Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.
UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see below.
Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.
=================================================================
For that chapter, please see the PDF of his testimony, here: 22514HearingWitnessTestimonyMoore
=================================================================
UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore adds this comment:
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)
Submitted on 2014/02/27 at 2:53 pm
Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.
For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/
I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7
OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.
If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op
pat, nice refs. TY
““I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.”
This “With the world now experiencing a slowing global warming, ” isn’t English nor intelligible either. “Scientists continue to find the case for the warming hiatus.” is gobbledygook, even if case is changed to “cause”. Newspapers and online media are all useless today. Scientists et al are not much better and often worse.
This part is the worst of all::
Thirteen out of the 14 warmest years on record had been since 2000. “I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.
If that’s an accurate quote the guy is incompetent in communicating accurately to the public. That is simply “illogical”, a non sequitur of the highest order (if he was quoted correctly, which is rare). Can none of these folks ever quote some hard facts, and genuine conclusions from science papers instead of making it up as they go? Apparently not. No wonder the public are so confused.
What is “global warming” defined as?
Roger A. Pielke Sr. dialogue with Gavin Schmidt Oct 2011
RP: Also, if there is large amounts of heat being stored at depth in the ocean, this means that the global annual average surface temperature trend is not sampling this heat. This surface temperature trend would be underestimating global warming.
GS: Response: Semantics: You are redefining ‘global warming’ to something different to what anyone else thinks and then claiming that the standard measure of global warming (as understood by everyone else) is not being properly sampled. […] Words do not mean just what *you* say they mean. – gavin]
RP: The issue of why you persist in retaining the surface temperature trend as the primary metric of global warming is a puzzle to me. We, of course, need surface temperatures for a wide variety of other reasons. However, if significant heat is being transported to deeper depths, I assume you would agree that the surface temperature trend would underestimate global warming and influence the calculaiton of “climate sensitivity”. But let us know if you disagree and why.
GS: [Response: “Climate sensitivity” is classically defined as the change in surface temperature as a response to radiative forcing. It is an equilibrium concept that is almost completely divorced from the flux of heat into the deep ocean. […] Thus, the standard climate sensitivity remains the focus of attention. I would suggest that if you want to change that, you should embark on the steps I gave above rather than simply co-opting language and changing standard definitions. So, to directly answer your question, since surface temperature changes DEFINE global warming, they CANNOT UNDERESTIMATE IT [emphasis by Walter]. If you really mean to say that surface temperature increases don’t tell you much about deep ocean heat content changes, then this is of course true. But in that case I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. – gavin]
RP: Gavin – You write
“surface temperature changes define global warming”.
Here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. Global warming is defined by the accumulation of heat in the units of Joules. Surface temperature changes by itself is not heat.
GS: [Response: I am well aware that temperature is a different quantity than heat, and have no objection to people tracking the accumulation of heat, but ‘global warming’ is simply not defined in this way. This is not a ‘fundamental disagreement’, this is simply you redefining the term ‘global warming’.
For me (and almost anyone else you care to ask) global warming refers to the INCREASE in global surface temperature anomaly. Indeed, ‘warmth’ is not a pure function of Joules – ice and water at 0 deg C have the same ‘warmth’, but very different heat contents.
The very NATURAL definition of WARMING IS in terms of TEMPERATURE; when people say that something has warmed, it means that the temperature HAS RISEN. You would be much more effective at communicating your scientific points if you used words in ways other people were already used to. – gavin]
For the context see this short series of comments start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-2/#comment-216420
Walter,
Let’s back up and take this in slow easy steps. Do I understand what you are saying? I’ve misunderstood you once already, so I think it’s worthwhile to be methodical.
Okay. We are discussing Dr. Moore’s testimony here:
You are objecting to the part in bold, because the evaluations of probability are not in fact based on the models, is that correct?
lee, i must have misunderstood you before, sorry, I’ll take that back.
Here, knock yourself out on australian climate records and means.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/stationdrill.jsp
This is researched and written by working academics, not hacks.
Oct 2013 – “Australia has experienced its hottest September on record, as well as rewriting the records for the hottest 12-month period…”
http://theconversation.com/sweaty-september-smashes-records-with-more-heat-to-come-18649
July 2013 – The more significant records for this period include: Australia’s hottest day on record, hottest week on record, hottest month on record, hottest summer on record, hottest September to June (10 months) on record.
http://theconversation.com/2013-shaping-up-to-be-one-of-australias-hottest-years-on-record-16295
It got even worse post July 2013
3 January 2014, 8.00am AEST 2013 was Australia’s hottest year !!!
http://theconversation.com/2013-was-australias-hottest-year-warm-for-much-of-the-world-21670
Jan 18 2014 – Australia has started 2013 with a record-breaking heat wave that has lasted more than two weeks across many parts of the country. Temperatures have regularly gone above 48°C – Australia has always experienced heat waves, and they are a normal part of most summers. However, the current event affecting much of inland Australia has definitely not been typical. The most significant thing about the recent heat has been its coverage across the continent, and its persistence. It is very unusual to have such widespread extreme temperatures — and have them persist for so long. http://theconversation.com/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628
Dec 2013 – Drought conditions return to Australia’s eastern states
The so-called “Millennium Drought”, which affected much of the Murray-Darling Basin between 2001 and 2009, was of this type, with two severe drought years (2002 and 2006) and the remaining years recording near-to-below-average rainfall. While the individual years in 2002 and 2006 were very dry, it was the failure of recovery during the intervening period which set this event apart from most of the past.
2010 and 2011 were extremely wet years through large parts of Australia, and drought had disappeared from the map of eastern Australia by early 2011.
Over the last 12 months, drought has returned to substantial areas of inland eastern Australia.
http://theconversation.com/drought-conditions-return-to-australias-eastern-states-21149
Now Feb 2014, it is crisis time again. The above isn’t “weather” it is climatic. More than half (?) the localities in Eastern half Australia have been in official drought conditions for 12 of the last 18 years. That is not normal.
$320 million for drought relief – in some places once in 25 years or a century drought? some say it is a only a “normal” once in a decade drought? The latter sounds implausible given the last major drought didn;t break until 2011. One finds “spin” everywhere they go. [short video]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-28/320-million-for-drought-relief/5292174
It doesn’t matter what any climate scientists, the IPCC, nor anyone else says – this IS the reality. Climate Models are irrelevant too. Saying that Australia has always had droughts and heatwaves is equally irrelevant and meaningless.
El Niño events are often associated with drier than normal conditions across eastern and northern Australia. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/
There has NOT been a strong El Nino since 1998 (yes that year!) that would normally relate to such dry, hot continent wide climatic conditions as the last 15 years and most recently becoming even more extreme. What is the prognosis (crystal ball gazing) for when the next strong El Nino does occur? That may well be answered in a year from now.
Meanwhile, Dr. Moore’s comments to the US Senate make no difference to reality either.
Words have no effect upon the Climate.
Walter K. seems to study words produced by Michael Mann and others and then he repeats them with a flourish.
Myself I study people a lot, part of my work, have to judge people rather fast and a lot depends on how good my work comes out.
Seems to me the “tell” on Walter K. is where he goes to the population statistics .
He has the “Billions” problem many of the left have, and seems that is the long term basis for the need for this “redistribution” of the earth by the use of fudged data.
Walter K. does not want to know, he is tied total to the false idea that there are to many humans on the earth, and he will never allow facts, reason, or the truth change his believe system.
Walter,
I’m still mystified. I gather from reading and re-reading your objection that I’ve missed your point. Here’s where my poor critical thinking skills must be messing me up, maybe you can enlighten me.
If I trusted the GCM’s, could I use them to gain insight about the behavior of the climate in the past and to date?
If I trusted the GCM’s, could I use them to gain insight about the future behavior of the climate under specific conditions?
Does it make any difference if I say the computer models were designed to predict the future of climate? Such a statement may well be factually wrong, but in what way is a dispute about what the GCM’s were designed for relevant to the two points I made above?
To summarize the point I am confused about, in one line:
Couldn’t I use a computer model, designed to make projections about the future, to gain insight into past or present behavior?
I think if you could clarify that, I might be able to follow you.
Mark, thx for asking.
“You are objecting to the part in bold, because the evaluations of probability are not in fact based on the models, is that correct?”
Not really. I’ll go slow too. In your specific quotes above, is Moore and his Dyson ref addressing future predictions or not?
Let’s start there.
Mark Bofill says:
February 28, 2014 at 6:13 am
Couldn’t I use a computer model, designed to make projections about the future, to gain insight into past or present behavior?
I am just trying to follow along with the discussion here, but I would answer that question “yes”, if, and only if, the projections about the future turned out to be correct.
Remember, you are saying “to gain insight”.
Thanks Walter.
Here is his Dyson reference:
Yes. The Dyson reference is addressing future predictions.
JohnWho,
Yes, I agree with you. I don’t think the GCM’s are in fact useful for that purpose, but apparently there are those who do, so let’s pretend for the sake of argument I’m one of those people, in order to explore the issue in question.
fobdangerclose, that’s just idle guesswork and presumption on your part. My ref to ‘billions’ was very specific and quite simplistic in relation to Moore’s ref back to 100,000 years to 500 million years ago and the global climate status at that time. Then he was drawing very ‘unscientific’ and illogical conclusions that life was great when it was warmer and promagnon man (or whoever) walked out of the African jungles, and so if it was warmer now then life would be bliss today. Such long bow analogies ignore today’s present real world conditions (population included) and a list of hard facts too many to list on a Tb hard drive. It’s a poor argument because it is not rational nor evidence based. It’s a short-sighted opinion that “feels good” but doesn’t even have an imperfect computer model supporting it. .
Your conclusions and opinions about my beliefs, ideology and thinking are not at all well grounded and premature. I ought to know.
Mark, OK thx.
Your answer was: “Yes. The Dyson reference is addressing future predictions.”
Now, please tell me to what is Moore referring to when he uses the words *** These judgments ***
I’ll leave the fancy html for you to line up anyway you wish.
Walter,
Dr. Moore is referring to this:
He is referring to the judgement that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th centutry.
Actually, to be more precise, he is referring to the confidence level assigned, extremely likely of the idea that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20-th century.
Having gone this far, let’s not trip now. In fact, there are ~two~ phrases that these judgements could refer to.
1 – “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment
2 – these numbers (“extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability) … have been “invented” as a construct … to express “expert judgement”
There may be some semantic difference between these. Is the judgement referred to the evaluation of probability itself or is it the expression of the evaluation of probability that is being referred to? It’s not clear that this matters, but I mention this in good faith, since we are being thorough and going slowly and carefully. Does this matter to your argument?
As of now the Walter K’s of the Climate Change, CO2 danger zone, Redistribution Cult are a rear guard action to save the front line liars from being total over run with facts so total even the base cult voters will see they too are paying to much for gas, electric, taxes, food, ect.
They try to buy time for a new redistribution scheme to come into the msm narrative and save the tax and spend fraud operation.
Misdirection, cloudy papers written to hide all the decline, and the rest of it will continue for a time then the new age scheme’s will be plugged in and played on PBS, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and reviewed glowing terms from Penn State PHD’s of ill repute and all that will be used to change the subject.
Changing the subject is one of the main legs of the fake stool they sit so cult like upon.
albertalad, “I quote: In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.”
People look for and then cherry pick those things that suit them, and when it gets spread far enough to enough people (today’s bogs etc) and for long enough it can easily become the only truth. One news report doesn’t make a true history nor carry all true facts. Journos made as many mistakes back then as now, maybe more. The reliability of multiple readings of thermometers from different locations noted in 1896 relative to today’s system is questionable. Not to discount them out of hand either. In 1896 there were Colonies, and things changed slowly after 1901, to 1910 when “standards” changed in locations and record keeping. The data pre-1910 has not disappeared, there is no conspiracy there to hide anything. But apples need to be compared with apples for statistical purposes. If any old record was used today there would be complaints made about that as being unreliable. The BOM can’t win such nebulous debates. No one can.
The 2014 temp 48.3C at Bourke is above the 45.6C mentioned above. There is only one report of 128F or 53.3C …. others report the max at 118F or 47.7C for several days, an avg over 3 weeks at 112F or 44.4C. The 128F could be a typo, it happens, or it may be right. Jan 22nd report has it at 120F in the shade in Bourke. All very hot for sure.
One puts Bourke as having 66 deaths from heatwave, the 1929 reprint news report, the only one to put the heatwave at 6 weeks and 128F. Others have it by 26th January about 500 people perished all up due to the heat. The heatwave in January lasted 3-4 weeks from south QLD into NSW going south of Sydney and across to central & South Australia, south to melbourne 112F in the City plus Perth SW Western Australia too with Geraldton maxing at 125F one day.
But most places in Jan 1896 were *reportedly* maxing at 105 to 115F or 46C. Many locations only peaked for 3-4 days and went back to normal. There’s far more info than may have been covered by the climate folks.
So YES, overall conditions “appear” quite similar to January 2014, if that’s what you’d like to hear me acknowledge. No problem, done. What conditions were like for the year before and the previous 15 years or after I have no idea. Clearly 1896 was extreme heat in January.
Shouldn’t the real question still be “why” was that so? And wouldn’t that need to be researched with some detailed scientific vigor as opposed to simply saying “it’s been this hot before”?
Obviously CO2 etc gets taken out of that equation, but everything else would be in play until proven otherwise, yes? El Nino, Solar output, planetary movements, failed monsoon, I don’t know myself, but all those “could” have an effect too. I am not sure it even matters now. We have no idea what the temps were in Australia pre-1788 are either. Or Antarctica. See what I mean? Sooner or later one comes up against a wall of an absence of evidence. What is today’s data and evidence, probably it’s more useful with or without the past.
Co-incidentally, the “Greenhouse Effect” was defined by Arrhenius’ in 1896, and in August there was a full solar eclipse too. Weird huh? Will keep things shorter from now on, sorry about that.
fobdangerclose says: February 28, 2014 at 8:11 am
“As of now the Walter K’s ………..”
Feel free to make up any story that you want, but please LEAVE ME OUT out of the fantasies, OK? Not interested. I have had enough of every whacko on every side of this crumby little climate war. Really it’s quite pathetic, all the paranoia, the endless put downs, irrational thinking, lousy communication, and shoving people into to tiny little boxes. I’m over it. When will you be?
http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/i-am-sick-to-death-of-climate-wars.html
Walter K,
Dear Sir,
It being the case you have had enough from every side, it being it is a crumby little climate war, and your “over it” why all the never ending post and rehash of the same data points over and over.
I will never be “over” being lied to by clowns like Michael Mann etal. You go your way I will go mine. It is my considered opinion that it is not about the science but rather about the well planned lies to enable a political agenda. You do what you feel you need to do, after all it is free speech here in the U.S.A..
Walter,
I hardly see how mentioning a heatwave that occurred in the past that is similar to the one experienced recently is cherry-picking. Its staying exactly within the bounds of your topic. Also, its not denying the recent one either, just as I can’t deny the amazing winter we’ve been having in the US.
As for name-calling, I do my share and I apologize for that. However, I’m not sure you’re in a position either to preach on debate ethics, either.
Sorry Walter K for putting words in your mouth. I assumed that was your position since you have expressed great fear that we are all going to fry in the future.
Your overall view seems to be concern that the climate is going to just keep getting hotter and hotter killing off humans but on the other hand you say that Dr. Moore might be right (about most global warming not being caused by humans). So that is confusing, with all that you know, you are still not sure what is going to happen, Dr. Moore has said the same thing, he does no know if its going to get warmer or colder in the future.
Walter K. said…”His (Dr. Moore) opinion overall may be right, but his ‘argument” presented to the Committee was sophistry, rhetoric, opinion and not science.”
That is interesting because Dr. Moore accused the AGW camp of something similar when he said the IPCC’s calls are a ‘judgment not science’…
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see.
No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors. These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate.”
It has been stated by economist Martin Armstrong – armstrongeconomics.com (who has computer engineering training from the RCA institute and built an AI computer model of the whole world’s economy with at least 32,000 variables which internet users will soon be able to directly access and talk to) that 95% of the climate computer models have been wrong, they did not see the temperature going mostly sideways to down since 1998. Armstrong was the chairman of the foundation for the study of cycles, he has a project going on now to build a climate model that he says will be more accurate than anything out there as it will have a different design.
good attack article towards the AGW camp detailing how wrong they have been on many issues…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/26/alarmists-lame-outrage-highlights-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/
Snip…
“This leads one to wonder when the science became “settled.” Was it seven years ago when alarmists claimed global warming would reduce the frequency and severity of Arctic cold fronts reaching the United States, or this winter when they blame an increase in such repeated Arctic cold fronts on global warming? Was it three weeks ago when Time claimed global warming is bringing an end to snowfall, or two weeks ago when every state but Florida had snow on the ground and alarmists blamed it on global warming? Was it in 2007 when alarmists claimed global warming was melting Antarctic ice sheets, or in 2013 when they said global warming is causing record Antarctic ice extent? Was it in 1998 when alarmist computer models predicted dramatic warming during the following 16 years, or today after no such warming has occurred?”
Walter K says:
“People look for and then cherry pick those things that suit them, and when it gets spread far enough to enough people (today’s bogs etc) and for long enough it can easily become the only truth. One news report doesn’t make a true history nor carry all true facts.”
Psychological projection at it’s finest. Walter then carefully cherry picks the following items:
4000 people were killed in the Indian state of Andra Pradesh in 2003 after 27 consecutive days of [warm] temperatures…
In Russia last year, and in western Europe in 2003, “mega-heatwaves”…
More than half of Europe broke the 500-year record twice in the one decade. Both these heatwaves caused tens of thousands of deaths…
record heat settled across 772,204 square miles (2 million square kilometers) in Russia and Eastern Europe. In Moscow, the daytime temperatures reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 degrees Celsius), in Kiev, nights reached 77 F (25 C)…
Heatwaves are also on the increase worldwide…
these were the hottest summers that Europe has experienced for at least 500 years. North America has also experienced several recent heatwaves, with a major heatwave affecting the state of Texas in July 2011…
at least 45,500 flying foxes dead on just one extremely hot day in southeast Queensland, according to our new research…
And so on. But Walter posts zero reports of killing cold, which we all know has been rampant around the world this year. Did Walter completely miss the endless reports of below average cold throughout the U.S., or at the Winter Olympics, or other unusually cold regions recently? Or, is Walter being disingenuous?
Walter’s selective cherry-picking of natural regional temperature fluctuations is fine to support his scary propaganda and his demonization of “carbon”. But the central debate is over global warming, and there hasn’t been much of that for quite a few years now. And Walter, FYI: the planet is currently at the low end of it’s temperature range. It has been much warmer in the past, with no ill effects for the biosphere in general.
Despite his fake veneer of science-y facts, Walter K. has lost the debate here, because real world evidence simply does not support his True Belief. Despite a rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, temperatures have not followed, as predicted incessantly by people like Walter. Planet Earth is simply not doing what Walter believes it should be doing.
So, who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or Walter? Because they cannot both be right.
Mark Bofill says: February 28, 2014 at 7:30 am
Aha, good Mark Bofill. You’re making things much clearer for em now. We’re looking at this item slightly differently, and I so was Dr Moore (i assume – at some risk). I also understand now why I made so little sense to you, and why i didn’t know why.
I need to run along, so I’ll do this all at once, and pray you can follow my thinking here
(it’s ok to disagree about the bottom line – too many issues lurking – I believe I understand precisely why most ‘unbelievers’ reject what the scientists/IPCC say. I do not blame them for that. It’s quite understandable actually. )
I need to cover the whole section from here —————–
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods. ————— [end]
You are applying the “these judgments are based” to the “….” items in the paragraph above only. OK, that’s reasonable, and I can see what that is so.
However, I was going back another paragraph as well, where the “….” are being used by the IPCC and the FULL sentence. To me that is a “judgment” as well in toto. That is there conclusions of their “expert judgement”.
The way I viewed it (rightly or wrongly) is that it was a judgment about the PAST observed warming. And attributing their “judgment” of the “dominant cause” of that.
However as Moore’s opening paragraph says, he is dismissing that out of hand immediately as a given in his view/opinion. [but that’s another story]
To stay on focus, in his last paragraph Moore then switches to using “future climate models” and “cannot predict the future” as being the basis for “these judgements”.
In your perspective, I still do not agree that this can/could apply to either “Extremely likely” nor a “95-100% probability” nor their “expert judgment”.
Nor could it apply to their “expert judgment” of the “dominant cause” for the 20th century observed warming.
I do agree with Moore that confidence levels and probabilities “HAVE been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.”
He cannot have it both ways, imho.
I also take issue with his phrase “almost entirely” which also overstates the reality, in my view.
And to an earlier question you put, yes I get the point about “models used to make forecasts” of future climate scenarios eg GCMs and ESMs can and are useful in determining PAST dynamics and for “testing” their accuracy. But in these cases I suggest that the initial work is don’t on the PAST with efforts to match the “broad” accuracy of the models with real world observations and data over time. That they have to get that right BEFORE them being useful for future modelling. This is my understanding of the process, from memory over the years.
So this passage by Moore really jumps around the place above, and thus ends up being a dog’s breakfast. It just doesn’t follow, one thing after the other logically. It doesn’t actually represent what the modelers themselves say they do and the order they do it, and it doesn’t follow what the IPCC actually does when the teams get together and go through the scientific papers and the evidence either and how they go about making the “judgments”.
At the heart of this is Moore’s initial declaration that: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years…. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”
With that kind of starting point, it makes the rest of it moot anyway. Moore seems to be dissing out of hand all the evidence and physics and more that informs the CS work external to computer models as far back as the 1950s. The computers make life easier and provide more detailed analysis but they are not the primary basis for “actual proof, as it is understood in science” accepted by many even if Moore et al does not.
Pretending this doesn’t exist (as part of the pro-agw arguments) and that everything comes down to “future climate models” alone is simply not accurate. He needs to refute all of it – not cherry pick one log and call it the whole house with gold fittings.
He also uses “minor” (warming) as a planted trigger word, that ignores the theory which makes note of the “rapid geological time-frame” is far more telling than the number itself. The IPCC put it as 1950 and not the last 100 years. and then in the next sentence: “Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record.”
Moore does another bait and switch by changing the phrase “Extremely likely”, with a particular set meaning and intention, into trigger words of “extreme certainty” – which is another thing entirely and is never used like that in a IPCC report. Anyway, it is just plain wrong and inaccurate.
So if Moore has some issues with the “accuracy” of the IPCC reports, he could start getting his own house in order and using the very same language / semantics in the very same way .. and then pull their ideas apart.
In Moore’s own defense however, I see this mixing of words, phrases being convoluted all the time by climate scientists, IPCC representatives, by agw/cc advocates, by journalists, by politicians all the time too. And I dislike it just as much. It causes unnecessary confusion for poor old Joe Public. The subject is complex enough without turning discussions into an alphabet soup daily.
The responsibility for this I can only lay upon the climate science community and the IPCC themselves. The onus has always been on them to be CLEAR, and to educate effectively in a way people could grasp understand. They have not been, and far from it. This is irrespective of the validity of their science. That’s another issue.
End of story, done, and thx Mark. Good stuff, much appreciated.
dbstealey says: February 28, 2014 at 10:12 am
“Psychological projection at it’s finest. Walter then carefully cherry picks the following items:”
That’s not fair, because for year I have shared links to whole materials, even online books, on all kinds of subjects and it my personal preference when possible to include a doc title and some “key text” which shows the reader what is behind the link.
And that’s it. If I wanted to simply cherry pick, I would write an essay, inlcude such “short extracts” as if I was saying it, and present it as the WHOLE bottom line to the story / concept / belief I was pushing.
fact is I am NOT pushing anything …. the links were given in response to another’s comments who was refuting the realty on the ground in Australia …. I knew where to find that info, and quickly pulled together what fell into my lap.
The links are there, there are other links insoide the artciles, there are other artciles on that site, there are links to published academic and science papers ..and anyone can decide for themselves what they make of it.
If there is ANY Psychological projection going on here, I know for a fact that it is me doing it. But it is so predictable like all human psychology is. and especially online forums … a total drag to be honest.
dbstealey , I didn’t read much at all past the above quoted sentence. I got the picture, I know this game. I’m sure your supporters will be entertained by it. Me? I totally don’t care what you believe about me. Make up anything you like. Knock yourself out.
Russ Browne says: February 28, 2014 at 9:41 am
“Sorry Walter K for putting words in your mouth. I assumed that was your position since you have expressed great fear that we are all going to fry in the future.”
That is simply BULLSHIT – stop making false accusations and laying them at my feet – You can shove it.
my confession : i’m having trouble with “Climate Change”
my reasoning : with reports of death by heat or death by cold. It’s all part of the ‘climate’ a word that describes a ‘range’ of temperature and weather events. Due to death being a problem for people (all are affected) then we can try to change it (not recommended other than heating and cooling of your local environment. e.g. your house) by moving or building and if successful then that would be the ‘change’ during and after the climate has happened.
I think that ‘climate change’ is the wrong way to look at it (is it a construct?) because the change (i.e.temps up or down, storms, volcanos, emissions, etc…) is changinig things from an existing ‘climate’ and the change happens, has its affect and all the while in the background the ‘ climate ‘ is basically the same. Have the changes not happened before ? or is it that now plants/animals have grown into a climate and are noticing ‘the climate’.
No matter what we are along for the ride and must adapt .
Even if my neighbor turns up the heat and my house starts getting warmer, to some that might be a benefit to others (maybe those who ride skyrockets) it might not be.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments