UN panel opens Stockholm meet on global warming
“I’m looking forward to working with you in the next four days to deliberate and approve (this report) line by line,” [Pachauri] said.
More at GlobalPost
From the IPCC press release:
“Our assessment draws on millions of measurements which permit an unprecedented and unbiased view of the state of the Earth System . Millions of billions of bytes of numerical data form the foundation for estimates of possible futures of our climate. We have produced a Summary for Policymakers that presents the findings in the clearest possible manner, a document with no comp romises to scientific accuracy. ” said Thomas Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I.”
IPCC press release – pr_130923_opening_ceremony.pdf
(FYI In the interest of public discourse and scrutiny, I will be posting the full widely “leaked” draft SPM later today, so that there can be comparisons worldwide of what the politicians have morphed it to – Anthony)
===========================================================
The great dilemma for climate science
Andrew Montford writes at Bishop Hill:
I have an article up at the Spectator’s Coffee House blog on that awful dilemma for the IPCC:
It will not be an easy task. However the IPCC chooses to deal with the problem the repercussions are unpleasant. They might try to explain away the warming hiatus in some way: the in-vogue explanation is that the heat that should have been in the atmosphere has escaped, undetected, to the deep oceans.
Evidence to support this idea is, however, scant at best, and going down this route is going to involve the IPCC admitting that there is much about the climate system that is not yet understood. This will be a hard act to carry off while simultaneously claiming that they are certain that mankind caused most of the recent warming.
==============================================================
Delusions of ….something?
Dr. Kerry Emanuel seems to think his job is super important
You could, however, sum its findings up in just four words: “the world is defrosting”. This is how Prof Neville Nicholls of Monash University, Australia, put it. Human impacts, according to a leaked draft of the report, are changing the planet in ways “unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years”.
…“The decisions we make in the next decade or so are decisions that will determine the fate of the planet for thousands of years,” says Prof Kerry Emanuel of MIT in Boston.
…The scenario of acidified, oxygen-starved oceans teeming with jellyfish and almost nothing else is edging from science fiction to climate science fact.
==============================================================
I wonder what the Germans will say about the IPCC report?
With climate change losing importance in Germany as an issue and the Energiewende (transition to renewable energy) turning into a chaos that threatens the country’s economic stability, the Greens, who were polling near 16% earlier in the year, have since lost almost half of their voter base.
==============================================================
Mike Mann’s “Curry derangement syndrome” Tweet
Well, at least he didn’t throw in “#Kochtopus
This is what Dr. Mann is ranting about:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/climate-consensus-skewing-science/story-e6frg6xf-1226724080490
Dr. Curry says pretty much what we all think of Dr. Mann:
We’ll check back on the credibility issue after IPCC AR5 SPM has been released, in the meantime, I’m sure Mike will keep us entertained.
=============================================================
Pure BS from Oxford Professor Myles Allen:
…This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. “We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming,” he said. “Our climate models are robust and working well.”
[Professor Jonathan Bamber of Bristol University] “One recent study found a way to assess sea ice cover in the Arctic over the past 1,600 years. At no point in that time were levels found to be as low as they are today. The current drop is probably the handiwork of human beings.”
Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century | Environment | The Observer
h/t to Tom Nelson
==============================================================
Maslowski “ice free Arctic in 2013”, falsified:
Looks like total and complete desperation from Climate Central. Last throw if the dice kind of stuff. Last gasp saloon. All or nothing at all. Hitler’s bunker.
“…This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. “We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming,” he said. “Our climate models are robust and working well.””
=======
“A propaganda technique…. ……. The use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Home delivery of jumbo popcorn order with case of bottles of Irn Bru expected in next half hour.
How long will it last before a repeat order is required?
“the world is defrosting”.
===
The default setting for this planet is colder…..a lot colder
‘ “Our assessment draws on millions of measurements which permit an unprecedented and unbiased view of the state of the Earth System . Millions of billions of bytes of numerical data form the foundation for estimates of possible futures of our climate.’
Back in the Sixties, we would have asked what this guy was smoking. Today, we simply point out that the statement is “downright childish.” Nothing more can be said. I do give him credit for aping Sagan, but why did he not go to trillions – to be true to Sagan, I guess. He is not in touch with reality. The common office secretary knows that he/she is dealing with billions of bytes daily. The ordinary gamer views billions of bytes as not ready for prime time.
