|
by James Delingpole
19 September
2017
from
Breitbart Website
Source
Al Gore and the
United Nations have
a bitter pill to swallow, but given their religious
zeal for self-deception, it is likely they will
ignore and then bury this report.
Since
Technocrat life centers around their 'razor-sharp'
science, they cannot tolerate criticism or
legitimate scientific discussion.
Source
Climate
alarmists have finally admitted that they've got it wrong on global
warming
This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper (Emission
Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5°C)
published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the
computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on
climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.
The paper concedes that it is now almost impossible that the
doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of
1.5ºC warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.
In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a
massive 0.5ºC in five years.
Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25ºC
in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years'
worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.
This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible.
Which means their "carbon
budget" - the amount of CO2 they say is needed
to increase global warming by a certain degree - is wrong.
This in turn means that the computer models they've been using to
scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are
wrong too.
One researcher - from the alarmist side of the argument, not the
skeptical one - has described the paper's conclusion as "breathtaking"
in its implications.
He's right. The scientists who've written this paper aren't climate
skeptics. They're longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate
skeptics, and they're also actually the people responsible for
producing the IPCC's carbon budget.
In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown
from the alarmist camp.
But you certainly wouldn't guess this from the way the scientists
are trying to spin their report.
According to the
London Times:
Michael Grubb,
professor of international energy and climate change at
University College London and one of the study's authors,
admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.
He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015:
"All the evidence
from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually
delivering 1.5ºC is simply incompatible with democracy."
Speaking to The
Times, he said:
"When the facts
change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.
"It's still likely to be very difficult to achieve these
kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place
than I thought."
And,
Myles Allen,
professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and
another author of the paper, said:
"We haven't seen
that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in
the models. We haven't seen that in the observations."
He said that the
group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government
research institutes and universities around the world, had been
assembled a decade ago,
"so it's not that
surprising that it's starting to divert a little bit from
observations".
He said that too many
of the models used "were on the hot side", meaning they forecast
too much warming.
Note the disingenuousness
here...
Michael Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which
they haven't...
Climate skeptics have
been saying for years that
the IPCC climate models have been
running "too hot."
Indeed, the Global
Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper (A
Sensitive Matter - How the IPCC buried Evidence showing Good News
about Global Warming) stating this three years ago.
Naturally it was ignored
by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the
GWPF as a denialist institution
which they claim - erroneously - is in the pay of sinister fossil
fuel interests.
Allen's "so it's not that surprising" is indeed true if you're on
the skeptical side of the argument.
But not if, like Allen,
you're one of those scientists who've spent the last 20 years
scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years
have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now
admitting is correct.
That's why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy
Foundation (GWPF) says, this is a "landmark" moment in the
history of great climate change scare.
"It's the first
official confirmation we've had that CO2 is not as
big a driver of climate change as the computer models have
claimed; and it's the first official admission that the planet
is not warming dangerously."
But this is not,
unfortunately, a cause for wild celebrations in the street.
ManBearPig has been scotched but by
no means been slain. Nor are the alarmists yet ready to admit the
full scale of their errors.
This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters
who know they've been caught cheating and have now been forced to
concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of
looking ridiculous.
Paul Homewood
has their number:
-
We have known for
several years that the climate models have been running far
too hot. This rather belated admission is welcome, but a
cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.
-
I suspect part of
the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers,
including even James Hansen, have realized that it was not
worth the paper it was written on.
This new study is designed to restore the belief that the
original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and
beyond.
-
Although they
talk of the difference between 0.9ºC and 1.3ºC, the
significance is much greater.
Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of
the warming since the mid 19th century is
natural, this means that any AGW (anthropogenic
global warming) signal is much less than previously thought.
-
Given that that
they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be
expected to have any faith at all in the models?
-
Finally, we must
remember that temperatures since 2000 have been
artificially raised by the recent record
El Niño, and the ongoing
warm phase of
the AMO.
Yup. But at least we
climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that's the main
thing...
Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags:
that word you were
looking for to describe the current state of global warming
science is: "Sorry."
| 
