Big news from the UN: We’re actually, like, totally 95 percent sure that human activity is the main driver of climate change

posted at 4:41 pm on August 20, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

This is an increase of the mere 90 percent confidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted in their last ‘definitive’ report in 2007, by the way. Via the NYT:

An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

Okay, guys. Once more, with feeling: First of all, nobody but nobody is a “skeptic” or “denier of the very longstanding process of climate change itself, and secondly, I’m not even denying that human activity contributes to climate change. In fact, much like these 95 percent of scientists, I happen to think that it very probably does — but to what degree and with what causes and effects? Consensuses of scientists really haven’t done their credibility any favors when they’ve been hysteria-mongering for decades about how humanity is just around the corner from imminent global catastrophe and offering nothing but hugely expensive, bureaucratic, and market-interfering dramatic policy overhauls as the solutions. The science is “settled,” we’ve heard for years, and yet we’re recently discovering that most of those much-touted climate models are now coming up conspicuously short: Yes, we’ve been introducing increasing levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades, but somehow the planet has neglected to warm for a solid fifteen years. Does this mean that climate change isn’t a cause for concern and consideration that requires further study to determine its real causes and the depths of their effects? Certainly not. Does it mean that we should immediately and quixotically sink our productivity and economy on behalf of policies whose consequences we obviously don’t have accurate methods of predicting? Nope.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Oh sure, we can all trust the findings of the experts employed by Untied Nitwits.

hawkeye54 on August 20, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Were all going to Die… but if we pay higher taxes were all going to live. Makes sense to me!

brewcrew67 on August 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Big news from the UN: We’re actually, like, totally 95 percent sure that human activity is the main driver of climate change…So hand over all your money and freedom.

dirtseller on August 20, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Were all going to Die… but if we pay higher taxes were all going to live. Makes sense to me!

brewcrew67 on August 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Nah, if we pay higher taxes, we will only take just a little longer to die, subject to the findings of Obamacare Death Panels ™ for we here in the states.

hawkeye54 on August 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Big news from the UN: We’re actually, like, totally 95 percent sure that human activity is the main driver of climate change…So hand over all your money and freedom.

Barry’s already workin’ on that money and freedom part, with or without the UN gettin’ involved.

hawkeye54 on August 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Well, when they get to 100% sure, we can all rest assured that they are wrong.

The UN does not give money to those that disagree with them.

Jabberwock on August 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

As the actual facts come in the lies must increase.

DavidM on August 20, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Well, like, you know, it is possible that man is contributing to climate warming cooling change, but that data suggesting that carbon emissions are a significant factor in the cooling warming change is like, you know, bogus.

talkingpoints on August 20, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Arrest the spies in Turtle Bay. Demolish the building. Burn the remains. Plough under the ashes. Salt the Earth, that nothing may ever grow there again…

JohnGalt23 on August 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Well, all the despots of the world who really run the UN need to do is hunt down and kill that remaining 5%, and everyone can be magically in agreement!

The UN still has no credibility and needs to catch up. After all, Saddam Hussein got 99% consensus that last election he was able to hold.

Liam on August 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Nothing’s changed in the assessment because nothing’s changed in the need for the assessment.

The bills still aren’t paid.

Axe on August 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Right, and they were totally 95% sure in the 1970s that we were heading for an ice age, or in the ’80s they were totally 95% sure that we were headed for much of the world being under water by now. Their own words:
“If present trends continue, the world will be about eleven degrees colder by the year 2000.” -Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1970
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“[in twenty years {2008}] the West Side Highway [and thus much of Manhattan] will be under water.” -James Hansen, 1988, NASA
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, ex Executive Director of the UN Environment Program
Enough with the never ending predictions of doom!

anotherJoe on August 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

…with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades…

Well, yeah, if that human activity includes the installation of thermometers.

gregbert on August 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Gwad you guys should read the comments there at the publication…. this will give you great insight on why the global warming/cooling/change ( whatever the flavor is for that decade ) is still being talked about.

Why people believe this when they can not even predict the weather one day out worth a sit…

Plus 150 years of data when the earth is how old again? I am sure “change” has been done many times way before man even got out of the trees.

watertown on August 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

Resist We Much on August 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Damn, Sophie. You’re what happens when a radioactive spider bites excellence.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Axe on August 20, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Phrenology is settled too.

