Home » Intelligent Design » John Kerry is All Wet

John Kerry is All Wet

Secretary of State John Kerry said on April 22, 2013:  “The [climate change] science is screaming at all of us and demands action.”

This chart is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with annotations by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit.  It shows that the alarmists’ computer models (the blue line) do not match reality (the red line). In other words, they have failed miserably.

hansen-1988_annotated[1]

 

Yes, the science is screaming alright.  It is screaming that the climate change alarmists are simply wrong.  John Kerry’s statement is a classic example of the human capacity to ignore or disregard all contrary evidence once a particular idea has taken hold.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

13 Responses to John Kerry is All Wet

  1. A picture is worth a thousand words.

  2. John Kerry got it wrong…imagine that! I’ve long contended that the main impetus behind all this man made climate change clap trap is money and power. But that’s a subject for a different blog.

  3. Little Ice Age is Coming in 2014:

    The Little Ice Age should be the story of the century, yet it’s only being announced quietly by climate scientists and solar physicists. Not a word is being mentioned by the mainstream media, who had a hand in selling the Global Warming propaganda that has become irrelevant as we slide into colder climate. US solar scientists have announced years ago that the sun appears to be headed into a lengthly spell of low activity, which means that the Earth is far from facing a Global Warming catastrophe and actually headed into a Little Ice Age that is said to may last for 60 to 80 years.

    Ain’t that just dandy.

    I will take warming over that every day.

  4. Since the plot seems to come from a denialist website ‘icecap.us’ I suspect it has been doctored in some way. A valid comparison of the original Hansen prediction w/ observations was done at RealClimate several years ago:

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ojections/
    and this shows a different picture, with the observations lying between scenarios B and C.

    But a truly proper comparison would be to the IPCC multimodel projections, and you can find a comparison at http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....mparisons/

    It shows that the observations are still well within the range of model-projected warming.

    UD: Starbuck, I know you are blithering nonsense for one simple reason. You say the warming is within projections. The problem for you is THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN LAST 10 YEARS!!! Write that down.

  5. I always liked Vaclav Klaus on this stuff. As Czech president, he is/was apparently one of the highest level skeptics of all the global warming fanaticism. Here a part of an interview on BBC’s HardTalk – the full interview is worth finding and watching. You can see how the host tries to control what impression the listener should have:

    http://youtu.be/TEQmJBINYj4

    A friendlier discussion w/ Glenn Beck:
    http://youtu.be/VttfdKhQDrQ

  6. The ironic thing to me is that all these types of “green” environmentalist are thinking of CO2 is a pollutant because of this non-sense. If you can get such people to call CO2 a pollutant, then you know you have a powerful propaganda machine. Why? Because…

    Anti-CO2 is Anti-Green.

    Don’t believe it? Start here then:

    http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE

  7. Yeah, your text in bold doesn’t intimidate me , nor does it hide the fact that you are a poor scholar

  8. Thousands of Peer Reviewed Settled Scientists forgot….
    the 3 Rules of Computer Model Predictions

    1. Never give aa specific number.
    2. If you do, never give a date.
    3. If you do, make sure its at least 50 years out.

  9. 9

    Starbuck, please point to any data that indicates there has been a net warming trend in the last 10 years, much less a huge increase as predicted by the computer models. You can’t. Pull your head out of the sand man!

  10. 13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970:

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

    “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

    “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

    “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

    “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

    “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

    “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

    “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich

    “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

    “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

    “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

    The panic at the time was global cooling. It’s fun to compare the predictions then with the identical warming predictions now.

  11. Barry

    Global warming predictions prove accurate
    … The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

    The paper discusses that, yes, there has been a slowing-down of warming in the last decade that “has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted”; however, the paper shows “this is not true”.

    The reason given is that “reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate.”

    Have a look at the chart – a picture, as they say, tells a thousand words.

  12. Global warming? Why not just a recovery from the last little ice age? IOW the earth is getting back to normal.

    Look at the alleged increase over the last 100 years- 0.8 degrees C. Given that most of the temperature gauges are located in or near urban heat islands, that number falls well within the margin of error.

    The soot and dirt on the glaciers and ice caps is what is melting them.

  13. Further evidence is that the climate sensitivity of 3.4 deg C used by IPCC CMIP5 models are 70% higher than the 2 deg C climate sensitivity from the average of 14 best estimates in published papers.

    See: Still another low climate sensitivity estimate

    We need to restore “climate science” to the foundational principles of the scientific methods of validation against objective evidence, not follow the lemming herd of nature worshiping alarmists.

Leave a Reply