WUWT reader Jim Cripwell writes in a comment
I’m so annoyed with this…From today’s GWPF, I find http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-government-no-global-cooling-centuries/
I quote:
“The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con): The UK government has made substantial investment in research that concerns the likelihood and timing of future changes in global and regional climate.
All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”
So, presumably the UK Met. Office used the IPCC models to prepare this reply. It is given in the House of Lords, by a Peer of the Realm, so by the rules of the British Parliament, it OUGHT to be accurate. Since the climate models are completely incapable of producing accurate predictions, the answer given by Baroness Verma is little more than a pack of lies.
It was this sort of statement by the Met. Office a few years ago that persuaded Heathrow Airport not to invest in snow clearing equipment, so the a mere 5 inches of snow closed one of the busiest airports in the world for several days. 5 inches of snow here is Ottawa, Canada, would barely cause any delays in service.
Surely it is about time that someone with both authority and courage to stand up and say this nonsense of CAGW must stop before even more damage is done.
=============================================================
meanwhile:
![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Anthony. What an honor!
I couldn’t agree more.
What can we do about it?
I don’t ask this as a put down, I genuinely want to know.
I so agree. The cat’s been out of the bag for awhile now, the models thoroughly debunked, predictions AND projections one after another wrong, year after year after year.
A rhetorical question now: After 30 years of getting it wrong, why are these people allowed to continue with the meme, continue to draw much needed money down the green tubes, continue to cause global disruption to economies, the environment, civilization, health and safety? Why?
This is what the MSM should be asking. This is what every citizen of every country should be asking. Alarmism is destroying the world on many layers to a noticeable extent now. And people everywhere just sit back and watch?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Pull. The. Plug.
All Ican think is to force a Judicial Review – if a lawyer could be found to act pro bono.
I indicated a similar distrust of models on the excellent Climate Etc site and the comments showed that the academic scientific community seems to support AGW to the hilt, despite any temperature hiatus or any other contrary evidence.
We are up against a belief system that defies logical thought or scientific integrity. I don’t know how to argue with that using conventional scientific argument.
So the best the IPCC could come to explaining the current lack of warming was saying that natural factors caused this. Except if weighted as the IPCC does none of them changed enough to overpower co2s claimed effect over this time period, despite this we are SURE that they wont continue to overpower co2 the claimed effect because……
Uh wait they forgot to say. hmmm. Was this meant as an opinion piece and not one describing our knowledge and data on the topic? Im shocked so many otherwise intelligent folks still think this is science based.
In Ottawa, 5″ of snow means the storm missed us ~(;-)
(That emoticon is supposed to be a toque)
A blizzard this month killed tens of thousands of cattle in western South Dakota.
http://www.climal.com/
What can we do?
To find the answer to that we must, unfortunately, ask why the faith is clung to by those in power.
The answer (now) is that they are committed to it. The world is ending and if you doubt that then the precautionary principle is invoked. No-one wants to be seen as reckless. Do you?
So don’t be partisan; every side is committed to folly. You will just look like a dangerous person to be associated with. That is self-defeating.
Instead make the costs of fear well known. Higher energy costs today are deadly. Let the alarmists defend their costs explicitly. If they keep raising the downsides for tomorrow they will become more and more ridiculous.
You don’t beat a lie with a lie. Both are rootless and will grow as parasites – indistinguishable in the long run.
You beat a lie with laughter.
The good Baroness has almost certainly uttered her own epitaph, perhaps along the lines of Dr David ‘children won’t know what snow is’ Viner.
She’ll be hung out to dry on this falsifiable statement. Tough.
Cheshirered says: October 31, 2013 at 3:05 pm…
I hope so.
I really hope so.
But her husky hugging boss will defend her out of loyalty, I for no other reason. She needs to be shown to be costly in her folly not merely wrong.
A lot of politicians are on record as being wrong.
The global temperature use the sea water level to imply any warming and the temperatures are adjusted. The sea level models rely on the global temperatures so this is adjusted.
The global temperature use the sea water level to imply any warming and the temperatures are adjusted. The sea level models rely on the global temperatures so this is adjusted.
The global temperature use the sea water level to imply any warming and the temperatures are adjusted. The sea level models rely on the global temperatures so this is adjusted.
…
Is this what is happening? Is this why a constant stream of tiny upward adjustments are being made to both and are always far, far too high? Datasets are assumed unadjusted when at the very base they have very well been adjusted upward. That’s a no no in basic science 101. I don’t see how they cannot be do such.
Jim, well done!
Monckton, get in there and straighten this out, before tea time tomorrow, of course.
(Oh yeah, you can use shackles, chains, and other devices as necessary.)
geran says:
October 31, 2013 at 3:25 pm
given the time of year, I’d suggest a few barrels of gunpowder!
Schrodinger’s Cat says:
What can we do about it?
@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly
I wish I knew. The one suggestion I have made before is that Princeton University should issue a statement, with the full authority of the University, that contradicts the statements by the RS, APS, AGU, etc. I am, of course, thinking of Ken Haapala.. Then at least we would have one academic institute in our corner.
