IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100.

clip_image002

Figure 1. Projected global warming from 1988-2019 on three scenarios (above), and from 1988-2060 on scenario A only (below), based on Hansen (1988), who testified before the U.S. Congress that June that scenario A was his business-as-usual case. The trend from 1988-2050 on that scenario (arrowed) is approximately 0.5 Cº/decade.

clip_image004

IPCC (1990: p. xi) projected warming of 0.2-0.5 Cº/decade to 2100. IPCC (1995: p. 6) projected 0.1-0.35 Cº/decade. IPCC (2001: p. 8) projected 0.13-0.43 Cº/decade to 2050. IPCC (2007: p. 13, table SPM.3) projected 0.11-0.64 Cº/decade to 2100.

clip_image006

Figure 2. Near-term warming projections (2005-2050) relative to 1986-2005, based on 42 models (colors) against observations (black). The second-order draft of IPCC (2013) projected global warming at 0.4-1.0 Cº over 30 years (red arrows), equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade. The final draft projected warming at 0.4-0.7 Cº over 30 years (green arrows), equivalent to just 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade. Diagram based on IPCC (2013, Fig. 11.25a).

The second-order draft of IPCC (2013: fig. 11.33) had projected 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade to 2050. However, the final draft slashed this projection to 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade (Fig. 2), the IPCC’s best guess being closer to the lower than to the upper bound of the revised range.

The projected range in the second-order draft had been consistent with the models, but the revised range in the final draft was at the low end of models’ projections (Fig. 3). Implicitly, the IPCC no longer accepts that models accurately project warming.

The IPCC says:

“Overall, in the absence of major volcanic eruptions – which would cause significant but temporary cooling – and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely (>66% probability) that the GMST [global mean surface temperature] anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005, will be in the range 0.3°C–0.7°C (expert assessment, to one significant figure; medium confidence).” (IPCC, 2013, p. 11-52).

clip_image008

Figure 3. Above: Models’ global warming projections, 2016-2035 vs. 1986-2005, against the IPCC’s projected interval of 0.4-1.0 K over 30 years, equivalent to 0.13-0.33 K decade–1 (between the gray dotted lines, based on IPCC 2013, 2nd draft, fig. 11.33c). Below: Final draft’s revised interval of 0.3-0.7 K over 30 years or 0.10-2.33 K decade–1, visibly at the low end of models’ projections (based on IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25c). This implicit rejection of the models’ forecasting skill has passed unnoticed until now. Reviewers of the second draft were not consulted about the change in the IPCC’s key near-term projections, though many had argued for it.

clip_image010

The IPCC’s explicit reliance on its own “expert assessment” rather than upon the models’ projections is a significant climbdown. However, even its reduced best estimate of 0.13 Cº/decade may still be on the high side. Observed outturn since 1950 has been below 0.11 Cº/decade (HadCRUT4, 2013: Fig. 4).

clip_image012

Figure 4. Global mean surface temperature anomalies and 0.11 Cº/decade least-squares trend, January 1950 to November 2013 (from HadCRUT4 data).

That is not all. Despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for almost 13 years (mean of GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, & UAH temperature data: Fig. 5), or, by satellite measurements, for more than 17 years (RSS, 2013: Fig. 6), and no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties for 18 years (HadCRUT4, 2013: Fig. 7).

clip_image014

Figure 5. Monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) and least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue: mean of GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH data), January 2001 to November 2013, showing no global warming for almost 13 years notwithstanding continuing rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration (gray).

clip_image016

Figure 6. Despite a near-linear increase of 2 μatm/year in CO2 concentration (NOAA, 2013, gray), the least-squares linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies (dark blue) has been zero for 17 years 3 months (207 months).

clip_image018

Figure 7. HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies and trend, February 1996 to November 2013, showing a linear trend entirely within and hence indistinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties.

In the light of the growing divergence between projection and observation, a direct comparison between the IPCC’s now-reduced near-term global warming projections and observed temperature change since 2005 is of value as a performance indicator for the models’ global-warming projections.

