What the Climate Report Concedes

It's a shame the climate debate remains so heated, when what we're able to predict remains so modest

  • Share
  • Read Later
Jonathan Nackstrand / AFP / Getty Images

From left to right, moderator Jonathan Lynn, Secretary-General of the WMO Michel Jarraud, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra K Pacahauri, Co-Chair working group 1 Thomas Stocker and Co-Chair working group 1 Dahe Qin present the first volume of its Fifth Assessment Report, first overview since 2007 of scientific evidence for climate change on Sept. 27, 2013 in Stockholm.

Is climate change an impending major calamity, threatening massive economic and ecological costs that could virtually wipe out mankind? Or is it a conspiracy of liberal scientists bent on hobbling the American economy and imposing green socialism worldwide?

For a long time, I’ve held to a middle-of-the-road view—though it’s caused me to be labelled both a gullible alarmist and a “climate denier” over the years. That view, in short, is this: Climate change is real but slow, partially man-made but partially natural, and potentially harmful but more likely a wash.

While you won’t see it reflected in the headlines about the release of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, part of which was unveiled today in Stockholm, even the IPCC’s authors are tip-toeing toward those of us in the muddled middle.

(MOREClimate Scientists Issue Their Report. Now It’s Our Turn)

The report, in many ways, is a bit of a strange document. Its authors say they are more certain than they were in their last report, issued in 2007, that climate change is (and will be) slower and less severe than previously thought. They also say they are more certain of greater uncertainty about how much climate change will occur. Got that?

In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus:  “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”

(WATCHClimate Change Most Likely Caused by Humans)

Actually, the IPCC is 95% sure—not that Armageddon is inevitable, but merely that “human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.” This is not a statement about the future at all; it is a statement about the past. Many seem not to have spotted the distinction. This is about as underwhelming a claim as can be made, meaning much less than half a degree Celsius of change since soon after the end of World War II is down to mankind. There are very few people who would disagree with this remark, even in the most skeptical circles. To trumpet it as a new cause of alarm is bizarre.

So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:

  1. Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago.
  2. Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
  3. Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
  4. Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
  5. The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.

It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.

MOREU.N. Climate Panel: It’s 95% Certain That Humans Are The Dominant Cause of Climate Change


The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava Energy LLC and Aesop Institute since 2009.



Ladies and gentlemen, this article here is a prime example of something we scientists call "cherry-picking".  Please read at least the executive summary of the actual report before believing that anything this author says here really represents the true feelings of the actual scientists on the IPCC committee, or the rest of us they represent.


Jennifer We Scientists don't rely on our "feelings" whether they are true or not. Good and innovative science does not usually arise from large committees. Nature is totally indifferent to our feelings. The conventional wisdom for many centuries was that the earth is at the centre of the Universe. The relevant committees truly felt this to be the case.

Climate models are extremely complex non linear models and have many adjustable parameters. Any scientist experienced with complex non linear models of this nature knows that extrapolation of such models outside the range where the parameters were fitted is speculative and could be very wrong.

What the "true feelings" of the IPPC is if such a consensus actually exists is not within the realms of science but of politics and psychology. One may start by asking who benefits from the IPPC and who pays them. In any event as the article explains the IPCC admits to a lot of uncertainty.

The bottom line is that we are not sure what the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions are going to be. What you or others feel about this is is not really relevant


@BruceDouglasYoung  ...You seriously have no idea how the IPCC works, do you?  It's not just "feelings" nor is it "funded" by anyone with vague and nefarious thoughts.  It's the same scientists who write journal articles and do real research.  Hundreds of them.  Including several I know personally.  Also, they don't get paid for their work on the IPCC committee.

Scientific consensus isn't an evil thing.  We have consensus on the basic principles of optics, for example.  Is it evil that I can reliably make glasses and binoculars, because of our consensus on this science?

And finally, you're right.  What we feel about the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions is not relevant.  Because it's going to happen anyhow.  In reality, we climate scientists wish to God what we're seeing today and predict for tomorrow wasn't happening.  But we're adult enough to realize that our wishes don't matter; reality does.  And reality is that climate change is occurring and is very likely to become an increasing problem, if we keep behaving as we have.  

We're not the ones refusing to see reality on this issue.  The data's pretty darn obvious about what's happening today, and highly suggestive of what's likely to happen in the future.  You go right ahead and believe whatever you "feel" is right, though.  The world won't much care.