They have too much invested in this business for them now to turn around and admit they are wrong.
And unfortunately it could be decades before they are proved conclusively wrong. Till then they can continue to string things out by blaming everything under the sun for the lack of warming while maintaining it will return soon.
Certainly in the UK, the voters get very little choice, as all three main parties sing from the same sheet. Only UKIP stand out alone, and the electoral system means they have no chance of even winning a few seats, never mind a majority.
Randy says:
October 31, 2013 at 2:52 pm
So the best the IPCC could come to explaining the current lack of warming was saying that natural factors caused this.
____
Exactly. In their statement they suggested various things: volcanoes, hiding heat, etc., but they assigned low probability to each of these explanations–at least quite a bit lower than their 95% certainty on CO2. So basically the latest summary is that the warming trend has been blocked for 17 years by . Until some definitive science is done on the potential magnitude and schedule of , it seems unjustified to assign a high certainty to their pet cause.
Second try. Editor played a trick on me.
Randy says:
October 31, 2013 at 2:52 pm
So the best the IPCC could come to explaining the current lack of warming was saying that natural factors caused this.
____
Exactly. In their statement they suggested various things: volcanoes, hiding heat, etc., but they assigned low probability to each of these explanations–at least quite a bit lower than their 95% certainty on CO2. So basically the latest summary is that the warming trend has been blocked for 17 years by UNKNOWN. Until some definitive science is done on the potential magnitude and schedule of UNKNOWN, it seems unjustified to assign a high certainty to their pet cause.
M Courtney: “To find the answer to that we must, unfortunately, ask why the faith is clung to by those in power.”
You had it at ‘power’ — “policy-relevant pathways”. Any port in a storm. Endless hobgoblins. You can keep your healthcare if you like it. It takes a village. Pick your adage.
/I-am-not-a-crook
The Emperor whose new clothes were admired by all the Imperial Clothiers, the Royal Guild of Weavers, the Household Dressers, and all the other accredited experts was confounded when a mere child pointed out that His regal PP was showing.
The AGW Emperor’s PP has been in evidence for far too long now, and it’s high time the offending Member was tucked back in
For Immediate Release: Researchers explain 95% confidence
Scientists at the East Anglia Community College have explained how the IPCC arrived at 95 percent confidence that humans are the cause of most of the global warming of the past 60 years.
“It was really just dumb luck that we discovered it,” said one of the scientists. “One day while playing golf, Phil happened to notice that 95% of the putts that he left short failed to go into the hole.” A fellow researcher explained further, “Climate science is no different than golf. When Mother Nature leaves putts short, that is to say the temperature falls below model predictions, it doesn’t mean that she didn’t intend for them to go in. Given the steep slope of the model predictions, it’s no wonder she leaves so many short.”
The researchers explained that from there, it was a simple matter to apply the same 95% phenomenon observed on the course to the climate, and the IPCC followed along. When asked, a state-side researcher noted, “It’s a pretty tight group we have in the climate science community. You might even say that the CC in IPCC stands for Country Club.”
The good baroness merely consulted the usual soothsayers, and so remains ignorant of the impending reality. And as for, we have another 10,000 years to go before the Holocene ends, I can only think that the British Antarctic Survey can’t been to the Antarctic recently. This has been looked at and debunked. Perhaps she got her nautical vessels mixed up and consulted the crew languishing in Murmanski jails.
If flip flop Lockwood’s current line of research holds up then this period of cooling we about to embark on will be the most rapid since the last glaciation. Something that is hardly suggestive of the Holocene holding out for a further 10,000 years. I appreciate that Milankovitch orbital variation shows a slower decent than the last few glaciations, but not sufficient to support the idea that we may get a further 10,000 years.
We don’t need to drop all the way into a glaciation, which can be a drop of 10 degrees, before we can no longer grow food in the Northern hemisphere.
Well Hey! It’s still 14 C. here in Ottawa, 7:15 PM on Samhain! (Hallowe’en). If that’s not CAGW, what is? /sarc
Seriously, I’m starting to think that the UK Met and the House of Lords (bar Lord Monckton) is becoming another Gore Effect Predictor. Which bodes ill, in the context, for expectations of Indian Summers, and the Tulip Festival here, in the decades to come.
Regards Merry Old, it’d be damn tough – what with energy prices in the Isles. I’d engage in schadenfreude given how much of this junk has been generated out of England, but the Pols can well afford the fur (faux or otherwise) coats, and it’d be the wage-slaves, per usual, who’ll get it in the neck (or fingers ears and toes, more properly).
In the Future, no one will believe, that no one went to Jail over this virulent propaganda.
And the way solar flaring is being winked out, here at Maximum, most every time the penumbras crest the limb to face us, I’m thinkin’ Greenhouses (REAL greenhouses) are going to be the order of the day up here, (since we outnumber the caribou, eats-wise ;-)). ” Get those Shields up, Scotty!”
Guess who didn’t (and will not) miss a single flight despite their guilty paws all over it…