The Precautionary Principle At Work

The precautionary principle tells us that basing policy on the output of hopelessly broken software, is not a sensible thing to do.

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013 (2)

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate model simulations are typically parameterized to produce a particular result desired by politicians, and have nothing to do with science.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Precautionary Principle At Work

  1. Gail Combs says:

    Too bad that graph and a decent explanation never makes it into the major news media.

    But there is hope!

    Al Gore has rid himself of Green Energy and is now buying into natural gas pipelines and Chinese companies.

    Al Gore Walks Away From Green Energy

    This is not surprising since getting rid of coal and replacing it with Natural Gas was the game plan of Shell Oil, BP and Enron in the first place as I posted yesterday in the long garbled mess on the UN, Muller and Shell Oil’s Ged Davis.

    • Matt L says:

      “Too bad that graph and a decent explanation never makes it into the major news media.”

      Too bad indeed. There’s a story in this graph and journalists on both sides of the debate should want to tell it.

      There’s enough data in the graph to pit CAGW scientists against each other. It’d be nice to see these guys compete a little more and high-five a little less. Those few closest to reality should be lauded and awarded more money. All others should be ridiculed and see their grants cut by half.

  2. geran says:

    Two questions, upon seeing this:

    1) How would all the models perform if they took out CO2 forcing?

    2) With all of the “adjustments” going on, will UAH EVER indicate a negative value?

    (I think I know the answers to both questions….)

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      UAH isn’t generally believed to be where the fakery is happening. Though I’ve really been expecting a drop before now.

  3. mkelly says:

    If the PP theory was valid then Naples, Italy should be evacuated now to avoid any eruption from Vesuvius.

  4. Andy Oz says:

    Steven,
    The Guardian says that “deniers” have won!
    Of course I don’t believe a word these guys ever write, but its interesting to see their language changing, especially since global temperatures have been flat for 17 years.
    Maybe the realisation is starting to sink in, but they will keep lying all the way to protect their government grants, and the carbon credit scam.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

  5. Andy Oz says:

    Australian scientist stuck in the Antarctic Ice in denial.
    “It was inconvenient more than anything, it messed up our schedules,” he said.
    Saving the dopey alarmists – $2.4 million
    Watching them squirm – Priceless!

    http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2169365/uow-academic-recalls-ice-ship-drama/?cs=12

  6. Andy Oz says:

    Global Sea Ice just went positive anomaly again. Alarmists can’t take a trick!! ROFLMAO!

  7. gator69 says:

    Why is it that they never discuss the millions who are dying today, when discussing the Precautionary Principle?

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is what makes me so very very angry.

      It is bad enough the USA got rid of our grain reserves and we are now burning food in our gas tanks. That Congress passed the 25X25 resolution that ‘OUR land’ would supply 25% renewable energy by 2025 (It is NOT their …D@<N LAND.)
      Not only are they starving kids in third world countries with the food and farmland grabs but they are going after the poor in first world countries too.

      Almost Six million people will be living in fuel poverty by the end of next year. These figures apply just to the UK where fuel poverty also known as energy poverty accounts for around 30,000 cold related senior citizen deaths… Well she got that right but this idiot Patron Madonna is using these deaths to PUSH renewable energy! (Where is the nearest brick wall I need to pound my head against it.)
      ……

      Governments really do not care if they kill off the Useless Eaters, the old folks on a pension who no longer work and buy very little. That has become all too clear

      March 4, 1910:
      “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way.” George Bernard Shaw Co-Founder Fabian Socialist and the London School of Economics.

      The Fabians are well represented in the UK….

      Hospitals ‘paid millions to put patients on death pathway’
      Hospitals are being paid millions of pounds to reach targets for the number of patients put on a controversial pathway….
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9634915/Hospitals-paid-millions-to-put-patients-on-death-pathway.html

      UK Hospitals Starve Patients, Deliberately Kill 29% of Elderly Over 130 000 elderly patients who die in British hospitals are killed off deliberately by withholding fluids and nutrition. Moreover, this so-called ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’ is also used on severely disabled babies and children with terminal illnesses….”

      I guess killing of the sick and the elderly is one way to balance the budge. My husband has already been refused treatment because he is ‘TOO OLD” – turned 70, here in the USA.

  8. Shazaam says:

    Saving the world gives the fantasy alarmists a real tingle up their collectivist legs.

    Who cares if over 95% of their computer-generated fantasy climate scenarios are just plain wrong.

    It’s the tingle they are chasing, not truth. (well that and government grant cash)

    • Chip Bennett says:

      They know they’re not saving the world (otherwise, they wouldn’t be knowingly acting fraudulently with their data); it’s the government largesse they’re after.

      Though, they probably do get a tingle from their government cocktail-circuit invites.

  9. tomwys says:

    Its even worse! The transition to HadCRUT4 boosted reported temperatures! The little green circles in the graphic actually deserve to be lower!!! See the following link for background: http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/HadCRUT4.html

  10. D.M. says:

    For those who have the inclination and time to read it, here is Dr Tim Ball’s analysis of what the IPCC themselves say about climate models in one of their reports (not the one published for policymakers). In a nutshell – they’re nonsense!
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/21/ipcc-scientists-knew-data-and-science-inadequacies-contradicted-certainties-presented-to-media-public-and-politicians-but-remained-silent/

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh, the IPCC scientists definitely KNEW they were pedaling a crock of Bupkiss.

      The IPCC mandate plainly states:

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
      http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

      The IPCC does NOT exist to summarize climate science.

      The IPCC is ONLY permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to determine the “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can then be selected as political polices. So the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

      This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

      Near its beginning that document says

      ROLE
      2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

      This says the IPCC exists to provide

      (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
      and
      (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

      Therefore, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ to support the IPCC’s Role.

      This is achieved by amendment of the IPCC’s so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose by politicians approving the SPM then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.

      So Academia is providing the manufactured evidence to ‘frame’ the human race and they are KNOWINGLY doing so. In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the slavery designed by the bankers and corporate elite. (Agenda 21)

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Wnat is really amusing is The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:

    “in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible”

    IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

    They KNOW it is a chaotic system. They KNOW their predicitons are worth less than a pile of cow dung and as Dr Robert Brown has gone to great lengths at WUWT to explain, you can not predict a chaotic system over any length of time. (Like 24 to 72 hours – they just blew last nights forecast for today)

    Here is just one of his tries at driving home the point:

    ….Now let us try to analyze the modern era bearing in mind the evidence of an utterly unremarkable present. To begin with, we need a model that predicts the swings of glaciation and interglacials. Lacking this, we cannot predict the temperature that we should have outside for any given baseline concentration of CO_2, nor can we resolve variations in this baseline due to things other than CO_2 from that due to CO_2. We don’t have any such thing. We don’t have anything close to this. We cannot predict, or explain after the fact, the huge (by comparison with the present) secular variations in temperature observed over the last 20,000 years, let alone the last 5 million or 25 million or billion. We do not understand the forces that set the baseline “thermostat” for the Earth before any modulation due to anthropogenic CO_2, and hence we have no idea if those forces are naturally warming or cooling the Earth as a trend that has to be accounted for before assigning the “anthropogenic” component of any warming.

    This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just love to tell stories) but there aren’t any particularly successful theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories (none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one tried to actually write “the” partial differential equation for the global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms — if one can actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand! Global Climate Models are children’s toys in comparison to the actual underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively available.

    The truth of this is revealed in the lack of skill in the GCMs. They utterly failed to predict the last 13 or 14 years of flat to descending global temperatures, for example, although naturally one can go back and tweak parameters and make them fit it now, after the fact. And every year that passes without significant warming should be rigorously lowering the climate sensitivity and projected AGW, making the probability of the “C” increasinginly remote.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/

  12. omanuel says:

    The Precautionary Principle is now the politically correct way to support our REFUSAL TO ACCEPT REALITY.

    In 1543 we refused to accept that Earth orbits the Sun. The scientific revolution started 100 years later after Galileo was arrested and tried for telling the truth.

    In 1946 frightened world leaders tried to hide the fact that the Sun’s core is just like the core of uranium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima:

    Neutrons energized by neutron-repulsion !

    We have survived this deception for sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs):

    Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

    Humans are vulnerable to extinction by an unexpected encounter with the reality they tried to hide.

    • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

      You are insane. You have contributed nothing to the skeptical debate. You have helped destroy skeptical credibility with your crackpot theory SPAM. You are a registered incestuous sex offender. Why Steven “Godwin” allows you to dominate the second most influential skeptical blog, I cannot fathom except that he too may have serious issues, or in fact that he *is* you. Each morning I wake up and there you are, Iron Man, reminding me to avoid online activism since skeptics are no longer underdogs, just backward fools, Steve and Judith mainly, your enablers. Watts wised up to you, happily. I support creative hypothesis generation the likes of Pattern Recognition in Physics but you are below human dignity. If Steve continues to actively support you I will further work to marginalized you both, quite actively.

  13. elmer says:

    Were all climate models made in 1983?

  14. Matt L says:

    I’m having an interesting discussion on the Guardian about Spencer’s graph. Someone linked to a rebuttal blog post which discredits Spencer’s graph. However, in a comment on the rebuttal blog post a link was made to an IPCC graph which looks a lot like Spencer’s graph. (p. 87 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf)

    Just as I began to question Spencer’s graph, the IPCC graph comes along and, to the untrained eye at least, bolsters it!

  15. tom0mason says:

    But if they didn’t have those models you’d have to take their crayons away.
    Then they’d cry!

  16. Ben says:

    Roy’s last entry for UAH LT is the warmest in his dataset in the graph above. It doesn’t look like the graph at woodfortrees. At woodfortrees, 1998, 2007, and 2010 are warmer than 2013.

    Compare both land and global to the graph above. Neither match.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah-land/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12

  17. Brian H says:

    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”

    Easy-schmeasy.
    There is no risk, and the evidence is clear that no adverse trends exist or persist. Now close up shop and return the unspent funding. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s