18 annual climate gabfests: 16 years without warming

Oops graph shows no warming 16 years

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY

DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.

No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?

That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.

Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.

IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.

There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.

No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.

If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.

The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.

Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.

IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.

But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.

In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.

By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.

Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?

And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.

It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.

Support CFACT’s mission here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
407 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Shearer
December 1, 2012 8:06 pm

Ironic that liberal atheist climate activists pray for calamitous weather events.

Joe Prins
December 1, 2012 8:14 pm

Always thouroughly enjoy the play on words as plied lively by the lord. “rebarbatively” is masterful.
Well done, sir.

December 1, 2012 8:23 pm

Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf. And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply. Thank you.

Truthseeker
December 1, 2012 8:28 pm

All true from the good Lord, but how do we stop the gravy train?

Disko Troop
December 1, 2012 8:34 pm

I believe all the delegates are being sent to Poland on Ryanair for the next Jamboree. Sustainable reservations at Eurocamp are being taken now. No Liberals to be left unsupervised, and the conference will be conducted in Tagalog as more people speak that than Polish. I am polishing the old Trabant ready for the off .The theme will be “We almost had it made”, written by Adele.
Ivor Ward

ImranCan
December 1, 2012 8:35 pm

Viscount Monckton ,,, I have never met you but I would like to …. please keep up the ascerbic commentary. Superb.

December 1, 2012 8:40 pm

Oh, how they must love the smell of burning witches in the morning… Though not a single witch has yet caught flame, or even warmed around the edges…

Eugene WR Gallun
December 1, 2012 8:56 pm

The strangest thing upon us yet
A sight to make the skeptics stare
The warmists all are in a sweat
They feel the heat that isn’t there
Eugene WR Gallun

Me
December 1, 2012 8:59 pm

Pat with all of those on your side and you people still can’t “get her done” Must be some stinky solids you are pushing out of yer behinds Eh!

Graham
December 1, 2012 9:02 pm

Even Monckton himself concedes that rising CO2 levels will result in some -albeit infinitesimal- warming. Yet taking into account the relentless, even exponential increase in human CO2 production, doesn’t that graph finally and incontrovertibly put any causal link whatsoever to bed?

cohenite
December 1, 2012 9:04 pm

Christopher says:
“The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions ”
“galah”
Good to see he is incorporating some of the Australian idiom; there is nothing sillier than a galah; except a flock of the silly buggars.

RossP
December 1, 2012 9:04 pm

Pat Ravasio — Even Ben Santer is starting scratch his head about how all those very expensive computer models keep exaggerating the warming all you guys desperately want to see.
http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/

Nylo
December 1, 2012 9:04 pm

All the truth about these stupid conferences was accurately depicted in the fantastic final parody of the ecoEnquirer a few years ago… What a pity that they stopped publishing their stuff:
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Bali-global-warming-2027.htm

December 1, 2012 9:05 pm

“This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.”
It would be ideal for them to join those hysterical chattering classes in order to create new imaginary problems and “world destroying” delusional situations. But, what’s the fun in that ?
No more overseas holidays paid for by the taxpayer is just unthinkable. That would just be, err, common.

JohnB
December 1, 2012 9:05 pm

Actually Pat, your reading comprehension needs work, as does your basic grasp of what goes on at these meetings.
These are not meetings of climate scientists but meetings of governments and NGOs, the only scientists invited are those who will spout the party line. Very little in the way of science, but a lot of political representation and a large group of lobbyists.
It is these walking examples of microencephalopathy that he refers to as being wrong while his side is right. Please understand that a Greenpeace badge does not a scientist make.

adam
December 1, 2012 9:08 pm

I don’t think the Chinese, the Indians, and other big present and future emitters are all too keen to wield the climate change cudgel any longer. After all, if they themselves don’t cut emissions, it’s all a pointless exercise. With the US dropping down the world emissions tables, this game really isn’t much fun any more, is it?

December 1, 2012 9:10 pm

Hummmm, new meaning to “Hide the Decline” ?
Seems some knew they had limited time lines, no?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

December 1, 2012 9:11 pm

“IPeCaC” love that reference, that conglomerate of rent-seeking-scum does have that effect. Good choice.

jorgekafkazar
December 1, 2012 9:12 pm

Warmists are now saying that their puta-tive warming can also appear in the form of Climate Weirding, e.g., droughts or floods, wind or calm, hot or cold, with-out the higher temperature. They will soon claim that this is what their models predicted all along. And that it’s robustly worse than they thought, of course.

geo
December 1, 2012 9:18 pm

Wow. They must really be getting desperate when they are willing to admit that natural variability can do .8C over multi-decadal. There goes their hockey stick. . . .

CodeTech
December 1, 2012 9:27 pm

Pat Ravasio, you have no idea how hilarious your comment is. Really.
No desperation on this side, thanks. All the desperation is on the alarmist side, where they have forecast imminent catastrophe for years, then claim: “IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!”…. frankly, if that’s the case, then the planet will be melted before you even get a chance to read this.
Your belief that the majority of climate “scientists” believe in catastrophic warming is quaint, and amusing. Because, of course, until a few years ago there was no such discipline. It’s just been made up. And, since it was started by these self-same activists, their “science” is meaningless.
It has, however, been amusing watching them get schooled by every other science-related discipline, since AGW alarmists were wrong from the start and always will be. So say the statisticians, physicists, chemists, and now, Mother Nature herself.
By the way, ALL comments that aren’t abusive or way off topic get published here. Unlike, you know, those alarmist-run sites.

Werner Brozek
December 1, 2012 9:28 pm

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right?…..And should I be wrong, that you actually do believe what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply.
Here is what was said:
PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Here is what happened:
Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
Now tell me: Who is right?

Keith G
December 1, 2012 9:33 pm

Yesterday, upon the stair,

I saw some warming that wasn’t there

It wasn’t there again today

I wish, I wish it would go away…


When I came home last night at three

The warming was waiting there for me

But when I looked around the hall

I couldn’t see it there at all!

Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!

Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door…


Last night I saw upon the stair

The predicted warming that wasn’t there

It wasn’t there again today

Oh, how I wish it would go away

JB
December 1, 2012 9:33 pm

“There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.” – You can say it in as many infantile ways as you like. It’s still not true. Joining two dots is a child’s game, not science.
“…official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.” – And no, that’s a lie as well. You must be assuming that because you haven’t read the 1990 report, no-one else has either. And for the majority of commenters here, you’d surely be right. I’m sure you’re having a wonderful time preaching to the choir. In the real world, you’re a comical irrelevance.

ghowe
December 1, 2012 9:39 pm

Hey Pat Ravasssio: Here’s my reply> “Nuts!”
And please don’t post a blind link with your blindingly offensive post.
Thank you

RossCO
December 1, 2012 9:54 pm

“..the report will … suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade…”
So they admit that CO2 (coal) is stopping the world from slipping back into an ice age…
I predict that they are re-positioning themselves for the next Alarmist scare – “ICE AGE, ICE AGE crank up the coal power stations….”

intrepid_wanders
December 1, 2012 10:04 pm

“They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.”
How *dare* you disparage such a computational device with NOAA in a following sentence, no less a “Climate Report”. Such reports are generated on “Play Station” 😉

December 1, 2012 10:06 pm

Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.

intrepid_wanders
December 1, 2012 10:19 pm

Now that I have had time to reconsider, the “Whiiiee!” machine is better with floating parameters than even the tried and true “Play Station”

kasphar
December 1, 2012 10:37 pm

‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranationalbureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.’
Maybe Doha is not about ‘the warming’ at all but the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries – about 100 billion dollars, I believe.

Spillinger
December 1, 2012 10:38 pm

Pat
why don’t you start by having a browse through the reference pages on this site? As Monckton has said many times before, do’nt take his word for it, or anyone elses’- check the data for yourself

Patrick
December 1, 2012 10:45 pm

“Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm”
I’ve been to http://www.350.org, I have looked and looked and looked through pages of info, I still cannot see any facts at all at that site which supports their claim that 350ppm/v CO2 is “safe” for climate on this rock.

ghowe
December 1, 2012 10:49 pm

Hey Pat Ravassio – No one is going to click on your world, no matter how bucky it is, so drop that please. And where above are these “snide remarks”, esp in replies to you? Besides mine , I mean. If my earlier reply caused offense, then don’t let the panties get so twisted, buckup! And if you say poop again I will ask for your banishment. Awad

RKurtz
December 1, 2012 10:54 pm

“Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you. http://Www.buckyworld.me
350.org is a seriously overexaggerated Joke. They’re such a bunch of Chicken Little loons. Same as the UN Control Freak Loons who’ve been grossly over exaggerated,and over estimating their GIGO and selectively cherry picking their junk climate science claims for maximum Goebbels style propaganda effect.
It’s so laughable how there was just as much or even more socalled extreme weather/climatic events when the CO2 levels were 350ppm or less during the 18th/19th/early 20th century than present. Including Hurricanes, Floods, heatwaves, droughts, etc, etc. BTW same events which caused far higher loss of life than such modern present day events!
No Pat it’s you whose been had.

Elizabeth
December 1, 2012 10:56 pm

OT but can we safely say that solar 24 has now passed maximum SSN. Well done David Archibald!
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

CodeTech
December 1, 2012 10:57 pm

Pat, if 350.org and thinkprogress (both of which are leftist propaganda outlets, not informative or discussion based sites) are where you get your “factual, indepth” information, then your cause may well already be lost. You could browse around the Reference and resource pages right here to learn all you need to know.
At the moment, however, you appear to be what is called a “concern troll”… which means that no matter what Science is thrown at you, you will reject it as being unconvincing or… whatever reason.
Meanwhile, JB is one that appears magically wherever Monckton posts to throw insults and spew venom. Great fact-free post there, JB. Joining two dots is a child’s game? So is drawing a ridiculous fictional straight “projection” line climbing up, up and away from chaotic weather noise.
Hey JB… speaking of “comical irrelevance”, how is YOUR life doing?

intrepid_wanders
December 1, 2012 11:00 pm

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others.

Pat, we shall not attempt to insult your cognitive intelligence, but consider this…
1. Greenpeace is not the organization it was 20 years ago.
2. If there was an easy solution, most of us here would be in the front phalanx
3. “You side” continues to lose patrons with organizations like “360.org” and “Think Progress” because they *LIE*. Name something of topic that is true from them…
20-30 years ago, it was a different venue. *IF* the “Anti-Nuclear” faction kept their pie-holes closed, this would have been a rout for everyone that cares about the environment. Nobody cares if your side may or may not captured the consensus…there is another consensus that says otherwise. See how that latest COP is going if you have doubts (13 times box cars, hmmm…).
All that, and not a drop of Glenlivet on the keyboard.
Enough troll feeding…

davidmhoffer
December 1, 2012 11:01 pm

Pat Ravasio;
I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>
Facts regarding what? Explaining how the temperature record at the top of this post shows ZERO warming in the last 16 years? You’d think that would be obvious. What needs to be explained is why, if the CAGW theory is correct, that it doesn’t.
And BTW, a link to a scientific organization is not the same as linking to a fact. Werner Brozek has, upthread, posted the results of no less than three major temperature indices produced by three different organizations that study the global temperature record. There’s the data right in front of you. You can look at it and understand what it means, or you can wait for someone from an “organization” to tell you what it means. Frankly, if you are under the impression that an annual temperature trend requires a PhD in climate science to understand, you are mistaken.
The graph shows zero warming over the last 16 years, something that all the climate modelers 16 years ago insisted would not happen unless their models were wrong. Well Pat, that temperature graph is produced by pretty much the same cadre of scientists that produced the models.
So are you going to look at the data and draw logical conclusions on your own? Or are you going to wait for some organization to tell you what to think?

Matt
December 1, 2012 11:03 pm

[snip . . OT . . mod]

george e. smith
December 1, 2012 11:06 pm

“”””””……Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf. And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply. Thank you. http://Www.buckyworld.me…..””””””
Pat, the only turf in need of protection, is that ongoing scam of wasting billions of taxpayer’s dollars supporting all the leeches that have attached their lifelong sustenance by others, to a promise that if we fund their fun and games for 30 years or so; the usual recognised time quantum for climate data to be noticeable, they will periodically report to us that basically, nothing much is happening.
The most surprising aspect, is that after 30 years, anybody even remembers, what the original question was.
Climatism addicts are second only to the extra-terrestrial intelligent life nutcakes.
So they send out messages, including the first billion digits of pi (base 10 for some totally inexplicable reason) to show how smart they are, and then they ask for the solutions to the world’s great problems; nuclear war, aids, and hunger. So 200 years from now when the answer comes back from some galactic outpost, their great great grandchildren will ask:- “what dumbass asked these stupid questions, that we solved a hundred years ago.
Most people with real jobs, get paid from weekly to monthly or so, for actual results visibly achieved during those sorts of activity periods. Only Politicians and climatists engage in activities which don’t kick in, until they are safely retired on a nice pension plan.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
December 1, 2012 11:13 pm

Christopher, pithy and hilarious as usual. I really do wish you’d have a go at Pat Ravasio, but his outburst probably didn’t gain enough altitude to worry your radar. Pat, how can we sceptics enjoin you to turn down your compulsion to snide before thinking? Oh…sorry. Sniding and thinking are mutually exclusive mental exercises….sorry. My bad for even thinking of that. Of course the Conference of Parties has got it right. Sitting in a bubble that petroleum built, at that.

Christopher Hanley
December 1, 2012 11:13 pm

If Monckton is correct that “… The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s …” which, with all due respect hardly seems credible, then it proves beyond doubt that for some time (if not longer) the main motivation of the scientists pressing the CAGW hypothesis has not been saving the planet or the welfare of mankind, but vanity and greed — i.e., despite their failed predictions, they were right all along and are still right.

P. Solar
December 1, 2012 11:21 pm

Amazing, I was thinking before rising this morning that we hadn’t heard from MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY recently and here he is.
However, I am really asking myself if this text was actually written by Monckton. He is very well educated in classics and has a remarkable writing style that you have to admire even if you don’t agree with what he is saying. He is also decidedly British, with an accent that would get him called “toff” without it being a diminutive of his first name.
I find nothing of his usual eloquent writing style here.
” rebarbatively repetitive ” an ugly expression which is itself rebarbatively repetitive .
Frequent use of americanisms that is not his usual language: gotten ; upcoming ; it’s your call. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis, several times.
Either he thinks he’s playing to his audience or his travels are starting to affect his vocabulary.
“The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) ”
Well, I’m not sure who the other smarter mind is but my guess is that his lordship has started subcontracting, which is a great shame. I find it hard to believe that Monckton wrote this text himself.

Jer0me
December 1, 2012 11:21 pm

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume Werner’s reply to you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1161843 was not published when you posted this. Read it and see the facts as provided by ‘climate scientists’, and in this case, those who believe the the catastrophe that appears not to be occurring.

December 1, 2012 11:39 pm

Pat Ravasio
“A link to an actual scientific organization? “
You must be joking surely?
I visited your site and apart from being a highly partisan site heavily leaning to the greeny-warmists., may I quite sincerely say that you are either colour blind or have no artistic talent whatsoever.
The site is very hard to read and the glaring black colour is actually hurtful to the eye.
But since it’s unlikely that I visit again please keep it if you are happy with it.

RES
December 1, 2012 11:41 pm

Pat, you say you really are trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but you present a single viewpoint and then get indignant when others with a different viewpoint point out real facts posted by two organisations (NOAA & UEA), which you and your colleagues have readily used when it suits but totally ignore when they publish data that does not support the ‘consensus’ of AGW. You indignantly protest that you are open minded but nothing you say supports anything other than the AGM dogma.

P. Solar
December 1, 2012 11:51 pm

cohenite says:
“galah” Good to see he is incorporating some of the Australian idiom; there is nothing sillier than a galah; except a flock of the silly buggars.
Again, strange he uses a term that is not from his usual classical british vocabulary and would be unknown to most of his readership. If the second “smarter mind” with him is an Aussie, I think we’ve just found the author of this piece.

RES
December 1, 2012 11:52 pm

Opps and apologies
It really does pay to proof read properly!
should have read ‘AGW dogma”

george e. smith
December 2, 2012 12:01 am

It seems to be lost on the Doha rain dancers, that “GISSTemp”, reported here and there on some routine, is the result of some Algore rythmic process applying the standard laws of statistics; a branch of mathematics, to a particular set of input numbers. Those numbers do not come from a group of ping pong balls, as do those for the Powerball lottery; but they might as well. Supposedly each number comes from another “gizmo”, many of which are thermometers, which have a means of indicating some number in a restricted range. Nobody pays attention to when those indicated numbers are observed, and recorded for the process. Well even the Powerball ping pongs, are each selected at separate discreet times. That ensures, that each selection is uncorrelated to any previous selection. Any communication is presumed to have abated between each selection.
So Dr Hansen presumably knows roughly where each of these ping pometers is located; not that that matters much; evidently, so long as it is within 1200 km of where it is supposed to be, is close enough.
Well over time, some of these things move around, like the desert rocks that move when nobody is watching.
Well this is all well and good, Dr Hansen sometimes changes the numbers, to corect some back to what they should have been when someone should have been watching.
All of this is legitimate. Statistics is a mature branch of mathematics, and you can apply all its complexities to any set of numbers you like; even from the pages of a phone book. And you could do it for each page, and plot the changes from page to page. And then you can publish it regularly, just like a horoscope, and disciples will read it.
Since there is no time synchronism for any of the number gathering, then of course there is no cause and effect linkage between the numbers, by any physical laws for example. If you measure the Voltage between two points in a circuit today, and then tomorrow measure the current flowing in that circuit, the ratio will not give you the resistance of the circuit path; nor will the product give the power dissipation.
So nobody knows just when each GISSTemp thermometer actually indicated the number that Hansen uses in his recipe. His statistical output is correct for the set of numbers used. Some of the thermometers may even be Russian Christmas trees.
And the resultant product is “GISSTemp”. He could call it Hansenitis if he wanted to; but for now it is GISSTemp.
And of course, lik the numbers put into the hopper, it doesn’t mean anything at all; well no more than any horoscope does.
To have any physical meaning, the various readings have to occurr within the propagation times for whatever physical process can occur, as a result of those values.
If you know simultaneously, the Temperature at two points, you can calculate heat flows between those points, if you know some other parameters of the system. But absent any timing information, you can only use those numbers in some arbitrary meaningless recipe, such as GISSTemp.
So tell me again how the thirteen or so good GCMs are actually using the basic laws of physics to produce their predictions ; excuse me, that’s projections

P. Solar
December 2, 2012 12:02 am

An other amusing article by Monckton here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10144 shows his usual incisive wit that seems oddly missing here.

James Allison
December 2, 2012 12:07 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.
———————————————–
Pat you reference pure advocay sites. No science there. Hang around WUWT for a few months, read as many back posts as you can. If you have a scientific bent go visit Climate Audit. Ask questions and join the discusion. And if f you aren’t wearing blinkers then you gain a certain enlightenment.

