Image: Anthony Watts
Allow me to share with you a speech given by one of my sound colleagues here in the European Parliament. Derk Jan Eppink is a Dutch national representing Belgium who sits with us in our Euro-sceptic ECR group. He delivered this speech, entitled “A religion without a God” at a book launch for “Blauwe Planeet” – the newest book by Czech President, and fellow climate realist, Vaclav Klaus. – Roger Helmer MEP
At the occasion of launching Blauwe Planeet
By Derk Jan Eppink
May 25 2011
A religion without a God
Last weekend on May 21, American Christian preacher Harold Camping, once again encountered his ‘Disappointment Day’. For years he announced the end of times, predicting May 21 to be Judgment Day. On that day, the world would be destroyed and only ‘a chosen few’ would make it to heaven.
On Judgment Day, the preacher took a seat in front of his television to await news events. He expected a live report of CNN covering a wave of earthquakes that ultimately would lead to global demise.
But nothing happened.
Instead, CNN focused on the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn who lost his way and senses in a New York hotel room. For ‘DSK’ indeed, the world collapsed. The preacher was disappointed that apocalypses remained confined to only one person and possibly some of his friends in Paris belonging to la gauche caviar. The preacher fled to a motel to escape international media.
Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take ‘facts’ into account. Like doomsday announcer Camping, you simply believe and preach, hoping that facts will follow. Western political elites live in a secularized world, a world without God. But religion – a matter of belief – does apparently remain a need of human mankind. In particular, progressive political elites have abolished God, while clinging to notoriously religious features like ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘final judgement’, ‘redemption’, ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’, as part of their political philosophies.
God is gone, but the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is ‘guilt’ (politically incorrect behaviour of human mankind), ‘fear’ (doomsday), if there is ‘sin’ (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally salvation (brought about by the NGO´s of the Green Movement). And if there is somehow a substitute Jesus on top, as impersonated by Al Gore, secular religion gets rooted in political communities trying to turn it into public policy all people have to adhere to.
It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as a heretic, as anti-human, as narrow-minded, as autistic and stupid. In fact, like in theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness. There was no way to escape.
Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a dissident by inclination. He simply raised factual questions secularized religions can hardly cope with.
That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth. And here again, even as President of an EU member state he challenged the fundamentals of a policy pretending to save the world from Doomsday.
Many politicians publish books. Very often, these books are written by other people. Very often, these books are glossy and self-glorifying. Very often, these books make no impact whatsoever and they are finally shelved in the basement of the party headquarter. Mostly, these books are dead upon arrival in the bookstore.
Klaus takes on nonsensical thinking regardless of the status of the author himself. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament. In fact, it is a church singing the gospel of the ‘ever closer Union’. Some members were shocked, left the Plenary and started crying in the corridor. Yesterday, Ivo Belet one of those weeping members, published an opinion article in a Flemish newspaper denouncing NVA-figurehead Bart De Wever for meeting the Anti-Christ from the Czech Republic. Belet, a slavish poodle of EU figureheads, is barking up the wrong tree. The European elite demand flattery and praise; not to criticism, let alone unconventional thinking.
It takes courage to challenge fashionable thinking. For 5 years, I worked in the cabinet of former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. The Dutch Commissioner was a non federalist and a climate change sceptic in the Commission. For most of his colleagues he was the ‘devil in disguise’. You can imagine the bumpy ride he had in Brussels; he was a ‘non believer’ in a church of devoted federalists.
Once he got a letter from former Belgian Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, a self-appointed viceroy of the United States of Belgium, who said that a non federalist should not be member of the European Commission. He demanded a purge to restore the purity of the Institution.
Ten years ago, Bolkestein publicly said that the Euro would derail if not underpinned by sound monetary policy and iron-clad criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. He also stated that a common EU immigration policy based on unenforced external borders would generate a political backlash beyond belief. He was laughed at. But now, the political elite of the EU is not laughing anymore. They wasted ten years of policy-making and still, they would rather drive into a brick wall than to admit that they made mistakes.
Jean Marie Dedecker equally has the courage to stick out his neck. As a former Judo player and coach he is not risk adverse. On the contrary, he likes the fray and smashing his opponents on the ground, sooner the better.
