The purge continues

Last night I pointed out how NASA had quietly purged IPCC AR4 referenced glacier melting claims from its climate.nasa.gov website, especially since they upped the year from 2035 to 2030 on their own. Now Roger Pielke Jr. points out that another curious purge has been spotted:

Excerpts:

There is another important story in involving the Muir-Wood et al. 2006 paper that was misrepresented by the IPCC as showing a linkage between increasing temperatures and rising damages from extreme weather events. The Stern Review Report of the UK government also relied on that paper as the sole basis for its projections of increasing damage from extreme events. In fact as much as 40% of the Stern Reivew projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of the Muir-Wood et al. paper.

As I was preparing this post, I accessed the Stern Review Report on the archive site of the UK government to capture an image of Table 5.2. Much to my surprise I learned that since the publication of my paper, Table 5.2 has mysteriously changed! Have a look at the figures below.

The figure immediately below shows Table 5.2 as it was originally published in the Stern Review (from a web archive in PDF), and I have circled in red the order-of-magnitude error in hurricane damage that I document in my paper (the values should instead by 10 times less).


Now, have a look at the figure below which shows Table 5.2 from the Stern Review Report as it now appears on the UK government archive (PDF), look carefully at the numbers circled in red:

There is no note, no acknowledgment, nothing indicating that the estimated damage for hurricanes was modified after publication by an order of magnitude. The report was quietly changed to make the error go away. Of course, even with the Table corrected, now the Stern Review math does not add up, as the total GDP impact from USA, UK and Europe does not come anywhere close to the 1% global total for developed country impacts (based on Muir-Wood), much less the higher values suggested as possible in the report’s text, underscoring a key point of my 2007 paper.

I’m betting that instituions around the world are working fast to distance themselves from some of the IPCC claims. We’ll likely see more of this.

203 thoughts on “The purge continues

  1. More beautiful work, from intelligent sceptics and WUWT alike.

    You guys do realise you’re causing acute embarrassment to Warmists, , don’t you?

    Splendid.

  2. Wow! I’m so grateful that vigilant individuals in several of today’s posts are recording these sleazy and underhanded alterations of scientific writings. These practices further undermine trust in science and make the written scientific record in its online version as untrustworthy as photography or any other easily-altered source. Do paper versions of the original Stern Review Report exist? Obviously the NASA stuff which followed the 2035 party line was purely online material, but surely something like this existed in hard copy too? (Of course, these can also be made to disappear…)

  3. Am I missing something.
    Changing that one number should have affected the global figure which now appears rather silly

  4. Which professional organization will be the first to disavow the IPCC, NASA, CRU nonsense?
    It won’t even take any courage at this point…

  5. I wish someone would mention this to a certain naive reporter who is currently blogging about the 2035 debacle and attempting to formulate an alternate theory of Himalayan glacial meltdown by employing the Stern Report as a reference point. This guy (who claims to have published articles in Science, Nature, and National Geographic) apparently believes that the annual global mean surface temperature will rise from 14 degrees Celsius to 45 degrees Celsius by the year 2060. I kid you not:

    http://notin2035.com/?page_id=2

    Don’t ask me how I stumble across these sites… maybe it was the voodoo.

  6. Clearly the Mainstream Media, the scientific media, and legislative commitees have simply accepted, as gospel, IPCC pronouncements.

    What we need is to continue the kind of thorough evalution of IPCC science and economics as WUWT, Cliomate Audit, and others have been doing. After the many errors and falsehoods have been found and proven, they all need to be identified and characterized in a large coherent, highly publicized, Report, maybe just before the next big alarmist event or publication.

  7. Please, everyone in the UK who reads this site , write to the MPs on the S and T review committee asking them to truly, hand on heart, examine the leaked emails and the influence the small number of “scientists” had on the IPCC report. The email revelations only make sense if the whole story is understood. Suggest that they, or a researcher, spend a day looking at the dissenting views and not rely on the settled science of the ICPP reports.

  8. Down the memory hole. What bothers me is the secretiveness. Thank goodness there are people taking notes, downloading earlier versions, and using sites like these to collate the squalid little do-overs. My concern here is not merely the cowardice and contempt shown by these unnamed “editors” toward the public they claim to serve. It is the asymmetry of the informational fight. A lie comes out and creates an indelible first impression, even if the liar recants promptly, contritely, and with as much publicity as was given to the original lie. The damage propagates onward, certainly in those who don’t hear the recantation, and even in those who do (remember Hitler’s observation in “Mein Kampf” about the continuing resonance of the “big lie” in all who hear it, however they may scoff).

    So the sloppy and fraudulent assertions will never be fully corrected. The result is that those who bring in the truth must work twice as hard and long just to reach break-even. Meanwhile the public gets more confused and either misremembers the whole story or tunes out the corrections as “too much information.”

  9. Any chance of making a sub group of easily searched purge reports for sourcing in the future?

    Its likely this is going to be a long process so having it doced properly will make arguing easier.

  10. When one sees things like this and the previous NASA modification one begins to wonder if we are really living in George Orwells 1984.

  11. Interesting to note that despite the decadal decrease, the description that doubling Carbon Dioxide will increase hurricane windspeed by 6% still applies.
    Now that is truly Voodoo Science!

  12. The truly disturbing thing is that after the switch anyone checking the points in Dr. Pielke’s paper would probably go to the online reference; see that the numbers don’t match up and either think Dr. Pielke screwed up or madeup an incorrect figure. This could have damaged Dr. Pielke’s reputation in the scientific community.

  13. It should come as no surprise to us in the UK . We have got used to “spin ” (ie economical with the truth or worse) over the last 20 yrs or so….
    It is no surprise the the IPCC, which is a political body no matter what reporters say… (How do you define a UN institution if not political? ), can put all their prestige on tenous “facts”. Say it enough and it will be believed, especially if most journalists do not have a scientific background.

  14. This is huge, because as recently as a couple of weeks ago I heard a branch of the TV MSM interviewing some AGW profiteer quoting the Nicholas “Nick” Stern report. The guy parroted the usual AGW nonsense: “If we don’t act now things will be waaay worse in the future, blah, blah, blah. Just look at the “Nick” Stern analysis! Spend, spend, spend!” Of course the MSM interviewers had no capacity to challenge any of his statements, although they did nice bobble-head impressions.

  15. These sorts of shocking revelations seem to be coming rapid fire now, on a near daily frequency. I have to wonder just how badly the entire green movement will be damaged by the CAGW collapse. So sad that the very people who sought to move this agenda forward seem to have crippled it beyond belief by throwing away their objectivity. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    Unfortunately, there are some very good causes on the Green side that are probably set back because of the damage done by the activist-scientists. The REDD movement seemed to have some real potential. I would love to see re-forestation take root for its own sake, but not on a false premise.

  16. M. Simon (13:13:46) :

    “He who controls the past controls the future.”

    He who controls the present controls the past.

  17. I think it’s probably going to be very important for us to be able to prove what actually went on this year (possibly in court) for everyone to keep all copies of old reports, documents, web pages etc that they may have in their possesion.

    Owning the past and trying to control the future isn’t quite so easy when Joe Public has his own records that disprove what the offical line has suddenly become.

  18. CheshireRed (12:56:55) :

    More beautiful work, from intelligent sceptics and WUWT alike.

    You guys do realise you’re causing acute embarrassment to Warmists, , don’t you?

    Splendid.

    ================================================

    Judging by the dramatically reduced amount of comments from trolls I’d say you’re right.

  19. I just made the mistake of attempting to read Chapter 5 of the Stern Report under the assumption that I was reading a document written by semi-intelligent experts. Then I came across this little gem:

    “In Australia (the world’s driest continent) winter rainfall in the southwest and southeast is likely to decrease significantly, as storm tracks shift polewards and away from the continent itself.”

    Huh? Even the smallest grade school child knows that Antarctica is the driest continent, not Australia. Heck, even Wikipedia knows this! What is going on here? Clearly not proofreading.

    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_5_Costs_Of_Climate_Change_In_Developed_Countries.pdf
    [bottom of page 2]

  20. As has been said many times before, where would we be without the internet. It’s scary to think the situation we would be in now without it.

    There is so much coming out now, it’s difficult to keep up with it all. I can see why Steven Mosher entitled his book ‘Vol 1’. Looks like he could be writing plenty more!

  21. Looking at the two pdf files:
    Web archive version – file creation date 27 Oct 2006
    Revised version – file creation date 24 Jan 2007

    Apparently not a recent change – but why the change at all. After all if one figure is being changed by an order of magnitude what faith can we place in the other figures and the conclustions drawn by Stern?

  22. Unfortunately, NAS, NASA and the Space Science Board (SSB) all need to be investigated.

    I tried to warn them of this impending disaster on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at the NAS Building in Washington, DC.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  23. So, let me see if I have this right – rather than acknowledging an error in a previously published document and correcting it in a transparent, mea culpa fashion, the British Government is actually trying to rewrite history instead?

  24. @ Chilled Out (13:30:48) ;

    That silent change was made after Pielke Jr’s paper had come out.

    I agree with boballab – this silent change is scandalous because it would indeed damage Pielke Jr’s reputation.
    I’m very glad he brought it to all our attention – one less loophole which some inveterate AGW defenders might have used to besmirch whta they call ‘deniers’.

  25. Somewhere, in the back of my head, I seem to remember that the energy released by wind varies as the cube of the wind-speed.
    Does this mean that an increase in ws of 6% should give nearly 20% (1.06×1.06×1.06) boost to the destructive power of hurricanes?