Jennifer I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to introduce ad hominen emotional comments into the discussion. They add nothing to the discussion. You are also assuming a whole lot of things I never said. Some of what you say I agree with. In principle I agree with your third paragraph except that the extent to which the predictions are correct is uncertain. To be clear I don't say that the consequences will be less than the predictions they could be worse.

The fact that people don't get paid by the IPPC is also not really relevant. Climate research needs to be funded and has become quite a large industry and many people are making whole careers out of it. It does not suit the purposes of career climate scientists that perhaps the consequences of climate change could be less than their predictions. They have an inherent conflict of interest. One needs to be cautious when examining the claims of people who have a vested interest in the outcome.

Perhaps if we are going to find out anyway what the consequences of climate change are anyway and they might be worse than we thought we should be doing more research on geo engineering.

And finally your example relating to optics misses the point. Anyone can go and do optical experiments with lenses in the laboratory. Optical theories can quickly be tested and verified or falsified. Making forecasts of an extremely complex system like the climate using non linear models with many adjustable parameters is an entirely different matter.


This is really a terrific piece of writing; factual and unemotional.  And the truth, almost always, lies somewhere in the middle of these heated debates.  Nice job.


"Ridley’s claims about the benefits of CO2 are unconnected to reality. Rising nighttime temperatures hurt crop yields, and do not improve them as Ridley states. The CO2 fertilization effect -- or “greening” -- that Ridley mentions, will be countered by other side effects and is unlikely to help crop yields either."


@Leftcoastrocky ... wrong and wrong... the fruiting process is primarily influenced by hours of daylight and water availability. CO2 availability is a very influential factor on plant growth; to the point that commercial greenhouses actually do C02 injections into greenhouses to increase the growth rate and hardiness (strength, not cold tolerance) of plants.  you silly liberals will cling to this dream of global warming in spite of all scientific evidence that suggests it is part of the earths natural cycle and is in fact in no way accelerated at this time. the best that you can do is say.. well in 200 years if levels were increased 1232% the results could be bad (based on the flawed models that we commissioned to support our platform)


"potentially harmful but more likely a wash."     a wash?  WRONG


Belief in global warming from increasing CO2 gas in the air is a new religion.  

If it seems as if people with the strongest belief in global warming from CO2 gas have the least amount of knowledge of scientific method it is because they do.  

The fall and rise in Earth's average temperature is the result of the increase then decrease in predictable cycles of solar flares and nothing else.  

The scientific evidence of rising amounts of CO2 gas in the air over the last 15 years with no increase in average temperatures proves that the claims of so called "climate scientists" are false.  

Yet hundreds of millions of people around the world still believe which makes their faith in something that can't be proved a religion.  

The Supreme Court ruling of Separation of Church and State should have protected Americans from government funds being used to inculcate new members into CO2 gas cult but it hasn't.  

It hasn't because so many millions of American government employees including judges are faithful to the dogmas of their Mystagogues including Al Gore and Barack Obama.  

Gore and Obama are unabashed left over Marijuana Marxists who among many others started this new religion when the Socialist government of the former Soviet Union went bankrupt and was abandoned.  

Their goal remains what it has always been to curtail or destroy Capitalism by any and every means. Including the new religion of belief in global warming from CO2 gas.  

What should happen next is that a Federal judge should order the Mystagogues to cease and desist inculcating new believers with government money and on government property including and especially public schools.  

Americans have the right not only to be free from religious cults but also to be protected from them. 


"Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.’ This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago." And they still should be, because that's not what the report says. In fact, the report states that temperatures have risen more slowly in the last 15 years than they have on average over the last 60 years or so. So the author is factually wrong about both the report and the climate. Furthermore, the report uses this as an example of what’s wrong with cherry-picking the data. The rate of warming appears to slow in the last 15 years largely because 15 years ago we had a really hot year. So the author is both factually wrong and interpretively sloppy, doubling the deception. And those are just two problems of many in the author’s breezy dismissal of scientific consensus. 

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/#ixzz2gHoVLQQR


Aesop Institute is a wonderfully elaborate fraud, operated by Mark Goldes.
Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered "windmobile," based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

After SunWind "dried up" in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on "Virtual Photon Flux;" and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava Energy was developing water-fueled engines based on "collapsing hydrogen orbitals" (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing ambient-heat-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Goldes' forty-year career of "revolutionary invention" pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience and pseudophysics - his lifelong stock-in-trade.
I have spent months investigating the career of Mark Goldes, Aesop Institute's Perpetual Scam Machine.

