Head of Tory EU exit group is climate change denier

The former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson will lead the Conservative 'Out' group

 

It has been confirmed this morning that former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson will lead a Conservative campaign group which will push for the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Writing in the Times, Lord Lawson said that David Cameron was only likely to secure ‘wafer-thin’ reforms from the European Union.

Many Eurosceptics seem pleased with the choice of Lord Lawson to head up the out campaign. Viewed as a political heavyweight, Lawson was chancellor during the most tumultuous period of Margaret Thatcher’s time in office between 1983 and 1989.

Yet for a supposedly mainstream political big hitter, Lord Lawson has a number of crackpot views. Take his position on man-made climate change.

Lord Lawson is the chairman of the climate change-sceptic group the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Notoriously cagey about its funding, in June of this year the GWPF invited climate change sceptic Judith Curry to speak at the House of Lords about climate change, where she poured scorn on the idea of man-made climate change. “The punch line is this,” Curry told the House of Lords, “Any impact of human caused global warming is lost in the noise of climate variability.”

According to the GWPF, telling kids to “avoid polluting the world”, “recycle” and “reduce their carbon footprint” is “brainwashing” carried out with the express intention of turning children into “foot soldiers of the green movement”.

Lord Lawson has also previously claimed that there has been no global warming so far this century:

“Whereas there was some very modest warming in the last quarter of the twentieth century there has been absolutely no further warming this century so far, despite a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, and despite the models predicting an acceleration, not just a continuation, but an acceleration of warming.”

Yet as the Met office made clear in 2008, global warming has not stopped and natural climate variations may ‘temporarily enhance or reduce observed warming’:

“Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.”

As for man-made climate change more generally, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) it is “extremely likely” that humans have been the principal cause of warming since the 1950s. Meanwhile an analysis of abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011 and written by 29,083 authors, found that 98.4 per cent of authors who took a position endorsed man-made climate change, with just 1.2 per cent rejecting it and 0.4 per cent uncertain.

In the past Lord Lawson has urged local authorities to do “absolutely nothing” to reduce their carbon emissions and claimed that people were “ignoring the benefits of global warming”.

I’ll leave the floor to Ed Miliband to expound on the substance of Lord Lawson’s views on climate change:

 

James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter

39 Responses to “Head of Tory EU exit group is climate change denier”

  1. TomSacold

    There has been NO global warming for nearly two decades !!!!

    The ice caps have been expanding !!!

    He is a climate realist.

  2. Dave Stewart

    Ice caps expanding! Please do provide some evidence for both your your assertions.

    I’ll think you’ll find you’re talking nonsense.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=global+temperature+trend&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CC8QsARqFQoTCNSj9tmTocgCFcxwPgodDgwOQQ&biw=1760&bih=864#imgrc=_

  3. madasafish

    Please tell me what relevance Global Warming has to an In/Out Referendum.. I see none..

    Or does it mean that if we leave, Global Ice will melt more? Or less? Or not change..?

  4. steroflex

    I cannot believe this!
    Climate change and the EU are NOT THE SAME THING!
    Honestly!
    Further to which, you do not even discuss the EU issue at all.
    Yes, Lord Lawson, who is also parted from his wife, a man who was obese, and who was Chancellor under Mrs Thatcher (all bad?), is leading an out campaign.
    So? Mr Corbyn had an affair with Diane Abbott and she is now in the shadow cabinet.
    It doesn’t make any difference!
    I do not think that calling anybody a crackpot is a kindly thing either.

  5. steroflex

    If this is the level of discussion about the all important EU, I despair!

  6. steroflex

    OK.
    Watts up with that.
    Amazon the Global Warming Scam and you will find several books to read there by top scientists.
    PS Science is not a democracy. It does not matter if Patchy Pachaury’s IPCC says something or the Met Office say something. What matters is the truth.

  7. mikehaseler

    Having lived through the Thatcher era I still haven’t forgiven the Tories for what they did to British manufacturing, industry, Scotland and the North.

    But after nearly a decade looking at the climate science and the lies distortions and the way big industry is using climate to suck funds from the poor – I still don’t agree with Lawon on everything by a long way, but he was certainly right to speak out on climate against the big money grabbing companies and the pocket-lining academics and everyone else with their snouts so deep in the trough of public money that ought to be going to schools hospitals etc.

