In January 2007 the UK Meteorological Office predicted that 2007 would be “the hottest year on record”.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/04/phew_what_a_scorcher/

Met office scientist Katie Hopkins said: “This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world.”

The article went on to say, “The long-term prognosis is alarming. As Reuters puts it: ‘Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.’”

It’s great to be able to predict a whole year’s average temperature, and even to predict that it will be a “record hot year”.

Let’s see how well the UK’s Meteorological Office really did.

Under the eye-catching headline, “2007 ’second warmest year’ in UK”, BBC tells us what really happened on a global scale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7169690.stm

Turns out the top 10 were (from hottest to coolest): 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.

OOPS! So, despite the eye-catching headline, 2007 was number seven out of ten and not the “record hot year” at all. If you only take the years in the 21st century, 2007 ranked only number five out of seven, so it was kind of a “blooper”.

So much for predicting temperature for a whole YEAR in advance.

But cheer up, folks, as the article said IPCC’s scientists can predict (or project, as they prefer to call it) that “temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius” a whole CENTURY in advance.

Too bad none of us will be around in 2100 to see how well (or poorly) they actually did.

Max

Two questions:

Does this “endorsement of the scientific consensus” include agreement with the doomsday predictions of disastrous consequences from AGW and endorsement of the proposed policy measures to stop these consequences (carbon taxes, cap and trade and carbon credit schemes, etc.)?

I kinda doubt it.

Does this mean that the thousands of non-listed corporations and CEOs of corporations do NOT “endorse the scientific consensus” on AGW?

Max

You allege:
“1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;”

My Response: There is much evidence that there was a Medieval Warm Period (MWP)not long ago, that was warmer than today. Are you able to refute this?

2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;

Oh really, could you please quote the actual evidence that these rising CO2 levels measured in parts per million, cause significant warming? Please, I’m anxious to learn!
I guess you realise that the consumption of Kentucky Fried Chicken and other consumables shows a somewhat similar correlation?

THINK DEEPLY THOU…..Black wallaby

You really are a fruitcake, you missed out the most important of all!
What about G. W. Bush? He is a believer too you know!
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow

Got it yet?
Ask if thou non comprendo
Black Wallaby

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:

The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

The following companies agree with the consensus:

ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo

In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO’s of the following companies:

A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink’s Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC – North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc

I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

Good Work!

Stick to your day job

The fact is there are a lot of scientists who don’t buy the party line on global warming. But you know, if you want a government grant for your research it sure helps to parrot the global warming line.

Yep.

Then yesterday, they predicted it would rain today. Not a drop has fallen.

And liberals believe these same “experts” can predict a 2-degree change in climate 100 years out.

“…[The author] counted approximately 40 climatologists and 60 meteorologists, many of whom were TV weathermen, among those voicing doubts. Fair enough. But there were also approximately 60 physicists, 40 geologists, 15 biologists, and more than five astronomers listed as well. All of these various fields do have perspectives to contribute to Climate Change science, but it is not their field of expertise. The biggest stretch of all was the 20 economists counted among the skeptics. If Alan Greenspan were to voice skepticism of Global Warming tomorrow, I doubt it
would get much media attention, but the parrotheads won’t think…”

1) Taking your last point first, you are correct; Greenspan would not be heard, but Sir Nicholas Stern, (an economist) was certainly widely heard for his “Armageddon Report”. Could you please explain; why the difference?

2) The word ‘economist’, just like ‘physicist’, is but a lexeme expandable into many things. Many economists have particular skills such as complex data handling and an understanding of statistical science which may be lacking in many scientists, including physicists. For instance, one of the sixteen “Economists” listed in the report is Ross McKitrick whom together with Steve McIntyre, a GEOLOGIST, both being expert in understanding complex data, unravelled the fraud of the Mann et al 1998 Hockey-stick. There is also the case of these guys correcting NASA GISS temperatures for USA recently to show that the 1930’s were warmer than of late. The beneficial process of the cross–fertilization of inter-disciplinary skills is unfortunately scorned by certain scientific elitists. There are too, of course matters of “economics” policy and other peripherals that have an effect on the science, and economists also participated in the IPCC. Consequently, I submit, that amongst the various disciplines, a ~4% representation of environmental economists, including IPCC advisors, statisticians, climate change authors, etc, seems about right!

3) You might care to consider why meteorology (a close branch of atmospheric science to climatology) appears to be over-represented in your count of experts. If you actually read their dissertations, you will see intelligent scientific arguments, among them commonly that computer modelling of weather forecasting is unreliable. Some of them actually are modellers. It is clear to them that climate change modelling MUST be very much less reliable because the number of unknowns that are substituted by assumptions are far greater than in weather forecasting. In short, there is no way of measuring any effect from CO2, which is why the IPCC SPM panel voted on a guess on probability. Incidentally scientists (with degrees in science)whom appear in front of TV cameras, are not lesser scientists because of that are they? Why mention it?

4) Finally, would you like to check-out how many physicists, geologists, biologists and astronomers were involved in the IPCC itself? I’m amazed that you do not think they play an important role, or that they cannot understand the data or work of specialists across the many fields of climate change! But then, you are not a scientist are you?