Climate consensus crumbles

Pity the poor Warmists!

Al Gore, Warmist-in-Chief

Al Gore, Warmist-in-Chief

Perhaps one of the least pleasant remarks one can hear is “I told you so!”

Yet if one has been in a tiny minority, the object of ridicule and opprobrium, for years, one is surely entitled to a small frisson of satisfaction when the orthodoxy which one has opposed for ages starts to fall apart.  Which is where we are now with the climate debate.

It was back in 2007 when I organised my first climate conference in Brussels, bringing together a number of speakers with a sceptical view of climate policy.  Prof Fred Singer of the University of Virginia.  Lord Lawson, so sound on both Europe and climate, and the founder of the Global Warming Policy foundation.  Benny Peiser, then with Liverpool John Moores University, now with GWPF.  Roger Bootle of Capital Economics, a man with strong views on the economics of climate policy. UKIP, by the way, has been taking a rational position on climate for some time.

For years, those of us who questioned the orthodoxy were dismissed and denigrated as “climate deniers”, and we were assured that 97% of scientists supported the consensus (though that amounted to little more than “Do you agree that the climate changes?” — and on that basis, most sceptics would support the consensus too).

In December 1997, the BBC announced that the Arctic would be “ice-free in summer by 2013”.  Now, in 2013, the Mail reports that arctic ice cover is at a new record, and serious scientists are now predicting global cooling.  In March 2000, the Independent reported that “Our children will never see snow again”.  Yet recent winters have seen rather a lot of snow.  And just now in September, in the Southern hemisphere, Peru has announced a snow emergency.

In fact there hasn’t been any statistically significant global warming for best part of two decades.

We have a choice.  We can either stick to blind faith in computer models (and the assumptions that underlie them), and in forecast and predictions.  Or we can behave like scientists, and look at the data, not the theory.  It is the Warmists who are in denial.  They are determined to maintain their faith in a discredited theory, like those who announce the end of the world, and when it fails to materialise they just put back the date a few more years.  Perhaps they should wake up, get their heads out from under the duvet, smell the coffee, and check the thermometer.

Meantime, the world goes on.  Tony Abbott has just won a resounding victory in the election in Australia, in what is arguably in large part a vote against Climate Alarmism.  Abbott is a sceptic, and his first executive act in government has been to instruct his officials to draw up a plan to cancel Australia’s carbon tax.  In the EU, Gunther Oettinger, Energy Commissioner, has announced that Europe should abandon its unilateral climate policy and develop shale gas. At last, belatedly, we’re waking up and coming to our senses.

You have to feel a little sorry for the Warmists as their cherished theory comes crashing down, don’t you?  And so do I feel sorry for Al Gore?  Hell No.  He had it coming.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Climate consensus crumbles

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    The subprime banking crisis was caused by defective computer models. I know, because I worked on some of the models.

    The banks which went bust, the traders clung to the defective output of their computer models.

    The people who made money out of the subprime crash realised that the assumptions on which the models were based were defective, and bet their future based on observation and experience.

    The reason it all went horribly wrong for the model followers is all banking models contain an assumption of liquidity. Without getting too technical, there are awfully clever ways you can make money out of a falling market, a rising market, or a market which goes sideways – as long as you can continuously buy and sell different financial instruments (including boring old shares), to keep your position in tune with the theoretical model you are applying.

    When the subprime market froze, all trading ceased (the market because illiquid), so bankers who had been maintaining their delicate trading positions were stuck – they couldn’t adjust their portfolios to the way their models said they should, and to their horror, they were stuck with ever larger losses which they couldn’t contain.

    Similarly, alarmist climate models contain a fatal flaw – they contain an unproven assumption that the rather feeble climate forcing from increased atmospheric CO2 will be amplified by water vapour. The theory is, as the world warms, more water will evaporate, which will in turn absorb more heat.

    The fact this phenomenon of water vapour amplification stubbornly refuses to be observed has not deterred the blind faith alarmists place in their computer models. Like the subprime bankers, their world is falling apart, but they are trapped by their own rhetoric, their own stubborn refusal to admit they are wrong.

    As for those bankers who survived the subprime crash? They sold everything – they disregarded model advice to create a delicately balanced portfolio, and they cashed out completely, while there was still a supply of fools ready to buy financial instruments which everyone in their hearts knew were worthless.

  2. I have two sets of friends who now regard me as a far right fascist bigot (but we still see each other now and then so it’s not too bad), mostly based on my sceptical but seeking-the-facts approach to man-made global warming/climate change. When I then joined UKIP (not for climatic reasons per se) I reckon that sealed it. What do I do now? I itch to ‘forward’ Roger’s email to them but he is right with the ‘told you so’. This has put me into a quandary and if anyone can suggest a delicate resolution as to how I might sow some seeds of new wonder into their minds (they won’t succumb to charm or opinion) I would be grateful.

  3. catalanbrian says:

    Where is the climate consensus crumbling? You have not presented one piece of evidence that this is the case in your blog. And you have chosen to headline only the parts of the Daily Mail article that you consider are supportive of your misguided denial of climate change – no mention of the paragraph towards the end of the piece that reads “Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.” Is this an intention to mislead? I think that I will continue to put my trust in the views of proper scientists, rather than in the pseudo experts such as Lord Lawson, a lacklustre chancellor with frighteningly blinkered views on climate change.

    • David H. Walker says:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/

      Proper scientists would overtly caution against sudden changes in orthodoxy led by profiteers and fear mongers. Proper scientists would not lash out in anger over their “hide the decline” emails being exposed. Proper scientists would admit that even the most complex computer models fail to account for all the inputs and forcers that would be needed to make a accurate predictions. Proper scientists would overtly remind the proletariat that Earth’s current average atmospheric temperature is almost certainly a little on the cool, given the empirical data provided by observation of review of real data (science, not computer models).

      Remember, Earth’s climate is influenced by countless intra- and extra-atmospheric phenomena, some Man has studied to a very satisfactory degree, and some that is yet to be understood. Not-so-mute testimony to the fallacy of faith in models is the NOAA’s Atlantic hurricane predictions for 2013. The jig is up, science says the global warming/climate change/climate disruption context is bunk.

      • Dr Dan Holdsworth says:

        Have you tried reading the “Harry.readme” file of those climategate leaks? If you haven’t, do have a look, and have a look at the source code which was also released. The readme file is more or less a diary of an eager young postdoc who thinks at the outset that he is being employed to take over a mature, tested and functional code project. As things move on, you can sense the desperation and resignation creeping in as he realises that this ain’t mature code but instead barely alpha level garbage, written by a self-taught (*spit*) programmer intent on making every mistake that a course on writing code teaches you to avoid.

        The actual source code is similarly instructive. A lot of what the programmer is doing is simple numerical manipulation and re-writing of big text files. This is what Perl or Python were written to do, but this numpty is a climate scientist and doesn’t know any useful scripting languages like those two; all he knows is shell and Cobol so we see a bastard mixture of cobol with calls out to Bourne shell. The source code was written by someone with just one tool and no impetus to learn anything better.

        Then there are the usual little gotchas in the source code. A complete lack of documentation, and a dearth of useful comments in the code. Sub-programs which hit errors and simply fail silently instead of whinging like hell and returning an error code (not that this’d do much good, as the moron who wrote it didn’t trap error codes). In other words, you run a program and it runs and looks to complete without errors, but when you go look at the output you see bits of it have failed, and NOTHING told you about this!

        If this is the standard of programming in the climate change world, then it is no bloody wonder at all that they don’t want anyone to look at the code! On such shite as this governments are making multi-billion dollar decisions and not even checking the story and means that it was arrived at!

    • Adrian Hey says:

      Proper scientists would never would never make such bold assertions (re. the effect of CO2 on climate) as “the science is settled”, especially given the lack of evidence of any significant warming (or any significant rise in sea levels or whatever) and the total failure of the planet’s climate to comply with the behaviour demanded of it by various flawless computer simulations.

      Proper scientists would never invoke the alleged scientific consensus on this matter as prima facie evidence of the correctness of any theory. Scientists are frail and fallible humans too!

      This is not science. It’s more like politics or religion. I think it’s most regrettable that even the Royal Society seems to have abandoned the principle of scientific rigor and IMO brought itself into disrepute and diminished the standing of British science as a whole. I don’t know if it’s fair to blame Sir Paul Nurse for this personally, but I certainly think he should refrain from publicly commenting on such matters as any kind of authority on the subject. As a biologist, however eminent, he is still very much a layman regarding atmospheric physics and there’s no reason to suppose that is expertise and opinions on this issue are any more credible than mine say (as an electrical engineer) or Roger Helmer’s (as a mathematician).