And that is precisely why he has written the introduction to the Dutch version of the book President Klaus is launching here today. He belonged to the first in Belgium to challenge the preachers of doom and climate change. Belgium only recently abolished God, and for those who were still in doubt some catholic leaders and priests did the rest.
Flanders was in urgent need for a religious substitute that would be able to micromanage the lives of the people. Obviously, Dedecker was vilified by the political elites and the media which had turned into an extension of the green movement and its preachers in politics.
Both Klaus and Dedecker focused on facts, rather than on speculation and emotional manipulation. They challenged the issues head-on by raising difficult questions, and by doing so they gradually saw the narrative of climate change unravel. Later on, a series of scandals revealed that so-called scientific researchers had manipulated their work in order to serve the dogmas of their beliefs. The Copenhagen Summit resulted in failure and, demonstrations against climate change even had to be cancelled because it was to cold and frosty in the Danish capital.
Now, climate change does not have that mythical spot on the political agenda it had a few years ago. However, it remains on the agenda of political elites in the EU. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image. But the man in the street never embraced climate change and why? The climate has been changing as long as there is a climate, even in times in which people were running around naked and living in caves. One slight change in the activity of the Sun has an impact on the entire [solar system]. Human behaviour is just one of the many elements. Therefore, the religious zeal did not stick because ‘human guilt’ could not be established. And ‘guilt’ is what it takes to make a religion work, even a religion without a God.
Therefore, a democracy needs people like Klaus and Dedecker, people who speak out when nobody does, people who stand out when others follow the flow and people who lash out when many bend towards submission. This book will certainly be a much welcome recipe against political overheating in Flanders and the reality-check which is the necessary basis for any sound public policy.

sceptical,
You constantly make assertions that are easy to falsify. For example, this chart shows that Hansen’s predictions were flat wrong. There’s no getting around that fact.
John B provides what he apparently believes is empirical “evidence” that CO2 causes AGW:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it can absorb and re-transmit IR radiation
Not evidence per the scientific method. Quantify the amount of warming for each GT of CO2 emitted, annd make your prediction based on that. So far, all such predictions have failed. If you can do it, you will be the first.
2) Temperature in the instrumental record period has corresponded closely with CO2 levels. Even more closely if you factor out sulfate emissions, ENSO, Pinatubo and other short term variations.
Correlation. And actually, CO2 seems to have little to no effect on temperature.
3) The main “fingerprint” of CO2-induced warming is a cooling stratosphere. That is because some of the radiation re-transmitted by tropospheric COs goes downwards, so does not reach the stratosphere to warm it.
Not evidence. And when you’re up to speed you will understand that the ballyhooed “evidence” of stratospheric cooling simply replaced the ballyhooed “evidence” of the non-existent tropospheric hot spot when it became apparent that the models were wrong.
(4) This cooling has been measured.
Not evidence. Correlation. The predicted hot spot was also measured, and found to be missing.
Here, let me help. Dr Karl Popper explains how rigorous the empirical evidence must be in order to fit within the scientific method. Pay attention to #1, because that’s what you’ve been doing.
And of course Prof Richard Feynman explains that empirical observations are required, and that those observations must agree with your guess. Not just what you cherry-pick, but all predicted observations.
The guess [conjecture] was that CO2=CAGW. All it takes is one falsification of that guess to debunk the conjecture. GCMs [computer climate models] all predicted rising temperatures over the past decade+. They were all wrong, every last one of them.
When you’re up to speed on the meaning of “evidence” under the scientific method, report back. But it will take you a while to read and understand what Popper is saying about testability. You will see that nothing you have provided fits the definition of evidence.
@Smokey
So, we are stuck on step 1. You won’t even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even Lord Monckton would give me that one. And the verification of that particular step has been done in the laboratory. It is only the later steps that involve the actual atmosphere.