Fig. 8 shows such a comparison, based on the downgraded projections in IPCC (2013, fig. 11.25a: see Fig. 2 above). In the nine years since 2005, a divergence of 0.15 Cº has occurred.

clip_image020

Figure 8. Orange region: Models’ projections of global warming, January 2005 to November 2013, on the interval 1.33 [1.0, 2.33] Cº/century (from IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25a). The second draft’s mid-range estimate is the final draft’s high-end estimate; the former low-end estimate is now the central estimate. Thick red trend-line: central projection of 0.12 K warming over the 107-month period, equivalent to 1.33 Cº/century. Gray curve and trend-line: monthly CO2 concentration anomalies (NOAA, 2013) and 18 μatm (198 μatm/century) trend, which caused 0.24 W m–2 forcing (or 0.35 W m–2 including other anthropogenic forcings). Of the 0.21 Cº warming projected to arise from this forcing, almost half was previously committed. Thick bright blue trend-line: Global cooling of 0.03 Cº (0.30 Cº/century: mean of five datasets). Over the period, the models over-predicted global warming by 0.15 Cº (1.6 Cº/century).

Multiple lines of evidence now confirm that the models and consequently the IPCC have overestimated global warming. Yet neither that misconceived organization nor any of its host of unthinking devotees has displayed any remorse. Instead, they persist in maintaining that the warming is temporarily paused, though they cannot really explain why; or they blame particulate aerosols, their get-out-of-jail-free fudge-factor; or they pretend warming is really continuing unabated, saying it has gone into hiding deep in the oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it, or that the Earth-atmosphere system has a fever driven by four atom-bombs’-worth of heat content increase every second.

What they are not prepared to countenance, notwithstanding the real-world, measured evidence, is the growing probability that they and their precious models have so badly misunderstood the climate, or so well understood it and so badly misrepresented it, that global warming is simply not going to occur at anything like any of the exaggerated rates that they had until now so confidently over-predicted.

Do not underestimate the importance of the IPCC’s climbdown, albeit that it is furtive and that there is not a hint of it in the Summary for Policymakers – the only part of the latest assessment that lazy politicians and incurious journalists may ever get around to reading.

clip_image022

Figure 9. Five projections of global warming, 1990-2050, compared with the linear trends on two observed datasets. IPCC projections are mid-range estimates. The trend (green) on the HadCRUt4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies reflects the warming at 0.11 K decade–1 observed since 1950. The trend (dark green) on the RSS satellite data reflects the zero trend that has now persisted for more than 17 years. Both observed trends are extrapolated to 2050.

If anyone ever again tries to tell you The Science Is Settled, as the now-axed Klimate Kommissariat in Australia is still trying to do in its latest taxpayer-funded propaganda sheet, point to Fig. 9 and ask two questions.

First, point to the red zone marked Projections and ask which of the very wide range of official projections The Science has Settled upon.

Secondly, point to the green zone marked Observations and ask why the real climate has so persistently failed to pay any attention to the Settled Science.

Then sit back and listen to the increasingly demoralized and disjointed flannel. As the nonsense runs down, the game is up.

===============================================================

References

GISS, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.

HadCRUT4, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, from www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt.

Hansen, J., I., Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and G. Russell, 1988, Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93 (D8): 9341-9364.

IPCC, 1990, Climate Change – The IPCC Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia, 410 pp.

IPCC, 1995, Climate Change 1995 – The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of WG1 to the Second Assessment Report, J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia.

IPCC, 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.

IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

NCDC, 2013, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013, from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov

/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat.

NOAA, 2013, Monthly mean atmospheric CO2 concentration anomalies, 1958-2013, from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt.

RSS, Inc., 2013, Global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies, 1979-2013, remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt.

UAH, 2013, Satellite MSU monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

I generally tend to trust those recognized to be experts in their field, when they’re talking about their field, at least.
But once these ‘experts’ have been caught out in lie after lie after lie, their credibility in my mind declines markedly.

Thanks, Christopher. Happy New Year to you.
Regards

PaulH

“Unnoticed,” indeed! The IPCC doesn’t seem seem to be aware of modern communications technology. ;->

Billmelater

The point being tha
T they are still expecting an increasing temperature.

Billmelater

Does Christopher think that everything in a draft document should appear in the final report?

Jean Parisot

Did they widen the error bars, or even discuss error and confidence?

Resourceguy

First they air brushed Michael Mann off the A list of experts and predictions and now Hansen, but the money still pulls them like an unseen force.

It’s like a married couple – as time moves along, they see and hear only what they want to. How obvious must the lie be before they will concede…

Billmelater,
Why does it bother you to see temperature trends vs CO2: actual, vs modeled?

Billmelater

It doesn’t bother me, why do you think I am?

