By Steven Goddard
Some readers may remember the 1961 film “The Day the Earth Caught Fire”. It could be viewed as the original “climate alarmist” film as it contains all of the plot elements of our current climate alarmism scenarios: exaggerated images of a dying planet, a mainstream media newspaper reporter, technology that is feared, the Met Office, and last but not least, junk science.
You can read about the whole wacky plot here.
Back to the present.
A new study out of MIT predicts “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.”
This is more than twice what was expected in 2003. The Telegraph reports
“Global warming of 7C ‘could kill billions this century‘. Global temperatures could rise by more than 7C this century killing billions of people and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse, according to new research“A similar 2003 study had predicted a mere- but still significant- 4 degree increase in global temperatures by 2100, but those models weren’t nearly as comprehensive, and they didn’t take into consideration economic factors.
So what has changed since 2003 to cause the scientists at MIT’s “Centre for Global Climate Change” to believe the world is going to boil over this century and send billions of us directly to a toasty demise similar to our featured movie?
Since 2003, global temperatures have been dropping.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
January, 2008 broke the record for the most snow covered area ever measured in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
I added a red line below showing the reported projected rise in temperatures from the MIT models, compared with the actual observed temperature trends since the previous 2003 report. Their projections show a correlation of essentially zero.
Given that the observed trends are exactly opposite what the MIT models have predicted, one might have to ask what they have observed since 2003 to more than double their warming estimates, and where their 90% confidence value comes from?
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without “rapid and massive action” temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
This study has a strong scent of GIGO (garbage, in garbage out.) MIT has one of the world’s preeminent climatologists Dr. Richard Lindzen in their Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. I wonder if the scientists at the “Centre for Global Climate Change” checked with him before firing this remarkable piece off to the press?
During the Phanerozoic, CO2 levels have at times been more than 1,500% higher than present, but temperatures have never been more than 10C higher than present. So how does a projected 30% increase in CO2 produce a 7C temperature rise in their models? During the late Ordovician, there was an ice age with CO2 levels about 1000% of current levels. Hopefully the newspaper headlines don’t accurately represent the content of the article.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
Finally, does their name (“Centre for Global Climate Change“) hint at a possible inherent bias in their raison d’être? What “rapid and massive action” do they want us to engage in?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How did we get into this mess?
The fundamental flaw…
Science as a cultural practice is subject to the same issues as any cultural practice, it can improve, stagnate or devolve.
The essence of the traditional practice of science, and still current practice for many scientists is the discourse between theory and experiment. Where experiment allows for the destructive testing of theory by empirical observation. Theories that don’t stand up to the destructive testing of experiment fall by the wayside. In this way Science is able to eliminate the false theories.
Over time (say the last 30 to 40 years) there has been the rise of Advocacy as a practice of science. Where Advocacy differs from the traditional practice of science is in the refusal to use destructive testing by experiment. Advocates instead defend their positions by highlighting “supporting” evidence and ignoring, and attacking contrary evidence. No advocate is “thrilled” by the prospect that their theory might be wrong, and that there might be something new to learn. Advocates substitute other theoretical constructs (i.e. Computer Models) for destructive testing. Theory ends up referencing theory in a closed loop. Advocacy = Bias.
Exploiting the opportunity…
With the rise of Advocacy Science, and the concurrent development of scientific blindness to false theory, there have emerged a large number of opportunists who seek to exploit the existing credibility of science to further their own agendas. These opportunists perpetuate the weakness of Advocacy Science to identify false theories, as it allows them to continue to use the credibility of science to further their own agendas.
Restoring Science…
As the root cause is the presence of Advocacy Science, the solution would involve the insistence on “destructive testing of theories via experiment with empirical observation”. This could be done by ensuring that government funding could only be accessed for science by insisting that proposals for research funding described in detail “how” the work to be funded would be subject to “destructive testing” and what the failure criteria would be.
To sum up…
Climate science as a cultural practice represents a devolution of the traditional and mainstream scientific practices of destructive testing of theory with experiment and empirical observation, and the adoption of a closed loop theory to theory discourse that is not grounded in empirical observation.
Advocacy has it’s place, in politics, in the law court, in business – just not in Science.
Note that no conspiracy is required for Advocacy to rise within the practice of Science. Science like any other cultural practice is subject to the vagaries of human nature. Any practice that is subject to Sloth, Hubris, Greed, Venality, Cowardice, etc… will devolve. By the same token, Courage, Hardwork, Intelligence and a real Commitment to restore science can still have an effect.
““MIT predicts “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.”””
Does anyone know how “90% ” was obtained. Did 360 of their 400 computer games show this? I haven’t been able to figure out where this and similar probabilities in other AGW studies pop out.
