Are AGW scientists backing down.? I don't think so, not many and not much, but the media has backed off.

The 'dire' forecasts are abating, that's true, but for the most part I don't think there's much change from MOST scientists. The great majority of climate scientists did not make claims of catastrophe, imminent or otherwise. I have never read a paper projecting imminent dire consequences, yet that is what the media portrayed. Virtually the whole climate 'catastrophe' was media generated, amplified by advocacy groups. A single phrase in an interview, prefixed by 'might, maybe, possibly, in a few hundred years' etc, used to end up in print as an unavoidable and imminent disaster. Disasters are sensational and sell copy. But you can't hold the public's attention forever... they lose interest and move on. The public has noticed that the sea has not surged up the high street, and the weather seems to be still behaving like, well... weather.

Media excitement, and coverage, has dropped away because Global Warming is old news and doesn't sell any more.

Climate scientists might be being a little more cautious in their media relations having seen some of their fellows paraded in the media over what might simply have been off the cuff speculation. But for most people involved in climate research there is nothing to back down from. They have recorded what they observed, built on others' work and offered new understanding for scrutiny.

What IS becoming more common is acknowledgement that the observations are not matching (some of) the projections... and this is being acknowledged by some of the most prominent individuals and organisations.

First, to the guy that did that thing who asked: "Famous meteorologist? Is there such a thing?"

I can only say...Dood, Willard SCOTT. ((Snort.))

I think we have a situation being played out that is all too familiar in other instances where someone in a given community (like a political organization, for example) says something and it is taken by many as representative of the entire community rather than the opinion or observation of one individual. Then someone else in the same community expresses another opinion and the contradiction becomes fodder for the demonization cannon.

A good example of that is the question asked yesterday about an article that appeared in the UK 13 years or so ago when some climate scientist said that snow would be a rare event in Great Britain in years to come. Not everyone was saying that and a lot has changed in the public perception of what climate change really is in the last 13 years, so some people put the story in the proper context and others want to make hay out of it.

I think the most serious climate scientists-who are not political activists, but pursuing the facts as best they can-aren't 'backing down' but are refining their predictions as technology improves and more data is gathered. Some of the ones who were more out there...like predicting the inundation of the east coast of the U.S. by Tuesday if we don't 'do something' are pretty darned likely to have to back off/down. (I mean 'by Tuesday' in the figurative sense...near future, 50 years out or so, etc). But those who more calmly outlined their findings in terms of statistical probabilities, ranges based on various scenarios, etc. don't have much to back down from, at least not because of the peope who understand statistics, logic and have decent reading comprehension.

No, both do not question that there is AGW, what they critizice is that the discussion is not longer driven by scientific data and concepts but by media which overhype the issue. The IPCC has several climate models which are very complex and it needs a deep understanding under which assumptions they are based and what are the influencing factors and outcomes. That needs a detailed reporting and explanation to the public.

What the author of this blog does is: he takes some sentences out of context and then concludes that all AGW is a hoax, Lennart Bengtsson clearly states in his article that AGW is a fact and it will have consequences, he thinks that the average increase will not 1 - 2 degrees but only 0.75 degrees (based on his model) but it does not question the fact in itself.

The problem of all scientist who speak against AGW is: they do not have an alternative model and explanation which is able to describe the scientific data of increase of surface temperature and melting of glaciers and ice caps. In every school laboratory you can prove that CO2 is able to absorb more energy then usual air (oxygene/nitrogene) and the increase in energy use from fossile fuell and the increase in CO2 levels are in the data. So: how do they explain that this increase does not influence the surface temperature ?????

Gobal warming is in fact not the problem: it is the effects it has on the human infrastructure ! There are several hurricanes over the Atlantic every year and you just move the ships out of the way. But it is very complicated to move a city like New Orleans out of the way of Kathrina or New York with 15 Mio people out of the way of Irene. A drought in the cornbelt is no problem if we have a surplus in other agricultural areas (but at the moment we are not able to feed 7bn people on this planet).

The discussion in Europe is shifting from "more alternative energy" to "harden our infrastructure" against the effects, the discussion: how much is man made and how much is natural is quite idiotic, when you are hit by an arrow you do not analyze: Who shot it ? Why was it shot ? What wood is it made of ? How long is it ? Was it hand made or machine made ? What is the color ? What you do is: you remove it and take care of the wound and that there is no infection.