1976: Goldes seeks investors with fraudulent claims to have developed a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-propelled, wind-rechargeable "windmobile" that could reach 60 mph. Goldes has never developed any roadworthy windmobile.

1998: Goldes fools the gullible US Air Force with his "room temperature superconductor" scam, receiving over four hundred thousand dollars in "Innovative Research" grants. Goldes has never produced any superconductor.

2005: Goldes seeks investors with fraudulent claims that his company, MPI, is developing "Magnetic Power Modules" based on "Virtual Photon Flux."

2008: Goldes seeks investors with fraudulent claims that "MPI is also developing breakthrough magnetic energy technologies including POWERGENIE (Power Generation of Electricity by Nondestructive Interference of Energy)." The basic idea of POWERGENIE is to generate electricity from sound energy, by blowing a horn at a magnetized tuning rod. Goldes claims to have "run an electric car for more than 4,800 miles with no need to plug-in." According to Goldes, "[MPI] Revenues from licenses and Joint Ventures are conservatively projected to exceed $1 billion annually by 2012."

2009: Goldes seeks investors with fraudulent claims that his latest scamporation, Chava Energy, "has been developing enhanced theoretical and practical paths that lead towards commercialization of energy conversion systems that utilize hydrinos." He now claims to be "developing a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine – SPICE(tm) powered by hydrinos." ("Hydrinos" are pure fiction and do not exist.)

"For over 20 years Mark Goldes has claimed his company MPI has been developing machines that generate energy for free. In over 20 years his company has not presented one shred of evidence that they can build such machines...

"For the past five years Mark Goldes has been promising generators 'next year.' He has never delivered. Like 'Alice in Wonderland' there will always be jam tomorrow, but never jam today."

- Penny Gruber, December 2008

- Gruber's comment was written almost five years ago - but it's just as true today - except that MPI, Goldes' corporation that he claimed would bring in one billion dollars in revenue from his horn-powered generator in 2012, is now defunct, having never produced any "Magnetic Power Modules" - just as his company called "Room Temperature Superconductors Inc" is also now defunct, having never produced any "room temperature superconductors." Evidently there's a limit to how many years in a row the same company can claim it will finally have something to demonstrate "next year." Now Goldes has a new scamporation, Chava Energy.

Goldes' current favorite scam is an engine that would run on ambient heat - which is clearly  ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the scams of Mark Goldes.

Mark Goldes is a textbook-ready example of a highly talented con artist who clearly takes pleasure in fooling people with his ludicrous claims, artfully peppered with pseudoscientific rubbish.

Let's look at just one example of Goldes' offerings in "revolutionary new technology:"

Most Ludicrous Scamvention: Mark Goldes' "POWERGENIE"

One of the most laughable of Mark Goldes' many invention scams is his "POWERGENIE" horn-powered generator. The brilliant idea of this revolutionary breakthrough is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of the horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

I'm not making this up.

POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained - from the patent:

[The device incorporates] "an energy transfer and multiplier element being constructed of a ferromagnetic substance... having a natural resonance, due to a physical structure whose dimensions are directly proportional to the wavelength of the resonance frequency..."

"In this resonant condition, the rod material functions as a tuned waveguide, or longitudinal resonator, for acoustic energy."

"Ferrite rod 800 is driven to acoustic resonance at the second harmonic of its fundamental resonant frequency by acoustic horn 811, resulting in acoustic wave 816 within the rod having two nodal points... Bias magnet 801 produces magnetic flux 802 extending axially through both nodal points developed within rod 800... The sum electromotive force of coils 820 and 821 develops electrical current and power in resistive load 830."

- But the patent doesn't tell us who is going to volunteer to blow the horn at the rod all day. Perhaps it will come with an elephant.

Goldes claimed in 2008 that this wonderful triumph of human genius would bring his company, Magnetic Power Inc, one billion dollars in annual revenue by 2012. Magnetic Power Inc is now defunct, having never produced any "Magnetic Power Modules" - just as his company called "Room Temperature Superconductors Inc" is also now defunct, having never produced any "room temperature superconductors."




The post above is a troll attack. It contains a number of half-truths and outright lies.

SunWind Ltd. provided the electric drive system and invented the Trade Name windmobile. The Amick invention was originally a racing land yacht. We were only involved in the prototype and never claimed it was production ready. It was the cover story for Popular Science in November of 1976 and SunWind is mentioned in the article.