      It would certainly appear that if the effect is real at all (and personally I’m still open minded to the possibility that it might be) it’s still so small as to be virtually impossible to extract the CO2 “signal” from the “noise” of the natural variability from year to year an decade to decade that one would expect anyway.

      But we also need be sure about other things too. Suppose CO2 emissions are causing measurable (perhaps even noticeable) warming. Why is that a problem? It might be good thing.

      OK so suppose further that warming is happening and we’re all agreed that this is a bad thing. What exactly do we do about it? Building more useless wind farms is not the answer. Building more nuclear powers stations might be, but can we really do that globally?

      How urgently do we need to act anyway? Rather than fund a cripplingly expensive rollout of useless technology now, maybe we should just wait a decade or ten and in the meantime invest in researching new technologies that might actually be able to address the problem without destroying the global economy, like some form Thorium reactor technology perhaps.

      • omanuel says:

        Climategate was the first public exposure of deception designed in 1945 to hide experimental evidence neutron repulsion in cores of heavy atoms, stars and galaxies cause:

        Fission, fragmentation, and neutron emission that becomes H-generation after n-decay.

        To save the world from nuclear annihilation after 1945, two falsehoods became standard, settled, 97%-consensus science:

        1. Neutrons attract, rather than repel, other neutrons.

        2. Stars consume, rather than generate, hydrogen.

        Both statements are empirically FALSE, ie falsified by observations.

        With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel Former NASA Princial Investigator for Apollo

        Sent from my iPhone

      • Key point, Adran. I’ve nothing against renewables per se, if we can make them economic and find effective ways to deal with intermittency. So I’d support doing the research first, and leaving large-scale implementation until we have a solution. But to spend tens of billions on uneconomic technology is a crime against future generations.

    • Where is the climate consensus crumbling?
      Actual Data! Actual Data! Actual Data!
      There are no actual Consensus Scientists. Scientist are always required to be Skeptical.

  4. Adrian Hey says:

    This is undoubtedly good news, but will it actually have any effect on UK energy policy?

    I fear not. I just don’t think our parliamentarians & ministers are capable of formulating rational policy on this is issue. I mean even if global CO2 emissions were a serious problem, UK energy policy to date has been insanely stupid and counterproductive. I can’t see that changing much even if the alleged “facts” re. CO2 emissions & climate have changed. I still see no reason to hope that any of Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Davey, Yeo, Gummer .. will be able to “get real” about this and maybe, just once, act in this country’s best interests. What a refreshing change that would make!

    I’m afraid our political leaders in LibLabCon are all cut from the same gormless, spineless and scientifically and technologically illiterate cloth. Too make things even worse, many of them have also direct personal or indirect familial financial interests in the appalling renewables scam themselves (Cameron’s father in law, Clegg’s wife, Yeo & Gummers directorships..).

  5. ancientpopeye says:

    I’ll bet they are still in the flat earth society.
    A computer model is no more than a “best guess” by some “expert”. They will never admit they are wrong because the next 5 years tenure depends upon it.

  6. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
    “Skeptics” or “Deniers” as they have been labelled are largely free thinking scientists and engineers who by nature just question things, be it climate, mechanics, or what might make a better recipe. They think, they question – they questioned the statement “the science is settled” from a failed politician and said hang on a minute, what about the sun, oceans, earths core, water vapour etc? They were ridiculed and bullied by online bullies. They can without a doubt say I told you so. If they stuck 2 fingers up they could be forgiven. The truth will out it always does.

  7. neilfutureboy says:

    The theory has crashed but the con-men have still got their hundreds of billions and we have still had decades of 25,000 people dying unnecessarily from fuel poverty annually in Britain (& presumably proportionately in other alarmist ruled countries. And no doubt there will be another false ecofascist scare story along, as there has been since Silent Spring & Linear No Threshold radiation damage.

    Al gets no sympathy from me.

    • catalanbrian says:

      25,000 dead from fuel poverty? If that is a fact then blame should be laid at the feet of the power/energy companies, who are overcharging and to the government that privatised the power industry, and perhaps also to employers for paying wages that are so pitifully small that their employees cannot afford the power. I think that you will find that the book Silent Spring was pretty much on the mark as regards pesticides. I have not read Linear No Threshold so cannot comment on that.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        Since the energy companies are not making an astonishing profit, as a proportion of turnover they, by definition, are not gouging. The responsibility for 90% of the cost of electricity being state parasitism obviously can only lie with the states and the ecofascist parasites who set its policy.

        There is a case that conventional power companies have lobbied against progress, for example Davey’s claim to Parliament that the shale gas industry wanted more restrictions on the shale gas industry when he had actually been talking to the conventional gas industry who feared being undercut. The alliance of Luddite ecofasccists and established industries who also fear progress is well established.

        The claim that Silent Spring was right rests on the observation that all our bird and insect species were long ago wiped out by insecticides. I trust you acknowledge that that observation is precisely as truthful as anything one expects from all the wholly corrupt ecofascists.

      • Sorry Brian but you are dead wrong. The profit margins of utilities are broadly similar to those of other large companies. And we need them to be profitable to enable them to invest. Who will lend them the billions they need for new power stations if we tell them they can’t make a profit? It’s a nasty leftist myth that high energy prices and fuel poverty are the result of profiteering by suppliers. It’s partly global fuel prices, but mostly wilful over-commitment by policymakers to hopelessly uneconomic renewables. Now even EU Commissioners are belatedly recognising that the problems are caused by their own green policies.

  8. omanuel says:

    Climate concensus debate revealed many internal, secret code words in post-1945 science:

    Nobel prizes and lucrative research grants are used in our Orwellian society to build standard, settled, 97% concensus government dogma as scientific facts.

    What a sad, sad state of affairs for mankind and the scientific community.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  9. 1957chev says:

    Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
    Al Gore’s BS is being refuted by the best scientists!

  10. Steve Foley says:

    No sympathy from me for this poor little rich boy. Like all failed US Presidential candidates he should retire to “Old Rocking Chair” and write his memoires, if anyone could be botherd to read them. I am delighted at this news and as you say “Told them so!”

  11. Jane Davies says:

    It’s the Emperors new clothes syndrome, when one has joined the masses in applauding the fine cloth it is almost impossible to face the truth and save face at the same time.

  12. Ken Hall says:

    Where climate scientists fail, is that they seem to believe that computerised climate models are the same as experimentation, when in reality they are nothing more than an extrapolation, or demonstration, of the hypothesis to be tested. The ‘global warming’ hypothesis posits n degrees rise in temp, for x increase in CO2 concentrations, based on the theory that increasing CO2 will cause moderate warming which will in turn cause more water evaporation which will accelarate the warming further. These positive feedbacks will further accelarate warming causing more evaporation thus leading to a runaway warming. Putting the C in CAGW.

    The UN IPCC central estimate of the hypothesis being 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Considering that we do not have any other equal examples of earth where CO2 has not increased (to use as a control) and we do not have other identical earths where the CO2 is controllable, the Scientists have given their hypothesis to computer scientists to create computer models of the earth to run as experiments. Can you see the big fail in that? They are not actually testing the hypothesis by experimentation. They are only creating lots of versions of the hypothesis, then foolishly treating those as experiments. They are NOT experiments.

    They make the mistake that if the hypothesis is correct, then the models will show warming. NO NO NO! The models are created and designed to conform to the hypothesis, which means that they are ONLY a demonstration of the hypothesis, and NOT a test of the hypothesis.

    The only way to test the UN IPCC’s hypothesis, is to wait and observe and measure accurately and consistently what happens on the actual earth.

    Now we are getting lots of real data coming in from such empirical observation, we see that the models are wrong, therefore the hypothesis underpinning them is wrong.

    It really IS as simple as that. If the data falsifies the hypothesis, then the hypothesis should be amended or rejected. Science 101! Anyone claiming different, is NOT a scientist, but a politician.

  13. Micheal Cartier says:

    Have any of you seen the film ‘inglorious bastards’?

    Well, for those that haven’t, to ensure that the Nazis couldn’t slip back into normal society when sanity regained its dominance, a swastika was etched onto their foreheads.

    I favour doing the same with CAGW believers and the supporters of wind turbines/ wave/ solar etc. I would like to see them branded with a turbine on their forehead.

  14. catalanbrian says:

    You might all like to read the following items
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial?CMP=twt_gu

    So much for “Climate Consensus Crumbling” You all need to get real and to believe the facts, rather than propaganda put about by a few maverick journalists/scientists/politicians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s