I am a great fan of Feynman, by the way, but I fear you have misunderstood him. Agreeng with experiment does not necessarily require exact numbers. For example, the prediction “aspirin reduces headaches” is borne out by experiment, i.e. clinical trials. That does not mean you can predict the exact amount by which your headache will reduce per aspirin tablet after a night out on the beer, but you still take the aspirin because (a) there is a mechnism by which it ought to work and (b) there is a correlation that shows it appears to work. Do you see the analogy? There is a mechanism for CO2 causing stratospheric cooling (IR re-radiation downwards) and there is a correlation (measured stratospheric cooling).
Another example: evolution. Lots of qualitative predictions but few exact numbers. Do you think Feynman or Popper would say that evolution isn’t science?
And climate science does have numbers, lots of them. But I have to admit I don’t know what they all are.
P.S.
Smokey, you cite Popper. Have you also read Kuhn? Kuhn talks about paradigm shift, wherein a particular idea sweeps across an area of science and become the norm. For example, relativity supplanting Newtonian dynamics. He contrasts this with the humanities, where scholars continue to debate philosophies and politics endlessly. In science, you can’t do that. Once oxygen theory has replaced phlogiston, there is no going back. Scientists stop debating it and start basing their work on the new paradigm. Climate scientists have reached that point, but the politicians continue the debate.
IMHO.
Good night.
John B says:
“You won’t even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
Show me where I have ever said that. I have stated numerous times here that CO2 may cause some warming. So far, the effect, if any, appears to be minuscule, and it can be disregarded for all practical purposes because if it exists it is indistinguishable from natural variability. In fact Dr Miskolzci, a climate scientist [who knows more than you and I put together about the subject] estimates that CO2 causes zero warming. For a range of estimates, Prof Richard Lindzen puts climate sensitivity of CO2x2 at ≤1°C. Dr Craig Idso puts the sensitivity number at 0.37; Dr Miskolzci puts it at 0; Dr Spencer puts it at 0.46; Dr Schwartz puts it at 1.1; Dr Chylek puts it at 1.4. None of those numbers is anything to worry about, and they all contradict the 3° – 6° preposterously assumed by the IPCC’s political appointees.
The original scare was over catastrophic AGW that would cause runaway global warming [CAGW]. However, there is no indication that warming is accelerating. In fact, the past decade has been flat to cooling, thus debunking the CO2=CAGW conjecture. The planet is telling you very clearly that the “carbon” scare is horse manure. Who are you gonna listen to? The self-serving UN/IPCC? Or planet earth? That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?
And you could not possibly have read and understood the Popper article in this short time. So your mind is made up and closed. Lots of folks are true believers, and contrary facts are simply discarded, no matter how relevant.
What I have been challenging you to produce is testable, reproducable, verifiable, empirical evidence, according to the scientific method, which quantifies the degree of warming per X amount of CO2 emitted. But there is no such evidence, so you try to re-frame the debate. If you want to do that, run along to Skeptical Pseudo-Science; they’ll let you do that over there. You can pick up some new talking points while you’re there – the current ones are easily debunked.
Saying that CO2 warms the atmosphere is a meaningless statement. The question is: if so, how much? Provide direct evidence so that accurate, testable predictions can be made and verified. If you can. You’ll be the first, and on the short list for the Nobel prize.
When you throw out unscientific nonsense like “analogy” and “correlation” to try and make your case, you necessarily fail. Produce real evidence, or admit that you simply have a belief system that thrives on cherry-picking.
John B,
Kuhn is a believer in post-normal ‘science.’ ‘Nuff said.
Agreed. Except for one thing. The religion of Global Warming/Climate Change does indeed have a god. It is their Mother Earth they worship.
vigilantfish says:
May 27, 2011 at 11:57 am
Tony McGough says:
May 27, 2011 at 12:09 pm
As a Catholic as well as a man truly interested in good science, allow me to give three cheers for these two posts. In the pursuit of the full truth about the Church and science.
sceptical says:
May 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm
John B, you seem to be correct. Nowhere does the IPCC claim that the tropospheric hotspot is a signature of AGW. This hotspot is a signature of any warming.
Oops, then there hasn’t been any warming!
Btw, I’ve read that same alleged “rebuttal” many times since it was first shown that no hotspot had materialized, and even responded once before as above. But apparently no “Climate Scientist” has realized that their rebuttal disproves Global Warming per se? [At least according to Climate Science.]
