BBC: “How the oil industry made us doubt climate change”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; The BBC is continuing to push their narrative that opposition to climate change is idealogical, and that scientists who express doubts about extreme climate claims have been corrupted by their political beliefs or by funding from industry.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

By Phoebe Keane
BBC News

As climate change becomes a focus of the US election, energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming. In June, Minnesota’s Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, among others, for launching a “campaign of deception” which deliberately tried to undermine the science supporting global warming. So what’s behind these claims? And what links them to how the tobacco industry tried to dismiss the harms of smoking decades earlier?

To understand what’s happening today, we need to go back nearly 40 years.

Marty Hoffert leaned closer to his computer screen. He couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. It was 1981, and he was working in an area of science considered niche. 

We were just a group of geeks with some great computers,” he says now, recalling that moment.

But his findings were alarming. 

“I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind.”

But he noticed a clash between Exxon’s own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that “currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate”. 

“They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups,” said Hoffert.

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

The article continues on with the usual tired narratives about Exxon, tobacco, industry funding, and the author’s concerns that some scientists have political views the author appears to dislike.

But what I love about Phoebe’s opening statements is how neatly she inadvertently encapsulates all that I believe is wrong with alarmist climate predictions.

“We were just a group of geeks with some great computers”

Untold billions wasted, millions of people needlessly frightened, because of the fearful prognostications of a bunch of geeks playing computer games, geeks who created a set of models which arguably have never demonstrated useful predictive skill.

Only climate science appears to accept the output of broken, poorly performing, error ridden computer models at face value. Everyone else prefers to thoroughly test their computer models before they get excited by the output.

Even the data climate models are based on is questionable, as study after study has demonstrated.

122 thoughts on “BBC: “How the oil industry made us doubt climate change”

  1. You know the BBC is wrong because they are acting as cheerleaders for one outcome over another.

    If the BBC or any media entity for that matter was, as they are suppose to be, impartial, simply reporting facts and questioning hypothesis. There could be no challenge to this point.

    To support a position that opposition to the Man Made Climate Change theory is ideological and support of that theory is not is simply “rooting for your team to win and supporting a disparate use of penalty flags.

    • The BBC is always right. That’s why they don’t allow comments on their website. No comment could be more right than the BBC post, and it would only confuse readers … 🙂

        • CBC in canada is not allowed to have a broadcast without some nod to the “climate emergency”.
          Fully bought and paid for, very ideologically left

          • It all adds to the growing feeling in the west, “We’re not part of this”. If sentiment in British Columbia ever moves that way as well, Canada as Canada is toast.

    • opposition to support for climate change is idealogical …

      Never forget that the BBC’s explicit policy is that the alarmist viewpoint should not be balanced by the skeptical viewpoint. Defund the Beeb.

      • …opposition to climate change is idealogical, and that scientists who express doubts about extreme climate claims have been corrupted by their political beliefs or by funding from industry.”

        Note there is no evidence provided, simply the assurance that failure to believe is heretical! This is the same stunt pulled by faith healers the world over… YE ARE HEEYULLED!!! you shall have no more diabetes, ever! And so the believer wants to show his friends that he’s healed, does a quick blood sugar check, and when he finds it out of range, the healer replies, “But your faith wavered! If you had retained your faith, you would have had no need to check your blood sugar!” And that more than anything proves environmentalism has become a religion, even a cult, where heretics shall be shunned! Cast out! Canceled!

    • The BBC held a secret “training seminar” with climate activists in 2006, during which they agreed to ignore their statutory charter rule of impartiality when reporting on ‘climate change’. The meeting was so secret the BBC even refused FOI requests for a list of attendees or a report of the discussions.

      From that date on, the BBC has not allowed airtime or debate with any scientist if they question the percentage of global warming attributable to humans. Climate change propaganda can be found in virtually all their output and they regularly name call and belittle anyone not agreeing with their climate religion group think.

      https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf

  2. The early, very important problems and the root of all later problems in climate science are: 1) science; and 2) “I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly.” Models are not science and the consensus via modeling is not science. The IPCC approach is to qualify a series of forecasts made by running similar but subtly different models. But there is no substantiating so call proof, they are created and selected as “good” by people, actually an enormous number of people that are hugely vested in the climate science story is doomsday and manmade line. I personally believe climate change is real but like to stand back and question narratives. Just how big is the climate change industry including university departments, international organizations, large political related efforts – congress, lobbying, protesters (including what’s her name… Greta Thunberg who has been very significantly and shamefully manipulated by the climate crowd.

    • Danley,

      It has been mathematically proved that the global climate models are based on the wrong atmospheric dynamical system. They must now explain how they supposedly can obtain the right answer with the wrong equations, let alone with the large continuum errors from excessive dissipation and discontinuous and inaccurate parameterizations. I include the following comment I posted earlier.

