By Madhav Khandekar, IPCC Reviewer

Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies? Yes, Certainly! Let me explain: While reviewing the IPCC WGII (Working Group II) Chapter “Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems” (Chapter 1, WGII IPCC, 2007) as an external reviewer, I felt time and time again that there were areas where the chapter authors highlighted adverse impact of GW (Global Warming) on human societies, while downplaying possible beneficial impacts. The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected adverse impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned these projections.

Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII, there were many instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while possible beneficial impacts were totally ignored. Further, IPCC authors while assessing observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those changes which support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed changes which did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change. Such cherrypicking of observed climate change to bolster claims of human-caused g;pbal warming and climate change is disingenuous and does not help understand the real cause of how and why the earth’s climate has changed in historical and geological times.

A detailed reading of the Chapter left me with an impression that the deleterious impact of GW on human societies was so imminent and overwhelming that unless something is done right away (to curb the warming), human societies world over are about to perish!

The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion of the reality of climate change and its future impact. The earth’s climate has changed and is changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the present debate. Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet. There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically re-assessed.

Read full paper here.

Icecap Note: Madhav is an IPCC reviewer. As this story in the First Post noted: “...serious science-based pressure is building on the IPCC to admit its objectives are political not scientific. Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC, acknowledged as much when he stated: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

By Matthew McKenzie, Information Week

Conservative grassroots group Grassfire.org wants people to waste as much energy as possible on June 12 by “hosting a barbecue, going for a drive, watching television, leaving a few lights on, or even smoking a few cigars.” The point: the group wants to “help Americans break free from the ‘carbon footprint guilt’ being imposed by Climate Alarmists.”

Grassfire.org says it’s skeptical over claims that man-made sources of carbon dioxide emissions—from automobile exhausts to manufacturing plants—are raising the Earth’s temperature at a dangerous rate. Theories about global warming were highlighted by former Vice President Al Gore’s 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Grassfire.org president Steve Elliott, in a statement, said such theories are off the mark. “It’s time for Americans to purge ourselves of the false guilt that Al Gore and the Climate Alarmists have placed on us,” Elliott said.

Grassfire.org said it chose June 12 as the day it wants Americans to rev up their SUVs because it coincides with expected debate in Congress over a $1.2 billion carbon tax rebate program. “Carbon Belch Day will have at least as much impact on the so-called ‘planetary emergency’ of man-made global warming as the goofy save the earth mandates telling us to turn our lights off for an hour,” said Elliott.

Cities around the world went dark for an hour on March 31 to mark “Earth Hour,” an event created by the World Wide Fund for Nature to inspire people to find ways to use less energy. Grassfire.org is the latest group to question whether global warming is a real phenomenon, or whether it’s as severe as portrayed in Gore’s film. London’s Daily Telegraph this week called environmentalism “the new secular faith.”

The paper said the United Kingdom’s carbon credits program for industry is “just like the medieval trade in indulgences, where remission for sins was granted by the Church once the sinner confessed and received absolution.” Read more here

Icecap Note: As the earth fails to warm, the alarmists turn their attention to other potential disasters we are causing with the burning of fossil fuels in stories like ”Acidity Levels At An All-Times-High”. In this tale, they note “Researchers from the Science journal recently reported an alarming increase in ocean acidification over the continental shelf of North America. The effects of the anomaly are very likely to include a series of negative impacts on the marine ecosystems. One of the conclusions reached by the scientists is that the acidification will lead to the corrosion of calcium carbonate exoskeletons in a large number of organisms. The explanation is that the CO2 mixed with ocean water forms the carbonic acid which has a corrosive effect on aragonite (the calcium carbonate mineral forming the shells of many sea creatures.) Apparently, the reason for the severe acidification could be connected to the ocean’s increased absorption of the carbon dioxide quantities from the atmosphere.”

For an alternative and more objective non-agenda driven view, I suggest this site. Dr. Anthoni of the New Zealand Sea Friends Organization takes an objective and in depth look at the topic. Dr. Anthoni begins: “The scientific literature and Internet are awash in articles relating to ocean acidification, mainly as part of a world-wide scare for global warming. Most are repeats of what others wrote, superficial and scare-mongering, and not worthy of mention...”

He introduces the topic with these questions “As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention? What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? We will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.

He finds show that the sea does not at all work as expected, and that marine plants (and corals) depend more or less on symbiotic decomposition and shows a lowering of the pH is beneficial to overall productivity and biomass. In the conclusion he notes “In the science of ocean acidification, our ignorance exceeds our knowledge by a large margin.”

Thanks to Dr. Gary Sharp and ”It’s All About Time” for the link.