Graham Stringer MP: Now that’s an inconvenient truth 

Posted: September 21, 2017 by oldbrew in Accountability, alarmism, bbcbias, censorship, climate, Critique, greenblob, ideology, modelling, propaganda
Tags: ,

As a long-time critic of climate alarmism, chemistry graduate Graham Stringer MP is not surprised by the latest cracks appearing in the facade of modern climate science, as the GWPF reports.

Al Gore, the U.S. politician and self-appointed champion of the green cause, famously declared that ‘the science is settled’ on climate change. It was a claim that revealed far more about the intolerance of the environmental movement than the reality of scientific inquiry.

Research should be founded on critical analysis of the evidence, not on wishful thinking or enforcement of a political ideology. Now the hollowness of Gore’s assertion is exposed again by a vital new report that shows how the apocalyptic predictions of the green lobby have been exaggerated.

In a study just published by the respected journal Nature Geoscience, a group of British academics reveals that the immediate threat from global warming is lower than previously thought, because the computer models used by climate change experts are flawed.

According to these models, temperatures across the world should now be at least 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th century average, which is taken as a base level in such calculations. But the British report demonstrates that the rise is only between 0.9 and 1 degree.

That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right. The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed. It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong.

Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.

Continued here.
– – –
Climate jiggery-pokery by Graham Stringer (2011)

  1. tallbloke says:

    Well worth reading the full article over at GWPF. Stringer hits hard, and rightly so.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Flashback to Climategate:

    date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:37:09 +0100
    from: Tommy Wils
    subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond

    Some quotes:

    ‘he does not seem to play by the rules’
    ‘dendro bible’
    ‘authoritative backing’
    ‘The job of a scientist is producing knowledge’

    Rules, bible, authority? This is the wrong rhetorics. If we claim that
    established science (we) is the and the only access to knowledge or truth,
    we become quite arrogant or even tyrannical.
    About creationists: I don’t
    have any trouble with people believing that God created the world if that
    helps them facing their existential life questions (anyway I don’t know
    whether science can ever say more about metaphysics than that it doesn’t
    exist, based on the assumption that what cannot be perceived by the senses
    is not real). About climate change: the problem with people believing that
    it is a lie are dangerous if it turns out that we are right. Solution:
    scientists talk about probabilities, not about truth or knowledge (read some
    postmodern philosophers). I think we have to ‘teach’ society that and how to
    deal with it – see my Ethiopia example.

    As science is not neutral but based on numerous assumptions, we cannot just
    stand aside as ‘knowledge producers’. We are part of society, we have the
    duty to be humble, explain our assumptions and results
    in a realistic
    and understandable
    way and to put it into a broader context.

    “Hey, forest decline was a stupid lie, so climate change must be too.”
    What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
    fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…

    Back to McIntyre: what to do? Get away from the YES and NO camp, find the
    humble, middle road
    . There is a passage in the bible: if someone hits you on
    your cheek, turn him your other cheek…


  3. Alvin Scott says:

    Wow, So the temperature has still raised 1 degree instead of 1.5 degrees.

    Bit of openness, who and where is the funding coming from for this self appointed group and what degree does Graham Stringer hold and which field of climates science has he been involved in.

    Peter Lilley has been busy being a full time MP for the past 30 years or so and whilst he has held many ministerial positions I cannot remember Science being one.

    Likewise Lord Lawson of Blabt he has as much idea on the science and data on G;obal Warming that I have and yet he gets several interviews on BBC as if he is an expert. Self Appointed.

    [reply] if you had read the first line of the post it says Graham Stringer is a chemistry graduate. What relevant degree did all the MPs who voted for the Climate Change Act hold? Or Al Gore for example…

  4. David A says:

    “”According to these models, temperatures across the world should now be at least 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th century average, which is taken as a base level in such calculations. But the British report demonstrates that the rise is only between 0.9 and 1 degree.””
    This of course refers to surface T. Per IPCC CAGW theory, overall the troposphere warming rate should be about 20 percent above the surface rate, or about 1.6 degrees. ( The tropical hotspot was to warm even more)

    While tropospheric records to not go back to the mid-19th century, we know that contrary to CAGW theory, it has not warmed at the rate of surface warming over the last 40 years.

    This important point is seldom made. As GHG induced surface warming is predicated on tropospheric warming, then much of the surface warming CANNOT be caused by CO2 increase.

    Egads, the models are worse then we thought!

  5. tom0mason says:

    Of course the BIG question is why governments are allowing these climate model outputs, with their glorified encoded guesswork, be a dictator of policy worldwide?
    There are many, many other more important issues, than whether or not the climate might get a degree or so warmer/colder in the next hundred years, that will affect our children and their children.

    Climate will change — government should not be fooling the public into thinking there is anything they can do about it.

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    The AGW mime was never about the weather. It always was, and still is, about the money and political power. Bureaucratic drive to build their empires. The lust to acquire wealth and position unearned.
    We don’t need them!…pg

  7. Bryan says:

    Yes we can be thankful for the likes of Graham Sringer.
    Ready to take a principled stand for true Science.
    It cant be easy for him with the Labour Party activists in his constituency who have a distinct green tinge.

  8. Ned Nikolov says:

    I would not expect these Nature-published authors to accept in nay shape or form the skeptics interpretation of their paper! The paper is actually strongly pro-AGW and it’s not fair the critics to cast in in any other light. See actual paper Abstract here:

  9. oldbrew says:

    Date: 21/09/17

    ‘The average global temperature now stands at about 0.9 C above the pre-industrial baseline, which implies that global temperature would have to increase by 0.6 C between now and 2021 if the IPCC carbon budget calculations were right. This is highly implausible since such an increase would be about 10 times faster than what has actually heretofore been observed.
    . . .
    In the London Times another author of the paper—Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford—said, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”
    [bold added]
    – – –
    The Arctic sea ice also failed to vanish as predicted by some over-excitable pundits.
    Some call it the pause.

  10. Richard111 says:

    I have no scientific qualifications. Worked in electronics and computers so had to be able to read. I read that some 70% of the planet is covered in water. Infra-red radiation does not penetrate far into water and tends to cool the water surface by encouraging evaporation. All available radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere is in the 13 to 17 micron bands and can only warm material COLDER THAN MINUS 30C ! Also less than half that radiation can reach the surface. The major half escapes to space. CO2 gas in the atmosphere is a coolant.
    I could go on about the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands which are only effected by sunlight, another cooling property.

    I would really like to know how MODTRAN arrives at any surface warming what so ever.

    Simple calculations indicate that the 13 to 17 micron radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere could DELAY THE RATE OF COOLING by some 9% but that won’t stop you making ice in the desert on a summers night. The Romans did that 2,000 years ago.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Researchers parroting last week’s obsolete agenda?

    Academics call for rapid decarbonisation of electricity

    Researchers warn changes are needed to limit global warming
    . . .
    “We need to accelerate transitions, deepen their speed and broaden their reach. Otherwise there can be no hope of reaching a two-degree target, let alone 1.5 degrees.”

  12. ivan says:

    This paper is nothing more than a political PR puff piece which boils down to ‘keep the money flowing’.

  13. The authors disagree with the pseudoskeptics interpretation of the paper. I.e., read harder.

  14. nickreality65 says:

    RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.

    But with such great personal, professional and capital investment in this failed premise, like the man with only a hammer, assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.

    Over 9,300 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.

    Step right up, bring science, I did.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE (LinkedIn)—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-