Monday, June 23, 2008

Climate Skeptic: Great Moments in Alarmism

Naturally, there is an explanation for the fact that the forecasts were wrong; I just can't think what they might be other than the fact that... well... forecasts just aren't very accurate and they are no more accurate now than they were twenty years ago...
Apparently a number of papers are "commemorating" today the 20th anniversary of James Hansen's speech before Congress warning of catastrophic man-made global warming. So let's indeed commemorate it. Here is the chart from the appendices of Hansen's speech showing his predictions for man-made global warming:


I have helpfully added in red the actual temperature history, as measured by satellite, over the last 20 years (and scale-shifted to match the base anomaly in Hansens graph). Yes, 2008 has been far colder than 1988. We have seen no warming trend in the last 10 years, and temperatures have undershot every one of Hansen's forecasts. He thought the world would be a degree C warmer in 20 years, and it is not. Of course, today, he says the world will warm a degree in the next 20 years -- the apocalypse never goes away, it just recesses into the future.

Oh yes, I am sure that there have been refinements here and there but, seriously, it cannot help that these alarmists are still doing stupid things like assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere...

What do you want to bet that, in twenty years' time, today's predictions are going to look equally fucking stupid? Me: I'll bet a lot.

And in the meantime, these alarmists want us to beggar the world and keep the darkies poor so that they can indulge their little fantasy. Well, fuck them: fuck them all.

I say, plough ahead with making everyone richer and thus saving millions of lives.

UPDATE: now it seems that James Hansen is determined to shore up his credibility by curbing free speech, because he is a total fucking cunt who doesn't like to be told that he is wrong, wrong, wrong (even when we have documentary evidence showing that this is the case).
But now, the spirit of Savonarola has returned, in the guise of James Hansen, a man who incredibly calls himself a scientist. Mr. Hansen has decided that he is the secular Savonarola, complete with apocalyptic predictions and a righteousness that allows no dissent:
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress—in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.”

It will be interesting to see if any champions of free speech on the left can work up the energy to criticize Hansen here. What we have is a government official threatening prosecution and jail time for Americans who exercise their free speech rights. GWB, rightly, would never get a pass on this. Why does Hansen?

Because for those who believe in the AGW scenarios—and let us remember that theirs is a perverted religion because they will not even accept all of the IPCC scenarios: only those predicting catastrophe—this is a problem so huge that all of the liberties that we hold dear should be immediately repealed because, guys, this is the big one!

They are wrong. They are morons. And I will continue to deride them as morons.

If they want to believe Hansen, then may I humbly point out that Hansen has never been right; if you want to trust the track record of a man who has never been right, that's fine: who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?

Me, I'll continue looking at the actual science, rather than listening to alarmist nutjobs like Hansen.

UPDATE 2: Bishop HIll has more in edition 15 of his Climate Cuttings series...

34 comments:

Tim Almond said...

So, are you suggesting that raising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect on temperature?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Well, Tim, you could just ask: "are you an idiot who doesn't understand science, DK?"

1) CO2 in the atmosphere might well affect temperature in certain wavelengths.

2) We don't know the extent to which it does this.

3) CO2 is not the main driver of temperature change.

4) Temperature is not tracking CO2 increases.

5) We aren't all going to die. Well, not because of CO2 emissions anyway.

6) Although, if solar cycle 24 doesn't start up soon, we might get really cold really soon...

DK

cassandra said...

Tim,

How about a few facts to go with your illusion?

CO2 atmospheric content is 0.036% a trace gas and one that is essential to life OK? We need more CO2 lots more.
Every IPCC prediction of the last two decades has been WRONG and every correction has been WRONG, in fact the IPCC has got nothing right!
CO2 follows natural cyclic climate variation ALWAYS and from the fossil record we see a correlation between high CO2 and high levels of biomass(its why growers pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses).
Lets be clear here OK? you have been and are being lied to/duped/conned/confused/and taken for a sucker OK? The carbon cycle has been rolling for hundreds of millions of years with highs and lows that dwarf todays OK? Lets put this in simple terms for you, the super volcano 'Toba' put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have in the entire modern period and that didnt cause a Venus type runaway tipping point did it? Even the much vaunted ice cores have been proven unreliable due to cabon leeching over time. Even more simply put is, its the sun stupid!
The AGW theory is a cloak for political revolution ala nu socialist world order/post democratic system, much like the old soviet system. I may not have a PhD but I can see a long con and this AGW malarky is a pearler! Did you hear about the thirty two thosand scientists who signed a petition 'denying' the AGW theory? No? ask yourself why! Ask yourself why dissidents are gagged so effectively. The BBC are pushing the AGW line like their lives depend on it and smearing any who dissent, doesnt that make you think?

Henry Crun said...

Tim Almond - raising levels of CO2 has NO effect on temperature. It's the other way around - raised temperature causes increased levels of CO2.

If the earth was in such delicate balance that if CO2 levels increased or decreased a smidgen, all life on earth (with the exception of flora) would have died out eons ago. There is far less CO2 in the atmosphere now than during the Jurassic and Pleioscene periods.

So, Tim, you can go back to singing duets with Gene Pitney and stop worrying about all the nasty cars pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Oh and polar bears can swim, so they aren't all going to drown when the sea ice melts.

Evil Clanger said...

You're all being a bit nasty to Tim here, guys!

Tim is typical of well meaning people who are genuinely concerned about the future of our planet and its ability to sustain a comfortable life for our children. It is not his fault that catastrophists have managed to monopolise the MSM and fill his head with garbage.

Hansen is a mentalist.

cassandra said...

Evil Clanger,

Er, yes it IS his fault! if he is too thick to tell the difference between a con and reality AND if he cant be arsed to find out the simple facts for himself then he is a classic example of whats wrong with our society! If only people got off their fat, ignorant arses and read a few books instead of taking in all the trash TV bollocks churned out by the media then we wouldnt be in this fucking mess would we? If a thick dyslexic cunt(who left a sink school at 14)like me can find out the truth then why Oh why cant people like Tim?
We used to be a nation of proud and independent individualists but the fucking socialists have turned us into unthinking,drooling retards barely able to follow the storyline of eastenders!
To be brutal about it, Tim doesnt need a sympathetic pat on the head, he wants a kick up the arse!

pond life said...

Can't decide whether you lot are a bunch of cretins or Goebbels like genii.

But anyway why let scientific consensus get in the way of a vested interest

cassandra said...

Pond life,

What fucking consensus? and even if there was a consensus(which there aint)science does not function with a show of hands does it? Scientists have always been mistaken and plain wrong about thousands of things so what makes it different this time? Show me a scientific consensus that hasnt been proved wrong at some point. What the fuck is it with you people that makes you so blind? Can you not see the evidence of your own eyes? I despair that there are cunts like you still defending a failed whacko theory and you dont even try to find out the truth that is staring you in the face!
Listen up you fucking retard, fuck off and read a book or two OK? Then open your fucking eyelids and find out a few facts about how the climate is cooling faster and faster in line with the solar cycle and then read the IPCC predictions and corrections, see for yourself how wrong they are and then come back and argue the facts eh?

Thatcher-right said...

Is there any way of betting with these people?
I mean... if they are absolutely certain that they are right then they are bound to be offering pretty good odds.
It also has the whole scientific: [make a model - predict using the model - test the prediction] thing going for it. I want a single solid prediction that we can test.
We could really see where the consensus lies.
On proof reading this, I noticed the unintentional double meaning of the last sentence.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Thatcher-Right - Good call!

IG Index or somebody ought to set up a spread bet on average temperature in (say) 2013, and the Greenies can all buy like mad (and if they don't then clearly they know that they are lying), enabling us sceptics to sell and have good odds of making oodles of cash.

Sweet.

pond life said...

Consensus? well I was thinking about:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
InterAcademy Council,
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences,
European Geosciences Union,
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences,
Geological Society of America,
American Geophysical Union,
American Astronomical Society,
American Institute of Physics,
American Physical Society,
American Chemical Society,
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia),
Federal Climate Change Science Program,
American Statistical Association


With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate - a few crack pot VI individuals maybe.

Global cooling? From the Met office site - The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.

dr cromarty said...

The agreement of experts has been a traditional source of all the errors throughout medical history

Feinstein A. Fraud, distortion, delusion and consensus: the problems of human and natural deception in epidemiological studies. Am J Med 1988; 84: 475-478.


The same applies to climate change. Consensus ain't science.

pond life said...

So I'll get a better idea of climate science by listening to random individuals opinions?

pagar said...

Like Tim and many others I have not got the time to investigate the detail of the scientific arguments. The only thing I know about the future is that nobody else can predict it either.

But who can seriously argue with the environmentalists?

They want to save us, our children and grandchildren from being fried to a crisp and to save the polar bears from drowning. Is that bad?

Yet all totalitarians use a noble purpose to justify their despotism. The subtext is that they want to save us from ourselves because we are too stupid to understand the arguments and lack the foresight to modify our actions voluntarily. But what is really exciting to the control junkies about environmentalism is that, for the first time ever, they have an issue that crosses all national boundaries. Potentially it offers them the the prospect of being able to constrain the freedom of action of everyone on the planet!!

My attitude is as follows.

If you want to cycle to work, switch your TV off after use and pay to have your carbon footprint erased that's fine.

If you want to tell me what car I can drive, where I can drive it and how many times a year I am allowed to fly in a plane, my instincts are to ask you politely not to interfere in my life.

If you ask me to pay you handsomely to create and enforce the legislation you want to enact to restrict my freedom, my instincts are to invite you to go fuck yourself.

Devil's Kitchen said...

pond life,

"Global cooling? From the Met office site - The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures."

Yes, but this was not predicted in any of the climate models. What does that tell you about the reliability of said climate models? That maybe -- just maybe -- they are not tremendously reliable?

Second, all of the organisations listed above have a significant vested interest in promoting the catastrophic AGW models. Quite apart from anything else, like the European leaders with the Lisbon Treaty, these organisations have "invested a lot of political capital" in this AGW project.

It is worth listening to certain individuals because they are often right, e.g. MacIntyre and McKitrick, who exposed the hockey-stick myth.

DK

pond life said...

For what its worth (which is not much to be fair) I happen to think that the science in support of man made global heating is valid but there is no fucking chance of the UN, EU (or any other supranational organization)doing anything meaningful to reverse it.

Peak oil may save 'us' (by us i think i mean human civilization) by forcing us to look for cheaper alternatives but in the meantime I plan to buy a house on a hill, build a fucking big wall, buy some anti personnel mines and an SLR.

PS I hate muesli but Jim Lovelock is definitely worth a read

Henry Crun said...

pond life, clearly you are a cretin especially if you believe the complete bollocks spewed by Al Gore and his acolytes. Since when does scientific fact have to be proven by consensus? Since when do we have to "believe" in global warming (as the MSM and ecoMENTALISTs would have us do)? Science is about testing and re-testing the theories and examining the evidence. Not about having faith in some half-arsed theory dreamt up by some nutty professor trying to big up his research grant.

Anyone who thinks that climates do not change or that they can stop the climates from changing by not driving to the shops anymore is completely devoid of any common sense whatsoever.

You seem like an intelligent person, so why on earth have you swallowed the snake-oil of a report published by merketing ponytails at the IPCC.

Henry Crun said...

pagar, it would appear I misjudged you inearlier posts, for that I apologise.

Re AGW my attitude is the same as yours except for the first bit. If people feel so moved about their carbon-footprint (sic) and pay good money to offsetting scams, er schemes, then they are fuckwits. Then again, you know what they say about fools and money.

Cassandra, if you are of the female persuasion, will you marry me? But uf you are a bloke with a girly psuedonym, then lets just settle for a pint down the pub.

windy blow said...

"Consensus? well I was thinking about:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Stop there, Pond Life; I understand this was a document paid for by public money (i.e taxation and therefore self-justified purely by those who levy the taxes) and was signed by lots of non-scientists, and though widely reported by non-scientific journalists to be the pinnacle of scientific investigation it was no such thing.

It was a justification of untested assumptions and projections on a complex and changing event (namely the planet and its gases, without any reference to the effect of the single most importnat factor in our lives – the sun) and a reason to impose more controls and taxes on the peoples of the planet.

Other than that, it's good.

pond life said...

Belief starts where rational thought ends (explaining the existence of organized religion I suppose) but i have avoided using the word.

Al Gore is a self serving cock jockey imo.

Don't any of you fuckers have jobs? I'll be here all day preaching to the unconvertible at this rate.

Henry Crun said...

pond life, of course we don't have jobs. We are all unemployed global warming scientists.

pond life said...

Cant believe there are too many unemployed global warming scientists - they're all organizing conferences with taxpayers money on tropical islands so they can 'see for themselves the destruction of island communities' or something surely?

V said...

100.b.c. - Hands up who believes the world is flat? - 9 out of 12? then we have a consensus then!

1616 a.d. Hands up who thinks the Sun travels around the Earth? 11 out of 12? We have a strong consensus then!

1929 a.d. Hands up who thinks Eugenics will save the human race? 10 out of 12? What a strong consensus, and even some of the politicians like that nice Mr Hitler agrees!

2005 a.d. Hands up who thinks global warming is a problem we need to deal with NOW?
I'm sure this consensus will be different this time!

Oh, and pond life - if you ask a whole bunch of people, who have all learnt the same subject from the same books to agree on something - there is a good chance they will.
Peer review doesn't sound so good when you call it group think!

pagar said...

To widen the debate slightly....

Does anyone else see a link between the environmental lobby and their fear of apocalypse and other interventions by those that seek to meddle in our lives for our own good.

I have a theory that deep down such people are cowards. They are afraid of their own mortality and project that fear by attempting to ban people undertaking activities that they consider potentially damaging- whether it's drinking, drug taking, smoking or driving a car at a speed faster than they dictate is allowable.

There has been a huge movement over the last twenty years to try to eliminate all risk from life and I think these cowards may actually believe they can live for ever. Personally, I am more afraid of medical science keeping me alive for decades more than is natural so that I can drool and defecate in some horrific nursing home.

I have deliberately adopted a lifestyle that will hopefully ensure that does not happen- only problem is that the health gestapo are doing their best to try to prevent me living my life as I wish to.

dr cromarty said...

Oh and BTW pondlife if you're going to talk about vested interests, have you ever thought to ask yourself why so many academics of so many different hues jump on the AGW bandwagon? Could it be perhaps that there's research grants in them thar hills?

Think about it. Me? I'm off to the shops (in the car) to get some beer and some charcoal and we're going to have a BBQ. Just smell that carbon. Hmmmmm.

cassandra said...

Pond life had that list out a bit too quick to be a regular poster I think? Is he one of the Nu tinpot Stasi blog monitors?
If so I can only hope he dies a painfull death in a NHS death factory just after he finds out his dear AGW theory has been found out for the Nu Marxist scam that it is!
PS If a large group of people told you to jump off a cliff without looking would you trust the consensus and jump?

For the record Pondlife, Global temperatures peaked and flatlined 7 odd years ago and have been falling fast ever since, dont take my word for it go check out the Nasa data! Or are they in the pay of big oil too?
Instead of looking at your church of fat cunt Gore bible why not have a look at some real evidence?

pond life said...

Dear mongs - cant be arsed to answer all your comments as my life is much too short, however I would just like to point out:

a) wikipedia has loads of lists that are very easy to cut and paste
b) global temperatures have been increasing over the last ten years but at a slightly lower rate than previously due to El Nina. Check out the met office site, although cassandra will probably think the met is some sort of green /Stalinist sleeper cell hell bent on getting him out of his SUV: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
c)Nice to meet you all (even you Cassandra though i think you might be a neocon in libertarian clothing)
d)V - I dont think global warming can be dealt with, unless some cataclysmic event occurs that can only be blamed on it - v unlikely imo. Minds might be focused then but with the heir to Blair or the clunking cyclops in charge one would have to be doubtful.
d)Buy a big fucking gun.

dr cromarty said...

a) We know - you did just that

b) No they haven't - LOOK AT THE FUCKING GRAPH!

c)Nice to meet you too

d)Why bother pointing it out then? If there's nothing that can be done maybe we should be spending the aforesaid grant money helping the poor buggers who'll be worst affected by any change (and who knows - climate change/global warming might actually be good for the human race - it certainly beats freezing to death). The academics will always find soemthing else to research/organise swanky conferences for.

d)Eh?

Andy said...

Lets face it, the powers that be have always had some big idea to make us all play ball. two hundred years ago we were all told we would burn in hell if we were bad, now were told we all burn in the here and now...

Man made Global Warming / Climate Change is a FUCKING LIE

cassandra said...

Pond life is a classic example of head in the sand stupidity!
"temperatures are rising, just more slowly" WTF? Is Nasa wrong? Are the sattelites wrong? Are the remote weather stations wrong? Where the fuck did you get your figures from? Was it the big book of al gore lies N stuff?
For the record the Met office is a part of government and is led by a government stooge and is funded by government, so do you think they might want to manipulte any data to serve their political masters?
SUV??? I do not own a car! I own a scabby old boat with an old cummins marine diesel motor that had done a few miles when I was pissing in my nappy! So before you know me you get my sex wrong and you my mode of transport wrong, you get your facts wrong! In fact you got it all wrong, but then again as an AGW believer thats nothing Nu is it?

windy blow said...

Hey, I'm a mong!

Er, is that good or bad, Pond Life? I have a vague feeling you are trying to be a bit edgy here. You know... swear a little, insult a few people, paste a few lists.

Or are you trying to say I am among people who don't buy every lie offered by the government?

And you say your life is too short? Well, thanks to big-state intervention, increased taxation and further restrictions on your freedoms it will only seem like you'll be living a further 200 years.

But at least the weather will be warmer :)

Tim Almond said...

"Well, Tim, you could just ask: "are you an idiot""

That wasn't my intention, but your defensive, emotional response to an open question does lead me to that conclusion.

Anonymous said...

You can wave all the bloody graphs, spreadsheets and books written by Neo-con fuckwits you want, but you prove nothing, except that you'd argue black is the new white if there was a quid in it.

Get on a plane to India/Nepal, do a tour of some Himalayan glaciers, look, take some pictures, make some notes. Do this again every couple of years for a few years/decades. Attempt to reconcile what you see with the 'business as usual'/'nuffink to do with us' bollocks you usually spew.

Try it; even you might learn something - if you can get your head out of your arsehole for just long enough. Experience is a wonderful thing.

Fuckwit.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"Experience is a wonderful thing."

Of course, compared to proper science, anecdotal evidence is just crap.

We are talking about a global phenomenon and, as such, reports from the entire globe should be taken, not one glacier in India.

Moron.

DK