Fake sceptics have nothing to latch onto given the greater certainty from IPCC

The IPCC AR5 SPM has been reported fairly well in the mainstream media with headlines like the following:

• Australia has 'much to lose' from climate change Sydney Morning Herald
• IPCC climate change report: Human role in global warming now even clearer ABC Online
• Govt pressured to make deeper CO2 cuts Sydney Morning Herald
• Government accepts climate report but declares carbon tax was ‘wrong policy’ Herald Sun, Australia
• U.N. Affirms Human Role in Global Warming The Wall Street Journal
• Science solid on global warming, IPCC declares The Australian
• Global warming 'extremely likely' man-made: IPCC The Australian
• Coalition urged to raise emissions reduction target in wake of IPCC report The Guardian
• IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming BBC
• Human influence on climate change a ‘clarion call’ to global community Irish Times
• Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming Reuters
• IPCC: Global warming is getting deeper The Telegraph
• Climate Change Report “Gives No Reason for Optimism” News International
• Climate panel forecast: Higher seas, temperatures The Seattle Times
• UN panel says humans causing global warming Bangkok Post
• IPCC report: The financial markets are the only hope in the race to stop global warming The Independent
• UN panel's climate report sparks concern AFP
• Around the world, strong reactions to climate-change report Globe and Mail
• An 'alarm clock moment' for the world: IPCC SBS
• Climate change scientists 'unequivocal' in blaming man Herald Scotland
• UN panel 95% sure humans causing global warming Economic Times

There are very few articles still attempting to deny climate science.  And those that do misrepresent it.  There are very few denier articles outside of denier blogs and opinion pieces in right wing rags.

We're heading for hot!

One denier, Michael Barrone penned The Great Global-Warming Disappointment for the National Review Online (archived here), in which he wrote at length about a cult called the Millerites, Jesus and religion.  It was difficult to work out what he was trying to say.  He quoted from other science deniers like Matt Ridley to bolster whatever argument he thought he was making, writing:

“The big news,” Ridley writes, “is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.”

How Ridley came to that conclusion is perplexing.  The IPCC does not say that.  What it does do is provide a wider estimated range for climate sensitivity.  The higher estimate remains at 4.5 degrees (my bold italics):

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

Compare this with AR4 Summary for Policy Makers:

Progress since the TAR enables an assessment that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. {WGI 8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2, SPM}

Scientists are conservative.  However, the fact that the IPCC has high confidence that it's "extremely unlikely" to be less than 1°C and has only medium confidence that it's "very unlikely" to be higher than 6°C  in the top end of the range is not cause for celebration.  Regardless, if we listened to the Matt Ridley's of the world we'd overshoot the doubling way before the end of this century, so we could be looking at very rapid climate change in only a few decades leading to severe climate change over coming centuries.

That's on the millenial time frame, what about the near term.  Here is what the report states:

The transient climate response quantifies the response of the climate system to an increasing radiative forcing on a decadal to century timescale. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at the time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration has doubled in a scenario of concentration increasing at 1% per year. The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C.

So this century if we continue on our current emissions path, we would be looking at a rise greater than 2.5°C, and 2°C is considered the upper safe limit!

The Daily Mail is wrong, again!

The Daily Mail lives up to its reputation as a denier tabloid with a mix of fact and fiction.  Fiona Macrae writes (archived here):

Climate change scientists warned yesterday that the Earth is set for more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels that could swamp coasts and low-lying islands as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere.

But despite these dire predictions, they admitted global warming is likely to be more gradual than they previously thought and that world temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.

I looked through the report but could find no "admission" that global warming is likely to be more gradual than previously thought.  On the contrary, what I found was examples that things could be worse, for example estimates of sea level by the end of 2100 could be almost half a metre higher than "previously thought".


There is more to write about denier's thrashing about with nothing to focus their denial upon.  But I've got to go out for a bit.  Back later.  Feel free to add more silliness from deniers in the comments.