I Like “Forecast the Facts” “No” Video

Forecast the Facts” is an activist group that is attempting to “influence” television meteorologists to shill on behalf of global warming.  When you get to their home page they ask if the visitor believes that there is “solid evidence the earth is warming” (present tense).

Of course, the correct answer is “no.” The graph below — from the pro-global warming Hadley Center — demonstrates unquestionably that no warming has occurred for the past fifteen years. If anything, there has been cooling in the last six.

Temperature departure from long-term average from Hadley Center, Great Britain.

So, I clicked on “no.”

It then goes on to tell us that a growing number of people doubt global warming (correct!) and then it tells us 2011 was a “record year” for extreme weather. Since the topic is “global” warming and since they show hurricanes, let’s take a look at that claim. Here is the global hurricane index for both all and major (lower line) through 2011.

Dr. Ryan Maue's Global Hurricane Index

Notice it isn’t even close to a record for either category.  

So, I agree with its conclusion in the video that fewer people than ever believe in catastrophic global warming — and, for good reason.

I congratulate “Forecast the Facts” for recognizing that fact. 

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Photo by ShiraBushFNC

As of 8:30am CDT Saturday, The Weather Channel is reporting that 32 people died in yesterday’s tornadoes. When tornadoes are on the ground moving literally mile a minute, you want to get updates posted quickly so people can base timely, accurate decisions on it. 

I subscribe to a number of Twitter feeds pertaining to climate science, both in the pro-GW and pro-skepticism camps. Given the well-publicized nature of the major tornado outbreak yesterday, I noted that most all of the meteorology and climate Twitter feeds were either silent or focusing on the hazardous weather. That was good, because I didn’t want to have to be distracted or slowed by superfluous tweets. 

So, as I was rushing to review the Twitter stream for a blog update at 2:34pm yesterday, I was shocked to see a certain Tweet. I did a screen capture and went on. One of these was not like the others. 

Dozens and dozens and dozens of tweets with lifesaving information and here is Grist and the Climate Desk attacking the Kochs and Fracking. Are these organizations so blinded that they don’t realize when their message is completely inappropriate?! 

I’ve been holding several stories involving the TSA and other issues this week because I didn’t want to take the focus off of the critical weather situation..nearly 50 killed in tornadoes in the U.S. in two outbreaks this week.  Now that the tornado outbreak is about over, I want to let Climate Desk know that you have been “Unfollowed” (I never followed Grist) over this. 

Climategate 1 and 2, Fakegate, Hide the Decline; someone should let the pro-global warming people know they are often their own worst enemies. 

How Fast Newspapers Are Falling

Last week, I wrote about the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper I worked with for over a decade, publishing an editorial (based on the Fakegate documents, no less) comparing people who don’t believe in catastrophic global warming to Hitler. I went on to write:

Every time I think the pro-global warming forces cannot go any lower, I’m disappointed. For fear of repeating myself, Are these the behaviors of people who are confident in the accuracy of their position? To me, this increasingly outrageous behavior smacks of desperation. 

For a decade, WeatherData, Inc. (the company I founded in 1981) provided the weather forecasts and storm coverage to the Times. I really enjoyed working with them and met a number of great journalists. To see the Times fall this far is terribly sad. The Times’ circulation is down, way down. The most recent figures I could find (2010) state:

Circulation at the Los Angeles Times fell 14.7% to 616,606 on weekdays and 7.6% to 941,914 on Sundays.

When we worked with them, their weekday circulation was close to a million!

The next time a newspaper executive complains about dropping readership and increased corporate losses, suggest they look in a mirror. I think most people, regardless of political orientation, are fed up with the “Hitler” accusation. 

With a hat-tip to Instapundit, I came across these figures showing how the bottom is falling out of the newspaper industry’s revenue:

I love newspapers. I was business manager of our high school newspaper when I went to Rockhurst (and, if we didn’t raise enough money, there was no newspaper). I worked with newspapers at WeatherData for more than twenty years! Today, I still subscribe to two daily newspapers, The Wichita Eagle and The Wall Street Journal. 

But, as long as newspapers act as shills for political causes (see Hitler above) rather than honestly reporting news, they are going to continue their collapse. If that occurs, America will be far worse for their loss.  

Why the The Pro-Global Warming Forces Think it is ‘War’

Below, I have a posting that links to a Scientific American piece that calls the debate between the pro- and anti-GW forces ‘war.’ I agree. One side is fighting with science and the other is faking documents, fighting freedom of information act requests tooth and nail in court (wasting taxpayer funds on documents clearly in the public domain), the EPA’s “scrubbing” its database of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it gave to Fakegate’s protagonist (Peter Gleick), Climategates 1 and 2, etc., etc. The question some of my correspondents are asking is “why?”

Here is my theory as to why so much unscientific and unethical behavior is now occurring so frequently:

The Wall Street Journal just ran a second piece written by scientists like me that are skeptical of the Gore/IPCC theory of catastrophic global warming. It is the same piece I linked to yesterday.

The piece includes this graph that shows the IPCC’s various forecasts (dotted lines) compared to the red line. Notice anything? All of the forecasts are too warm! The 1995 forecast isn’t too bad but if you take out the 1998 peak, it would be almost entirely too warm, also. The unmistakeable conclusion is that the models overweight the effects of CO2…the very foundation of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

A pro-global warming defense of the forecasts presented in the above graph is here. In it, the author states that it takes 30 years to falsify the models. This is moving their own goal posts. They used to say seventeen years (one example here, I could link to many more). 

Here are world temperatures over the last 15 years:

See any net warming? Since temperatures are currently trending down, it would take something extremely surprising for the IPCC/Gore forecast to not be completely falsified in another two years. In fact, by any measure, the most famous of the forecasts, 1990, is already falsified. 

This is why you are seeing so much nonsense from the pro-global warming forces. They realize that, one day soon, the media and politicians are finally going to realize that there is at least no near-term (10-30 years) global warming crisis. Given the current federal budgetary constraints, the biggest — by far — gravy train in the history of atmospheric science may start drying up. So, desperate times call for desperate measures and you get Climategate 2 two months ago and Fakegate and its many defenders this past week. 

Thursday, both Republicans and Democrats asked the EPA to stop regulating CO2. Here is the list of Democrats (from ThinkProgress/Green):

There is little question that Democrats would not have signed this letter as little as two years go. It is dawning on more and more people that they have been “had.” There is no immediate global warming crisis. 

I bring up the politics of this because the pro-global warming forces are seeing this major shift, too. Thus, the increasingly desperate tactics. I expect more between now and the election. 

UPDATE: 12:11PM via WattsUpWithThat, Dr. Judith Curry (a member of the IPCC and genuine climate scientist) writes about what I’m calling “Fakegate,”

When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’. 

More Concern About Global Cooling

Is the first decade+ of the 21st century the warmest in the past 100 years (as per Peter Gleick’s argument)?  Yes, but the very small positive trend is not consistent with the expectation of 0.2C/decade provided by the IPCC AR4.  In terms of anticipating temperature change in the coming decades, the AGW dominated prediction of 0.2C/decade does not seem like a good bet, particularly with the prospect of reduced solar radiation.                             —- Dr. Judith Curry, Climate Scientist

WattsUpWithThat has run two recent articles pertaining to the threat of global cooling. Based on my research, significant cooling would be far worse for humanity than warming.

The first article, by Dr. Nicola Scafetta, discusses the linking of solar-lunar cycles to earth’s temperature.

IPCC's 2007 forecast. The upper and lower bound of the of the green is the "95% confidence" interval (i.e., IPCC is 95% confident the monthly temperatures will fall within the green band). The blue is the sun-moon cycle forecast.

The IPCC’s forecast is failing miserably. Only 16% of the months since 2007 are within the green band when 95% are supposed to be within it. All of the misses are on the cold side. If the IPCC is too warm at four years then they are likely too warm at 40 years.

The second forecast is by David Archibald who forecast the solar slowdown far before it happened. It is downright frightening. Major cooling will cut world agriculture production.

David Archibald's forecast of the shifting corn belt as a result of global cooling induced by the sunspot cycle.

Finally, there is a third forecast of cooling, available here.

As I have said before, I have no idea whether the forecasts of cooling, warming, or status quo will be correct. I am confident the IPCC’s 2007 and, especially, 2004 forecasts are too warm.

Hurricanes and Global Warming

Somehow, I missed this November, 2011 posting by NOAA’s Dr. Chris Landsea on his thoughts regarding global warming and hurricanes.

He believes that in a warmer climate the number of hurricanes will go down but, of the remaining hurricanes, some will be of greater intensity due to global warming.

Chris is a scientist I greatly respect and recommend reading his comprehensive post.

Putting the Chill on Global Warming

Here is another nail in the coffin for those who contend earth is still warming.

Here is my frequently-referred-to graph of world temperatures from the Hadley Center (note: a pro-global warming institution):

World temperatures since 1995.

 

Many of the global warming zealots dispute the warming has stopped. That, in spite of the data from the Hadley Center and other pro-GW institutions. In December, there were numerous stories (one example here, Google for many more) that global warming is “accelerating” — simply rubbish.

As you know, I’m the first to state that scientific results must be reproducible by other scientists. So, if I and many other atmospheric scientists are correct that indeed global warming has stopped, then the glaciers would have stopped melting, right?

Guess what? The melting stopped ten years ago!

The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”

So, the glaciers are not melting. World atmospheric temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been flat to down since. Ocean heat content, accurately available since 2003 (deployment of the Argo probes) is flat.

Even more important, when determining whether the Gore/IPCC catastrophic global warming theory is accurate, is comparing the forecasts to the data. Well, here is the Hansen/IPCC forecast of ocean heat content (red) line versus actual:

Courtesy Bob Tisdale via WattsUpWithThat

Since ocean heat content is the most important metric of the earth’s temperature (because the oceans can hold so much more heat than the atmosphere), the fact that heat content diverges more and more from the forecast certainly tends to falsify the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming, accelerating global warming, and an immediate “climate crisis.”

I’m hardly the only scientist that has noticed the overwhelming evidence that global warming has stopped. We learned three days ago that Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s most zealous pro-global warming advocates, has switched positions.

In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science…

He wants to break a taboo. “The climate catastrophe is not occurring,” he writes in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.

I have no doubt other high level defections from the “cause” will occur in 2012.

Now, try to find a U.S. mainstream media outlet that is reporting any of this. 

The media in general, and science reporters in particular, are doing their readers and viewers a tremendous disservice through their propagandizing and self-described mission of “advancing the narrative” of global warming.

Since journalism awards often go to people who “break” big stories, I’d like to suggest to some enterprising journalist a way to win a major award: Report on the now overwhelming evidence the earth has stopped warming. It is perfectly okay with me to qualify it by saying something like “scientists disagree whether the earth will resume warming, cool, or if temperatures will stay the same going forward.” That would be accurate and fair.

It would be a pleasant, and welcome, change if the media would accurately report this story.

Still More Pro-Global Warming Advocacy

Thanks to Roger Pielke, Sr., I learned that the NCSE added “defending” climate science to its mission in January which previously was limited to defending evolution. Personally, I don’t know why anyone needs to “defend” evolution, it is a scientific fact. Climate science, on the other hand, is still very much a young science with a great deal in dispute.

Why do I have a problem with these people? Let me count the ways…

Take a look at their list of officers. Not a single one has any background in atmospheric or climate science whatsoever, yet they claim to offer “expert advice” on climate science. They even offer some of these people as speakers on the subject.

But, they give the game away when you drill down into their website:

NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial”

Finally, consider this,

“Undermine climate change indoctrination education?” ”Petitions” are not the tools of people interested in science, they are tools of political advocacy.

 

Finally, they list a giant in the field of applied atmospheric science and aviation engineering, Paul MacCready, as a “supporter” of theirs as of December 11, 2011. Paul passed away in 2007!!

 

I knew Paul. We were on the UCLA Department of Atmospheric Science Advisory Board for a number of years. While Paul was a strong environmentalist, I never saw any evidence that he bought into catastrophic global warming. While it may be possible his position changed at the end of his life (I have no evidence of that, just conceding the possibility; I had not talked to him the last couple of years before his death), I’m absolutely certain Paul would not have wanted people called “deniers.”

 

As unbiased conveyers of climate change information, I’d give the NCSE an F.

OK, Repeat for the 100th Time: Science is Not Done Via Polls

In spite of numerous attempts, both the American Meteorological Society and the Center for Climate Change Propaganda  Communications still aren’t getting the answers they want when they poll meteorologists. It is inconvenient that so many of us do not believe in the Al Gore/IPCC hypothesis of catastrophic global warming. 


So, there was yet another polling attempt being made, this time of NOAA employees, including the National Weather Service. Using their official email. At their offices. With the NOAA Leadership firmly in the pro-global warming camp.  Since there was no, ahem, pressure perhaps they would finally get the answer they want this time.

Fortunately, after negative publicity, they have pulled the survey.

But, here is the overarching issue and why I bring this up after the survey has been pulled: NOAA, of all people, should know better. Science is not done by polling. It is done through careful hypothesis, experimentation, publication, replication, trial and error.

As we have talked about, numerous times, the IPCC’s forecasts are consistently far too warm.

In any other science, this would falsify the hypothesis and science would move on. But, since so many have invested so much in catastrophic global warming, some hope to achieve via poll what they cannot achieve via data.

Polls and “consensus” are tools of politicians and bullies. Not science.

P.S. While on the subject, I believe the campaign to keep Dr. Michael Mann from speaking at Penn State, the university where he works, is wrongheaded as well.

Yes, PSU’s “investigation” of Mann’s “hockey stick” work was a complete joke and a whitewash. But, that is in the past and has nothing to do with this issue. Free speech is one of the bedrock foundations of America and of scientific advancement.

Dr. Mann, I may disagree with your scientific positions but I will always defend your right to peaceably speak.

Under Attack for Getting the Facts CORRECT

I wasn’t familiar with a web site called “Think Progress” until it reproduced attacks on several eminently qualified meteorologists who happened to be friends of mine. The subject was — of course — global warming.

Knowing how I would feel in a similar situation, I posted several comments defending them. I also posted more than a dozen other comments answering questions from (what now to appear to be) regular readers. I was shocked by the amount of vitriol and name-calling.

It was brought to my attention yesterday evening that they are at it again. They called out meteorologist Mark Johnson for accurately stating that the earth hasn’t warmed for 15 years. This posting brought out the same vitriolic commenters who apparently didn’t learn anything when I engaged with them.

Here are the facts. While ocean heat content is the more important metric, it has only been accurately available since the ARGOS probes were deployed eight years ago.

Atmospheric temperatures are measured in two ways: By ground based sensors (HADCRUT below) and by satellite sensing of the lower troposphere (UAH). Both show that atmospheric temperatures peaked in 1998.

HADCRUT data from Great Britain’s Hadley Center since 1979 so as
to match the satellite data below. Note: Hadley Center is
strongly pro-global warming. 

Below is the satellite data that first became available in 1979.

UPDATE: 4:30PM Thursday. A commenter pointed out that the January data is out, so I have added that chart below. The cooling continues to the point that world temperatures at the moment are “below normal.” One month does not mean very much but the trend certainly is unexpected in the Al Gore/IPCC branch of climate science. Thanks, commenter KuhnKat.

RESUME ORIGINAL POSTING: I describe earth’s temperatures as peaking in 1998 and flat to down since.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Now, if you go back to the data since the Little Ice Age (mid-19th Century), it looks like more of a plateau in recent years. But, note, the current trend is clearly down. Will it continue? No one knows.

My point is that Think Progress was criticizing a statement that was indisputably correct!

One gets the feeling that global warming is a pseudo-religion over at Think Progress. Facts, no matter how strong, don’t influence their beliefs.

I’ve said before that personal attacks, name calling, tampering with temperature data, etc., etc., is hardly the behavior of people confident in their position or that the scientific process will win out.

Keith Seitter on Climate Change

Keith is a friend of mine who is also both a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society. He has written a wonderful essay about the state of climate science.

I have enormous faith in the scientific process, and feel that the discussions generated through challenges such as that provide in the Curry and Webster paper will lead to increased understanding.  Because of the policy decisions the world faces given the potential for truly disruptive climate change, climate science is playing out in a very public and politicized arena, and that makes it harder for the scientific process to move forward in a natural way.  We can and should be merciless in our condemnation of unscientific noise that seeks to obscure real scientific results, but we must also embrace legitimate science that seeks to increase our understanding even as it complicates the emerging picture of how the climate system works.  We all must continue to work toward insuring that we are operating with the very highest levels of openness and honesty in the presentation of our science.

When it comes to the Gore/IPCC “consensus” Keith would likely count himself among the “convinced” where I would be among the “unconvinced” as he defines the terms. I like Keith’s terminology and recommend, in its entirety, his essay.

Important Story About the Lack of ‘Global Warming’

If you read a single story about ‘global warming’ (or lack thereof) this month, please read this one. Some highlights:

He [Dr. Nicola Scarfetta] believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

I’ve always been skeptical that CO2 is the driving force in climate as claimed by Al Gore and the IPCC. But, to me, here is the bigger concern:

Solar cycle 24 is expected to have lower than average energetics.
Cycle 25, in the words of one astronomer, is “off the charts low.”
I’ve circled the two cycles in question. 

There is no question there is a growing number of astronomers (including some at NASA) who believe the current and predicted drop off (to record low levels) of solar activity is a sign of danger. The Little Ice Age is believed by many to have been triggered by the low solar activity of the Maunder and Dalton Minima. The predicted Cycle 25 would be even lower than during those two periods.

Will this occur? No one knows. We have been (foolishly in my view) focusing our climate research almost exclusively on CO2 rather than solar effects. The irony, of course, is that if the sun were to cause a great cooling, the added CO2 in the atmosphere would, at least to an extent, mitigate the cooling!

If I were a policymaker, I would be spending diverting resources to research to learn to grow high-yield crops with shorter growing seasons plus other measures that could mitigate the effects of a colder world. Otherwise, we may face the starvation that occurred in the late 1960′s and 70′s, the last time earth’s temperature cooled. Only today, the world has more mouths to feed than it did 40 years ago. A significantly cooler climate, without mitigation, is a catastrophe waiting to occur.

Hadley Center earth temperature data since 1850.

The cooling period (circled) was when The Population Bomb and Famine 1975! were written. The impetus was the millions who starved (remember Biafra, for example?) and the crop failures in Russia, Ethiopia, and Egypt.

So far, the U.S. has spent more than $80,000,000,000 (and counting) on global warming research. It is long past time to take some of this money and put it into researching and possibly mitigating what could be a far bigger problem: global cooling.

We don’t have a cooling — or warming — crisis at present. Am I predicting cooling? Actually, no. I do not believe we know enough to make that prediction.

But, with world temperatures flat to cooling for well into a second decade and with the improved confidence in predictions of low solar activity, I urge the U.S. to start diverting funds earmarked for warming research into urgent research for mitigating cooling — should it occur. 


We can’t breed hardier crops overnight. The time to start on this is now.

WSJ Global Warming Op-Ed Article

I concur with this op-ed piece.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
There is no urgency to global warming. We should do nothing more than continue to improve our understanding of climate science and predictability.

As I have discussed before, the bigger threat may be world cooling. Here is another new and peer-reviewed paper saying the burning of fossil fuels will lead to another ice age. 

Please Support These Broadcast Meteorologists

Someone named Brad Johnson has published a piece at a web site called “Think Progress Green” attempting to intimidate television meteorologists that do not share his views on global warming. I’m not linking to the article because I find it repugnant.

On more than one occasion (see here, for example), I have posted — in full — articles expressing views that differ from mine. I never delete on-topic, respectful comments that differ from mine. And, multiple times, I have linked to articles with differing opinions. That is how I, and our readers, learn.

Science should always be striving to learn the truth about how our world works. Science is often messy with passionate people on both sides. That is how it should be.

If you happen to live in one of the markets where one or more of the blacklisted meteorologists works, I hope you will offer them your support, regardless of your beliefs pertaining to global warming and climate change.

Note: I bumped this back up to the top Saturday morning.

"Worst Case" = Nothing Happens

Here is the Headline from the Huffington Post:

There is only one problem with the gloom and doom article: Nothing is happening.  Here are the world temperatures since 1990:

If the straight-line relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures really existed, then temperatures should reaching record levels. Instead, temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been flat to down ever since. Seems like there is a lot of “explaining” to do.

If you would like to read a summary of my scientific beliefs on global warming, please click here.

"Open Access to Environmental Data" Would Be a "Perversion"

Last Wednesday, I wrote about the evasion of Freedom of Information laws and other shenanigans by the usual cadre of pro-global warming advocates under the guise of science. In the posting, I wrote:

Is this the behavior of people who are confident in their position?

So, I’m not surprised that this nonsense continues — as recently as last week.

Steve McIntyre, who I think is worthy of a Pulitizer Prize for his investigative reporting, documents more attempts to hide data and keep the work of the pro-global warming International Panel on Climate Change secret.

As I said in the original posting: The replication of scientific results is an absolutely essential part of the scientific method. If results are not reproducible, they are not science.

While I disagreed with some of the early results of the IPCC’s fifteen years ago, I respected the process. It has since devolved into a largely closed advocacy group that uses sloppy science to achieve its results. My expectations for their newest report — due out later this year — are extremely low.

Skeptic Wins ‘Global Warming’ Bet: No Warming Occurred

If the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there will be some explaining to do.”

I often point out that all four of world temperature indexes demonstrate that world temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been down to flat since then.

As a result of a program on BBC Radio, three years ago pro-global warming scientist Dr. James Annan made a bet with skeptic David Whitehouse that there would not be a record in world temperatures during the next three years. At the time, many pro-global warming scientists, including Annan, were forecasting that very thing with self-described high confidence.

Well, the bet was awarded by the BBC Thursday: Skeptic Whitehouse won. Here is his blog post on the subject. Congratulations, David.

Now, when does the “explaining” start?