Magnetic Power Inc. (MPI) and its subsidiary, Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. were awarded four Small Business Innovation Research Contracts by the Department of Defense. These included a Phase II award by the USAF after successful tests of our room temperature superconductors by the Air Force during the Phase I contract. Since these are polymer materials we created the name Ultraconductors™. Almost 1,000 samples of these remarkable materials were independently reproduced for the USAF by Fractal Systems. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy assisted with this program. Funding was interrupted by global economic factors beyond our control. Development is expected to resume under the auspices of CHAVA Energy.

Magnetic Power Inc. (MPI) was formed to explore the potential of ambient energy powered magnetic systems to generate electricity. A magnetic generator was demonstrated in Germany in 1925 and by 1937 was producing 6,000 watts. It became a Top Secret program for the Nazi Navy which wanted to use it to recharge submarine batteries without requiring a sub to surface. The lab was bombed late in World War II. British Intelligence published a Report in 1946 indicating the work was genuine. That Report was declassified in 1979. 

See The Coler Papers at www.chavascience.com for more of the story. MPI Magnetic Generators are still under development under the auspices of CHAVA Energy. See www.chavaenergy.com


Mark Goldes refers to anyone who reveals the truth about his long career in pseudophysics as a "troll" - as if anyone who opposes pseudoscience and flimflammery would have to be a "troll."

But  we are not a "trolls." We are people for whom physics has been the love of our lives. In the course of promoting his make-believe "revolutionary breakthroughs" in the hope of attracting donations from gullible people, he spreads pseudoscience, false information, and false claims. We find this objectionable and therefore we respond to it.

The 1976 Popular Science article says that SunWind provided "financial and technical advice" to the Amicks - not any parts, at all. But no matter whether SunWind provided parts or not, the Amick "Windmobile" was not a road-worthy vehicle, could not be street-legal, and was not at all "production-ready." Goldes' pretense in 1976 and later was that he had already developed a road-worthy windmobile that could be street-legal and could be put in production within a year. Goldes never developed any road-worthy windmobile or put one in production.


Neither Goldes' defunct company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc, nor his company Chava Energy, have ever produced any superconductor at all. Goldes' remarks about research grants and samples reflect a pretense that never ends.

Adventures in Pseudophysics, with Mark Goldes:

"The late Dr. Robert Carroll, a mathematical physicist who worked with Aesop Institute for 12 years until his passing, filed a rejected patent application for Pion fusion in 1971. Pion fusion is now under development. See page 17 at Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute website.

"Using Pion fusion, a Pion (Antimatter) Drive, might allow spacecraft to carry us far beyond the solar system at amazing speeds. Einstein’s mechanics allows a Pion space drive to achieve speeds that will approach the speed of light. In contrast, Carrollian, non-relativistic, physics posits a superluminal Pion space drive may approach a speed of 20,000,000 times that of light."

- Mark Goldes



@KeytoClearskies The Wright Brothers were victims of similar accusations. It was 5 years after Kitty Hawk before the N.Y. Times, Scientific American and the Smithsonian admitted they had actually flown.

SunWind provided a kit of parts that made possible the conversion of a brilliant land yacht into a prototype freeway capable vehicle. It was licensed and photographed repeatedly on the Interstate Highway with newspapers worldwide carrying an AP story with photo and ABC television featuring it on newscasts for many weeks.

Magnetic Power Inc and Room Temperature Superconductors were awarded four Small Business Innovation Contracts including a Phase II following successful tests by the Air Force during a Phase I contract. These were samples of ambient temperature superconductors. We call these polymer materials Ultraconductors. Fractal Systems independently produced almost 1,000 samples for the USAF. Worldwide patents exist on these materials as well as numerous papers in refereed scientific journals.

What the late Dr. Robert Carroll called Pion fusion is usually known today as Muon fusion and is being pursued by a Japanese-British joint venture as well as Star Scientific of Australia. 

Muon-Pion fusion will at some point be able to power spacecraft and it will then be possible to determine if Carroll's non-relativistic physics may prove correct. If it does, it could open robotic human exploration of Goldilocks planets.

Pathological skepticism coupled with outright lies and half-truths justify calling these troll attacks.


3rd Final Part

For the final punch line ; just look at the period so called “Little Ice Age “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... AD 1550 and AD 1850 whopping 300 years of unexpected / unusual Global cold period .... You see lots of gaps and un answered questions with this so called `man made global warming`, what cooled the Earth like freezer havens sake for 300 long years between those years ..? The logical answer was THE SUN most agree almost unanimously even they backed up with lots of data about solar effects of this little ice age period ...
So when the whole Earth Cools most logical answer was the Sun (Nobody ever dared to say people of 1550 AD STOP BURNING COAL or FOSSIL FUELS FOR 300 YEARS so the CO2 DROPPED and the whole world had Little Ice Age ... BUT as you clearly see when whole Earth start warming up THAN the CAUSE IS MAN MADE ..! but NOT the SUN ?...

I bet you got the idea what I am trying to say here ...Believe me the common sense and pure logic states that the SUN `Cools us as well as Warms us` that is the obvious answer here ... Forget about so called CO2 that is simply a `Man made Politics of Global Energy `... CO2 is just an Innocent Bystander but not the real cause of Global Warming and never was ..

Thank you


2nd Part 3- All these warming's we witness might well be the `natural cycle` of our planet Earth over millions of years rather than `mans made ` event . Atmospheric CO2 rise may be the END RESULT of the Global Temperature increase because of other NON MAN MADE EVENT or EVENTS rather than the primary CAUSE of temperature rise . In other words no matter how much CO2 you put to the atmosphere –Provided that the Global temperature is Fixed and not changing - may well be absorbed by the Buffer of the Oceans . Since we do not know what is primary real reason of global temperature rise cycle , just noticing the ACCOMPANYING CO2 rise with the global temperature rise NOT NECESSARILY because of CO2 . CO2 may be the INNOCENT BYSTANDER rather than CAUSE OF THE EVENT . 4- Intense Economical Competition among nations for the CHEAPER ENERGY CREATION and its international politics and advantage of technological know how and attempt to use it as leverage for the economical competition obviously interfering with `LOGIC` and `TRUE AND PURE SCIENCE` . They simply chose to play `BLAME GAMES` to each other . This same thing `BLAME GAME` had been played by the ancient priests on unknowing poor people , celestial events as the curse from Gods for presumed and perceived wrongful deeds by people . Human History and its nature never changes only the role players have different names now . Please continue 3rd -Final part


1st Part of my comment

Here we go again `blaming humans for excessive fossil fuel` use fundamentally and scientifically wrong assumption :

Because you do NOT KNOW the things listed below ...

1- They (UN Panel on Global Warming) never ever calculated the radiant energy(heat) fluctuations over a long run coming from our only real heat source the SUN ( Simply because they do not have the technology to measure it ) \ and they ASSUME (Wrongfully) that the amount of heat coming from SUN is `fixed` and NOT CHANGING or FLUCTUATING according to galactic (Milky way) cycle .They never calculated the effect of changing galactic cosmic radiation over a reasonable long period on stratosphere high altitude cloud formation and its effects on atmosphere and global temperature ...Without knowing the NATURE and CHARACTERISTICS of the ONLY REAL HEAT SOURCE WE (OUR EARTH) HAVE `THE SUN` how can you assume things related with `temperature on earth` ?....2- They never ever calculated the CO2 ABSORPTION `Buffer` ABILITY and POTENTIAL OF WORLD OCEANS as Carbonate or Carbon ...and they made long term predictions of global warming ..Without knowing how much CO2 is actually absorbed as Carbonate you can NOT make any long term predictions .

Please continue 2nd Part..


“Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels.” Nikola Tesla

A NO FUEL ENGINE, powered by atmospheric heat (a form of solar energy) is on its way to prototype. This seemingly impossible achievement was first suggested by Tesla in 1900. Jacob Wainwright began publishing on the subject in 1902. His 20+ years of taking exception to the widely accepted interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics was long ignored. The Wainwright papers led to the invention of this new piston engine - by an inventor who had earlier patented an engine which demonstrated that The Second Law does not universally apply to heat engines. Although commercially impractical, his first engine opened the way to new science. The Wainwright papers inspired his new invention. See: NO FUEL ENGINE at www.aesopinstitute.org

Once a prototype of this LITTLE ENGINE THAT CAN has been independently validated, the thermodynamic analyses, coupled with about two centuries of humanity’s mechanical experience, will put us on track to both small and large scale production of 24/7 power fueled by atmospheric heat – everywhere present at no cost - ranging from a desktop prototype to tens of thousands of horsepower to run railroad locomotives, ocean freighters and power plants of all sizes.