Manfred
December 2, 2012 12:08 am

Pat Ravasio, you are asking for a “scientfic organization ?
Here are quotes from the Interacademy Report, the IPCC’s investigation into itself after climategate. As you are asking for authority instead of evidence, you can’t get more authority than that. Needless to say, that NONE of the issues have been addressed for the current IPCC report.
“There were several findings in the IAC report indicating a failure on the part of the IPCC to ensure that the full range of scientific views are given consideration.
• The IAC warned against “confirmation bias” and recommended that “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered” and that Review
Editors and Coordinating Lead Authors should check that “due consideration was given to
properly documented alternative views” (p. 20). The implication is that, at present, these things
do not happen: Lead Authors in some cases fail to give consideration to a range of scientific
views, and nobody verifies whether they have done so.
• The IAC pointed out that there is no formal process or criteria for selecting Lead Authors, and
cautioned that “The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment.” (p. 18). They alluded to the problem again later when they observed “Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” (p. 20)
• They also called upon the IPCC to develop policies governing conflict of interest, including
intellectual conflicts of interest in which Lead Authors are in a position of reviewing their own
work, or have revealed through speeches, public statements or writings that they hold “fixed
positions” (pp. 46-47).
• The IAC commented that some of their respondent were concerned that “the Summary for Policy Makers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report.” (p. 25). They went on to observe that the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers “is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report” (p. 26).
Treatment of uncertainty
The IAC was deeply critical of the way the IPCC, particularly Working Group II, handled and reported on uncertainty, especially in regards to statements about the impacts of climate change.The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of “high confidence” that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or are difficult to refute. (p. 37)
They found that the guidance for explaining uncertainty is not itself adequate, and is often not followed anyway (p. 4). They recommended use of a Level-of-Understanding scale for communicating uncertainty, rather than a probability scale, since it is inappropriate to assign probabilities and confidence levels to poorly-understood issues.
Many of the 71 conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the
Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference
to the time period under consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions
would be true….In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not
an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way,
conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore
statements of “very high confidence” will have little substantive value. (pp. 33-34).
More generally, the IAC noted that in some cases “[IPCC] authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot
be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive
finding was being presented.” (p. 36)
Basis of conclusions
The IAC concluded that “many of the conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are based on unpublished or non-peerreviewed literature” (p. 33). They also found that many conclusions stated with “High Confidence” by Working Group II had little or no scientific basis:
[By] making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high
confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many
such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature. (p. 4).
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
NONE of the issues have been addressed for the current IPCC report. Worse, IPCC co-chair Stocker disturbingly worked in the opposite direction:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/12/stockers-earmarks/

ferdberple
December 2, 2012 12:18 am

The interesting thing about a scientific theory, is that if it is right, it is right every time. It isn’t right “sometimes”. That is not science.
AGW predicts increasing temperatures with increasing CO2. It isn’t happening. This is the hallmark of a failed theory. In science, ANY failed prediction means the theory is wrong.
Cold Fusion has at least as good a track record as AGW. Sometimes cold fusion has been observed to happen and sometimes it has been observed to not happen. If AGW is true because it is sometimes observed to be true, then by the same logic Cold Fusion must be true.

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio)
December 2, 2012 12:19 am

Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment? Surely you don’t think that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power are ideal ways to answer our energy needs? What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run. The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance. So come on, oil guys, what’s the harm in moving ahead and doing things a better way? Isn’t it time for all of you to come over to the side where there don’t have to be any real losers? It’s getting lots of attention and support and makes me feel like I am at least trying to do something. If you would like to look at a perhaps more relevant link, written by some seriously smart journalists, here’s a story on climate deniers. Some of you will see your name in lights!
[hi, you are new here so you may be unaware but the use of the word “deniers” isn’t acceptable. It is seen as pejorative and unhelpful in the debate . . mod]

Dave
December 2, 2012 12:26 am

Pat, you say you are trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but nothing you have said supports that claim.

thingadonta
December 2, 2012 12:28 am

Yeah and I don’t think it will warm much in the next 20 or so years either, due to a negative PDO overwhelming what very small increase in temperature C02 makes. (What alot of fun there will be in the next 20 years, as the alarmists, like Enron accountants, have to steadily increase their creative skills to justify the lack of warming).
Anyone who looks at the data can see the strong influence of the PDO on 20th century temperatures, yet it is barely mentioned in most alarmists blogs (eg skeptical science etc). Maybe they might start paying attention after another 20 years of non warming.

Zephyr
December 2, 2012 12:33 am

@R. Shearer: “Ironic that liberal atheist climate activists pray for calamitous weather events.”
– They aren’t true atheists, their statism is a worship for them. The liberals have also a paradise, the socialist utopia where everything is harmonious, sustainable, everybody lives in the same conditions so happy forever.
They replaced the traditional religion by another apparently Godless, but not really. In some cases their god is mother nature, in other cases the spirit of justice, or the spirit of the future generations to which, according to their doctrine we must pass on the best world possible even though they don’t even exist. You see, they do believe in ghosts.
Perhaps other illustrious personages like Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar showed such devotion toward their following generations beyond their close relatives?
Liberals are full of shit. I am offended that they have seized the concept of atheism to pervert its meaning. Now we need a new term that will exclude all the spiritual idiots who believe that human life has a high purpose that everyone must pursue.

tango
December 2, 2012 12:35 am

may they all R.I.P

ID deKlein
December 2, 2012 12:35 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate … I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf.
Why should anybody respond to you? You are just being offensive. There’s no indication that you are interested in facts or an informed discussion.

Its Me
December 2, 2012 12:37 am

Pat, if you are trying to keep an open mind it’s best to avoid expressions like the last deniers on earth; some people would interpret that as a “nasty snide remark”, as you put it, and a highly offensive one at that. And yes a focus on the actual science, rather than political propaganda and name-calling, would be most welcome, because there’s a big difference between the two. Does NOAA not count as a scientific organisation to you? The comments here have referred several times to their report indicating that a 15-year period without warming would be inconsistent with their climate models.
You’re confusing politics with science. They are not the same. 350.org is a campaign group. thinkprogress is a left-wing politics site. For example you wouldn’t know from thinkprogress’s section on extreme weather http://thinkprogress.org/tag/extreme-weather/ that NOAA’s own records show that tornado incidence in the US has if anything decreased since the 1970s; instead to make their case they have to resort to non-scientific sources such as assertions by politicians and Munich Re’s marketing material. The United Nations Secretary General is a politician, not a scientist.

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 12:39 am

oh Pat, you deluded fool..
I notice you still think STEAM coming from a chimney is CO2… DOH !!!!!!!
back to kindy, little person !!

Peter Miller
December 2, 2012 12:43 am

Pat
The facts are:
1. The alarmist community has annual financial support at least 1,000 times that of sceptics and yet increasingly struggles to sell its brand of misinformation to all but the goofiest of our so called political elite.
2. A typical well informed sceptic believes there is some AGW (rising CO2 is partly the reason for this), but that CAGW is a hoax dreamed up to support and perpetuate the bloated (multi-tens of billions of dollars annually) Global Warming Industry’s gravy train.
3. Climate models are routinely produced with the results already pre-determined and/or are such poor representatives of how the incredibly complex machinations of our planet’s climate actually works that they are effectively useless.
4. Natural climate cycles, the arch heresy of the alarmist community, dwarf any effect that man can ever have on the Earth’s climate. These have been around for billions of years and will be there for billions of years to come. The current warming cycle (the past 150 years) in the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) is similar to its past six or seven warming cycles.
5. The alarmist community routinely manipulates/homogenises/tortures raw data records of temperature to always make the recent past cooler and the present warmer.
6. Why do the self-appointed leaders of the alarmist cult always refuse to publicly debate climate change with leading sceptics? Answer: Because they know they will have their ‘science’ shredded, so they hide behind pompous statements like: “I am not going to debate climate change with someone who is not a real scientist.”
7. Alarmists are obsessed with the totally false notion that we must return to a climate norm – sometime in the 1940s or 1950s. There is no such thing as a ‘climate norm’. Most of the past 2.6 million years (Pleistocene Era) it has been much colder than now, with the exception of the occasional inter-glacial period, such as the Holocene. Yet, the 650 million years prior to that – after the ‘Snowball Earth’ – have mostly been warmer than today. Into which, you have to inject the effects of natural climate cycles.
8. Rising carbon dioxide levels are largely beneficial, as they act as a natural fertiliser.
9. Why do alarmists keep churning out BS theories, which are so demonstrably incorrect, such as:
The polar bears are dying out because of global warming.
The rise in sea levels is accelerating
The glaciers have been melting since CO2 levels began to rise.
The oceans are acidifying because of rising CO2
The Arctic ice cap is melting because of rising CO2 levels – let’s stop for a moment here and consider:
a) no one really knows what happened with the Arctic ice cap prior to the satellite era.
b) There are records of sailing ships moving through a largely ice free Arctic in summer during the 1800s.
c) The Antarctic ice cap is growing
d) If the Arctic had the same higher salinity as the rest of the world’s oceans, it would probably be ice free during summer..
e) What about the effects of man made soot (lots more of it today than there was a 100 years ago)?
f) What about the effect of huge Arctic storms such as occurred this year, which went totally unreported by the alarmist press and broke up the ice pack?
The bottom line is climate alarmism is both a cult and an industry, solely interested in its self-perpetuation. The job of the sceptics is to keep that cult/industry honest and that is something they really don’t like.

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 12:44 am

Has anyone done any calculations on the CO2 released to the atmosphere for this Doha conference?
– travel, by aircraft for many many unneccesary people.
– energy, oil fired I believed, for massive amounts of air conditioning, computers and local transport
– transport of people, foodstuffs etc to venues,
– transport for security people, and for the loony bin vans.
these are just a few of the CO2 releasing actions involved, bound to be many, many more.
The point iis that these people DO NOT CARE.. so long as they get their junket !!!
Al Gore, and his many, many hyper-hypocritical fanatics !!!
(seems one is visit here in this thread…. needs a pat on the head and sent back to school.)

Coke
December 2, 2012 12:44 am

God I love Monckton 😀 Does he have his own blog? If not, he bloody well should have!

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 12:46 am

Hint, Patricia.. remove the picture of the steaming chimney from your bucky link.. it makes you look like a FOOL !!!

Steve C
December 2, 2012 12:48 am

Pat Ravasio – You want to see some facts? Spend awhile reading through these papers and reflect on what you have read. Sure, some of them mention your favourite “sky dragon” in passing, but you know how it is with government funding, if you don’t at least mention their obsessions du jour you don’t get the cash to do anything at all.
It is precisely through ascertaining the facts that many of us became “disbelievers”: I, for example, used to think as you seem to, until a friend put cash on the table for anyone who could show him a proof of catastrophic manmade climate change. After a couple of weeks’ searching, I became seriously worried at the quality of the “science” I was seeing; after a couple of months I realised his cash was completely safe; now, years later, I confidently assure you that “there’s nothing to see here, move along …”. Merry Christmas, and happy reading.
Lord Christopher – sweet! I love “IPeCaC”, although perhaps for acronymic accuracy the E should be an A. The effect of their “cac” is the same however spelt, though.

John F. Hultquist
December 2, 2012 12:50 am

I’d like to know more about the sand-flies and the near-record low attendance.
As for Pat R., he or she with the third comment started with an odd statement that should have been ignored. For example, who is sounding desperate? Some boy? Next line refers to “two” against all the climate and environmental scientists in the world. What a mixed up comment. Are there any actual scientists in that flea infested tree house? Unlikely. Next we get a reference to readers who are “curiosity seekers” interested in how “deniers” phrase their thoughts. Beg your pardon, Miss, but it seems as though the “vast majority” of your brain has been damaged by something. That seems to be your idea of an “open mind” because your use of the despicable term “deniers” characterizes you as a bigot. That you don’t know that you have just done this also characterizes you as mentally deficient. Bless your little heart. Then you infer that some one or more folks do not believe what they have just written, and a lack of a reply will show you are right. What a silly statement. Who did you expect to reply? You really are unaware and out of touch.
However, on a slow news weekend when only the weather** is interesting, you have provided entertainment. Thanks for that.
———–
**
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/mount-shasta-snow-extreme-20121129

Grey Lensman
December 2, 2012 12:50 am

Pat, CO2 is not a pollutant, its the gas of life, how an earth can you clean that up. An old saying if it aint broke, dont fix it. You say, whats the harm. Well ask the 24,000 dead in the UK or the 500,000 without power in Germany.
Just look at the very simple maths of windmills. They do not work, simple. Whats the point more like it.

ID deKlein
December 2, 2012 12:50 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.
It’s the subsidies and the government-imposed tariffs that are harmful. “Cleaner” energy destroys more jobs than it creates, work that was viable is now uncompetitive. People are more concerned about pollution the wealthier they are. Green-imposed poverty is likely to result in actual pollution, as it falls in people’s list of concerns, compared with just surviving. That’s harmful.
CO2 isn’t pollution, it’s the one atmospheric molecule essential for life on the planet. Photosynthesising plants need it to survive.

Bertram Felden
December 2, 2012 12:51 am

JB 9:33 pm
Here is a quote from the IPCC 1990 Assessment report:
“Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade ”
Please explain how that is different from Monckton saying it said 0.3C per decade. I’d be really interested to hear your explanation.
Could it be that by the time of the 3rd report in 2001 they had then plumped for a take your pick approach from 40 different model outputs?
Essentially the IPCC and the modellers are chasing their tails – when outcomes differ they go back and redraw their models in an attempt to get them to follow reality; this, of course, is a good thing because the nearer they get to accuracy the better for everyone. What is a bad thing, however, is that such currently unreliable work in progress is used as a stick to beat the world with.

Gnomish
December 2, 2012 12:52 am

better way, is it? do you consider colossal waste a better way?
faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

mogamboguru
December 2, 2012 12:55 am

I admire Lord Monckton’s competence in playing with words enormously – even more so, as he is using his abundant lingual and intellectual competence to transmit irrefutable facts and information with an ironic twist.
Having said that, I’d like to hint to another subject worth his attenton in the near future – namely:
“Fourteen Is the New Fifteen!”
By Arvind Kumar
As seen on the blog “The American Thinker”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html
Disregarding the political rigorousness of this blog, I checked the sources mentioned there and found, that Mr. Kumar is correct in his assessment – that somehow the basic average global temperature in science and literature has – by an hence-unreported consensus of yet-invisible participants – been reduced from 15 to 14 degrees Centigrade around early 1998.
Considering this and taking not 14, but 15 degrees Centigrade as baseline for the leading graph in Lord Monckton’s actual contribution to WUWT, I come to the conclusion that the world
DOESN’T HAVE WARMED, BUT COOLED 0.5 DEGREES CENTIGRADE
since the mid-1990ies, or so.
I see massive propaganda from the warming-propagandists at work here.
WUWT?

Gnomish
December 2, 2012 1:03 am

how about that better way as shown by poster boy, al gore:
Vice President Al Gore visited Fall River, Massachusetts to offer an Earth Day speech touting Molten Metals Inc. This company failed soon thereafter.
Al Gore’s close confidant, Maurice Strong, was on the MMT board of corporate directors. Forbes has this note from Jan. 12, 1998:
A member of Molten’s board, Strong sold some shares at around $31 apiece a month prior to the stock’s October 1996 collapse. Today the stock is at 13 cents a share and Strong is being sued by San Diego class-action shark Milberg Weiss.
What was Strong’s reward for his part in the MMT fiasco? The Democrats decided that he was eminently well-qualified to be bumped upstairs to the U.N., where he eventually founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/gore_and_the_democrats_green_graft_machine.html

December 2, 2012 1:04 am

The pseudonymous “JB” says I was untruthful to say there has been no global warming for 16 years and that “joining two dots is a child’s game, not science.” If “JB” knows any elementary statistics and computer programming, he, she or it will no doubt be able to perform the not particularly difficult task of determining the least-squares linear-regression trend on any of the published monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets. To determine the linear trend, it is necessary to take account of all monthly values over the past 16 years, not just “two dots”. There has been no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Get used to it.
“JB” also asserts, libelously, that I lied when I wrote that IPeCaC predicted in 1990 that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.” The IPCC’s 1990 report indeed predicted 0.3 Cº/decade over the period following the report, but the outturn has been less than half of that. It also predicted that by 2025 there would be 1 Cº of warming compared with 1990, and that works out at more than 0.6 Cº by now.
“JB” goes on to assert, without knowledge, that I had not read IPeCaC’s 1990 report, and that no one else had either. No doubt “JB” has not read the report, but he should not assume that his own indolence and ignorance are universal. I have read the 1990 report, and that was why I was able to cite it accurately. The world has not been warming at even half of the rate that IPeCaC’s first report predicted, not that the forthcoming Fifth ASSESsment report will mention this fact.
Finally, a Mr Ravasio seems not to like what I wrote in the head posting, but has failed to identify any particular fact that I had gotten wrong. I realize that the facts in the posting are uncongenial and inconvenient to those whose blind faith in the now-disproven “consensus” is firm: but facts are facts, whether Mr Ravasio likes them or not. In future, he should either make factual statements about the science and economics that are discussed here or go and play in someone else’s sandpit.

December 2, 2012 1:05 am

And so we arrive at Doha. Notice how they always have these clam bakes in very nice places? Not for them the likes of Detroit, Dagenham, Kalgoorlie or Schweinfurt. No Siree baby, when you’re spending other people’s money, splash it out somewhere nice, not in places where real wealth is being produced by dint of something as unfashionable as sweat.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-real-doh-about-doha/
Pointman

Skunkpew
December 2, 2012 1:06 am

You think after all this time, they’d learn something and hold this convention in the middle of the summer when the alarmism is at its absolute peak. God help them, they can’t even get that right.

December 2, 2012 1:12 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
“The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance. So come on, oil guys, what’s the harm in moving ahead and doing things a better way?”
Would you still bring this comparison to our attention if the analogy was about Scientology and not Christianity? If not, why not? I think your answer may be the same one that many commenters here would use to not destroy the world’s economies.

Kev-in-Uk
December 2, 2012 1:14 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Ok, – I’ll respond to that statement (and your others):
Firstly, being a climate skpetic does not automatically mean we all go out and pollute the environment with glee – far, far from it. On the contrary, most skeptics are usually extremely ‘green’.
With respect, I think you should spend some time – (like most of us here have had to) – to establish the believable facts for yourself.
FWIW, Don’t try and preach environmentalism here – it will simply show your ignorance of the actual subject of conservation and environmental protection. You need to get off the coat tails of the big NGO’s like Greenpeace and WWF and they are simply self supporting procrastinating bodies and advocacy groups……….try looking into their accounts, for a start!
Everyone is welcome here – but you will find no sympathy for being ‘stupid’. You may believe what ever you wish, have strong views on whatever you wish, etc – but you will be considered a troll if you cannot make a reasoned argument! Your first post demonstrates this admirably as you make no argument (defense) at all – I think you have got off quite lightly!
Stupid is as stupid acts. Now, you can go off and get all indignant and huffy, that’s entirely your choice – or you can seek the scientific truth, as far as possible. Anyone who really cares (and especially those of us who are real scientists) will want to establish facts for themselves and argue from a position of knowledge NOT from a position of spoonfed automatically regugitated IPCC based or ‘consensus’ garbage!
I trust you can take this comment with the respect with which it is written. If not, then I would simply suggest you have wasted your time (and ours) with your effort.
regards
Kev

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio)
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
December 2, 2012 1:44 am

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful replies. You have inspired me, and I will be investigating your points of view more fully in the days to come. I must sign off for now, but I did put up a new post that I hope clarifies my comparison to Lewis Carrol’s quote about Christianity’s worse case scenario. It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face. I would also welcome your comments on my blog, especially if any of you are versed in Buckminster Fuller, especially in his views on the importance of harvesting and banking “natural energy incomes.” Thanks again for your time this evening.

Coke
December 2, 2012 1:16 am

I’m sorry, Pat, but after clicking on your link, I stopped reading as soon as I got to the phrase “overwhelming consensus”.
Oh and I noticed also that you didn’t provide one single solitary viable alternative energy source to the ones that you have relied on all your life. Be sure not to omit them in your next post, please 🙂

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 1:16 am

Lord Monkton.. love your wordsmithing.
I wish I had but a fraction of your ability ! 🙂

JP Miller
December 2, 2012 1:21 am

Patricia,
I do happen to think a combination of fracking, deep water drilling, coal, and nuclear power (as determined by market prices not distorted by government grants, taxation, etc.) are ideal ways to answer our energy needs. And, no, I have nothing to do with the energy industry except as a consumer.
And, unless you think Spain’s economy should be the ideal we shoot for (they have invested billions and billions in so-called “green energy”), I’d hazard a wild guess that pursuing “green energy” is economic suicide, which we don’t need on top of the struggles we have to compete with China, Korea, and other more capitalist countries.
So, yes, there is a LOT OF HARM in pursuing green energy “solutions” (that provide few jobs in the US, as per Solyndra — unless you are referring to the jobs our investing in green energy has created in China; don’t forget about that…).
Frankly, Patricia, you sound naive beyond words of both climate science and economics. I care deeply about our environment and our economy. Having lived and work in China, and having worked in 35 other (mostly developing) economies around the world, I can tell you our air and water and soils are cleaner BY A MILE than almost all other countries. And, I like it that way. I worry about our wild fish populations because of uncontrolled international fishing.
I’ve carefully read the climate science and with a PhD in science I think I have at least some basis for making an informed judgment. Bottom line, too many climate scientists have gone off the deep-end, for reasons of ideology (they had climate religion before they got their PhDs) and funding (if they didn’t find stuff supporting AGW, they would not be successful academics, possibly losing their jobs). The data are ambiguous about CO2 impact on climate. Plain and simple. And, as Monckton so eloquently, if derisively, points out, doing nothing about CO2 is a far better strategy than wasting precious resources when they could be put to far more important matters — even some having to do with real environmental issues.
If you really do have an open mind and if you read (all) the relevant science, it’s hard not to conclude that AGW has not been conclusively demonstrated. In any case, you’d better bring more to this site than what you have if you want respect from its posters. Most here know a thing or two. Good luck.