Kano: I am not reffering to Al Gore - Global Warming was not known loooong before Al Gore discovered it. In Europe there were two books which started this discussion: "Global 2000 - The report to the president "(1977) initiated by President Carter and one of the most sold boks in Germany at that time and "Limits of growth" by the Club of Rome (1972). This triggered the formation of a Green Party in 1987 and they were part of the government since 1999 in Germany, Europe had several regulations and laws in effect (e.g. fuel efficiency for cars) before this guy even published his film, the people in Europe saw it with disbelief: it was a conformation that the US is again 25 years behind the edge.

The point is: global warming is happening and the countries and industries which are able to provide the technologies to adjust to the challenge will survive, make money and employ people, and countries who do not will fall behind. There are huge business opportunities here: fuel efficient cars, alternative energies, speed trains, efficient coal plants, desalination plants, genetic engeneering of e.g. drought resistant agricultural products, protection of coast lines (see investment into levees in New Orleans), raw materials e.g. rare earth metals, low energy housing, research in more efficient solar cells, ......

Where do you DA deniers come up with this crap. CR is correct that 10 out of the last 15 years have been the warmest on record in 132 years. This is based on real time measurements sinc record keeping began for global temp. Obviously we didn't have over 1300 weather station reporting data as we do now. BUT temps have been recorded for major cities around the world, enough for computing an average global temp

In case you encountered the 16 years no warming link, that was an all out lie and publicly denounced by the MET Like much of the denier industry crap it is usually a lie or misrepresentation of the truth, or partial info The DA denier industry has been active for at least 3 decades, if not more way back to when one of the big oil/coal execs told us that CO2 was good for plants and good for human health. So every time you promote AGW skepticism, remember you are propagating the whole of the skeptic view including the roots of skepticism including the fact that CO2 is good for human health. That is the denier legacy

BTW the global average temp and CO2 levels continue to raise yearly Who are you trying to bullsh*t

You should give the link to the real article, rather than to that garbage "notrickszone" website that puts a misleading spin on the article. Here it is the website with the full article:

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.de/2013/03/...

I think the article is interesting and well-written. I had never hear of Bengtssonn, but he has impressive credentials. The only "backing down" I see is that he believes if we replace coal by natural gas then it will give us time to deal with the problem.

EDIT for Hey Dook: How can you say he has little or no experience in climate science? Even your own link shows that he does--he used to be head of research at ECMWF, we should all have such credentials.

ANOTHER EDIT for Hey Dook: I am well-acquainted with ECMWF, at the present time it is the foremost atmospheric modeling center in the world (which, frankly, should be an embarrassment to the U.S.). The distinction you're trying to make between a research meteorologist and a climate scientist is simply not a real one. Many climate scientists are meteorologists and the climate models and the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are intimately connected. Not only are the NWP models modified for use as climate models, they are also run to provide gridded climate data (reanalysis). The ECMWF's reanalysis products, ERA-40, ERA-Interim and ERA-15 are used by climate scientists throughout the world. You should not discount the opinions of scientists because they're "meteorologists." That's the background of many of the IPCC scientists.

As for the disinformation campaign of deniers, I find that disgusting, which is why I called out Kano for providing a link to a trashy propaganda site, rather than directly to the article. However, it's important to be objective and reasonable (unlike deniers) and listen to qualified scientists such as Bengtsson

They don't have to back down.

The Northwest passage has been navigable every summer since 2006, any attempts to cross prior to that would require two winters frozen in ice and has been that way for about 6,000 years.

Due to a lack of winter kills, the pine beetle has destroyed 80% of the pine trees in BC.

Thawing permafrost is affecting Inuit towns, some have had to be moved.

Neither of your links are known for accurate or even reliable information.

They should be if they have any sense! Just check out the video on the link, and see exactly how the Earth is changing the climate due to the influence of the other planets.

Lets face, it, anyone who posts on, or believes anything they read on Wikipedia, would believe anything!

If anyone watched the recent T.V. series presented by Professor Brian Cox on the Solar system, and you knew anything about astronomy, you would see that the weather on Earth is affected by gravity, in exactly the same way as Io, a moon of Jupiter is affected. Io is a solid lump of rock the same size as our moon, which, due to gravitational forces, liquefies and causes volcanoes. The same applies to one of the moons of Saturn, the name of which I missed. EXACTLY the same forces that are causing the increased volcanic and earthquake activity here on Earth in the past 20 or so years due to the line up of the major planets and the Sun.

CO2 has no measurable effect on the climate!.