Global Temps to Rise 2.4c in Nine Years Claims Former IPCC Chief.

A shock report from an NGO warns that temperatures will rise 2.4 degrees Celsius within nine years.

The Universal Ecological Fund has issued a report which foresees apolcalyptic consequences if the recommendations on cutting carbon emissions aren’t met. As the Economic Times of India reports:

WASHINGTON: The Earth will be 2.4 degree Celsius warmer by 2020 if the world continues with the business-as-usual approach to climate change and India would be one of the hardest hit countries witnessing upto 30 per cent reduction in crop yields, a new study has claimed.

The rising temperatures will adversely affect the world’s food production and India would be the hardest hit, according to the analysis by the Universal Ecological Fund (FEU-US), the US subsidiary of FEU founded in Argentina in 1990.

The report titled ‘The Food Gap — The Impacts of Climate Change on Food Production: A 2020 Perspective’ predicted that crop yield in India, the second largest world producer of rice and wheat, would fall up to 30 per cent by the end of this decade

Economic Times [India]. By 2020, World to be 2.4c Warmer, India to Be Hardest Hit.

As most people will be aware, these claims are wildly alarmist, and fall far outside even the warnings issued by the IPCC. So who is the Universal Ecological Fund relying on for its information?

Step forward Dr Osvaldo Canziani, former co-chair of working group II of the IPCC, and now the “scientific advisor” to the FEU, parent body of the Universal Ecological Fund. India’s Navhind Times quotes both Dr Canziani, and Ms Lilana Hisas, the executive director of FEU-US:

“The evidence that man-made greenhouse gases would cause the temperature of the planet to rise has been available for almost two decades. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has concluded that, unequivocally, the Earth’s warming is anthropogenic (man-made),” said FEU scientific adviser, Dr Osvaldo Canziani, the former co-chair of working group II of the IPCC.

The analysis and data utilised to produce the report is based on key documents already published by the IPCC and other UN agencies.

“The key to our report was to analyse, synthesise and update published documents and data from disparate sources and present it in an accessible way,” Ms Liliana Hisas, executive director of FEU-US and author of the report, said.

“The analysis is based on the conclusions of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Our other guiding principles were using the business-as-usual path the world is currently following, and assess the impacts of climate change with a short-term target of one decade.”

The Navhind Times. Global Warming May Bring Indian Crop Yield Down 30%: Study.

Now hold on, because this is where the story gets really weird.

As the story got picked up by the News Wires and started to spread, the warmists went into damage limitation. They realised that this would be yet another disaster for them, making them look even more ridiculous. The Guardian reported that:

climate scientists said it appeared Hisas had overlooked the influence exerted by the oceans, which absorb heat, thus delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Guardian. Online News Service Promotes False Climate change Study.

So, the Universal Ecological Fund issued a correction and the former IPCC disassociated himself from his own report, right? Wrong, they’re sticking to their story:

Hisas, for her part, said her findings had been endorsed by an Argentine scientist, Osvaldo Canziani, who had worked on the IPCC’s fourth assessment report on the state of climate science, and was credited as an adviser to the UEF.

She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report. “We are just going to go ahead with it. I don’t have a choice now,” she said. “The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it’s not wrong.”

This is just amazing. The global warming movement seems to be imploding and faction-fighting has now broken out amongst them as the ship goes down.



The story has now been dropped by the press service which supposedly first publicized it. See Nofrakkingconsensus for more.

19 responses to “Global Temps to Rise 2.4c in Nine Years Claims Former IPCC Chief.

  1. Attention, stakeholder is a keyword. It means governments and NGOs. And we know where most NGOs get their funding from – the EU is very big in it, for instance. Also google “stakeholder democracy”, you’ll find some frightening writeups that suggest to rule the planet through stakeholders – a kind of surrogate for democracy. I predict a rise in the usage of stakeholder akin to “sustainable”.

