Wednesday, April 10, 2013

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."


DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream. 
In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.
Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal. 
For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.
International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend. 
But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted. 
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years. 
"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says. 
Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions. 
The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says. 
"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

Global warming isn't "delusion". Sometimes the globe warms, sometimes it cools. Climate changes, continuously.

Man-made global warming isn't a delusion, either. It's a hoax. It is a willful misrepresentation of science, intended to increase funding and prestige for climate scientists, and to enact a socialist agenda that includes control over every aspect of life.

The hoax is unraveling at an impressive rate.

But honest people shouldn't assume that this is a decisive victory. Other hoaxes are in the pipeline. And don't count on the public learning anything from the AGW fiasco. Our semi-educated populace have the attention span of chiwawas. Much of the public will blink, and then wait for Brad Pitt to tell them what to be afraid of next.

Man-made global warming is merely the current science apocalypse, following the long grey line of eugenics, overpopulation hysteria, pesticide hysteria, etc.

The hysteria will continue, until the bastards get their way. 


  1. It's getting tedious, having to repeatedly explain that:

    1. AGW is based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gasses.

    2. AGW predicts that increasing greenhouse gasses will result in a global temperature higher than it would otherwise be, not that the global temperature will be increasing at a steady constant rate.

    I've got better things to do with my time than explaining the obvious to the ignorant.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM

      I've been thinking about starting a little business on the side, backfield. I thought you might like to get in on the ground floor.

      It happens I own some acreage that is completely wooded. I use it for a hunting property. Lots of deer, turkeys, etc.

      I get a fabulous property tax break for not developing the property, but I've been thinking I could make even more money selling carbon credits.

      Might I interest you, Sir, in $10k USD worth of carbon credits to save some trees from my 1980s vintage 2-cycle chain saw? That chainsaw is a real smoker and those trees are crying out for a savior. You can use those credits to offset your own existence, you carboniferous crank.

    2. Georgie,

      No thanks. I don't need carbon credits. I use 3 electricity per day, have a small solar panel which generates in Summer, 3 in Winter, have a small 1 litre car which does an average of 1,000 km a year, and use a bicycle and public transport. Don't use natural gas for heating (don't have heating at all, besides an extra layer of clothes in Winter).

      Don't you feel guilty accepting government money for doing nothing? Or are you like Major Major Major Major's father who feels that it is the government's duty to give money to those willing to put their hands out? Conservative charity is OK, but charity to the needy isn't?

    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      Oh, backfield... So wrong-o on so many levels.

      The government, according to the government (and why would I not believe them????), encourages my financial altruism. I did not make up the law, Progressives did. So, by definition, it's Progressive!

      And I give much to the needy, including my time at the local prison. I give as little as possible to the government, who obviously don't need it if they're investing in dodgy solar ventures.

      But you really are a good boy. What kind of bourgeoismobile do you drive? I drive a full size 4WD V-8 GMC truck. It's very fuel-efficient, considering.

      Sadly, I guess all those oak logs that could be sucking up CO2 will end up spewing CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere out of an open fireplace.

    4. I think Bachfiend is finally admitting, in his roundabout way, that the CRU at East Anglia is a complete fraud. That's why he's now claiming that they're irrelevant.

    5. hey bachfiend, are you that retired pathologist from perth who won the nobel prize for the ulcers? cuz you're giving me one.


    6. Bachfiend is just pissed because his side is losing this debate, in his country and in ours.

      The Torch

    7. Great. Invective. Opinion polls. This is where AGW denialism is sinking.

      I've never read the IPCC reports. They're largely political statements.

      And no, I'm not Robin Warren. I did work with him when he was studying Helicobacter pylori with Barry Marshall (I had an office down the corridor from both at various times). I started training in pathology at the time when Barry Marshall was trying to get the medical world interested in it, and when he showed me the slides, I scratched my head and wondered why no one else had noticed it before, it was so obvious.

      If you have any problems in understanding either (1) or (2), I'll explain them.

  2. Why is it that the more religious someone is, the more likely they are to deny global warming? I think it’s because they’ve been hoodwinked by moneyed interests after having been identified as a population most likely to believe thinks contrary to evidence, have a distain for science, fear change, and subject themselves to ideological purity tests that can be made to extend far beyond the religious realm. They are perfect tools.

    1. KW,
      I do not see a correlation in those two things at all.
      Most of the people at my parish are convinced on climate change.
      Ditto with most of my RCC, Jewish, and Muslim colleagues. They have been sold on the idea, and are only now beginning to see the 'means' by which the progressives seek to resolve the issue.
      But, if you're referring to the progressive (ie socialist) solutions being offered, I can give you an insight, KW.
      Treating people like livestock and suggesting the solution to our problems is LESS people is going to be generally rejected by most of those who follow the Abrahamic traditions. Our 'code' for these issues is one that provides for the expansion and growth of humanity, and not the kind of new age stuff you would find on a hilltop in Georgia.
      If it is anti-human, we (as a group) are generally against it, in principle at least.
      It's the whole higher authority thing. The one that gave rise to bodies of government, Magna Carta, the modern constitutional nations, and all that jazz. We do not see a King, President, or even scientists as the ULTIMATE moral authority. So, when these people tell us to give up our freedoms and suggest culling the human population (in flowery language) we react with disgust.
      Then there is the whole power/money grabbing aspect.
      I am sure you would admit the efforts to combat AGW are riddled with corruption, no? That also puts people (of all creeds) off, too.

    2. "I do not see a correlation in those two things at all."

      Then your a fool for not recognizing the fact that you see the correlation here on this blog week after week after week.


    3. Do you have any evidence that religious people reject global warming more than non-religious people?

      KW, the "science" of global warming was done behind closed doors and the "scientists" have refused to allow anyone other than handpicked outsiders to view their data. Secret science is not science. What they're asking us to do is to take their theory on faith. They claim they have boatloads of evidence, it's just not for public viewing. That's religion. If you want to go on believing that religion, that's fine. Just don't force it on me.


    4. KW, AGW is one of those ideological purity tests that you speak of, for your side.

      Nor do I accept that religious people are more likely to reject the bullshit theory than other people. AGW has been an article of faith for the religious Left for years, and you bet they want to legislate their morality. The religious right is getting in on it now too.

      There are churches in America that have eliminated every sin, one by one, except the sin of driving a gas guzzler. All of that not judging stuff goes out the window when it comes to climate sinners.

      The Torch

    5. liberals are constantly forcing their morality on other people. and here is yet another example!


    6. Don't tell me how to live my life, Bachfiend.


    7. Joey,

      I'm not telling you how to live your life, despite AGW being true, and needing action.

      I'm a great believer in market forces, and charging for the environmental damage products do, instead of regarding the planet, our planet, the only one we have (given the impossibility now, and probably forever, of shifting to another).

      If it can be determined that greenhouse gases cause $25 damage per tonne of carbon, then tax the products to reflect their production of them, and reduce other taxes so it's revenue neutral. You can still drive a Hummer, but you'll have to pay more for the petrol, using savings in other taxes.

      You'd be the one making the decisions, deciding your priorities. I've done it for myself, but I don't recommend my solutions for others. I'm not an evangelical.

  3. Apparently, the 'bastards' who are trying to control our lives includes the Catholic Church.

    I'd previously noted that the Catholic Church has reformed, no longer seeking to assess truth claims of science, but reserving the right to express an opinion on the moral consequences of the use or abuse of science.

    Pope Pius XII didn't condemn Newtonian gravity or nuclear physics, but he did condemn the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes (he was right).

    I have expressed optimism with the election of a Jesuit pope, since Jesuits traditionally are science friendly. And that perhaps Pope Francis might express an opinion stating that he accepts that AGW is occurring, in keeping with his environmental concerns, just to see Egnor's brain explode.

    The Catholic Church does have a published stand on AGW. It's occurring. Pope Benedikt XVI gave an address prior to the Durban conference in 2011, in which he prayed for global action to tackle global warming, which he noted would have a much greater effect on the poor in poor countries, with their lack of resources to adapt.

    Obviously, Pope Benedikt XVI must have been wanting to enrich himself with the billions in research funds - so as to have a more luxurious retirement. I don't think.

    1. If the Church doesn't seek to assess the truth of scientific claims, how then can it take a stand on the truth of AGW?

      Well, global warming is a religion, so I guess it's the pope's sphere.

      I see that you failed to engage any of Egnor's arguments, resorting instead to "The Pope believes is in!" Which isn't a scientific argument, and in any case, you don't care what the pope believes.


    2. the pope is a well known scientist, respected in academic circles. you can stop being disingenuous any time now.


    3. Joey and naidoo,

      The Catholic Church does take a great interest in science. Perhaps to make up for the debacle in the 17th century when senior clergy refused to look through Galileo's telescope, in case it destroyed its worldview.

      It has a Vatican observatory, largely run by ordained Jesuits/astronomers.

      It has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences, set up by Pope Pius XI, to advise the pope and to write position papers and run courses. It had, has some of the most eminent scientists in the world..

      They're the ones assisting the Vatican and the pope in establishing their position on global warming.

      Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's all a conspiracy by scientists, and they've fooled the Pope too.


      I didn't address Egnor's claims, because I've done it so many times, and at length, in the past, and he's ignored them, noting at best that he's not a climatologist and nor am I.

      I don't reject everything the Pope says. I listen to what he says before deciding. But I'd be amused to see what Egnor would write if Pope Francis issues a similar statement to the one Pope Benedikt XVI issued, since Egnor places such enormous faith in the popes.

      Deafening silence perhaps?

      What do you find difficult about global warming? The well understood and well known physical properties of greenhouse gases? Or the prediction that with increasing greenhouse gases, the global temperature will be higher than it would otherwise be?

      If you want, I'll explain it for the n-th time.

    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 5:56 PM

      backfield, you never did tell me what kind of bourgeoismobile you drive. It's not one of those 1 liter Yugos, is it?

    5. Georgie,

      It's 'bachfiend' remember? Give credit to my Lord and Master, PDQ Bach.

      W(hy)TF do you want to know which car I drive, or hardly drive? Are you so image driven, that you judge a person by the car he or she drives? Are you that juvenile, aspiring to a sportscar convertible?

      No, it's not a Yugo.

    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 6:47 PM

      Good heavens, backfield! Relax! I'm curious because there aren't that many 1 liter cars that have ever been manufactured and sold to the public. There was a Honda 600cc way back when, VW did a concept (but dumped it), and Ford says they're going to do one but haven't. The Yugo/Trabant 1.1 is about it.

      What kind of little gem are you burbling about in?

    7. The Mercedes Smart-for-2 (otherwise know as a motorised shopping trolley). I bought it because it's small and fits easily in my garage, and for emergency use, such as when my 14 year old rough collie fell ill on a public holiday 1 month ago and I had to rush him to an emergency vet.

      Previously, I had a Prius. Before that, a series of Corollas. I sold the Prius (for less than market value) to a brother (who's extremely pleased with the deal) because when I retired, I just wasn't doing enough distance, and I was making a statement. Japan had just recently increased their so-called 'scientific' whaling, and I didn't care to be seen driving a Japanese car.

      Anti-whaling is my one lifelong environmental concern. Mainly the ethics of how whales are killed, so it's not an environmental issue with me.

      Global warming is a recent concern for me. Ten years ago, I didn't accept it as true ('global warming? What global warming?). Partly because I had un-diagnosed hypothyroidism, in retrospect for years, one of the symptoms being cold intolerance and heat tolerance (I once went for a training run preparing for a marathon when the temperature was 37 degrees Celsius, about 99 degrees Fahrenheit, and didn't think it was hot at all).

      I became interested in climate science for the first time when I came across a museum display on the Milankovich cycles in a Canadian museum, and wondered what science I'd missed out on from between the inadequate science education in Australian schools of the '60s and 2003. So I started to read the science, not just the narrow field of human pathology needed in my career.

    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 7:21 PM

      I saw my first Smart car in Rome. It's perfect for Roman streets and lack of parking. And, as you know, there's room for a dog.

      Damn. The Yugo/Trabant: now that was a car with Socialist élan.

      Actually, I do suspect the planet is warming (I hope so), but I don't believe the hype about the positive feedback loop in the A-version of GW. I've built a computer simulations of highly complex systems, and, as John von Neumann said (via Fermi):

      With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

      Too many free parameters, mate. The trunk is wiggling.

    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 7:25 PM

      You know, I almost took a job offer from CSIRO back in the 80's. Damn near thing. But I was homesick after being in the UK too long.

    10. Georgie,

      So what's your disagreement about positive and negative feed backs on climate? They obviously exist. Just because we can't model them to your standard doesn't mean that they don't exist and don't have to be considered.

      The Earth is a very complex system. And the climate models can't even begin to take in the solar cycles, since we don't have a model of the Sun.

      If you don't like cold weather, come to Perth. It's been unusually warm for April this year, with temperatures of up to 36 degrees Celsius, rivalling the records we had beck in 1998, an El Niño year.

  4. There are a lot of reasons for the AGW fiasco and some are very funny. Just have a look at What sort of forecast does the Met Office Supercomputer make?

    1. What!? Oh, I see, not 'mregnor'. Good joke.

    2. bachfire, the joke is gone but you can always read the one at WUWT!

    3. joke is gone but you can always read the one at WUWT!

      As long as WUWT is around, there will always be jokes. That site is nothing but a joke.

    4. Says the guy with cognitive disabilities...

    5. Pépé,

      It's 'bachfiend' remember? Not being able to get the moniker right is a sign of cognitive disability, idiot.

      Did you notice that I put in the accents?

  5. Man-made global warming isn't a delusion, either. It's a hoax. It is a willful misrepresentation of science, intended to increase funding and prestige for climate scientists, and to enact a socialist agenda that includes control over every aspect of life.

    The usual lies about global warming by anti-science fundies. It's a hoax! It's a communist conspiracy! Jesus wouldn't allow it!

    It's pathetic.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 10, 2013 at 5:53 PM

      Wanna buy some secret, cherry-picked tree rings? They're much better than chicken guts.