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.


Views: 230

21 Thoughts on “DiCaprio recaptivated, oh, the dated fiction, how it palls

  1. Alexander+K on 28/09/2014 at 8:46 pm said:

    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.

  2. Andy on 28/09/2014 at 9:55 pm said:

    “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”.


  3. Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2014 at 9:23 am said:

    >”…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


    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

    A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode
    Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of
    the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern
    Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The
    results show that:………………

    (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration
    to global temperature variation is the trend. However,
    its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts
    for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of
    the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales.
    Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration,
    the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of
    global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2
    concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse
    effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural
    cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even
    though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change
    is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.
    It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate


    I found the same ST downturn in HadSST2 by EMD a couple of years ago when previously it had been rising. Scafetta described the rising ST in HadCRUT3 with a quadratic – now invalid.

    DiCaprio would be oblivious to all of this of course, he’s probably never read a scientific paper in his life. But hey, who needs the literature anyway? It’s “System change, not climate change”:

    ‘Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda’ by Zombie, September 23rd, 2014

    The photos tell the story.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/09/2014 at 8:20 pm said:

      >”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


      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 31 May, which stated that a linear trend model was “less likely to emulate the global temperature time series than the third-order autoregressive integrated model”, why the Met Office favours a linear trend model. [HL969]

      Baroness Verma: I refer the noble Lord to the briefing paper “Statistical Models and the Global Temperature Records” produced by the Met Office Chief Scientist, which states that the Met Office’s assessment of global climate change is not based on assessing the evolution of global surface temperature using statistical models in isolation. As the paper notes, the Met Office does not use a linear trend model to detect changes in global mean temperature change. I would also refer the noble Lord to the Written Answer I gave on 27 March 2013 (Official Report, col. WA 237, 238), concerning statistical models.

      With regard to the use of a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model in assessing statistical significance of the 0.8°C rise in global temperature, I refer the noble Lord to the Written Answers I gave on 21 May (Official Report, col. WA 44, 45) and 12 June (Official Report, col. WA 248) and note further that we do not consider this model to be appropriate.


      >”the Met Office does not use a linear trend model to detect changes in global mean temperature change”

      >”we [the Met Office] do not consider this [third-order autoregressive integrated] model to be appropriate”

      Sooo…… what do they use?

      ‘Statistical models and the global temperature record’

      Professor Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist. May 2013


      Executive summary

      Page 2 pdf,

      The results show that the linear trend model with first-order autoregressive noise is less likely
      to emulate the global surface temperature timeseries than the driftless third-order
      autoregressive integrated model. The relative likelihood values range from 0.001 to 0.32 for
      the time periods and datasets studied, where a value of 1 equates to equal likelihoods. This
      provides some evidence against the use of a linear trend model with first-order
      autoregressive noise for the purpose of emulating the statistical properties of instrumental
      records of global average temperatures, as would be expected from physical understanding
      of the climate system.

      This is not, however, evidence for the efficacy of the driftless autoregressive integrated
      model. Similar comparisons between the driftless (trendless) model and two autoregressive
      integrated models that allow for drift (trend) give likelihood values ranging from 0.45 to 2.58
      for the HadCRUT4 dataset. The comparison is therefore inconclusive in terms of selecting
      the notionally best model. Furthermore, these comparisons do not provide evidence against
      the existence of a trend in the data.

      Page 9 pdf,

      Thus, the Met Office does not [emphasised] use one of these statistical models to assess global
      temperature change in relation to natural variability. In fact, work undertaken at the Met
      Office on the detection of climate change in observational data is predominantly based on
      the application of formal detection and attribution methods. These methods combine
      observational evidence with physical knowledge of the climate (in the form of general
      circulation models) and its response to external forcing agents, and have a solid foundation
      in statistics. These methods allow physical knowledge to be taken into account when
      assessing a changing climate and are discussed at length in Chapter 9 of the Contribution of
      Working Group I to IPCC AR48.

