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

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

You do have a negative view which is very relevant to how and why you have your beliefs and as to how you express them here, it is a shame you are not more positive, then you would see that there is good in many people.

Anyway enjoy have to go

Human beings are selfish, greedy, deceitful, evil creatures that convince themselves that honesty, integrity, love and charity are qualities inherent.

Didge wrote:

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

so you agree with scrat then that 98% of scientist agree with global warming?
that is the true sign of an idiot.
arf arf arf

Durham wrote:

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!

yes 97% of scientists who lively hood depends on man made global warming believe it is man made.

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.

it depends which range you are comparing. compared to temperatures aound a thousand years ago or so, the temperature now is far cooler which is why the data originally started during the last mini ice age.

Temperatures go up and down on a regular basis, there has been no warming since 1997. The oceans are not warming at rates that have been modelled. The pacific is cooling. (its all hiding in the deep oceans apparently)
http://toryaardvark.com/2013/08/29/pacific-ocean-is-cooling-but-dont-worry-the-missing-warming-is-still-hiding-in-the-deep-oceans/

this sums up the political viewpoint

http://toryaardvark.com/2013/09/17/connie-hedegaard-echoes-tony-blair-we-must-act-even-if-climate-science-is-wrong/

Didge wrote:

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

how many of the IPCC scientist are totally reliant on funding for AGW.
these people are using models that are fundamentally flawed and that will not model what is happening today, yet alone 50 years in the future.
CO2 does not drive climate, climate drives CO2
warmer weather releases more CO2 from the oceans, colder weather locks it up.

Flap Gallagher wrote:yes 97% of scientists who lively hood depends on man made global warming believe it is man made.

All I can say is talk about an idiot still desperate he will post any crap because he has no answer to the fact he does not like the fact he is clearly wrong, so now 97% of all scientists are now reliant on global warming for a career, one moment?

    

As I said you buy up the shot you want to believe in because dean you are naive, you neglect the countless evidence proving humanity has created so much climate change and you have no ounce or evidence to prove otherwise, not one scientist has disproven the papers on global warming and that speaks volumes and yet you still grasp desperately at stupidity, talk about a dumb ass

Didge wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:yes 97% of scientists who lively hood depends on man made global warming believe it is man made.

All I can say is talk about an idiot still desperate he will post any crap because he has no answer to the fact he does not like the fact he is clearly wrong, so now 97% of all scientists are now reliant on global warming for a career, one moment?

    

As I said you buy up the shot you want to believe in because dean you are naive, you neglect the countless evidence proving humanity has created so much climate change and you have no ounce or evidence to prove otherwise, not one scientist has disproven the papers on global warming and that speaks volumes and yet you still grasp desperately at stupidity, talk about a dumb ass

97% of scientists is a nonsense unless you know how many that represents. It is the sort of thing that impresses fools who believe anything said to them.
Not one scientist has proved what you seem to believe is fact. If it was proved then the computer models they use would be able to predict the situation now, and it cannot explain why warming has ceased and ceased 15 years ago at least.
Humanity has created it, then what caused the previous warming events? the thing that causes warming and cooling is that big fiery ball of hydrogen in the sky.

If man made AGW can be proved it can be modelled, however every model they have created has been wrong. So nothing has been proved, it is still theory.

Flap Gallagher wrote:97% of scientists is a nonsense unless you know how many that represents. It is the sort of thing that impresses fools who believe anything said to them.
Not one scientist has proved what you seem to believe is fact. If it was proved then the computer models they use would be able to predict the situation now, and it cannot explain why warming has ceased and ceased 15 years ago at least.
Humanity has created it, then what caused the previous warming events? the thing that causes warming and cooling is that big fiery ball of hydrogen in the sky.

If man made AGW can be proved it can be modelled, however every model they have created has been wrong. So nothing has been proved, it is still theory.

I really think it is time you put your dunce hat on, as again how many papers on global warming have been disproven by the skeptics?

Zero

The fact is you are also ignoring all the evidence and placing your whole argument not over the time frame they have looked at but the last 15 years, so please do me a favour actually read what they have presented before making yourself look like an even bigger dick,

flap,you are a dick and a arseole didge says that so it must be true,after all he is allways right isn't he?

nicko wrote:flap,you are a dick and a arseole didge says that so it must be true,after all he is allways right isn't he?

Are the forum stirrer, Good Morning and do you actually have anything to say on the topic?

Of course not, that would be a leap to far for you Nicko would it not

bollocks to you didge, now make a post about that.

nicko wrote:flap,you are a dick and a arseole didge says that so it must be true,after all he is allways right isn't he?

Do you have any STATS to confirm this accusation ? 

no stats alla, just look at his posts,if he detects the slightest slur against Asians be prepared for an avalance of abuse.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Do you have any STATS to confirm this accusation ? 

Didge is always right.

nicko wrote:no stats alla, just look at his posts,if he detects the slightest slur against Asians be prepared for an avalance of abuse.

I find the abuse quite comical , especially when he hits the bottle.   

nicko wrote:bollocks to you didge, now make a post about that.

Clearly I am right when you are exposed for the little shit stirrer you are.

 

So funny and what has been debated since Nicko jumped in being a Twat?
Anything on the thread?
Nope, just his obsession with me, ha ha what a wally!

Didge wrote:
Are the forum stirrer, Good Morning and do you actually have anything to say on the topic?

Of course not, that would be a leap to far for you Nicko would it not

You're having a laugh Didge, how you can say that about Nicko is beyond me, I stir but Nicko is a great poster on here and could hardly be called a stirrer.... the ironic part is that YOU called him it.

Ulrich von Liechtenstein wrote:You're having a laugh Didge, how you can say that about Nicko is beyond me, I stir but Nicko is a great poster on here and could hardly be called a stirrer.... the ironic part is that YOU called him it.

One moment

 

Case in point, did he debate in regards to the topic?

Nope.

Nope thus he is obsessed with me and again exposed for shit stirring.

didge calls ME obsessed,excuse me while I     says the man? who is obsessed with Asians, I now know that I am dealing with some one who is too far gone to change,so I give up  
 i

Posts by Nicko on the topic?

Zero


Posts with his obsession with me?

How many Nicko?

 

So funny, you have been exposed, not your fault you are obsessed with me, you are only human after all,

i'd rather be obsessed with a turd,it would talk more sense.

nicko wrote:i'd rather be obsessed with a turd,it would talk more sense.

It does.

nicko wrote:i'd rather be obsessed with a turd,it would talk more sense.

It does.

nicko wrote:i'd rather be obsessed with a turd,it would talk more sense.

Best you open your mouth then as all that comes out is complete shit!


See now why you are a shit stirrer, you come on to disrupt with your childish antics so will give far better than you can comprehend