    Since this climate scam started, around 1million extra deaths have occurred in the winter in the UK alone.

    AND FRANKLY I AM DISGUSTED BY THE LEFT WING WHO PROP UP BIG BUSINESS AND PENALISE THE POOR AND ELDERLY IN THE UK.

    After 18 years without warming, with clear unequivocal evidence of corruption in climate “science” it is time you dropped this stupid stance and started speaking up for the poor and elderly instead of shafting them with your political ignorance.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/rico20-4-million-nsf-grant-while-shuklas-organization-is-being-dissolved/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/01/is-there-evidence-of-frantic-researchers-adjusting-unsuitable-data-now-includes-july-data/

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/us-government-messing-with-texas/

  8. madasafish

    I never expect much from this site given it’s political leanings.

    But this article makes Guy Fawkes seem a serious and learned commentator.

  9. Nick

    The people will vote yes stay in the EU just as Scotland voted to stay in the united kingdom

    Lord Lawson has never been to any part of the world himself i’m told to see any exploration so his voice isn’t even valid

  10. Harold

    Crap Chancellor and I expect he will be the same at this.

  11. mikehaseler

    Just look how much these climate profiteers are creaming off the public $63million!!!

    And that is the kind of shady “snouts in the trough” people you support?

    The silent holocaust of 1million climate victims in the UKhttp://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/04/01/the-silent-holocaust-of-1million-climate-victims-in-the-uk/

    Tables turned: Climate profiteer who asked for RICO investigation of skeptics to be investigated by Congress

    Chairman Smith: “IGES appears to be almost fully funded by
    taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political
    activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and
    organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate
    change. In fact, IGES has reportedly received $63 million from taxpayers
    since 2001, comprising over 98 percent of its total revenue during that
    time.” In light of the non-profit’s decision to remove the
    controversial letter from its website, Smith directs IGES to preserve
    “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1,
    2009, that can be reasonably anticipated to be subject to a request for
    production by the Committee.”

    Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/01/tables-turned-climate-profiteer-who-asked-for-rico-investigation-of-skeptics-to-be-investigated-by-congress/#ixzz3nLjeF8pO

  12. ted francis

    Did I read somewhere that Looney Lawson had probable vested interests in being a climate change sceptic? Where are the investigative journalists?

  13. Jeremy Poynton

    Here you are James – from our “The Science is Settled” department.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

    “As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn’t as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

    A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea – a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

    The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.”

    It’s a shame you are a climate reality denier. You’ll catch up on day. Maybe

  14. Mark Michaels

    Antarctic ice cap has been expanding for years, get some facts.

  15. WalterHorsting

    Green energy cronies are ripping off everyone http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/european-renewable-energy-performance-for-2014-fall-far-short-of-claims/ if you worry about emissions choose nuclear and if you choose nuclear go MSR http://www.egeneration.org

    With sun cycles 24-26 bringing a new grand minimum…we need cheap, clean energy https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com

  16. Cole

    Rubbish. Climate change deniers are nutters.

  17. Cole

    I guess you and Lawson know better than all those pesky scientists

  18. Common Sense

    Which scientists. Curry? Christy? Lindzen?

  19. steroflex

    Mr Jeremy Corbyn has asked us all to be kindly to each other on the web. Comrade, your comment has been noted.

  20. steroflex

    I will not hear a word against Patchy Pachaury of the IPCC! As a railwayman, he had a fine knowledge of science – and finance too.

  21. WhiteVanMan

    Like Kate Hoey then

  22. kingkevin3

    Oh christ what a retard. Are you an Arts student by any change?

  23. kingkevin3

    What planet were you born on? You think tree-huggers and socialists give a fuck about old people?

  24. Denis Ables

    Alarmistsconfiscated the term “climate change”, which originally referred to natural events, such as ice ages. Now, both they and the major news media make that expression equivalent to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers.

    President Obama recently visited Alaska, and explained that two receding glaciers he visited are because of “climate change”. One of those glaciers, has been receding since 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on anything. Neither he nor the major news media bothered to mention that some other Alaskan glaciers, including Hubbard and Taku have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming. Readers should consider the serious implication if no glaciers were receding; that is likely the beginning of our next ice age! The average duration of recent ice ages is 90,000 years whereas the pleasant interims between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average only 10,000 years. Instead of dealing with a few feet of water in NY City (very speculative, no facts), how about having to deal with what really happened last time – a mile high glacier?

    The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these professional “surveys” count many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” made
    no distinction between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and the other respondents (invariably skeptics) who merely acknowledge that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those alarmist surveys been designed (and handled) by unbiased professionals the result would have likely shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it’s irrelevant since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts.

    When you light a match, it may have some impact (unlikely measurable) on global warming. The Urban Heat
    Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have no impact on global temperature because urban areas represent only a small portion of the earth’s surface and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show little or no temperature impact from the UHI. However, no sensible critic would flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. It is the IPCC (and its cohort) unjustifiable claims that (1) co2 increase causes global warming and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of our current warming.

    During most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on global warming. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite – that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2
    level. Furthermore, a comparison of our current interglacial with the immediate four prior interglacial periods (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that our current maximum temperature is about two degrees cooler than in any of the four earlier interglacials. However, our current co2 level is 40% higher than in these earlier interglacials, so evidently co2, even at its now much higher level, appears to be have little, if any, impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI are therefore ruled out insofar as having even a measurable (let alone significant) impact on global temperature, what is the basis for the IPCC claim? either can the alarmist computer models account for how the “missing heat” might disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, to somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. The measurable increase in ocean temperature, even if due to atmospheric increase, is miniscule, hardly sufficient to explain the “missing heat”.

    It is also known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases, and that a greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere. There is no convection from within a real greenhouse, and in the open atmosphere satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither does a greenhouse experience planetary-level feedback, such as significant ocean feedback. Finally, computer models cannot begin to deal with ongoing chaotic events which are an integral part of the climate system.

    Alarmist computer models have all consistently projected higher temperature increases than have subsequently been recorded, and this has continued even after several rounds of revisions to those models. In fact, the spread between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures continues to WIDEN.
    Climate computer model results are clearly not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding of climate. Ironically, all these alarmist models ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Without that assumption, it’s clear co2 increase would have little mpact for a very long time. As it turns out, nobody understands whether water vapor feedback is even positive, let alone 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. In response to the hiatus in further temperature increase for almost the past two decades the alarmists have, so far, come up with dozens of different excuses as to where the missing heat is hiding. However, these frantic speculations have not deterred the believers from continuing to claim their “science” is “settled.”

    The current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv. Projections for co2 level by the year 2100 are 600 ppmv, still a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000+ ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments. In fact, the earth is greening even as this controversy continues.

    The proponents (alarmists) of CAGW base their entire hypothesis on a very brief period (30 years) of climate history. This is because even the most rabid CAGW scientists understand that increasing co2 level would have to build up (from 2ppmv) so have no measurable impact on global temperature until about 1950. Co2 began rising in the mid 1800s, but our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, so in the mid 1600s. That of course implies there was 300 years of natural warming. There was a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the 1970s to about 1998. It remains warm, but there has been no additional warming since then.

    There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets are all comprised of most (90 to 95%) of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial results because three separate groups are involved and each applies different revisions to this raw data. With regard to satellites, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming!) This 18+ year duration of no additional warming is not cherry picked since the calculation depends on the data itself and is the answer to a very relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis applied to satellite data, but instead uses the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting used in determining the mean for terrestrial data appears to be over weighted towards terrestrial data.)

    The three terrestrial datasets also have various other issues. Even the current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs so that effect, which can change over time,
    must be estimated and removed. Land based stations are also subject to other changing environmental conditions. (Why not confine the analysis, or at least derive an independent separate analysis, for comparison, using raw data from rural locations?) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are very few stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government.

    Some alarmists, including politicians, continue to blame severe weather on “climate change” and/or
    insist that sea level rise is “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. More recently the rate of sea level increase has been flat, or dropping, with sea level rise now at a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level will be up one inch.) Viewing a graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand year period should assuage any concerned rational being. Statistical analysis has demonstrated that, for the past several decades, severe weather events of all types have remained within
    natural climate variation. Weather events (hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, droughts) have been no more severe nor more frequent during this period.

    At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming
    Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed great concern about the MWP. (In fact, one email made clear that they had to
    get rid of the MWP! Why?) The IPCC and its usual cohort of alarmists insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon. Their unjustifiable claim likely has more than a little to do with the threat of an embarrassing question — “If the MWP was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of this warming?” In order to support the CAGW hypothesis any credible scientist would have surely found it necessary to temporarily put their hypothesis on hold and undertake a global investigation to ensure that there was actually no global warming trend during the MWP. This would have involved a
    world-wide research effort. They chose instead to cling to their claim that the MWP was merely regional and not all that warm. This flies in the face of numerous peer-reviewed studies, and also with various anecdotal evidence. The alarmists also reverse the theorist’s usual position by demanding that skeptics instead provide the evidence that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. Please note that if even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their hypothesis (having no empirical
    evidence besides) becomes very questionable. As it turns out the MWP trend shows up in many other regions.

    The CAGW hypothesis not only lacks any empirical evidence, it is further exacerbated by their denials of any conflicting evidence. What is so amazing is there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position even reverted from cries of an oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, has been an alarmist both times.) The alarmist denials continue even now, as new studies contradicting CAGW continue to show up almost weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These studies have employed numerous different temperature proxies, some not available to earlier studies. In addition, there are also some 6,000 boreholes around the globe which confirm that the MWP trend was global.

    But wait….there’s more! There were several earlier warmings during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current rate of warming is now lower than published earlier their committee (which reviews every word of that report multiple times) has
    managed to avoid correcting their erroneous out-years high temperature estimate.

    An ancient forest in Alaska (Mendenhall Glacier), recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered
    tree trunks preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4000 year old forests showing that area to have been glacier free at that time. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Attempts to brush off such solid information as “anecdotal evidence” is ridiculous.

    Both NASA and NOAA base their “analysis” strictly on terrestrial data, evidently ignoring the satellite
    data! In late 2014 these two “science” organizations claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both soon backed down after skeptics pointed out that if their same analysis were applied to satellite data, then 2014 was either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Either situation would imply at least a short term cooling underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error of one half a degree, and therefore their contrived comparison across recent years is meaningless. The
    major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These agencies are apparently still at it, now claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased about 30% and sea ice extent around the south pole continues to break records. New weather trends begin at the two poles.

    Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA “adjusted”
    sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies also recently declared that their three datasets were “independent”, which is clearly debatable, since all three datasets are basically derived from the same raw data.

    It’s now time to look at the government “solution” for what is very likely a non-problem. Obama wants
    to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne
    Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:

    This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels
    estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

    Since our global temperatures are still 2 degrees below the high in each of the past four inter-glacials there may be a bit more natural warming ahead. We know that co2, even at much higher temperatures than now, has had no discernable influence on global temperature. We do need to be concerned about our utilization of energy resources, but it will take centuries before co2 attains those earlier levels, so technology should be available long before co2 level would be troublesome. Politicians’ rush to implement costly policies appears to be a much larger threat.

    Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots” or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, abhor the fossil fuel industry, want to transfer western resources to third world countries, etc.) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions.

  25. 4TimesAYear

    “Lord Lawson has a number of crackpot views”

    I say old chap, that you have quite some prejudice against those who have a difference of scientific opinion, especially since CO2 has been found to have much less of an effect than what was previously thought. You have no objectivity whatsoever and should resign as a reporter. FYI, what goes up, must come down, and it’s no different with the global mean temperature, which has been pretty doggone stable over the last 150 years. Not that a “global mean temperature” means anything at all.

  26. 4TimesAYear

    No one denies climate changes. Alarmists need to stop using that pejorative term. If anything, alarmists are the deniers who would have us believe that climate never changed until we came along.

  27. ted francis

    I’m an atheist but I readily acknowledge that many of the 10 commandants are pretty sound and reasonable rules by which to live in any society. So with the advent of global exposure of our hopes, thoughts and prejudices there is even more need to act in a more generous way.

  28. Mann T.

    He is the kind of guy that makes me think the conspiracy theorists raving on about the New World Order may have a point. Nasty piece of work. Patrician but with no notion of the nation or the state. Only the ‘economy’ in the abstract. Yuk.

  29. demac

    Here are a few facts to add to the above discussion.

    Sattelite temperature data has shown no temperature increases globally for the last 18.8 years. Please stop quoting manipulated land/sea temperature data – the raw temperature data also shows no increase.

    If all of the 0.45 degree temperature increase that has occurred since 1950 was because of man made CO2, then what caused a similar temperature increased 0.4 degree increase from 1880 to 1940? – especially when man made CO2 wasn’t an issue. Or for that matter, what caused global temperatures to increase by 1.5 degree C since the little ice age about 200 years ago.

    Also, the study that was quoted above was performed by Doran and Zimmerman where they found 75 papers out of the 11,944 abstracts that agreed with the theory of man made global warming – which represents less than 0.5% of the total abstracts.

    Finally, the recent UN IPCC report AR5 stated in chapter 2 that they have a low confidence of any correlation between man made CO2 and so called ‘extreme weather like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts – which all are at 75 year historic lows for both frequency and intensity.

    It appears that Dr Curry may have it right.

  30. Mike Stallard

    “Looney Lawson had probable vested interests”

  31. RealOldOne2

    Comment by Denis Ables which was taken down by the “Left Foot Forward” because they couldn’t rebut the facts, data and empirical science that Denis posted, and because it exposed their CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion for the hoax/scam/fraud that it is. They prove that they are merely socialist progressive propagandists. They show that this website is merely an echo chamber of propaganda.

    Here is Denis’s comment which when I tried to reply to, I got the message: “The post you are trying to reply to has been removed by a moderator.”
    Really? Why? There was nothing offensive in it. Just facts, data, and empirical science. Oh yeah, it DID expose that the CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion was a sham/hoax/scam/fraud.

    DenisAbles:

    “Alarmists confiscated the term “climate change”, which originally referred to natural events, such as ice ages. Now, both they and the major news media make that expression equivalent to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers.

    President Obama recently visited Alaska, and explained that two receding glaciers he visited are because of “climate change”. One of those glaciers, has been receding since 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on anything. Neither he nor the major news media bothered to mention that some other Alaskan glaciers, including Hubbard and Taku have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming. Readers should consider the serious implication if no glaciers were receding; that is likely the beginning of our next ice age! The average duration of recent ice ages is 90,000 years whereas the pleasant interims between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average only 10,000 years. Instead of dealing with a few feet of water in NY City (very speculative, no facts), how about having to deal with what really happened last time – a mile high glacier?

    The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these
    professional “surveys” count many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” made no distinction between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and the other respondents (invariably skeptics) who merely acknowledge that
    increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those alarmist surveys been designed (and handled) by unbiased professionals the result would have likely shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it’s irrelevant since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts. When you light a match, it may have some impact (unlikely measurable) on global warming. The Urban Heat Island (UHI)
    effect is well known, but also turns out to have no impact on global temperature because urban areas represent only a small portion of the earth’s surface and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show little or no temperature impact from the UHI. However, no sensible critic would flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. It is the IPCC (and its cohort) unjustifiable claims
    that (1) co2 increase causes global warming and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of our current warming.

    During most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on global warming. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite
    – that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2 level.

    Furthermore, a comparison of our current interglacial with the immediate four prior interglacial periods (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that our current maximum temperature is about two degrees cooler than in any of the four earlier interglacials. However, our current co2 level is 40% higher than in these earlier interglacials, so evidently co2, even at its now much higher level, appears to be have little, if any, impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI are therefore ruled out insofar as having even a measurable (let alone significant) impact on global temperature, what is the basis for the IPCC claim? either can the alarmist computer models account for how the “missing heat” might disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, to somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. The measurable increase in ocean temperature, even if due to atmospheric increase, is miniscule, hardly sufficient to explain the “missing heat”.

    It is also known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases, and that a greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere. There is no convection from within a real greenhouse, and in the open atmosphere satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither does a greenhouse experience planetary-level feedback, such as significant ocean feedback. Finally, computer models cannot begin to deal with ongoing chaotic events which are an integral part of the climate system.

    Alarmist computer models have all consistently projected higher temperature increases than have subsequently been recorded, and this has continued even after several rounds of revisions to those models. In fact, the spread between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures continues to WIDEN. Climate computer model results are clearly not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding of climate. Ironically, all these alarmist models ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Without that assumption, it’s clear co2 increase would have little impact for a very long time. As it turns out, nobody understands whether water vapor feedback is even positive, let alone 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. In response to the hiatus in further temperature increase for almost the past two decades the alarmists have, so far, come up with dozens of different excuses as to where the missing heat is hiding. However, these frantic speculations have not deterred the believers from continuing to claim their “science” is “settled.”

    The current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv. Projections for co2 level by the year 2100 are 600 ppmv, still a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000+ ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less waterin higher co2 environments. In fact, the earth is greening even as this controversy continues.

    The proponents (alarmists) of CAGW base their entire hypothesis on a very brief period (30 years) of climate history. This is because even the most rabid CAGW scientists understand that increasing co2 level would have to build up (from 2ppmv) so have no measurable impact on global temperature until about 1950. Co2 began rising in the mid 1800s, but our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, so in the mid 1600s. That of course implies there was 300 years of natural warming. There was a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the 1970s to about 1998. It remains warm, but there has been no additional warming since then.

    There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets are all comprised of most (90 to 95%) of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial results because three separate groups are involved and each applies different revisions to this raw data. With regard to satellites, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming!) This 18+ year duration of no additional warming is not cherry picked since the calculation depends on the data itself and is the answer to a very relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis applied to satellite data, but instead uses the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting used in determining the mean for terrestrial data appears to be over weighted towards terrestrial data.)

    The three terrestrial datasets also have various other issues. Even the current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs so that effect, which can change over time, must be estimated and removed. Land based stations are also subject to other changing environmental conditions. (Why not confine the analysis, or at least derive an independent separate analysis, for comparison, using raw data from rural locations?) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are very few stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government.

    Some alarmists, including politicians, continue to blame severe weather on “climate change” and/or insist that sea level rise is “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since
    the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. More recently the rate of sea level increase has been flat, or dropping, with sea level rise now at a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level will be up one inch.) Viewing a graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand year period should assuage any concerned rational being. Statistical analysis has demonstrated that, for the past several decades, severe weather events of all types have remained within natural climate variation. Weather events (hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, droughts) have been no more severe nor more frequent during this period.

    At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period
    (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed great concern about the MWP. (In fact, one email made clear that they had to get rid of the MWP! Why?) The IPCC and its usual cohort of alarmists insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon. Their unjustifiable claim likely has more than a little to do with the threat of an embarrassing question — “If the MWP was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of this warming?” In order to support the CAGW hypothesis any credible scientist would have surely found it necessary to temporarily put their hypothesis on hold and undertake a global investigation to ensure that there was actually no global warming trend during the MWP. This would have involved a world-wide research effort. They chose instead to cling to their claim that the MWP was merely regional and not all that warm. This flies in the face of numerous peer-reviewed studies, and also with various anecdotal evidence. The alarmists also reverse the theorist’s usual position by demanding that skeptics instead provide the evidence that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. Please note that if even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their hypothesis (having no
    empirical evidence besides) becomes very questionable. As it turns out the MWP trend shows up in many other regions.

    The CAGW hypothesis not only lacks any empirical evidence, it is further exacerbated by their denials of any conflicting evidence. What is so amazing is there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position even reverted from cries of an oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, has been an alarmist both times.) The alarmist denials continue even now, as new studies contradicting CAGW continue to show up almost weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These studies have employed numerous different temperature proxies, some not available to earlier studies. In addition, there are also some 6,000 boreholes around the globe which confirm that the MWP trend was global.

    But wait….there’s more! There were several earlier warmings during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current rate of warming is now lower than published earlier their committee (which reviews every word of that report multiple times) has managed to avoid correcting their erroneous out-years high temperature estimate.

    An ancient forest in Alaska (Mendenhall Glacier), recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered tree trunks preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4000 year old forests showing that area to have been glacier free at that time. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Attempts to brush off such solid information as “anecdotal evidence” is ridiculous.

    Both NASA and NOAA base their “analysis” strictly on terrestrial data, evidently ignoring the satellite data! In late 2014 these two “science” organizations claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both soon backed down after skeptics pointed out that if their same analysis were applied to satellite data, then 2014 was either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Either situation would imply at least a short term cooling underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error of one half a degree, and therefore their contrived comparison across recent years is meaningless. The major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These agencies are apparently still at it, now claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased about 30% and sea ice extent around the south pole continues to break records. New weather trends begin at the two poles.

    Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA “adjusted” sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies also recently declared that their three datasets were “independent”, which is clearly debatable, since all three datasets are basically derived from the same raw data.

    It’s now time to look at the government “solution” for what is very likely a non-problem. Obama wants to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted: This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

    Since our global temperatures are still 2 degrees below the high in each of the past four inter-glacials there may be a bit more natural warming ahead. We know that co2, even at much higher temperatures than now, has had no discernable influence on global temperature. We do need to be concerned about our utilization of energy resources, but it will take centuries before co2 attains those earlier levels, so technology should be available long before co2 level would be troublesome. Politicians’ rush to implement costly policies appears to be a much larger threat.

    Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots” or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, abhor the fossil fuel industry, want to transfer western resources to third world
    countries, etc.) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions.

    Here is peer reviewed science that supports everything that Denis Ables posted. “Left Foot Forward” proved that they are nothing more than propagandists, as they couldn’t rebut the facts, data and empirical science posted, so they merely censor it because it goes against their global warming religion. So sad. But that’s what propagandists and doomsday cult religions do.

    Excellent summary Denis. Here are some links that support what you say: Most of the Alaskan glacier retreat happened as a result of natural climate warming in recovery from the Little Ice Age, well before humans released any significant amount of ghgs into the atmosphere. Graphically shown here: Peer reviewed science support here: http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif

    “We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. … the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. … These changes are natural changes.” – Akasofu2010 ‘On the recovery from the Little Ice Age’ , http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=3217

    Peer reviewed papers have totally debunked the “97% consensus” propaganda meme. Those papers are found here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

    There is empirical evidence from peer reviewed papers that shows the principal cause of current warming is natural, not anthropogenic. During the period of greatest late 20th century warming, there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than anthropogenic forcing, summarized here: http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/#comment-1802299060

    There is not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

    NASA has documented over 12C of recent UHI effect: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html The “adjustments” made to historical temperatures are backwards for proper UHI adjustment.

    “Climate computer model results are clearly not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding of climate.”

    Exactly. The IPCC admits that the climate models are built on a “Low” or “Very Low” Level Of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) of the radiative climate forcings that they use: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
    When they don’t even understand the science, there is no way they can build climate models that accurately project future global temperatures, which is why the models can’t even project near term future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level.
    “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch2013

    Then consider that the climate models only include a few of the many, many natural climate variables and the ones they do, like clouds, they can’t accurately represent because they don’t understand them.

    “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by managing at the margins, one politically selected variable, CO2, is as misguided as it gets.” – Prof. Philip Stott

    The CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 meme is a religious belief based upon flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models. It is no longer science.

    The fact that global warming has become a cult religion is recognized by eminent scientists:

    “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

    And “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48

    Now one of the Left Foot Forward doomsday cult religion’s zeaolts can flag my comment because they can’t rebut the science presented, so the leftist communist nutjob moderators can remove my comment, because it adds peer reviewed science that supports everything that DenisAbles posted. So sad.

  32. RealOldOne2

    “Ice caps expanding! Please do provide some evidence for both your assertions”
    Arctic sea ice has increased by 37% since 2012. Data from National Snow and Ice Center, UofColorado, Boulder: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/37-growth-in-arctic-sea-ice-since-2012/

    “There has been no global warming for nearly two decades!!!”
    Evidence: The temperature trend over the most recent 224 months, 18 2/3 years is slightly negative: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

    No nonsense there. Just empirical data.

  33. jj

    So what?! People have their own opinions on such matters. And the evidence is very contentious. Our CO2 emissions are dwarfed by that emitted by natural means, such as volcanic activity and the like. The glaciers do indeed melt, that happens at varying rates. The majority of what is going on is in fact natural and only some of it is due to us IMO. Not to say we shouldn’t lessen our impact on the planet and find sustainable sources of energy. LFF just doesn’t like to own up to the fact that there is in fact more to climate change than meets the eye

  34. jj

    LFF is attempting to find any possible means of criticising anyone who want to be pit of the EU and who so happens to be right wing, Adam, this shoddy journalist has a track record of scraping the barrel and attempting to demonise anyone who thinks differently to him, so a typical journalist then!

  35. Mary Ann

    Well I suppose that climate change denial and leaving the EU go together, Why does Lawson think he knows better than all those scientists

  36. Maurice Ital

    Belief in the “climate change” baloney is a crackpot view.

  37. Maurice Ital

    He once stood on a balcony with Al Gore.

  38. Maurice Snackbar

    Well since “climate change” is a myth, he sounds like he has his head screwed on.

Leave a Reply