Smokey:
Please do not get entangled by the trolls posting under the names of ‘John B’ and ‘sceptical’.
The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is the reason for the AGW hypothesis and it is NOT evidence that the hypothesis is right. Comparison of predictions from the hypothesis with obsevation of the real world shows the hypothesis is wrong.
Figure 9.1 of the IPCC AR4 explicitly shows that the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of warming from “well-mixed” greenhouse gases and all other causes of warming provide a different pattern. Anybody can see this in seconds by clicking on
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Only trolls would try to pretend these truths are other than they are.
Trolls destroy rational debate. Please do not feed them.
Richard
@Smokey
I said “You won’t even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
Smokey said “Show me where I have ever said that. I have stated numerous times here that CO2 may cause some warming.” (emphasis mine)
Well, you said it right there. If you accepted it, you would not have said “may”. Or at least that is how I interpreted it. If you do accept that CO2 s a greenhouse gas, I apologise.
You then go on to talk about climate sensitivity. I absolutely agree with you that we do not know what the correct figure is for climate sensitivity. Yes, I agree! But the consensus is 3-6°C for a doubling of CO2. You cite 4 authors who provide figures below that range and accuse me of cherry picking. You can accuse the mainstream of many things, but cherry picking is not one of them.
And BTW, I didn’t need to the time to read your Popper article as I was already familiar with his work. History and philosophy of science is a great interest of mine. You really shouldn’t assume you know more about me than you do.
Also, BTW, you used the word “correlation” first. But science does use correlation, all the time. Plausible mechanism plus correlation is often the evidence. For example, in showing the link between cancer and smoking, the mechanism was originally only weakly understood (smoke contains nasty things and gets in your lungs) but the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was so strong as to make any reasonable scientist accept that smoking causes lung cancer. That became the “paradigm”, scientists stopped debating it and got on with elucidating the mechanism.
In climatology, CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the underlying mechanism, figures for stratospheric cooling (and many more figures) show correlations. AGW makes testable hypotheses as to what those correlations should be. Stratospheric cooling is one, tropospheric hot spot is not (see above). If another hypothesis had a plausible mechanism and made testable hypotheses for correlations that held up, it would be studied and if it continued to hold up it would become mainstream. More examples: bacteria causing ulcers now mainstream, cold fusion not mainstream.
But then we can talk about CAGW. Will it be catastrophic? We can talk about C if you will accept that AGW is real. If you don’t accept that, there is no point.
@richard
No, no , no!
You said “Figure 9.1 of the IPCC AR4 explicitly shows that the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of warming from “well-mixed” greenhouse gases and all other causes of warming provide a different pattern. Anybody can see this in seconds…”
What they show is different amounts of warming, or indeed cooling, from different forcings. They show that only the GHG forcing predicts anything like the observed warming. The “missing hot spot” is a separate issue. The hot spot is predicted to occur as a result of warming, any warming. That point is not made explicit in those figures, so I suppose you could criticise the IPCC for lack of clarity, but you can’t just look at the pictures, you have to read the story, too.
It has proved difficult to measure the hot spot. “It’s a travesty”. But given that there are lots of other measurements that show warming, and that the hot spot is not a unique signature of GHG warming, it is not a nail in the coffin of AGW. In any case, science does not work that way. If a single measurement disagrees with theory, you look at everything from “the theory is wrong” to “experimental error”. It might mean the theory is wrong, but not necessarily. You have to look at the big picture. If a mountain of evidence shows warming but we can’t measure the tropical tropospheric hotspot, we have an issue, but the problem may lie with the measurements rather than the theory. If you look at the recent literature, that is the way it is looking; e.g…
http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf
And anyway, the hot spot is not a signature of AGW as I have explained.
@Smokey and myself, a correction:
Smokey quoted the IPCC as predicting a 3-6°C sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 and I repeated it. The prediction in the 4th AR (2007) is:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is defined as the equilibrium global average surface warming following a doubling of CO2 concentration. Progress since the TAR enables an assessment that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html
The 3rd AR had it at 1.5 to 4.5 °C. I’d be interested to know where you got 3-6°C from. Is it somewhere else in the IPCC report?