      Page 16 pdf ,

      Studies of statistical modelling using a wide range of models continue
      to be published in the peer-reviewed literature and we continue to take this work, along with
      other information, into consideration when making assessments of climate change.

      # # #

      No 1st or 3rd order statistical trend analysis. No statistical analysis of any kind. But climate models “have a solid foundation in statistics” apparently.

      But they are considering, but not yet actually acting on, the general field of “studies of statistical modelling using a wide range of models”. Great, but one wonders why they’re not just considering those studies that apply those same most up to date and sophisticated trend analysis techniques specifically to temperature series and the climate change assessments resulting from them, but actually using them themselves? Viz., for example from above:

      Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) – Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian (2006). That was some time ago.

      Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique – Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014). This year – hello.

      I guess the field is not sufficiently mature just yet for the science of climate change and the Met Office. Either that or they don’t like what they see.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/10/2014 at 10:20 am said:

      >”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) on 01/10/2014 at 7:13 pm said:

      >”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)



      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 here is well represented by the sum of
      18 two leading RCs, which we will hereafter refer to as the stadium-wave signal. While the
      19 secular variability has, by definition, timescales exceeding the M-SSA window M, the M20
      SSA can identify time delays of up to M time units between different indices (channels)
      21 comprising the climate network. In the analysis below, we used annual data and M=30.

      1 Note that our method for decomposing the climate variability into linear trend,
      2 multidecadal stadium-wave signal and the residual components is purely statistical and
      3 cannot be used for signal attribution. It is likely, however, that the trend is forced and the
      4 residual variability — which is predominantly interannual — is intrinsic, while the
      5 stadium wave may be a combination of the intrinsic and forced signals.

      # # #

      Why they 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?

      Met Office will “consider” SSA possibly (so they say) but not much else because they shun statistical trend analysis in general to date. even though such analysis abounds in the literature. Uncomfortably incisive for them I think e.g. in comments at Climate Etc:

      GaryM | September 28, 2014 at 9:30 pm

      [Wyatt] – “The point raised by Mann and the alternative perspective provided by our paper does raise the broader issues of whether you can separate forced from intrinsic variability, and if so, how to do this.”

      And if you can’t separate forced from intrinsic variability, doesn’t that mean you can’t determine attribution and therefore can’t determine climate sensitivity?


      Also see,


      Author: Theodore Alexandrov (2009)
      – Center for Industrial Mathematics, University of Bremen, Germany


    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/10/2014 at 8:34 pm said:

      >”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 prior data manipulation ?
      If one is interested, one can always compare later the eigenfunctions with and without detrending even if I don’t see what relevance that could have.


      Thank you Tomas.

      Then following:

      Dr Norman Page | September 30, 2014 at 9:20 pm |

      The principal components of the drivers of climate change are different at different time scales. Check Fig 4 at

      http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com [Really worth a look]

      This shows clearly where we are relative to the Milankovitch cycles – i e we are on the way down to the next ice age.
      The Milankovitch cycles are then modulated by solar activity cycles of varying lengths – Most important for climate forecasting are the 60 year and especially the 1000 year cycle. For the latter see Figs 5 ,9 , and for the former Figs 15 and 16 at


      The catastrophic schoolboy error of the modelers is to try to forecast future trends based on 70 years or so of data when the most pertinent time scale is millennial. This is exactly like taking a temperature trend from say Feb – June and then projecting it ahead in a straight line for 20 years or so – basically bonkers!!
      Judith is still chiefly occupied with these shorter term data sets when the real action is at the millennial level.


      Thank you Norman.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2014 at 9:24 am said:

    Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…
    Barman: “Why the long pause?”
    Climate Scientist: [sobs]

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2014 at 9:35 am said:

    >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.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2014 at 10:32 am said:

    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 change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States,” Ibid.

    He discovered ninety-one (91) CCCMs with average resources of just over $900 million. As such, almost $1 billion is available to these CCCMs to radicalize and obfuscate the climate change issue, as well as other issues, thereby, similar to Weathermen Underground operations, artificially creating confusion and consternation from coast to coast.

    Over the past decade, a lot of adverse publicity about billionaires funding: (a) imitation institutions, (b) making up phony orgs, and (c) covertly paying ghostwriters, forced them underground. Yes, like the Weathermen and very, very similar to Al-Qaeda, the CCCM is underground with their henchmen in darkened caves; they’re radical; they’ll do whatever’s necessary to protect their propertied interests.

    In point of fact, they may eventually be classified as white-collar terrorists, but they have every appearance of honest, upstanding citizenship. On any given Sunday, you’d probably exchange a smile with them at church without suspecting in the least that you are acknowledging a terrorist.

    In that regard, by definition, and according to NSA standards, any group that clandestinely goes underground to sub-rosa disrupt America’s pivotal national interests is labeled a terrorist group.

    Is America’s radical, underground climate change countermovement threatening the nation’s pivotal national interests? Is this debatable? Or, is their behavior prima facie evidence of a radical terrorist threat?

    According to Brulle:

    “A number of analyses… clearly shows that a number of conservative think tanks, trade associations, and advocacy organizations are the key organizational components of a well-organized climate change countermovement (CCCM) that has not only played a major role in confounding public understanding of climate science, but also successfully delayed meaningful governmental policy actions to address the issue.”

    As it goes, they have furtively succeeded in compromising America’s point of view about the threat of climate change; e.g., a Pew Research Center Poll in October 2012 asked: “Do scientists believe that earth is getting warmer because of human activity?” Fifty-five percent (55%) replied “no” or they “didn’t know.” The ‘no” vote registered 45%. As Brulle states, “This reflects a broad misunderstanding of climate science by the general public.” How did this happen?

    Here’s how it happened: CCCM operates similar to how Hollywood produces a film or a play on Broadway: “The countermovement has stars in the spotlight [similar to ISIS’s British-accented, knife-wielding man dressed in black] – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure [like Al-Qaeda cells] of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations [same as Al-Qaeda “mainstream fronts” in the UK and France]. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes,”

    Nowadays, the executive producers (equivalent in rank to Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri) for the countermovement are concealing their most discrete activities. Since 2008, the counter-movement’s heavyweight executive producers no longer make publicly traceable contributions through their labyrinth of networks whenever extreme levels of deviousness commands a safer course of action.

    Over the years, the countermovement’s principal financial operatives shifted much of their funding to Donors Trust, which is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced, cannot be traced, cannot be traced, cannot be traced… similar to the secretive cells for movement of funds of radical terrorists groups throughout Europe and the Middle East, which also cannot be traced.

    As a result, “…only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change countermovement organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.” Again, similar to Al-Qaeda, the funding sources for the counter-movement come out of darkened shadows within a maze of serpentine alleyways.

    That is exactly how groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS operate to covertly move money. Otherwise, the world would catch on to their antics very quickly. The old rule of “follow the money” would lead right to them.

    Why else would any group, including CCCM, follow such courses of action?

    As such, America’s radical climate change countermovement terrorist organization is free to spend as much as they want without any public disclosure, no possibility of tracing back to individual donors. Thus, as it happens, the functionality of the world of climate change denial, “the countermovement,” must operate deep underground and in the shadows.

    A few years ago and with no fanfare, a sea change in CCCM’s methodologies for undermining the science of climate change/global warming took place, and now nobody knows when, where, why, or how they’ll strike, same as Al-Qaeda.

    But, dissimilar to the pursuit of Al-Qaeda, drones won’t help smoke’em out.


    Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in society.

    — Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI), American politician, former U.S. Representative, 1995-2011.


    Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide, like Z magazine, European Project on Ocean Acidification, Ecosocialism Canada, Climate Himalaya, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Comite Valmy, and UK Progressive. He has been interviewed about climate change on Pacifica Radio, KPFK, FM90.7, Indymedia On Air and World View Show/UK.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2014 at 10:47 am said:

      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) on 29/09/2014 at 11:30 am said:

      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) on 29/09/2014 at 12:40 pm said:

      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:


      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]. In that failing, he has already become irrelevant to the climate debate.”