Fantastic job hindcasting arctic sea ice when there is absolutely no data for most of that 1600 year period. You can basically just throw out any number you want and only have to curve-fit the last forty years.
‘Human impacts, according to a leaked draft of the report, are changing the planet in ways “unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years”.’
Notice how they deal in tautologies that sound ominous but are simple definitional truths stating nothing of importance. Of course human impacts are unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years. Humans have had an impact for maybe 70 years. Dimwit.
Jimmy Haigh. says:
September 23, 2013 at 7:38 am
Spot on. They will be throwing “Hail Marys” the whole game.
Let’s see, Michael Mann vs. Judith Curry. We have the explosive, vitriolic, and hostile propagandist for imminent doom going against the cool, rational, and gentle scientist. I just cannot wait to discover who supports Mann in this debate.
@Jimmy Haigh
This will turn into a very nasty last fight. The ‘war on skeptics’ has now been declared. That’s all they have left, because the facts have proved them wrong and deep down they know it’s lost. But the money will buy them more time than that
…unprecedented and unbiased view of the state of the Earth System
said Thomas Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I.
———————————–
(FYI In the interest of public discourse and scrutiny, I will be posting the full widely “leaked” draft SPM later today, so that there can be comparisons worldwide of what the politicians have morphed it to – A.W.)
______________________
That's like a delicious item on a menu posted in the window of a restaurant in the theater district… the opera's over and we're hungry and the line is getting shorter.
mods: Would it be possible to change the ‘?’ to ‘/’ in preceding post?
oops- never mind- still got it wrong- ‘>’
pimf
oops,
…than one might think it will last. It will be years if not another decade.
Could the more-knowledgable among you please take a look at this BBC web page graph and tell me if it’s true. I try to follow the climate debate, but this graph is a new one to me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323
Thanks for your help.
I’m surprised that Mann would introduce integrity and credibility into the conversation. Having none of his own I presume he’s learned of it through 3rd parties or possibly seen it on TV and so I’d need to see his cites regards his sources. This is fully consistent with what I’ve come to expect from Penn State, an institution that seems prepared to stand behind any form of bad behavior from its staff.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley :
It looks like they’ve put the instrument temperature record onto the end of a smoothed trend line which is probably based on proxy measurements which inherently lack the resolution to pick up temperature changes we’ve seen recently.
In other words, it may be accurate at showing what it can, but it doesn’t mean it’s an accurate representation of the situation.
Pure propaganda.
I’m losing patience with these sorts of tricks now.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:43 am
Could the more-knowledgable among you please take a look at this BBC web page graph and tell me if it’s true. I try to follow the climate debate, but this graph is a new one to me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323
Thanks for your help.
________________________________
Think “hockey stick”.
From Reuters:
“One of the hardest issues for the IPCC may be accounting for why temperatures have not risen much this century. “Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common,” in historical climate records, an accompanying 127-page technical summary says.
A combination of natural variations, including a cyclical dip in energy emitted by the sun, and factors such as volcanic eruptions – which send ash into the atmosphere and help block sunlight – have caused the hiatus, it says, predicting a resumption of warming in coming years.”
Yet we were told over and over that the sun had no influence on warming. So how could the sun have now an influence on cooling? Through what newly discovered process? /sarc
Alan, the Hockey Stick was only 1,500 years. I wasn’t aware of this Marcott paper.
JC,
The same idea applies- take Liberal Skeptic’s statement, visualize Mann’s or any or all of the hockey sticks and graft them onto the end of a long time line and compress it to the point of no resolution- et voila…
Big Jim,
The authors themselves said the 20th century part of the reconstruction “was not robust”.
This was not in his thesis so some speculate that perhaps a reviewer suggested they
add that as part of getting it published? This paper has been debunked (parts of it) several times
but I do not have the link handy. Both on WUWT and possible by Steve McIntyre?
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:43 am
That’s the Marcott graph which the author himself said was not correct (not “robust”) in answer to critics (S McIntyre, I think), because his method does not allow periods as short as 50 years to be discerned.
