The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
From The Chilling Effect They encourage redistribution.
Reminds me of this episode of South Park:
If we had some global warming …
Interesting thing about this word doom. It has deep roots in religion.
Am I wrong to think environmentalists tend to have a preachy, righteous streak in them?
The 12 days of Global Warming …
I got also a good one:
Once upon a time, Ole Man God sat up there in the sky with his chariots of fire, his apocalyptic horsemen and you bet, lotsa good women. He had such a good time that he kinda didn’t notice, folk on earth were waking up. They’d discovered something they called “Science”. They were starting to notice things. Not everything fitted God’s Little Red Book which was supposed to be the official version.
So God consulted with His advisors. Nobody knew what to do. Things got bad and folk on earth were paying less and less attention to Ole Man God. “We gotta do something” he said “Can’t have all these people forgetting about Me. I exist, for God’s sake, I got a right to be heard”.
Up spoke little Mercury. “Look, God, I know it’s difficult. I know you like to be your own boss. But hey, if you listen to this science stuff the folk on Earth are doing, you might get some hints. Just saying’, God, I don’t want to see you get lost altogether.”
So Ole Man God sent some of his watchers down to Earth to observe this thing called Science. They reported back to Ole Man God. “It’s not impossible, O God” they said “All you need to do is dress some of your old stuff in the dress these scientists are using. But first, hang in there, get to learn their language.”
Okidoke, said OIe Man God. “I’ll set up this group called IPCC – it’s short for I Permit Climate Change, but they can think it stands for Intergovernmental Panel, that’ll make them feel good, they can think they created it themselves. We’ll hang in there and see if we get some stuff we can use”.
So IPCC was set up. And Ole Man God made it get warmer. “Oh”, said the IPCC, “it’s getting warmer. We gotta do something about this. Heeeeeelp! We want everyone to study everything because we gotta stop this warming and it’s probably our fault.”
Ole Man God smiled. Aha, these folk on earth were feeling guilty. That was good. Give them all the encouragement we can. That’s exaaaaaaaaactly like it used to be in the God Ole Days.
…. to be continued by someone else….
And on the trillionth day, God created Gore. And Gore went out into the world and gathered together his desciples, James and Gavin and Michael and Keith and Phil and Osama and Naomi and David of the Fruitflies. And anon, they joined with the heavenly host of the IPCC. And together with their Nobel Shield, they went into the lands to proclaim the Cataclism of Global Warming. And into the midst of the people they brought forth the Hockey Stick, and then the New Hockey Stick to smite the unbelievers. And such was their wisdom that no-one could question their prophecy.
For Gore is my shepherd, I shall always want. He leads be beneath the wind turbines. He makes me pay alms for the solar energy. Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of CO2, I shall fear no skeptic. For his carbon offsets and his movie shall comfort me all the days of my life.
Have you seen this? Statisticians reject global cooling
Christopher Booker’s new book on the subject is out.
“The whole man-made global warming scam is documented and exposed in the new book by Christopher Booker. Here he provides a cogent introduction to that book.
At the end of this introduction he points to the self-destructive lunacy which has gripped the world’s political classes, He will, therefore, doubtless welcome the second piece here in which the wor;d’s energy companies have reached a consensus that ‘There’s no way to hit those targets and it would be very silly to think that we can.’
We look like being extremely silly then! ”
The real climate change catastrophe
In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages
By Christopher Booker:
Next Thursday marks the first anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.
The Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of recognition.
Even the Government had to concede that the expense of doing this – which it now admits will cost us £18billion a year for the next 40 years – would be twice the value of its supposed benefits. Yet, astonishingly, although dozens of MPs queued up to speak in favour of the Bill, only two dared to question the need for it. It passed by 463 votes to just three.
One who voted against it was Peter Lilley who, just before the vote was taken, drew the Speaker’s attention to the fact that, outside the Palace of Westminster, snow was falling, the first October snow recorded in London for 74 years. As I observed at the time: “Who says that God hasn’t got a sense of humour?”
By any measure, the supposed menace of global warming – and the political response to it – has become one of the overwhelmingly urgent issues of our time. If one accepts the thesis that the planet faces a threat unprecedented in history, the implications are mind-boggling. But equally mind-boggling now are the implications of the price we are being asked to pay by our politicians to meet that threat. More than ever, it is a matter of the highest priority that we should know whether or not the assumptions on which the politicians base their proposals are founded on properly sound science.
This is why I have been regularly reporting on the issue in my column in The Sunday Telegraph, and this week I publish a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific delusion in history?.
There are already many books on this subject, but mine is rather different from the rest in that, for the first time, it tries to tell the whole tangled story of how the debate over the threat of climate change has evolved over the past 30 years, interweaving the science with the politicians’ response to it.
It is a story that has unfolded in three stages. The first began back in the Seventies when a number of scientists noticed that the world’s temperatures had been falling for 30 years, leading them to warn that we might be heading for a new ice age. Then, in the mid-Seventies, temperatures started to rise again, and by the mid-Eighties, a still fairly small number of scientists – including some of those who had been predicting a new ice age – began to warn that we were now facing the opposite problem: a world dangerously heating up, thanks to our pumping out CO2 and all those greenhouse gases inseparable from modern civilisation.
In 1988, a handful of the scientists who passionately believed in this theory won authorisation from the UN to set up the body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the year when the scare over global warming really exploded into the headlines, thanks above all to the carefully staged testimony given to a US Senate Committee by Dr James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), also already an advocate for the theory that CO2 was causing potentially catastrophic warming.
The disaster-movie scenario that rising levels of CO? could lead to droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and, above all, that melting of the polar ice caps, which would flood half the world’s major cities, struck a rich chord. The media loved it. The environmentalists loved it. More and more politicians, led by Al Gore in the United States, jumped on the bandwagon. But easily their most influential allies were the scientists running the new IPCC, led by a Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and Dr John Houghton, head of the UK Met Office.
The IPCC, through its series of weighty reports, was now to become the central player in the whole story. But rarely has the true nature of any international body been more widely misrepresented. It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of “1,500 of the world’s top climate scientists”, charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against “human-induced climate change” in order to arrive at a “consensus”.
In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it. This was why the computer models it relied on as its chief source of evidence were all programmed to show that, as CO2 levels continued to rise, so temperatures must inevitably follow.
One of the more startling features of the IPCC is just how few scientists have been centrally involved in guiding its findings. They have mainly been British and American, led for a long time by Dr Houghton (knighted in 1991) as chairman of its scientific working group, who in 1990 founded the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for research into climate change. The centre has continued to play a central role in selecting the IPCC’s contributors to this day, and along with the Climate Research Unit run by Professor Philip Jones at the University of East Anglia, controls HadCrut, one of the four official sources of global temperature data (another of the four, GIStemp, is run by the equally committed Dr Hansen and his British-born right-hand man, Dr Gavin Schmidt).
With remarkable speed, from the time of its first report in 1990, the IPCC and its computer models won over many of the world’s politicians, led by those of the European Union. In 1992, the UN staged its extraordinary Earth Summit in Rio, attended by 108 prime ministers and heads of state, which agreed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and this led in 1997 to the famous Kyoto Protocol, committing the world’s governments to specific targets for reducing CO?.
Up to this point, the now officially accepted global-warming theory seemed only too plausible. Both CO2 levels and world temperatures had continued to rise, exactly as the IPCC’s computer models predicted. We thus entered the second stage of the story, lasting from 1998 to 2006, when the theory seemed to be carrying everything before it.
The politicians, most notably in the EU, were now beginning to adopt every kind of measure to combat the supposed global-warming menace, from building tens of thousands of wind turbines to creating elaborate schemes for buying and selling the right to emit CO2, the gas every plant in the world needs for life.
But however persuasive the case seemed to be, there were just beginning to be rather serious doubts about the methods being used to promote it. More and more questions were being asked about the IPCC’s unbalanced approach to evidence – most notably in its promotion of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, produced in time for its 2001 report by a hitherto obscure US scientist Dr Michael Mann, purporting to show how global temperatures had suddenly been shooting up to levels quite unprecedented in history.
One of the hockey stick’s biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore’s film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.
The supporters of the hockey stick, highly influential in the IPCC, hit back. Proudly calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, their membership again reflects how small has been the number of closely linked scientists centrally driving the warming scare. They include Philip Jones, in charge of the HadCrut official temperature graph, and Gavin Schmidt, Hansen’s right-hand man at GISS –which itself came under fire for “adjusting” its temperature data to exaggerate the warming trend.
Then, in 2007, the story suddenly entered its third stage. In a way that had been wholly unpredicted by those IPCC computer models, global temperatures started to drop. Although CO2 levels continued to rise, after 25 years when temperatures had risen, the world’s climate was visibly starting to cool again.
More and more eminent scientists have been coming out of the woodwork to suggest that the IPCC, with its computer models, had got it all wrong. It isn’t CO2 that has been driving the climate, the changes are natural, driven by the activity of the sun and changes in the currents of the world’s oceans.
The ice caps haven’t been melting as the alarmists and the models predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30 years, not warming. The polar bears are not drowning – there are four times more of them now than there were 40 years ago. In recent decades, the number of hurricanes and droughts have gone markedly down, not up.
As the world has already been through two of its coldest winters for decades, with all the signs that we may now be entering a third, the scientific case for CO2 threatening the world with warming has been crumbling away on an astonishing scale.
Yet it is at just this point that the world’s politicians, led by Britain, the EU and now President Obama, are poised to impose on us far and away the most costly set of measures that any group of politicians has ever proposed in the history of the world – measures so destructive that even if only half of them were implemented, they would take us back to the dark ages.
We have “less than 50 days” to save the planet, declared Gordon Brown last week, in yet another desperate bid to save the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which is due to be agreed in Copenhagen in six weeks’ time. But no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.
In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves.
Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.
How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?
‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 postage and packing. To order, call 0844 871 1516 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk
I must confess that I AM A CLIMATE CRIMINAL. Today, as I do every week unless it rains, I BURNED a pile of junk mail, newspapers, scrap wood and brush. And I used my GAS rider mower to collect it all, and a GAS CHAIN SAW to cut the small trees and brush. And I’m gonna do the same thing next week and the week after that. Sometimes I even use diesel fuel to get it going good.
Simon, from your link:
…but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set.
Simon Filiatrault (12:12:02) :
“Have you seen this? Statisticians reject global cooling
I took the time to read it then post a comment pointing out the author’s intellectual dishonesty and disregard of facts. The article is full of misleading statements, contextual errors, and sensationalism. It’s a typical smear piece that regurgitates the same old ad homonyms under the false guise of something new in science.
NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend “will be never talked about again.”
I may win the lottery.
From the dailyme article: “In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends….”
The statistics are meaningless. The selection of the data is everything.
Let me choose the data for these four independent statisticians.
” Simon Filiatrault (12:12:02) :
Have you seen this? Statisticians reject global cooling
Yes, I have. Looks to me like a straw the drowning global warming hysterics will grab to try and save their dying religion.
Strange, how all these mighty brains with billions of dollars spent on this subject still can’t muster an answer to some pretty simple questions:
1. Why was the hottest year globally of the 20th century 1934 and not 1999?
2. Why is the global temperature not increasing with the increasing amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere?
3. Why haven’t the polar ice caps melted as predicted every year for the last 15 years?
4. Why are the polar ice caps growing when they should be melting?
5. Why are the seas cooling when you insist they should be warming?
6. Why are sea levels falling in places when, according to your doctrine, they should all be rising to catastrophic levels?
I look forward to getting answers to these questions, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Try not to laugh. Hilary Bean being grilled by Andrew Neil.
19 October 2009
Well, I’m a retired professional statistician (senior statistician at a Fortune 50 company for 15 years ), and I have some serious issues with the entire controversy. Far too many statistically illiterate people are buying into one side or the other, and politicians on both sides of the issue are capitalizing on that for their own ends. The best that can be said is that the data do not support any conclusions at this time.
Wobble (13:59:31) : “From the dailyme article: ‘In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends….'”
Yeah, as soon as I saw “AP” at the head of the article, I knew it was Warmist propaganda. Pure drivel from one of Obama’s lap dogs.
These global warming cartoons are great.
Just Passing (13:59:43) : 🙂 🙂
Nice to see how much Andrew Neil actually knows, and how he use it to put HB on the spot.
This AGW zombie isn’t trying to be funny. But how seriously can you take someone who writes a book called “Arctic Screaming?”
Check it out:
Thank you for the Third Testament, St Lucy & St John. Amen.
Simon Filiatrault (12:12:02) :
Have you seen this? Statisticians reject global cooling
Funny how this scientific study was done by AP just before Copenhagen.
Just Passing (13:59:43)
It was quite amusing. All they said was “You can see the c02 and people are suffering all sorts of illnesses as a result”.
well I have to say, I looked out of the window and saw the c02 increasing. I didn’t open the window just in case it gave me chicken pox.
Theres a movie idea a la Stephen King there
“Just Passing (13:59:43) :
Try not to laugh. Hilary Bean being grilled by Andrew Neil.
19 October 2009″
Crickey! It was like an episode of Mr Bean. And this minister is the best the UK govn’t has to represent climate change? You really do have problems.
Goreacle Report: Ah prefer ‘shine. Best antifreeze invented, ‘course, by moi great-great-grandaddy.
“Whisky on (Antarctic) ice: Ernest Shackleton…left a stash at the bottom of the world.
CAPE ROYDS, Antarctica — This spit of black volcanic rock that juts out along the coast of Antarctica is an inhospitable place. Temperatures drop below –50 Fahrenheit and high winds cause blinding snowstorms…
But if you happen upon the small wooden hut that sits at Cape Royds and wriggled yourself underneath, you’d find a surprise stashed in the foot and a half of space beneath the floorboards. Tucked in the shadows and frozen to the ground are two cases of Scotch whisky left behind 100 years ago by Sir Ernest Shackleton after a failed attempt at the South Pole.
Conservators discovered the wooden cases in January 2006. They were unable to dislodge the crates, but are going in with special tools in January during the Antarctic summer to try to retrieve them. An international treaty dictates that the crates, and any intact bottles that are inside, remain in Antarctica unless they need to be taken off the continent for conservation reasons. The whisky’s condition after a century of freezing and thawing is unknown…
Shackleton turned around 97 miles short of his destination, telling his wife, “I thought you’d rather have a live donkey than a dead lion.” When the ship arrived in 1909 to pick the men up, they left their supplies behind in their hut, including reindeer sleeping bags, tins of boiled mutton and bottled gooseberries. And, as we now know, they also abandoned two cases of Charles Mackinlay & Co. whisky.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpost.com”
Well obviously if the earth heats up enough, any hot air balloons in the sky will no longer be hot and will fall to the ground.
Not that I am aware of any climate scientists or even politicians predicting this amount of heating.
Just Passing (13:59:43)
Andrew Neil Q: … If we only have 50 days to save the world.. we’re being told the world is coming to an end unless we make major changes to our lifestyles …What can the people here in Brittan see around them that has really changed?
Hilary Benn: Well they can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up…. and if you go back over four hundred thousand years …
What a laugh! Repent ye the end of the world is nigh! Earlier it was you have sinned because you have committed adultery now you have sinned because you have light and heat in your house and a car or two.
Andrew Neil Q: Michael Mansfield is it credible for a Govt to make apocalyptic warnings to say that we have 50 days to save the world yet build a 3rd runway at Heathrow?
Michael Mansfield (the Luddite): Oh I think that is quite inconsistent I quite agree with that but I would like to answer your two questions: How does the British public know that things have changed? Very simple – Have we all forgotten what happened about 2 to 3 years ago? There was MASSIVE FLOODING! It nearly reached Windsor! I mean I went out and bought an inflatable boat…
Lol – the worst floods since 1952. These floods were in the summer of 2007 when Hillary Ben had just finished telling us that winter rains will increase and there will be drought in summer due to Global warming.
“All lands not submerged beneath the inexorably-rising waves will bake and wither under permanent year-round drought. Yea, and the very same lands will smother and drown under permanent year-round floods. And plagues of locusts. And pestilences. And famines. And brimstone and fire. And boils and pustules, yea, verily, and other things that pullulate and fester and sound nasty enough to get big headlines and bigger research grants.”
From Lord Monckton’s famous speech “Great is Truth, and mighty above all things”
This is a speech worthy of reading and re-reading.
Thanks for that link to Andrew Neil – I was unable to find it on the BBC website. Who was that moron on at the end, going on about pollution and people being ill everywhere in Britain. He made Hilary sound like a moderate.
“This [Lord Monckton’s] is a speech worthy of reading and re-reading.”
I second that. He certainly doesn’t pull any punches – it is a real fire-in-the-belly rallying cry.