Personally, I blame phlogiston.

rbj on August 20, 2013 at 4:58 PM

They also said that people are mistreated and killed in N. Korea.

Water is also wet and the sky appears blue. The latte is an illusion.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

1. Is it getting warmer?
2. Is the warming primarily caused by man?
3. Is the warming a bad thing or a good thing?
4. Is there anything that can be done to stop it?
5. Does it make more sense to adapt to the changes

steel guy on August 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

Resist We Much on August 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM

What this ‘Big News’ really means is that a bare majority of those working on the new report have indicated that they believe with a 95% Level of Confidence … that human activity is the main driver of climate change.

They won’t tell us what that bare majority is. In past IPCC reports it has been rumored that it’s around 60-65%.

Fun link from 2007: Arctic Summers Ice-Free ‘by 2013′

slickwillie2001 on August 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

Resist We Much on August 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM

These are not the scientists you are looking for.

You need to talk to railroad engineers, clerks, secretaries, biologists, ex-VPs, actors and a host of other non-geoscientists. They are the real experts.

Dr. Frank Enstine on August 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

More of the ‘science’ of the IPCC….

Solution – we need trillions from developed nations to redistribute wealth in the name of fairness….oh, and to fix the damage that man has done to Mother Gaia.

Then the set to work to figure out how to build a case to justify their ‘solution’….

….which brought us the ‘hockey stick’….
….climate models that haven’t reflected the reality of the past dozen years….
….let’s excuse China, Russia, Brazil, and India from most of the punitive costs because they aren’t as wealthy or capitalistic as the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia….

Oh, and all the funds to be used to combat ‘climate change’ will go to ‘friendly’ governments, neo-government agencies, and progressives supporting our efforts in wealth redistribution.

Finally, We will ignore the rules of economics and the marketplace because they don’t fit our theoretical / ideological beliefs of how things should be. Things have to be fundamentally changed – so fundamental change is how we stop the sea’s from rising….

Athos on August 20, 2013 at 5:05 PM

These are not the scientists you are looking for.

You need to talk to railroad engineers, clerks, secretaries, biologists, ex-VPs, actors and a host of other non-geoscientists. They are the real experts.

Dr. Frank Enstine on August 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

No they aren’t. Don’t you know that the real experts are the trial lawyers and psychologists?

nobar on August 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

When one, just one of these dire predictions comes true maybe I will take notice.

In the mean time, it is all a disproven theory that neither predicts nor can regress with any accuracy at all. BTW we are 28 days away from an ice free Arctic this summer…..or not. Another dire AGW hysteric prediction proven wrong.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/

jukin3 on August 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Why people believe this
watertown on August 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Majority liberal and worship degrees. A person with a degree is not to be challenged by a person of lesser education. You would not believe how many arguments I have won against liberals when I say, “Well you can call me Doctor if you like.” I don’t even have to be arguing something in my area of expertise. The fact that I am a Doctor is all I need to stun the average liberal to silence. It’s really quite funny.

Dr. Frank Enstine on August 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Just a note Erika to know we have contributed a LITTLE to climate change you would have to have the same certain scientific data methods and certainity it takes to say we have a lot to do with it. Just realize Erika you are using the same INSTINCT the environmentalist are using when looking at CO2 production and thinking it HAS to have an effect and working BACKWARDS from your feelings to a scientific conclusion. You aren’t backing up your “it’s a little” anymore than they are backing up there conclusion it is “a lot”. I say this as a someone who has done scientific research in another area. This is just how REAL science works. Back it up all the way (no computer models falling out of 95% CI’s)or say you don’t know.

Conan on August 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM

And what about all of that massive climate change before we were around? Um, no comment.

mitchellvii on August 20, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Follow the money folks there is no money saying we are all fine.

Conan on August 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM

And I’m eleventy percent sure that a moron that could only manage Poli Sci in college, can write policy, implement some third rate Marxism, and change the weather.

MNHawk on August 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM

We just had the coldest July in the US ever and a record low of tornadic activity. Well I suppose that is change so it qualifies.

You notice they never call it “Global Warming” anymore?

mitchellvii on August 20, 2013 at 5:15 PM

No they aren’t. Don’t you know that the real experts are the trial lawyers and psychologists?

nobar on August 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Those that rode the short bus to the College of Political Science are the biggest experts of all.

