Those climate change projections in full

The global warming theorists have been in overdrive predicting extreme outcomes.

We have now heard or read:

1. The Arctic ice will all have melted within 5 to 7 years
2. The Himalayan glaciers will all have gone by 2035
3.Tropical storms are now the result of man made global warming
4. The UK will run out of water thanks to the dry hot summers
5. Champagne grapes will shrivel in France and will have to be grown further north in England
6 The sea level will rise drowning several large cities
7. The UK will have a barbeque summer in 2009 and a mild winter 2009-10

We are now witnessing some backtracking. The IPCC has apologised for the glaciers, admitting it was an error. Some global warmists were uncomfortable with Mr Gore’s Arctic ice prediction, as we will soon know how accurate it was. Apparently the settled science is not sure that tropical storms and other extreme weather events are all the result of man made global warming. The Uk weather forecasts are of course about weather and not climate, so they are mistakes that could happen to anyone in the meteorological business. We are assured that when the weather goes in the wrong direction, it is just weather and not climate.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

38 Comments

  1. Norman
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    Whenever I need a smile I go to Rush Limbaugh's site and check out the Algore clock at the bottom. There's a quote from Rush along the lines of 'Al Gore says we now have 10 years until the planet is scorched – ladies and gentlemen, let's start the clock'.

    I just checked it out and it was 4 years to the day since Mr Gore made his prediction (based on settled science, no doubt) so at least it's consistent with the 5-7 years until the Arctic is a rocky, barren waste that he predicted at Copenhagen.

    Must have seemed fantastic for the environmentalists when such a high profile figure jumped aboard the bandwagon and released the error-strewn 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

    Wonder if they have buyers remorse yet?

  2. Javelin
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    The latest lie from the IPCC is about the Amazon. Looks like the IPCC is political poison. To have seen to rely on them is to show that you are unfit for high office because the simplest of research would have shown a lot of it was exagerated and made up. How can you be a minister of the crown if you don't question basic data. No politician in their right mind should rely on their crazy predictions. Er Gordon?
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-

  3. Stuart Fairney
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    The ever relaint BBC informed me a few years ago that we may see the end of Alpine Skiing following a winter where only a few resorts were open.

    And as I am sure you realise, if you add millions to the population and via technology/wealth the water consumption per capita increases, but you don't increase supply, you may indeed see shortages of water!

  4. Philip Richens
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    I heartily agree with your comments on global warming. Last year I wrote to David Cameron's office expressing my concern with current policy in this area. The response I received yesterday states "being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017". However, my understanding is that wind power is very unlikely to resolve the problem, and that it takes ten years or more to build new nuclear power stations. Therefore, I question whether power cuts can be avoided without building new fossil fuel power stations. Do you have any suggestions?

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted January 27, 2010 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Yes, one.

      Buy a generator and diesel.

      This is not meant as a joke.

    • APL
      Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      Philip Richens: "However, my understanding is that wind power is very unlikely to resolve the problem .."

      I said it before and it is worth saying again. During the recent cold snap the United Kindgom had next to no wind, the power generated by wind was in the region of 2% of the total consumption.

      Gordon Brown is proposing to spend £100bn on offshore wind turbines and raise the amount of energy produced by wind power to 30% these will have to be shut down for much of the winter because the wind will be too strong and if we have another spell like we did recently with the high pressure over the UK, at a standstill for much of the rest of the time because there is no wind at all!

      It will be a waste of a collossal sum which could be better spent on one or two nuclear power stations.

      Browns government is on its last legs, thank god! But David Cameron has sold out to the green movement and completely supports the so called 'renewable' energy scam.

      If it ever gets to the stage where 30% of the economy is powered by wind, given another period like that over Christmas at a time of peak demand for energy and losing 30% of the generating capacity will be an absolute catastrophy.

      • Peter Turner
        Posted January 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        I agree – but our politicians, many conservatives amongst them, seem incapable of grasping the importance of this relatively simple observation that windmills are a waste of money.

