Climate Leak Bombshell or Numeric Dyslexia. We report. You Decide.

High profile climate un-changer Professor Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun School of Thought Homogeneity, is well known for his contention that the temperature rise of the planet has stopped.  He’s been saying it for years. bolt-with-furrowed-brow

Today,  Professor Bolt wrote that a leaked IPCC report concedes that warming is only half what it ones was (so half way there for Mr. Bolt).  He quotes liberally and approvingly from Britain’s favourite birds-in-bikinis and saucy-celebs news website The Daily Mail, where fellow climate conspiracy theorist David Rose, who has obtained the leaked document claims that “Scientist accept their computers “may have exaggerated”.

It’s all over bar the shouting apparently with the whole IPCC edifice set to crumble because this leaked copy of the report pretty much throws in the towel.  The IPCC apparently has got a hell of a lot wrong in the past and therefore this soon to be released bombshell will result in “scientific reputations being destroyed” and the great scare collapsing.

Rupert Murdoch’s rampant Organ of Influence,  The Australian, plays in harmony with the Bolt braggadocio quoting approvingly from The Daily Mail and alleging that the

IPCC computer  (They’ve only got one?) drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

Because, The Organ offers,  the IPCC in 2007 said that the earth was warming at 0.2 degrees per decade, but has wound back the prediction to a paltry 0.12 degrees per decade.  A case of the eggheads seriously over egging the pudding.

But wait.  Publicly funded highly influential left-leaning elite media in the form of  Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat mounts a challenge to the News Corporation orchestra, and seeks the view of Australian Climate scientist  Dr. John Cook who says:

 I find that actually quite extraordinary that they say that. I went straight to the 2007 report this morning to have a look at what the IPCC actually said and they say that the linear warming trend over the last 50 years was .13 degrees celsius per decade, which is almost exactly the same as the accurate value that the Australian is talking about. So they just seem to have made up this .2 C per decade number. Even the Australian in this article aren’t disputing that carbon dioxide causes warming.

In other words, if we are to believe Dr. Cook,  The Daily Mail, and by extension Mr. Bolt and the Australian are all  reporting that the IPCC said something that they did not in fact say.  No? Really?

But further investigation by your humble correspondent adds to the doubts and confusion because in the very first section of the 2007 IPCC report it does clearly say:

 The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 1°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005.

Perhaps David Rose of The Daily Mail was reading a different 2007 IPCC report,  or perhaps  was briefly distracted by a fine set of breasts in a close fitting bikini top whilst he was reading this report, or perhaps somewhere else in the report the number 0.2 does crop up and well, these numbers can be very confusing.

Whatever the truth of it,  we shall all excitedly wait the 30th September when the actual IPCC report comes out. Then we will know if the  great scare has begun its collapse, and we can all agree to sensibly work together with Mr. Bolt to decide if Climate Change has stopped, has half-stopped, or is in the process of beginning to stop.

  1. 10 to 0.16
This entry was posted in Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Climate Leak Bombshell or Numeric Dyslexia. We report. You Decide.

  1. Gummo Trotsky says:

    Soon we’ll be hearing that the it was the IPCC who were behind the recent upset in Sophie Mirabella’s electorate of Indi. But who’ll break the news first – Andrew Bolt at The Hun or David Rose at The Daily Mail?

  2. Patrick says:

    Isn’t the real story that
    – the world isn’t really warming up that much; and
    – we are now even more certain that we don’t really know how climate change works and our models can’t really predict it very well? Eg http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg

    From this one might conclude that we should do less more slowly with less conviction?

    • It is worth remembering that even a relatively small increase in the frequency of extreme weather, in the parts of the world that produce most of our wheat and rice could have massive consequences.

    • Michael says:

      From this one might conclude that we should do less more slowly with less conviction?

      So are you suggesting we go from pretending to do nothing to seriously ramping up efforts to do little slowly?

    • Michael says:

      I meant, pretending to do something….. but maybe pretending we aren’t accelerating the problem to actually doing nothing might be progress.

        • Michael says:

          Sorry – multitasking gone wrong. What I was attempting, and obviously failed to convey, was that Patrick’s veiled contention that a lot was being done to tackle climate change – a contention based on what are obviously misrepresented uncertainties in climate science we should do less, slower. In other words some kind of cautious conservatism. This is not the case – much less than what would be prudent action to tackle climate change is already where we are at. Somehow we seem to be living in a post fact, post satire world.

        • Tom Lehrer retired from writing and singing satire when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize …. because : “irony is no longer possible”.

          As for the climate stuff it is true that the climate is not conforming to the more drastic predictions (thankfully). And the reason for this is not known. A possibly related matter is that it is looking like our understanding of the sun (and sunspot cycles) is not as firm as was thought.

          Where I tend to agree with some of the ‘sceptics’ is re the effectiveness of Carbon trading/tax schemes, but I am no expert :-)

  3. Alan says:

    ‘Numeric dyslexia’ is dyscalculia. It is a serious and troubling disability.

  4. Fyodor says:

    What Patrick said.

    I wouldn’t pay much attention to either Bolt or Cook. They’re both polemicists of known and obvious bias.

    BTW, “Australian Climate scientist Dr. John Cook” is not a climate scientist, as he himself makes clear on his website:

    Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist.

  5. derrida derider says:

    But Fyodor, Rex’s post did not take Dr Cook at his word. There was no argument from authority – Rex looked at what the IPCC actually said (as Bolt could easily have) and compared it with what Bolt claimed they said.

    And guess what? Dr Cook and Mr Bolt differed from each other in one crucial detail: Dr Cook got his facts right and Mr Bolt didn’t. Perhaps that’s because Dr Cook, polemicist or not, cares about facts rather more than Mr Bolt does – in which case you have a good guide to which of the two you should actually ignore.

    • Fyodor says:

      Fucking hell. How tedious.

      Bolt quoted the Daily Mail. From your own link above, what the Daily Mail wrote is that,

      “…the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007. Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.”

      Now, as Rex and Cook point out, the IPCC 1997 synthesis report (see here, as Rex’s link dinnae work) states in Section 1.1 that,

      “The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005.”

      According to Rex, Cook, DD et al that is the end of story, thanks for coming.

      HOWEVER, Section 3.2 of the same report, named [guess what?] “Projections of future changes in climate” ALSO SAYS,

      “For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.”

      See? Clear as mud. The Daily Mail is not clear about whether it was discussing the IPCC’s backcasting or forecasting, hence you can argue the toss, if you give a toss.

      Not only but also: DD if you’re going to get het up over the verisimilitude of your preferred polemicist, be aware that he’s recently been accused of misrepresentations of his own, relating to his claim that “97% of scientists think Teh Warmageddon is On Like Donkey Kong”, or something blah blah blah. Not worth going into, as his accusers are similarly biased axe-grinders, but worth keeping in mind when you read his stuff.

      • cbp says:

        @Fyodor

        Sayeth the Australian:

        and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

        Looks like ‘backcasting’ to me.

        Your me.

        • Tel says:

          This is what Bolt wrote:

          Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

          Rather easy to understand; Bolt is comparing a forecast made in 2007 with what has been reported in 2013 to have happened. That’s the crux of science, being able to make forecasts, and then checking those forecasts against measurements. The forecast was higher than the measurement. End of story.

      • Rex’s link dinnae work

        Fixed thanks.

  6. Dave says:

    OMG, Professor Dr. Lightning Bolt caught whipping up outrage in stark contrast to evidence! What will they think of next?

    Does this mean I should also not trust the views of other journos, such as Piers Akerman, Judith Sloan, Dennis Shanahan, Jo Nova, Michael Stuchbury, Paul Sheehan, etc.? Say it ain’t so! How will I get my facts?

  7. Tel says:

    Result of a quick search:

    Global Temperature

    The basic projection is that the global surface air temperature is going to increase with all scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols were kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. If emissions are kept within the range of the IPCC scenarios about twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) can be expected.

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_projections.php

    So who are these numerically dyslexic goons, the WMO? Must be some whacko fringe, owned by Rupert Murdoch… wanting to take over the world or something.

  8. Tel says:

    A little more searching:

    Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century. {9.4, 10.3, 10.5,11.2–11.7, Figure TS-29}

    From a document that calls itself, “A report of Working Group I of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate, Change Summary for Policymakers” which can be found here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

  9. The Daily Mail has modified its original claim.

    Clarification
    An original version of this article sought to make the fairest updated comparison with the 0.2C warming rate stated by the IPCC in 2007.
    It drew on the following sentence in the draft 2013 summary: ‘The rate of warming over the past 15 years… of 0.05C per decade is smaller than the trend since 1951, 0.12C per decade.’ This would represent a reduction in the rate of warming by a little under one half.
    But critics argued that the 0.2C warming rate in the 2007 report relates only to the previous 15 years whereas the 0.12C figure in the forthcoming report relates to the half-century since 1951. They pointed out that the equivalent figure in the 2007 report was 0.13C.
    This amended article compares the 0.05C per decade observed in the past 15 years with the 0.2C per decade observed in the period 1990-2005 and with the prediction that this rate per decade would continue for a further 20 years.

  10. Rex R says:

    The Guardian sets the record straight by leaking a little piece of the upcoming draft report itself.

    So when comparing apples with apples, the difference in the warming trend over the last 50 years between the two IPCC reports referred to by The Daily Mail is actually just 0.01C. Bad, bad IPCC.

    Here’s the original line from the Daily Mail quoted dutifully by Mr. Bolt

    Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
    But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

    here’s the Daily Mail’s new line

    Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.

    But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade – below almost all computer predictions.

    In the process of this backflip though the Daily Mail has doubled their assessment of amount of IPCC wrongness by arguing that the predictions are now not HALF right but only a QUARTER right. All performed with the trickery of numbers and shortening their previous 50 year claim to a more suitable 15 year claim.

    • Tel says:

      People were quoting the 0.2°C per decade figure as the prediction for future warming… a prediction that did not happen. Just listen to this guy who explains it quite clearly:

      Straight-line extrapolation of this current measured warming suggests global temperature rises of around 2 degrees C by the end of this century. Although that probably wouldn’t be catastrophic for most people (it might even be beneficial for many), it’s well and truly large enough to merit serious concern and real (but not panicked) policy reactions fro governments.

      http://clubtroppo.com.au/2004/05/26/warming-scepticism-a-death-sentence/

      John Cook is happy to say, “So they just seem to have made up this .2 C per decade number” while you are saying “was briefly distracted by a fine set of breasts in a close fitting bikini top whilst he was reading this report” but that’s just plain rude.

      The number was out there, the alarmists were putting it out there and they got their prediction wrong. Moaning won’t fix it.

Comments are closed.