Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

Evolutionary and Global Warming Theory: Predictable Responses with No Empirical Evidence

by Tim Ball, July 1, 2018 in WUWT


Most of the loudest and most vociferous responses to my last article were predictable. Several topics trigger immediate, irrational, and emotional responses. The mention, or at least the questioning, of Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory, is one of them. All I got was arm-waving and references, but not one piece of empirical evidence to prove the theory. This is the same response you get when you ask for empirical evidence to prove the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW).

There is another parallel between the two. Many call AGW a hoax, but it is not, partly because a hoax has a humorous component and there is nothing funny about the deception and its impact. A real and very effective scientific hoax involved the obsession with proving Darwin’s theory. It is called the Piltdown Man Hoax after the quarry in which the event occurred. As a traditional hoax, it was designed to prick pomposity, to underscore the weakness of unjustified and arrogant claims, to open eyes closed by obsession. The irony is the victim of the hoax, Charles Dawson, was determined to find the so-called ‘missing link. He sought the empirical fossil evidence that would provide the final link in the evolution of man from apes.

(…)

Vent contraire pour l’éolien terrestre

by Jean-Pierre Schaeken, 2 juliet 2018 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Le gouvernement belge a adopté le 16 juillet 2002 l’arrêté royal relatif à l’établissement des mécanismes visant à la promotion  de l’électricité produite à partir de sources d’énergie renouvelable. Ces dernières sont dominées, en Belgique par l’éolien et le photovoltaïque (l’éolien étant prédominant) c.à.d. des productions électriques intermittentes.

Ce reformatage  de la génération électrique a été décidé dans la précipitation sans analyser l’impact sur le système électrique, sur la compétitivité des entreprises et sur le pouvoir d’achat des ménages, la priorité étant la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES). Un tel manque flagrant de préparation est également patent dans la mise en place du tournant  énergétique allemand (Energie Wende), décision politique particulièrement désastreuse. (…)

Analysis of James Hansen’s 1988 Prediction of Global Temperatures for the Last 30 Years

by Clyde Spencer, June 30, 2018 in WUWT


There have been articles on WUWT recently, here and here, commemorating the 30 years since James Hansen gave Senate committee testimony about his view of the human influence on climate

(…)

Hansen dramatically emphasized that “The most recent two seasons (Dec.-Jan.-Feb and Mar.-Apr.-May, 1988) are the warmest in the entire record.” This is really a non sequitur. It would be notable if the last point(s) in a long upward-trending series were not the warmest in the series. And, indeed, the 27 seasons preceding the two 1988 record temperatures were all lower than the 1981 seasonal high! (See the next graph, below) Basically, Hansen got lucky again that he had a couple of warm seasons that allowed him to make such a statement to impress the uncritical Senators. Otherwise, he would have had to truncate his graph at 1981 to make a similar claim. He also added an extra season of data to his ‘30-year’ time-series, probably to accentuate the claim. Two seasons sounds more impressive than one season.

(…)

Friday Funny- Welcome to the Anthropocene Narcisscene

by Mark Sagoff, June 29, 2018 in WUWT


In view of the glacial pace of geologic events and the time it takes for things to turn into rock or become encased in it, you might think there would be no hurry to name a new geologic epoch, especially because the current one, the Holocene, started only about 11,500 years ago. You would be wrong. In 2002, Crutzen published an article in Nature magazine, “Geology of Mankind,” which called on geologists “to assign the term ‘Anthropocene’ to the present, in many ways human-dominated, geological epoch, supplementing the Holocene — the warm period of the past 10–12 millennia” and the beginning of which roughly coincided with the advent of human agriculture.The idea of the Anthropocene, which Earth system scientists initiated and advocated, landed like a meteor, setting off a stampede among academics. Nature followed with an editorial that urged that the Anthropocene be added to the geologic timescale. “The first step is to recognize,” Nature editorialized, “that we are in the driver’s seat.”

(…)

What Scientific ‘Consensus’? 254 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism By Kenneth Richard on 28. June 2018

by K. Richard, June 28, 2018 in NoTricksZone


In just the first 6 months of 2018,  254 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.

(…)

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

by P. Michaels and R. Maue, June 21, 2018  in WSJ


James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.

What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible.

Hallucinations in High Places (More on the 1988 Hansen Climate Hearing)

by Donna Laframboise, June 27, 2018 in BigPictureNews


SPOTLIGHT: The event in which Jim Hansen put climate change on the media map has triggered hallucinations in high places.

BIG PICTURE: I’ve previously discussed how Timothy Wirth, who chaired an historic US senate committee hearing in 1988, has given two accounts of what happened prior to its commencement.

During a 2007 television interview, he jovially described taking measures to circumvent the air conditioning in the meeting room. Global warming was being discussed, and those in attendance were sweltering. After being challenged by a Washington Post fact checker in 2015, however, Wirth caved. In a written statement, he said the pre-hearing measures didn’t happen. Those were just rumours he’d heard. (…)

What Really Happened 30 Years Ago?

by Donna Laframboise, 25 June 2018 in BigPictureNews


SPOTLIGHT: Competing accounts of an historic climate hearing.

BIG PICTURE: June 23rd, 1988 is considered the day the climate crusade hit the jackpot. Thirty years ago, a sea of television cameras recorded NASA’s James Hansen testifying before a US Senate committee.

The “greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,” he said. There was “99 percent confidence” that human-caused global warming was underway.

The person chairing the committee was Democratic Senator Timothy Wirth. Nine years later, when interviewed by PBS’s Frontline, he cheerfully revealed that the date of the hearing had been specially chosen.

History of the global warming scare 1980-2010

by Prof. Cha-am Jamal Munshi, June 16, 2018 in theRefFrame


LM: I found this itemized list rather impressive even though it’s in no way complete. Whether we live in Thailand or Europe, we have been exposed to a very large amount of fearmongering and failed predictions. The explosion of these news in 2005-2010 is easily seen in the lists below. After 2010, the growth arguably stopped or reversed so this contribution may be considered the work by a historian. There’s a clean mobile version of this page.

(…)

Can Universities Lawfully Bully Academics into Silence?

by Jennifer Marohasy, June 19, 2018


Dr Peter Ridd has taken James Cook University to court protesting his sacking for what he says is, primarily, speaking-out about the lack of quality assurance in Great Barrier Reef science.

Dr Ridd spoke out initially about there being no quality assurance of Great Barrier Reef science – science that is arguably misused to secure billions of dollars of tax-payer funding. When the University tried to stop Dr Ridd doing this, Dr Ridd spoke out against University management – making all the documentation public including on his new website.

(…)

The Failed Predictions Of James Hansen

by P. Homewood, June 22, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


“Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago…”

“Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.”

(…)

See also here

German National Daily ‘Die Welt’ On CO2 Reduction: “Why Has It Been 5 To Midnight 30 Years Long?”

by P. Gosselin, June 20, 2018 in NoTricksZone


Sustainable alarm, unending hoax. Commentary at Germany’s ‘Die Welt’: Why has the climate-last-chance alarm been blaring 30 years long now? And why has the planet today “suddenly” just been given yet another 20 years by experts?

Remember how in 2007 Al Gore warned we had only 10 more years to act?

Well, those 10 years have long since expired, and that deadline came and went without the planet changing much. Embarrassed, global warming alarmists quietly pushed the doomsday back once again. And this time it was for real.

This game has been going on for years now.

Today, business journalist Daniel Wetzel here in a commentary at German national daily Die Welt finally is wondering why it’s been “5 to midnight for 30 years now”!

(…)

See also here

Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem

by Ross McKitrick, June 20, 2018 in FinancialPost


One of the most important numbers in the world goes by the catchy title of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, or ECS. It is a measure of how much the climate responds to greenhouse gases. More formally, it is defined as the increase, in degrees Celsius, of average temperatures around the world, after doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and allowing the atmosphere and the oceans to adjust fully to the change. The reason it’s important is that it is the ultimate justification for governmental policies to fight climate change.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says ECS is likely between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, but it can’t be more precise than that. Which is too bad, because an enormous amount of public policy depends on its value. People who study the impacts of global warming have found that if ECS is low — say, less than two — then the impacts of global warming on the economy will be mostly small and, in many places, mildly beneficial.

(…)