      The only way any results from a climate model could be trusted are:

      The continuum errors in both the dynamical and physical equations approximated by the model are smaller than the truncation errors of an accurate (almost convergent) numerical solution.

      Now let us discuss each of these requirements in detail.

      1. All current global climate models are approximating the wrong dynamical system (the hydrostatic system) of equations. This has been mathematically proved in my peer reviewed manuscript that appears in the September issue of the journal Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and in another thread on this site.

      2. The physical equations are approximated by discontinuous parameterizations that have large continuum errors and that violate the necessary requirements that the continuum solution be expandable into a Tayor series. The necessary unrealistically large
      dissipation needed to prevent the model from blowing up due to these discontinuities leads to a large continuum error and destroys the numerical accuracy as shown by the Browning, Hack, and Swarztrauber cited in the above manuscript.

      3. As the requirements for a numerical method to converge to an accurate approximation of the continuum equations are violated, the numerical solution will never be close to the true solution.

        • Philinca,

          My peer reviewed manuscript was reviewed by a well known atmospheric dynamicist and in the end even he agreed with the mathematics that the system in use by climate modelers is wrong. That is just the first of the many serious mistakes that the modelers have made. Using discontinuous forcing (parameterizations) means that the continuum solution is not differentiable
          and that means that the requirements to apply a numerical approximation
          are violated. And the use of excessive dissipation leads to a continuum error that means they are solving a fluid closer to molasses than air.

          Jerry

  3. The oil industry had nothing to do with it. The incessant spewing of lies from EVERY “news” source and leftist politician makes people doubt humans are destroying the climate. Add to that the unending stream of lies spewed forth by “scientists” and of course no sane person believes any of this crap.

    • We have seen that the AGW collaborators that troll this site are totally incapable of providing any evidence at all that shows that human CO2 has cause ANY of the slight but highly beneficial warming since the LIA.

      Its all just suppository nonsense.

      • Another morning low of 30 here in western PA, and the “warming in the 15 day forecast looks quite anemic. Winter be on the way, with a vengeance, just like it always comes around this time of year. Just not this early.

  4. If Hoffert’s model was so great why did they not include it in the article along with a comparison to the reality of the last 40 years?

  5. If Hoffert’s model was so prescient then they would have included its predictions in the article compared to what has actually happened over the last 40 years.

  6. The trouble is that Big Gas (the other face of Big Oil) absolutely loves the climate change narrative. Gas is a low value, hard to handle fuel that is dangerous to have in quantity. Gas does however fit very nicely as a rapid response power backup for unreliable energy. So, if you manage to demonise dirty coal then you have knocked out your major power generation competitor.
    Get idiot politicians to tax us to pay for all of this nonsense so that they can virtue signal how well they are “saving the planet” and what could possibly go wrong? Remember the scene in Braveheart where Robert the Bruce asks his father why they are betraying William Wallace? Backing both sides is a winning strategy for Big Oil.

    • Logic problem Philip. They could have the whole electrical generating field on the basis of having the lowest cost dispatchable power without renewables. Anyway renewables are only a few percent of the power makeup so if they went away, gas would still be preferred.

      Finally, gas producers are not designing and building turbines. The abundance of gas is what it is and power producers buy it because it is cheap in operating AND capital costs. If coal producers want to give the coal away it would be dominant again.

  7. How lack of Climate Change made us doubt Climate Change.
    What is normally quoted as evidence is extreme weather events. However people in their 70’s have seen worse before. Also, these events are usually a one shot deal – you don’t see the same events repeating in the same place at the same time year after year.
    Rain stopped play for two days in a row at an Old Trafford test match is not evidence of climate change.

    • I remember the devastating damage, fifty years ago, when some ten inches of rain fell in one night – normally a year’s rain – and swept through the town and my parents’ shop. The town was in a dry river bed with no recorded history of this kind of flood and none have occurred since. However, journalists and a seventeen year old Swede, that are still wet behind their ears, tell us they know better.

    • So Jackass.

      Shell were wrong, but did manage to heavily promote OIL and Natural Gas over coal…

      There has been no damage due to human caused “climate change”

      And you know you cannot prove there has been.

      You can’t even find any scientific evidence of warming by human released atmospheric CO2.

      In what way has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to caused by human anything.

        • That’s pathetic even from you, jackass.

          Try again… once you crawl out from your green slime sewer.

          In what way has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be caused by human anything.

          • I seem to recall him saying he had a Ph.D. Quite possibly entitled “Studies in the Art of Dodging Simple Questions”.

        • Now Dick Dale would be worth listening to:
          Classic strat through a Fender “Showman” cranked to 11.
          “Let’s Go Tripin” “Miserlou” “Moon Dawg” ….,

          Yeah, I could dig that. I’d even crank up Barney, my faithful B-3 and comp

        • Poor jackass….. refuting the point is at the TOP of the triangle.

