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

Only half of meteorologists think human emissions are major cause of climate change

In 2016 67%  of meteorologists said that humans have caused most or all climate change and The Guardian headlined that there was a Growing Consensus among Meteorologists. In 2017 that fell to only 49%. The Guardian said nothing.

Graph, Survey, meteorologists, climate change, 2017

….

In 2016 29% of  meteorologists thought climate change was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year.

Figure how this result fits with the idea of the overwhelming evidence and 97% consensus. Which group on the planet after climate scientists should be the second profession to “get it” — how about  meteorologists?

So either:

1. meteorologists are really stupid, or

2. meteorologists know how hard it is to predict the climate.

From the survey results

Nearly half of weathercasters (49%) are convinced that the climate change over the past 50 years has been mostly or entirely due to human activity, and an additional two in ten (21%) think it is more or less equally caused by human activity and natural events. About two in ten (21%) think the change has been primarily or entirely due to natural events.

 Weathercasters have diverse views on the extent to which additional climate change can be averted over the next 50 years if mitigation measures are taken worldwide: only 17% think a large amount or all additional climate change can be averted; many more think a moderate (38%) or a small (31%) amount of additional climate change can be averted; and 13% think almost no additional climate change can be averted. Only 1% believe there will be no additional climate change over the next 50 years.

 Nearly all weathercasters (95%) think climate change—as defined by the American Meteorological Society—is happening; relatively few think it isn’t happening (2%) or don’t know (3%).

 

When asked if they had witnessed any positive outcomes in their communities as a result of climate change mitigation or adaptation activities, about a third (31%) of weathercasters reported that they had witnessed such outcomes.

Anthony Watts pointed out in 2016 that there were biases that would underestimate the skeptic vote:

Given that the operator of the survey, George Mason University is a hotbed of calls for prosecution and jailing of “deniers”, and that Edward Maibach is one of the people who signed the letter to the Whitehouse and who operated this particular AMS survey, I can’t say that I blame them. I wouldn’t have sent it in either when the man asking the questions might flag you for criminal prosecution for having an opinion he doesn’t like.

 George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication

Weathercaster Survey Report PDF

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (86 votes cast)
Only half of meteorologists think human emissions are major cause of climate change, 8.7 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m42xk3c

121 comments to Only half of meteorologists think human emissions are major cause of climate change

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    A growing consensus among meteorologists…

    That reminds me that the few meteorologists I’ve seen on TV or read on the internet who would make any comment about climate Change at all heve, to the very last one, all said that what’s being complained about as evidence for climate change is just normal weather variation.

    Even when downtown Los Angeles recorded a high temperature of 92 °F (33 °C) — unusual but it is, after all, a desert environment — no one said it was climate change.

    The predicted high was 96 °F which didn’t happen and I won a bet with my boss that the prediction made the previous winter or early spring by a prominent TV meteorologist wouldn’t be reached.

    I should have proposed a wager of $100 instead of the $20 I did.

    190

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And of course we face one more consensus. Logical fallacy doesn’t bother those who don’t even know there’s a trap in that game they keep trying to pull on the public. Fallacy? What’s that?

      So I guess we might just as well all march right up to a police station and announce our guilt as deniers and face the music. Hint to police — I prefer Beethoven or Mozart, otherwise some good traditional bluegrass. But I fear it will be a very unforgiving judge appointed by maybe Al Gore or James Hansen, don’t you think?

      So it’s as the White Queen kept hollering,

      off with their heads.

      And they mean our heads… …and I’ve grown so used to mine, its so useful. I wonder what it will be like without it. Probably very dull. :-(

      150

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And if I could think of anything more useful to say than a miserable attempt at humor I would say it. But arguing the science is like arguing with a fencepost.

        Maybe the method to use is to argue, “Look at the total body of evidence,” not just the numbers or the models but the easily knowable history going back to the little ice age and farther. Doing that finally convinced me that I was right where before I was always in doubt about my position. There is no problem except in the minds of those who want our money or power over us and those who’re just plain ignorant enough that they can’t understand the problem.

        201

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I keep asking for the scientific proof – I ask for facts and figures – shuts them up every time…..and people notice, too, dont worry….

          The Leftists love to argue from “authority” ( the IPCC, or whatever politicised govt dept is chosen )…. as the Good Book says :

          “As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.”
          ( Prov 26:11 )

          111

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Shutting them down isn’t the same as convincing them though. And usually they do just that, shut down any debate but continue believing as they do.

            And we need to change minds, a lot of them.

            40

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              The hard core lefties you wont be able to convince, the general populace, yes, likely.

              40

              • #

                It would be interesting to know the political alignment of the meteorologists on either side. The 50/50 split seems more like that between the left and the right and as we all know, the effect CO2 emissions has on the climate is dictated by a political narrative.

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Given the general prevalence of left leaning in this country I will hazard a guess and say Democrat to your question. But I have no way of actually knowing.

                00

              • #
                ian hilliar

                the problem remains that “belief denies reason.”. Same as any other religion.. So they just keep on spouting the same old dogma.

                10

          • #
            sophocles

            I tell them to download and read the IPCC AR5 reports. They are publicly and freely accessible. They should always ignore the Summary for Policy Makers until they are sure they have read and understood everything from Working Group 1 (WG-1). Then they can go and read The Summary.

            So far, it’s cured two people. Yeah, gimme another Century and I might be able to put together a converted horde :-) or a horde of Converts. I think Ma Nature is going to do way better than that, and rather soon, at that, but never mind. I’m still reading WG-1 but I’ll get there, one day….I’m also (still) reading the NIPCC reports and they have a higher priority.

            Using their “bible” against them works. They soon see that their Authority also doesn’t believe/ignores its own “science.”

            71

          • #
            sceptic56109

            I like to tell people who believe in Global Warming that I still haven’t heard an acceptable value for climate sensitivity. The last I heard from the UN, climate sensitivity was 1.5 to 5.0 degrees Celsius, with a further disclaimer that Climate Models indicate a temperature increase of 8.5 degrees Celsius if present fossil use is continued to 2100 AD. I would not brag about any predictive value for a guess that sloppy.
            By the way, the last time a ship sailed the North West Passage without pushing through sea ice was 1945. The predictions of the Greenpeace “scientists” (or was that UN “scientists”) are getting a little tiresome.

            00

            • #
              Leo Morgan

              Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that “if present RATE OF INCREASE IN THE USE OF fossil use is continued to 2100 AD.”?
              That’s been my understanding for some time. Also worth noting that such an amount of economic activity would abolish starvation and poverty from the face of the planet. Individuals now subsisting on a dollar a day (and those not subsisting, but in the process of dying) would then have European level annual incomes.

              00

      • #
        MCAB

        Not the White Queen, but the Queen of Hearts.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Oops! Well, one of those queens anyway. Unpleasant old gal really. :-(

          Been too long away from that silly book and no longer have a copy of it to fact check against. Must have let mine go when I moved out of my folks house and got married. It’s good reading for today’s politics I would think.

          10

          • #
            sophocles

            Roy:
            The Red Queen. “Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There” is freely available from the Gutenberg Project, ready for you to download. There’s no charge.

