"Well no, they likely won't say something absurd and false."
Check out their list of predictions. Not one came true. Ever. Show me the one that did.
Did you miss this?
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
And wtf do you suppose this means?
"The draft report said, "There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent."
"The IPCC projects warming will likely be above 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) and very likely below 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (6 degrees Celsius.) This is a rollback from 2007, when the likely low end of the warming range was pinned at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)"
"The IPCC also acknowledges a slowdown in warming in the past 15 years, which climate change skeptics say is evidence of a global cooling trend. There's no global cooling, according to the report."
"But even with this variability, the past 30 years were the warmest in several centuries, the report said. (A study published April 21, 2013, in the journal Nature Geoscience confirms this trend — the last three decades were the warmest in 1,400 years.)" - ok work with me here. So, it was warmer 1401 years ago? The Danish tree ring data (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html) shows it was much hotter in Roman times than even way off the end of the hockey stick graph, so the "unprecedented" claim has been falsified.
"The pace of melting glaciers is rising, the report concludes. The Arctic ice pack is shrinking. As mentioned above, the massive Antarctic ice cap is also starting to show signs of responding to global warming by increasing its melting. The Greenland Ice Sheet lost about six times more ice from 2002 to 2011 than from 1992 to 2001 — an average of 177 billion tons a year versus 7 billion tons a year, respectively. "
Oh crap, that sounds serious. What does NASA say?
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
Oh. It's always done that. Odd how the headline reads "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt". Is this the kind of "spin" Hansen was applying? The guy that claimed to be "muzzled" ? Hmm... Is this why they fired him?
What the headline should say is "we didn't have satellites 150 years ago so we get to see this for the first time". That's the unprecedented part, us looking at it fro space. The melt itself as NASA points out, is cyclical and *right on time*. Wouldn't you expect it to happen at least one day out earlier, or more, in such a warming world? Didn't happen though. What do you think that implies?
Also, from http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1481.html
"In the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær and underlines:
"There should be no doubt that if the current temperature rise in Greenland continues then we will have problems with the melting of the glaciers. We are already seeing it now on the marine terminating glaciers where changes in temperature and ocean currents are influencing their stability. Another remarkable discovery we did was that the observed changes are not just local, it is happening in the entire region," says Dr. Kjær. (this was a year ago. Sea ice is 50% more than a year ago now. Check for yourself. Sooo...)
Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean. Results showed that the sea ice extent has been far from stable throughout the last 10,000 years."
"The IPCC pared down its projections for global average sea level rise, partly because scientists have a better understanding of how glaciers will melt and the oceans will respond as the planet warms."
In other words, they don't know. Cause, sea ice is up both at the north and south poles. Check for yourself.
"The IPCC will explain the reasoning behind the new numbers next week."
Ok, how many times do they have to say they don' t know before you finally get it that they don't know?
Invest some time and look at these then tell me what's more likely to be the cause of climate:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ (Suzuki, 1 hr)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I (Salby, radioisotope carbon and measurement of man's contribution)
Cause... if you discount these, we have no working theory of glaciation that matches the fossil record, and when you have to break the fossil record to prove your thery true, your little cult gets pushback from the grownups.
Nice little hypothesis you have there. It would be a shame if somebody were to test it.
There's a reason no government of the world accepts it as scientific fact.
Clearly you never checked the math. If you did, you'd notice it was wrong.
And did you miss the part where NASA pointed out their model was broken becuase they didnd't understand CO2?
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
Or that a year later these geniuees figured out trees eat CO2?
How can these "experts" on CO2 and climate not understand that trees use CO2? This is grade six science.