A parallel scientific analysis is discussed in OPEN SYSTEM THERMODYNAMICS by Peter Lindemann D.Sc. in a recent video.


this is where liberals shove their head firmly up their bum and go straight into denial. it's one thing to discuss cleaning up polultion. it's another thing to resort to intellectually bankrupt fear-mongering psychobabble.


@bearleedunn Climate change has nothing to do with politics, it is science.  There is only one US cable network and a handful of newsprint outlets that try to make a political argument.  The rest of the world (who has also out educated the USA for 20 years) understands the scientific validity of the report.  

Your phrase "head firmly up their bum and go straight into denial" seems to describe whatever party you associate yourself with and opposite of what you call "liberals."    


@ActuallyUnderstandsScience @bearleedunn the best you could come up with is "i know you are but what am I?" how predictable as you shove your head firmly up your ass in denial. the validity of the report is acknowledging scientists have been proven wrong time and time again, and just how to downscale their fear-mongering.


@ActuallyUnderstandsScience @bearleedunn Wow!  That is quite a naive statement.  Wanting somthing to be true or needing it to be true is not science.  You really need to evalauate the data scientifically.   If you did you would see at a minimum climatologists havent a clue of how much warming is attributed to mankind.  That is a scientifivc fact!.


@surfphillips Imbile is not a word.  You might try looking that one up.  Then when you are done, you can click the link to the IPCC report.

Since you seem to have some difficulty;

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - is a scientific intergovernmental BODY, set up at the request of member governments.  

A report is a written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.

I suppose if I'm an idiot for knowing that the IPCC is the group who produces the report, (which is actually named the "Approved Summary for Policymakers") and not the name of the report, I'm not sure what category that puts you in.  

If you can't understand what/who the IPCC is, and what the report's title is (or isn't in your case), how is it you think that you would understand it's findings are false?  


Is it a bit too much to actually point out items from the report that were wrong?  Thought so.  



Well, because it is a political, not science based report, one must review it in terms of previous reports. Sort of like the US FED making statements and then those statements being clinically analyzed relative to the historical context. Same thing going on here. In that light there are certainly "items" which were were wrong, as pointed out in the article. You really cannot view the substance of this report without looking at the history. And history clearly indicates a political whitewash.


All the author did is leave out the actual evidence and proof that the document states.  He conveniently drops the evidence 1-5 and the rest of the article.  What actually is apparent, is the author's lack of understanding of what is "evidence" report in the report.  TIME should ask for the money back or at least hire people who understand what they are reading.

This continual idiotic denial is lead by industries who do not want to spend more money to keep people safe, advised by the same firms who successfully defended cigarettes for 30 years and fueled by the shortcomings of our education system.  The pure misunderstanding that scientific terms are very specific and do not have layman's definitions  that are used for general non-scientific discussions is just sad.  

I find it funny how everyone is grasping and hanging on every word when it is scientific research on cures for various diseases that has only been looked at for a few years but something that is 50 years+ in the making is bogus.  The screams for medical releases and the willingness to pour people's life savings into it, even with only a success rate that is less than a toss of a coin is not even debated.  When I comes to climate, it must be "absolute" or else it is false.  I know my kids will grow up, fall down, become smarter, drive, do something dumb, have sex, and experience life.  That is a fact.  Just because I can not say the exact date and instance each of those will happen, does not make it not true or not inevitable.  



Actually, you do not know that any of those things will happen. Your kids could die tomorrow, be losers, go blind, be super geniuses who never make mistakes, etc. You have made a pretty reasonable assumption based on situations that you have heard about and witnessed in the past. Unfortunately, the claims you are making are not science. Furthermore, scientists have not had the benefit of testing and observing large systems like the Earth in this exact way in the past, either. They are making what they believe to be a pretty reasonable guess, but it should be a dead giveaway when any scientific body spouts off a percentage that they cannot mathematically prove.

The problem here is that scientists have, in the past, pretended that they had a high degree of certainty, but were dead wrong. We cannot accept unverifiable claims, proceed to spend potentially trillions of dollars addressing those claims, and then find out those claims were ultimately incorrect as a society. It would not be smart, and would be devastating to science.

The models have not been correct. This is a fact. Something is missing and I hope they find out which variables, in a complex system like Earth, they have not weighed correctly.

Please do remember that science is about discovering what IS, not what we OUGHT to do. They have not quite discovered what is, and so it is somewhat suspicious that they have attempted to claim such a high degree of certainty.