Ghost Jim Cooley
The Graph
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323 is unprecendented for the BBC to show on their news site. Shows no significant warming since 1850? I think they have decided that the AGW is a scam and are doing their best to get out of it. Good on them! The tide is REALLY TURNING now. I doubt that the IPPC will last more than a year or two. I believe that only the real “climate scientists” (who actually knew that it was fraud) fraudsters need to be prosecuted. People like Gore, Cook etc are really just “climate” ignorant bystanders who properly never understood climate etc and should not be pursued. Unfortunately for the fraudsters MSM will now turn against them for one reason only: There is no a fascinating story to be sold to the public about the whole scam since Lord Stern started this whole thing in the 70’s.
With Pachauri announcing that he is not running again for Chairman in 2015, the apparatchik trough dwellers are now battling on two fronts: against the facts and against each other for the top job. Can’t wait for shark week with all that blood in the water.
Should read: There is now a fascinating story to be sold to the public about the whole scam since Lord Stern started this whole thing in the 70′s.
“Evidence to support this idea is, however, scant at best, and going down this route is going to involve the IPCC admitting that there is much about the climate system that is not yet understood.”
The IPCC has repeatedly admitted that. In each report they boast about how much more has been learned about each topic since the previous report. Everyone ignores that they’re also saying that they didn’t know much when they produced the previous authoritative report.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:43 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Marcott paper has been so completely debunked it is sad. The published graphs don’t even match the ones in the thesis itself. It gets worse from there. Search for “Marcott” in the WUWT search box, there were multiple threads shredding the credibility of this paper.
Re The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says: September 23, 2013 at 9:00 am
Re Alan Robertson says: September 23, 2013 at 8:54 am
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:43 am
That’s the Marcott variant of the Hockey Stick, from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/
and reviewed by WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/01/the-marcott-gong-show-before-in-the-unquestioning-press-and-after-the-blogosphere-review-as-told-by-ross-mckitrick/
For a thorough background, use the WUWT search box for “Marcott” and “Shakun”.
The graphs shown on this current BBC news page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504 show NO significant warming since 1880 (not 1850 as I posted before) that’s for land, ocean, or both. If someone can see any type of trend please advise! What is surprising is that mainstream BBC News has decided to show it.
From the IPCC press release: ““Our assessment draws on millions of measurements which permit an unprecedented and unbiased view of the state of the Earth System…
which they do not understand, no one does at present.
Evidence to support this idea is, however, scant at best, and going down this route is going to “involve the IPCC admitting that there is much about the climate system that is not yet understood. This will be a hard act to carry off while simultaneously claiming that they are certain that mankind caused most of the recent warming.”
Where is warms up some deep water at the rate of a few hundreths of a degree a year……and will be gradually dispersed in the surrounding waters and become even harder to find and measure…… until it is completely unnoticeable or measurable
This new theory should be embraced.
Regarding the Bishop’s article, may I explain that empirical research must replace the “radiation-only” theory of warming; that is, it must if Trenberth’s idea of heat sequestered in the deep oceans makes sense. Whether or not there is evidence to support Trenberth’s idea, the idea itself violates the fundamental assumption of all Alarmists, namely, that climate science is correct to use a “radiation-only” theory of warming. If the oceans can sequester significant amounts of heat that would otherwise have warmed Earth and prevented “the pause,” the next questions are “how much” and “how long?: Those are empirical questions that must be investigated in the deep oceans and independently of Earth’s radiation balance. Specifically, Trenberth must find mechanisms in the oceans that are characteristic of the oceans but not caused by changes in temperature or radiation at the ocean’s surface. Otherwise, Trenberth would be arguing that radiation or heat forces its way into the deep oceans and does so as a linear function of what impinges the surface. However, if mechanisms in the oceans can sequester heat for decades or centuries then the “radiation-only” account is not just deeply flawed but false. Research must turn to empirical work on Trenberth’s ocean mechanisms and the plethora of empirical phenomena that together determine Earth’s temperature. That work could be relatively complete in a century. Computer models will be helpful in this research but unnecessary.
