Another cracker from the Marxist! Top read.
“Luckily for us the liberals have never concerned themselves about facts,” Monbiot announced, “but if we’re going to continue to make out like bandits we need to carry on selling the myth of global warming to the masses – and there’s no way we can do that given the evidence.”
One of the problems of being a contributor to this online publication is that I keep strange bedfellows – and none are stranger than that climate change denier and general all round lunatic James Delingpole.
For many years now Delingpole has waged a one man campaign based on ignorance and dishonesty against the plague of climate change, and no doubt yesterday’s alleged news that there has been no global warming will convince his carers to give him access to a computer so that he can cobble together a wholly misleading and untruthful article along the lines of “I told you so!”
But, as usual, Delingpole will fool no decent right-minded people with his libertarian ordure. Those of us who care about the planet and our children’s future will continue to ignore the evidence and remain true to our liberal values.
At first, when yesterday’s news broke that there had been…
View original post 1,464 more words
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming
By Dr Matt Ridley
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (“very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies). Keep Reading »
- The state of climate science: ‘fluxed up’ | Watts Up With That?
- Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot | Watts Up With That?
- One Step Forward, Two Steps Back | Watts Up With That?
- Temperatures rise over ‘inconsistencies’ in UN climate change report | The Australian
- EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner – Telegraph
- The real climate change deniers aren’t sceptics but the alarmist Ecotards
- UN-Settled Science
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- A cooling consensus
- Scientists talking about no warming
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- UN Agenda 21 Links
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,
OP/ED 9/10/2013 @ 9:00AM
Bummer! Now, just before members of the U.N.’s Church of the Burning Planet are scheduled to finalize their latest hellfire and brimstone sermon, a chilling development has occurred. A flood of blasphemous reports circulated among ranks of former faithful parishioners are challenging human-caused climate crisis theology.
On September 23 through 26, representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries will meet in Stockholm to agree on the final draft of a key portion of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers gospel which is expected, once again, to keep the political climate cauldron steaming. This Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is intended to be used by international ministers working to devise a new global treaty by 2015 to curb “climate change”.
That goal is certainly no trifle, given that dramatic climate changes have been occurring over many millions of years, although
lately…not so much. Therein lies the big rub. How can ministers conjure up a newsworthy sequel to previous knuckle-biting prognostications when all evidence suggests that the prophesies, and the scriptures they were based upon, were proven wrong?
Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.
You certainly know the jig is up when the New York Times finally recognizes that the feverish climate fervor is overheated. They reported on June 6 that“The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”Reporter Justin Gillis went on to admit that the break in temperature increases “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system”, whereby the lack of warming “is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”
Where, Oh Where, Has that Global Warming Gone?
One highly plausible answer to this mystery is that the climate models upon which IPCC’s failed projections are based exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2, underestimate known natural forcings, and simply don’t understand how to factor in and calibrate other influences such as ocean cycles and solar activity. Numerous recent scientific papers suggest that overestimation of sensitivity by at least 30% may account for much of the problem. If so, a reduction of 30% would leave lots of missing heat which must have been offset by natural cooling.
After all, the importance of those natural influences shouldn’t be that surprising given that history shows that temperatures have been higher when CO2 levels were lower, and vise versa. In fact, the past century has witnessedtwo generally accepted periods of warming The first occurred between 1900 and 1945. Since CO2 levels were relatively low then compared with now, and didn’t change much, they couldn’t have been the cause before 1950.
The second possible very small warming, following a slight cool-down, may have begun in the late 1970s lasting until 1998, a strong Pacific Ocean El Niño year. Yet even if global temperatures actually did rise very slightly during that second period, the U.K. Hadley Center and U.S. NOAA balloon instrument analyses fail to show any evidence, whatsoever, of a human CO2 emission-influenced warming telltale “signature” in the upper troposphere over the equator as predicted by all IPCC global circulation models. In fact, about half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred before the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels since that time.
So Maybe the Models Are Broke…Not the Climate After All!
According to a recent Opinion & Comment piece titled “Overestimating global warming over the past 20 years” that appeared in Nature Climate Change, the model-based fear and loathing attached to global warming may be substantially overheated. Notably, Francis W. Zwiers, one of the three authors, is a vice-chair of this relevant section for AR5. The writers observe that whereas the global mean temperature over the past 20 years (1993-2012) rose at a rate of between about 0.14o–0.06oC per decade, average temperatures computed by 117 simulations of 37 climate models predicted a surface temperature rise of 0.30o-0.02o C per decade. The observed rate of warming was less than half of the simulated rate.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated warming was even greater over the past 15 years (between 1998 and 2012). Here the observed trend was 0.05o-0.08oC per decade, vs. the average simulated trend of 0.21o-0.03oC. The observed trend was four times smaller. The divergence began in the early 1990s. Accordingly, evidence indicates that the group of model simulations do not reproduce observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown over the past 15 years. Keep Reading »
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago
- UN-Settled Science
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace
- UTTER INSANITY: Spending $160b to cut the temperature by 0.00005 degrees
- Claim: Humans behind record Australian heat, research shows
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum
While the media circulates the talking points pre-release “leaked draft” of IPCC’s AR5 amongst themselves, there are a few nuggets of interest coming out here and there we can write about. One such nugget is contained in a series of bullet points on the Washington Post Capital Weather Gang in an article by Jason Samenow:
7) The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
That is an interesting statement, not so much for what it says, but for what it doesn’t say. A caveat; that’s likely the reporter’s summary, not the exact text from the IPCC “leaked draft”. IPCC verbiage tends to be a bit more bloated. But, I think it is a fair summary.
Bishop Hill points out what was said in IPCC’s AR4 in 2007:
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very…
View original post 480 more words
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s. That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
They are so sure, that Kevin Trenberth sent this letter out :
They can’t explain the lack of warming, but they are 95% sure that the warming they aren’t seeing is caused by man.
James Hansen wrote this in 1999.
in the U.S. there has been…
View original post 42 more words