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.'
Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].
ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors.
Curry: 'One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics. (Note: my colleague has not yet written this paper, but not because he was discouraged by these colleagues). What is at issue here is a conflict between the micro ethics of individual responsibility for responsible conduct of research and larger ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the environment. Most such examples are related to suppression of evidence including attempting to stifle skeptical research (particularly its publication and dissemination to the public); the Climategate emails provide abundant examples of this.'
Morano to the U.S. Congress: 'The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts.'
'We've passed 400ppm: now what? ' Franny Armstrong: 'Which means that we are heading for an even worse scenario than the one we depicted in The Age of Stupid: Africa uninhabitable, continental Europe mostly desert, Australia's agricultural system destroyed, hundreds of major cities underwater, hundreds of millions of people dead and many more on the move. ... -> Should we go into survivalist mode, buying up guns and fortifying our homes? It sounds extreme, but it's not a coincidence that some people working on climate change are buying pieces of land far away from centres of population to move their families -> Should we stockpile cyanide? You think I'm exaggerating, but a close friend of mine, who has four children, said she plans to kill herself and them when it comes to it'
Krugman invokes God's wrath on skeptics: 'You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so — this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin).'
'For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years -- UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years -- For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years -- For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years -- For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years' 'Once warmists said 15 years of no statistically significant warming invalidated their models'
"The probability of a 100-year flood event is now so rare it has only been occurring once every 358 years on average since 1970." ...
"In present-day conditions, 100-year flood events have globally become so rare that they now (since 1970) only occur once every 358 years on average. And 50-year floods only occur once every 152 years on average.
With the cooler climate conditions of the 1970s, there was a 45% probability that a 50-year flood would occur. In today’s conditions, however, there is only an 18% chance that a 50-year flood will occur."
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." — Michael Crichton