JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer (Time to axe both)

You don’t need a science degree to see how weak the evidence is.

Nick Cater, author, journalist, editor, writes in The Australian about the contradictions and failed predictions of climate experts. He lists the “own goals” — like the Himalayan Glaciers, The Hockeystick, Antarctic Sea ice (which is at another record high) and The Pause.

For two-and-a-half decades, the planet has been defying the experts’ expectations. At the 1988 Toronto conference experts warned temperatures would rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2050. With 27 years gone and 35 to go the rise is barely a quarter of a degree. The world had better roll its sleeves up.

There is a pattern to these mistakes:

No one expects experts to be perfect, but as Robert Watson – a former IPCC chairman – has pointed out, the errors follow a pattern. “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,” he observed after the failure of the Copenhagen conference. “That is worrying.”

The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer; bloated, un-accountable and out of touch. Its reluctance to address the 15-year warming pause is “a symptomatic of a failure of leadership,” says author Rupert Darwell. “The IPCC is un-reformable and the Fifth Assessment Report should be the IPCC’s last.” Yet both the science and the process have become too big to fail; countless experts have invested their professional reputations in the theory and countless more in the quest for a symbolic international agreement.

When science is “too big to fail”, it is too big to succeed:

Yet both the science and the process have become too big to fail; countless experts have invested their professional reputations in the theory and countless more in the quest for a symbolic international agreement.

I want Rupert Darwall’s line to catch on:

We have reached a global warming paradox. “The science is weak but the idea is strong,” writes Darwall. “Global warming’s success in colonising the Western mind and in changing government policies has no precedent.

Read the rest in  The Australian, or at Nick Cater’s blog

Nick Cater is Executive Director of the Menzies Research Centre.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (95 votes cast)
The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer (Time to axe both), 9.5 out of 10 based on 95 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nwvybgc

166 comments to The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer (Time to axe both)

  • #

    That’s a dead link to the “Australian”, and the real link leads to a paywalled article.

    Thanks Rod. Fixed. Jo

    50

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The science is weak, but the idea is strong.

    I suspect that this will prove to be the epitaph of climate science’, as it is practiced today.

    The analogy of both FIFA and the IPCC being bloated, intellectually corrupt, international bureaucracies and therefore unfit for purpose is entirely correct. Leaders like Patchy and Sepp Blatter make this inevitable.

    Off topic, does anyone out there believe Qatar and Russia won the competitions to host the World Cup football fairly and squarely?

    The IPCC is going to milk the fact this is an El Niño year, possibly a very strong one, which means global temperatures should shortly start to rise modestly. Already the knives are out to try and ‘prove’ there never was a Pause, this El Niño has come like manna from heaven for alarmists, as these temperature rises (if they occur) are going to coincide with the Paris jamboree.

    333

    • #

      Let’s see if any investigations on the entire affair eventuate one day. Wouldn’t that be good?

      140

      • #
        Bulldust

        The savvy investor would put money into white wash options… These bureaucracies are expert at covering their behinds. It is one quality that government types do better than any other class of individuals. Needless to say, that is not a compliment.

        71

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      As for temperature rises, do not forget that the rate of rise can fall while the temp rises. Indeed if we don’t get genuine new record highs then the rate of rise must be falling.

      193

    • #
      Debbie

      The climate/weather/environment isn’t particularly interested in conforming for the benefit of big bureaucracy.
      It just doesn’t care.
      Unless they are willing to try and prove that the el Nino is caused by evil humanity, hanging their hopes on an el Nino is really a bit silly.
      They’re all mindlessly focused on justifying their position by trying to prove that even though they’re not right….they’re not wrong.

      260

      • #
        Dave in the states

        Can’t say it any better, except perhaps add that nothing we can do will change the climate/weather/environment.

        40

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        Debbie writes: “Unless they are willing to try and prove …”

        These folks just make stuff up, so, they will not try to prove anything. They will simply state one is the cause of the other.
        But, insofar as the warmth of the ocean water is from short wave radiation and not from a connection to the gases in the atmosphere, then suggesting a connection requires multiple physical actions that boggle and bewilder.

        70

        • #
          Konrad.

          John,
          you are correct, the sun alone (with a tiny help from geo-thermal) heats our oceans. DWLWIR or “back-radiation” from the atmosphere plays no role at all. Warmists claim the oceans to be a “near blackbody” (false) and that atmospheric LWIR from the atmosphere is slowing their cooling rate (garbage).

          Simple empirical experiments -
          http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
          show that incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.

          Ask a warmist or lukewarmer to provide a repeatable empirical experiment demonstrating LWIR heating water free to evaporatively cool and all you get is a lot of “flappy hands”.

          322

    • #
      RB

      Does anyone believe that any country won the rights to the WC fairly for a few generations? My gripe with this is that corruption was only a problem when Qatar and Russia won the rights.

      Sticking with FIFA (and relevant to GW); how does such an organisation stop bribery? It allows inducements in the form of development programs, so that at least most of the millions available for bribery does something good, but how does it police money transactions between countries? Its relevant because its the same little thought that goes into believing wild claims about GW in believing that another president could have stoppped it. Remember, the US FBI decided to investigate after losing the bid to Qatar.

      70

    • #
      Graeme No. 3

      Of course Qatar and Russia won fairly and squarely.
      According to the due process they squared all of FIFA by putting a fair amount of money into their pockets.

      Perhaps there is a clue there, we should insist that all IPCC conferences in future be held in Russia in winter or Qatar in summer ( outdoors of course ).

      110

    • #
      aussieguy

      “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,”

      “The science is weak but the idea is strong,”

      => Because it has been pushed by activists! Modern activism doesn’t adhere to honest science or analysis as a way to back their arguments. They rely on politicised science that is cherry-picked and “massaged” to their narrative. Overall, its about imposing an agenda through Govt power by any means. This is why they are so eager to influence politicians to change laws, regulations, and introduce new policies that support their narrative. (Ignoring the people who will have to pay for it all…The taxpayer!)

      In order to appeal to the public emotionally, they must be “overstating the impact” (exaggerate). From telling kids in public schools to constantly releasing press releases about how *insert well-known city here* will be destroyed by tsunamis and floods! (The current chant is: “Today is the hottest/coldest day on record, since *insert date here*“)

      They push the narrative with so much emotion (they call it “passion”), that it borders on religious fanaticism. How else can you interpret the situation as they ask questions like “Don’t you believe in Climate Change?” and they completely go off at you if you disagree with them! (They won’t go as far as actual physical violence on you, but they have no problems talking about how they want critics arrested, etc and emotionally bullying anyone who questions or criticises their narrative.)


      Of course, there’s only so far you can go when you “overstate the impact” and it fails to materialise! People start becoming suspicious. That’s when time is not on the activist’s side. As time goes on, more questionable behaviour appears. (This is where the UN or IPCC becomes comparable to FIFA)…Things are done that don’t even pass common sense!


      For example (in relation to Climate Change):

      This is the kind of nonsense that tells you the UN is filled with activists trying to earn their cut.
      http://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/climate_change/
      (Go through the page and its links. Count how many times “Gender Equality” is used…Then tell me Western Feminists haven’t infiltrated and infected the UN with their rhetoric!)


      For example (in relation to FIFA):

      Qatar is a desert state. It hits as high as 50+ deg/C during the traditional World Cup months of June/July (Qatar’s Summer). So they’ve had to re-schedule the whole 2022 tournament to Nov/Dec (Qatar’s Winter)! This brings consequences. It messes up the schedule for other soccer tournaments around the world!
      => Australia’s A-League
      => Africa Cup of Nations (2023)
      => England’s Premier League
      Etc.


      Although, the three biggest differences between IPCC and FIFA is:

      (1) It is now a subject of two separate investigations by Swiss and US authorities.
      VS
      Has IPCC ever been investigated?

      (2) FIFA has an independent Audit And Compliance Committee that will investigate their current scandal.
      VS
      IPCC is supposedly run in accordance to ethics defined by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). They apparently have their own “Ethics Office” and “Internal Oversight Office” respectively. There doesn’t seem to be an independent investigating body! Anyone know if they’ll investigate their own? (Yes, I was being sarcastic!)

      (3) FIFA depends on commercial sponsors.
      => 6 main sponsors provide the big bucks for FIFA. (Sony, Adidas, Coca-Cola, Visa, Hyundai/Kia, and Gazprom.)
      …Only the Russian natural gas provider (Gazprom) doesn’t care. The other five support an investigation of the current scandal.
      => Some sponsors decided to sever their ties to FIFA: Sony, Emirates, Castrol, Johnson & Johnson, and Continental have all decided not to renew their contracts.
      VS
      IPCC relies on (through the UN) countries gulliable enough to take the money of its taxpayers to give to them. Taxpayers cannot opt-out. They must vote out the leader or Govt in question and then campaign to cut off UN funding. (Any time you want to cut UN funding, its always some activist or political Leftie who chant how this country is setting a “poor example” or “embarrassment to the world”; Anything to emotionally manipulate critics to back down…Just don’t be surprised if its the same activists that depend on UN programs to fund their activism!)


      No one is ever able to permanently get rid of corruption. But what we can do is expose it. It’ll reach a point where a position becomes untenable as credibility and trust is destroyed. Find the key players and follow the money trail.

      210

    • #
      Bill

      Not just el Nino. The media are losing their minds shrieking “heatwave” in the coastal BC area (Canada) with temperatures in Vancouver reaching 28 C. Yet, if they were honest, they would report that this is NORMAL. Yet another example of the biased media in action.

      30

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    It is good to see articles and quotes like these leaking out of the Green Blob fortress. One less brick in the wall.

    252

  • #
    Yonniestone

    A movie made about the history of FIFA called United Passions has been panned badly and described as “One of the most unwatchable films in recent memory” these sentiments seem to reflect the views of many scientists regarding the IPCC, anyone remotely concerned with their long term reputation should forfeit Paris this December.

    230

  • #
    LeeHarvey

    The record low temperature for Paris for the month of December is -23.9 C. Who wants to bet we can at least come close when the Gore Effect is in full force this year?

    140

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is why they moved the goal posts, and changed the name from Global Warming, to Climate Change.

      Climate Change has no natural falsifiability criteria. So whatever the weather does, short of spontaneously creating a 50 metre high glacier on the Champs-Elysees, or have La Seine rise and flood le Jardins du Tour Eiffel, they are not going to be embarrassed again.

      363

      • #
        Manfred

        Indeed, there is NO theoretical end point when the job of ‘fixing’ the climate, global warming (whatever) may be considered attained.

        Yet another Green ‘NO’, this time in drag meaning ‘yes’ to endless strangulating regulation ad infinitum to impoverishment and eventually to sordid rebellion.

        These eco-ideologues betray themselves consistently.

        222

        • #
          Rick Bradford

          An expert in AI recently defined intelligence as “the drive to increase the number of possible futures” i.e. to maximise freedom of action and avoid becoming trapped.

          By that definition, the Green Blob is the stupidest organism that a tolerant Earth has ever allowed to come into being.

          Those interested in the AI project can check out ‘Entropica’

          80

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think Communism is a self limiting organism…once you kill off al the workers, communism dies.

