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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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/
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.
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]
Pat, you say you are trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but nothing you have said supports that claim.
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.
@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.
may they all R.I.P
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.
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.
oh Pat, you deluded fool..
I notice you still think STEAM coming from a chimney is CO2… DOH !!!!!!!
back to kindy, little person !!
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.
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.)
God I love Monckton 😀 Does he have his own blog? If not, he bloody well should have!
Hint, Patricia.. remove the picture of the steaming chimney from your bucky link.. it makes you look like a FOOL !!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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