Global Warming Fraud-Journalist James Delingpole

[Old Rocks]

Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

James Delingpole - SourceWatch

Delingpole has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford University. He does not appear to have any science qualifications.

Anti-science views on climate change
In a 2009 article on the CRU email theft, Delingpole called anthropogenic climate change a "myth" and a "conspiracy".[2]
In his writing and media appearances, Delingpole regularly expresses a viewpoint that man-made climate change is not as extensive as it is described in the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, and has linked mainstream scientific projections concerning climate change with "the atavistic impulse which leads generation after generation to believe it is the chosen one: the generation so special that it and it alone will be the one privileged to experience the end of the world; and the generation so egotistical that it imagines itself largely responsible for that imminent destruction".
When Anderegg et al published their paper on expert credibility in climate change in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Delingpole countered with the headline 'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists'[3]
Delingpole is keen on coining terms to advance his theories. He uses the term 'ManBearPig' to parody climate science. Whilst fellow Telegraph writer Christopher Booker credits Delingpole with coining the term 'climategate'.[4]
Delingpole is quick to claim imbalance is at work , sometimes going to great lengths to make the suggestion. Criticizing Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute Delingpole fulminates " He is as entitled to speak out on “Climate Change” as I – a mere Oxford Eng Lit grad blogger and hack – am. But note, pray, one key difference. If ever I am called to debate about climate change on the BBC or wherever I will always be introduced as a climate change “sceptic.” " Delingpole goes on to lament that Ward's superior qualifications and scientific background are "thus lending him an aura of dignity, neutrality and lofty expertise he simply doesn’t merit." [5] To his regular readers this may seem balanced but the fact is that no scientific institution of national standing now endorses Mr Delingpole's creed of scepticism of anthropogenic global warming.

Delingpole has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford University. He does not appear to have any science qualifications.

That puts him leagues ahead of Al Gore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

James Delingpole - SourceWatch

Delingpole has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford University. He does not appear to have any science qualifications.

Anti-science views on climate change
In a 2009 article on the CRU email theft, Delingpole called anthropogenic climate change a "myth" and a "conspiracy".[2]
In his writing and media appearances, Delingpole regularly expresses a viewpoint that man-made climate change is not as extensive as it is described in the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, and has linked mainstream scientific projections concerning climate change with "the atavistic impulse which leads generation after generation to believe it is the chosen one: the generation so special that it and it alone will be the one privileged to experience the end of the world; and the generation so egotistical that it imagines itself largely responsible for that imminent destruction".
When Anderegg et al published their paper on expert credibility in climate change in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Delingpole countered with the headline 'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists'[3]
Delingpole is keen on coining terms to advance his theories. He uses the term 'ManBearPig' to parody climate science. Whilst fellow Telegraph writer Christopher Booker credits Delingpole with coining the term 'climategate'.[4]
Delingpole is quick to claim imbalance is at work , sometimes going to great lengths to make the suggestion. Criticizing Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute Delingpole fulminates " He is as entitled to speak out on “Climate Change” as I – a mere Oxford Eng Lit grad blogger and hack – am. But note, pray, one key difference. If ever I am called to debate about climate change on the BBC or wherever I will always be introduced as a climate change “sceptic.” " Delingpole goes on to lament that Ward's superior qualifications and scientific background are "thus lending him an aura of dignity, neutrality and lofty expertise he simply doesn’t merit." [5] To his regular readers this may seem balanced but the fact is that no scientific institution of national standing now endorses Mr Delingpole's creed of scepticism of anthropogenic global warming.

He's a journalist who concentrates on uncovering fraudulent, politically driven "science". He doesn't need any scientific credentials in order to recognize and report on the same. Neither do I.

Lets see...SCIENTISTS vs Non Scientists in a scientific debate...whos credible in that scenario?

ding ding ding!

SCIENTISTS!!!!

Thank you for playing we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Lets see...SCIENTISTS vs Non Scientists in a scientific debate...whos credible in that scenario?

Not the scientists who keep getting caught lying/falsifying data. Ding dong!

 

[westwall]

Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Really? Do tell! With links please....

 

[bripat9643]

Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Wrong. They were grossly inaccurate. Temperatures have been far lower than even his lowest estimate.

 

[skookerasbil]

If anybody has noticed..........in the past decade, the predictions have gotten more numerous and more profound. As applied to nature, this is an absolutely brilliant scheme, but very methodical as well..........make no mistake. Sooner or later, even the worst poker player is going to display a winning hand. You make predictions about nature, the level of certainty is 100%............eventually. ( operative term being eventually).

For example..........we all remember the prediction about the Cat 5 hurricanes getting more frequent. That was in 2006. Sooner or later, we will definately get a few Cat 5 hurricanes in the Carribean........perhaps this summer..........and YOU KNOW what the headline from the k00ks will be!!!

People familiar with card playing know about playing against players with a "cold deck" at a poker table. This is a deck of cards that is stacked for the benefit of one player playing the game, dramatically increasing the odds of that player winning..............SOONER OR LATER. Most of the dummies at the table dont know whats going on ( the hopelessly duped).........but a few invariably catch on. The AGW people operate the same way. This "real science" is like a cold deck of cards......................


Consider...........the same scientists who were predicting global cooling in the 1970's are now on the global warming bandwagon. Its simply more convenient based on the current "real science".

Global cooling consensus | James Inhofe | John Holdren | The Daily Caller


Also......these global warming scientists distract with use of the terminology they want the reader to see. For example.........the dolts commonly refer to "global water volume" which is a ruse. The science should be talking about "sea level". But it fits the bomb throwing model better..............

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

 

[PoliticalChic]

Developer is somebody who wants to build a house in the woods.
An environmentalist is somebody who already owns house in the woods.

 

[code1211]

Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

He predicted specific increases of temperature based on specific changes in CO2. The predictions based on the scenarios missed by the about 2 times the actual. This means he missed reality by about 100%.

If missing by 100% is spot on, that explains why this science has the problems it has as compared with real live science that has to produce real live, usable predictions.

Attached is a graph showing those predictions and the actual. If he had guessed, which is actually what he did, he probably would have been closer. He is a fake, the science is a sham and belief in it is a mistake.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

<snip>
The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere since (a) the model was forced with lower GHG concentrations than actually occurred and (b) still gave a result that was significantly warmer than observations.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

How about Plymouth Rock under water? New York City? Rio? Do you have photographic evidence from any major coastal city in the world that depicts the 8 inch rise of the sea level that your crowd has said has occurred?

This entire rise is said to have occurred during the age of photography.

If it has happened, there are pictures.

Produce them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Really? Do tell! With links please....

The whole article at the link.


Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Wrong. They were grossly inaccurate. Temperatures have been far lower than even his lowest estimate.

No link to where you got your graph?

 

[code1211]

Do you have that photograph of Miami under water yet?

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Wrong. They were grossly inaccurate. Temperatures have been far lower than even his lowest estimate.

His lowest estimate depends on the rate of CO2 increase slowing and then actually reducing. It has increased beyond the rate that he cited as the highest projected rate of increase.

As well as being a poor climatologist, it turns out he is also weak in geo politics, the rise of societal evolution in the near and far east and the spread of industrialism across the world.

He has missed it in every way, in every prediction, in every discipline and he is the leading expert.

This should tell us something.

 

[Old Rocks]

Developer is somebody who wants to build a house in the woods.
An environmentalist is somebody who already owns house in the woods.

Which has to do with what?

 

[code1211]

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Really? Do tell! With links please....

The whole article at the link.


Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage

Blah, blah, blah.

Based on his scenarios, he committed to a specific change in temperature. He was wrong. Not just a little. He was wrong big time. Why do you continue to defend this? By the conditions he set and the predictions he made compared to the reality of what happened, he was wrong.

There is simply no way to deny this.

If you are trying to say that you are pursuing the science of this, you need to go where the science leads. Instead, you stubbornly stick to the dogmatic conclusions proffered by politicians.

If you are a scientist as you claim, then this must be a deliberate deception on your part. If you are a politician claiming to be a scientist, your position makes sense. Not your conclusions, but your position.

 

[IanC]

Nobody predicted that Miami would be under water at this time. Strawman and red herring.


Dr. Hansen did make some predictions in a 1981 that have been proven to be pretty much spot on.

Wrong. They were grossly inaccurate. Temperatures have been far lower than even his lowest estimate.

No link to where you got your graph?

hahahahahahahaha......

first off you dont need a link, you just go to where the picture is from.

second----the graph is from a raving warmist site that makes SkS look neutral

hahahahahahahaha.....very funny! Old Rocks complaining about a graph from a pro-warmist site that out hypes even Joe Romm

 

[IanC]

this 1990 IPCC prediction is more of the same.

if the start of the prediction had the same origin as the actual temps then it would have been almost totally above the actual temperature record for the whole time

 

[Old Rocks]

this 1990 IPCC prediction is more of the same.

if the start of the prediction had the same origin as the actual temps then it would have been almost totally above the actual temperature record for the whole time

Interesting. So they are showing a 1.5 degree C sensitivity, not deducting for the 'dimming' effect of aerosols.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1984: Climate trends due to increasing greenhouse gases

Hansen et al. 1984

Hansen, J., A. Lacis, and D. Rind, 1984: Climate trends due to increasing greenhouse gases. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE/San Diego, California, June 1-4, 1983, pp. 2796-2810.

Climate models indicate that global mean temperature should increase 3±1.5°C if atmospheric CO is doubled. A broad range of empirical evidence, ranging from the climate on other planets to paleoclimate and recent climate trends on the earth, is consistent with the climate sensitivities indicated by the climate models. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is strong evidence that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will lead to a global climate warming of at least 1.5°C. Such an increase will correspond to a climate state near or beyond the range of human experience.
The time required to reach an effective doubling of atmospheric CO is reduced by trace gases such as methane and the cholorofluorocarbons, which have begun to increase at substantial rates during the past two decades. The contribution of trace gases to the atmospheric greenhouse effect is now comparable to that of CO2. If current trends of atmospheric composition continue, effective doubling of CO2 will occur in several decades. Based on the consensus estimate for climate sensitivity, it appears likely that substantial climate change due to the greenhouse warming will become apparent during the next 1-2 decades.

 

[Old Rocks]

I also note the peak of 2010 is not in the graph.

 

[Old Rocks]

Also, there were some corrections to the IPCC predictions between 1990 and 1997. When one looks at those, the fit is pretty good. Also from your same source, Ian. So why did you not go with these? Perhaps you don't want to credit the scientists with rethinking their figures, and getting their predictions pretty much spot on?

- Prometheus: Updated Chart: IPCC Temperature Verification Archives

 

[PoliticalChic]

Developer is somebody who wants to build a house in the woods.
An environmentalist is somebody who already owns house in the woods.

Which has to do with what?

My bad...I was using a shorthand, based on assuming that you would understand the world to an extent greater than you do...

You see, 'global warming' is based less on science than it is on human nature.

Now...watch carefully:

1. Politicians control vast amounts of taxpayer funds, which they have no compunction in doling out to purchase....

2. ...power.

3. If pols can convince folks that there is a crisis....power to control behavior and the economy ensues.

a. The ancient Chinese symbol for “crisis” is made up of two characters, one denoting “danger” and the other “opportunity.”

4. OK...here is the crux: 'scientists,' for the enormous most part are merely human beings, good at math and memorization...who have families to feed.

...see where this is going?

5. So, if 'scientists' go along with the politicians, they get grant$....(an allowance,sort of).

Summary:
Perspective and opinion usually depends on whose ox is being fed...human nature....so if it is be to your advantage to support the scam....

voilà! Global warming data via East Anglia!!!