It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Guest post by Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
“Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
Not true. Phil Jones said “… the trend for the period 1995 to 2009 … (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
Note some important differences. Jones said the globe is warming, and how much. You claim he said that there is no measurable warming.
I’m not impressed by points of view that require support by misrepresentations of scientists.
Gail Combs says:
November 22, 2010 at 9:54 am
The best thing about the globull warming fiasco is that people are now ready to look behind the curtain on a variety of subjects.
—————————————————-
Hopefully. Some people just can’t bring themselves to do that though. It’s OK to do it with the climate curtain, but those other ones, ooh, they’re taboo and it’s only raving conspiracy nuts who believe there’s anything behind them anyway.
I call it willful ignorance. I get annoyed at fellow climate realists calling someone a ‘conspiracy theorist’ if they deploy exactly the same sceptical method (of information gathering and dispassionate analysis as exemplified by WUWT) in other areas of inquiry. But these areas seem to be off-limits to their otherwise keenly sceptical minds. They just can’t go there. I think it’s a psychological thing. Instead, they swallow the most blatant lies from the MSM and fixate on that as ‘the truth’ and call anybody who thinks otherwise a wingnut. Sigh.
“Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories” – G.W. Bush.
Just to be clear – I’ve never been called a conspiracy nut on this site, but I’ve seen it happen to other people. For them, I imagine it feels just like how a climate realist feels when someone calls him or her a denier. I’m just saying I think fellow sceptics should have respect for each other, at least.
“… major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2 …”
That would be very difficult to isolate for a particular storm. Is this based on some scientific work?
I note that solar irradiance variation is responsible for about 10% of the change in radiative forcing that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for. I’d be interested in reading any paper that finds it wholly attributable to changes in solar irradiance; however, it does stretch credibility.
“… and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.”
The NOAA, the NASA, the hadCRU, the RSS and the UAH data all show 2001 to 2010 as the warmest decade on record.
The UAH data should be particularly interesting to people claiming temperature data are falsified. It is produced by outspoken sceptics, in order to be independent and unbiased.
I think that it is pretty clear that recent years, are in fact, the warmest on record, and that this is not due to falsification of temperature data.
@Sliont – Nice cherry picking, what flavour kool aid do you like.
Is your comment peer reviewed 😉
Just for your information , Shell Oil and the Russian gasproducers have laid important investment projects in Canada and Siberia on ice this year ! Would they do this facing worldwide shortages ? The reports stipulated in this blog describe only the past and do not represent any value for future developments , it is nice for civil servants to claim how knowledgeable they are , but they are only able to repeat anything which was fed into them . Understanding reality is different ballgame and will any oilman contradict a story , which is very selfserving and is very helpful to maximize the daily pricing ? The lack of action here is speaking louder than any burocratic report . Is it shale everybody is afraid of and how much shale was included in these reports and statistics ? Shell and shale are very near to each other .
@garhighway. I did a fast forward greenman3610’s video to 4:30, there he compare percentage change in sea ice. But he’s somewhat misleading.
a) First it’s a lot more quantity of ice on the South pole (SH).
b) Then he chose to compare NH sea ice for the month with the smallest amount of ice, why the changes in percent are the largest.
c) Then he chose to compare SH sea ice for the month with its largest amount of ice, why the changes in percent looks smallest.
b+c) If he had done vice versa, showing percentage in March, For sure the change expressed in percent wouldn’t have been noticeable.
(Note also: Between 6000 and 7000 years ago there were no ice on the Arctic Sea, and witness from the 14th century wrote in books that Arctic was almost ice free.
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago )
Also the amount of sea ice on Earth always has changed, and now it isn’t change very dramatically in either direction — as well as temperature hasn’t changed more than natural fluctuation the last thousands of years.
So why do you think greenman3610 mislead his viewers? Maybe you didn’t know the man behind greenman3610 is an old leftist activist, and should aim for politics.
A bit trivial…
I don’t know why anyone would try to prove rising temperatures with GISS. It is well known that Hansen & Co. have thoroughly tweaked the data to show increases and have ignored UHI.
As far as “There is no evidence of stabilization of temperatures if one looks at the noisy variation of global temperatures.” it’s pretty clear that there’s also no evidence of continued warming if one looks at the noisy variation of global temperatures, either. The key word is “significant.” A fitted line through the data is worthless if the significance is not very high. The word ‘stabilization’ is also bogus. The system is both dynamic and chaotic. There is no “stable” position, except possibly the one Hansen and Mann should fill, sweeping the place out. In any case, the recent trend deviates from GCM predictions, so we can pretty much throw those out the window, too.
Btw, when I answer trivial things like garhighway comment with greenman3610’s misleading propaganda I feel as if I looked like the man on the Greenpeace poster, so Greenpeace unintentionally right?
“… skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.”
This appears to be analysis from some other planet.
Scientific papers are about 95% or more in support of the scientific position that it is human activity that is responsible for most of the recent warming. The media biases this hugely to the sceptical side, producing much nearer 50-50. (See perhaps Boykoff
and Boykoff (2004).
Democratic governments, who do not wish to spend money to ameliorate a problem that will occur outside their term demonstrably work to deny the scientific position. The Bush administration in particular edited scientific reports by bureaucrats to hide the certainty and severity of the problem.
What democratic government wants to throw away money on saving lives 30 years hence when economies are under their current stress?
Academia, pays careful attention to potential paradigm shifting ideas. That is because the whole endeavour of science is like that.
However, the consensus position is certainly difficult to argue against:
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: … Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Robt: [Roll the dice 50 times. If the average comes out 4.5, the dice are loaded. If the average comes out 2.5 for all rolls before 1970, and 4.5 for all rolls after 1970, somebody changed the dice. Or how they count the spots. Robt]
Hence the meaninglessness of quoting results across small periods of time as somehow invalidating the theory of AGW (particularly with 2010 at near record highs) and the need to apply sufficient nuance to understand the various factors present in a complex system.
A number of excellent comments but no one has addressed the critical issue of the WWF ad: will that guy hit on a Rapala if one is tossed nearby or do you think he prefers dry flies?
What’s in his lunch bucket? Inquiring minds want to know.
“Climate change no longer scary in Europe.”
I don’t remember climate change ever being scary to ordinary folk. Certainly not in the UK. Some guilt among over educated middle class liberals, but scary? – Never.
That’s why the attempt to whip up alarm was never lgoing to suceed. People are rightly worried about real issues that affect the wellbeing of themselves and family. Issues like sovereign debt, European financial crises, job losses.
To rant about temperature rises of a few degrees in a hundred years in an attempt to scare the population is as rational as forecasting that there is likely to be an invasion of ufo’s because human radio signals have now passed a critical volume of stars where there is a 95% probability of one hosting an advanced technological civilization. The ufo prediction is based on the Drake equation, while the apocalyptic warming is based on implausible computer models. Other than that, same junk science, same ennui.
JohnOfEnfield says:
November 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“The BBC is also being seen as a propaganda tool right across the board. Their active support for AGW is seen in this light and therefore the standing of AGW is suffering badly.”
Finally. Delingpole, who makes Anthony seem like Mr. Polite, is more blunt:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/
The BBC’s daily AGW coverage until Climategate broke was so relentless as to be hilarious. They promoted every Big Lie told about it, constantly. And their enviro-blogger/UN parrot Richard Black is still going on about it like the Black Knight in the Monty Python movie; that is, in total denial about what is happening.
The BBC has been like Monty Python’s Ministry of Truth for a long time, and it is starting to catch up with them. It is still worth watching for its entertainment value.
Richard S Courtney says:
November 22, 2010 at 11:41 am
You also write nonsense about what Phil Jones said.
There was no possibility of identifying warming at a 95% confidence level when Phil Jones was interviewed since the time period was too short. That was what Phil Jones explained, but I quite accept that you don’t understand it.
I must say I find it hilarious that much of the time we hear that “no-one denies that the Earth is warming” from what on this website are referred to as “AGW sceptics”, but then we get articles such as the above which try to tell us that there has been “no measurable warming since 1995”.
As for your pretence that “no measurable warming since 1995” should be equated with “no significant warming since 1995”: well, if you wish that stain of illogic to be lodged against your name then so be it. It does not surprise me at all.
Colin from BC;
An hypothesis that cannot be falsified is not even an hypothesis. As G&T point out, it’s a conjecture.
“Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science:
“Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [= preliminary guess without evidence, which may lead to a hypothesis with pass-fail proposals, which may eventually qualify as a theory]…”
Wombat;
“not significant at the 95% level” means it’s garbage. Only psychology and sociology etc. use such feeble validity tests. Real science uses 5-sigma (5 standard deviations), which is about 99.999%, give or take a ‘9’ or two.
Wombat,
You forgot to include NIWA’s climate record in your list.
Mailman
Perhaps the great MMGW scam is loosing some traction in Europe. If so it is not due to the lack of blatant propaganda straight out of the Reich or to old USSR.
Last night on BBC1 Scotland i sat through one of the most unbelievable polemics for MMGW it has been my (dis)pleasure to see.
It was titled ‘Making Scotlands’ Landscape’ by a guy called Professor Iain Stewart.
He has a degree in Geology and Geography and a PHD in Med. Earthquakes.
He is/was a child TV actor apparantly. Listening to his rant he would be at home in the Wizard of OZ(?).
This diatribe is available to UK readers on the BBC Scotland iplayer (5. The Climate).
He even had a numpty in Edinburgh Uni repeat the ludricous 2 plastic bottles with ‘air?’ and CO2 trick with a bright light and a couple of digital thermoms.
For those of you more fortunate than us in the Scottish Gulag we are going to save the planet on our own by reducing our CO2 emissions by 80% in 20 years. We are going to build 20,000 windmills and be completely self sufficient in ‘renuables’ by the same date.
Oh the Tooth Fairy is alive and just entered our pretend parliament in Edinburgh.
And of course this was all paid for by the BBC licence payers at £142-50 per house per annum.
oh happy days.
@ur momisugly Wombat says:
November 22, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Wiki? Really? Well, I’m not surprised. Nor was I surprised to see this all-too-familiar sentence from the link you provided.
“The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.”
Your other link seems to have something wrong with it, or you generated too much traffic, or something, I’m not able to get there.
I’ve never seen a 50-50 alarmist to skeptical MSM presentation. Perhaps you can link to one? You cite the Bush administration? Is that the same one that allowed Hansen to go around the globe yelling people were silencing him? Alarmism thrived quite well under the Bush admin. For the record, could you state the “consensus” opinion in its entirety? (and maybe through a falsifiable statement in there to boot!) The reason I ask, is that as you may see, skeptics see several issues with the alarmism, I’m just wondering which part of the alarmism is consistent with the “consensus” science.
Richard S Courtney says:
November 22, 2010 at 11:25 am
Sorry, Hans is right and you are wrong. Either you misunderstand the IEA report or you are misrepresenting it.
The graph clearly shows the oil price peaked at ~$100pbbl in 2008 and has fallen back to 1980s levels since. This is not consistent with oil becoming scarce.
I suggest that people read the report and decide if it supports Hans (it does) for themselves. As you said, it can be read at:
http://www.iea.org/speech/2010/Tanaka/Jakarta_weo2010.pdf
Richard
—————————–
The graph I quoted on page 11 is not showing oil price, it is showing “World oil production by type” and you accuse me of misrepresentation?
Weather current price is consistent with oil scarcity or not is a strawman, I made no assertion either way.
I suggest you re-read my post and view the relevant data before you jump to ad hoc conclusions.
It is a shame the original post was completely devoid of references, it amounts to little more than than the arm waving we accuse the warmists of.
[I killed the comment this is referring to and thus the downstream ones suffer as well ~ ctm]
[I killed the comment this is referring to and thus the downstream ones suffer as well ~ ctm]
Fears of fairies and dragons can be held true when one is fed & employed. As the financial contagion rears its ugly head again in Europe, with rising fears of the collapse of the Euro, with green shoots of nationalism rising up in the political garden, with immigration issues flaring, with taxes ever more burdensome, with unemployment at record levels, with the size, scope and intensity of governments increasing, even ordinary Europeans have lost interest in Global Warming.
There are just too many other fish to fry to worry about some new greenie religion.
Timing is just so critical in public relations and propaganda.
slioch
You said
“The average increase over that twelve year period from the four series is about 0.23C, in other words an increase of about 0.2C per decade, which is entirely in line with IPCC projections.”
Based on the WOODFOR TREES COMPOSITE TEMPERATURE INDEX,
the least square trend line slope trend for the last 10 years [118 months] is 0.0043 C/year and was only 21% of the the IPCC forecast of 0.21C/year .It has been basically flat for ten years
This is the Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti/from:2001/to:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2011/trend