  5. Kevin Peat
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    "Apparently the settled science is not sure that tropical storms and other extreme weather events are all the result of man made global warming."

    Please tell Mr Cameron to forget 'Green Taxes' – no-one I know is fooled by them and all are insulted. If you have to raise taxes from us then at least do so honestly – we can handle that uncomfortable truth so long as the axe falls on wasteful public 'services' and teenage mums buying Silk Cut fags and talking incessantly on mobile phones in town.

    Otherwise he'll lose trust, credibility … and votes.

  6. Mike Stallard
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Overselling is something which I learned very early on doesn't work. You make the sale. The buyer goes away and comes back ten minutes later having changed her mind.
    Al Gore please note.
    And Mr Pachauri.

  7. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Good for you but be careful John, I read recently that several Conservative prospective parliamentary candidates were sent for re-education by the Green Alliance (Zac Goldsmith is a trustee) following their lack of enthusiasm for reducing “Britain’s carbon footprint".
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/10

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted January 27, 2010 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      Unreal. Maoist and unreal.

      • APL
        Posted January 27, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

        Stuart Fairney: "Unreal"

        Welcome to the NEW BLU Tory party. Proprietor D. Cameron.

  8. MarkE
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Would you be so kind as to have a quite word with your party leader who remains in thrall to the new religion promoted by the carbon trading billionare Al Gore?

    As Philip says (above) wind and other heavily subsidised "renewable" power sources cannot provide the power we will need if we are to avoid power cuts in the near future.

    • APL
      Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      MarkE: "Would you be so kind as to have a quite word with your party leader "

      Poor old John Redwood, so much is expected of this one man. The price of consistently talking sense!

      Mr Redwood, I am afraid we need to see some of that 'change from within' the Tory party you have been so enthuiastic about, SOON.

      It really is an urgent matter!

  9. alan jutson
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Yes, very worrying that such an organisation as the IPCC and many others like them, have so much influence over so many Politicians from all over the World, who do not seem to question anything they report.

    The one thing that is certain, is that Green Taxes will rise more than Sea levels.

  10. james
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    At the risk of sounding flippant, prediction number 5 shows that even in the most extreme cases, there would be new opportunities to take advantage of. Would anyone join me in starting the Northumbria Champagne vineyard?

  11. MartinW
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    The Watts Up With That web page http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-o… has drawn attention to a new report "Surface Temperature: Records: Policy Driven Deception?". This seems to be a remarkably important compilation, which should be read by all policy makers in Government, and especially in the Opposition. Let us hope this report is already in Nick Herbert's in-tray.

  12. Citizen Responsible
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Man made climate change is looking more like a scam driven by a political leftist agenda. Science has provided mankind with enormous benefits but when scientists are shown to be lying to us they create distrust of scientific endeavors. AGW is being used to justify radical laws to change society, increase taxation, curb freedom, threaten economies and change the global balance of power. Governments and big business are anticipating the windfalls that carbon trade offs will give them and will not give it up. However, with the Democrats loss of Massachusetts, it now looks unlikely that President Obama will be able to persuade the US Senate to enact a Cap and Trade bill before the climate change talks in Mexico City this year. Meanwhile genuine issues concerning pollution and damage to the world’s environment have been obscured.

  13. APL
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    "6 The sea level will rise drowning several large cities"

    There are other explanations for changes in sea level by the way.

    Parts of Scandinavia are rising, a result of the melting during the last ice age, since the ice has melted the deformation casued to the Earths crust by the weight of Ice is now being removed and the surface of the land is rising, a couple of meters in the last two or three centuries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

    Yea, I know it's wikipedia but it'll do.

    Three thousand meters thickness of Ice in some parts. And all before the Industrial revolution.

  14. Neil Craig
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    We also have Gore's "Inconvenienmt Truths" that sea level rise has already claimed some Pacific Islands & is going to be 20 feet, both of which are complete lies. Also BBC assertions, the year after they promised a future of droughts, when there was flooding, that global warming would mean a future of more floods.

