Via the Sydney Morning Herald:
The Australian government has begun its review of the latest draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, pledging ‘‘an open and comprehensive approach’’ as it taps selected input.
The review will draw on comments from experts, state and territory governments, industry groups and research organisation, the government said in a statement. “IPCC Assessment Reports are a vital reference and evidence base for policy considerations on climate change by governments around the world,” Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet said.
The review will run to the end of November and involves a ‘‘second-order draft’’ of one of the three working group reports, examining the physical aspects of the climate system and the changes under way.
These include observations of changes in air, land and ocean temperatures, rainfall, glaciers and ice sheets, and sea level, as well as evaluations of climate models and projections of future conditions.
The first working group’s report is due for public release in September 2013. Draft IPCC reports are typically not made public, with the review process intended to test the data and analysis, and identify any errors.
So what can we expect from the sceptic movement?
Time for some predictions!
Coming soon to a climate sceptic blog: conspiracy theories and cherry picked facts*
As we get closer to the release of the next Assessment Report (AR5) we can look forward to renewed attacks on:
- the integrity of the IPCC
- those associated with the IPCC
- the integrity of individual scientists and scientific institutions
- the idea of a scientific consensus on climate change.
We will no doubt see the deployment of the following tactics:
- dragging out all the old complaints about AR4
- sceptics hunting for anomalies and small errors in the report
- mutterings about global conspiracies and scientists fabricating data
- counter-conferences and publications that present a “counter-consensus”
- climate sceptic bloggers working themselves up into frequent episodes of rage.
Since the publication of the last IPCC synthesis report (AR4) the science has become even more settled. Thus in that context it will be interesting to see how the sceptic movement responds to both the report and media coverage.
Will the media allow the sceptics to frame the debate again?
How much the mainstream media will pander to the sceptics and repeat their accusations remains to be seen.
Increasingly we are seeing their views getting less and less airtime in the mainstream press.
It now seems parts of the maintream media are a) bored with the messages of the sceptic movement and b) has twigged to the fact the sceptics are in the business of manufacturing faux scandals and outrage.
“Another typo in the IPCC report? Gosh, how clever of you Mr Climate Sceptic (yawn).”
2013 sceptic response: expect the spectrum of outright denial to luke-warmism
So what to expect?
Parts of the News Corporation will pick up sceptic talking points and quote all the usual climate sceptic suspects on Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other parts of Murdoch’s empire.
More respectable outlets such as the WSJ may change their tone from outright denial to a form of luke-warmism: “Sure the climate is changing, but it will be fine – or we will adapt – so no need to change!”
The Australian will strive for its usual balanced approach (i.e. war on science) of trotting out professors that have gone emeritus and surrender occasional column space to cranks like David Evans and Joanne Nova.
Lets hope those two start talking about the Rothschild’s and the climate scam on the pages of The Oz.
Andrew Bolt will speak approvingly of cranks on both his show The Bolt Report and on his blog.
Fox News will continue to offer fair and balanced commentary by getting the science wrong and promoting outright falsehoods.
Climate sceptic blogs will run amok with the usual dross – getting especially shrill both prior to and after the release of AR5.
I anticipate Anthony Watts will release another special pre-peer reviewed analysis of temperature data in the later half of 2013 to counter the work of the IPCC (lulz).
Reader predictions welcome
So readers, what are your predictions for the sceptic response?
As we get closer to the release of the first draft I’ll start pointing tactics and sceptic responses.
But to be frank, I think we can condidently predict the sceptic response.
* In other words, nothing will change.
Watching the Deniers 
There will be the usual whinging about the review and draft process as every idiot from AR4 invites himself back to waffle on…though their typo checking might be useful.
Much confusion about the differences between CMIP3 and CMIP5.
Great distress about the much better quality news from Himalayan glaciers: they’re toast.
Also expect to see IPA members out in force in the pages of The Australian, Herald Sun, Daily Tele, etc. I can hear Bob carter sharpening his pencil now.
Well,there definitely will not be any new faces in the rejectionist commentary group. Same old bores,same massive overestimation of their own competence.same old script.
Shall we start taking bets on the number of [insert topic here]-gates we’ll see in the weeks following its release?
Temperature-gate! Flood-gate! Antarctica-gate! Phil-Jones-has-an-unpaid-parking-ticket-gate!
At least we will no longer have to debate the out of date stuff in AR4,
Qld government has dismissed the latest QLD climate change report and will no doubt dismiss AR5,
How much will the politicians affect the final draft and what do we do if it they have downplayed the urgency again?
Like AR4 whatever is in it will have to be accepted for another five years, the most critical five years to get real change happening, Ok i am a bit wary that the real science will survive the process,
Heh mike you are qualified to get a copy for review, then you can whack up
IPCC expert reviewer on the blog ,
People have no idea just what a sham that claim is
Donna Laframboise will claim another politically motivated report while never approaching the content.. She’ll probably also claim that it was funded by fossil fuel companies as well..
I think it will hinge on “the science is corrupt” simply because there’s less and less uncertainty with every report.
They’ve already started. On numerous occasions at the usual places I have seen the idiots claiming its going to be a rehash of AR4 with nothing new in it. it’s like they are rehearsing their lines. It also reminds me of the “cooling since 19xx” idiots preferring Hadcrut3 over Hadcrut4. It’s tiresome fighting stupidity and ignorance.
Lets hope those two start talking about the Rothschild’s…..
Ah, now it all becomes clear, I knew you would let your mask slip sooner or later.
It’s the JOOZ that are behind the the evil climate denier conspiracy!
So at the end of the day what you really are is just another bunch of filthy bloody antisemites, what a surprise.
And you have the damn gall to accuse us sceptics of being members of a conspiracy.
Rot in Hell the lot of you for the poisonous vermin that you are.
[Wtd: Cat, read the blog and posts carefully – you don’t pay attention. Nova and Evans claim bankers and the Rothchild family are behind the “climate scam”. As do many other sceptics.]
loosing the plot their cat, and the quote went right over your head.
cat believes in hell, whodathought?
too much wine last night?
the weasel is funny!
(or sad, or maybe both…)
First cat you are not a sceptic, you are a denier. Second, you are an idiot. You clearly missed the point of that quote. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your arse so that you could read properly you would get it. I recommend reading more of WtD’s recent posts on the likes of David Evans and his rants about “banking families”. I think you will find that this is what WtD is referring to. If you are not prepared to show some healthy scepticisim towards the claims from your side of the fence you should probably go and crawl back under whatever rock you crawled out from.
Cat, your use of the phrase “rot in hell” and “vermin” constitute a first warning.
It appears you don’t read, nor understand the evidence being presented.
Climate sceptic David Evans claims the Rothschild family is behind the scam and I have merely pointed out how his claims echo antiemetic conspiracy theories.
See here: https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/profile-dr-david-evans/
You need to pay attention and not go straight to your reflexive and dismissive anger.
I’ll be honest mate – you don’t listen. You don’t pay attention. You come to discussions with preconceived talking points and “facts”.
Pay attention.
weasel and Eric don’t need ‘facts’ – they have truthiness!
“Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support.”
Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A
Glaciergate was a bit of a shocker – a key AR4 claim resting on grey literature propaganda, rather than peer reviewed science.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
The IPCC lost the trust of Asia, when they lied about a nonexistent threat to Asian water supply. They will not regain that trust in a hurry.
“The IPCC lost the trust of Asia”
Interesting comment. Of course you have the peer reviewed social study that was undertaken in “Asia” as evidence to back up that claim?
LOL! Too, too easy Eric. Your not even trying now:
Maybe you think Indonesia and Hong Kong are not part of Asia?
“Individual perceptions of climate risks survey”
AXA Ipsos 2012
For survey respondents, the first possible consequence of climate change is a steady rise in average temperatures: 89% think so, including 50% who “absolutely”
think so.
This sentiment is the strongest in countries where high temperatures are already a problem: 78% of Indonesians think that average temperature increases
are “absolutely” an effect of climate change, as do 69% of Mexicans, 63% of Hong Kongers and 59% of Turks. Southern Europeans are also “absolutely” convinced of this (61% of the Spanish and 58% of Italians), whereas Northern Europeans are less categorical (only 33% of the British, 34% of Belgians and 36% of the
French).
People also see a strong relationship between climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events (89% cite floods, 88%, droughts and 83%,
cyclones). Likewise, they associate climate change with changes in flora and fauna, mainly citing changes to vegetation (85%) and the extinction of certain animal species (81%). Poor harvests are another consequence for 81% of those polled, but only a majority of Indonesians (57%) and Mexicans (51%) are “absolutely” convinced of the connection.
The Telegraph? Well known source of peer reviewed science…
At least try to find some science Eric. I know you can do it.
I am sure that the’ sceptics’ and the ‘climate concerned’ will have a lot so say, chat, fight, cry, etc about AR5.. 😉
However, will any country actually do anything, politically/economically to reduce emissions.
Now that China’s PER capita emissions are on a par with the EU average, and projected to go ever higher, politically it ios all over, yet I do not see that some have realised this yet. The actual turning point was at Copenhagen, where 20 years of political momentum, stopped, bevcause China (and other ‘devloping countires’) made it crystal clear, economy first, and they will never cut emissions.)
Lots of noise will be made about AR5, but I very much doubt whether it will get anything like ethe media attention of AR4. POltical attention has/is moving on.
Smile, we will get there,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-21/more-countries-set-to-adopt-carbon-price/4211572
lots of idiots out there making absurd claims about the so called climategate emails, they are all nutters barry, Agree?
I don’t think ‘we’ will.. unless you think China’s refuasal to stop the growth of its Per capita emissions, will have no impact politically in the West.
Then we will just have to differ..
What is perhaps interesting, in that link you provide, is the emission figures data seems to be ‘old’ (ie out of date data.)
Current figures are reported here (and you can download data):
http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2012-report
The report is here:
Click to access PBL_2012_Trends_in_global_CO2_emissions_500114022.pdf
Figures 2.3 and 2.3 are most interesting, ie Chinas, now matching EU average.
It is a pity that the figures shown in the ABC article are out of date.. ie misleading to what is happening now. Perhaps you could let the Climate Comission know?
It looks like that ABC are using CO2 emission figures from the Climate Commision, which appear actually the be 2000 figures.. (ie compare countries listed with 2000 values, in the 2012 report I provided)
Reporting 12 year old figures (2000) when 2012 figures are available is a bit sloppy don’t you think..
As America’s is actually falling, and can claim to be on a path to reduce to 1990 figures. Germany’s has come down, as has the whole EU average.
And Chinas now matches the EU per capita emissions.. where as 12 years ago it was much less
looking into the references seems to be 2005 data cited in the report (but looks very similar to 2000 figures?), ‘only’ 7 years old.. Flannery must have missed the 2010 data, the 2011 data and now needs updating with the 2012 report,
Yes, gas fracking and nuclear power are two proven technologies which can reduce CO2 emissions. Strange that our alarmists mostly seem to oppose them (with a few honourable exceptions like Monbiot http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima ).
I’m still waiting for you to back up your claim that the “IPCC lost the trust of Asia”. If you can’t back it up, grow a pair and man up, rather than ignoring the request. You already have very little respect here because of your crap. This is your chance to earn a little.
Goal post shift!
Much to my amusement, it seems the first major criticism of IPCC5 comes from Kevin Trenberth.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/kevin-trenberth-too-bureaucratic-ipcc.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
I read nothing in ben cubby’s piece that would give rise to this claim by Motl
“Alarmist afraid IPCC AR5 won’t be alarming enough”
I had written a similar piece in regards to IPCC AR4 SLR
science that dates back to 2003 being cited as justification for ignoring SLR in VIC, NSW and Queensland by our politicians
Whatever is in AR5 we will be stuck with it until beyond 2020 by which time action to prevent a 2DegC rise will be gone forever,
IPCC should have a means of updating the science at least every two years within the separate working groups.
I predict that, as the warming (sorry) writing on the climate change wall moves from prediction to reality, skeptics will turn to arguments based more on how adaptable we are and how we have always solved problems with new technology and we will do it again.
“And Chinas now matches the EU per capita emissions.. where as 12 years ago it was much less”. Well isn’t that partly due to the EU’s emissions going down?
[…] The Coming Assault on AR5: Get Ready for the Next War on the IPCC In 2013, Watching the Deniers, Oct 9, 2012 […]
[…] 2012/10/09: WtD: The coming assault on AR5: get ready for the next war on the IPCC in 2013 […]