Richard S Courtney says:
“Please do not get entangled by the trolls posting under the names of ‘John B’ and ‘sceptical’. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is the reason for the AGW hypothesis and it is NOT evidence that the hypothesis is right. Comparison of predictions from the hypothesis with obsevation of the real world shows the hypothesis is wrong.”
That is correct. The predictions have been wrong, and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that AGW is real. It may well exist, but without evidence, it is simply conjecture.
@Smokey
Here’s a good test of whether your views (or mine, or those of anyone else watching this debate) are religious or scientific: What evidence would make you change your mind? If you can’t think of any, then you are being religious.
I’ll start:
If the stratosphere were found to be warming rather than cooling, that would blow AGW out of the water.
Your turn…
Smokey, there is plenty of evidence supporting AGW. To begin to learn about the evidence I would suggest reading some of the IPCC reports, in paticular AR4 Working Group 1. Hopefully you can begin to learn about the evidence because the evidence is what the issue is about.
John B:
Your trolling is annoying.
To be clear, the ‘hot spot’ is an increased rate of warming at altitude in the troposphere relative to the rate of warming at the surface. The difference in the warming rate is a factor of between 2 and 3.
IPCC AR4 WG1 Report Section 9.2.2 explains the matter clearly and it can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Figure 9.1 of that Section shows the ‘hot spot’ is UNIQUELY an effect of forcing from “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS THE BIG RED BLOB IN Figure 9.1(c).
No other forcing provides it (c.f. the other diagrams in Figure 9.1).
You are either failing to look at what the IPCC says or you are deliberately lying. I have reached the conclusion that you are a liar. So, go away.
Richard
Smokey:
You rightly say (at May 30, 2011 at 5:33 am ):
“The predictions have been wrong, and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that AGW is real. It may well exist, but without evidence, it is simply conjecture.”
I think it is reasonable to compare
(a) what the IPCC says should be happening according to the AGW hypothesis
to
(b) what is happening in reality.
Section 10.7.1 titled ‘Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs’
in the Report from WG1 (i.e. the “science” Working Group) of the most recent IPCC Report (AR4) can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says:
“The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.”
So, the IPCC says “The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.
And the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.
But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.
So, for the IPCC prediction to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.
What happened to the “committed warming”? Answers on a postcard, please.
Richard
@richard
You still don’t get it, do you?
you said: “THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS THE BIG RED BLOB IN Figure 9.1(c).
No other forcing provides it (c.f. the other diagrams in Figure 9.1).”
No other forcing provides any significant warming. If they did, you would see the hot spot there too because it is predicted by “moist adiabatic lapse rate”, not by any efect peculiar to the cause of the warming. However, GHG induced warming, and only GHG induced warming, predicts a cooling stratosphere. That is not only in the picture, but also described in the text. I asked you to show me where in the text your assertion is supported. I believe it isn’t. Your whole argument is based on misinterpreting a single set of pictures.
If you could get over this misunderstanding, we could debate the issues of how accurate IPCC predictions have been.
The dispute appears more ideologically driven that it is, because of a reluctance among political allies to criticize erring members of their own flock. Added to which is a corresponding eagerness on the opposite site of the fence to jump all over any flub committed by any faction of the enemy, and impute it to the entirety thereof. (Sociologists and political scientists probably have a name for this dynamic.)
IOW, the outspoken critics of the CACA Cult (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmist) are mostly those who would be delighted to see a holier-than-thou progressive parade mocked and turned to a rout on general principles.
Left-leaning disbelievers criticize in mutters, more in sorrow than anger. They don’t want to give the other side ammunition, they don’t want to be vilified as apostates (as Dyson has been)–and some think that even if there’s no real threat from warming, it would be a good excuse to super-tax those nasty Republican industrialists, or make the Other Side look uncaring about pollution, or divert a little money in transfer payments to the poor in the third world, etc.; so they soft-pedal their criticism.
In addition, it’s likely that when progressives find themselves being wobbled by doubts after delving into the issue, many stop delving. (The same phenomenon happens on the other side of the fence, on other issues, natch.)
