5
Mar

95% chance that you’re a climate killer, and they have your fingerprints

Have you noticed that warmers have started to fight back?  Today, the Times UK tells about a study that has reduced to 5% the probability that skeptics are right.  Oh, and get this: the IPCC UNDERSTATED the effect of mankind on climate change.

The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The “fingerprints” of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade.

The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.

The study said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had understated mankind’s overall contribution to climate change. The IPCC had said in 2007 that there was no evidence of warming in the Antarctic. However, the panel said that the latest observations showed that man-made emissions were having an impact on even the remotest continent.

Oh wait, I just noticed that the Met Office is involved in the study.  Given their accurate forecasting record, I feel much better.

Read the story:  Times Online

Possibly related posts:

  1. Glaciologist Syed Hasnain: “I was keeping quiet as I was working here…” UPDATE: so Parchouri’s TERI could rake in a half million?
  2. There is “no real evidence” Global Warming causes natural disasters
  3. Top climatologist finds 40% of British government climate costs report “fraudulent”
  4. Sign Lord Monckton’s petition if you haven’t yet
  5. Good news! One third of the Netherlands suddenly rises above sea level

45 Responses to “95% chance that you’re a climate killer, and they have your fingerprints”

  1. Henry chance says:

    The Met Office? The ones that forecast BBQ summers? They were wrong. We are not dealing with honest people at the Met Orifice.
    The Met Office forecast the sever UK blizzard lduring this winter as it was starting to blast the area and snow was falling.
    These dishonest people need to be punished.

  2. John D. Nier says:

    I bet you wouldn’t get those odds in Las Vegas. An astute bookie would have a better chance of getting it right than the Met Office.

  3. gb says:

    The MET must be fearful of budget cuts, their message is targeted at those who don’t check science or facts, that’s why it annoys you so much Henry..

  4. Ed Shearon says:

    As I posted in the goofy gorebashing story, what is it with you people? You either get really angry or resort to smarmy incredulity when confronted with something that is counter to your peculiar take on things.

    And what on earth does the headline have to do with the story? Looks like something the Mail Online would do.

    As the Clown Queen Sarah Palin might say, how’s that hoaxey, fraudey thing workin’ out for ya?

    • Tel says:

      I’ve got some CO2 here, but I need a bit of help figuring out if it’s the natural kind or the unnatural kind. Does someone sell test kits?

  5. ward says:

    Ed:

    Try not to get all “wee-wee’d up” as the Clown President Barrack Obama says. Which of the 57 states do you live in?

    • Ed Shearon says:

      The Moron Minority responds with its characteristic good humor!

      • Lukerya says:

        Aaaand we are back to ad hominem attacks and no arguments. Congratulations!

        • Ed Shearon says:

          Correct me if I am wrong, madame, but ad hominem attacks is the sole currency of deniers. With the exception of those (incredibly) transparent “studies” generated by “experts” at faux “institutes” funded by nefarious players, denier arguments all can be characterized as follows: fill in the blanks:
          Mr./Dr./Ms. (name) is (lying, hiding information, perpetrating a hoax, making fraudulent statements, trying to effect one world government, trying to maintain the flow of funding, covering up mistakes, wants more taxes, colluding with every scientist in the world, out for their own personal gain, promoting a sham, has investments in carbon, has investments in renewable power, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gorew, Al Gore). Period.

          Show one rational objective analysis that supports your view that everything going on in our climate today in unaffected by man. One!

          So I am simply attempting to speak your language.

          • Lukerya says:

            Ed, do not make me laugh. Skeptics do not need ad hominem attacks and use them much less then alarmists. In fact, it is a trademark of alarmist to dismiss arguments not on the basis of nature of the argument, but because “they are funded by big oil!” (as if the other side is not funded, free scince does not exist since Classical times) or “they are selfish pigs!”. Right.

            However, your main mistake is demanding proof of NON existence of AGW. If you were at all familiar with scientific method, you would know, that the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim.

            Non-existence is default, null theory. Therefore it is YOU who need to prove that AGW exists. Since statements of existence are not falsifiable (in fact, they are classical example of non-falsifiable statements) non-existence is not a subject of proof. You would not even be able to prove that you do not have a second head on your shoulders. In a discussion between those who insist that AGW exists (is significant) and skeptics proof is required from those, who claim existence. And let me tell you something – there is NO such proof.

          • Granter says:

            Lukerya, Ed is unfortunately NOT mistaken. If you were at all familliar with scientific method, you would know that every scientific research MUST be based on previously demonstrated scientifically admitted facts. Otherwise, researchs would take an enormous amount of time to achieve proving every elemental truths that the thesis rely on. Thousands, yes thousands of studies confirmed climate changes influenced by man. It is now generally admitted. (sorry for you, those studies TAKE IN CONSIDERATION the normal and natural climate variation). You’re the one making an opposite claim. Now, I’d like to ask you again Ted’s question:

            “Show one rational objective analysis that supports your view that everything going on in our climate today in unaffected by man. One!”

          • Tel says:

            Without getting too deeply into philosophy of belief, the Greenland ice core (and lots of historic documentation) shows that the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period were warmer than today. Furthermore a warm period happens approximately once every 1000 years so we were due for one around 2000 anyways. By the way, each of those warm periods were also highly productive periods for humans, which is also a matter of historic record.

            Put that together with a bunch of other ice cores and there is solid evidence that the climate on earth does vary, and has wobbled around for longer than humans have been on the Earth, and certainly much longer than industrialization.

            Beyond this, there is evidence that CO2 lags behind temperature. Admittedly, the IPCC has come up with a theory that somehow temperature drives CO2 some of the time and CO2 drives temperature just this one time, and that is not entirely impossible — but Occam’s Razor suggests that the simple explanation of CO2 being the driven variable is vastly more likely to be the real explanation (or the best we can do without additional evidence). Why go for a complex explanation without justification?

            Of course, this does not prove that man is having no effect… it merely shows a natural effect that is far bigger than anything measurable that can be attributed to either CO2 or man. If the natural effect is large then attempts by humans to regulate and control our climate are doomed to fail (and the money spent could be better put into other things, like adaptation).

  6. Randy says:

    Ed, try reading the headline AND the article together.

    “95% chance that you’re a climate killer, and they have your fingerprints”

    and then…

    “The “fingerprints” of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade”

    and….

    “There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes”

    Kinda lookin’ crybabyish or somethin’

    • Editor says:

      Randy, lefties simply don’t have a sense of humor. That was a great headline (if I do say so myself), based upon the actual article content.

  7. ADE says:

    The “Changers” are throwing everything into the pot,
    Humidity,rainfall,acidity of oceans,melting ,or not, of glaciers and arctic sea ice,tell that to the thousands of ferry passengers “frozen in the Baltic”.
    They are ,the “changers” are failing because they have NOT DONE THE SCIENCE, a cohort of climate wannabees was set up by the UN ,theIPCC , they seemed to have chosen badly,scientists who wanted to please their POLITICAL MASTERS.
    The outcome has been faux science with MANN made straw models that fail again and again. Rubbish in rubarb out,no rubarb is useful.
    Our “POLITICAL MASTERS” have taken the CO2 demon to their hearts! [assuming they have them] and have CONNIVED to use this etherial substance to TAX US so “they can have POWER over the THIRD WORLD.”
    If “they” win ,say goodby to our western industrial society,stand by to welcome MARXISM.

  8. Rupert says:

    Who exactly are these ‘senior scientists’. Are they the same ones who have contributed to the increasingly challenged IPCC report 4?

    • Lukerya says:

      Why, yes. There was practically no names in the article (except for Stott, about whom we KNOW he is from MET), but universities were named and its is easy enough to fill the gaps. Universities websites have lists of projects and who works on them. That at least U of Vic works with IPCC I just happen to know for a fact.

  9. Kilted Mushroom says:

    At least we do not have to worry about rising sea levels anymore. More salt – less water = lower levels.

  10. PaulsNZ says:

    These boffins need to take off their pink glasses. And look up at the SUN, I’m sure they will find the source of their problem!.

  11. Ed Shearon says:

    Lukerya:
    How disingenuous. The literature is rife with examples as to the viability of a theory of man made climate change.

    How arogant to think that it is the responsibilty of others to respond to the petulant cries of “prove it.” We both know this has nothing to do with the “Scientiftic Method” and that no amount of “science” matters. . This is all about politics. You have the gall to contort science to fit your ideology- one that fears global action.

    You’ve asserted over and over again its a lie, and used a whole lot of words to avoid answering the question I posed: show a scitilla of evidence that your assertions are correct. The “scientific method” does not absolve you of supporting that assertion. You can’t.

    • John D. Nier says:

      Your right Ed, AGW became about politics when the science was busted. It then became very obvious it was all politicized results and not scientific results. There really isn’t any proof the believers could offer anyway, because there is none. At this stage of the game all they do is prosthelytize and postulate. All the deniers have to do is sit back in their chairs and say “prove it!” So far none have. You’re also correct using the word “theory”, because that’s about all it is, is a “theory”, not a fact.

      Theory definitions:

      1. contemplation or speculation.
      2. guess or conjecture.

      • Ed Shearon says:

        As mentioned elsewhere, the kind of “thinking” I encounter in the US is some variant on ADE’s perspective above. That’s the kind of “politics” that gets the attention in my country.

        “Theory” and the acceptance of such is not exactly what your dictionary apparently says. In science (since everyone in this section loves to try and wear their “knowledge” of it and its methods as some form of superiority) a theory is something that cannot be definitively proven. GPS units function because we “accept” (note, we do not “believe”) in the special theory of relativity. We “accept” it because most of the time (say, 95% to keep in the spirit of this particular topic) it appears to be an effective way to predict outcomes. That’s a probability calculus, not precise arithmetic. Since, as John has pointed out, you are not creationists, then you likely “accept” the theory of evolution. So the notion that a concept is a “theory” and not a fact is something you all understand and “accept” in many ways in your daily existence and also is not something so easily dismissed as puffery, as your comment implies.

        I have never seen anyone who would know better describe the theory of man made climate change as a Law, or an absolute, or provable beyond a shadow of doubt. While I “accept” the theory as very probable, I do not accept the idea that we know anywhere enough about its consequences or that we can rely on our current knowledge to make predictions well into the future.

        • Lukerya says:

          Ah, yes, acceptance. Hear, hear. Another bad case of switching. There is a world of difference between what you call acceptance (read “blind faith, because critical thinking is too much work” and what scientists understand by it. And the difference lays in two liiiiittle things: first, you accept what is most probable in the face of objective evidence, and second, your acceptance is limited by three very important words: until proven otherwise. AGW theory failed in both respects. It was accepted on the base of political agenda, and it is maintained regardless of how often it contradicts facts or common sense. And please, do not hide behind pseudo-heroics of “it is all for the best of humanity”. Firts, as you admit yourself, you have no idea what is better. You do not have reliable models or effective tools. You just want to take money from other people (which in itself is bad, unless a greater value is offered, but without tools or models you have nothing to offer). And secondly, by crying wolf without good reason you ruin reputation of scientists, wear public trust and readiness to act in necessity, and in fact endanger what you claim to protect.

  12. Ed Shearon says:

    Lukerya
    Want an illutration of the politics, just look at ADEs’ fine work above.

    As to the absurdity of the “positive statements must be justified under the sciebntific method” suppose I say the sky is blue. Under your construction you can freely scream repeatedly “It isn’t” and I must generate peer reviewed papers before I am to be believed? In Apocalypse Now Kurtz says to Williard “they’ve sent you because they don’t agree with my methods.” To which Kurtz replies “Sir, I see no method.”

    • Lukerya says:

      No, you must produce peer reviewed papers to make a justified positive statement in the first place. It was never done.
      Then it would be my turn. In the face of presented evidence there is no point to say that “it isn’t so”. I can accept offered evidence or try to dispute them. However, in order to dispute, I will need to make a positive statement that there is something wrong with the evidence. And then I will need evidence. Which we have in abundance now, even if I did not know how the data was generated in the first place. So, back in your court: not only no peer reviewed evidence of clear AGW ever existed, but all the politically generated unfounded statements were shown to be groundless. Your move.

      • Ed Shearon says:

        This reminds me of tje Monty Python skit about the depertment of arguments. If yiu’re not familiar, a man goes into an office having paid to have an argument. The guy at the desk simply says ‘No it isn’t” to every statement the client makes. Finally he demands his money back because the guy at the desk is simply being ciontrary and not really arguing. Except MP made it funny.

        Man is altering the atmosphere on a daily basis. Regionally and globally. He’s doing it with a variety of man made chemicals. Now, are you going to say “That’s not true?” Or “Prove it!”. Or are you going to say that you have evidence my observation is wrong?

        • Well said Ed. It’s so obvious that man is altering the atmosphere on a daily basis.

          • mike t says:

            Ed, here is a simple suggestion, why don’t you and all the other supposedly millions of people who believe this crap just cough up and fund the measures suggested to help halt global warming.
            Then the rest of us can go about our daily choirs knowing that despite our wicked ways the planet is going to be saved.
            The science isn’t proven ,never was proven and being bullied by people like you isn’t going to make us believers.
            We have a flat headed Prime minister over here who lies on a daily basis, just the fact that he is telling us its true is enough for me to doubt it, but no i have looked into the subject and decided for myself that there are too many lies being told to justify their claims.
            If the science is settled there would be no need for lies would there

  13. Lukerya says:

    No, why should I? Man is altering atmosphere already by breathing and farting. But it does not mean that this alteration has any effect on climate. So, no, I am not going to say “it isn’t so”, because is is but means nothing. But you are trying to make a connection between “man is producing gases” and “man is at fault for climate change”. You a switching the argument. You are using a straw-man fallacy. Question is not wither or not humans produce GHGs, but wither or not there is an AGW. At this point, yes, I will stand up and say “prove it!”. And you have no proof.

  14. Graham says:

    I watched a little of the UK inquiry today, one in a long list of inquiries the government have held to try to rewrite facts. They don’t have any credibility themselves, which is why Tony Blair, after his inquiry appearance had no chance of becoming President of Europe, and I’m not sure how Gordon will fair after his latest appearance.

    By some twisted logic of unknown origin (less Plato or Socrates more BoBo the Clown) the government’s chief scientist tried to assert that Mann’s debunked Hockey Stick graph, by being debunked, proved how sound the science was. He carefully stepped over it like something your dog may do in the park.

    The IPCC report is decaying faster than a Pharoah’s underpants and may be virtually worthless by the end of the year. You can’t hold a document up as being based on the best science when it contains schoolboy ‘howlers’.

  15. Tel says:

    From the Times article:

    … the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade.

    Supported by none of the measurements taken in the last decade, not the ice coverage at the poles, not the GISS global mean temperature.

    This meant that more rain was falling in high and low latitudes and less in tropical and sub-tropical regions.

    Totally contradicted by the observation of increased rainfall in Queensland and a whole strip across the North of Australia right through to the Pilbara. This is the strip that sits right under the Tropic of Capricorn.

  16. Lukerya says:

    To Granter:

    Actully, I AM familiar with it, and no, it is not. It can perfectly well start from scratch, if nothing in the field has been done before. Or disregard studies that do not adhere to a scientific method. Moreso, AGW alarmists has no trouble ignoring sound previous scientific findings such as that climate was much warmer before, and no catastrophe happened when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, or that earth forests suffer from CO2 deficiency.

    No, it isn’t, and there is not a single peer reviewed study that proves it. Name one of those “thousands”! How is your claim better than if I would say “there are gasilions studies that prove martians are responsible”?AWnd no, it was not “generally admitted”, only that money was flowing to alarmists.

    Take any textbook on meteorology. Any on plant physiology. Any on gas spectroscopy. Any report of Earth temperature monitoring from satellites.

  17. Lukerya says:

    To Granter:
    “If you were at all familliar with scientific method, you would know that every scientific research MUST be based on previously demonstrated scientifically admitted facts. ”

    Actually, I AM familiar with it, and no, it is not. It can perfectly well start from scratch, if nothing in the field has been done before. This has nothing to do with scientic method. It is also perfectly acceptable disregard studies that do not adhere to a scientific method (like the crap we publish in IPCC reports). More so, AGW alarmists has no trouble ignoring sound previous scientific findings such as that climate was much warmer before, and no catastrophe happened when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, or that earth forests suffer from CO2 deficiency.

    ” Thousands, yes thousands of studies confirmed climate changes influenced by man. It is now generally admitted.’

    No, it isn’t, and there is not a single peer reviewed study that proves it. Name one of those “thousands”! How is your claim better than if I would say “there are gasilions studies that prove martians are responsible”? And no, it was not “generally admitted”, only that money was flowing to alarmists.

    “Show one rational objective analysis that supports your view that everything going on in our climate today in unaffected by man. One!”

    Take any textbook on meteorology. Any on plant physiology. Any on gas spectroscopy. Any report of Earth temperature monitoring from satellites.

  18. Tel says:

    By the way, here are the linear regression “warming” slopes for the GISS dataset (up to 2009) for various starting years (slope is degrees C per decade):

    1920 0.069
    1940 0.081
    1960 0.135
    1970 0.164
    1980 0.163
    1990 0.188
    1995 0.155
    2000 0.119

    Pick a start year, pick an answer… any answer you want. However, to look at it, the warming happened around 1980 to 1990 and the last decade has been turning around. Of course, if you actually start going to individual surface stations and digging out the raw data you will invariably get less warming, but that’s a study we have already covered.

    • Ed Shearon says:

      Have you run the data sets to see how well they correlate with Benford’s Law?

      • Lukerya says:

        LOL, what are you implying, that official, IPCC accepted data were fraudulently originated? Benford’s law is not applicable here in any other sense. Last decade there was no warming. And there is no law you can find in Wiki that will make it otherwise.

      • Tel says:

        If you trust Wikipedia (and at this moment I have no better reference):

        Benford’s law can only be applied to data which is distributed across multiple orders of magnitude. For instance, one might expect a list of numbers representing ‘populations of UK villages beginning with ‘A’ or ‘small insurance claims’ to obey Benford’s law. But if it turns out that the definition of a ‘village’ is ‘settlement with population between 300 and 999′, or that the definition of a ‘small insurance claim’ is ‘claim between $50 and $100′, then Benford’s law will not apply

        Furthermore, there’s a Benford presumption that the real world distribution is logarithmic and I doubt that would be the case of terrestrial surface temperature, but I can give you the counts if it helps at all:

        DIGIT, COUNT
        1, 37
        2, 24
        3, 30
        4, 9
        5, 10
        6, 3
        7, 5
        8, 8
        9, 2

        If you don’t like `em then talk to NASA about it…

        I will say that a better basis for being suspicious of GISS is that spot checks such as Darwin and Gladstone have revealed strange methodology and rural stations across the USA have shown less warming than GISS. That’s probably more direct evidence than Benford IMHO. I only use GISS because it is easy to reference and well known, and most likely would show warming if they possibly could show warming (Hansen is very much tuned to looking for warming as much as possible).

        • Ed Shearon says:

          Tel:
          You might dig a little deeper than Wikipediea. Benford’s has become an accepted means to identify fraud. It is accepted in US courts as evidence of malfesance. Most of its use has been in “forensic accouinting” and is a variety of software suites that will do the work. There is a mathematetical proof for the law. So get all of the data, not a few massaged data ponts and find the fraud. Expose it!

          Now, to give a Laterya response. You’re wrong. I don’t care what you say because it is either all lies or you’re daft. Now I’m gonig to cover my ears and say naaa naaaa until you go away.

          • Tel says:

            ALL the data? Every little bit of it?

            Let’s start with daily rainfall counts, I’ll tell you right now that by far the most common digit is 0 because most days it doesn’t rain. What do Benford and the US courts have to say about that? Feed them through your special software if you like.

  19. Ed Shearon says:

    Telk;
    If the issue is indeed whose messing with science, then you can’t get away with Lyserka’s strategy of proclaiming you have unassailable truth. You’re going to have to prove it. I just introduced you to a modern tool of fornsic accubting. What you do with it is not my problem. .

    • Tel says:

      You didn’t introduce me to it, and you obviously don’t understand how it works. It is not an appropriate tool for the job.

      If you have a serious interest in the surface temperature data gathering process then I suggest you start with the placement of measuring devices, then look at the construction of the Stevens screening (including the whitewash used) and go further and look at the data homogenization process (for example Darwin and Gladstone). You might go one step further and ask yourself what exactly a global mean temperature is, should we be using a fourth power norm on the Kelvin scale?

      • Ed Shearon says:

        Tel:
        Paying attention to the Watts station BS is a common mistake. Cleary you possess the irrefutable truth and methodology: I’m not going to try and educate. Keep an eye out for a paper in July that does, in actual fact, use this tool with the data. It might be helpful in leading you out of your absolutism.

        • Graham says:

          The irrefutable fact, confirmed by the UEA CRU, is that there has not been any statistically significant warming in the past 15 years.

          They couldn’t explain the warming either, so because they hadn’t a clue, they decided it was man’s fault. We don’t know so we’ll pick something at random is not a scientific principle that resolves anything other than the lack of knowledge of those involved, and leaves them rather clueless now that there isn’t any warming.

          The lack of warming must also be down to man, though they would wish to state otherwise. The problem then is that any new factor they add to the equation will have to be factored in to all their historical records, which may well bounce the whole of AGW to where it belongs – the long grass.

          There aren’t a few odd facts wrong. There are a whole pile of dud facts that make the IPCC 2007 report less factual than most comics, and undeniable basics that put the whole theory under threat, and the longer they don’t face up to them with anything other than sticking their heads in the sand, the faster they’ll lose credibility. Not that they have any left.

          If they cling on to this rotting and decaying theory, I doubt there’ll be much left by the time they go to Cancun.

  20. Ed Shearon says:

    Graham, Graham, Graham
    You apparently read a Mail Online headline anf thought it was truthfuk. Kind of like taking email text out of context. Jones said there was no statistically significant warming over the lkast 15 years because NO 15 year period is stastistically significant, I.e. Over 95 per cent confidence. He went on to say that there was indeed warming over that period at .06 deg C. Of course the Mail did not use the headline: Jones coinfirms at lest 90 percent but not 95 per cent confidence that there was warming over the last 15 years.”

  21. Ed Shearon says:

    Graham, et al:
    First, my apologies for the typing errors. I should not attempt to reply with a Blackberry.
    Second, do you realize that your arguments have become such cliche’s that there is an iPhone/iPod Touch app that catalogs the standard list of denier myths, provides the basis for debunking the myths, and updates itself as new myths are created. You can get it at http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html

    Also, if you go to Youtube and look up the work of greenman3610, you will see a whole series of rather professionally done videos covering the Petition Project scam, the Watts weather station scam, the Med Warming Period myth, the Little Ice Age myth, the “all the other planets are warming too” myth, the “its the sun”, the “its cold outside this must mean there is no global warming” silliness, etc.

    You’ve already reached the status of being stereotyped.

    Finally, for a brief moment, I thought dialogue was possible, Unfortunately, every time the discussion inevitably goes in a direction the denier doesn’t like, they fell back on “I know the truth, you don’t and you’re the one that needs to substantiate your argument.” This is a group of highly insecure individuals.

    So, its been fun. Adios.

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.