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

    • 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) on 29/09/2014 at 3:39 pm said:

      >”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


      Figure 2.20 (actual temperature as per post)


      The 2000 Р2010 actual and simulated temperature step is about +0.3 C Рfine. Except 2000-01 was a weak La Ni̱a and 2009-10 was a moderate El Ni̱o: 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:

      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 no idea (probably, if he’s even got that far) how to relate actual to simulated would be “captivated” by a seemingly valid Figure SPM.10. As would most SPM readers I suspect.

      I wonder who will break the news to Leonardo? I’m guessing not James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Jessica Alba, Michael C. Hall or Arnold Schwarzenegger,

      ‘Hollywood heavyweights put climate change manifesto on TV’


      Or Jon Stewart,

      ‘Jon Stewart Nails The Insane Reason We Need To Keep Talking About Climate Change’


      Or Emma Thompson,

      Emma Thompson: ‘Climate changed deniers are bonkers’


      Poor Leonardo might be the last on earth to learn the truth given the circle he moves in.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2014 at 6:25 pm said:

      >”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. For a specific amount of cumulative CO2 emissions, the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 forcings. Temperature values are given relative to the 1861−1880 base period, emissions relative to 1870. Decadal averages are connected by straight lines.


      “various lines of evidence” ??? None of this is evidence of anything, it’s assumption-based.

      According to the IPCC the 2010 – 2019 decade mean should be about 0.25/0.3 C (0.11/0.13 at 45%) greater than the 2000 – 2009 mean if temperature is actually a function of cumulative CO2 emissions as they assume.

      0.458 – HadCRUT4 2000 – 2009 mean anomaly
      0.481 – HadCRUT4 2010 – 2014.5 mean anomaly (reducing at present)
      0.023 – Difference at 45% time elapsed

      Not looking good for the “evidence”.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 30/09/2014 at 9:58 am said:

    ‘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) on 30/09/2014 at 12:46 pm said:

      [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.”


      [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.”


      Upthread in the ‘Climate Movement Drops Mask’ article, Zombie writes:

      “Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.”

      # # #

      Cooperation and collaboration does not necessarily translate to socialism or communism for many of the UN and greenie types I suspect, and certainly not for greenwashed corporates. But it does to one of the two forms of collectivism which exist in all societies. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism):

      “Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature”

      And (this is the important aspect),

      “Collectivism can be divided into horizontal (or egalitarian) collectivism and vertical (or hierarchical) collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization and egalitarianism. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization and hierarchy. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism, whereas a military hierarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism.”

      The division defines the internal conflict of eco ideals and how to achieve them. The UN is essentially based on an ideal of horizontal collectivism. Any climate change agreements, or disagreements, are by countries exercising their individual decisions. Something akin to herding cats.

      But individual decisions are anathema to eco-socialist System Changers. The UN cannot work for them or obtain their economy-wide objectives for them because to do so would require global vertical collectivism – no dissent, no capitalism. Hence the frustrated marching and rallies, no “squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism” for them. After gravitating to UN climate summits and conferences for years the penny might finally be dropping among them – they wont get their way via the UN even if its employees are hand-picked left and socialist leaning because it is the member countries that do the deciding one way or another. And I don’t think any of either the democratically elected leaders, or the dictatorial, have any time for the notion of global System Change when it implies their one-to-one standing at top level would be relegated to someplace down a hierarchy of elites.

      This places Leonardo DiCaprio between a rock and a hard place; little chance of traction within the current horizontal collectivism paradigm because that’s effectively capitalism among individual nations, and impossible to placate the eco-socialist System Changers for which global non-capitalist vertical collectivism is the only answer.

      Good luck Leonardo.

  8. HemiMck on 30/09/2014 at 4:27 pm said:

    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.

  9. Gary on 02/10/2014 at 8:40 pm said:

    Here is the latest nutty theory from an over paid (due to rent seeking) so called scientist.
    From James Delingpole blog site


    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?

    I have a simpler theory, they are Psychopathic killers , who want power and money!

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation