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.
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.
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. 😉
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:
.
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.
Dear Pat,
Global warming has Zilch. Nada,. Zip,. Bupkis, to do with fracking or any other environmental issue.
Dear Pat,
Global warming has Zilch. Nada,. Zip,. Bupkis, to do with fracking or any other environmental issue.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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)
And AFTER returning from Washington, where he got embroiled with a drum majorette:
rgbatduke
Great rebuttal to the AGW catastrophe alarmists. I can only wait for their collective “switch off”.
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.
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.
The other half of the equation
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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
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.
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/
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?
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….
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.
“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.
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!
OOPS! Looks like a yearly failure now.
And 12 years later we still have that white stuff of the past.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2635167