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 1:22 am

I suspect that JB is a warmist nutcase from the central coast NSW. Australia.
He has continually proven, on other forums, that he knows basically nothing about anything !!!
His sole purpose is to TROLL , and he has admitted as such on other forums.

December 2, 2012 1:29 am

I have learned not one but THREE very useful new words today, thanks to The Right Honorable Christopher Viscount Monckton [:())) me, making a 370-pound curtsy]:
gabfest“; “yatterama“; and “yadayadathon“.
Truly, the language of Shakespeare is… what’s the word? Undrainable.

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 1:31 am

Which organisations champion devices that obliterate avain wildlife?
Which organisation champion environment destroying, totally inefficient and economically vandalistic energy sources such as wind energy, often with zero environmental impact studies?
Answer.. It is NOT anyone who is welcome here…. it is the very people who purport to be looking after the environment, and who would deny the world plants their due source of nourishment.
Everything is ‘a’ over ‘t’. The people who really care about the environment are those fighting against the corrupt WWF, Greenpeace etc.. sure thing is, that these two bodies particularly, don’t gve a rat’s a*** …… unless there is money in it !!!

markx
December 2, 2012 1:33 am

Pat Ravasio: December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Says: “……. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world ….”
Pat, I know it is easier just to listen to things, but rather than just sitting still and accepting what is preached and sold to you, try doing a little reading on the matter:
Each particular area of climate science seems to be depending on the “facts” from the other areas to shore up the known shortcomings in their own particular area of research. Perhaps without realizing the major shortcomings in every other area.
But, as you work through each one you find:
1. TOA radiation measurements are very imprecise: theorized 0.85 w/m2 imbalance, measured 6.5 w/m2, modeled adjustment required.
2. Ocean heat content, where supposedly 93% of the heat (that 0.85 w/m2 imbalance)is going. So we see published a measured rise of 0.09 degrees C over 55 years for the top 2000 meters of the oceans.
3. Sea surface temperatures are probably accurate enough. But the understanding of cyclical heating and cooling behavior such as ENSO Ocean Atmosphere interactions seems to be in the early stages, and there are some issues with apparent recent cooling of the southern oceans.
4. Sea level rises: problems with satellites detailed in http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf. Problems with the accounting, groundwater contributions as here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1476.html. Problems with recent falls in southern sea levels (increased rain, now is in land reservoirs? Or…perhaps a pause in aquifer usage?) And note no MSM published sea level forecasts yet take into account Mitrovica’s work on polar ocean retreat. http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt
5. Ice losses, similar satellite problems to above, unresolved as yet. And the apparent contradiction that Antarctic may be gaining ice, or at least not losing it, while the Arctic is undoubtedly losing ice. They quickly flail around a find that a model somewhere predicted that, and push it up front and center.
Then there is the incessant touting of every storm, drought and wildfire as the final absolute proof.
Funny how previously all our scientific measures can always be added up with great certainty to explain sea level rises of various magnitude, and people at times went searching for and found “missing heat” … then along came the groundwater guys and they threw a small spanner in the works…but with the next set of figures it gets changed and it all still “adds up”.
I hope the GRASP project goes ahead, apparently GRACE has its share of difficulties, and I for one will be interested to see if they have finally got it right: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf
As I like to say, they (our CAGW brethren) have put forward an interesting and plausible theory, and we are all now in the early stages of data collection.

Stephen Richards
December 2, 2012 1:39 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
This is beyond the pale. You really must read more. There are plenty of peer revieved documents on the web (not just here ) that will help you understand our concerns.
Ignore the likes of Felden above and concentrate on the hypothosis of global warming. Look at past records, newspaper reports, etc (steven goddard’s site reprints lots of articles from the early 20th century. THEN, open your mind and come back for a sensible, snide free discussion.
Don’t get waylaid by strawman like 0.3°C/decade, it is irrelevent in the scheme of things.

Stephen Richards
December 2, 2012 1:42 am

Pointman says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:05 am
What’s your problem with Dagenham ( incidently pronounce dajen-ham). I spent all my youth near there and my parents worked for Fords. ;))

Coke
December 2, 2012 1:56 am

Upon reading the entirety of this thread, I have gained much insight as to why the supporters of CAGW theory dare not speak here! All that sciency, facty stuff slapping them in the face must be a loathsome experience for them.

Mike Post
December 2, 2012 1:56 am

Patricia Ravisio
You say: “What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy?” Nothing at all. Do all the research you like but don’t impose any form of energy supply that is expensive, needs subsidy and doesn’t work when it is needed.
Take wind in the UK. A Scottish professor, James Blyth, built the first wind powered electricity generator in 1887. In the 125 years since then nobody has found a way to cause the wind to blow reliably. As small islands, the UK has very limited capacity for hydro-electric schemes to pump-store surplus electricity when the wind blows. Even destroying our landscape by damming and flooding the Lake District and the Highlands would not help much.
If, in the UK, we had already replaced, as the government wishes, fossil and nuclear power that works with wind that does not, and which is not nearly as “clean” as you appear to think, we would be poorer and be killing people through fuel poverty and grid failure.
At midday on 6 February this year, which was a cold, still day over the whole of the UK, wind turbines connected to the national electricity grid were providing just 45Mw of power (out of approximately 6,000 Mw claimed capacity) which was 0.1% of grid demand or enough power to boil just 15,000 3Kw electric kettles.
If, as the result of being forced to invest in subsidised wind (to the benefit of all those rent-seeking, rich landowners) we end up with grid blackouts caused by investment in expensive, unreliable wind-power, not only will poor people suffer through fuel poverty but people such as the old and sick will be vulnerable to power loss. Since much of our society now depends on electricity to operate (computer controls, cash machines, the internet etc.), grid failure due to lack of wind could also disrupt our society.
Kind regards
Mike Post

james griffin
December 2, 2012 2:09 am

It is impossible for CO2 to be the driver to extreme temperatures as CO2’s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up. By the time 300-360ppm is achieved a further 60ppm for instance will only produce less than one tenth of one degree. Based on this we have already taken 75% of any of the heat we will ever get from CO2. This appears to be well known but kept from the public as are a number of other things. When challenged about the lack of warming in 2006 CRU said “our previous climate models did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variations”….in other words we have made no allwances for clouds, rain, volcanic ash, cosmic rays, tilt of the earth and the Iris effect for the next 100 years.
If that is not bad enough Jones signed off the IPCC report on the Urban Heat Isle Effect that clearly had not been done correctly and one of the oversights led to a reduction of 1.5C after Steve McIntyre sorted out an incrrect data screen with NASA.
And of course we have Michael Mann doing his tree ring data to try and prove the MWP never existed. Going against the historical fact that in England we had vineyards in Yorkshire (large parts to be covered in snow later today) and Greenland was covered in grass.
Th incredible faith the AGW crowd have in the thousands of scientists is misplaced. For there are only around 25 scientists who are AGW fanatics..Jones, Briffa, Santer, Trenberth, Mann et al who do their figs and tell the rest of the scientific community what they want them to think.
They have been caught out hiding declines and playing around with tree ring proxies and all manner of other things.
I could go on but the bottom line is this.
The theory is that excessive CO2 will cause CAGW….yet, over the last 15 years the temps have steadied and fallen back in line with the solar physicists predictions whilst CO2 has increased.
Therefore the theory is tested and fails the test,
Game over…litigation will follow as and when.

MikeB
December 2, 2012 2:11 am

I think that P. Solar asks some very good questions. Has this article really been written by Lord Monckton? The style is different – here it is more one of name-calling than of trying to present a reasoned or balanced argument.
And has our Lord actually succumbed to using the awful American word ‘gotten’?
It seems so. We now have a post from Monckton of Brenchley himself in which he reuses ‘gotten’. You have been too long in the States Sir, time to come home.

December 2, 2012 2:29 am

The noble lord doth spend too much time in the USA with Americanisms creeping into his prose. ”Gotten hotter”? do you mean ”increased”?
I still see an addiction to the GHE which physics can show to be impossible. Perhaps the noble lord should consult the web site http://www.climateofsophistry.com for an astrophysicists view of atmospheric physics.

Urederra
December 2, 2012 2:33 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right?

You cannot read and you pretend us to visit your sorry .me site?
Here are your weekend assignments:
1. Learn to read, (tip: “at the conference” does not mean “in the world”)
2. Buy a .com domain.
3. Extra points. Read about the scientific method. Focus on these two points.
a) The only valid data is empirical data (write about why computer generated data is not valid for scientific purposes).
b) Scientific theories have to be discarded when a set of empirical data that does not agree with the said theory is found. The task of climate scientists is to find a theory that agrees with ALL empirical data, not to find some data, empirical or computer generated, that fits their preconceived ideas and ignore the empirical data that does not agree with them.

December 2, 2012 2:37 am

@Stephen Richards
No problem at all. Dagenham trumps Doha any day. Why, I’ve even got friends from there.
Pointman

RockyRoad
December 2, 2012 2:38 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf. And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply. Thank you.

Here’s your reply, Pat:
1) You are the desperate one. I’ve got a few friends that were Warmistas but now, since I’ve pointed out there’s been no global warming for 16 years, they’ve changed their minds.
2) If by “climate scientists” you mean the likes of Trenberth, Mann, and Jones, then they live on a rapidly shrinking world of deception; those rebuking the Warmistas are gaining the upper hand. Science trumps politics (and bad science) any day.
3) Precious few of the posters here are “deniers”–we enthusiastically accept increasing global temperatures as the natural consequence of warming after the LIA. We can’t see an anthropogenic component at all: if you have an article that demonstrates one, please cite it. (To be exceedingly blunt, you are the “denier” here, as your political climate activism is not science at all; indeed, it denies the science.)
4) The only “turf” we’re trying to protect is a more abundant biosphere responding to the additional life-supporting CO2 gas now found in the atmosphere. Plants are lovin’ it! You should learn to identify with the plants.
5) The final point is: you are wrong; I simply have to post these answers to prove it (as per your last statement).
Really, Pat–do you actually believe the tripe they feed you at places like COP17; COP18; future COP19, ad nauseam. The stuff is so bad any thinking person would reject it, which begs an explanation of your situation (ad nauseum comes to mind).
And to show the above is not delivered in a mean spirit, I wish you a good day! May your guiding light always be science and not all that other encumbering baggage.

December 2, 2012 2:40 am

Pat Ravisio.
I know nothing will really change your mindset, but seeing as how you asked for a link to a ‘s’cientific organisation, I was wondering…would the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia count as a ‘s’cientific organisation? What about Professor Phil Jones…do you think he might qualify as a Climate ‘s’cientist?
“Email 4195
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”
I love tormenting Warmists and watching their twists and turns and wriggles…so let’s sit back and watch their reaction to this little bit of climategate2.

Skeptik
December 2, 2012 2:46 am

“up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.”
Sounds ike one of Wayne Swan’s budgets.

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 2, 2012 2:52 am

Pat, you asked on your blog what would be the harm if we all went German style.
You must mean getting into coal power and nuke power from the neighbours.

December 2, 2012 2:59 am

The significance of solar sun spots and flares this year . . . 2012. . . should debunk climate myths once and for all., and proves that the climate “scientists” are ignoring important facts that figure into all the calculations in their so called “models.” Solar luminence this year was extraordinary compared with the recent past and should have jolted us to the reality of our comparative impotence at controlling earth and its systems which are actually beyond our control . . . .approximately 93,000,000 miles beyond, as a measure of significance!

Editor
December 2, 2012 3:17 am

When the Daily Mail originally published the headline graph, the UK Met Office issued a reply that was so full of holes, it looked as if Joe Romm had written it!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/more-met-office-propaganda/

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 3:18 am

I maybe wrong here but the 16 years without warming is more serious than previously thought. Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?
References:

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
14MB

“The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/times-up-lack-of-global-warming-has.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
Then there is the small matter of the predicted yet still missing hotspot. Or was it never predicted?

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 3:23 am

Here is the paper for Santer’s 17 years minimum of lack of warming to separate noise.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

Editor
December 2, 2012 3:25 am

Christopher: Once again, thank you. Your posts and presentations are always informative and, at the same time, very entertaining. While I would catagorize mine as informative, I haven’t yet figured out how to make them entertaining. Maybe someday.
Regards

mpainter
December 2, 2012 3:26 am

Patricia Ravasio
First, you are welcome here, as an exchange of views and ideas is always beneficial. But please refrain from offensive phrases such as “deniers”, which really does offend. We say “skeptics” because we are indeed, quite skeptical. Study the temperature record of the last fifteen years and see if you detect a warming trend. If you do not, then you might consider whether this panic over global warming is a sensible thing involving sensible people. If you reach that point of thoughtfulness, you are on the verge of achieving independent thought and you will begin to understand why so many persons, formerly having accepted the alarmist point of view, have now rejected that.
Best Regards

Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7
December 2, 2012 3:27 am

With all due respect I must submit a correction: these meetings are not “gabfests”. They are grabfests.

LetsBeReasonable
December 2, 2012 3:35 am

Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?

davidmhoffer
December 2, 2012 3:37 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patricia,
You jumped in demanding a discussion of science, insisting on credible facts to refute CAGW. You got a list of them in short order. So, did you learn anything from the facts and science that were offered to you?
Apparently not. Instead you just changed course. Instead of trying to justify your world view on the basis of CAGW, you proceeded to lecture us about justifying your world view on an entirely different set of criteria. Sounds to me like you’ve made up your mind that your world view is correct, and you’ll just keep changing your mind as to why when your reason of the day meets with facts that don’t support it.
What’s wrong with pursuing newer. cleaner forms of energy? Nothing. But that isn’t what the CAGW movement is advocating. They’re advocating anything except fossil fuels no matter the cost, and there IS a cost. Biofuels turn out to produce more CO2 than just using fossil fuels when all the processing factors are included. Al Gore has even reluctantly admitted this. So, what value a fuel supposedly “cleaner” that produces more of what we’re trying to reduce while reducing what is of value, which is food. Or do you consider less food to feed people with a good thing?
We must also consider cost effectiveness. You ask “what harm” but there is plenty of harm if the alternatives are not cost effective. Do you think there will be any harm to a family on a fixed income if their heating costs triple? Do you understand that forcing the use of alternative energies affects the economics of everything from harvesting to transporting to processing to storing and preparing for use every single thing we take for granted? A 10% increase in fuel cost might show up as a 50% increase in a loaf of bread by the time it gets to your table. Is there any harm to a family on a fixed income of food prices rising by 50%?
Our entire western economy functions on cheap energy. Mess with it in any large way and the economy will collapse, and the suffering will be measured in tens of millions, perhaps billions, of lives.
But most importantly Patricia, we HAVE cleaned up the energy we use, big time. Coal fueled plants have scrubbers on them that remove all the aerosol pollutants that we used to allow them to spew into the atmosphere. The same goes for heavy industry such as chemical processing plants. The entire auto industry is subject to emission controls, and if you haven’t noticed, the fuel economy of most vehicles has risen 40% in the last few years. There was a time when stand up comics made fun of smog in cities with lines like “I shot an arrow into the sky…. and it stuck there”. Not funny today because the problem is gone. We cleaned it up.
So yes Patricia, there is harm if you ignore the big picture, and lot’s of it. And yes Patricia, we ARE pursuing new and cleaner ways of doing things. What we are not doing is assuming that one particular energy source is inherently evil and hence should be eliminated, and changing our minds as to why each time someone explains an important fact that we hadn’t previously considered.

Editor
December 2, 2012 3:38 am

Pat Ravasio
I am sorry I did not got into this debate any earlier. I appreciate your point about the environment, but I would like to make the following points:
1) Mankind has been “abusing”( I cannot think of a better term!) for thousands of years, the planet recovers. We have large numbers of abandoned coal mines here in the UK, they were eyesores when they were being worked, now the spoil heaps have been grassed and they attract wildlife and are pleasant to look at. Quarries and tin mines are the same.
2) I was speaking with someone who erects these wind turbines. They have to be built in the middle of nowhere (usually in an area of outstanding beauty) because the noise they make is damaging to humans. Each turbine needs 700 tons of concrete in its foundations, roads have to be built over unspoiled land to buiild and service them. The roads need very deep foundations because the traffic using them is by noty stretch of the imagination “light” Finally they need a network of pylons all needing wiring up and foundations to connect them to the National Grid. Gas powered power stations need to be on stand by for when the wind doesn’t blow or blows too fast. They have a life of 25 years but if one of the blades has the slightest damage it has to be discarded due to the imbalance it would create in the bearings. The amount of CO2 created by making, placing, servicing and connecting these things does not bear thinking about! They then only produce about 25% of their claimed output, also they decimate the bird and bat populations, so they are not in the slightest bit environmentally friendly.
3) There has been no global warming for 16 years we sceptics know this as do the warmists. If CO2 was causing GW then the planet should have warmed, it hasn’t, leading to two conclusions:
a) CO2 is not causing GW, in which case the theory is flawed.
b) Other factors many times more influential on the climate are involved, in which case the theory is flawed.
4) Science on the hoof seems to be the mainstay of theory of AGW. Earth having a climate like the planet Venus if we don’t curtail CO2 emissions was one, Arctic ice melting and causing the sea levels to rise was another. Both scientifically impossible.

December 2, 2012 3:57 am

Dear Pat Ravisio,
Being an avid user of this Blog, even on a sunday afternoon without a scotch, I find the reactions to your contribution very interesting and enlightning. As you expressed views relating to the stance that the climate has become an excuse and a bugbear, while its future behaviour seems to be set in stone (based on what I believe is very sloppy “science”: the physics do not fit) you may consider the following.
The workings of our (including mine of course) brain (from Daniël Kahnemann: Thinking fast and slow, Penguin pockets 2011) can be explained by two systems. One, say the automatic or in other words intuïtion, the fast and easy one. The second one may be called “the rater” capable of thinking, defining, evaluating; in need of more effort to be kick-started. When placed in a position of fear, as is obvious from your contribution”: I paraphrase: “we are difiling our earth, the fertile topsoil is disappearing, we are paving our wilderness, fouling the biosphere and will end up killing ourselves in the process” we are limiting ourselves to the use of system one: intuïtion. We unfortunately limit our ability to transcend beyond pre-conceived ideas. Intuïtion may be right but more often it is not. The business of a precautionary approach is such a fear driven mechanism on which politics and other questionable businesses thrive.