Billmelater,
Maybe I was mistaken. You seemed to be bothered.
You also write, “they are still expecting an increasing temperature.”
How about you? Ready to place a small wager? ☺

troe

Let us hope that 2014 brings disinvestment to the worst offenders. We will be working toward that goal.

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
It looks to me like the IPCC is taking a step back every time they have half a chance.
Their GCMs were supposed to be so good that it was worth it to buy ever more powerful computers to run them. Now, not so much.
Happy New Year and thanks for the good work in 2013.

troe

Billmelater. They have been “expecting” rising temps all along. It’s the lack of same that has wrong footed them. That and things like ice in Antartica. Think then write.

Here is an inconvenient truth:
“In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore that long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
UN-IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001. Section 14.2.2.2 page 774

Janice Moore

Hear, hear, Christopher Monckton. Well done! Thank you for the truth-in-science tour de force.
Damned out of their own mouths:
“The IPCC says:

“Overall, … and, assuming … to one significant figure; medium confidence).” (IPCC, 2013, p. 11-52).


Joe and Maria Voter Hear: “blah, blah, blah… medium confidence.”
Maria (disgustedly): What that supposed to mean? Fifty-fifty. Oh, I’m really going to go out there now and do what they say based on that — NOT.
Joe (turns the channel): They must think we’re a bunch of morons.
Bottom line:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
AGW is over.
Finis.
Half the AGW orchestra have left the hall and those wild-eyed few still sitting in the pit are playing a laughably muddled cacophony of JUNK; all they have left to trumpet are disharmonious speculation and bold-faced lies)…… The audience, after laughing at them, has gotten up and left. There are two remaining: that guy who has been sound asleep from the opening movement, and the guy who gave them the loan for the hall rental, and he is looking at his watch… .)
*************************************************************************
(btw: why would anyone bill that intellectual wastrel, “billme…,” (above) at all? — he or she has completely refused to take advantage of any of the tutoring services offered so far.)
@ Billme — that’s okay, kid. It’s on the house.

Mary Wilbur

Thank you, Christopher Monckton, for your excellent work.

Mike from Carson Valley a particularly cold place that could benefit from some warming

Apparently even the IPCC doesn’t take the IPCC seriously either.

oMan

Thanks very much. All good, and Figure 9 is a beautiful distillation of the argument. The Red Arrows of Fear, successively toppling toward the near-horizontal Green Lines of Fact, say it all.

Janice Moore

poor Maria — I made her SOUND like a moron (head shake) — she actually said: “What‘s that …”

Lew Skannen

Happy New Year to you Lord Monckton and thanks for your efforts so far.
Regarding the graphs I think that the easiest solution is for the IPCC to publish a graph in which ‘reality’ is just treated as an outlier and removed from an otherwise luverly graph.

Box of Rocks

Cheer up chap, the game is not over.
They still want your money and for you to live in energy poverty.
They just can’t be honest about it.

Where is the ‘final’ draft of the chapters? Which is this draft? Is this the one made available at the Stockholm WGI meeting in September? Can someone please clarify for those not paying attention.
There was a final draft that still required modification to align it with the SPM that was agreed in Stockholm as discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/
Also released at the time was the list of amendments to align with the agreed SPM (I can’t get to the ‘final’ draft nor this table of amendments right now).
So where was this new range introduced:
“anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005, will be in the range 0.3°C–0.7°C “?
If introduced into the ‘final’ draft circulated at Stockholm then I am surprised that it has only now been picked up.
If introduced after Stockholm, then the question is: was it mentioned in the tabulation of amendments also released there?

Rob

Sneaky…sneaky!!

….answering my own question. It was in the ‘final’ report as circulated at Stockholm (ch 11 p52).
So this appears to be a significant change in the assessment projection that has been missed (?) by everyone until new. Wow.
See p52 here:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf

Now we need to create press releases to MSM and send it as actively as Greenpeace. This is just a good starting point. References must be exact and pointing to original sources. Copyrights must be absolutely clear.
Bashing Hansen might give some pleasure but let’s leave that sandbox play and stick on the facts only. It will be easier to get published if we don’t emphasize that this means game over to the global warming agenda.

davidmhoffer

Oh. So the data does matter after all?
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

We’ve come full circle?

GlynnMhor says at 6:01 pm: I generally tend to trust those recognized to be experts in their field, when they’re talking about their field, at least. But once these ‘experts’ have been caught out in lie after lie after lie, their credibility in my mind declines markedly.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I thought that my earlier Real Science comment is kind of relevant to what you said:
The thing is that it’s not possible to disentangle the politics from the supposed science.
Even way before the global warming scare had gained any noteworthy recognition among scientists and politicos, as in the early ’70s, leftist politicians and leftist scientists were already spewing as desirable the anti-energy and de-industrialization proposals that now masquerade “coincidentally” as the solution to global warming. For example, John Holdren, Obama’s current Science Czar, said way back in 1973 that we must “de-develop the United States… and create a low consumption economy.” It wasn’t global warming that drove Holdren to say that then, but now it’s global warming that supposedly moves Holdren to say exactly the same thing. Truth is that Holdren obviously thought that de-development was the right thing to do for it’s own sake, despite the untold misery and huge reductions in quality of life that such an extreme path would cause. And we have leftist politicians like the senator Tim Wirth in 1993 joining in, saying: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
And today, many leftist warmist pundits continue to insist that even if they are wrong on their theory, that what they propose what would “make the world better anyway.” No. WRONG. Take the absurdly high 83% CO2 cuts mandated in the 2009 cap & trade bill that passed the U.S. House. That bill would have taken an nearly apocalyptic wrecking ball to the economy and civil society. It wouldn’t have made “a better world.” Far from it.
The scientists have been told to lie, starting with lead ipcc author Stephen Schneider in 1989 (“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective]”). Over and over again the warmist scientists have idiotically expressed the view publicly that it’s good to deceive the public in order to advance “the cause.” There is just no way you can say that the “science” advanced by the suspect climate scientists, who have been told point blank that they should not be honest, there is no way that that science can be given ANY credibility. It is corrupted, tainted, worthless. Climate science is a crock. As a matter of fact any poll of the alleged consensus among scientists on climate change needs to exclude (post 1990 vintage) climate scientists because they cannot be considered politically unbiased or impartial.

R. de Haan
Janice Moore

Re: “come full circle” (davidmhoffer) — “going in __(s)” is more likely, heh. Great quote!
****************************************************
In a line: “Climate science is a crock.” (Eric Simpson!) Great post. Thanks for sharing. Once someone is known (here, as you point out, self-declared!) to be a l1ar, one cannot take ANY-thing they say seriously.

Billmelater

troe:. They have been “expecting” rising temps all along. It’s the lack of same that has wrong footed them. That and things like ice in Antartica. Think then write.
Troe, that is what they are expecting. What did you think they wee saying.
I don’t understand your comment about Antarctic ice. Are you extrapolating what is happening in Antarctica to to the rest of them earth? If that is the case, can you also extrapolate what is happening in South Australia (top temp of 50 degrees centigrade) to the rest of the world as well?

Janice Moore

Thanks, R. de Haan, for making sure those of us in this room got that important status bulletin, too. (smile)

Werner Brozek

Typo:
The final draft projected warming at 0.4-0.7 Cº over 30 years (green arrows), equivalent to just 0.10-0.23 Cº/decade.
For the 0.10 to be correct, it has to be 0.3 and not 0.4 as stated higher up.
What does this do to the C in CAGW? Without the C, is there any need for future conferences to cut down CO2 emissions?

Scott Scarborough

Maybe that is why they are now 95% confident over the 90% confidence in the last report. They are more confident of a lower number. I would be to!

Billmelater says:
January 1, 2014 at 8:22 pm …can you also extrapolate what is happening in South Australia (top temp of 50 degrees centigrade) to the rest of the world as well?
– – –
You dirty rotten liar:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/how-well-did-that-50-degree-forecast-work-out-for-the-bom/

Streetcred

Doesn’t the IPCC remind one of the Wherethefukrwee bird of the Central African savannas ? You know, the ‘long-necked’ one that flies in ever diminishing circles until eventually its head disappears into a dark orifice … at which time the plainted cry of ‘thewherethefukrwee’ is heard echoing across the plains.
Apologies in advance but its 2014. 😉

Janice says:
In a line: “Climate science is a crock.” (Eric Simpson!) Great post. Thanks for sharing. Once someone is known (here, as you point out, self-declared!) to be a l1ar, one cannot take ANY-thing they say seriously.
****************************************************
I got a bunch of quotes from these guys saying that they should make things up, such as Schneider saying they should “offer up scary scenarios” and find the balance between effectiveness and honesty. Of course, it implicitly clear that honesty is not effective. I get a sense that the words of Scneider and others has pervaded the body politic among climatologists. Understand that circa 1990 a boatload of cash flowed in to lavishly establish the newly reconfigured field of climatology. And the field of climatology was tasked not with finding out whether CO2 was causing dangerous warming, but with convincing the public of that. That was the mission. Convince the public, not of the truth, but of the “scary scenarios.” Modern climatology was given a public relations / marketing task from it’s ~ 1990 inception, and told to lie. There is no science there. None. It’s wall to wall bs meant to support their public relations mission.
Janice, I think you’re going to be #1 next year when the annual report comes out! Of course, it’s not about quantity, but quality. But your quality never ceases to amuse amaze me. Actually, amaze and amuse!
……………………………………………. …………………… ……………..
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, ex ipcc chair
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
“Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Enironmental Studies, UCSB
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993

john robertson

So when does the IPCC disband?
They have met their mandate, the answer was no.
Now they can slink off before the lynch mobs get angry enough to form.
Another “blinder well played”.

Fantastic post, Christopher, particularly those pointed two questions. Sharing.

Janice Moore

@ Gary Mount (re: 9:15pm, today): WAY — TO — GO! That little punk had that coming.
**************************************************************************
@ Eric Simpson (smile) — thanks. Oh, brother. I am ACTUALLY (lol) going to try (ha, ha, ha) to post LESS this year. Meh, what-EVER, huh? I’ll just post as per usual (with a new power brake booster — hope it works, my mouth engine is a mighty one (an amazing one, heh, heh), Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaa!).
Those are SUPER great quotes! (I kind of remember you supplying them awhile back) And, here they are again, to help us all remember (we hope) where they are if we need them (we could yell, “HEY! ERIC SIMPSON!!!!” at the top of our lungs, but, well, hm):
{Quotes Supplied by Eric Simpson at 9:30pm, today}
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider, lead IPCC author, 1989
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton, ex IPCC chair
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.”
Al Gore
“Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.”
Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
(Thanks again, for all those super-great quotes, Eric Simpson)

Janice Moore

Say, Eric Simpson, just thought of an idea. If you could supply cites for each of those quotes, we WUWTers could copy that list and publish it in whatever venue our pocketbooks will allow (I’d buy an ad in the New York Times and billboards and metro bus ads, if I had the cash!), even if it’s just a newsletter we have access to. Yes, yes, we can research those cites ourselves, too. If you haven’t the time — no problem.

Cora Lynn

garymount
January 1, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Please take your ‘dirty rotten lier’ comment back:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australia-weather-temperatures-set-to-peak-just-shy-of-50-degrees-20140101-306cz.html
Your reference was referring to last year (it has gotten hotter since then).

Eugene WR Gallun

Warmists seem to have split into two unequal groups — the smaller group is trying to walk back previous predictions and the larger group has decided just to tell bigger lies.
Eugene WR Gallun

SAMURAI

How long will good people of conscience allow these leftist loony looters to perpetuate this disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis.
Even As climate sensitity projections continue being “revised” downward (now 1/10th~1/20th of original projections) these scoundrels have the audacity to keep repeating they’re tired and now despicable mantra of “it’s worse than we thought.” TM.
How can revisions of 1/20th of original projections be “worse than we thought” TM? It defies logic, common sense and morality.
Forget moral integrity (that bridge was burned years ago), when will the general scientific community realize that it’s in their own best interests to start speaking out against this hideous CAGW scam as their funding will eventually suffer greatly once the blowback from the CAGW scandal unfolds…

Janice Moore

@ Cora Lynn: “just shy of” makes Billme still a “dirty rotten liar.”

Cora Lynn

Janice Moore says:
Don’t think so. Garymount is less honest to refer to a year old article. Where as Billme was rounding up.

The climate argument between believers and nonbelievers will still be happening when Mankind is wiped out by a very predictable cause.
And the cause will be,,,,,,,,,,, , , ,
Well, maybe this cartoon will give you a clue – – –
http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-205
Cheers
Mick

Clearly the year old article I reference shows hot temperatures have always occurred throughout Australian history. The Antarctic ice is a 30 year trend. I regret my earlier statement, I forgot to add stinkin and scoundrel.

Patrick

“Billmelater says:
January 1, 2014 at 8:22 pm”
There is absolutely nothing unusual happening with regards to temperatures in northern SA, other than the hype the media are applying. And remember, at least one of those highs was recorded at an airport!

Billmelater

Garymount. What is it with you that you have to start abusing people. Scared your arguments aren’t sound enough?