[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.
Gallup calls UN IPCC 'activists' & Notes Gore and UN have failed to persuade: 'Many climate change activists have attempted to raise awareness in recent years, as evidenced by the recent U.N. report' -- 'The data at the national level show that none of this has changed Americans' worry about the issue in any lasting way -- perhaps reflecting the strong counter-position taken by many conservative thought leaders, and the "Climategate" controversies.
'Education bears little relation to Americans' believing that human activities are the cause of global warming'
'The current 34% worry is essentially the same as it was in 1989'
'A little more than a third say they worry "a great deal" about climate change or about global warming, putting these concerns at the bottom of a list of eight environmental issues.'
John R. Christy is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Alabama state climatologist.
Christy: 'In climate change science we basically cannot prove anything about how the climate will change as a result of adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. So we are left to argue about unprovable claims.' -- 'We’re out of luck in terms of “proof” because the climate’s complexities are innumerable and poorly understood.'
'Having failed to stem carbon emissions in rich countries or in rapidly industrialising ones, policy makers have focused their attention on the only remaining target: poor countries that do not emit much carbon to begin with...Obama administration 'imposed a cap on emissions from energy projects of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a US federal agency that finances international development. Other institutions of the rich world that have decided to limit support for fossil fuel energy projects include the World Bank and the European Investment Bank. Such decisions have painful consequences. A recent report from the non-profit Center for Global Development estimates that $10bn invested in renewable energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa could provide electricity for 30m people. If the same amount of money went into gas-fired generation, it would supply about 90m people – three times as many'