58 4 mins 15 yrs

al-Goracle, line one, please.

Global Con-sensus

December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST

Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor’s Business Daily delivered by Newstex) —

Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.

In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore’s assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.

Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.

Among the IPCC’s warming “deniers” is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute.

I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit,” he said. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: “Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling — all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output.”

Brosnahan says he has “not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.” Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn’t even predict the past.

Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), though she didn’t name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.

This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.

Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore’s warming theories, but the U.N. “censored” them.

By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its “failure to act” on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe’s output continued to grow. So who’s failing to act?

Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe’s 400 scientists and any one of Gore’s choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

Via CNN

truth-gore.jpg
Also at JWF

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

58 thoughts on ““Most of the models couldn’t predict the past”

  1. Here’s another idea. Why don’t these "400 reputable scientists" publish their alternative report? This would give a detailed explanation of the recent warming trend which entirely excludes man-made influences and would tell us what we would really like to hear: carry on with a carbon-based economy.

    Surely Exxon has the money to fund this? Or has it too been cowed by the "statists" like Gore, who really is the pantomime villain for rightworld. I can imagine the bed-time stories to children: "You must be good or the Goracle will get you!"

    LOL!

  2. Peter,

    Much better idea. Why don’t you give us an outline of the forecasting record of models which only include man made influences on global temperature? Look at it this way; its your case to make, not ours to reconstruct. You’re a believer: we’re sceptics (not convinced).

    You seem to think we can play the climate like a well tuned instrument; we non-believers thinks its more like a fruit machine. We’re not putting money on it. Convince us.

  3. >>You seem to think we can play the climate like a well tuned instrument<<

    He never said or suggested that, Sam.

    Do you think man (let’s say specifically his use of fossil fuels) has any effect on the climate at all or none?

  4. You seem to think we can play the climate like a well tuned instrument;

    No I don’t, and nor does the IPCC.

    The point is that if we continue to belch greenhouse gases we face a rapidly warming world and the possibility of tipping points which could lead to dramatic climate shifts.

    One obvious possibility is the loss of the Gulf Stream. This has shut down several times in the past, sometimes in the space of a few years. Its loss could cause a mini ice age in Northern Europe.

    Another possibility is the failure of the Aian monsoon, triggered by a semi-permant El Nino. That would cause famine affecting up to two billion people.

    The denialists are saying that these are either non-existent risks, or else risks worth running, in the name of a continued reliance on carbon-based fuels. This is despite the fact that non-carbon sources of energy already exist.

  5. Noel,

    Its the essence of the warmers’ case! The argument is that carbon dioxide is the the most important – if not the sole – agent climate of change; and that global temperature will respond to reductions in CO2 output in a predictable way.

    If there is a case to be made that other variables may affect climate change, we’re not hearing it. So the single variable model has to work. Where are the predictions made at Kyoto time, and how do they stand up? We need to know.

  6. Peter,

    You can go on listing doom laden "possibilities" without limit. What matters is what is probable. Thats why modelling, forecasting, and testing, need to come first. You’re asking us to bet a fair percentage of global gdp for the next few decades on an untested hypothesis. Not good enough.

  7. Sam, you didn’t answer my question.

    >>If there is a case to be made that other variables may affect climate change, we’re not hearing it.<<

    That’s not really true; I don’t think there is any serious proponent of the AGW theory who claims that no other factors also affect GW.

  8. Noel,

    "Sam, you didn’t answer my question."

    An old trick. We sceptics don’t need to answer questions. Warmers are setting the agenda (I guess I’m marking you up as a proponent – if not tell me!). Your selling us the argument, so make it good!

  9. Peter,

    The linked piece is two years old, and comes from climate panic central (Guardian). The story did the rounds for a while, but got sat on by other evidence. I’ll try and find an update on that.

  10. Sam

    Please do. The latest I read was that the gulf stream ebbs and flows locally, but the overall trend seems to be a weakening. And we know that it has shut down rapidly in the past.

    And El Nino is definitely more frequent and stronger than in past centuries.

  11. >>We sceptics don’t need to answer questions. <<

    Come on now, all I asked for was your opinion.

    Afraid to give it?

  12. Sam,

    "we’re sceptics (not convinced)."

    Well, I’m not convinced that any of you are sceptics. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

  13. Frank

    "Well, I’m not convinced that any of you are sceptics. Do you have any evidence for that claim?"

    What would constitute evidence of scepticism, that didn’t involve restatement of non-acceptance – that would be completely circular!

  14. Sam,

    "What would constitute evidence of scepticism"

    A few posts from you refuting some of the denialist horseshit linked from the main post would be a start.

  15. Sam

    It’s just Frank being Frank. He loves nothing better than turning people’s hypotheses back at them, and he’s the best at it.

  16. Interesting link Sam:

    "After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February it was very unlikely that the crucial flow of warm water to Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say that the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet along with increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken the North Atlantic Current by 25 percent through 2100. But the panel added that any cooling effect in Europe would be overwhelmed by a general warming of the atmosphere, a warming that the panel said was under way as a result of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

    The bottom line is that the atmosphere is warming up so much that a slowdown of the North Atlantic Current will never be able to cool Europe, said Helge Drange, a professor at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway."

    It’s interesting how the AGW denialists are happy to cherry-pick the IPCC forecasts. Of course, what they will never entertain for a second is that the IPCC forecasts may be wrong – too conservative, not too "alarmist".

  17. Frank,

    "This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

    That’s how the report containing the "denialist horseshit" kicks off. Good start I’d say.

  18. Torq1 and Torq2 building their bonfires ready to burn the "deniers" convert ye to AGW and pay your tribute(carbon tax) or die ye sinners

  19. Troll

    You know that’s a bunch of crap.

    The USA may well elect Mitt Romney as president next November. Romney’s a mormon and they have some seriously weird beliefs. Or it may ellect Mike Huckabee, a fundamentalist christian. They have some weird beliefs, and they hate the mormons. But they share a belief in "the last days" when Armageddon will arrive in the form of a world nuclear war.

    But that doesn’t worry rightworld, because many in rightworld look forward to nuclear war. Instead, they are concerned that Barak Obama went to a (secular) madrassa in Malaysia when he was five years old. Obviously that makes him an Al-Quaeda stooge at worst, or a fellow-traveller at best.

    Welcome to rightworld, folks.

  20. Peter

    Good point about aome on the Right’s ridiculous paranoia about Obama’s possible tenuosu Islamic connection, but I don’t really think any of the presidential candidates are crazy Armageddonists. In fact I think the vast majority of those fundamentalists who claim to believe in that sort of thing deep down privately don’t.

  21. Colm

    Al Quaeda say they want to re-create the caliphate and everything they have done is consistent with that stated intention.

    Rightworld wants to eliminate any possible threat to the USA, and has made it clear thet pre-emptive nuclear strikes are very much a part of that. Most of rightworld is fundamentalist-christain. So I believe them, just as I believe Al Quaeda when they say they are content to see world war.

  22. Peter

    You can’t compare Al Queda with American Christian fundamentalism. AQ are just murderous nihilists who enjoy slaughter for it’s own sake. The business about creating a new Caliphate is an excuse for their desire to kill. History is full of huge amounts of mundless slaughters commited by men from many many different cultures and backgrounds. American Christian fundamentalists may well be pious self righteos hypocrites but they aren’t mass killers.

  23. Colm

    I suggest you read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. It traces the history of Al Quaeda and it is very clear that they mean what they say – they are not carrying out mass murder in the name of nihilism, but in the name of the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon his name.

    What amuses me about rightworld is that they are in many ways a mirror-image. They lust after nuclear war in order to make a world fit for Pat Robertson and Dick Cheney.

  24. Global warming stopped

    http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

    I like the new theory espoused by Peter on the gulf stream. It goes something like this:
    melting ice from the polar ice cap simply ‘stops’ the gulf stream – amazing! How?
    In reality, if the basis of the theory is that of differentials of water density etc, then the melting water from the ice caps would psuh the stream south which, in turn, would cause cooling at the poles which, in turn, would reduce the melting of the ice caps which, in turn, would induce the gulf stream back to its previous route. Peter, its called ‘stability’ and is taught as part of the field within engineering known as ‘control’. It relates to systems and how they respond to varying inputs etc. I would say that the earth’s temperature control systems are quite sophisticated with powerful inherent damping and corrective mechanisms.

  25. Allan – i agree. If you go back and read what Peter wrote (see below), it’s typical AGW alarmism with a total disregard for basic cause and effect. He points out that the gulf stream has changed in the past – but infers that if it changes in the future it will soley be down to mankind’s influence 🙂

    "The point is that if we continue to belch greenhouse gases we face a rapidly warming world and the possibility of tipping points which could lead to dramatic climate shifts.

    One obvious possibility is the loss of the Gulf Stream. This has shut down several times in the past, sometimes in the space of a few years. Its loss could cause a mini ice age in Northern Europe."

  26. >>You can’t compare Al Queda with American Christian fundamentalism. AQ are just murderous nihilists <<

    Colm, which has killed more people in the last 10 years – AQ or a doctrine fuelled by American Christian fundamentalism?
    It’s dead bodies that count.

  27. Noel,

    If you put it that way it does seem that the peoples of the world have more to fear from the Christians than the Muslims.

  28. can someone tell me what caused the instant freeze of the wooly mamouths that the uncovered a couple of years ago?

    They were frozen so quickly that they were preserved perfectly right down to the undigested food in their stomachs.

    If the climate over 200thousand years ago flipped fast enough to freeze them where they stood who caused it then the Atlantians?

    I didn’t realize there spaceships were powered by gasolene

  29. Allan and Eric

    What about positive feedback loops? Two obvious ones for you to think about:

    1. The loss of albedo as arctic ice melts, leading to more heat absorbed from the sun, leading to accelerated melting, leading to accelerated warming…

    2. The escape of methane gas as the arctic tundra in Alaska and Siberia melts, leading to more greenhouse gases escaping into the atmosphere, leading to accelerated warming, leading to accelerated tundra melting…

    More "alarmism" I suppose.

  30. Troll

    Those wolly mammoths died, then their carcasses were frozen.

    Anyway, past climate shifts had different causes to present ones. One change in the past was caused by North and South America coming together and changing the ocean currents. That caused an Ice age in Europe. Another ice age was caused by a huge eruption of fresh water into the North Atlantic from a melting glacier, which caused the gulf stream to shut down rapidly.

  31. Sigh. I generally take on the ravings of the far right on this site, but comparing American Christian fundamentals to AQ is nonsense.

  32. "… One obvious possibility is the loss of the Gulf Stream. This has shut down several times in the past, sometimes in the space of a few years. It’s loss could cause a mini ice age in Northern Europe."

    Peter and like-minded genii: Who was it that caused the Gulf Stream to "shut down several times in the past"? Dick Cheney? Margaret Thatcher? Eric the Red? Henry VIII? Mary Queen of Scots?

    ROTFLMFAO

    COLM: "Good point about aome on the Right’s ridiculous paranoia about Obama’s possible tenuosu Islamic connection…."

    Damn! I didn’t know that Hillary Clinton, her minders and supporters were from the "Right"!

    I’ll bet that she didn’t know, either.

  33. Orlando,

    "Dawkins – what a fool."

    Yes, I’m a fool. I’m reviewing the body count, as Noel suggested. What are your own criteria?

  34. JAN,

    "Who was it that caused the Gulf Stream to "shut down several times in the past"? Dick Cheney? Margaret Thatcher? Eric the Red? Henry VIII? Mary Queen of Scots?"

    Golly and since people have died of natural causes since time immemorial all those murderers in prison must have been framed, too!

  35. Peter – by your comments I guess you aren’t aware that the Arctic is re-freezing at a record rate. You are aware that it melts in the summer and refreezes in the winter aren’t you? see: http://tinyurl.com/2839cb

    Do keep up!

  36. Peter said:

    "Allan and Eric
    What about positive feedback loops? Two obvious ones for you to think about:
    1. The loss of albedo as arctic ice melts, leading to more heat absorbed from the sun, leading to accelerated melting, leading to accelerated warming…
    2. The escape of methane gas as the arctic tundra in Alaska and Siberia melts, leading to more greenhouse gases escaping into the atmosphere, leading to accelerated warming, leading to accelerated tundra melting…
    More "alarmism" I suppose.
    Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 08:02PM | Registered CommenterPeter

    Troll
    Those wolly mammoths died, then their carcasses were frozen.
    Anyway, past climate shifts had different causes to present ones. One change in the past was caused by North and South America coming together and changing the ocean currents. That caused an Ice age in Europe. Another ice age was caused by a huge eruption of fresh water into the North Atlantic from a melting glacier, which caused the gulf stream to shut down rapidly."
    It’s extraordinary. Firstly it was Global warming, then it was Climate Change. The nomenclature changed so the protaginists could still accuse man of affecting the climate to an unbelieveable degree. Yet the examples of climate change to which Peter refers (see above) predates any possible influence of man’s activity. George Orwell called this sad trait "Doublethink". Perhaps belief in AGW is doubleplusgood?

  37. Eric

    You miss my point entirely. To spell it out: The climate has changed abruptly in the past for different reasons at different times. This time we are the cause.

  38. of course we are the cause, Peter. Perhaps, for our less enlightened readers, you could kindly explain what caused the past events and the cause/effect that may cause future events?

  39. Peter

    How do you know specifically that any climate change being caused now isn’t due to another geological reason as oppose to man made ?

  40. Peter said:

    "You miss my point entirely. To spell it out: The climate has changed abruptly in the past for different reasons at different times. This time we are the cause."

    Peter,

    I was really hoping you would not say that. Do you really believe that? Surely, if it has happened in the past – when we know that man cannot have caused it – this would suggest that man is not a cause? Please explain why you think thgis is not the case

  41. Colm and Eric

    (Sighs)

    We know that past causes of climate change are not causing the present one. The two examples I quoted are not repeating themselves. They were different from each other and this one is different from each of them.

    There is a parallel with mass extinction events. There have been several mass-extinctions in the past, again with different causes. At least one was caused by a meteorite impact, but the current mass-extinction is being caused by man who is over-harvesting the seas and destroying the habitats of thousands of plants and animals both on land and at sea and introducing species which then drive natives to extintion. In Britain we have the introduced grey squirrel driving the red squirrel to extinction.

    What’s so difficult to understand?

  42. Peter

    I’m only asking – no need for the sighs!

    I’m not one of the hardline anti AGW brigade. On the topic of man made global warming I am a complete agnostic – and if truth be told, it’s not a topic that really interests me very much.

  43. Colm

    Point taken.

    But it’s a topic that we’re going to hear a lot more about for the rest of our lives. Let’s hope we get it right.

  44. Colm is probably correct not to be interested in MMGW because there is unlikely to be MMGW. And the Maldives are still there – damn!

  45. Colm is probably correct not to be interested in MMGW because there is unlikely to be MMGW.

    LOL! You might as well say there’s no point in being interested in evolution.

    Oops! I forgot that most of the anti-AGW screamers are also rather keen on creationism intelligent design.

  46. Allan,

    "there is unlikely to be MMGW"

    You say that, but strangely none of the denialists are willing to take up any of the bets on offer.

    By the way Happy Christmas Allan. I am sure you were dreaming of a white one.

  47. I’ll take you up a bet on it Frank. We’ll arrange it through David Vance and I can forward to him a draft template for the legal aspects of our wager.

    Peter. I’m not particularly interested in evolution. I consider evolution to be absolutely proven beyond refute, unlike MMGW which you ask us to ‘believe’ in. I want proof and your insults just don’t provide the proof.

  48. Well, to no one in particular but to those still awake and online:

    Mrs D is abed and snoring her pretty head off. Too much of the grape, but why not! All the same she’s keeping me from my beauty sleep so I may as well pound the keyboard.

    I recall something I read a couple of years ago regarding Ice Ages. I forget where. In any event it went something like this:

    An Ice Age can start in a single summer. That’s right: a summer. Seems that in places like Alaska and Siberia, if a summer is unseasonably cool, the winter snow won’t melt. The resulting altered albedo will give rise to a feedback effect that can generate an Ice Age within a year! Scary or what?

    I’m recalling Peter’s post on Sunday when he wrote:

    "The loss of albedo as arctic ice melts, leading to more heat absorbed from the sun, leading to accelerated melting, leading to accelerated warming…"

    This followed hot on the heels of The Troll’s query as to why certain mammoths died so quickly. I’m connecting the dots here….

  49. Hold on now Dawkins and Peter. Are you now saying that global warming will cause global cooling?

Comments are closed.