Skip to comments.Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit...
Posted on 09/15/2013 11:38:14 AM PDT by matt04
A leaked copy of the worlds most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly assessments are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.
Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
UN out of US now!
Obama got the Global warming hype wrong too.
global warming is a hoax. the media and government have the democrat sheep believing in global warming
government doesn’t work and must be abolished except for military and border control.
for 30 years the government has been funding fake studies to create the global warming hoax. the media has been screeching global warming for 30 years. it’s all to destroy capitalism, destroy our freedom and our economy . in other words they created the global warming imaginary goblin to scare us into accepting socialism/statism
“We are a bunch of liars and we accept lies as evidence, so you can believe us....”
UN is nothing but a tool of the Left. Getting rid of the b-stards would be a major step toward eliminating Leftist influence around the World, and reestablishing sovereignty to our Nation.
How about we move them to some 3rd world dictatorship hellhole, like Detroit, Ugnada, Cuba, etc.?
Half of zero is still zero. Hah hah hah you phoney scientists you make me sick.
Ever since those emails were discovered a few years ago it was inevitable that this house of cards would fall. It certainly is taking a long time, however.
GlowBull Warming indeed is half of climate change. The other half is GoreBull Cooling.
The democrats are drumming this Global warming BS into our kids in government schools. many people even conservatives continue to send their kids to government schools
Half a bucket of bull shi* is still bull shi*.
“But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.”
Okay, I am certainly no climatologist but I DO have some small background in precision measurement. I steadfastly refuse to believe that anyone can measure the average annual temperature of the entire Earth with that degree of precision and judging from reports I have seen concerning the location of many temperature measurement stations and the way that certain ones are just thrown out I doubt that they can even come within plus or minus one whole degree per year, let alone .12 degree over an entire decade. At that rate it would take eighty plus years to increase one degree. That has to be signal noise, not measurement.
If anyone cares to educate me on this I am open but otherwise I call BS on the whole thing.
Al Gore made over a quarter billion dollar fortune on that hoax, getting his mitts in BS green companies and getting the government to invest money then dumping the stock then moving on to the next BS company while that one goes out of business, and incredibly the guy is not in jail. $300 MILLION that is how much he worth now! And in only 12 years! That’s how much Mick Jagger is worth in over 50 years with the Rolling stones, Al Gore made only in 12. And how many jobs has this Gore cost people? How much more money did me and you have to pay at the pump because of the BS regulations this SOB got passed?
Look at this, another one of his BS predictions proven wrong:
Agree that would be better than what exists, BUT getting rid of them altogether is essential as they will continue to do harm no matter where they are located.
Cease American taxpayer funding of that organization. THAT alone would be a major impedence to their operations.
[A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped. . .]
Al Gore used Hurricane Katrina and the IPCC report to become a consultant to the home insurance industry. Insurers used Gore’s junk science—in part—to help justify rate hikes.
This is a major reason for the heavy Leftist tilting in academia, and I imagine it may take decades to get most of "these ships" once again going in directions useful to the country and society.
That a person like Jim Hansen could have such a corrupted sway at NASA's GISS, where he for many years was able to peddle his extremist, fake-science AGW nonsense should have scared every rational US taxpayer out the wazoo. There have been little-to-no checks and balances. We were only lucky enough to get secret emails exposing the baddies as peer review was useless, being corrupted from start to finish (see linked article above).
With as large a financial and societal crash as we are likely to experience in the not-distant future, hopefully the uselessness of much of academia will become rightly exposed and its lifeblood of funding will dry up, forcing many in its hallowed halls to find more honest work, even if only selling apples on the street corner.
This is awesome! All my kooky liberal relatives have relied on this science to beat me over the head with the global warming crap for years. I am going to print this out and carry it around with me :-)
The "computers" got nothing wrong, the scientists put garbage data in and got garbage data out.
Know this: If they were able to get all of their strangling taxes and regulations in place, they'd be crowing success and victory over global warming and demanding even more taxes and regulations to finish the job.
It allot easier for them to blame a machine, that they programmed.
To inflate the scare over global warming, the media and the more media-savvy (and dishonest) scientists have only been reporting the Y end of the scale.
The bottom line is that there probably is some amount of anthropogenically caused climate change, but it's nowhere near as dire or catastrophic as you'd think from people who only report worst-case (and improbable) scenarios. Certainly not enough to turn our economy upside-down over.
And created garbage models that run on the computers. Anyone claiming they have included (let alone even know) all the variables involved in the global climate in any model is FOS.
Hard to read any article that commits that many errors in the first two small paragraphs, by deliberate distortion or omission. None of this is new. I did not read the rest of the article; I prefer to eat my meals once, not dozens of times as the scammers are inclined to expect.
(1) This periodic study is anything but scientific. Everyone with knowledge of rudimentary science knows that.Computer models are not science. Further by now everyone knows that the IPCC consists of two groups. The science group and the political group. The political group writes the final report. Dozens of world class true scientists have disgustedly quit the group, unfortunately quietly. The political IPCC chooses what to include and what to omit from the science.
(2) No computer climate model has yet existed that could predict the climate for any ten year period between 1900 and 2010, knowing and inputting the known climate of the previous ten years. In any other discipline, that would clearly be labeled a solid FAIL.
"Authoritative" is in the same category as Clinton's view of the word "is." It certainly is such to the scamsters who promote, massage and promote the unproven science in the final reports. No one else. True scientists, certainly don't.
(3) The "Ultimate Watchdog" is a self-assigned label by the very conspirators who have been proven frauds, unethical and not above "losing (or destroying)" data that was sent to them from worldwide monitoring sources, when the data didn't fit their preconceived conclusion.
I trust that "Ultimate Watchdog" group about as much as I trust Obama's IRS, State Department and NSA.
(4) The word "Experts" has totally lost any rational meaning, when hair dressers, actors, tattoo artists and gay activists are listed among signatories of global warming issues, as "experts."
For some sort of perspective, read and judge the puerile discussion at the following link.
Not without good reason, our friends on the left are keen to repeat President Eisenhowers warning not to let the Military Industrial Complex tail wag or defense policy dog. Oddly, they forget his warning of a Scientific Industrial Complex
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
"A Dec. 12, 2007 BBC article quoted Professor Maslowski and his team of climate researchers at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. explaining how they used a high-resolution regional [computer] model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data" to make their predictions."
It appears that Maslowski wasn't at all affected by the fact that his a high-resolution regional [computer] model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data" Was wildly and totally wrong.
Inadvertent tangible proof that the world's most powerful computer can't overcome dogmatic arrogant delusional stupidity.
GlowBull Globaloney Warming.
Their level of accuracy is another matter.
Global warming is a Globalist hoax. The Globalists put a lot of money and effort into the New World Order idea. They aren’t going to quit just because this idea was proven wrong.
My impression is that the average new college graduate knows far more about “climate change” than the US Constitution. It’s pretty much baked in to the pie now.
You should, on that last. I know a fair amount about thermometry and Thermodynamics, and the fundamental reality is that we have only had satellite temperature measurement to the point where we have anything like a decent world average temperature for a few handfuls of years. I still don’t trust the adjusted earth stations, and going back further, the tree ring nonsense is complete flights of fancy, when it comes to helping get global average temps to a tenth of a degree F.
GIGO——garbage in, garbage out (garbage into the computer)
There is no global warming period . the Earth is getting colder. look up solar cycle 24, and 25
funny the Sun does affect climate.C02 never could affect climate. these socialists created the global warming hoax to destroy capitalism , grow government and enslave us . and you think that there probably is some man made global warming ? you are brainwashed by the media
Global warming and cooling is bogus. Climate change? Well....the climate has been changing for 400 million years....there’s nothing new about this.
It’s all a gimmick. You buy into some story because you are that naive. You should ask questions...but people get fussy if you challenge their story. Kinda like the inner-Earth crowd of the 1880s, who ran into towns....selling bogus maps to folks for a dollar, and everyone was accepting of the inner-Earth.
I always thought the tree ring stuff was pure hogwash. I have cut a few trees in my life, having grown up on the farm and pulled my end of a five and a half foot long saw from the time I was about ten or so. I have a collection of four chain saws now. I have examined some tree rings while resting from all that exertion and I can understand that they give an indication of rainfall amounts in different years but I never understood how anyone could claim that they gave an accurate indication of temperature other than a connection between drought and high temperatures in summer. It hardly seems to be a basis for the precision they claim. They would be more credible if they just claimed psychic abilities rather than claiming to decipher all that from tree rings.
They’d be more credible if they claimed use of goat entrails.
The fact that CO2 and CH4 trap heat is not an invention of a "socialist" or "the media," it was first recognized by a 19th century British chemist named John Tyndall and has been supported by controlled studies since then, such as comparing oxygen 16/18 relative abundance (a good indicator of evaporation and therefore average temperature) in Antarctic ice cores to C02 levels. What was Tyndall's "socialist agenda" in making this discovery? It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with physics and chemistry.
People who make statements such as "CO2 cannot cause climate change" sound as ignorant as the extremists on the other side who say that our CO2 emissions will lead to doomsday, and they make convenient targets for Gore and his hysterics because they make global warming critics seem even more ignorant and irrational.
Those who want a truly objective and scientifically informed treatment that deflates the claims of both the-end-is-nigh crowd and those who deny basic chemistry and physics, take a look at Climate of Extremes by Michaels and Balling. Both are climatologists, Michaels is now employed by the libertarian Cato institute. In other words, they have far more credibility on this subject than a lot of the loud-mouths on both sides of the debate.
If your data is off by 1% after 1 computation your result is off by 1.5%. Now with a 1.5% error in the data the next computation is off by 2%, etc, etc, etc. You need really really need exceptionally good data to effectively use a computer model. Plus lots of logic to ensure the data does not go wacko on you. Systems as complex as climate are simply beyond are current ability to model with the desired accuracy. Just look at computer models path/intensity predictions for Topical Cyclones. They are all over the place and generally useless 3 or more days out. And climate prediction is a more difficult problem.
I like to remind people that we are in an Ice Age so a little warming might not be a bad thing. Not that I think we are warming now, in fact I think the exact opposite.
you believe that C02 affects climate. you believe these socialist tyrants in the media, gov, politicians and scientists.
C02 level doesn't affect climate. that's the most ridiculous thing ever.
get a clue
you are a brainwashed low info voter
what are you doing on this site?
the Earth is getting colder .
you and all your fellow democrats are jokes
Since you consider yourself such an expert, in a couple of paragraphs, explain how one may use oxygen isotopes to estimate past temperatures, assuming you even know what an isotope is, and present a rational critique of this methodology. Oh. That's right, you can't. The best you'll come up with is"Isotopes are just media brainwashed liberal Democrats!"
Sometimes I wonder if the dimmer posters on sites like this one are just liberal plants put here to make conservatives look bad.
Don't tell me this, tell it to the numbskull on this thread who insists that CO2 has nothing to do with climate. Perhaps Mr. Media can explain why Venus has surface temperatures that can melt lead if CO2 and CH4 don't influence climate.
I like to remind people that we are in an Ice Age so a little warming might not be a bad thing.
I find the case Michaels and Balling make convincing - that there is a small century plus warming trend, and that it's just as likely to be somewhat beneficial to parts of the world as harmful to others, and that the best data suggest that the effects are marginal.