The abject failure of official global-warming predictions

January 13, 2016

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can’t get a single prediction about global warming right, and yet we’re supposed to take drastic, economically harmful action on their say so? Yeah, right.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Monckton of Brenchley

The IPCC published its First Assessment Report a quarter of a century ago, in 1990. The Second Assessment Report came out 20 years ago, the Third 15 years ago. Even 15 years is enough to test whether the models’ predictions have proven prophetic. In 2008, NOAA’s report on the State of the Global Climate, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, said: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

To the continuing embarrassment of the profiteers of doom, the least-squares linear-regression trends on Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 18 years 6 months, despite a continuing (and gently accelerating) increase…

View original post 1,336 more words

Applause for Russia Today

March 4, 2010

Their English-language show gives better coverage of the skeptics’ position regarding the flaws in IPCC studies on anthropogenic global warming than any of the major US networks, other than FOX:

(via Climategate)

I bought beachfront property in the Sierras for nothing

February 23, 2010

In the latest of a series of predictions that haven’t worked out and sloppy science exposed, it now turns out that President Obama won’t have to heal the planet after all… because the seas aren’t rising:

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

In other words, “We don’t know what went wrong, just that the previous work was total bollocks.”

RELATED: In the wake of Climategate revelations at the UAE’s Climatic Research Unit, the IPCC, and now NASA, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), is calling on the Department of Justice to open an investigation. While I think it would be far more warranted than their witch-hunt against Bush Administration lawyers and CIA interrogators, I somehow doubt the DOJ under President Obama and his Attorney General will jump on this.

ASIDE: Note that the link to the quoted story is to the UK’s Guardian newspaper, which leans hard to the Left. This is yet another example of how the European, Australian, and Indian press, even those favorable toward climate alarmism, are doing a far better job covering the growing scandals than the mainstream American press, which itself is maintaining a deafening silence. It’s nothing short of ethical corruption and journalistic malpractice.

(via Fausta)

UPDATE: According to Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent Socialist-Vermont), AGW skeptics are no better than Nazis. Is that the same as being a traitor to the planet? And do I get a cool uniform?

How do you say “Hide the decline” in Swedish?

February 15, 2010

Looks like we have another case of playing fast and loose with the data, this time in Scandinavia:

Climate skeptic blogger Frank Lansner at Hide the Decline (EU) has done an excellent job in bringing to our attention the analysis of Swedish scientist and skeptic, Dr. Wibjorn Karlen from Stockholm University, who has studied the Scandinavian temperature records between 1900 and 2000.

Dr. Karlén has debunked the fraud of the IPCC for falsifying the temperature of the Scandinavian region at the end of the 20th century to make them appear a staggerring 0.7 Degree Centigrade higher than actually existed.

In fact, the peak in temperatures for this cold northern European territory occurred not in recent years, but between 1930-50. After compiling data from all the available data sources in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden Karlén found that:

  • “The very significant temperature peak around 1930-40 has been reduced almost removed totally.”

Read the whole thing. This fraud is crumbling faster than a wet cookie.

RELATED: If the Earth is warming as the cultists claim, why is the Northern Hemisphere’s snow line moving south?

UPDATE: Roger Kimball can’t resist saying “I told you so.”

Is there anything the IPCC hasn’t lied about?

January 27, 2010

Ye gods. The whole edifice of their “settled science” is crumbling like a wet cookie. From James Delingpole:

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate

AGW theory is toast. So’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern Review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC. But if you think I’m cheered by this you’re very much mistaken. I’m trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I’m finished there won’t be anything left to say: the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls.

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

Hint: The geniuses of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed we were in danger of losing up to 40% of the Amazon rainforests to global warming. Trouble is, there’s no evidence to back their claims.

At this rate, only carbon-trading con artists and bawling emo-hippies will take this global-warming garbage seriously.

The glaciers are melting! The glaciers are melt… Eh, maybe not.

January 18, 2010

This is happening so often these days that it’s almost not news anymore: yet another dire prediction from the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been shown to be as false as an Obama campaign promise and will have to be withdrawn:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

Apparently no one bothered to check the original story, which hadn’t been replicated or peer-reviewed, yet it was put into the IPCC report as an established fact. On top of that, the “scientist” in charge of the glaciers section of that report has admitted that he’s not an expert in the field. One would think the IPCC would put a glaciologist in charge of a report dealing with glaciers, but, no. It was left to genuine experts in glaciers to reveal just how ludicrous the IPCC’s claims about the Himalayan glaciers were.

Given the revelations about the infamous hockey-stick graphs and the Climategate scandal, add to them this latest humiliation, and one has to wonder how anyone anymore takes seriously anything the alarmist crowd asserts. The IPCC reports are supposed to represent the best science in order to guide policy makers when they grapple with the (nonexistent) problem of global warming. At this rate, they might as well just consult their local paper’s astrology column.

(via Christy on Twitter)

LINKS: More at Watt’s Up With That?, Sister Toldjah, Hot Air, and Fausta.

UPDATE: Ah, here comes the fine stench of corruption. The head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, defended the claims about the Himalayan glaciers while heading an institute that was seeking funding based on those same claims. Read the whole post to get an idea of how disinterested these guys are. (Hint: not very.)

Saving the planet takes your breath away

December 1, 2009

Literally. The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has declared that regulating carbon emissions may not be enough to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. We must remove carbon from the air itself!

Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), proposed that new techniques should be applied to help to mop up atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have been pumped into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.”

Speaking days before the start of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Dr Pachauri, who collected the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore, said that such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency.

The Indian scientist, 69, also said that the target adopted by the 192 governments that are due to attend the conference, of restricting average global temperature rises to less than 2C (3.6F), may be insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming impacts such as a rise in sea levels of between 0.5m and 1.4m (1.6ft and 4.6ft) and enough to devastate many coastal cities around the world such as Shanghai, Calcutta and Dhaka. Instead, he said, a 1.5C rise was a safer target.

Dr Pachauri raised the prospect of so-called geo-engineering, whereby carbon dioxide is actively stripped from the atmosphere. A range of techniques have been proposed including seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space, sowing the oceans with iron ore to boost plankton growth and using carbon capture and storage technology to fix emissions from power stations.

Right. So to deal with a “crisis” that now has every indication of being created by green statists in government and their hysteria-pimp enablers at CRU and other institutes of “higher learning,” we not only have to cripple the most productive economies in the world that have created the highest standard of living humanity has ever seen, we must re-engineer the atmosphere itself!

They laughed me in Vienna, the fools!

So, who is this Pachauri guy, anyway, besides being the head of the IPCC and the man who would save us from carbon dioxide? Why, he’s also the Great and Powerful Oz trusted scientist who assures us there is no problem with research at CRU. None at all. Nothing to see here. Move along:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he told The Guardian.


“So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

(via The Jawa Report)

Transparent, eh? No possibility, says he? Oh, really?

Anyway, back to Dr. Lizardo’s Pachauri’s suggestions, perhaps he needs to review the literature on plants and the oceans as carbon sinks, since the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has hardly changed since 1850. If there is no excess of carbon in the atmosphere, then there is no need for great, big devices to scrub the atmosphere, or huge government programs to build them – or aging Indian scientists anxious to get their hands on research grants to design those devices, grants that would be funded by the taxes those governments would have to impose.

Lord, save me from the people who would save me.

(via Heliogenic Climate Change)

Climategate and the significance of the emails

November 28, 2009

PJTV‘s Allen Barton interviews Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the implications of what’s been found in the emails leaked from the UEA Climate Research Unit:

RELATED: The CEI is suing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies to force it to release its raw data regarding climate change. Like the CRU, NASA/GISS has refused to make its data available.

What are they afraid of?

Even the MSM cannot ignore it

November 22, 2009

You know a scandal may have legs when even the mainstream media, which has generally hewed to alarmist line regarding global warming, reports on the evidence of scientific fraud:

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

(Emphasis added)

The highlighted segment of the Post article reiterates the point I made yesterday: results had become more important to significant players in the “climate alarmist community” than truth, leading to a willingness to corrupt the scientific process by excluding contrary articles from scientific literature. Again, this revelation and the others contained in the leaked emails should call all pro-alarmist research into question. As the article points out, most politicians in the US have been unquestioning sheep about anthropogenic climate change. Maybe this time they’ll develop a healthy skepticism.

(hat tip: Hot Air)

Further reading: Fausta has several good links, while Power Line presents a case-study of how alarmists do science.