            So is it’s prequel “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
            :-)

            Enjoy.

            It’s good reading for today’s politics I would think.

            Good point, and if you add the Reverend Jonathan Swift’s writings, then the field is well covered.

            20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Found it and downloaded it. Looks like some interesting reading. :-)

              A green thumb from me for calling my attention to it.

              And by the way, if I was to go looking for copies of every book I would like to have but don’t, I could spend the rest of my life downloading and reading. The horizon is too wide and my time has other demands. And in retirement, some things seem much more important than remembering exactly who said what in the world down the rabbit hole or behind the looking glass.

              Thanks for pointing out the title you did.

              10

              • #
                sophocles

                Thanks for pointing out the title you did.

                You’re most welcome.

                if I was to go looking for copies of every book I would like to have but don’t, I could spend the rest of my life downloading and reading.

                Well, what’s wrong with that? I do it … :-)
                I’m a voracious reader, always have been, and while my eyes still work (diabetes 2 is a bit scary) always will be. I have anywhere from three to five books `on the go’ at once. (I’m a fast reader.)

                My reading list at the moment is:

                The Delinquent Teenager ….etc Donna Laframboise
                The Weather Machine and the Threat of Ice Nigel Calder (second time through it)
                The Book of PF Peter Hansteen
                Climate Change Reconsidered, II The Physical Science The NIPCC authors …
                IPCC WG-1 The Physical Science Basis, whoever it was, I’m reading Section 5 of 14 Information from Paleoclimate Archives. 9 sections to go (and 6 annexes)

                It keeps me entertained while I wait between batches of spare parts for my motorcycle. Donna Laframboise’s book is a real eyeopener and quite a good giggle as she describes how the IPCC ties its shoelaces together.

                Life would be awfully boring without books. My only complaint is that the body has to have exercise and I can’t easily read while doing that.

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Well, what’s wrong with that? I do it…

                The only thing wrong with that is that I have a few irons in the fire, projects I want to spend time on, like doing some writing of my own. I have a good start on the sci fi story I’ve had floating around in my head for a long time and I want to finish that. But the writing is using up a lot of time. And the switch from someone who wrote mostly professional stuff like specs and user instructions to fiction writer isn’t an easy one to make.

                And then there are the times I’ve written myself into a corner because I didn’t consider some plot detail and how it would fit with something else.

                00

              • #
                sophocles

                Roy:

                projects I want to spend time on, like doing some writing of my own.

                Good on you! Go for it.

                Writing something serious burns large quantities of time. You end up writing two stories for each one.

                10

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Roy, it seems the Klimatat seem to manage fine without thiers….fear not….

        51

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          A green thumb for that from me.

          10

          • #
            ian hilliar

            Roy, when The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy was being written, on a mac, every time the author wrote himself into a corner he would do a quick “search” back through the text so far for any mention of any key word at the time. Failing that, you need a heart of gold, or an infinite improbability machine, or both.

            00

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Most Meteorologists fail to understand that the detailed physics of the water cycle mean that increased [CO2] is offset by decreased [H2O].

      You can easily prove this with MODTRAN.

      71

      • #
        tom0mason

        Meteorologists never fail with their predictions?
        Meteorologists always get the weather forecast correct?
        No?
        So, can meteorologists not be in error with their belief in an unproven theory that the human caused part of the increase in CO2 will overwhelm all other factors and cause the climate to change catastrophically.

        It’s really laughable, if only it did not cost so much.

        50

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          It’s really laughable, if only it did not cost so much.

          To steal from yet another author, “There’s the rub.”

          10

      • #
        sophocles

        Meteorologists pretty much have their hands tied. They don’t make the forecasts, at all. They present what they are given to present, with maybe some very minor amendments.

        Their job is make the measurements, temperature, wind direction and speed, precipitation type(s) and amounts, barometrical pressure, etc.
        If there’s a weather balloon involved, they get to play with it.

        All their data is packaged and sent to the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation, the Grandparent of the IPCC.), to their computer centre in Geneva. The data goes through the WMO computers which include the satellite data, and apply their weather models to it all. The next 24 hours forecast, from midnight to midnight, is the first run, which is sent back to the meteorologists in the country of origin. Run 2 of the meteorological models is to produce the 3 day forecast. That is sent back. Run 3 produces the 5 day forecast which is sent back to them.

        The local meteorologists look at the forecasts.

        `By George, look, it’s tomorrow’s forecast!.’
        `I say, Brian, you’re right. So it is. Toss you for it,
        heads you present it, and tails you still present it.’

        They can check it against what is happening and what seems to be brewing and maybe make some minor changes based on their experience and their databases. But it remains mostly, as in almost wholly, what the WMO computer models spat out.

        Their next job is to present it, radio, TV, Web site, newspapers, whatever; that’s their job.

        The 24hr forecasts are pretty accurate, not perfect but usually right to about the 95% confidence level. They don’t take space weather into account and if Planet Earth’s magnetosphere is slapped about by a CME then the results of that will only appear as the weather develops over the next 24 hours or more. It does not appear instantly. The next day’s measurements and satellite photos always pick up the new TC. It will have begun as a collection of large thunderstorms hanging out together. Those will be watched anyway.

        The 3-day forecasts are not bad but not perfect. They’re a lower confidence level, say 72% and the 5 day forecasts are less still. They’re quite optimistic as they get out to days 4 and 5 but are mostly pretty good at say 67%.

        The weather models are similar to the Climate Models. You could say the Climate Models are derived from them. The Weather models are as good as they are because they don’t try to predict more than 5 days out because the weather can and does change significantly.

        And that’s it. The meteorologists have to deliver the weather as it was delivered to them. If they deviate from the script, the Weather presenter is changed. This is why “Forecast the Facts” are a lost cause and have been right from the beginning. It’s out of the local meteorologists hands.

        It’s all documented in:

        CALDER, NIGEL; The Weather Machine and the Threat of Ice 1974, British Broadcasting Corporation
        ISBN-10: 0563126469
        ISBN-13: 978-0563126461

        It’s out of print but I acquired my copy from http://www.amazon.co.uk as a second hand hardcover in excellent condition for British Pounds 0.01 + postage.
        Yes, that’s 1p. There is at least one still available at that super low price :-) —I looked! It’s a very good book and at 143 pages, it takes more than a day to read.

        Meteorologists are entitled to hold opinions and they have the same freedom to state what they believe, but it’s never in the slot of a weather forecast.

        Enjoy.

        51

      • #

        MODTRAN is a model and some of the assumptions are wrong. Good scientists should first obtain data and experimental results, then analyse the data taking into account measurement errors and conflicts with measurements,only then should they look at dimensional analysis to seek relations between variables. After that they can look at models which can be tested. Analysis of data with climate needs knowledge of engineering subjects such as thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, fluid dynamics, reaction kinetic and especially mathematics to enable dimensional analysis and solve complex equations. I know of no scientist that is competent to produce a model associated with climate changes. Has it not been shown that all models on climate have been shown to have no predictive skill? The reasons for failure are simple the models are based on assumptions instead of real data and have been put together by incompetents.

        30

  • #
    Mary E

    Typo? (Under graph) “In 2017 29% of meteorologists who thought climate was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year.” Should that be ” In 2016 29%…”

    91

  • #

    The consensus argument is nothing more than a devilish exploit of the scientific illiterate.

    200

  • #

    George Mason U is also deeply involved in converting weather reporters to climatism and supplying them with alarmist materials for use in broadcasts.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/climate-evangelists-are-taking-over-your-local-weather-forecast/

    190

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      When you say it enough times it becomes fact simply by repetition. And it’s easy enough to find a record high temperature somewhere. No one will notice that it was local in extent or that it exceeded any previous record by as little as a tenth or so of a degree. Significance of the record will not matter, neither will history of the region with the record. After all it’s never mattered before now. And now climate change is the cause du jour.

      George Mason will surely have an easy job of it. I wonder what they get out of it. What’s in it for them? And that question is an elephant in the room… …or a dozen of them in our collective laps.

      70

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        I wonder what they get out of it.

        They have done quite well $$$$$$! Makes one want to take a shower.

        Look for posts from last year regarding:
        George Mason University #RICO20 gang

        71

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Thanks, Ron, for identifying George Mason U as one of the academic institutions supporting AGW propaganda.

      Having worked in university administration, and knowing the tremendous overhead charges they extract from each external research grant, I am convinced that most, if not all, prestigious universities now participate in this oldest of professions.

      70

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    We now know, beyond reasonable doubt, that in 1935, blind belief in the system of “Quantum Mechanics” blocked the natural advancement of science along a path of continuous, joyful discovery of “reality, truth, God” and enslaved humanity to an altered awareness of “97% consensus science.”

    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/the-free-and-independent-individual/#comment-222807

    72

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    I look out a window to a landscape containing the plants and animals of the interface between a Ponderosa Pine biome and a Sagebrush/Steppe biome. Such a region – transition area where two communities meet and integrate – is called an ecotone. Climates were initially defined in this manner – in the field, looking for plant boundaries.

    Local research efforts, such as examining sediment cores from undisturbed lakes, indicates the ecotone in which I live developed following the last glacial advance (nearest ice to us was an hour’s drive away).
    The Mule deer are still here, as are the Coyotes. The Pines are still here, as are Arrowleaf balsamroot – just now blooming as spring seems a little late. Salmon still reach the area from the Pacific Ocean as they have done for thousands of years.

    In the above sense of the word “climate” – I have to ask, where’s the change of which they speak?
    In the above sense of climate – I have to agree with the 1% of the right tail of the chart.

    My cousin Pat says “Not everyone makes chocolate pie the way we do.”

    A survey should not ask questions when the meaning of the words is not fixed and the same for everyone. Climate? Good Grief!

    160

  • #
    TdeF

    I wonder how many people including meteorologists would consider Global Warming, now Climate change was man made if it was known that the 50% CO2 increase in the last 120 years is natural?

    It is amazing that this is not something anyone debates. Even people who dispute man made Global Warming always start by stating explicitly or implicitly that mankind has increased CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They also implicitly accept that CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. This is despite the fact that it is not true. The lifespan of CO2 was thought to be a few years in the 1950s. We now know that it is 14 years but still the IPCC declares the half life to be 80 years.

    So I wonder how many people would accept man is changing the atmosphere if this was better known. Without the premise of man made CO2 rise, there is no argument. Whether CO2 is a significant Greenhouse gas becomes a moot point.

    232

    • #
      TdeF

      It was also amazing that not one of Australia’s Climate Commissioners was a meteorologist. Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery’s undergraduate degree was in English and his PhD in dead kangaroos. Some engineers, administrators. Only Will Steffen was a scientist, an industrial chemist who clearly did not want to work on cheese, wine, rubber, paint or explosives.

      Then 350 full time scientists from the CSIRO, ‘the problem solvers’ working full time on proving Climate Change, when we already paid for a Bureau of Meteorology? Obvious Climate is not about the weather. Of course they failed to find Climate Change and went on to researching how Australians could cope with what they could not find. Hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of lives to prove nothing, achieve nothing, all at our expense?

      Certainly none of the famous promoters of Climate Change are meteorologists and many have no science at all, most notably Al Gore. Michael Mann could not get a PhD in physics but finally managed a highly contentious one studying tree rings? These are not the best and brightest scientists.

      Even the concept of a scientist has been so diluted over the last fifty years that questions the very idea of Rational science. Science by rote when a real scientist is a sceptic who wants everything proven beyond doubt by facts and experiment. Not the new scientist. They simply agree with each other and claim consensus is truth and facts are irrelevant. Even the 97% number is unscientific nonsense fabricated from an emasculated survey where deniers were omitted by claiming they were not ‘climate scientists’, a very exclusive bunch.

      The proliferation of science free environmental studies since the 1980s has created a whole new class of people who call themselves climate scientists but have little or no knowledge of basic science. The most egregious are the various psychologists who use surveys and statistics to prove anything they want. If enough people believe something is true, it must be true.

      So what happened to Rational science and the Enlightenment, when people were freed from having to conform to Church dictates? We now have the Church of Climate Change. Anyone who dares disagree is a Denier of the faith and meteorologists are not even to be consulted on the climate. Only the high priests know the truth about the climate and now 75% of meteorologists are deniers?

      343

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Yes well the solution to that was the printing press and translatingthe Bible into english, out of the Latin which was usually the preseve for those few who were actually educated.

        Tyndale did a power of good translating the Bible into english, and broke the Catholic churches’ stranglehold on who could read the Bible. In the process, it also tore down many of the un-Biblical church traditions the catholci church had peddalled as Biblical. Eventually he was executed for almost single handedly demolishing the catholic churches power base by just being truthful. Henry the 8th later completed the job and basically threw the roman church out of England.

        Sceptics have the same role – speaking the truth will win out, its gong to be a rough road though.
        Heresy is rewarded the same every time, but worth pursuing so people can have freedom.

        90

      • #

        Growing dissent from meteorologists? Time for a letter to Galileo –
        or maybe a RICO action against dissidents of the anthropological global
        warming orthodoxy.
        https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22977-professor-wants-to-use-rico-to-punish-climate-change-deniers

        20

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Banks now making sacrifices ( of their cashflow ) on the Big Green altar…..

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-28/westpac-adds-coal-to-its-lending-black-list/8479600

          “”Our lending to customers in the thermal coal sector is limited to those that have a calorific value which ranks in the top quartile globally,” the new position statement said.

          That effectively would prohibit lending to ventures using coal from Australia’s last untapped resource in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.”

          A wonderful response though….

          “The decision angered Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan, who described Westpac as a pack of “wimps”.

          “Corporations are wimps these days in standing up up these (environmental) activists,” Senator Canavan told a press conference shortly after Westpac released its policy..”

          The bank shooting themselves in the foot – the jokes on them – less business, less lending, less spending ……bye bye banks….just give it time….

          Get yer popcorn here……

          20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Some time ago there was a post which indicated that several studies showed that human origin CO2 had a life span of about four and a half years in the atmosphere with a maximum residence time of 7 years.

