David Rose of the Mail on Sunday is having a go at the Committee on Climate Change for their denial of the points raised in his article last week and this graph, which was sourced from NCAR and used in the Economist article noted on WUWT.
Rather stubborn, these blokes.
Excerpt:
The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.
We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.
Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised . . . Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.’
He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.
Our graph earlier this month was reproduced from a version first drawn by Dr Ed Hawkins, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Last week it was reprinted as part of a four-page report in The Economist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How silly of the Mail. The Emperor’s new clothes are quite splendid – you just have to squint a bit.
Unlike temperature the response of climate activists is perfectly predictable.
@JJ Awesome quote.
I will go out forthwith and waste no time in buying a copy.
Hasn’t anyone been paying attention? When the data disagrees with the theory, it is the data which is wrong.
The Flat Earth Society is officially rejuvenated … just ask them.
Leo Tolstoi: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Ignore that man behind the curtain!
With the record cold currently experienced by the British, I would be thinking that such defrocking of climate alarmists, may lead to a shortage of tar, feathers, and rails in Britain. At least in the Britain of old. GK
Solar activity and the North Atlantic tectonics suggests that the North Hemisphere is heading for colder climate in the approaching decades
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
It is now the start of a fight back to realism that they cannot face up to…..the Mail have bowled the first ball and in due course all other media outlets will realise the futility of the AGW cause.
Obviously we are now living in a world that has only a 5% chance of existing.
I just posted the following in the comments at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/a-real-man-made-climate-crisis/
I realized, after I posted it, I should have asked folks here for input on this as this is where I have learned more about climate than anywhere else. I realize there are many more inputs into the equation but I was trying to keep it simple so I wouldn’t lose the people who I was trying to educate. Keeping that in mind I would appreciate some of your thoughts on this.
“There have been several times in recorded history when the temperature has been above what it is now. The Minoan Warm period, the Roman Warm period, and the Medieval Warm period to name 3 of the most recent. During each of these times mankind has flourished. Food production increased significantly and civilization expanded. No one drowned from rising seas and civilization did not come to a horrific end. All of this is natural and is how it has worked for millions of years. The mechanism that drives this process is the sun. When plant life is reduced water vapor is reduced which allows the sun to heat the earth which releases CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 increase makes plants grow faster which uses the CO2 up faster and adds moisture back to the atmosphere which lowers CO2 levels causing plant growth to slow as the balance is restored. Simple and effective climate control courtesy of Mother Nature. The point is that CO2 is not the problem, it is part of the natural climate system of Earth.”
Jarrett Jones says: March 31, 2013 at 7:40 am
Unlike temperature the response of climate activists is perfectly predictable.
Well said! And too true.
Once they would reply with a bit of science and some confident statements on the skill of their models, but that soon ran out… now it is instantaneous straight up name-calling and accusations of lying, deceit and ‘not understanding ‘.
Can this graph be updated to remove the shaded red bands to the left of the blue line? Since they were hindcast, they really shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Anyone have software to do this?
The Committee on Climate Change doesn’t realize that computers spit back exactly what they’re taught to spit. An introspective analysis of their cult demonstrates obvious bias and false assumptions. Time for a sea change.
OK, the Daily Mail is full of celebtrity b*llocks etc., but, look, the MSM play a game with your heads. Forget about the form, concentrate on the the content. I don’t know who owns the Daily Mail, but I assume it is ultimately some behemoth corporation, which will no doubt have links to the rest of the MSM heads and thus share their agenda (control of the masses – see Bernase) and are willing to play their part – ‘the rebellious one’ – to make it look like we have a fair and balanced and ‘free’ press. Who knows?
Anyway, the government ‘committees’ will keep flippin’ lying and lying and lying, because they can do so and get away with it. It’s gone way, way beyond the point they’re going to listen to rational arguments or even pretend that the people have any say anymore (see Cypriot banking crisis). As my dear late mother once said: “… would argue black is white”.
Don’t expect any change in the official line anytime soon, is my view.
If there is no increase in temperature within the next year, the ‘prediction’ will have dropped out from even the 95% confidence wide band width. Expect to see more articles of this nature being published in MSM. All of this is making the task of preparing the next IPCC report more difficult.
Now what the Mail ought to do next is to put things into perspective and to look at CET temperatures and show how these have declined this century. The average CET anomaly has declined by 0.6degC which means that it has given back just over half of the ‘unprecedented’ warming seen in the late 1970s/late 1990s period. It wis quite conceivable that within the next 2 or 3 years, the CET temperature anomaly will be no more than it was in 1980. That is a bit of a thought, isn’t it?
More significantly, already this century, the winter CET temperatures have declined by a staggering 1.5degC!
Global temperatures may have stalled, but as far as the UK is concerned, temperatures are falling and falling fast. No wonder the winter mortality figures are so bad, with there having been approximately 250,000 more premature deaths this century. Grim reading indeed. When one compares steps taken to reduce road casualties, it is difficult to understand why politicians seem to disregard the needless and preventable early deaths caused by the cold and expensive energy.
If only there was the political will, rather than seeing increased energy bills, energy bills could probably be halved. That would be a popular step for politicians to take.
It looks like the Mail wants to survive the backlash!!
How dare the Mail on Sunday rock the trough from which the profiteers feed!
The null hypothesis (1 – p1) is built into this graphic in dark orange. However, even 100%-75% is clearly a way too high a percent probability. Removing the redundant top half of the light orange band and going with (1 – p2) for the bottom half could also prove to have been too high going forward. Reversing the (1 – p)s is perhaps closer to the null hypothesis, i.e 5% for the bottom half of the dark orange and 25% for the bottom half of the light orange is clearly closer to where we should be. Assuming (possibly incorrectly) that errors were calculated legitimately from the models, what tweaking (read major re build) of the models would give these figures. For a start, we are almost certain that climate sensitivity is near 1.0 (95% probability?).
1) @JJ is indeed an awsome quote.
2) Pingo, go out and buy several papers (for us in USA) so the Mail will wonder what happened.
3) The Emperor is gradually getting de-frocked by the media, and soon perhaps, we will be blessed that we can actually “see” his nakedness.
The government advisor for renewable energy, Prof David Mackay, played the same deceitful game recently. He wrote a guidance paper saying that electric vehicles were five times as efficient as fossil fuel cars. This is again a deliberate deceit, designed to con naive politicians.
See Renewable Energy Without Hot Air:
http://www.withouthotair.com
Electric vehicles are only “5 x as efficient” if the electricity comes for free, which it does not, and you use an American gas-guzzler as your comparison. In reality, Western electricity (except France) is mostly fossil powered, with a considerable loss of efficiency in the generation, which makes electric vehicles quite inefficient. In fact, most modern European diesels are much more efficient than electric vehicles, and put out far less CO2. My 5-door sedan is about 40% thermic efficient (45 mpg), against most electric vehicles being only 30% efficient on current fossil-electrical supplies.
In addition, it is not well explained that we would need to double the number of power stations, if we want to go to an all-electric surface transport system.
Unfortunately, there are too many ‘scientific’ officials out there telling whoppers, and too many politicians without enough grey matter to know they are being conned.
.
Will those that Rose criticizes address his criticisms? No. Will they vilify Rose? Yes. Will they address the same criticisms that are based on the same graph that is found in the Economist? No. Will they vilify the Economist? Reluctantly, but yes though they most likely will use surrogates. Will Lord Deben’s conflict of interest become an issue that attracts the attention of the public? Because I am not British I can only guess. In the US, such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.
Yes, by now we know; the GCMs can not emulate reality.
But, will the alarmists leave us alone?
No, they also can not even see reality.