Hide sticks it to Renwick

Rodney Hide
Rodney Hide continues to support a realistic view of dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

The NBR today carries his article “Faith, not facts, drive[s] global warming.”

Rodney says Renwick “was in no doubt that man-made global warming was causing the summer drought,” then quotes Renwick from his TV interview:

“Oh, no, no. There’s no other explanation that’s remotely plausible.”

But Rodney rightly points out:

That’s religious zealotry in action. Science is never that certain. The best-ever scientific knowledge was Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein blew it to bits. That’s the nature of science.

He goes on to show how Renwick’s theory is falsified. It’s the right stuff.

117 Thoughts on “Hide sticks it to Renwick

  1. The article doesn’t seem to have been trolled by the usual suspects (yet)

  2. We always get the odd comment that the “denialists” claim that the has been no warming for 17 years, and it is not true (there is no one this article)

    The obvious question to ask them ,then is how much warming there has been, and what are the error bounds on the figure

    This is usually followed by the sounds of crickets chirping, etc

  3. Rodney Hide on May 11, 2013 at 11:40 pm said:

    Thank you for the link. And all your help and support. The posts and comments on your blog are a fabulous resource and mine of information.

    Rodney

  4. Andy on May 12, 2013 at 9:58 am said:

    Rodney’s been busy.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10883011

    I think point 7 is a pertinent one, a question I have raised with people too.


    7. What about the planet? For years both the Labour Party and the Green Party have campaigned for higher power prices. They want to cut the burning of fossil fuels to arrest global warming. That’s why we have an Emissions Trading Scheme. Labour and the Greens continue to campaign for an even tougher scheme. They are now campaigning for a further hike in power prices and a cut in power prices.

  5. Pingback: “Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney? | Open Parachute

  6. Andy on May 12, 2013 at 2:52 pm said:

    The latter article was re-blogged at Whale Oil.

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/05/rodney-hide-ont-eh-greenslabour-power-policy/

    Which according to Ken’s stats is the most popular blog in NZ.

  7. Mike Jowsey on May 12, 2013 at 3:29 pm said:

    Open parachute gets all tangled up over Rodney’s “incontrovertible” word. Some cherry-picked graphs and one which graphs ocean heat content which I have not seen before and for which no source for the data is cited.
    http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/incontrovertible-is-it-rodney/

  8. Data is fairly “incontrovertible” given some assumptions on how it is collected and the errors that lie within.

    Theories are not incontrovertible, which is the point being made I think.
    Ken uses GISSTemp to show that the world warmed 0.07 degrees in 17 years (+- 0.09 degrees)

    You could use Hadcrut to show a warming of 0.0 degrees, give or take. Does it matter? 0.07 is a long way off the predicted 0.2 degrees per decade predicted by the models. The longer the temps fail to rise the bigger the spike will have to be to catch up with the predictions

  9. Richard C (NZ) on May 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm said:

    >”…one which graphs ocean heat content which I have not seen before and for which no source for the data is cited.”

    This graph Mike.

    http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/total_heat_content_2011_med.jpg?w=741&h=555

    RT questioned that graph a while back so I checked it out as best I could. It first appeared on the blog of someone like Andrew Weaver but I can’t recall exactly who it was now. The graph was cobbled together from the various relevant papers (Levitus and others) for each layer (not shown on graph) and it was OK in that respect but the uncertainty prior to ARGO 2003/4 is large. Even more uncertain are the estimates of the deep ocean.

    FWIW, I would expect a profile similar to that but more in sync with SLR, going right back to around 1900 and maybe even further. not just 1962/3, so to me not much of an issue.

    But notice how, in true warmist tradition, the graph is truncated back to 2008/9 i.e. it appears out-of-date. Ocean heat is now at a standstill just like the atmosphere when up-to-date data is used. The reason that particular graph is truncated is that it is graphing pentadal data so the series comes up short of the latest date e.g. compare NODC’s 0-700m 3 month average, yearly average, and pentadal average here:-

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

    The pentadal series is a CENTRED moving average so data is lost at each end. A simple moving average (SMA) OTOH only loses data from the beginning of the series.

    Bob Tisdale had some unkind words for the pentadal data because for some inexplicable reason the linear trend is modified:-

    ‘NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/nodcs-pentadal-ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000m-creates-warming-that-doesnt-exist-in-the-annual-data-a-lot-of-warming/

    INTRODUCTION

    In the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?, we discussed and illustrated, for the depths of 0-700 meters, that the NODC’s pentadal ocean heat content had a significantly higher warming trend than the annual data. Refer to the discussions of Figures 5 to 7 under the heading of PENTADAL DATA IS NOT THE SAME AS DATA SMOOTHED WITH A 5-YEAR FILTER. For 0-700 meters, the pentadal data warms at a rate that’s about 19% higher than the annual data. I ended that section of the post with:

    “It really makes one wonder how strongly the warming rate of the 0-2000 meter data, which relies on much fewer observations below 700 meters, is impacted by the use of “running 5-year composites.” ”

    In this post, we’ll present the same comparisons, but for the depths of 0-2000 meters. Somehow, the pentadal data adds about 36% to the warming trend of global ocean heat content above the warming trend of the annual data for the same depths.

    […]

    Figure 2: Pentadal vs 5 year running mean 0-2000m OHC

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/figure-2.png?w=960&h=602

    # # #

    “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

  10. Richard C (NZ) on May 12, 2013 at 5:37 pm said:

    An older version of accumulated ocean heat but this one going back to 1950:-

    SkS: Figure 1: Build-up in total Earth Heat Content since 1950. The data comes from Figure 6b in Murphy 2009. The ocean data was taken from Domingues et al. 2008

    Also attributed by Scott Mandia (see below but he’s got the wrong figure) to : Figure 7.15 (IPCC 2007): Total Earth Heat Content from 1950

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

    AR4 7.15 is this:-

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-7-15-l.png

    John Cook compiled the later Open Parachute version (1962/3), see this SkS article:-

    ‘The Earth continues to build up heat’

    Posted on 12 October 2011 by John Cook

    New research has been published that finds the planet has continued to build up heat well into the 21st century. Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated the Earth’s total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.

    >>>>>>>>

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Earth-continues-to-build-up-heat.html

    Also another version at WUWT showing ocean layers:-

    ‘Fact check for Andrew Glikson – Ocean heat has paused too’

    Posted on February 25, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data.

    >>>>>>>>

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

    I recall now I thought Scott “Super” Mandia compiled the original graph (not Andrew Weaver) but he just plucked it from somewhere (possibly AR4) for this blog article:-

    THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO MODERN DAY CLIMATE CHANGE

    All the data you need to show that the world is warming
    By Scott A. Mandia

    http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2010/04/15/who-can-deny-the-world-is-warming/

    And the Caped Climate Crusader in person – SUPERMANDIA:-

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/caped_climate_crusader1.jpg?w=640

  11. Alexander K on May 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm said:

    Excellent article, Rodney. Renwick has proved time and again that he prefers faith to actual science; his pronouncements re the recent drought were further proof of this if any were needed.
    Actually, most politicians worry me, but Labour and the Greens scare me most. They haven’t worked out yet that poor people need cheap energy if all are to shake off poverty and the imperative to produce huge numbers of children to ensure some will survive to assist their parents in those parents’ old age.

  12. Remember though Alexander, the Melons/Labour will give us cheaper power via NZ Power, and more expensive power via a revitalised ETS.

    Expensive power and cheap power at the same time! What’s not to like?

  13. I like the way you put this — the best part of Rodney’s analysis.

  14. In this recent interview of Bob Carter with Andrew Bolt

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owNJtVRpvOU&sns=em

    about 9 mins in there is a video clip of Prof Will Steffen who says that (paraphrasing) “we have had very severe droughts before so statistically we cannot attribute this drought (Aus, 2011) to climate change”

  15. But I think that it runs deeper than this. We can point out inconsistencies in the logic, but surely it runs against deep philosophical views between the Labourites, whose political philosophy may be based on Marxism (power to the proletariat) vs the Deep Green Malthusians who seem to want a technocratic elite to control and subvert the serfs.

    I am sure there are those with far greater political insight than me who can reconcile these issues, but I have yet to find anyone

  16. Ian Cooper on May 12, 2013 at 9:46 pm said:

    Rodney,

    You need to take Dr Jim # 2 (aka Jim Renwick, Dr Jim # 1 being none other than the infamous Salinger himself!) to task over his assertion that it is so obviously CAGW and nothing else. If it is so bleeding obvious in hindsight how come he and his ilk couldn’t predict it beforehand, which is obviously far more useful than hindsight?