Smokey (20:14:46) :
Joel Shore (19:18:22),
OK then, let’s give the entire Schneider quote. Readers can make up their own minds about Schnieder’s ethics. Scneider says:
““On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
~ Prof. Steven Schneider
Translation: AGW proponents fib when it’s convenient, in order to advance their AGW agenda.
There are three key assumptions (both very contentious and very likely to be false) that underpin the above statement by Prof. Steven Schneider.
[1] That humans can impact and successfully control global climate, and
[2] That the cost of implementing global climate control is less than the costs of adapting to climate change as it occurs, and
[3] That telling the truth will produce a sub-optimal outcome.
If any of the above assumptions are false, his ethical bind disappears, and defaults back to a simple requirement to tell the truth.
p.s (all very contentious… yeah, I started of with only points 1 and 2…)
“Bob Wood (21:50:37) :
The picture shown at the heading of this article must be of London because London bridge is in the background. Since the elevation of London is only 20-50 feet, global warming of that magnitude would raise sea level enough to swamp the whole town. It certainly wouldn’t look like a desert.”
Classic film, one of my favourite B&W sci-fi movies. And proves that when you move nearer a source of heat energy (Or the source gets hotter) things get, well, hotter.
London, incidentally, is sinking. In fact pretty much the whole SE of England is. That’s one reason why the London tidal barrier was built.
Sadly there are already flames in the Antarctic … but they are not caused by AGW…Sir Ed’s hut just burnt down…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10574378
but if we wait long enough I’m sure someone will claim it was caused by man … and I don’t mean with a match!
London Bridge is in Arizona. The bridge in the picture is the Tower Bridge. The story goes that the buyers of the London Bridge thought they were buying the much more attractive Tower Bridge.
“Why do you resist us? Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. We only come to improve the quality of life of all species.”
– Locutus of Borg
Bob Wood re Original TDTECF artwork.
The heading photo was originally a Matte painting by Oscar winning [Superman Visual Effects] Les Bowie, a Brit who employed me as his gopher on The Day the Earth Caught Fire. Having just left the RAF and in need of work I was amazed at what an extremely low budget and lateral thinking can achieve! Total budget for Visual Effects on that picture was 17,000 Pounds Sterling. How times have changed. In two years I was driving down the River Thames in February in my Mini Cooper S from Old Windsor to Runnymeade and back because the ice was so thick. Not even a crack. That night we had an ice party [450 people and spit roast lamb + alcohol in the middle of the Thames. The Times was predicting a New Ice Age nearly every day around that time [Feb 63]
What a scam all this CO2 poison/pollution really is.
Tom Fuller (18:32:29) :
Great link.
But I learned something new–one of the Editors Emeritus of the Journal of Climate is Michael Mann–so check their graphs pretty closely (Michael Mann was the fellow who produced the thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph that graced the IPCC report a few years
Nuf said!
jorgekafkazar (18:19:38) :
“This has all the finesse, prudence, and precision of playing darts with hand grenades in the dark.”
Wonderful metaphor, can we have it as a Quote of the Week?
Bob Wood (21:50:37) :
It was London, because it was set and filmed there, but it’s Tower Bridge in the background.
The warmist/alarmist/AGW/MMCC believers have a problem, the problem that has dogged all dishonest propagandists throughout history.
The problem is the propaganda curve, when a group starts lying to promote and sustain its cause people will at first trust what they are being told BUT when people start to see the lies for what they are, the liars can either give up and admit the truth OR make the lies bigger.
Once on the path of lies its impossible to get off, they end telling lies to cover the lies and more lies on top, a kind of propaganda hockey stick, the AGW/MMCC believers know that more and more people no longer believe the lies so they simply have to ramp up the fear mongering and scare stories targeting children gives them a short term gain because they tend to trust what adults tell them.
The original idea to create a new world order via the AGW/MMCC theory requires that the ordinary person is made to fear a common enemy that everyone can rally around creating a unity that the originators can mould and shape into a political weapon, all dictatorships used this tool, the nazis used the jews and the communists, the Soviets used the capitalists, wealth creators and the rich.
Once the people are misled into fearing this fantasy enemy they will do almost anything the originators demand, lies and propaganda play a vital part in whipping up the hysteria and fear against the targeted scapegoats.
Once the big lie program has been unleashed it must be protected by denying sceptics from having a mass media platform, insults and accusations follow with a concerted effort to demean and marginalize dissent.
The problem with the big AGW/MMCC lie is that actual reality does not agree with the artificial reality created by the big lie so the lies have to get bigger and more scary, the originators have no choice because their whole scheme feeds on making people afraid and fearful.
We are now witnessing the big lie on the upward ramp of the propaganda curve, it will carry on untill the lies become so self evident that no lie however big will be believed and when that occurs the whole scheme collapses in on itself, there is an old saying that people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, one can only hope that this time we will learn never to blindly trust the big lie and its originators ever again.
This link:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
under the CO2 graph, if ‘cut and pasted’ takes you to the snow cover graph (no surprise) BUT if clicked upon, takes you to the CO2 graph… WUWT?
We’ve all read it, Joel Shore. We’ve read it to weariness. We’ve read holes through it. We’ve read it in its full, unmistakable context. We read it twenty years ago, when it first came out in Discover magazine, and we reread it every one of those three hundreds times that you and Gavin and Tamino and Colose and all the other usual suspects justified it for us.
Joel Shore, the content of Steve’s infamous remark is so absurdly obvious that only a lunatic or a fool would try rationalizing that pablum. But of course don’t let that stop you, as I know it won’t. Only one thing, please: would you afterward tell us again how the full context changes Albert Gore’s equally infamous remark — “I believe it’s appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is” — please tell us again (and again) how “the full context” actually makes that a perfectly sensible and scientific thing to say.
They want the public to accept the idea of personal carbon credits as a new form of global currency by 2018-2020. Ed Milliband let slip that very date and time schedule in a February Guardian article. It’s up the media and academics to scare the shit out of the public to accept the new currency.
Personal carbon credits sounds like a good idea (you force yourself to be more efficient, save money, and if you can’t you can buy credits from the poor anywhere in the world) but it requires the state to observe all your consumption patterns and energy use to ensure your carbon credits are properly accounted for, which means your personal privacy will almost entirely be demolished.
We now know why the seas are boiling hot. The followup question that matters then is whether pigs have wings.
I actually admire Steven Schneider’s attempt at honesty. He admits that scientists are also humans, which naturally means they will have biases and not always be objective. In addition, he admits that the truth may sometimes have to be sacrificed for the message.
For a true believer, this makes perfect sense.
*Note to the moderator: I submitted two comment under my real name — Ray Harvey — both of which gotten eaten up by your SPAM catcher, I presume. I’ve posted here before, without any trouble, under my Thinking Man sobriquet, but the thinking man dot com website is being phased out, so I’m back to using my actual name. It’s my second comment, with the link to the Dr. Bill Gray and Dr. Kevin Trenberth written debate I arranged, that I’d really like to get posted. It’s VERY interesting reading. If this comment goes through — and it may not — I’d still prefer that you delete it, and post the other two. Thank you. Ray Harvey
Schneider is flat wrong that these so-called heavy hitters “like Kevin Trenberth” would win an open debate easily against the skeptical scientists, and I can prove it: I arranged, semi-recently, a written debate between Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Bill Gray; this debate appeared in the Fort Collins (Colorado) newspaper that I write for, and if anyone would like to read it, please download it (for free) from here:
http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/home/bill-gray-and-kevin-trenberth-debate/
And please pass it around. This extraordinarily edifying exchange got great local readership, but not nearly the national and international attention it deserved. We even conducted an informal poll, and Dr. Gray easily came out on top.
Per Steven Schneider saying:
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Hope is not a strategy; and it certainly is not a moral compass. Hope is an emotional state that arises from unresolved conflict. There is no conflict for the moral person on this issue.
That the question even enters his mind says he has a broken moral compass.
There is no bind, no ethical bind, and certainly no double ethical bind.
There is truth. There is honesty. There is knowing that something is right and doing that. Effectiveness is not for sale at the cost of truth and honesty. The ethics are clear, sacrificing honesty for effect is not moral.
That he does not know this, first, foremost, last, and always: tells me all I need to know about him. He is tortured on his own lack of center …
A centered person would have no such torture from no such dilemma between non-conflicted non-choices. A centered moral person would know that they had to choose honesty, and accept the effectiveness that comes with it. That is what ethics is all about. Knowing in advance that an answer is the right one; no matter the cost and no matter the personal goals. The ends do not justify the means.
Unless, of course, your integrity has a price… then you need to haggle with yourself about how much it is worth to you… and have you gotten enough on the scales to ‘balance’ it out…
Speaking of arctic ice levels, the NANSEN graphs are really funny today, but also the AMSRE shows a sudden steep drop. What’s up?
rbateman:-)
Sorry to be Mr Picky, I get the point you’re making, but surely Canada et al would suffer from Arctic temperatures as opposed to Antarctic ones?
Question! Is the MIT’s “puter” called Deep Thought by any chance? (5 x 9 = 42!!!!) As an engineer, if I lied, I’d be out! How good will these predictions be @ur momisugly 90% probability if we changed the stakes, put a little money on the table, maybe a few lives & careers on there too? Incentive is a good thing, prove your prediction & I won’t sack you, you get to keep your pension, & your house. If you’re wrong, you lose the lot. How scarey would their message be then I wonder. Now I can see many would think that unreasonable.
AND can someone tell me when any of the many predicted scare stories that have blighted our lives past & present, ever come true? Can any one name just one? Deja Vu, aliens from Mars we’re all going to die, aliens full stop we’re going to die (& they’re always evil, not once do any of them offer us a cup of tea!), Nuclear Holocaust we’re all going to die, Biological Warfare we’re all going to die, Chemical Warfare we’re all going to die, Ice Age wagtd, Asian Flu, wagtd, AIDS wagtd, BSE wagtd, Flesh eating bugs wagtd, Superbugs wagtd, Foot n’ mouth wagtd, Avian Flu wagtd, Swine Flu wagtd! Have I missed one? Oh I forgot the Chinese are tunnelling under the Pacific Ocean to invade America as I type so watch out you Colonials, (now that was a bad movie.) Why is it they always thought we would have a crummy digital clock to tell the time?
Dear Met Office,
I put off the gardening yesterday morning because you forecast heavy rainfall but we didn’t get it. It was lovely weather after all! What’s the weather going to be exactly next Sunday at 11:07am as I want a barbecue lunch & need to get the charcoal lit in time! MIT please respond for a second opinion!
Yours sincerely
AtB with bad back!
The study’s lead author, Ronald Prinn, said, “There is no single revision that is responsible for this change. In our more recent global model simulatations, the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower.”
I assume they reduced the rate of heat uptake by the oceans because actual measurements show the oceans have warmed less than previously predicted. If so, that’s certainly an example of “heads I win, tails you lose.” If the oceans were warming faster than predicted, I have absolutely no doubt it would be cited as the final, unassailable proof of AGW.
Steven Goddard (20:23:43) :
Consider the late Jurassic. CO2 was at least 400% of present values, and temperatures were no more than 5 degrees warmer.
Doesn’t that prove current warmist theory then.
assuming doubling CO2 produces 2C rise in temp then a 400% increase would give 4deg C rise
But you still have not given the reference for the proof of temperature and CO2 levels 500MY to 5MY.
[snip]
Well isn’t it obvious that a small temperature flattening over a few years completely disproves 150 years of global warming? Because we all know that all the models predict a continuously increasing worldwide temperature. For example, the global temperature this afternoon should be higher than it is rightnow. This will be a very good and relevant test of century-long climate changes.
The Arctic sea ice is now at the 2008 level, isn’t it good news? 2008 wasn’t such a bad year for Arctic sea ice after all (only the second lowest!)… So everything is fine, everything in its right place. No alarms and no surprises, please…
Reply: Please refrain from the broad attacks on other commentators or subsequent posts will be deleted. ~ charles the moderator
@anna v
Indeed, in the full context the quote is the same if not worse. I find troubling the opening part:
“On the one hand, as scientists […] On the other hand, we are […] human beings as well”
Now apply that “ethics” to being a police officer. Or a high court judge.
He really doesn’t seem to have thought deeply about ethics, or is simply not well informed. It only requires asking, how is it that different people can come to very different ethical choices? “Being human” is not a virtue in and of itself… humans display a vast range of ethical IQ, so if this chap wants to talk ethics, let him take training and study the field and actually develop his ethical IQ, before he gives up the professional science day job. If I may say, I would prefer these people to remain scientists DESPITE being human. I expect the police to remain fair and honest DESPITE their feelings about criminals.
Anyway, that quote only serves to illustrate what we all already know, that climate science and the UN is composed of many many individuals who share a common worldview, and in their heart of hearts believe they are bringing that worldview (and lifestyle) to the rest of the world. It is probably what attracted them to the job in the first place.
It is essentially ‘religious’ in the strict sense of being a teaching about how we should live and what it is that is of ultimate concern for humans (not a judging/saviour God as in traditional Christianity, but a bonded united humanity in balance with our place in the web of life of ecology).
This is how he defines his “humanity” (even though if you asked a broad range of the 6 billion people on the planet today to define their “humanity”, you’d get about 7 different classes of answers, or more).
It is also an interesting place for them to be, as the scary scenarios are supposed to grab the attention of a public that apparently isn’t as ethically developed as they are, isn’t in touch with their own (nature-bonded) humanity. Perhaps we should all change how we do our jobs and become more “human”. Somehow these ‘scientists’ see themselves as being the most ethically advanced individuals (even though they have had no training) and are unaware that perhaps some people consider their ethics a bit limited and counterproductive…..?
Well you know Hansen has his climate dice.. it seems only fair MIT researchers created a pair of ‘roulette wheels.’ I mean why should Hansen have all the fun eh? Geeze to quote Buggs Bunny “What a bunch of Maroons”