  2. DirkH has hit the nail on the head.

    The longer this farce continues, the more they are revealing their true nature – that of the old Left, flailing around looking for a post-Soviet cause to pin their dreams on.

    Whether he knows it or not, Canziani has done us a service.

  3. Good point Dirk.

    I did find a document on the web which was a joint effort by both FEU and the WWF, discussing funding. It said that of large and medium projects something like 85% of funding came from government or government bodies.

    I also found suggestions that ultimately the FEU was set up by the WWF, but to be honest, I couldn’t be bothered to follow it up. I also thought it would make the post too messy. But basically, it looks like this “Universal Ecological Fund” ultimately goes back to the WWF at some point.



  4. The author, Liliana Hirsas (a non-scientist) has confused transient climate sensitivity with equilibrium climate sensitivity. Her report claims that by 2020 the climate will be +2.4C above pre-IR temperatures, which is impossible. Her mistake was that she fails to understand that that 2.4C warming will take decades because the climate is slow to catch up to the GH warming. The temps by 2020 will probably be +1C above pre-IR values.

    I put up a blog post today about the difference between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    • Thanks for the comment – I can;t believe that this organisation has a former IPCC co-chair as their science advisor!


      • Canziani is ill in the hospital and I highly doubt he saw this final version. The mistake was not hidden. It was highlighted as Key Finding #1.

        This group is not a science organization and this report would never have made it through scientific peer-review. In fact, the author, a journalist, was made aware of this mistake before the report was published in the press.

        I will be blogging about this report today later on but it shows how important it is for non-scientists to reach out to several experts before they publish science-related materials and why the peer-review process is so important.

  5. Not sure I understand you here Scott. If the transient bit stuffs energy into the Earth that will take decades to mature into increased temperatures then where does it all lurk?
    Didn’t Trenberth have an issue with this? Has he, or you, found out yet or could it just be that someones messed up the Energy fluxes?
    Just asking.

  6. So it’s OHC then. From what I’ve read ARGO is having difficulties locating the missing heat pipeline.

  7. PS Prof
    Could you please correctly label your Y axis re OHC. It’s wrong and very misleading. Thank you

  8. Pingback: The Uses and Abuses of a Nobel Prize « NoFrakkingConsensus

  9. I posted this on Scott’s site earlier.
    You were quick to put a post up at Haunting the library to show that the 2.4c rise by 2020 was incorrect on immediacy although correct in the long term. I really enjoyed your graphics that showed the physical connection between a cup of coffee and the oceans. It made so much sense and I was surprised that it needs 10.6 $M per day of Government funding to support it
    Initially, I was shocked by your NOAA graphic of OHC versus time. It almost turned me back into a believer. At first sight OHC had nearly trebled in the last half of the last century. I looked for a weakness of course, I’m a sceptic, never used to be but once I’d differentiated BS from local wind it’s no easy to trust the trust me ‘cos I iz a climatologist nose-wrinkling.
    Once I had determined that you’d mis-labelled the y-axis from NOAA, that’s bad, or had not, that’s even worse, I relaxed. You showed relative OHC to circa 1980 and said it was absolute. A bit like looking at a ruler under a high-powered microscope and tutting about how irregular it appeared!
    If you had added the 1980 OHC baseline to your graphic then I would have been impressed. You didn’t and I wasn’t.
    Loved your excel-ent graphics that showed where Global Warming went. 92% into the oceans, fantastic and meaningless. 
    Show me the spreadsheet circles before AGW or whatever you’ve redefined it as, then maybe I’ll be impressed. But of course, that data has been eaten by Cerebus.
    I’m less than impressed Scott. Do better next time if you want to disassociate yourself from your less salubrious associates.
    Best wishes, Roy

  10. Guys and Gals, this Scott Mandia rocks. I may be the last commentator on his thread but he’s allowed my observations to survive, Virgo intecta.
    Thanks Scott, mayhaps a meaningful dialogue will ensue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s