So I think it’s superficial to take the average political affiliation of the public scorcher-scam scoffers as having determined their position on the issue. (What political mostly determines is the vociferousness and openness of ones criticism. (A searching opinion-survey would help to clarify matters.))
Warmist spin-meisters who argue that their critics are biased are serenely oblivious to the likelihood of political bias (in favor of dirigism and against “development” and “consumption”) operating on their own side. I suspect that the percentage of Republicans among the “97% consensus” is extremely low–perhaps under 15%.
I am therefore unimpressed by the consensus; it seems to me just another case of “advocacy research” by activist-researchers, similar to heterosexual-AIDS-alarmist public health officials or recovered-memory therapists.
John B said:
“However, GHG induced warming, and only GHG induced warming, predicts a cooling stratosphere.”
Please explain this:
“During the late 20th century warming trend the stratosphere was observed to cool and that was also supposed to be in accordance with AGW. However since the 90s that cooling has ceased and the stratospheric temperature trend is now one of slight warming:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”
John B exhibits classic cognitive dissonance: when the data falsifies the model… then the data must be wrong!
And to claim that ‘no other forcing’ can cause the observed effects is not even wrong; it shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Prof Richard Lindzen explains:
Misguided folks like John B, who get spoon-fed propaganda from pseudo-science alarmist blogs, still insist on demonizing CO2 – a tiny, beneficial trace gas which, contrary to their evidence-free religious beliefs, does not control the planet’s temperature. It may add a minuscule amount, but the added warming is so insignificant that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. Lindzen testified in 2005 to the House of Lords Select Committee:
John B’s belief in climate models is misguided, because the models have been falsified. Despite constant tweaking they still cannot predict future temperatures. The models are simply wrong. Despite their being debunked, that doesn’t deter true believers from digging a deeper hole based on their complete misunderstanding of the situation. Cognitive dissonance in action.
John B:
It is clear thatyou are a liar. You assert:
“No other forcing provides any significant warming. ”
Then claim that means something.
It means nothing.
The important point is the PATTERN (i.e. distribution throughout the atmosphere) of the warming and NOT ITS MAGNITUDE.
Only “well mixed greenhouse gases” provide the ‘hot spot’. Other forcings don’t.
The facts are plain for all to see and your lies do not change them.
And are you going to say what happened to the “committed warming” or will you merely keep spouting irrelevant nonsense and lies?
Richard
@richard
OK, one last try. You said “The important point is the PATTERN (i.e. distribution throughout the atmosphere) of the warming and NOT ITS MAGNITUDE.
And to the extent they show any warming at all, the pattern is the same as regards the hot spot. Look at figure (a) solar and (d) ozone forcings. What little effect they have is also centred on the upper troposphere. They are also predicted to create the hot spot, just not s omuch because their effect is smaller. Get it?
Let’s try this approach – if the IPCC did assert that GHG induced warming uniquely caused the hot spot, they would be wrong! Why? Because there is no mechanism for it. The hot spot is due to lapse rate, not the cause of the warming. That’s the physics, even if you interpret the IPCC figures as saying something other than that.
Regarding the committed warming, I didn’t realise that question was directed at me. It is, after all, a different issue. But surely you are clutching at straws going after a prediction that has other 9 years to go. Let’s say it turns out to be wrong. Does this disprove all of AGW theory? No, because climate is a noisy business. You have to look at the trends. Eventually there might come a time when the trends go in the wrong direction. If and when that happens, non-AGW will become the mainstream, but we’re not there yet.
@Steven Wilde
First, thank you for your civility.
As regards the paper you link to, the authors themselves say “the evidence
for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited” and “this study may provide evidence to the recovery of stratospheric ozone.”
The right thing for a lay person like me to do is see what the scientific community make of it. All I can find so far is this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
“Since 1996 the trend is slightly positive due to ozone recover juxtaposed to a cooling trend of 0.1K/decade that is consistent with the predicted impact of increased greenhouse gases. [31]”
The actual paper (reference 31) is behind a pay wall.
Hope that helps,
John
John B, have you noticed ?
You said:
“If the stratosphere were found to be warming rather than cooling, that would blow AGW out of the water.”
and I said:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”
Have I blown AGW out of the water ?