New Climate Assessment Suggests No Dangerous Warming

by Vijay Jayaraj

At a time when nearly every nation on earth has signed onto a treaty to fight allegedly dangerous manmade global warming, it is not common for governments to challenge the dominant narrative. But the Indian government—although a signatory to the Paris Agreement—has done just that.

That is significant because India is one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels and among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for warming.

With 1.3 billion people—a sixth of the world’s population—India plays an important role in determining the future of the Paris Agreement. Climate alarmists trusted the country to be on board in efforts to tackle “dangerous global warming.”

But in its first-ever climate assessment report, the government of India has raised quite a few eyebrows by including data that don’t fit the doomsday narrative.

The much-awaited report, titled “Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian Region,” prepared by the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), includes data and graphs that point to a lack of warming in the Indian subcontinent.

Among them are two interesting climate patterns: (1) India’s annual average land surface air temperature anomalies, and (2) temperature reconstructions in the Himalayan foothills, an area widely believed to be especially endangered by climate change.

Surface Air Temperature: India is currently cooler than the 1950s!

Indian annual average land surface air temperature (near-surface temperature) anomalies reveal that the climate during the last two decades has been no warmer than in the period between 1950 and 1970.

The analysis included data from some of the most important data sources for temperatures, including the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (where I earned my graduate degree in environmental sciences).

The data from the Indian Meteorological Department, India’s oldest and official met department, reveal that India was actually less warm between 2010 and 2015 than it was during the 1950s.

Further, it reveals that the 1950s were as warm as the present. This is despite much lower atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels—increase in which is alleged to be the main cause behind global warming—in the 1950s compared to now. 

Fig. 1: Indian annual average land surface air temperature anomalies between 1950 and 2015 (based on 1981–2010 average)

The mean temperature anomalies show no significant rise in annual mean temperature from 1951 to 2015 (Fig. 1). Instead, a significant cooling trend occurred between 1950 and the early 1970s, followed by warming until the late 2000s. Warming did not continue after 2009.

Somewhat inconsistently, the report further finds (Fig. 2) that there was only a minor increase (0.15° C) in annual mean temperatures from 1986 to 2015.

Fig. 2: Time-series of all India averaged annual mean (TAVE), maximum (TMAX), and minimum (TMIN) surface air temperatures between 1951 and 2015. Recent changes are computed based on linear trends (dashed red line) over the 30-year period 1986–2015.

The “Make It Obvious” Graph: Sikkim’s Lack of Warming

Sikkim is an Indian state that sits on the Himalayan mountain ranges. Climate alarmists have often argued that the Himalayan region is highly susceptible to dangerous warming. Data the report offers from Sikkim challenge that.

While climate reconstructions for late summer temperatures in Sikkim (Fig. 3) show slightly over 1° C of warming from 1850 to 2008, they also show a “slight cooling trend [about 0.2° C] since 1705,” pronounced cooling (nearly 2°C) after the late 1960s, and the highest temperatures around 1825.

Fig. 3: Reconstructed late-summer temperature of Sikkim, India, between 1705 and 2008.

Sikkim, of course, is a small area on the outer fringes of India, so we cannot infer from its trends to the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world. But the report’s inclusion of that information may signal that the Indian government is ready and willing to challenge the dominant narrative.

Most of the hype surrounding a warming India becomes meaningless unless one limits the analysis to the last 3 decades. In addition, in light of India’s rapid economic development since the 1980s and the associated impact of Urban Heat Island effect on thermometers, it is likely that there has been no dangerous increase in overall, as distinct from urban, temperatures.

India’s assessment report has made one thing clear: India as a whole has not experienced dangerous warming—not even during the period, since the 1950s, when anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are supposed to have driven dangerous warming for the planet.

Though the report does not explicitly admit the lack of warming, it includes temperature trends that clearly depart from the mainstream narrative that views present temperatures as unprecedented.

Might the nation be preparing to follow America’s example and exit the Paris Agreement? Doing so would free it from obligations to curtail fossil fuel use the fulfillment of which would stunt its economic growth and delay its conquest of poverty.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel O’Bryan
June 25, 2020 6:13 pm

The Indian Government needs to hand that surface temp data set over to the US’s NOAA and their GHCN adjustment bureau to get this obvious inconvenient data error sorted out.

paul courtney
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 26, 2020 10:19 am

Joel: If it’s a warming bias you’re out to confirm, perhaps BEST would be best!

