If Sir David King is scared about global warming, we needn’t worry
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Sociologists have invented one or two useful concepts. One is the “negative reference group” – a nonempty set of people to whose advice anyone with half a brain will listen most carefully because one can be sure it is right to do the diametric opposite.
As Pat Frank has recently demonstrated in a paper reviewed by two of the world’s most eminent climate scientists, the models are incapable of telling us anything at all about how much global warming we may cause. The uncertainties, such as in how clouds will behave, make them valueless as predictors.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
 |
| The simple arithmetic that reveals how windmills’ fast-moving blade-tips kill birds. |
Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, is Britain’s negative reference group on climate change. The unspeakable BBC, in its daily “let’s foment climate panic to shut down the West” slot, reported Monday that Sir David had said it was “appropriate to be scared about climate change”...
Britain’s bedwetter-in-chief wrote in the children’s comic Science in 2004: “In my view, climate change is the most serious problem that we are facing today – more serious even than the threat of terrorism.” So serious... that... the unelected Kommissars who reign over the European tyranny... commissioned research intended to show that global warming kills..
The answer is No. For all the screaming zombie schoolchildren propagandized by their teachers, for all the lavish, high-carbon-footprint international gabfests, for all the birds and bats sacrificed to windmills or fried by solar collectors (Solyndra fried chicken), emissions remain above IPCC’s business-as-usual prediction.
In that case, surely global warming is above the original business-as-usual prediction? Erm, no:
There has been a lot of screeching from the usual suspects about Pat’s paper from the “consensus”, which appears to imagine that the large uncertainties in the models must broadly self-cancel over time. In that event, why – 30 years after the models’ original prediction, which is still their prediction today – was that prediction so much greater than what has been observed?
Still more to the point, why was that prediction so much greater than what the “consensus’” own estimates of net anthropogenic radiative forcing and net radiative imbalance would lead them to expect?
Sir David went on to say he was worried about the loss of ice on land and sea...
Would it matter if all the sea ice in the Arctic melted for as much as three months every summer? No, it wouldn’t. The ice-albedo feedback would be negligible...
even if the entire Arctic icecap were to melt for three months every summer, very little change in surface albedo feedback would arise. Therefore, even if that feedback were nonlinear, it is and, in foreseeable modern conditions, must remain too small to be significant... So the polar bears – so menaced with extinction that there are seven times as many of them today as there were 80 years ago – will do just fine
...
according to Professor M.I. Bhat of the Indian Geological Survey, the pattern of advance and recession of glaciers is much as it has been in the 200 years since the British Raj first began keeping records.