          You seem ignorant of even that. !

          You actually missed the triangle completely..

          …. does it have a waste outlet underneath, that you inhabit?

          • Yes, jackass should really try harder, and not be such a sad-sack of s***

            1.. Do YOU have any evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2, Loy??

            2.. In what way has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be caused by human anything.

          • 2.. In what way has the global climate changed …?

            Big up-tick in meaningful, thought-provoking comments by witty, courteous, urbane gentlemen like your good self. Dazzling. Keep up the good work.

          • Thanks, loy,

            …. for confirming that the global climate has NOT CHANGED in any way that is provable caused by humans.

            Thanks also for confirming that there is no evidence of warming by human released CO2.

            You are doing a great job. 🙂

          • I mean, if a scientific giant like you think you are, can’t provide any evidence……

            ……. pretty sure there isn’t any.. wouldn’t you agree 😉

          • Your childish attempt at distraction and evasion are getting quite hilarious.

            If you don’t know what actual science is, no-one can help you.

            poor sad loopy-loy !!

          • Is it just me, or have our trolls given up on trying to actually argue points of fact and logic?

            Seems the best they can do lately is insult, duck and weave.

          • Evidence that the Earth is warmer than the average of the last 10K years would be a good start.

            Pointing out that the earth has warmed up from the coldest period in the last 10000+ years is not impressive.

    • I couldn’t stomach the whole thing, after I saw them “discuss” how the temperature was rising through the 1930’s, then immediately skip over to the 1980’s completely eliminating the 1940’s and 1970’s cooling! As it stands now, no one can find any Anthropogenic Global Warming outside of computer models and Urban Heat Island Effect, and a record of the surface temperature over the last 80± years using only thermometers that are certifiably free from UHI can’t even find any Global Warming! And nobody can find any Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming anywhere!!!

  8. The infiltration of the major resources companies ( including oil companies) by left wing climate activists is extremely comprehensive and widespread whether this is via board and CEO appointments or by activist shareholders. Yet the climate industry seems to continue with the tired narrative that the oil industry is funding campaigns of sceptical scientists.
    The money flows to the alarmists from the resources sector goes almost all in one direction to the alarmists and in Australia the biggest companies ( BHP and RIO) have been firmly ensconced with the green ideology of climate change alarmism. Globally it is also interesting to see how many major private donors to the climate cause have made all or part of their fortune from oil.

  9. The question no one ever asks is, has the climate changed where you live in your lifetime? I’ve lived in western Canada all my life, and I’m 68. The winters are milder than they once were, but the summers are noticeably warmer. Have changes in the climate hurt me in any way? No.

    Of course the alarmists just say, you can’t predict the future from the past. Meaning that sudden, drastic change is on the way, and so far so good is not a reasonable basis for preparation for future events. So they’ve got you. “What if something bad happens?” is all the justification you need to destroy successful energy production now and replace it with strange new production measures that obviously can’t work.

    This argument reminds me of proactive defence measures against earthquakes. I took a Geology course in the seventies, and the professor confidently told us that there would be a catastrophic earthquake in Los Angeles within twenty years. Why would he say that? Well, earthquakes happen. We can’t predict when they will happen, but we can say categorically that they will happen. Why twenty years? Well, it was just a number he said off the top of his head. If he turned out to be wrong, nobody was going to remember or care what he said twenty years ago. That is similar to the level of the science predicting climate change.

    • “The question no one ever asks is, has the climate changed where you live in your lifetime?”

      Hang on, I thought the climate and temperature were the same all over the planet hence climate change?

      The UK? No change really. All sorts of weather in the same day. Average annual temperature still about 9C.

    • Ian
      I question that summers are warmer
      I see steady trend to cooler and wetter here in calgary over last 15 years

      Was pretty hot and dry 82 to late 90s then started to shift
      As to winters, definitely used to be more snow
      But February 2019 set record for consecutive days below -20c, all kinds on broken water mains that spring

      • Hello, Pat. I typed the wrong thing. (I’m elderly) I meant to say that the winters (in Edmonton) are milder but the summers are NOT noticeably warmer. The computer will tell you the second you spell something wrong, but not when you type something stupid. Sigh.

        • The computer will tell you the second you spell something wrong, but not when you type something stupid.

          If they did the climate modellers would be out of a job

  10. The lack of supporting data capable of withstanding honest scientific scrutiny has made me doubt anthropogenic climate change.

    • With the irony, of course, being that if some supporting data does ever emerge from the background, this site will be the first place where you will find it.

      • Poor loopy-loy..

        …. now admitting it doesn’t have a clue what scientific evidence is.

        So funny 🙂

        Un-tampered and smeared, non-UHI temperature data shows that warming only occurs at El Nino events.

        No evidence of any human cause whatsoever.

        1.. Do YOU have any evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2 ?

        2.. In what way has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be caused by human anything.

        STILL waiting……… and laughing at your clownish antics.

      • At a minimum, you would need to provide evidence that anything that has happened in the last 100 years is in any way, shape or form unusual in the last 10,000 years.

        • ….. AND that humans have caused this “unusual”.

          LIA was unusually COLD, and the planet is just a small bump out of that cold anomaly.

  11. The BBC must think ordinary people are stupid and unable to comprehend what climate change is all about. Many of us have lived in very different climate zones, experienced bitter cold and blazing heat, seen floods and droughts, fierce gales and days with no wind. Our views do not depend on what oil companies say or on artificial academic models. Our frame of reference comes from careful empirical observations including those by our parents, grandparents and their parents – sometimes even recorded in meticulously kept journals (sadly an abandoned habit). It comes from seeing fifty years of ludicrous and alarmist predictions by experts working in ivory towers.

    • The British colonists who settled Australia experienced an abrupt climate change of at least +10C, yet most of their farm staples thrived in their new habitat. Some of the new animals like rabbits thrived a little too well.

      Alarmists have never made a convincing argument to explain why 1-2C or even 4-5C warming would make such a difference.

    • Climate Change In My Life

      Born in Utah and raised in western Montana. I lived in the Bitterroot before spotted knapweed. Came to Bozeman for school in 66-hotter, drier summers and colder winters than Hamilton. Lots of my classmates moved to Southeast Asia for a while after school. I never met one of them that preferred that climate but it wasn’t the change of climate that killed several of them. Worked in north east Montana for a while still more extreme heat and cold. Several friends went to work in Iran in the 70s. They complained about the heat and sand storms but got out before the ayatollahs took over. I went to Alaska and worked north of the Brooks Range. That was an extreme climate. Nearly all of the chopper pilots that serviced the pipeline construction had been trained by the army and flown in Vietnam. Every one I ever asked preferred the climate in Toolik to that in Saigon. Back in the Gallatin in the 80s. Not much climate change since school in 1970 – maybe a little less extreme winters and summers. Still several days over 100 in the summer and a half dozen or more below -30 in the winters. It is noticeably milder here now but the precipitation and wind patterns seem mostly the same to me. Everywhere I went there were folks that called it home and would not want to live in Bozeman but I was always glad to return and never noticed much climate change since my previous visit.
      I can not accept that there is a climate emergency based on my experience and have to question any effort aimed at turning the climate back to 1850.

      I submitted this to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle as a letter to the editor but they rejected it.

    • The left has taken over the schools and universities precisely so that they can churn out individuals that are stupid and unable to understand even the most basic of science.

  12. There are no climate computer models.
    They are only computer games.
    They predict whatever their owners want predicted.
    There is no attempt to make accurate predictions.
    The predictions do not get more accurate over time.
    One Russian model seems to make decent predictions by predicting more of the same (mild, harmless global warming) so the mainstream media ignores that model.

    There would have to be a precise climate physics model as the foundation of a real climate model
    No such climate change physics model exists.
    Therfore, no real climate model is possible.

    The assertion that only man made CO2 matters. and natural causes of climate change do not, is an unproven and unbelievable claim. For that to be true, 4.5 billion years of natural causes of climate change would have had to end in the 20th century. Yet no climate alarmist bothers to explain why that would happen, or how that could happen.

    Meanwhile, we are told that, even with very haphazard measurements, the climate was perfect in about 1750, and any change from then is bad news. That’s a theory for morons. People living in 1750 thought the climate was too cold, since about 1650.

  13. The headline:
    “BBC: “How the oil industry made us doubt climate change”

    . . . makes me ask whom the “us” is.

    Sounds as though the “us” claims to have been brainwashed.
    George Romney, running for President, said he had been “brainwashed” by government officials. Big mistake. Smart folks are not supposed to allow their brain to be washed. He soon dropped out of the race.

    How soon can we expect the BBC to close up?

    In case you were wondering, Martin Hoffert is from New York City!

  14. “We were just a group of geeks with some great computers,”

    And that is still all they are. !

    Glorified computer gamers.. nothing more.

  15. ““currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate”. ”

    So, absolutely ZERO progress in climate science.

    Still absolutely zero real evidence.

  16. “Marty Hoffert leaned closer to his computer screen. He couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. It was 1981, and he was working in an area of science considered niche. We were just a group of geeks with some great computers,” he says now, recalling that moment. But his findings were alarming. I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind.”

    In 1981, Marty says they had some great computers. Well, I think Pong and Pac-Man were about the state of the art computer games then, and computing power was a mere fraction of todays computing power compared to my Apple iPhone and watch, and we can’t even really do clouds yet in climate modelling.

    He should of started off his diatribe with “It was a dark and stormy night and Marty leaned closer to his computer screen in horror. He couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing.”

  17. Some 275,000 households in the UK didn’t pay the BBC tax last year resulting in a GBP40million drop in revenue. The UK Govn’t also dropped their OAP (Old Age Pensioner) subsidy too, which was worth about GBP175million annually. The BBC are sacking older, but very well liked presenters, in favour of younger, more diverse and more “woke” ones. There is a strong drive to defund the BBC, decriminalise the license fee and it looks like it will happen sooner than most think.

    • I don’t think you can decriminalise the license fee. It is, and always will be, criminal to charge for the sad sack of [expletive deleted] that the BBC is these days, and had been for decades.

  18. From my file of quotes and smart remarks:

    “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by
    their intentions rather than their results.”- – Milton Friedman

    • leitmotif asks: What is the global climate?

      Ans: some sort of average temperature

      Two days ago I commented on Paul Homewood’s site to a similar idea.

      . . . within the current “existential crisis” the temperature concept is the “climate” definer. This is why so much effort, technology, and money has been spent on everything from treemonitors to stalagmites to satellites.
      The Köppen-Geiger classification of areas via vegetation types (Köppen was an experienced botanist) was based on what types of vegetation grow where. Doing this for all of Earth is too costly and a bit subjective, so simple physical parameters became widely used, and modified.

      I live east of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State. We get 7-9 inches of precipitation, a lot of that as winter snow. Winters are cold and summers are hot. An ecotone is a transition area between two biological communities. We live where forested mountains give way (going east) to Sagebrush/Steppe.

      Earth’s average temperature, if such exists, is not of great concern to the plants that have been growing here for the last 10,000 years.

      There is no sense trying to communicate with the “Climate Cult” researchers and activists using the term climate as proposed by Köppen.

      See: Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language

  19. “As climate change becomes a focus of the US election….”

    I love it when they lie in the first sentence. It saves me so much time.

  20. Big Oil made me doubt “Global Warming” (aka “Climate Change)?
    Oddly enough, in my personal story, it was The Weather Channel, Al Gore that prompted me to look up the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe. That was back in 2007. (Most record highs were set before 1950 and most record lows after 1950.)
    I “found” WUWT in 2012.
    That prompting me to compare the then record highs and lows didn’t match the old records. (And bore some the the readers with lists of my little spot on the globe’s 2007 vs 2012 lists.)
    “Big Oil” had nothing to do with it.

  21. The BBC is the socialist propaganda arm of the defunct communist movement in Britain, though they haven’t realized it yet. I await the Sturm und Drang when they no longer receive license fees.

  22. Eric
    You noted that the BBC feels, “scientists who express doubts about extreme climate claims have been corrupted by their political beliefs.” Funny how only skeptics can be corrupted.

  23. The comment about geeks with great computers jumped out at me too. Has the guy ever heard of garbage in garbage out.

    • Yup, when your programming is truly deficient in mimicking a complex reality, ‘great’ computers only deliver the predictive garbage faster. And leftists regularly unintentionally reveal their own secret conduct as they whine about asserted methods their opposition unfairly employs.

      Anyone recall years of claims of Russian collusion in the last American presidential election issued by the ‘progressive’ candidate and know just who it turned out was using Russian sourced slanders against a confirmed capitalist’s campaign, all the while blaming them for so improbably engaging in common cause with the former head of the Soviet KGB? These are quite reliable liars because they have no fundamental hesitation about doing so. What they don’t get is the eventual reaction to them of those who do.

  24. “I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. ”

    Of course you did. No computer model, or any program for that matter, will ever show you more than it was programmed to do. They are not magic portals into the future. The programmers simply coded it to give them the answers they wanted to see. They wanted a computer program to blow their minds, and that’s what they designed and built. Sorry guys, next time ask Madam Marie to tell your fortunes.

  25. It never fails to amaze me that people think “models” are unbiased science, rather than a reflection of the biases of the people who build them.

    Which is why the should always be tested for predictive ability, and the assumptions/logic scrutinised.

  26. ‘The BBC is continuing to push their narrative that opposition to climate change is ideological, and that scientists who express doubts about extreme climate claims have been corrupted by their political beliefs or by funding from industry’

    but that is ABSOLUTELY the case: climate skeptics posting here are primarily posting a political opinion, that climate change is a leftist political activity…

    And if I had had my coffee this morning, I can post you a long, long list of fossil fuel funding of climate skepticism and some undoubted cases where political belief informs the ‘results’ of scientific ‘research’.

    • And the list of renewable funding to climate collaborators is at least 2-3 magnitudes more..

      Your comment yet again, slaps you in YOUR face.

      Do you have any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 ????

      Nothing “political” about it.. just MISSING science.

    • Let’s deal with JUST the science, then griff.

      1.. Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2 ??