‘, a document with no comp romises to scientific accuracy’
you have to see if that is exact copy its both hilarious to make such a basic mistake and quite poignant given their claim of ‘accuracy’
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:43 am
Shaun Marcott is/was a grad student who got duped by his ‘advisors’ (members of the ‘Real Climate’ hockey team) into publishing a Climastrology paper so bad Steve McIntyre blew it out of the water before the ink was dry. Marcott was ultimately forced to retract the main assertion of the paper (that it validated Michael Mann’s hockey stick), and only herculean efforts of ‘the Team’ prevented the paper from being retracted. The wonky data splicing and bizarre statistical analysis (that produce yet another hockey stick temperature reconstruction from garbage) was so suspiciously reminiscent of Michael Mann’s work, there’s been speculation that Mann ‘assisted’ with this paper. You can read all about it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Marcott
If the IPCC is rolling out the Marcott graph in preparation for AR5, it indicates ‘they got nuthin’.
Just saw Andrew Montford on the BBC News – nice one.
He is on again on the Ten O’Clock News (unless the piece is pulled) – try to watch it.
Wise words from Dr. Curry:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/climate-consensus-skewing-science/story-e6frg6xf-1226724080490
KNR, I was going to point that out too.
I’m sure they would like to add they are making no compromises to truth and integrity either. LOL
Millions of billions of carefully adjusted measurements.
Stolen comment: “Global Warming is what the Earth does between Ice Ages.”
…This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. “We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming,” he said. “Our climate models are robust and working well.”
Hey, looks like they really know that game is up.
This may all come apart a lot quicker than I thought.
The BBC just did a piece on the upcoming IPCC report. It was quite well balanced with a nice bit of input from Bishop Hill.
‘virtually certain’, ‘very likely’, ‘likely’ etcetera and the very careful definitions that are attached to them, are an excellent way of communicating the uncertainties.’ I’m “virtually certain” you’re “very likely” a fool but you are entitled to the remaining uncertainty to assuage your ego.
JC, the Marcott Hockey-Stick has been commented on extensively at Climate Audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/
That is, I think, the first of over half a dozen posts covering this attempt at a hockey stick. I doubt if Shukman, Harrabin, or McGrath, at the BBC has even read, much less attempted to understand, any of them.
My one line summary:
You wouldn’t buy a second hand car that was made from two insurance-write offs welded into one vehicle, and nor should you buy ‘scientific data’ that has been treated the same way.
Me as a Stockholmer happened to attend ANOTHER seminar this day, held in the same building. as by the IPCC thing but wasn’t let in (wasn’t too interested, like being an atheist going to a religious ceremony). They had two lines, for “delegates” and one for pre-registered “media” (nothing for concerned public). Managed to grab a copy of their folder, containing nothing about their proceedings – but eg a PR sheet about the new ABBA museum: Hear:
I don’t wanna talk
About things we’ve gone through
Though it’s hurting me
Now it’s history
I’ve played all my cards
And that’s what you’ve done too
Nothing more to say
No more ace to play
The winner takes it all
The loser’s standing small
The “loser” is the IPCC as far as I know. Nothing more to say. No more ace to play. The winner takes it all. The loser’s standing small.
–Ahrvid
the Marcott Hockey-Stick has been commented on extensively at Climate Audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/
also known as the Marcott-Shakun-Mix method. 😉 No, really. I don’t see why Marcott is the only author to get the “credit”.
Eliza says about BBC graphs: “http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504 show NO significant warming since 1880 … If someone can see any type of trend please advise!”
That is a “trend” graph, that is, a first-derivative graph. Any points above y=0 shows a positive trend. It’s quite a good graph, but not what the public is used to.
‘Millions of billions of bytes of numerical data”
That would make it at least 2 petabytes. I find that very hard to believe.
If I can get this to work (I’m not too comfortable with Flickr yet) some pics from the IPCC meeting in Stockholm. It so happened that I by pure coincidence was going to ANOTHER meeting in the same building, The yearly meeting of the semi-government organization Vetenskap & Allmänhet (Science & Public) and I’ve been attending their meetings for years. They are reasonably interesting, I met some nice old friends there and they treat you with some light food and wine… Anyway, after I had registered for it, I only learned during the weekend before that IPCC would be in the same building.
In a break during my meeting I went up a pair of stairs and around a corner to check out the IPCC. I thought the place would be more or less under siege. It wasn’t. The unimpressive entrance was rather desolate:
file://localhost/C:/Users/Ahrvid/Desktop/Bluetooth/Bilder/IPCC/Photo034_3.jpg
The place was the Munchenbryggeriet (The Munich Brewery) which hasn’t been used for beer manufacturing for a long time, but is now a medium-level conference site a bit off (maybe 2 miles away) from downtown Stockholm. This was the door:
file://localhost/C:/Users/Ahrvid/Desktop/Bluetooth/Bilder/IPCC/Photo036_3.jpg
There weren’t many people around. Having such a less than top level site may be seen as a fall from grace of the IPCC. I went in to the reception area. Some lonely people stood around. It looked like, well, I don’t know – the reception for a high school exhibition perhaps:
file://localhost/C:/Users/Ahrvid/Desktop/Bluetooth/Bilder/IPCC/Photo035_3.jpg
Well, I didn’t go further. I saw signs for two lines: delegates and media. Nothing for the concerned public. I was there for another meeting – maybe I could have talked my way further in, but I had to go back to my real meeting with Science & Public. I was rather satisfied with documenting the not too impressive surroundings of the Biggest Science Hype and Now Slip of the Last Decades.
I grabbed a copy of the IPCC welcome folder, which had nothing about science (doubt they had much more science elsewhere), but PR stuff about Stockholm tourist sights. Including the new ABBA museum, here shown on top of the IPCC folder:
file://localhost/C:/Users/Ahrvid/Desktop/Bluetooth/Bilder/IPCC/Photo002_5.jpg
Twist your head, like the IPCC tries to twist things around. Some lines from ABBA seems fitting:
Nothing more to say
No more ace to play
The winner takes it all
The loser standing small
–Ahrvid
Ps. The Science & Public meeting was attended by one government minister, one former minister, a parliament education committee chairman and one of two leaders of the Environmentalist Party. It felt much hotter than the IPCC thing…
Hm, as said, I’m not comfortable with how Flickr works. It seems my attempt gave links pointing to my local disk – which is no good at all. Here’s (I hope) all the pictures as a “set” viewable on the net:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/101505368@N08/sets/72157635817095953
I local visits the IPCC in Stockholm.
I hope it works better. Descriptions as in my previous posting.
–Ahrvid
The decisions that “we”–the West–make won’t do much if anything. It’s the decisions that the East (India and China) makes that matter. And those countries have already turned thumbs down on energy austerity.
Maybe off topic but I noticed a curious thing today.
Today TWC said that the record high for my little spot on the globe was 93*F set in 2010.
I checked the NWS site and it agreed.
In 2007 the NWS said it was 91*F set in 1945.
OK. Toward the end of “the hottest decade on record” a new record for September 23rd was set.
I then checked what the NWS said in April of 2012.
The record high for Columbus Ohio in April of 2012 was 90*F set in 1941 and tied in 1945 and in 1961.
“Hmmm…”, I thought. I’m not a scientist but it seems to me that if the record high was really set in 2010 then it should have shown up on the April 2012 list I copied from the NWS website.
I can’t tell you how relieved I was to discover that not 3 months later, in July of 2012, that the record was “adjusted” just in time to fit in with the IPCC’s hottest decade on record.
Of course, I’m just a layman so I still have a question or two lingering in the back of my mind.
For instance, “Who re-read the thermometer back in 1941 and in 1945 (twice) and in 1961 and in 2012 (twice)? And why did they decide to lower it 1*F in 1945?” “Why did they raise it to 93*F in 2010?”
Maybe someone out there has the answer.
Anyone? Anyone?
Good one! Consider that re-stolen.
Better yet, in honor of the Socialist leftists that are too stupid to understand the phrase, let’s call it redistributed. 🙂
“The scenario of acidified, oxygen-starved oceans teeming with jellyfish and almost nothing else is edging from science fiction to climate science fact.”
AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!
Jellyfish!
We’re doomed!
(Overfishing has nothing to do with anything. It’s all climate.)
How about WUWT mentioned in Pravda in an article by Gary Novak: The Contrivance of Global Warming?
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/23-09-2013/125729-global_warming-0/
“In 2010, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts reviewed temperature data and concluded, “1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. 2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. 3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. 4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming. etc.” (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html).
This study was prompted by numerous critics around the world showing that temperature data for their area was being altered to lower earlier readings and show an increase, while raw data was showing no increase (http://nov79.com/gbwm/temm.html#tmg).”
More than ten years ago, I attempted in several articles to inject some common sense into the insanity of alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming – mass hysteria incited at that time to support the now-defunct (and always idiotic) Kyoto Protocol.
Since then, global warming alarmism has grown into a huge bloated fear-mongering industry, and a trillion dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on the global warming boogeyman and nonsensical green energy schemes.
So my (our) articles had no effect on the global warming industry juggernaut. They only serve now as evidence of what we knew, with confidence, more than a decade ago.
M co-authors, Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and I said, in part:
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Since then there has been no net global warming, and perhaps some mild cooling. Score one for us, and zero for the global warming alarmists (aka “warmists”).
We also predicted the current debacle in so-called “green energy”, which is certainly not green and does not supply much (if any) useful net energy. We said:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
The Europeans freezing in their homes due to bloated energy prices would definitely score two for us, and zero for the warmists.
Our above statements were infinitely more accurate than the predictions (aka “projections”) of the warmists. Paradoxically, the warmists have been paid a trillion dollars for their scam, and we skeptics have been labeled “deniers” and have been subjected to intimidation, vilification, and threats and real acts of violence.
Earth stopped warming about 17 years ago. I wish I could claim some credit for that, but it would require the hubris of a warmist, and I am not that sort of mann.
For years, we tried to respectfully put forward our reasoned scientific arguments, failing to adequately recognize that we were dealing with a primarily social, rather than a scientific phenomenon.
I’ve studied the phony global warming crisis since about 1985, and I’ve concluded that, in the words of comedian Ron White:
“You can’t fix stupid. Stupid is forever.”
You also cannot fix deceit, lies and corruption.
“Like Stupid – Deceit, Lies and Corruption are forever.”
However, you CAN ridicule warmist idiocy, and ridicule is perhaps our society’s most effective weapon in this dysfunctional debate between scientific reason and global warming profiteering.
Witness an excerpt from the above post, published on 23Sept2013 by Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:
“I have an article up at the Spectator’s Coffee House blog on that awful dilemma for the IPCC:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/climatologys-great-dilemma/
It will not be an easy task. However the IPCC chooses to deal with the problem the repercussions are unpleasant. They might try to explain away the warming hiatus in some way: the in-vogue explanation is that the heat that should have been in the atmosphere has escaped, undetected, to the deep oceans.”
___________
Compare my last sentence below, excerpted from my blog on 20Sept2013, to the above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/uh-oh-its-models-all-the-way-down/#comment-1421787
“They (global warming alarmists) are apparently unaware or ignore the fact that the climate models use fabricated aerosol data to enable their hind-casting, thus enabling the use of high ECS values. Repeating, the aerosol data is fabricated, literally from thin air, to force-fit the models to hindcast. Then the models are claimed to be credible, and are used to forecast catastrophic global warming as atmospheric CO2 increases.
Problem is, despite increasing atmospheric CO2, Earth has not warmed in about 17 years!
But don’t worry, they say, the heat is hiding; stuck in the deep oceans (or somewhere else that the Sun don’t shine).”
___________
Good stuff Andrew, but mine was a bit more scientific, and much funnier. 🙂
I wrote in 2004, with rare candor:
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2004/Aug%207.htm
“I have come to the reluctant conclusion that Kyoto is supported by scoundrels and imbeciles The former are well-informed of the fraudulent IPCC science position and yet promote it, while the latter are taken in by these falsehoods when there is ample public evidence to the contrary.”
This winter, the good people of Europe, freezing in their homes, will wish that more of us had spoken out more forcefully, and had been more effective.
Regards, Allan
It is apparent that the crumbling edifice of the ‘man-made global warming’ hoax continues to unravel apace. Not before time, either.
Given Myles Allen’s version of “spot on” I would love to challenge him to darts or horseshoes. These guys use the “that cloud vaguely looks like a pony” version of testing model fit.