Latest IPCC Report on Climate Change

© Stephen Finn -

At last, an opportunity for a decent post on this blog. Busy times, alas not much writing! I’ll be changing that situation very soon (plus – hopefully – an e-book of three short stories on Kindle.)

As for the world of impending environmental crisis, it seems that there have been yet more developments over the Climate Change theory. You may or may not have heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC for short.) This is the body that was set up by the UN to monitor the problem. Reviled by the climate-change sceptics as the doyen of the ‘international left-wing-liberal-green-whathaveyou conspiracy’ which has the aim of undermining Western capitalism and industrial society (sic), this international organisation has been accused in the past of peddling untruths in order to further its cause.

So no doubt its report is going to be met with the usual barrage of indignant disbelief from the sceptics. Apparently, the latest revelation from the IPCC is that there is a high probability that the number of extreme weather incidents (as have been seen recently, including the United States) will increase as temperatures rise. This could cause widespread economic and social disruption. They also report that there is a 66% chance that warming is caused by human activity, largely through fossil fuel combustion. This article in the Washington Post explains more.

I suspect this could largely fall on deaf ears once again. The latest Climate Change summit is due to take place soon but (call me a cynic), I can’t see there being much movement in the right direction. Meanwhile, the world’s sole superpower seems to be running next year’s Presidential election on the basis of ‘denial’ to win votes (well, certainly amongst the Republicans.) The fact of the matter is that America (nor anyone else) can afford to ignore this prestigious body of opinion for much longer. One hundred scientists apparently have contributed to this report. Daniel Yergin may or may not have undermined peak oil, but I don’t think he could take so much of a hatchet job to Climate Change. Humanity, I think its time to wake up!

Until the next time…

Owen Law

Climate Change means more frequent droughts and floods – Washington Post


About Owen Law

My pen-name is ‘Owen Law’ (real name: Nicholas Davies.) I’m a science fiction writer specialising in dystopian/apocalyptic visions of the future. I’m from Shropshire, England (on the borders with Wales) and I’m in my forties. I have a background in public services and training. I’ve been working on my first novel, Dragon Line, since 2008. I’ve also written several short stories, one of which you can find on this blog (‘Matilda Leviathan‘). I now reside on the border of Shropshire and Wales, and my interests include writing (of course!), current affairs and environmental issues.
This entry was posted in Article Recommendations, climate change, dragon line, Global Warming, Owen Law and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Latest IPCC Report on Climate Change

  1. rogerthesurf says:

    Judging from previous conversation we have had, it appears to me that you are a reasonable man.

    Therefore I feel you owe it to yourself to read this recently book which is, as you will read, somewhat critical of the IPCC, but it is well researched and documented.
    “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert”

    Here is an excerpt : “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it
    performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These reports are informally known as the Climate Bible. The Climate Bible is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a UN report. What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, this report was produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”

    I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.
    I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.

    Now I know you are not going to like what you read, but the most impressive feature of this book is that all the facts behind the assertions are easily verifiable. Therefore as the reasonable man that I think you are, and as I said above, you do really need to read it.


  2. rogerthesurf says:

    “recently book “please read as “recently published”

    Sorry about that.



    • Admin says:

      No problem at all, Roger, and thank you for your comments.

      I’ll certainly check the book out when I get chance. I think its important to hear the other side of the story. I agree, I’m sure the IPCC can’t always get it right and I don’t have much sympathy with the green left either. You might have noted before about my support for nuclear power as the only (present) credible alternative to fossil fuels. Other renewables are but small beer and will never satisfy the World’s energy demands. This comes from the venerable James Lovelock. Its also James Lovelock and Gwynne Dyer whom I hold up as being the most important authorities on Climate Change. And if Lovelock says we have a problem, we have a problem – full stop! Whether we can do anything to change it is debatable anyway, but I still think humanity has to wake up.

      So, the IPCC might be pushing a particular agenda and may or may not have some questionable approaches to scientific objectivity. But one thing I do know for sure, the evidence is becoming difficult to refute. Check out this reprint of the Wasington Post’s editorial. Apparently Richard Muller, a former leading ‘Sceptic’, has now changed his attitude. Surely the alarm bells should be ringing across the board!:

      Best regards

      Owen Law

  3. rogerthesurf says:


    Thanks for your reply.

    Yes I am very familiar with the issues discussed at the link you gave me.

    However, I have very little idea what the fuss is all about. The study in question does support the notion that the climate is changing, which is very little surprise to most of us. In fact I think everyone would be more worried if it stopped changing as climate change as I am sure you agree, is in the nature of things anyway.

    What the study did NOT address, as far as I can make out, is whether this change is due to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    You are no doubt aware that there is NO proof for the assertion that Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming.
    If you had the privilige of studying statistics at any tine during your life time, you would understand that correlations are never proof, only a necessary condition for proof and without any substantiating factors emerging over the many years of research, any idea of a proof upon which we should radically change our civilisation over is very meager indeed. In fact there are plenty of disproving factors which have not gone away. (I welcome you to read my blog and it’s links if you are interested in some of these.)
    Thus if it cannot be shown that the climate change is anthropogenic, we should simply sit back and enjoy/adapt/endure whatever mother nature throws at us. Seeing as how we do not appear to have reached previous temperatures which have been calculated from historical events yet and also appear in proxy records, there seems to be very little to be concerned about.
    As for CO2 being toxic, I finish by giving you a few facts about that subject, in case you haven’t explored that aspect yet.

    A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer,*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
    Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv
    Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
    Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)
    Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
    Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.
    Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.

    Oh and CO2 does become toxic at about 50,000 ppmv

    I think the book which I recommended for download above explains very well how the current state of panic, (although now apparently fading), has been reached



  4. rogerthesurf says:

    Hi Owen,

    I am so disappointed that you have not so far, seen fit to publish my comment.
    Being a reasonable man, you have no doubt observed that the comment is logical and well referenced. If there is something in there that is not logical or not sufficiently supported, please point this out to me and I will gladly rectify.

    I am aware that the conclusions that one must come to, given the facts that I have included, do not agree with your beliefs, but as a reasonable person you will understand that one must modify ones beliefs as facts come to hand.

    I am therefore interested to read your reply to my comment.



    ps I do have a reasonable following on my other blog which you may be interested to check out.

    • Admin says:

      Hi Roger

      Thanks very much for your comments again. Apologies for not having approved the other one before. It was actually down to time factors (very busy time for me at the moment!), not as a result of disliking the content you included. What I was hoping to do was to sit down and provide a considered response at the weekend when I had a little more time. I thought it only fair to do justice to your well-reasoned arguments!

      I’ll certainly look at your website then as well. I’m certainly up for some healthy debate, if you’re able to bear with me!

      best regards

      Owen Law

  5. Admin says:

    Hi Roger

    Apologies for the late reply once more. However, I think it was worth the wait! You say there is no proof that carbon dioxide produced by anthropogenic means causes global warming. This study released on 4th December (and hot off the press) is from an independent source, two Swiss climate modellers, and is reported in the link below by the highly-respected Scientific American. The researchers suggest that only a quarter of natural climate variability has contributed to global temperature rises. At least 74 per cent of temperature rises observed since the middle of the last century are, they conclude, directly attributable to human produced greenhouse gases, including CO2. It appears they have used a new attribution method for calculating this. The interesting thing is that the results seem to suggest that the rise in surface temperatures since the pre-industrial age might have been greater by now had it not been for the presence of certain aerosols in the atmosphere. Also, their study appears to strongly undermine the sceptic argument that changes in solar radiation are largely responsible for rises in mean global temperatures.

    Here is the link for you to read:

    I’d be very keen to hear your response to this.

    I hope all is well and best regards

    Owen Law

    • rogerthesurf says:


      Thanks for your considered reply.

      However the thing is, if I or any scientist had any trust in models in predicting future climate etc, we would all be thoroughly convinced by now and we would most certainly have that consensus that you and people like you are always trumpeting about.

      However I am familiar with mathematical modeling through my humble studies of economics and most scientists would not rely on modeling to confidently predict the future.

      You see, a model is in itself a hypothesis, or the result of the integration/incorporation of a number of hypothesis.
      The modeler includes parameters that follow his current hypothesis. To simplify for purposes of explanation, in the case of the yet to be proven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, he may include a parameter that calculates how much warming from a certain amount of CO2 and perhaps includes the positive relationship between this and water vapour. When the model is run it then comes up with a result given current temperatures (whatever they are) and the CO2 predicted to be present some time in the future.
      Sounds sensible, but considering that even the relationship between CO2 and water vapour is not proven, let alone whether CO2 has any significant effect by itself, so the final result, based on these unproven hypothesis such as these, is no doubt interesting but meaningless – unless they can be verified by other means such as empirical, statistical or elimination of competing hypothesis.

      Without these “other means” no scientist in their right mind would call any model results proof and considering that we are contemplating ruining our civilisation in order to halt this global warming, we do need very good proof indeed.

      If such a proof existed for the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis one needs to demand ACADEMIC, PUBLISHED AND PEER REVIEWED papers that give a reasonable scientific proof.

      One would expect an authorative academic paper to use at least one of the following methods.

      1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.

      2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.

      3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis.

      Now you may need a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help.

      When we can point to at least one scientific, peer reviewed publication that shows at least one of the above, only then will we be in a position to recommend destroying society as we know it, seeing our families starve and carrying out all the other things that will be required to actually decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Trust this clarifies things some.



  6. rogerthesurf says:


    ” we are contemplating ruining our civilisation in order to halt this global warming”

    I notice I did not support that statement adequately, however the last paragraph of the link below, although he does not speculate on the follow on effects, should give you an idea of where I am coming from.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s