What part of the IP CC's report does Alph not understand? :
" ... The IPCC found that there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin."
The IPCC also said “there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” adding “that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
Extreme weather has been a major talking point for environmentalists and Democrats who want to show evidence that the planet is warming. Last year, politicians jumped on the devastating typhoon that hit the Philippines, saying it was more evidence that human activity was making the weather worse.
“Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”
So far this year, the United States has experienced a record-low number of tornadoes, according to Pielke, and the number of deaths and the amount of property damage from tornadoes has decreased dramatically in the past six decades.
“The average annual U.S. property losses caused by tornadoes, from 1950 to 2013, is $5.9 billion in today’s dollars,” Pielke wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “However, for the first half of the data set (1950-81), the annual average loss was $7.6 billion, and in the second half (1982-2013), it was $4.1 billion―a drop of almost 50%.” ... "
C'mon Alph! Get with the program!!!!
The Dookster is a hopeless romantic for Climate Change. No comment necessary for him. :-)
Baccheus and Rookie - You can use some reality too. :-)
You would have to be an idiot to believe the IPCC represents scientific principles over political ones but that is the argument we get from the other side. I can't help but think Stavins is mad that his alarmists views aren't being implemented as fast as he wants. I could be wrong. I don't know him. Whether it is from the left or right, political interests will influence the IPCC recommendations. I notice Bacheous desperately trying to resurrect IPCC scientific bonafides.
He has made very clear, as have others, that the political section of the report has been tramped on by the politicians, whereas the scientific portions have not.
I want to emphasize that the IPCC’s Working Group III “Technical Summary” and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers.
-- Robert Stavins
The mission of the IPCC is important, and the scientific work carried out by the hundreds of lead authors of AR5 Working Group 3 was solid and important, as validated by the Technical Summary and the underlying chapters.
-- Robert Stavins.
If you wish to suggest that the section calling for each nation to respond to climate change is politically charged, then my response is "duh!".
If you wish to deny that it is happening, or that the whole scientifically body is divided, then your citing an economist who disagrees with you is just evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.
Sagebrush, Thank You! You have shown us how the IPCC reporting process works. The review process includes government and industry input that becomes a part of the final report. While this is necessary, because it is the governments of the world that set policy and not the scientist, it also tells us that the reports are not based on Science alone. As Alph has noted, the IPCC reports are more conservative than what Science dictates that they should be because political and economic interests are also a part of forming the IPCC reports. Our planet could care less about what our political and economic interests are. Our planet will perform based on The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics. There is no government or industry in the world, or any collection of such, that can write or influence laws as to how the planet will perform.
They base it coming to a conclusion first and work backward
AGW theory is a fact they say ? So they write a report
based on no experments or science and that equals UN Control plus carbon tax to redistribute money around .
If he had his way the report would be even more alarmist. Is that what deniers are complaining about?-that the ipcc report is toned down?
Make up your minds!
Edit: zippi, you're an idiot. The question was about stavins saying the ipcc report is toned down due to politics. Reality is beyond you.
You mean the IPCC report that you are too lazy to read?
Who the hay is Robert Stavins?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614097/Top-climate-experts-sensational-claim-government-meddling-crucial-UN-report.html
