https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/04/what-i-think-about-global-warm>

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html

I am often amused by how many false statements Anthony Watts can pack into a headline, today he has delivered in spades.

Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

And the opening para is:

On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:

Only one little problem, COP15 happened in December 2009, not 2008. (He's confusing that appearance with a very poor quality recording made from German TV a year earlier).

Secondly, Watts claims that Gore made a 100% certain forecast of an ice-free Arctic. This never happened. Gore cited a study (by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski) that assigned a 75% probability to the Polar Ice Cap being ice free in summer 'in 5 to 7 years'. Confusingly, he also mentioned a date of 2030.

Thirdly, the forecast was for summer ice, the fact that 'it's still there' in December would not be a falsification.

Clearly we are not ice free yet, however the twelve lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last twelve years.

Watts concludes his post with 'Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?'

Look in the mirror, Anthony.

Phil, a word to the wise.
Try and actually write something that people might read.

It didn't really matter much that you quickly linked to something at the-blog-that-cannot-be-named.
It doesn't really matter much that I would rather hop to Mordor on two broken legs than return to that website.

You need to write something that people might read.

And happy Xmas, by the way.

When will Climate Science stop making stupid predictions?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/15/oh-no-not-again-cnn-headline-us-undermining-last-chance-climate-talks-excerpt-all-the-other-last-chances/

"https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/04/what-i-think-about-global-warm>
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html
Dec 16, 2018 at 11:39 PM | Phil Clarke"

Dec 17, 2018 at 8:12 AM | M Courtney, agreed!
Stoat is the home domain of William M Connolley of Real Climate and Hockey Stick Team notoriety, infamous for rewriting Wikipedia, as a major part of the big lie and conspiracy that Climate Science consists of.
SkepticalScience is the home domain of John Cook, responsible for the 97% Faked Up Consensus Conspiracy, that DID fool President Obama.

All three blogs demonstrate censorship to ban challenging opinions, an editorial policy intended to support the serially-abused Peer Review process that has corrupted Climate Science and Climate Scientists. No wonder Trump is turning off the money supply.

The links at the top of my post were unintentional, pasted in error. Apologies.

Re 75% : I see Anthony Watts already answered PC on June 3, 2012

Nope, almost completely unrelated.

Surely the key point here is that mainstream "science" as quoted by mainstream politicians is wrong when tested against reality.

The key point is that Watts' headline was wrong in every respect. Gore does tend to quote from one end of the spectrum, as all advocates tend to, however if we take the IPCC as shorthand for the 'mainstream', their predictions for Arctic ice have proven to be too optimistic.

I'll post another WUWT headline the next time he posts propaganda. Just a matter of time.

Phil Clarke, is this what you were after?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-once-again-why-wikipedia-is-an-untrustworthy-reference-source/

Dec 17, 2018 at 10:13 AM | M Courtney

I note that the Scientific American story is written by Glen Scherer, and he writes stories, not science.

The fictional idea that "the end is nigh" does require that once upon a time, we humans, and cuddly Mother Earth were destined to live happily ever after, having abandoned fig leaves as contraception in an apple scrumping dispute with our Godlike Father.

Mann's Hockey Stick perpetuates this religious faith, whilst ignoring floods, storms, droughts, famines etc of Biblical proportions, that are noted in the Bible.

Melting Arctic Ice may have contributed to a Biblical flood, but the Old Testament is a bit short of Polar Bears on Noah's Ark, and sea ice supporting Mount Ararat.

The archaeological evidence of the Franklin Expedition making its fateful progress into the North West Passage in the 1840s does seem very conclusive, now that "Unprecedented" ice melt has confirmed where they sailed to, during the last unprecedented ice melt.

I wonder whether Glen Scherer has a good story about Franklin's ships being airlifted in to their current locations by spaceships, or flying unicorns?

If so, then the key point is that the end of the world is not nigh.

Are you really incapable of envisaging anything that is less than armageddon but more than a slight problem?

But Phil, the real question is "Are you incapable of envisaging anything might just be only a slight problem?"

"But Phil, the real question is "Are you incapable of envisaging anything might just be only a slight problem?"
Dec 17, 2018 at 5:13 PM | Supertroll"

+ added benefits that may outweigh any "slight problem"

But Phil, the real question is "Are you incapable of envisaging anything might just be only a slight problem?"

Just to pull one example from gosh, so many, Click

I never invoked the Precautionary Principle. I don't need to. Every economic analysis that I am aware of has concluded that mitigating climate change is cheaper than adapting to it.

Just to pull one example from gosh, so many, Click
Dec 17, 2018 at 11:27 PM Phil Clarke"

That is a link to a UNFCC propaganda spiel, with quotes from Christiana Figueres and no science, from the Obama era in 2014. It does include this about things that COULD exacerbate ....

"In a statement, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel called global warming a “threat multiplier,” saying rising seas and increasing numbers of severe weather events could exacerbate the dangers posed by threats ranging from infectious disease to terrorism: .. "

As M Courtney points out, Climate Science is failing the poorest countries. Chuck Hagel could have warned about how energy shortages ARE a threat to World Peace.

Any warning about what COULD happen, does involve the Precautionary Principle, plus scaremongering, plus emotional blackmail etc. M Courtney is one of the few from the far Left of centre prepared to call-out Climate Science as a failure of political and social engineering, not just a failure of Science.

Your denial of invoking the Precautionary Principle is a failure of English.

Dec 17, 2018 at 11:30 PM | Phil Clarke
That is a failure of other people's Science and Economics, and your selection of reading material.

Except for than Blair’s other Dodgy Dossier, the Stern report, there are no studies that find that mitigating climate change is cheaper than adapting to it.

Oh, please. There are some studies that show a short term or localised economic benefit, but medium to long term and globally, the effects are overwhelmingly negative. Here's a selection:

Australia - the Garnaut Review 2008, updated 2011 came to exactly that conclusion.

William Nordhaus has written extensively on this topic, developing the widely adopted DICE and RICE economic models. In case you don't read the papers, Nordhaus shared the 2018 Nobel for economic sciences, for 'integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis'

His work is extensive; you could do worse than starting with his 1993 paper Reflections on the Economics of Climate Change.

The there's Professor Richard Tol

...
estimates show that climate change initially improves economic welfare. However, these benefits are sunk. Impacts would be predominantly negative later in the century. Global average impacts would be comparable to the welfare loss of a few percent of income, but substantially higher in poor countries. Still, the impact of climate change over a century is comparable to economic growth over a few years. 

Tol 2009

See also Tol's other studies, the work of Gary Yohe and many others.

And of course the IPCC Working Group III (speaking of Nobel prizes ;-).

I would be grateful if you would stop falsely stating what I have 'conceded', it is a cheap debating trick. I would also be interested in a link to any published work that supports your assertions and points out where Nordhaus, Yohe, Tol, Mendelsohn (et al, et al) have made an error.

That is a link to a UNFCC propaganda spiel, with quotes from Christiana Figueres and no science

Au contraire, it is an account of this report, from the Pentagon.

Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change. Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe.

In our defense strategy, we refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today – from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts. A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions. The military could be called upon more often to support civil authorities, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the face of more frequent and more intense natural disasters.

Our coastal installations are vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased flooding, while droughts, wildfires, and more extreme temperatures could threaten many of our training activities. Our supply chains could be impacted, and we will need to ensure our critical equipment works under more extreme weather conditions. Weather has always affected military operations, and as the climate changes, the way we execute operations may be altered or constrained.

While scientists are converging toward consensus on future climate projections, uncertainty remains. But this cannot be an excuse for delaying action. Every day, our military deals with global uncertainty. Our planners know that, as military strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight.” It is in this context that DoD is releasing a Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Climate change is a long-term trend, but with wise planning and risk mitigation now, we can reduce adverse impacts downrange.

Serious people, the military.

Dec 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM | Phil Clarke
Dec 18, 2018 at 10:47 AM | Phil Clarke

Just more Climate Science bollocks.

Are the US Military trying to defend Pearl Harbour against Global Warming?

Climate Science has failed to prove Mann's Hockey Stick despite many disastrous attempts. Trying to prove that Stern was right, requires Economists to rely on the same incorrect assumptions as Stern.

"We are not facing Armageddon and we should not plan to pay for it.
Dec 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM | M Courtney"

Climate Scientists and their doomed Economists should plan on career change, not climate change.

Nothing to say about the work of Tol? Yohe? No link to an economic study making the case for inaction or delay?

So we can see from the start that it (Garnaut) is entirely unrealistic and overly pessimistic. We’re about a fifth of the way through the century and we haven’t had 1° of warming since the Millennium – with no mitigation.

You have cherry-picked their most pessimistic scenario, and missed that their baseline is 1990, not 2000, ignored the fact that the warming rate is projected to accelerate, and have simply omitted the Kyoto protocol and other mitigation measures. You can 'prove' anything if you're prepared to engage in that degree of misrepresentation.

 Assuming Global GDP growth of 1% per annum (very low for safety) the prediction is that the people of 2100 will be 72% better off rather than 80%. 

Garnaut also points out that

Unmitigated climate change causes real wages to be around 12 per cent lower than they would otherwise have been

The point is that the study found that the amount of GDP required for mitigation is less than the cost of inaction. You want me to allow that you 'know what you're talking about', yet in addition to the factual errors noted above you stated no such study exists (before quoting from one). In reality there are many such studies, an economic consensus, and indeed whole books that make the point. You have provided nothing to support your economic argument.

Nordhaus recognises the possibility of catastrophic climate change, but it is not part of his central case. He dealt with the argument to 'do nothing' succinctly in an article in the NY Review in response to a WSJ Editorial arguing that his work supported a 'wait and see' approach.

The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).
This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

[...]

My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.
[...]
The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.

So a Yale Professor of Economics awarded the Nobel prize for his work on climate economics says his work is just one of many demonstrating that reducing emissions has a net economic benefit. Mr Courtney says no such studies exist. Hmmm, tricky one.

Then climate notwithstanding, there are the co-benefits on human health of reducing fossil fuel emissions and the consequent air pollution.

The health co-benefits substantially outweighed the policy cost of achieving the target for all of the scenarios that we analysed. In some of the mitigation strategies, the median co-benefits were double the median costs at a global level. The ratio of health co-benefit to mitigation cost ranged from 1·4 to 2·45, depending on the scenario. At the regional level, the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be compensated with the health co-benefits alone for China and India, whereas the proportion the co-benefits covered varied but could be substantial in the European Union (7–84%) and USA (10–41%), respectively. Finally, we found that the extra effort of trying to pursue the 1·5°C target instead of the 2°C target would generate a substantial net benefit in India (US$3·28–8·4 trillion) and China ($0·27–2·31 trillion), although this positive result was not seen in the other regions.

The Lancet