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 3:57 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right?…………

Are you saying there are only 2 CAGW sceptics on Earth? You may want to re-think you statement in light of this and this.
But before you do calm down and read WUWT site policy and you will see that your comment was lucky to have got through – hint “last deniers”.
Secondly, read my comment here and give me an honest assessment of what YOUR climate scientists said about 15 years and 17 years being the minimum to discern the anthropogenic signal? Do you agree with 17 years? If not, how many years is the minimum? Simple questions that don’t require name calling. If you fail to answer then you may have embarrassed yourself.

tango
December 2, 2012 3:57 am

EU carbon price down the gurgler : best news yet : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-carbon-price-idUSBRE8AT0U020121130

eco-geek
December 2, 2012 4:00 am

I quote:
Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.
Even the IPCC acknowledge that CO2 causes cooling of the stratosphere. The Lapse Rate Law then requires that the lower troposphere cools also.
What is very interesting about the whole scam is that the warmists concentrate on radiation outgoing from the Earth’s surface being (partially) absorbed by GHGs and then half of this being back radiated back to Earth. In fact on a molecule for molecule basis by far the majority of “back radiation” comes from energy that left the Earth’s surface via “thermal pick-up” mechanisms i.e latent heat of evaporation, conduction and convection. All energy picked up by atmospheric gasses must eventually be radiated into space and half of all emission events produce radiation in the downwards direction. We can see therefore that the warmist mechanism for producing back radiation is far less efficient than the back radiation resulting from thermal pick ups from the Earth’s surface via the above mechanisms. This is mainly because only part of the outgoing radiation spectrum can be absorbed by CO2 whereas all thermal pick up is picked up (obviously)!
It is absolutely the case that if more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere then the amount of “back radiation” will increase (as CO2 is a better radiator than O2, N2 etc) but this increase will mostly originate from energy that left the Earth’s surface via thermal pick-up. In fact if we could somehow turn off the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface and rely on thermal pick-ups only then the amount of “back radiation” would increase! We seem to have a contradiction: The more energy that leaves the Earth’s surface via radiation (and can thus be re-radiated by GHGs) the less can leave via the thermal pick ups and so less total back radiation can result.
There are two types of back radiation. The most significant one seems to have been forgotten. Neither of course warms the planet as the back radiation mechanisms are the same as the forward radiation (I.e. out into space) mechanism. Increase back = increase forward. Increased forward = global cooling via the first law, the gas laws and from them the lapse rate law.
More greenhouse mechanism therefore = global cooling.
Stay coo!

Aussie Luke Warm
December 2, 2012 4:01 am

Give it to them at Doha, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
You da man!

knr
December 2, 2012 4:03 am

Jimbo ‘Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?’
Good question to which the answer is simply , AGW can never be disproved in relational to time scale becasue the ‘right ‘ time scale is constantly flexibly in nature depending on what time scale suits ‘the cause’ so a requirement for 15 years of data becomes a requirement for 20 years data if 15 years fails to support ‘the cause. Even better its two way process , so you can claim you need say 30 years of data but they say 10 years is more than enough to ‘prove ‘ AGW when it suits .
Bottom line , there is no known time scale its ‘length’ its a function of undefined but well established ‘usefulness ‘ ratio.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 4:15 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
___________________________________
Most of us here have no problem with that. I, like others here, was a member of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy…. I am also a scientist.
If you actually look at the facts instead of the hype, CAGW is not about cleaning up the environment, it is about diverting large sums of money into the pockets of large corporations and political cronies.

Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.
In fact, this case was not entirely uncommon in that the entire enterprise was Paul’s idea to begin with….
The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/15/lessons-from-the-global-warming-industry/

Then you have WHO funded the CRU (Climate Research Group) of East Anglia. This time it is BP, Shell, Rockefeller foundations (Standard Oil) and some nuclear interests. The climategate e-mails show discussions about getting funding from BP and Shell too. On top of that you have Maurice Strong chair of Kyoto and the First Earth Summit (1972) who is a “Big Oil” CEO. That is why “Deniers” roll on the floor laughing every time they are accused of being in the “Pay of Big Oil”
Then we come to the environmental consequences of shifting to Wind and Solar.

NATURE
The Spanish Ornithological Society in Madrid estimates that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 million to 18 million birds and bats annually. “A blade will cut a griffon vulture in half,” says Bechard. “I’ve seen them just decapitated.”
Wind turbines kill far fewer birds in general each year than do many other causes linked to humans, including domestic cats and collisions with glass windows. But wind power has a disproportionate effect on certain species that are already struggling for survival, such as the precarious US population of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis).
“The troubling issue with wind development is that we’re seeing a growing number of birds of conservation concern being killed by wind turbines,” says Albert Manville, a biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, Virginia.

It is the raptors that are normally killed because they use the same wind currents to glide on as windmills are designed to capture.
And then there is solar panels.

Rare minerals dearth threatens global renewables industry
Terbium, yttrium, dysprosium, europium and neodymium are widely used in the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, electric car batteries and energy-efficient lightbulbs. But because these “rare earths” are mined almost exclusively in China, it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to source them in the required quantities.

Physics Org
To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” said Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology and professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies….

Rare Earths
The term rare earths refers to a group of minerals with chemically similar properties that are important in the manufacture…
They are also crucial to new clean energy technologies, ranging from compact fluorescent light bulbs to electric cars to giant wind turbines.
Though the minerals are not strictly speaking rare — and are metals, not dirt — they have become a significant trade issue with China, which mines 95 to 97 percent of the world’s supply. Efforts to find alternative supplies have been complicated by the pollution that rare earth mining and processing creates — a factor generally overlooked by China’s producers.

In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
So I am afraid the “Environmental Card” backfires badly if you actually look into the environmental consequences of “Clean Energy” It is not clean it is a disaster for the environment.

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 4:19 am

Thanks to RossP comment which led me to this.

“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

Are they now saying there could be a problem with the models? The likely “causes of these biases” could be co2 bias itself.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109
http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/

Doug Huffman
December 2, 2012 4:23 am

Thanks for the mention of “The Arrow of Time” as I will use it as inspiration to re-read E. T. Jaynes’ Probability Theory: The Logic of Science for his mention that the ‘arrow of logic’ is not so constrained in the application of Bayesian inference to forecasting.

richardscourtney
December 2, 2012 4:38 am

Paul Homewood:
You conclude your very good post at December 2, 2012 at 3:17 am by saying and asking?

Then there is the small matter of the predicted yet still missing hotspot. Or was it never predicted?

It is not “a small matter” and – before explaining it for the likes of Pat Ravasio – I point out its relevance to an important point made by the noble Lord but ignored in comments posted so far. He writes;

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.

It is certainly not “an oversight”
The Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) have relied on the pseudoscientists who select the “scientific” information published in the IPeCaC Reports. This so-called “scientific” information was supposed to justify a successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the Conference of the Parties (COP) at Copenhagen in 2009. People may remember the fanfare and “X days to Save The Planet” prior to that COP. But the “scientific” information was insufficient propaganda to obtain a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and the COP in Copenhagen was a failure so no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would ever be achieved.
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPeCaC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those promoting the FCCC will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity. And the present COP in Doha is part of the process which attempts to establish similar bureaucracies to those which enforce the LCPD in the EU.
That process has dropped the so-called “science” which failed to deliver the justification for the bureaucracies. Hence, IPeCaC was not invited to the COP in Doha.
And that brings us to the missing ‘hot spot’ which demonstrates the complete failure of the AGW-hypothesis to provide “science” which demonstrates a need for the bureaucracies.

The ‘hot spot’ is seen in Figure 9.1. of the IPeCaC AR4 soicalled Scientific Report at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
The figure is titled
Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).
The big red blob in (c) and (f) is the so-called ‘hot spot’. It shows that the models predict that in the tropics the warming rate from “well-mixed greenhouse gases “ at altitude is between 2 and 3 times the rate at the surface.
Only plot (c) for ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ and (f) for ‘the sum of all forcings’ show the ‘hot spot’. And the reason (f) shows it is because the effect of ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is so great that it overwhelms the effects of all the other forcings.
The modelled period is for 1890 to 1999 but the increase to ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is greatest near the end of the period. Hence, radiosonde data from weather balloons (from 1958) and MSU data from satellites (from 1979) should show the ‘hot spot’ more clearly than the plot if the model is correct. And please note the severity of the ‘hot spot’: it is a factor of between 2 and 3 times the warming at altitude as is observed at the surface. This should be very clearly observed in both the radiosonde and the satellite data. It is not seen in either data set.
In other words, either there has been no global warming from ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ or there has been no global warming of the kind modeled and reported by the IPCC AR4.
That effectively destroys all projections of global warming according to the models. The models do not project warming of the past so they can’t project warming of the future.

Richard

Richards in Vancouver
December 2, 2012 4:42 am

The computer boxes the warmists use remind me of a TARDIS: warmer on the inside than on the outside.
Cue the FX.

DirkH
December 2, 2012 4:42 am

Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:15 am
“So I am afraid the “Environmental Card” backfires badly if you actually look into the environmental consequences of “Clean Energy” It is not clean it is a disaster for the environment.”
Thomas Jefferson said “only dumb ideas need the support of government”. My simple rule is: If something needs subsidies, it increases the inefficiency of an economy. If inefficiency is increased, we get a less efficient usage of resource, meaning more waste.
One can then look into the details and see how this plays out, but inevitably one finds more material is moved around, more stuff is produced (solar panels and wind turbines in this case, and the hulking concrete foundations for those wind turbines), more pointless activity happens to achieve not very much at all at a pretty high price.
So, a reneable energy crazy society like Germany for instance is squandering lots of stuff to get something they could have gotten much cheaper and with less fuel and resource usage – a little bit of electricity in this case.
I own stocks of a German concrete maker. They’re doing well.
Wind turbines need a lot of concrete.
Oh did I mention that making concrete produces loads of CO2?
Oops.

Phil Ford
December 2, 2012 4:45 am

Lord Christopher Monckton once again perfectly demonstrating why every mainstream media outlet is running scared – terrified – of him. Being the ‘common purpose’ cowards that they are, they dare not let this erudite, informed man speak on air about the folly of CAGW for fear of opening the climate-indoctrinated eyes of a wider viewing public (and this absolutely cannot be allowed to happen or the whole risible house of cards will swiftly come crashing down).
I once again tip my hat to Lord Monckton. Thank god this man speaks for the skeptic cause – along with the likes of Marc Morano and Jo Nova – and, of course, our own Anthony Watts – we have some very capable speakers and advocates. All are, of course, considered highly dangerous (possibly even fatal) by CAGW zealots who will never dare face them in open debate.
You know, because the science is so…settled. Or something.

richardscourtney
December 2, 2012 4:46 am

LetsBeReasonable:
At December 2, 2012 at 3:35 am you ask

Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?

Allow me to answer for Werner: your brains are dropping out.
1.
The warming prior to 1997 has stopped so the trend lines do not “go up” for the period since 1997.
2.
If you include some of the period of the warming which was prior to 1997 then the new total period contains some warming so the trend lines go up.
What else would you expect?
Richard

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 4:49 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
_____________________________________
Then there is the second set of consequences. The human cost. Of course if you believe that humans (except for the privileged few) should be exterminated from the face of the earth or if you agree with Fabian George Bernard Shaw that useless eaters should be killed then this will not bother you until you are affected.

The Real George Bernard Shaw
“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way…. Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …
A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

So what do we find in Fabian run UK?

Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates
The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.
Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
Fuel poverty is defined as when someone needs to spend 10 per cent or more on heating their home.
The new total – calculated using World Health Organisation guidance and official excess winter death figures – is four times as many fatalities as happen in road accidents each year.

End energy profiteering: The rich get richer, the poor get colder
Big Six suppliers heading for bumper profits and bonuses as more than 5.5 million UK homes hit by fuel poverty
More than 5.5 million households are suffering under fuel poverty, many being forced to choose between heating or eating.
Meanwhile the Big Six energy suppliers increased their profit margins by 733 per cent in just three months last year….

Nine out of 10 families will be forced to ration their heating this winter
The soaring cost of gas and electricity is forcing more households to turn off heating. Research from uSwitch suggests 89 per cent of families will ration their energy use this winter to save on bills.
Taking the blame is the 21 per cent hike in energy prices in the past 12 months…. “As the cost of our energy bills escalates people are being forced into making potentially dangerous choices,” warns Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.

BRITAIN IS FREEZING TO DEATH
MIDDLE class families are among millions of Britons who cannot afford to heat their homes this winter, as elderly ride on buses all day to stay in the warm…
Dot Gibson, spokeswoman for pressure group the National Pensioners’ Convention, said: “Now that we have one of the coldest winters, older people are going to have to make the unenviable decision whether or not to put the heating on…

And since that is not killing off old age pensioners fast enough for the government we also have the Liverpool Care Pathway. (I wish I could use a /sarc)

Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
* Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
* Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterda

Chuck Nolan
December 2, 2012 4:52 am

From Pat’s site:
“Does anyone really believe that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power is a better way to answer our energy needs than solar, or wind, or other readily tappable, natural forces of nature? We know the technology to do this now exists, that it’s all just a matter of scaling it up. So what could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy, except that there would be a loss in profits for the fossil fuel industry? ”
—————————-
Let me answer your first question:
Yes!
You seem to think we’re digging our heels because of our love for Exxon and our desire to prevent Al Gore from getting richer (although an excellent reason) but, I believe the world has been working on alternative power have we not?
Batteries and electric generators since the 19th century.
Solar power, Bell Labs since the mid 1940s.
Wind mills since, forever.
My daddy had a saying whenever I would offer my sage advise of how to fix a problem. He’s say, “It’s like overdrive on a jackass. It’s a good idea it just doesn’t work.”
Unless you plan on giving up steel, you can’t run a steel mill off a solar panel.
So now I ask you.
Would you agree, all thing being equal, more people means more activity and more CO2 and therefore some degree of warming? More CO2 means better plant growth? Also, does it not make sense that more people will need more land and fresh water? Please remember, if the AGW theory is correct, we get a different coast line plus more usable land in North America and Asia. You don’t lose a coast line unless you lose the water.
It sounds to me like the system is working.
So, What’s wrong with global warming.
BTW. You’re not one of those people who ‘hates people and believe the earth will be a better place once the people are gone’, are you?
IMO these people are a problem.
cn

davidmhoffer
December 2, 2012 4:53 am

eco-geek;
In fact if we could somehow turn off the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface and rely on thermal pick-ups only then the amount of “back radiation” would increase! We seem to have a contradiction: The more energy that leaves the Earth’s surface via radiation (and can thus be re-radiated by GHGs) the less can leave via the thermal pick ups and so less total back radiation can result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patricia;
We skeptics have our share of uninformed and/or confused who rant on about things just like the warmist side dies. There are several threads on this site by Ira Glickstein and Robert Brown that go into this issue in detail and deal with it properly. There are also threads specific to the logarithmic nature of CO2’s effects. Search for these and read through the articles is what I’d encourage you to d

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 4:55 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment? Surely you don’t think that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power are ideal ways to answer our energy needs?

Yes I do think they are the better ways to answer our energy needs.
If we adopted more solar and wind it would not reduce man-made co2 in the atmosphere. Power stations have to be kept running for when the wind ain’t blowin or the sun ain’t shinin’. If I see a suitable alternative I would be the first to jump on it. Who doesn’t want clean, efficient, reliable energy???? Find me realistic alternatives.
Toxic lake in China as a result of windpower manufacture. Farmers health damaged while you sit comfortably pining for wind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

Chris D.
December 2, 2012 5:03 am

In RE:
What Jimbo says:
December 2, 2012 at 3:23 am
“Here is the paper for Santer’s 17 years minimum of lack of warming to separate noise.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
———————–
I would love to see Anthony add a countdown timer to 17 years of no significant warming and the death of the AGW hypothesis at the top of this website!

herkimer
December 2, 2012 5:04 am

It is worse than we thought
The winter temperatures for Contiguous United States has been dropping for 20 years since 1990 at -0.26 F per decade [per NCDC]
The annual temperature for Contiguous United States has been dropping since 1998 at- 80 F per decade[ per NCDC]
The winter temperature departures from 1961-1990 mean normals for land and sea regions of Europe have been flat or even slightly dropping for 20 year or since 1990
Yet the IPCC assessments of projected climate change for Europe was:
Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase more than the global mean. The warming in northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter… . A similar prediction was for the North American winters to warm

Dave
December 2, 2012 5:17 am

Too bad Lord Monckton could have fit “yakity yak, don’t talk back” into his essay 🙂

Urederra
December 2, 2012 5:20 am

Joe Prins says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Always thouroughly enjoy the play on words as plied lively by the lord. “rebarbatively” is masterful.
Well done, sir.

IpeCaC is my personal favourite. What they do it in there makes me want to throw up, just like the ipecac syrup.

thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:52 am
Pat, you asked on your blog what would be the harm if we all went German style.
You must mean getting into coal power and nuke power from the neighbours.

…and cutting solar-power subsidies. I agree on that too.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

December 2, 2012 5:21 am

@Joe Prins says: December 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Always thouroughly enjoy the play on words as plied lively by the lord. “rebarbatively” is masterful.
Well done, sir.
/////////////////////////////////////////
M’Lud demonstrates the benefits of a classical education. Once widely available in the UK, now only available, sadly, for the better off. I was lucky enough to study Latin from the age of 8 to 18 (and Classical History alongside it from 16 to 18), and Greek from the age of 8 to 12; I wouldn’t have missed it for the world, even though I ended up in IT.

David L
December 2, 2012 5:27 am

Pat Ravasio: it isn’t that hard. Your brilliant esteemed “sciientists” wrote computer models and predicted warming. Said warming has not happened. So they are wrong. Even laymen can see that.

Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2012 5:35 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am
Thank you all so much for your thoughtful replies. You have inspired me, and I will be investigating your points of view more fully in the days to come. I must sign off for now, but I did put up a new post that I hope clarifies my comparison to Lewis Carrol’s quote about Christianity’s worse case scenario. It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face.
Really, Pat? Given your first couple of comments, I find that doubtful. If true, it would be the fastest change-of-heart in troll history. Your final comment, though, is one we’ve seen many times before, and it’s simply a variation of the illogical “Precautionary Principle”. The “risks of doing nothing” are about the same risks as that of elephants stampeding through our houses, and of the consequent need, and indeed the forcing of everyone to buying “elephant insurance”, at a cost of perhaps $2,000 for every man, woman, and child.
Finally, your hero, Bucky Fuller was a visionary, and quite possibly a genius, however, he understood very little about economics or indeed the electric grid, devoted as he was to solar, wind, and hydro power.
One of the things he said was true: You can deceive others, you can deceive your brain-self, but you can’t deceive your mind-self for mind deals only in the discovery of truth and the interrelationship of all the truths. The cosmic laws with which mind deals are noncorruptible.
If you are truly interested, and are willing to do a little work, meaning investigate, you will see how wrong you really are. Most of us weren’t skeptics originally, and simply accepted what was being continually trumpeted in the media.

Dan Pangburn
December 2, 2012 5:39 am

Analyses that can be reached at the link (highlighted in red) given at http://www.switched.com/profile/2996642/ include an equation based on rational physics that, without considering any influence from CO2 whatsoever and using only one independent variable, has calculated average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 88% (R2 = 0.88, correlation coefficient = 0.938). Including the influence of CO2 (a second independent variable) increased the accuracy to 88.5%.
I have checked the equation as a predictor (but using actual sunspot data) since 1965. It has never been off in predicting the average global temperature anomaly trend by more than 0.06°C. The equation is calibrated using measurements prior to a date and then used to predict average global temperature trends after that date. The predictions are then compared to the actual measurements to see how well the equation predicted.
That I got it right is demonstrated by accurate calculation and prediction including the flat temperature trend since 2001. Results are shown in graphs. The equation predicts an average global temperature downtrend for at least two decades.

December 2, 2012 5:59 am

Pat, the only reason you post here is to drive traffic to your site… you are desperate for readers.. One post on WUWT gets more comments than your total site has had in years.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 6:09 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
… But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
____________________________
And the third thought about CAGW is Who Benefits? and Who is in control? Who is behind the “Global Warming” scare is pretty darn clear if you bother to look and so are their ultimate plans.
If you go back to the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947 you find J. P. Morgan bought controlling interest of the press. Nothing much has changed since then.

JP Morgan: Our next big media player?
(April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations…

GE owns 49% of MSNBC (a left-leaning news station) and J.P. Morgan was lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors
At the Copenhagen climate summit Developing countries react furiously to leaked ‘Danish text’ The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank
Why did the developing countries reacted furiously? Because the IMF and the World Bank is much hated. SEE: Structural Adjustment Policies and Mr. Budhoo’s Bombshell ” senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988.”
WHO had their sticky fingers in the IPCC? Why the World Bank of course:

globalcentres.org
Dr. Robert Watson (World Bank), has been designated as Chair-elect of IPCC and will take over from Professor Bert Bolin (Sweden) after the September 1997 Plenary Session, at which time a new Bureau and the leadership of the three Working Groups will be decided. Professor Bolin has very effectively chaired the IPCC since its organization in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.

Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress
Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is….

Then you have Pascal Lamy of the World TRADE Organization (WTO).
If you have never read F. William Engdahl’s comments on the WTO I suggest you do so now.
The WTO and the Politics of GMO
Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – Part I
Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – Part II
Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – Part III
(My problem with GMOs is that Monsanto’s lawyer Robert Taylor while working at the FDA waved them through the FDA WITHOUT TESTING declaring them to be equivalent to natural.)
All that is saying is that the International corporations RUN the WTO.
Then look at what Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO, has to say about Global Warming and the current financial/economic crisis giving “Legitimacy” to “Global Governance” (aka world government) and the need to get rid of National Sovereignty.
He uses the “worst-ever economic crisis” created by the bankers in the first place as one reason. And “our planet deteriorate due to global warming. We see droughts and violent floods. We see entire islands disappearing under water.” also hyped by banker media and the World Bank as the second reason. Both are CREATED to purpose crisis. SEE: Global Governance: Lessons from Europe

“Global governance requires localising global issues”
the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today. … In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations….
…There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe….
on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law.
…the issue of leadership. Europe has had a relatively good record in terms of leadership as long as the leadership of the Commission was accepted.
Finally, legitimacy is the area in which, in my view, Europe scores less well. We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions and the European project. One could have expected that the European institutional set up, with growing powers entrusted to the European Parliament would have resulted in greater legitimacy…. Euros cepticism is on the rise, often encouraged by politicians who are tempted to use Europe as a scapegoat for the difficult decisions they have to take at home, a fortiori in times of crisis. Legitimacy remains a litmus test for Europe…

Two other Lamy essays:
Of What Use is Global Governance?
Europe Needs a Legitimacy Compact

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 6:21 am

JB says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:33 pm
….. In the real world, you’re a comical irrelevance.
________________________________
Is that the Real World of the 1%? The world of large Corporation CEOs, Bankers and Political Sycophants?

knr
December 2, 2012 6:30 am

At a time when the first snows have fallen across much of the UK it worth remember the MET’s forecast that ‘children would never know what snow is like ‘ many a few years ago. The person that made that claim has never admitted they got it dead wrong and is still happily ‘forecasting ‘ away.

Vince Causey
December 2, 2012 6:38 am

Good to hear from Christopher Monckton again. Non warming is becoming the new “inconvenient truth”, although I’ll doubt you’ll see Al Gore making any movies about it.

December 2, 2012 6:54 am

I live in Eastern Oregon amid forests of Chinese-made windmills (China exports but doesn’t use them, with good reason). They are economic, environmental, ecologic & aesthetic disasters. They not only kill birds & burrowing creatures, but bats. This increases the bug population, devastating nearby agriculture & creating road hazards. Because of their irregular power production & lack of storage ability, they require installation of new fossil fuel plants. They necessitate interruption of nearby hydropower, causing water to be spilled out of the Columbia River dams at exactly the wrong time for fish, transportation & local electricity needs. They are heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars, which sucks money away from productive investment (same as all “green” projects). And now the white satanic mills are breaking down much sooner than predicted when they were built. But at least many of my neighbors have gotten rich off the payments, just as we’ve profited from ethanol, while knowing what a waste & net user of fossil fuel energy that scam is.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 6:56 am

kasphar says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm
‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranationalbureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.’….
_____________________________________
A bit of background makes it a calculated insult.

Watson Out as IPCC Chair Following ExxonMobil Memo to Bush
…In a secret ballot of 125 governments, 61 percent voted against Dr. Watson and for Indian engineer economist Rajendra Pachauri, currently the IPCC’s vice chairman….
Watson is credited with forging global scientific consensus on key issues within the IPPC. The IPCC in turn has played a strong role in galvanizing political support for policy responses to the threat of global warming.
The IPCC is a joint project of the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization….
Watson, an atmospheric researcher and the chief scientist at the World Bank, is considered one of the world’s leading experts on climate change. He is a strong proponent of the idea that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels are the primary forces behind the warming climate…
Environmental group Friends of the Earth alleged his expulsion was due to lobbying by the U.S. government and American energy businesses. [snicker giggle] Exxon is the group’s main target for anger….

Then Good old Pachauri became a laughing stock with his Himalayan glacier melt fiasco and his “smutty” romance novel. So the World Bank by-passes the IPCC completely with their new Report: Turn Down the Heat: A 4-degree warmer world can be avoided
When you add in Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak: The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank, it becomes pretty obvious who is running the show.
Then include this graph showing a leap in loans for building NEW COAL fired power plants from $100 million in 2005 to $4,270 million in 2010. And it is obvious the World Bank does not believe in their own hype. All they are interested in is making $$$ and gaining more control over the world.
Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) are economic policies for developing countries that have been promoted by the World Bank and IMF.

…Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank….
In the dozens of countries where the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have imposed structural adjustment programs (SAPs), the people who have seen deterioration in their standards of living, reduced access to public services, devastated environments, and plummeting employment prospects…
http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html

The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Silver Ralph
December 2, 2012 6:56 am

.
Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says: December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.
_________________________________________
Patricia – you are so wrong in your fantasy land of Telly-Tubby** windturbines, it is not even funny.
Please read my article on WUWT titled ‘Renewable Energy, our Downfall’. You might learn something about the grave dangers that Green fantacist advocacy groups pose to society and humanity.
** A UK children’s program
.

Steve Jones
December 2, 2012 6:57 am

I have posted this before but it should be compulsory viewing prior to the start of any discussion on climate change. This is the short version of Richard Feynman’s eloquent description of the scientific method. Watch it and weep for the contempt that the MSM and marxist agenda merchants show for true science.

How anyone can claim to be a scientist and think that cAGW theory stands up to the scientific method baffles me.

December 2, 2012 6:59 am

The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance. So come on, oil guys, what’s the harm in moving ahead and doing things a better way? Isn’t it time for all of you to come over to the side where there don’t have to be any real losers?
First, it is C. S. Lewis, not Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) is a famous mathematician and logician who wrote Alice in Wonderland. Clive S. Lewis is a famous Christian Apologist who wrote the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Second, you have clearly illustrated the fact that the argument is religious, not scientific. You don’t really care if the science is correct or not, because it agrees with your personal political beliefs. If a scientific claim helps you convince those who are too ignorant to think for themselves, it is “good”; otherwise it should be ignored. I am a scientist (a physics Ph.D., actually, although I’m professionally competent in physics, statistics, mathematics, philosophy and computer science in addition to writing novels and poetry). I write extensively about the philosophy of science and what it is “best” to believe, given our experience and the data. Sadly, my personal philosophy forbids lying to myself or others in argumentation because nobody is served by either lies or errors, however “well intentioned”.
To put it bluntly, we are all better off armed with a full knowledge of the truth (and a full acceptance of the limitations of our knowledge where it is shaky) and then making informed decisions than we might be basing those decisions on lies or errors by those who — with the best intentions in the world — try to impose their own beliefs on us. Don’t you agree?
Third, C. S. Lewis was fond of advancing his own versions of Pascal’s Wager, and this has indeed — as you clearly indicate — become the fundamental subtext of the climate debate. Pascal’s Wager, you might (or might not) recall, is the idea that whatever it costs one to believe in God, and if you do and God does not exist, there is a finite loss. However, if you choose not to believe in God but God exists, the penalty is infinite. Therefore one should believe in God.
Hopefully you can recognize your own argument above in this. Quite aside from the fact that this argument is the open expression of several logical fallacies (argument from fear, for example) that have no bearing on the actual probable truth of the proposition, here is the real problem. Your idea is a good one — cost-benefit analyses are good things, at least when one can reasonably accurately account for the risks — but it requires one to fairly count the costs and benefits!
You seem to believe that it costs us little to politically pursue the abatement of carbon dioxide at all costs, because we derive at least some benefits from some of the actions being taken. Of course, in your reply you reject the one practical solution that we currently have available — nuclear energy — that does not generate carbon dioxide and is capable of sustaining civilization at a high level worldwide for at least centuries. If you truly believed in the catastrophe predicted, then you would believe that whether or not we might be able to make wind and solar generate enough energy eventually, we should be building nuclear plants as fast as we can now in order to stave off the disaster. But you don’t, not really, or else you haven’t really thought about the costs of the disaster versus the costs of nuclear power.
The situation is actually far worse that this, of course. The current costs of Carbon Abatement — aside from not working even according to those that have designed them for any purpose that would suffice to prevent their predicted catastrophe — are a catastrophe in and of themselves. Consider: Europe is in the throes of a major monetary crisis. The money Europe spends in a single year on Carbon would eliminate the crisis in an instant, and if it had not been spending that money for the last decade and a half there might well not be any crisis. The money California has spent on Carbon over the last decade would have prevented 100% of the human misery of the economic collapse there at the end of the Bush administration. It would also make electrical power there cost around 2/3 of what it currently costs even now, putting money in every citizen’s pocket.
But this is chickenfeed. The real human cost of carbon control is vastly greater; it is a catastrophe now, a certain, ongoing catastrophe. Perhaps you do not appreciate it, but something like half of the world’s population lives in abject, miserable poverty, energy poverty. They live in rude huts and cook on animal dung fires, and if they have light after dark at all it is in the form of crude oil lamps. They have no hospitals or refrigeration — those require electrical power and infrastructure and wealth. They have little or no industry — that requires electricity.
Perhaps you have a “Noble Savage” illusion about the beauty and joy of life in this “natural” state, but if you do, walk to the master circuit breaker in your house and switch it off for a month, turning off your natural gas feed (if you have one) and dropping the keys to your car into a jar by your front door. Turn off your cell phone (you can’t charge it anyway). You may have two sets of clothes, but bear in mind that the only way you may wash them is by hand in a local creek or river — if you have one — so choose wisely. You may use a hibachi or small grill to cook food. If you get seriously sick I’m afraid you’ll just have to die — no medical care that requires energy to deliver, which is nearly all medical care.
Live that way for a month. Then imagine living a lifetime that way. Imagine growing up in that sort of poverty, without any real prospects or way out of it without cheap and abundant energy. That’s reality for some two to three billion people — the ongoing catastrophe of the human species.
Now you have a dollar to spend. You can choose to spend it all on measures that even proponents agree will not prevent a hypothetical and somewhat implausible future catastrophe, or you can spend all on improving our current energy generation infrastructure globally to try to reduce the costs of electrical power to where it is as cheap to those in the third world as it is to those in the first world, the world of energy wealth that you currently inhabit, or you can split the dollar up and spend most of it one way or the other but hedge your bets.
If you are honestly informed about the probabilities of the competing disasters, both the ongoing one and the hypothetical future one, you can make sane decisions about what to do with your dollar given — as I truly do believe — that you have nothing but the best of intentions and wish to behave as ethically as possible. Misinforming others or yourself concerning the true risks and costs and benefits, however, makes you ethically complicit as the direct cause of human suffering. You cannot avoid the choice, you can only do your best to make the best possible one (or blow the whole thing off and ignore it, or rely on what people with a clear vested interest one way or another tell you, as most people do in religious argumentation).
I cannot tell you what to do; I can only tell you what I myself believe to be the best choice. I think that the risk of the future disaster is small. The climate models that predict it have little statistical skill — witness their failure to accommodate the last fifteen years of effectively zero temperature growth. You are routinely being lied to in the most time-honored of ways (by presenting the truth — highly selectively) in ways that prevent you from learning this because those who are doing the lying are horribly sincere in their beliefs (and generally benefit in various ways from the hypothesis of disaster). For example, they trumpet Sandy as “proof” of anthropogenic climate change disasters, but fail to point out that we are in the longest stretch in recorded history when a category 3 or higher hurricane hasn’t made landfall in the US, with no end in sight. They fail to point out that last year had fewer than normal numbers of tornadoes. They exaggerate the drought last year to the worst ever even though it was not, in fact, even close to the sustained drought of the dust bowl years and was comparable to the completely natural cyclic drought visible in the historical record.
Even many of the climate scientists who do think that there is some degree of anthropogenic global warming are starting to speak out about this horrible abuse of any sort of scientific objectivity to further a political end.
So how would I spend my dollar? I’d invest a bit — a nickel, maybe as much as a dime — in continuing development of e.g. solar energy and improved energy storage. As you note, those things will be beneficial no matter what, so they are investments, not wasted money. In time, solar, nuclear, and storage will make the issue of carbon mostly moot, but that time is not for a couple of decades because the technologies are not mature. As they make cost-benefit sense, no one will have to push or subsidize them — people will make informed choices to implement them because they are the cheapest alternatives.
The rest of the dollar I would spend to make energy — absolutely including carbon based energy — cheaper for everyone. Perhaps 40 cents to make it cheaper here in the US (as the fundamental scarce resource, cheaper energy is a direct benefit to every single aspect of civilized human existence, enabling everything from clean water to recycling to more, better jobs and improved, cheaper daily lives for every person). The rest to help the poorest of the poor overseas to have the things they so desperately need — especially access to cheap and plentiful electricity, which at the moment means electricity made by burning natural gas, coal or uranium. I’m perfectly happy for that energy to be generated in as clean a way as possible, but not in a way that treats CO_2 as a pollutant, because it is not. And I wouldn’t spend all of that money on electricity even for the poorest countries — they need other things — roads, schools, medical care, jobs, the entire infrastructure of civilization. Their children need hope — the hope that the world they grow up in will eventually make them precisely as wealthy as you no doubt are — wealthy in that they too will have instant access to energy that is so cheap compared to their income that they do not have to conserve it, they do not have to choose between electric lights and food or clothing or shelter.
You have to do what you think best, of course. But inform yourself first; don’t suggest that we should all accept the great Climate Wager as a religious and ethical necessity.
And by the way, an oft-repeated lie is that everybody that is a “denier” of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is either uneducated, or ignorant, or stupid, or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal or the like. Please. You cannot possibly be that naive. I will cheerfully place my own educational and professional accomplishments up against anybody’s — I’m not stupid, not ignorant, not uneducated, and I am not in the pay of any energy-related company. I have a patent pending in a methodology involving the extremely advanced application of Bayesian reasoning in statistical analysis of certain kinds of problems. I teach physics at all levels. I have three physics textbooks I’ve written available online. I teach independent studies in computer science (and have a book on beowulf style computing available online).
And while I — like Christopher Monckton — think that there is very likely some anthropogenic component to the global warming that the world has experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age (when global temperatures were at the lowest point of the entire Holocene — the last eleven thousand years since the glaciers retreated), I doubt that the warming the world will experience by the year 2100 will be catastrophic. If it will, there is damn-all sign of the catastrophe so far, and it is just plain silly to spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide per year to avert an uncertain and dubious catastrophe when there is an ongoing and certain catastrophe — global poverty and ignorance — that is far more demanding of our attention.
rgb

andrew
December 2, 2012 6:59 am

Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?
Have a try yourself on wood for trees, use any dataset or start date.

Silver Ralph
December 2, 2012 7:04 am

AndyG55 says: December 2, 2012 at 12:39 am
oh Pat, you deluded fool..
I notice you still think STEAM coming from a chimney is CO2… DOH !!!!!!!
back to kindy, little person !!
__________________________________
Actually, Andy, since water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, perhaps the real devil is the cooling towers, and not the smoke stack!!
.

R. de Haan
December 2, 2012 7:04 am

Great posting but in the mean time we have to deal with media shows like this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-climate-activist-speech-grassroots-organizers_664311.html

Silver Ralph
December 2, 2012 7:11 am

Mogaboguru
the basic average global temperature in science and literature has – by an hence-unreported consensus of yet-invisible participants – been reduced from 15 to 14 degrees Centigrade around early 1998.
————————————————–
In aviation the base-line average temperature is still 15oc.
.

David Jojnes
December 2, 2012 7:12 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am
“I would also welcome your comments on my blog, especially if any of you are versed in Buckminster Fuller, especially in his views on the importance of harvesting and banking “natural energy incomes.” Thanks again for your time this evening. http://www.buckyworld.me
I did visit the link you gave, for about 1 minute! I could not take any longer. I guess my eyes are a good few years older than yours and they started to hurt trying to read whatever you had written on the page. Did noone ever tell you that if you want people to read what you have written; putting a deep gold color font onto a black background is not a good idea.
Also, some sort of index to the topics you have written about is usually helpful. That way readers can get to subjects which are of particular importance to them, rather than having to sort through a heap of verbiage.
It is difficult to see what you are campaigning for other than Buckminster Fuller and I am not clear why he appears, to you, to be right about everything.
All in all, it was not a happy experience and I will not be visiting again unless you make it more so.
These are my genuine thoughts and suggestions which I hope will enable you to improve the site.

Jean Parisot
December 2, 2012 7:15 am

They’re doing one thing in Doha, spending tax or utility rate payer money that most of us could have found a better use for.

December 2, 2012 7:17 am

Patricia Ravasio, I was always a Bucky Fuller fan. Since seeing your site, I have been looking for one of his “quotes” about wealth. As I remember it, it is growing technology that increases wealth or something like that from one of his books. In the mean time:
“Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we’ve been ignorant of their value.”
R. Buckminster Fuller
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/r_buckminster_fuller.html
Pat, hope you will continue the dialog on WUWT.

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 7:18 am

Chris D. says:
December 2, 2012 at 5:03 am
In RE:
What Jimbo says:

December 2, 2012 at 3:23 am
“Here is the paper for Santer’s 17 years minimum of lack of warming to separate noise.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml”

———————–
I would love to see Anthony add a countdown timer to 17 years of no significant warming and the death of the AGW hypothesis at the top of this website!

Warmists are not blind to this fact, nor to the 15 year non warming minimum. Expect a paper out soon extending the date from 17 years to say 20 or 25 or even better 30 years of no warming. They will do this with no shame or scientific scruples – there is simply too much money in the pipeline. I’m not kidding either, watch this space. 😉

Silver Ralph
December 2, 2012 7:22 am

AndyG55
Everything is ‘a’ over ‘t’. The people who really care about the environment are those fighting against the corrupt WWF, Greenpeace etc.. sure thing is, that these two bodies particularly, don’t gve a rat’s a*** …… unless there is money in it !!!
______________________________
Never a truer word said.
I contacted Greenpeace UK about the ever increasing world population – which represents the greatest threat to the world environment, more so than any trace gas could possibly be.
Their answer was that “Greenpeace never has and never will campaign on population issues”. So there you have it. Greenpeace will never address or debate the most important factor in the moders world – overpopulation. A factory that is: effecting the world environment, destroying valuable ecosystems, leading to the destruction of rainforests, placing water all supplies in danger, encouraging oil companies to drill in ever-deeper basins like the Gulf of Mexico, depleating fish stocks etc: etc: and etc:
.

ferdberple
December 2, 2012 7:33 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
… But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
=========
Cleaning the environment is a noble cause. Much like the Crusades were 1000 years ago. The problem is that every noble cause provides an excuse to ignore the harm it does. Carried far enough, every “noble cause” ultimately kills people to save them.
If your children lack food, shelter and clothing then there is great harm in spending your time cleaning the environment rather than tending to their needs.
If your parents are dying of cold because the cost of heating in the winter is too great, there is great harm in spending your time cleaning the environment rather than supplying them with heating fuel.
If your country is incurring great debts which, enslaving future generations to the banks, while millions are unemployed, there is great harm in spending your time cleaning the environment rather than restoring economic prosperity.

Tom trevor
December 2, 2012 7:38 am

Dear Pat,
Global warming has Zilch. Nada,. Zip,. Bupkis, to do with fracking or any other environmental issue.

December 2, 2012 7:39 am

Dear Pat,
Global warming has Zilch. Nada,. Zip,. Bupkis, to do with fracking or any other environmental issue.

ferdberple
December 2, 2012 7:42 am

The graph at the top of the page says “14C world average”
In point of fact, 15C was the average temperature of the earth quoted before the global warming scare. By dropping the average to 14C, alarmists created 1C of warming out of newsprint.
New York Times March 1988
One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15C), as a base to determine temperature variations.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

richardscourtney
December 2, 2012 7:51 am

andrew:
I write to answer your silly question at December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am in case there are any onlookers who fail to understand that it is daft.
You ask

Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?

I answer that this is because
the overall trend has varied prior to 1997 but stopped rising in 1997.
Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997.
The important point is that global temperature has not risen for the last 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its exponential rise. Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to ask your question can understand why that is pertinent to the AGW-hypothesis.
Richard

December 2, 2012 7:53 am

Further to the discussion about the pause in warming. If we are to go to catastrophic temperature levels by the end of this century, then sooner or later the rate of warming has got to exceed the 0.06 C per decade that has persisted for many decades, possibly back to the LIA. And this excessive rate of warming needs to persist for some time if CAGW is going to be seen to be real. It was supposed to have started around 1970, but it has not appeared yet.
How much longer do we have to wait for this excessive rise in the rate of warming to appear, before we conclude that it is never going to appear?

tmlutas
December 2, 2012 7:53 am

Pat Ravasio – At a certain point, when the rules of science are bent into pretzel to protect the global warming alarmists enough, the black humor comes out. The plain fact is that the 2008 NOAA statement can be researched independently. You even got the page number on the PDF (23) to shorten your research time. This is a reasonable scientific statement and a proper short term test upon which the entire edifice of climate change rests. The models can only get it wrong for so long in real science before it is admitted that they’re junk and we have no scientific basis to back global warming alarmism.
If the science isn’t right then we’ve spent hundreds of billions and many many years of effort chasing a chimera. Something is going on but we wouldn’t actually know what it is. It’s a classic bit of honest science, the objective test where observation can invalidate theory in one easy to measure marker.
This test time limit has just been exceeded in the recent past, but not so recent that all the alarmist bodies haven’t had time to address the issue. Actual scientific bodies would be expected sometime in year 14 of no warming to get together and work up a strategy and a statement and if the time is exceeded to pull the both out of a drawer and read the statement in a press conference and implement the strategy. Instead we have crickets. Mainstream scientific organizations are exposed to the danger of descending into pseudoscience by sticking to the models even when they have been invalidated. They have the alternative since 2008 of challenging the NOAA date and providing a longer date with scientific reasoning why the NOAA date is too short. So far as I know that hasn’t happened either.
If you care about science, you can stroke out from anger or apply humor to try to get through this massive betrayal of scientific principles. Monckton is obviously going the humor route and doing it quite well.

Jean Parisot
December 2, 2012 7:56 am

Werner, so they have falsified their own hypothesis by their own test, using their own data, and reported it themselves – but we are the deniers?

Matt G
December 2, 2012 8:00 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Ha ha, you are the desperate one with only conjecture and no scientific evidence.
Explain how a decline in Arctic ice cherry picked to ignore the SH pole sea ice, has anything to do with humans when there has been no global warming for numerous years?
Explain the difference between warming naturally and warming by AGW?
Explain how global decline in low cloud albedo has anything to do with increasing CO2.
Explain what CO2 has got to do with the AMO because this is the main factor of trends in Arctic ice.
Explain why the NAO and AO has changed over recent years with the jet stream further south, when it was suppose to move North with global warming.
When you can scientifically describe the mechanism with scientific evidence for these points in favor supporting CO2, then you may have a point.

December 2, 2012 8:02 am

P. Solar says:
December 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm
I am really asking myself if this text was actually written by Monckton. He is very well educated in classics and has a remarkable writing style that you have to admire even if you don’t agree with what he is saying. He is also decidedly British, with an accent that would get him called “toff” without it being a diminutive of his first name.
……………….
Frequent use of americanisms that is not his usual language: gotten ; upcoming ; it’s your call. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis, several times.
Either he thinks he’s playing to his audience or his travels are starting to affect his vocabulary.

Perhaps “the Americans got him [British ambassador Polk-Mowbray],” as “Antrobus” put it in Lawrence Durrell’s tale, “Case History,” in his his hilarious book, Esprit de Corps. A Kindle edition is under $5, here:
http://www.amazon.com/Esprit-Corps-Faber-Covered-Editions/dp/0571056679/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354460877&sr=8-2&keywords=esprit+de+corps
Here is Polk-Mowbray before: (1937)

“The thought that members of my staff are beginning to introject American forms into the Mother Tongue has given me great pain. I am ordering Head of Chancery to instruct staff that no despatches to the Foreign Secretary should contain phrases of this nature.”

And AFTER returning from Washington, where he got embroiled with a drum majorette:

[Antrobus speaking] I found a book by Damon Runyon in his desk drawer one day. I admit he had the good grace to blush when he saw I’d found it. But by this time he had begun to suffer from dreadful slips of the tongue. . . . I kept coming across expressions like ‘set-up’, ‘frame-up’, come-back’, and even ‘gimmick’. i ask you–gimmick. . . . Faucet, elevator, phoney. I ask you. . . . Hatchet-man . . . disc jockey . . . torch singer.
………….
Do you know that he went to a Rotary meeting in a hand-painted tie depicting a nude blonde and referred to it in his speech as ‘pulchritudinous’?
………….
I ran into him [in Rome] near the Fontana, sitting in a little trattoria. He was addressing a plate of spaghetti–and do you know what? . . . There was a Coca Cola before him with a straw in it.
“Great heavens Antrobus, you are jesting.”
My solemn oath, old man. . . . It’s the very end. I tried to cringe my way past him but he saw me and called out. He said, quite distinctly, Hiya, and made a sort of gesture in the air of someone running his hand listlessly over the buttocks of a chorus girl.

TRBixler
December 2, 2012 8:03 am

rgbatduke
Great rebuttal to the AGW catastrophe alarmists. I can only wait for their collective “switch off”.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 8:04 am

kasphar says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm
…Maybe Doha is not about ‘the warming’ at all but the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries – about 100 billion dollars, I believe.
________________________________
It has never ever been about the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries. It has ALWAYS been about redistributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class. “Help” in “development” of third world countries has been going on for three or four generations. If it was really a “hand-up” there would BE no third world. Instead the $$$ has gone in to the pockets of corrupt officials or corporations have moved in and wiped out local business.
I am talking about food because without a decent stable food supply there is nothing that can be done to develop a country. Food and shelter are primary needs that must be filled before anything else.

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans … Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features which include export-led growth;
SAPs generally require countries to devalue their currencies against the dollar; lift import and export restrictions
SAPs encourage countries to focus on the production and export of primary commodities such as cocoa and coffee to earn foreign exchange. But these commodities have notoriously erratic prices subject to the whims of global markets which can depress prices just when countries have invested in these so-called ‘cash crops’.
By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result….
link

This another example. I am using Mexico because it was tricky for the Multi-nationals like Smithfield of swine flu fame to move into Mexico because of historic legal protection for EJIDO LANDS, Mexican agricultural land held in common. Mexican Agriculture is also one of the biggest in the world and therefore a tasty target for the Ag Cartel.

Small Farmers And The Doha Round: Lessons From Mexico’s NAFTA Experience
…hoped for by designers of NAFTA, has been ‘modernisation’ – a sharp decline in the share of agriculture and allied sectors in the workforce. From nearly 27% in 1991 it declined to slightly less than 15% in 2006, losing more than 2 million jobs[18]. Again small and marginal farmers and agricultural labour bore the brunt, as evidenced by very sharp decline in the number of rural households. According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% – from 2.3 million to 575, 000.
There has been a significant increase in migration out of rural areas as livelihoods are lost and farms have been abandoned. The hope was that this migration out of low-productivity agriculture would be absorbed into higher-productivity non-agrarian urban employment. But anemic employment growth in the post-NAFTA period, particularly in manufacturing, put paid to that.

The other half of the equation

Food Processing & Distribution
Foreign investment has always been noticeable in food processing and distribution in Mexico. Among the companies in Mexico from abroad are the more outstanding of the world food industry (e.g. Nestle, General Foods, PepsiCo). Today the food industry in Mexico represents one of the fastest growing areas for foreign investment. For example, while the total number of new plants in the Maquiladora industry grows by single digit percentage, the number of food processing plants grows by double digit percentage percent.
http://www.mexicolaw.com/Agriculture.htm

Originally Mexican law does not allow foreigners to own EJIDO LANDS, Mexico’s largest form of property use. To get around this the transnationals corporations collaborated with Mexican nationals. Just before NAFTA the government changed the rules.

In 1993 the government was persuaded to allow ejidos to privatize their lands and, if they wish, sell them to foreign buyers. This has presented opportunities for the folks who have built homes (often expensive homes) to secure their investment with a bank trust. Once the ejido privatization is complete, each ejido member is issued a title for his or her respective parcel. The title can then be transferred to a foreigner in the form of a bank trust. Another option is to buy the entire campo and become a Baja developer. This can be done by establishing a 100% foreign owned Mexican corporation.
http://www.mexicomatters.net/mexicorealestate/04_propertytitlesforforeignersinmexico.php

Privatizing the Commons: Reforming the Ejido and Urban Development in Mexico
Most assessments of the reform of Article 27 have placed it within the context of structural changes to the Mexican economy which have promoted privatization and deregulation as part of a wider set of neoliberal policy adjustments, or more specifically, in the run up to the North American Free Trade Agreement (Cornelius and Myhre, 1997; Calva, 1993). This work has highlighted the impacts upon agricultural productivity, usually in negative terms, for those ejidos in the most marginalized regions which lack access to commercial markets, multinational corporations or irrigation technology, and which are already heavily in debt, or rely on the dwindling supply of government assistance for survival (Cornelius and Myhre, 1997; Stanford, 1994).
…Generically termed the reform of Article 27, the new legislation inter alia permits a number of important changes relevant to this paper: namely, for ejidos to convert ‘use’ rights into individual rights to sell, rent or mortgage land to non-ejido members; and to set up joint venture contracts with domestic or foreign private companies (see Goldring, 1995; Austin, 1994; Cornelius, 1992 for a more complete discussion).

So NAFTA wiped out protection for Mexican native farmers, 75% lost their livelihoods and the new 1993 law opened the way for the Ag Cartel to move in. This also explains the flood of Mexicans over the US border. A win-win for the Ag Cartel on both sides of the border.

Jordan
December 2, 2012 8:04 am

@ Patricia Ravasio
“What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?”
If there are good reasons to do something, then we should assess the costs and benefits for those reasons. If we invent false demons to try to fool people into doing things for hidden reasons, things will not work out. Search for “Trofim Lysenko” to find out more.
“What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy?”
If newer forms of energy are intermittent, there will be an increase in deaths from hyopthermia and energy rationing – for example, would you be willing to see your own family denied urgent hospital treatment due to energy rationing?
“This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.”
There are UK government incentives for domestic wood burning of fossil fuels. Choking smoke now drifts around my neighbourhood on cold winter nights, and there is increased traffic to deliver solid fuels to peoples’ doors. It’s like being back in the 19th Century. Is this the healther, less polluting form of energy you talk about?
“The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance.”
The predicted tropospheric hotspot is a characteristic pattern of warming. Ben Santer referred to one asepect of this as “vertical amplification” back in 2007 (warming aloft should be greater than warmning at the surface). Santer never observed the predicted vertical amplification, and neither did a more recent article. We should be able to agree that fossil-fuel induced climate change is fanciful storytelling.
“Isn’t it time for all of you to come over to the side where there don’t have to be any real losers?”
If you’ve already lost the scientific argument regarding the specific pattern of CO2-induced warming, why do you think there are no losers on “your side”?
I note how at the time of your first post, you were doubtful about whether your comment would be published. I guess that must be a reflection of the behaviour you see on “your side”. Since then, you have tossed-in a good handful of flame balls and sought publicity for your website. It is a compliment that you come to WUWT for publicity – clearly this is more fruitful ground than “your side”. And WUWT has been generous to have given you the opportunity.

richardscourtney
December 2, 2012 8:06 am

rgbatduke:
In your post at December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am you use Pascal’s Wager as an analogy,
In the context of your argument concerning use of energy sources, I think another useful analogy is the ‘famous last words’ of the great unbeliever Rabellais.
As he lay on his deathbed a Priest leaned over and asked him,
“Will you now renounce the Devil and all his works?”
Rabellais looked at the Priest and replied,
“This is not a time to be making enemies”
and he then died.
Richard

December 2, 2012 8:10 am

Patricia Ravasio,
Here’s the Bucky Fuller item I was looking for. Found it in Wackapedia:
Ephemeralization, a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, is the ability of technological advancement to do “more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing”. Fuller’s vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for an ever-growing population despite finite resources. The concept has been embraced by those who argue against Malthusian philosophy.
Fuller uses Henry Ford’s assembly line as an example of how ephemeralization can continuously lead to better products at lower cost with no upper bound on productivity. Fuller saw ephemeralization as an inevitable trend in human development. The progression was from “compression” to “tension” to “visual” to “abstract electrical” (i.e., nonsensorial radiation, such as radio waves, x rays, etc.)
Doesn’t Ephemeralization agree with the stated policy of the 125 scientists to Ban Ki-Moon that “Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused”
I think Buckminster Fuller had it right in that technological advancement is the key to solving these problems and adapting to extreme weather events, etc.

DirkH
December 2, 2012 8:21 am

J. Philip Peterson says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:10 am
“Patricia Ravasio,
Here’s the Bucky Fuller item I was looking for. Found it in Wackapedia:
Ephemeralization, a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, is the ability of technological advancement to do “more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing”.”
Which sounds very much like Julian Simon in “The Ultimate Resource”. The book is free on the internet, here:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

MikeB
December 2, 2012 8:23 am

Andrew…you ask a very good question
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
Mr. Courtney thinks it’s a daft question because he clearly cannot answer it; so he decided to answer something else instead. He Probably didn’t read your question properly or maybe he was distracted by his mongoose. He also thinks that CO2 concentrations are rising exponentially. However, he is right about temperatures not having risen significantly over the last 16 years – but that wasn’t the question was it?
Does anyone have a proper answer?

December 2, 2012 8:27 am

From Pats comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1161858 is this silliness about name calling.
Pat writes:
“From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts?”
This after you post a link to a website that continually call skeptics names in EVERY post they make about what skeptics thinks.You also bring up two other warmist sources that have a history of producing ad homonyms against skeptics in their drivel grade babblings.
In my long experience on this topic I see you as a classic ignorant thinker of the subject matter.I have tangled with the likes of you since the early 1990’s when it became clear to me that there is an element of the population that LACK sufficient skeptical and reasoning skills to employ on the subject of climate science.
I have withdrawn from many places now because the level of warmist ignorance and stupidity is so unbelievable that I wonder if this is evidence of mass brainwashing to think like a turgid greenie environmentalist who have no idea what a total fool they make of themselves in propagating their absurd warmist tripe because they are part of some gian crowd.
Facts such as the unending modeled predictions of the last 34 years that have been part of a proven track record of failures? The missing “Hot spot”,The lack of the predicted warming trends that have been predicted over and over starting from the 1990 IPCC report to the last one in 2007.The lack of an accelerating sea level and temperature change increase from 1990.The lack of the widespread positive feedbacks that was strongly predicted over 25 years ago.
Those “facts” you clearly support?
ROFLMAO!
What about the NULL HYPOTHESIS Pat, that you and your deluded CAWG believers keep ignoring where there is no unusual deviations from the trends of the last 150 years after the LIA was thought to have ended.
Here is a temperature chart and comments by a prominent warmist I posted in a forum thread in the tireless effort to help the resident CAWG believer see reason.He is one of the very few warmist left that I bother to spend time trying to help bring him back to a rational state on the climate.He never did address what Dr. Jones said to Roger Harrabin in an interview:
http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3546-post-211309.html#pid211309
Buzz’z reaction in the forum thread (The resident CAWG believer) to the chart DR. Jones that was created by Jo Nova using his supplied data in the interview that I repeatedly posted to show the evidence of a natural climate cycle is typical of low IQ warmist thinking capability.He simply fails to realize that his answer makes him a complete fool in the process as the evidence is clearly visible that there is nothing unusual going on temperature wise:
He writes,
“Backed off?? I don’t think so. More like gave up. Gave up because you posted the same damn graph that I had already addressed 3 times in 4 consecutive posts. I learned a long time ago that when you start idiotically repeating yourself over and over again that you don’t know what your talking about and are just repeating another denialist lie.”
http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3546-post-215416.html#pid215416
The problem is that he never attacks what Dr. Jones said in the interview that the temperature chart is based on as shown in his FIRST response in the forum thread to the chart based on uber warmist own temperature data and I quote Buzz again:
“So What?? You keep making a big deal about this like it proves or disproves something. IT DOESN’T!! All it really shows is that global warming isn’t always going to be consistent.
There is just way too much more BS for me to debunk all of it tonight but I want to give you guys a link that repeats much of what I am saying and debunks some other common denialist talking points. See if you can respond to any of it without making yourselves look stupid.
Read and learn here.”
The MetOffice link he posted: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/met-office-in-the-media-the-sunday-times-so-do-we-freeze-or-fry/
My reply here and he proves from them on afterwards that he has no idea what the NULL HYPOTHESIS is in his replies in regard to the chart I stubbornly keep reposting because he was being stupid as hell over it:
http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3546-post-211840.html#pid211840
I really piled it on in 5 consecutive posts and he goes to pieces afterwards.
Ha ha ha ha ha….

Ray
December 2, 2012 8:29 am

If “denier” is considered to be perjorative, shouldn’t “alarmist” be considered the same? They are, after all, two sides of the same coin.
I would suggest that “skeptic” and “proponent” are more appropriate terms for the type of non-inflammatory discussion that is promoted here.
BTW, I am a skeptic. The facts alone should be enough to shame the proponents without the use of perjoratives and shaming proponents with the facts is something that this site and its’ contributors are very, very good at. Let’s not lower ourselves to their level by allowing our choice of perjorative while banning theirs.

Matt G
December 2, 2012 8:40 am

“Warmists are not blind to this fact, nor to the 15 year non warming minimum. Expect a paper out soon extending the date from 17 years to say 20 or 25 or even better 30 years of no warming.”
When or if that happens what little respect for science they had would have vanished. They can’t do that though and they know it because the period then becomes longer, than the warming scare was originally claimed. In fact it is already longer than the period that J Hansen claimed back in 1988. They have already extended these goal posts and been falsified by the scientific method.
Any longer just continues what charlatans they really are and about time the funding was withdrawn. In fact funding should be made available instead to show why natural factors have driven this period instead. There is no science to back up an excuse theoretical or evidence based on these extended periods mentioned. When a timeline becomes longer than the scientific conjecture time-frame, it no longer becomes the defining period.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 8:41 am

AndyG55 says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:46 am
Hint, Patricia.. remove the picture of the steaming chimney from your bucky link.. it makes you look like a FOOL !!!
___________________________________
Oh, go easy on him. He has correctly pictured the correct compound that is responsible for short term “Climate Change” BAN Dihydrogen Monoxide!

Jimbo
December 2, 2012 8:46 am

OOPS! Looks like a yearly failure now.

Independent – March 2000
Dr David Viner, CRU
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,…”

And 12 years later we still have that white stuff of the past.

2 December, 2012 UK
And the end of the cold snap is still not in sight, with freezing temperatures due to last into next week, possibly followed by more snow.
The white start to the month was enough to prompt record numbers of punters to place bets on snow falling on Christmas Day. According to bookmakers Ladbrokes, more money had been staked on a white Christmas on Saturday than by any other 1 December in its history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/02/snow-icy-conditions-temperatures-plunge

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2635167

highflight56433
December 2, 2012 8:50 am

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
“I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf.”
First and foremost is your underlying pinning projection that anyone who believes differently than you regarding AGW is a holocaust denier.
Secondly, I would suggest that of the over 600,000 pilots in the US,(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/pilots.html) plus the remaining world population of aviators plus the millions of folks with a hard science degree including the 33,000 that signed a petition discounting the AGW theory, plus the 50 very prominent NASA scientists and astronauts who issued a public letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. requesting that NASA stop supporting unsubstantiated claims of manmade global warming, and those here at WUWT that they have a better understanding of weather and climate than you, and the 98 % consensus ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/ ) so proudly acclaimed by IPeCaC fellowship et. al.
Back to my early morning Dalmore.

richardscourtney
December 2, 2012 8:52 am

MikeB:
I copy all your egregious post at December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am to demonstrate how false it is.
You wrote

Andrew…you ask a very good question

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”

Mr. Courtney thinks it’s a daft question because he clearly cannot answer it; so he decided to answer something else instead. He Probably didn’t read your question properly or maybe he was distracted by his mongoose. He also thinks that CO2 concentrations are rising exponentially. However, he is right about temperatures not having risen significantly over the last 16 years – but that wasn’t the question was it?
Does anyone have a proper answer?

My complete and proper answer is at December 2, 2012 at 7:51 am and said

andrew:
I write to answer your silly question at December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am in case there are any onlookers who fail to understand that it is daft.
You ask

Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?

I answer that this is because
the overall trend has varied prior to 1997 but stopped rising in 1997.
Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997.
The important point is that global temperature has not risen for the last 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its exponential rise. Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to ask your question can understand why that is pertinent to the AGW-hypothesis.
Richard

Clearly, you lack reading comprehension, or you lack ability to understand my answer, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.
Richard

Paul Nottingham
December 2, 2012 8:54 am

I don’t know how accurate this article is but I thought it was interesting, especially with Monckton’s graph.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

sceptical
December 2, 2012 8:54 am

richardscourtney says, “Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997.”
In the next comment Jim Cripwell says, ” the rate of warming has got to exceed the 0.06 C per decade that has persisted for many decades, possibly back to the LIA.”
Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to make the comment richardscourtney made can see the humor in him being shown to be wrong so quickly.

Stephen Wilde
December 2, 2012 8:55 am

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am
Agreed and seconded. Well put.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 8:56 am

Skunkpew says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:06 am
You think after all this time, they’d learn something and hold this convention in the middle of the summer when the alarmism is at its absolute peak. God help them, they can’t even get that right….
__________________________________
Why should they? They want a free vacation in some place nice and preferably warm. They kinda blew it with Copenhagen but I am sure Sex Workers (Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex) kept them toasty.

Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2012 8:57 am

MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am
Andrew…you ask a very good question
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
It’s actually an idiotic question, and only another idiot would think it has any merit. My guess, though, is that it is the type of “question” that trolls ask, in an effort to stop discussion. Do either of you dispute the Met’s own graph above? If so, why? And if not, go do your troll business elsewhere.

John F. Hultquist
December 2, 2012 8:59 am

Several writers (andrew@3:38, Dirk@4:42) have mentioned the scale of wind turbines and support facilities. Here are the facts as presented by the site I can see out my window — about 15 miles east of me.
http://pse.com/inyourcommunity/kittitas/Pages/Wild-Horse.aspx
Look beneath the photo for the “Fast facts” list
Concrete is measured in cubic yards; in this case 11,750. An average value for weight is about 150 pounds per cu. ft., but with a very light mix 100 pounds is possible and 300+ is attainable if a heavy aggregate (say hematite) is used. Play with the numbers, if you like. The anchor bolts and nuts are steel (also heavy) but I have never seen the combined weight.
Below are the coordinates for the installation in the link above.
47.012465, -120.201776
The building on which the view is focused is the visitor’s center (very nice and worth a visit). Zoom in and note the long white pointed thing next to it on the north side. That is a blade damaged in transit and used as a “touchable” display.
There is a smallish fixed angle solar unit to the northwest, here:
47.020556, -120.222968
The site gets very strong winds and they chose not to go with a “follow the sun” array because the units are more prone to damage.
Also, with the strong winds the turbines have to be “parked” – and produce no power.

December 2, 2012 9:02 am

Pat incredibly writes this silliness http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1161809.
A partial quote from Pat “the comic” Ravasio:
“Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf.”
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
This is her FIRST comment in the thread and not a single effort to answer the blog post as written by Lord Monckton who spent the time to articulate a view of the science and the powers that be behind their fraud. Subsequent comments here show she has no interest in discussing what Lord Monckton has to say to instead drive some of the traffic from here to her brain dead blog and try to convince people who are far more rational and logical than herself about her utterly insane CAWG belief that long ago died scientifically.
We are invited to visit her blog site that make it clear she is not going to discuss what the affable Monckton wote here because she is not interested in what “deniers” have to say.Yes she calls us deniers over and over on her blog hardly a good setting for skeptical visitors.People,it is NOT worth the visit because it is like going into the Twilight Zone where Pat does the usual warmist stupid arguments something I long know about and now avoid because it is like entering the muddy pigs den there is nothing intelligent going on there.
This is a classic uber warmist troll who has no idea or interest in the discussion and will like so many other ignorant greenie push the CAWG propaganda no matter what the evidence show and what a pathetic show it is she is trying to push on us this late into the NO warming trend of the previous 16 years.

William Grubel
December 2, 2012 9:04 am

IPeCaC or ipecac. Swallow either one and you get the same result. Look it up.

December 2, 2012 9:07 am

Viscount Monckton says

…the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.
No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s.

How contrived this result is can be see from the 4th assessment report. Analyzing the UNIPCC’s own figures of Radiative Forcing Components, it can be seen that
1. A number of greenhouse gases have resulted in human-caused warming. But, after deducting negative forcings (aerosols), only CO2 matters. CO2 accounts for 104% of the net warming, but just 52% of the positive forcings. Very convenient when the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas increasing year-on-year is CO2.
2. The uncertainties in measuring negative forcings is huge. Just so happens that if you add up the range of uncertainties on the negative forcings, they are exactly 200% of the mid-points.
3. Similarly, just so happens that if you add up the range of uncertainties on the positive forcings, they are almost exactly 40% of the mid-points.
4. Add in that the only natural forcing they will admit to (volcanic) is tiny compared to the anthropogenic, and no mention of water vapor changes.
Now the UNIPCC may not have fiddled the figures to get this result. But with the many numbers falling so neatly together, and all making the result more extreme, it is unlikely to be otherwise.
I analyzed the figures here.

December 2, 2012 9:09 am

Why is it almost universal that warmists’ arguments are so threadbare when it comes to
scientifically acceptable data? They seem to rely on the fact that majority rules and the
(presumed) majority is always right. The only deniers I see are those who deny the absence of warming, the absence of predicted super hurricanes, etc. etc. Let’s start pointing out their denials
of patently obvious non-events, and data.

Alan Millar
December 2, 2012 9:10 am

MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
Does anyone have a proper answer?
Simple!
The years after 1997 were considerably hotter than the average temperature of the years in the 1950-1997 period. Obviously adding them to those years increases the overall average.
Indeed the 15 year period since 1997 would be the hottest 15 year period in the temperature record.
Still means though that there has been no statistically significant warming in this century.
Alan

December 2, 2012 9:10 am

Christopher Monckton,
I appreciated your post. Thank you.
QUESTION – If many scientifically skeptical independent thinkers are considering a new overal strategy to nullify the biased scientific research cherry picked by the IPCC to artificially force a CAGW ‘consensus’, what would be your recommendation for a new strategy?
John

Simon
December 2, 2012 9:14 am

Disingenious Sir. 1998 was a mega El Niño so you are starting from a high base. If you had used 1999 or pre-1997 as the startpoint you would have estimated significantly more warming. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001. Two years of La Niña weather patterns have help keep the temperatures down.
[NOTE – you probably don’t realize that the graph isn’t Monckton’s, but the Daily mail newspaper, note also the tags of humor, satire. -mod]

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 9:15 am

james griffin says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:09 am
It is impossible for CO2 to be the driver to extreme temperatures as CO2′s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up. By the time 300-360ppm is achieved a further 60ppm for instance will only produce less than one tenth of one degree. Based on this we have already taken 75% of any of the heat we will ever get from CO2. This appears to be well known but kept from the public as are a number of other things….
_______________________________
Just to add to that. GRAPH: log response of temperature vs increase in CO2 it shows we are at the point of diminishing returns.

michael hart
December 2, 2012 9:15 am

Mike B,
By carefully choosing (“cherry-picking”) starting and finishing points you can show temperatures rising or falling, according to your preferences.
Statistician William Briggs has a blog-post showing how easy it is too fool either yourself or other people with linear-trends drawn through a time-series.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5107

December 2, 2012 9:17 am

“I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com…”
Oh my aching sides!!
Whenever did either of those gangs of special pleaders ever produce anything factual or in-depth??
ROFL doesn’t start to describe it. You’ll be quoting SkepticalScience next.

December 2, 2012 9:19 am

Letter to Time Magazine (again)
Bryan Walsh continues to stir false alarm, this time claiming that “as the globe continues to warm”,
… “there is no way to know just how much man-made climate change might have amplified Sandy”.
Time Magazine (Dec. 3 2012)
Can I just point out again to him and your readers that there has not been any global warming in over 15 years now?
In fact, the trend over the past 10 years has been negative, i.e. global cooling:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
According to my own analysis of 47 weather stations, this global cooling will continue:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
and indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average.
(Remember also that when water vapor in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places).
As the farmers in Anchorage have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cooling is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.
And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. The cooling will last until 2030-2040. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
The sad story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,
for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),
and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),
the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,
e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.

Green Sand
December 2, 2012 9:23 am

AGW theory is that temperatures will increase as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. My question is simple, is it doing what it says on the tin?
10 year temperature trend is slightly negative -0.04C/decade
15 year temperature trend is slightly positive +0.04C/decade
30 year temperature trend is significantly positive +0.16C/decade
The above are monthly rolling HadCRUT4 trends up to and including Oct 2012.
Whilst the 30 year trend is at present significantly positive, if the 10 year and 15 year trends remain significantly below the 30 year trend it can only reduce. Is it doing what it says on the tin? Don’t know yet, only time will tell, but keep your eye on the shorter term trends because they will dictate the long term future of the 30 year trend. If they go above the 30 year trend then it will increase, if they stay below it will reduce. There will be short term ups and downs from the past data but they will not affect the long term trend. The 30 year rate of warming has been reducing for 9 years, whilst the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2012 9:26 am

RossP says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm
“Pat Ravasio — Even Ben Santer is starting scratch his head about how all those very expensive computer models keep exaggerating the warming all you guys desperately want to see.”
Well Ben. You might not know why but we do. It’s easy: You are wrong and so are your bloody models.

JohnH
December 2, 2012 9:26 am

@Pat Ravasio
I actually followed your link to 350.org, just to see what a real science site would look like. I was greeted by an aerial photo of 1200 students arranged to create a cartoon-like image of a lighthouse. That’s not science.
Maybe there was something better if I scrolled down. More photos, this time of people who were walking around, carrying signs in Doha. Silly slogans, similar to the “Think Green” bumper stickers I see on the back of minivans in the suburbs, and just as inconsistent. It’s a little hard to take someone seriously when they use fossil fuels to travel (either to Doha or to the local mall) while protesting the use of fossil fuels. That’s not science.
So I looked even farther down the page. FINALLY an article that contained some science! Concerns about the health effects of living near the proposed Keystone pipeline. Upon reading the article, I found this claim about living near the shipping channel in Houston:
The chances of contracting leukemia here are 56 percent, and of course, this is related to the petrochemical industry.
Really? 56% of all people living within 2 miles of the channel of Houston get leukemia? Well, it turns out that the real study found that leukemia rates were 56% higher than normal for a single type of leukemia, but that’s not nearly the same as a 56% rate of leukemia overall. So, yes, there was some science there, but it was ridiculously alarmist and obviously wrong. That article was posted on November 29th, and in the days that have followed NO ONE (including you) has bothered to fact check it or offer any skepticism about a wildly inflated bit of bad science.

highflight56433
December 2, 2012 9:28 am

John Whitman says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:10
Christopher Monckton,
I appreciated your post. Thank you.
QUESTION – If many scientifically skeptical independent thinkers are considering a new overal strategy to nullify the biased scientific research cherry picked by the IPCC to artificially force a CAGW ‘consensus’, what would be your recommendation for a new strategy?
John
I suspect Lord Monckton will advise a strategy to defund; take away the buttery waste of wealth they acquire via criminally lying. Charge them with defrauding the public.

DirkH
December 2, 2012 9:28 am

MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
Because a least squares trend is a nonlinear operation. You can’t expect two partial trends to add up or average out to the trend over the whole series. Notice the behaviour of the OLDS trends against the moving average over a 100 months here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/mean:100

DirkH
December 2, 2012 9:35 am

John Whitman says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:10 am
“QUESTION – If many scientifically skeptical independent thinkers are considering a new overal strategy to nullify the biased scientific research cherry picked by the IPCC to artificially force a CAGW ‘consensus’, what would be your recommendation for a new strategy?”
a) Throw it away and stop calling the IPCC reports a scientific work, they are not, as the mission statement of the IPCC says that they have the job of finding evidence for antropogenic warming. That is not how science works. The IPCC reports therefore are an entirely political work, and have been from the start. To be more precise, it is politics disguised as science.
b) Resume normal scientific operations. If a “professional scientific organisation” is not happy with that, boycot it, terminate membership, stop buying its journals, starve it to death. Organisations can and must be replaced if rotten.

December 2, 2012 9:43 am

Steve C says: December 2, 2012 at 12:48 am: Pat Ravasio – You want to see some facts? […]
It is precisely through ascertaining the facts that many of us became “disbelievers”: I, for example, used to think as you seem to, until a friend put cash on the table for anyone who could show him a proof of catastrophic manmade climate change. After a couple of weeks’ searching, I became seriously worried at the quality of the “science” I was seeing.

I was luckier: I only needed 30 minutes. It was models all the way down.

Tom Jones
December 2, 2012 9:45 am

Although the statistically-inclined will fight a rear-guard action to claim that the temperature trend is still rising, not many of even the faithful believe that. The big switch is on to talk about “Global Wierding” and forget about the temperature trend, or extend the first data at which it can be measured way, way out. Global Weirding only requires forgetting anything that we didn’t experience personally as an adult, making almost everything unprecedented in short order.

AlaskaMike
December 2, 2012 9:59 am

Pat:
“And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply.”
Interestingly, I clicked your link to http://www.buck**orld,me and there is no comment/reply section on your blog. Please don’t expect others to follow your rules if you do not follow them yourself.

MikeB
December 2, 2012 10:05 am

Thank you Alan Millar,
But Andrew’s question was not about averages – but about trends. That is to say ‘the rate of increase ‘ of temperature is seen to be higher if you extend measurements to 2012 instead of stopping at 1997. What you say about averages is of course correct but that was not the problem. Did you bother to plot this out on ‘WoodForTrees’ for example, as suggested? I don’t know which data set Andrew was referring to, it probably applies to all of them, but here it is for HADCRUT3.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1950/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1950/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1950/to:2012/trend
The rate of increase from 1950 to 2012 is higher than that from 1950 to 1997 but warming clearly stalled after 1997. An interesting paradox. Not that simple!

December 2, 2012 10:06 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am
[…[It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face.[…]

The precautionary principle!, or, how to consider hypothetical (conjectuarl, actually) assertions as if they were reality. Too post-modern for my taste and, in this subject, extremely expensive.
You’re into the arts or humanities, isn’t it? With all that importance given to narratives?
I would also welcome your comments on my blog, […]
I knew it. Pat, that wasn’t nice, IMHO..

markx
December 2, 2012 10:07 am

Gail Combs says: December 2, 2012 at 8:04 am
The comment by Gail is something we should all read twice. That is what it is all about, someone somewhere is lobbying for an advantage that will benefit their pocket (usually successfully).
Now, having said that I don’t hold that there is a conspiracy or an “Ag Cartel” as such, but do agree that the end result is the same as if there was one.
The problem is that all these concepts of free trade and trade agreements are pursued and signed because someone, somewhere thinks they are getting an advantage. This is really our markets at work now, and, as you can see in every sector big business wins – computing, telecommunications, energy, agriculture, mining etc etc.
Some will also see this (carbon actions/or lack thereof) as being a useful trade barrier lever.
Government are usually lobbied and convinced into thinking they win too, but whether they do or not then the next election comes around and it no longer matters (Hey, the out of work pollie can always become a lobbiest, eh Algore?)
This whole show goes ahead because there are a myriad of sectors and individuals who think they can see an advantage, and there are a whole lot of “average Joe public” out there who will buy anything if you wrap it well enough and tell them a the same time they are saving the world.

theBuckWheat
December 2, 2012 10:08 am

The one constant among advocates of Man-Caused Climate Change is that only government can solve the problem, and the bigger the government solution the better, and the more it justifies destruction of individual rights and prosperity the better. I don’t need a PhD.to recognize socialists worshiping Gaia when I see it.

Grant
December 2, 2012 10:17 am

Haven’t you heard Mr. Moncton? 2012 is going to be the first, or second or third warmest year on record. Greenland and the Antarctic are melting at unprecedented rates and destructive storms are going to destroy us. Denier! (Sarc off )

Rufus
December 2, 2012 10:17 am

J Philip
Here’s an article showing exactly the trend you describe:
Increased efficiency in home appliances ranges from 40 to 200% since 1981.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/the-good-old-days-are-now-todays-home-appliances-are-cheaper-better-and-more-energy-efficient-than-ever-before/
Of course, predicting these advances in technology is just as difficult as predicting changes in the climate. One wonders how the models “control” for these factors. Of course, they can’t.

son of mulder
December 2, 2012 10:23 am

“MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
Does anyone have a proper answer?”
I have a novel analogy, same principle. The Grand Old Duke of York is marching his men to the top of the hill and then marching them down again and he measures their height every hour and calculates average height since the start of their trek.
Every hour from the start of their trek their average height is higher than the previous hour. Whan he starts marching them down again the average height from the start of the trek continues to get higher for several hours. When they get back to the bottom he calculates their average height from the start and is surprised that at the end of the trek their average height by this method is approx half the height of the hill.
But The grand Old Duke fancies himself as a scientist and in the face of the empirical evidence he hypothesises that when you march your men to the top of the hill, because they are no longer putting weight on the zero level then the height of the ground level rises by half the height they have risen to the top.
He is also a great fan of Feynman and as he has already done the experiment by originally marching his men to the top of the hill and back he has validated his hypotheses. Just to prove his theory is robust to walking to the bottom of valleys and back up the other side he is not surprised to find that when they get to the top of the otherside of the valley his average height is approx half the depth of the valley below the level.
And the corollary of the story which Feynman failed to convey is that if you are as stupid as the Grand Old Duke of York don’t get involved with science.

December 2, 2012 10:25 am

LetsBeReasonable says: December 2, 2012 at 3:35 am – Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?
Being a skeptic, I did that too. The conclusion is, there is warming (it has been around for some time) but not since 1997. The assertion “there has been no warming during the past 16 years” is true. (And what will happen now?)

Jimmy Haigh
December 2, 2012 10:26 am

I’ve just watched an excruciating report on the BBC on the Doha Climate Jamboree with uber warmonger Roger Harriban spouting 5 minutes of absolute climate bollocks. Absolutely outrageous stuff. I was swearing at the telly.

Kev-in-Uk
December 2, 2012 10:26 am

Jordan says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:04 am
Well said – I would be interested to observe the same ‘situation’ played out at RC or SkS – the good lady could try and post a query there about why there is no warming, perhaps posting a link to this piece? Anyone want to bet how long the post would survive?
That said, if the woman has any real interest in the environment, she will find out in short order how badly she is being mislead and conned and will return!
If any of the responses have ‘engaged’ her brain and her curiosity – and she does indeed start to question the consensus – this will be yet another small victory for science!

davidmhoffer
December 2, 2012 10:26 am

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s one of the dangers of messing with anomalies and trying to ram linear trends through them. Remember that anomalies are a difference from a starting point. So, two anomalies of the same value mean no change, but that’s now how the math comes out depending on what the average of the time series is and what those anomalies are in comparison to that average. I’ll use a made up and exagerated series to demonstrate.
Suppose we have 6 anomalies as follows:
1,2,3,4,5,15
The “average” anomaly would be 5. The trend would be 2*5/5=2
Now let’s add a 7th anomaly which represents 0 change from the 6th one:
1,2,3,4,5,15,15
The “average” anomaly is now 6.42. The trend would be 2*6.42/6=2.14
So….nothing changed from year 6 to year 7, but the trend over all went up. Let’s add another year of no change:
1,2,3,4,5,15,15,15
The “average” is now 7.5. The trend would be 2*7.5/7=2.14
At this point, the trend hasn’t changed much because there are more years of data, so adding one year is a smaller portion of the data as a whole. We’ve reached a break even point of sorts. If we add still one more year of no change, the trend will start to decline:
1,2,3,4,5,15,15,15,15
The “average” is now 8.3, still higher than before. But the trend 2*8.33/8=2.08 went down.
So, by adding anomalies which represent a change of 0 year over year, we can show that depending on the average and the number of data points on each side of the average, we can create a “trend” that seems to increase as we add additional years of no change, and then decrease as we add still more years of no change. If we wrote the whole data series as the year over year change we would get:
_,1,1,1,1,10,0,0,0,0
By looking at it “year over year” we can see that there were increasing temps for the first 5 years and then no change after that. Anomalies have many problems in terms of how they mask the real data, and this is one of them.

G. Karst
December 2, 2012 10:36 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
… But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?

Patricia, I think you will agree that all human caused disasters are caused by people doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. You are advocating just that. We could use all available resources to prevent further warming, only to be confronted by long and protracted cooling.
I cannot definitively point to the dire consequences, of diverting resources to the non-problem of AGW, as the consequences will only appear after the fact. Starvation and mass death are known consequences of protracted cooling and history should provide plenty of precedence of such. Comparatively, a fractional warming has always been a boon to the earth’s bio-mass and humanity. CO2 has been proven to be a boon to biosphere in both quantity and quality and to artificially declare it a pollutant, will prove disastrous, to the biomass and our economy.
The precautionary first principle is to take no actions unless the consequences of such actions can be predicted. Where is the model capable of such certainty?! You need to go back to the beginning, of your climate investigations, and read published papers, that do not support the current ideological driven research. There is much you are not aware of, and WUWT archives will give you an idea, of how much research you have missed.
The great hue and cry, by misinformed environmentalist to “DO SOMETHING… ANYTHING AT ALL” is a recipe for disaster, of the human kind. GK

Reply to  G. Karst
December 2, 2012 12:02 pm

So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 10:39 am

Silver Ralph says:
December 2, 2012 at 7:22 am
….I contacted Greenpeace UK about the ever increasing world population – which represents the greatest threat to the world environment, more so than any trace gas could possibly be.
Their answer was that “Greenpeace never has and never will campaign on population issues”. So there you have it. Greenpeace will never address or debate the most important factor in the moders world – overpopulation…..
____________________________________
They can not address it because the best method for reducing population is modern INDUSTRIAL civilization and they are opposed to industrialization.
Third world food production needs cheap labor aka child labor. Food production accounts for about 70% of child labor in the world. In some instances the children are sold into “Bonded labour” link 1 and link 2 Either way the child is look at as a financial asset for the family. Some child workers are reported to be as young as four according to the US department of Labor. As the report states “”Slavery is not dead.”1 It is found in the practice of forced or bonded child labor, which is considered to be the most exploitative and egregious form of child labor.”
Take a look at the fertility rates for different countries and you can see modern INDUSTRIAL countries have a fertility rate at or below the replacement rate of 2.1

Alan Clark
December 2, 2012 10:43 am

Pat… hilarious. Everything you say. Simply hilarious. I actually blew stuff out of my nose when you implied that 350.org is a credible source of “scientific” information. LOL! Here’s another extremely credible source of info for you… http://www.nationalenquirer.com/
LOL! LOL!

davidmhoffer
December 2, 2012 10:49 am

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:2012/mean:3
Here’s a wood for trees plot that illustrates. The trend from 1950 to 1996 is clearly lower than the trend from 1997 to 2012. But when the two are combined, the over all trend is higher than either of them. With anomalies, 2+2 can sometimes =5.

Mark
December 2, 2012 11:08 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy?
What would these forms be?
Wind power is literally prehistoric with the first photo voltaic cell having been made in 1839. Producing even modern wind turbines and solar cells results in all sorts of pollution. They are also both a very poor way to generate electricity. Needing 100% backup from either steam or gas turbine.
If wind power was so good commercial shipping would never have switched to steam (and later internal combustion) engines.

DirkH
December 2, 2012 11:10 am

Rufus says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:17 am
“Of course, predicting these advances in technology is just as difficult as predicting changes in the climate. One wonders how the models “control” for these factors. Of course, they can’t.”
Ray Kurzweil has occupied himself with that for the past 30 years. see
http://www.kurzweilai.net/

spvincent
December 2, 2012 11:13 am

It’s noteworthy that the article provides no references to back up the statement that there has been no warming for the last 16 years. Not entirely surprising, since it’s based on an article published in a British tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29ZOznOnr), and which misrepresents the work of the Met Office themselves (http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago)

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 11:27 am

markx says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:07 am
…Now, having said that I don’t hold that there is a conspiracy or an “Ag Cartel” ….
____________________________________
Just to make it clear I did not come up with “Ag Cartel” Dr. John M. Connor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University did. THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL GLOBAL CARTELS OF THE 1990s: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE

Private International Cartels: Effectiveness, Welfare, and Anticartel Enforcement
The sudden discovery of a global pandemic of international cartels in the mid 1990s, after a hiatus of a half century, is puzzling. That the greatest number and most injurious conspiracies should be clustered in the food and feed ingredients industries adds another element of mystery to the puzzle. Whatever the causes of this unexpected resurgence of global price fixing, the reaction of the antitrust-enforcement agencies has been fascinating….
International private cartels are at least 125 years old (Voigt 1962).[1] The German-Swiss dyestuffs cartel that was established around 1880 became a prototype for the late 19th century international cartels. It was an amalgamation of two pre-existing national cartels that through predatory behavior against smaller producers in the UK, France, and Italy was able to ensure Western European dominance for its Swiss and German members. Word War I destroyed international cartels of this type, though most of them were re-established in the 1920s….

So yes the Ag cartel was alive and well in the 1990’s and pushing for the 1995 WTO agreement on Agriculture that was written by Cargill VP Dan Amstutz.

December 2, 2012 11:29 am

Jimbo says:
December 2, 2012 at 3:18 am
I maybe wrong here but the 16 years without warming is more serious than previously thought. Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?

There’s no way to falsify a narrative or an ideology until it becomes entirely absurd, and even then it will have supporters.

highflight56433
December 2, 2012 11:33 am

Josualdo says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:06 am
Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am
[…[It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face.[…]
The precautionary principle!,
Exactly! Had the precautionary principle ruled mankind, a horse might never had been tamed, fire would have been left to the gods, the moon would have been only to view by the curious and so it would have been that mariners stayed on dry land as well.
The faulty claim in the precautionary CAGW crowd is: There is no tsunami to make an escape. Who would not enjoy the comfort of a warmer climate? Obviously those who spend entire lives living in Las Vegas manage 120+ degree days. Imagine I could plant banana trees and limes for my home grown agave tequila drinks; stay home to sleep off my tequila; play golf when I am not sleeping…everyday; read WUWT under a palm enjoying the warm CAGW breezes. (no flies please)
Point here is the CAGW alarmist are crying wolf but the only wolf are the alarmist wolves baiting their prey.

John West
December 2, 2012 11:36 am

@RGB@Duke
WOW! Great comment, worthy of being made into a post IMHO. Although, I would have preferred “fueled by” instead of “burning” with regards to uranium; but, oh well, it’s a small matter.
@Pat Ravasio
You insinuate your comment might not get posted and that its content is somehow difficult to our position with “then you will publish this comment with a reply” thereby accusing WUWT of censorship and WUWT’ers of having a delicate position highly dependent upon information control. I’m sure you’re psyche has rationalized away what should by all rights be a realization that it is your position that is delicate and requires careful control of information. After you’ve had a few days to digest what happened I want you to consider two things.
1) You cite the PR site [desmog] who likes to insult people by accusing them of PR, without realizing that we read that site too.
2) Why have you been reluctant to approve my comment on your blog? Please tell me you’re not exhibiting the projectionist tendencies that we’ve seen all too often among the alarmists.
————————————————————————————
Jimbo says: December 2, 2012 at 10:39 am
Patricia,
You have been replied to by physicist on WUWT. He always gets to the heart of the matter. You may learn a thing or two. Read it, you have nothing to lose.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1162124
——————————————————————————-
John West says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 2, 2012 at 9:09 am
Wait a minute, “ill effects of fossil fuel mining and use are a much greater threat to humankind”, please compare and contrast life circa 1850 to now in countries that have developed fossil fuel infrastructures; then compare and contrast the standard of living in those countries to those that haven’t developed fossil fuel infrastructures before rattling on about how evil fossil fuels are. We owe a lot to fossil fuel use, including a better environment. Imagine if we were all still cooking with wood and riding horses, what an environmental disaster. Look, we didn’t grow dependent on fossil fuels overnight and we’re not going to switch to “renewables” overnight by abandoning our infrastructure investment either, that would be foolish. Yes, eventually fossil fuels will either be replaced or re-sourced but this kind of transition isn’t going to happen quickly nor does it need to. What’s the worst thing that could happen? 5+ billion people in the world with over half starving and/or freezing. That’s the real stuff of mayhem. Not to mention a whole new set of bureaucracies, taxes, and possible loss of sovereignty to an international organization with no checks and balances, regard to population (i.e.: Iran = 1 vote, USA = 1 vote), or fundamental understanding of individual rights and the potential loss of liberty that goes with all of that top down “we know what’s best” mentality in power. “Puh-lease”, I’d rather have the warming.
————————————————————————–
Pat Ravasio says: December 2, 2012 at 8:37 am
But even if this is correct, what’s the downside to developing clean energies that will not pollute the atmosphere, our water, our lands and our bodies? Especially since investing in these activities will stimulate the economy? Let’s take a small portion of that huge defense budget and defend ourselves against the known and unknown ill effects of fossil fuels.

December 2, 2012 11:39 am

rgb: I have seen many of your posts over time. Excellent stuff 🙂

Stephen Richards
December 2, 2012 11:47 am

Jimmy Haigh says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:26 am
I’ve just watched an excruciating report on the BBC on the Doha Climate Jamboree with uber warmonger Roger Harriban spouting 5 minutes of absolute climate bollocks. Absolutely outrageous stuff. I was swearing at the telly.
I just watched the other lot (ITV) talking to the Tydall centre. Same ole same ole. Just unbelieveable crap.

Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2012 11:49 am

@Spvincent, the Met does a lot of tap dancing around the fact (and it’s an undeniable one) that since 1998 there has been no further warming. I will admit, the tap dancing is noteworthy.

Stephen Richards
December 2, 2012 11:49 am

spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 11:13 am
First of all you need to be more discerning. Read the Met off pr more carefully. Then go to the met off site and download their data and plot. Then go to the NOAA site and do the same. Then come back and apologise.

G. Karst
December 2, 2012 11:51 am

spvincent: Your rebuttal and that of the Met, consists only of repeated statements that we are currently warm. It confirms that temperatures have been flat: “The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.” So while we ARE warm there has been no significant warming for one half a climatic period. Even my grandchildren understand the difference between being warm and warming. It doesn’t say much, that you don’t. GK

December 2, 2012 12:00 pm

Regarding steeper slope for 1950-2012 than for 1950-97:
There was a super El Nino year in 1997/98, skewing the average.
Mystery solved.

Gail Combs
December 2, 2012 12:01 pm

spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 11:13 am
It’s noteworthy that the article provides no references to back up the statement….
_____________________________
But others here have. See Werner Brozek’s comment. Therefore your comment is a FAIL!

MrX
December 2, 2012 12:05 pm

There is no warming and yet the alarmists insist there is. Their best argument is to laugh at the suggestion that two skeptics are correct and all the climate scientists are wrong. It’s quite ironic that you need to be a scientist to read that there has been no warming from those very same scientists. And yet they insist that skeptics are wrong when they mention the non-warming.
With alarmists, it’s like fight club. Rule #1 is that there currently is no warming. Rule #2 is no one talks about the non-warming.

AndyG55
December 2, 2012 12:08 pm

Silver Ralph says:
“Actually, Andy, since water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, perhaps the real devil is the cooling towers, and not the smoke stack!!”
The amount of water vapour released as steam by humans is infinitesimal compared to water vapour released by the forces of nature. Human steam, is a total irrelevance.
But PLEASE, don’t give the nonces that after world control any new ideas !!
They might decide steam is the next boggieman !!

December 2, 2012 12:30 pm

Henry@davidmhoffer
Do the same plot with Hadcrut 3? Note the difference? Why?
Either way, both hadcrut3 and hadcrut4 show cooling from 2002
(and no warming from 1997 or 1998)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
My own results suggest we are heading for more cooling
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
looking at energy-in
Better be ready for more storms, cold and snow.

Matt G
December 2, 2012 12:42 pm

I don’t agree with Had4, it only has been changed to show a little more warming where there was none. It was a travesty that no significant warming was occurring so the need to adjust for confirmation bias was due. With Had4 including Arctic data where there was none available in the past, it is like comparing oranges with apples. If it makes global temperatures warmer now it certainly will make global temperatures warmer in the past during similar periods. It may be improving the data in the long term for future, but it makes the older data a unfair comparison and more worthless for comparing honest trends in the past with data including more Arctic values. Saying that the honest trends comparing with historic warmer periods have been lost long ago. The Arctic stations say there is no difference recently to the late 1930’s/ early 1940’s.
http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/141/arctictempstrend.png
The change by Had4 was explained due to including more Arctic data, but has been shown previously like the GISS Arctic temperatures would have to be many degrees higher just to affect the global data, so there has been moving chairs around the deck for other regions too.
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5412/gissvrssextarc.png
The final irony that may not have been thought about with this change, is once the Arctic starts cooling in future it will have a bigger affect on cooling global temperatures. I bet you didn’t think about that one did you?

Steve Oregon
December 2, 2012 1:08 pm

“So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?”
That has been my biggest sticking point for years but never put it so well.
All of the countless observations (and fabrications) being falsely attributed to global warming have come from alarmists pretending the future warming happened yesterday.
With 16 yrs (and counting) of no warming contradicting their scurrilous portrayal of the past, present and future alarmists have no where to go, no where to hide and no cards left to play.
They are sitting there at the table, clinging to the last of their chips with no friends in the room.
They are taking pathetic to levels mankind has never seen before.

Ian L. McQueen
December 2, 2012 1:11 pm

@Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Welcome to our group. Please keep an open mind as you read the various comments. Some are a bit rough, but their writers feel that the comment is justified.
Re part of the information at http://truth-out.org/news/item/13083-meet-the-climate-denial-machine regarding the supposed confidence of “climate experts” (the (in)famous 97.4%), please read
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/ for the full story. If you investigate, you are going to find similar rebuttals for the views. of you or those with similar thinking.
IanM

Mindert Eiting
December 2, 2012 1:12 pm

MikeB and others: regression slope is based on a sum of cross products (in which temperature is a term), but let’s keep it easy with a mean: In 1950 your village had one poor resident. Each year someone arrived who was a bit wealthier and in 1997 you saw the first millionaire. Since then each year a millionaire arrived but all millionaires 1997-2012 were equally rich. Compute over time the mean wealth 1950-1997 and the mean wealth 1950-2012.

spvincent
December 2, 2012 1:13 pm

It’s a noisy data set, and what’s been done is to select a starting point corresponding to a large spike in temperature (the large 1997/98 El Nino event), pick a suitably small time interval, throw away the rest of the data and then blindly apply some statistical routines like regression analysis. With such a technique you can always find some period where the warming appears to have levelled off but it’s meaningless as a way to determine future trends.
This graph illustrates the point rather well.
Do you seriously think that the conclusion presented, that warming has stopped, would pass peer review?

davidmhoffer
December 2, 2012 1:13 pm

Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pat, it is customary to quote the person you are responding to so we know who said it, and exactly what they said.
Not knowing who said exactly what, my suggestion to you would be that most skeptics don’t argue that CO2 does not cause warming. They argue that the amount is far less than claimed, and certainly not catastrophic. As for potential for an ice age, yes that is a possibility. The earth has spent much more time in ice ages than in interglacials, and the current interglacial is in fact getting long in the tooth.
Would elevated CO2 levels save us? Doubtful. All the fossil fuel we have burned in the last century has only added about 100 ppm to the background CO2 levels. Please keep in mind that CO2 is logarithmic. To get one additional degree out of it, you would have to double current levels which are currently around 400 ppm. So if an ice age sets in, we’d need 6 or 8 degrees to save our butts. For an extra 6 degrees we’d need:
2 x 400 = 800 = 1 degree
2 x 800 = 1600 = 2 deg
3200 = 3 deg
6400 = 4 deg
12,800 = 5 deg
25,600 = 6 deg
So we’d need to pump into the atmosphere about 250 TIMES as much CO2 as we did in the last 100 years. And that’s assuming that feedbacks aren’t negative, and the data is increasingly suggesting that they are (in which case we’d need even more).
This same problem works in reverse by the way. If the planet’s temperature would otherwise be stable, those are the amounts of CO2 to cause those amounts of warming. Adding 100 ppm of CO2 to 280 ppm as we did in the last 100 years is a 40% increase. Adding 100 ppm to 400 is only a 25% increase, and correspondingly much less warming than the previous 100 ppm.

Ray
December 2, 2012 1:15 pm

SPVincent,
The Met Office’s insistence that temperatures have continued rising over the past 15 years is based on their claim that the temperature trend for the period from 1997 to 2012 shows +0.03C per decade for a total temperature rise of +0.05C for that period.
That is to say, if the per decade trend continues, by the year 2345 the temperature will rise 1.0C over the current value. Whoa!!!
Of course, how they can measure a GLOBAL average temperature to the resolution of a few hundreths of a degree is a mystery to me. Further compounding the confusion over their statement, their graph actually shows a declining temperature trend since 2000. Go figure!

felikschfeliksch
December 2, 2012 1:16 pm

andrew asked:
Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 …
I’ll put it differently from Mr. Courtney. The 50ies and 60ies have been relatively cold, after it was 1997 relatively warm. As you add the warmer years after 1997- although they are cooler than 1997-98 – you have more warm years at the end and thus the linear trend has to increase; it goes over the temps in the last years of your data row. Try it out in a spreadsheet – you’ll beat Phil Jones.

DirkH
December 2, 2012 1:31 pm

Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?”
Pat, it would be helpful if you indicated to whom you answered. My answer is this: A doubling of CO2 (100% increase) has an increased radiative forcing of 3.5 W/m^2 as a consequence. We are only at 40% so probably only 2 W/m^2 or so for now . Compared to the variation of insolation at the surface due to variation of cloud cover totally insignificant. As Lüning and Vahrenholt show in Die Kalte Sonne
(english interview of Lüning here:

)
there is historical evidence for significant solar influence much stronger than that – probably modulation of cloud cover OR an effect of very variable UV radiation component of solar spectrum.
No matter which it is, this solar influence is NOT accounted for by the IPCC and is probably the REAL key to future temperature development.
Yes, antropogenic CO2 has an influence, BUT, it’s probably so small that we wouldn’t even be able to discern it in the noise if we tried to measure it. (I know of no conclusive observational proof of long term increased average backradiation in the CO2 absorption/emission band. )

December 2, 2012 1:38 pm

Pat, the world is cooling, naturally. Got it? We have left you many clues. We can take a horse to the water but we cannot make him drink.

Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2012 1:40 pm

Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?
Huh? How on earth did you come up with that? Reading comprehension FAIL.

Sean
December 2, 2012 1:59 pm

Pat Ravasio says: “Hi my name is Pat Ravasio and I am an ignorant climate cult sock puppet”
Yes, thanks for the update Pat. Keep on drinking the Kool-aide at 350.org. Maybe try spreading some of that propaganda in your garden and see if it makes the plants grow…

TimO
December 2, 2012 2:00 pm

I live in Florida and have not burst into flames yet. Also, we have gone seven years without being hit by a hurricane. Maybe we could encourage all the warmer panic’ers to move north and settle Canada and Alaska… Naked in the winter when they can feel the climate….