This isn't science - it's jumbo jumbo

First topic message reminder :

By Nigel Lawson7:05PM BST 28 Sep 2013
The IPCC’s call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous’ for the developing world

On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without “substantial and sustained reductions” of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.

RELATED ARTICLES
IPCC report: Sceptics guide to climate change
IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'
IPCC report: Experts debate global warming issues
However, critics have questioned the scientists’ use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.

Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation. Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science into disrepute.

Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process”, and that “significant improvements” were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence”.

Since then, little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like its predecessor.

Perhaps this is not so surprising. A detailed examination of the 2007 report found that two thirds of its chapters included among its authors people with links to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and there were many others with links to other 'green’ activist groups, such as Greenpeace.

In passing, it is worth observing that what these so-called green groups, and far too many of the commentators who follow them, wrongly describe as 'pollution’ is, in fact, the ultimate in green: namely, carbon dioxide – a colourless and odourless gas, which promotes plant life and vegetation of all kinds; indeed, they could not survive without it. It is an established scientific fact that, over the past 20 years, the earth has become greener, largely thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Be that as it may, as long ago as 2009, the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri – who is a railway engineer and economist by training, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist – predicted that “when the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say: 'My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’” This was well before the scientific investigation on which the latest report is allegedly based had even begun. So much for the scientific method.

There is, however, one uncomfortable fact that the new report has been – very reluctantly – obliged to come to terms with. That is that global warming appears to have ceased: there has been no increase in officially recorded global mean temperature for the past 15 years. This is brushed aside as a temporary blip, and they suggest that the warming may still have happened, but instead of happening on the Earth’s surface it may have occurred for the time being in the (very cold) ocean depths – of which, incidentally, there is no serious empirical evidence.

A growing number of climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that at least part of the answer is that the so-called climate sensitivity of carbon – the amount of warming that might be expected from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by the use of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas) – is significantly less than was previously assumed to be the case.

It is no doubt a grudging acceptance of this that has led the new report to suggest that the global warming we can expect by the end of this century is probably rather less than the IPCC had previously predicted: perhaps some 35F (1.5C) What they have not done, however, is to accept that the computer models on which they base all their prognostications have been found to be misleading. These models all predicted an acceleration in the warming trend throughout the 21st century, as global carbon dioxide emissions rose apace. In fact, there has been a standstill.

The true scientific method is founded on empirical observation. When a theory – whether embedded in a computer program or not – produces predictions that are falsified by subsequent observation, then the theory, and the computer models which enshrine it, have to be rethought.

Not for the IPCC, however, which has sought to obscure this fundamental issue by claiming that, whereas in 2007 it was 90 per cent sure that most of the (very slight) global warming recorded since the Fifties was due to man-made carbon emissions, it is now 95 per cent sure.

This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.

They have thrown dust in the eyes of the media in other ways, too. Among them is the shift from talking about global warming, as a result of the generally accepted greenhouse effect, to 'climate change’ or 'climate disruption’. Gullible journalists (who are particularly prevalent within the BBC) have been impressed, for example, by being told now that much of Europe, and in particular the UK, is likely to become not warmer but colder, as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions interfering with the Gulf Stream.

There is nothing new about this canard, which has been touted for the past 10 years or so. Indeed, I refer to it explicitly in my book on global warming, An Appeal to Reason, which first came out five years ago. In fact, there has been no disruption whatever of the Gulf Stream, nor is it at all likely that there could be. As the eminent oceanographer Prof Karl Wunsch has observed, the Gulf Stream is largely a wind-driven phenomenon, and thus “as long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream”.

So what is the truth of the matter, and what do we need to do about it?

The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is indeed steadily increasing, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly in the faster-growing countries of the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that, other things being equal, this will make the world a warmer place. But there are two major unresolved scientific issues: first, are other things equal?, and second, even if they are, how much warmer will our planet become? There is no scientific basis whatever for talking about 'catastrophic climate change’ – and it is generally agreed that if the global temperature standstill soon comes to an end and the world is, as the IPCC is now suggesting might well be the case, 1.5ºC warmer by the end of the century, that would be a thoroughly good thing: beneficial to global food production and global health alike.

So what we should do about it – if indeed, there is anything at all we need to do – is to adapt to any changes that may, in the far future, occur. That means using all the technological resources open to mankind – which will ineluctably be far greater by the end of this century than those we possess today – to reduce any harms that might arise from warming, while taking advantage of all the great benefits that warming will bring.

What we should emphatically not do is what Dr Pachauri, Lord Stern and that gang are calling for and decarbonise the global economy by phasing out fossil fuels.

Before the industrial revolution mankind relied for its energy on beasts of burden and wind power. The industrial revolution, and the enormous increase in prosperity it brought with it, was possible only because the West abandoned wind power and embraced fossil fuels. We are now – unbelievably – being told that we must abandon relatively cheap and highly reliable fossil fuels, and move back to wind power, which is both unreliable and hugely costly.

