Climate Change

Christopher Booker on climate fraudsters and charlatans

Christopher Booker writes at the Telegraph about climate scaremongers who are still twisting the evidence over global warming:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports ‚Äď another emerged last week ‚Äď and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster ‚Äď hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief ‚ÄúSummary for Policymakers‚ÄĚ, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.¬† Read more »

Lying about Climate Change is ok if you’re pushing a green agenda says a peer reviewed paper

James Delingpole reports at Breitbart:

Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe Рwho primly deny that any such problem exists Рthey go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy.

The abstract of their paper reads:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

This paper will be excellent news for climate scientists working at institutions like NASA GISS, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Penn State University.

For many years now, they have faced the huge challenge of trying to maintain their academic credibility and generous government grant funding despite increasing evidence that man-made global warming theory is a busted flush and that really it is about time they all found jobs more suited to their talents, such as enquiring whether sir would like a large fries and McFlurry with his Big Mac.

Now, thanks to the inspired sophistry of their new friends Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao their various data manipulation, decline-hiding, FOI-breaching, scientific-method abusing shenanigans have been made to seem not evil or wrong but actively desirable for the good of mankind.

This is not quite the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying in pursuit of the higher cause of greater global regulation, one world government, economic stagnation and higher energy prices.

A premise built upon lies and deceit will soon crash to the ground no matter how many fools are hoodwinked. That time is now upon us as not a single prediction or computer model is in sync with what reality is. The lies are apparent and now people are calling them on it.

The great big list of failed climate predictions

Anthony Watts has a list of 107 failed climate predictions.

There are 107 of them…here are some of my favourites.

3. ‚ÄúMore heat waves, no snow in the winter‚Ķ Climate models‚Ķ over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning‚Ķ Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most‚Ķ there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east‚ĶIn the Alps winters will be 2¬įC warmer already between 2021 and 2050.‚ÄĚ

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.


5. ‚ÄúClear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4¬įC, in the Alps by up to 5¬įC.‚ÄĚ
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.


6. ‚ÄúIn summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.‚ÄĚ
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

**** ¬† Read more »

Chart of the Day: Still no warming



Christopher Monckton writes at Wattsupwiththat:

HadCRUT4, the last of the five monthly global datasets to report its February value, shows the same sharp drop in global temperature over the month as the other datasets.

Our dataset-of-datasets graph averages the monthly anomalies for the three terrestrial and two satellite temperature records. It shows there has still been no global warming this millennium. Over 13 years 2 months, the trend is zero.¬†¬† Read more »

How are the Germans getting on with green energy? …Not so well it turns out

The German economy is almost on its knees as a result of green energy policies that are failing to deliver.

Germany is in the middle of one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments a major industrial economy has ever attempted: To swear off nuclear power and run Europe’s largest economy essentially on wind and solar power.

There’s just one problem — it’s not really working.

The energy transformation, known as “Energiewende,” was meant to give Germany an energy sector that would be cleaner and more competitive, fueling an export-driven economy and helping to slash greenhouse-gas emissions. On that count, the policy has floundered: German emissions are¬†rising, not falling, because the country is burning increasing amounts of dirty coal. And electricity costs, already high, have kept¬†rising, making life difficult for small and medium-sized businesses that compete against rivals with cheaper energy.¬† Read more »

Haven’t they got plenty already?

NIWA is seeking amateur scientists….snigger.

Jamie Morton reports:

Fancy yourself as a climate scientist?

A new climate science experiment, launched online today, is allowing weather enthusiasts to be part of the picture by lending their computers’ processing power.

Volunteers are being sought for the Weather@home ANZ project, launched today by the National Institute for Water and Atmosphere in collaboration with researchers from the UK and Australia.

It will enable the public to contribute to scientists’ understanding of how climate change might be affecting weather in New Zealand and Australia – and a desktop computer and internet connection is all that’s needed.

NIWA climate scientist and New Zealand programme leader Dr Suzanne Rosier said the initial aim of the project was to improve understanding of how extreme weather conditions such as heatwaves and drought may be changing.¬† Read more »

Mitigation or adaptation, choices with Climate Change

The left wing wants to push ahead with mitigation policies for climate change, it is their unerring belief that the state and governments can control the climate through control and taxes.

The other side says that the climate will always change and we should look at adaptation rather than expend vast quantities of cash on ultimately futile efforts.

Las Vegas couldn’t exist without air conditioning, neither could Dubai or other cities in the middle east. Human beings are great at adaptation, it is why we are top of the food chain.

Still there is no evidence yet presented that the predicted climate changes have actually happened, or if they are happening at the rates the alarmist have stated. In fact he opposite is true.

So what is it to be? Mitigation and huge costs, or adaptation?

The latest report from the UN‚Äôs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due out next week. If the leaked draft is reflected in the published report, it will constitute the formal moving on of the debate from the past, futile focus upon “mitigation” to a new debate about resilience and adaptation.

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP ‚Äď and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks.

And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP. At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.

Those are massive costs…I doubt the world could sustain them, let alone have them work at all.¬† Read more »

How does Labour’s policy on wood match their ETS policy?

Labour has decided that they want to give tax breaks to forestry companies. Their premise is that it will build capacity in the industry and increase their ability to produce higher grade products that are worth more.

They don’t extend this to other industries though, and bizarrely the policy which would necessitate the chopping down of more trees is in stark contrast with their ETS policy which penalises people who cut down trees. They use weasel words about encouraging growth, but the mechanism involved heaps penalties upon landowners if they cut down their own trees.

As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as wood (with forests therefore sometimes being referred to as ‚Äėcarbon sinks‚Äô). When forests are felled, they release carbon.

Forestry is rewarded under the ETS. That is because forests, as carbon sinks, have a big role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and in helping New Zealand meet its international climate change obligations.

Labour will therefore encourage increased forest cover, and particularly the planting of native forest that will not be harvested.

Labour will encourage landowners to plant forests to act as carbon sinks, and provide incentives and information on suitable trees to plant.

Several schemes are already in place to encourage the planting of forests. However, trees vary in their ability to capture and store carbon. There are also biodiversity issues to consider when determining the optimal mix of planting.

Is that going to change or are the new tax breaks a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other? ¬†Labour’s ETS policy says nothing of promoting wood as a produce, which by necessity must come from trees, which they want to grow more of. The two policies are incompatible.

The ETS is a red herring in forestry terms – overly complicated – but the forester is largely revenue neutral providing they replant… however, the processing industries that Cunliffe is promising tax breaks to are not neutral and will pay through the nose. ¬†So there is a question about how much of the tax breaks they’ll actually see once Labour’s super-charged ETS is imposed on them.

Read more »

Apparently it is because of Climate Change that the search for MH370 took so long

No I’m not kidding, the same folks who contributed to the Ship of Fools debacle are now spinning that the slow recovery operations in the southern Indian Ocean is because of climate change and searches in coming years for planes that set down in the ocean down there (so far only the one) will be harder to find because of climate change.

James Delingpole explains at Breitbart London.

The answer to that one is a big “no” by the way, but that certainly hasn’t stopped the usual green suspects trying to shoehorn the Malaysian tragedy into their grand universal theory of everything.

Here’s how an enterprising environmental reporter has managed it¬†at¬†Mother Jones:

Scientists say man-made climate change has fundamentally altered the currents of the vast, deep oceans where investigators are currently scouring for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight, setting a complex stage for the ongoing search for MH370. If the Boeing 777 did plunge into the ocean somewhere in the vicinity of where the Indian Ocean meets the Southern Ocean, the location where its debris finally ends up, if found at all, may be vastly different from where investigators could have anticipated 30 years ago.

Possibly there’s a bait and switch operation going on here. None of the three scientists quoted in the article makes mention of plane debris: they just talk about the changing nature of recent patterns in the Southern Oceans which, almost inevitably, they ascribe to man-made climate change and which they insist is a cause for great concern.¬† Read more »

Perhaps the extreme weather is actually caused by Global Cooling

The warmist claim, every time there is a severe weather event, that it has been caused by the ever increasing global temperature. They use extreme weather events to force people to believe their manufactured liesa bout catastrophic human induced global warming.

Never mind that the planet hasn’t warmed a bit in over 17 years. Ignore the fact that all of the computer models predicting massive temperature rises have failed to come remotely close to actuality.

And never mind that in 1974 scientists were warning that ever worsening global cooling would lead to more catastrophic extreme weather events.

Steve Goddard tips me to this article in the Canberra Times on May 16th, 1974: