24
Leave a Reply

avatar
16 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Doug CottonRichard C (NZ)Ian CooperMagooRichard Treadgold Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion
Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I take my hat off to him. It’s reasonable to change your mind when the facts change, but it’s not always easy.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Anyone notice the IPCC released their latest scarefest the day before April Fool’s Day? Surely they’re taking the mickey with a large dose of the middle finger thrown in. Playing everyone for fools and not even having the decency of trying to hide it anymore – they need to be disbanded asap.

Ian Cooper
Guest
Ian Cooper

The DomPost is full of it, and no doubt the other MSM rags are likewise! Yes Magoo I found it ironic that all of this was coming out on April Fool’s Day. If they weren’t so serious you’d think that it really was a joke.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Freeman Dyson on being a maverick in climate –You’ve developed a reputation as a maverick scientist with contrarian views. Where do you think that comes from? I think the notion that I always like to oppose the consensus in science is totally wrong. The fact is there’s only one subject that I’ve been controversial, which is climate. I spend maybe 1 percent of my time on climate, and that’s the only field in which I’m opposed to the majority. Generally speaking, I’m much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they’re not talking nonsense. –With a majority of scientists on the other side of this issue, what would it take to convince you to switch sides? What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate, and so that’s sort of a neutral position. I’m not saying the majority is necessarily wrong. I’m saying that they don’t understand what they’re seeing. It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled, so… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Scoop has Dr Spencer’s article attributed to Kevin Hearle:- and copyrighted to Scoop Media. ‘A voice of Sanity in Climate Science’ Article: Kevin Hearle, Thursday, 3 April 2014, 12:26 pm Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk” The latest report of Working Group II of the IPCC, entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, was approved yesterday. In it, the concept of the “risks” posed by human-induced climate change figures prominently. Now, I can understand using terms like “possibilities” when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It’s theoretically possible that the average warming of the last 50+ years was mostly human-caused, and it’s possible that the slight sea level rise over this time was more human-caused than natural (sea level was rising naturally anyway). But we really don’t know. And the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is even more sketchy. Mostly because there is little or no objective evidence that these events have experienced any long-term increase that is commensurate with warming. (It’s possible they are worse with… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable” — Prof. Richard Tol

by Marlo Lewis on April 1, 2014

Climate economist Richard Toll has a provocative op-ed in today’s Financial Times titled “Bogus prophesies of doom will not fix the climate.” [Hotlink]

[…]

Even if one accepts WG2′s estimate that a “further warming of 2°C could cause loses equivalent to 0.2-2 per cent of world gross domestic product,” that is “about as bad as losing one year of economic growth” in half a century, Tol notes. In contrast, since the start of the Eurozone financial crisis, the income of the average Greek has fallen more than 20%. “Climate change is not, then, the biggest problem facing humankind.”

After noting that climate change is not even the biggest environmental problem (indoor air pollution has killed 260 million people — more than all the wars of the 20th century combined, Bjorn Lomborg estimates), Tol points out that the best protection from climate-related risk is economic growth and the institutions that facilitate it:

More>>>>>>

http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/04/01/the-idea-that-climate-change-poses-an-existential-threat-to-humankind-is-laughable-prof-richard-tol/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line’

Jo Nova

We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:

Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.

( see footnote 1 SPM, page 3).

Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/debunking-every-ipcc-climate-prophesy-of-war-pestilence-famine-drought-impacts-in-one-line/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Why the IPCC Report Neglects the Benefits of Global Warming’ It needs catastrophe scenarios. By Rupert Darwall […] Its [WGII] most eye-catching claim is that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields are more common to date than positive impacts are. This improbable claim finds only the weakest support in the main body of the report, with its qualification that climate change played a “minor role.” It is, the report states, “extremely difficult” to define a clear baseline from which to assess the impact of climate change, and many non-climate factors are often difficult to quantify. More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports. […] A feature of the Working Group II is that it… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

That’s pretty terrible. I just sent them an email pointing this out and suggesting they might like to attribute the article to it’s original author rather than plagiarising it and then trying to copyright something that isn’t theirs.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Climate change – In the balance The Economist A new report from the IPCC implies that “climate exceptionalism”, the notion that global warming is a problem like no other, is coming to an end http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600080-new-report-ipcc-implies-climate-exceptionalism-notion guest-sewsenn Apr 3rd, 17:01 I truly hope that this is the end of “climate exceptionism”. In one of the greatest moments of hyperbole the world has seen, former Australian PM Kevin Rudd said in 2007 something like climate change is the greatest moral, political, social problem of our time. During the speech people in 3rd world countries starved to death, Saudi women were prohibited from driving let alone getting an education and many people died of cancer. These problems were apparently insignificant to our PM in the face of climate change. But of course he was just playing to the furious green masses of that quasi-socialist country. Slowly but surely, the voice of reason is creeping into the debate. We should see global warming as it is. As a minor concern, something which potentially increases risks a long way in the future. As anyone with half a brain can tell you, we must discount predictions about the future… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

At least it turned up in Google News Top Stories category for a while.

A bit below-the-belt by Kevin Hearle though. I think he put one past Scoop.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Dreams from Their Father’ Written by Mary A. Nicholas, Canada Free Press on April 02 2014. Karl Marx has had more impact on the minds of men and women in modern times than almost any other philosopher. One of his great claims about his philosophy was that it was “scientific.” Not “a knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws,” but an ideology that would transform the nature of man. It was a philosophy whose lineage includes terrorism, dictatorships and the ideology of the anti-human environmentalists. […] The red mythologists, now dressed in green, rely on the same type of Marxist “science.” Slithering into towns, cities and academia, just like Marx, they shout Doomsday predictions: this time, not from capitalism,(although some clearly blame capitalism), but from “global warming. Here is just one siren song: “It is not just the overall amount of climate change that will be so devastating to ecosystems, but just as importantly, the rate at which that change occurs. Alongside such drastic reductions in biodiversity, human misery will multiply. Mass migration, droughts, floods, wars, and famine will be endemic rather than periodic features… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Scoop have removed ‘A voice of Sanity in Climate Science’ (Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk”) article from their website.

Cached here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L_1duS1IjnsJ:www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1404/S00058/a-voice-of-sanity-in-climate-science.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

What next?

Shock peer-reviewed paper provides ‘rationale’ for ‘information manipulation’ & ‘exaggeration’ in global warming debate to ‘enhance global welfare’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/

Richard Treadgold
Guest

#Richard C,

“Shock peer-reviewed paper…”

Stupefying nonsense masquerading as science. Keep posting them, RC. People here need to know.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”They’ve cried ‘climate alarm’ too often”

Christopher Booker – “This latest report has aroused markedly less excitement than did its hysterical predecessor in 2007. They have cried wolf once too often.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10746497/How-did-the-IPCCs-alarmism-take-everyone-in-for-so-long.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘How IPPC report was ramped up to predict wars, extreme weather and famine… while its authors slept on the job’

By BEN PILE

According to Raj Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its report last week was its most terrifying yet, portending famine, disease, extreme weather and wars, proving ‘no one on this planet is going to be untouched’.

But a Mail on Sunday analysis shows that the 47-page ‘summary for policymakers’ of a much more detailed 2,600-page document – ‘sexed up’ some of the key findings.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html#ixzz2yAcnngIQ

Scroll down a bit past Tol article

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Scare tactics fail climate science, planet’ Clive Crook / Bloomberg Consider this latest installment of the IPCC’s survey of the science. It’s more carefully hedged than its predecessors—and rightly so. There are fewer specific claims about the future that the science can’t fully support or that might turn out to be simply wrong. The emphasis is more on prudent actions to avoid risks, and less on precise predictions about what’s coming if those actions aren’t taken. That’s the approach that the unsettled science of climate change dictates. Yet look at how Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance, responded to the new publication: “Read this report and you can’t deny the reality. Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice…The costs of inaction are catastrophic.” The new report doesn’t say any of that. The science doesn’t predict a catastrophe that would threaten the American way of life. The most cost-effective responses to the risks of climate change are measured and gradual, not dramatic and quick. And denying the wisdom of Kerry’s call for action isn’t… Read more »

