UPDATE: 11/10 From the Sydney Morning Herald
Michael Duffy
November 8, 2008
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]”.
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.
Satellite derived lower troposphere temperature since 1979 – Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
So it’s disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri’s presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.
Below: find out how you can tell Mr. Pachauri directly what you think – he has a blog!
Later that night, on ABC TV’s Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are “flat-earthers” who deny “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence”. But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier?
In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline. Still, there’s no doubt a majority of climate scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.
Today I want to look at why this might be so: after all, such a state of affairs presents a challenge to sceptics such as me. If we’re right, then an awful lot of scientists are wrong. How could this be?
This question was addressed in September in a paper by Professor Richard Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among American scientists.
Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.
Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world’s most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.
None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some money from energy companies.)
Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples.
Someone else who’s looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his case “quite convincingly”.)
Why might this be so? Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than that which will not. They do this to sell more copies of their publications and of reprints of papers in it. Ioannidis believes these publication practices might be distorting science.
It’s possible the forces described by Lindzen and Ioannidis have imbued climate science with a preference for results that involve (or seem to involve) disastrous change rather than stability. Rajenda Pachauri’s recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pops (14:13:21) It’s presumptious to suggest it, but at this rate he’s losing merit so fast he won’t rate blogability in the next life. Enlightenment of himself and others seems not to be on his agenda. Let’s hope he comes to dwell in the land of those who sweep the path before themselves, so he’ll have a little longer to improve, next time. Jai guru deva om.
=============================
Anne (13:15:12) : The main problem holding back renewables is cost. If you see what mass manufacturing does to cost of nearly everything imaginable (cars, telephones, televisions, air travel, computers and even space travel), then there is only one way where that cost is heading: down. That is why I believe that nearly all renewables will become cost-effective sooner or later.
The current issue with renewables are not just dollar related, but also CO2 related. The belief that renewables will negate the CO2 from burning fossil fuels in a little unfounded at present. To manufacture a photocell solar panel or create a windmill is said to create as much CO2 as they would save, once you take into account manufacture from mining raw materials through to installation.
JamesG (09:40:23) I have heard your skeptical voice on many boards.
Re: WMD The most recent evidence is that Saddam bluffed everyone about WMD in order to keep the Persians at bay. Everybody thought that Saddam had plenty of WMD. Even Joe Wilson claimed in a 2/6/03 op-ed in the LATimes that we should not invade Iraq for fear Saddam would use his chemical and biological WMD on our troops. Yes, that Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame.
The need to depose Saddam arose most acutely in 1991. I blame Powell for not getting it done, but it is true that Bush only got allied support for freeing Kuwait, and not for deposing Saddam.
So please, quell your fantasies about the impetus for the war.
============================================
james G
Ron de Haan
“If climate is your job and you provide false information to serve an agenda that will harm economies and populations, you are not only a liar but a crook too. In the past we were forced to wage wars because of characters like Pachauri.”
You’re wearing pink glasses too, otherwise you’d notice that the USA is currently fighting a war which was based entirely on lies. So yes you are definitely correct that we wage wars because of lies. But is it always down to evil or just delusional thinking? You decide, but remember it cuts two ways when you take your own blinkers off”.
Well James, we are not discussing the Iraq war at this site do we?
So I do not understand your remark.
However, I underline your opinion that we have entered the Iraq war based on lies and deception.
And now we are confronted with a scheme based on lies and deception that has to convince us to commit economic suicide on a voluntary basis.
Do you know they even have plans for mass euthanisation?
WE ARE DEALING WITH VERY SICK PEOPLE read about how sich they are: http://green-agenda.com
By the way, I do not wear glasses.
Pete (12:41:19) :
I agree that CO2 and climate change are linked because long term (200-800 year) ocean cycles bring old cold water to the surface that is full of CO2 and also because overall sun induced ocean surface temperature changes lead a change in CO2 (CO2 lags ocean temperature change rates) with about a 5 year lag, but the linkage relations are not well quantified/modeled. CO2 lagging ocean temperature makes sense because that’s where most of the carbon sits, dissolved in the oceans.
The 2nd part of your sentence seems to be based on a different CO2/climate change linkage then what I based my agreement with you on, so I will now disagree but based on what I think you meant.
One thing doesn’t preclude the other. In the process of emerging from an ice age, CO2 is a feedback. The higher temperatures increase the global CO2 levels, increasing the temperature further, etc. Well you know what a feedback is. This does not invalidate the current claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Its up to the warmists to prove that CO2 does not primarily lag ocean temperatures over the last interglacials.
You can wait long for that. They won’t even try. Because they agree with you on the fact that CO2 lags temperature on prehistoric timescales.
Also, I assume that you use “climate change” in lieu of “Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming”. Any reason for that?
I can answer that question if you tell me exactly what you mean by “Catastrophic”
Kum Dollison (14:22:48) Yet corn-based ethanol is still sucking dollars in subsidies, still requires government mandate to perform in the market, and still uses land that would otherwise grow food.
Anne (14:26:30) We are still in the area of improving plant production with rising CO2. We are a long way from CO2 adversely impacting the biosphere.
Is this more sophistry? Ignorance or deception; your bona fides are getting thin.
=================================================
Bob B (13:46:34) :
CO2 has been shown to follow temp and not the other way around!
Yep, see my answer to Pete above.
evanjones (13:50:54) :
And remember the payment is in human life.
Do you really have to be so dramatic to make a point?
Anne — “What is often overlooked is the fact that the market for renewable energies may be the main growth area for the next decades. If you want a piece of that pie, better start developing the technologies. ”
Given that I’m merely a dull-witted engineer, I’d be fascinated to learn how one goes about “developing the technologies.” Surely by now you must know that scientists and engineers worldwide are already working on energy problems and have been doing so for… well… decades, and are doing this for the motivation of making a pile of cash. Few things are better at motivating. The first engineer who can figure out how to get 200 mpg out of a standard car is going to make a great deal of money. The first team who can figure out how to power a home full time for a $10k investment is going to likewise make a lot of money. Funny thing, these things haven’t appeared yet. I wonder why.
Surely you’re not suggesting that you simply mandate that these technologies that need developing and we wake up and poof them into existence, are you? (“Yeah, we could have made vehicle batteries that can power a Chevy Volt 1000 miles for 5 cents years last year, but gee, we didn’t knew it was required. That surely makes all the difference. Let’s build that battery, boys.”) Sounds like technology creationism to me. Must be nice to have that much faith that government can do what the lure of riches beyond the dreams of avarice cannot.
Evan, re your snip of my 14:29:58 comment. I was not presuming. When one has the base of knowledge that she has, and the rhetorical skill, it is difficult to blame ignorance for the error. Deliberate deception is the other possibility, and she has the opportunity to defend herself in open debate. Had she been lacking in either of those areas, she could get away with disinformation, but people like this have got to be called on their sophistry.
You’re the editor, and I respect that impossible task, but I am not being abusive to question her rhetoric.
=======================================
[REPLY – I’m one of several. It’s easy and it’s fun. (And you get to edit your posts. BWA-HA-HA! ABSOLUTE POWER!) I like you and I hope you’re not too mad at me. But you can’t presume. Besides, the counterargument is complete and speaks for itself, and that’s what cuts the mustard. Value judgments don’t prove anything. ~ Evan]
OK, I know this is low…
Would you buy a used car from this man?
Look at him… Doesn’t he look suspiciously like Rael, another hoaxer who has been at it for decades?
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/inoverie/rael/index.htm
You see, evan, it continues in her 14:51:57 comment. She is just guessing and acting as if she knows how carbon dioxide works in the ancient climate. Were she called on it we might get somewhere.
=============================================
Not a single indicator the models have predicted of CO2 caused greenhouse warming has happened. In particular would be the atmospheric temperature profile. If CO2 warming was happening, we should see an increase in temperature in the middle altitude of the atmosphere. We aren’t seeing that. Remember that CO2 absorbs IR in both directions, from the sun and from the Earth. In increase in CO2 should reduce the IR reaching the Earth’s surface and conserve that energy as heat. It should also trap IR leaving the surface of the Earth, again conserving that energy as heat. There is currently no evidence that is happening and in fact the evidence shows pretty clearly that is not happening.
Also, current CO2 content of atmosphere is still pretty close to an all time low in the history of Earth’s atmosphere. If it gets much lower than it was at about the turn of the 20th century, plants would begin to have trouble existing. In fact, CO2 depletion due to erosion is expected to be what causes the demise of life on Earth. As the Earth cools, volcanism slows. As volcanism slows, natural CO2 injection slows. As CO2 injection slows, available CO2 continues to be bound up through erosion of exposed rock causing a drop in CO2 until plants can no longer survive. When plants die, the animals that depend on them die.
As the Himalayas rose up from the collision of India into Asia, the amount of CO2 removed due to erosion of rock skyrocketed.
I also want to know why people have this emotional attachment to polar ice. For most of Earth’s history there has been no polar ice. The current ice age that we are in a brief (and probably closing) respite from is only about 2 million years old. Ice at the poles of Earth is an anomaly, not the usual condition.
Anne (14:57:27) So, how many people have to die? Are you callous naturally, or as a sophistical point. We are talking about flesh and blood, helpless creatures, at the mercy of the elite. So what about it? Cake or bread?
================================
“Climate Change is the greatest threat that
human civilization has ever faced.”
– Angela Merkel,
German Chancellor
Those quotes are pretty horrifying. That one in particular, however, left me gasping.
What face! How dare the German Chancellor presume to speak of threats to human civilization!
You-all missed it by about one bad call by Rundstedt and one overruling of Guderian.
Talk about . . . chutzpah!
The real question is why temperature eventually came down whilst CO2 remained high. Is anyone able to comment on the adjustment that was made to remove this discrepancy?
[…] More of Dr. Pachauri here. […]
EvanJones
There is a logical theory that postulates that baseline climate is dependent on the positions of continents around the globe. When india crashed into asia and raised the Himalayas, thus began the current ice age we are now in.
The temp has been steadily dropping ever since (on a geologic time scale). There is no reason to think that we will not be in another “snowball Earth” episode after a few more millions of years. Therefore, climate change will wipe us out eventually if we don’t figure out how to adapt.
I’m sure this is what Angela Merkel was referring to! :<)
Katherine:”You’re taking it as given that CO2 is responsible for “global warming,” and that “global warming” is a problem.”
Anne: “Correct. I believe the first part of this statement is true. As for the second part, it is largely undecided what will exactly happen where and when. I have concluded that that is a gamble I am not willing to take. ”
Anne, that is a fear based response. Are you unwilling to gamble on whether a near Earth object will hit and cause major changes in our Planet? Are you campaigning for more funding to find a way to prevent that? Are you unwilling to gamble on whether aliens will come to our Planet and enslave us? Why are you not out campaigning for funding to prevent that? I could probably list a hundred other cases where someone would not be willing to gamble on the outcome of a scenario. Do we need to fund all of those also?
Should we just try to “human proof” our Planet? Perhaps we should all live in a hole, never venture anywhere, never attempt to live a full life, never take a chance, never experience the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat (thanks to ABC Sports for that one). A little warming would be a good thing, in fact I would love to never see a temperature below 70 degrees again. Why not get off the high horse and just enjoy the ride, it’s short enough as it is.
“This is something that puzzles me. World energy use is something like 60% oil and coal. How do you stop this?”
The right question is, “Why would you replace it when no real rationale to do so exists?”
As far as “a few percent” goes, 1% of the current US GDP of around 14 trillion USD is equivalent to the loss of 3.5 million jobs paying $40,000 per year. And that’s just 1%! There’s no telling how many jobs “a few percent” will cost.
“I thought that alarmism was the hallmark of the AGW crowd.”
Your words, not mine…but yes, I agree with that statement.
“This is only true if that crop is not constrained by other factors, like soil nutrients or water.”
In my 20 lines of “attack” that you obviously didn’t read, I touched on the fact that higher CO2 levels make plants more drought resistant due to increased efficiency of water usage. Guess I’m not the one that needs to learn to read…
Do you really have to be so dramatic to make a point?
Mmm.
Someone mentioned Pascal’s wager. The whole idea behind Pascal’s wager is that there is nothing to lose on one side, so why not play it safe? But there is something to lose. Look at the unintended consequences of the ethanol debacle. All it took was that in tandem with one cooler than average winter to create havoc. Not even noticed by the developed world, but havoc everywhere else. Ours is the sin of the Pharisees.
One of the reasons that presidents age three years for every one in office is that kind of responsibility. If I thought it were a matter of simply playing it safe with but minor expense and inconvenience, I wouldn’t really care that much. But I’m a demographics man. No escape for me.
Yes, I consider the potential consequences in human life if I am wrong. But if I’m right, no one suffers.
You, on the other hand, have a harder job. You need to consider how many must inevitably die–off the top–in order to prevent what you believe to be a potentially greater number of deaths. I don’t envy you. Most ship captains never have it that hard.
In New Zealand after yesterdays general election, the Prime Minister elect is reported as saying, ‘ Key has promised a more right-leaning government than Clark’s, which for almost a decade made global warming a key policy issue.
In a country where the environment is a mainstream political issue, Key has vowed to wind back Clark’s greenhouse gas emission trading scheme to protect businesses from financial losses, and to reduce red tape he says entangle important dam projects’.
F Rasmin (15:59:22) :
Sounds like New Zealand has the right idea…might be a place one might want to move to! For some reason, though, I seem to remember New Zealand having a fairly restrictive immigration policy….rats! 🙂
meanwhile…
Arctic Ice Extent Now Likely Highest Level Since 2002
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic_Ice_Extent_Now_Likely_Highest_Level_Since_2002.pdf
You see, evan, it continues in her 14:51:57 comment. She is just guessing and acting as if she knows how carbon dioxide works in the ancient climate. Were she called on it we might get somewhere.
We did, though, don’t you see? Let her guess. Others will realize this. (Maybe she will eventually realize it, though we cannot count on it.)