MNHawk on August 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Actually, the latest theory is that the climate change we have been measuring for the last 60 years is caused by plain old soot. Think about it. First in the 40′s the air got dirtier and blocked more sunlight so things got colder. Then in the 70s the air started to get cleaner due to clean air acts around the world and more sun light was let in. Then in the 90s and later China started to industrialize and the air started to get dirtier again and once again enough sunlight was blocked to stop the temperature rise. This theory matches the facts. Something AGW has a hard time doing. And it doesn’t cost trillions of dollars to fix. Now I know that’s a downside to all those people living off AGW. But facts are stubborn things.

Fred 2 on August 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I’m not even denying that human activity contributes to climate change. In fact, much like these 95 percent of scientists, I happen to think that it very probably does — but to what degree and with what causes and effects?

Oh okay, well lets all wildly speculating about something no human truly understands (we can barely predict the weather 10 days out accurately, much less out 100 years, nor can we accurately even come up with a “global temperature average” even today).

Your opinion means about as much to me as that railroad engineer running the IPCC.

I wish no one took this crap seriously. Maybe burning carbon dioxide increases temperatures, maybe it doesn’t. Volcanoes release more carbon dioxide then industry ever can. Time to tax volcanoes?

Timin203 on August 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I have looked at the latest sea level rise numbers. I have calculated that I will only require 59,999.99 mile tires to get back and forth to the beach for the next five years instead of those 60,000 mile eco-unfriendly tires.

dddave on August 20, 2013 at 5:18 PM

This theory matches the facts. Something AGW has a hard time doing. And it doesn’t cost trillions of dollars to fix. Now I know that’s a downside to all those people living off AGW. But facts are stubborn things.

Fred 2 on August 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Or maybe the climate is always fluctuating and nothing we do has any effect on weather.

Also, our frame of reference is a very small one — most of the world (including parts of the US) cannot accurately tell you down to the degree what the temperature is at any given time.

The point is, we are nowhere near the point where we can figure out what, if any, effect we humans have on weather.

Timin203 on August 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

So, not cow flatulence?

TXAction on August 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM

These ‘scientists’ aren’t up in arms over climate change – they are up in arms over capitalism.

Athos on August 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Wow, the countries and institutions that stand to make trillions of climate change legislation and treaties are really, really sure we need climate change legislation and treaties. Didn’t see that coming.

tommyboy on August 20, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Science is determined by proving a theory… not by consensus.

dforston on August 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Follow the money folks there is no money saying we are all fine.

Conan on August 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM

^ bump

Axe on August 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I’m SICK of the liars. SHOW THIS to anyone that needs the info. VERY EFFECTIVE, short and sweet.

Harbingeing on August 20, 2013 at 5:31 PM

The IPCC was 95% sure in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007 that average temperatures in 2012 would be in a range whose lower limit is higher than today’s temperature. A 95% confidence interval means that there is a 2.5% chance that the actual value is above, and a 2.5% chance (1/40) that the actual value is below the interval.

Congratulations, UN/IPCC, that 1 chance in 40 actually happened, which is about the chance of winning in roulette betting on a single number. Put another way, the geniuses at the IPCC were the casino at roulette, and THE HOUSE LOST!!!

Considering the track record of the IPCC, I like the odds of the skeptics. Besides, it doesn’t cost anything NOT to capture CO2!

Steve Z on August 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM

We actually are 95% sure we don’t give a rats patoot what you think or say.

stormridercx4 on August 20, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Published in The Washington Post:

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

Perhaps I should have mentioned at the outset that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 91 years ago.

Harbingeing on August 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The UN/IPCC were 95% sure in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007 that global average temperatures in 2012 would be in a range whose lower limit is higher than today’s temperature. A 95% confidence interval means there’s a 2.5% chance that the value is above the range, and a 2.5% (1/40) chance that the value is below the range.

Congratulations, UN/IPCC, that 1 chance in 40 actually happened, similar to the chance of winning at roulette by betting all-in on a single number. Put another way, UN/IPCC is like the casino at roulette, and THE HOUSE LOST!!!

Considering the track record of the geniuses at the UN/IPCC, skepticism is a better bet. Besides, it doesn’t cost anything NOT to capture CO2 !

Steve Z on August 20, 2013 at 5:41 PM

1. The old ones of Chaco Canyon knew more of the climate 900 years ago than these fool commies of the U.N. , Michael Mann etal, will ever know.

2. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

3. Lies have nothing to do with how the weather works.

4. The Sun on the other hand drives the bus where it pleases.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM

How does the UN plan to stop the next Ice Age, big or little?

slp on August 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM

too too also

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM

The elite ‘chicken little’ types need something to hold control over the rest of the lemmings.

GarandFan on August 20, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Resist We Much on August 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Your facts are of things I don’t have the talent, for the researching. I maintain that, at most, I might go about it in a different way. I can’t even imagine how much more you know of the USA, ‘course I’ve always been a citizen and the vision of it.

Detriot (that’s a bil thing), here’s your Utopia.

Nothing funny or amusing about any of it.

mickytx on August 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM

The U.N., You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Right, I say we take off and nuke if from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Okay, guys. Once more, with feeling: First of all, nobody but nobody is a “skeptic” or “denier of the very longstanding process of climate change itself, and secondly, I’m not even denying that human activity contributes to climate change.

Even if it was, so what? The entire concept of science is to deny without evidence. Scientists, by their nature, are deniers until proper experimentation proves a hypothesis.

Why, for example, do we call it Newton’s first law of motion or Newton’s first consensus of motion? Why is it called a law? Because they were proven.

Kingfisher on August 20, 2013 at 6:01 PM

How does the UN plan to stop the next Ice Age, big or little?

slp on August 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM

They’re going to impose a tax on the U.S. and confiscate all our guns. That’ll do it.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:01 PM

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

Two observations:

1) They’re claiming that it’s “extremely likely?” That’s not the same as “there is evidence..”
2) Notice they only go to 2010. Why not go to 2012 or early 2013? Why not start earlier, say 1900? Why did they choose that time period?

Kingfisher on August 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I’m not even denying that human activity contributes to climate change. In fact, much like these 95 percent of scientists, I happen to think that it very probably does

Ugh. To the degree of a fart in a hurricane.

MT on August 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I have a theory that global warming is caused exclusively by the existence of snail darters. If we could only eradicate these pestilential gaia destroyers everything would be just wonderful. “KILL the SNAIL DARTERS for the URTH!

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM

The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

Didn’t Obama say that he would take care of that in his first term? Oh yeah, I forgot, you’d be an idiot to actually take Obama at his word.

Kingfisher on August 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM

What temperature is the Earth supposed to be anyway?

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM

… human activity is the main driver of climate change …

Thank you, HUMANS! Keep up the good work!

2013 is a record low year for U.S. tornadoes

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/19/2013-is-a-record-low-year-for-u-s-tornadoes/

Pork-Chop on August 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM

If the sun is found to be the major cause of global warming what will we do? Try to shut it down?

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:10 PM

These ‘scientists’ aren’t up in arms over climate change – they are up in arms over capitalism.

Athos on August 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM

‘xactly.

Resist We Much on August 20, 2013 at 6:11 PM

If these folks really believe that humans are causing an ecological disaster shouldn’t they be leaping off the roof of the U.N. You know, to save the Urth?

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM

If the sun is found to be the major cause of global warming what will we do? Try to shut it down?

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Well, first, liberals will call the Sun a racist “sun-tea-bagger” … Then they will find anonymous sources who claim that both Sarah Palin, and Ted Cruz, worshiped the sun in college … Then they will OCCUPY against the Sun … Then they will vote for whatever liberal whack-o-nut promises to dump $ BILLIONS $ into extinguishing the Sun … and then …

Pork-Chop on August 20, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Big news from the UN: We’re actually, like, totally 95 percent sure that human activity is the main driver of climate change

No problem. The coming ice age should cool it back off … a lot.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 20, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Rajendra K. Pachauri is the head of the IPCC, who write ‘In Search of Utopia,’ shaggifying boddice-rippers like Return to Almora:

As the UN’s climate change chief, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who co-won the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Jazeera Gore, has spent his career writing only the driest of academic articles. But the latest offering from the chairman of the UN’s climate change panel is an altogether racier tome.

Some might even suggest Dr Pachauri’s novel is frankly smutty.

Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.

On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – A Lot Of Sex – WITH A LOT OF WOMEN.

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come.

By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital.

“She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local:

“Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

Dr Pachauri writes:

“[Sadly for Sanjay] the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started.”

While teaching meditation to women in the US, Sanjay can once more barely contain his ardour. Again, breasts – usually heaving or else voluptuous – are thrust to the fore.

“He enjoyed the sensation of gently pushing Susan’s shoulders back a few inches, an action that served to lift her breasts even higher. He was excited by the sight of her heaving breasts, as she breathed in and out deeply.”

A friend of Susan is taken to a motel by Sanjay but only after he has fondled her breasts – “which he just could not let go of” – inadvertently sounding the car horn at the same time.

Other passages in the novel involve group sex and more risqué sexual practices.

The novel was launched amid much fanfare with Bollywood stars and wealthy industrialists in attendance, a reflection of Dr Pachauri’s esteemed status in the country.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the acknowledgement of his novel, Dr Pachauri admits to writing the book while flying around the world between meetings as IPCC chairman or else in his capacity as head of a research institute in Delhi.

But with calls for him to resign over academic blunders in the reports he presides over, some critics will question whether he should have devoted more time to scrutinising the science behind the reports.

Some will also wonder whether just a little bit of Dr Pachauri is reflected in Sanjay, although there is no suggestion Dr Pachauri has ever lusted after women quite so readily.

Both men are in their 60s, grew up in Nainital and obtained doctorates in the US. There are, of course, plenty of differences too.

Although the novel, is unlikely to win awards other than the Bad Sex in Fiction prize, it is at least to the lay reader more enjoyable than most of his other books.

Previous titles include the 1976 tome Dynamics of Electrical Energy Supply and Demand: An Economic Analysis (Praeger special studies in US economic, social and political issues.

Resist We Much on August 20, 2013 at 6:25 PM

One of my favorite short stories by Arthur C. Clarke. Sort of on topic.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM

I’m totally like 100% sure I don’t give a sh*t what the UN thinks.

Erich66 on August 20, 2013 at 6:30 PM

No problem. The coming ice age should cool it back off … a lot.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 20, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Which brings up the question “What ended the last ice age?” If it was global warming was that a bad thing? If it wasn’t what caused all the ice to melt? I think we must raise taxes so these important questions and others like them can be answered. Oh, and give up your guns too, that’ll help.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

The average ice age lasts 200,000 years. The average interglacial period which we now live in lasts 15,000 years. The current interglacial period is about 10,000 years old. If carbon dioxide causes global warming we ought to be pumping as much of it into the atmosphere as we can to stave off the upcoming ice age. All life on earth is carbon based. Without co2 no life can exist on earth. Mankind thrives during warmer periods and suffers during cool periods.

steel guy on August 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Big news from the UN me: We’re I’m actually, like, totally 95 96 percent sure that human activity is isn’t the main driver of climate change.

I can pick a number out of the air as well as the UN bureaucrats.

burt on August 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

regrettably Lysenkoism is really not funny. From light bulbs to 54mpg cars we will suffer from the consequences of the ‘post-normal’ and state-run ‘science’ for a long time.

the biggest tell to me is the lack of concern to improve/maintain lifestyles. Nuclear gets minor play, if any, from the left wingers who dictate policy. This means that the goal is simply to reduce life styles (at least for the non-connected). And to extract reparations for the exploitation of the masses of the world.

A sane central planner would be building nukes. Actually, the ChiComs are building nukes and coal…i.e. central planners who have a goal to make their county more powerful. We should be so lucky

if you really want to get a visual take on the malignancy that infects our body politic…look at this, the US v. China

http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics#us-emissions-flattened

r keller on August 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

actually we will be lucky if the oceans only recede by 25 feet by the end of the century.

RonK on August 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Consensuses of scientists really haven’t done their credibility any favors when they’ve been hysteria-mongering for decades about how humanity is just around the corner from imminent global catastrophe

Yes, Erica, given that humankind is many thousands of years old, drastic changes in climate in the span of 150 years is quite “imminent”.

But the signs are already abundant: Rising ocean levels, cooling stratosphere, declining arctic and Greenland ice sheets, un-mistakable warming trend over the last thirty years, increasing heat content of the oceans, increase in the CEI, etc. All that adds up to 95+ confidence level of human impact in climate changes.

oakland on August 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

I’m pretty close to 99% sure that “human activity” is causing an increase in temperature. Between the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is mostly human, and the increase in population (adding a bunch of 98.6 deg to get rid of) of course human activity is causing an increase in temperature. That’s not what the environmental wackos are arguing. They’re saying that CO2 is causing the increase in temperature, mostly caused by burning fossil fuels and they’ve done every possible thing to convince society that they’re correct, except provide proof.

