DiCaprio recaptivated, oh, the dated fiction, how it palls

The facts, DiCaprio, the facts. We’ll all perish? All humanity?! Perish the thought.

Leonardo DiCaprio has once again been completely captured by the IPCC misinformation campaign on global warming. A few days ago he addressed the United Nations conference on climate change to echo in their own chamber their self-created myths. This is my message to Mr DiCaprio.

In addressing world leaders at the United Nations, you claimed humankind has been pretending that global warming is a fiction. What a strange belief. Since, for about the last 20 years, there has been no general warming, you can only mean that they find facts unconvincing. Ironically, you thus confess a pretence greater than what you level at them.

Then you claimed we have been experiencing extreme weather events and increased temperatures, warning bravely, ‘we will surely perish’ should these dire effects of carbon dioxide continue. You could scarcely select a more alarming peril nor could you drive it home in non-scientific minds more forcefully than with your confident assurance that you were not repeating rhetoric or hysteria but fact. Amazing, but surely they believed you—after all, it was them who told you in the first place.

The yellow highlight covers the last 20 years or so, during which the warming halted. It is yet to resume and there are strong hints of imminent cooling. (AR5 WG1 Chp 2 p.193)

Sadly, though, ‘we will surely perish’ has clearly not yet occurred so it is no fact, and that’s a fact. You should have offered your wider audience some facts to make the prediction seem credible. Good luck with finding some.

With touching candour, the UN, in the latest IPCC climate report AR5, published this graph of world temperature observations (AR5 WG1 Chp 2 p.193). It reassures us that there’s been insignificant global warming in about the last 20 years, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations became the highest in human history. Of course, since the temperature has not risen, it did not cause any extreme weather in the last 20 years. It has all been entirely natural.

The same goes for sea level rise, ice cap melting, ocean heat sequestration, loss of species, coral reef bleaching and every other reasonable and unreasonable effect blamed on global warming.


Leave a Reply

10 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of

DiCaprio ranks right up there with Lucy Lawless and other self-deluded thespians who feel their work in an industry that sells make-believe makes them believable when they promote make-believe disaster stories.
Their credibility in climate matters is zero and the credibility of UN catastropharians is somewhere in the negative.


“The most powerful speech” apparently came from Leonardo DiCaprio, which recalled a claim made more than 20 years ago by that other Hollywood star, Robert Redford, when he said, on global warming, that it was “time to stop researching and to start acting”. This prompted Richard Lindzen, the physicist and climate-change sceptic, to observe wryly that it seemed “a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make”.


Richard C (NZ)

>”…there’s been insignificant global warming in about the last 20 years, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations became the highest in human history? Yes, this is the death knell of AGW but the fixation is with linear trends, even by sceptics e.g. McKitrick (2014). More sophisticated analysis reveals much more and such papers are finally gaining traction, the latest: Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz. Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (9): e107222 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140911092905.htm Multidecadal variation (MDV, green curve) has been belatedly admitted by climate science but AGW proponents always intone “the long-term trend”. Well that’s gone against them. The secular trend (ST, red curve) is turning down away from CO2. AGW is busted. Except the downturn in the secular trend was known at least as far back as 2006: ‘Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years’. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Published online: July 31, 2006 # Springer-Verlag 2006 Summary A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”this is the death knell of AGW but the fixation is with linear trends, even by sceptics e.g. McKitrick (2014).” ‘Keenan on McKitrick’ Bishop Hill, Sep 29, 2014 Doug Keenan has posted a strong critique of Ross McKitrick’s recent paper on the duration of the pause at his own website. I am reproducing it here. [Keenan] – “Finally, methods to detect trends in global temperatures have been studied by the Met Office. A consequence of the study is that “the Met Office does not use a linear trend model to detect changes in global mean temperature” [HL969, Hansard U.K., 2013–2014].” Hotlinked, see quote below http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/9/29/keenan-on-mckitrick.html Asked by Lord Donoughue To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 22 April (WA 358), whether, on the basis of a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model, they consider the recorded increase in global temperatures of 0.8 degrees celsius to be statistically significant.[HL967] To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 21 May (WA 44–5) and the briefing paper by the Chief Scientist of the Met Office, “Statistical Models and the Global Temperature Records”, issued on… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”No 1st or 3rd order statistical trend analysis”

Like this for example (1st and 5th):


Statistically the 5th order (MDV oscillation) represents the data better than the 1st (R^2 0.75 vs 0.63). But the 1st order is not the underlying secular trend, that’s another rising curve but now with a negative inflexion this century (e.g. Zhen-Shan and Xian (2006), Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014) above). Contrary to AGW.

Which probably explains why the Met Office steers clear of trend analysis.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique” (SSA) Seeing a lot of this now. Here it is again (reply to Mann, Steinman, and Millar (2014) ): ‘Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century’ Kravtsov, Wyatt, Curry, and Tsonis (2014) https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/kravtsov-et-al.pdf http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/28/two-contrasting-views-of-multidecadal-climate-variability-in-the-20th-century/#more-16969 6 2.2 Methodology 7 Following Wyatt et al. [2012], we defined the 20th-century secular climate variability 8 in the climate-index networks considered as the sum of a linear trend and a dominant 9 multidecadal signal. This signal was objectively identified via multi-channel version of 10 the Singular Spectrum Analysis [SSA: Broomhead and King, 1986; Elsner and Tsonis, 11 1996] called M-SSA [Moron et al., 1998; Ghil et al., 2002]. M-SSA is an extended 12 variant of a widely used Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis technique 13 [Monahan et al., 2009], which looks for the space–time patterns that maximize lagged 14 covariance for a given multivariate time series within a range of M lags. The original raw 15 time series can be fully recovered as the sum, over all modes, of the so-called 16 reconstructed components (RCs) associated with each M-SSA mode. The secular 17 multidecadal signal for the time series considered… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Why they [Kravtsov et al] used a linear trend escapes me and calling it “secular trend” is bogus. SSA was used by Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014) to identify the secular trend which is certainly NOT linear (and see Alexandrov below). Why didn’t Kravtsov et al do same if they were using SSA anyway?” Finally, after wading through the thread at Climate Etc, about 95% of the way down I get to this: Tomas Milanovic | September 30, 2014 at 11:08 am | [Excellent treatese on SSA snipped] The 2 points that I would challenge are : [2] – “Why to detrend ? “ [emphasised]. Especially why to detrend when one is using M-SSA ? It seems to me that it defeats the very purpose of using M-SSA. M-SSA finds a data adaptative basis set of eigenvectors (here eigenvector=function). See f.ex the Groth&Ghil paper quoted above which gives explicitely the first eigenvectors in a case study. And now we force suddenly on the data a special basis function (x=at+b) which is justified by nothing. If something can create artifacts then this is it. Why not to use M-SSA as intended, e.g without any… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…

Barman: “Why the long pause?”
Climate Scientist: [sobs]

Richard C (NZ)

>The same goes for……………..ocean heat sequestration”

Yes (again). I’m curious about the Lewis & Curry paper: ‘The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates’. Climate Dynamics, September 2014



“Our paper derives ECS and TCR estimates using the AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates and uncertainty ranges. The analysis uses a global energy budget model that links ECS and TCR to changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST), radiative forcing and the rate of ocean heat uptake between a base and a final period.”

Are they really attributing ocean heat uptake to CO2 ?

If so, bogus. There’s no mechanism (not even in AR5). It’s a solar energy accumulation.

Richard C (NZ)

DiCaprio, a UN “Messenger of Peace with a special focus on climate change”. He has quite a task on his hands if this diatribe has any truth (we’re “terrorists” apparently): ‘America’s Radical, Underground Climate Change Countermovement’ by Robert Hunziker / September 27th, 2014 Dissident Voice, a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice […] Ever since the Kochs, in concert with their billionaire comrades, went underground, hiding from public view their most sensitive operations, they carry out elaborate schemes of radical plans to destroy climate change science by obfuscation, and their covert machinations scorn the theory of a government “by and for the people.” As to their liking, democracy is dead! At first blush, their surreptitious behavior, which is remarkably identical to how worldwide terrorists’ networks conduct operations, “may be construed as a threat to national security.” More on that later. In that regard, Robert J. Brulle, PhD, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, submitted the first-ever peer-reviewed comprehensive analysis of funding for America’s climate change countermovement.1 Dr. Brulle’s scholarly study conducted an “analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

An omitted sentence from Hunziker’s article above:

“It’s not new news that a well-funded effort to destroy the sanctity of scientific evidence of climate change has persisted in America for many, many years.”


noun: sanctity; plural noun: sanctities
the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.
“the site of the tomb was a place of sanctity for the ancient Egyptians”
synonyms: holiness, godliness, blessedness, saintliness, spirituality, piety, piousness, devoutness, righteousness, goodness, virtue, purity; formalsanctitude
“the sanctity of St. Francis”
ultimate importance and inviolability.
“the sanctity of human life”
synonyms: inviolability; importance, paramountcy

[Weird. I echo your raised eyebrow. – RT]

Richard C (NZ)

Apologies that Hunziker quote was too long. I had intended to delete down to the paragraph beginning “Ever since the Kochs” – I thought I did, but I didn’t. [No matter. Done. – RT]

Richard C (NZ)

RT retained the part of the article “down to” that I intended deleting but deleted the “terrorist” part along with the link [apologies; reinstated. – RT] but no matter, the link to the article is: http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/09/americas-radical-underground-climate-change-countermovement/ Anyway, re Lewandowsky, as mentioned by Hunziker along with the Kochs, he was directing Q&A at the Mann lecture: ‘My answer to the “why didn’t Watts ask a question?” brouhaha’ Anthony Watts / September 28, 2014 “I don’t think the director of the Cabot Institute, Richard Pancost realized how intimidating it was to have a person who had named and shamed climate skeptics in peer reviewed paper, only to have it retracted by complaints from climate skeptics, and then to have the journal defend the rights of climate skeptics as unwilling “human test subjects”.” “Probably the most valuable thing we can do, is simply to ignore Dr. Mann and his rants about climate skeptics being tinfoil hat wearers, Koch shills, or deniers. We are none of those. But most important, and on full display now, is the fact that if Dr. Mann can’t even be bothered to update his slides with current global temperature data [after 2005].… Read more »

RC – “I note the AR5 graph in the post is now out of date by 3 years.”

You’re right, and since then the stasis has lengthened, but it was important to use the IPCC’s own statements to highlight the internal inconsistencies in the event itself and DiCaprio’s speech.

Richard C (NZ)

>”important to use the IPCC’s own statements to highlight the internal inconsistencies” Agreed. A big one being the disconnect between the IPCC’s simulated temperature as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions and actual temperature (specifically the 2000 – 2010 – 2020 steps): Figure SPM.10: Simulated global mean surface temperature increase as a function of cumulative total global CO2 emissions http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-10.jpg Figure 2.20 (actual temperature as per post) http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-20.jpg The 2000 – 2010 actual and simulated temperature step is about +0.3 C – fine. Except 2000-01 was a weak La Niña and 2009-10 was a moderate El Niño: http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm The +0.3 C step 2000 – 2010 was natural variability – not CO2. >”since then the stasis has lengthened” And 2014.5 was about the same as 2010.5: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010 2010.5, 0.607 2014.5, 0.549 If temperature was actually a function of cumulative CO2 emissions as per Figure SPM.10, 2014 should be about 0.1 C warmer than 2010 – it isn’t. Temperature is obviously not a function of cumulative CO2 emissions contrary to IPCC assumptions. But Leonardo DiCaprio, UN “Messenger of Peace with a special focus on climate change”, has probably been schooled with the SPM although with… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”The 2000 – 2010 actual and simulated temperature step is about +0.3 C – fine. Except 2000-01 was a weak La Niña and 2009-10 was a moderate El Niño” Not right here. Turns out the Figure 10 dots do not represent a year but a decade mean e.g. “2000” represents 1990 – 1999 and “2010” represents 2000 – 2009. The Figure 10 caption is (page 26 pdf): Figure SPM.10 | Global mean surface temperature increase as a function of cumulative total global CO2 emissions from various lines of evidence. Multimodel results from a hierarchy of climate-carbon cycle models for each RCP until 2100 are shown with coloured lines and decadal means (dots). Some decadal means are labeled for clarity (e.g., 2050 indicating the decade 2040−2049). Model results over the historical period (1860 to 2010) are indicated in black. The coloured plume illustrates the multi-model spread over the four RCP scenarios and fades with the decreasing number of available models in RCP8.5. The multi-model mean and range simulated by CMIP5 models, forced by a CO2 increase of 1% per year (1% yr–1 CO2 simulations), is given by the thin black line and grey area.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate Change Has Jumped the Shark’

by Steven F. Hayward

What is the “this” that “changes everything” in Klein’s new title? Why climate change, of course. And what does it “change”? Why capitalism, naturally. The argument of the book in one sentence is that only overthrowing capitalism can solve climate change. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s how the progressive lefty site CommonDreams described it: “Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism.”


It would be interesting to hear Leonardo’s perspective on this, or Ban Ki-moon’s.

Richard C (NZ)

[Eric Worrall] – “…..there is another aspect of the NY climate conference spin which I find disturbing – the continuous emphasis on the need for “widespread collaboration” and “unprecedented cooperation”. Every time I see a reference to how everyone has to allegedly strive to sacrifice their own interests, and work together for a common eco-goal, to save the world, I remember something the famous author Terry Pratchett once said; “Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.” Thankfully, for now at least, people appear to be following Pratchett’s sage advice.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/29/ny-climate-spin-putting-on-a-brave-face/ [NikFromNYC] – “That big red banner protest with its “System Change, Not Climate Change” motto was the best anti-alarm development since Climategate, more important than any proof of scientific fraud, since science is too obscure for most people to be confident enough to judge independently. But now those people can no longer as easily take climate alarm as a scientific at all, since their System Change is just communism.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/29/climate-activistims-new-ploy-attacking-financial-institutions/#comment-1749629 Upthread in the ‘Climate Movement Drops Mask’ article, Zombie writes: “Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming… Read more »


Congratulations to all the winners of Rutherford Discovery Fellowships


Notable that there are no awards relating to AGW. Hopefully there is a message there for up and coming scientists.


Here is the latest nutty theory from an over paid (due to rent seeking) so called scientist. From James Delingpole blog site http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/01/US-professor-blame-climate-change-for-Islamic-State A New York professor has discovered the real reason for the rise and rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq: not Islamist fundamentalism, death-cult nihilism or regional power struggles but climate change. Charles B Strozier, Professor of History at the City University of New York, enlarges on his fascinating thesis at the Huffington Post. While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather. Most of us perceive these threats as unrelated. We recycle water bottles and buy local produce to keep the earth liveable for our children — not to ward off terrorists. Yet environmental stressors and political violence are connected in surprising ways, sparking questions about collective behaviour. If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan — potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperilling Afghan girls who want to attend school — would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags? How would elections and legislation be influenced?… Read more »


Post Navigation