            I had a rather unpleasant attack by what appears to be a closet communist in a F****** regional “news”paper. They are becoming bolder and nastier, so either we are winning , or they are about to drop something large on us and we dont know about it.

            On of the upshots of this “discussion” I had was how entitled she seemed to denigrating my opinion and snarling at me through clenched teeth. All I could think of was how many experienced horrors in gulags at the hands of people similar. It was kind of unsettling – I have never seen that form of evil so close before……

            90

            • #
              Manfred

              …a reassuring indication of desperation.

              40

            • #
              Glen Michel

              So true ! Fairfax seems to own most rural publications.More to the picture than meets the eye!

              10

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                I also find this interesting – is this trying to open up a new battle front on Climate that is so relativistic its impossible to pin down? Given you have over 1 billion catholics, is this a way to stop erosion by logical agrument, by trying to to give the marxist green paganism the “mainstream” religious appeal it desires?
                From what I have personally seen, many catholics dont recognise the authority of the pope, but many still do.

                I suggested some time ago this may happen – trying to give the Big Climate Lie a mainstream “moral” dimension :

                Is the Pope a communist?

                http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33024951

                Pope Francis’s critique of free-market economics has made him an icon for the Left and prompted claims that he is a communist. The leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics has called capitalism a source of inequality at best – and at worst a killer. Is the Pope, as his critics claim, a red radical?

                On his way back from the Victory Day Parade in Moscow last month, the Cuban leader Raul Castro stopped off in Rome to thank Pope Francis for his role in Cuba’s rapprochement with the United States. “If the Pope continues this way,” Castro said afterwards, “I will go back to praying and go back to the church – I am not joking.”

                In September Francis will return the compliment with a stop-over in Cuba when he travels to the United States. And the American visit could turn out to be the most difficult overseas trip of his pontificate.

                Raul Castro’s endorsement is unlikely to recommend Francis to the American right, many of whom responded with visceral rage to President Obama’s Cuban initiative.

                “There is a lot of scepticism among (US) Catholics,” says Stephen Moore, the chief economist at the conservative Washington think tank the Heritage Foundation, and himself a Catholic.

                “I think this is a Pope who clearly has some Marxist leanings. It’s unquestionable that he has a very vocal scepticism (about) capitalism and free enterprise and… I find that to be very troubling.”

                Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host (or “shock jock”, as he is sometimes called) is blunter. He dismissed Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospels) as “pure Marxism”.

                The US is far and away the Western world’s most Christian nation. There are nearly 80 million baptised American Catholics, and it is the country’s largest religious denomination. Many of its members look upon Saint John Paul II as a hero-pope because he was such a doughty Cold Warrior – and that adds the spice of a sense of betrayal to their reaction to Francis. Although his approval ratings are high, particularly among Catholic Democrats, he will be a polarising presence, and the question “Is the pope a communist?” will really matter.

                10

          • #
            tom0mason

            Rick Bradford,

            The AI community may indeed define intelligence as “the drive to increase the number of possible futures” but this definition is incomplete.
            I would ask for a modification along the lines of …

            AI should define intelligence as “the drive to increase the number of possible futures, with an exception for ‘Socialist AI’ where the drive is to maximize the number of possible failures.”

            10

  • #
    James Bradley

    Pattern in the mistakes?

    If you draw a parallel between the IPCC and FIFA then it should more properly be described as a modus operandi.

    The problem with scams is that those perpetrating it need everyone duped quickly by an emotion driven story heavily promoted by all sorts of plausible proofs that initially appeal to specific personality types convinced of their superiority, hence the conviction that they are right despite logic, commonsense and evidence.

    There is now a certain and profound desperation in the push to get the ‘hook’ set on this scam because the line is running out.

    Another problem is the timing of the conventions. Too far apart and momentum is lost, too soon and there is no time for new events to perpetuate the scam. Paris in December is a calculated risk, a chilly, winter convention in Europe against the hope that a new theory or event will cause enough doubt for the momentum of the fraud to contiunue.

    314

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If you draw a parallel between the IPCC and FIFA …

      OK, they both score own-goals, and so so repeatedly.

      220

      • #
        toorightmate

        You are all being grossly unfair.
        FIFA is bad, but not nearly as bad as IPCC.

        30

        • #
          Iconoclast

          Exactly toorightmate, that’s just beyond the pale to besmirch the character of FIFA, a fine morally bankrupt organization riddled with corruption and equate it to the IPCC, that’s just downright outrageous. Sepp for IPCC Chairman!!!!!

          30

    • #
      Binny

      The (increasingly) desperate hope is that the current El Nino will prove the be as strong as 1998.
      Some people are already wetting their pants over the models ‘WOW’ temperature projections for the Southern spring.

      91

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      Paris usually has similar winter weather to London’s. There’s hardly any snow and the typical slight frost could be presented by the alarmists as Gaia’s natural ideal, which we imperil with all our evil “carbon”.

      On the other hand, I know from experience that it can absolutely tip down in Paris, in December, for days on end. If that happens next December, it will be evidence of “wild weather”, which, as we all know, is caused by our evil “carbon”.

      120

      • #
        el gordo

        A very negative NAO in December should provide Paris with blizzards, but in the meantime let’s not take our eye off the ball. Greenland ice melt is running a month late.

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/greenland-melt-getting-off-to-the-slowest-start-on-record/

        50

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          Many thanks for the link.

          Greenland’s late melt doesn’t surprise me, although it does alarm me. There’s not that much later that it can get. (Oh, hang on: I bet some computer model has comprehensively demonstrated that a late melt is inevitably compensated for by a late freeze – on gullible news services near you and me, passim.) While the idea of Obama’s forty-car motorcade running into drifts in the Rue de Rivoli (or wherever) appeals, the green obsession with ineffective renewables is going to cost real lives in a harsh winter, when the renewable myth is going to be overloaded by reality.

          Luckily, any survivors will have a Great Big World Government, to tell them how to live their lives, happily ever after.

          10

  • #
    Ron

    “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,” Who ever says that it was a mistake is mistaken. To over state is just them protecting us from ourselves as children should be protected. “Oh hang on” We know how to read and we know how to research and we know what they need to help the money flow in! Why is any of this surprising? Money and corruption has always had direct link and until this link is broken in the science industry we will continue to have this bias.

    172

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Quote from http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/8/ipcc-climate-misinformers.html


    The problem as described (and I havent seen the paper yet) reminds me why I originally became interested in the field. It struck me years ago that IPCC scientists were being “promotional” as the term is understood in the securities industry. The problems that they encountered may seem unusual in science, but they are everyday problems in the stock market.

    And the problems that they encountered seem entirely comparable to the problems encountered by businessmen who oversell to investors. One of the first rules in business when dealing with the public is: Underpromise and overperform. Something that the IPCC should also keep in mind when dealing with the public,

    Jun 8, 2015 at 8:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre”

    241

    • #
      RB

      So far you have only one thumbs down while most others have two. Looks like even one shill agrees with Steve McIntyre.

      100

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    From Nick’s article:-

    It’s on the strength of this unsettled science that Australia and other developed nations are being asked to channel a trillion dollars a decade to the developing world and cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 per cent.

    For some time now I have been looking to find out what ‘they’ are going to spend the trillion dollars a year on and within the developing world. And I know the hangers on will get their cut before ‘the developing world’.

    Does anyone know what spending is proposed?

    And another thing, how the hell do ‘they’ expect any ‘developed’ country to pay their share of a trillion dollars a year when they have no functioning economy left after reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70%?

    And I know the effect is miniscule.

    I can’t wait until ‘they’ shut down all our coal and gas production so I can watch the return of the Neanderthals.

    221

    • #
      GMac

      I can’t wait until ‘they’ shut down all our coal and gas production so I can watch the return of the Neanderthals.
      Who said we left!

      100

      • #
        NoFixedAddress

        @GMac
        I’m not knocking Neanderthals and if certain global DNA studies are to be believed we Neanderthals outnumber the “out of Africa” mob!

        90

  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Its reluctance to address the 15-year warming pause …’

    Cold bilge water was mooted as a possible cause.

    70

  • #
    Neville

    And the G7 countries have just agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2100. They claim this will limit temp increase to 2C. What delusional nonsense, because we could do SFA and we could have the same result and save trillions of dollars as well.
    Meanwhile the better paleo-climate studies show a much warmer earlier Holocene and in fact many PR studies show that it was warmer than today ( at times) over the last 1,000 years.
    Of course these studies apply to Australia and both the NH and SH. See the excellent Co2 Science site for hundreds of PR studies and the 1350 site.
    In fact the Lloyd 2015 study also shows that over the last 8,000 the normal rise or fall over a century is about 1C, so once again our slight warming since 1880 of about 0.85C is less than the average. And at the end of a minor ice age. These people are barking mad.

    140

    • #
      Lord Jim

      And the G7 countries have just agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2100.

      No better image for these politicians than that of modern day Don Quixotes tilting at imaginary windmills, thinking them giants (at least Cervantes’ Don Quixote, when he leveled his lance, was aiming at a real windmill)…

      120

      • #
        Manfred

        “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

        G7 countries have just agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2100.”

        In 1870 there was collective agreement to phase out horses by 1970, the problem being horse manure.

        The horses left the building…..but the problem remains.

        160

        • #
          tom0mason

          Manfred,

          G7 countries have just agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2100.

          What 9 o’clock tonight? :(

          :lol:

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            G7 countries have just agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2100.

            I certainly won’t be here when the calendar rolls over and 2100 pops up. But I’ll still bet everything I’m worth that they won’t have eliminated fossil fuels.

            Agreement and accomplishment are two different things. Agreement is just talk and accomplishment takes doing the hard part. No one will voluntarily commit economic suicide. At some point the light bulb will come on and that will be the end of the charade about fossil fuel. :-)

            40

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              In other words, when the pain gets too great people stop following the nut cases they’ve been following and then the dictatorship ends, one way or another. No matter who is in power they need the willing support of a huge cadre of followers to maintain their grip on the populace. When the willingness to follow and support wanes… …the Berlin wall comes crumbling down.

              We see the UK government beginning to bend already by starting to allow people to block erection of those god-awful windmills. The best thing about them has been Fenbeagle’s cartoons mocking the machines and their proponents in the government.

              50

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Skeptics are going to end up being global warming’s Ronald Reagan. One good push against a rotten political system and it will be all over. :-) :-)

                40

  • #
    Robert O

    I found the speech of the former PM to the Lowy Institute in November 2009 via Nick Cater’s link telling to say the least and merits being put up again for all to see. The failure of the predictions made in it is monumental as is the criticism of the personalities who didn’t support the AGW hypothesis. It really is an insight into a flawed political process which is still supported by Labor and the greens.

    160

  • #
    Binny

    The precedent is the Christian Church, and it’s capture of the European political system, post Roman Empire.

    100

    • #
      Graeme No. 3

      One side believes in prophesies by saintly individuals, miracles, events that can’t be explained rationally, buying indulgences, blind faith and absolute obedience to authority else you will wind up in a fiery hell.
      The other believes in God.