The thing is that, no matter what we do, Mother Nature will take care of herself so, except for a really huge catastrophe, the earth will be just fine. There are many variables that take care of us and they will continue to take care of us. The biggest disaster will come from outside our atmosphere, i.e. an asteroid strike or something else we have no control over.

bflat879 on August 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

I was wondering when our one-topic troll would show up.

slickwillie2001 on August 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM

if you really want to get a visual take on the malignancy that infects our body politic…look at this, the US v. China

http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics#us-emissions-flattened

r keller on August 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Huge point r keller. I definitely recommend that we all take a look at the graph in your link. And Jonova, putting the spotlight on Europe, reported that China’s increase in emissions has been 25 times greater than the reduction by the EU’s core nations. My Comment:

This shows that our CO2 reductions have been little more than token. Symbolic reductions that are nevertheless having a huge negative impact. Europe’s lavish spending on green subsidies is driving them toward bankruptcy, dramatically increasing the cost and security of their energy supplies, and not to mention blighting the landscape with bird killing wind turbines. All the while the increase in emissions from China alone is 25 times the pittance of the EU reduction.

They’ll ransack if not destroy our own economies, for absolutely no purpose but symbolism. Utter unfettered insanity. One of these days we may find ourselves in a conflict where China is the enemy. Then the self-loathing western Chicken Littles are going to look mighty silly.

anotherJoe on August 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM

But the signs are already abundant: Rising ocean levels, cooling stratosphere, declining arctic and Greenland ice sheets, un-mistakable warming trend over the last thirty years, increasing heat content of the oceans, increase in the CEI, etc.

None of which are likely true, much less attributable to mankind, but you knew that already didn’t you?

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 8:51 PM

One of my favorite short stories by Arthur C. Clarke. Sort of on topic.

Oldnuke on August 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Nice! I like that one very much as well.

The Black Monk by Anton Chekov is very nice too.

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 9:03 PM

None of which are likely true, much less attributable to mankind, but you knew that already didn’t you?

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Really? You have information (scientific) to the contrary? Or just opinions?

oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM

climatedepot.com
wattsupwiththat.com
Knock yourself out fascist.

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Now all the Hotair writers have left the denialist camp. And the best one of all – Allahpundit – is squarely with the science.

Going on three years now, and nobody – not one – has been able to answer any of the three questions I have posed over that time:

1) If the data sets are incorrect, and/or the scientists are falsifying the data, then where are the correct data?

2) Which recording stations are compromised by the Heat Island Effect?

3) If an increase on atmospheric carbon dioxide from 280PPM to 400PPM (as it is now) is too small a quantity to make any difference, then how much is actually enough to make a difference in the earth’s climate?

oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

OK, so here’s the 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:
Which side is which time period?
What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?

See the data, dispel the faux religion of AGW and its disciple oakland.

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

The regions of the planet that warmed during the nine (9) Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years.The nature vs man question as to the cause of the warming will likely be answered as solar cycle 24 progresses.

More data

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Exaggeration from IPCC

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 9:45 PM

“First of all, the figure 95% isn’t really calculated in any way. It’s literally pulled out of the air. The gullible audience of the IPCC is supposed to believe that the IPCC members are shamans with supernatural skills and if they vote about and approve a figure they randomly invent, it’s a deep and accurate truth one should worship.”…..

Poor hoax disciple oakland :(

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Global sea ice area has been above normal most of the year, and is averaging 1,600 Manhattans above normal in 2013.

Oh dear oakland’s narrative is just lies upon lies… :(

Murphy9 on August 20, 2013 at 10:25 PM

blink, I’ve got a fresh cup of coffee and would like a searchable post here as well:
 

Going on three years now, and nobody – not one – has been able to answer any of the three questions I have posed over that time:

 
They may be letting you and chuckling to themselves that you can’t figure the answers out for yourself after three years.
 
Sorry if I’m spoiling anyone’s fun, but other readers may be helped by realizing how simple science is.
 

1) If the data sets are incorrect, and/or the scientists are falsifying the data, then where are the correct data?
 
2) Which recording stations are compromised by the Heat Island Effect?
 
3) If an increase on atmospheric carbon dioxide from 280PPM to 400PPM (as it is now) is too small a quantity to make any difference, then how much is actually enough to make a difference in the earth’s climate?
 
oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

 

 
Let’s start with #3. It’s your hypothesis, so the onus of proof is on you to show that it’s enough to change things. It’s no one else’s responsibility to tilt at a “how much is actually enough to make a difference?” windmill. That’s your time to waste and then bring the information to us.
 