This is clearly an economic nonsense, which would condemn us to a wholly unnecessary fall in living standards.

But what moves me most is what this would mean for the developing world. For them, abandoning the cheapest available form of energy and thus seriously abandoning the path of economic growth and rising prosperity on which, at long last, most of the developing world is now embarked, would mean condemning hundreds of millions of their people to unnecessary poverty, destitution, preventable disease, and premature death.

All in the name of seeking to ensure that distant generations, in future centuries, might be (there is no certainty) slightly better off than would otherwise be the case.

Not to beat about the bush, it is morally outrageous. It is just as well that the world is unlikely to take the slightest notice of the new IPCC report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html

Flap Gallagher wrote:but according to the curch of cliateology we have had numerous dire warnings that the world is doomed in 10, 20, 30 years or so.
Lets not forget they were claiming the himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years some years back. as usual the real life data does not back up the model.
Sea levels were supposed to have risen significantly, again they haven't.

the people can only shout wolf so many times before they should rightly be ignored.
We should have been overrun with wolves if the zealots are to be believed.

Sorry but that is a blindingly stupid and idiotic way to look at this and at the end of the day what will it take for you to understand we are changing a climate, millions dead from a disaster before you sit up and listen? Oh wait that will be too late because Dean has decided to base his view on the last 15 years not the life of the earth, what a failed argument if I ever saw one.

So tell me Dean explain away the fact sea levels have risen 7 inches over the last 100 years after not changing for the last 2000 years?

Didge wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:but according to the curch of cliateology we have had numerous dire warnings that the world is doomed in 10, 20, 30 years or so.
Lets not forget they were claiming the himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years some years back. as usual the real life data does not back up the model.
Sea levels were supposed to have risen significantly, again they haven't.

the people can only shout wolf so many times before they should rightly be ignored.
We should have been overrun with wolves if the zealots are to be believed.

Sorry but that is a blindingly stupid and idiotic way to look at this and at the end of the day what will it take for you to understand we are changing a climate, millions dead from a disaster before you sit up and listen? Oh wait that will be too late because Dean has decided to base his view on the last 15 years not the life of the earth, what a failed argument if I ever saw one.

So tell me Dean explain away the fact sea levels have risen 7 inches over the last 100 years after not changing for the last 2000 years?

so you blindly believe the pronouncements of an organisation that has been proved to be wrong again and again with its own data.
As I said it only needs faith to be a believer.

Flap Gallagher wrote:so you blindly believe the pronouncements of an organisation that has been proved to be wrong again and again with its own data.
As I said it only needs faith to be a believer.

Try educating yourself please, you are not a scientist and clearly you are talking out of your arse:





A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.

The report by the UN's climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change.

On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is "unequivocal", it explained.

It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.

To contain these changes will require "substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".

Infographic
Projections are based on assumptions about how much greenhouse gases might be released
After a week of intense negotiations in the Swedish capital, the summary for policymakers on the physical science of global warming has finally been released.

The first part of an IPCC trilogy, due over the next 12 months, this dense, 36-page document is considered the most comprehensive statement on our understanding of the mechanics of a warming planet.

It states baldly that, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes in the climate system are "unprecedented over decades to millennia".



Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface, and warmer than any period since 1850, and probably warmer than any time in the past 1,400 years.

"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and that concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, co-chair of IPCC working group one, who produced the report.

Speaking at a news conference in the Swedish capital, Prof Thomas Stocker, another co-chair, said that climate change "challenges the two primary resources of humans and ecosystems, land and water. In short, it threatens our planet, our only home".

Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures.


Dr Rajendra Pachauri said he was confident the report would convince the public on global climate change
But a so-called pause in the increase in temperatures in the period since 1998 is downplayed in the report. The scientists point out that this period began with a very hot El Nino year.

"Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends," the report says.

Prof Stocker, added: "I'm afraid there is not a lot of public literature that allows us to delve deeper at the required depth of this emerging scientific question.

"For example, there are not sufficient observations of the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean, that would be one of the possible mechanisms to explain this warming hiatus."

"Likewise we have insufficient data to adequately assess the forcing over the last 10-15 years to establish a relationship between the causes of the warming."

However, the report does alter a key figure from the 2007 study. The temperature range given for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, called equilibrium climate sensitivity, was 2.0C to 4.5C in that report.

In the latest document, the range has been changed to 1.5C to 4.5C. The scientists say this reflects improved understanding, better temperature records and new estimates for the factors driving up temperatures.

Continue reading the main story
What is the IPCC?

In its own words, the IPCC is there "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts".

The offspring of two UN bodies, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, it has issued four heavyweight assessment reports to date on the state of the climate.

These are commissioned by the governments of 195 countries, essentially the entire world. These reports are critical in informing the climate policies adopted by these governments.

The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis.