    The eco-fascists have a long history of catastrophe predictions which have all proven bogus (peak oil in 5 years annually from the late 60s, exploding nuclear power stations, DDT being harmful, mass starvation, pollution causing life expectancy to reduce to 42, death of all sea life, of most species, acid rain, CFCs, Y2K) all of which have been used to justify more taxes & regulatuons & all of which have proven to be entirely or overwhelmingly untrue.

    Many more to come.

  15. AT
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    We now have the CSA stating that AGW scepticism is healthy. So it’s official – those of us who have been repeatedly flagging systemic issues with the IPCC process and the catastrophic AGW narrative are not scientifically illiterate, holocaust denying baby killers. Surely this gives enough cover for some hard questions in the house ?

  16. A.Sedgwick
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    I am in no doubt that mankind is seriously damaging the planet, principally through overpopulation and the natural inclination of most to aspire to a Western standard of living. I am not convinced that manmade CO2 has anything to do with affecting the climate. I have read numerous times that CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas and the manmade part of the total is no more than a few percent. Can anyone confirm or challenge this?

    • AT
      Posted January 27, 2010 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      Some confusion may arise from muddling % of all atmospheric gases ; % of greenhouse gases ; % of greenhouse gas influence. The major components of the atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen are symmetric diatomic molecules, and so have no effect in the (thermal) infrared.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

      This gives the %s and relative influence ( note the uncertainty levels ). Water vapour is the major part, but if the calculation of the forcing terms is correct, then CO2 matters and the industrial component. is not negligible. But also the water vapour % influence is excluding cloud cover, which is very important. [ The scenario that modulations of cosmic ray intensities modulate cloud cover drive climate variations relies on this ]

      What matters is the magnitude of the effect of the extra CO2. Given the complexities of the system, you need to do some very tight science to be confident of your answers. In far too many cases we are seeing that the quality of the work is way below what is needed.

      A word of caution about Wiki – as AGW is contentious, public editing is locked and it follows the ‘consensus’ view

  17. JohnRS
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    "We are now witnessing some backtracking. The IPCC has apologised for the glaciers, admitting it was an error…….."

    But their official position is that it's only one error and that getting a 100% accurate report isnt possible. Their spokesman stated that nothing man made can ever be that accurate!!

    Their first point is now obvious tosh as new errors with the AR4 report are being published daily, your list is not complete. So no-one should be putting any great weight on the IPCC as they are completely unreliable.

    Also given that they want to steal and waste trillions of dollars I think they need to be an awful lot closer to 100% than they are at the moment. I see no eveidence that they even understand this point.

  18. AT
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    I guess the communication with Cameron’s office disclosed in this link
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-so-s

    tells us where we are. The response is – I’ll use the mildest words that I can – badly misguided. In December John Redwood correctly outlined the steps that you have to go through before serious spend on AGW is rational. In the absence of credibility of the catastrophic AGW story, you would handle issues of pollution control, energy security etc. in a much different way. E.g. carbon sequestration is totally counter productive.

    And, of course, you would make the decisions in Westminster – there would be no need to sign up to global governance of the “problem”.

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted January 28, 2010 at 6:02 am | Permalink

      From the link

      "Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017"

      No, no and no. This is utterly detached from reality. The action needed to prevent power cuts is to build power stations starting NOW! rather than relying on some Shangri-la future of windmills and technology that does not yet exist as I am sure you appreciate.

      The whole reply to your concerns amounted to "la-la not listening"

      This is a simple technical issue, spend ten minutes looking at the numbers and the facts reveal themsleves to anyone who cares to look. Why can the political classes not see this? We can't stay warm and illuminated by chanting green mantras and wish thinking.

      • AT
        Posted January 28, 2010 at 9:34 am | Permalink

        Just to clarify, it was not my correspondence. Though I am in full agreement with it, and with your remarks.

  19. Lola
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    No 5 looks promising.

  20. Yorkshireman
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    The Arctic ice will all have melted within 5 to 7 years ?

    "Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage"
    http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain

    "Increase twice the size of Germany: "colder weather" to blame.

    Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany. "

    Champagne grapes will shrivel in France and will have to be grown further north in England?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/veni-vi

    "Veni, vidi, viticulture – remains of Roman vineyards found in UK

    By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent

    Tuesday, 16 November 1999"

    In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production.

    Detailed studies of the sites found so far will help researchers to recognise the hallmarks of a typical vineyard. Using the aerial photos and other data collected from Roman sites, they will search for buried sites. The identification of seven vineyards, before the search has even begun in earnest, suggests that up to 250 square miles of Roman Britain were involved in grape and wine production.

  21. Yorkshireman
    Posted January 27, 2010 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/the-t

    "The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice"

    Dr Leonard Weinstein (NASA Scientist),

    May 21, 2009

    .

  22. Dick McTurpin
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 3:37 am | Permalink

    Hand over your valuables or the Baby Polar bear gets it.

  23. Dick McTurpin
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    Lord Monckton is (challenging Al Gore and others ed)
    http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

  24. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    I guess politicians will always think in the short term.

    "Global warming" is a slow-burner, and maybe politicians will fall into the trap of looking at the extreme end of the risk to find bullet points that will hit home.

    As it happens, if you are 50 or over, and living in a Western country, you may well escape the issues. If that is a comfort to you then so be it.

    But sea level continues to rise. Temperatures continue to warm in line with model projections (slow, slow, quick-quick, slow), and Arctic sea ice is currently melting quicker than model projections show (most models show summer sea ice disappearing in 40-50 years' time).

    I would say it is a little bit parochial to be worried about where your champagne is coming from when many of the serious problems are going to be suffered by developing countries.

  25. starfish
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    the problem is worse

    see a complete list of the world's ills that are apparently due to climate change/global warming etc
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  26. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 4:50 am | Permalink

    Even if it doesn't lead to global warming, I am still a little worried about CO2 levels increasing in both the atmosphere and the oceans. It is not a very human friendly or sea life friendly substance.

    However, it is likely that we have significantly more time to think what the correct measures are and put them in place. Among these measures has to be population control, preferably through family planning rather than famine and pestilence. So we will sooner or later have to take head on the reactionary Roman Catholic Church and Islam – that's BOTH of them.

    How about a small World Environmental Committee, headed by Lord Lawson, Boris Johnson and Professor Richard Dawkins?

  27. Ian Pattinson
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 12:00 am | Permalink

    One item out of several thousand facts in the IPCC report slipped past the editors and suddenly climate change isn't happening? And weather forecasting isn't the same as climate modelling. If you bothered to find out the difference rather than trying to make point scoring snide comments you'd know this.

    Mr Redwood, you're supposed to be an intelligent man. But your repetition of stuff like this suggests that you aren't using your brain, merely grasping at whatever weak (and usually already disproved) piece of conjecture you can to keep from having to accept reality.

    Next time, before you type out another talking point, check somewhere like these How to talk to a climate scepticposts- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how… – to find out how it's already been dismantled.

  28. eveningperson
    Posted March 22, 2010 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    I propose the 'glaciergate' test. This is a test for a balanced opinion on climate change.

    If you understand that the error about the Himalayan glaciers was on about two lines on the right-hand column of page 493 of volume 2 of a three-volume work that cited (if I am not mistaken) around 18,000 scientific papers altogether, then you may have a proportionate idea of the error. (Several other 'gates' have also appeared in the blogosphere recently, but none of them seem to have been substantive errors in the scientific content of the IPCC 2007 report).

    If you also understand that volume 2 is the one about the likely consequences of climate change, not the one that presents the evidence for man-made global warming, which is volume 1, then you have an even more balanced view of the real issue. (None of the 'gates' appear to affect the content of volume 1.)

    What matters is not the 'consensus' of scientists, but the 'consensus' of their published work, which has been scrutinised and criticised by thousands of other scientists. And the truth is that the general conclusion of volume 1 has not been significantly challenged by any serious research, even though the results of all those scientific papers are open to challenge by anyone. Which I think is the really significant fact about the whole matter.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page