Tuesday
Oct182016
by 
Josh
Josh GWPF Annual Lecture 2016 - Cartoon notes by Josh
Oct 18, 2016 Josh Matt Ridley ;)
Last night Matt Ridley gave an excellent lecture titled 'Global warming vs global greening'. You can read the text and slides here.
Reader Comments (143)
Much of the nonsense here is a rehash of what he presented in an interview with Roger Harribin.
(Transcript, with annotations from scientists)
He's added a few more errors and blog science:
Only out by a few decades (Hint:Matt, journalists are meant to fact-check their sources)
Yes, Matt they are Professors of English, Sociology and Chemistry teaching a course on Medical Humanities, stating that students are to take climate change as a 'given' for the purposes of the course, much as a Biology course would not entertain debate about natural selection, as it would be a distraction.
'Champion of Science'. LOL.
Much of the complete bollocks that Phil Clarke has posted is just a rehash of the same old failed global warming rubbish that has been droned on about for 20+ years.
Cut taxpayers funding of climate science by 97%. If the science is settled, why bother to fund it? Why do we need yet another falsification to prove that the Hockey Stick was falsified? Climate science CANNOT forecast or predict, so why fund it?
Josh, brilliant cartoon! I hope our politicians take note. The Green Blob are financial losers, for everyone, except their own personal monetary interests.
Why am I the only one that have any interest in this:
"CO2 is all we bloody have to eat"
(Obscure Python reference included)
Heh, an extra billion bellies fed. If not now, before long.
=======================
RidleyQuote
Full Quote
Champion of Science!
Heh, an extra billion bellies fed. If not now, before long.
Implausible.
https://www.scribd.com/document/292508993/Matt-Ridley-interviewed-by-Roger-Harrabin#fullscreen&from_embed
See comments 28 and 29.
Heh.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/18/green-subsidies-to-push-uk-energy-bills-higher-than-expected-nao
Even The Guardian, and some of their commenters can now see how dumb the situation is, as taxpayers are ripped off by the Green Blob, and left in the dark, wondering why.
I love the sadistic Heh at the end there, PedoPhil.
Let them starve.
Heh, many fed and number rising steadily. But Phil can't believe. He must be well fed.
==================
Many, possibly. A billion, no way.
C'mon, Phil, look to the future. The number is high and rising.
It's a tide, and one unable to ebb.
========================
It's a bubble, Phil, and a sustainable one, as opposed to the bubble of hysteria over CO2 climate catastrophism.
====================
You could have ended world poverty with the trillion wasted on falsified global warming evidence, but some some prefer the sadistics of climate science, where 97% are wrong.
Excellent cartoon as ever. The talk looked good too. I wonder who was there to see it.
[J: Everyone! It was very well attended - James Delingpole, David Rose and Tim Palmer were there, a journalist from the Economist - a good crowd and very interesting Q&A which I hope will be available at some time in the future.]
I found the transcript disappointing. None of it was new, just a rehash of old denier and lukewarmers memes and the same old cherrypicks.
No point in answering the whole Gish Gallop, but I will point out one example of misrepresentation.
Among Viscount Ridley's bullet points is "sea level rise would accelerate; it hasn't" . He cherrypicks the years since 1992.
If you consider the full century the rate of sea level rise has increased from 0.6mm/year to 3.4mm/year. That is a fivefold acceleration.
EM, tell me - why when measuring temperature, do warmists prefer land based measurements and when measuring sea level height do you prefer satellite measurements? Is it because if you continued to use land based sea level rise, there is no rate of increase? At the very least your graph should show the continuation of the land measurements to compare with the historical version? Just for clarity you understand, not because we think you guys run something like the shell game in a bunko booth.
Its quite a Gallop …
See here for a list in Le Monde of the egregious errors in Verdier's book. And here is Kerry Emmanuel, hurricane expert at MIT explaining the 'significant problem with Pielke’s analysis'.
Perhaps it would be quicker to list the things Lord Matt 'Coal is wonderful' Ridley got right?
Tiny CO2
If you genuinely believe that, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
Against stupidity
The Gods themselves
Contend in vain
Tiny, the acceleration is clear whether you use tide gauge or satellite data.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1
EM, no evidence of that accelerated sea rise in Southern Hampshire, where sea level has clearly been higher before. I watched the High Tide today, (springs) and it was nowhere near overwhelming concrete structures built during WW2 for launching stuff into the sea. I know Climate Scientists don't do history, but those structures were built in 1943/44
Where is your man sourcing his data from?
golf Charlie
If you genuinely want more detail I suggest you browse the left hand column at the University of Colorado website.
