To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,
Financial Post, 17 September 2013
The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years. The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. --Ross McKitrick,
Financial Post, 17 September 2013
Something big is about to happen. Models predict one thing and the data show another. The various attempts in recent years to patch over the difference are disintegrating. Over the next few years, either there is going to be a sudden, rapid warming that shoots temperatures up to where the models say they should be, or the mainstream climate modeling paradigm is going to fall apart. --Ross McKitrick,
Financial Post, 17 September 2013
That climate models and predictions are out of sinc with reality is not that much of a surprise. Many experts in climate and economic modeling have warned for years that the models are flawed and based in large part on self-fulfilling programs. The IPCC meetings at the end of the month are intended to install the science foundation for later meetings next year in Japan and Germany on adaptation and mitigation. The question then becomes: To what are we adapting and mitigating? --Terence Corcoran,
Financial Post, 17 September 2013
Regardless of whether scientists are wrong on global warming, current European Union energy policies are the right ones even if they lead to higher prices for consumers, Europe’s climate action commissioner has said. --Bruno Waterfield,
The Daily Telegraph, 16 September 2013
Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change? --EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard,
The Daily Telegraph, 16 September 2013
The recent pause in average global surface temperature rises made lifting confidence in the extent of the human contribution to climate change “incomprehensible”, a leading US climate scientist has said. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, yesterday published her analysis of a leaked IPCC draft report that has sparked an international furore. “If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 (2013 report) relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4 (2007 report) then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux,” Professor Curry said. “Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident.” --Graham Lloyd,
The Australian, 17 September 2013
Climate change has always been a polarising issue. The debate has been dominated by extreme opinions, which assume certainties where only probabilities exist. The "truth" about global warming, if it exists, lives somewhere in a constantly shifting probability cloud. The only certainty is that, worldwide, there will always be a need for growth in the sectors of industry, energy and food. –Editorial,
The Indian Express, 17 September 2013
