No, not the sand-flies. Not
the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is
this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about
hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global
warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
The equations of classical
physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However,
observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted
warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms,
now, can it?
That means They can’t even
get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent
extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a
half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate
scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.
Or, rather, one needs not
to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these
yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of
suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that
“Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports
are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.
The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up
turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even
been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.
IPeCaC is about to churn
out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report
deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second
Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.
There will be absolutely
nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands
of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
Instead, the report will
hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in
the past 60 years was manmade.
No, that is not a
typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for
all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the
world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.
If you will believe that,
as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.
The smarter minds at the
conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the
much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the
warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models
assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature
Trouble is, not one of the
supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by
theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative,
countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather
than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.
prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm
at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.
But the real-world,
measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a
century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.
In 2008, the world’s
“consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global
warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow
failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming
would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’
predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report
By the modelers’ own
criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how
much global warming will happen.
Yet Ms. Christina
Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,
says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the
solution. Solution to what?
And what solution? Even if
the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut
its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years
ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt
to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it
It is the do-nothing option
that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely
what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
This year’s 18th
yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms.
Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all
those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats
Post a Comment