Warmists capitulate

For the last eighteen years there has been little or no global warming.

Major warmists have been steadfastly denying the undeniable.  Then a paper appeared, signed by most of the big names in Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism, acknowledging “The Big Hiatus”

The Big Hiatus

The black line is what the the warmists predicted, the grey area was their error bars.

The colored lines are what has been observed.

The graph is divided into several sections. The hiatus/pause/slowdown is what has been observed since the accuracy of our tools for measuring climate change were improved.

This capitulation is largely due to the work of Climate Audit.

Climate models retrodicted the past with near perfect accuracy, despite the fact that our ability to measure or estimate past global climate was nowhere near that accurate. Conspicuously failed to predict future climate change.

I repeat my prediction of future climates: In times to come the climate will for long periods be substantially warmer than it is now. It will also for long periods be substantially cooler than it is now. There is now far more ice around Antarctica than was historically normal, and Antarctica has been abnormally frozen up for the past thirty years or so. In the past from time to time the North Pole has melted in summer. In the past the Northwest passage sometimes opened in summer and sometimes did not, and in the future the Northwest passage will sometimes open in summer and sometimes will not. In the future the North Pole will sometimes melt during summer, sometimes for several summers in a row, but mostly it will stay solidly frozen. Polar bears will get by either way. Having survived the North Pole melting in the past, they will survive the North Pole melting in the future.

7 Responses to “Warmists capitulate”

  1. […] and Trump is the man. Also, the naming of “The Big Hiatus” is a certain harbinger of Global Warmist capitulation. And Jim has some horribly impolite, but because of that very likely correct, handwaving about the […]

  2. […] of speech under pressure. Mind-control meet-up. PC has an export problem. Vice slides. Chilled on […]

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    I generally like the argument about hypocrisy better. “Would China be allowed to flaunt conservation laws or eco-politics while many Western nations follow them?”

    “Should the U.S. and other countries be leading, or setting and example on this issue when it means basing your fundamental morality on having clean water or clean air?”

    You see, having such emphasis on this sort of morality takes away social and political capitol from things like strong nuclear (pun intended) families…


    • peppermint says:

      That argument was tried and failed. Of course the US should lead, the US is a leader. Of course developing countries should be allowed to develop, it’s racist not to let them and the West has responsibility for past GHG emissions.

      The fact that the alarmists are observably wrong matters, and would have mattered then, and the fact that they had not been proven right mattered then.

      Meanwhile, yeah, the fact that China is developed now means the letting them develop argument doesn’t apply anymore.

  4. It seemed their predictions had already been falsified in 2008
    so I wonder if the error bars on your graph have changed in the interim?
    Maybe a different statistical calculation.

    Could you provide a link to the paper you are feting?

Leave a Reply