NCTCS has written before about whether sceptics should be called "deniers" or should that tag go to LINK and LINK. Now Rich Lowy, writing for the Oregonian, has taken up the call:
There are few things sadder than the "climate denier." He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality. He can't recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he's a denier.Rich quotes from this article in the Economist.
The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn't been any global warming for about a decade and a half.
OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750.Rich notes that, although the Economist has been alarmist over the years, it still can pause and take stock with an article like this.
The deniers feel no such compunction. They speak as if it is still the late 1990s, when measurements of global temperature had been rising for two decades. In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that "we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it's too late." In a passage devoted to global warming, though, he didn't mention the latest trend in global warming.Ed Hawkins, a meteorologist from the University of Reading (see graph) has found that if global temperatures stay the same for a few more years, they will fall below the range of 20 climate models. In other words, the scientific "consensus" will have been proven wrong.
Freeman Dyson has been described, since the death of Einstein, as the "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has described the use of models by climate scientists as "flawed from the beginning." (link)
"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."Dyson also refers to Ed Hawkins:
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade.Interesting to note that the heating of the oceans has also levelled off or stalled (as reported by the economist)
Over the past decade the long-term rise in surface seawater temperatures seems to have stalled (see chart 2 below), which suggests that the oceans are not absorbing as much heat from the atmosphere.