      120

  • #
    Konrad

    “Too big to fail” is indeed now the fevered pray of the warmists. And their hope is not without foundation as they now have the full support of lukewarmers repeating the mantras “CO2 causes warming”, “CO2 is a “heat trapping” gas” and “CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas”.

    But there is no value, no teachable moment, in a “soft landing” for this sorry hoax. Some may despair that no other solution can be engineered, but the lesson from history from the Roman Empire, The Third Reich and the Soviet Union is clear. It’s never too big to fail.

    The “pause” is not a winning argument, it is merely a flag or arrow telling people where to look. Most now know that over 100 climate models have failed against observation. The true end of this sorry hoax lays in understanding how the models failed and above all why.

    How the models failed is important as it points to why. Despite all their differences, the models all failed in the same direction, they all run far too hot. What chance is there that 100 separate faults in 100 separate models all resulted in a common failure? The “why” is therefore most likely to be something all models have in common.

    All the models do have one thing in common, they all assume CO2 will cause warming. The idea that CO2 may not cause warming at all is what many sceptics find too hard to contemplate. They’d rather attack a safer target, be it proxy problems or surface station shenanigans. But “CO2 causes warming” is not an unassailable target. It is highly vulnerable to empirical experiment. These questions can be answered by empirical experiment -
    “Can incident LWIR heat or slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool?”
    “Can tropospheric convective circulation strong enough to generate the observed lapse rate continue without radiative subsidence?”
    “Are the surface of the oceans a “near blackbody” or do they act as an extreme SW selective surface?”
    “Is the hemispherical SW absorptivity of water near unity with LWIR emissivity, or is there significant asymmetry?”

    If more sceptics did the empirical experiments to show that the answers to those questions are “No”, “No”, “extreme SW selective surface” and “significant asymmetry”, then the world will be able to add the Global Warming Hoax to the list of ideologies that were not too big to fail.

    2729

    • #
      Rollo

      The “pause” is not a winning argument, it is merely a flag or arrow telling people where to look. Most now know that over 100 climate models have failed against observation.

      Isn’t it lucky we had the “pause” though? Had temperatures followed the models, it would not have proved that anthro CO2 if the cause, but the UN/IPCC would have won the war hands down. Today, even with 98% of the models failing and a litany of dud alarmist predictions, sceptics still have trouble gaining traction with the MSM and politicians.

      132

      • #
        Konrad.

        ”Today, even with 98% of the models failing and a litany of dud alarmist predictions, sceptics still have trouble gaining traction with the MSM and politicians”

        That’s because sceptics need to abandon the “lukewarmer” position. It is a position of ignorance and fear. We need to say WHY the models are failing. The answer is painfully simple, the oceans covering 71% of our planets surface are not a “near blackbody” as claimed by climastrologists. They are instead an extreme SW selective surface being cooled from a potential average of 60C to our current average of 15C by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.

        For sceptics who don’t know what this “near blackbody” vs “extreme SW selective surface” thing is all about, I would ask “Isn’t it about time you found out?”

        622

    • #
      David Wood

      he fact that you got 4 red thumbs indicates the sad fact that the ‘lukewarmers’ don’t understand the difference between energy and heat. Energy can flow from a cold object to a hotter one and vice versa, heat (net flow of energy) can only flow from a hot to a colder body.

      281

      • #
        Konrad.

        David,
        It is 8 red thumbs as I type now ;-)

        But strangely no 8 comments containing informed scientific counter argument…

        Many of those red thumbs will be lukewarmers, and that says it all.

        722

        • #
          el gordo

          I’m standing beside you at the barricades, Konrad. Getting sceptics to take global cooling seriously is my toughest gig to date.

          722

          • #
            Konrad.

            El Gordo,
            32 red thumbs so far on this thread, my best effort to date!

            32 red thumbs vs 0 comments addressing any of the issues of radiative physics or fluid dynamics invalidating AGW that I have presented. Truly fascinating. Plenty of flack, but no one brave enough to scramble a fighter. Must be over the target…

            420

            • #
              el gordo

              They may see you as a ‘troll’, primarily because you think sceptics are lukewarmers.

              My only suggestion, practice putting your theory into language that unscientific minds can understand. Clearly you already have wit to help flesh it out.

              At the same time keep it brief. Brevity, brevity, all is brevity.

              211

              • #
                Konrad

                Ugly, yes. But not a troll. More of a Warthog ;-)

                But no need for titanium bathtub or GAU-8. I have empirical experiment. That’s why I get plenty of useless “red thumb flack” but no fighters.

                “If it disagrees with empirical experiment, it is wrong” – Richard Feynman

                So to the lukewarmers, what I am saying is unpleasant and ugly. But it is not wrong. They evidence this by their utter failure to mount a single coherent scientific counter argument. The more they click the red thumbs, but yet in their trembling fear offer no argument, the more they resemble the last bin they turned over. They’re empty.

                220

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If you spend the night in an igloo or a snow cave, you will find that you quickly start to feel very hot. That is partly because of the thermal insulation of ice, but it is also because the accumulation of CO2 inside the body has a physiological effect, that causes people to perspire, which we associate with being hot. You need to leave sufficient openings at the bottom of the space, to vent the CO2. People have been found frozen to death, sitting in an ice cave, in their underwear.

      I wonder how many of the alarmists sat, as children, under the bedclothes, and had that physiological experience, and whether that was the origins of the myth that CO2 traps heat.

      919

    • #
      Another Ian

      More in the “business too big to fail” but same idea

      Bigger than the British Empire then (and all past empires no longer with us)?

      And for the “One World Government” believers there was your trial at about “Half World Government” (with past trials at a smaller level) and no longer in existance

      30

    • #
      llew Jones

      why is the formula T = T0 + S ln (C / C0), which we are told is derived from the science, never used to check out how things are going. Or is it just a scam equation that can only be used in some distant future time when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles or quadruples etc? Could it not be used from the IR until the present to give us an idea if the science is all it is cracked out to be? Whatever there is something wrong with the settled science given atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 35ppm in the last couple of decades while the global temperature refuses to budge.

      011

  • #
    RB

    When science is “too big to fail”, it is too big to succeed:

    My description of science is that its the art of realising that you were wrong. Is “When the science is too big to fail” an oxymoron?

    20

    • #
      RB

      What triggered the moderation?

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Who knows? My theory is that the moderators are pan-galactic beings that take the phrase that you put in quotes to be a personal insult.

        I am currently trying to figure out a way to test that theory, but am having trouble in coming up with some falsifiability criteria.

        20

  • #
    TdeF

    The IPCC has to go. Man made Climate Change is in its very name, so of course man made government controlled Climate Change exists and this has cost the world trillions. The IPCC serves no useful purpose except the self aggrandisement of people like Pachauri and Figueres, both totally unqualified for the job but made rich and powerful by the invention of Climate Change and man made Global Warming.

    At least Sep Blatter had the right name. In Russia, you need Blat to get ahead, connections, bribery, corruption, nepotism, influence, shonky deals, police protection. To actually be called Blatter is beyond belief. The English equivalent would be Arthur Crook or Ima Robber.

    As for the Indian version of Rasputin, in an internet world Pachauri travelled 360,000km a year by air to lecture on the evils of air travel and lived in total luxury for 27 years on the strength of a fantasy. So does Al Gore. That Pacahuri was brought down by sex allegations was no surprise, but none of this has anything to do with Climate Change/Global Warming. Every country has its Pachauri or sets of them.

    We need to sell the ABC, SBS and perhaps even the BOM as they are thoroughly politicised even though we pay for strict objectivety and balance. The IPCC should never have existed, based on a wrong premise which was of course, immediately self fulfilling. In seventy years of peace since the end of WWII, the wasted opportunity is tragic. At least private billionaires like Bill Gates are doing great work for humanity and keeping away from politicians and bottom feeding opportunists and power hungry politicians.

    181

  • #

    Climate is based on highly complex interactions between a huge amount of variables. Much of the key data is not measurable, and even for the measurable parts with have very little data. It is extremely difficult to build model this in a series of equations as the parameters are not constant. The models will always be a poor approximation as a result. This is very like the issues in economics.
    Both in economics and climatology there is thus a problem. How do you distinguish between genuine understanding of the real world and pseudo-scientific models used to justify beliefs about the world? In economics, Milton Friedman proposed that a criteria was to make bold predictions based on the models, that were different from crude extrapolations from the data. At the most remedial level, a predictive success rate better than such crude extrapolations would show some credibility. In climatology there has been not a single short-term predictive success. I have tried to elicit a single success from an extreme alarmist, and only got rudeness, evasiveness and rage. More important, if predictive success is not to be the criteria for evaluating complex empirical subjects, what are the alternatives? If there really was a problem with climate, how could we sort the real signals from the dogma?

    160

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Slightly off topic and I am sure Jo will get round to it but I just heard on the ABC about a new ‘study’ from UNSW, by civil engineers of all people, regarding increased ‘peak rain’ from storm events.

    Apparently, based on a ‘study’of (selected) rain data over the past 30 years and if there was say a 5˚C temperature increase then we would get 5% to 20% larger peak rain events and flash flooding. Councils everywhere beware! You need not only listen to ‘climate scientists’ you need more civil engineers.

    As an engineer I would just like to see the error bars first before commenting further. Then I would like to see the stations identified and finally the data. NOt saying the work is dodgy but it never hurts to check things before, well one gets too alarmed.

    160

    • #
      TdeF

      The appearance of loony papers on statistically derived conclusions is itself predictable. It is probably a joke. If it is serious, it is a play for funding. We have come a long way from coincidence being causality. Now have anything you can observe or even postulate has one and only one cause, man released CO2. Then there is only one solution, taxation run by merchant bankers and operated by the IPCC.

      91

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      @Ursus Augustus

      You engineers, I don’t know how you survive.

      This is the way the world works,

      1. Alarmism;
      2. Theory;
      3. Appeal to Authority.

      Please note that there is no recourse to,

      1. Data; nor
      2. Stations identified; nor
      3. Error bars (what’s that?).

      82

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Not sure about these unidentified civil engineers, but AR&R have been working on redoing the statistics behind rainfall patterns over all of Australia for the last several years. They’ve probably completed the work and released it, I just haven’t looked for it yet.

      As for doing a study on a 5C rise; I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out how you study something that hasn’t yet happened?

      10

  • #
    GMac

    How could you possibly sell the BoM,it’s main asset is its data,and considering that it’s data is flawed then its data/asset has no value.

    90

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      I’ll give you $10

      60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I will down his bid by $2, and throw in a caricature of John Cook

        40

        • #
          Yonniestone

          I bid 1 Nigerian Bitcoin and an old thermometer covered in green cheese!

          40

          • #
            NoFixedAddress

            I’ll top you all;
            My bid is one melted iceberg… hah

            20

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              The funny thing is; if any one of you one the bid and got yourself landed with BoM, you’d have 1000 emplyees, hundreds of buildings, a megalith of old databases that have never been documented, files, data and software that nobody has ever cataloged, and more headaches than you could muster in a year of binge drinking.

              10

    • #
      TdeF

      If you could get it for $5, you would quickly be a billionaire.

      The weather is a real money spinner, possibly the most important part of the news. To farmers it is their livelihood. To sportsmen, their opportunity to shine. To recreational people, their fun. To gardeners, their daily concern.

      Remember that the data collection is now largely automated. This infrastructure has cost billions. The place is full of scientists who work on this. Apart from the political activists, the BOM is probably a rigorous science place and frankly, probably boring.

      So while it is costing say $300million a year, it is capable of paying that entirely from revenues and more. Everyone would pay for the weather. A licence to print money. It is very saleable.

      Like the ABC though, if we cannot get impartial advice, why not buy from a commercial crowd? If the news is not impartial, why have an ABC? These are all anachronisms like Vatican radio and Australia Overseas broadcasts. With the internet, even the SBS is quite irrelevant for multiculturalism and Foxtel do it far better anyway.

      30

  • #
    ROM

    Jo’s headline;

    The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer (Time to axe both)

    “Time to axe both”

    For the IPCC maybe somewhat closer than most think!

    The Republicans in the US Congress particularly in a couple of Congressional committees, have been trying to trim or eliminate funding for a number of the American Climate change programs including the funding for the IPCC for a few years now.

    This time around they have control of Congress and although it is unlikely that the IPCC and Climate change funding will be eliminated as of the current fiscal year budget, the writing is well and truly on the wall for the IPCC’s American funding contribution.

    Even more so from a number of other nations as well if Paris is seen to be a bust.

    Let alone if the Americans elect a Republican and skeptic inclined President next time around in the Presidential elections to be held probably on Tuesday 8th 2016.
    —————————
    This via the GWPF blog site;

    CNSnews.com

    House Committee Drops Funding for State Department Climate-Change Programs

    [ quoted ]
    CNSNews.com) – Just months before the most important U.N. climate conference in years, Republican appropriators in the House of Representatives are taking aim at one of the Obama administration’s most cherished priorities – international climate change funding.

    An appropriations bill for the State Department and foreign operations, released Tuesday, excludes funding for three major climate initiatives – the Green Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Strategic Climate Fund – and also removes funding for the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    &

    A Feb. 2015 Congressional Research Service report highlighted likely congressional concerns about climate-related budget requests: fiscal constraints, potential for misuse by “inefficient and bloated bureaucracies,” uncertain results, and uncertainties in climate science.

    “Prevailing scientific research on the current and future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate exhibits varying degrees of analytical uncertainty,”it said.

    “The lack of definitiveness in some data and in certain model projections has been offered by some as a reason to postpone and/or reconsider both domestic and international climate change assistance policies and programs.”

    [ / ]

    Ref;
    Congressional Research Service;

    The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI):
    Budget Authority and Request, FY2010-FY2016

    130

    • #

      Dismantle the IPCC,and the UN too while
      we’re about it. Something about human
      collectives that brings out the worst
      in us …gate keeping, echo chamber
      confirmation, secrecy … show your
      workings? Not likely! Let’s get back
      to free and messy, where ideas and real
      world meet and clash on the littoral.

      150

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      Thanks ROM.
      May those funding cuts become law. Then maybe even politicians here might pay some attention.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      40

  • #
    Neville

    Here is Phil Jones’s BBC interview again in 2010. You’ll notice there is no SS difference in the warming trends since the end of the LIA. And note that two of the warming trends are before 1950 and the IPCC states we should see a co2 influence after 1950. So where is that impact from increased co2 emissions?
    Also we know that there are heaps of PR studies that show a warm or warmer Med WP from both the NH and SH. So why didn’t he just admit these facts? Here is his interview———

    Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

    Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

    The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.

    A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

    Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

    I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    Here are the trends and significances for each period:
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

    This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

    E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    F – Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?

    First, I am assuming again that you are referring to the surface record from both land and marine regions of the world, although in this answer as you specifically say “station” records, I will emphasise the land regions.

    There is more than one “official” surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good.
    Keyboard (Autocat)
    Large numbers of the CRU e-mails were posted on the web

    Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.

    Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).

    The graphic in the link below shows that the global land temperature series from these 80% of stations (red line) replicates the analysis based on all 100% of stations (black line).

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/data-graphic.GIF

    The locations of the 80% of stations are shown on the next link in red. The stations we have yet to get agreement to release are shown in grey.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF

    I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.

    G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

    There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

    Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

    We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

    H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

    The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

    I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

    No – see again my answer to D.

    J – Are there lessons to be learned for society or scientists about the way we see uncertainty and risk?

    Yes – as stated by Sir John Beddington – the government chief scientist. And this doesn’t just apply to climate science.

    K – How much faith do you have – and should we have – in the Yamal tree ring data from Siberia? Should we trust the science behind the palaeoclimate record?

    First, we would all accept that palaeoclimatic data are considerably less certain than the instrumental data. However, we must use what data are available in order to look at the last 1,000 years.

    I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound. Yamal is just one series that enters some of the millennial long reconstructions that are available.

    My colleague Keith Briffa has responded to suggestions that there is something amiss with the Yamal tree-ring data. Here is his response:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

    L – Can you confirm that the IPCC rules were changed so lead authors could add references to any scientific paper which did not meet the 16 December 2005 deadline but was in press on 24 July 2006, so long as it was published in 2006? If this is the case, who made the decision and why?

    This is a question for the IPCC.

    M – What advice did you seek in handling FOI requests?

    The university’s policy and guidelines on FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations are on our website and the information policy and compliance manager (IPCM) takes responsibility for co-ordinating responses to requests within that framework. We also have colleagues in each unit and faculty who are trained in FOI to help in gathering information and assessing any possible exceptions or exemptions.

    I worked with those colleagues and the IPCM to handle the requests with responses going from the IPCM. He also liaises with the Information Commissioner’s Office where necessary and did so on several occasions in relation to requests made to CRU. Where appropriate he also consulted with other colleagues in the university on specific issues.

    N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

    It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

    O – Can you tell us about your working life over the past decades in climate science. Paint a picture about the debate with your allies and scientific rivals etc.

    I have been at CRU since November 1976. Up until 1994, my working life was almost totally in research. Since 1994, I have become more involved in teaching and student supervision both at the postgraduate and undergraduate level. I became a Professor in 1998 and the director of the Climatic Research Unit in 2004 (I was joint director from 1998).

    I am most well known for being involved in the publication of a series of papers (from 1982 to 2006) that have developed a gridded dataset of land-based temperature records. These are only a part of the work I do, as I have been involved in about 270 peer-reviewed publications on many different aspects of climate research.

    Over the years at scientific meetings, I’ve met many people and had numerous discussions with them. I work with a number of different groups of people on different subjects, and some of these groups come together to undertake collaborative pieces of work. We have lively debates about the work we’re doing together.

    P – The “Climategate” stolen emails were published in November. How has your life been since then?

    My life has been awful since that time, but I have discussed this once (in the Sunday Times) and have no wish to go over it again. I am trying to continue my research and supervise the CRU staff and students who I am responsible for.

    Q – Let’s talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a “trick” which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned “hiding the decline” (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

    This remark has nothing to do with any “decline” in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

    The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

    This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive – but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

    I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time – an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.

    The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

    The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.

    R – Why did you ask a colleague to delete all e-mails relating to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC?

    This was an e-mail sent out of frustration at one FOI request that was asking for the e-mail correspondence between the lead authors on chapter six of the Working Group One Report of the IPCC. This is one of the issues which the Independent Review will look at.

    S – The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?

    I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn’t this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor’s award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.

    T – Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

    This is a matter for the independent review.

    U – Now, on to the fallout from “Climategate”, as it has become known. You had a leading role in a part of the IPCC, Working Group I. Do you accept that credibility in the IPCC has been damaged – partly as a result of your actions? Does the IPCC need reform to gain public trust?

    Some have said that the credibility in the IPCC has been damaged, partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails. The IPCC does need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.

    V – If you have confidence in your science why didn’t you come out fighting like the UK government’s drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?

    I don’t feel this question merits an answer.

    W – Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit? What is next for you?

    This question is not for me to answer.

    62

  • #
    JohnM

    How similar are deciding where to have a World Cup and where to have a UNFCCC Climate Conference?

    80

  • #

    One more mistake – it’s ‘football’, not ‘soccer’.

    84

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      Nah. Its ‘soccer’.

      Football is played by sides of 18 on a 180 metre x 150 metre oval ground where athleticism, fitness, hand and ball skills, physical commitment and courage are the primary virtues and drivers of the game not acting and dancing skills.

      41

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    “Global warming’s success in colonising the Western mind and in changing government policies has no precedent.”

    I beg to differ.

    The first precedent I would cite is the ‘witch hunts’ of the reformation and the pursuit of ‘heretics’ by the Inquisition. Anthropogenic global warming, catastrophic or otherwise, is an appeal that resonates with the notions which underly myth of The Fall. It seeks to focus the mind and soul on the lack of perfection of man and then blame him for it. His shit stinks ergo he is evil. Very simple, punchy message and a perfect propaganda theme. Since ‘Western’ man has the longest economically wealthy history and harbours a strong religious narrative which includes the notion of The Fall, he is a natural target for such an appeal. His genuine mistakes over time just make that easier, factual hooks from which to hang the fraudsters’s net.

    Of course it all comes from people who typically have their economic backsides wiped by a nanny state or by the good fortune to be wealthy and detached from the grubby reality of life on struggle street. These are people who can spend their lives in a cocoon world where they can endlessly play with the moral and intellectual equivalent of dollies and hero toys.

    Nothing like a good old aramgeddon myth to whip the masses into a controllable flock. It has worked for millenia as a tool for the shamans, sociopaths and nut jobs to exploit to their advantage so why stop using it now?

    70

    • #

      “Global warming’s success in colonising the Western mind and in changing government policies has no precedent.”

      Boasian anthopology, Adorno’s Frankfurt School, Stephen Jay Gould’s writings on adaptation, Steven Rose and Richard Lewontin’s “Not in Our Genes”, US government support for feminist opposition to presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases, academic critiques of freedom of expression… You could fill a web page with a list of successful attempts to take advantage of the weakness of “the Western mind”. In a word, this weakness is individualism. Collectivism, groupthink and political correctness can undermine naive and unaware “Western minds”.

      70

      • #
        el gordo

        Red and Green are complimentary colors, so after the fall of the Berlin Wall it was a smooth transition, with small groups of free radicals legitimately penetrating mainstream Western democracy. Success beyond their wildest dreams.

        50

  • #
    mg

    You left off the leading paragraphs of Cater’s article which illustrate that he is a scientific illiterate.

    “Take Matthew England, for example, an expert on global warming, who on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference warned that the Antarctic was “losing ice at an alarmingly fast rate.”

    “There’s a net mass loss of such a scale that Antarctica’s actually contributing as much today to sea level rise as the Greenland ice sheet,” England told ABC Lateline.

    Five and a half years later the frozen continent remains stubbornly frozen. The sea ice record has been broken for the third year running and fuel is being flown to Mawson base by helicopter because the icebreakers can’t get through.”

