'As a result of data and computational uncertainty, none of the surface compilations will 2014 be statistically different from 2010'
'The three major groups calculating the average surface temperature of the earth (land and ocean combined) all are currently indicating that 2014 will likely nudge out 2010 (by a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius) to become the warmest year in each dataset (which begin in mid-to-late 1800s).'
'The two satellite datasets 'show that 2014 is nowhere near the warmest (in data which starts in 1979), trailing 1998 by several tenths of a degree Celsius. This difference is so great that it statistically clear that 2014 will not be a record year...The super El Niño of 1998 set a high temperature mark that will likely stand for many years to come, or at least until another huge El Niño occurs.'
'If you want 2014 to be the “warmest year ever recorded” you can find data to back you up, and if you prefer it not be, well, you can find data to back up that position as well. In all cases, the former will make headlines.'
'When they promote dubious claims, Burke, [Chris] Mooney and others undermine their credibility and hence their cause.
'In spite of the recent surge in violence in the Middle East, war-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, as temperatures have risen'
'One chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC published this year...examines a broader range of research and concludes that 'collectively the research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflicts.'
'Anthropological research finds a weak linkage between resource scarcity and war.'
'Predictions of warming-induced war are more likely to result in higher military budgets than lower fossil-fuel emissions.'
'The models are programmed to run far hotter than they should. They have been trained to yield a result profitable to those who operate them.'
'If the IPCC and the much-tampered temperature records are right, and if there has been no significant downward pressure on global temperatures from natural forcings, we have been causing global warming at an unremarkable central rate of less than two-thirds of a Celsius degree per century.'
[Climate Depot Note: According to tide gauges, Sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04 mm)]
By Klaus-Eckart pulse: 'Numerous evaluations of coastal-level measurements over 200 years, and more recently by gravity measurements of the GRACE satellites demonstrate again and again a sea rise of about 1.6 mm / yr. (Note: A U.S. penny is 1.52 mm thick) In contrast, the published since 1992 altimeter measurements with the satellite systems TOPEX / POSEIDON / JASON are twice as high values of 3.2 mm / yr. (Slightly more than the thickness of two pennies 3.04mm) The significant discrepancy is still unclear. However, it agree after all the trends match: The sea-rise is linear for at least 100 years, there is no acceleration of the increase. A signal due to anthropogenic CO2 (AGW) is nowhere visible.'
The IPCC provides no proof whatsoever that it is composed of the world’s top scientists. In fact, it declines to make public the CVs of its personnel.
Certain IPCC lead authors and chapter leaders have historically been graduate students a decade or more away from earning their PhD (see here and here)
Other IPCC lead authors are poorly qualified individuals from obscure nations, who were selected to give the report an international flavour.
60% of the people who helped produce this latest report have never worked with the IPCC before (see the bottom of p. 3 of this PDF). Was there really a 60% turnover rate in the world’s top scientists since the last IPCC report appeared in 2007?
IPCC personnel have so little power, they aren’t able to alter their chapter title by a single word. In reality, these people are mere cogs in a large, bureaucratic, UN machine.
Many IPCC personnel are not “scientists” in the way that term is normally understood. They are, instead, economists, geographers, policy wonks, UN employees, and activists.