Posted by Tina
Global warming scientists that have perpetrated the world biggest hoax for several decades, in the “believe because you want it to be so” department, costing taxpayers across the globe a staggering amount of money that could have gone to better purpose are now admitting they grossly overstated the case. These are the men and women who claim to be the elites in the world of science. These are the men and women who castigate scientists who deign to question or dispute their findings, as well as those who are simply skeptical of their consensus science, as “science deniers”.
Incredible!
According to the Daily Mail the IPPC warming scientists will now admit, in a report to be released later this month, that their computer models were wrong and the findings exaggerated…consider:
IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
According to Professor Allen, director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, this will be the last IPPC report issued because the “cumbersome production process” misrepresents “how science works”.
With all due respect, I’d say these scientists misrepresent how science works. And the failure to adequately admit it simply signals a temporary retreat to be followed by a brand new song and dance routine in the future. Why? Because the good professor and his pals still believe:
…the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.
And all because of evil human activity!
Dr Benny Peiser, no doubt a climate science denier in good standing, described the inforamtion from the leaked report:
“…staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance…it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers…to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality”
Dr. Peisner represents the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.
We are in no sense ‘anti-environmental’. There is a wide range of important environmental issues, which call for an equally wide range of policy responses. Our concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that may evoke.
Cooler heads…let us hope they prevail!
Re Tina’s “in the believe because you want it to be so department”
On this issue Tina and I depart. This more properly falls into the “Believe us because we are scientists” department. Anthropogenic global warming proponents long ago left science. They not only left it, they took a giant crap all over it.
To whomever may read this — do my above assertions mean that I do not think human activity may have an affect on climate? Think again.
Tina, you have GOT to learn how to establish the reliability of your sources. David Rose has been caught lying about and misrepresenting the findings of scientific organizations countless times. The article you posted from him last week contained numerous factual errors; there has been no “pause.” He is always, always, always wrong. The Daily Mail is a tabloid. These are not difficult facts to verify.
It is ridiculously hypocritical for you to accuse the vast majority of climate scientists of belonging to the “believe because you want to” camp, when it is you who repeatedly refuses to dig any deeper when it comes to allegations you want to hear regarding global warming scientists. And it is galling that you would accuse them of abusing the scientific method when you don’t use the scientific method in arriving at your own conclusions, and have yet to show even a shred of critical thinking ability. You never fact check the claims you read from oil-funded tabloid hacks like David Rose, because they tell you what you want to hear. It is you whose ideas are all faith-based.
Pie we are in agreement. I have been pointing out that greenie zealot scientists abandoned the scientific method and went into show business instead for a long time. They have done science a great disservice and deserve to be exposed and humiliated. (Although I don’t think people with such egos are capable of being humbled)
Humans affect their surroundings. Happily we are capable of cleaning up the messes we inadvertently make in our progress. Scientific findings so far do not indicate a dangerous effect and absolutely do not indicate the alarming effects that mythologists like Al Gore have hawked to young minds for decades. If the so-called science behind his claims had been accurate we would already be under water…or frozen to death depending on the decade.
Weather happens and climate cycles.
Chris: “Tina, you have GOT to learn how to establish the reliability of your sources.”
I have asked you to stop ordering people around.
“It is ridiculously hypocritical for you to accuse the vast majority of climate scientists of belonging to the “believe because you want to” camp”
I didn’t.
As to the rest of your abusive idiocy…thank you for sharing.
Tina: “I have asked you to stop ordering people around.”
How was my statement an “order?” Do as you like. I can’t force you to open your mind, I can only point out the consequences your party will face if you choose to remain proudly ignorant.
“I didn’t.”
Uh, yes, you did. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is real. That is a fact. The articles you have posted recently that have attempted to prove otherwise were based on ridiculous lies, as I showed you at the time, and as you explicitly refused to acknowledge.
“As to the rest of your abusive idiocy…thank you for sharing.”
How were my comments “abusive?” I did not call you names, although I did accurately criticize your lack of critical thinking ability. That’s not abuse, that’s a valid critique given your repeated accusations against scientists when you yourself have admitted that you don’t read or understand scientific studies.
But I guess that right-wing persecution complex ain’t gonna feed itself…
Those of our readers who are actually interested in serious science and taking politics and high taxation out of the debated science might want to consider the following from publications that should be acceptable even to the hyper critical.
The Telegraph in the United Kingdom was also privy to the information reported in The Daily Mail and came to many of the same conclusions:
The Wall Street Journal features an article that addresses the public’s interest:
With apologies for the length of this copy and paste rebuttal, I also direct you to an article in Forbes that further exposes the hyped up claims and agenda driven politicians and warming zealots:
I recommend a full reading of all of these excellent articles for anyone who may be confused and seeking answers, OR ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN BULLIED by people who just can’t stand to see an opposing view published.
The point of all of this being…those phoneys that have hawked lies about global warming/climate change, are the ones who are now being “discredited” and deserve a swift kick for the billions of taxpayer money that has been wasted due to the LIES!
The people do indeed need to know the truth.
Hey, did you all see this? It says the Arctic ice cap grew by 60% just this year. Check out the satellite pictures. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, boy is it ever.
=======
And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year:
“- Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
– BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
– Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
Here is a fact; there has never been (and probably will never be) an experiment or study that PROVES a connection between increased CO2 and temperature increase. The left’s pushes the idea by claiming there is a consensus that there is a direct correlation. The claim that there is a consensus is debatable. But the fact remains, consensus science is not science. It is politics! There is nothing in the scientific method that has anything to do with a consensus. A consensus can only promote a theory not make a theory fact!
Anthony Watts reports that tomorrow, September 17th, is the day that we here from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) as they release a “major new report”:
These are prominent scientists (alarmists like to pretend they don’t exist). They have issued statements for release prior to the event in Chicago:
Thank you Anthony. I look forward to reading what these gentlemen and ladies have to say.
Tina, the David Rose article you cite in this post has now been exposed as a lie by many scientists, including one who claims he was misquoted in the article (as I have shown you, Rose has a history of misquoting scientists in order to pretend they agree with him).
Professor Myles Allen:
“I did not talk to David Rose about the content of the IPCC report.
I did not say this should be the last IPCC report, I said that in my view producing a massive volume once every six years has become counterproductive. […] For what it is worth, I would favour much shorter annual update reports, plus special reports on specific issues…
…Since I am quoted in this article, I think it is important to point out that the IPCC in 2007 said that the “warming trend over the last 50 years was 0.13 degrees C per decade.” Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951 — a full degree of warming between the 1950s and 2000s? So the headline should have been “Global warming is just 92% of what we said it was”, on an apples-for-apples comparison.
…
…I have asked him three times whether he understood when writing the article that the 0.2 degrees per decade figure in AR4 did not refer to the period since 1951, and he has declined to say.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/16/climate_change_more_nonsense_by_the_mail_on_sunday.html
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/latest.html#Rose2
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/scientists-take-the-mail-on-sunday-to-task-over-claim-that-warming-is-half-what-ipcc-expected/
Rose only got his conclusions by comparing a 15 year period to a 50 year period. When the correct comparison is made, it shows that the IPCC’s models were only off by a very small margin, not by “half” as Rose falsely states.
Tina, you show no interest in correctly reading and understanding scientific articles or studies. You routinely cite people who misrepresent and misquote the findings of others and when that’s pointed out to you, you just keep citing the same people. And then you have the nerve to criticize the majority of climate scientists of “abusing the scientific method,” a method which you do not even understand yourself?
Proud ignorance strikes again.
Chris,
Give us a study or an experiment that PROVES that there is a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature. Make sure it isn’t one that “suggests” a relationship.
Silence
More Common Sense, the concept of “proof” in science is a bit complicated, but basically you’re asking for a standard that the scientific community just doesn’t claim to offer. But the evidence that CO2 traps heat is fairly overwhelming and has long been accepted by most of the scientific community. These sites have links to many studies which indicate that a surplus of CO2 is the primary driver of global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html
Nice attempt Chris! No score!
Chris: “….the David Rose article you cite in this post has now been exposed as a lie by many scientists’…I did not say this should be the last IPCC report, I said that in my view producing a massive volume once every six years has become counterproductive.”
Big deal. Its understandable that discontinuance would be assumed after his statement which was quoted to include as follows:
You choose to think of this as a lie. I see it as a guy refusing to be responsible for his words. Isn’t the more important message that it misrepresents how science works? And there is an equal chance that the guy did imply he wasn’t going to do it anymore and is now back peddling.
“…you show no interest in correctly reading and understanding scientific articles or studies”
I have told you before, since I am unqualified to address this issue as an expert I simply post what others who are qualified have to say. You are free to rebutt what is in the article. You are free to write your own article. You are free to post other opinions as I do.
You do not have the authority to assign homework for me and frankly, you don’t impress me as someone who has done much reading on the subject. Most of the time all you do is claim what I have posted has been “discredited”, as if that meant something significant. From my perspective its a huge indication that you are not informed but indoctrinated; not interested in science but in the political bid for control.
James Delingpole of the Telegraph entertains as he informs of Australia’s common sense solution to out of control, oppressive greenie junk science influence in politics:
“G’day mate, would you like fries with that? G’day mate, would you like fries with that? G’day mate, would you like fries with that?”
Oh to be a fly on the wall at Tim Flannery’s waterside property as he practises in the mirror for a job more suited to his talents. This time last week he was Australia’s Climate Commissioner, on an A$180,000 a year salary which required him to work just three days a week. But incoming premier Tony Abbott’s night of the green knives has put paid to that. Flannery’s Mickey Mouse job has gone; so too has Australia’s Climate Commission, a multi-million dollar, allegedly “independent”, propaganda outlet set up by Julia Gillard to help give her climate alarmist policies – such as the hated carbon tax, which Abbott is also abolishing – a veneer of scientific credibility.
As Jo Nova notes, while it may be a good day for the Australian taxpayer, it is far too late now to recoup the billions which have already been wasted on the “expert” advice of Flannery and his alarmist chums David Karoly and Will Steffen.
The world is finally catching on the the horrendous ruse and deceit of the global warming political movement much of which is made up of English Literature grads…Chris you at least are not alone in your ignorant, fawning support of junk.