It’s also no one else’s duty to accept anything on faith. That’s religion, not science.
 
After you provide your results, any specific supporting data, and any methods to ensure reproduction of your results, if we submit information that negates any of your hypothesis or find procedural flaws you have to (for it to still be science) admit your hypothesis was a failure and begin again.
 
Basic science. Lather/rinse/repeat. And that is what makes science fun. And valuable, frankly. Ignoring that for the religious elements of faith and acceptance cheapens it to the point of worthlessness.
 
Speaking of, #1 is so easy I’m shocked you’d even ask the question, much less proudly draw attention to it.
 
Three years, you say? So after 2009?
 
“Not where other scientists can ever, ever review them” is the answer that’s evaded you for so, so long. Most other people heard about it in the news:
 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building…
 
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”…
 
Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible…
 
“The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
 
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Migration/article191530.ece

 
Hey, weren’t we just talking about data and methods and reproduction and religion? Neat.
 
Looks like your #2 is covered in that same quote, too.
 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building…

 
And we’ve already covered #3, so we’re done. Three years all in the span of a cup of coffee…

rogerb on August 21, 2013 at 6:59 AM

Yes, Erica, given that humankind is many thousands of years old, drastic changes in climate in the span of 150 years is quite “imminent”.

But the signs are already abundant: Rising ocean levels, cooling stratosphere, declining arctic and Greenland ice sheets, un-mistakable warming trend over the last thirty years, increasing heat content of the oceans, increase in the CEI, etc. All that adds up to 95+ confidence level of human impact in climate changes.

oakland on August 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Drastic changes? Like, the type of changes never before seen on Earth? Hardly.

Same to the second paragraph. First, none of it is remotely as dire as you pretend. And the impact of humanity on the natural changes in climate are hardly proven.

You still don’t understand anything about this subject. It is sad and pathetic that you don’t even bother to try.

Monkeytoe on August 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

1) If the data sets are incorrect, and/or the scientists are falsifying the data, then where are the correct data?

2) Which recording stations are compromised by the Heat Island Effect?

3) If an increase on atmospheric carbon dioxide from 280PPM to 400PPM (as it is now) is too small a quantity to make any difference, then how much is actually enough to make a difference in the earth’s climate?

oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Considering that CRU “lost” their raw data and can’t share it with anyone for verification to be done, it’s hard to answer 1 and 2.

When they produce the raw data for anyone and everyone to check, then maybe we can pretend that what they are doing is science. Until then, not so much.

Regardless, not one climate model of the AGW co-religionists has proven to be accurate. So again, no science involved.

When you have facts and actual raw data that can be reviewed, we can discuss whether there is any scientific basis for any of your claims. Until then, take your witchcraft beliefs and shove off. Nobody with any intelligence is buying the con game you are selling.

Monkeytoe on August 21, 2013 at 10:26 AM

You have information (scientific) to the contrary? Or just opinions?

oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Do you have science proving it? Science requires putting forth the raw data you base your conclusions on. Despite lawsuits and FOIL requests, we have yet to see a shred of raw data.

Thus, you have no science to back your religious beliefs. Sure, you have the opinions of “scientists” (whose funding relies solely on feeding the hysteria), but a scientist’s “opinion” is not science.

After years of this debate, you still don’t understand how science works.

Monkeytoe on August 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Damn Oakland you sure give up your alleged conviction about this issue faster than Paris Hilton drops her dress.

Murphy9 on August 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Yep, when I make a prediction for the future and it fails to come to pass I know that’s PROOF that I was correct in all my assumptions.

Oh, and if I’m ever correct in a prediction for the future; that’s ALSO PROOF that I’m correct in all my assumptions.

It’s helpful to be a scientist; it means regardless what happens whatever you thought initially is always 100% true without being subject to change under any circumstances.

gekkobear on August 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Going on three years now, and nobody – not one – has been able to answer any of the three questions I have posed over that time:
 
oakland on August 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

 
And we’ve already covered #3, so we’re done. Three years all in the span of a cup of coffee…
 
rogerb on August 21, 2013 at 6:59 AM

 
So all done, oakland?
 
Or are you just pretending the thread never happened in hopes of posting the same “THREE YEARS!!!” nonsense again?
 
Shame about google…

rogerb on August 21, 2013 at 8:59 PM