Newsbytes: Climate Scientists Turn Skeptical As Climate Predictions Fail

 From The GWPF by Dr. Benny Peiser

British Government Abandons Climate Change Education For Young Children

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

global warming graph

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century. But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2. Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’ Avowed climate sceptics are more  unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013
The implications of the inconvenient truth we publish today are profound. Since the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, Britain has been impoverishing itself in a lonely quest to cut its CO2 emissions – even though the world’s powerhouse economies, such as China and America, have refused to set any limits. It is clear that the science, supposedly ‘settled’, is deeply uncertain, while growing numbers of experts now say that the effects of greenhouse gases are much less bad than they feared: any warming is going to happen much more slowly than they thought a few years ago. –Editorial, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

The Met Office figures come as a report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation claims there been no “statistically significant increase” in global temperatures in 16 years. Dr Benny Peiser, director of the foundation, said: “The biggest surprise for climate scientists is the discrepancy between the predictions and the reality of ongoing warming standing still. It suggests that the climate models on which these predictions are based are flawed. Scientists are beginning to reconsider whether their previous, more doom-laden predictions, were overegged. We should reconsider all policies that may turn out to be hugely wasteful and potentially economically disastrous.” –Daily Express, 18 March 2013

Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming – hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical. But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated. –-Editorial, Daily Express, 18 March 2013

De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a “national treasure” and our “greatest living naturalist”, it really is time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has allowed himself to be made the front-man for one particular propaganda campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head. Last week yet another report picked up on the part Sir David has played in promoting what the facts show to have been no more than a colossal scare story. . –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 17 March 2013

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. –Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails 1956

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations”. The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the “efficacy of recycling”, again as a chemistry subject. The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. –Juliette Jowit, The Guardian, 18 March 2013

About these ads
This entry was posted in Newsbytes and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to Newsbytes: Climate Scientists Turn Skeptical As Climate Predictions Fail

  1. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Climate “scientists”. So you were all wrong then? Can we have our money back please?

  2. Greg says:

    Even though it’ so obvious they are wrong, so much money and reputation is invested in keeping the fraud going. It will be difficult for some to admit it any time soon, likely it will be a gradual process.
    1. It’s not going to rise as much, but it will rise. We should still be concerned.
    2. The rise will be small, and not catastrophic.
    3. Hey, this minor rise is great! This should benefit everyone. I told you so!

  3. Keitho says:

    Like a super tanker full of ideology this ship will take some time to turn but it does look as though the captain has issued the order to the helmsman. To continue with the maritime metaphor we can expect to see rats jumping ship soon but I fear the crew may well be sacrificed by their (political) masters ashore.

    What a ghastly waste of money, people, effort and creativity this cruel hoax has been and it may well have a few convulsive kicks left in it.

  4. Richard says:

    what a lovely day today.

  5. philjourdan says:

    In the end, Gaia will be the death of the whole AGW scam. She will not be denied.

  6. jdseanjd says:

    What simply brilliant, brilliant news. :)

  7. M Courtney says:

    I wish the Guardian had comments open on the schools story. It would have been interesting to hear what people thought Geography lessons were actually for and whether “debate” was always a good thing.

    But there are no comments. The Guardian Environment debate has been focussed on insecticides and the bee population. Which is an interesting topic but not their usual AGW beat.

    Newsbytes ought to notice that the dog that doesn’t bark is sometimes deafening.

    The Guardian is not shouting about AGW at the moment. It didn’t even lead on Marcott et al.
    This is new.

  8. DaveS says:

    Upon what possible basis did Myles Allen ever believe that “the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century”?

  9. jdseanjd says:

    Is this the Milly Dowler moment for the NWO?

    A sickening tale of child stealing & child abuse by the UK state.

    Astounding incompetence, corruption & depravity in the UK NHS, SS (Social Services), local authorities & legal system.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84v1SAzUgRk 1 hr 9 mins.

  10. Chuck Nolan says:

    If the UK shifts focus the truth will be outed
    cn

  11. tokyoboy says:

    Very sadly my country is still in a Dark Age…………. the USA too?

  12. Rob says:

    Timely. Widespread horrid, depressing cold gaining a foothold over Europe and North America this “spring”. What fools mankind can be!

  13. Randy_Ottawa says:

    It’s so nice to see more and more articles like this. Let’s hope the distribution widens to more MSM.

  14. Bruce Cobb says:

    The back-pedaling begins in earnest. Unfortunately, it’s far, far too late for apologies. The CAGW myth/quasi-religous cult has done enormous harm, amounting to crimes against humanity.

