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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
We need to understand the real questions and variables in climate. Not focus on just one possibility. Let’s face, it the Holocene has been incredibly ‘even tempered’ compared to other interglacials. Also like you I want to see other energy sources (Thorium?) brought on board. As a chemist, burning the feed stock for many chemical processes makes me cringe.
That’s a point that isn’t made often enough. There are some human activities that we will probably look back on and say: Gawd, how stupid were we to do thus and such. Decimating the genetic diversity of the planet is one big oops, as it looks like genes are a natural resource of enormous value. Decimating the feedstock for organic chemistry by burning it is another one that doesn’t receive nearly enough attention. It would be LOVELY to find a cost-effective alternative to gasoline and fuel oils simply because oil is the cost-effective basis of everything from drugs to plastics, to the point where burning it to heat a house seems really stupid. Sadly, the very highly energetic chemical bonds that make it valuable as a starting point (because it is expensive to create them the hard way, starting from carbon and hydrogen) also give it an enormous energy density and make it a nearly uniquely useful fuel for automotive devices.
But that doesn’t justify creating an artificial global panic to try to keep people from burning oil to serve the “greater good” of preserving a valuable resource for other uses. It might well justify an rational public conversation on the importance of investing in (research into) reasonable alternatives.
rgb
– – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Apparently the rhetoric of yours that I refered to (in my comment Richard Betts) was ‘furtively’ expressed by me.
The subject rhetoric of yours being discussed is your ‘furtive’ / ‘sneaky’ verbiage wrt the change found in the IPCC’s final AR5 document.
John
@ur momisugly Eric Simpson (re: 11:34pm yesterday) — Sounds good! Yes the video, too — I watched that excellent video thanks to YOUR name-link. And, thank you so much for the kind words.
***************************************************
Hi, Gail (congratulations, heh, heh — seriously, YOU always write excellent posts (and they are always on-topic, too, lol), thank you for all your super-great research on behalf of the truth!) — thanks for the wonderful collection of quotes above (and for all the super-great research you share in succeeding posts). That is exactly what we WUWTers need to get the facts out there and to expose the corruption of the climate “scientists.” THANKS!
**************************************************
The Society of Misplaced Thermometers (Stephen Richards, 1:50am today) LOL. And right on about minutes of meetings. Wouldn’t THAT be a great comedy skit!
Hope all is well with you in Pahhh-hrrree. How’s that lemon tree doing? (I will always remember you for your very kind words to me last year — again, thank you.)
*****************************************************************
@ur momisugly Geir (1:55am, today) — Thanks for the insightful report from Norway. Hang in there, buddy!
**************************************************************
“Lies, damned lies and the IPCC.” (Roy UK, 2:53am, today). Good one!
**********************************************************
@ur momisugly Ken Hall — excellent point about what information people rely on when their own money is on the line.
**************************************************
“If Rodin did this with his sculpting the Thinker would be transgendered by now.” (M Courtney 3:57am, today). Applause, applause. (and, yes, C. S. Lewis’s (an author who is ALWAYS a good read), That Hideous Strength is marvelous (wonder if the Cult of Climastrology has a Head (ugh)?).
**************************************************************************
@ur momisugly Richard Courtney — glad you are okay (hope your friend, Sue, is, too).
(muttering to self as I am about to click on “Post Comment,” “… sure hope I got all those end-bolds right…”)
My grandfather told me about this fellow that would come around during dry spells in the late 1800s he was called the rainmaker and tried to collect money to cause it to rain. He was called the rainmaker the people that paid him were called fools you cannot control the weather but if you want to pay feel free. I think this gentle man also sold snake oil its been around for a long long time.
Excellent as usual, except in the final graph “OBSERVATIONS” should be labeled “Linear Projections Based Upon Observations from Through ”, or far shorter “Projections from Observations”. Obviously any date beyond 2013 is a projection not an observation, and should be so stated to avoid giving ammunition to quibbling CAGW advocates.
Oops! Formatting problem. Should have been “from [date] Through [date]”. Sorry.
Decimating the feedstock for organic chemistry by burning it is another one that doesn’t receive nearly enough attention. It would be LOVELY to find a cost-effective alternative to gasoline and fuel oils simply because oil is the cost-effective basis of everything from drugs to plastics, to the point where burning it to heat a house seems really stupid.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Only a religious adherence to the fossil fable allows for depletion anxiety.
Earth is awash in hydrocarbons. Earth produces hydrocarbons continuously via serpentinisation. Bugs have been eating petroleum for billions of years – bugs were eating petroleum before photosynthesis evolved. Petroleum is a “renewable”.
I am the only person to ever mention serpentinisation on this website – ignorance of geochemistry is evidently bliss.
Hydrocarbons from rock for billions of years – serpentinisation and life:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2520656/Did-life-begin-underground-Microbes-MILES-surface-similar-lived-3-5-billion-years-ago.html
Petroleum is abundant and abiotic. It’s time we stopped deceiving ourselves about its origin.
What is the exact source for the claim that Hansen’s Scenario A was his ‘BAU’ case? In his own words:
“ The three scenarios were used to bracket likely possibilities. Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality,” because it assumed rapid exponential growth of GHGs and it included no large volcanic eruptions during the next half century. Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,” specifically GHGs were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. Intermediate scenario B was described as “the most plausible.”
(Hansen et al 2006)
Clearly if three values are used to ‘bracket’ a range, it follows that the the first and last will be at the extremes rather than the most likely, no?
What is the source of the assertion that Hansen predicted a 1C rise every two decades in his 1988 testimony?
As far as I can tell, the paper cited only gives moodel run projections to 2019, and at a rather lower rate than 0.5C/decade. I have been unable to locate the actual testimony, however a press report at the time quoted Hansen saying
“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.”
Now 9F is 5C so Hansen appears to have been predicting a range 1988-2050 of between 0.2 to 0.8C per decade. What is the source for the idea that he actually predicted a single number?
Ah, I’ve located some of Hansen’s testimony (he testified on 4 occasions over a 2 year span, on one occasion he said:-
“These scenarios are designed specifically to cover a very broad range of cases. If I were forced to choose one of these as most plausible, I would say Scenario B. My guess is that the world is now probably following a course that will take it somewhere between A and B”
Khwarizmi says at January 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm, Serpentisation:
I would love this to be true. I don’t know why it isn’t.
But it does seem that it isn’t. Geological surveys that have looked for oil near serpentine or similar marble-like geology have not led to commercial finds.
Maybe biological oil is formed in far more accessible places than inorganic oil? If so, then oil is still running out with current technology.
Maybe the chemistry is wrong and Serpentisation doesn’t happen (I can’t see that but I may be wrong). Seemingly, it isn’t seemingly formed near the surface, though. And why should I doubt empirical evidence?
It does seem like all usable oil is biogenic.
PJ Clarke, you are trying to defend the indefensible. As head of GISS, James Hansen unethically manipulated the temperature record to show lower past temperatures, and higher current temperatures. The result was to show a [false] rapidly increasing rate of global temperatures.
Hansen’s “adjusted” record always went in the same direction: lower past T and higher present T. See here and here and here.
Honesty matters. You need to pick your heroes a little more carefully.
I was waiting for this – we are seeing the white flag being waved by the UN, with a hedge. Of course in 30 years it’s going to warm up, after the cooler period that’s already started that will last another, guess what, 30 years or so. This is the closest thing to a complete face-saving surrender by the UN IPCC. Good job skeptics everywhere around the world for being on the job for all this time pointing out the obvious, dissecting the difficult, and repudiating false claims.
It’ll dawn on the rest of the warmists soon enough that it is solar cycle 24 and a rag-tag barely affiliated minority of true climate realists that kicked their collective arses. Let’s just hope the MSM and US government doesn’t try to continue to buffalo and badger any more about climate change or CAGW. If they do, I am positive my fellow skeptics will keep up the good work.
Let’s just see what they try to pull on us now this year politically as they prepare to fleece us again for something that isn’t and could never be our fault. I’m ready. Are you?
How the hell can anyone still try to portray all this as a crisis?
Khwarizmi says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Thanks for the link and new word. I was aware of the abiotic oil hypothesis which has been discussed here before.
For others, here is a dissertation on the subject: Origin of organic compounds in fluids from ultramafic-hosted hydrothermal vents of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
(I still rather use it for producing feed stock for chemicals and thorium nuclear for energy.)
What’s really staggering is that if the climate hadn’t cooled, the warmists would use this to claim they were right. Many Leftists don’t understand why they would still be wrong even if the temperature had gone up the last 17 years.
Robert Brown says (January 2, 2014 at 8:56 am): [snip]
Lord Monckton and RGB in the same thread, only two days into the new year! What a great start to 2014!
Follow the money.. Simple as that!
Eric Simpson says:
January 1, 2014 at 9:30 pm
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, ex ipcc chair”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I Don’t know about the others but I recognised this as being a “myth” when I spotted it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
“Falsely attributed
In a November 2006 article in Australia’s The Daily Telegraph, journalist Piers Akerman quoted Houghton as saying “UNLESS WE ANNOUNCE DISASTERS, NO ONE WILL LISTEN”, attributing the quotation to his 1994 book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing. This has since been quoted by many sceptics, including Benny Peiser and Christopher Monckton, and is listed at the top of the front page of Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster. However, the quotation does not appear in any edition of Houghton’s book. Houghton has never said any such thing and believes the opposite. The publishers of The Real Global Warming Disaster, The Continuum International Publishing Group, have apologised for the reference to that quotation, confirmed (in addition to Booker’s confirmation) that it will not be repeated, and have agreed to place a corrigendum in any further copies of the book. In an article which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 20 February 2010, Christopher Booker purported to correct the misquotation contained in The Real Global Warming Disaster but this article contained yet further inaccuracies. As a result, Houghton referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC Reference 101959). Following the PCC’s involvement, The Sunday Telegraph published on 15 August 2010 a letter of correction by Houghton stating his true position. An article supportive of Houghton also appears in the 21 May 2010 edition of New Scientist.”
What he actually said was….
“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Says nothing about “announcing” (read forecasting??) – It says “we’ll have to have”.
That is, one will need to happen and NOT that we’ll have to forecast one.
I suspect that (like me) he is fully aware of human nature and realises that “people” generally need a sharp reminder of reality (I don’t mean it will be a reality BTW), in order to bring any problem to forefront of their minds.
Well…a repeat of the “Little Ice Age” during the Maunder Minimum would likely lead to all sorts of global crises! Starvation due to crop collapse, mass migration, perhaps regional wars…
A bit of warming on the other hand? Not so much. Thank you, Lord Monckton, for your hard work and dedication.
David Harrington says:
January 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm
“How the hell can anyone still try to portray all this as a crisis?”
****************************************************************************
First, I absolutely agree … but what they have actually done is to INCREASE the burden on Skeptics to prove that the models are wrong.
For the past five years, Skeptics have been pounding away at the lack of warming (17 years and counting). Even the governments to whom the IPCC reports have reminded the IPCC crowd that this is a significant variance as compared to AGW model predictions. By flattening out their projections slightly, the IPCC is essentially putting the Skeptics in the position that we now won’t be able to “disprove” their models until we have 50 years (to pick a number) or so of data showing no warming. All the while, they will continue to trumpet “man’s impact on global climate change” while negating the argument that there is proof to the contrary. After all, they are not debating the issue, so much as they are driving the propaganda/research funding machine.
For those who understand this stuff, we get the fact that this is a major concession by the IPCC. However, it might serve us well to view this revision as something of a Trojan Horse; it may look good on the surface, but when they start dismissing the 17 year temp plateau as being well within the parameters of their models, it may become problematic.
Billmelater, please learn the difference between climate and weather. You may be illuminated
A good article.
The real issue, now, should be about holding to account those who knowingly misled the public by falsely claiming the 2007 IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report’s message was gold standard climate science … incontrovertible … settled, and about the appalling treatment of sceptic scientists guilty of only doing what real scientists do i.e. diligently searching for the data that contradicts a theory, in this case the IPCC’s mantra … in accordance with the scientific method.
If the IPCC had been a listed corporation, the 2007 climate report would most certainly have been withdrawn by the end of 2010 (following all the many revelations … errors, mistakes, controversies and scandals relating to that report) and the directors would have been charged for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.
Unless a lesson is learnt from what has happened since 2007, with all the lies, half-truths and scientific malfeasance, all this exaggerated global warming alarmist propaganda will continue in order to achieve what activists and politicians have been trying to achieve for decades, international controls on fossil fuel energy use.
“… what they have actually done is to INCREASE the burden on Skeptics to prove that the models are wrong… ” (TX Michaelaal)
Nonsense. The burden of proof has always been and remains on those asserting that human CO2 drives climate. We have nothing to prove. We only point out, day after day after day…, that they have not yet provided ANY evidence for their purely speculative position to prevent their fooling people. We do not do this to disprove them. Reality has done that over and over. We do this to educate the voters to, thereby, prevent the destruction of our economies by the Enviro-profiteers and their stooges in government.
******************************************************
Lest we forget ….
Why We Truth-tellers Must Engage in a
Nonsensical-but-Necessary Battle for Truth
(note the “plant a tree” truism — Con artists always mix in a little truth to get you to swallow their l1es)
Well, ACTUALLY, heh, heh, heh, …. that video turned out to be a great morale booster. You WUWT Science Giants are WINNING! Al “Millions of Degrees” Gore said that over 7 years ago… .
The foes of truth will be forever with us, but they are on defense.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!
TRUTH PREVAILS OVER L1ES — EVERY TIME.
********************************************************************
Time for a little laugh at a fool’s expense:
“Ball of Fire” — “Al Gore” (Paul Shanklin)
After that, you may feel in dire need of a mental cleansing. So, for a refreshing taste of the truth,
Christopher, Lord Monckton! Warrior for Truth
Ah, now, wasn’t that a delight? I could listen to CM’s mind (and that lovely voice) all day. Hm. A good part of the day (smile).
(yes, yes, there are, indeed, likely better video clips; I don’t have ALL DAY!)
#(:))
Down-under, Australia’s Climate Council (including Tim Flannery and Will Steffen) keep making alarmists rubbish announcements. Lord Monckton has made a reply to their latest garbage:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/lord-monckton-to-climate-council-no.html