Has the IPCC turned into skeptics?

Hi Chris how's it going.
I'm sure he's in big oils pocket or something like that. He can't be telling the truth as he see's it.

You or your article quotes selectively, creating distortions, which are clarified when the comments are read within context. For example:

2. "In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been."

The quote continues: "The IPCC instead proffers "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent "story lines" that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable."

In other words, the IPCC does not predict what will happen because the decisions of policymakers are unknown.

Trenberth's comments conclude:

So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.

However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?

In short, Trenberth is not "becoming a skeptic" - that's your wishful delusion. He is affirming the IPCCs statement that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal". He is saying that the IPCC makes no predictions because policy decisions have not been made yet about CO2 emissions. He is arguing that more specific information in needed to shed light on the regional predictions. He notes that better science is needed in order to plan regionally for "...climate changes that are already occurring."

In other words the science isn't settled and the only thing they can surmise is the earth is warming but don't know why, but CO2 sounds like a good culprit.

And they have to scare the bejesus out of governments and people to keep funding coming there way to support there grotesque lifestyle while silencing those who dissent.

How much is the oil industry paying you to shovel this bullshit out every day?

Chris: "In other words the science isn't settled and the only thing they can surmise is the earth is warming but don't know why, but CO2 sounds like a good culprit."

You really must read the article you linked. The entire article, that is.

Hey, Clark, come out with an original thought without mindlessly parroting what your left wing masters tell you to say.

You're probably one of these poor people who are jealous of the success others have and feel the only way to make up for it is to tear down those you perceive as above you.

Kinda like your buds in China for whom you serve as an apologist on climate change.

Or for whom you serve as an apologist who have open disdain for mankind, America, and capitalism.

This gather article is dishonest and out of context.
Although i find Earth science unbelievably boring(im more of a life science kind of guy), I hope that we are still talking about this around election time. Its a loser for conservatives.
chris, tell me your thoughts on solar flares and polar tilts again!Clark, chris isnt being paid by the oil companies,hes just some idealogue cuting and pasting in his basement.

I too hope this is an issue in the next election.

You all will be forced to lay out your solutions. Talking about the problem and saying "cut greenhouse emissions" won't be enough for the electorate. They will demand solutions.

And your solutions are more damaging than anything climate change can cause.

What's the ideal temperature again?

No one has bothered to answer.

"What's the ideal temperature again?"

thats a silly question. Noone is claiming that there is an "ideal" temperature(what ever that means) I think the point is that a change in the temp will have consequences.
"And your solutions are more damaging than anything climate change can cause."
I dont know that to be true. niether to you, its your guess and nothing more.

To say that climate change will cause devastation is to say a cooler temperature will not cause devastation.

To that end it falls on the proponents of higher temp climate change to define what the ideal temperature is and what steps it will take to achieve that ideal temperature.

It also falls on the leftist-radicals to explain the impact those steps will have on the economies of the world.

Let me spell it out:

The building of power plants that provide most of the power for the US will have to cease. This means demand increases, supply is stagnant, we're faced with higher prices and rolling blackouts, a la California.

The alternatives that are proposed by leftist-radicals will not at this point supply the necessary demand.

Factories that provide jobs and production to satisfy consumer demand would have to be shut down with nothing else to replace them.

Development is developing countries would have to cease because there greenhouse emissions grow exponentially to bring themselves up to developed-country status.

Again, no solution to this is proposed.

Jobs destroyed, development halted by BANANAs and NIMBYs, taxes raised - this is the legacy of government-mandated efforts to halt global warming.

joseph: "This gather article is dishonest and out of context."

You've defined the skeptic's MO.

Chris: "You all will be forced to lay out your solutions...your solutions are more damaging than anything climate change can cause."

I doubt you even know any of the solutions that have been proposed, much less that technology present today could do the job. No, you'd rather spend half-a-trillion $$$ in Iraq, and you'll probably claim that that also is less damaging than solutions to global warming would be.

Chris: "What's the ideal temperature again?"

Wrong question. The target is to prevent further warming beyond an additional 2 degree celsius. You didn't know that?

I don't know where you have come up with the statements in your last comment. Maybe you just think them up, but there is no factual basis to any of it. The thing you refuse to face, though, is that regardless of the cost to reforming our economy now, the cost of not reforming it to your child's generation will dwarf any cost to you. You have never addressed that, except to say that you "have faith" in the next generation. If that's the conservative version of responsibility, then voters in the next election will, I think, be very interested in that definition.