In the summary for policymakers, the scientists say that sea level rise will proceed at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years. Waters are expected to rise, the document says, by between 26cm (at the low end) and 82cm (at the high end), depending on the greenhouse emissions path this century.

The scientists say ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for 90% of energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.

For the future, the report states that warming is projected to continue under all scenarios. Model simulations indicate that global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to 1850.

Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, from Imperial College London, told BBC News: "We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don't want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real

I share the same frustration in the political and scientific community that the sixteen scientists express. Why did we all hop on board the global warming bandwagon started by politicians when the scientific community didn’t back it? Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed a petitionagreeing with the fact that there is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. Yet, for some reason it is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable.

if those 31000 are only 2% of the scientific community, what are the 2500 who support the IPCC?

Flap Gallagher wrote:http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real

I share the same frustration in the political and scientific community that the sixteen scientists express. Why did we all hop on board the global warming bandwagon started by politicians when the scientific community didn’t back it? Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed a petitionagreeing with the fact that there is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. Yet, for some reason it is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable.

if those 31000 are only 2% of the scientific community, what are the 2500 who support the IPCC?

 


That shows you really are an idiot Dean, 31,000 out of 6.5 million scientists.
I wonder how many out of the 31,000 American scientists by the way are on the pay roll or research into fossil fuels

    



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Didge wrote: 


That shows you really are an idiot Dean, 31,000 out of 6.5 million scientists.
I wonder how many out of the 31,000 American scientists by the way are on the pay roll or research into fossil fuels

    



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

With respect didge, that argument is also true of the believers recieving government grants for their work!

"Jumbo Jumbo"



I was waiting to see some elephants. 

So what real widespread data have we actually got to go on for the global temperatures over the history of the Earth?

It is only fairly recently that we started recording local temperatures with accurate equipment.

And we also know that what is considered normal includes quite a big range of variation.

People are forgetting that the heat from the sun is not a constant amount, it varies, and so does our own climate respectively.

mattiducatti wrote:
So what real widespread data have we actually got to go on for the global temperatures over the history of the Earth?

It is only fairly recently that we started recording local temperatures with accurate equipment.

And we also know that what is considered normal includes quite a big range of variation.

People are forgetting that the heat from the sun is not a constant amount, it varies, and so does our own climate respectively.

I think at the end of the day the scientists know what they are talking about and again has anyone been able to counter any of the papers submitted?

No

That speaks for itself, it is all well and good being skeptical, but for what purpose does that serve, as we really should be looking to the future if we might be permanently damaging the earth, so maybe if someone can present evidence to counter of which I have seen nothing valid.

Durham wrote:With respect didge, that argument is also true of the believers recieving government grants for their work!

The fact is though Durham as seen nobody and everyone has the opportunity even more scientists to refute the papers presented and as seen none of them have, which would make most people realise there is much truth behind what scientists are stating on this.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Very interesting, which goes to prove that with the sea levels rising over the last hundred years is well very different to the last 7000 years, so thanks!

I wouldn't worry Didge, every living thing whether fauna or flora dies in the end.

Ulrich von Liechtenstein wrote:I wouldn't worry Didge, every living thing whether fauna or flora dies in the end.

Indeed it does, but we can also help those who are not yet born reside in a healthier world, some people like myself don;t look selfishly at our own lives, but of those who will come after us.

There has been little sea level change in last 2000-6000 years.

mattiducatti wrote:There has been little sea level change in last 2000-6000 years.

Except in the last 100 years there has been!

Didge wrote:
Indeed it does, but we can also help those who are not yet born reside in a healthier world, some people like myself don;t look selfishly at our own lives, but of those who will come after us.

Utter bollocks!  Human nature says that everything is done for a selfish reason, climate change is the prime example of this.  Money, money, money.

Ulrich von Liechtenstein wrote:Utter bollocks!  Human nature says that everything is done for a selfish reason, climate change is the prime example of this.  Money, money, money.

Then clearly you don't get out much as there are many people who are unselfish, you must be mixing in the wrong circles

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Would love to see the link for this please?

Didge wrote:Then clearly you don't get out much as there are many people who are unselfish, you must be mixing in the wrong circles

No, I've just looked a little deeper into human nature and behaviour....  we loft ourselves up above the animal kingdom yet we deny what really lies within our mind.

Tess wrote:http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ie/2010/03/sea-level-change-last-120-million-years.html

thanks Tess just read about him here:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008-2

Shame he has not been able to refute any of the papers, guess he can talk the talk but cannot walk the walk

Ulrich von Liechtenstein wrote:No, I've just looked a little deeper into human nature and behaviour....  we loft ourselves up above the animal kingdom yet we deny what really lies within our mind.

Actually you have a very negative view, one that shows you are unable to expand and open your mind

Didge wrote:Actually you have a very negative view, one that shows you are unable to expand and open your mind

What has your made up opinion of me got to do with it?  Stay on track Didge, do you know why?