Monday, September 16, 2013

"Global warming is crap"

... so says newly elected Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.  Ezra agrees, and explains why:



Judith Curry on the Nature Climate Change article by three Canadian climate researchers:
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years(Former UVic climate modeller and alarmist, Andrew Weaver, must be rolling over in his new Green Party MLA suit.)

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

One honest politician out of how many... surely none in Canada. Expect the media to attack this man at every opportunity as a heretic. In a political world of "progressive" marxists and western haters it's refreshing to hear at least one politician telling it like it is... hope it catches on, but being the cynic and realist that I am, I doubt it.

Pissedoff said...

It will never happen here, Harper the hypocrite is too kissey kissey with that other lefty lunatic down south, Bam Bam.

Anonymous said...

Kinda rich coming from a former tobacco-turned-big-oil lobbyist, talking about financial motivation for opinions.

There is many many times more money available to promote climate change skepticism.

Ask yourself who has more money, oil corporations and their associated interests, and massive PR budgets, or non-profit environmental organizations and scientists...

Then ask yourself who is more likely to resort to PR manipulation to forward an agenda: an industry who will be damaged by the public learning that the industry is bad for the public and pretty much everything else, or a heterogenous mix of scientists, environmental orgs, individuals, and governments with completely disparate sets of interests...

Alain said...

Anonymous, you are either totally dishonest or just plain stupid spouting such rubbish. You want to talk about corruption and big money, do a wee bit of reseasrch into the environmenalist big scam. Whereas you have zero evidence to support the standard radical smear of big tobacco-turned big oil lobbyist.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I don't think it's a smear, he's registered on the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada under both Rothman's (tobacco company) and Achieve Energy Services (Oil drilling company)

https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/advSrch

JR said...

Anonymous: "Kinda rich coming from a former tobacco-turned-big-oil lobbyist, talking about financial motivation for opinions."

Big deal! Energy and tobacco are legitimate enterprises that must deal with government on many issues. So they hire lobbyists. So what? Checking out your Lobbyist search, one of the first subjects of Ezra's lobbying for Rothman's was "Promotion of anti-smoking hotline". The horror!

"Ask yourself who has more money..."

Idiot "big-oil", like most large corporate enterprises, subsidizes more "climate change" and "sustainability" hype than anything else. "Big government", including whole university faculties, have dedicated themselves mostly to the climate alarmist agenda and have huge resources available to promote it. For skeptics, they're a big part of the problem.

By contrast, most skeptics of climate alarmism are marginalized with few resources. They do what they do on a mostly voluntary basis, unlike such wealthy climate shills as Gore and Suzuki, for example. Fortunately, reality and the truth (thanks to the hard work of honest skeptics) eventually trump high-priced bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Ross McKintrick in the NP...

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

Can anyone even begin to imagine the literally hundreds of billions worth of government (meaning, taxpayers') and corporate money blown out the world's collective butts over all this BS!!!

Money that could have been put to uses such as...oh, I don't know, pick one...doing something about actual pollution, solving poverty, finding cures for diseases, feeding people, housing people, or even, God forbid, generating real wealth for the masses to raise their standards of living?

What a pathetic farce!

Springer

JR said...

Springer,
That's an excellent article by McKitrick. Even in the face of its own published data confirming the failure of its previous predictions of doom the IPCC continues to be in denial. As McKitrick says: "The IPCC must take everybody for fools."

Pathetic, indeed.

Anonymous said...

" Energy and tobacco are legitimate enterprises that must deal with government on many issues. So they hire lobbyists."

Agree completely.


" So what?"

So, there's nothing wrong with lobbying, we're in agreement here. The issue is that lobbyists are paid to espouse and represent a particular opinion, to the public, and to government.

Ezra is railing against what he calls lobbyists that propagate the notion of anthropogenic climate change. He himself has been a lobbyist though, so his contention can't be against lobbyists in general.

" Checking out your Lobbyist search, one of the first subjects of Ezra's lobbying for Rothman's was "Promotion of anti-smoking hotline". The horror!"

Right, seems pretty inocuous. The point isn't what he was lobbying, just that he was/is(?) a lobbyist for interests such as oil and tobacco.



"Idiot "big-oil", like most large corporate enterprises, subsidizes more "climate change" and "sustainability" hype than anything else."

Well, they feed off the hype, that's for sure. They want to present an image of themselves that resonates with the public, so they spend money to do it.

Kind of like ethical oil.

"By contrast, most skeptics of climate alarmism are marginalized with few resources. They do what they do on a mostly voluntary basis, unlike such wealthy climate shills"

It's a matter of public record that big oil spends in the billions to fund climate change denialism. This isn't even controversial. It's not even denied by the industry. People that propagate it are marginalized because a lot of the science is bunk.

" Fortunately, reality and the truth (thanks to the hard work of honest skeptics) eventually trump high-priced bullshit."

Here we are in agreement.

Dan Pangburn said...

Average global temperature history since 1975 is like a hill. We went up the hill from 1975 to 2001 where the average global temperature trend reached a plateau (per the average of the five government agencies that publicly report average global temperature anomalies). The average global temperature trend since 2001 has been flat to slightly declining but is on the plateau at the top of the hill. Claiming that the hill is highest at its top is not very profound. The temperature trend has started to decline but the decline will be slow; about 0.1 K per decade for the planet, approximately twice that fast for land areas.

A licensed mechanical engineer (retired) who has been researching this issue (unfunded) for 6 years, and in the process discovered what actually caused global warming and why it ended, has four papers on the web that you may find of interest. They provide some eye-opening insight on the cause of change to average global temperature and why it has stopped warming. The papers are straight-forward calculations (not just theory) using readily available data up to May, 2013. (data through July made no significant difference)

The first one is 'Global warming made simple' at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low-altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

The second paper is 'Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight' at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that, using a single external forcing, calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers (the external forcing). A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

Change to the level of atmospheric CO2 has had no significant effect on average global temperature.

The time-integral of sunspot numbers since 1610 which is shown at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html corroborates the significance of this factor.

A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature. It also discusses future uncertainties.

The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC

Powell Lucas said...

The purveyors of the global warming scam did not overestimate the temperature increases over the last twenty years. They knew full well that their claims would not hold water so they fudged the data.

Anonymous said...

20 odd years ago I read how the IPCC report had been 'changed to more accurately reflect the summary'.
That was the first clue that the IPCC is not a science based organization.

JR said...

Anonymous(September 17,at 4:29:00 PM PDT)
"It's a matter of public record that big oil spends in the billions to fund climate change denialism. This isn't even controversial. It's not even denied by the industry. People that propagate it are marginalized because a lot of the science is bunk."

All pure nonsense, propaganda memes spouted repeatedly by CAGW true-believers and useful idiots in the media. Like the "97% consensus" fraud, none of it has any basis in fact.

"This isn't even controversial", yet CAGW alarmists feel the need to repeat it endlessly.