      The whole CO2 thing is a scientific nonsense and can be disposed of in several ways.

      As I have outlined previously, the relative activity of water and CO2 in the proposed mechanism for global warming means that water far outstrips human origin CO2 as a potential participant in the climate greenhouse fantasy.

      The quantification aspect removes CO2 from any blame in global warming.

      In making these statements I have qualified them with the big IF, and by that I have meant that IF the mechanism is true, then human origin CO2 is still irrelevant from a quantitative point of view.

      The main problem for CAGW is that as many real scientists know, the proposed mechanism of inbound high energy UV hitting the surface and converting/degrading to low energy outbound IR that is “trapped” by CO2 is a nonsense.

      It is my understanding that CO2 helps to cool the Earth by sending energy to deep space. The reverse of the CAGW scam.

      There has been far too little assessment of the mechanism that has been attributed to CO2 because it just doesn’t help the concept of Man Made Global Warming.

      Truth in science?????

      KK

      101

      • #
        TdeF

        We know the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere becuase in 1965, atmospheric tests doubled C14O2. This increased from one in million to two in a million. C14 has a half life of 5400 years, so it cannot vanish. The concentration has halved every 14 years since then on a perfect exponential decay. There is no need for an laboratory experiment. We have the results of a world wide experiment.

        So the question is where did it go? Firstly a single sink, not multiple. There is only one, the ocean, which the IPCC specifically exclude by saying on the top 100 metres matter. Clearly they are wrong again.

        Also it is apparent that the new level is very close to what it has been for the last 30,000 years, not 33% below which would be the case if 50% of the extra CO2 was fossil fuel CO2 as fossil fuel has not C14.

        I know I write about this all the time, but it is such simple physics, schoolboy stuff. I cannot believe scientists still assume that man released CO2 hangs around for ‘thousands of years’ to quote the IPCC reports. CO2 obviously is not connected to temperature or we would have not have the pause. I find nothing in the man made Global Warming logic which is much more than a wacky unlikely and disproven idea and the most wacky primary and essential idea is that man controls CO2 levels in the ocean or the air.

        191

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Here at work, one of the challenges of a designer is when emails go out to stake-holders; we find that they look at the plans but never read the email. The email tells them exactly what the design intent is, what the issues are, and why the email was sent out. Instead, we get back nonsense responses having nothing at all to do with the issues at stake.

          It seems that the meme, the sound bite, the news flash, the hot new topic, combined with the expectation of the receiver; are the principle causes of scientists and leading organisations missing the forest for the new shiny tree that just appeared in front of them.

          40

      • #
        Ceetee

        Is there a link between left wing scientistic activism (my name for this shite), catholicism and marxism. All have commonality. Guilt, penance and the irresistible urge to control how people live their lives. And the arrogance, my God the arrogance of the people involved is monumental.

        40

  • #
    Mark M

    Bizarrely, climate models are improved by adding random numbers.

    Improved Climate Simulations through a Stochastic Parameterization of Ocean Eddies
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0746.1

    102

    • #
      TdeF

      There is no incredibly complex model, no matter how wrong, which cannot be improved by adding more tiny detail about random events. However the idea that ocean eddies are a significant driver of climate is a bit silly. Getting the solar cycles right might help.

      151

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Improved Climate Simulations “

      Really ???? And how do they know they have been improved ??

      161

      • #
        PeterS

        They believe they are improved because they are delusional at best. Of course to prove they have improved we will have to wait at least a few decades to see how their predictions work out. Going by their track record they will most likely fail yet again.

        101

        • #
          Fromdownunder

          I’m pretty sure they don’t need to wait 2 decades to test a model. The concept is ridiculous.

          We have 5 decades of good historical data, if their model did work they could predict the next year using the previous year data

          73

          • #
            PeterS

            One year is actually fairly easy to predict with almost any model since the change is relatively small and their error flags are not insignificant. In any case a real change in the opposite direction the model predicts can be easily explained away as simply a temporary anomaly. It requires a much longer time frame to show the models are a consistent fail. Don’t forget we are not trying to predict short to medium term weather patterns here. That’s a totally different issue. We are trying to predict the long term changes in climate whatever the causes. Also, I’m using the proper definition of climate change, not the corrupted one used by the alarmists who tie it with man-made CO2 regardless of whether it’s real or not. The proper definition is: climate change is a large-scale, long-term shift in the planet’s weather. The corrupted form typically goes like this: rising man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are trapping more heat in the atmosphere and oceans to cause rapid [sic and sick] changes in the global climate. It’s a common trick used by alarmists to put in the definition the very points they are trying to prove even before attempting to provide any evidence. Of course we know they often don’t even bother to produce any real evidence simply because there isn’t any, and in fact only leads to tactics based on confirmation bias.

            92

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        If the new numbers are in the right direction, they are improved.
        If the new numbers are in the other direction, we did something wrong… more programming.

        20

    • #
      PeterS

      Imagine using randomness to manage the economy. I could go on with hundreds of other examples. Using randomness to explain complex processes must be the dumbest thing anyone can do. What they are actually doing is using fancy maths to “curve fit” their models to the data. The problem is it’s a deluded approach since all it takes is for the system to change slightly in its characteristic and the model collapses. I’ve seen it happen with people trying to predict the stock market trends. The models work very well with historical data, sometimes with uncanny accuracy but as soon as they use them for real to predict the next trend they fail virtually 100% of the time. I’ve had much personal experience in this matter and learned my lessons the hard way.

      62

  • #
    Mark M

    Most definitely getting solar cycles correct.

    But, perhaps the BoM might have better luck with cyclone predictions if they cut down on the carbon (sic) forcing and included more random numbered ocean eddies.

    The BoM couldn’t fail anymore if they tried under current s.o.p …

    “Being perfectly honest, climate change is a factor in most of our climate science these days but in terms of tropical cyclones you couldn’t put this season down to climate change,” he said.

    Dr Andrew Watkins the manager of climate prediction services at the bureau, said scientists are, at present, trying to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

    They have a few theories, Dr Watkins said, and are presently crunching the data to get to the bottom of it.

    “There are several theories and at the moment the data is pouring in from satellites and everywhere,” he said.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/cyclone-blanche-is-latest-to-cross-land-in-second-consecutive-quiet-season-in-australian-history/news-story/220bd07cbd24d1db32cfd2175d3ec2ac

    52

    • #
      el gordo

      “…you couldn’t put this season down to climate change,” he said.

      That’s because he doesn’t believe global cooling is climate change, it does not compute.

      62

  • #
    Curious George

    The unexpected election of President Trump still reverberates.

    110

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Its nice to see leftists heads exploding.

      One green voting relative of mine literally cant sit in the same room and discuss trump, she loses the plot and storms out. Bizarre….but she is also highly educated and smart, but this is the tip of the iceberg of the inner city ( Fitzroy, Melbourne in this case ) leftie latte set.

      [spelling correction] ED

      81

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Ed, thanks. Not sure what I mispelt, but nice save.

        11

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        There is a notable pattern for smart people. The smarter they are, the more likely it is that they’ll go spectacularly wrong-headed later in life.

        I think awards and accolades have a lot to do with it. It seems to fixate the mind, where they can’t be seen to make mistakes like everybody else any more.

        I believe this was the reason behind giving Obama an award as soon as he won the presidency, and the reason why M. Mann was instantly showered with awards and accolades. To lock them in on their chosen path. Once you win an award for an idea, it would be very hard to later decide your idea was wrong, or needed correction in some way.

        Nye, Suzuki and others all follow this pattern where thy become too famous to be wrong, or to change their mind on any matter they supported previously.

        31

      • #
        Ozwitch

        Intelligence seems to have absolutely nothing to do with beliefs. It’s obviously a different part of the brain or limbic system or whatever. I’ve met very very smart people who insist that the earth is flat. You cannot shift them. They’re not stupid, they’re just blind. It must be some sort of evolutionary cul de sac.

        40

        • #
          Richard Ilfeld

          The less interaction one has with the realities of life, the easier it is to maintain outlandish beliefs.
          Cults cloister – it helps maintain purity.
          The warmists do this in a virtual cloister, by shutting out both evidence and dissent.
          Warmism will fade into an historical curiosity when some new shiny object emerges to allow leveraging the
          masses towards totalitarianism of the left. …or at least towards a voting majority.
          It’s a horse to ride….civil rights, poverty, gun control, abortion, whatever.
          It’s never about implementation, always about authority generally.
          If you actually have to implement these things, collapse follows, as the nexus between real problems and electoral
          promises is often very small. One could start with closing coal plants.

          50

  • #
    John Michelmore

    It must be that the 97% of scientists whom agree that they are doomed to horrible climate change death and destruction, don’t have 51% of the meteoroligists on their list. This has to be the rational scientific explanation for the data set.

    21

  • #
    James Murphy

    The fact that opinion polls are conducted on this topic is evidence that no one really understands how “the climate” works with any significant degree of certainty.

    It also shows that the people conducting such polls have no understanding of the scientific method if they think weight of opinion can change the laws of physics.

    Also, just what sort of ridiculous term is ‘weathercaster’ anyway? Have we not been told by CAGW zealots that ‘weather isn’t climate’?

    131

  • #
    DonA

    “Do you think that the climate change that has occurred over the past 50 years has been mostly or entirely due to human activity?”
    As this questionnaire does not mention CO2 at all how are the recipients supposed to decide just what man made activity they are talking about. Cities, de-afforestation, agriculture etc. etc.
    Carl Otto-Weiss seems to think CO2 has nothing to do with it.

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      The case for CO2 driving supposed anthropogenic global warming has NEVER been proven, NOR any mechanism by which it could even do this demonstrated.

      51

      • #
        Dave in the States

        But co2 attribution is essential to any political leverage or to making/redistributing money off of the issue. It is mostly political and and always has been.

        20

  • #
    el gordo

    As global cooling has begun I think its time to isolate the warmists at BoM in preparation for their sacking.

    ‘Karl Braganza, the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate monitoring, said searing temperatures were the new norm.’

    102

    • #
      el gordo

      And back in 2009 it was all about the drought that was never going to end, Bertrand is my second choice.

      ”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

      ”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

      SMH

      92

      • #
        Peter C

        Add a few more names on.

        This is the list of BOM personel who briefed the Technical Advisory Forum at it last meeting in 2016.

        “ACORN-SAT TECHNICAL ADVISORY FORUM
        SECOND ANNUAL MEETING
        AGENDA
        16 and 17 June 2016
        Location: Level 6 meeting room, 700 Collins Street, Melbourne
        Attendees: Technical Advisory Forum (TAF)—Dr Ron Sandland (Chair),
        Professor Bob Vincent (Vice Chair), Dr Phillip Gould, Dr John Henstridge,
        Ms Susan Linacre, Professor Michael Martin, Professor Patty Solomon and
        Professor Terry Speed
        Bureau of Meteorology—Joel Lisonbee (Secretariat), Perry Wiles (Secretariat),
        Graham Hawke, David Jones, Karl Braganza, Blair Trewin, Simon Grainger,
        Robert Fawcett
        Department of the Environment—Rhondda Dickson, Katie Eberle and
        Ebony Holland ”
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Technical-Advisory-Forum

        I would add David Jones and Blair Trewin as warmists at the BOM. I do not know about the others.

        The TAF came out with the expected whitewash of the BOM activism.

        62

    • #
      greggg

      I think some BOM personnel are reading this. :)

      20

  • #
    Jerry L Krause

    Hi Jo,

    Which group on the planet after climate scientists should be the second profession to “get it” — how about meteorologists?

    So either:

    1. meteorologists are really stupid, or

    2. meteorologists know how hard it is to predict the climate.

    How about meteorologists should be the first profession to get it? For meteorologists know how hard it is to predict weather and everyone should know that climate is merely the weather at a given location on a given day averaged over a period of many years. If you cannot understand weather well enough it to predict it precisely and accurately for the next ten days, or even the next day, how does anyone expect to accurately predict the weather at a given location on a given day next year?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    60

  • #
    Asp

    More than 50% of cats maintain that fresh fish on a daily basis is essential for a healthy feline diet.

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    I’m surprised that 50% actually believe this. If they bothered to look at the evidence and followed the scientific method zero percent would be believers. Their training is obviously highly deficient.

    82

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Their training is obviously highly deficient.

      That depends on how you define, “training”.

      If you are training talking heads to be “Weather Presenters”, to present tomorrows weather forecast on the television each night, then that is one thing.

      If you are hiring “Meteorologists”, who are trained to accurately assess the likely-hood of weather patterns over a clearly defined geographical area, within a confined future time, then that is another thing.

      If you are engaging “Climatologists”, to study the ebb and flow of cyclonic atmospheric pressure gradients, on a global scale, in order to assess the thermal carrying capacity of water vapour, under certain conditions, then that also, is another thing.

      If you are employing “Atmospheric Physists”, to study the dynamic and latent energy gradients, within the atmosphere, that ultimately manifest themselves in the phenomena of climatic change, then that is yet a further thing.

      If you are hiring “Climate Scientists”, to conjure up scary scenarios to frighten small children, insurance brokers, politicians, and others who are scared of bumps in the night, then that is something else, yet again.

      92

  • #

    Moreover, in climate matters “think” actually means “had better think…or else”. Where expressing doubts about human causation is like belching loudly while standing next to your boss in a crowded lift, half willing to “think” against the old consensus is kind of devastating for the consensus. Especially if that consensus has been mysteriously “growing” in the minds of Guardian readers.

    Of course, this won’t be seen as a defeat for the climatariat. They’ll just decide that they need trickier push polls (known as “surveys” in academic circles). Why not ask meteorologists if they like to eat while showing them the Guardian’s full catalog of cheesy graphics and photos of weather disasters? I’m sure they’ll get the message on how to answer any subsequent questions.

    62

  • #
    David Maddison

    We need to stop calling warmist “academics” “climate scientists“. It gives the field of science and those who practice it a bad name.

    111

    • #
      tom0mason

      May they should be referred to as mere footling epopt of patilomancy.
      ¯
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      ¯
      patilomancy – divination by means of feces
      epopt – one who is initiated into mysteries
      footle – to waste time; to act foolishly

      110

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You beat me to it, David. See 17.1.

      60

    • #
      TdeF

      As Barry Jones once said, Australia is the only country where calling someone an academic is an insult.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        In the Australian context, academic means useless, irrelevant, unworldly, sheltered, secure and oblivious, semi retired, brown baggers. The CSIRO is full of academics.

        112

  • #
    tom0mason

    The sun drives the climate, and CO2’s entirely natural variation is an effect of it. How the sun’s variation causes all the natural variations on this planet has yet to be fully explained. However as science is currently distracted away by uninformed politicians (and big business) with an unproven theory that human produced CO2 is somehow dangerous it probably will not be resolved soon.

    It would be laughable the supposedly sane, rational people believe in such a thing. Laughable that is if it was not for so much money and effort being wasted on supporting an obviously flawed theory.
    The evidence against the laughable theory — http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ and
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-should-countersue-the-climate-loons/

    71

    • #
      sophocles

      It’s the United Nations trying to change the political and economic paradigms by which we operate. They are proposing the Chinese model for the political one, because there is more room for corruption and the totalitarian means of covering it up and silencing dissent. The best economic model they have come up with to replace capitalism is crony capitalism which goes hand in glove with the replacement political paradigm. No surprises there.

      The little Man/Woman in the Street has this ridiculous notion he/she can have a say in how they are ruled. Serfs never have a say.

      30

  • #
    pat

    100% of CAGW NGOs believe in CAGW:

    27 Apr: Daily Mail: Thomson Reuters Foundation: Daniel Wesangula: Climate change deepening Horn of Africa’s hunger crisis, Oxfam says
    “Climate change is a real and current problem in East Africa. What were previously once in a life time droughts now come around more often,” Nigel Tricks, Oxfam’s regional director told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
    “For the first time, scores of camels and donkeys which are typically hardy animals are dying off and the lives of pastoralists, which revolve around their animals have been greatly disrupted.”

    Thousands are expected to attend the People’s Climate March in Washington on Saturday, which hopes to match the success of a 300,000-strong rally in New York in 2014, the largest single protest ever held on the topic of climate change…

    East Africa is experiencing its third year of very low rainfall, coupled with above average temperatures, which are part of a trend that began in the 1980s, Oxfam said.
    Seven of the last ten years have seen chronic droughts in East Africa due to poor or failed rains, it said…
    “There is nothing here,” Oxfam quoted Jama, an Ethiopian pastoralist, who has lost almost 700 sheep and goats, as saying.
    “Even my parents did not tell stories of droughts like this.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-4449850/Climate-change-deepening-Horn-Africas-hunger-crisis-Oxfam-says.html

    27 Apr: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: Analysis: It’s not just droughts, but nearly all extreme weather is declining or at or near record lows
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/27/analysis-its-not-just-droughts-but-nearly-all-extreme-weather-is-either-declining-or-at-or-near-record-lows/

    31

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘….climate models predict that the Horn of Africa will become wetter as global temperatures rise. The projected increase in rainfall mainly occurs during the September–November “short rains” season, in response to large-scale weakening of the Walker circulation.’

      J Tierney et al

      20

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    I wonder if Earth Scientists have been polled. GSA dropped the Psrty line a few years ago after objections from its members.

    40

  • #
    pat

    hitting the Brits where it hurts!

    26 Apr: UK Independent: Chris Baynes: UK garden lawns will be replaced by synthetic grass due to climate change, predicts Royal Horticultural Society
    Warmer weather and more ‘extreme’ rainfall to bring new challenges and create north-south divide between gardeners
    Climate change could dramatically alter plants and lawns in British gardens, according to a new report from the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) report.
    Flood-proof flowerbeds, exotic plants, and new pests and diseases may become common amid rising temperatures and increased rainfall, it says, adding that drier summers and more frequent “extreme” winter weather will mean Britons face greater challenges maintain their gardens.
    Compiled with input from Met Office experts and university academics, the report also predicted that climate change could lead to a north-south divide for British gardens…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-garden-lawns-synthetic-grass-climate-change-royal-horticultural-society-rhs-report-global-warming-a7703706.html

    26 Apr: Scotsman: Graeme Murray: Warning of fracking threat to whisky industry
    Campaigners 38 Degrees say it could result in waterways, soil and air becoming polluted and having a detrimental effect on the national drink…
    http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/warning-of-fracking-threat-to-whisky-industry-1-4430389

    41

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      If this amount of hot air continues in the UK, there will be so much CO2 fertilizer you will have to machete a path through the grass from the front door to the footpath….

      60

    • #
      mikewaite

      The RHS report , if it is truly as relayed by the media is almost unbelievable.
      There is already a North – South divide in English gardening, as anyone who has moved from , say , Kent (as we did 30 years ago) to the North of England finds out by trial and error , or by reading the classic gardening book ” Gardening in a Cold Climate” by Felicity North ( published 1967). Something you would think the RHS would know , assuming that they are real gardeners and not just bureaucrats.
      As for hot dry summers- we wish . This time last year the presenter on BBC ‘s gardening programme was complaining of the effect of the cold wet spring delaying planting out and this year it is a cold dry spring having the same effect on gardening schedules.
      Last year’s cold wet spring was followed by a cold wet summer – but that had a benefit in that the camelias were well soaked , resulting in lots of thick buds and the best spring display of camelias that I can recall.
      In gardening in England you , and the plants , work together to make the best of what the weather throws at you .
      To make gardening a subset of the money oriented AGW scam is pathetic.

      40

  • #
    Bob Peel

    A little off-topic … has everyone seen this morning on the ABC an article along with the “2-year-in-the-making-recipe-for-the-future” from CSIRO/Energy Networks Australia.
    The verdict seems to be for more and more windmills, run on batteries in lulls/gales, oh, and ‘to go with that can we get’ – a brand new grid as yet to be engineered please! That’s it! Two years to tell us that.
    Here’s a link to the report if anyone would care to read it through.
    http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3679251-Embargoed-280417-ENTR-Final-Report-April-2017.html#document/p96

    61

  • #
    Lana

    I’ve seen info about shifting magnetic poles. Apparently, North Pole is no longer in Artic. This should affect climate. Also heard that earth’s magnetic field has weakened due to the cooling of earth’s core, resulting in increased gamma ray activity. I would think scientists would take these factors into consideration. Maybe they have but don’t feel free to speak up about it.

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Don’t forget submission are due soon to this inquiry.

    http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/review-climate-change-policies/discussion-paper-2017

    How you can get involved

    The Discussion Paper is open for public consultation until 5 May 2017.

    Read the Discussion Paper

    The 2017 review of climate change policies Discussion Paper is available to download.

    Review of climate change policies Discussion Paper (PDF – 540.35 KB) | (DOCX – 4.97 MB) ​
    Complete a cover sheet for submissions

    Submission cover sheet (PDF – 54.58 KB) ​| (DOCX – 51.83 KB)
    Send your submission

    Please complete the cover sheet above and send your submission to climatechangereview@environment.gov.au

    Electronic submissions (in Microsoft Word .doc or .docx) are preferred.

    Alternatively, submissions may be posted to the address below to arrive by the due date:

    Climate Change Policies Review – Discussion Paper submissions
    2017 Review Branch
    Department of the Environment and Energy
    GPO Box 787
    Canberra ACT 2601

    Submissions close at 5:00pm AEST on 5 May 2017.

    72

    • #
      el gordo

      Its a fait accompli, nothing to do with climate change.

      50

    • #
      David Maddison

      Gosh, why would I get a Red Thumb for that? It was mostly a cut’n'paste from a warmist Government website with a comment from me to not forget to make a submission…

      51

      • #
        sophocles

        Well, David, it’s either:
        1. You have been Noticed. And you must be dangerous because you’re urging people to make a submission. That could cause Changes. If no submissions are made, the Status Quo is more likely to be adopted.

        Or
        2. It could be because the Red Thumber goes through automatically giving everyone who is not hysterically cheering against “Global Warming” a red thumb. Some are missed but that is probably because they hadn’t commented when the Red Thumber went throught giving out the Red Thumbs.

        Choose only one.
        :-)

        51

      • #
        sophocles

        Spotted it:

        Read the Discussion Paper

        Ooh, you’re so dangerous.

        I see they want:
        Electronic submissions (in Microsoft Word .doc or .docx) are preferred.
        Asking for non-standard formats. I wonder if they could handle submissions in ISO 26300 format. It is a global Standard format, after all. :-)

        51

        • #
          tom0mason

          info at Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26000 , and states –

          The ISO 26000 Scope states “This International Standard is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use. Any offer to certify, or claims to be certified, to ISO 26000 would be a misrepresentation of the intent and purpose and a misuse of this International Standard. As this International Standard does not contain requirements, any such certification would not be a demonstration of conformity with this International Standard.” [5] This statement includes that ISO 26000 cannot be used as basis for audits, conformity tests and certificates, or for any other kind of compliance statements. It can however be used as a statement of intention by the CEO and this is seen as its main value.

          The practical value of ISO 26000 might be limited if it merely provided a common understanding of social responsibility instead of also facilitating management routines and practices leading to social responsibility. Despite the non-certifiability some scholars see distinct elements of a management system standard also in ISO 26000.[6] Against this background, the potential benefits of the new standard, the managerial relevance, and specific limitations of ISO 26000 are currently being discussed.[7]

          As a guidance document the ISO 26000 is an offer, voluntary in use, and encourages organizations to discuss their social responsibility issues and possible actions with relevant stakeholders. As service providers, certification bodies do not belong to an organization’s stakeholders. ISO 26000 encourages its users to reconsider an organization’s social responsibility or “socially responsible behaviour” and to identify/select from its recommendations those where the organization could/should engage in contributions to society. ISO 26000 encourages its users to report to their stakeholders, and get feedback, on actions taken to improve their social responsibility.

          It is this identification of “stakeholders” that makes the ISO 26000 an important step forward in solving the dilemma presented by corporations still in pursuit of single bottom line accountability, moving the discussion beyond Triple Bottom Line Accountability. It is also an important step in the development of business-led social responsibility initiatives which evidence suggests is much more effective than government regulated social responsibly policies.[8]

          00

          • #
            sophocles

            I wasn’t talking about ISO 26000, I was talking about ISO 26300-1:2006 and ISO 26300-2:2015 to give the exact titles.

            ISO 26000 is the international standard developed to help organizations effectively assess and address those social responsibilities … etc etc

            (bolding mine).

            ISO 26300 is a technology standard, not a social one.

            10

  • #
    pat

    the only report I’ve found online so far:

    28 Apr: Reuters: Exclusive: Trump says U.S. wants fair treatment in climate pact
    By Stephen J. Adler, Steve Holland and Jeff Mason
    (Writing by David Brunnstrom; Editing by Howard Goller)
    President Donald Trump complained on Thursday that the United States was being unfairly treated in the Paris Climate Agreement and told Reuters he would announce a decision in about two weeks on whether Washington would remain in the accord…

    Trump, who will mark the 100th day of his presidency on Saturday, told Reuters in an interview he would announce his decision “in about two weeks,” but complained that China, India, Russia and other countries were paying too little to help poorer countries battle climate change under the agreement’s Green Climate Fund.
    “It’s not a fair situation because they are paying virtually nothing and we are paying massive amounts of money,” he said.
    Asked for a hint of what his decision might be, he said: “I can say this, we want to be treated fairly.”…

    An administration source told Reuters earlier that Trump administration officials would likely meet in May to decide whether to keep the United States in the climate deal, having had an initial meeting on Thursday at the White House…

    A group of nine Republican lawmakers on Thursday urged Trump to stick to the pact, but to weaken the U.S. pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
    Congressman Kevin Cramer of oil-producing state North Dakota and eight other Republicans in the House of Representatives sent a letter to Trump urging him to use the country’s “seat at the Paris table to defend and promote our commercial interest, including our manufacturing and fossil fuel sectors.”…

    If the United States is to stay in the 2015 agreement, Washington should present a new emissions cutting pledge that “does no harm to our economy,” said the letter from Cramer, who advised Trump on energy and climate during his 2016 presidential campaign…
    The Republican lawmakers also said Washington should retain its seat on the Green Climate Fund but not make additional transfers to it.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-pact-exclusive-idINKBN17U0DD

    28 Apr: Fox News: Jade Scipioni: Congress Members Urge Trump to Re-Work Paris Agreement
    “As you know, President Obama pledged a 26 to 28% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission by 2025, compared to a 2005 baseline,” the Congress members wrote in a letter addressed to Trump.
    “This target would cause irreparable harm to our economy, particularly our manufacturing and energy sectors, and should be rejected.”…
    They say the U.S. should instead present a new pledge that doesn’t harm our economy but instead showcases plans to drive technological innovation to help ensure a future for fossil fuels within the context of the global climate agenda. Additionally, they advise Trump to not make any additional transfers to the Green Climate Fund…

    Representatives Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Billy Long (R-MO), Chris Collins (R-NY), Gregg Harper (R-MS), and Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) all signed the letter.
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-members-urge-trump-paris-175000186.html

    31

  • #
    pat

    26 Apr: Bloomberg: Jennifer A. Dlouhy: Trump to Order Oil Drilling Study Off California Coast, Sources Say
    President Donald Trump will open the door to new oil and natural gas drilling in Pacific waters off the coast of California with a directive Friday that sets up a certain clash with environmentalists.
    Trump will order the Interior Department to review locations for offshore oil and gas exploration and consider selling drilling rights in territory that former President Barack Obama put off limits, according to people briefed on the order who spoke on the condition of anonymity before it is issued. That includes U.S. Pacific waters, as well as Arctic and Atlantic acreage left out of the five-year schedule of lease sales issued by Obama in November.
    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said Tuesday nothing is off the table…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-25/trump-said-to-order-review-of-oil-drilling-off-california-coast

    read all:

    27 Apr: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: EU, France accused of hijacking ‘Africa-led’ clean energy scheme
    African head of $10bn programme quits, saying French environment minister Ségolène Royal intervened to impose EU-preferred projects
    In a resignation letter obtained by Climate Home, the top official of the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI), Youba Sokona, accused donors of a deliberate strategy to “railroad” Africans into rubber-stamping projects selected by Europeans…

    The list presented by the EU to Africans includes four large grid infrastructure projects, which support clean and dirty energy alike. An interconnector planned for west Africa will facilitate “large-scale development” of hydropower and natural gas resources, according to the World Bank.
    At least one of the initiatives – the Tendaho geothermal project in Ethiopia – got funding approval before the AREI launched…

    Western private investors stand to benefit from the deals. For example, the privately-owned 30MW Djermaya solar plant in Chad is being developed by a group of companies headquartered in London, Paris and Toronto. Whatever the side-benefits, Chadians will pay for this clean energy and the profits end up in Westerners’ pockets…
    This was not the programme Sokona, a Malian with four decades’ experience in energy policy and sustainable development, had in mind….
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/04/27/eu-france-accused-hijacking-africa-led-clean-energy-scheme/

    32

  • #
    pat

    26 Apr: Bloomberg: Germany Calls Rick Perry’s Push to Rework Paris Climate Agreement ‘Absurd’
    by Joe Ryan & Brian Parkin
    “That is, in the first place absurd, and secondly from the U.S. point of view completely unnecessary,” Schroeren said in a statement to Bloomberg. “The Paris accord is a dynamic accord. It allows signatory states much flexibility.”…
    The U.S. energy secretary also struck a sore sport in Berlin by calling out Germany’s increased greenhouse gas emissions…
    German’s emissions actually increased in 2016, rising less than one percent to to 906 million metric tons, the Federal Environment Office said in March. Government officials blamed the rise on cold weather and vehicle pollution…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-26/germany-calls-rick-perry-s-push-to-rework-paris-accord-absurd

    27 Apr: CarbonPulse: NA Markets: RGGI prices dive to 4-yr low on selling spurt as frustration surfacing over review
    RGGI prices plunged to a four-year low this week, shedding as much as 17% at one point as determined selling chased the market lower…

    42

  • #
    Wayne Job

    Meteorologists if they ever took notice of anything in their life would be that the climate works on chaos, and the flapping of a butterflies wings in one part of the world can ultimately cause a hurricane in another part.
    Making prediction especially about the future weather fraught with danger. Computer models to predict chaos are about as useful as tits on a bull, so the climastrologists fail every time, more so because CO2 is irrelevant in climate or weather. Long term increased CO2 will give us bigger and better forests and grass lands changing the albedo and H2O for the better greening our deserts.
    It is so sad that there are so many gullible and sucked in useful idiots that fall for propaganda posing as science, the worst part is these fools are often teachers brainwashing the young. Wayne

    40

  • #
    john karajas

    As a qualified geologist I would like to expound on my newly discovered theory of Climate Change. Human beings have been responsible for all climate change during the last 4.5 billion years even if they have only been around for the last 200,000 years except for the last 50 years when it has all been due to natural causes. I propose that there indeed flying pigs and I am also looking for investors to help start up my unicorn farm. Should be good for a billion or two. Think I’ll start with journalists at the ABC.

    42

  • #
    NuThink

    Only two options were given, there is a third.

    3. They don’t want to get off the gravy train and lose all that lovely moolah.

    Why do yourself out of a job, there is a mortgage to maintain and a family to feed off other peoples money.

    32

  • #
    ivan

    “In 2017 29% of meteorologists who thought climate was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year.”
    Jo thanks for the article but I think this requires amendment

    00

  • #

    What evidence do they have? These are people that know you can’t predict the weather 1 week out, and they are buying into 98% confidence models of climate 100 years out? That is pure nonsense. The only data that show warming is “adjusted” data. If you control for the heat island effect, there is no warming.
    Y=mX+b, how does Constant CO2 Cause a Change in Temperature?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/ymxb-b-is-constant/

    Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/ceteris-paribus-less-is-more-use-only-data-sets-that-dont-require-adjustments/

    Long Term Temperature Records contradict NASA GISS
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/

    41

    • #
      tom0mason

      ” If you control for the heat island effect, there is no warming.”

      Note:
      The urban heat island effects are NOT factored into the UN-IPCC reports or calculations.

      01

      • #
        sophocles

        So how can we train cherry trees to control for the UHI Effect?

        When I first planted my cherry tree, it flowered in the last week of August and the first week of September, now it’s the first and second weeks of August …

        The Tuis which await its nectar are never fooled. They’re always there two full days before the blooms break out. The territorial fights are amazing to watch (the Tui is a very aggressive and strong bird, I’ve seen two of them rout a flock of nearly 20 Indian mynah birds) but then it’s a free-for-all for all of them.

        00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    “‘Weathercasters have diverse views on the extent to which additional climate change can be averted over the next 50 years if mitigation measures are taken worldwide…’” (Quoted by Jo, from the survey)

    That implies pretty loaded questions. That we have responsibility for “climate change” is implicit, as is the notion that we are capable of making any difference. Furthermore, whatever difference mankind (whoops – I’m not supposed to use that word) makes is described as “mitigation”. Well, “mitigation”, to swipe a definition straight off Google, is

    “the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something.”

    Where is the evidence that a colder climate would be less severe, serious, or painful than a warmer one?

    20

  • #
    clipe

    Environment Canada records​ at Toronto International Airport go back to late 1937. So for April 28 they only go back to 1938.

    Guess when the warmest day on record was.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzIOEP4fsmZ8RWlLT1l6V1ZlbnM/view?usp=drivesdk

    10

  • #
    R L MOORE

    It always amuses me that the such great variation in opinion can be generated by what is a “scientific” subject . Must be something wrong with the science?
    It is all so simple really. The hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases cause increased temperatures is simple, however complications come with separating out other temperature influences (or forcings). We need a controlled experiment where externalities are removed permitting changes in output (temp) to be directly related to changes in input(Co2 level).
    This begs the question how would you design an experiment to satisfy the requirements.
    Most other polluting influences are local (UHI, farming forestry etc), or regional (cloud variations etc) or oceanic (ElNino ,currents). Volcanoes can have world effects but are short term relatively)
    If therefore you were to select a stable site in the middle of a desert (dry climate) and far from civilisation in all its forms
    and maintain good records ,for say, 50 years, would you not have in effect , a controlled experiment, the most basic of all scientific tests?
    But wait this experiment has already been done. refer to Amundsen-Scott weather station, Antarctica
    And there is more! Good science requires independent confirmation. the same experiment was conducted at a Giles Weather Station (BOM stn013017) in central Austraia.
    Both sites are professionally maintained and were established in the fifties
    what was the result? Both sites show no rise in temperature despite co2 levels rising about 30%
    QED

    10

  • #

    [...] readers to peruse it at their leisure and perhaps to even read Australian science writer Jo Nova’s take on import of the two years survey’s differing [...]

    00