    The seasonal sea ice surrounding Antarctica is not the cause of sea level rise and nor did England claim that.

    Whether you believe it or not, the evidence shows that Antarctica’s ice sheets are losing mass. That is what England was referring to. The rest of Cater’s article continues in the same vein – ridiculing science he does not understand”

    119

    • #
      Chris in Hervey Bay.

      “Temperatures in Antarctica”, from the British Antarctic Survey.

      Here, summer temperatures struggle to get above −20°C and monthly means fall below −60°C in winter. Vostok station holds the record for the lowest ever temperature recorded at the surface of the Earth (−89.2°C).

      Let us all know what ice melts at −20°C ???

      England is a fool.

      121

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        According to the dogma the ice sublimes. To paraphrase Napoleon – from the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step.

        Or if you prefer

        According to the dogma the glaciers are flowing faster resulting in the ice stretching (like toffee) and getting thinner.

        Or if you prefer

        According to the dogma the winds are getting stronger and abrading the ice, so it gets thinner. The removed ice is blown out to sea causing expanding ice shelves.

        Or if you prefer

        According to the dogma (insert ridiculous explanation here e.g. the new Amundsen-Scott Base at the South Pole is on poles so it doesn’t get buried by higher snow levels like the first 3. Why more snow at the South Pole? It’s due to previously stable snow getting attracted by those yankee boys with their chewing gum and nylons. I know…but I couldn’t think of anything ridiculous enough to match the warmist claims).

        71

        • #
          mg

          This is only part of your comment that I could comprehend.

          “To paraphrase Napoleon – from the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step”

          That would cover the bits I did not understand.

          20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I thought it was all rotten ice.

          10

      • #
        mg

        Chris. Are you suggesting that ice never melts in Antarctica? That would suggest that the ice sheets which currently average about 2.16Km in thickness should be substantially higher. Perhaps you should allow for the fact that England may know more than you – as do the satellites that measure the ice loss.

        Like all glaciers, the Antarctic glaciers are on the move, flowing slowly towards the sea. The relatively warm oceans are melting then from below speeding up that flow as this diagram illustrates.

        http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PIG.ai_.jpg

        20

        • #
          ROM

          mg @ #26.1.2

          Um! As a reference and information source  to try and impress some quite skeptical people here with the range and depth of your knowledge mg, perhaps you could start by revealing the source of your crayons for that illustration of the Pine Glacier.

          11

        • #
          Bill

          nice in theory BUT you will find that the Antarctic ice is replenished at a rate faster than it is lost by calving along the sea fringes. The upcoming separation of the Ross Ice Shelf is not due to global warming but due to its SIZE and MASS being too large to sustain in situ. The process is entirely natural. England remains a fool.

          31

    • #
      • #
        mg

        “balderdash”

        Thanks for your incisive rebuttal of my modest contribution to the discussion Manfred.

        12

    • #
      el gordo

      mg

      West Antarctica might be losing mass balance, probably because of undersea volcanic activity, but East Antarctica is packing on weight to compensate.

      61

      • #
        mg

        “Undersea volcanic activity”

        Is there a sea under Antarctica. When did that happen?

        15

        • #
          ROM

          Lets look at a few figures on antarctic ice volume and losses.

          First up; Total volume of the Antarctic Ice Cap.
          —————-
          From the British Antarctic Survey Bedmap 2 project
          [quoted ]
          The derived statistics for Bedmap2 show that the volume of ice contained in the Antarctic ice sheet (27 million km3) and its potential contribution to sea-level rise (58 m) are similar to those of Bedmap1, but the mean thickness of the ice sheet is 4.6 % greater, the mean depth of the bed beneath the grounded ice sheet is 72 m lower and the area of ice sheet grounded on bed below sea level is increased by 10 %. The Bedmap2 compilation highlights several areas beneath the ice sheet where the bed elevation is substantially lower than the deepest bed indicated by Bedmap1

          ———–

          Next are the losses and gains of ice volume as derived from satellite analysis as outlined in this following paper prepared by researchers from the Glaciology Section, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

          Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2

          Table 4 on page 1551 gives the following Areas and the following estimates of the gains and loses of ice volume on the Antarctic Ice Sheets;

          Estimated Annual ice volume gains and losses ; 2008-2014

          * Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet [ EAIS ] Area = 9.74 million sq Kms.

          Estimated change in ice volume = +59 Cu.Km’s. +/- 63

          * West Antarctic Ice Sheet [ WAIS ] Area = 1.74 million sq Kms

          Estimated change in ice volume = -152 Cu Kms +/-11

          * Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet [ APIS ] Area = 0.22 million sq Kms

          Estimated change in Ice volume = -35 Cu Kms +/- 9
          ——–
          Totals;

          * Antarctic Ice sheet [ AIS ] Area = 11.71 million sq Kms

          Total estimated ice volume changes= -128 Cu Kms +/- 83
          ——————–
          At an estimated Antarctic Ice Volume of 27 million Cubic Kms, an overall loss of the above 128 Cu Kms per year of ice primarily from the Antarctic Peninsula and from the West Antarctic Ice sheet due it is now believed to significant volcanic activity on the rift zone beneath West Antarctica and its Ice sheet [ ref; Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources] and the still unmapped changes in ocean currents bringing warmer water to the Antarctic Peninsula which has increased the rate of ice melt there.

          At the current rates of ice volume changes it will take over 200,000 years to melt all the Antarctic Ice Cap and that is without any other changes in any way to any of the factors such as the global climate over that 200,000 years period.

          As the Earth in it’s very recent paleo past has had much higher climate temperatures than we are currently experiencing and the antarctic Ice cap remained in the major portion of it’s coverage for some many tens of of millions of years past and probably running into the hundreds of millions of years. The stability and longetivity of the AIS and surprisingly the Antarctic Peninsula Ice sheet is a considerable puzzlement to Antarctic researchers.

          ref; BAS; History of the Antarctic Ice Sheet

          71

          • #
            sophocles

            … and over that 200,000 year period, the planet will have exerienced another stadial (glaciation), another interstadial (warm period) and be coming close to the end of a second stadial or be (just) into a second interstadial.

            (Just `rule of thumb’ estimates without any reference at all to the Milankovitc periodicities.)

            Good analysis, ROM. It’s about time the `Melting Antarctic’ myth was properly exposed.

            10

  • #
    Ruairi

    A coffin that gets its last nail,
    Goes for science that ‘s ‘too big to fail’,
    When it claims to be strong,
    Yet abysmally wrong,
    All its claims are to no avail.

    190

  • #
    Ross

    I think this post on WUWT is very important

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/06/2third-americans-100-per-year-too-much-prevent-global-warming/

    Despite Obama under instructions from Holdren & co and all those money men with vested interests pushing the AGW bandwagon for all its worth this year the USA public/voters are not prepared to put their hands in their pockets ( well only for small change). Just like the Swiss voters earlier this year , when it comes to costing the average voter money they are not great fans.
    So the sooner the politicians realise this the better –the scientific arguments can gone on for as long as like but it will be a political / money argument that will stop this scam.

    70

  • #
    pat

    at least Harrabin has the sense to place a question mark at the end of the headline!

    8 June: BBC: Roger Harrabin: G7: End of fossil fuel era?
    The G7 has called for a transformation of electricity generation towards renewables and nuclear by 2050.
    And they said fossil fuel should not be burned in any sector of the economy by the end of the century.

    ***Their targets are not binding – but they send a clear message to ***investors that in the long term economies will have to be powered by clean energy.

    ***The world’s leaders have effectively signalled the end of the fossil fuel era that has driven economies since the Industrial Revolution.
    ***This is a seismic shift – and an acknowledgement from the leaders, prompted by Angela Merkel, of the scale of the threat from climate change…
    The G7 also accepted that rich nations would need to help poorer countries – especially in Africa – develop using clean technology, and adapt to inevitable changes to climate in the future.
    They have promised to address risks from weather disasters that may become more serious as the climate heats and they say they will help with insurance and protection for the poorest…
    But they will be pushed by developing nations to show they are making good their previous promise of £100bn in climate finance by 2020 (WHY NO ANNUALLY IN THIS SENTENCE, ROGER?)…
    But huge questions remain. Some scientists and environmentalists accused the G7 of reckless complacency by suggesting that we can afford to burn fossil fuels at all past 2050.
    ***On the other hand there are worries from some developing countries about the suggestion that coal should be phased out. It is not clear how poor nations are to be persuaded to ignore the cheapest fuel available in their attempts to develop.
    The cost of solar energy is plummeting, and is now competitive with coal in some parts of the world, but it has not yet shown that it can power industries on a large scale.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33055651

    40

  • #
    pat

    take home messages from the G7. money for the Insurance and Renewable Industries, World Bank, etc:

    8 June: WhiteHouse.gov: Annex to the G-7 Leaders’ Declaration
    Schloss Elmau, Germany
    (FIRST MENTION) Climate Policy
    Climate Risk ***Insurance Initiative
    Effective climate risk management that aims to build resilience to the impact of climate change especially for poor and vulnerable people in highly exposed and low-income countries needs to encompass disaster risk reduction, adaptation to climate change and insurance to cover a portion of the residual risks that arise from natural hazards and extreme weather events…
    Objective
    The overall objective of the G7 initiative is to stimulate the creation of effective climate risk insurance solutions and markets and the smart use of insurance-related schemes…

    Initiative for Renewable Energy in Africa
    Africa is endowed with vast renewable energy resources. However, half of the world’s un-electrified households are in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite significant recent improvements in increasing energy access, the IEA estimates that 645 million people in sub-Sahara Africa will be without access to energy in 2030. Improving access to affordable energy services and thereby reducing energy poverty is an important objective in which a clean energy agenda can play an important role. In this respect developing regional renewable energy resources effectively utilizing all available resources could serve as the main driver to increase African energy generation and unlock potential for the future.
    Objective
    The aim of this effort is to improve sustainable energy access in Africa by 2030 by accelerating the deployment of renewable energy (solar, onshore and offshore wind power, hydro, biomass and geothermal, off-grid renewables, and grid and corridors deployment). This initiative is intended to scale up existing initiatives and aims to reach up to 10,000 MW in additional installed renewables capacity by 2020. It would identify and support the bankability of renewable energy projects in Africa, based on national and regional investment plans. It is possible to build on existing multilateral and bilateral programmes – most notably the UN “Sustainable Energy for All SE4All”, IRENA “Africa clean energy corridor” and UNEP initiatives, Africa-EU Energy Partnership, African Union, NEPAD, AMCEN and AfDB flagship programmes including the African Power Vision, the U.S. “Power Africa” initiative and the EU’s Electrification Financing Initiative (ElectriFi)…
    Method
    …The action plan will be worked out in close cooperation with UNEP and the World Bank engaging other relevant stakeholders and presented at the ministerial meeting on climate finance that will take place in Lima during the IMF/World Bank 2015 Annual Meetings as a decisive milestone on the road to COP21 in Paris…
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/08/annex-g-7-leaders-declaration

    60

    • #

      I have never read as much ideological bull$hit as this where pat indicates this: (my bolding)

      The aim of this effort is to improve sustainable energy access in Africa by 2030 by accelerating the deployment of renewable energy (solar, onshore and offshore wind power, hydro, biomass and geothermal, off-grid renewables, and grid and corridors deployment). This initiative is intended to scale up existing initiatives and aims to reach up to 10,000 MW in additional installed renewables capacity by 2020.

      It just makes me so angry that this gets put out there, while something which will actually work gets no mention at all.

      Note again how they use the wholly erroneous Nameplate total of 10,000MW.

      That up front total indicates to the (totally uninformed) readers that it is indeed a lot of power, but as I have always said, it’s not that Nameplate which is important, but the actual power delivered.

      Add up all those renewables named there and the (total) average Capacity Factor for all of them would come in at around 20% at the absolute tops.

      The average capacity for a large scale coal fired power plant would be closer to 90%, which is four and a half times higher than for all those renewables.

      What that effectively means is that for the same Nameplate of coal fired power, they will supply power to four and a half times the number of people.

      That Nameplate total, if it were coal fired power would only be five power plants. Keep in mind that the total power supplied from this Nameplate total of 10,000MW would be around the same power that is currently consumed in NSW, and this is what they propose for ….. Sub Saharan Africa and around 650 Million people.

      They have to build the damned grid anyway.

      The cost for the renewables would be approximately seven to ten times higher as well, for only 22% of the power.

      THIS ….. is their ….. PLAN.

      There’s something wrong here.

      Tony.

      250

      • #

        That Nameplate total, if it were coal fired power would only be five power plants.

        You know, what China will be bringing on line within the next eight to ten weeks!

        Tony.

        140

      • #
        diogenese2

        Tony, there is nothing wrong with THE PLAN. You(and Pat) are exposing its purpose with exquisite clarity. If the global economy is decarbonised and powered by “renewables” then development is impossible and the third world MUST remain in subsistence poverty. That has been the objective all along (indeed since the Club of Rome explicitly stated in 1972 with “the limits of Growth) inspired by Malthus and Jevons. The Global Warming narrative is just the vehicle or proxy for delivery indeed it is almost a euphemism for the real issue – the control of global resources. Of course the G77 have always been aware of this and the UNFCCC is the field on which the game is being played out. So don’t expect any change in structure or function too soon. However it is clear that the plan is failing and a defeat bigger than 2009 is on the cards in Paris. The G77 will develop their own resources nethertheless, China and India already almost independent of the west. And, like FIFA, they hold the votes in the UN and are becoming the paymasters.

        60

      • #
        NoFixedAddress

        @TonyfromOz

        I understand that most folk now have “smart meters”.

        Why is the head office of Greepeace Australia, Shell Australia, BHPBilliton, every inner city council (whatever) not just taking wind and solar energy and rejecting that dirty foul coal ele3ctricity?

        Someone needs to please explaine why we have to pay for the useless energy when the folks that believe in it should have it all and exclude the foul coal.

        Maybe that will include the stinking banks as well.

        21

  • #
    The Great Walrus

    When climate is dead
    I hope it may be said
    UN’s sins were scarlet
    But their books not red.

    - Apologies to Hilaire Belloc

    60

  • #
    James Bradley

    AGW proponents are desperate enough to risk everything to save nothing.

    The following exchange with Flannery on ABC The Science Show 7th June 2008 12:00am.

    Alexandra de Blas: There was a positive and flowing atmosphere in the federal parliament’s Great Hall. But the urgency and seriousness of the task ahead escaped no-one. The need for collaboration between scientists, business and government couldn’t be clearer, and the looming threat of climate change is bringing this triumvirate together in new ways.

    Tim Flannery: Just imagine yourself in a world five years from now, when there is no more ice over the Arctic, when we stand under threat of a rapidly warming Arctic Ocean, when we’re starting to see the first destabilisation of the Greenland ice cap, and all of those things happening because we don’t have a solution, because if things advance that rapidly we simply will not have a solution, in terms of reducing emissions. Then you’ve got to start pulling in your last-ditch efforts.

    Sometimes we actually cut off a leg to save the patient, and in this case, we may need to inject sulphur into the stratosphere to cool our planet. It’s going to change the colour of our sky, it’s going to change the amount of sunlight we get; but we may need to do it to buy ourselves a bit of time. Unfortunately we have foot-dragged for so long that we are now in a position where those very unpalatable remedies may have to be resorted to, even if they are dangerous.

    Alexandra de Blas: But couldn’t we bring on global catastrophe if that was to go wrong?

    Tim Flannery: Absolutely you could bring on a global catastrophe.

    Alexandra de Blas: Can we take that sort of risk?

    Tim Flannery: Well, if you’re facing a global catastrophe, stepping away from that place to anywhere else is probably a good thing to do.

    That’s the mentality of alarmists – if they can’t have it then no one can.

    121

  • #
    Dennis

    Last Tango in Paris?

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I wouldn’t bet on it.

      50

    • #
      Winston

      Sodomy featured prominently in that film, so from that perspective I suspect we are in for a case of deja vu in December, with the entire middle class population of the western world in the Romy Schneider role.

      30

    • #
      toorightmate

      Would the attendance numbers be the same if the accommodation was at the YMCA (on the floor, in the gym)?

      30

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -
    the sub-Saharan Africa renewables’ scam should be a wake-up call to the CAGW followers who pretend they care about poor people, but it won’t be, because they understand nothing about the numbers involved.

    read all the following for the MSM/NGO spin on what is merely “symbolic” and totally unrealistic:

    8 June: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans/Sophie Yeo: G7 leaders target zero-carbon economy
    Global climate talks received a ***symbolic boost today, as the G7 group of rich nations threw their weight behind a long-term goal of decarbonising the global economy over the course of this century…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/g7-leaders-target-zero-carbon-economy/

    it’s all spin all the time:

    5 June: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: ‘Beautiful’ nuclear power stations can win over sceptics, says Energy Secretary Amber Rudd
    Britain’s new nuclear power stations and other energy infrastructure projects must be designed to look beautiful to garner essential public support, the Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd, has said…
    The country is set for a complete overhaul of its energy infrastructure in the next decade as new green sources of electricity such as nuclear, wind and solar power stations replace polluting coal and gas plants…
    With so much costly construction planned it is crucial to make sure the public is on side – by making the projects visually inspiring, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary told The Independent.
    Britain’s current nuclear power stations, which are all located at coastal sites, are notorious for their ugly functionality…
    In a wide-ranging interview, she pledged to keep pressuring the Big Six energy suppliers to cut their bills and to do her best to win over climate change sceptics – both in and outside her party…
    She also put a brave face on Michael Gove’s refusal to let her attend the annual UN convention on climate change in Lima last December – even though she was the climate change minister…
    “I was obviously disappointed. But it was six months before the election and he was the Chief Whip. I thought it was in the nature of government. Ed Davey [the then Energy Secretary] was going – I wasn’t unhappy.”
    Ms Rudd admits the Conservative Party has an issue with climate change sceptics – although she insists that Labour harbours just as many MPs who are sceptical.
    “In my experience as minister I found there were just as many Labour MPs as Conservative MPs who spoke out with their doubts about it. I’m not in denial – I’m aware that some of my colleagues aren’t as committed as I and the Prime Minister are. But I’m going to be engaging with them, talking to them and hopefully winning them over,” she says.
    She has set up a meeting with Lord Lawson, Britain’s most high-profile climate-change sceptic, as the first part of her campaign to win over the doubters.
    “I will be having a conversation with him. I’m hoping to win him over, so great is my ambition. But we will see…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/beautiful-nuclear-power-stations-can-win-over-sceptics-says-energy-secretary-amber-rudd-10301365.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    i don’t trust YouGov polls in general, including this one, despite the slight spin towards sceptics:

    8 June: UK Independent: Andrew Griffin: UK and US main barriers to addressing climate change, survey finds
    In a new survey taken months before officials meet for perhaps the most significant climate change talks ever held, YouGov found that people the US and UK lag far behind countries including China in wanting those talks to produce a meaningful commitment to address climate change…
    In the US, 17 per cent of people “do not agree to any international agreement that addresses climate change”. That number is 7 per cent in the UK.
    In China and Indonesia, on the other hand, it is only 1 per cent. In China, 60 per cent of people want their representatives to “play a leadership role in setting ambitious targets to address climate change as quickly as possible” — in the UK, that number is 41 per cent…
    Reluctance in the UK and US for officials to address climate change might be a result of the belief among many that there is no problem at all. Asked “how serious a problem, if at all”, it was, 32 per cent of people said either not at all or not very…
    But given the unwillingness of people in the UK and US — major polluters, as well as international powers — to ask for similarly ambitious targets, talks could be held back. “Despite some lingering doubts, particularly in the US, a failure to reach an agreement in Paris would likely be met with disappointment throughout much of the world,” YouGov notes…
    ***The company noted that in China all questions were taken online, which could have affected the results.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/uk-and-us-main-barriers-to-addressing-climate-change-survey-finds-10303279.html

    6 June: CarbonBrief: Sophie Yeo: Coal in the G7: Who’s burning what?
    Using modelling by Berlin-based researchers at Climate Analytics, which assumes all governments implement their existing policies, the report says that emissions from G7 coal plants will cause $84bn per year in climate-related costs in Africa by the end of the century, based on the expected the costs resulting from adaptation and damage.
    This is more than three times the $24bn the G7 delivered in bilateral aid to Africa in 2013.
    Globally, the report says that G7 coal emissions will cost $450bn per year by the end of the century.
    It’s worth noting that this is not exclusively a G7 problem. Another report released earlier this week revealed that $73bn in public finance was spent on supporting coal between 2007 and 2014. Almost half of this came from export credit agencies in OECD countries. Japan, a G7 country, was responsible for the largest portion, spending $20bn on coal in this eight-year period.
    Using new research by E3G and our own research, Carbon Brief lays out the role that coal currently plays in each of the G7 countries…
    Japan: Size of coal fleet: More than 60 plants (41GW)…
    Japan has 52 new plants in the pipeline, which would almost double its existing fleet…
    USA: Size of coal fleet: 320GW…
    The US is the second largest coal consumer in the world after China. Coal accounts for about 77% of the CO2 emissions from the US electricity sector, although it represents only about 39% of the electricity generated…
    (READ COMMENT BY BILLHOOK)
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/coal-in-the-g7-who-is-burning-what/

    20

  • #
    pat

    7 June: RTCC: Malini Mehra: New climate change laws are spreading faster than ever
    With 75% of global emissions now covered by national targets, a UN emissions cutting pact is within reach
    (Malini Mehra is chief executive of the GLOBE International secretariat)
    These are two key findings from GLOBE International’s recently released review of the world’s climate laws, globally the most comprehensive of its kind.
    The 2015 study is the fifth in the annual series initiated by GLOBE International and LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    This year’s report covers 98 countries plus the European Union, and was presented to delegates at the United Nations climate negotiations in Bonn this week.
    For the first time, this year’s study includes as a co-sponsor, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the world’s oldest parliamentary body which brings together national parliaments…
    This year’s study covered countries responsible for 93 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions – of whom 33 were developed and 66 developing.
    The list included 46 of the world’s top 50 emitting nations. One stand-out finding was that 75% of global emissions are now covered by national targets…
    Other highlights(?) were:
    ***There were 804 climate laws and policies at the end of 2014, compared with 426 in 2009 at Copenhagen – and just 54 climate laws and policies at Kyoto in 1997. ***A doubling every five years…
    ***The study shows solid momentum in the emerging global legislative architecture on climate change. ***Coverage is widening and there is no turning back.
    It’s an important message to confidently communicate to business, ***investors, and others looking for certainty…
    The foreword to the study reminders readers that 2015 is a ‘generational opportunity’ for the sustainable development and climate change agenda.
    It is the reason why GLOBE is promoting a ***‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach to the UN’s four major summits on disaster risk, finance, sustainable development goals and climate change this year…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/08/new-climate-change-laws-are-spreading-faster-than-ever/

    20

  • #
    StewGreen

    Bottomline it’s NARRATIVE simples.
    Simple black & white NARRATIVE
    …beats full colour complex reality

    30

  • #
    pat

    reality:

    8 June: Argus Media: Adani, Reliance Power invest in Bangladesh
    Indian private-sector utilities Adani Power and Reliance Power plan to spend a combined $4.5bn on gas and coal-fired power projects in Bangladesh.
    Reliance Power plans to set up a 3,000MW power plant running by imported LNG, while Adani will build a 1,600MW coal-fired power plant. Reliance plans a floating LNG import and regasification unit to import gas for its power plant.
    Both companies will sell the electricity to state-run Bangladesh Power Development Board, which faces a daily shortage equivalent to 1,500MW of installed generation capacity.
    The agreements coincided with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s weekend visit to its south Asian neighbour. Bangladesh plans to double its electricity imports from India equivalent to 11,000MW within three years.
    http://www.argusmedia.com/News/Article?id=1050960

    fantasy:

    5 June: Guardian: Kevin Watkins: Solar power to the people: how the sun can ease Africa’s electricity crisis
    The scale of the continent’s energy deficit often fuels a sense of fatalism and paralysis. Yet on the flipside of this crisis are enormous opportunities
    (Kevin Watkins, director of the Overseas Development Institute)
    If you think this is a pipedream, think again. Bangladesh has installed more than 3.5m off-grid solar power systems, and the figure is set to double over the next few years. The key to success? Financial and technical support from government, allied to new business models. In Africa, a vibrant off-grid solar industry is poised for takeoff…
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/jun/05/solar-power-africa-sun-electricity-crisis

    re the writer above’s ODI:

    from Wikipedia: Overseas Development Institute
    As a registered charity, ODI’s income relies on “grants and donations from foundations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, governments, multilateral agencies and academia”.
    For its £28,541,000 income (USD 42,811,000 as of 1/2015) per its annual report from 2013-2014 ending 31 March 2014,[20] ODI provided a list of these “major donors”:
    Africa Progress Panel, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Canadian International Development Agency, Care International UK, Coffey International, Crown Agents, DAI, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia, Department for International Development, UK Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Economic and Social Research Council UK, European Centre for Development Policy Management, European Commission, European Union, Girl Hub Rwanda, Global Development Network, Institute of Development Studies Sussex, International Development Research Centre, Irish Aid, KPMG, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Ministry of Finance, Liberia, Ministry of Finance (Netherlands), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Denmark), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (France), Foreign Office (Germany), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway), Natural Environment Research Council, UK, New Venture Fund, Oak Foundation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Oxfam, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Research Triangle Institute, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Swiss Federal Government, The Prince’s Youth Business International, UN Women, UNICEF, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, US Agency for International Development, Wiley-Blackwell, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, World Bank, World Resources Institute.
    ODI: The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) is a £72 million (US$100 million) initiative, formed in 2010, that links developing countries with experts on climate change. Funded by the UK’s Department for International Development and the Directorate-General for International Cooperation, its aim is to help developing nations adapt to the consequences of climate change and build capacity for a low-carbon economy.
    CDKN is run by an alliance of organisations, headed by ***PricewaterhouseCoopers and including the Overseas Development Institute…

    back to reality and PWC:

    from Hindustan Times today “Reliance Power, Adani’s Bangladesh forays to hinge on pricing”: While Reliance Power is planning to set up a 3,000MW gas-based plant, Adani Power plans for a 1,600MW coal-based thermal plant, said Sambitosh Mohapatra, a power analyst with ***Pricewater­houseCoopers India. “We need to understand what scheme they will go in. There is a ready market, and if it is on a cost-plus basis and regulatory approved, and not via the bidding route, it should be easily ***bankable”, he said…
    However, new questions may crop up, he said. “We need to understand how the Bangladeshis will give (the projects) just to a Reliance or an Adani, and ***not open it up for bidding,” he said…

    20

  • #
    pat

    fantasy:

    9 June: RenewEconomy: Sophie Vorrath: Pressure on Abbott’s coal strategy as G7 signals end of fossil fuels
    “The G7 has put a stark dividing line between countries taking climate change action and those few still bound to fossil fuel vested interests,” said Blair Palese, co-founder and CEO of 350.org Australia. “Make no mistake, this is a pivotal moment in history and right now, Australia is on the wrong side.
    “Abbott’s intractable commitment to developing more coal and gas can only leave us with a truly ‘stranded economy’ that also threatens the global climate. Our region is one of the most vulnerable to climate change and Australia is already suffering some of the worst impacts,” Palese said.
    “Australia is out of step with other major economies – both in the industrialised world and I should say and the developing world too,” the director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Alden Meyer, told ***ABC Radio program AM on Tuesday.
    “There’s a clear trend globally away from (emissions) intensive (fuel) sources like coal and that obviously has major implications for Australia’s economic future if it doesn’t make the appropriate adjustments,” he said…
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/pressure-on-abbotts-coal-strategy-as-g7-signals-end-of-fossil-fuels-83163

    reality:

    9 June: Mining Weekly: Ajoy K. Das: Long-wall mining making a comeback in India
    Given compulsions to increase coal production from underground mines, longwall mining technology was seemingly making a comeback in India. The country’s largest coal miner Coal India Limited and second largest producer Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) have begun scouting for appropriate longwall mining equipment and technology from ***Germany, Poland, Russia and China, according to an official in Coal Ministry…
    Indian miners’ move to get longwall mining back on the rails was initiated by a ***German delegation comprising 15 mining equipment manufacturers visit to SCCL, last month…
    The German delegation visited few of the operating mines under SCCL and apart from offering state-of-art longwall mining equipment, the delegation representatives expressed willingness to customize equipment and processes factoring in specific requirement of each of the mines and even set up training facilities at site. The delegation included representatives of German mining equipment companies such as Siemag Techberg, DMT, SMT Scharf and Kleeman.
    Last month, senior management officials from ***US-based Catterpillar also held discussions with SCCL offering longwall mining equipment…
    http://www.miningweekly.com/article/long-wall-mining-making-a-comeback-in-india-2015-06-09

    20

  • #
    pat

    8 June: RTCC: Alex Pashley: G7 buoys climate talks with support for zero carbon goal
    Merkel hailed as “climate hero” as group of rich nations emphasise need for total world decarbonisation before 2100
    Merkel, once called the “climate chancellor” and with experience of the UN negotiations, brokered the agreement with Japan and Canada, perceived to be hold-outs given weaker action on the climate.
    Canada is promoting tar sands extraction, while Japan has become reliant on fossil fuels since the Fukushima disaster triggered a flight from atomic power.
    “Angela Merkel faced down Canada and Japan to say ‘Auf Wiedersehen’ to carbon pollution and become the climate hero the world needs,” said Iain Keith of campaign group Avaaz…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/08/g7-buoys-climate-talks-with-support-for-zero-carbon-goal/

    reality:

    9 June: Andalou Agency: Canada, Japan block strong greenhouse gas targets at G7 summit
    TRENTON, Ontario: Canada and Japan on Monday blocked strong commitments on greenhouse gas emission targets at the G7 summit in Germany, but did agree to reductions.
    Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel had pushed for the goal of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050. But a ban on fossil fuels by that date fell short, and the leaders instead agreed to a full ban by the end of the century…
    A source told the Canadian Press wire service thatCanada and Japan threw up roadblocks to more stringent language and reduction targets.
    “Canada and Japan are the most concerned about this one,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “These two countries have been the most difficult on every issue on climate. They don’t want any types of targets in there, so I think they are trying to make it as vague as possible at this point.”
    Japan uses coal-fired energy plants while the Canadian economy depends heavily on so-called dirty oil from tar sands in Alberta. The federal government is reluctant to go along with any environmental measures that could interfere with oil production…
    Environment Canada data shows that emissions were 3.1 percent below 2005 levels two years ago, but had risen for four years in a row after a global downturn in 2009, the CBC reported.
    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Merkel met Sunday but did not discuss climate change, Harper’s office said…
    “It’s shocking that Mr. Harper didn’t even bother to bring up climate change as an issue for discussion during his bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel,” (New Democrat, Paul) Dewar said. (LOL. CLIMATE HERO MERKEL COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT UP, DEWAR!)
    http://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/533823–canada-japan-block-strong-greenhouse-gas-targets-at-g7-summit

    20

  • #
    Peter the farmer

    Maybe I am “off topic”, still, today I had a biggish drive, up at 2 in the morning and off to Townsville. Nothing on radio but the usual music and drivel. Let’s listen to their ABC, I haven’t done that for a long time, by the time I arrived in Tully I was fuming and ready to kick anybody’s bottom! I found myself driving and screaming at the radio, the absolute nonsense about CC that their ABC was broadcasting was unbelievable, they even managed to drag up a “new” study on typhoon, cyclones and floods, apparently the people that are really going to suffer because of this more frequent and more savage events are people in cities!!! The “ad nauseam” repetition of the G7 declaration on CC was infuriating, The phrase “total decarbonisation ” is now in my black book, the next person that mention the term is going to find out how solid the cover of my black book is!
    Lesson learned, if you want to keep your sanity DONT LISTEN to their ABC!

    120

  • #
    Peter the farmer

    Maybe I am “off topic”, still, today I had a biggish drive, up at 2 in the morning and off to Townsville. Nothing on radio but the usual music and drivel. Let’s listen to their ABC, I haven’t done that for a long time, by the time I arrived in Tully I was fuming and ready to kick anybody’s bottom! I found myself driving and screaming at the radio, the absolute nonsense about CC that their ABC was broadcasting was unbelievable, they even managed to drag up a “new” study on typhoon, cyclones and floods, apparently the people that are really going to suffer because of this more frequent and more savage events are people in cities!!! The “ad nauseam” repetition of the G7 declaration on CC was infuriating, The phrase “total decarbonisation ” is now in my black book, the next person that mention the term is going to find out how solid the cover of my black book is!
    Lesson learned, if you want to keep your sanity DONT LISTEN to their ABC!

    40

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Comparing the corrupt officials in FIFA to the IPCC. Not very scientific. Do you really need mud-slinging to get people to read your website?

    Getting back to facts that are not malicious speculation, and can be verified:

    Michael Mann et al’s “Hockeystick Graph” – now confirmed by other studies.

    The “Hiatus” – an example of the IPCC being honest in their AR5 report, they reported the data as it was, and cautioned about the wrong interpretation. Several more years of data since the AR5 report and a global warming “slowdown” is looking less likely.

    217

    • #
      Another Ian

      Harry

      Did you never hear the slang description for a DH Twin Otter aeroplane?

      60

    • #
      Rollo

      Michael Mann et al’s “Hockeystick Graph” – now confirmed by other studies.

      Got a link for the hockey stick’s rebirth ? I thought the hockey stick had been thoroughly discredited by Montford and others.

      Don’t see how you can erase the “hiatus”. The data is there for all to see.

      100

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Rollo,

        no, the Hockey Stick graph was never discredited. I do not know why people persist with that myth. It appears again in the IPCC AR5 report (the original Hockey Stick graph was only for the Northern Hemisphere etc). Off the top of my head the PAGES 2K reconstruction is a better graph.

        I did not erase the “hiatus”; if you add on the last several years of global warming the “slowdown” is looking more like a temporary aberration. Still, I am happy to see more people trusting the global average temperatures, if they didn’t they would not be arguing the “hiatus” has been “erased”.

        111

    • #
      tom0mason

      Harry Twinotter

      I note your lack of confirmatory links to science, and therefore say that you appear to be propagating malicious speculation and not science.

      If this is untrue I’m sure you will quickly update your comment with some worthwhile science references and maybe some links to verifiable science, and not yet more hypothetical pseudoscience propaganda.

      111

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        tom0mason.

        Not sure where you are going with this. But if you can cite the scientific literature that argues the IPCC can be compared to the current controversy surrounding FIFA (a sporting body), I promise to read it and give you an opinion.

        14

    • #
      James Bradley

      Harry,

      That is a great point about the ‘Hiatus’, but you need to be careful arguing against the alarmists because as many alarmists will point out to you there are now 63 peer reviewed papers that explain the ‘hiatus’ and only 1 paper that denies the hiatus.

      And this is the really important point, Harry, 63 against 1 is better than a 98% consensus that the ‘hiatus’ is real.

      As you know, those alarmists are really, really big on consensus, so no use fighting the ‘science’.

      You should take joy in the fact that the world is not doomed after all.

      91

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        James Bradley.

        Who ever said the world was doomed? It wasn’t me. News media reports and blogs maybe, but I don’t really care what they say – they use headlines to sell newspapers and as website click-bait.

        63 papers attempting to explain the “hiatus” – that is science in action. Technically-speaking they were seeing if there is a physical reason for why the 21st century surface warming appears to be occurring at a slower rate than the late 20th century surface warming. There are several papers I have read that suggested the “hiatus” was an artefact of the data at the time, and not real. The IPCC AR5 report cautioned against interpretations because the 15 years (or so) is too-short an interval to determine a trend with confidence.

        16

        • #
          James Bradley

          Harry,

          Please, do me a favour.

          So we agree that the world isn’t doomed (and I’ll rephrase my statement as a question specific to you as many alarmists claim world doom) – do you take joy in that revelation?

          63 against, let’s say 5 papers and I wont press you for links, well that’s still a consensus for the ‘hiatus’ especially as none of the research, for or against, can be replicated so all we have is 63 opinions against 5 opinions – hardly science in action, but it seems good enough for another famously published and much referred-to-as-authority consensus by John Cook.

          “The IPCC report cautioned against interpretations… ” of course it did.

          51

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Joe Bradley,

            whatever works for you. I argue with the dooms-dayers and fear-mongers in other groups on a regular basis. It’s the anti-science that is the issue. The left “new world order” fear-monger supporters are a hoot.

            Nice attempted “bait and switch” on the hiatus papers – you have gone from papers “explaining” the hiatus to being a “consensus” on the hiatus. And taking a pot-shot at John Cook in the process. Be my guest, go and do a survey of hiatus papers, just make sure you get it peer-reviewed.

            03

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      HT,
      I’m sure Tony Heller’s answer on RealClimateScience will leave you unsatisfied, but you’ll have to do your own searching if you want more evidence supporting Jo’s analogy.

      30

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Andrew McRae.

        Not believing stuff I read on a Denialist website such as Steve Goddard’s – yep you have that right. People like Steve who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

        03

    • #
      Bill

      Nice try there, HT. but the hockey stick graph has not been vindicated. It remains a peice of trash. Science has spoken loud and clear on that one.

      30

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Bill,

        yes, the Hockey Stick graph is such rubbish they used it in the IPCC AR5 report.

        02

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal in Oz

          I assume you mean the Summary for Policy makers? Which page was that? I seem to have missed it??
          Cheers,
          Dave B

          20

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            David-of-Cooyal in Oz.

            “IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
            Panel on Climate Change”

            It will give your Adobe client a run for it’s money.

            Box TS.5, Figure 1.

            03

            • #
              David-of-Cooyal in Oz

              But removed from the Summary for Policy Makers in 2014.
              Cheers,
              Dave B

              20

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                David-of-Cooyal in Oz,

                ummm well no, actually. I think you are attempting to play with semantics perhaps.

                02

        • #
          BIll

          So you employ a circular arguement to justify nonsense? The hockey stick (which is the basis for all the IPCC nonsense) is vindicated by the IPCC continuing to use it. Great logic (sarcasm).

          10

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Bill,

            umm no, actually. Your attempt at a straw man argument is pretty lame, it needs work if you want to fool people into accepting a misrepresentation.

            02

  • #
    Andrew

    I think you and others owe FIFA an apology for that undeserved smear. Sure, they’re a criminal organisation and make their decisions primarily on how they can siphon off money. But they HAVE managed to organise 20 World Cups in between and are almost self-funding from TV rights – what productive thing has the IPCC ever done?

    120

  • #
    pat

    9 June: Reuters: Greenpeace says India denies entry to Australian activist
    Environmental group Greenpeace on Monday said India had barred an Australian staff member who had valid travel documents, a move it called part of a wider crackdown on the group, which is embroiled in a legal battle with the government.
    Aaron Gray-Block was on his way to attend a meeting in India when immigration officials stopped him at the airport in the southern city of Bengaluru and put him on a flight to Kuala Lumpur without explanation, Greenpeace said in a statement…
    Greenpeace workers, who have campaigned against coal mines in forests, genetically modified crops, nuclear power and toxic waste management, say their activism does not hurt the economy and they are determined to continue…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/09/us-india-greenpeace-idUSKBN0OP0L120150609

    9 June: FirstPostIndia: Reuters: Environment minister Javadekar dismisses claims of crackdown on Greenpeace, other green charities
    New Delhi: Environment minister Prakash Javadekar has dismissed claims of a crackdown on green charities, saying that the government valued the role of civil society groups working to protect the country’s people, wildlife and forests…
    Over the weekend, an Australian staff member Aaron Gray-Block who had valid travel documents, was barred from entry by immigration at the Bengaluru airport and told he was on a blacklist.
    Javadekar said his ministry “had nothing to do with it” and that different ministries had done this for “the internal security of the country”…
    In April, the home ministry canceled the licenses of almost 9,000 charities and blocked the bank accounts of Greenpeace India, which has led campaigns against genetically modified crops, coal mining and nuclear power projects.
    Greenpeace has said that a lack of funds could force its shutdown.
    The Delhi High Court in May allowed the group access to two of its seven blocked bank accounts to collect domestic donations, extending a lifeline to the organisation
    http://www.firstpost.com/india/environment-minister-jadvekar-dismisses-claims-of-crackdown-on-greenpeace-other-green-charities-2286594.html

    50

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    I understand that most folk now have “smart meters”.

    Why is the head office of Greepeace Australia, Shell Australia, BHPBilliton, every inner city council (whatever) not just taking wind and solar energy and rejecting that dirty foul coal electricity?

    Someone needs to please explain why we have to pay for the useless energy when the folks that believe in it should have it all and exclude the foul coal.

    Maybe that will include the stinking banks as well.

    30

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Down here at comment 47 virtually nobody is going to read this, but for those few who make it this far you deserve a chuckle. Completely off topic.

    Have a look at this photo taken at the recent Left Forum in New York and pay careful attention to the attire of the two ladies at the pamphlet table, then read the two signs, set up side by side, and obviously written by the same person on the same day for that event.
    http://cryptome.org/2015-info/leftforum-02/pict62.jpg

    If you were hoping that photo would help you understand how leftist Progressives think, you are probably out of luck, but I hope it was amusing all the same.

    30

    • #
      Bill

      Too Funny! Talk about having no grasp of reality. Thanks for pointing it out!

      20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Glad I came back to find that Andrew, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry it’s just really bizarre.

      Reminds me of something that would’ve been scrawled in scat on the cell wall of a serial killer.

      20

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Sorry Andrew,
    I don’t get it. The usual complete lack of logic.

    I would have thought that some of the other pictures might have been funnier.

    http://cryptome.org/2015-info/leftforum-02/leftforum-02.htm

    10

  • #
    Farmer Gez

    The IPPC is more like the IOC, “and the winner is…Flannery”.

    30

  • #
    sophocles

    What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9

    At the start of the twentieth Century, in 1910, was the discovery of what soon became hailed as ‘the missing link’ in human evolution, the step between modern man and apes. It was the discovery, examination and publication of Eoanthropus dawsonii or Dawn Man whose skull and jawbone (plus a few other fragments including a tooth) were found in a quarry near Piltdown.

    A few eminent people and scientists were thoroughly taken in, possibly allowing themselves to be duped because they wanted to believe England had it’s own history.

    It took until 1949 before microscopic scrutiny of the remains, including careful fluorine testing (bones alowly absorb fluorine from the surrounding soil they are interred in, so old bones’ fluorine content is the same as that soil) revealed the skull to about 600 years old (carbon dated to 520-720 yo) and the jawbone somewhat younger and belonging to a non-human, possibly an orangutan. The single tooth was identified as from a chimpanzee. In September 1953, Weiner, Oakley and Clark published their findings that Piltdown Man was a fake.

    1910 – 1953 ia 43 years. The Anthropogenic Global Warming seemed to start about 1984 – 1985. It’s now 2015, and AGW is thirty years old; tatty and ratty around the edges, with growing holes and rents, and with its ardent supporters looking, and sounding, rather febrile. It’s life as a valid hypothesis is now to be severely doubted, with no known successful predictions over that life. (At least I know of no successful predictions); successful predictions being the hallmakr of a serious hypotheses on its way to becoming a scientific theory.

    If we take PM’s lifetime of 43 years as a healthy age for a hoax, then AGW has about 13 years left. Hey, this is Klimate Science! A sample of one is eminently respectable, because I say it is! IF you don’t like it, go find your own scientific hoax! :-)

    If the Solar Notch Filter hypothesis turns out to be reasonably accurate, that 13 years would be ample remaining life to definitively prove AGW as a hoax.

    C’mon Sol! You can do it!

    (No, I am completely unbiased, totally neutral and not at all partial. Um, well there’s a 39% probability of impartiality.)

    21