No Need to Panic About Global Warming

The evidence is mounting that Global Warming is a crock.

James Delingpole thinks we should start getting angry about the massive fraud perpetrated against us by “climate scientists”:

So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain’s most discredited university department – the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA – made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to “decarbonise” the UK economy. His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called “climate change.”

Viner is not the exception: he is the rule. We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed.

Further there is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 distinguished scientists noting the continuing absence of global warming. The are proper scientists not climate scientists and they say:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

It would seem that the fake “consensus” is splintering. I’m with James Delingpole…we should be angry.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Anonymous

    We’re hearing about it less and less in the MSM as the theory falls apart. Compared to five or six years ago where it was every second news story, this is welcome relief. In twenty years time we’ll look back on this as incredulously as we do “Global Cooling” scare in the ’50s.

  • Andy

    The biggest scandal is that NZ gets a mention in the Wall St article. Chris de Freitas has been a victim of bullying and intimidation from NZ and other scientists for daring to question the “consensus”. We hear nothing from our media because they are complicit in this (particularly the Herald which has run several hit pieces against de Freitas in recent years). The email chain of intimidation is well-documented in the Climategate 2 emails. it was particularly Salinger that was instrumental in trying to get de Freitas sacked from Auckland University.

    These emails have been documented by an NZ blogger here
    http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-and-corruption-of-peer-review-part-ii/

  • Petal

    When will Farrar admit he hitched his wagon to the wrong horse?

  • ConwayCaptain

    Of course this inconvenient untruth will not be welcome in the Pacific Islands where the mantra is rising sea levels, we will be washed away etc etc.

    The other day I was accosted outside my local supermarket by 2 Grfeenpeace activists from overseas, asking me to sign a petition about offshore drilling.  I told them that more oil leaks naturally into the sea than any ships pump in.  Iasked how many oil rig problems like Piper alpha and Deepwater Horizonhad there been in the last 30 years and they couldnt tell me.  I then pointed oput that these events as a percentage of wells drilled is miniscule.  I said that I was fedup with people coming from oseas and telling us what to do.

    As for the PIs well they are sinking or several reasons.

    1 The volcanoes which these atolls sit atop are breaking down naturally.

    2 The water table is rising as they use too much water as the islands are overpopulated. Too much jiggy jiggy.

    3 Some like the Carteret Is off PNG are on the junction of two tectonic plates and one is subducting under the other.

    Of course well will get the experts like Keisha Castle Hughes, Petra Bagust and Xena the Warrior Prncess spouting all the Global Warming crfap ad infinitum

    • starboard

      ..dont forget Robyn Malcolm..shes a genuis on all matters green..silly tarts they should be all back in the kitchen making scones , doing the dishes and popping out babies.

      • Anonymous

        ..dont forget Robyn Malcolm..shes a genuis on all matters green..silly tarts they should be all back in the kitchen making scones , doing the dishes.

        FIFY, last thing we want is another generation of them.

      • Kthxbai

        Now look here, not all tarts are silly, though I admit these ones are. 

        The ones that get right up my nose are the BA’s in literature and sociology who think that scientific theories and associated evidence are just another relativistic matter for belief…

    • Vij

      Lovely, Straight to the point

    • ConwayCaptain

      Thank you Vij

    • Anonymous

      Figure 11 in the following report from the Australian government shows the sea level rises since 1993:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.201107.pdf

      Additionally, in the following scientific paper – Kiribati is at the bottom of page 11, Tuvalu at the bottom of page 19 of the following scientific paper.

      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf

  • Phar Lap

    Let us not forget 32000 unemployed scientists have   a    vested interest in “Global Warming ” for them it is better to be, than the alternative,better to be a believer and put food on the table ,than die of hunger.

    • Vij

      No, now it will be “global freezing”, so they will be re-employed and try to tax us more.

  • GPT

    I suspect that the climate change nazis will cause more environmental damage in the long term through their hysteria as even sensible suggestions to avoid and minimise negative environmental impacts will be ignored.

    • Phronesis

      Already have with those bloody awful windmills.

  • Kapow

    We should be OUTRAGED! NZ is paying a fake tax for a fake theory. Funny how the price of milk attracts attention and how it has an effect on the family budget but nothing about the effect of our ETS on the price of just about everything. Especially when now we see that the reason for it is not actually happening….

    • Brian Smaller

       @Kapow – wong. We are paying a real tax for a fake theory.

      • Kapow

        Agree.

  • Jimmie

    Now that the global warming garbage is almost done & dusted I wonder what the next greenmongering stupidity will be? Aliens from outer space? Scarcity of water?

    Face it plebs the name may change but the tax will stay the same – suckers! 

    • Roger de Laborde

       overpopulation

      • TCrwdb

        Yep, overpopulation is the one that they are starting to bang on about now… and some of the proposed ‘solutions’ are scary stuff…

      • Anonymous

        Yeah. I’ve heard people on the Standard going on about “population controls”, their hammer and sickle roots showing right through.

      • Bob

        Why don’t we bring in a 2 child maximum per person? Change partners and already have 2 kids, too bad! Surely it would stop the bludgers popping out dozens of kids to rort the system, minimize the SOCK issue in this country, and keep the left happy by having ‘less children in poverty’ because the impoverished can’t keep breeding!

        Am I missing a downside?

  • Thorn

    Peter Gluckman  why so silent?

    Gluckman  related climate change denial to other examples such as the arguments over tobacco and cancer, evolution and creation and the HIV-denial movement.Fool or fraud, its hard to tell.

    • Anonymous

      And his lap dog “Dr” Nick Smith, MP.

    • Pharmachick

      Gluckman is a Pediatric Researcher. In his role as scientific advisor to the PM he sometimes has to step outside of his personal expertise. He would have relied on other experts for advice here. Better to say that he should choose his advisors more carefully than that the man is personally a fool, which I can assure you he is *NOT*.

  • Anonymous

    It is a shame that global warming has pipped ‘air quality’ as the number one airborne environmental issue. This is something that has a direct impact on citizen health and should be given infinitely more attention than margin-of-error global warming claims. 

  • Lets put it this way – none of those posting here will still be alive when the results are in, so why do we care..either way….??

    • Andy

      Neil, We care because highly expensive and pointless policy decisions are being made on the basis of dubious and politicised science.

    • STEVE AND MONIQUE

      good point

  • Andrew Goddard

    I don’t suppose you want to acknowledge the response to that article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/01/wall-street-journal-climate-change?newsfeed=true which has about 40 equally accomplished scientists rebutting the claims made in the Wall Street Journal? Moreover, as the article points out those responding actually didn’t go quite as far as they could – given the backgrounds of some of those original 16 and the history of the WS Journal not publishing evidence other than that presented by skeptics.

    For the record, I agree that a lot of media has the opposite problem (ie. not presenting compelling facts/information outside the mainstream discussion, like the sort AGW Skeptic linked me to last time I posted. Thank you, it was interesting and made me delve into an aspect of the debate I hadn’t really encountered before. Allow me to return the favour with this link which does seem to suggest that even accepting the logarithmic position we still ought to be concerned
    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/11/carbon-dioxide-doubling-temperature-increase-has-limits-/1. Either way, cheers!)Some of the above is just plain ridiculous however. Again, I agree that there are some scientists out there who’s living and thus interests are tied up in advocating strongly for a response to climate change but if you accept that you can’t simply discard the fact that the exact same thing happens with vested interests on the “carbonising” side of the debate. That’s completely inconsistent. Besides, given that emissions continue to rise and that the current economic/political position of industries like oil vis a vis more “green” industries is pretty favourable, it’s a fairly ridiculous stand to take.

    • Anonymous

      It’s important to realise how the predicted temperature rises are arrived at in the article you provided Andrew. As I said in my previous post yesterday the IPCC and pretty much the entire scientific community agree that CO2 can rise no more than 1.2C when TOTAL atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled. Here’s the clincher that invalidates the theory:

      The rising heat attributed to CO2 is supposed to heat the oceans creating water vapour which is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. This water vapour is supposed to triple the effects of CO2 which is where the predicted future temperatures in your article have been arrived at. The IPCC predicted a tropospheric hot spot that would prove the existence of this water vapour feedback, but in over 30 years of searching using over 30,000,000 weather balloons & satellite data the tropospheric hot spot has failed to eventuate. The following article explains it:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-9-the-heart-of-the-matter-and-the-coloring-in-trick/

      The AGW proponents make all sorts of claims hiding behind half truths that it does exist but here are the rules of the tropospheric hot spot:

      1/ It should be in the upper atmosphere (approx. 12km), lower level water vapour reflects light back into space & acts as an insulator & has a cooling effect – negative feedback.

      2/ The stratosphere should cool at the same time as the troposphere warms. The stratosphere is cooling it’s true, but there are other reasons for this such as ozone levels, only the combination of a warming troposphere & cooling stratosphere can be attributed to AGW, & the troposphere is not warming.

      3/ It should happen during periods when the Earth’s surface is warming (ie the troposphere should warm faster than the surface). The last decade is of little importance as the Earth’s surface has stopped warming.

      4/ AGW proponents claim that a troposphere warming faster than the Earth’s surface can be attributable to any cause of warming which is true as opposed to just AGW, but the fact that the troposphere isn’t warming faster proves that the water vapour feedback isn’t a problem regardless of what it’s cause is. Also, remember that only a combination of the stratosphere cooling & the troposphere warming is proof of AGW.

      The missing tropospheric hot spot is AGW’s achilles heel as the predicted warming is impossible without it. There is absolutely no way to prove the AGW hypothesis without it, & this is what the real debate in climate science is about – those who say it should be there & have programmed it into the climate models, & those who say that over 40yrs of observations have failed to find it. When scientists say there is no empirical evidence for AGW it is due to the lack of a hot spot which proves positive feedback from water vapour. Here’s some recent peer reviewed papers showing it’s still missing:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/

      If you’re interested in AGW I suggest you read up about it. When looking at claims that the hot spot has been found compare them to the rules above, they are always, repeat always full of half truths or dodgy measurement techniques or adjustments.

      http://joannenova.com.au/tag/hot-spot/

      • Jeremy Thomson

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
        A comment from jshore sums it up nicely.


        This whole thing reminds me of the “God of the Gaps” argument. Originally, the UAH analysis of the satellite data showed the troposphere to be cooling globally…in contradiction to the surface record…and this was a major “skeptic” talking point. Then, a longer record and corrections for problems in the analysis (like the neglect of orbital decay of the satellites) turned the global cooling trend into a global warming trend, but it wasn’t as strong as at the surface…and this was still a major “skeptic” talking point. Now that a still longer record and further corrections (along with a completely independent analysis of the satellite record by the RSS group) show that the trend found by satellites matches the trend found at the surface globally within error bars, the “skeptic” talking point has become the trend in the tropics. And, no doubt, when that is resolved, they will find something else to point to! No matter how little the “gaps” are, there is always room to say, “The evidence disproves AGW!”

      • Anonymous

        @ Jeremy Thomson: Funny how jshore doesn’t provide any links to back up his claims. Funny also how skepticalscience.conjob doesn’t mention the peer reviewed papers that debunk the ones on his website. Take a guess why.

  • Morgan
    • TCrwdb

      Using the same cherry picked, massaged data that undid CRU UEA… hide the decline much?

    • dragonfly

      And here’s a statistician explaining why the criticism of the WSJ article was crap:

      http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5138

  • STEVE AND MONIQUE

    And yet again we are led to believe something that the so called  more intelligent people would like us to.Cut there funding,and make them research the consistancy of bullshit.Cause thats what they have fed the world for last god knows how many years,and it was about time they knew exactly what it consists of.

  • Anonymous

    I think that the burden of proof lies with those who are trying to prove that climate change exists. In the face of the evidence provided by climate change disbelievers, I can’t see a compelling argument that proves the existence of climate change at all. Especially not an argument that compels me to drastically change my lifestyle and happily pay additional taxes to finance vague studies and contradicting arguments. 

    I read the link that CC posted and I was pretty disgusted by the way dissenters of climate change are treated and hounded by the ‘intellectual elite’ who appear to also see themselves as morally superior to everyone else. That kind of behaviour is probably more damaging to their cause than any scientific evidence. Will this turn into another ‘immunisations cause autism’ debacle? How many people jumped on that band wagon, and in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary, still believe it to be true?

  • ConwayCaptain

    When I was at sea we used to do Met Reports every 6 hrs GMT.  Whether these are still done by the poorly trained crews I know not. Done at 0000,0600,1200,1800 GMT.

    The readings had Posn, wind direction and speed, WEt and Dry Temps, Sea Water Temp, Cloud type, swell etc etc.

    These were then transmitted to the local shore station and forwarded to the national met service.

    Therefore there is a world wide set of info taken from positions well away from the local position effects ashore.  ie the Thermometers are in a depression in the land and thereforebwarmer than if up a hill for instance.

    These sea readings have been taken for many many years and from these it can be seen if there is any change in temp etc.

    I would be interested to see what the data is over many years as to the rise/fall in sea and air temps across the world.

  • Jeremy Thomson

    I’ll fill out that Trenbeth quote-mine a little.
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in theAugust BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    So what is the CERES data?
    http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ 
    They are a part of NASA that deals (in part) with calculating the Earth’s heat imbalance. How much radiation comes in, how much is radiated out from the Earth. Their measurements suggested that the earth should have been warming more than had been observed.
    That’s Trenbeth’s travesty, not that the planet hasn’t been warming, but that the planet hasn’t been warming enough. This is covered in Trenbeths paper published shortly before the notorious email.
    An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy (Trenberth 2009)
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
    Since Trenbeths email and paper there have been deeper Argo buoys deployed, now to 2000m whereas at that time the maximum depth was 700m. 

    This Earth energy budget problem has now been resolved.
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/missing-energy.html 

    As for Viner’s unfortunate comment.
    He obviously didn’t factor in warmer artic seas interacting with the air because there was less ice to prevent it from doing so. This changes air circulation patterns in winter.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201105126.htm 
    I guess that’s why they call it Climate CHANGE.

    • Bob

      The term ‘Climate CHANGE’ in itself is a reason to be sceptical.

      Firstly it was ‘Greenhouse Effect’, this didn’t stand up, so they changed it to ‘Global Warming’, then the earth stopped warming (since 1997) so they changed it to ‘Climate Change’ which pretty much means anything you like, and this is still being strongly (and rightly) debated as having bugger all to do with human influence, so what will be the catch phrase in the next few years as the sun’s activity slows?

      • Jeremy Thomson

        Climate Change is obviously an effect of Global Warming like pyroclastic flows are an effect of volcanic eruption.
        When pyroclastic flows devastated Monserrat were you skeptical of the eruption?

      • Anonymous

        @ Jeremy Thompson: All you need to do now is prove that global warming is an effect of anthropogenic emissions (tropospheric hot spot). Regarding pyroclastic flows – do you know what a straw-man argument is?

  • I’m past angry.  In Victoria, the blithering left so besotted with the warmist agenda we are lumped with a $28 billin desal plant.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah those tree huggers have a lot to answer for in Victoria. They were the ones that opposed the controlled burn offs that would have dampened or prevented parts of those horrific bush fires.

  • http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/desal-issues-still-gushing/story-fn6bn88w-1226258803926
    This balls up was the pet project of former state Labor premier John Brumby and Water Minister Tim Holding.  The plant is being managed I think by key contractor thiess degremont.  We pay even if it never gets turned on.
    This project got off the ground because of a prolonged drought.  The Left got swept up in Tim Flannery’s predictions that the East coast of OZ would never see soaking rains again.  
    Brumby an Holding should be in jail for the treasonous act of locking Victorians into decades of high water prices to pay for a plant they did not want and reality were never going to need.  
    Yes the drought was bad, but only the most hardcore warmist could think that it was caused by us and would last an eternity.
    The main issue particularly with Melbourne is that no new water storage has been built since Thompson back in the 80’s and yet the population has exploded.  Despite all this due to last summers rains and a wet winter Melbournes storage, which was at 30 odd percent two summers ago is holding at 65% half way through summer.

  • Alan

    Looks like the BS “scientists” have lost the plot a bit over the last couple of years.
    The first scare was “Global Warming”, and when that was proven to be crap they changed to “Climate Change”.  The big news for the 21 century is that the climate is constantly changing, and has been since the earth first formed.  The real issue is MAN MADE climate change, and there is still no proof that we as a race are responsible for any warming or cooling of the planet.  All it proves is that the so called Scientists still do not properly understand how the earth works, and what does (or does not) affect all the layers of the atmosphere.  Anyone realise the ozone hole has been getting smaller the last few years?  Or that sea levels are not in fact rising?
    Or the fact that the oceans in fact control 98% of the atmosphere.
    If the CO2 scare was real, then the “scientists” would surely by working towards CO2 reduction, and not be content to simply “tax” the wealthy countries based on their CO2 production, and pay those countries not producing CO2.  Coincidently, the CO2 producers are the rich countries of the world – (USA, China, India, Europe, Japan etc), and those not producing CO2 are the world’s poor. (Sudan, Afghanistan, and half of Africa).  This is simply wealth redistribution by lefties, and has absolutely nothing to do with “saving the planet”.

  • Pingback: “What, me worry?” – distorting climate change data | Open Parachute()

32%