  26. They fudged the data, fudged the score
    When it didn’t add up, they fudged some more
    The seas will rise, the winds will roar
    Floods and waves will ravage the shore
    Just sell the doom to those silly men
    But if challenged, simply divide by ten

  27. @DirkH

    Sorry about that, try this link:

    http://notin2035.com/

    The discussion of the Stern Report is the first story on the page. It’s all down hill from there. All I can figure is that he somehow omitted the hyphen between 4-5 degrees Celsius by 2060. There is really no other plausible explanation for the claim of 45 degrees Celsius aside from sheer stupidity.

  28. We will know when the climate has changed when we see Lord Stern making a public announcement. Why? Because Hell would have frozen over.

    But seriously, I expect Lord Lawson will want to rub his nose in it.

  29. Yes, it appears the dams have burst on the AGW hoax and fraud. I’m now convinced it has been a deliberate fraud, not a mistake. There has been far too many “mistkaes’ to be treated as just coincidence. No doubt there’s more to be revealed. What about the IPCC computer models predicting a global warming catastrophe? This should be the next falsehood to be revealed to the public. This will complete the show and force the IPCC to by shut down, and the chairman charged with several criminal offenses.

  30. Andrew30 (13:24:23) :

    M. Simon (13:13:46) :

    “He who controls the past controls the future.”

    “He who controls the present controls the past.”

    He who seeks to control the future would change the past.

  31. There will be a live climate debate on Channel 7 Australia Sunrise. Lord Monckton versus I dont know hope somebody can save it. Im off for a coffee.

  32. The Internet Archive site stores web pages, I find it very useful when looking up old web pages but I believe some pages do get modified, they shouldn’t but they do. Been there today to bring up an old page from The New Scientist about climate change & polar bears, that old chestnut

    http://web.archive.org/web/20021014024204/www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate.jsp?id=ns99992285

    have to search around a bit but sometimes brings up little gems.

    I use SnagIt to capture the page as it appears.

  33. When the opposition is on rollerskates and getting pushed back toward the political cliff — keep on a pushing…

    Fraud is unacceptable.

  34. “all of this CO2 abatement will create thousands of jobs.”

    So would the printing of trillions of $1 bills which would be used as fuel for power plants. Then more trees and cotton are planted from which more $1 bills are made and burned. So you get carbon neutral energy.

    CO2 abatement I could get behind:

    Collect paper and rather than recycling it, turn it to slurry and spray it into abandoned coal and limestone mines or use it for fill of strip-mined and open quarried areas. The slurry could be highly compressed as it is applied. This replaces carbon that was taken out of the ground and put into the air with carbon that was taken out of the air and put in the ground. So you fill old coal and limestone mines with the carbon that was taken out of them to begin with. And who knows, maybe in a million years, that carbon will have turned into something useful again.

  35. Daniel H (13:30:08) :
    I just made the mistake of attempting to read Chapter 5 of the Stern Report under the assumption that I was reading a document written by semi-intelligent experts. Then I came across this little gem:

    “In Australia (the world’s driest continent) winter rainfall in the southwest and southeast is likely to decrease significantly, as storm tracks shift polewards and away from the continent itself.”

    Huh? Even the smallest grade school child knows that Antarctica is the driest continent, not Australia. Heck, even Wikipedia knows this! What is going on here? Clearly not proofreading.

    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_5_Costs_Of_Climate_Change_In_Developed_Countries.pdf
    [bottom of page 2]

    Excellent point Daniel, well spotted!
    Additionally, if the precipitation destined for oz does indeed move towards the South Pole, one conclusion is that Antarctica would rapidly increase its ice coverage!
    Nice one, Lord Stern. Thanks to you it looks like Al Gore made a smart move with that beach real estate. No doubt he’ll be extending his property as sea-level drops!

  36. “Daniel H (13:37:21) :

    @DirkH

    Sorry about that, try this link:

    http://notin2035.com/

    The discussion of the Stern Report is the first story on the page. It’s all down hill from there. All I can figure is that he somehow omitted the hyphen between 4-5 degrees Celsius by 2060. There is really no other plausible explanation for the claim of 45 degrees Celsius aside from sheer stupidity.”

    Grrrrreat. Here’s the plan: Send the link to the WWF. Wait til IPCC AR5 comes out. Hilarity ensues!

    What a dumba*s. Should proofread his website.
    “A science journalist […]looks for the truth

    and spreads wrong numbers. Well – not that different from other journalists.

  37. Oliver K. Manuel (13:33:27) :
    Unfortunately, NAS, NASA and the Space Science Board (SSB) all need to be investigated.

    I tried to warn them of this impending disaster on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at the NAS Building in Washington, DC.

    Sir,
    as much as I respect all your comments on this site, on this occasion I’m a tad upset with you this time.
    Don’t leave us dangling with that last sentence!
    Please, please, please. Tell us more:)

  38. In the UK, when something serious goes wrong, then the press call for an independent enquiry, to discover the causes, the extent of the problem and to make recommendations to stop the error happening again. The most recent was the MPs expenses scandal.
    This also happened in accounting post the scandals of the late 1980s (Post Robert Maxwell, Polly Peck etc.) and post Enron as well.
    Yet the UN IPCC have not even launched an internal enquiry. Instead, Dr Pachauri saysit is an isolated incident. The AR4 is probably the most important report in human history. Yet no proper internal control procedures seem to be present.

  39. Dr TG Watkins.

    I rather think I will! I’ll direct the honourable members to this very URL.

  40. and this is in The Guardian !!


    Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes

    China’s most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made

    …”China’s most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles.

    Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes.”…

  41. No need to print this just a small typo in your final paragraph that I assumed would have been picked up by now.
    instituions

  42. Would anybody want to play golf with these folks? Forget the scientific method, how about having some honor?

  43. Chums,

    Several weeks ago, before the big freeze here and before glaciergate, I thought I saw on the UK Royal Society website links to a page of specific climate events and natural disasters caused by AGW. This page doesn’t seem to exist any more. Perhaps it was just a dream. Did anyone else have the same dream?

    DavidS

  44. Dr.T G Watkins(Wales) (13:09:52) :

    Phil Willis – chairman of the S & T Committee was reported in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph as saying in relation to the investigation into the “stolen” emails “There are (sic) a significant number of climate change deniers who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case [that} this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying.”

    Now although the English leaves a lot to be desired, the one clear thing it is saying is that you are not going to get a fair and balanced hearing on anything pertaining to climate change from a committee with a chairman such as this.

    For those of you who have not heard of this politician he is a Liberal Democrat MP (for non-British readers, the Lib Dems are the perennial 3rd party in British politics who seem to be taking an increasingly left wing stance). He studied History and Music at the City of Leeds and Carnegie College, qualifying as a teacher in 1963 from the University of Leeds Institute of Education.

    So that makes him well qualified to pronounce on climate issues, doesn’t it?

    Sorry to say, Dr Watkins, I think we would all be wasting out time if we expected to be able to change such entrenched views.

    As a footnote the journo responsible for the article was Louise Gray.

  45. Stern Review is as irrelevant regardless of the figures. Any prediction of the future is in the realms of fiction as it does not exist in any tangible or quantifiable sense. They might as well be using crystal balls and tarot cards.

  46. TheSkyIsFalling (12:54:18) :

    and

    jorgekafkazar (12:58:17) :

    “When World War II began, [Eric Arthur AKA George Orwell] rose to fight for the cause of freedom again, this time for England. He joined the Home Guard and worked for the BBC to compose and disseminate wartime propaganda. Orwell knew of what he spoke when he skewered propaganda in Animal Farm and 1984. Orwell based his satires not just on hearsay and research but also on personal experience; writing propaganda is said to have made him feel corrupt.”

     http://www.gradesaver.com/author/george-orwell/

    Yes, George Orwell certainly understood propaganda.  And I believe that he would readily recognize what the IPCC and its allies in government and the MSM are attempting to foist upon the world.

    Mike Ramsey

  47. http://failinggracefully.com/

    “The planet is getting hotter and more crowded, energy supplies may soon get tighter, and yet billions of people seem to want a consumer lifestyle that’s completely unsustainable. Things aren’t looking good.”

    Each item mentioned by the affluent young white activist in Pakistan is wrong and thoroughly discredited by much more intelligent people like Michael Crichton and Norman Borlaug. Yet he calls for ‘global governance’. These rich white kids will continue to think government gets things right when government is typically the source of not only the problem but also of the paranoias and illusions of crisis.

  48. have yor read this link from The Guardian??? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/china-climate-change-adviser title: “Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes
    China’s most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made
    (…)most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  49. OT but any one notice that so far this year The Arctic Sea Ice extent growth is very slow and lagging behind the previous years? I wonder what could be the cause of this? Has there been a lot of ocean current turbulence and pattern changes (as far as wind, ocean current strength and extreme weather/storms) that could be causing this. I was hoping to see the same if not better sea ice extent this year as it was last year.

    The IPCC and the WHO(The UN period) need to bark up some one elses Money Tree and leave the USA alone. These current un-coverings of scandels is proof enough they are up to no good.

  50. Andrew30 (13:24:23) :

    M. Simon (13:13:46) :

    “He who controls the past controls the future.”

    He who controls the present controls the past.

    He who controls the carbon creds will be trying to sell them fast.

  51. and now the bankers are seeing the light !

    Copenhagen dampens banks’ green commitment

    Banks are pulling out of the carbon-offsetting market after Copenhagen failed to reach agreement on emissions targetsx

    Banks and investors are pulling out of the carbon market after the failure to make progress at Copenhagen on reaching new emissions targets after 2012.

    Carbon financiers have already begun leaving banks in London because of the lack of activity and the drop-off in investment demand. The Guardian has been told that backers have this month pulled out of a large planned clean-energy project in the developing world because of the expected fall in emissions credits after 2012.

    Anthony Hobley, partner and global head of climate change and carbon finance at law firm Norton Rose, said: “People will gradually start to leave carbon desks, we are beginning to see that already. We are seeing a freeze in banks’ recruitment plans for the carbon market. It’s not clear at what point this will turn into a cull or a rout.”

  52. Much of this report is really quite amazing. Below is a very typical example.
    Please note how the report is based on assumptions made by models, not on observations…

    “Recent studies suggest a 2°C rise in global temperatures may lead to a 20% reduction in water availability and crop yields in southern Europe and a more erratic water supply in California, as the mountain snowpack melts by 25 – 40%.”

    So what are the observations so far. A .6 C rise in global temp, corresponding with a 100PPM rise in atmospheric CO2 has produced no observable decrease in global rainfall. However there is an estimated 8% to 10% increase in natural vegetation, and an estimated 15% to 20% increase in crops grown for many food products (assuming other conditions such as water and ground cond. are the same) due soley to a 100 PPM increase in CO2.

    The observations do not meet the models. The benefits of increasing CO2 are better then linear for each doubling up to over a 1000 PPM. The warming effect decreases exponentially with each doubling. Conclusion, “Its better then we thought”.

  53. This is a habit of bureaucracies that must be crushed.
    It can lead to Orwellian outcomes at worst, but is unethical if not acknowledged, to say the least.

  54. Thank the gods for the Internet so these lies are no longer easily hidden.

    Wait … shouldn’t we thank Al Gore for the Internet instead?

  55. Almost every reported drought, as a sign of “end times” is in fact not historic, and correlates far better with ocean currrent and SST changes known to be cyclical in nature, then any correltations with CO2.

    Remenber how Atlanta was in such a horrible drought due to “AGW, well now the reservoirs are doing quite well indeed.

  56. Notice all the little children crying crocidile tears at Copenhagen. Some big bad James Hansen told them they would drown. They have to wear Underjams at night because they are scared.
    Joe Romm shows pictures. Greenland is melting as are the glaciers. The glaciers in Libya are already gone.
    The Maldives join Atlantis because conservatives invented cars and work for Big Bad Oil.

  57. mandolinjon (13:31:53) :

    Good work Roger. You have just pulled another card of their house of cards. Regards, Mandolinjon

    Since ClimateGate (The CRUTape Letters :-) ) it’s been dominoes

  58. DirkH (13:58:44) :

    What a dumba*s. Should proofread his website.
    “A science journalist […]looks for the truth

    and spreads wrong numbers. Well – not that different from other journalists.

    I posted advising him that if he needs a clue about glaciers, he should buy today’s telegraph, not tomorrows Guardian.

  59. @DavidS

    The Royal Society website content on Climate Change has changed significantly.
    Look at this: http://web.archive.org/web/20080801095510rn_1/royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

    That was from August 2008.
    Now try to find anything like that on the current website.

    That (extinct) page contains all of the fallacious arguments, with no real basis for any of them, just rote repetition of the party line.

    I am not surprised that it is gone. For an organization like The Royal Society to have perpetuated such myths was a REAL travesty!

  60. They dodge, they duck, they weave – then fall flat on their faces.

    It’s quite hard to lie in a consistent way, and failing to admit mistakes by just changing the implicated document fols no-one.

    These guys are real desperate now!

  61. Good Lord… can any IPCC assertion whatsoever withstand the most minimal scrutiny, beginning with simple arithmetic? Such incredibly feckless, sloppy work is apparently not Pachauri’s exception but the IPCC rule. Occurs to us that we could post an item in some mass-media venue, notify Rajendra’s slippery acolytes, and watch for it to appear as duly vetted and reviewed in the UN’s upcoming Fifth Assessment Report. How about, “‘Locust infestations, rains of blood all tie to AGW,’ says Nostradamus, acting Chief Scientist of Zone 6 in Alamagordo, AZ”?

    For decades now, since Dag Hammarskjold’s assassination in the Congo in 1964, the UN has progressively [intended] aggravated or engendered major crises from fostering Palestinian terrorists to colluding with France in the Rwandan democide of April 11, 1994. We are not alone in thinking that dissolving this peculating forum of kakistocrats is much overdue.

  62. DavidS (14:21:12) :

    Chums,

    Several weeks ago, before the big freeze here and before glaciergate, I thought I saw on the UK Royal Society website links to a page of specific climate events and natural disasters caused by AGW. This page doesn’t seem to exist any more. Perhaps it was just a dream. Did anyone else have the same dream?

    DavidS

    Yea if the link below dated 03/12/2009 12:01:26 is the one you are referring to, I think its still there

    Heading ‘Climate Change’

    http://royalsociety.org/LandingPage_WF.aspx?pageid=7355&terms=global+warming

    but I wonder if they will need to do a little Blairism on it in light of recent revelations.

  63. ” Dr Tom (13:07:08) :

    Clearly the Mainstream Media, the scientific media, and legislative commitees have simply accepted, as gospel, IPCC pronouncements.

    What we need is to continue the kind of thorough evalution of IPCC science and economics as WUWT, Climate Audit, and others have been doing. ”

    Is that kind of thorough evaluation called “peer review” ?

  64. Ron de Haan (14:49:13) :

    In the meantime the Green nonsense continues:
    http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/19/greenies-next-target-your-lawn/

    Tried to link to the above site and received a warning from Virgin Net that it is a fraudulent site ?

    http://block.telewest.freedom.net/client/8/content/Virgin/antifraud/en/af_blocked.html?blocked_domain=68656C696F67656E69632E6E6574,blocked_url=1,ask_password=0,blocked_url_text=687474703A2F2F7777772E68656C696F67656E69632E6E65742F323031302F30312F31392F677265656E6965732D6E6578742E2E2E,report_false_positive_link=6D61696C746F3A66726175647265706F72744076697267696E6D656469612E636F6D

    Message if you don’t want to look your self

    Virgin Broadband PCguard Warning –
    Fraudulent Web Site Detected

    You are attempting to connect to a
    known fraudulent web site.
    URL: http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/19/greenies-next

    Do not submit personal information to this web site. We recommend that you delete any emails associated with this URL.

  65. “Hear you, sir;
    What is the reason that you use me thus?
    I loved you ever: but it is no matter;
    Let Hercules himself do what he may,
    The cat will mew and dog will have his day.”
    Hamlet

    “Curiouser and Curiouser”

  66. Ron de Haan (14:49:13) :

    In the meantime the Green nonsense continues:
    http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/19/greenies-next-target-your-lawn/

    When you plant a fresh lawn add and till in at least 3″ of compost into the soil before reseeding, leave the soil line 2″ below the concrete driveway and sidewalks. Then instead of using chemicals to feed add 1/2″ of screened compost as a top dressing every fall, mow @4″ tall and leave the clippings.

    This will allow for dense root growth, and leaving enough grass blade length after mowing, to produce rapid lush regrowth, better aeration, cheaper to maintain. Producing sod dense enough to stop weed invasions, limiting toxic chemicals needed.

    Prevent CAGW pick up after you dog on walks??

  67. DavidS (14:21:12) : Several weeks ago… I thought I saw on the UK Royal Society website links to a page of specific climate events and natural disasters caused by AGW. This page doesn’t seem to exist any more. Perhaps it was just a dream. Did anyone else have the same dream?

    Thanks David. This purge looks like it’s growing bigger. I put a link to the Royal Society page on Climate Change on our website over a year ago, under“Consensus websites…”. The link now gets redirected to the RS home page. Perhaps someone can use Google Cache here. The original page was http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229. RS appear to have no such page now. Oh oh oh, does that mean the RS are also purging the legacy of their iniquitous ex-PR man Bob Ward?

  68. With all the data published on the web, it puts the Alamists in the position of the poor skinny stripper in “Das Boot”. When every garment has been shed, the drunken sailors (that’s us) throw pencils, cigarrettes and pocket combs on stage and yell, “quick, hide this”, untils she runs, sobbing with embarassment, from the scene.
    I dunno, I just had that image pop up in my brain.
    Hey, who are you calling weird!? ;-)

  69. SheffieldB(aka Smallz79) (14:30:12) : “OT but any one notice that so far this year The Arctic Sea Ice extent growth is very slow and lagging behind the previous years? I wonder what could be the cause of this? Has there been a lot of ocean current turbulence and pattern changes (as far as wind, ocean current strength and extreme weather/storms) that could be causing this.”

    SheffieldB: I have , as recently as yesterday, the suggestion that winds in the arctic have piled up ice, thus opening up open water and reducing the ice extent. I have no way to verify this and am as interested as you to know what is going on up there.
    If http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php is correct, temperatures have been considerably below normal.
    IanM

  70. NASA going toward outsourcing.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html?mod=rss_US_News

    Press officials for NASA and the White House have declined to comment. Industry and government officials have talked about the direction of the next NASA budget, but declined to be identified.

    Disney studios has experience with Mickey Mouse and daffy Duck.

    I can see Pee Wee Herman has time available on his schedule to substitute for James Hansen.

  71. Peter of Sydney (13:43:12) :

    Yes, it appears the dams have burst on the AGW hoax and fraud. I’m now convinced it has been a deliberate fraud, not a mistake. There has been far too many “mistkaes’ to be treated as just coincidence. No doubt there’s more to be revealed. What about the IPCC computer models predicting a global warming catastrophe? This should be the next falsehood to be revealed to the public. This will complete the show and force the IPCC to by shut down, and the chairman charged with several criminal offenses.

    Who would have jurisdiction?

  72. This Royal society must be a merry bunch of fools. Look here:

    http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=1023

    They say that ocean acidification is irreversible. Wonder how that shall work.
    BTW, It’s been goin from 8.12 to 8.08 in 2003 or so and then the trend reverses, i looked into IPCC AR4. So … ah wait… It reverses? Can’t be says the royal society…

  73. @DirkH

    “A science journalist […]looks for the truth and spreads wrong numbers. Well – not that different from other journalists.”

    Maybe he’s a student of the Moonbat/Revkin school of journalistic integrity.

  74. “AdderW (15:02:45) :

    Please, pay up now before the bubble bursts !!

    BBC

    Rich nations urged to provide $10bn in climate funds ”

    Shoplifters of the world, unite and take over
    Hand it over, hand it over, hand it over…

  75. WWF, The IPCC’s favourite source

    Via
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

    From Donna Laframboise’s site:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

    All told, an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF is cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC report:

    * Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
    * Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
    * Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
    * Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
    * Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as “Allianz” above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
    * Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
    * Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.

    * Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
    * http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm
    * Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
    * Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
    * Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

    * WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
    * WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
    * WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

    * Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

  76. Now we know (though we certainly suspected) why they were in such a big hurry. Overinflated and counterfeit claims were straining at the leash and couldn’t be proped up forever.

  77. A lot has been revealed lately about how wrong the IPCC has been. Virtually everything they have said has now been shown to be false. Given this is so, Rudd’s CPRS should now be labeled as an illegal document as it relies upon the IPCC and it’s findings for the basis of the legislation. I’m not sure if this has happened before but what is the procedure when a government tries to have a bill passed in the Senate after it has been shown to be based in invalid data? Can the government be summoned to court?

  78. The Royal Society is like a lot of other bodies which have climbed aboard the Global Warming bandwagon and are now quietly attempting to patch up the holes opening and carrying on, trying to look casual.

    The problem is, too many holes are opening for much more patching and carrying on. It’s far less easy to get away with it with the internet anyway.

    I wonder if we are going to see a sudden rush for the exit, with only the first few through the door making it, the others being trampled in the crush?

  79. Here is a detailed study of climate patterns during 2030 till 2060.

    http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf

    Of course they use cooked numbers and biased models. But the pictures use a lot of red showing heat. None of it can be confirmed.

    I had to remind myself they gathered no information but copied the glacier story.

    These people are crazy and need to be stopped.

    Not a single one predicted the recent artic events. If they were honest and accurate, they would have. It is proof their models are like Panda scat.

  80. Apparently there is still plenty of money to be made in the green-scams:

    “Terence Corcoran: Ontario puts $10B in the wind”

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/22/terence-corcoran-ontario-puts-10b-in-the-wind.aspx

    and

    “Lawrence Solomon: Winds of change”

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/22/lawrence-solomon-winds-of-change.aspx

    Will all of these windmills end up looking like those Easter Island statues?

  81. LOUISE GRAY writes in the Daily Telegraph with the by-line of Environmental Correspondent.

    She always trots out the warmist party line, and never includes any actual science or references to back up her statements. And Heaven forbid any original thought or analysis.

    If you fancy a laugh, here’s her latest piece repeating all the propaganda on the apparent success and scary findings of the Pen Haddow expedition:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7053637/Pen-Hadow-admits-battery-was-the-problem-on-Arctic-climate-change-expedition.html

    Her colleague GEOFFREY LEAN is also producing great entertainment – at least four side-splitters in the following. He writes:

    “Nevertheless, the Himalayan howler is – as I wrote on my Telegraph blog when the story broke – much more serious than the overhyped “Climategate” row, not least because the IPCC’s authority depends on taking a conservative approach, based on meticulously checked science.
    In fact, the blunder was exposed by a glaciologist – Prof Graham Cogley of Ontario’s Trent University – who insists that the IPCC report as a whole is still valid, and condemns sceptics for “using the incident for their own purposes” to “shoot down the overall evidence on climate change”. But whatever he says, they’ll give the prizewinners no peace.”

    And to cap it all, it’s all George W Bush’s fault. If in doubt, wheel out the old bogeyman.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/7055303/Melting-Himalayan-glaciers-no-peaceful-end-to-the-scandal.html

  82. Peter of Sydney (16:04:59) :

    ” I’m not sure if this has happened before but what is the procedure when a government tries to have a bill passed in the Senate after it has been shown to be based in invalid data? Can the government be summoned to court?”

    I don’t know, but I think you’ll find you’ve effectively elected your dictators, unless there’s a constitutional bar, or maybe a lower legal bar. The sanction you have is to vote them out, or threaten to vote them out. If the opposition takes the same line as the government, or the electorate doesn’t think it’s an important enough issue to sway an election, they can pretty much do as they like.

  83. I see the Australian is now quoting Roger Pielke regarding the Muir-Wood paper:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

    But far more astonishingly The Age (part of un-Fairfax) posted a relatively balanced piece (by their standards) on the glacier gaffe:

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/glaciers-error-dents-climate-science-20100124-mskv.html

    Perhaps they did it today because they knew most Aussies would take the day off to get a four-day weekend – tomorrow is Australia Day (national holiday).

  84. On the flipside of the debate, I wonder how things are faring at Real Climate. I go there occasionally to get a bit of a giggle at Gav trying to stick his fingers in the leaks appearing left and right. But I wonder what their exit strategy is… as the sticks are yanked away one by one from the climate science Jenga tower, at some point the whole thing is going to collapse. What are the prominent alarmists going to do then when the government/scientific Lynch mobs start clamoring for their heads?

  85. Lucy Skywalker (15:31:50) :

    Regarding what you’re finding on the Royal Society web page: Are you going to have this at your blog?

  86. OT but seen this from the UK Daily Telegraph?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html

    China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change

    China’s most senior climate change official surprised a summit in India when he questioned whether global warming is caused by carbon gas emissions and said Beijing is keeping an “open mind”.

    It looks as if the consensus is breaking.

  87. Yeah, and those WWF references are just the tip of a rapidly non-melting iceberg. There are also various statements that cite earlier IPCC Assessment Reports, for example: “See Climate Change 1992, The Supplementary Report”. That is annoying because it’s never clear exactly where in the 160 page 1992 Supplementary Report I’m supposed to find the information. It’s also not entirely clear where I’m supposed to get a copy of the 1992 Supplementary Report when they’ve all been recycled into toilet paper.

    Aside from that, there are sketchy citations that say ambiguous things like “Personal correspondence with Dr. T.O. Fouda of Cameroon” and I’m thinking: “Hmmm, and this helps me how? I guess I’ll have to grep through my personal stash of climategate emails to see if I can find it…”

  88. Lucy the royal society web page can still be found at – lot of because the IPCC says so here oh dear – there is a lot of egg and venerable institution maybe about to start wiping faces furiously.

    http://www2.royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230

    From same fyi

    The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

    This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society – as the UK’s national academy of science – responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.
    Misleading argument 1 : The Earth’s climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
    Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
    Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
    Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
    Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
    Misleading argument 6 : It’s all to do with the Sun – for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
    Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
    Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.

    Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.

    Misleading argument 8: ’the negative effects of climate change are overstated’

    The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.

    What does the science say?

    Under one of its mid-range estimates(*), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the world’s leading authority on climate change – has projected a global average temperature increase this century of 2 to 3 ºC. This would mean that the Earth will experience a larger climate change than it has experienced for at least 10,000 years. The impact and pace of this change would be difficult for many people and ecosystems to adapt to.

    In the short term, some parts of the world could initially benefit from climate change. For example, more northerly regions of the world may experience longer growing seasons for crops and crop yields may increase because increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have a fertilizing effect on plants.

    However the IPCC has pointed out that as climate change progresses it is likely that negative effects would begin to dominate almost everywhere. Increasing temperatures are likely, for example, to increase the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves, storms and flooding.

    Furthermore there are real concerns that, in the long term, rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could set in motion large-scale and potentially abrupt changes in our planet’s natural systems and some of these could be irreversible. Increasing temperatures could, for example, lead to the melting of large ice sheets with major consequences for low lying areas throughout the world.

    And the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor those who can least afford to adapt. Thus a changing climate will exacerbate inequalities in, for example, health and access to adequate food and clean water.

  89. Peter of Sydney (16:04:59) :
    A lot has been revealed lately about how wrong the IPCC has been. Virtually everything they have said has now been shown to be false.

    Given that the IPCC report is 44 chapters, 3 working groups, and thousands upon thousands of scientific citations, someone should put all that information you claim is false together in one document.

  90. PJP (14:57:40) :

    Are you sure that page is no where to be found?

    This would be an important story if it is gone now.

    After all I’ve been told about the unquestionable scientific acumen of the Royal Society it would be a serious mark on their reputation and credibility to have had a page on their web site that they now had to delete because it was poor science.

  91. I love this site, feel really good when I read most of the comments posted so why do I feel sad?
    Maybe i’m wrong but here’s a personal impression.
    Anthony and team post cogent, pithy posts to which we all respond. That is good, in so many ways but, and I’m as guilty as anyone, we subsequently flood the post with well-intentioned opinions that mostly tend to dilute the power of the intended logical thrust!
    For example, this thread started out, as a well-directed thrust, against evident ridiculous and,obviously, illogical Peer-Abused Pontifications by a political appointee, Lord Stern.
    It rapidly deteriorated into “just another anti-agw diatribe”
    The point of impact became diluted and the rationale of the post became submerged by misdirected, albeit, anger.
    Folks, these guys are truly dangerous, we need to discipline ourselves somehow. Twenty times, at least, every week Anthony and Team come up with compelling arguments that support the premise that AGW is but a poor and fragile thought.
    And what do we do? We vent our spleen by scattershot.
    Forget about shooting up thirty years of grant-funded misrepresentation each time, let’s just take each moment of mischief at a time and then slowly and methodically rip it, using logic and unfundedintegrity, into the laughter-pits of History!

  92. As the tip of the Climategate iceberg melts away, we can already see an international alliance of politicians, scientists and publishers using public funds to manufacture “scientific certainty” of CO2-induced global warming.

    Nearby was the world’s new saviour – Mr. Al Gore.

    What a sad state of affairs for science!
    What a sad state of affairs for democracy!
    What a sad state of affairs for the future of mankind!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  93. Has anyone asked the UK government why, or who, is altering official documents and web pages? What are the policies on altering data in nationalarchives.gov.uk? Not very archivy of them.

  94. photon without a Higgs (13:26:38) :

    CheshireRed (12:56:55) :

    More beautiful work, from intelligent sceptics and WUWT alike.

    You guys do realise you’re causing acute embarrassment to Warmists, , don’t you?

    Splendid.

    ================================================

    Judging by the dramatically reduced amount of comments from trolls I’d say you’re right.

    I have another place I discuss climate. With engineers. For the most part more technical.

    The defenders of the faith have gone temporarily silent there as well.

  95. OT but the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Australian “Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) statistics show Sydney has so far experienced temperatures almost two degrees above average for January – 27.8 degrees Celsius compared to a monthly average of 25.9.” and “minimum temperatures have not fallen below 20.5 degrees.”

    Very strange since most people I know agree it has been a very mild summer so far and I’m pretty sure I saw temps as low as 16C.

  96. D (16:52:15) :

    “Lucy the royal society web page can still be found at – lot of because the IPCC says so here oh dear – there is a lot of egg and venerable institution maybe about to start wiping faces furiously.”

    The difficulty is that they haven’t been treating this as a scientific controversy, they’ve been drawn into advocacy and marginalising doubters, which is the way this reads.

    “This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.”

    I suppose they could discover that the “world’s leading authority on climate change” isn’t all it might be. It doesn’t feel quite so bad being conned if you’re not the only one. Maybe they’ll try to organise an orderly withdrawal with others, calculating it would be better than a rout.

  97. Anthony, I hope you and Steve appreciate the magnitude of the effect you are having. It’s legendary….

    REPLY: I think you overstate ours, and especially my, importance in the scheme of things. – A

  98. “Ron de Haan (16:36:33) :

    Copenhagen in a coma but still not dead.
    More people should visit WUWT.
    http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article93870.ece?homepage=true

    India, China won’t sign accord but reach hands out to receive 10 billion. If they would at least stop emitting evil CO2 for that (only joking, i don’t think CO2 is a problem).

    “Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.

    How confused can that get? And how does it save the planet? (sorry, joking again)

  99. Mao purges AGW. It’s O’s fault.
    …-

    “India, China refuse to sign Copenhagen, say Dem defeat in Mass. has weakened AGW push
    The Hindu ^ | January 24, 2010 | nwrep

    Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 7:33:37 PM by nwrep

    The Indian and Chinese governments have had a rethink on signing the Copenhagen Accord, officials said on Saturday, and the UN has also indefinitely postponed its Jan 31 deadline for countries to accede to the document.

    An Indian official said that though the government had been thinking of signing the accord because it “did not have any legal teeth and would be good diplomatically”; it felt irked because of repeated messages from both UN officials and developed countries to accede to it.

    Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has written to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeking a number of clarifications on the implications of the accord that India — with five other countries — had negotiated in the last moments of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    “That letter, and the defeat of the Democrats in the Massachusetts bypoll, has forced the UN to postpone the deadline indefinitely,” an official said. “With the Democrats losing in one of their strongholds, the chances of the climate bill going through the US senate have receded dramatically.

    “So if the US is not going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, which was a very weak target anyway, why should we make any commitment even if it does not have any legal teeth?” the official said.

    China also appears in no mood to sign the accord.

    “With the deadline postponed, we are not going to sign now,” said a Chinese official now here to take part in the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) meeting to chalk out a climate strategy.

    The meeting of the four environment ministers Sunday is likely to end with the announcement of a fund they will set up to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change, said an official of the environment ministry.

    Only four countries — Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives — have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, though Brazil, South Africa and South Korea have also indicated their willingness to do so.

    Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2436391/posts

  100. Bulldust (16:42:39) :

    On the flipside of the debate, I wonder how things are faring at Real Climate. I go there occasionally to get a bit of a giggle at Gav trying to stick his fingers in the leaks appearing left and right. But I wonder what their exit strategy is… as the sticks are yanked away one by one from the climate science Jenga tower, at some point the whole thing is going to collapse. What are the prominent alarmists going to do then when the government/scientific Lynch mobs start clamoring for their heads?

    Several options.

    [1] Hari Kari.

    [2] Point finger at someone else and exclaim loudly “He did it!”

    [3] Keep lying

    [4] Exclaim “It was already like this when I got here!”

    [5] Claim “Everyone else was doing it, and I didn’t want to be left out!”

    [6] Claim “I was only following orders!”

    [7] Claim “Really it’s all for your own good. Really – you should thank us!”

  101. i offer a $100 prize (subject to “added value” computations), for any U.S. politician who even mentions “climate change”, in the “near future”.
    any takers?

  102. I’m really surprised that the IPCC didn’t also make “Cold Fusion” one of it’s central planks for mitigating global warming.

    Surely “Cold Fusion” would fit the bill – plentiful, cheap electricity without CO2 emissions – a sure winner.

    And given recent form, papers on “Cold Fusion” would easily make the grade for the next IPCC report.

    I know that research on “Cold Fusion” has stagnated… but isn’t that a sign that the science is settled.

    Very suprised indeed…

  103. I have also just taken a look at the UK Met Office website and I cannot see the section debunking the myths of sceptics (it was certainly there within the past three weeks) – however they do have a FAQ section and still say at 1.8 that climate change has caused and will cause extreme weather changes (in the UK and elswhere). Very brave.

    They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick.

    I’m new to this site but find it fascinating.

  104. I laugh when I heard Australia signed the agreement. Rudd just signed his own “death” warrant at the next election this year. He’s out. Obama has much longer timer so he has the opportunity to weasel out of this mess.

  105. Peter of Sydney (16:04:59) :

    “A lot has been revealed lately about how wrong the IPCC has been. Virtually everything they have said has now been shown to be false.”

    I think it is more that what has been shown to be false is the tip of the iceberg. IPCC has said a lot that hasn’t been proven to be either true or false. More scrutiny should reveal more errors real soon.

    Not only is Rudd’s CPRS document without foundation, so are the proposed regulations of our American EPA. More documents and regulatory initiatives will be going down in flames soon.

  106. Re Australia just did a calculation on the responses to The Chanel 7 Climate debate with Christopher Monckton versus Daniels this morning.
    http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/play/-/6716776/the-great-climate-debate/
    When asked are you skeptical? answer = (78%) versus do you believe in AGW answer = (22%)? The Australian Mainstream media appears to be completely out of touch (although this may make them change their minds). This was despite Monckton being interrupted continuously by both AGW believers! LOL

  107. Aelfrith (13:47:07) :
    Daniel H
    Are you someone trying to generate hits to a little read blog?

    The guy does seem to be looking for the truth. Remains to be seen if his mind is open enough to recognize it, if it smacks him up the side of the head.

  108. Twenty times, at least, every week Anthony and Team come up with compelling arguments that support the premise that AGW is but a poor and fragile thought.

    And what do we do? We vent our spleen by scattershot.

    I get all sorts of useful stuff from the links commenters leave.

    And I also blog some of the posts put up here.

    I love the informality and some of the snide remarks. Keeps up the morale.

    “The moral is to the material as three is to one.” mis-attributed to Napoleon. Source unavailable.

  109. Roger360 (17:50:39) :
    “They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick”

    LOL a 50% chance is no chance at all.
    Either way they win.
    Real committed to what their science tells them, aren’t they?

  110. Graeme from Melbourne (17:41:34) :

    “Bulldust (16:42:39) :
    ………………………….
    Several options. [1] Hari Kari………”

    should be Hara Kiri. Typo?

  111. What’s next? Maybe “the Himalayan coral reefs are going to be gone by 2035. What? There are no coral reefs in the Himalayas? OMG, it’s worse than we thought!!!

  112. Graeme from Melbourne (17:47:17) :

    I’m really surprised that the IPCC didn’t also make “Cold Fusion” one of it’s central planks for mitigating global warming.

    Surely “Cold Fusion” would fit the bill – plentiful, cheap electricity without CO2 emissions – a sure winner.

    And given recent form, papers on “Cold Fusion” would easily make the grade for the next IPCC report.

    I know that research on “Cold Fusion” has stagnated… but isn’t that a sign that the science is settled.

    Very suprised indeed…

    Actually there is something to Cold Fusion. Perhaps it will never match the hype but there is something there. I have read a few of the latest papers and they seem sound and the replication rate is not bad for something not yet understood. Among experimenters around the world the replication rate runs around 50%. And that is not 50% of the experimenters get results. It is 50% of the experiments get results.

    The US Navy is looking into it.

  113. Graeme from Melbourne (17:49:45) :

    u.k.(us) (17:45:03) :

    i offer a $100 prize (subject to “added value” computations), for any U.S. politician who even mentions “climate change”, in the “near future”.
    any takers?

    Mr K Rudd, Australian PM has apparently cooled on warming… REF: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_cool_on_warming/
    ===================================
    the tide is turning, politicians know how to avoid it.
    the true scientists may not survive.

  114. M. Simon (18:18:34) :

    “Actually there is something to Cold Fusion.”

    I too have always thought about this. Incidentally, one of the protagonists in the Cold Fusion saga was a Jones, to be precise Steve Jones at Brigham Young University, Utah.

  115. John Blake (15:01:58) :
    “….since Dag Hammarskjold’s assassination in the Congo in 1964…”

    Uh, John, Hammarskjold died in a plane crash in Rhodesia in 1961. He was on his way to the Congo to arrange a new cease fire when the plane went down. The story is complicated, but three separate commissions found no evidence of foul play. Harry Truman, however, did appear to be of the opinion he was murdered.

  116. Graeme from Melbourne (17:47:17) : “I’m really surprised that the IPCC didn’t also make “Cold Fusion” one of it’s central planks for mitigating global warming. Surely “Cold Fusion” would fit the bill – plentiful, cheap electricity without CO2 emissions – a sure winner. And given recent form, papers on “Cold Fusion” would easily make the grade for the next IPCC report.”

    I’ll notify the Melvin Dumar Institute of Technology in Utah to submit a grant request right away.

  117. Let’s see…. the Stern Report is stored in an archive at HM Treasury…. doesn’t that make it an official document of HM Government? Isn’t there a law of some sort about altering official documents after they’ve been archived? It would be a little bit like “correcting” the Congressional Record or “fixing” the Warren Commission Report.

    The Stern Report is a primary document. If retro-active “corrections” are not criminal, they damn well should be.

  118. there is a movie called “cold fusion”, very good, you might even call it addicting if you like skiing, snowboarding and base jumping. by warren miller.

  119. Roger360 (17:50:39) :

    I have also just taken a look at the UK Met Office website ….
    They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick.

    If they think it’s a tossup, they can “expect” to double their money by placing a bet at https://www.intrade.com , where the odds on 2010 being the hottest year are just 1 in 4.

  120. Peter of Sydney (17:55:42) :

    Obama to do an exit on Climate Change legislation?
    To hear him talk, you’d never know it. He’s going to fight on, and he’s 1000% behind the Agenda.

  121. “Bulldust (16:42:39) :
    On the flipside of the debate, I wonder how things are faring at Real Climate. I go there occasionally to get a bit of a giggle at Gav trying to stick his fingers in the leaks appearing left and right.”

    He better take off his shoes, he’s gotta be out of fingers by now….

  122. “Roger Knights (19:16:20) :
    […]
    If they think it’s a tossup, they can “expect” to double their money by placing a bet at https://www.intrade.com , where the odds on 2010 being the hottest year are just 1 in 4.”

    Wait. Are you implying that Hansen is only messing with GISTEMP to help his Team fellows win bets? So AGW is a simple betting racket? ;-)

  123. From Climategate to Floodgate. I’m really enjoying this. My only problem is how do I not appear to gloat to all my AGW friends—assuming, of course, that they are aware of this thru the MSM.

  124. The Royal Society purging? Isnt that dishonesty? All these purgers should be made to explain and also give copies of their previous sites / claims / allegations.

    The big cover-up scam!

  125. Has any checked to see whether this “Muir-Wood” person really exists, and if, so, whether that is his real name? Muir Wood is the name of a famous redwood grove near San Francisco.

  126. Don’t for get Russia has “open mind” about cooling too… Putan… how about China and Russia playing these AGW folks for fools… what’s the term? Useful idiot?

  127. our government can’t ignore this much longer, can they?
    if they do, they are culpable.
    they either know by now, or should (in attorney speak).

  128. tokyoboy (18:13:58) :

    Graeme from Melbourne (17:41:34) :

    “Bulldust (16:42:39) :
    ………………………….
    Several options. [1] Hari Kari………”

    should be Hara Kiri. Typo?

    Not a typo – my ignorance – thanks for the correction. G

  129. Apparently science is now accomplished by means of moving decimal places.

    Is this a new scientific method ?

    I must have missed the memo.

  130. @photon without a Higgs (16:57:37)

    Actually, it is still there. You have to dig much deeper to find it now.
    I was fooled by it not appearing in searches for “myths” (strange that…).

    Here is the comment preceding it:

    This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. It has been prepared by a group led by Sir David Wallace FRS, Treasurer of the Royal Society, and Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This document has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences.

    I think Sir John may want to look up “revocation of peerage” – as far as I know, the traditional method of revoking a peerage is to remove the peer’s head.

    I also wonder if The Royal Society are aware that the “peer reviewed literature” that they are backing comes from the WWF, travel magazines, misquoted newspaper interviews etc.?

  131. Andrew Roberts (15:17:08) :

    Tried to link to the above site and received a warning from Virgin Net that it is a fraudulent site ?

    The heliogenic site has had some changes of late. As per the messages on the original Blogger (Blogspot) site, it had been deleted by Blogger twice. Over at Climate Audit I read the recommendation to move to wordpress, and also how deletion by Blogger had happened to several skeptical sites. At the original site on January 3 2010 it mentioned going to this wordpress address if the blog was deleted again, which currently comes up “Protected Blog” requiring login. Next day a new heliogenic.net site was announced, which appears to be the “final” one.

    Thus the address associated with the name has been yanked around. And as mentioned on the original, the site was transferred with links still pointing to the old Blogger site. So Virgin Net could have detected it as a “spoof” site, linking to a long-established original but with a slightly different name to lure in the unfortunate, or simply because the changes looked suspicious, who knows.

    Something curious I found: Typing in heliogenic.com gets you an immediate redirect to heliogenic.org, which only has a simple text message, “Future Home of Heliogenic.” So is something else due to happen, or…?

  132. The text hasn’t changed. We stand by our report.

    What? oh that PDF.

    It was just a typo. 1.3 became 0.13, see, a typo. What’s that? If it was a typo, it would have had a zero preceding the 1.3, like “01.3” ? No, that’s not we see.

    Oh, come on! It’s just a factor of 10. No big deal.

    What’s that you say? I can’t hear you. My fingers are in my ears, and …

    All joking aside, when does this reverse propagate back into the insurance industry, so we can all benefit from lowered insurance premiums, which, like all business costs, ultimately paid by consumers.

    Newt Love

  133. Re: WWF documents

    I clicked on one of the documents in Donna Laframboises’s list of WWF documents.

    Clicked on one of the topics.

    Clicked on one of the subjects

    Clicked on a paper entitled, “Climate Change and Wheat Production in Argentina.

    Clicked on the 8 sentences of the abstract and in there found:

    “…the decline of the potential wheat yields due to temperatures that are 2.5 degrees C warmer, could be entirely offset by a CO2 concentration of 550 ppm.”

    “…if the CO2 effects are considered, rainfed wheat yield could increase by 14%.

    I’m not a scientist but given this random result, I wonder what other findings, that don’t paint CO2 as the bad guy on the block, have been ignored by the IPCC, Stern, CRU and many others.

    I taught science and I find all that is happening to be a truly sad time for science.

    Sorry, but I’m not jumping up and down with glee.

  134. It’s Official! The Royal Society has announced the redefinition of the scientific method:

    Science moves forward by challenge and debate

    We are now living in the Post-Normal era. Science is now a branch of Politics!

    I suspect this signals the great cooling of the human intellectual as the Enlightenment sinls slowly in the west.

    As for the Royal Society; born in the time of the ascension of Astromomy over Astrology it now seems to be dying as metaphysics takes over from physics, and cosmology gives way to cosmetology

  135. Hi Mods!

    I screwed the placements in the above post … and would be grateful if you could edit them for me …

    Ta

  136. Why not post information on Himalayan glaciers that are advancing, not just slowly melting ? a short search thanks to CO2science.org came up with the following,

    Reference
    Fowler, H.J. and Archer, D.R. 2006. Conflicting signals of climatic change in the Upper Indus Basin. Journal of Climate 19: 4276-4293
    What it means
    Fowler and Archer say that “summer temperature reductions and positive trend in winter precipitation imply reduced ablation and increased accumulation of Karakoram glaciers,” and they note that “these climatic changes are consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of glaciers in the Upper Indus Basin region,” where “Hewitt (1998) reports the widespread expansion of larger glaciers in the central Karakoram, accompanied by an exceptional number of glacier surges,” which results are in striking contrast to what has been reported to have been happening in the neighboring Greater Himalaya


  137. DavidS (14:21:12) :

    Chums,

    Several weeks ago, before the big freeze here and before glaciergate, I thought I saw on the UK Royal Society website links to a page of specific climate events and natural disasters caused by AGW. This page doesn’t seem to exist any more. Perhaps it was just a dream. Did anyone else have the same dream?

    DavidS

    Yea if the link below dated 03/12/2009 12:01:26 is the one you are referring to, I think its still there

    Heading ‘Climate Change’

    http://royalsociety.org/LandingPage_WF.aspx?pageid=7355&terms=global+warming

    but I wonder if they will need to do a little Blairism on it in light of recent revelations.

    those two RSC links leads to different reports: one from 2007 the other from 2008 (I happen to see as size was slightly different). I don’t know yet if anything else changed (at work right now).

    would be interesting to see a 2009/2010 version when out :)

  138. Some of you will recall IPCC reviewer, Chris Landsea’s Open Letter to the Community (07/08) explaining that he had decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report because “I have come to the view that the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant has become politicised.’
    He describes how after being invited to provide the write up for the Atlantic hurricane section of the AR4’s chapter, where there was strong evidence that any impact from global warming on future hurricanes would be small, his evidence was disregarded and Dr Trembath gave a press conference predicting the likelihood of ‘more intense hurricanes’ in future.

  139. The critical point isn’t the typo in the graph which was raised here
    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_faqs.htm

    20. You state the cost of US hurricanes at temperatures of 3°C above pre-industrial levels as 0.13% and 1.3% of US GDP in different places in the report. Which is correct?

    The correct figure is 0.13%. There is an error in Chapter 5, pg. 139, which cites the cost as 1.3%. An Errata page will be published to cover this and any other typographical errors.

    The real point is in Chapter 5 page 10 of the report which states

    The costs of extreme weather events are already high and rising, with annual losses of around $60 billion since the 1990s (0.2% of World GDP), and record costs of $200 billion in 2005 (more than 0.5% of World GDP). 25 New analysis based on insurance industry data has shown that weather-related catastrophe
    losses have increased by 2% each year since the 1970s over and above changes in wealth, inflation and population growth/movement. [ref Muir-Wood et al. (2006)] If this trend continued or intensified with rising global temperatures, losses from extreme weather could reach 0.5 – 1% of world GDP by the middle of the century. 27 If temperatures continued to rise over the second half of the century, costs could reach several percent of GDP each year, particularly because the damages increase disproportionately at higher temperatures (convexity in damage function; Chapter 3).

    The critical point is whether Muir-Wood et al. is correctly interpreted to justify the projected losses. Roger Pielke Jr. certainly believes that it has not been

  140. If the Stern report would be a paper print, it could at least be ripped up and used for toilet paper for the poor. Now it seems that it just needs to be deleted and forgotten asap. After all this the praised Stern will soon look like one of the big fools.

    Richard Lindzen & al. pointed immediately out that one single false assumption makes the report loose all value: there is no proof of AGW. And now, no melting glaciers, no rising sea level, no increased hurricane activity, just falsified bad temperature data and more scandals…

  141. What suprises me is how all these “errors” all increase the global warming effect.
    If they were genuine errors they should be some decreasing it. In all fairness there should be a 50/50 split between increase and decrease.

    But no….. Somehow BY CHANCE they all increase the effect.

    Now that’s a really big suprise indeed!!!!!

  142. There is much more to the Climategate scandal than meets the eye.

    Complete melting of the Climategate iceberg would likely expose decades of corrupt manipulation of data and observations by an unholy international alliance of politicians, scientists, publishers and the news media.

    How much will melt? Nobody knows, but we will have an exciting future if Anthony Watts and others can keep the hot spotlight of public attention focused on the Climategate iceberg.

    Those seeking power used greed to pull this off. Eventually the money trail will lead us to them.

    Keep up the good work!
    Oliver K. Manuel

  143. @ Dr.T G Watkins(Wales): I already have written to my MP, Lib Dem Alarmist Meg Munn, to ask what her position is on environmental policy, in light of the Climategate revelations. Her letter of (non-)response stated that she would write to Gordon Brown for clarification on the Government’s position. Completely evaded my question! So I emailed her, clarifying that the question was with regards to HER standpoint, not the Government’s (which is already well known). She didn’t reply. So much for representation.

  144. Another thing that has changed, is the IPCC’s description of itself.

    Their website used to say something to the effect of:
    “promote blah blah about MAN made climate change”

    Now that has been cleaned up and changed to something completely different.

  145. I’m the “naive” reporter who’s also a “dumba*s,” according to Daniel H & Dirk H, commenting on this blog.

    Yes, I did make a typo on my website, Not in 2035 (http://notin2035.com). I wrote 45 C instead of 4 C. It should have been clear it was a typo, since I was referring to a graph immediately below, showing a maximum of 4 C of warming.

    Please, people: If you’re going to question scientists (and journalists) who devote their lives to delving into climate science, don’t jump all over a typo without making an effort to figure out what’s going on.

    Instead, Daniel H and Dirk H resorted to attacking me instead, assuming that I have some “alternate theory of Himalayan glacial meltdown.” If they read the page at all, though, they’d see that I think the vast majority of standard climate science is solid.

    Also, Daniel H wrote “This guy … claims to have published articles in Science, Nature, and National Geographic.” Well, it’s true. All it takes is about 10 seconds on Google to check that—I seem to be the only Mason Inman around—but he didn’t bother.

    When I write professional articles, I have editors who catch typos. And it was the first day my new site was up, and I wasn’t expecting to get so many hits the first day (500). If I’d known, I would have made more of an effort to proofread it. But the readers there pointed out the typo and it’s fixed now.

  146. PJP (14:57:40) :

    I pulled the pdf from web.archive.org before it disappears there too.

    DaveE.

  147. DirkH (19:52:35) :

    “Roger Knights (19:16:20) :
    […]
    If they think it’s a tossup, they can “expect” to double their money by placing a bet at https://www.intrade.com , where the odds on 2010 being the hottest year are just 1 in 4.”

    Wait. Are you implying that Hansen is only messing with GISTEMP to help his Team fellows win bets? So AGW is a simple betting racket? ;-)

    No, I’m just implying that they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. There have been several chest-thumping episodes in the past involving scornful bet-challenges by various warmists, expressing a desire to take on all comers who dispute CAWGism. You’d think at least a few of them would take advantage of the fantastic odds on offer. (I.e., if it’s a tossup that 2010 will be the warmest year on record, but they can get 25% odds on betting that it will be, the rational “expectation” of that bet is a 100% return.)

  148. PS: Actually, it’s a 200% expected return. Here’s a test case that simulates the return after any even number of bets, given that the real likelihood of “Warmest Year” is 50%. Start with $1 and bet on 2010 = Warmest Year, and the odds are 25/75.

    Trial A: Yes — Warmest. Win $3. Total now $4.

    Trial B: No — Not Warmest. Lose $1. Total now $3.

    Bottom line: Start with $1, end with $3, for a 200% return.

    Repeat next year with 2011 as warmest year, etc.

  149. Roger Knights, you need a lesson in probability. You wrote “… if it’s a tossup that 2010 will be the warmest year on record…” and “… given the real likelihood of ‘Warmest Year’ is 50%…”

    How’s that? If you think that global warming is not happening, then 2010 would have the same likelihood of being the warmest year as any of the previous years in which we have good temperature records.

    Then the probability of 2010 being the warmest year would not be 50%. It would be some very small chance, depending on how many previous decades of records you’re comparing 2010 against. If all years in the past 100 years are equally likely to be the warmest year on record, then the chance of 2010 being the hottest year in that set would be 1%.

    For the record, I think global warming is real, and that people who don’t understand basic statistics should learn a bit more before questioning the scientists who have worked hard to show that the planet is in fact warming.

    Part of me hopes, however, that you don’t believe me, and that you’ll go bet your hard-earned cash and lose it.

  150. I am getting 404 errors no such page at the times for many of the glacier gate stories – temporary outage or down the memory hole?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/

    UN climate chief ‘got grants through bogus claims’ – 404 ERROR

    The chairman of the UN’s climate change panel used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win huge grants – 404 ERROR
    Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog – OK
    World misled over glacier meltdown – 404 ERROR
    UN expert: more errors in climate report – OK

  151. jorgekafkazar (18:17:23) :

    “What’s next? Maybe “the Himalayan coral reefs are going to be gone by 2035. What? There are no coral reefs in the Himalayas? OMG, it’s worse than we thought!!!”

    actually jorgekafkazar, there are coral reefs in the Himalayas, they’re Triassic in age, approx 200Ma and uplifted during the Alpine-Himalayan orogeny approx 50-2Ma

    sorry, I’m being facetious…..there are corals in almost all mountain ranges, albeit fossil ones.

  152. @Mason Inman

    You took offense because I stated that you were naive. Allow me to back up this claim with pertinent facts from your web site, located at http://notin2035.com/

    The following quotes are from your “Stern Review got it right on glaciers” article:

    “To put 5° C in perspective, that was the highest level of impact considered in the Stern Review. In the standard scenarios considered by the IPCC, the highest warming is around 4° C.”

    This is wrong. The IPCC projections used 1990 as a baseline while the Stern Review used the pre-industrial era as a baseline (1750-1850, the second half of the Little Ice Age). The global mean surface temperature during the pre-industrial era was at least 1° C cooler than the 1990 global mean. Therefore, you should have added 1° C to the IPCC’s worst-case estimate for T in order to compare it with the Stern Review’s worst-case estimate for T. Had you actually accomplished this rudimentary task, you would have found that the results from Stern were identical to the results from AR4. However, since you failed to adjust for this crucial difference, your entire central thesis collapses.

    Furthermore, as a self proclaimed “science journalist”, you are shockingly sloppy. Aside from the glaring typo that I pointed out previously, you also made the following erroneous claim:

    “Here are the passages I was able to find about the glaciers in the report, which were all in Chapter 5”

    This is wrong. Every one of your Stern Review quotes was sourced from Chapter 3, not Chapter 5. Fortunately for you, the only readers likely to take your work seriously are those for whom accuracy is not an issue, never has been an issue, and never will be an issue.

    Finally, you are a dumbass for including the following disclaimer on your science fiction/fantasy blog:

    “Not In 2035 was built by Mason Inman, a science journalist who covers climate change—and is by no means a climate skeptic or denier”

    The part where you boast of not being a climate skeptic or “denier” unequivocally proves that you are a dumbass. All good scientists are skeptical by nature and even James Hansen recognizes this principle and prefers to label AGW skeptics as “contrarians” for that very reason. In addition, it is particularly sleezy and insensitive to intentionally associate climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers. The fact that you employ this pejorative as a label for anyone who disagrees with your alarmist viewpoints speaks volumes to your lack of journalistic integrity and scientific objectivity.

    I hope that clears things up.

  153. Hi Daniel H: You’re right about the baselines. I should have pointed out that the IPCC temperature increases are relative to 1990 levels. I fixed that on my blog (and wrote a correction so it doesn’t seem I’m trying to cover anything up).Also, you’re right that I had the wrong chapter number; I fixed that as well. This is constructive, so I appreciate it.

    I’m not sure what you mean when you say that my “central thesis collapses” because of this. I was comparing the claim in the IPCC that Himalayan glaciers would largely melt by 2035 (when temperatures will about 1.5 C higher than the 1990 level), with the Stern Review’s prediction, that they’ll only melt away at a much higher temperature (about 4 C above 1990 levels).

    Any of these kinds of estimates are rough, however, and as the Stern Review says (in the text just below the chart that mentions glaciers melting): “At
    each temperature, the impacts are expressed for a 1°C band around the central temperature, e.g. 1°C represents the range 0.5 – 1.5°C etc.”

    So although my initial post was off by 1 C, it doesn’t make my “thesis collapse.” There’s still a big difference between predicting something will happen when the world warms about 1.5 C, on the one hand, and when it warms 4 C (plus or minus half a degree). So it still seems to me that the Stern Review is in line with what other scientists are now saying.

    Yes, all good scientists are skeptics. But some people have an overactive sense of skepticism, and that’s what I object to. I don’t know if you, Daniel H, would qualify as what I’d call a climate skeptic; I was just saying on my site that there are people like this, and I’m not one of them. Contrarian is another good term, and I do like James Hansen, so maybe I’ll change what I wrote on my site. (And I never said anything about the Holocaust. Some people deny that global warming is happening, and that’s all I was referring to by saying “climate change denier.”)

    I put that bit on there because when I initially created my site a few days ago, all the people who commented or wrote to me seemed to have that overactive sense of skepticism, and I wanted to point out I’m not one of them. Yes, I’m skeptical, but I do think manmade climate change is real, and that it will be a huge problem if we don’t deal with it. I can change my mind if there’s good reason to, but I think there’s good reason for me to worry about climate change.

    Just as you take offense at me using the term “climate change skeptic” I could just as easily take offense at you calling me “alarmist”. But just as you see a positive side of skepticism, I also see a positive side of raising alarm. When there’s a fire in the building, you want to have an alarm to warn you, right?

  154. Mason Inman (21:39:33) :

    Roger Knights, you need a lesson in probability.

    (Groan)

    You wrote

    “… if it’s a tossup that 2010 will be the warmest year on record…” and “… given the real likelihood of ‘Warmest Year’ is 50%…”

    How’s that? If you think …

    Stop right there. That’s not what I think. My phrase, “given the real likelihood of ‘Warmest Year’ is 50%” was written in haste. It was shorthand for, “taking as given the Met Office’s claim that the real likelihood of ‘Warmest Year’ is 50%.” I assumed that that meaning would be evident, because I had used the phrase “if it’s a tossup” (signaling that I was speculating about a posited hypothetical) and because only a few posts earlier in the thread there were four posts that provided the context that would have clarified my intent. The first was this one:

    Roger Knights (19:16:20) :

    Roger360 (17:50:39) :

    I have also just taken a look at the UK Met Office website ….
    They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick.

    If they think it’s a tossup, they can “expect” to double their money by placing a bet at https://www.intrade.com , where the odds on 2010 being the hottest year are just 1 in 4.

    Therefore, your phrase “If you think” is a non-starter. I was describing what “they,” the Met Office, thinks. (Several other warmist bigshots have said the same, including Schmidt and Hansen.)

    Mason Inman (21:39:33) :

    If you think that global warming is not happening, then 2010 would have the same likelihood of being the warmest year as any of the previous years in which we have good temperature records.

    Then the probability of 2010 being the warmest year would not be 50%. It would be some very small chance, depending on how many previous decades of records you’re comparing 2010 against.

    Not really, given that 2009 is the 2nd warmest year on the GISS record (which is the record used by Intrade to settle bets), that the trend up from 2008 is sharp, that Jan. 2009 is setting an all-time record so far, and that a chart of the temperature trend of the past 130 years shows that we’re near an all-time peak: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ On that page, GISS pointed that “The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.”

    Mason Inman (21:39:33) :

    If all years in the past 100 years are equally likely to be the warmest year on record, then the chance of 2010 being the hottest year in that set would be 1%.

    But they aren’t equally likely, as demonstrated above, and as you should have been aware, assuming you have a basic familiarity with the climate record.

    Mason Inman (21:39:33) :

    For the record, I think global warming is real, …

    Duly noted.

    … and that people who don’t understand basic statistics should learn a bit more …

    Your simplistic assumption that 2010 is on a level statistically with the preceding 100 years are is not one any statistician would make.

    before questioning the scientists who have worked hard to show that the planet is in fact warming.

    You might want to reword that phrase. :-)

    Part of me hopes, however, that you don’t believe me, and that you’ll go bet your hard-earned cash and lose it.

    I think there’s a 1 in 4 chance that 2010 will be the warmest year on record, which are the odds Intrade is offering. If you think the chance is only 1 in 100, then go to Intrade and put your money where your mouthy mouth is.

    Roger Knights (19:16:20) :

    Roger360 (17:50:39) :

    I have also just taken a look at the UK Met Office website ….
    They also believe that 2010 will be the hottest year on record – though with a 50% chance that it won’t. That sounds like a heads or tails bet! £1 each way I think should do the trick.

    If they think it’s a tossup, they can “expect” to double their money by placing a bet at https://www.intrade.com , where the odds on 2010 being the hottest year are just 1 in 4.

  155. Hi Roger: OK, I misunderstood what you’d “written in haste.” Glad to know we’re on the same page on probabilities.

    I don’t think that the chances of 2010 being the warmest year are only 1 in 100, since, as I said, I think global warming is real. So no bets for me. I don’t want to try to decide whether the chance is higher than 1:4 that 2010 is the hottest year. I’d be interested to find out how many people take up the bet, though.

  156. Oops. That last (indented) pair of quotes was a “leftover” I didn’t mean to include. Also, I made another blooper. I wrote, in my paragraph before them, which was supposed to end my post:

    I think there’s a 1 in 4 chance that 2010 will be the warmest year on record, which are the odds Intrade is offering. If you think the chance is only 1 in 100, then go to Intrade and put your money where your mouthy mouth is.

    But he was attributing that 1 in 100 chance to me. (This also undermines my remark about his statistical mistake. He was attributing it to me.) Sorry about that.

    It looks stupid of me not to have noticed, but I plead “guilty with an explanation”: I accidentally hit the submit button and my comment got posted before I’d gone over it a 2nd time. I usually copy my long comments to a Word document and reread them there before hitting submit, and I catch lots of mistakes that way, and I would have caught this one.
    Anyway, the bottom line is (still) that anyone who thinks, like the warmist bigshots I’ve quoted, that the odds are better than 25% of 2010 being the warmest on record are “missing a bet” if they let this opportunity pass them by.

  157. Folks

    Stop arguing. We need to present a united front to the warmist establishment.

    Never forget that at Copenhagen, that brave Irish reporter (who’s name escapes me) when he asked an ‘inconvenient question’, not only did the recipient pretend not to hear the question, but the reporter had his microphone tugged away from him, and he was shouted at and escorted from the room by an armed security guard.

    We are up against nasty people here (‘The science is settled… yadayada…’) – so every attack needs to leave no opportunity for counter-attack.

    To the barricades..!!

  158. Hi David,

    I’m arguing (or discussing or debating) in part because I myself am a “warmist”—as you seem to label people who think that the science is clear that the planet is heating up because of people’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that it’s a big problem.

    I think it’s interesting that you feel the need for a “united front” against the “warmist establishment.” When “warmists” make a concerted effort to suppress differences of opinion and present the world with a clear message about the problem of climate change, I feel they’re accused of conspiracy.

    (When I did a search of pages on Wattsupwiththat for “conspiracy,” I got more than 1,000 hits, so it’s clearly an idea that comes up a fair amount.)

    Are you proposing starting your own conspiracy against the “warmists”?

  159. If you say something loud enough everyone will hear it. If you say something soft enough (99.9%) no one will hear it.

  160. Mason Inman (23:40:43) :

    I don’t want to try to decide whether the chance is higher than 1:4 that 2010 is the hottest year. I’d be interested to find out how many people take up the bet, though.

    Glad to be of service. The odds have risen overnight to 1 in 3, and volume has picked up sharply, thanks presumably to betting by some warmists. I hope they’ll keep pushing up the odds and a real battle gets going. When the odds rise above 1 in 2 I’ll bet against them. BTW, here is one warmist prediction that’s on the record:

    BernieL (23:41:37) :
    In the GISS 2008 Climate report Jim Hansen held to a prediction of the previous year that there would be another Global temp record in the next 2 years (end 2010):

    ”Given our expectation of the next El Nino beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”

  161. OT, but the science blogs have been featuring the weather stations debacle. It seems that the stations in the Unites States actually have a cooling bias. This means that your main raison d’etre for the last five years or so has been proven to be based on nothing.

    I’ve heard that you are “preparing a response”. Based on the switch to the isolated statement about Himalayan glacier melt (and not the overall quality of the data in IPCC 4), it appears that what you and Roger really want to do is change the subject.

    REPLY: Ah well the IPCC4 issue you write of is satire. And actually the surfacestations project has been running since June 2007, so “last five years or so” is also incorrect. Menne et al rushed to judgment at 43%, even risking non quality controlled data. We’ll see how it looks at nearly 90% in out paper. – Anthony

Comments are closed.