    His (Jim #2’s) concern for the plight of farmers in the distant future (2040) would look more believable if he and all of the others suckling at the public purse concentrated on getting the near future predictions right first. In my experience in the Manawatu their (NIWA) track record is ZERO!

    We have had a few minor droughts in our region over the past decade but the last significant drought here was 10 years ago. At the height of that particular drought Jim # 1 gave an address at the Horizon’s Regional Council Office in Palmerston North. A local farmer who I don’t know and myself challenged Jim # 1 about how he and NIWA hadn’t predicted that drought (2003) while the pair of us had noticed the obvious similarities to 2003 and 1978, one of the severest droughts in our region, not to mention elsewhere, as soon as it started manifesting itself the day after Boxing Day in 2002. in 1978 it started on Boxing Day! Salinger was almost flippant in admitting that he, and therefore his subordinates, who probably included Jim # 2, failed to foresee the drought under way in our region. The impression I got, and one that still sticks with me, is that he was too busy frying bigger fish (aka saving the planet) to worry about mere minnows like us.

    Cut to 10 years later and with the help of the internet and a desire to understand the local and world environment better I made the prediction verbally in October 2012 and then in writing at the end of November that year, firstly by way of response to an all staff e-mail by a senior engineer who was concerned (and rightly so) about the diminishing water supply for Palmerston North. I pointed out the similarity between circumstances in the central Pacific SST’s at that time and in the comparison years of 1977 & 2002. I stated at that time that the likelihood of severe drought in our region was of high probability. I then proceeded to formalise these thoughts in a document called “Prospects for Drought 2012-13,” which I passed on to a few friends who I thought should know. A record dry November was followed by a typically normal wet December which gave a false sense of security to some. I call this the period when the drought went on holiday.

    When the final figures are compared the similarities between this recent “La Nada Drought” (ENSO neutral) and the most recent ones to similarly affect my region in 1947-48, 1969-70, 1977-78 and 2002-03 are amazingly close. There is nothing staggeringly new in what has just happened over the past summer. Farmers who weren’t prepared obviously are either new to the game or didn’t listen to their forebears who have all experienced the same thing in the past.

    The two Dr Jims are so far removed from reality that they and their unfortunate followers can’t even see it when it is happening (go to the NIWA web site and see their predictions/prognosis for early February this year). It takes people living in the real world to notice the natural changes and similarities when they happen.

    And who am I to make that successful prediction while the professionals fail yet again? I am a layman of possibly similar age to Rodney Hide, another one born in the International Geophysical Year, the year of the Greatest Sunspot Count in modern times (SSC 19) the year Ed & co drove their Massey Fergusons to the South Pole! I have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever! I missed the maths exam for School C and earned an * courtesy of being hungover at the tender age of 16! After starting as a labourer in the civil engineering construction industry, road construction, tar-sealing, drain laying, etc., I became a Chainman and eventually Instrument Man via the Ministry of Works. I have progressed to become a Project Manager/estimator in that field.

    Parallel to that I developed an avid interest in astronomy that has led to me being the co-author of two internationally published astronomical handbooks, co-presenter of the currently longest-running astronomical TV series in NZ via Tararua TV, and long-serving president and vice president of three different astronomical societies in the lower North Island.

    Something of interest to Rodney also is that politically we come from opposite sides. At the first chance of voting as an 18-year-old I joined the Values Party (forerunners to the Greens, I still have my obligatory copy of “The Limits to Growth” which I place in the ‘Fiction’ section of my small library). I was previously (at high school) a member of the Labour Party. I have been in a crowded room where Rodney addressed myself and other union delegates representing local government, who I now work for (I have worked for a wide range of private enterprise too). Unlike the majority of my colleagues I do not see the situation that we are discussing as one of party ties. So I have no trouble in agreeing with someone supposedly from the other side.

    In the academic world I have no credibility compared to the 2 Drs Jim. But when it comes to predicting droughts in our region the score is 2 nil in my favour!

    Cheers,

    Coops

  17. Ian Cooper on May 12, 2013 at 9:53 pm said:

    P.S. let me know how I can send the pdf of my Dec 1st 2012 prediction to this site in case anyone doubts my claims above.

    Coops.

  18. Wow, what a story, Ian. Well told.

  19. I’ve replied privately, thanks.

  20. Mike Jowsey on May 13, 2013 at 1:41 pm said:

    Thanks Coops – very interesting. When will these ‘doctors’ of climatology be held accountable for their utter failings? Privatise NIWA – remove tax-payer funding. Let them stand or fall on their predictive abilities.

  21. David on May 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm said:

    Oh my god! Are you guys still stuck in the “there’s no such thing as climate change” conspiracy theory?

    Seriously guys, do you not have access to what the rest of the world is saying, has it not dawned on you that it would be damn near impossible for a conspiracy theory this complex to remain hidden?

    Thanks for the laugh, it’s always good to know there is someone sillier than me out there.

  22. Which “conspiracy theory” are you referring to? All we have discussed in this thread is the lack of warming for the last 17 years that even the head of the IPCC agrees with

  23. Even though we don’t mention a conspiracy, I’m glad you’re amused, David.

    However, you’ve missed out the most important scientific step: to refute our theory that there’s been no (significant) warming this century, which is of course supported by real observations of temperatures around the world, and by statements from the UK Met Office, the head of the IPCC and various scientists on all sides of the global warming debate. Since it hasn’t been warming for about 18 years now, I think you’ll find it rather difficult to show that there has been warming, but I’m not going to be so arrogant as to say you can’t do it. Science is always receptive to evidence. So here’s an invitation: produce evidence of significant warming since about 1995. Then, if you find significant warming, I suppose you’ll have to demonstrate how it justifies the warnings of planetary doom we’ve been listening to. But if you do that, then our theory will have been blown right out of the water. Good luck.

  24. Bob D on May 13, 2013 at 3:51 pm said:

    …it’s always good to know there is someone sillier than me out there.

    An interesting assumption…

  25. SimonP on May 13, 2013 at 4:05 pm said:

    On one of Rodney’s earlier NBR sponsored rants (now paywalled) he openly talked about the conspiracy between politicians and scientists to create new taxes and scientific funding sources. If that is what he genuinely believes, he is definitely getting close to crank territory.
    I honestly don’t think that Rodney is that stupid and that he knows full well that if you pick any other year apart from 1997 or 1998 that you will find a warming trend. He should also probably be well aware that it is not possible to make a statistically significant hypothesis from less than 30 years as the data is so noisy.

  26. Ian Cooper on May 13, 2013 at 4:13 pm said:

    Mike Jowsey, it would put a new spin on the term performance pay, that’s for sure.

    David, help me out here. I’ve looked through all of this page but for the life of me I can’t find where anyone except you has stated “there’s no such thing as climate change!”

    You also have a spelling mistake in your last line too. “someone,” should read “no one.” There you go all fixed. Now be a good boy and run along.

  27. David Whitehouse wrote a fairly convincing piece on the hiatus in warming

    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf

    As for “conspiracies”, we don’t believe it of course. The IPCC was set up specifically to to investigate the potential of human caused global warming, and from there the funds started flowing.
    Scientists receiving these funds tended to block out any dissenting voices, as we saw in the climategate emails. They used gatekeeping at academic journals, blocking of FOI requests, deletion of emails, threats to have academics fired from their university positions here in NZ etc.

    No conspiracy is required; it is all a standard day in the world of climate science

  28. By the way David, I had a good laugh reading your comment at Ken’s blog where he writes

    I agree, David, the people at that blog are a funny lot.

    I am not allowed to comment there any more – no great loss as it’s a pretty poisonous atmosphere

    Poor old Ken

  29. Mike Jowsey on May 13, 2013 at 5:17 pm said:

    “…it’s a pretty poisonous atmosphere”

    Must be too much of that CO2 pollutant around here, I guess. Otherwise I can’t fathom what on earth he is talking about. This blog is one of the most courteous I have come across, far from the vitriollic style of, for example, Open Parachute.

    In fact, Ken goes on in the comment you mentioned, Andy, to say:

    However, I do find it psychologically interesting as they illustrate very well how humans do tend to be selective regarding information to fit existing bias. They are an extreme example, but nevertheless a good illustration. With the added benefit of illustrating the bullying techniques that ideological groups use to impose their strict conformity, and the vindictive hostility towards “intruders.”

    I think he should stand in front of the mirror and read that aloud to himself. I would be interested to see if he can back up this nonsense with actual examples of bullying and vindictive hostility on this blog. Well, Ken? Or is it simply psychological projection on your part?

  30. So for those claiming that “no warming in 17 years” is wrong, can they explain this article in The Australian?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

    So my questions are:

    (1) Was Pachauri misquoted?
    (2) If so, where is the complaint?
    (3) If he wasn’t misquoted, does it make him a pseudosceptic/denier/contrarian/creationist/insert your favorite pejorative here?

  31. Richard C (NZ) on May 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm said:

    >”…if you pick any other year apart from 1997 or 1998 that you will find a warming trend. He should also probably be well aware that it is not possible to make a statistically significant hypothesis from less than 30 years as the data is so noisy.”

    But NOT statistically significant warming at the rate the IPCC modeling projected (0.2 C/decade). I’ll “pick” 1990 (23 yrs period and 7 yrs before the 1997 you seem to imply we’re “picking” i.e. 1997/98 El Nino effect all but smoothed out going back to 1990) and RSS (yes I know it’s the ideal cherry pick but it’s also one of 2 non-tampered series compared to GISTEMP say, and a warmist enclave to boot).

    Using the SkS trend calculator:-

    RSS Trend 1990 – 2013: 0.125 ±0.135 °C/decade (2σ)

    So the upper and lower bounds are:-

    Upper: +0.26 °C/decade
    Lower: -0.01 °C/decade

    But since 2002 (11 yrs) the upper bound has remained exactly the same but the lower bound is much more negative.

    RSS Trend 2002 – 2013: -0.084 ±0.343 °C/decade (2σ)

    Upper: +0.259 °C/decade
    Lower: -0.43 °C/decade

    So tell us Simon, why, if “the data is so noisy” and we can’t use anything less than 30 years, has there been no increase whatsoever in the upper bound but a 0.42 °C/decade increase in the lower bound into negative (cooling) territory over the past 11 years in the RSS dataset?

    Isn’t it readily apparent by now that an anthropogenic warming signal is absent from the 1990 – 2013 data (23 years) but a more powerful forcing is now acting in the negative direction this century?

    David Whitehouse, in ‘The Global Warming Standstill” that Andy links to, says on page 61 pdf:-

    “Conclusions

    182. Whether the global temperature standstill of the past 15-16 years continues, or is replaced by warming, as the IPCC predicts, only future data will tell. Meanwhile, the length of the standstill implies that the challenge it offers for models of future climate prediction, and explanations for past warming, cannot be ignored. We are on the cusp of climate model vulnerability.”

    It is the “on the cusp of [CO2-forced] climate model vulnerability” part that is the critical issue Simon. Not whether there is still some all-but-imperceptible temperature increase, because the posited aCO2 forcing is/was supposed to be warming the planet dangerously. Clearly it is not.

  32. Alexander K on May 13, 2013 at 6:18 pm said:

    Coops, I am another who gladly fled PNBHS in the mid fifties without passing or even sitting SC, which was an all-or-nothing deal in those days. In my case, SC was a lost cause so your original post on this thread rang a bell for me. I came to understand much later in life that the SC and UE examinations of that era were nothing more than a crude filter to determine who should stay on at school to prepare for entering university; only around 3% of my peer group actually went directly from school to University. Once I left school, I gained a good education from all sorts of people in a range of occupations, all of whom had little formal education but had a wealth of skills and knowledge that they were pleased to pass on to any young bloke keen to learn.
    I eventually returned to formal education in my late thirties and became a teacher in NZ and in the UK.
    My free bus pass came in the mail years ago and with the passing of time, the manufactured CAGW scandal has become a major fascination for me. I am constantly amazed at the number of individuals who have no understanding of the scientific method or any appreciation of the need to collect evidence for any phenomena. I am also amazed at the number of ‘scientists’ such as Renwick here and internationally who have traded their future reputation for ‘gravy now’ and who parrot dogma rather than making evidence-based statements based upon actual observations.
    I look forward to reading your work on forecasting droughts when it appears!

  33. Richard C (NZ) on May 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm said:

    Simon, I would add wrt to the quotes following:-

    You >”…not possible to make a statistically significant hypothesis from less than 30 years”

    Me >”…a more powerful forcing is now acting in the negative direction this century”

    As has been pointed out to you previously, the empirical and DAGW sceptic explanation for this century’s climate regime is partly due to the 30 year timeframe that you insist on and partly due to a longer 1000 year timeframe (there are others but these are most significant), viz:-

    1) 60 year climate cycle oscillation: the warming phase and El Nino domination (30 years) of the cycle ended at the beginning of this century, now it’s gone negative. Climate science has not until now, woken up to the fact (most are still “puzzled”) that they have to factor in the oscillation to climate modeling – something that should be a no-brainer. But the trajectory (trend) of the complete cycle is determined by another phenomenon, see 2).

    2) Quasi-1000 solar cycle: The sun’s output in the late 20th century was the highest it had been for the last 1000 years but is now going into recession similar to the previous mid-1000 yr minimum period but more abruptly than the rise up to maximum (the IPCC’s Mike Lockwood acknowledges this). The increase in output over the last 400 – 500 years provided the upwards positive trend of 60 year oscillations but now the trend is reversing to negative. The range of solar change since the 1600s in the IPCC’s cited solar literature is in the order of 6 W m–2. Please take a moment to ponder that in relation to the IPCC’s posited CO2 forcing since 1750 – “…the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.

    So although we (not all AGW sceptics will agree with me of course – especially the luke-warmers) point to a 10 year period that is far less than the greater than 30 years you insist on Simon. We are in fact placing that 10 years in the context of 30 years, 60 years, 1000 years etc. And our (those that subscribe to above) hypothesis is consistent with observations right up to the present date and at the intermediate inflexions. Yours is not.

  34. David on May 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm said:

    I have to admit that maybe I’m wrong and you’re right – it’s a bloody sight colder today than it was yesterday or on the 13th of February, so it looks like the planet is cooling.

    And I reckon you’re right about climate change having been invented (probably by Al Gore and Nandor Tancos) with the sole purpose of increasing the amount you pay in tax and thereby crippling the delicate flower of Western capitalism. Them damn greenies have used their trillions of dollars to bribe almost every climate scientist on earth, NASA, the UN, American Meteorological Society etc, etc etc….And they have managed to make sure that all but 24 of nearly 14,000 peer reviewed scientific papers published between 1991 and 2012 on climate change spread their evil lies, And Nature, Scientific American, The Proceedings of the Royal Society are willing to shred the impeccable reputations they have built over decades by publishing deeply flawed papers supporting a scam.

    Yeah, I can see why you prefer to believe a handful of blogs and a smattering of scientists (usually either long retired or having nothing to do with climate science), a limited selection of quotes taken out of context and cherry picked data. What the hell do scientists know that Rodney Hide doesn’t? Hell, he was in dancing with stars – Jim Salinger wasn’t, and for that matter Sarah Palin also doesn’t believe in climate change and she can see Russia from Alaska!

  35. David on May 13, 2013 at 8:25 pm said:

    You have me convinced. All I needed as a single editorial article in a single Australian newspaper to refute everything them dang pesky scientists write.

  36. David, you’re being stupid. I asked for evidence of significant warming since about 1995. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you haven’t even looked for evidence, but in its absence, why should we tolerate your mindless (if mildly amusing) abuse?

    Stop putting words in my mouth because I can’t take you seriously. Do it again and you’ll be silently snipped, mate.

  37. You’ve got it the wrong way around: you’re supposed to prove the warming, you ning-nong!

  38. David on May 13, 2013 at 8:52 pm said:

    Seriously mate, climate change is the most researched phenomenon ever and for decades now thousands of the world’s top scientists have subjected it to rigorous and intense analysis, and they are unequivocal that the planet is warming, and that it is primarily because of the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases human activity has dumped in the atmosphere. You don’t believe them, so why would I expect you to believe me? Or anyone that disagrees with you?

  39. David, I love the Warmist Creed. You guys are like Creationists

    The fact is that the global mean surface temperature hasn’t increased by any statistically significant amount for at least 17 years

    All the major science academies agree with this – the UK Met Office, the head of the IPCC, James Hansen (ex NASA) all agree that there has been no warming for at least a decade, perhaps longer.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean that AGW is disproved, but it does suggest that maybe that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than originally thought. Several IPCC approved climate scientists ™ think this too including respected IPCC contributers James Annan and Myles Allen

    So do you accept the science presented by consensus IPCC scientists or Creationist/Phlogiston proponents like Open Parachute?

  40. David on May 13, 2013 at 9:05 pm said:

    Then is this incorrect? “All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years” http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

  41. Simon on May 13, 2013 at 9:18 pm said:

    (1) Panchuri wasn’t quoted at all. He was probably asked the question and said “Yes, but…”
    (2) What’s the point? It would be a time-consuming distraction and would add fuel to the rants of the blogosphere. It is not normal rational behaviour is threaten to sue everyone who disagrees with you.
    (3) We all agree that there has been no significant increase in surface air temperature when picking the 1997/98 El Niño event as a start-point. We also all know the reasons why that does not disprove AGW, with the exception of Richard C.

  42. David on May 13, 2013 at 9:33 pm said:

    Even if you’re right, businesses that reduce their carbon footprint save money, gain an additional KPI, are more attractive to the best employees, find it easier to gain access to the key (most lucrative) export markets, have more positive relationships with external stakeholders, have greater consumer appeal and generate greater returns for shareholders.

    What’s not to like about that? Seriously guys, you’re fighting a losing battle to protect a failed and inferior business paradigm – isn’t it maybe time to admit you’re wrong and get smart about business?

  43. Andy on May 13, 2013 at 9:56 pm said:

    David, most scientists prefer to work on what the data tells them rather than where the markets tell them where they should put their money

    I find it amusing that those that criticize the so called right wing deniers use the market as their standard of truth.

  44. Magoo on May 13, 2013 at 10:03 pm said:

    Actually there’s been no statistically significant warming for 16-23 years, depending which temperature record you look at:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    GISS is the shortest at 16 yrs. Have a go yourself, and don’t forget to set the autocorrellation setting.

  45. Ian Cooper on May 13, 2013 at 10:15 pm said:

    Alexander we do share a similar path away from PNBHS. I took the option of leaving before i was asked to and did my final 5th form months ‘down the road,’ as it was euphemistacally called, at Queen Elizabeth College. Q.E.C was like a holiday camp, an almost enlightened attitude where individuals were valued compared to PNBHS where the greater good and the reputation of the school came first. It was rammed home to us boys just what the percentages were that passed SC and UE etc. and one was left with the indelible impression that if you fell outside that sucessful percentage then the school had little interest in you.

    My only regret from those days is that I didn’t respect the need to do better with my maths. What did I need all of that maths stuff for? What do 16 year olds know? A month later I started a four decade journey into astronomy and within the year I started working with surveyors which became the crux of my working life. Who needs maths asked I at 16. The answer was looking at me in the mirror of course.

    I still had an enquiring mind and a healthy disrespect for people in authority who demanded respect because of the letters attached to their names. I seemed to have an interest in things meteorlogical and clmatological from an early age, astronomy fits in amongst it all quite well.

    The past battles in astronomy that go back to the time of Galileo and up until perhaps 50 years ago have included some of the greatest scientific minds of the past 400 years. I don’t imagine that any of those great minds would be terribly impressed with how the latter-day discipline, and I use that term belatedly, of climatology has conducted itself over the past 3 decades. It makes the fact that major insttitutions such as the R.S. which have so doggedly defended this loose canon called climatology while most other branches of science still adhere to first principals all the more galling.

  46. Magoo on May 13, 2013 at 10:17 pm said:

    Try my post below at May 13, 2013 at 10:03 pm. The data is from the GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT3, HADCRUT4, BEST, UAH, and RSS.

    Roy Spencer looks at the performance of the climate models compared to the temperature record here – the graph is interesting:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

    Judith Curry also examines the accuracy of the climate models – again, look at the graph:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/

    Then there was this one from the IPCC in their AR5 (Fig 1.4, page1-39):

    http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf

  47. David on May 13, 2013 at 10:27 pm said:

    I know a few scientists, and every one of them is only interested in obtaining the best possible data with which to produce the most accurate outcomes they know how. I can’t imagine even one of them being willing to compromise the careers they have worked their arses off to build by telling porkies.

  48. Andy on May 13, 2013 at 10:31 pm said:

    No of course not David, like the Scientists who block FOi requests, instruct their colleagues to delete emails, gatekeep papers to academic journals, refer to The Cause in personal emails, request that academics that disagree with them be fired from their jobs etc.

    All in a days work for a scientist these days.

  49. Magoo on May 13, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:

    Did you read any of those links David?

    Your 1st link shows evidence of warming, not of anthropogenic warming (i.e. evidence of warming is not evidence of why it’s warming). CO2 can only raise the temperature a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of CO2, almost all of the rest of the predicted warming is supposed to come from positive feedback from water vapour. The evidence of positive feedback from weater vapour was supposed to be the emergence of a tropospheric hotspot – in approx. 40 yrs of looking, 30,000,000 and 2 satellites have failed to find it.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

    Your 2nd link says that the warming has only risen 0.08C in 15 yrs and adds:

    ‘In recent months, even such fanatical proponents of the warmist orthodoxy as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all had to concede that since 1997, the warming trend has stalled virtually to a standstill.’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html

    Your 3rd link shows the new proxy temperature record lower than the recorded temperature record. Again, it offers no evidence of anthropogenic cause, only evidence of warming (man’s contribution wasn’t supposed to become evident until around 1980. Check out the graph:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/02/21/new-study-shows-independent-evidence-of-global-warming/

    Your 4th link shows a lack of warming from about 1997 (Fig. 7, page 1129, Appendix: The Science of Climate Change). As the effects of man’s CO2 output was only supposed to be obvious from approx.1980, that gives us 17 years of AGW followed by 16 yrs of no warming (the models are falsified after 15 yrs of failure).

    http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

    Try attempting to disprove your belief in AGW using the empirical evidence. If it stands up then it’s correct, if not then it’s wrong.

  50. Simon on May 13, 2013 at 11:34 pm said:

    I can kind of understand why when you are being bombarded with hundreds of frivolous filibuster FOI requests, and under the threat of hacking attempts to access private email. Academic journals have gate-keepers to keep the rubbish out, they are called referees. “The Cause” is irony.
    All of the Climate-gate emails have been in the hands of McIntyre, Watts and others for quite some time now. No great revelations, maybe there really was no smoking gun.

  51. David,

    Then is this incorrect? “All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.

    Do you know anyone who disputes this? Do you know of any other temperature response to the end of a short-lived icy period? Was there, in other words, anywhere for it to go but up?

    Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s

    No. Examine the HadCRUT3/4 record you cited at http://www.climate4you.com/. From 1910 to 1970 the temperature rose about 0.55 °C. From 1970 to 2010 it rose about 0.3 °C.

    with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981

    Yes, I agree with that.

    and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years”

    Well, sorry, but the recent highs have exceeded the previous records in the 1980s and 1990s by mere thousandths of a degree. To all intents and purposes, they are identical with temperatures reached earlier. Therefore, they represent a continuing plateau rather than a remorseless ascent. Look at the graph.

    NASA, on the page you cite, under the heading “Climate change: How do we know?” doesn’t display a graph of temperature, but of atmospheric CO2 levels. I doubt its accuracy, as the modern excursion looks outlandish.

    NASA says of it: “This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

    But nobody disputes the rise of CO2. They’re talking to themselves. It doesn’t show we’re responsible for the rise, or that we’re affecting the climate.

    Now what about some evidence of significant warming since 1995? Shoot us out of the sky, David.

  52. Nobody received “hundreds” of FOI requests.

  53. Bob D on May 14, 2013 at 10:03 am said:

    David:

    …climate change is the most researched phenomenon ever and for decades now thousands of the world’s top scientists have subjected it to rigorous and intense analysis…

    Actually this is not true. Climate change has attracted an enormous amount of grant money, yes. But the research has NOT gone into proving AGW, in fact no paper yet written has done that.

    The seminal paper on the subject is probably Hansen (2005), as it was the source of the infamous 0.85W/m2 “planetary imbalance” estimate. However, if you read the paper, two things jump out at you:
    1) Hansen has no clue what the climate sensitivity actually is. It is not by any means a measured result. It is a modelled outcome, and he spends some time in the paper discussing “what if” scenarios using higher or lower values;
    2) The error bounds on the input “forcings” are most instructive. Have a look yourself, and you’ll notice (using Hansen’s own numbers, not his quoted end error interval) that zero W/m2 is contained within the interval. Which automatically negates his 0.85W/m2. This has since been proven correct, since he states himself that the “warming in the pipeline” would HAVE to monotonically increase temperatures until steady state was reached, even in the absence of further CO2 increases. Since 2005, he has been forced to reduce this 0.85 figure, it’s now down around 0.6 and dropping fast, with each non-warming year.

    By far the majority of climate science research has been into the effects of a theoretically warmer world on the biosphere rather than on any form of fundamental AGW proof. This is obvious – it may be difficult to get funding for research on the Greater Spotted Gnu, for example, but easy if the title is changed to “The Effect of Climate Change On” the Greater Spotted Gnu. I worked for a decade in a research lab, I know about research funding.

  54. Bob D on May 14, 2013 at 10:15 am said:

    Simon:

    …frivolous filibuster FOI requests…Nonsense, you don’t understand the history, go and read up on it at Climate Audit and The Blackboard among others. Phil Jones was actively blocking a single valid FOI request for the metadata. He used every excuse in the book, and then invented some. In particular, he claimed that security concerns prevented him from publishing the data, and claimed he had contracts with all the NSMs that prevented him from releasing metadata.

    So in frustration people started filing FOI requests for details of those contracts, one for each country, since they were public documents. It turned out there were no contracts at all for the vast majority of the data.

    THAT is the source of the spurious claim that they were subject to frivolous FOI requests.

  55. David on May 14, 2013 at 10:16 am said:

    Too funny!

    Let me guess, they have a secret handshake?

    Scene: It’s a coffee break at a climate science conference in a European city. Scientist A is wearing a pocket protector with a red and black pen on either end. He looks across the room and sees scientist B, also with a pocket protector with red and black pens, catches his eye and walks across the room.

    Scientist A in a BBC English accent: I hear the snow is melting early in the Ukraine this year

    Scientist B in a heavy Russian accent: The godwits are late migrating from New Zealand.

    Scientist A: You have the dossier?

    Scientist B is about to respond when suddenly into the room burst Rodney Hide, Richard Treadgold and Cameron Slater.

    Rodney and Richard apprehend the two scientists as they try and escape while Cameron Slater grabs all the pies (for evidence of course).

    Scientist A: Drat, our dastardly plans have been foiled yet again. Is there no way we can outwit you?

    Rodney: No, as long as we can continue to blog we will defeat your master Al Gore’s evil plan to take over the world.

    Fade to black, VO “and once again the world has been saved from evil scientists by our brave heroes. Hurrah!

    Come on guys, have you any idea how silly your conspiracy theories sound?

  56. Bob D on May 14, 2013 at 10:33 am said:

    Straight after that Climategate happened, and the emails proved that Phil Jones was blocking the release of the metadata. He said he would rather delete the data than hand it over. He instructed others to delete emails. He discussed ways to circumvent FOI requests. All of it illegal.

    And of course the big question: Why on Earth would he be so afraid to release station metadata for CRU global temperature data? The obvious answer: he knew what competent statisticians like Steve McIntyre would discover if they could reverse engineer his adjustments. Of course, we now know what went on behind the scenes – just read the famous Harry programmer comments.

  57. No one mentioned any conspiracy theories. You did

    Corruption and collusion, perhaps, but these are a normal part of everyday life, as anyone involved in politics, science, or the Christchurch rebuild knows

  58. Bob D on May 14, 2013 at 10:50 am said:

    To be fair, this whole scenario was enacted entirely within your own mind. Pity you had to share it.

    And yes, it is silly.

  59. Magoo on May 14, 2013 at 11:02 am said:

    No conspiracy theories needed David, just a look at the data. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the data which is why you assume ‘conspiracy theories’, so I’ll put some of it here for you:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png

  60. David on May 14, 2013 at 11:36 am said:

    OK, here’s why I think you guys are enmeshed in a conspiracy theory. The standard/typical scenario painted by climate sceptics such as you gentlemen, and correct me if I’m wrong, is as follows:

    There is either no such thing as climate change, or human activity has minimal influence and the scientists who argue that it’s real, it’s happening and it’s primarily caused by human activity are incorrect. The reasons they make these claims are either:
    (a) They’re on a bandwagon and aren’t smart enough to see that they’re wrong.
    (b) They’re deliberately using false data to produce incorrect reports because they are in the pockets of either a new world order, Al Gore, some nameless corporation that stands to make brazillians of dollars out of carbon trading or evil and despicable communists that are out to destroy capitalism, freedom to own an SUV and the family unit.
    (c) Any scientists that dare to stand up and denounce the evil and despicable lies being told in the name of science get bullied into submission and/or never get work again.

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is: “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances (actions to prevent climate change) as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators (Al Gore and the greenies).”

    That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

  61. Hi David
    I agree with the head of the IPCC that there has been no warming for 17 years, but it might come back in the future

    I agree with the climate science community that CO2 may cause some warming between 0 and some arbitrarily high number of degrees

    I agree with the climate science community that there are papers that show very low sensitivity to CO2 and some that show high sensitivity to CO2.

    I agree with some of the climate science community that the pause in warming may suggest lower sensitivity to CO2 than the IPCC central estimate

    I agree that “climate change is real”. We know this because climate change has always happened. We are unable to attribute any specific current climate to CO2 with any level of certainty. This is quite clear in the IPCC reports.

    I agree that humans can affect climate. We know that chopping down a forest and replacing it with pasture changes the local climate. We also know that black carbon can cause climate change via ice melt

    What we don’t have a good grip on is what is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. All the climate scientists agree on this, as do I

    So this makes me a conspiracy theorist?

  62. Alexander K on May 14, 2013 at 12:06 pm said:

    Coops, your memories of PNBHS tally very much with mine. The main subject on offer when I was there was Conforming, and that was rigidly enforced with the cane. Sport was also a big part of school life, but as I was blessed with two left feet and a wonky eye, there didn’t seem to be much point to the whole school thing for me.
    By the time I got to High school I already hated Cricket – when my classmates at Primary school found out I couldn’t tell how far away the ball was, I became the wicket. In those financially-constrained days following WWII, only the exalted Cricket 1st Eleven at Primary school actually got to use a bat or protective pads. Us mortals had to make do with pick handles, and when I actually managed to connect with the ball, I discovered that there is definitely no sweet spot on a pick handle and a well-struck ball jars one clear to the ears. The only saving grace Cricket had for me was that our teachers did not approve of bodyline bowling!
    Luckily for me, I actually enjoyed working outdoors, so leaving school to do that full time was a wonderful release.

  63. David on May 14, 2013 at 12:55 pm said:

    Nice try.
    > “I agree with the head of the IPCC that there has been no warming for 17 years, but it might come back in the future”
    That is incorrect. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23014-what-leaked-ipcc-report-really-says-on-climate-change.html

    >”I agree with the climate science community that there are papers that show very low sensitivity to CO2 and some that show high sensitivity to CO2.”
    Irrelevant, but even at the low end of sensitivity we’re still going to get way too warm for comfort. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

    > “I agree with some of the climate science community that the pause in warming may suggest lower sensitivity to CO2 than the IPCC central estimate”
    There hasn’t been a pause in warming. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

    >”I agree that “climate change is real”. We know this because climate change has always happened. We are unable to attribute any specific current climate to CO2 with any level of certainty. This is quite clear in the IPCC reports.”
    That is again completekly incorrect. “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html#footnote6

    You base your position on a mix of completely incorrect data that (I’m guessing) you drew from blogs that supported your position and cherry picked data that is meaningless without context. Pretty typical for conspiracy theorists.

  64. I’m sorry but I can’t really make out your argument as you have just provided a series of links to various sites without explaining what they are about

    Bit of a waste of 10 minutes Googling for you.

    You still haven’t explained why I am a conspiracy theorist.

  65. I did actually bother to click on your first link David
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report

    “Global warming not due to the sun”

    Fantastic, I don’t really see how this relates to the IPCC chairman’s pronouncement that there has been no warming for 17 years, as relayed by The Australian.

    I never mentioned the sun.

  66. David on May 14, 2013 at 1:27 pm said:

    If you’re not a conspiracy theorist then it would seem you’re confused. I used the links to show that there is a basis behind my claims – you should try it.

    But answer me this, why have so many thousands of highly skilled scientists, pretty well every credible scientific organisation, magazines like National Geographic and New Scientist, the most highly regarded academic journals and organisations like NASA, The UN and the WMO all see things so very differently to you?

    Do people like you and dear little Rodney Hide know something they don’t? Are they under the thrall of some shadow organisation that dictates what they say? Or what?

  67. David on May 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm said:

    I suggest you read more than just the headline because the rest of the article debunks the myth based on a leaked document that the IPCC have admitted that there has been no warming over the last 17 years.

  68. Judith Curry has just posted this on her blog

    Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/13/lennart-bengtsson-on-global-climate-change/

    Some quotes relevant to this thread

    The global temperature has not increased steadily but in irregular intervals. Typical features are a distinct warming trend 1910-1940, a slight cooling trend 1945-1970 followed by the sharp warming trend until the end of the 20th century and finally the last 15 years without any clear warming trend.

    and

    . The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average

    and

    The global warming has been taken out of the hands of the meteorologists and traditional climatologists and is now run by professional media experts and different well-recognized members (political or otherwise) of the general public that have found the present climate hype to be a suitable way to remain or be obtain a place in the media limelight

    and

    In the very emotional climate debate today is it hardly possible to have a sensible and balanced exchange of views. If you do not support climate catastrophes as the one recently from the World bank, you are placed into a deniers box and accused to support the interest of the oil industry or alternatively that you are a man in a senior age and therefore unable to understand the concerns of the younger generations.

    and

    However, the observational records are clear and the global warming is proceeding much slower than generally is anticipated.

    Instead of being grateful for this comforting result the reaction is rather the opposite. In the almost hysterical climate hype of today a less dramatic warming is not very well received as all political correct members of the public would prefer to hide this uncomfortable fact by following the popular maxim of letting the ends justify the means.

  69. Mike Jowsey on May 14, 2013 at 2:21 pm said:

    David – although your repeated appeals to authority are tiresome and irrelevant, I find myself compelled to debate this question which you pose:
    Do people like you and dear little Rodney Hide know something they don’t?

    Firstly, the ‘dear little’ is patronising arrogance typical of warmism. Thanks for the example.

    Secondly, we are the people who demand to know something (rather than claiming to know something they don’t). We want to dig into the assumptions they have made and reiterated countlessly in the GCMs. We want our FOI requests to be honoured. We want to understand how the trace gas CO2 has been calculated by vested interests to cause cataclysmic global Armageddon. We want to know why NZ is one of the only countries in the world imposing a draconian, expensive, all-pervasive fart tax on its population. And the only country ready to extend that into its primary source of income, agriculture. We want them to be accountable to the predictions they have made in the past and explain why none of their predictions have yet to be seen in empirical observational data. As RT said up-thread, it is you who needs to provide the answers to a disbelieving public, rather than calling them names like ‘denier’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’. Pachauri promised a transparent IPCC, but it is very far from that. We want transparency and accountability. Seeing as we are the ones ending up paying for this boondoggle, we have a right to ask difficult questions and get straight answers. So, show me the bodies of the climate refugees. Show me the 6 metre sea level rise. Show me the increases in cyclone activity. Show me the snow-free Northern Hemisphere. All predictions made by your small cabal of activists self-named The Team. It’s just a bit of scientific method we espouse, not blind faith in authority.

  70. No it doesn’t. All the graphs stop around 2000, and the article is about whether GCRs affect climate, not whether there has been any warming for 17 years

  71. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2013 at 4:47 pm said:

    The UKMO do not concur with their own CMIP5 submission (ensemble compared to lower troposphere in the graph linked to by Magoo above).

    By 2017 the ensemble mean is up around 0.9 C anomaly for lower trop (not sfc note) but in the UKMO’s revised decadal forecast for the surface, the projection mean at 2017 is just over 0.4 C anomaly.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/i/c/fcst_global_t4.png

    Their superseded decadal forecast was radically warmer (about 0.7 C anomaly 2017) in sync with CMIP5 lower trop and surface:-

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure-2.png?w=640

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure-3.png?w=640

    Obviously the embarrassment that would accrue in only 5 years had to be mitigated.

    So by your rationale David, have the UKMO joined us “conspiracy theorists” (as you put it) as would seem to be indicated by their surreptitious Christmas Eve revision release of a forecast contrary to the “mainstream” climate science of which they are part of in CMIP5 i.e. they’re having an each-way bet just in case?

    Or am I just imagining some sort of in-house UKMO conspiracy by their apparently clandestine release but really such a revision and quiet (not the usual fanfare) release of a major contradiction in forecasts is just an operational norm for such an institution?

    But isn’t UKMO actually just making a pragmatic contingency – no conspiracy theory needed – concession to reality?

  72. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2013 at 5:08 pm said:

    In response to Spencer’s (and Watts vicariously) demand for PSI to “put up or shut up”, PSI point out they’ve “put up” since 2011:-

    “Spencer and WUWT have seemed to continually short-change their readers in this debate. Spencer’s challenge itself creates a sham in claiming that we have never presented any alternative model. But we have had it already in Postma’s previous peer-reviewed paper (4) from 2011. Postma’s follow-up paper in 2012 details precisely what has now been demanded of us. It is there, in the links, on our website under ‘Publications’ and has been there now for almost two years.”

    And on climate conspiracies:-

    Postma says: “I have always wondered if this was some genius conspiracy or plot behind man-made climate alarmism to block people like the Slayers from asking a simple question like ‘Hey, you know, instead of modelling Sunshine as freezing cold and constant, neither of which it is, then, what difference will it make if we acknowledge that Sunshine is actually really hot and that the Earth can’t actually really be modeled as flat and with no day and night?’. It turns out it isn’t a genius conspiracy or plot to gate-keep such simple questions from being asked; the gatekeepers really are just scientifically illiterate. Can you believe that in the climate change orthodoxy, you’re not allowed to talk about how hot sunshine is, and what it can do, because it conflicts with the incorrect tenets of the GHE?”

    http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_May_13_2013

  73. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2013 at 5:28 pm said:

    >”We want our FOI requests to be honoured.”

    Re David Holland’s long running legal battle to expose government agencies playing fast and loose with freedom of information laws:-

    Shush! It’s Climate Science!

    http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_May_13_2013

    Snippet:-

    The IPCC’s defence was twofold: the ZOD work needed to be kept from the public because the participants were learning the ropes, and because it offered a sanctity of private thought required for this vital education. Exposing the scientists to the public at this stage would be like mocking a Learner Driver for knocking over the traffic cones. This would be horribly cruel, defence argued.”The Zero Order Draft is a training document we can take to a few people to tell us ‘are we on the right lines here?’ ‘have we learned to write a document?’ The lessons we learn we can then take on to produce the first First Order Draft to formal review,” Stott said. Judge Dhanji wondered what the harm was?

  74. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm said:

    UK economist Nicholas Stern: Global warming to make ‘armed conflict a permanent feature of life on Earth’

    http://junkscience.com/2013/05/13/uk-economist-nicholas-stern-global-warming-to-make-armed-conflict-a-permanent-feature-of-life-on-earth/

  75. “Global concentrations could reach 5 degrees”

    I hope this was not a direct quote

  76. Stuart Mathieson on May 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm said:

    Your joking of course?

  77. “Your (sic) joking..”

    Who?

  78. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2013 at 6:52 pm said:

    Stuart’s replying to this Andy:-

    >”The posts and comments on your blog are a fabulous resource and mine of information. Rodney”

    And greetings to other lurkers who find same.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on May 14, 2013 at 7:03 pm said:

    Amusing (apart from some curious conflation) that the alarm bypasses the benign climatic conditions completely and instead screeches about “400.03 molecules of carbon dioxide for every million molecules in the air on 9 May”.

    Whoop-de-doo.

    Since then, May 13:-

    ‘Carbon dioxide in atmosphere did not break 400 ppm at Hawaii site’

    “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revised its May 9 reading at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, saying it remained fractions of a point below the level of 400 ppm, at 399.89.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story

  80. Great comment from Mosher on Curry’s blog

    Money doesnt change the answers. Money changes the questions that get asked.

  81. Richard C,

    Snippet:-

    Shush! It’s Climate Science!

    http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_May_13_2013

    The IPCC’s defence was twofold: the ZOD work needed to be kept from the public because the participants were learning the ropes, and because it offered a sanctity of private thought required for this vital education. Exposing the scientists to the public at this stage would be like mocking a Learner Driver for knocking over the traffic cones. This would be horribly cruel, defence argued.”The Zero Order Draft is a training document we can take to a few people to tell us ‘are we on the right lines here?’ ‘have we learned to write a document?’ The lessons we learn we can then take on to produce the first First Order Draft to formal review,” Stott said. Judge Dhanji wondered what the harm was?

    What is this about? What does it have to do with FOI requests? The IPCC’s defence to what?

  82. Andy on May 14, 2013 at 9:29 pm said:

    kens latest missive gives us this pearler. …

    ” There’s a mantra circulating at the moment claiming that global warming “stopped 17 years ago.” It is of course being pushed by the pseudosceptics in the climate denial echo chamber. However, even people who should know better have been heard to repeat something like that.

    What a great definition of politically correct science

    Thanks Ken.

  83. What’s to reconcile? No reconciliation is possible between those who want to achieve some political philosophy and those who want the people to be free. There’s a choice to be made, yes — but seeking a reconciliation is an empty task. Like trying to reconcile light and dark, when the day is pinned on them. It’s a useless Sisyphus labour.

  84. The only poisonous ingredient of our atmosphere is the abuse from Perrott and his mates.

  85. We would be interested in a rebuttal if he has one.

  86. Simon, this is outrageous.

    (1) Panchuri wasn’t quoted at all. He was probably asked the question and said “Yes, but…”

    His name is Pachauri. He was either quoted or paraphrased by an experienced journalist in a prestigious newspaper. He was quoted without complaining, yet you now claim he should have complained. You weren’t even there. You’re unbelievable.

    (2) What [would be] the point [of Pachauri complaining]? It would be a time-consuming distraction and would add fuel to the rants of the blogosphere. It is not normal rational behaviour is threaten to sue everyone who disagrees with you.

    You overstate this. The point, naturally, would be to establish the truth of what Pachauri said, which would have been other than Graham Lloyd reported. Aren’t you curious about the truth? The lack of complaint from Pachauri tells us that his words were correctly reported. You must accept this as the truth. Then you seem to conflate the act of complaining with a threat to sue; this does not happen in real life. They are quite separate acts.

    (3) We all agree that there has been no significant increase in surface air temperature when picking the 1997/98 El Niño event as a start-point. We also all know the reasons why that does not disprove AGW, with the exception of Richard C.

    It’s nothing to do with the El Nino. Most of the rise and fall in temperature in response to that largest of El Ninos occurred over about 12 months in 1998. It’s easy at Wood for Trees to draw a linear trend for any period through one of the global temperature series. From Jan 1997 (well before the El Nino began) to the present shows slight cooling or slight warming, depending on the dataset. From 2001 shows distinct cooling. From 1998 to the present shows neither warming nor cooling.

    Have a go for yourself, it’s instructive.

    But this is important: nobody here is claiming that the recent temperature stasis somehow disproves the theory that man is dangerously warming the global climate, nor does anybody here claim this proves that global warming has “stopped”. We are making a simple statement of truth — it’s so simple that it’s hard to believe that so few people take it seriously. The statement is supported by scientific observations of the temperature. What are we saying?

    We’re saying that, for about 17 years the global climate has not warmed significantly. That assessment seems to use the RSS dataset.

    The facts are with us. May the Force be with you.

  87. David,

    It was like a breath of fresh air to hear you say this, even if I must take issue with some of it:

    Even if you’re right, businesses that reduce their carbon footprint

    We’re carbon-based creatures, living in an environment where practically all other creatures and plants are built on carbon. It’s impossible to do without it. To reduce our use of carbon is to reduce our use of natural resources, which is to say to live less abundantly. Bah, sir, and humbug!

    What does it mean to reduce your carbon “footprint”? How do you know when it’s been reduced “sufficiently”? You might like to read the engaging little story “I, pencil”, published in 1958 by Leonard E. Read and republished here three years ago. It shows (by analogy) how it’s perfectly impossible to know our carbon footprint and is curiously instructive.

    I know that numerous companies have arisen which happily calculate your carbon footprint and, for hundreds or thousands of dollars, will issue a certificate certifying your business’ approval for being kind to its surroundings, possibly even to the extent of giving birth to baby kokekos. The fact is that none of them can calculate your entire use of carbon, therefore they are misleading, even defrauding you and the national purse.

    …save money, gain an additional KPI, are more attractive to the best employees, find it easier to gain access to the key (most lucrative) export markets, have more positive relationships with external stakeholders, have greater consumer appeal and generate greater returns for shareholders.

    Well, it’s good to see your honesty here, David. You clearly accept that being seen to care for the environment is useful only for increasing business. It’s a marketing tool, and the company that doesn’t make use of it is being stupid.

    Thing is, when the statements about all this are critically examined, they’re seen to be obscure to the point of meaninglessness. What does it mean to assert that you “obtain products from responsible sources”? Doesn’t exactly thrill me with your commitment, but that’s what you’ll get from some of these “certifiers”.

    There’s a strong case for cleaning our act up and not fouling our environment, but it’s nothing to do with global warming, carbon, or submitting our lives to dictatorial management by any government. We must keep working to prevent and, where feasible, to remedy real pollution and abandon this phantasm of global destruction by odourless, colourless gas.

    What’s not to like about that? Seriously guys, you’re fighting a losing battle to protect a failed and inferior business paradigm – isn’t it maybe time to admit you’re wrong and get smart about business?

    To get smart for the wrong reason gets up my nose. How can we achieve one thing by aiming at something else? Why would you aim at one thing and hope to reach another?

    For a moment there, I thought you were on the right track.

  88. Ken writes

    So what’s the truth. Has global warming “stopped?” Are climate scientists saying it has stopped?”

    Short answer is actually no. Slightly longer answer is along the lines that the current rate of global temperature increase seems to have slowed, global temperatures may even have plateaued, but that doesn’t support a claim that global warming has “stopped!”

    So global warming hasn’t stopped, but it may have plateaued

    I guess the stationary school bus outside hasn’t stopped to let school kids off. It is “velocity challenged”, or its velocity has plateaued at zero

    The important thing with politically correct science is not that you make “true” statements. “Truth” is subjective. You need to make “correct” statements. “Correct” statements are determined by the State enforced dogma

  89. Bob D on May 15, 2013 at 10:29 am said:

    Andy:

    The important thing with politically correct science is not that you make “true” statements. “Truth” is subjective. You need to make “correct” statements. “Correct” statements are determined by the State enforced dogma

    Perfectly put.

    I believe Ken may once have been a scientist. He may even have been a good one, but his current attitude negates any scientific pride he may once have had and makes a fool of him and his career.

    This global warming thing has ruined him. Had he just retired quietly his reputation may have remained intact, who knows?

  90. David,

    There’s a vital point to make about the green marketing tools. They last only so long as the greens tolerate your business. If they disapprove for any reason, they’ll raise impediments and extra costs and your business will be in trouble. If the greens have serious objections, the very worst of which is not dumping pollutants, for they can be cleaned up, but the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide, your business is doomed.

    I just received this through Benny Peiser at the GWPF, from the Financial Post, 14 May 2013:

    The European Union’s utopian scheme of transforming itself into a green energy powerhouse is faltering as its fantasy plan is colliding with reality. As the EU’s economic and financial crisis deepens and unemployment continues to rise … an almost all-embracing green consensus is beginning to disintegrate … Ecological rejection of traditional industries, the obstruction of new technologies, an almost all-embracing hostility to every form of conventional energy generation is gradually shifting the centre of economic growth and innovation away from an ageing and depressed Europe.

    The Financial Post is describing the realisation in wiser heads within the EU of the true economic effect of the greens’ dysfunctional environmental policies. The EU purse-keepers find themselves on the wrong side of the green movement and are no doubt pointing out the facts of life to their more credulous brethren — that the EU needs to make its way in the world before it can save the earth.

    I hope our NZ greens are paying attention.

  91. GR writes in the Daily Blog, the The irrelevance of the rabid right on Mr Hide’s article

    He then goes on to opine

    To battle this issue, which will define all our lives in the coming decades, we need all hands on deck — even the ones we disagree with. It’s high time for Hide and his friends to rejoin the real world.

    The question I have, is why would you want “all hands on deck” when they are irrelevant and have rabies?

  92. Mike Jowsey on May 15, 2013 at 11:12 am said:

    RT, I think this was an interesting article about FOI requests being blocked and non-transparency of IPCC process. Thanks RC.

    The occasion was an Information Tribunal appeal brought by one-man information Inquisition David Holland. The retired Mancunian engineer’s previous enquiries were seen by many as the catalyst for the famous “Climategate” email leaks.

    “My interest in this was never to do with climate. I’m trained as an engineer, and I know the scientific method,” Holland told El Reg in 2011, when he had sought access to large amounts of information from the British climate-science establishment – and was denied. Holland’s FOI requests set off a catastrophic sequence of prevarication and obstruction by the responding scientists, which ultimately appears to have triggered the Climategate leaks and massive discomfort for all the researchers involved.

  93. Getting products from ‘responsible sources” could, for example, mean supporting wind energy (yes I know, my favorite bugbear)

    So, given that Obama has given US wind companies impunity to kill Golden Eagles, a protected species, is using wind energy a responsible or ethical choice for business?

    Taking a step back from my personal vendettas, I agree with David that using energy wisely in business makes sense; this is obvious.

    Furthermore, no one wants to pour toxic chemicals into rivers or the sea, or none of my friends do anyway

    However, a lot of these so-called “green choices” are not that green, and many, like wind, have a net detrimental effect on the environment.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on May 15, 2013 at 4:12 pm said:

    >”What is this about?”

    David Holland’s Tribunal appeal (See Mike’s answer)

    >”What does it have to do with FOI requests?”

    From the article:-

    “Holland had wanted to cross-examine the head of the UK delegation to the IPCC, a Department of Environment and Climate Change official called David Warrilow, head of climate science and international evidence.The procedural questions under the spotlight are Warrilow’s bailiwick, not Stott’s, but Holland was refused his man. Stott, we learned, had been pressganged into appearing by the Met Office’s lawyers”

    Stott is UK Met Office scientist Peter Stott and Coordinating Lead Author of IPCC AR5 SOD Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional along with Nathaniel Bindoff (Australia).

    >”The IPCC’s defence to what?”

    Holland’s case for transparency from the UK perspective and the UK law regarding the Aarhus Convention (that Stott seems to be arguing against on behalf of the IPCC in the Tribunal hearing). From the article:-

    “[……] What Holland is seeking (sic) the “zero order draft” – aka Draft No. 1 – of Working Group 1. He couldn’t care less what’s in it, but wants to establish the principle that citizens can see it.”

    “As it happens, much of this material is already all over the web. But as Judge Dhanji pointed out, that’s by-the-by. Holland justified his request on the twofold basis that the WG1 zero draft must, and should, be publicly available. The “must” is the statutory obligation of the UK as a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, or to give it its full title, the “UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters” and by signing up to EC directive 2003/4/EC (PDF) the UK has obliged all of its environmental regulations to be consistent with the Convention. (Not every EU country is a signatory, but the UK is: perhaps a case of civil servants’ Euro-enthusiasm coming back to bite them.)The Met Office argued back that the ZOD is most precious, and if ZOD material were to be disclosed, counsel argued, there would be grave damage to the UK’s “international relations”. Like the Sneetches, British environment bureaucrats would be stranded on the beaches: shunned, ostracised, and cast into outer darkness. Nobody would want to play with British climate scientists any more.”

    # # #

    For me, the ironic/amusing twist is “a case of civil servants’ Euro-enthusiasm coming back to bite them”

  95. Richard C (NZ) on May 15, 2013 at 5:08 pm said:

    Ken >” There’s a mantra circulating at the moment claiming that global warming “stopped 17 years ago.” It is of course being pushed by the pseudosceptics in the climate denial echo chamber. However, even people who should know better have been heard to repeat something like that. ”

    Oh dear, Carbon Brief echoing the pseudosceptics mantra from the climate denial echo chamber:-

    “….despite trapping more and more heat, earth’s surface temperature over the past decade and a half has risen slowly”

    And,

    “Despite greenhouse gas concentrations continuing to rise at a fairly steady pace, earth’s surface hasn’t actually warmed very much in the last decade and half”

    And,

    “…this surface warming slowdown”

    And,

    “….surface warming slowdown”

    And,

    “….the recent slowdown in surface warming

    And,

    “….slower surface temperature rise”

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/05/how-scientists-take-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-an-interview-with-meteorologist-richard-allan

    Carbon Brief “should know better” “to repeat something like that” – 6 times!

    The heat (solar-sourced of course but it’s taking a while for climate scientists to concede that – better to perpetuate the anthro ocean heating myth for research funding purposes) is going into the ocean (except that OHC is now at standstill too, just like the surface temperature – no concession there yet either). From the article:-

    “Heat sink

    When we talk about the earth’s temperature, we usually mean the temperature of the air above the land and ocean, or surface temperature, as it’s what humans experience most directly. But surface temperature is only a small part of the climate system. In fact, most of the extra heat the planet absorbs goes into the oceans below the surface. Allan [Dr Richard Allan, lead researcher on a new project called Deep-C] tells us:

    “The vast ocean has a huge capacity to store heat … There’s a very good relationship between the extra radiative energy entering the top of Earth’s atmosphere – due to increases in greenhouse gases – and ocean heating.”

    # # #

    The mechanism of “extra radiative energy entering the top of Earth’s atmosphere” [that process used to be known as insolation] “due to increases in greenhouse gases” is very interesting and novel. Strange we don’t hear more about this radical change in TOA radiative input – solar now accompanied by greenhouse gases, apparently.

    For more on the convoluted, widely varying (as above), and mysterious mechanism of anthropogenic ocean heating (esp. the “deep” ocean), see my 3 part series:-

    Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?

    Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing

    Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing

    Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing

  96. Richard C (NZ) on May 15, 2013 at 5:50 pm said:

    And the inevitable butt-covering and spin:-

    Nature study: ‘Retrospective prediction’ shows the ocean ate the global warming lost during 2000-2010:

    Warmism just gets funnier and funnier.

    ‘The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions’

    http://junkscience.com/2013/05/13/nature-study-retrospective-prediction-shows-the-ocean-ate-the-global-warming-lost-during-2000-2010/

    “…ability to predict retrospectively” ? – no surprise. Hindsight is a very exact science as we all know.

    “…enhances the socio-economic relevance” ? – of course it does, no-brainer. That’s why they cranked it out at the Clymut Syintist Faktree:-

    ‘Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade’

    * Virginie Guemas,1, 2
    * Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes,1, 3
    * Isabel Andreu-Burillo1
    * & Muhammad Asif
    (2013)

    Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now. Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions. Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1863.html

    Another bunch of idiots completely ignorant of PDO cyclicity and solar-ocean-atmosphere thermal inertia of anything from 8 – 20 years for the significant lag.

  97. This is not entirely on topic but this video clip from Bishop Hill is worth a watch

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/14/climatologys-nutcracker.html

    It shows Gavin Schmidt and Roy Spencer being interviewed by John Stossel at Fox

    Schmidt refused to debate Spencer, so there was this bizarre game of musical chairs.

  98. green marketing tools

    could be read as “inexperienced idiots working in marketing”

  99. Heh, heh. Good one.

  100. Rodney Hide on May 15, 2013 at 7:55 pm said:

    Actually what I referred to without reference was public choice theory for which James Buchanan received the Nobel Prize. A real one. So it’s hardly crank conspiracy.

  101. Andy on May 15, 2013 at 8:44 pm said:

    Comments are heating up at the daily blog. Martyn Bradbury, award winning real estate agent, has figured out who Richard T is.

  102. Oh no. Can I risk another peek? Yes, we can… I’ve heard that before somewhere.

  103. Andy on May 15, 2013 at 9:33 pm said:

    Enjoy the ride

    More about Bomber here

    http://martynbradburyrealty.com/About_Me.html

  104. By the way RT, it is pointless arguing with the Warmists about Arctic sea ice.

    This is part of the Holy Trinity of the Warmist Religion, formed by the Holy Hockey Stick, The Awesomeness of the Arctic Retreat, and the Blessed Birdchopper

  105. Magoo on May 15, 2013 at 10:20 pm said:

    Show them this video from NASA as to why the sea ice in the Arctic was low in 2012. I can’t be bothered with dicks like them anymore.

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=152489941

  106. Magoo on May 15, 2013 at 11:32 pm said:

    Alright, I couldn’t resist. I posted the following with empirical data from the original sources based at warmist site skepticalscience and someone voted it down. I had to laugh when I saw that:

    ‘MAGOO says:
    MAY 15, 2013 AT 10:11 PM
    Using the skeptical science temperature trend calculator below (don’t forget to clear the dates in the autocorrel function as sks states they raise the uncertainty factor), it can be seen that there has been no statistically significant warming from between 15-23 yrs depending on the data source:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    ‘Data sources: GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT, RSS, UAH, BEST.’

    No warming trend greater than the +/- error margins from the following dates:

    GISTEMP 1994
    NOAA (Land/Sea) 1994
    HADCRUT3 1993
    HADCRUT4 1994
    BEST 1998
    NOAA (Land) 1997
    RSS 1990
    UAH 1994′

  107. Good work, Magoo. Remember to wash your hands.

  108. Magoo on May 15, 2013 at 11:47 pm said:

    Apparently I have ‘a comprehension failure’ according to Gareth. I don’t think I’ll return, in fact I think I’ll have a shower – I feel like I stood in something.

    BTW, there are a couple of stats that show warming after 1995 – BEST 1998 and NOAA 1997 (land only).

  109. Well just look at the most voted up comments

    e.g

    Recognition that business-as-usual leads to Near Term Extinction of the human species (along with most other vertebrate species) around 2040 does not win elections

    +12 Votes

    Then of course we are marked men. RT gets downvoted for asking for a reference

    Actually none of my comments are appearing at all now. Maybe Bradbury took offense to me asking if he was the same Bradbury who is in the top 100% of real estate agents (a spoof site I posted in this thread)

    No humour those guys.

    Better things to do today..

  110. Pingback: A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises! | Open Parachute

  111. Andy on May 19, 2013 at 7:39 pm said:

    I think this is what is generally known as a “backhanded compliment”

  112. I disagree. His other comments make it a compliment with his fist full frontal in my face. He’s a piece of rubbish and never fails to distribute dirt.

  113. Andy on May 19, 2013 at 9:04 pm said:

    That was kind of what I meant actually

    A backhanded compliment, also known as a left handed compliment or asteism, is an insult that is disguised as a compliment. Sometimes, a backhanded compliment may be inadvertent. However, the term usually connotes an intent to belittle or condescend.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult

  114. I know. I can’t spell agree.

  115. Pingback: A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises! | Secular News Daily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation