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.
The latest paper from Koutsoyiannis et al., compares GCM models with actual measurements of temperature history and precipitation for regional areas of the US and finds the models have failed miserably. This is what the scientific method is about.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928
“not significant at the 95% significance level” is clear and unambiguous. There is NO recent warming. Let’s hope no-one is paying Slioch and Wombat to do any kind of science work.
Mack1;
And even “significant at the 95% level” would be garbage. Given the tendency of all scientists/humans to succumb to confirmation bias, and the selection of positive trials out of a larger pool while ignoring the negative ones, etc., even 1 chance in 20 that the result is false is FAR too high for real science. As I mentioned elsewhere, real physical science uses 5-sigma significance requirements, which is many 9’s after the decimal. Only psychology and other failed wannabe “sciences” accept 95% — mostly because they can’t get any better than that. And the results show it.
Hans Labohm: “Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.”
Is the “silver lining” of clouds well understood in the models and suitably represented in the code?
I do not recall Harry having mentioned it.
I would be more worried about a paucity of CO2…. not an abundance…. Especially considering that CO2 has, in the past, been at the lower range of what is necessary for more specialized plant species like trees and shrubs.
Justice4Rinka says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“Wombat said:
“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.”
What are Phil Jones’ qualifications in applied mathematics? Is he in any way equipped to pronounce on statistics in this way?
As far as I can tell, he is the discredited head of a small department in the 299th best university in the world. To get into UEA to read Climate Science, you need only be in the top 53% of your year academically, i.e. average.
Where did this average mind, at an average institution, gain his expertise in statistics; and who, with demonstrated expertise in this area has peer-reviewed his work?”
It doesn’t even take a PHD degree in science to understand how to calculate the uncertainty present in an estimate of the straight line slope of plotted points to a 95% confidence interval. This is a standard computation that can be done via tables, once one has computed the standard deviation. This is a standard undergraduate problem. If you did any experimental work in science, even as an undergraduate, you would know that.
If you haven’t done any of this, you can find out how by consulting the following web site:
http://www.curvefit.com/linear_regression.htm
With regards to periods of cooling, the Hadcrut3 data (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt) show that you have to go back to the 1940s for a time when a high mark was not beaten in 10 years or less. The 1998 anomaly was 0.548 and the next highest is 2010 so far until the end of October at 0.499. With the way global temperatures are nosediving recently, there appears to be no way a record will be set on Hadcrut3 this year.
No, not significant at the 95% level, means that there’s more than a 1 in 20 chance that the warming could have been generated by random variation.
As you correctly point out, you did leave off a 9 in the percentage within the Confidence lever for 5σ.
Can you give an example of what you call a “real science”. The stability of pharmaceuticals is calculated on the 95% confidence limit. When you buy pharmaceuticals, do you use the expiry date on the label, or do you calculate your own so that your health depends on what you call “real science”?
Or do you consider pharmacology not a “real science”, and just throw your healthcare to the wind?
… Or do you think your objection to a 95% CI is not in fact justifiable, and is based on your political desire to have some basis to call findings of climate science “garbage”? …
He’s talking about sea ice, isn’t he?
There’s a lot less sea ice at the South Pole. In Summer there’s basically none. (If sea ice extent is areas that have a 15% or more coverage of sea ice.)
This is the usual time for looking at NH sea variation. It is the summer extent that determines the availability of breeding habitat for many pinnipeds, and also the hunting habitat for bears.
Also, it is a better measure of the overall health of the sea ice, because the extent doesn’t measure the depth or the age of the sea ice. Thin and young ice does melt more quickly than thick and perennial ice, so the collapse of the perennial ice does show up in the minimum annual extent.
You can’t really analyse summer sea ice in the Antarctic, because there there is nearly none. This is why winter ice is more generally discussed.
This is probably the less relevant statistic.
But global sea ice mass is dropping fast, and summer sea ice extent has collapsed to the extent that the change in radiative forcing from the albedo change is now about 0.2 W/m² for the Northern Hemisphere more than it was in 1990. The entire forcing from all anthropogenic CO2 ever is only about 1.6 W/m², so the sea ice extent is becoming significant, at least in the northern hemisphere.
Going increasingly nuclear is the only sensible solution.
Wind and solar are OK for isolated communities or individuals, but make no sense whatsoever in any other context.
Green parties rarely, if ever, understand the economic facts of life, but unfortunately they have an excessive influence on mainstream political thinking. Somehow, most of us have been conned into believing green is always good, whereas the reality is: green is often good, but just as often it is both stupid and dangerous.
In the name of workers’ rights and all things green, the European Union is demanding the de-industrialisation of the continent, a policy of complex and expensive rules and regulations enforced by growing armies of pointless bureaucrats.
Good article from Hans Labohm.
What’s remarkable is that he is not the only scientist who has worked for the IPCC.
I really appreciate his views and his quest to correct what’s wrong.
So thanks for the effort.
What will certainly help to change opinions is that Europe possibly will see an extraordinary cold and snowy winter which will help to make our political establishment selling their mantra of AGW at the Climate Meeting in Cancun look extremely stupid.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/22/extreme-cold-to-grip-europe-forecast-38°c-in-switzerland-will-be-even-colder-later-pattern-not-seen-in-70-years/
Jimmy Haigh says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Slioch says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:05 pm
“Getting excited about such periods of cooling and claiming that they show we are about to descend into a longer period of cooling is not justified.”
Alternately: “Getting excited about such periods of warming and claiming that they show we are about to descend into a longer period of warming is not justified.”
If the periods of warming were only eight years long then your objection would have some force: but that is not the case.
The present period of warming started around 1975. If you plot the data (annual average global temperature from HADCRUT) from 1975 to 1995 (the year referred to in this article), calculate the best fit linear trend and put in dashed lines either side to represent two standard deviations both sides of the best fit line and THEN plot the subsequent data up to the present time, you will find that all of the post 1995 plots lie within the dashed lines (indeed most lie above the 1975-1995 best fit line).
Thus, the temperature record since 1995 is entirely consistent a continuation of the data from the statistically significant 20 year period 1975-1995, which, it appears, everyone accepts represents significant warming.
People getting excited about eight (or thereabouts) periods of cooling is people getting excited about something of no significance, whereas now 35 years of warming IS significant: it is as simple as that.
If you want to come back to me when there has been a statistically significant period of cooling, then by all means do so: but you may have to wait a long, long time.
matt v. says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:06 pm
“Ten year of flat global temperatures is a sign of pending change.”
That is not true. Ten years of (more or less) little change in average global temperature is what we should expect to happen within a long-term trend of nearly +0.2C per decade and annual variation of +or-0.2C per year. You can construct entirely artificial data based upon those two parameters and you will find such ten year periods occur frequently: they are not significant.
Of course, were change to be pending then it might be preceded by such a period – but that is an entirely different statement. In order to predict whether change is pending we need to look at the likely future forcings – and they all suggest continued warming. Getting distracted by things of no significance is not helpful.
Sad to see such sort of misleading propaganda at WUWT…
The feed-in tarifs for wind are now just above 0.07 €/kWh in Portugal and Spain. With such figures a windmill pays for itself in about 10 years, less than half of its working life.
For solar these numbers are higher, but nowhere near the 0.56 €/kWh. A micro system composed by 20 panels and a converser pays for itself during its working lifetime with 0.08 €/kWh.
And then the 0.04 €/kWh figure for coal completely denounces the author. The Germans alone are spending 2 billion € per year on direct subsidies to the coal industry, that’s over 40 €/ton of coal mined. These are not feed-in tariffs like its made with the renewables, these are sums of money directly provided to the industry.
You can certainly make a case that building any serious renewable energy park is going to cost money, a lot of it. And you can easily point out that other indigenous energies, like Nuclear, are cheaper. But resorting to the sort of claims this author employs is a clear sign of an agenda. This gentleman probably believes we can continue living forever on imported gas from Russia at the same prices we get it today. Or that we are going to pipe the South Pars field directly to Europe. I wish him good luck.
Ammonite says
“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.”
The temperature hasn’t risen for around 15 years, and you say that is a meaningless small period. The warming started in 1980 and stopped in 1995, also a meaningless small period of time in your logic.
According to the climate scientists warming would accelerate. Well it hasn’t, and what warming there was, was over a “meaninglessly small period”.
If it were to accelerate wouldn’t you expect a much higher temperature after 15 years?
Another one makes it through the Climate Science Berlin Wall.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/22/another-one-makes-it-through-the-climate-science-berlin-wall/
Rather like a murder case, the best way to prove innocence is to prove the guilt of someon else.
So let us consider the alternative theory of warming caused by the warm mode of the 60 PDO cycle.
Now the warm phase started in 1970, the warming started a decade later and peaked in 1998 (30 years).
The cool phase started in 2000 and 10 years later it looks like the cooling is beginning in earnest.
Now this theory fits it is consistent, it doesn’t need to be revised, the temperatures are going down as predicted (check NOAA predictions for 2011) this is after a very cold 2008 and only a short strong El Nino that hasn’t raised average global temps like it did in 1998.
This is what Don Easterbrook predicted 10 years ago.
I believe him and not the climate scientists who believe in AGW because he made a prediction around the same time and it looks correct.
This is what science is all about, you have a theory, then you test it. If it works then it is right if not, it is wrong. The climate scientists got it wrong, plain and simple.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
That is what Phil Jones said. Phil Jones said not: “…there has been no measurable warming since 1995”. He is not in the habit of distorting reality.
The really scary thing about Europe is the politicians. And we cannot vote to leave the world’s most expensive club that favors but a few, being those who enrich themselves carbon trading and building wind turbines which then generate too little electricity to count as an energy source.
The public awareness that AGW is a scam might grow but that doesn’t change the fact that European citizens are no longer free.
This article from Lubos Motl is a stunning example of that fact.
Tuesday, november 23, 2010 …
DDR stole 40,000 little heat balls
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/ddr-stole-40000-little-heatballs.html
“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.”
That speaks volumes when we compare the Australian government’s partisan and token ‘investigations’ in order to impose a ‘Fait accompli’ ETS tax on its citizens.
Links, please.
PS: Or citations, at least.
“Renewable energy projects: Does these projects work in winter?”
Well…uhhm.. they lower the world population by stopping all vital functions of society and freezing people to death. But don´t tell that to anyone.
RR Kampen says:
that Phil Jones says:
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity
The question is: Which human activities? Would that be the activities that produce water vapor or those that produce Co2?or both?
As outlined in:
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
human activities that produce water vapor are a lot more.