Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.
“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.
“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.
“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.
Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.
At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.
What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.
Hasn’t he tried to offer skeptical insights a few times? And got a lot of push back each time?
Got to admire the man for keeping on trying.
James Griffin – “Almost the entire scientific community, politicians and journalists are AGW crooks.”
It’s not just in the UK, it’s happening in Australia too. They keep trying to blame the increase in floods and fires this decade on climate change, as well as the heat wave we had earlier this year, and the drought. They don’t mention climate change when it snows. Or when Sydney had the coldest day in twenty years. It’s all just an excuse for the carbon tax. Everyone’s in on it. Even the liberal/conservative party won’t come right out and say it’s a hoax, which it is. It’s the media’s fault.
Just wait for when it starts cooling see who’s right then.
It’s terrible in Australia.
How old will the railway engineer be in 40 yrs time?
Do you actually know what ‘lukewarmer‘ means? Your post suggests not. Most ‘lukewarmers’ think warming due to increased CO2 is likely to be modest and probably harmless. However, they do not deny basic physics which says that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause the earth to be warmer than it would otherwise be.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Wake Up Public! You are being conned about CO2 and global warming”
I just thought I should post the links that go with my comment 2:34 above
And it is Dr Akasofu (sorry Doctor)
Girma Orssengo: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/predictions-of-gmt.pdf
Syun Akasofu: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/
Media History:
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
OK, so let me make absolutely certain that I get this. There has been no discernible global warming, of any kind, since just about the time this almost ultimate intelligence test got started.
We really, really REALLY need an ice age. Because that WILL be the ultimate intelligence test. Those that fail it do not pass GO to the next interglacial.
Admitting that there has been no warming in 17 years is NOT saying that the models are wrong. So as long as the IPCC maintains the climate sensitivity line of 3 degrees means nothing has changed, except that it is apparantly now OK to have very long pauses in the warming without having to question the elephant in the room.
And
– – – – – – – – –
Jack Maloney & Christoph Dollis,
Journalistic license is as journalists do. Their style is designed for an intended audience. Style of any give journalist in any give article of course will please only some. Clearly, Christopher Monckton’s style, when he is taking the role of a journalist, does strongly appeal to some and strongly annoys others while probably few are neutral wrt his style. : )
The appreciation of a journalist’s style aside, it is the content that is valid or not. Is Christopher Monckton’s content in this WUWT post deserving of merit or not? My assessment is that Monckton’s observations are valid and he deserves merit for his post. Well done Christopher.
Personally, no man can command my respect merely by his position . . . . and Pachauri does not. By the way, are we being railroaded by Pachauri via the article in The Australian? Avast, me thinks a pirate is afoot me matey. Arrr. : )
John
It will take some time for the cooling associated with the beginning of the Gleissberg minimum to be understood, let alone to sink in. So be patient.
John Finn,
You seem to think I make a distinction between lukewarmers and climate alarmists.
I don’t. They both promote the AGW scare without producing any testable, empirical evidence.
Tell me: in your opinion, what exactly would it take to falsify the AGW conjecture? Give me specific numbers.
Because so far, it has been non-stop moving of the goal posts.
For anyone having trouble viewing the full article from The Australian, http://www.google.com.au and copy and paste the headline below. Click on first link.
‘Nothing off-limits’ in climate debate
For those who seem to disdain the “railroad engineer” tag, I personally read two things into it.
1. He may have two PhDs a Masters and a Bachelors, but none of them are directly applicable to the “science” of global warming. I have a degree in Geology, a Masters in Environmental Technology and a PhD in Environmental Engineering looking specifically at Urban Air pollution. The latter two are from a world top ten university. However (perhaps because of this), I freely recognise that such qualifications are not sufficient to qualify me to follow a professional role in Gloal Climatology.
2. And more to the point, Nevertheless, the IPCC needs a railroad engineer to ensure that certain political views are railroaded through the process.
Just a small niggle. The chart makes it look as if the warmest year was 2006 but I’m sure that’s not right. Does it need a correction?
(I showed it to the wife. We agree over most things but she sides with the alarmist scientists, probably because of the kids. I try to point out that it’s all just brainwashing but so far she and I agree to disagree to keep the peace. Glad for this place for moral support and good information to combat the rubbish the scientists keep putting out.)
– – – – – – – – – – –
John Finn,
Thank you for a working definition of the ‘lukewarmer’ position from a lukewarmer.
Epistemologically, would you say the position is a conceptual integration of reasonably verified observations into a theory to explain them or is it a prediction of a thesis yet to be verified by observation? Or is that question falsely dichotomous and there is a third description epistemologically that applies to what the ‘lukewarmer’ position is?
I have been critical of the basis of the lukewarmer position in the past because to me it looks derivative from the alarming position and not a position indistinguishable in itself.
John
I note that John Finn has still not produced his specific definition of the line-in-the-sand, where AGW is falsified.
I am totally willing to accept testable, empirical evidence of AGW. The problem is thatno such measurable evidence exists. As a scientific skeptic, I cannot accept a baseless conjecture, which has no verifiable, measurable supporting evidence. We need evidence. Who is to say that the AGW conjecture is not just a giant, grant-fed head fake? Without any quantifiable, verifiable scientific evidence — and with the $Billions at stake — students of human nature should ask themselves that question. Where are the measurements? Where is the testable, falsifiable scientific evidence?
AGW may well exist. But if it does, it is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. And as such, why should taxpayers pay another dollar to promote such an evidence-free scare?
A taxonomy of climateers:
Alarmist: Predicts increasing global temperatures, predicts catastrophic results, and demands action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Lukewarmer: Predicts increasing global temperatures, predicts few adverse results, recommends mitigating action.
Skeptic: Makes no predictions, opposes preventative and mitigating action.
The key to the Skeptic position is that climate systems are too complex to be modeled; we cannot base trillion-dollar policies on so vague a science. However, several self-proclaimed skeptics are not afraid to predict constant or cooler global temperatures. This implies an irrational belief in certain types of climate models.
Not only has there been no warming for 17 years , but during the last 10 years the trend is negative or cooling
M’Lord, if you think the alarmists are relaxing, you are wrong. At least the alarmist’s in Norway.
They are at it 100%. Just look here; Polar Ice 80% GONE;
http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fklimatrusselen%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10100913&act=url
Personally, I found the double entendre in the headline amusing. After all, Pachauri is a railroad engineer and he has engineered the IPCC’s railroading of climate science.
The Australian already has a new article re Pachauri’s admission. it’s behind a paywall, and has “ethics” prof Clive Hamilton attacking CAGW “denial”:
23 Feb: Australian: Graham Lloyd: Science to ‘win’ on climate
A PAUSE in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office and NASA climate scientist James Hanson, was temporary and science would win out over climate change denial, public ethics professor Clive Hamilton said yesterday.
Professor Hamilton’s comments follow acknowledgement by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri of the British Met Office’s downward revision of its forecast global temperature average to 2017…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/science-to-win-on-climate/story-fn59niix-1226583866039
During cooling phases in global climate ,the presence of El Nino’s may raise global temperature temporairly, but if the overall trend of the ocean SST is cooling , the global temperature anomalies could continue to drop like they did in the period 1880-1910 when 4-5 El Nino’s could not warm the climate trend from cooling to warming .
Tom G(ologist), this is NOT about raising taxes or grabbing money. This is about setting the world up for massive population reduction “by natural causes.” This nightmare will not go away because it is nothing but a sham – “keep your eyes on my right hand, don’t notice what my left hand is doing.” By pushing for “green” energy, they are taking away the ability of a population to survive the potentiality of an onsetting ice age. Cut down on the food supply – biomass production – and move to unstable energy sources to supply “heat” in the worsening winters, will happily cause the deaths of millions, probably billions of people. Population reduction is the driving force, not money. Most of the wealth is already concentrated into a very small number of families, so forget about the money grab, that’s all part of the “watch my right hand” in this playing out scenario. It’s the left hand, regulations driving the energy production capabilities down to the minimum and sustained by sources that will fail, that we really need to consider. This isn’t anything other that an “in your face” population reduction scheme, and the sooner people start to realize it, the better are their chances of breaking it before it kills them off.
@Patrick Guinness
Do the same as before, http://www.google.com.au, Science to ‘win’ on climate , – full article