Doug Cotton
Guest
Doug Cotton

This week the March temperature data appeared here for example. As I predicted in August 2011, this year (2014) should see the rate of cooling increase a little, but there will be about half a degree of warming between about 2029 and 2059. The expected 500 years of long term cooling will probably start before the year 2100. So why are we in the middle of a 30 year period of slight net cooling? Because natural cycles control climate – not mankind. Standard physics tells us why carbon dioxide has no warming effect and water vapour has a significant cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere. The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube confirms what physics tells us, namely that the force of gravity produces a state wherein the maximum entropy (at thermodynamic equilibrium) has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, because of the effect of gravity acting on molecules when they are in free path motion between collisions. The whole greenhouse conjecture starts out from a false assumption that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be ignored and so (they… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”..this year (2014) should see the rate of cooling increase a little,” Should, if solar scenarios play out. Depending on whether one subscribes to a mild scenario or a mid-range De Vries/Dalton scenario (e.g. De Jager and Duhau) or a superimposed De Vries/Eddy/Maunder scenario (e.g. Abdussamatov), in any case, solar recession only really began 2009 at the end of the Modern Grand Maximum (peaked in 1986, began early 1950s). But the most significant effects of reduced energy in the sun – ocean – atmosphere system are lagged 10 or 12 or 14 years depending on calculation (Trenberth, Scafetta, Abdussamotov respectively) giving a lagged effect of 2009 + 10 = 2019 or + 12 = 2021 or + 14 = 2023. Obviously “fast” responses over land (“slow” responses occur over ocean but are more significant due to thermal characteristics and expanse of ocean relative to land) will be perceptible earlier then that in land-only datasets, possibly this year onwards, but significant cooling wont be for some time yet more likely from around 2020 onwards. Ocean heat content (OHC) is still rising on global aggregate according to NODC’s Josh Willis “adjusted” data even though the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Compare Pangburn’s non-lagged prediction downturn: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xw_hE2SzQLc/UYoEq5f9PvI/AAAAAAAAAAc/67d2gjg_ZzE/s1600/Figure2.jpg To Abdussamatov’s (Figure 2) lagged prediction downturn: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/new-paper-predicts-another-little-ice.html Abdussamatov predicts “the pause” to end about now (2013/14) but his sharp downturn only really commences around 2020. Pangburn has a sharp downturn starting 2005. That didn’t happen we know, apparently because he doesn’t factor in about 14 years of planetary thermal lag. And no warming at all this century from Abdussamatov (2013) – the Grinch. Solar energy trumps ocean oscillations completely. Duhau and De Jager (2010) correct their earlier 2009 Dalton-type prognosis to a Maunder-type too along with Abdussamatov I’ve just discovered, but they don’t translate that to atmospheric temperature: 4. Forecasting the Next Grand Episode Earlier, we (Duhau and De Jager, 2009) presented a forecast of solar activity during Schwabe cycle #24 that has just started. We foresaw a late (2013.5) and low (Rmax = 67) solar maximum. This remarkably low solar activity gives rise to the question of the expected longer-term behaviour of the sun’s activity. To answer it we make use of the diagnostic phase diagram as described in Section 2. As a correction to our earlier study (De Jager and Duhau, 2009) we have… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ben Pile responds to the IPCC’s rebuttal:

IPCC: A Damp Squib
Posted by Ben Pile on April 7, 2014

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/04/ipcc-a-damp-squib.html

Bish – “I think he makes a very strong case that the Summary for Policymakers is sexed up and I think I see problems here for the reputation of the IPCC’s press office”

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/4/7/no-sexing-up-here-says-ipcc.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Roy Clark (‘A Null Hypothesis For C02’ presented to US Senate) turned up in ‘Damp Squib’ comments: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/04/ipcc-a-damp-squib.html#comment-306565 Links to his analysis: ‘Climate Model Fail: A Root Cause Analysis’, Roy Clark PhD http://venturaphotonics.com/RootCause.html It is extensive e.g. TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary 1.0 An Overview of the Greenhouse Effect and the Earth’s Climate 1.1 The ‘Equilibrium Climate’ and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ 1.2 The Dynamic Description of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ 1.3: The Earth’s Climate: Overview 1.4 Climate Energy Transfer 1.5 Asking the Right Quantitative Questions 2.0 The Climate Record 2.1 Surface Temperature 2.2.1 The Temperature Record for the Continental US 2.2.2 Urban Heat Islands: Los Angeles 2.2.3 Air Temperatures in the Lower Troposphere 2.2.4 Land Surface Temperatures from Meteostat Satellite Data 2.3 Sea Level Rise 2.4 Polar Ice Extent 2.5 Glacier Retreat 2.6 US Rainfall 2.7 Hurricanes and Tornadoes 2.8 Extreme Weather Events 2.9 Longer Term Climate Variations: The Effect of Changes in the Solar Flux 3.0 Climate Energy Transfer and Surface Temperature 3.1 The Surface Flux Balance Equations 3.2 The Land-Air Interface 3.3 The Ocean-Air Interface 3.3.1 Energy Transfer in the Pacific Ocean Warm Pool 3.3.2 Global Changes in Ocean Evaporation and Surface Temperature… Read more »

Post Navigation