Sunday, January 06, 2008

Al Gore "still an hysterical cunt", says Devil

Via Tom Nelson, it seems that Al Gore isn't finished with the hysteria yet.
You knew it was coming. It was only a matter of time. Al Gore is working on a sequel to his 2006 eco-ganda film "An Inconvenient Truth," which will be called "The Path to Survival" and released on April 22, 2008, otherwise known as Earth Day.

No doubt we can expect yet another scientifically inaccurate polemic, full of bullshit and ridiculously exaggerated claims. I would be barely able contain my boredom, except that our evil fucking leaders will no doubt be queuing up to spend our money on the bloody thing, so that they may glean new ideas of ways to control us.

No doubt Mr Gore will recommend that we all return to the Dark Ages and start wearing sackcloth and ashes. But he may not get such an easy ride this time because the whole thing is starting to unravel, not least in the fact that the trend is already towards cooling.
In January 2007, we were informed that 2007 was either likely or certain to surpass 1998 and become the world's warmest year on record by most media, including:
AP & Foxnews
USA Today
The New York Times
The New York Sun
The Washington Post
National Geographic
The Guardian
The Independent
China People Daily
ABC Australia
Discovery Channel
Science Daily
Met Office

as well as virtually all other media you know. They justified this statement by referring to scientists who have combined greenhouse gases with the observed El Nino. Many sources, such as the New York Sun, even gave you the probability that 2007 would be the hottest year as 60 percent. They immediately added that this should "add momentum for the next phase of the Kyoto protocol", a comment that clarifies what is the actual goal of many of the people who study these questions professionally.

Now, you know that I am going to call "bullshit" on this one, but to what extent?
Reality: thermometers

However, the greenhouse gases are not too important and El Nino was replaced by La Nina. As a consequence, RSS MSU data for the lower troposphere (graph, more graphs) show that 2007 was the coldest year in this century so far. In alarmist jargon, it was the ninth hottest year on record: the most recent year was cooler than all other years in this century as well as 1998 (by a whopping 0.41 °C) and even 1995. According to different datasets (HadCRUT3, UAH MSU, NOAA), the year is going to be approximately the 8th (HadCRUT3) or 7th (NOAA) or 6th warmest year. UAH might report 2007 as the 4th warmest year and GISS will be a real exception because 2007 will be almost certainly its 2nd warmest year (as James Hansen [PDF] said a few weeks ago, after 2005 but slightly above 1998) - but it is still very far from the hype about the hottest year. Your humble correspondent is not the only one who believes that the satellite measurements such as RSS, UAH are more accurate than GISS, HadCRUT3. It just happens that HadCRUT3 is closer to RSS than UAH to RSS, as far as the recent rankings go.

The RSS MSU linear trend extracted from the 1998-2007 interval is -0.48 °C per century of cooling! Numerically, it's almost the same trend that we assign to the 20th century but with the opposite sign. The RSS MSU data imply that 2007 was 0.12 °C cooler than the already cool year 2006. Other teams will generate qualitatively compatible results but substantially different numbers, raising doubts about the reliability of the temperature measurement even in the modern era.

So, essentially, what we are concluding here is that 2007—far from being the hottest year yet—was, in fact, the coldest year this century.
Do you expect the media listed above to apologize for the misinformation they have printed? Do you think they will tell their readers and audiences that they have made a mistake and reported scientifically unreliable and unlikely propaganda created by political activists and hacks such as Phil Jones? Do you think that they will promise us that they will be more careful in the future and avoid this kind of hype? If you do, you haven't understood what religious bigotry and special interests really mean. Most of these people are either lunatics who pay no attention whatsoever to reality, the actual data, or serious science, or corrupt people who greatly benefit from this big-scale misinformation and propaganda.

Quite so: the vested interests will continue to lie and obfuscate because otherwise, amongst other things, they won't get their grant money. But how are these idiot fucking alarmists going to deal with this temperature drop?
Phil Jones et al. now forecast 2008 to be even cooler than 2007 (sanely, due to La Nina that will strongly affect at least the 4 following months) but they present this prediction as perfectly compatible with "underlying global warming" that is not "waning" in any way, despite the observed cooling. It seems obvious that the mysterious "underlying" numbers are more important for them than the numbers that are being actually measured.

Now they bravely forecast that 2008 will be in the "top ten" of the warmest years.

Yes, that's right: despite the very definite cooling trend since 1998, the data still supports global warming.

Really? Fucking how, exactly?


brewski said...

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:

The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

The following companies agree with the consensus:

Air France
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
China Renewable
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners

In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:

A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Liberty Mutual Group
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc

Devil's Kitchen said...

It's amazing how many people can be wrong, eh? Or who will go along with the concensus for business reasons.

Would you like to make a list, from the one above, of all of the people who have actually looked at any of the raw data?

Or are you simply listing these organisations as a way of refuting the data? Because the data shows a cooling trend: I don't care how many people sit there endorsing global warming: it ain't happening.


anthonynorth said...

The beauty of science is that it cannot capture a concept in definite terms. Hence, it can aleways be bent to reflect any argument.
Conceptual science is just NOT that exact. Take evolution through natural selection. Physical evidence stands at about 10% of fossil record that would be required. Bi Bang theory is struggling because there only seems to be 10% of the 'weight' in the universe to validate the theory.
With AGW, therefore, we can only work with probability. And you can usually work out someone's estimate of the probability based on their politics. As I see it, an anti-AGW stance is really about a hatred of collectivism.
I share that hatred, actually. I have a similar distaste for the Al Gore's of the world, manipulating the argument for political means. But I do accept that the probability could be so high that we cannot simply ignore it because we don't like the way present politics is using it. To me, the answer to to provide a new politics to counter theirs.
The question is, can we provide an ideal for society/commerce that allows a probability that AGW could be happening, without destroying the benefits we have from society/commerce?
That is the question, and not today's demonstrations of intellectual ego.
There is plenty of experimental new tech that deals with possible AGW, but it is being ignored by Big Biz because they rely on big systems to sustain themselves.
This new tech would allow smaller businesses to provide as good a service, but would severely damage Big Biz. To support this new tech, encouraging new entrepreneurs and engineers, should be seen as a libertarian ideal (and no, I'm not talking of subsidy).
And the upshot would be a real return of national sovereignty from a controlling globalised economy, which again makes Big Biz king, and the consumer their serfs.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"With AGW, therefore, we can only work with probability. And you can usually work out someone's estimate of the probability based on their politics. As I see it, an anti-AGW stance is really about a hatred of collectivism."

Yes, it could be my politics influencing my opinion.

Or, of course, it could be my background in science which means that I have a tedious wish to see the actual data and that my reading of that data has led me to believe that there is no significant warming or long-term warming trend, let alone any idea that we are causing this non-existant warming.


anthonynorth said...

Data is always open to personal opinion when dealing with a concept. Continual arguments over this point are maybe stopping serious discussion of where society/commerce/politics is going.
No matter what your opinion on the subject, it is unlikely that AGW will unravel any time soon because, above the science, it reflects a feeling in the west that things are wrong.
Big Biz media has captured this, throwing back at us the ancient idea that we're all sinners, and they are unlikely to let it go.
I'd argue this is so because Big Biz has worked out that it can capitalise on AGW by milking us dry, yet only offering cosmetic solutions that make us think we're doing something.
As you know, I personally accept the probability of AGW as high. But this does not mean I accept the Big Biz flannel. I simply feel the answer to the problem is to be as subtle as Big Biz by using the argument to advance society/commerce/politics by trying to get rid of the Big Biz that is conning us and, if AGW is real, causing it.
A libertarian ethic placed onto a new generation of smaller businesses could do this. So we win, whether AGW is real or not.

mitch said...

Al gore need nailing to a cross like some other deranged fool who's name I seem to have forgotten then laughed at till he is dead.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"I'd argue this is so because Big Biz has worked out that it can capitalise on AGW by milking us dry, yet only offering cosmetic solutions that make us think we're doing something."

Well, yes, I would agree with this. However, what I would also say is that businesses were reluctant to do so at first: a combination of repressive laws (e.g. carbon trading) and a hard-headed attitude to marketing has brought this about.

A libertarian ethic placed onto a new generation of smaller businesses could do this.

So you say, and you reject subsidies. All well and good. So, how exactly will you go about "encouraging new entrepreneurs and engineers" (although I concede that actually teaching them correctly might be a good start)?


JuliaM said...

"Continual arguments over this point are maybe stopping serious discussion of where society/commerce/politics is going."

Translation: "Fuck it! They are on to us.. More bullshit, faster, more! If we keep up the momentum, they will hav to give up...La, la, la, I'm not listening..."

anthonynorth said...

How would I encourage a new generation of entrepreneurs and engineers? The same way that all social evolution works.
The idea that we can. And then hammering it home time after time, to the point that it appears credible.
From the idea that a man survived death on the Cross, to the simple idea of 'survival of the fittest', to 'man was born free but everywhere is in chains', the simplest thing has changed society.
An idea.
It's as simple, and sublime, as that.

Rob said...

I rather think that support for AGW suggests a support for Collectivism, rather than the other way around.

Anyway, this spin about AGW getting more desperate - soon there will come a time when the media will have to spin the line "2009 was in the hottest hundred years of the last century" and they will make it sound like a catastrophe, and 95% of the population will swallow it.

Rob said...

Galileo: The Earth revolves around the Sun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

The Pope: My son, that is false. I have a long list of all those who know the truth...(reads out enormous list of cardinals, bishops and priests) can all of these people be wrong?

Scientists move in herds, and slowly. The idea that the scientific consensus is wrong, and badly, obviously wrong is not a new one. A great example is Plate Tectonics. Look it up to see a textbook example of how herd-like, intimidated scientists clung on to a discredited theory in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

anthonynorth said...

AGW is a scientific concept, which does not support anything. The idea that it supports collectivism is a political idea attached to it. I'd argue this can be reversed to become the opposite. In effect, a libertarian ideal can be attached to counter the idea of collectivism, and AGW suddenly becomes a reason for the libertarian cause.
It's all politics. So use it.
As for scientific consensus, I agree that most of them hold up science. But just because most scientific consensus is wrong doesn't mean that some time the occasional one could be right.
Even here, I'm only talking of prabability, not definite fact.

Mark Wadsworth said...

There ain't no AGW, full stop. Or if there is, it is ust as plausible that what we are doing is cooling the armosphere, but either way, this tiny influence is nothing compared to natural long-term fluctuations which nobody has ever understood and explained properly anyway.