  15. johnmarshall says:

    It would be good to get rid of the climate brainwashing imposed on children and replace it with real science teaching with actual experiments in physics and chemistry. These were stopped or reduced in the name of Health and Safety. You cannot teach science without a practical side because science means experiment to confirm a theory then change the theory based on experimental outcome.

  16. Wyguy says:

    Let us hope.

  17. Mindert Eiting says:

    Rob at 5:57 am.’Timely. Widespread horrid, depressing cold…’. Look at it from the bright side. Without the Marcott up-tick we would have been covered already by meters of ice.

  18. Dr. Lurtz says:

    Great, the non-AGW were correct. After trillions wasted, we are now entering a Sun caused era of cold. The World Government has delayed/prevented monies from going to solve the real problems.

    We need energy. We need CO2 to help grow plants. We need ways to grow food that aren’t affected by cold/damp. We need fresh water [Oh, lets recycle sewage into fresh water (nothing can go wrong with that!!) ??]

    HEAT == SWEAT; COLD == DEATH.
    The FUTURE is not grim it is ghastly!!

  19. JohnWho says:

    I wonder if President Obama reads the Daily Mail?

  20. Latimer Alder says:

    @jdseanjd asks

    ‘Is this the Milly Dowler moment for the NWO?’

    FWIW Milly Dowler was a young schoolgirl abducted an murdered by Levi Bellfield outside Walton-on-Thames railway station.

    By chance I rode my bike past her house yesterday.

    Her sad case had nothing at all to do with

    ‘A sickening tale of child stealing & child abuse by the UK state.

    Astounding incompetence, corruption & depravity in the UK NHS, SS (Social Services), local
    authorities & legal system.’

    Just a nasty evil bastard lurking in the bushes by a bus stop.

  21. Leggs says:

    Long time reader of this excellent site, fantastic work by everyone on here. I am in the pay of so-called big oil (I work for a E&P company), a geoscientist who also understand statistics and, of course, a skeptic.

    Of course, given that predictions are incorrect, we could also start getting a response from the Warmists along the lines of:

    “Finally we have proof that the efforts to curb global warming are working, so we need to continue and perhaps redouble our efforts to bring temperatures down further. Now is not the time for complacency, now is the time for action”

    Scary?

  22. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jimmy Haigh. says: “Climate ‘scientists’. So you were all wrong then? Can we have our money back please?”

    Thanks. That made me laugh–luckily just before I took a sip of coffee.

  23. scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. –Juliette Jowit

    Yes. No doubt that it has.
    Is that the right thing to do? Is it the right way to do it?
    Try working on the prerequisites first: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, economics. Create some educated, thinking young people rather than turning young people into cruise missiles for your political cause.

  24. Jimbo says:

    Could it just be that the extreme right wing, fossil fuel funded, greedy, selfish, rabid, denialists of climate were right after all? :)

  25. Jimbo says:

    If you want more on global warming prediction failures see
    C3: Failed Predictions
    This is an on-going tome of climate prediction failure. It would take your several days to get through this lot.

    Predictions that failed
    Items tagged for fail. A much smaller collection of about 45 posts.

    Climate FAIL from A to Z
    Marc Moranos collection of failure presented at Durban

  26. I sin!!! I sin again!!! Gloating is a sin!!!! I sin! I gloat!!!! What fun I will have with my warmist friends!!!

  27. mogamboguru says:

    Only when the last coal-fired power plant is shut down;

    only when the last oil-well is closed;

    only when the last grain of cereals has been fermented into bio-fuel –

    they will understand that they have pushed mankind back into the stone age.

  28. Jimbo says:

    Let’s cut top the chase. Most people on WUWT know full well that the models have failed. They exaggerated future warming. The alarm should be declared over. You may not have noticed it but the climb down has already started. Like an alcoholic who wants to recover you have to accept you are an alcoholic. Likewise, acknowledgment of the temperature standstill has come out of Hansen, Met Office, Paul Jones, IPPC leaked graph etc.

    Next step is to blame natural climate oscillations. We have already seen this including recently from Mojib Latif of the IPCC. However, expect promises of warming in the pipeline.

    Net step – shriveling grant money.

    Next step – climate science goes back to the backwater of the sciences. An obscure and highly disreputable science at that.

    Next step – next scare. More funding please. :)

  29. mogamboguru says:

    Today, March 18th, 2013, roads have been closed due to heavy snow-drift in the north-east of Germany, where I live.

    i know – because I got stuck in one of them, until a farmer came to my help and pulled my car out again with his immense, fossil-fuel-burning Diesel-tractor, before the cops closed the road for traffic due to security concerns regarding motorists.

    Thanks a lot for your ingenious invention, Rudolf Diesel – because without it, my “date” with the snow drift today could easily have become a life-threatening encounter.

  30. mogamboguru says:

    Oops: 29013 = 2013. My bad…

    [Reply: Fixed for you. -ModE]

  31. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    Prison or pay the money back……

  32. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    President Obama could care less of right or wrong, he just wants power…….can’t everyone figure that out or have we become that stupid as a nation?

  33. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    I was hoping that abortion would improve the gene pool, guess not.

  34. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen says:

    You would NOT believe the Mail on Sunday to provide irrefutable evidence!! They are citing the Met Office…

  35. Jim Cripwell says:

    Keitho writes “To continue with the maritime metaphor we can expect to see rats jumping ship soon ”

    I would never call Judith Curry a rat, I have too much admiration for her and what she has done, but there are people like her who have built their own lifeboat. When the time comes, they can ride safely to shore.

  36. Margaret Smith says:

    The Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail generally are used to taking the brickbats from the lefties which is why it is my daily newspaper. In spite of all the sneering at it it always seems to be proven right in the end. The paper has always added to an alarmist report a comeback by a sceptic.

  37. Jim Clarke says:

    “Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.”

    The research has been available for decades. The warmist scientists of the IPCC refused to consider all of the other factors so that they could claim that there was no other way to explain the warming! If they would have considered all the available science, they would have immediately conceded that CO2 was not the only explanation and far from the best explanation. In fact, they spent most of their efforts trying to shove the square peg of CO2 warming into the round whole of global climate, with little success.

    It was horrible science and the people who did it aren’t that stupid. Therefore, It was willfully done, There may be a question about their motives, but there can be no question about their intention to mislead.

    They were lying and they knew it.

  38. Sandy Daze says:

    Well, the Climate Warmists know they’ve bet on a lame horse, so they are now changing their bets to Meteorite Impact.
    For this, they need no proof, as the 15 Feb 13 impact in Siberia is all is necessary to make the case.

    IMPACT COULD HAPPEN HERE. Send more money. ASAP.

  39. John R T says:

    post:
    “… Britain has been impoverishing itself in a lonely quest to cut its CO2 emissions – …”
    Hardly alone: Costa Rica continues its quest for first carbon-neutral status: cannot let down favorite-daughter, UNFCCC Exec Secy C. Figuerres, and brother, former CR President Jose Maria – partners in carbon-trading advising family business.

  40. Luther Wu says:

    stan stendera says:
    March 18, 2013 at 7:16 am

    I sin!!! I sin again!!! Gloating is a sin!!!! I sin! I gloat!!!! What fun I will have with my warmist friends!!!
    __________________
    Mikey loves me
    this I know
    for his models
    tell me so…

    This thread is heartwarming and all that, but has anyone noticed POTUS turning around?

  41. It will be interesting when the BBC will change its warming tunes. As is usual in the muddled world of a systemscience like climate science controlled by averages, those who control the flow of information, control the system.

  42. It took a long time coming, but now it is here.
    No amount of lying can change reality.

  43. oldseadog says:

    I wonder if this is the eleventh hole in the dyke and all ten fingers are still in the other ones.
    Maybe, just maybe, the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end.

  44. Margaret Smith says:

    mogamboguru says:
    March 18, 2013 at 7:17 am
    Only when the last coal-fired power plant is shut down;
    only when the last oil-well is closed;
    only when the last grain of cereals has been fermented into bio-fuel –
    they will understand that they have pushed mankind back into the stone age.

    This won’t happen. The lunatics (greens) have not thought things through – they are busy biting the hand that feeds them as only the liberal democracies tolerate them. If the hard left gain absolute power the greens will be swiftly ‘dealt with’ as will other ‘useful fools’.
    If this thing isn’t defeated a new Dark Age awaits, rather than a blissful new sustainable Golden Age (also a Dark Age, though, as this hasn’t been thought through either). I was thinking this as I was driving through a vicious blizzard on Saturday with further snow forecast for April – rather like the weather I grew up in during the ‘Little Cooling’.

  45. garymount says:

    I recently witnessed a large stretched truck like limousine turning at the intersection I was waiting to cross as I was walking to the coffee shop. A couple of kids heads were sticking out the window, and I could see ballons inside, smiling happy faces, and it gladdened my heart. The indoctrination doesn’t seem to be taking hold in my neighborhood despite all the efforts. True story.

  46. Annie says:

    Ten years ago on St. Paddy’s Day we were sunburnt after sitting outside in warm sunshine (in UK). Yesterday we had a continuation of the cold, dreary weather we’ve seen so much this winter and it snowed for hours. It’s good, this global warming, innit?

