>Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has become somewhat of a lightning rod for the myriad of Climate Brown Shirts that have their noses firmly planted in the public trough by his intelligent and calm questioning of the so-called science behind the climate change industry.
The issue of whether there’s a consensus among climate scientists about the consequences of manmade global warming is one that Brown Shirts need to keep pushing in order to fulfil their misanthropic vision for the rest of us.
Of course there’s no consensus. Furthermore, in my lifetime I have never seen what is supposedly a scientific issue divide so neatly along political lines.
In this analysis, Monckton demonstrates that the whole basis for the consensus is based on a profoundly shoddy piece of research of the type ironically found all too often within the science of climate change (the debunked Hockey Stick, for example).
Here are some key extracts:
The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) – “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
…There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.
…According to Dr. Peiser, fewer than one-third of the papers analyzed by Oreskes either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, contrary to Oreskes’ assertion that the figure was 75%. In addition, 44 abstracts focused on the natural as opposed to anthropogenic causes of climate change, and did not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human actitivies, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change. More than half of the abstracts did not mention anthropogenic climate change at all and could not, therefore, reasonably be held to have commented either way upon the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes.
…Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”. Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found. Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”.
…The outright scaremongers are led by James Hansen, a donor of thousands of dollars to the re-election campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. He showed Congress a graph in 1988 that set the trend for wildly-exaggerated projections of future global temperature. The graph presented three scenarios, the most extreme of which had no basis in the scientific literature or in previously-observed trends. Politicians at that time treated the graph with respect because it had been generated by a computer. Yet the model which generated the graph, still in use by Hansen and the UN today, continues to contain “flux adjustments” – i.e. fudge-factors – many times greater than the very small perturbations which the model is supposed to predicting.
And so it goes on. To those that claim a consensus I can only say that if there’s no consensus among the 17 climate models used in the UN’s calculations then how can there be a consensus in the scientific community about the impact of climate change?
As they say; read the whole thing.
>A clear sign that we are careening towards greenhouse gas induced global catastrophe…
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.
“cooler-than-expected” by what? Not all those never-been-right climate models that the aforementioned catastrophes are based on?
The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.
In other words – about the same as there’s been for the last 40 years.
“Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly,” said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.
The energy and insurance industries are keenly watching the 2007 storm season after the record damage caused by hurricanes two years ago.
Caused by the clowns inhabiting New Orleans’ political offices, you mean. Katrina was only a Category 3 storm and should not have been able to cause the damage it did.
During the 2005 season, hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast and temporarily knocked out a quarter of U.S. crude and fuel production, sending energy prices to then-record highs.
WSI’s Crawford added that wind conditions due to the lack of an El Nino event were less conducive to formation of tropical storms.
Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.
Last year was one of the lowest ever so it’s not that tough to predict it will be more active. Do you like the way that’s written in the negative? “Despite the…”
“We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida,” Crawford said.
No bad news for Climate Brown Shirts to report. Bad luck for them. I’m sure they’ll hunt down something suitable, though.
>I turned on the TV yesterday, not knowing what was on, and found that the classic Ghostbusters had just started.
After being kicked out of university due to Dr Peter Venkman’s (Bill Murray) sustained incompetence he and Dr Raymond Stanz (Dan Akroyd) are discussing what the future holds for them. Murray is saying that it’s fate and things will be fine but a worried Akroyd is having none of it:
Dr Raymond Stanz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.
Ghostbusters was made in 1984. I wonder whether a much more actively politically partisan Hollywood would include that line these days?
As I pointed out the other day, the leftist mind is fundamentally immature and there’s no greater example of that intellectual immaturity than in academia.
It also reminded me of the debate about torture doing the rounds last year. The left was taking the “it’s never, ever OK to use torture” line even if an impending catastrophic threat of the variety dreamt up in the TV series 24 was uncovered.
Does the left really believe this or is it simply their usual knee jerk reaction to what they perceive as the right’s predilection for thumb screws, truth drugs and water boarding? The latter, I suspect.
You’ll recall that in another classic movie, also in a similar genre to Ghostbusters – Men In Black – that MIB has one hour to save the world from being destroyed by the Arquillians. They need to get information about what the Arquillians want and ends up interrogating Frank The Pug.
KAY – You busy, Frank?
FRANK THE PUG – Sorry, Kay, I can’t talk right now, my ride’s leaving in —
(Kay grabs Frank. He yelps like, well, a dog.)
KAY – Call the pound. We got a stray.
FRANK THE PUG – Hey! Get your paws off me!
(PASSERBYS glare at Kay, who appears to be seriously mistreating this poor
little dog. Jay tries to explain.)
JAY – The, uh…dog owes my friend some money.
KAY (to Frank) – Arquillians and bugs. What do you know?
FRANK THE PUG – I know nothing.
KAY – Not a thing?
(Kay shakes Frank the Pug, trying to force an answer.)
FRANK THE PUG – Stop it. Okay, okay. Rosenberg wasn’t some two-bit Arquillian. He was the guardian of a galaxy. They thought he would be safe here on earth.
KAY – And the bug had other plans.
FRANK THE PUG – The galaxy is the best source for subatomic energy in the universe. If the bugs get
their slimy claws on it, kiss the Arquillians goodbye.
JAY – Ask him about the belt.
KAY – (to Frank) – Rosenberg said something about a galaxy on “Orion’s belt.” What’s he talking about, Frank?
FRANK THE PUG – Beats me.
(Kay shakes Frank the Pug once more.)
In the movie it seems not only completely credible but quite reasonable, as it does in ’24’. However I’ve done enough research on torture to know that it is, in fact, counter-productive, even in extreme circumstances. I wonder whether those that banged on loudest about torture saw the irony in the above?
>Few Aussie bands have hit the international stage in recent years with the force of Wolfmother.
After releasing their self-titled debut EP through Modular Recordings in September 2004, Wolfmother began appearing at several high profile music events, such as Homebake and the Big Day Out. The EP was a success, reaching number thirty-five in the ARIA singles chart and receiving consistent radio play on Triple J.
In 2005, the band made their way to Los Angeles, working alongside producer Dave Sardy (Marilyn Manson, Oasis) to record their eponymous debut album, released in October 2005.
The first single to be released was “Mind’s Eye”/”Woman” (a double A-side), making its debut on the Australian music charts at number twenty-nine. The album itself entered the Australian Charts at number three and has been a regular feature of the Top 20 ever since, having gone platinum three times. Wolfmother won the 2005 J Award from the Australian youth radio network Triple J for the best Australian album of the year, and finished the year with Falls Festival appearances. Rolling Stone magazine listed Wolfmother as one of their “Top 10 Bands to Watch 2006.”
They achieved a record breaking six songs in the influential 2005 Triple J Hottest 100, with “Mind’s Eye” their highest entry at number six. This breaks the record of five songs previously held by Powderfinger, Queens of the Stone Age, Silverchair and The White Stripes.
Woman (terrific live video from Pinkpop)
White Unicorn (at Pinkpop)
Joker And The Thief (live)
>If you haven’t seen this amazing video of what happens when a herd of buffalo comes across a pride of lions snoozing in the sun and wondering what to do about lunch then you’re in for a treat. There’s a surprise involved, as well, that makes it all the more amazing.
>I’ve been keeping a record of the poll fixing happening on NineMSN’s online polls. I didn’t have the opportunity to take images of the latest example – Should the government give Dr Haneef his visa back?
When I checked in yesterday evening the Yes vote was around 9500 and the No vote was around 9700. That was in line with the numbers earlier in the day.
One thing I’ve noticed about polls is that the ratio of Yes to No doesn’t change by an material amount once 2000 votes have been cast.
Given the political nature of the question on this poll it comes as no surprise that there has been some mucking about going on overnight.
The numbers have been manipulated to 208,000 to 18,000. I’m not surprised. Manipulating the truth is the left’s number one talent.
>I have to thank Oscar for leaving a comment on my post The United Nations’ principles to ruin the world, as it provides a clear demonstration of the immaturity of the leftist mind. Perversely, this intellectual immaturity does not mature over time in line with the body, as shown by the destructive ideas of our ‘cultural elite’, educators and media cabal.
Using your own words: “I am – also — beyond being shocked” of how little and stupid is the mind of some people, arriving to so extreme limits of writing “things” like your “comments” …
If you can decode what is fraudulently trying to pass as a sentence in English then I think Oscar is saying that he’s beyond being shocked by my being beyond being shocked.
First of all, “corruption” — as many other tares — was not originated in the Third World. They were “imported”. “Imposed” to be more exact.
Poor Oscar doesn’t get to first base by trotting out the old “all things bad that happen in the developing/Third World are because we ‘imposed’ them.” It’s a pity that Oscar is about as familiar with the history of these places as he is with the English language. If you’ve ever lived in developing countries, as I have for nearly 10 years in Africa and SE Asia, then it is as plain as the nose on your face the advantages British colonialism left for her former colonies. The same can’t be said for French, Italian, Portugese or Spanish involvement with only the rare exception. Notice the the United States isn’t on the list. Oops. A bit inconvenient, really.
Since “discovering” and/or “colonization” times, most of that tares where typical “rules” of the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” … right ? The ones which did not accept them, were – simply — “eliminated”, “disappeared” , … etc. (I mean: tortures, killed,… etc.); using the long “experience” and all unimaginable “methods” the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” had in these domains. .. doesn’t it ?
As of today, all this, it is still valid, … correct ? … and … in all “areas” (human rights, labour standards, environment protection, anti-corruption,…) …true ?
What the heck is this man babbling on about? If he thinks that human rights abuses, labour abuses, environmental damage and corruption are due to Western involvement then he’s living in a parallel universe. The most destructive force in these areas over the last one hundred years has been socialism. Point blank.
In conclusion, by now, terrorism and dictatorial regimes, are only simple, effective and efficient consequence of that “rules”. And, ONLY for all these reasons, any action to avoid that “rules” may, should, must be fully encouraged. In the current and/or so terrible “world (or “humanity”) situation”, if an international organization, like the United Nations, is not able to do it, who – in your “opinion” – will be able ?
Oscar. Oscar. Oscar. How do you think these sorts of disputes were handled before the United Nations and League of Nations existed? Hmm? Affected countries either sat down and hashed out a political solution or, in the rare circumstances that didn’t work out, went to war.
Moreover, for many “First” and “Second” World’s geo-politicians, all this, is the “normal” consequence of that “rules”.
“Who” you think are the real “profiteers” ? … of what really happened with the so famous “Oil for Food” Program and related … funds ? I am sure, you will be completely surprised to know “who” really are the ones who really profit all that “corruption”, “extortion”, “bribery”, … etc.
Kofi Annan. One of his predecessors, Boutros Boutros Ghali and a host of countries (particularly the world’s worst country, France). There’s a big list that Saddam was bribing.
“Who” you think are “ruling” the United Nations ? … the Third World Countries ?…
Third World Countries have the same power as First World Countries. One country, one vote. They’ve put together voting blocs that have resulted in the UN Human Rights Council only passing resolutions against one country in the last 12 months – Israel – while pretty much ignoring the slaughter in Darfur, the concentration camp that is North Korea and the subjugation of women in most of the Arab world. They recently appointed Zimbabwe to Chair the Development and Sustainability Council. Zimbabwe!
“What” it is the real power – and use — of the “veto” ?…
Please, read a little bit about, before proposing so stupid principles and/or lists…
Now, about all the current “corruption”, “incompetence”, “favouritism”, “nepotism”,… in United Nations, it is another – and completely different – story, specially in peace keeping activities. We should do whatever necessary to avoid, all of them.
If you can give me ONE example of UN peacekeepers bringing peace to a region in the entire history of the organisation then I’ll give you a brownie point.
Having all this well in mind, please think twice, before writing so stupid and so clearly oriented, ‘concerned’, ‘deeply concerned’ and ‘gravely concerned’ comments…
Why not go to the UN website and do a search through their archives for the word ‘concerned’ or the other phrases above. You will be truly astonished at how much time the UN spends being concerned while sitting on its hands doing absolutely nothing.
Thanks, Oscar, for dropping by and demonstrating that wisdom and leftism are mutually incompatible concepts. Look forward to more amusing, intellectually vapid contributions from you. Please, though, get a proof-reader.