      2.. In what way has the global climate changed in the last 50 years, that can be scientifically proven to be caused by human anything. ??

      Science griff.. do at least try.

      • You can just google it.

        There is ample evidence from respected and long established scientific institutions on temperatures, climate patterns, ice, extreme weather.

        I recommend especially the NSIDC on arctic ice.

        the basics of how CO2 operates has been known since Arrhenius’s time. If anyone can disprove the atmospheric physics, you go do it – you’ll get a Nobel prize.

        • NSIDC shows a drop from the extreme high of 1979, a meaninglessly short period of time.

          There is ample evidence that current sea ice levels are still FAR higher than most of the last 10,000 years.

          You could google it, you know… rather than DENYING it.

          Great to see you STILL faffing around avoiding producing any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2. Its almost as if YOU KNOW that there isn’t any.

          Arrhenius worked with glass jars..he showed that CO2 was a radiative gas…

          He made a baseless UNPROVEN assumption of atmospheric warming, .

          SCIENCE has progressed since then, and balloon data has now shown that warming by atmospheric CO2, if there is any, is basically immeasurable.

          It has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere in the atmosphere, existing only in erroneous theory and models.

          And since then NO-ONE has been able to actually produce any scientific evidence that it doe.

          Do you live in a glass jar.?

          … more likely the bottom of a glass bottle, would explain your stunted brain development

          You are welcome to produce some actual evidence..

          … or just keep up your mindless yabbering

          griffool = ZERO-SCIENCE and ZERO-EVIDENCE

        • “You can just google it.”

          And apparently you CAN’T.

          Otherwise you would do it. !

          Its your fantasy, up to you to provide the evidence.

          You are such a moronic putz, griff. !!

    • Skeptics posting here are merely asking alarmists like yourself, bbc, abc, Forbes, etc, to show empirical evidence that CO2 from human activities leads climate change. All you and others like you have produced so far, are correlations, proxy data, models, projections, but no proof. You can’t be taken seriously and are dismissed as a troll because you fail to produce scientific evidence, but politicise the issue whenever you run out of rational arguments.

    • Why would climate change corrupt our judgement Griff?

      Most of us are fans of nuclear power. There is unequivocal evidence nuclear power is a viable option – France converted most of their fossil fuel plants to nuclear in the 1970s without breaking the bank, they kept costs down by mass producing standardised components for the reactors.

      When I first started reading about climate claims, I thought “great, they’re going to build more nuclear plants”. It didn’t occur to me to question the science until I realised greens were telling us the world is facing a climate catastrophe, but nuclear is still out of the question. The sheer irrationality of that position prompted me to dig a little deeper.

      • I’m not necessarily questioning your judgement – I’m pointing out that your position is political, not science based. Would you like to count the posts mentioning leftists or communists? The frequent articles and posts from a right wing Republican viewpoint?

        • We agree completely that AGW is a far-left political construct, not based on any real science.

          Thanks for the agreeing with us, griffool. !

        • “I’m pointing out that your position is political, not science based.”

          The height of irony from a SCIENCE-DENYING far-left idea log. !

          How can you look in a mirror after making that idiotic comment, griff..

          … except to preen yourself, of course.

    • Wrong as usual, Griffendope. Classic case of projection, since Climate Belief is ideological, and emotion-based.

  27. So some guy made a model in 1984 and he “couldn’t believe what he saw”. Maybe he couldn’t believe it because it was acutally BS.

  28. Anyone working on a “great computer” in 1981 would likely have access to a mainframe IBM or a Vax 11/780 or similar.

    My current smartphone probably has significantly more computer power than either of those computer systems back then.

    I recall that on the Vax 11/780 I started working on in 1984, we had up to 40 users logged in simultaneously. It could take 30 minutes just to login, never mind edit a file and submit it to the batch queue. Data was processed tape-to-tape – the entire system had a scratch disk for the batch queues with 20 Mb of capacity.

    You read that right. 20 Mb was the entirety of available hard disk for everything on that system.

    • ThinkingScientist – I went to work for DEC in 1985. The VAX 11/780 and 785 were very big deals in those days. All of the computer science programs in the country were looking to upgrade from their PDP 11s. And then DEC added clustering and LAT terminal servers and routers and the internet was just taking off. Good times, good times. I’m at the end of my career in IT all these years later. It was a lot more fun in those days.

  29. Just to be clear, here is the list of the 30 “best scientific experts” (according to the BBC Trust) whom the BBC invited to the notorious 2006 seminar which resulted in the BBC’s catastrophic decision to abandon objective reporting of climate change. The BBC spent tens of thousands of pounds on legal fees successfully attempting to stop the names being published as the result of FOI requests, only for it to be discovered that the BBC had already published the names themselves. Here they are:

    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Matthew Farrow, CBI
    Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
    Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Joe Smith, The Open University
    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

      • Yes, really.

        See Andrew Montford’s 28-gate investigation at Bishophill. The BBC refused to divulge the names. A pensioner took them to court, the BBC fielded 5 barristers. At the same time Mauricio Osorio (?) then found online that the conference organizers had accidentally posted the delegate list, making the court case moot.

        On the basis of these “best scientific experts” the BBC secretly decided to prevent any sceptic views as they considered they gave “false balance” in the climate narrative.

        BBC policy since 2007.

        • I formerly complained, took it all the way to the BBC Trust (highest possible level of complaint). Totally dismissive at all stages. The BBC is beyond the pale really. They are out of control and basically do what they like. Scary power to have in a broadcaster with so much income, all guaranteed by law, with no means to hold them to account.

          MP’s won’t go near criticising the BBC in case they are accused of trying to “muzzle them” or interfere with the free press.

    • Which of these has a vested interest (grant money) in AGW? Are any of these specialists in partial differential equations or numerical analysis? I do not recognize any of them as such.

      Jerry

  30. The problem with the BBC is the method of financing it. Many American readers may not realize how it works.

    In the UK you need government permission to watch broadcast TV. If you watch it without having such a permission in the form of a license you are committing a criminal offense.

    Recently there was an exemption for over 75s, which has now ended. This exemption however was to the payment, not to the requirement for a license. It seems incredible in a Western democracy, but it was true: lawfully to watch TV, even if you were exempt from the tax and none was due, you still needed permission from the government.

    The fee for this license is a form of taxation. The proceeds of this tax go to the BBC. So basically it is a criminal offense in the UK to watch broadcast TV without paying the BBC.

    It is a totally wrong system. It cannot be right to have to obtain written government permission, under pain of criminal prosecution, to do something as ordinary as watch TV. No matter how you want to fund the BBC, the present method is simply wrong.

    They might as well require permits to read books, join libraries or a gym, go for walks, listen to music, access the Internet, use a PC or smartphone. Grow vegetables. Eat in a restaurant.

    It is that bad. To be allowed to do a perfectly ordinary activity you have to get government permission.

    No matter how people want to fund the BBC, this is wrong. They absolutely need to decriminalize it.

    • “michel September 21, 2020 at 1:46 am

      It is a totally wrong system.”

      It was perfect for the time. In 1922 (Radio), today? Not so much.

      • It was never a good system, as evidenced by countries that never implemented it.
        It was always designed to make sure that ensure that the population could never get away from government propaganda.

    • Sounds like something out of North Korea, being criminal activity to watch a TV broadcast without a licence. I guess a hangover from WW2 when everything was controlled and rationed. I once read that was one of the inspirations for George Orwell’s 1984 state control of everything, similar to the USSR. Similar to the Nazi law about being caught listening to a BBC radio broadcast during WW2.

      But that people would put up with that in peace time is mind boggling. Sheeple is the first thing that comes to mind, that the population is so weak as to allow later state propaganda like ‘climate science’ to become official state broadcast pseudoscience that spreads like a cancer to the rest of the world. I suppose it could be worse…a bullet in the head when you are caught watching the illegal unauthorized TV reception without a licence. I’d like to see any Gov’t try that in Texas. There would be a revolution and anyone proposing that would have their head handed to them.

      • In Tejas? Radio X, babee. Texicans are hard to shut up. And when all of them oppose you it gets sticky, fast.

  31. I’m currently reading why trust science which from what I can make out so far appears to believe that a wide range of views must be included in the scientific process, but then it contradicts that by justifying why non experts, or non relevant experts and those who might, in their view, have an interest in distorting the science in order to prevent or arrive at certain conclusions must be excluded.

    If we look at engineering where mistakes are more obvious and cannot be swept under the carpet, and the lessons engineering and the wider system has to learn and implement, I think peer review, consensus, experts do not significantly feature in the answer as to why trust engineering (e.g. aviation, automotive), it is more about lessons learned, procedures, independent audit, certifications. I think we should add supplier/customer interactions. Each customer has to be sceptical that what they are buying will do what it says on the tin because there is a lot at stake if it fails or you waste your time, money, effort on something you don’t need. Each customer may not be an expert in designing and manufacturing the product they are buying but the supplier has to listen to them. I think we often learn in engineering that mistakes happen the apparent consensus of experts said could not happen or was not their fault and often it takes those “non expert” customers further down the supplier/customer chain to make us see the real problem. I think this is a major factor improving product reliability and safety particularly in aviation and automotive.

    If those in and supporting climate science want to discount the views of sceptics because they think there is a conflict of interest, doesn’t that work both ways so they must be included to bring balance and to exclude them is a dangerous mistake.

    Shouldn’t we perhaps instead be seeing oil companies as a most important customer of climate science; they are trying to supply our energy needs so they need a correct assessment to make the correct decisions for our benefit. I presume in order to survive in a competitive environment they must be very good in many scientific fields, how to question their own scientists and take or go against their advice. And therefore they could well be asking the right sort of questions, making important suggestions and have a lot of very useful knowledge climate science could learn from about science and how to do or use it. i.e. just as in engineering a new customer may teach you a lot about how to do engineering, new approaches to finding the faults in your product, challenge your assumptions so you don’t make dangerous mistakes, climate science should be seeking to work with them and learn from them, not treat them as enemies.

  32. Models are crap. Computer geeks are crap. Crap plus crap equals more crap.

    It’s global cooling that’s the killer. Not much fun living under a mile thick glacier, unless you’re some kind of an ice fetishisist.

    • Would you be willing to give up everything that has been developed by models?
      Would you be willing to live life without any product that is being provided with assistance from computers?

      Or are you just a hate filled nut case?

      • MarkW,

        When computers are used judiciously they are wonderful tools. Unfortunately the results are often claimed to prove something when all aspects of the model violate all the necessary requirements to do so. That is exactly what the climate modelers have done. I repeat the following post.

        The only way any results from a climate model could be trusted are:

        The continuum errors in both the dynamical and physical equations approximated by the model are smaller than the truncation errors of an accurate (almost convergent) numerical solution.

        Now let us discuss each of these requirements in detail.

        1. All current global climate models are approximating the wrong dynamical system (the hydrostatic system) of equations. This has been mathematically proved in my peer reviewed manuscript that appears in the September issue of the journal Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and in another thread on this site.

        2. The physical equations are approximated by discontinuous parameterizations that have large continuum errors and that violate the necessary requirements that the continuum solution be expandable into a Tayor series. The necessary unrealistically large
        dissipation needed to prevent the model from blowing up due to these discontinuities leads to a large continuum error and destroys the numerical accuracy as shown by the Browning, Hack, and Swarztrauber cited in the above manuscript.

        3. As the requirements for a numerical method to converge to an accurate approximation of the continuum equations are violated,
        the numerical solution will never be close to the true solution.

  33. G’Day Eric,
    A couple of statements attracted my attention in this post.

    “As climate change becomes a focus of the US election,…”

    really? I thought the focus was ‘orange man bad’ on one side and on electoral fraud and the implications of Biden’s mental health on the other. I don’t recall gullible warming rating much mention this election. Sort of like quite a few recent elections where the cheer-squad wanted us to believe gullible warming was the central issue even as voters demonstrated a massive failure to give a sh!t.
    This is the point I would have stopped reading the BBC news article, had I given in to some masochistic urge to insult my intelligence by reading anything those woke whackers say to spin their ‘impartial’ yarns in the first place.

    “Only climate science appears to accept the output of broken, poorly performing, error ridden computer models at face value. Everyone else prefers to thoroughly test their computer models before they get excited by the output…”

    Ahem, try telling a Kung-Flu science adviser that.
    From today’s latest news on lockdown sceptics in Blighty, https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/09/21/latest-news-141/#oxford-university-scientists-demolish-government-case-for-second-lockdown .
    “…Why is it that the Government is once again in the grip of doom-mongering scientific modellers who specialise in causing panic and little else?…”
    Doesn’t that assessment of Kung-Flu modelling sound quite familiar in the context of this post?

    I submit that climastrologists and their feeble computer games appear to be in good company down at incompetent panic-merchant’s central. Along with the self-appointed ex-spurts on politics who’ve been consistently predicting the exact opposite result of just about every election or referendum for the last ten years, the wizards who’ve been seeing peak-oil in their crystal balls for over half a century or the ghouls who’ve been wishing for years for a global famine of biblical proportion to prove there are too many people so they can say “I told you so”. It’s unfair to accord climastrologists special mention for their acceptance of broken, poorly performing, error ridden computer models; all the other bullsh!t artistes will feel left out and might need a tax-payer funded safe-space to cry in.

      • Paul’s the one who thinks Falun gong newsheets are reliable information on the German electricity industry, isn’t he?

        • Poor griffool,

          You are the one that thinks gruniad and other far-left media and “renewables” propaganda reports are reliable information, aren’t you ?

  34. Only climate science appears to accept the output of broken, poorly performing, error ridden computer models at face value.

    I dunno. It seems epidemiology, tax policy, and econometric models are often dumbed down to the point of failure.

    • Exactly. Vaccine “science” is more transparently fraudulent than climatology which is superficially consistent. It’s hard for a 12 years old to discuss the merits of the claims of relaxation and vibrational modes and heat transfer and radiation and convexion but easy to debunk the arguments of a medical PhD for hep B vaccine. In fact just tweeting to advocate of the vaccines at different times makes them forget their last take and contradict themselves. (They are extremely dumb.)

Comments are closed.