satisfy criteria related to policy relevance and public resonance'. Yes, I'd imagine it would. Scaring people half to death seems to be a requirement for many climate alarmists (melting glaciers cut water supply to 750 million?).

While I cannot find the 2002 'Foundations for our Future' DEFRA publication, I do know DEFRA accepted food poisoning as an indicator of climate change. On this DEFRA webpage, under the Vulnerability to climate change section, they claim:

•Food Poisoning

Cases of food poisoning are likely to increase significantly, by perhaps 10,000 cases annually

I'm not claiming that the previous report led directly to this claim, but the claim must be regarded as suspicious in light of the 'likely to be due to failures in public and domestic hygiene' comment. Reading this report gives one the feeling that DEFRA is far more concerned with indicators which resonant with the public than indicators which actually reflect the changing climate.

In defense of the CRU, they issued a response to this review, in which they said:

“Public resonance” isn’t a very scientific reason for keeping things in which are only marginally correlated with climate, unless the other factors can be backed out (e.g. in the case of ozone, presumably we could model out the changing precursor emissions)?

The CRU is right on this one.

The first is found twice, once in section 5.2.2. Current Models of Ecosystem Change and the second in 15.2.6. Tourism and Recreation of Working Group II:

"Box 5-2. Illustration of Use and Limitation of Ecosystem Movement Models

The study by Malcolm and Markham (2000) is a good example of modeling that uses the ecosystem movement paradigm, but it also demonstrates the inherent weaknesses of the approach."

"Moreover, a global analysis of habitat change resulting from climate change found that more than 50% of the territory of seven Canadian provinces and greater than 33% of the territory in 11 U.S. states are at risk (Malcolm and Markham, 2000)."

Malcolm and Markham are referenced as such:

Malcolm, J.R. and A. Markham, 2000: Global Warming and Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline. World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, 34 pp

The next is in 5.4.3.3.6. Subsistence hunting of Working Group II:

"In many countries, climate change impacts such as reductions in wildlife populations may have the greatest impact on the lowest-income groups—those with the least ability to adapt if hunting opportunities decline (Arntzen and Ringrose, 1996)."

Arntzen and Ringrose are refenced as such:

Arntzen, J. and S. Ringrose, 1996: Changes in rangelands. In: Climate Change and Southern Africa: An Exploration of Some Potential Impacts and Implications in the SADC Region [Hulme, M. (ed.)]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom and World Wildlife Fund International, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 62-71

The WWF and the CRU together, what a team. The next is in 5.4.3.3.6. Subsistence hunting of Working Group II:

"Wildlife species also are a significant source of food and medicine for people in many temperate and tropical countries, such as Botswana and Nigeria (McNeely et al., 1990)"

McNeely et al is referenced as such:

McNeely, J., K. Miller, W. Reid, and T. Werner, 1990: Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. World Resources Institute, IUCN, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, and World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 193 pp.

The next is in 5.4.3.2. Model Projections of Wildlife Responses Working Group II:

"In southern Africa, models project changes in the ranges of tsetse flies, ticks, and mosquitoes (Rogers, 1996)."

Rogers is referenced as such:

Rogers, D., 1996: Changes in disease vectors. In: Climate Change and Southern Africa: An Exploration of Some Potential Impacts and Implications in the SADC Region [Hulme, M. (ed.)]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, and World Wildlife Fund International, Gland, Switzerland.

Another CRU-WWF tag team. The next is in 7.2.1. Nonclimate Trends Affecting Vulnerability to Climate of WG II:

"Table 7-1: Impacts of climate change on human settlements, by impact type and settlement type (impact mechanism)"

This table has various references, and one is EEPSEA. This is referenced as:

EEPSEA, 2000: The Indonesian Fires and Haze of 1997: The Economic Toll and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Economy and Environment Program for SE Asia, World Wildlife Fund, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 9 pp. Available via e-mail at info@idrc.ca.

The next is in 11.1.4.1. Sensitivity and Key Vulnerabilities, WGII:

"Conversion of natural forests to palm oil plantations in many southeast Asian countries during recent decades (particularly Indonesia and Malaysia) increased the probability of uncontrolled forest fires and increased health and biodiversity impacts during the 1997 ENSO event (Yim, 1999; Barber and Schweithelm, 2000)."

Barber and Schweithelm are referenced as such:

Barber, C.V. and J. Schweithelm, 2000: Trial by Fire: Forest Fire and Forestry Policy in Indonesia's Era of Crisis and Reform. World Resource Institute, Forest Frontiers, World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF)-Indonesia, Telapak Indonesia Foundation, 448 pp.

The next is in 12.1.5.1. Spatial Patterns of Temperature and Rainfall of WGII:

"According to Whetton (1999), the CSIRO (1996a) scenarios give warmings of 0.3-1.4°C in 2030 and 0.6-3.8°C in 2070 relative to 1990...As discussed by Whetton (1999), both sets of scenarios use results from several coupled models, but the use of the SRES emissions scenarios leads to greater warmings in Hulme and Sheard (1999) than those that are based on the IS92 emission scenarios in CSIRO (1996)."

Whetton is extensively cited on this page. The two above citations are referenced as such:

Whetton, P.H., 1999: Comment on the 1999 Climate Change Scenarios for Australia. United Kingdom Climatic Research Unit and World Wildlife Fund, Climate Impact Team, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, 3

Yes, another CRU citation. The next two are both in 16.2.8.2.5. Fisheries of WGII, in fact they are both cited in the same claim:

"Research and management advice for fish stocks is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES). This authority and others face formidable challenges if the distributions of fish populations change in response to global warming (Hønneland et al., 1999; Freese, 2000)."

Freese is referenced as such:

Freese, C.H., 2000: The Consumptive Use of Wild Species in the Arctic: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Sustainability. Report submitted to World Wildlife Fund, Arctic Programme, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 145 pp.

Hønneland is referenced as such:

Hønneland, G., A.K. Jørgensen, and K. Kovacs, 1999: Barents Sea Ecoregion: Reconnaissance Report. Report to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Oslo, Norway, 32 pp.

That quote is entirely based on reports submitted to the WWF. The next reference seems to be a mistake. In the reference section of Chapter 17: Small Island States in WGII, they show this reference:

McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A. Mittermeier, and T.B. Werner (eds.), 1990: Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland; and World Resources Institute, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund-U.S., and the World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Almost identical to the McNeely et al above, but with one different author. This reference isn't even cited in Chapter 17. McNeely is cited, but in a different paper than the one above. I don't know if that mistake is in the original report, or if it happened when it was placed online (or if I just couldn't find it). The last reference in WGII is in 18.4.4. Public Adaptation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Risk Management:

"Adaptation to sea-level rise and extreme climate events is being included in Japanese coastal policies (Mimura and Kawaguchi, 1997), British shoreline management (Leafe et al., 1998), and Dutch law and coastal zone management (Koster and Hillen, 1995; Helmer et al., 1996; Klein et al., 1998)."

Helmer et al is referenced as such:

Helmer, W.P., P. Vellinga, G. Litjens, H. Goosen, E. Ruijgrok, and W. Overmars, 1996: Growing with the Sea—Creating a Resilient Coastline. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Zeist, The Netherlands, 39 pp.

There are also three citations in WGIII. The first is in 1.3.4 Assessment of Alternatives: Sustainable Development:

"In particular, the goal of the research on sustainable development–especially conservation strategies and action plans–is to show that under appropriate institutional and social conditions there is a synergy rather than conflict between different goals (IUCN, WWF, and UNEP, 1980)."

Referenced as:

IUCN, WWF and UNEP, 1980: World Conservation Strategy. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Geneva and UNEP, Nairobi.

The next is in 5.4.3 Industry of WGIII:

"Co-generation in the Indian sugar industry was hindered by the lack of these regulations (WWF, 1996)..."

Referenced as:

WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 1996: Sustainable Energy Technology in the South. A Report to WWF by Institute of Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi, India.

The last WWF reference I found was in 10.1.2.3 Associated Human Activities Are Pervasive of WGIII:

"While no single technology provides a complete solution
to the problem of controlling emissions of GHGs, a significant
set of existing, emerging, and potential technologies is available
to mitigation climate change, as discussed in Chapters 2,
3 and 42. See also, for example, Energy Innovations, 1997; Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies, 1997, 2000; Koomey et al., 1998; Bernow et al., 1999..."

Bernow et al is referenced as:

Bernow, S., K. Cory, W. Dougherty, M. Duckworth, S. Kartha, and M. Ruth, 1999: America’s Global Warming Solutions. Worldwildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) is listed as a funder on the CRU's History of the Climatic Research Unit page. I believe this is around the same number of WWF citations found in AR4. It is now clear that between Greenpeace and the WWF the IPCC has been using questionable sources for many years.

He talked about climate change. He blamed mostly the United States, and called for a boycott of our goods. Osama Bin Laden apparently has read the IPCC reports, because he claims:

"Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact"

He said that the only way to stop climate change is to:

"bring the wheels of the American economy to a halt"

Much of what he said sounds no different than any other climate alarmist:

"He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change." - Source

Could Osama Bin Laden have possibly become less relevant? He has mentioned climate change before, but never released an entire recording about it. He waits until now to do so? I'm not sure the alarmists really need Osama Bin Laden on their side.

I do believe that this is actually very fitting for the near future of climate science. Soon only those who live in caves will believe in man-made climate change.

Direct EPA regulation without legislation is potentially crippling to the economy, and has many legislators crying foul. With cap-and-trade dead, the EPA has taken the lead in climate regulations, but they are not the only agency to create climate change regulations.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to look at the environmental impact of their potential regulations. On January 15'th, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) said:

"CEQ believes that it is appropriate and necessary to consider the impact of significant Federal actions on greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for climate change to affect Federal activities evaluated through NEPA..." - Source

This means all agencies must ensure that their regulations do not impact greenhouse gas emissions negatively. Several Senators said about the CEQ's finding:

"Requiring analysis of climate change impacts during the NEPA process, especially at the project-specific level, will slow our economic recovery while providing no meaningful environmental benefits," - Source

Other agencies are involved. Just today the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that companies must disclose potential effects of climate change in their corporate findings:

"Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to include in corporate filings, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental-protection laws." - Source

These guidelines also had several detractors, one of which stated that he was:

“troubled by an undertaking which seems so transparently political and such a breathtaking waste of the commission’s resources.” Source

Well said. With the EPA's scientific basis for their regulation of CO2 under scrutiny it makes little sense to attempt regulation through other agencies. Common sense would seem to dictate that they wait until the spotlight is removed from the EPA and climate science in general before they attempt even more regulation. I suppose common sense isn't all too common in Washington.

"...in just twenty-five years the glaciers in the Himalayas which provide water for three quarters of a billion people could disappear entirely." - Other Brown quotes

Here's the video:

While this is no surprise, I haven't yet seen others highlight this error. Scaring three quarters of a billion people sounds pretty serious to me. Do you think he will bother to correct his alarmist error?

Perhaps it was a massive blunder? I'm sure some would want us to give them the benefit of the doubt. As some have said, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is huge, it's unlikely it could be completely devoid of any mistake. Pachauri assures us that one mistake doesn't mean we should throw the whole report out (Although it is clear there are more mistakes). In other words, they made a mistake but there was no harmful intent. The words of Dr. Lal seem to indicate otherwise, but let's set them aside for the moment. If this was just one mistake with no malicious intentions, we should be able to tell by how they handled themselves when their false statement was challenged.

An entire team of Indian scientists led by the Indian Environmental Minister concluded that the IPCC's statement about the glaciers was 'alarmist and misplaced'. If the IPCC simply made a mistake without intent to deceive, when confronted with evidence of their failure they would have reviewed the data and concluded they were indeed wrong. Issuing a retraction would certainly have hurt their credibility, but at least they are engaging in the correct scientific procedure. This is not what happened. Instead, Pachauri lashed out at the report, calling it 'voodoo science', 'not peer-reviewed', and claiming 'we have a very clear idea of what is happening'.

Their response proved the IPCC as unscientific. Even if you can still claim (a difficult argument) that they did not intend to deceive, you are left with the reality that they did not even attempt to correct a blatant scientific error. Scientists' claims are always open to scrutiny. The IPCC didn't need the science on their side. One profession can always make claims without any data to support them, and then defend them vehemently when they are proved wrong. They are called politicians.