Camping and Climate Change

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

211 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 30, 2011 5:39 pm

John B,
You are hanging on to your opinion that Prof Lindzen made a mistake like a drowning man grasps at a toothpick. I think Lindzen knows a little more than you do about the subject, and until he explains that he was mistaken I’ll presume he’s innocent of you attempted tarring of what is probably the world’s most esteemed climatologist.
You are simply attempting to re-frame the argument away from the fact that there is no testable evidence showing that CO2 is harmful to the planet [AKA: “Look over there! A kitten.”]
You’re trying to support a conjecture without evidence. Flap your arms all you want, it’s still just a conjecture.

John B
May 30, 2011 6:05 pm

I’m not clinging on to anything. I just thought it funny that Lindzen would quote a paper that clearly does not support the view he was presenting and that you would then rip into the quote as if I were using it to support my position.
On the serious point of evidence though, there is a mountain of it. You know that as well as I do. It’s all summarised in the IPCC reports. Yes, I know what you are going to say, but that’s where you will find it. There’s no point me pulling out bits here and there to wave in front of you, it’s all in the reports for anyone who cares to look. It’s not precise, it’s not all conclusive, but it is the best we’ve got. That’s how science works; it’s about the big picture, not cherry picked factoids.
But how about having a go at “pin the tail on the hot spot”? It’ll be fun!

May 30, 2011 6:54 pm

John B,
I’ve asked numerous physicists here over the past year and a half, some with doctorates, to provide any empirical evidence showing global damage due to CO2. Not one of them provided any evidence; most never responded. That is because there is no evidence.
The IPCC operates on models, not evidence. It’s all hand-waving. All of it. There is no global damage from CO2. None. By claiming that there is a “mountain” of evidence, then saying you don’t need to post it, makes me think you’re probably Camping in drag. Here are the rules for testing whether a hypothesis is valid per the scientific method:

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. <–[John B]
1. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
2. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
3. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
4. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.
5. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers <– [John B] — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Note that “runaway global warming” morphed into “climate change,” then into “climate disruption,” etc. This constant moving of the goal posts is an attempt to escape refutation of CO2=CAGW. It falls under the rubric of PNS, and is thus invalid per the scientific method.
The hypothesis that CO2 causes runaway catastrophic global warming has been falsified by the ultimate authority: the planet itself. So, who are we supposed to believe? A cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believer telling us his fantasy that evil “carbon” controls the climate? Or Planet Earth? I believe what the planet is telling us.
And enough with the tropospheric hot spot fixation. It’s been thoroughly debunked. That horse is dead, find another one to flog. The models predicted it, and the models were wrong as usual; they couldn’t predict their way out of a wet paper bag.

Jeff Alberts
May 30, 2011 6:59 pm

Without evidence that today’s warming (if there really is any outside internal variability) is unprecedented during this interglacial in either scope or rate of change, then there is no catastrophe. The hockey stick(s) can’t provide that evidence beyond 1500ce without using proxies which have been totally discredited.

Theo Goodwin
May 30, 2011 7:23 pm

Smokey says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:54 pm
What a noble soul you are! Good work! However, after my little spat with Ryan and others on Ryan’s “defense of NOAA hurricane forecasting,” I doubt that critical evaluation of scientific claims will gain an audience here. I just might be losing the fire in the belly that is needed for the effort.

Theo Goodwin
May 30, 2011 7:30 pm

Richard S Courtney says:
‘“Please do not get entangled by the trolls posting under the names of ‘John B’ and ‘sceptical’.’
Good for you, Richard. Such obvious trolls really should not be tolerated. John B. is so good at what he does that he should be called a “Tar Baby” rather than a troll.

Richard S Courtney
May 31, 2011 5:15 am

John B:
At May 30, 2011 at 4:37 pm you ask Smokey:
“Why don’t you have a go at my hot spot quiz?”
I cannot answer for Smokey but my answer to your “quiz” is that I have completely and repeatedly answered it above.
Now, are you going to answer my question that I have repeatedly posted above first at May 30, 2011 at 6:26 am and explicitly addressed to you at May 30, 2011 at 2:36 pm; viz.
“What happened to the “committed warming”?”
Richard

John B
May 31, 2011 6:23 am

Richard, I answered you question at 8:39am and then repeated the answer, as you must have missed the first answer, at 4:24pm (both May 30). You may not like the answer, which boils down to “I don’t know”, but it was an answer.
Regarding the quiz, that just required 4 numbers as an answer. If you did answer, I’m afraid I missed it. Can you point me at your answer to that question?

Richard S Courtney
May 31, 2011 7:13 am

John B:
No! That will not do (even from a troll).
I asked ;
“What happened to the “committed warming”?”
And your repeated so-called answer says;
“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.”
Rubbish!
That does NOT say what happened to the “committed warming”?
It says you do not want to admit that the IPCC’s assertion of “committed warming” (explained in my post at ) was plain wrong. No “committed warming” has happened.
And I did not say the failed prediction disproves” all of AGW theory” (actually AGW is a hypothesis and not a theory). I said it is a failure of a prediction provided by the AGW hypothesis.
I remind that the the IPCC AR4 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 IPCC AR4 says 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 predictions for “the first two decades of the 21st century” 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.
Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required rise in the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.
I repeat;
What happened to the “committed warming”?
To paraphrase Trenberth, it is a travesty that the “committed warming” has magically vanished to nobody knows where.
Richard
PS
I will not continue to debate your silly assertions concerning the ‘hot spot’: I have repeatedly refuted them above and I have repeatedly provided a link so anybody can see and read the truth for themselves.
Richard

John B
May 31, 2011 8:37 am

And I said, in a rather long-winded way, “I don’t know”. If Trenberth et al don’t find the missing heat, that is indeed a problem, I’ll grant you that. OK? But if they do find it, will you recant?
And the answers to the hot spot quiz:
(a) Solar ~10Km
(b) Volcanoes ~12Km
(c) GHG ~10Km
(d) Ozone ~10Km
Bottom line : GHG warming is not unique in being expected to produce a tropical tropospheric hot spot. The difficulty in measuring the hot spot, or even its non-existence, is not specifically linked to GHGs. Yes, other people can “read the truth” too. But I would urge them, and you, to look up what the tropical tropospheric hot spot issue is really all about, not just play “gotcha” by misunderstanding or misrepresenting a single set of pictures. In the long run, that does the skeptic cause no good at all.
Shall we leave it at that?

May 31, 2011 9:23 am

John B says:
May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm

John, your very response shows why there is no science on the AGW side. Scientists do not opine – the investigate, they experiment, they test, they hypothesize. They do not go around with pre-determined conclusions and then try to shut out the ones who may disagree with them. You would shut out those who disagree simply because you cannot prove you are right – but that should then make you try to prove it – something that is lacking inthe AGW science since none of the models work, and nothing has been proven or disproven.
Which brings us to the criticial scientific question – what is the Null Hypothesis and where is the proof that it is false? In other words, why are you chasing rabbits when you should be going about disproving the null hypothesis. Once that is done,THEN and only then can we start looking for alternate causes. You have jumped the shark and are trying to have the horse push the cart. It works better when you follow scientific principals instead of some religious creed.

May 31, 2011 9:41 am

Bruce Cobb says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:34 am

Bruce, you forgot to mention that of those 75, they had to sample over 10,000 scientists and then cut it down by qualifications to get to the 75. In addition, only 1/3 even bothered to respond, so that means that about 7k scientists views are not known. The 97% number is like an internet poll – except it is worse since they did not qualify it with the fact that 67% had no opinion, or that less than 3/4 of 1% agreed with that opinion.

John B
May 31, 2011 9:54 am

Phil,
I am not a climate scientist, so I defer to those who are. I am, however, scientifically literate, so I can understand it to a certain level. In this thread, I have been trying to consistently put the views of mainstream climate scientists. Here goes again…
The null hypothesis is that the observations (temperatures, sea ice extent, etc., etc.) can be explained without recourse to CO2-induced or other anthropogenic effects. Agreed? Do you really think that climate scientists don’t know that, or discount it out of hand? Well, they don’t!
The IPCC get pilloried by skeptics for saying (I’m paraphrasing) “we can’t find another cause, so it must be CO2”. They say that because they have looked at the null hypothesis and found that it cannot explain the observations. They have then looked at the CO2 hypothesis and found that it does. We don’t know all the details, hence error bars, etc., but the scientific method has been followed. Yes, really.
And here’s an irony: the skeptics keep bringing up more hypotheses: “it’s the sun”, “it’s cosmic rays”, “it’s volcanoes”, etc. Doesn’t that mean that they also must have, or at least should have, ruled out the null hypothesis?
John

John B
May 31, 2011 9:57 am

Sorry, a correction:
The skeptics hypotheses are not anthropogenic, so for them the null hypothesis is slightly different.

May 31, 2011 10:33 am

John B says:
May 31, 2011 at 9:57 am

No, I guess you are not a climate scientist – although you can be. There is Only ONE null hypothesis and it is the same for all scientists.
For the AGW religious, one can only guess what it is. So I guess since I am agnostic, we do not agree. You do not know what the null hypothesis is, yet you are arguing for a belief system that has yet to even begin the proof? We are not even at the hypothesis of AGW yet – according to the scientific method. I understand that for the true believers they skipped all that and went straight to dogma.

John B
May 31, 2011 11:59 am

Phil,
When you say “There is Only ONE null hypothesis and it is the same for all scientists”, that’s not quite accurate.
The null hypothesis depends on what hypothesis you are investigating.
Say you are looking at the link between smoking and lung cancer, the null hypothesis is “there is no link between smoking and lung cancer”. You then look at how likely it is that the observations (e.g. numbers of smokers vs. non-smokers getting lung cancer) would be generated by the null hypothesis. If that likelihood is very low, the null hypothesis is very unlikely so can be rejected, with a level of confidence that may be high but will never be 100%.
If you are looking at climate and the hypothesis is “CO2 induces warming”, the null hypothesis is “CO2 does not induce warming”. Again you look at, “How likely is it that the observations could arise if the null hypothesis pertained?” A more specific example, when the IPCC report says “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely [>90%] higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely [>66%] the highest in at least the past 1,300 years”, they are really talking about the inverse of the likelihood that the observations could have been generated by the null hypotheses, which are “it was not the warmest period in the last 500 years” and “it was not the warmest period in the last 1300 years”. The reason they are more sure about the 500 year period is that the error bars on the temperature data are smaller, so it is less likely that any 50 year period within it could have been warmer than the second half of the 20th century. The better your data, the greater confidence you can have in rejecting the null hypothesis.
So, each hypothesis has its own null hypothesis. For me, the interesting point is that what may be presented as the claim “X is probably true” is more likely to have been originally stated as “it is unlikely that [not X] is true”. Gotta love statistics!
I should also point out (apologies if you already know this) that “likelihood” has a very precise mathematical definition based on the number, variability and distribution of the data points.
This is a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
It doesn’t mention climate anywhere, but it is easy enough to read across to how it applies.
John

May 31, 2011 12:01 pm

PhilJourdan says:
“John, your very response shows why there is no science on the AGW side.”
Correctomundo. John B is full of false facts, such as:
“The difficulty in measuring the hot spot, or even its non-existence, is not specifically linked to GHGs.”
The tropospheric temperature is in fact very accurately measured by both satellites and daily radiosonde balloons. Charts and graphs from peer reviewed papers have been posted repeatedly in this thread showing the result: there is no tropospheric hot spot, which had been widely predicted by the climate charlatans at RealClimatePropaganda and their servile flatterers at the now defunct Climate Progress.
No other modern scientific conjecture has been more repeatedly debunked than CO2=CAGW. There is absolutely no credible evidence of any global harm resulting from the rise in CO2, and there is no discernable difference between the current mild temperature rise and numerous even steeper rises in the recent past, yet the Skeptical Pseudo-Science sycophants still come here trying to peddle their CAGW nonsense. No wonder the alarmist hand wringers lost the public debates they engaged in. Gavin Schmidt was made to look like an ignorant fool by Michael Crichton [and later blamed his loss on Crichton being taller!], and Lord Monckton kicked alarmist ass at Oxford. Michael Mann is too afraid to even debate a real scientist, and the debunked alarmist clown Abraham still hides out in his ivory tower, terrified of debating Monckton. None of them will debate skeptics any more. Why not? Because when the general public exited those debates, the majority always agreed with the scientific skeptics [and they had agreed with the CAGW promoters prior to the start of the debates].
Thanks also for bringing up the climate null hypothesis, which has never been falsified. The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data [it is obvious that John B does not even understand what that means]. The alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis crashed and burned on contact with the null. As Dr Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
Really, belief in the magic powers of CO2 is no different than Festinger’s Seekers believing in Mrs Keech’s prediction of their rescue by the flying saucer, or in Camping’s true believers continuing to follow him even after his predicted end of the world didn’t occur. Believers in CAGW suffer from the very same cognitive dissonance. Belief simply makes up for their lack of evidence.

John B
May 31, 2011 12:20 pm

Smokey, why do you keep missing the point? Is it deliberate?
You said, “The tropospheric temperature is in fact very accurately measured by both satellites and daily radiosonde balloons. Charts and graphs from peer reviewed papers have been posted repeatedly in this thread showing the result: there is no tropospheric hot spot, which had been widely predicted by the climate charlatans at RealClimatePropaganda and their servile flatterers at the now defunct Climate Progress.”
All true, but they did NOT say it was predicted uniquely by AGW. It is predicted as a result of moist adiabatic lapse rate, which is itself a result of warming, whatever the cause. Look it up for yourself!
John

May 31, 2011 12:25 pm

John B says:
May 31, 2011 at 11:59 am

LOL! Richard Courtney is right. You are simply a troll. There is only ONE null hypothesis in this discussion. You are welcome to go over to the AMA site and discuss lung cancer, or Stephen Hawkings to discuss the null hypothesis of Black Holes, however here we are talking about Global Warming/Climage Change/Catastrophic something or another. But the key to all of them is what is going on with the climate, and what is causing it. The rest is just troll bait.
Now, when you can quit lying (as has been shown by Richard), and trying to change the subject (not very good at that one – I have seen better) , you may want to discuss the SCIENCE of Climate. not the theology. I hear over at Real Climate they are big into dogma – so much so they burn heretics at the stake (carbon neutral since the carbon is already above ground).

Richard S Courtney
May 31, 2011 1:11 pm

John B:
I remind that my question was
What happened to the “committed warming”?
My question goes the the crux of the issue of this thread which is the catastrophist predictions of dire effects from AGW. But you have said your answer to my question is a “long winded don’t know”, and then you have run away.
Please note that my explanations of the “committed warming” were deliberately conservative. I said:
“I remind that the the IPCC AR4 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 IPCC AR4 says 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 predictions for “the first two decades of the 21st century” 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.
Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required rise in the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.”
Had I wanted to be extremist I would not have said
“So, for the IPCC predictions for “the first two decades of the 21st century” to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. ”
I would have pointed out that because there has been negligible warming for the last 10 years that 0.4°C would need to occur now and be sustained for the next 10 years.
Indeed, a linear rate of warming from now that would fulfil the IPCC prediction requires the global temperature to rise by 0.8°C over the next 10 years.
But your response to my question was to say;
“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?”
Of course it does not “disprove all of AGW theory” but it certainly and undeniably disproves the assertions of future catastrophic warming from AGW unless an answer can be found to the question:
What happened to the “committed warming”?
The most likely explanation is that the true value of the “committed warming” was zero so nothing happened to it because it never existed.
This zero value would result, for example, from the improbable assumption (adopted by the IPCC) of large positive feedbacks being wrong, and the reality being negative feedbacks as is suggested by e.g. the work of Lindzen.
Unless an answer to my question is provided then the existing evidence is that projections of large (or even discernible) AGW are known to be wrong.
So, I yet again repeat my question:
What happened to the “committed warming”?
And I remind that “don’t know” is not an acceptable answer (even from a troll) because that response is an admission that the projections provided by the IPCC are unfounded scares.
Please note that this issue of the absent “committed warming” also pertains to the above discussion of the null hypothesis.
Nothing unprecedented has been observed so the null hypothesis is unchallenged.
And the absent “committed warming” disproves the projections of AGW based on the AGW hypothesis, so the AGW hypothesis is disproved in the form it is presented by the IPCC.
In conclusion, I point out that your nonsense about the ‘hot spot’ can continue but I have answered that side-issue so I will not be dragged back to that side-track. I am trying to get you to address the subject of this thread.
What happened to the “committed warming”?
Richard

May 31, 2011 1:49 pm

I wonder if John B believes in unicorns? Because there is as much evidence for unicorns as there is for global damage from CO2. More, in fact: long ago narwhale skulls were claimed to be evidence of unicorns.
The alarmist crowd has been so spectacularly wrong in their predictions that only a lunatic would give them any credibility now:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/05/25/polar-ice-rapture-misses-its-deadline

John B
May 31, 2011 2:39 pm

Richard, I’m still here.
“I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer if, er, well if I don’t know. It is not “an admission that the projections provided by the IPCC are unfounded scares” because I am not the IPCC. But I’ve done a bit of digging, and I think I’ve found the missing heat 🙂
First of all, the prediction has until 2020 to come true. So we are discussing how likely it is, not whether it has failed already, right?
It sounds unlikely if one picks the last decade as a trend. If that rate (pretty much flat) continues, the prediction will fail badly. Granted, yes it would fail! However, if you take the trend over the last 30 years, of about 0.15°C per decade (by Mk I eyeball, I’m sure you have the exact figure) the prediction of 0.1-0.2°C per decade seems much more plausible.
However, we are below that trend line, so for the prediction to be fulfilled, something drastic has to happen. Well, the change from 1997 to 1998 was a whopping 0.17°C – in one year. Now before you accuse me of cherry picking, I am just saying that such a year-on-year change has happened before. (It went down even more the following year.) figures here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
So, it could happen. But if it doesn’t, if the climate doesn’t bounce upwards in the next 10 years, the IPCC got it seriously wrong. I will absolutely grant you that. According to Trenberth, that heat is somewhere, maybe in the deep ocean, but it has to show up sometime soon.
It all comes down to the trend. If we are still on the IPCC-predicted upward trend, i.e. if the tide is still rising but we are between waves, the prediction will likely come true. If the tide has turned, or even just slowed, it will fail to be met and the IPCC boys will have some serious explaining to do. If that happens, I’ll gladly buy a WUWT hockey stick mug.
That is my final answer!

John B
May 31, 2011 2:55 pm

Smokey,
Very funny, I almost died laughing. Read the actual article:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1979-ncar-forecast-sea-level-may-rise-15-25-feet-before-the-year-2000/
And a commenter further down that page sums it up nicely:
“As usual, when you check out the facts, it turns out that Schneider said absolutely no such thing. Not even close. Did any of you even bother to read the article. Obviously the author of the peice didn’t. Schneider said that the melting could START by the end of the century. Or to spell it out word for word: “..It’s INITIATION cannot be ruled out by the end of the century..”
Don’t you ever bother to follow the links?

Richard S Courtney
May 31, 2011 3:17 pm

Smokey:
Yes, I agree that the cult of AGW has a series of failed predictions and that is telling.
However, the “committed warming” issue is much more important than a failed prediction. The absence of the “committed warming” is a definite proof that the projections of large increases to global temperature based on the AGW hyothesis are wrong.
Simply, it is a proof (n.b. a proof and not merely evidence) that the IPCC “projections” of AGW are unfounded scares obtained by application of a disproved hypothesis.
I explain this proof in my post at May 31, 2011 at 1:11 pm .
It is not surprising that John B has run away from answering my question, is it?
Richard

John B
May 31, 2011 4:35 pm

Richard,
We crossed in moderation. You’ve seen my answer now, I assume.
You need to learn to play fair. You can’t deride everything climate science does as unproven, lacking in evidence, etc., etc., and then claim that pointing to a prediction which may or may not fail 9 years from now constitutes “a proof (n.b. a proof and not merely evidence) that the IPCC “projections” of AGW are unfounded scares obtained by application of a disproved hypothesis”. Science doesn’t work like that.
Like I said, if the temperature stays flat for another 9 years, something is wrong, but we’re not there yet. “It’s the trend, stupid”.
John