  47. john robertson says:

    I can only imagine the terror of some of the “Team”, their past utterances indicate their projection of their personal disorders onto the external world is very high.
    Their being exposed as the charlatans they are, will drop them into a “hell” of their own creation.
    My advice to these troubled folk; ENJOY.

    What say we apply their “Precautionary principle”, to any politicians now using enviro-speak.
    Those calling for sustainable everything, will be #1 in my world.

  48. Eliza says:

    At last! (MSM is copping on). Fr0om now onwards we shall see “climate change” departments close, Google will stop filtering out skeptic news etc… LOL

  49. John Whitman says:

    Benny Peiser referred to this from Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails 1956,

    A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. [ . . . ]

    - – - – - – - -

    With maximum public exposure of the failed thesis of alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2, we may yet have a second enlightenment.

    The new enlightenment is the illumination of the nature of the pseudo-science promoting alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2.

    The new enlightenment must create a culture that is profoundly vigilant against pseudo-science which is the essential prerequisite of the creation of new anti-technology / anti-human religions.

    John

  50. richard verney says:

    Leggs says:

    March 18, 2013 at 6:48 am
    /////////////////////////////////

    No doubt they would like to run such an argument but it is difficult to get that argument off the gropund since CO2 emissions have very much been Buisness As Usual (BAU).

    The US has cut its emissions due to the switch to shale gas, but this has been more than off-set by rising emissions from China and other developing countries.

  51. Austin says:

    Looking at the medium range models for 7 days out this morning and it is hard to tell it is March and not January. I see two full scale low pressure systems bracketing the US with freezing temps below 30 degrees F.

  52. buhovda says:

    The age of endarkness?

  53. richard verney says:

    Andres Valencia says:

    March 18, 2013 at 8:28 am

    It took a long time coming, but now it is here.
    No amount of lying can change reality.
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////

    IF the temperature standstill continues it will get increasingly more difficult to push the AGW meme.
    The UK Met Office, has expressed the view that the standstill will continue until 2017, ie., some 4 to 5 years. If energy prices rise during this period (which seems inevitable) and should the green energy/renewables prove not capable of meeting demand such that there are brown outs (as many predict will be the case in the UK), the public will well and truly appreciate the ‘pup’ that has been sold to them. Harsh winters are wonderfully refreshing in this regard.

    IF, there is no temperature increase after 2017, what little repudation that the Met Office enjoys will lie in tatters. By continuing with the AGW meme, they are nailing their colours on an increase in global temperatures post 2017.

    At this stage, apart from a Super El Nino occurring within the next few years, it is difficult to see how this ‘play’ can run much longer. Reality is catching up with the performers, and I doubt that they will receive a raptuous curtain call and shouts for an encore, when the cutrain finally falls.

  54. Bart says:

    “The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. –Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails 1956″

    What a great quote. Somewhat in the line of Tolstoy:

    I know that most men — not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems — can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty — conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.
    -Opening to Ch 14. Translation from: What Is Art and Essays on Art (Oxford University Press, 1930, trans. Aylmer Maude)

  55. William Astley says:

    Climate sensitivity to a change in forcing and its implications
    Observations and analysis does not support the extreme AGW warming paradigm. Lindzen and others, have unequivocally shown that the planet resists warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off in to space, which is called negative feedback. If there is negative feedback as opposed to amplification (positive feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming. The IPCC have stated that their goal is to limit the planet’s warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 2C. Mission accomplished. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming.

    Western countries are spending money on green scams (wind farms, conversion of food to biofuel, and so on) which increase the cost of electric power and transportation fuel and do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Spending money on scams does not make sense even if there has a global warming problem which there is not.

    It gets better. CO2 is not a poison or a dangerous greenhouse gas. Plant`s eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses pay to inject CO2 into the greenhouse, to increase yield and to reduce growing times. The ideal level of atmospheric CO2 from the standpoint of plants is 1000 ppm to 1200 ppm. Why has the extreme AGW movement remained silent on the fact the increases in the atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to plants and the biosphere?

    If increased CO2 results in slightly warming temperatures with most of the warming at high latitudes as the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days, there is no global warming crisis. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to the biosphere. There are other environmental problems to address. Western countries do not have surplus public money to spend on green scams. There is no problem with increasing atmospheric CO2.

    It gets better. C3 plants (trees, grains consumed by humans including wheat and rice) lose roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to trans-respiration. When atmospheric CO2 rises, C3 plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces the loss of water from their leaves to the atmosphere. This enables the C3 plants live with less water and leaves more water to remain at the plants roots for synergistically beneficial nitrogen affecting bacteria.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
    “The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert…. ….Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.”

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation … …we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….

    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. … ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling.

  56. Pete says:

    The second sentence of this article raises an amusing observation: “The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    The British Isles are but an infinestimal dot on the global surface, and their total population a mere fraction of 1% of global population.

    All humans and their associated GHG output could be obliterated from the British Isles, and it wouldn’t have any noticeable effect on the level of global CO2 and its potential impact on so-called AGW.

    Yet the British government is “reshaping its entire economy” and expending enormous resources to stop global warming.

    Forest Gump, in all his wisdom, would say, “[S]tupid is as stupid does”.

  57. Box of Rocks says:


    mogamboguru says:
    March 18, 2013 at 7:17 am
    Only when the last coal-fired power plant is shut down;

    only when the last oil-well is closed;

    only when the last grain of cereals has been fermented into bio-fuel –

    they will understand that they have pushed mankind back into the stone age.”

    Pushing us back into the stone age is what they want.

    Man is a cancer on the face of the earth that must be eradicated.

  58. heysuess says:

    I cannot read through the paragraph attributed to Leon Festinger (When Prophecy Fails 1956) without stopping to consider that either side would find solace and verification in it. Such happens quite a bit, as each side accuses the other of being ‘anti-science’, or Flat Earthers.

  59. mogamboguru says:

    My twelve-year-old son just announced:

    “So, where is all the global warming Al Gore has promised me? As I feel it, planet Earth has rather caught a global cold!

    (We had a blizzard dropping four inches of snow on us within three hours in north-eastern Germany today.)

  60. thelastdemocrat says:

    BBC will not change its tune quickly. They have reitrement funds heavily invested in “responsible investing.” Same as many public and public-dependent entities.

    The global warming scam will unwind much more slowly and painfully than the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis. Look at the signatories to the UNPRI.
    http://www.unpri.org/
    Each has heavily invested in the business to be generated by global warming mitigation. If the bubble bursts, they will have a hard time supporting the generous pensions of the retired public servants.

  61. Dave in Canmore says:

    I shouldn’t complain where any MSM departs from the CAGW script but I’ve seen a few examples of the “But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the…etc”

    Am I the only one that thinks there is no “new” data that disagrees with the narrative. Just a continued LACK of eveidence that supports it?

  62. flea rider says:

    ok so now we have a partial truth when are they going to tell us for the next 7-15 yrs it’s going to be dam cold ?
    and as we know cold equates to shorter growning cycles so less food so money they have burned could have been used to help the millions that are going to well wait and see

  63. BarryW says:

    “doomy computer predictions from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

    HA! Doomies! So much better than “Alarmist”. No, wait, can’t sink to their level. Must resist.

  64. steven says:

    As Mark Twain observed:
    “Its easier to fool people than convince them that they’ve been fooled”

  65. MIke (UK) says:

    The funniest part of that article were the comments, the top rated comment with 5000 ‘likes’ got deleted by the moderators. How the warmists moaned and wailed after their hijacking got caught out, how I laughed!

  66. There is a danger in linking global temperature to CO2. Warming itself has never been the real issue – its cause is. The danger is, therefore, what happens if next year is anomalously warm?

  67. tobias says:

    Stephen ray says
    Try working on the prerequisites first: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, economics. Create some educated, thinking young people
    Add a little reading writing and arithmetic to that as well

  68. Iggy Slanter says:

    Hmm. As soon as the money taps start to get switched off they start discovering how to be skeptical…
    Remember that many of the people in coming months and years that will claim they had no idea how wrong the ‘science’ was are the same people that wanted “deniers” tattooed, jailed, and gassed. Show them no mercy. They would not have shown you any.

  69. A.D. Everard says:

    This has made my day. At last the MSM (at least in the UK) has lifted its game and is sniffing around. The Mail on Sunday in particular covered everything – EVERYTHING – even the influence of the sun. Pachauri must be spitting chips – that graph, that wonderful graph, came from the leaked 5AR!!!

    BLESS YOU ALEC RAWLS! :) :) :)

    So many newspapers out with it – no longer just in the opinion columns, either – oh, boy, it will be hard for the alarmists to sweep THIS lot under the carpet. Now watch the alarmists – there’ll be some bad temper out there and much scowling. I love it!

  70. John Whitman says:

    @ A.D. Everard on March 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    A.D. Everard,

    I liked you comment.

    Just letting you know I quoted your comment in a comment of mine in the WUWT post ‘Climategate 3.0 Has Occurred’. My comment is at => John Whitman says: March 18, 2013 at 2:23 pm.

    John

  71. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, it’s a start.

    We have the beginnings of “distancing themselves” and the edging to the door to save themselves. Slowly, those left in the choir will be the most strident and off key voices, those most out of touch with the reality of what the sheet music is saying. The trickle edging toward the door will turn to a crowd looking for their hats and car keys… for a faster get away.

    We’ve got several cyclical processes that all peaked together, giving us about 30 years of “warming” and are now sequentially turning to the cold cycle. At the top of such a long cycle change, you get a ‘flat span with ripples”. That is where we are now. Next comes the accelerating drop. My best guess (call it a prediction if you like) is that it’s about 20 years worth of cooling yet to come.

    Watch out for the “Pressurize to close the sale” from those with vested interests in the money grubbing side of the AGW fantasy.

    Now in addition to Russia, Czech Republic, China, India, Canada and a few others, we can add, tepidly at first, the UK. Expect more of the Commonwealth countries to follow (as many still look to the UK for guidance). Oh, and expect the USA to embrace AGW increasingly for the next half decade. We are usually arriving at a European Fad just as it ends ;-)

  72. Otter says:

    Anthony, If I may: I have a few people whom I wish to shove this article down their thro…. errrr, may I repost said article? All attributions and links back, of course!

  73. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Keitho says:
    March 18, 2013 at 5:34 am
    —————————-
    If you turn slowly enough people won’t realize you’re changing direction.

  74. Gary Pearse says:

    The UK bendrodeclinologists started side stepping after Climategate 1 and 2.

  75. RoHa says:

    Too many big financiers and businesses have money tied up in the AGW scam to turn it around easily. Once they have found a way to get the money out and shift the debts to the rest of us, it will disappear.

  76. Mac the Knife says:

    The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed. The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

    All the news that’s fit to print, Indeed!
    MtK

  77. davidgmills says:

    “Too many big financiers and businesses have money tied up in the AGW scam to turn it around easily. Once they have found a way to get the money out and shift the debts to the rest of us, it will disappear.”

    Someone who finally gets that governments and politicians really do not control the strings. They are the puppets being controlled by the strings.

  78. john robertson says:

    I am immensely cheered by this MSM article, now I am running a bet with my neighbour as to when CBC discovers this news.
    As full blown propagandists, they are yet to cover the good news,16 years no warming, as reported by the IPCC.

  79. Chad Jessup says:

    Stephen Rasey @ 6:59 AM – you raised important points about the education of our college youth and their enlistment into the ranks of the CAGW brigade. Having just read and digested Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’s book “Principles of Planetary Climate”, I can understand how intelligent concerned young people are swayed by his arguments, because he presents a lot of good physics combined with unsubstantiated opinions about climatic sensitivity to increasing levels of C02.

    I was constantly amazed every time he mentioned the adverse affects of increased atmospheric CO2 levels without ever mentioning any facts to substantiate his claim, and that is the gist of the entire debate – What is the level of atmospheric sensitivity to increased CO2 amounts? So far, the indications are small and not catastrophic.

  80. Colin says:

    What people failed to consider is that the climate scientists jobs depend on grant funding. If they lose their grant funding then they are back to teaching students. As a result there will always be a bias to declare a ‘crisis’ in order to keep the money coming in.

  81. Otter, you go right ahead and cram it down their throats. In fact, I’ll come help.

    This whole pile of garbage may fall apart sooner then we think. Global warming scams are top heavy and when tripped go down like a house of cards.

    The volume of bad news for the scamsters lately is overwealming

    To watch Michael Mann choak on his coffee. To watch Bill Mckibbon drown in his tea. Oh Joy, Oh Joy! I gloat, I sin, I gloat again, I sin again. Oh Joy!!!!

  82. numerobis says:

    We have a graph that shows that the current weather is still within the 95% confidence interval. This is proof that the models are wrong? How does that work?

    The text on the graph states that the temperature curve is about to crash out of the confidence intervals. What model was used to issue that prediction?

  83. Mario Lento says:

    A refreshing post!

  84. Streetcred says:

    Mmm, if Lance Armstrong is to be pursued to recover prize-money and sponsorships then rightfully so should the warmista ‘scientists’ and their academic and industry hangers on.

  85. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Leon Festinger’s quote is the most percipient.

    All the Professors who staked their academic reputations on ‘global warming’ and ‘seeohtwo’ took irrevocable career decisions by doing so. Their reputations will never recover. Whilst they all retain their positions, however, they retain the influence similar to that of Wall Street on the US President, the Gestapo on Nazi Germany, the Catholic Church during the Inquisitions, Al Qa’ida after Afghanistan and Communists in the Soviet Union.

    The final act of the Greek Tragedy is yet to be acted out. It covers how those who were wrong continue with their lives. Will they repent and be forgiven, repent and resign, repent and retire, continue to distort arguments to garner grant funding or draw up yet another unholy alliance with those who can make money from their snake oil??

    Who knows……..

  86. Patrick says:

    “Chuck Nolan says:

    March 18, 2013 at 5:49 am

    If the UK shifts focus the truth will be outed”

    I very much doubt that. Too many of the ruling classes have vested interests, politicians, the Royal Family etc etc are either directly or indirectly involved and on the money train. We won’t hear a thing until the UK starts to experience the winters of the 70′s, power brown/blackouts and rivers freezing over.

  87. William Marshall says:

    Stocks and shares can go up or down! But over all the stock market continues to rise, just like the global temperature

  88. Don says:

    William Marshall says:
    March 19, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Stocks and shares can go up or down! But over all the stock market continues to rise, just like the global temperature
    ==========================
    Interesting theory, William: global temperature tracks with the stock market. A) how close is the correlation? B) which is cause and which is effect? Or are they both tracking a third “forcing” trend? Does CO2, for example, cause both global temperatures and the stock market to rise? We know it causes buns to rise, so maybe we’re on to something here.

  89. TimO says:

    Here’s my bet: If the temperature graphs start trending down, the Warmists will stamp their feet and declare their efforts caused a ‘noticeable effect’ and >they were right anyway<! They'll scream that more money has to be shoveled into the Carbon Black Hole to keep from burning us up….

  90. DDP says:

    “Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations” –Juliette Jowit, The Guardian, 18 March 2013.

    What ‘debate’ about climate change?! The only reason why it was even part of the national curriculum was down to political interference. From what i’ve read from science teachers, the majority objected to teaching kids junk science and in turn being unable to teach kids to question an unprovable, expensive hypothesis and magical ‘consensus’.

  91. Mario Lento says:

    numerobis says:
    March 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    We have a graph that shows that the current weather is still within the 95% confidence interval. This is proof that the models are wrong? How does that work?

    The text on the graph states that the temperature curve is about to crash out of the confidence intervals. What model was used to issue that prediction?
    ++++++++++++++++
    numerobis: Point taken:
    If the models predicted no warming, which is at the bottom of the 95% confidence level, then they have no purpose for policy makers… Imagine they predict everything from non warming to catastrophic warming… duh –and the no warming is playing out. Let’s see what happens in a few years. Sure no one knows what the future will bring… but warmists say they know… the models that are used in policy makers’ decisions suggest we must do something. They are bunk.

  92. William Marshall says:

    Don says:
    March 19, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    The point I was making is, just like the stock market the climate can go through varying rates of change, on its upward journey! I was not linking the stock market to the levels of co2 or anything else! It seems like a good analogy to me, seen as the stock market took a hit, but basically recovered. So any stalling in the global temperature rise is just that and will no doubt continue its rise!

  93. cmarkoconnor@hotmail.co.uk says:

    This article relies on taking a series of single sentances or part sentances without any context. Each link is to a right leaning paper who filter what the scientist are actually saying.

    Anyone reading this and thinking clearly must realise that not providing a single link to the original comments suggests a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

    For the article to have any credibility the writer needs to supply the original links.

  94. John Whitman says:

    [ Note: bold emphasis is by me (John Whitman) ]

    cmarkoconnor@hotmail.co.uk on March 20, 2013 at 6:38 am

    This article relies on taking a series of single sentances or part sentances without any context. Each link is to a right leaning paper who filter what the scientist are actually saying.

    cmarkoconnor,

    In the Benny Peiser article you are talking about, he cited the UK’s news media that are called the ‘Mail’, the ‘Daily Express’ and the ‘Guardian’. Those media services are not all included in your claimed category “right leaning paper[s]“. You are factually wrong. Therefore your claim of only “right leaning” bias / filtering is not plausible.

    John

    - – - – - – -

    [ Note: bold emphasis is by me (John Whitman) ]

    cmarkoconnor@hotmail.co.uk on March 20, 2013 at 6:38 am

    Anyone reading this and thinking clearly must realise that not providing a single link to the original comments suggests a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

    cmarkoconnor,

    I suggest you are mistaken when you say Benny Peiser is “not providing a single link to the original comments”. Each news media sourced statement cited by Benny Peiser is a direct quote from the news media link at the end of those statements. The news media articles at those links fully reference their sources. Where did you get your idea of Benny Peiser not providing links / references?

    John

    - – - – - – -

    [ Note: bold emphasis is by me (John Whitman) ]

    cmarkoconnor@hotmail.co.uk on March 20, 2013 at 6:38 am

    For the article to have any credibility the writer needs to supply the original links.

    cmarkoconnor,

    Perhaps for your comment “to have any credibility” you should consider revising it? N’est ce pas?

    John

  95. Mark Bofill says:

    numerobis says:
    March 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    We have a graph that shows that the current weather is still within the 95% confidence interval. This is proof that the models are wrong? How does that work?

    The text on the graph states that the temperature curve is about to crash out of the confidence intervals. What model was used to issue that prediction?
    —————–
    :) Want to check back next year numerobis? Year after that? When we do crash out of the 95% confidence intervals, what’s your line going to be then? It isn’t going to take very much longer, so you’d better start working on it.

  96. Bob Kutz says:

    Re; Bruce Cobb, March 18, 2013 at 6:13 am

    Bruce,

    So you want to start charging these guys with ‘crimes against humanity’?

    Don’t go there. Some on their side have suggested equal treatment for “deniers”.

    Tempting as it is; the most we should do is take their authority away. Those who’ve actually abused their position in government should be punished in accordance with the law if such can be proven.

    But you cannot and should not include lay people in this and you cannot punish scientists for bad science. Nor can you punish people for exercising their free speech rights.

    The only person who I believe is certainly guilty of a chargeable crime is probably James Hansen. But not for believing in AGW or promoting policy based on that belief. He used his office for personal gain and committed felonies in furtherance of his agenda. Almost as an official act of his office. For the latter he should most certainly lose his job. For the former he should be charged with the crimes committed.

    But don’t start with the crimes against humanity stuff. That is reserved for a very different kind of behavior and had best never be used as a political weapon, regardless of how bad you think their intentions were. They operated in the scientific and political arenas. Lets not start making political or scientific thought a crime.

  97. Bob Kutz says:

    Re; numerobis, March 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    We have a graph that shows that the current weather is still within the 95% confidence interval. This is proof that the models are wrong? How does that work?

    Numerobis;
    Perhaps you have a difficult time understanding the math?

    Do you understand that having current temps within the 5% confidence interval would actually be a lot better for the model?

    Maybe you would be more impressed if it were in the 100% confidence interval? Well, it is. Well inside. Do you understand that I can predict almost anything I want to and normally be within the 100% confidence interval when the data is measured? The fact that the actual data is getting to the model’s 95% confidence level is not good for the model. The 100% confidence interval will be much larger and much less indicitive of a skillful model. And we are almost there.

    It seems you might want to study the math a bit.

  98. David Cage says:

    It suggests that the climate models on which these predictions are based are flawed………

    Well they were told so a quarter of a century ago. Fast learners these climate scientists.
    They were told way back then there was a ripple on the data at just above 30 year repetition rate which may or may not be just coincidence with the beat of the lunar and earth years cycles. They were told they should take this off before ascribing any change to any other cause.
    Incidentally this same beat shows up really strongly on UK rainfall data.

  99. Dave Byrd says:

    In the past I’ve endorsed the prosecution and adjudication of the global warming fraudsters and scientific fakes that have perpetuated this mass squandering of public wealth for political process and control. I had always hoped, some what naively, that the peer review process would weed out these charlatans.

    Legal action is unfortunate but perhaps ultimately the only pathway to instill what good scientific practices and ethics have failed to promote. I suggest that the readers contact their respective attorney generals demand legal action against these scientific fraudsters to recover the billions of dollars wasted on this issue. We as citizens, at least in the United States, have been economically harmed and we should purse every legal remedy by suing these charlatans into poverty. In essence that is what their politicized vision of carbon trades, energy taxation, etc. would have done to us.

    While this may seem a bit harsh, legal action and monetary fines are the only stimuli these frauds will respond to. So I ask that you raise up your arms and pens to SUE them into oblivion. It is the only message that these bastards will understand.

  100. Dave Byrd says:

    I endorse an aggressive campaign prosecution and adjudication of these global warming fraudsters and scientific fakes that have perpetuated this mass squandering of public wealth for political process and control. I had always hoped, some what naively, that the peer review process would weed out the charlatans.

    It is unfortunate but perhaps ultimately the only pathway to instill what good scientific practices and ethics have failed to accomplish thus far. I would like to suggest that the readers contact their respective attorney generals and demand legal action against these scientific fraudsters to recover the billions of dollars wasted on this issue. We as citizens, at least in the United States, have been economically harmed and as such are able to recover every legal remedy by suing these charlatans into poverty. In essence that is what their politicized vision of carbon trades, energy taxation, etc. would have done to us.

    While am opposed to suing and this may seem a bit harsh, legal action and monetary fines are the only stimuli these frauds will respond to. So I ask that you raise up your arms and SUE them into oblivion. It is the only message that these bastards will understand.

  101. kim says:

    Gary Pearse, ‘bendrodeclinologists’ is very good.
    ================

  102. Brian H says:

    For years, my email “Sig” has warned people: More Warmth = More Life; More Cold = More Death.

Comments are closed.