Like your leukaemia, the damage from accelerating sea level rise is end loaded, most severe towards the later stages of the process.;and the longer you wait before treatment, the word it gets.
I trust you did not ignore the early symptoms of your cancer as you ignore the early stages of accelerating sea level.
Folks
Just to remind ourselves that 3.4 mm per year equates to 13 inches per century.
I am unpersuaded that I need to soil my underwear with fear of this number.
And saddened that Entropic has learnt nothing since his last excursion into these choppy waters.
Listening to home service now.
A slow transition in the propaganda is happening.
However the dogma remains corporate capitalist rather then distributionist.
"Look at flying car......."
On air. 20:00 - 20:40. File on 4. Changing Tides: Can the UK keep its renewable energy promises?
Entropic Man - you are much more effective in debate than Phil Clarke. But you both seem often to share the illusion that all your opponents are either knaves or fools. To be fair, this is the one true consensus that is common to all sides of the debate: that those who disagree with us must be either knaves or fools. Whether this is true or not (many of us are fools from time to time, fewer I think knaves - though I may be foolish to think so), it is unpersuasive. It may relieve our feelings, but it does not change minds. Better when you follow the injunction: "If what I have said is wrong, point it out!".
Phil, I see no runaway global warming from 1930-2010 in fig 5. Slightly more warming in the last section than the 1930-1960 section. It also gives a warming of 2.8mm /year 1993 to 2010 and not 3.4. You can't see the terrifying CO2 in the graph. If people were shown that graph and told that the scary part was after 1950, they'd think you were nuts.
EM I believe I wrote "Just for clarity you understand, not because we think you guys run something like the shell game in a bunko booth." Just because your behaviour looks dodgy, doesn't mean it is. I asked for clarity but you chose to act shifty instead.
EM 6:44 thank you for the concern about my cancer. The difference is that I trust my Haematologists. I can feel or sense when something needs doing, but I accept they need blood tests before varying my chemo dosage etc, and I can feel or sense the effects, which are not always pleasant in the short term.
I wouldn't trust a climate scientist to take my temperature. Whatever my temperature was, they would adjust it to match their diagnosis that I had Athlete's Foot, and needed to buy more of their patented snake oil.
I trust my NHS Doctors and Nurses, though the bureaucracy of the NHS is a shambles driven by clueless management at all levels. Climate science is driven by incompetent pseudoscientists, and taxpayers have lost all trust. The public care about the NHS. The public no longer care to see so much money wasted on climate science.
"computers would crash at the dawn of the millennium ..."
"Why does Matt Ridley keep repeating this old canard? It indicates that he knows little about the discipline.
In the run up to the end of the Twentieth Century I worked at two Telecom companies that had large Information System requirements and both completed Y2K testing on their important systems well before the deadline; the first completed its Y2K work two years before the deadline as part of its regular maintenance using a couple of people who worked on on other projects as well, for a couple of months or so. The elapse time was longer because setting up the systems to repeatedly pass through the same midnight needed system upgrades, which required their own testing. If they were running an old operating system, they would have to upgrade to the latest system, plus the system's Y2K fixes, before they could START their own testing. At many companies, the work required was minimal, but the elapse time might be ages, even if it was only waiting for the lawyers to untangle who paid for what! :) :) :)
There were problems that were fixed, but then, that was why the testing needed to be done. It was just like releasing any other system enhancement or maintenance release. It is no different to pre-flight checks before a flight: better to find out before takeoff!
The Government publicity was needed because there were many organisations that did not have anyone responsible for Information Systems, mostly OUTSIDE the industry itself. Maybe those in this area reported to someone without any understanding of the problems and risks involved, like a Finance Director or a Deputy Head, or no one at all, but without a sensible budget, nothing could be done.
There was also non-IS equipment that needed checking. In particular, lifts (where operating theatres would be out of reach of patients on a different floor) and pumps: especially sewerage pumps! :) Can you imagine a sewerage pump failing, then the fire brigade couldn't get there to pump out the houses or the phones didn't work? It was important to ensure that we didn't get a domino effect, where people would be up to their neck in it.
We haven't actually left Y2K behind. Currently people applying for driving licences are still those born in the last century and it will only be when they start being born after 31st December 1999 that we will know for certain whether we have problems to fix.
I heard rumours that some of the bank computer failures this century were Y2K problems, but it was too embarrassing to admit to it.
On a more positive note, I have been told by people that some very big bugs were caught 'where they used to work' or 'elsewhere', and some not Y2K related at all. The Y2K work was the first time that there was an industry wide effort to encourage the review the total existing system rather than just what was being amended.
When this month's global temperatures are computed there will be no climate model run that reflects measured temperatures. After that, models and reality will continue to diverge.
Ridley is entertaining but hardly relevant with his brick bats: when predictions and reality diverge then the theory is wrong.
SSat - What is so special about October?
September's observations are in, and indicate that, after a period of divergence, the models are now slightly cooler than reality.
Latimer Alder
The message coming from those researching ice melt is that it is non-linear. Your assumption that sea level rise will be linear at its current rate throughout the 21st century is obsolete.
Osseo
Look at the timeline discussion. I spent a week debating with Radical rodent, a fool who denied the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Look at TinyCO2, who describes himself as a conspiracy theorist. Regrettably the sensible debators of science have left the site. Most of those left write like knaves or fools, so I treat them as such.
TinyCO2
Please clarify. Are you a conspiracy theorist or not? Your last two posts are ambiguous.I f you think of climate science as a bunko booth, then by definition all the scientific data is fraudulent and there is no point in discussing it. I have no intention of wasting time on a closed mind.
"Cut taxpayers funding of climate science by 97%. If the science is settled, why bother to fund it?"
For the sake of art- the computer graphics are better than the cartoons PR flacks commission, and make vastly more sense.
Entropic Man, Phil Clarke & vvussell
The message coming from those researching climate science is that they spend too much time trusting the computer models that were designed by their previous failures, that were based on Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick.
Until 97% of Climate Science is discarded, no one is going to trust anything from climate scientists. It seems that Hillary Clinton doesn't, (surprise surprise she lied) though if elected, she may not turn off the financial taps as abruptly as Trump, it will depend on the financial incentives offered..
Someone needs to work out the 3% of climate science that is worth saving, and you seemed to have ruled yourselves and thousands of others out. It is a bit like the Remainers in the UK trying to dictate terms, or halt BREXIT, why should anyone listen to the opinions of those who are wrong, and can't accept it? As for the liars and scam artists that infest the cesspools of climate science, it will be interesting to see who they throw under a bus first.
'The message coming from those researching ice melt is that it is non-linear. Your assumption that sea level rise will be linear at its current rate throughout the 21st century is obsolete.'
I made no such such assumption. Just restated the current figure in different units to give a more human idea of the scale of the effect.
Another way of looking at it is 'the depth of one housebrick per human generation
And if the nonlinearity you claim starts showing up in the observations, I'll be happy to restate the revised figures in the same way. It helps to have a real intuitive feel for the size of the challenge (or not) that we are facing.
Enrtropic says:
'None of it was new, just a rehash of old denier and lukewarmers memes and the same old cherrypicks'
Translated from alarmistspeak
'The case against alarmism being a dangerous notion remains as strong as ever and Ridley is still an effective advocate.
I can't lay a glove on him, dammit'
In other news Entropic reports on Mr Isaac Newton's latest lecture at the Royal Society
'Nothing new here. Still the same old Newtonian memes about 'planetary motion' and his theory of 'gravity'.
No good will come of it, mark my words. The old ways are always the best. Challenge Aristotle at your peril. And beware the nameless dread, the Ides of March and walking on cracks in the pavement'
“If you consider the full century the rate of sea level rise has increased from 0.6mm/year to 3.4mm/year. That is a fivefold acceleration …” Entropic man 5:31 PM.
=======================================
The sea level rise according to tidal gauge data since 1900 is linear at ~ +2.06 mm/yr.
The sea level rise according to satellite altimetry since 1992 is linear at ~ +3.3 mm/yr.
No explanation for the difference has been generally accepted except that tide gauges don’t measure temperature-driven volume expansion being at the shore line where the water depth approaches zero.
Truncating the linear tidal gauge trend at 1992 and splicing on the linear satellite data to show a spurious ‘acceleration’ is chicanery in the ‘Mannian’ tradition.
PH - What's so special about October?
Another month on from the El Niño spike. Models are divergent from reality. To not realise the game is up is to be, by definition, unrealistic.
EM, nothing as grand as a conspiracy. Just cherry picking on your side same as you accused Matt Ridley. I can think of no explanation for the flip flop between satellite and land other than it makes the warming look greater for both temperatures and sea level rise. It's your behaviour when called on it that makes you look like a dodgy con man.
Robert Christopher: "some of the bank computer failures this century were Y2K problems".
True. For example, some banks adopted the so-called "windowing" solution: two digit years were retained but the code adjusted so that numbers up to and including, for example, 10 were regarded as being in the twenty-first century and numbers higher than 10 in the twentieth century; thus “09” would be read as “2009” and “12” as “1912”. That was fine so long as a more permanent fix was devised well before 2010. But that didn't always happen. The most important failure was in Germany - a failure reported (LINK) to have cost €300m.
Much more here: LINK. (See especially page 17.)
PS: I've advised Matt Ridley that he should stop using Y2K as an example of a failed prediction. But he keeps trotting it out.
Does Mr Clarke actually live in the Holocene Interglacial, or in some other extra-terrestrial world?
Matt Ridley said...
These were later joined by more predictions of doom:
(...)
computers would crash at the dawn of the millennium, bringing down civilisation
"PS: I've advised Matt Ridley that he should stop using Y2K as an example of a failed prediction. But he keeps trotting it out."
RG: Why do you say that? I remember very well there were predictions that even lifts would stop working. No question there were such predictions. And no question that civilisation was not brought to a halt. So why should he not quote that as a failed prediction?
From Lie Detection and Scandals (from Scott Adams' blog. Scott Adams is the Dilbert cartoonist and has a lot to say, both in the Dilbert cartoon and elsewhere, about human behaviour)
Reading the comments above notice any similarities?
It appears Mr Clarke lives in the trolocene. I note he doesn't seem to have come out from under the bridge at several other sites where the lecture has been discussed - e.g. WUWT, NALOPKT.
Martin A, the issue did reach silly proportions but many companies did find errors that would have caused serious incidents. eg the company I worked for would have polluted a river. Also production would have stopped for a few hours causing thousands of pounds to be lost. Since the government warned that Y2K accidents and incidents would cause them to seek imprisonment for offenders, IT people were reasonably nervous. Y2K was largely a damp squib because the problems were fixed. Though I will admit that a lot of people took the opportunity to buy new kit even when they didn't need it.
EM: “the bunco booth” - also referred to as “watch the pea”. It's wrong to use these terms, because it doesn't help to promote mutual understanding (see above). But let me try explain what (I think) is behind it. It's not complete refusal to accept any data. Most of the data is good. What it refers to is misunderstanding – and misuse - of the consensus.
There is a strong consensus (even if it's not 97%) that man-made CO2 is causing significant global warming. That is the consensus. This could be incredibly dangerous, so we must move mountains to stop it. That is the argument. But the strong consensus on the effect of CO2 is transferred to the next stage of the argument – that it is or could be incredibly dangerous. So the general public – from President Obama down – believe that there is a full consensus among climate scientists that CO2 emissions are (or could be) incredibly dangerous, so we must move mountains to stop them. That is false – the pea is no longer under the original cup. If the more extreme forecasts are realised, there will be severe problems – Ridley admitted this in answer to a question on Wednesday evening. But how likely are these forecasts to be correct? That is what we need to know before spending trillions now on uncertain problems that won't emerge for decades by actions that are (to put it no higher) not guaranteed to solve them.
Martin A: "RG: Why do you say that?"
Because a justified warning that lifts might stop working if they are not checked and, if necessary, fixed (a simple enough task) is light years away from a prediction (of doom) that "computers would crash at the dawn of the millennium, bringing down civilisation".
A warning is not a prediction. Here's an example from the introduction to a technical paper on Y2K published by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel (LINK):
A severe warning: Yes. A prediction: No.TinyCO2: "the government warned that Y2K accidents and incidents would cause them to seek imprisonment for offenders."
Do you have any evidence for that? Which government?
osseo, it doesn't matter if they're trying to do the right thing, they act like con men. In their eagerness to persuade they damage their own cause. Now if EM and Phil Clarke were new to this I'd give them the benefit of the doubt but it really is just a game now. Acting to avoid the most extreme versions of AGW require massive public trust. They're light years away from that.
Robin Guenier, the UK government/the HSE. We were specifically told (probably because we were a big chemical company) that should there be a serious accident or a pollution incident they'd seek a prison term for negligence because the Y2K wasn't unforseen. Whether it would have teeth we didn't intend to find out. I can't remember whether it was a national alert or not. I do remember a safety meeting where someone joked about one of the directors being in prison with a massive toothless thug called Crusher. 'so what are you in for?'.... 'Murder. You?'.... 'The Y2K bug'
I note he doesn't seem to have come out from under the bridge at several other sites where the lecture has been discussed - e.g. WUWT, NALOPKT.
I stopped commenting at WUWT some time ago when my posts stopped appearing.I don't read NALOPKT.