The morality of global warming is all on our side

You really have to wonder why the information found in this diagram is not pure plain common knowledge.

global temperature sept 2013

The harm that the IPCC does to the poor and destitute, in the first world and in the third, is one of the great scandals of our times. The probability that global warming is a problem is near zero as is the probability that temperature change is being driven in anything other than a trivial way by human activity.

But the harm these people do, the IPCC and its enablers, is almost beyond calculation. It is one of the great moral issues of our time but the morality is exactly the other way round from how they like to portray it. The purveyors of global warming have a lot to answer for but they could not care less, wrapped up in their smug indifference to the harm they cause.

UPDATE: I have put the second graph up and removed the one I had originally posted because I have been asked for the source of the original one which I cannot recall. The new one is from The Global Warming Policy Foundation run by Sir Nigel Lawson.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to The morality of global warming is all on our side

  1. C.L.

    We do need to seriously discuss future trials of warmening hoax-masters.

  2. Up The Workers!

    Our apocalyptic catastrophic religion has a model dogma.

    The ‘scientific experts’ (not one of whom holds any qualifications in this field) employed by our religious leaders, are all in “peer reviewed consensus” about the infallibility of the holy model dogma.

    Reality fails to conform to our model dogma.

    Therefore, reality is wrong. The ‘science’ is settled, so say our religious scientists.

    You will need to pay billions in order to have reality rectified so that it conforms to our model.

    Here endeth the lesson from the Brown Movement.

    (P.S. – C.S.I.R.O. = Crap Science Inspired by Religious Organizations).

  3. Max

    Al Gore should be burnt at the stake.

    any Idea how many lives and how much wasted money this has taken?

  4. Fred Furkenburger

    Yes C.L. it would be quite a sight to see the likes of Clive Hamilton (he of the “we should consider the suspension of democracy” fame) being charged for crimes against humanity. I’d even go along with my popcorn to the event rather than watch it second hand on television.

  5. Leo G

    You really have to wonder why the information found in this diagram is not pure plain common knowledge.

    The chart certainly undermines confidence in the IPCC claim of 90% to 95% certainty about the source and pace of global warming.
    I would like to see an updated chart that uses as the starting point the intersection of an appropriate centred moving average trend line intersect with the actual measured data.

  6. Armadillo

    I confess to know very little about climate change science. The left keeps urging me to “trust the experts” – they have reviewed all of the data and they alone are best placed to make a judgement on this very complex area. Fair enough. But I have been pondering where I have seen something very similar? When I purchased today’s Daily Telegraph, it suddenly dawned on me. It was sitting right there in the middle of the paper, staring me in the face.

    I love to have a punt. Every week, there are about 5 professional tipsters willing to predict what is going to happen. They are paid full time to do it. They have all the relevant information at their finger tips. The breeding, the jockey, the trainer, the track conditions, the horse, it’s last run and even down to the break-up of what times the horse ran over a particular section of it’s last race (right down to a tenth of a second). The facts are indisputable. It’s all there in black and white.

    These professional tipsters spend their entire week reviewing the data. They watch every race in minute detail, re-playing them over and over. They observe the evidence. They even load all the known information into complex computer models to assist in their analysis. These people are experts in their field. They know much more about horse racing than I ever will. They should be trusted.

    Sometimes these guys disagree on their conclusions. Other times, they are in total agreement. Geez, if they are all saying that a certain horse is going to win based on the evidence, I can be 97% sure that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Surely? However, there are also “known unknowns” – other information and factors that they are unaware of or don’t completely understand (such as who’s putting money in who’s hands).

    Tomorrow, I shall do as I always do. I will look at todays tips and compare them to the actual results. As always, I’m likely to be disappointed and poorer for the experience. With all the available data, how could these experts get it so wrong? What will they tell their boss on Monday morning? What excuse will they offer? Never fear, they will be back in my newspaper next Saturday morning, offering the same expert analysis and still getting paid.

    I wonder. What would be more difficult to predict if you had all the information in front of you? If you had the facts? If you had all the tools? If you knew there were “known unknowns”? Would it be predicting the outcome of a simple horse race? Or would it be predicting the climate of an entire planet?

    I’m probably going to have a few bets today based on what the experts tell me. But don’t panic, I’m not going to ask everyone else to throw in a couple of hundred billion dollars just incase these guys are actually right (for a change).

    Righto then, I’m off to Sportsbet. Enjoy your day.

  7. Max

    do people agree that Computer Modelling is not Science? and that it does not follow the Scientific method.

  8. Max

    thats a brilliant post Armadillo – it should be featured on the front page. Superb!!!

  9. egg_

    These professional tipsters spend their entire week reviewing the data. They watch every race in minute detail, re-playing them over and over. They observe the evidence. They even load all the known information into complex computer models to assist in their analysis. These people are experts in their field. They know much more about horse racing than I ever will. They should be trusted.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/

  10. Viva

    You can laugh or cry at the antics of the IPCC but IMO this is a teaching moment for us all re the workings of the human mind in the absence of critical self reflection.

  11. jupes

    Meanwhile in PNG, the Office of Climate Change and Development is ramping up and has placed an advertisement for 68 positions ranging from director to driver/clerk.

    Considering Australian Aid to PNG is a lazy half a bil per annum, I wonder who is funding this. If it’s the Australian taxpayer then what is Julie Bishop going to do about it?

  12. Fred, I’ve been saying for the last five years that the Greens (and all their hangers on) should be in front of the World Court, or whatever it calls itself these days, and being tried for Crimes Against Humanity. Followed by a Nuremburg type trial, but in Leningrad for the Left.

  13. Rob T

    The graph I would like to see published is one showing the WHOLE atmosphere, nitrogen oxygen etc, INCLUDING the miniscule supposed rise in CO2 in proportion to all the other gases.
    You would need an electron microscope to see the difference.

  14. hzhousewife

    Meanwhile in PNG, the Office of Climate Change and Development is ramping up and has placed an advertisement for 68 positions ranging from director to driver/clerk.

    Thank Goodness, there ARE jobs out there for summarily “retired” Canberra climate bureaucrats ! And PNG govt salaries backed by untold wealth from all those mines will be stratospheric ( which is lucky, because one may not want to take the wife and kiddies for the duration) !

  15. hzhousewife

    +1000 Armadillo ! delightful post

  16. struth

    How many warmists “experts” are paid for by government(taxpayers) ? Thats all you need to know.
    Again from somebody who has lived the tragedy of Aboriginal Australia (as a white man), it is so obvious it is not funny. How are the two linked? In the public service, those making money out of keeping the aborigines down, while pretending to work for their betterment have their results blatantly staring them in the face. The human disaster is there daily and they made it happen and they make it worse everyday. They see children die. But they see nothing. Never underestimate what some humans will do to” bludge” off taxpayers. What some do to “seem” sympathetic. A few million public servants around the world and scientists living off grants that only come when producing the outcome that suits, will be lying and screaming and cheating at any cost to maintain this at ANY cost. Anyone that is naive enough to believe this is not the case, go live in Alice Springs for a while and experience the denial and corruption rampant when government money is to be had.

  17. Breaking:

    Climate Scientists now 95% certain Global Warming is real. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny downgraded to 90% probability of existence.

    http://www.andysrant.com/2013/09/the-unsellable-global-warming-pitch-by-the-ipcc-yes-humans-are-definitely-behind-all-this-global-war.html

  18. incoherent rambler

    The Bom and CSIRO openly admit to “adjusting” the raw data of our temperature records. It was even handed the same number of adjustments up as down. They fail to mention that most of the downs were pre-1950 and most of the ups were post-1950.
    Equate this is an accounting ledger. “Adjust” the old figures down and move the new ones up. Yes! Profits are higher.

  19. struth

    Ipcc now 95% sure the gig is nearly up

  20. incoherent rambler

    I should have mentioned that an accountant that did this would be in gaol.

  21. H B Bear

    I wonder how long they are going to try and keep this charade going?

  22. H B Bear

    For all the hypothetical costs the IPCC, Flim Flan, Al Gore and other have projected and modelled the real costs imposed on Australians can be counted every day. The billions upon billions of unused de-sal plants, the hundreds of millions in solar feed-in tariffs and wind energy.

    Imagine the roads, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that could have been built with this money. That is the real cost of “climate change”.

  23. Infidel Tiger

    More people have been killed building religious artefacts for climate change than by climate change.

    You have to hand it to lefties though, the global warming theory is absolutely perfect for their cause. If it didn’t exist they would have had to invent it…

  24. Token

    Well my emoting meter has moved from 90% to 95% on the back of the way I feel about that graph.

    Remember when it was about the science?

  25. Jazza

    Armadillo+10!!

    IF the predictive so-called scientific models do not parallel actual measurements,either the models are wrong or the hypothesis that they can perform that function is wrong– these government paid lackeys/ idiots all want us to believe that the world’s atmosphere will conform to some human designed model when they also elsewhere admit they do not know ALL climate inputs,and in their private lives, if their car’s speedometer kept failing to display accurately their speeds, they’d not be using it for multiple of four years at a time in between checking it, they would instead soon be FORCED to ditch it and obtain one that would perform, or ditch the damned car itself.
    Seriously, Im sick of the infantile “global climate whatever it is was caused by you and me” scam, so won’t be commenting on its banality again.

  26. Jim Rose

    How much will global warming cost is the correct question for policy debate’. Climate change will be mostlly a threat to the poor in poor countries. Tom Schelling posed this question:

    “Suppose the kind of climate change expected between now and, say, 2080 had already taken place, since 1900.

    Ask a seventy-five-year-old farm couple living on the same farm where they were born: would the change in the climate be among the most dramatic changes in either their farming or their lifestyle?

    The answer most likely would be no. Changes from horses to tractors and from kerosene to electricity would be much more important.”

  27. braddles

    The graph is missing some important lines. The 2007 IPCC ‘projection’ is equivalent to 2.0 degrees per century, but this is not what is being fed to our policy-makers. Flannery said 6 degrees per century (when interviewed on the so-called Science Show on ABC): Gillard said 5 degrees by 2070 when justifying the carbon tax. Add a line three times as steep onto that graph and you will see the true failure of alarmist ‘science’.

  28. Rabz

    Keep belting those hysterical warmies, peoples!

    You know it makes sense, unlike CAGW.

  29. 2dogs

    If one were to redact all the judgement calls out of the IPCC’s next assessment report, and leave only the objective statements, how much of it would be left?

  30. manalive

    Lindzen on AR5:
    Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.  However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.  However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability.  Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

  31. sunshine

    Will Abbotts multi billion dollar direct action plan get cranked up now that the IPCC climate-o-meter has his 95% ?

  32. JohnA

    Manalive:

    Lindzen on AR5:
    Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.

    Elmer Fudd: Shhh! I hunting wabbits! her-her-her!

  33. James

    Why 1960 to 1990? What about after that?

    The graph shows the data after 1990, so why the 1961 reference?

    Weird.

  34. mareeS

    I’m one for personal observation of the climate. Our house is 115 years old, two streets back from the beach, 1m above sea level. If catastrophic stuff was happening, we’d be under water by now. However, my tomatoes and cucumbers and azaleas and gardenias and such are doing just fine as usual, no sign of a rising salt tide here 300m from the ocean. I keep wondering whence comes the flood!

    Tim and his mate in the tinny are the most failed liars in history, because our family home is living proof that the climate screamers have got it wrong.

  35. twostix

    Will Abbotts multi billion dollar direct action plan get cranked up now that the IPCC climate-o-meter has his 95% ?

    No he’s secretly delighted the new Senate will kill it in exchange for passing the repeal of the tax on carbon dioxide.

  36. HK_Brother

    Max
    #1016209, posted on September 28, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    do people agree that Computer Modelling is not Science? and that it does not follow the Scientific method.


    Computer modeling is theoretical analysis. More specifically, its an extrapolation. ie: Its a mathematical guess or forecast.

    Now this forecast can be wrong when (most often) important factors are NOT accounted for AND/OR the assumptions in the model are wrong from the start. So it ends up producing rubbish results that DO NOT reflect the data gathered from the real world. Say if they didn’t account for the Sun, effect of the trees, the complexity of the layers in the atmosphere, the effects of the ocean, etc.

    Scientific Method is the interrogation for the truth. To determine how things work and understand. You make a hypothesis and you do experiments, build a prototype, etc to test it out. The goal is to find out if the hypothesis is correct. If its wrong, understand why and revise the hypothesis (maybe you missed something? Or poor assumption you weren’t aware of?). The point is to continually evolve and refine as you repeat the process over and over again, until the hypothesis is reproducible by others and able to stand up to scrutiny on its own.

    Engineering (what I used to do full time, now as a hobby), is simply the application of science. To provide solutions for humanity. The stuff that everyone else takes for granted in their every day lives.

    What we have with the “Church of Climate Change” is the politicisation of science to suite an agenda. In this case, its the Environmental Movement consisting of loony Left activists. From clueless idiots, Socialist/Marxist/Communist/etc politicians, to activist scientists feeding on the taxpayer teat.

    They use what I dub The Leftist Method
    (1) Come up with a nonsensical narrative.
    (2) Create models and be selective with the evidence or data to support the narrative.
    (3) Claim it as science or fact. ie: The science is settled! End of discussion!
    (4) Ridicule, abuse, fire, censor, etc any open debate on their narrative.
    (5) Keep chanting the narrative until everyone believes it.

    The fundamental flaw with this method is that it cannot stand up to any scrutiny because its all based on lies and deception. ie: Intentionally leave things out OR redefining things to protect the narrative created. To keep moving the goal posts!…They know they’re lying! That’s why they want to shut down any opportunity for open debate and must control the language and message!

    Have you notice no member for the Church of Climate Change ever wants to openly debate skeptics? Because as seen by David Suzuki on Q&A, they will get OWNED! And that will destroy the support they had from the public. (The public does NOT like being lied to!)

    This is exactly what’s happening with the IPCC.

    Actually, its plain old ACTIVISM. Passing off BS as facts and see how far you can get away with it. If you fail at one area, move the goal posts! Redefine things! Change the language! Do whatever it takes to get your way! Keep doing it until you achieve it! Damn the consequences of a flawed narrative or ideology!

    This is why we on the Right/Centre-Right must treat them like weeds. One must weed this garden regularly…Else they’ll take over the whole thing! We “weed them” by exposing them of their deception! Keep pointing out their BS! Always ask questions!

    ie:
    * Where did you get that number from?
    * How did you calculate that figure?
    * What was the method you used?
    * Where is the formula used to create that computer model?
    * What are the assumptions of the model?
    * How does the model compare against the data collected by sensors, satellites, etc?
    Etc.

    …Their actions reveal will their true intentions! The objective is to show the public that these people are untrustworthy if they do anything dodgy. Basically, put them on the spot. If they refuse, hide, dance around the issue, then you know something is up!

    In the end, if IPCC was seen as a student of science or engineering, its reports would be an “F”. You know they’re BS’ing. Its a political document disguised as a scientific paper.

  37. Popular Front

    I wonder how long they are going to try and keep this charade going?

    For as long as gullible governments keep providing them with funding. Cut off the funding and watch the entire climate change rort disappear up its’ own arsehole.

  38. Johno

    Well may we deservedly mock the IPCC’s junk science, but the real problem is that Abbott and Hunt still appear to believe it. They are still promising to waste $2.9 billion on their pointless Direct Action Plan. They are still promising to waste time, effort and our money on reducing plant food in the air. The Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets are still in place. Until they call BS on the Great Global Warming Con, we are all still being held hostage to the Greens and their fellow travellers. It Time we started holding Abbott and Hunt to account. Why do they continue to kowtow to this nonsense?

  39. Catfeesh?

    That’s right, Johno. The left will hate them anyway so they might as well can the whole thing. Those with their eyes open might appreciate having a fair bit more cash in their wallets as a consequence.

  40. sigh

    Any reason the graph starts at 1990 other than it fits your argument nicely. Love how your all about mocking other people’s facts and methods but you don’t have the balls to put up the full facts because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

  41. Jim Rose

    see http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/ for
    1. models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for 22 years.
    2. long-term weather forecasts expect no warming for at least another five years.
    3. observed temperatures have fallen below the bottom of the uncertainty range of projections
    4. science since the 1990s said that CO2 is the key driver of recent climate change and natural variability is too small to count!

  42. Ron

    Johno, I too am worried about Abbot and Hunt’s stance even tho’ I voted Liberal. I am just glad Turnbull isn’t PM. He has an even stronger belief in AGW.
    Ron (Industrial Chemist ie scientist) unashamably a skeptic.

Comments are closed.