Eric Barnes
Reply to  paul courtney
June 26, 2020 4:17 pm

They temperature data will confess. They have ways of making it talk.

RickWill
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 26, 2020 6:08 pm

Yes the Indian Government needs to get advice from NASA GISS, UK HadCRUT and Oz BoM on establishing world’s best practice temperature data homogenisation.

If they are not getting a rising temperature trend then they are wrong because it does no agree with the climate models. Get it sorted or get vilified by the 97%.

sycomputing
June 25, 2020 6:27 pm

Charles:

Nope, see regardless of veracity, none of Vijay’s work can make any sense because he’s a member of the Cornwall Alliance:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/22/india-confirms-no-increase-in-tropical-cyclones-due-to-climate-change/#comment-3021121

I dunno why you just don’t seem to get it.

Peter Pandemic
Reply to  sycomputing
June 25, 2020 8:08 pm

sycomputing, are you asserting that a scientist must be an atheist materialist? I saw nothing in Vijay’s article but science. Where in the job description does it say a scientist can’t have a religion?

sycomputing
Reply to  Peter Pandemic
June 25, 2020 8:50 pm

Peter:

You read my supporting link and still disagree?

Reply to  sycomputing
June 26, 2020 12:38 am

sycomputing,

Your link led to an ad hominem by Loydo. Is that the best you can do? Or are you, perhaps, Loydo yourself?

Myself, I wouldn’t associate with the Cornwall Alliance, because I am neither a conservative nor a Christian. But they are entitled to their views.

RobHK
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 1:27 am

Irony detector malfunctioning today, Neil?

sycomputing
Reply to  RobHK
June 26, 2020 5:13 am

Irony detector malfunctioning today, Neil?

And finally, congratulations + the gold star trophy go to:

RobHK!!

Rob, it would appear you’re one of the first to actually read AND think about my comment before posting.

Could you say a few words regarding simple irony to the rest of our (non)viewers here?

sycomputing
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 5:23 am

Your link led to an ad hominem by Loydo.

Indeed. It was I that pointed that out in that thread. Right?

Is that the best you can do?

Well for the purpose I used Loydo’s comment in the previous thread now, I’m kind of limited by what he said wouldn’t you agree? Anyway sorry about that – didn’t mean to offend your intellectual sensibilities and such.

Or are you, perhaps, Loydo yourself?

Well . . . no, Neil . . . no, I’m not Loydo myself. At least I don’t THINK so, I mean, it has become an extraordinarily strange world just now with this your comment.

So who knows???

Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 6:55 am

RobHK and sycomputing, I can only confess that my irony detector saw too much Fe and not enough yttrium. I shall re-double my estimates on how many Hail Mary’s are required to avoid global cat-astrophe and extinction of the Fe-line race. It’s worse than we thought!

sycomputing
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 7:24 am

Neil:

I shall re-double my estimates on how many Hail Mary’s are required to avoid of the Fe-line race.

I declare you’re “charged” with completing 26 Hail Mary’s.

That should get to the nucleus of the matter.

🙂

Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 8:37 am

26? You must be a superstring man. I’ll put them in my q.

sycomputing
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 8:52 am

Well in this case more of an atomic number guy . . . you did say Fe didn’t you?

sycomputing
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 26, 2020 8:56 am

“I’ll put them in my q.”

Ah, I just saw what ya did there. Well done, caught me snoozin’!

Take care! 🙂

n.n
Reply to  sycomputing
June 25, 2020 9:01 pm

Everyone has a religion (i.e. moral or its relativistic cousin ethics philosophy). Many are Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic. Does it matter if the religion is handed down by God or mortal gods and goddesses? Does he practice a separation of logical domains, or is he one of the many “secular” faithful who conflate logical domains (e.g. Twilight Fringe)?

sycomputing
Reply to  n.n
June 25, 2020 9:13 pm

n.(on) n.(omen)

Does it matter if the religion is handed down by God or mortal gods and goddesses?

Obviously with Vijay it does matter. He can’t be trusted with anything scientific because of his creationism. The Beautiful People said so.

Once again, my supporting link (meaning, the one that was *already* there):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/22/india-confirms-no-increase-in-tropical-cyclones-due-to-climate-change/#comment-3021121

Alex
Reply to  sycomputing
June 25, 2020 11:15 pm

Hey sycomputing,
the guy is QUOTING the Indian governments report. Do you mean, that because he is religious he can not be trusted to QUOTE correctly?

Climate believer
Reply to  sycomputing
June 26, 2020 12:02 am

To sycomputing

this comment section of WUWT, constructed the way it is, is really not conducive to subtle conversations. So much confusion with who said what to who.

I find it really frustrating.

With all the eggheads that are hanging around here you’d think they could come up with something better than this.
Rant/off

sycomputing
Reply to  Climate believer
June 26, 2020 5:31 am

Climate Believer:

this comment section of WUWT, constructed the way it is, is really not conducive to subtle conversations.

I tried to make it as simple as I could? All one had to do is READ a few lines of text and click once for goodness’ sake.

And some people (finally) got it. You, for instance. Gratz (I guess?)!

exKaliforniaKook
Reply to  sycomputing
June 26, 2020 6:29 pm

Sy,
“Creationism” has a lot of meanings. I checked the Cornwall link. It said Adam and Eve were made in God’s image. You take that to believe He looks both male and female? In fact, most theologians will say the ‘image’ being referred to is a soul – a spiritual component.

Most Christians I know do not believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago – which is what I think you’re alluding to. That concept originated in the 19th century. That isn’t clear in the Cornwall statements that I read.

However, I think your main intent is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, or an attempt to show your superiority. At least in my case, you failed on both counts. Your bigotry toward those who believe differently than you makes you appear much smaller – and your comments as well.

sycomputing
Reply to  exKaliforniaKook
June 26, 2020 7:12 pm

Hi (ex?)Kook:

Wow, you ARE an interesting one . . .

Are you absolutely sure you’ve had time to go all the way through these two threads o’ mine? There’s one here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/25/new-climate-assessment-suggests-no-dangerous-warming/#comment-3023163

And then there’s the one to which you responded with your questions. Would you like to go through the first one above and then get back with me again if you have the same questions? If you still have them afterward, I’ll certainly discuss anything you’d like to discuss then.

Just let me know!

Dazza
Reply to  sycomputing
June 25, 2020 11:14 pm

Here this might help you understand better – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

sycomputing
Reply to  Dazza
June 26, 2020 5:49 am

Thanks Dazza, that’s a “dazzaling” link and I’ll be sure to review it as necessary.

🙂

June 25, 2020 6:34 pm

The Executive Summary section on India starts:
“India’s average temperature has risen by around 0.7°C during 1901–2018. This rise in temperature is largely on account of GHG-induced warming, partially offset by forcing due to anthropogenic aerosols and changes in LULC.

By the end of the twenty-first century, average temperature over India is projected to riseby approximately 4.4°C relative to the recent past (1976–2005 average) (Fig. 1), under the RCP8.5 scenario (see Box 1).”

That is very little different to what is said about global temperatures. And then (from ES):

“Conclusions

Since the middle of the twentieth century, India has witnessed a rise in average temperature; a decrease in monsoon precipitation; a rise in extreme temperature and rainfall events, droughts, and sea levels; and an increase in the intensity of severe cyclones, alongside other changes in the monsoon system. There is compelling scientific evidence that human activities have influenced these changes in regional climate.

Human-induced climate change is expected to continue apace during the twenty-first century. To improve the accuracy of future climate projections, particularly in the context of regional forecasts, it is essential to develop strategic approaches for improving the knowledge of Earth system processes, and to continue enhancing observation systems and climate models.”

How is this different from what the IPCC says?

sycomputing
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2020 7:00 pm

How is this different from what the IPCC says?

Great point, Nick. I don’t see any substantive difference between this:

“To improve the accuracy of future climate projections, particularly in the context of regional forecasts, it is essential to develop strategic approaches for improving the knowledge of Earth system processes, and to continue enhancing observation systems and climate models.”

And this:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774 – https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

Mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2020 8:47 pm

”“India’s average temperature has risen by around 0.7°C during 1901–2018.”

Big deal. 1960 and 2000 was the same temperature. 40 years apart. co2 increased by 100ppm in that time.

”This rise in temperature is largely on account of GHG-induced warming, partially offset by forcing due to anthropogenic aerosols and changes in LULC.”’

Pure speculation and nothing more at the moment.

Mike
Reply to  Mike
June 25, 2020 11:09 pm

Actually 70ppm but whatever….

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 1:24 am

Nick, even if you accept the 0.7 ˚ rise as being not influenced by any changes in thermometer siting or switching from conventional alcohol/mercury to electronic devices or other local facors ( more contrete, buildings, changes to installationes etc, etc) by reaction would still be so what?

There were similar or significantly greater temperature changes over comparable periods in the 19th and 16th centuries as well as say a thousand or two thousand years ago let alone 10,000 years ago post ice age. 0.7˚C in 117 years is just noise and as much depending whether the data starts/finshes on a trough/peak respectively, i.e. confecting the trend to some extent. Projecting global catstrophe onto such numbers is just voodoo, spellcasting and the like, the stuff of life for shamans, ‘witchdoctors’, fearmongering opportunists and the like since time immemorial.

MarkW
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
June 26, 2020 7:08 am

Even if 100% of that 0.7C was caused by CO2, it still wouldn’t be enough to worry about. Especially considering the well known fact that each additional unit of CO2 in the atmosphere has less impact than did the previous ones.

In reality, CO2 probably accounts for less than 10% of that warming.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2020 1:32 pm

“In reality, CO2 probably accounts for less than 10% of that warming.”
In your opinion. Thank you for that. But before others believe you, provide some evidence. Oh wait you can’t. Here’s my evidence you are wrong….
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

Mike
Reply to  Simon
June 26, 2020 7:41 pm

Oh yes! That’s evidence if I ever saw it.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
June 26, 2020 9:46 pm

Mike
I’d call it evidence. Certainly shows correlation. Your turn?

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 1:26 am

Politically necessary boilerplate these days.

It’s the detail, nuances, and reading between the lines that matters – in a era when proper science, fact, and the truth, are implements of career immolation.

If the science and danger of climate change were so real and certain, peer pressure, bullying, ostracism, intimidation, character assassinations, funding denial, ejection, etc. wouldn’t be required to enforce and manufacture a consensus – would they?

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 26, 2020 5:37 am

“Politically necessary boilerplate these days.”

A standard pattern here. It goes like this:

“it is not common for governments to challenge the dominant narrative. But the Indian government—although a signatory to the Paris Agreement—has done just that.”

b-b-but they are just saying the same as everyone else

“Ah yes, but they had to do that, didn’t they.”

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 7:10 am

It really is amazing how one day Nick quotes experts that in his words, prove that CO2 is a danger that is gonna kill millions if not billions.
Then the next day he quotes other experts that prove that CO2 is nothing to worry about.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2020 9:26 am

Climate Science has a whole stable of experts who have said pretty much everything under the sun.
No matter what it is, you can find an expert that supports it.
All you have to do is pretend that the expert you are quoting now, is the only one that matters.

Eric Barnes
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2020 6:40 am

Nick plumbs the depths of dishonesty to support the work of the climate mafia. This site is much better if his threads are ignored.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 7:06 am

So Nick is finally admitting that even the IPCC doesn’t find any dangerous warming.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 2:37 pm

Stokes
The IPCC makes wrong wild guesses of the future global average temperature and claims whatever number they dream up is going to be a “crisis”.

Then gullible people like you believe them.

The past temperature must not be very important to the IPCC, because their predictions are always for a faster rate of warming in the future — scaremongering since 1988.

There are no global temperature data before 1979 using satellites — surface data are infilled, adjusted, readjusted nonsense not fit for real science

But I’m sure YOU love surface temperature data!

Pick any two points in time and the planet will either be warmer or cooler.

So what?

This planet supports more life when it is warmer, and that means warmer is good news.

Consider all the good news — human progress –made during the intermittent warming since the 1690s.

Past warming was good news but continued warming will be bad news?

That belief is for fools, leftists and people named Stokes ( I repeat myself ! )

Grant A. Brown
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 9:56 pm

Nick, you realize, of course, that the RCP8.5 scenario is an utter absurdity, right? If not, let Ross McKitrick explain it to you in his recent article in the Financial Post. Among many other recent criticisms.

meiggs
June 25, 2020 6:39 pm

We made “average” today in S Cackalack, we’d been below thru the solstice.

Probably the end of the world.

Mr.
June 25, 2020 6:40 pm

Would be nice to think this development is a significant step in the unraveling of the climate carpetbaggers religion.

