I’ll believe climate scientists when they are able to get tomorrow’s forecast right. It’s March 18th and it is bitterly cold and snowing in Philly. It’s been colder than average all winter. I’m rooting for global warming, but it ain’t happening here.
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 08:41 EST, 18 March 2013
No, the world ISN’T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that’s making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well… what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.
The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.
The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.
A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.
At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.
expertsIts source is impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.
Predictions of global warming, based on scientists’ forecasts of how fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to Britain’s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
1977 – THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF…GLOBAL COOLING
In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming – as the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates.
Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.
Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ‘meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented, ‘scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections’. It said the planet was already ‘a sixth of the way towards the next ice age’.
While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with ‘droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes’.
The current Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6 billion a year – leading to a combined cost of £110 billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain ‘biofuel’ ethanol.
Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.
Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’
And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’
James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ‘warmist’, recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly untenable’, with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.
Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’
I said the end wasn’t nigh… and it cost me my BBC career says TV’s first environmentalist, David Bellamy
Challenged the orthodoxy: Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the line on global warmingThis graph shows the end of the world isn’t nigh. But for anyone – like myself – who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view, possibly the most important thing about it is its source: the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.
The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.
The awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.
As the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden prediction.
Yet this prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our countryside and billions in unnecessary ‘green’ taxes that make our industry less competitive and add up to £100 a year to household energy bills.
Man-made global warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for dissent. Tragically, the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out of the window along with the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to test new theories.
Opponents of man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I learnt to my cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to what is now the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter to hear a presentation on global warming.
As the face of natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they wanted to enrol me in their cause. But when I read the so-called evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to ‘sign up’.
I rapidly found myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific community. When I helped some children campaign against a wind farm as part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails criticised me. I realised my career at the BBC was over.
But scientific theory should be tested. That’s why I question the science which casts carbon as the villain that will bring about the end of the world.
Open discussion: David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the airGeology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm.
It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon.
There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.
The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.
Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.
But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.
The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.
AWD says:
Wow, another liberal red herring? Another liberal guilt trip gone astray? Like the sequester disaster? The worlds not going to end? I’m shocked, so very shocked.
It’s colder than hell around here. Might warm up around July.
It’s official; Al Gore and all liberals are full of shit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
18th March 2013 at 2:21 pm
Thinker says:
The liberals will just try to claim that all the “drastic measures” put in place accomplished the goal of reducing global warming.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
18th March 2013 at 2:44 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:
It hasn’t been called “global warming” for a while now. Its been turned into “man-made climate change.”
Get with the times you geezers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
18th March 2013 at 3:37 pm
SSS says:
TPC is correct. It’s now “climate change.” You can’t lose with that label. The “global warming” bullshit wasn’t working. Just like the “liberal” label wasn’t working. It’s now “progressive.”
As for polar bears, those poor fuckers are surely headed for extinction. The estimated number of polar bears in the 1950s was 10-15,000. Today it’s 25-40,000. They’re doomed!!!!
TBPers obviously haven’t yet mastered the art of inverted logic. Get with the times, geezers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
18th March 2013 at 6:25 pm
napari says:
hey did anyone check to see if this article is accurate?
Its being challenged as a tabloid release on wikipedia
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th March 2013 at 6:32 pm
Thinker says:
Napari, The Sunday Times has long been on the side of the climate skeptics, so anything they publish would be instantly criticized by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Like anything, the original research referenced needs to be fact-checked to see if you draw the same conclusions the paper did, and additional sources of information need to be reviewed to see if they confirm or dispute the original research. Only then can you draw any real conclusions.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
18th March 2013 at 7:01 pm
Mikey says:
It’s amazing what results you get from cherry picking climate change data.
Zoom into the small print of that graph. Those coloured bars are **PREDICTED** temperature. NOT MEASURED. That black line? the source “Met Office” – I presume that’s meant to be the UK’s site. I’ve looked through http://www.metoffice.gov.uk and I can’t find that data. Best source? here’s one from the US NCDC
You’re seeing a graph of a model that’s used to match the model to the measured temperature. Doesn’t mean it’s the best model. Just that it’s one. Come to think of it, what *is* that model? was are it’s assumptions? what modelling tools were used? Was it just some 3 year old scribbling with crayons?
Here’s the facts. 99% of environmental scientists believe that there is sufficient evidence that states that the earth’s climate is changing. The vast majority of those believe there is sufficient evidence to show that this change is anthropogenic – or human caused. *THERE IS NO OTHER ISSUE THAT HAS THIS AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT AMONGST SCIENTISTS IN ANY FIELD*. Hell, there is even less agreement about the cause and effect of gravity amongst physicists than there is agreement about the reality of global climate change between Climatologists.
Graphs like the one you’ve got are wrong because the data has been modified to suit the theory.
Since almost everyone on this forum is a Seppo (Aussie rhyming slang. Seppo = Septic tank = Yank) here’s the data from the US NOAA NCDD Climate. It is unfiltered. The red line is the trend line to 90% confidence level, using bog-standard statistical analysis.
This graph is MEASURED AND RECORDED temperature, complete with error bars and margins of error.
You tell me – is it going up or down? (link, just incase http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png )
Use your left and and cover up everything before 1960 – then draw a line from the highest point of 1960s (give or take a bit) and the lowest line in the 2000s. Oh lookie! what a shock! the temperature is almost exactly the same! Clearly climate change is a lie and we don’t have to do anything!
Better yet, why don’t we look at the temperatures from the late 1930s and compare it with the late 90s. OMG! the Earth is actually cooling! Quick by more sweaters! It’s an ice age!!! auggh!
FFS people!!!
The same people that do this sort of BS analysis are the same ones that are telling you that gold is useless, the US economy is getting better every day, Detroit is a shining bastion of economic and social improvement, and all the rest.
apply the same rigor and requirements of proof to environmental data that you do to economic data. Then you’ll see the actual patterns.
One BIG point. It takes 30-50 YEARS for the pollution that we release today to hit the upper atmosphere and begin to take effect. That means that we’re only seeing now the affect of pollution released in the 1960s. It’ll get worse.
What’s really happening not that ocean levels are rising (though that’s part of it) but that storms are more frequent, and the storm surges are bigger and that rain patterns are changing. Some places will get wetter, others will get dryer. This will happen in ways that are complex and thus will never be explained in the mass media.
That’ll be what kills you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
11
18th March 2013 at 8:17 pm
Mikey says:
also, don’t confuse lazy, biased journalism with actual, real science.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
8
18th March 2013 at 8:19 pm
Miss Anne Thrope says:
You gotta’ love AWD’s depiction of Algore…..is there another out there indicating much the same from the POTUS? It looks so real…….wait-a-minute, maybe it IS real!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
18th March 2013 at 8:20 pm
Anonymous says:
I am confused you take a sledgehammer to the green revolution in defense of massive consumption of carbon based fuels. I understand they are the lifeblood of this economy, and to pacify yourself with a few dissident scientist to scientific theory is ridiculous. Soon enough science will bear out whether the experiment worked.
Meanwhile ignoring the higher cost of obtaining fossil fuels runs unabated, deep sea drilling fracking in So Dakota. At some point in the future the only carbon barking out in the atmosphere will be coming out of a human assholes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
9
18th March 2013 at 9:39 pm
Anonymous says:
Humans produce up to 1.5 liters of gas per day.
According to Britanica, up to 10% of your farts are methane (not mentioned if by weight or by volume, I’m assuming volume), which makes .15 liters of methane per day.
Which means at 717 gram/liter, you fart up to 110 grams of methane per day.
According to the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate change, methane is about 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as compared to carbon dioxide.
the math 7,000,000,000 x .15 liters of methane = 1,050,000,000 liters of methane that doesn’t count cows & elephants ..we are are screwed
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
18th March 2013 at 10:02 pm
The Great Green Con No. 1: The Hard Proof That Finally Shows Global Warming Forecasts That Are Costing You $Billions ~ Were WRONG All Along! Violation Of RICO!! says:
[...] The Polar Bears Are Saved (theburningplatform.com) [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
18th March 2013 at 10:32 pm
ThreeEs says:
wow, why reprint this hack http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html so many great things this site points out but wake up on global warming. This graph is not our debt just our species demise… http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2013/03/to-boldly-go-where-none-have-been-before.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
18th March 2013 at 10:38 pm
SSS says:
“Here’s the facts. 99% of environmental scientists believe that there is sufficient evidence that states that the earth’s climate is changing. The vast majority of those believe there is sufficient evidence to show that this change is anthropogenic – or human caused. *THERE IS NO OTHER ISSUE THAT HAS THIS AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT AMONGST SCIENTISTS IN ANY FIELD*.”
—-Mikey
I call total bullshit. Show me the list of your fucking 99% “environmental scientists” …. BY NAME AND BY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE. Now show me the names of the “vast majority” who believe that the cause of climate change (Jesus Christ, WTF does that mean?) is anthropogenic? Now show me the list of the 1% of dissenting scientists …… BY NAME AND BY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE.
You can’t do it because your statement is totally unsupportable. You can’t even get close, Mikey. You come on this site and try to pass yourself off as some sort of reasonable, well-read, science-oriented person who’s the last word on all things of a scientific nature.
Well, I’m calling you out. Back up your fucking bullshit with some clear, irrefutable facts.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
5
18th March 2013 at 10:42 pm
Novista says:
Mikey
Even better, why don’t you show us some papers of the 1% that were peer reviewed by the 99%?
Waiting …
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
18th March 2013 at 11:05 pm
llpoh says:
SSS – a quick scan seems to indicate that around 97% of publishing climatologists believe that climate change is occuring, and around 85% of those believe that man is the major cause of it.
The big caveat is that these folks are publishing about climate change. That means they may be agreeing to agree with themselves. Go figure.
On a more wide spread basis, around 82% of earth scientists believe that man is causing climate change, and around 90% of all scientists believe change is happening for whatever reason.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
18th March 2013 at 11:15 pm
SSS says:
Anon regales us with the dangers of methane farts to conclude “we are screwed.” Yeah, mainly with the time taken to read your Chicken Little horseshit.
Tell you what, Anon. I had corned beef and cabbage for supper last night and some sausages, peppers, and onions for supper tonight. With the westerly prevailing winds in Arizona, that should create enough methane to wipe out the population of southern New Mexico and west Texas.
If you wake up tomorrow and the people of El Paso are dropping like flies, contact Homeland Security, dipstick. You’ll be a national hero.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
2
18th March 2013 at 11:17 pm
Anonymous says:
Hey SSS & all you bullshitters what ever happened to
“Mother do you trust the government”.
Do you drink their water,
Hell I don’t I use it for flushing, dish washing & laundry with great reservation.
I use bottled water for cooking, coffee & tea.
Do you eat their processed food.
Excuse me
Wow I am amazed Petroleum based pesticides and herbicides on your food & in your plate eat up.
Enjoy the fruits of technology.
HELLO is this the same TBP where they tell me about the GMO food, and the poisoned earth.
Where am I? BIZZARO WORLD
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
18th March 2013 at 11:32 pm
SSS says:
Jesus Christ, the fucking Warmers are coming out of the woodwork.
ThreeEs links us to an article from Michael Kinsley’s Slate blog. Are you serious, EEE? Slate? The only thing to the left of Michael Kinsley and Slate is Michael Kinsley and Slate.
Enter Llpoh, who cites useless stats on “climate change.” THE FUCKING CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING, LLPOH, WITH OR WITHOUT MAN’S INPUT. Climate science today is comparable to alchemy in the 13th Century insofar as the believers. The major difference is the damn near infinite variables involved with climate. Turning lead into gold is a helluva easier than predicting what Earth’s climate will be in 2050, yet alone 2100.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
2
18th March 2013 at 11:35 pm
Makati1 says:
Snow in Philly is not new. It has snowed in PA on Easter several times in my 68 years. But PA does not get the dry snows of yesteryear that only happen in colder temperatures.
However, the fact that Arctic ice is disappearing does not happen because it is colder.
The oceans rising is not because more water is being frozen into glaciers.
The fact that the supports for the Trans Alaska pipeline are sinking because the permafrost is melting does not support a colder climate.
That Australia had to add a new color to their heat charts does indicate hotter temperatures.
That ice is breaking off of Antarctica faster and faster does point to warmer temperatures.
That Greenland’s ice cap is melting faster and faster.
That the Gulf Stream no longer turns at Greenland and heads south but continues into the Arctic is an indicator of warmer waters.
That a hurricane like Sandy actually got to NYC is an indicator of warmer oceans.
How many indicators does it take to make deniers think?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
18th March 2013 at 11:55 pm
llpoh says:
SSS – I am cited no stats re climate change. Read for comprehension. I simple pointed out that Mikey was right re his figures of what percent of climate scientists say that climate change is hapening, and what percent blame man for it.
You skewered Mikey re his 99% stuff. Fact is, he was close enough to right to be considered right – 99% vs actual of 95% or 97%. Close enough for govt work.
The majority – the vast majority – are saying exactly what he said they are saying and are taking the position he said they are taking. Whether or not they are right is not part of anything I have said. I am a skeptic.
But the fact is this: the fucking vast majority of scientists say 1) the climate is warming, and 2) that man is causing it.
I am a skeptic, as I have said, and I very much think that they are manipulating data, etc., to suit their own models and to attract attention, etc. But the scientists are indeed saying exactly what he said they are and in the proportions he claimed. Skewer him for some other reason – his facts were right re those numbers (unless you think taking a bit of liberty by saying 99% instead of 97% is a hanging offense – I think it is just literary license).
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
18th March 2013 at 12:02 am
SSS says:
Anon
TBP is a world of reality.
You use bottled water? How much carbon dioxide was created to produce your precious bottled water versus tap water. Do you drive a hybrid or electric car? You’re driving a car that produced more carbon dioxide in its manufacture and operation than a regular gasoline powered car.
Worried about chemically-based pesticides and herbicides, are you? Well, answer these questions, dumbass. What is “organically grown” food? It is largely based on animal, mainly cow, shit. Is that safe (yes, after it has been properly processed by energy-eating means)? Is it a huge vector for deadly disease from field to humans (yes)? And how about those methane-farting cows you were so worried about above to produce that shit?
You’re a fucking classic liberal, EEE. You have never, ever thought through what you advocate. Never.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
2
18th March 2013 at 12:05 am
Anonymous says:
You know it is really silly whether it is hot or it is cold or luke warm YOU ARE RIGHT The climate is always changing . The question is… ARE THERE FINITE RESOURCES? …. IS THERE UNBOUNDED AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUEL FOR HUMANITY TO BLOW for infinity? hmmmm
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
18th March 2013 at 12:11 am
llpoh says:
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th March 2013 at 12:11 am
SSS says:
Llpoh
Butt out. You’re not only twisting what Mikey said, you’re distorting it. Here’s what he said …
“99% of environmental scientists believe that there is sufficient evidence that states that the earth’s climate is changing. The vast majority of those believe there is sufficient evidence to show that this change is anthropogenic – or human caused.”
I challenged him to come in with a list of scientists AND their field of profession, and you come in fucking uninvited to semi-support his stats. So fucking what!!!!
It’s the field of profession that skews any and all statisitics on climate change. Do you get that? These Warmer cocksuckers will bring in distressed farmers, agronomists, pure politicians, and Aunt Betty to sign a letter that that the earth is getting warmer or the climate is changing.
You played right into Mikey’s hand. I needed your input like I needed a case of the clap.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
18th March 2013 at 12:25 am
llpoh says:
I am so glad not to have lost my touch! It takes a certain talent to be as irritating as a case of the clap. The steady drip, drip, drip followed by a deep burning sensation is the effect I am after.
Anyway, I largely agree with you. But there was not much else going on, and you are so easy to rile up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
18th March 2013 at 12:42 am
Stucky says:
I am about to issue a Judgment.
llpoh loses.
SSS wins.
I have spoken. So shall it be.
======================================================================
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from?
It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/2/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
18th March 2013 at 12:46 am
llpoh says:
I never lose. But sometimes I gotta change sides just before the buzzer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
18th March 2013 at 12:49 am
SSS says:
Thanks, Stucky.
I want a piece of ThreeEs ass, but that cur appears to have disappeared. Anon was a lightweight. Typical liberal who fires an initial salvo, but has nothing in reserve.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
18th March 2013 at 1:05 am
Zarathustra says:
Here’s what you need to know about “climate change” in a nutshell. Around 70% of the earth is ocean. When ocean temperatures near the surface rise, non condensable gasses are released. Likewise when they cool, atmospheric gasses are absorbed. This phenomenon is known in physics as LeChatelier’s principle. It is the reason soft drinks and beer are chilled during production to facilitate the absorption of carbon dioxide. So what causes ocean temperatures to rise? A small amount is due to undersea volcanism, but to locate the main source, look up into the sky, during a cloudless day. You won’t see any smokestacks.
Oh sure, there are other influences as well, but this is the biggie.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
18th March 2013 at 1:21 am
IndenturedServant says:
I really don’t see the merit in arguing about global warming, climate change or what the fuck ever you want to call it.
Whether you believe the problem (if there is one) is man made or natural, we only have one habitable planet. Why not just treat that planet as if we understand the implications of that fact? We don’t don’t need a tubesteak like Al Gore or our govts dreaming up ways to cheat us out of our money in the process.
I_S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
18th March 2013 at 1:28 am
AKAnon says:
Regardless of what percentage of “environmental scientists” believe what, the upshot is there is science, and there is dogma. Science, whether accepted by 97% or 99% or whatever, welcomes scrutiny and and continually retests its hypothesis. That is the scientific method. Dogma asserts that science by consensus is reality. The very fact that sceptics of anthropogenic climate change are reviled worse than Socrates and Galileo says volumes. “We speak the truth. It is truth because we speak it. All questioning the truth are heretics.” The best real scientists have always been heretics. The best paid “scientists” have been dogmatists.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th March 2013 at 2:19 am
Mikey says:
@SSS
You’re right, the climate changes all the time through natural processes over thousands of years for small changes, and millions of years for big ones.
In that time frame plants and animals adapt. The issue is the RATE of change.
Let’s be clear, I’m NOT talking about the end of the world. Just the complete change of human civilisation as we know it. I’m also not saying the end of human civilisation – just a massive, overwhelming change.
Climate change affects humans in 3 main ways.
1) increased numbers of, and increased wave heights affect costal and low lieing communities
2) changes to rain patterns means that areas that have historically been catchment areas for drinking water, may no longer be, or may have a greater or lesser amount of water in them
3) massive changes in where and how food can be grown.
SSS – you want to argue about the cause? You want to argue serious numbers and hard science?
Fine. I’ll Bite. Here’s just one.
Here’s a link to a summary – http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/best-study-peer-reviewed-and-confirms-what-scientists-knew
Actual article – http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
18th March 2013 at 2:28 am
Mikey says:
@ Zarathustra
If I read your comment correctly, what you describe is known as “Solar Forcing” – global temperature change caused by changes in the sun.
According to the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study, they found that “Solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
18th March 2013 at 2:31 am
Mikey says:
@Novista
“Mikey
Even better, why don’t you show us some papers of the 1% that were peer reviewed by the 99%?
Waiting …”
The list is too long and I can’t access most academic journals from my work connection.
Here’s a summary site, with links to journals – http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
18th March 2013 at 2:34 am
Mikey says:
@SSS
“I call total bullshit. Show me the list of your fucking 99% “environmental scientists” …. BY NAME AND BY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE. Now show me the names of the “vast majority” who believe that the cause of climate change (Jesus Christ, WTF does that mean?) is anthropogenic? Now show me the list of the 1% of dissenting scientists …… BY NAME AND BY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE.”
You’re speaking out of your ass, from a position to total ignorance.
Tell you what, why don’t you show me a list of economists that say that “Gold is money” BY NAME AND BY QUALIFICATIONS
Then back that up by a list of economists that say that “Gold is stupid” BY NAME AND BY QUALIFICATIONS
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
18th March 2013 at 2:38 am
Mikey says:
@lloph
99% vs 97% – you’re right I should have quoted more carefully. I was just pissed off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
18th March 2013 at 2:44 am
Mikey says:
@Stucky, SSS
Here’s my response to your critique
1) – the 98% of scientists line
Here’s a link to an article that examines this issue. I’m presuming that you both have access to academic journals. This article examines the publication and citation data of 1372 climate researchers and the authors find that “that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
“Expert Credibility in Climate Change”
June 21, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107
PNAS July 6, 2010 vol. 107 no. 27 pp. 12107-12109
2) “No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate”
True, as humans are dispersed over the entire planet, each human’s contribution cannot be directly isolated and measured. They use a proxy. What they want is temperature data. The proxies are things that are very well known and have proven links – tree growth rings, glacial movements, breakdown of atmospheric gases and particulates trapped in ice.
Don’t ask me to explain those links – I don’t know them as it’s not my area. Experts say these things are true and I believe them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
18th March 2013 at 3:16 am
Administrator says:
The vast majority of economists believe Keynesianism works.
Why should I believe the vast majority of climate scientists?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
18th March 2013 at 8:22 am
Administrator says:
It sure is fucking cold this week in Philly. This proves global colding.
Did temperatures only start to rise after 1977? Why were the “experts” wrong in 1977?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
18th March 2013 at 8:25 am
Administrator says:
Maybe we did too good of a job on the 51 things to make a difference and created global warming.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:07 am
Avalon says:
…’bout sums up the entire history of communism is one short essay…scroll down.
http://www.woodpilereport.com/
Guest post
Special to the Woodpile Report
Blame the Proletariat
by Rurik
“This explains the utility of the modern Environmental movement. Not for nothing are they called “Watermelons”—green outside and red inside. And thus we come full circle with Science being conscripted into the service of Scientific Socialism. Sadly, just as Marx turned Hegel upside down, he also turned Science upside down. The objection has been made to Communism, that if it were scientific socialism, the Marxists should have first tried it out on laboratory rats. Instead the rats tried it out on the humans. Blame the Proletarians who refused to do their job. “
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:22 am
flash says:
..sorry Avalon..the last post was mine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:23 am
Stucky says:
Mikey
You’ve been a good sport, so I’m not going to jump all over your Global Warming Ass like stink on shit. Lol Instead, I want to highlight two TRULY ASTOUNDING comments you made … with a minimal retort … let the people decide.
.
You said —- “According to the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study, they found that “Solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years”.
Simple Translation: The sun does not contribute to Earth’s weather. Holy fucking shit!
.
You said ——– “Don’t ask me to explain those links – I don’t know them as it’s not my area. Experts say these things are true and I believe them.”
Simple Translation: You can’t explain your beliefs and need to rely on experts. THAT, my friend, is what is known as ….. FAITH. And that’s what the GW all boils down to … faith in one side or the other.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:43 am
ThePessimisticChemist says:
I’ll buy that the climate is changing. Everything we know about the past suggests that only fools think otherwise.
My main question: Where is the graph showing that in this case correlation, does indeed imply causation? Where is the graph showing that shit sort of temperature variance is only possible with the addition of human interference?
You see, thanks to our incomplete ability to look into the past, we cannot reasonably infer what rate of change was “fast” or “slow.”
I’ll end this the same way I end every last one of these asinine discussions:
We should be more responsible with the planet’s resources for humanity’s sake, not the planet’s sake.
“The planet is fine. The people are fucked.”
“Weather forecast for tonight: Dark. Continued dark overnight, with widely scattered light by morning.”
-George Carlin
“The weather happens to us, we don’t happen to it.”
-TPC
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:47 am
Stucky says:
ATTENTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The sun did NOT do this!! Some fucking cow farts in Montana are responsible!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:49 am
Stucky says:
Global Warming?? Oh, shit!!!!!!!!!
When polar bears turn into Preppers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
18th March 2013 at 9:57 am
Obamasnuts says:
See also:
http://planetsave.com/2013/03/19/earths-interior-affects-long-term-sea-level-and-climate-change/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
18th March 2013 at 12:37 am
Mikey says:
@TPC
“We should be more responsible with the planet’s resources for humanity’s sake, not the planet’s sake.”
that’s my entire point
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
18th March 2013 at 1:33 am
Thinker says:
Report: Global Warming Didn’t Cause Big US Drought
By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press | April 11, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year’s huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn’t caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.
Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation’s midsection.
Thursday’s report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn’t see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn’t have been forecast.
“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”
Researchers focused on six states — Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa — but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.
He said the jet stream that draws moisture north from the Gulf was stuck unusually north in Canada.
Other scientists have linked recent changes in the jet stream to shrinking Arctic sea ice, but Hoerling and study co-author Richard Seager of Columbia University said those global warming connections are not valid.
Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn’t. So that means it was a random event, he said.
Using similar methods, Hoerling has been able to attribute increasing droughts in the Mediterranean Sea region to climate change and found that greenhouse gases could be linked to a small portion of the 2011 Texas heat wave.
Another scientist though, blasted the report.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a federally funded university-run research center, said the report didn’t take into account the lack of snowfall in the Rockies the previous winter and how that affected overall moisture in the air. Nor did the study look at the how global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the jet stream north and the rainfall away, he said.
“This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming,” Trenberth said in an email. “That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia.”
Hoerling noted that in the past 20 years, the world is seeing more La Ninas, the occasional cooling of the central Pacific Ocean that is the flip side of El Nino. Hoerling said that factor, not part of global warming but part of a natural cycle, increases the chances of such droughts.
Some regions should see more droughts as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said. But the six state area isn’t expected to get an increase of droughts from global warming — unlike parts of the Southwest — Hoerling said.
___
Online:
Drought report: http://drought.gov/drought/content/drought-task-force-report-page
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
18th March 2013 at 8:58 pm