“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
The hysteria of Mann-style alarmism is going nowhere with the public, as one of the hysterics, Graeme Richardson, acknowledges here:
The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.
As my distinguished co-author on Climate Change: The Facts, Jo Nova, responds:
That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.
Not to mention President Obama and the US Coast Guard, and George Clooney and his crappy floppo movie. Given that everyone from Hollywood to Washington to the Royal Society to half the churches and every elementary school in the western world is on Graeme’s side of the argument, their inability to sway public opinion must be ranked one of the most spectacular failures of the age – a veritable upside-down hockey stick.
Why did the head of the Bureau of Meteorology give a Senate committee information that was – in my opinion – highly misleading?
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian:
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”
In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said…
If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%. Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.
Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report. Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979. That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model. So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target.’
See also :
- Maurice Newman knows more about climate models than the BOM’s Dr Rob Vertessy « JoNova
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- Obama Issues Global Warming Order As Climate Models Fail | Climatism
- 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths On Global Warming | Climatism
- The Worst Scientific Scandal Of Our Generation | Climatism
- World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought – and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Daily Mail Online
By Alan Caruba ~
“Woe to the land that’s governed by a child.” – Shakespeare, Richard III
I have been wrestling for some kind of explanation why the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would continue to talk about climate change and urge the global transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and bio-energy. I have concluded that he thinks everyone, not just Americans, are idiots.
We know he lies about everything, but these two topics are clearly near and dear to his heart.
My friend, Paul Driessen, (pictured) is a policy analyst for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank. Among the pundit class he’s ranked very high by his colleagues. Here’s what he has to say about climate change:
“Earth climate always has changed, is always changing, and always will change—but not from fossil-fuel use. Solar fluctuations, deep ocean circulation patterns, and…
View original post 693 more words
On Memorial Day eighty years ago, Texas received twenty-two inches of rain in less than three hours – the world record. CO2 was 304 PPM at the time.
Climate experts tell us that much less intense rainfalls this year in Texas are caused by 400 PPM CO2. Because they are clowns, not scientists.
“A skeptic might say, “The models don’t match the actual measured results.” What the warmist hears is how stupid deniers are because that’s what John Stewart told him he should think. If the warmist doesn’t prove that he thinks skeptics are stupid then he might be confused for a denier! And no one wants to be identified with being a denier because they’re mocked…”
Good read below and Spot on …
Social science provides a lot of useful insight as to why logic and data rarely convince warmists.
Guest essay by Matt Manos
Many of the posters and readers at WUWT have expressed frustration at convincing warmists. Using facts and logic seem to fall on deaf ears. There are some interesting social sciences theories on why warmist are unresponsive. I know the social sciences aren’t a favored science with this group but if you’ll bear with me, you’ll hopefully see how social science can be useful in describing why warmists are unreachable. And possibly, what to do about it.
In their latest speeches on global warming, Obama and the Pope weren’t trying to convince skeptics that CAGW is real. Instead, they were sending signals to their supporters on what “all right thinking people” should be saying. This is classic in-group/out-group communication. Obama and the Pope…
View original post 670 more words
In 1976, the New York Times reported that the Northern Hemisphere had cooled nearly as much since 1945 as it rose in the first part of the century.
The National Academy Of Sciences reported this cooling.
But it didn’t fit the global warming agenda, so NASA has since made almost all of that cooling disappear.
NASA temperature data is propaganda, not science. Skeptics who pretend that NASA temperature data is legitimate, are enabling this scam.
Evil coal or Fukushima stuff powers the electric car anyway ….
I drove my 1998 SUV from Baltimore to Fort Collins in less than 36 hours door to door. The vehicle cost me $2,000 on Craigslist three years ago, and I spent about $200 on gas travelling cross country..
If I had a $30,000-$60,000 electric car, the trip would have taken between a week and a month, I would have spent thousands of dollars on motels, and I would have saved a few bucks in fuel costs.
The government tells us that electric cars are a great idea.
So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”
Sea level at Norfolk was rising faster prior to 1950, than it has been since 1950. It has nothing to do with “climate change” – the land is subsiding. There is nothing anyone can do to stop land subsidence, but his energy policies are an actual threat to national security.