The IPCC’s latest global warming/climate change report came out today. It pretty much restates what it said before.
Today the German and international media, politicians and activists are all in a celebratory mood – the climate catastrophe is back after all. It’s real and approaching faster than ever. The UN just certified it! Climate activists are in a state of euphoria again – they’re out dancing in the streets – there hasn’t been such a feeling since 2007.
The message is one of high confidence in their assessments. Ross McKitrick writes:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
Just like with smoking causing lung cancer.
…the Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.
They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change “is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. “It’s not certain, but it’s close.”
Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades’ worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.
“What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer,” while “statistics confirm what we know about cancer,” said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a “very high consensus” among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.
It all seems to depend how you present the data. Here’s one from the alarmists showing how well their models match the GISS historical data, after being carefully tweaked:
And here’s another one from sceptic Ross McKitrick showing how current global temperatures have fallen below projections that weren’t shown in the graph above.
Add the two graphs together, and you’ve more or less got the complete picture. The tweaked models do very well with the historical record up to 1998, but then start going wrong.
Anyway, since I no longer believe that smoking causes lung cancer, the suggestion that climate scientists are as certain about AGW as epidemiologists are about smoking and cancer has me thinking that neither of them have really got a clue about anything.
But if they just keep repeating endlessly that smoking causes lung cancer, and that human carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, eventually they will become generally accepted facts. In fact, after 60 years of repetition, the former has become an unquestionable fact of life for most people – which is why it was cited as an example of something that was pretty certain.
But the global warming message has only had about 25 years of repetition. But with the mass media on side, and most of the governments around the world too, after another 25 years of repetition everyone will believe in climate change.
And that’s probably what’s going to happen. They’re just going to carry on repeating the same message, over and over again, regardless of Climategate, or seventeen years without any warming, or anything else. The warming is there, y’see, it’s just hidden deep in the ocean.
Anyway, here’s Gene Vincent from 1956. The lead guitarist, Cliff Gallup, was about 10 years ahead of his time: