AGW: More Lies: Professor England and the ABC

AGW: More Lies: Professor England and the ABC

by NCTCS Secretary Anthony Cox

Matthew England was recently interviewed on the ABC. England is an academic at the University of NSW. He does very well from government grants and has done so for some time.

England is a fervent believer in AGW and a staunch supporter of the IPCC. In his interview England had this to say:

MATT ENGLAND: Well what it’s done is it’s analysed the very first consensus projections of climate change that were made in the 1990 IPCC report, for the first report of the IPCC. And there’s been 22, 23 years since that report was compiled and it shows that the projections of that report have actually come true. We’ve sat back and watched the two decades unfold and warming has progressed at a rate consistent with those projections.

Simply put this is rot and easily shown to be rot. Clive Best does the job. Dr Best has a PhD in high energy physics and has worked at CERN and similar research facilities. He has looked specifically at the point England makes; that is, the IPCC predictions made in 1990 have been vindicated by subsequent observations.

Best graphically compares the 1990 IPCC predictions with the temperature trends shown by HadCrut, the premier land based temperature record and UAH, one of the 2 global satellite records.

There it is, as plain as day. Best notes the prediction made in 1990 by the IPCC:

Predictions from the IPCC Report 1990 [1]
“Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. “
Prediction: 1990 to 2030 –> 0.7 – 1.5 degrees C

So, the prediction is 0.7 – 1.5 degrees C.

Best does the calculations:

T = T(1990) + 0.0275*deltaY
Assuming a linear extrapolating to May 2011:
T(2011) = T(1990) + 0.58 (maximum of 0.79 and minimum of 0.37)
That’s a best fit of 0.58C which is less than the minimum prediction by the 1990 IPPC report!

The comparison between what has actually occurred with the IPCC 1990 prediction is even more pronounced when the raw data is used:

As well as Best’s elegant refutation of England, international solar scientist, Nir Shaviv has done an analysis which shows the IPCC’s predictions are exaggerated.

Even the Wall Street Journal can manage to rebut England with a nice graph to ram the point home:

So, will the ABC look critically at what England has said or, as usual, continue to peddle unquestioned AGW propaganda?