Tom Abbott
June 25, 2020 6:40 pm

From the article: “The data from the Indian Meteorological Department, India’s oldest and official met department, reveal that India was actually less warm between 2010 and 2015 than it was during the 1950s.”

The United States has been in a temperature downtrend since 1934, and that includes all the years of the 21st century.

Other nations should reexamine their own unmodified regional temperature charts and they will find something similar to India, i.e., it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

Then they too can blow off the IPCC and the Paris Climate Agreement and go about their business unburdened by the necessity to build windmills and industrial solar. Just stick with good ole coal, seeing as how CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s climate as evidenced by the unmodified regional temperatue charts.

June 25, 2020 7:01 pm

“Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian Region includes data and graphs that point to a lack of warming in the Indian subcontinent”

The AGW issue has to do with long term trends “since pre-industrial” in global mean temperature. Temperature dynamics for a selected region and a selected time span is not directly relevant either as validation or as refutation of AGW theory because it suffers from what is called data-selection-bias.

Postscript: Sadly, AGW theory itself has committed the same methodological error in selecting only the current warm period to explain while ignoring the other Holocene temperature dynamics described in the document linked below.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/

June 25, 2020 7:02 pm

Just the few words that I read of the book suggest the same thing that all global warming narratives suggest — WARMING. Am I looking at the same book?

The graphs of the data, however, seem to be at odds with the words. The GRAPHS suggest no dangerous warming, while the words seem to suggest the opposite, and that puts the whole report at odds with the truth.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 25, 2020 8:17 pm

“The graphs of the data, however, seem to be at odds with the words.”
In fact Fig 1, with its caption, is misleading, though it is copied directly from the book. Most of the curves shown are not India. IMD and IITM are; the rest is mostly global (APHRO is Asia). I think the intent is to show India tracks with global; that is pretty much true. IMD, but not IITM, show greater warmth from 1950-1970.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 5:27 am

IMD, but not IITM, show greater warmth from 1950-1970.

Not according to the graph in the post.

Robert of Texas
June 25, 2020 8:09 pm

“India’s assessment report has made one thing clear:

India as a whole has not experienced dangerous warming”

And neither has anywhere else in the world. The only dangerous warming is in the mind’s of truly deceitful people or those too ignorant to understand the truth.

DMacKenzie
June 25, 2020 8:54 pm

Just wondering on what instrument they read those temperatures back in 1705…..

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  DMacKenzie
June 25, 2020 11:41 pm

Almost certain they used mercury thermometers – not Pt100 ohm thermometers with wireless digital transfer 🙂

Danny Davis
Reply to  DMacKenzie
June 26, 2020 11:03 pm

Good question! Alcohol thermometer invented by Mr. Gabriel Fahrenheit in 1709.
Not until 1714 did G. Fahrenheit invent the mercury thermometer along with the self-named scale for temperature. His scale was based on 100* as the normal temperature of a human.
Interesting life he had, eh?
Anders Celsius came along many years later (1724) and created a scale with 100* between the freezing and boiling of water at “sea level” and science fell in l0ve…

June 25, 2020 9:42 pm

” … The GRAPHS suggest no dangerous warming, while the words seem to suggest the opposite …”
Standard operating procedure these days. The climate change gabble needs to be there for the time being.

gbaikie
June 25, 2020 9:55 pm

global warming is largely about warming polar region.
Since 1950 Canada warmed for about -5 C to about – 3.5 C
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/Canada

Though berkeley earth also says India warmed by .5 C
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/India

Though I not saying berkeley earth right about India {or any country}
just say significantly less warming will occur in tropics if Earth were to warm.
And roughly it seems to me, that we are still recovering from Little Ice Age.

June 25, 2020 11:19 pm

Agitprop Astroturfing thy name is Stokes

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Darren
June 26, 2020 1:20 am

He got something right the other day. I’m still in shock.

AndyHce
June 25, 2020 11:40 pm

In his post above, June 25, 2020 at 7:01 pm, chaamjamal links to an essay of his on climate warming and cooling cycles, for which he references multiple source studies. While I have read comments and musings, on WUWT, and from a variety of other sources, about various Holocene warming and cooling events, and seen more than a few postings mentioning Bond Events, I never before ran across anything suggesting that the last glacial cycle, following the Eemain , had at least four periods of massive North American ice sheets followed by almost complete ice melting prior to the melting at the beginning of the present Holocene interglacial.

Is such extensive ice melting (and re-glaciation) widely recognized (or massively disputed) to have occurred during the 100,000 years preceding the Holocene?

JoHo
June 26, 2020 1:57 am

What I find confusing is ‘why’, after the scandal of the University of East Anglia debacle, has no one been charged with ‘fixing’ the figures used to calculate the likes of the ‘hockey stick’. This false research has led to governments around the World having to invest billions of Dollars to combat a threat that probably does not exist(?)

About 2017 a number of people were found guilty of ‘fixing’ the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) which was the rate used to calculate lending on mortgages, student loans etc. This would have affected many hundred’s of thousands (if not millions) of people but the sums involved are, surely, small fry compared to the AGW (Climate Emergency) scam.

Why are, for instance, oil and gas companies not challenging these climate alarmists in court where they would be required to produce all their research and be open, for probably the first time, proper scientific scrutiny?

It baffles me!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JoHo
June 26, 2020 3:54 am

“What I find confusing is ‘why’, after the scandal of the University of East Anglia debacle, has no one been charged with ‘fixing’ the figures used to calculate the likes of the ‘hockey stick’. This false research has led to governments around the World having to invest billions of Dollars to combat a threat that probably does not exist(?)”

There is a whole segment of society that is determined to sweep the Hockey Stick chart fraud under the rug for various reasons such as politics, power and money. A Human-caused Climate Change crisis fits right in with their plans and they are not going to give it up easily, and they don’t have to give it up because they have the Mainstream Media on their side, so their side gets all the publicity.

The question is: How long can they keep up this charade when CO2 is rising but the temperatures are not rising, as they predicted?

I think we are already seeing the answer. The general population is not alarmed by CO2. It’s only the politicians and others with a vested interest who are still pushing the Human-caused Climate Change narrative. The Alarmists wonder why the populace is umnoved by their scaremongering. Well, most people look around and don’t see anything scary.

So what do the Alarmists do? Why, they double-down on the scaremongering claiming with their new climate computer models that it is going to be even worse that we thought.

The Alarmists have cried Wolf so much when there is no wolf, that people are ignoring them.

But the politicians are still spending the People’s money on this boondoogle.

AndyHce
Reply to  JoHo
June 26, 2020 8:26 am

“This false research has led to governments around the World having to invest ”

No, not led to — used as an excuse to totally different ends.

angech
June 26, 2020 5:51 am

The Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index will come in at 0.239°C in June, showing a fall of 0.098C in just one month.
Thank you Nick.

Would you care to comment further on your total agreement with the Indians using RCP 8.5 in view of the misinformation spread by these leading global sceptics earlier this year?

Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading
Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.
Zeke Hausfather & Glen P. Peters 29 January 2020
“Finally, we suggest that climate-impact studies using models developed for AR6 should include scenarios that reflect more-plausible outcomes, such as SSP2-4.5, SSP4-6.0 and SSP3-7.0 (see ’Possible futures’). When RCP8.5 or its successor SSP5-8.5 are deployed, they should be clearly labelled as unlikely worst cases rather than as business as usual.”

Or should you let them know they are calamatizing by using the worst case scenario, one the IPCC has more or less dropped?

Al Miller
June 26, 2020 7:19 am

More superpowers saying no to Mann Made Klimate Change narrative. Good, it’s about time we got on with real issues instead of wasting scarce resources on an issue that was invented purely to unravel the western governmental structure.
As to the early commenter there- simple attempts at deflection- no basis for any cause, other than a political cause.

Phil Salmon
June 26, 2020 12:13 pm

For India the patronising clap-trap on climate doom and de-energising economies, sounds too familiar, too recent, too much like European colonialism.

ResourceGuy
June 26, 2020 12:18 pm

India is dealing with a larger scare at the moment that was completely off the radar screen of the agenda runners in international orgs. That should also serve as a warning to countries and citizens about competence and reliability of those diplomat/administrator/fundraisers.

CaryJ
June 29, 2020 6:53 pm

An alternative explanation could be global dimming caused by cloud cover from increased pollution, as covered by PBS years ago: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html
Scroll down to the section about the Indian Ocean to see how it has affected areas around India.

%d bloggers like this: