Judith Curry

If the left-wing are worried about sovereignty, why aren’t they screaming about the Paris Climate Agreement?

Jane Kelsey and lefty world revisionists are worrying that the TPPA is a threat to sovereignty.

The Paris agreement puts the TPPA into the shade on that front. Of course, being a lefty ambition, climate change doesn’t count when assessing risk to sovereignty.

Perhaps the key statements in the abstract from Judith Curry are these:

There is little novelty to be found in the Paris Climate Agreement. Nevertheless, it may have serious implications for climate policy-making. It establishes an international framework for decentralized climate policy-making by states, which should aim to achieve an ambitious collective objective of limiting global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C or even 1.5 °C. The agreement does not set any mechanism, methodology or criteria, however, for assigning individual mitigation obligations to party states. Indeed, it does not impose any significant substantive obligations on the parties, and, from a legal, as opposed to political or moral, viewpoint, it seems to be virtually non-binding. This gap is destined to become the Paris Agreement’s Trojan horse, because, under the guise of direct democracy in a system of multi-level, non-hierarchical governance, it grants not only credibility but also de facto authority to climate activists, thus posing a threat to constitutional government and representative democracy.  Read more »

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?

It’s a big question – and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.


[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I’m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Wheels coming off the global warming trolley

For sometime now it has become increasingly obvious that none of the predictions of the climate change alarmists have come true.

The models are hopelessly flawed, the glaciers aren’t disappearing, neither is the sea ice at either pole.

Basically pretty much everything is being shown to be a lie.

Now the statistics are unravelling as Judith Curry points out in the Wall Street Journal. The numbers simply don’t add up.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.

Read more »

The political manipulation of climate change busted

A top US academic has revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own agenda. This will bring fresh scrutiny onto the IPCC and the undue alarmism for political purposes contained in their reports.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.

Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.

Prof Stavins, Harvard’s Professor of Business and Government, was one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of a key report published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this month.

His chapter of the 2,000-page original report concerned ways countries can co-operate to reduce carbon emissions.

IPCC reports are supposed to be scrupulously independent as they give scientific advice to governments around the world to help them shape energy policies – which in turn affect subsidies and domestic power bills.   

Prof Stavins said the government officials in Berlin fought to make big changes to the full report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. This is the condensed version usually cited by the world’s media and politicians. He said their goal was to protect their ‘negotiating stances’ at forthcoming talks over a new greenhouse gas reduction treaty.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’    Read more »

Top Ten Reasons for the “Pause” in global warming

via Watts Up With That

The latest theory for the “pause” in global warming is…wait for it…coincidence. I kid you not…now there are 10 supposed reason for the “pause”…here they are:

There is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt et al that comes in as #10 in the growing list of explanations for ‘the pause’. Now that we have a top ten list, let’s review:

  1. New study claims hi caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
  2. THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013. But the heat will come back when you least expect it.
  3. Chinese coal caused the ‘pause’, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study blamed Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. Global warming proponents essentially claimed that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming. Kaufmann et al 2011.
  4. The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon. Estrada 2013.
  5. Cowtan and Way’s (2013) underrepresented Arctic stations get adjustment to fiddle the numbers so that ‘pause’ never existed, but not so fast. It seems all isn’t quite as it seems. Dr. Judith Curry doesn’t think much of it either.    Read more »

Time to smother the IPCC

Judith Curry writes at the Financial Post that it is time to suffocate the IPCC.

The IPCC is in a state of permanent paradigm paralysis. It is the problem, not the solution.

The IPCC has given us a diagnosis of a planetary fever and a prescription for planet Earth. In this article, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.

The IPCC is as much a fraud as climate change is.

[W]ith the release of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, we find ourselves between the metaphorical rock and a hard place with regards to climate science and policy:

• as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability  Read more »

Apparently humans are definitely behind all this global warming we aren’t having

There hasn’t been any warming for 17 years, all the models and predictions have failed, the Arctic wasn’t ice-free in 2013 as predicted and yet the IPCC insists that humans are to blame for the all the warming we aren’t having.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it’s more certain than ever that humanity is warming the planet dangerously – despite the fact that a long-running flat period in global temperatures is well into its second decade.

The IPCC released a brief “Summary for Policy Makers” today (go here) a teaser for its hefty summary of the scientific evidence for climate change, which is to follow in a few weeks.

As leaks had suggested, the IPCC has increased its “confidence” that the noticeable warming experienced in the last part of the 20th Century was predominantly man made – but sidesteps explanations of why it went away. CO2 has continued to increase rapidly this century, topping 400ppm.

In fact, the Summary doesn’t mention “pause” or “hiatus” once. Skeptics argue that the IPCC’s increased confidence is hard to justify for two reasons: firstly the climate models failed to predict the long pause (and over-estimated warming by between 71 and 159 per cent, according to Bjorn Lomborg) and secondly the explanation of the pause lacks a solid empirical basis.

“Climate models have improved since the AR4,” the IPCC insists nonetheless, in its new WG1 Summary.  Read more »