Two new reports on climate change

Two reports bearing on climate change have been published in the last few days. The first is from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is full of forebodings about the future of the planet. This one is a Special Report on the implications of global warming above 1.5 degrees C. There are more of these special reports to come. The basic point or take-home message seems to be that limiting warming to 1.5 C is better for everyone than allowing warming to grow to 2.0C. No matter that both the 1.5C and 2.0C ‘boundaries’ seem to have been pulled from the air, being based on model projections if on anything at all. There are many confident assertions in the report, and some of them, such as we are already seeing human-induced extreme weather as a result of global warming, do not seem well supported, if at all. However, it is standard IPCC stuff.

It got a blast of TV and advertising support. The ABC trumpeted it as first-news story on one night, but never referred to it again, at least on my radio. Most British newspapers didn’t refer to it at all, apparently. It is hard not to feel that the air has gone out of the global warming balloon. There have been too many dire warnings, too many predictions that were way out of sense, too many people have said we had only so many days to save the planet and so on. People have stopped listening. There is a life to live. Temperatures seem to go up and down. If the long-term trend is a little on the warming side, why is that not a good thing? Well, the IPCC have the answers, they think, but no one is buying them. For those who need more persuasion, the UN survey of what people think are real issues that trouble them puts climate change, however described, pretty low in the list (16th), at about an average six per cent across the globe.

Our Government gave a characteristically muddled response, and said nothing more. My general response is that there is virtually no likelihood at all that anything will be done to ensure that warming doesn’t pass 1.5C in any conceivable time, so we had better get used to the notion that we in Australia adapt to floods, fires and droughts a bit better than we have done in the past.

In the meantime Dr John McLean has published an ebook that shreds the basic temperature data on which the IPCC relies. This is a dataset known as HadCRUT4. Dr McLean made the investigation of this dataset the central theme of his PhD thesis at James Cook University, which went through examination, and was passed. So it has academic status. I first met the author some ten years ago, when I had given my ‘Cool Look at Global Warming’ speech and produced the later article.


The first doubt I had about the global warming thesis was the reliance on what seemed to me the most rubbery temperature data. “It’s much worse than you think,’ he said to me, and gave examples. In the past decade we have met again a couple of times and corresponded. I admire his persistence and capacity for hard work, and I think there is no doubt that he is right — and who am I to contradict his examiners? His work makes the new SR paper of the IPCC highly suspect, and in fact the whole litany of IPCC anxieties. If we cannot be sure about the basic data, how sure can we be that the prophecies have any value?

I have purchased my own copy of the book, which costs $US8. Those interested should go to John McLean, An Audit of the Creation and Content of the HadCRUT4 temperature Dataset, and buy the book through the publisher, Robert Boyle. In my view the book provides a sharp sword that should be taken to all the predictions and projections of the various IPCC reports. Dr McLean was an expert reviewer for the Third Assessment Report, and pointed out a lot of problems with the dataset then. He was astonished to find that no audit of any kind had been undertaken of the basic data, and that led to his own thorough-going investigation.

What follows is from the Executive Summary. I think the final sentence says it all.

…As far as can be ascertained, this is the first audit of the HadCRUT4 dataset, the main temperature dataset used in climate assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Governments and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) rely heavily on the IPCC reports so ultimately the temperature data needs to be accurate and reliable.

This audit shows that it is neither of those things. More than 70 issues are identified, covering the entire process from the measurement of temperatures to the dataset’s creation, to data derived from it (such as averages) and to its eventual publication. The findings (shown in consolidated form Appendix 6) even include simple issues of obviously erroneous data, glossed-over sparsity of data, significant but questionable assumptions and temperature data that has been incorrectly adjusted in a way that exaggerates warming.

It finds, for example, an observation station reporting average monthly temperatures above 80°C, two instances of a station in the Caribbean reporting December average temperatures of 0°C and a Romanian station reporting a September average temperature of -45°C when the typical average in that month is 10°C. On top of that, some ships that measured sea temperatures reported their locations as more than 80km inland.

It appears that the suppliers of the land and sea temperature data failed to check for basic errors and the people who create the HadCRUT dataset didn’t find them and raise questions either.

The processing that creates the dataset does remove some errors but it uses a threshold set from two values calculated from part of the data but errors weren’t removed from that part before the two values were calculated.

Data sparsity is a real problem. The dataset starts in 1850 but for just over two years at the start of the record the only land-based data for the entire Southern Hemisphere came from a single observation station in Indonesia. At the end of five years just three stations reported data in that hemisphere. Global averages are calculated from the averages for each of the two hemispheres, so these few stations have a large influence on what’s supposedly “global”.

Related to the amount of data is the percentage of the world (or hemisphere) that the data covers. According to the method of calculating coverage for the dataset, 50% global coverage wasn’t reached until 1906 and 50% of the Southern Hemisphere wasn’t reached until about 1950.

In May 1861 global coverage was a mere 12% – that’s less than one-eighth. In much of the 1860s and 1870s most of the supposedly global coverage was from Europe and its trade sea routes and ports, covering only about 13% of the Earth’s surface. To calculate averages from this data and refer to them as “global averages” is stretching credulity.

Another important finding of this audit is that many temperatures have been incorrectly adjusted.…

The overall conclusion … is that the data is not fit for global studies. Data prior to 1950 suffers from poor coverage and very likely multiple incorrect adjustments of station data. Data since that year has better coverage but still has the problem of data adjustments and a host of other issues mentioned in the audit.

Calculating the correct temperatures would require a huge amount of detailed data, time and effort, which is beyond the scope of this audit and perhaps even impossible. The primary conclusion of the audit is however that the dataset shows exaggerated warming and that global averages are far less certain than have been claimed.

One implication of the audit is that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.

Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as ‘indicative’ of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed. During that period global coverage is low – it averages 30% across that time – and many land-based temperatures are very likely to be excessively adjusted and therefore incorrect. …

Ultimately it is the opinion of this author that the HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate ….

Strangely, Dr McLean’s book was not mentioned by the ABC or the mainstream media. But it will have a growing effect on policymakers, I think.

For the link for purchasing copies of the McLean book, go to:














Join the discussion 73 Comments

  • Neville says:

    Don here is a third new OCT 2018 report from the NIPCC . This report is very accurate and is well worth our time.
    But how much longer will the OECD waste 100s of billions of dollars on this mitigation con and fra-d and for a guaranteed zero return? China, India etc must be laughing all the way to their banks.

  • Patrick Purcell says:

    Willie Soon & the Connollys (2015) looked at temperature data from Northern Hemisphere rural stations which had long-term uninterrupted records. They demonstrated that the homogenized global temperature data were contaminated by the urban heat island effect.
    BTW Our own Bill Johnston can deliver chapter & verse on problems with the Australian temperature records.

  • stu says:

    In summary this latest piece from Don says, our car has broken down on the level crossing, but there are conflicting reports about the speed of the oncoming train. More people say it is picking up speed than going steady but never mind we will just sit in the car and pretend it is not coming at us. Never mind any logical processes like risk management. Don says “People have stopped listening”. From my limited research I would qualify that statement and say that the “core liberal voters” and followers (not all I hasten to add) of this website have stopped listening (if they ever heard anything) and in general the over fifties just don’t care. Some of course do have one or more generations of offspring that they do care about. If the IPCC is even partly correct about very recent climate history and their forecast is ahead of time, we will still see some effect in the near future and the argument will be settled. If not, then are we not very lucky.

    • Neville says:

      Gosh Stu, some very well informed scientists are not sure about your so called train, but you could at least tell us how to slow it down.
      So what’s your problem?

      • stu says:

        Well Neville you ask what would I do. If I were world emperor I would impose a carbon tax and redistribute the proceeds to the individual end customers (not corporations) much like our Julia tried to get going. I would NOT try any sort of carbon trading as that simply creates opportunity for blood suckers in suits to play games much like the “millionaires factory”. This should be sufficient to stimulate cost avoidance by moving to alternatives not subject to the tax. The market place would have a good chance of working effectively if the full social cost of fossil burning was included in the end price.

        As for SD’s question as to what am I doing the answer is simple. I am trying to follow all the science reports I can to be aware of the state of the science and the climate. And engage in meaningful debate when possible. That does not include responding to spurious requests to justify the basic physics of greenhouse gases, which in all this debate really is the settled science part.

        I have a thermally efficient house with good orientation and solar hot water and power panels, I have a water tank to reduce the demands on the water supply system. I drive a small and fuel efficient car and will probably move to an electric vehicle when the choice is wider and costs hopefully fall. Regarding the latter, government could assist by reducing the tax on such vehicles. What are you doing apart from waiting for the freight train.

        • Neville says:

          Stu you must live in your own fantasy world? China, india etc would laugh at you and if you can’t control them, you are wasting your time.
          In fact your ideas wouldn’t make a scrap of difference on the REAL planet earth, just cost everyone a lot more money to serve your fantastic delusions.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Sorry stu, what you are doing is merely concentrating on your comfort zone. Anyone who is conscious of trying to save money does exactly that.

          BTW, getting govt subsidies and middleclass welfare with your solar panels at the expense of poor people paying for it through higher power bills is not contributing to reduced emissions.

          If you are as concerned for the world as you make out you should be heavily committed to organising others as well as yourself with planting trees by the multi-thousand in land care and wilderness society groups.

          Australia has enormous potential to be a carbon sink and that makes more sense than your carbon tax.

          Even I have been doing that for the last 30 years and I’m not a bed-wetter like you.

          Or such a hypocrite.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      No, Stu, there are conflicting reports about whether or not there is a train at all, and the evidence for the existence of that train is very poor. Most people have given up on it.

  • stu says:

    Also, we may get some inkling of voter attitude on the issue next week in Wentworth election. Of course it is only one of the burning issues playing out there. Unrelated to here but topical, how contradictory of some in Liberal scene to opt for protections for religious freedom but continued support for a rule that allows schools to show the door to gay students and teachers. Go ScoMo.

  • spangled drongo says:

    What our stu is keen to relate is that he has been brainwashed sufficiently to believe and embrace the alarmism to the point where he is more than happy to spend endless amounts of other peoples’ money to fail to solve the non-problem of “global warming”.

    AWA criticise any rational person who has enough brains to see the stu-pidity of it all.

    But anyway stu, just going along with your story, please detail for us all your efforts and commitments to rectify this “problem” as you see it.

    Other than criticising others, what are YOU actually doing about it?

  • Peter Trandafilovic says:

    Churchill once said: “Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

    In the IPCC’s case, evidently that they don’t have to explain, rather to proclaim. It’s only ever been about politics with them. Rigorous science continues to play second fiddle.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Don, thanks once again for spotlighting this IPCC fakery at the bakery. It needs to be incessantly called for what it is.

    The MSM and the Doomsters work hand in glove. We only have to observe current weather reports to see how the good news of increasing rainfall over drought-stricken countryside is served up every night as potential disaster in destructive storms to realise why it is all such keenly consumed fodder for bed-wetters.

    One would naturally think that a full audit on all the data used to arrive at these conclusions would not only be reasonable but should be absolutely mandatory in light of what horrendous spending is proposed.

    Not just the temperature data but sea level data also, where an audit based on results from GPS chips placed on the actual tide gauge would be much more scientific. Even with tide gauges in tectonically stable areas, gravity alone causes them to sink with time, age and general decay [thus recording a SLR that is really not happening] and it is these long term gauges that provide the most important results.

  • Peter Lang says:

    The IPPC’s policy recommendations are based on a false premise – i.e. that global warming from current icehouse conditions is dangerous. Global warming would be beneficial, not damaging and not dangerous. Below is one line of evidence (from paleo temperature and how life thrived in warmer times than now).

    The long term trends are that Earth’s climate is cooling. Earth’s climate has been cooling for 500 Ma, 50 Ma, 5 Ma, 2 Ma, 800 ka, 5 ka, 2 ka (see Scotese, 2018, chart (p.3) here: .

    • 250 Ma ago, GMST was 36.3°C; that was about 21°C warmer than now.

    • GMST declined from about 28°C at 500 Ma ago to around 15°C now – a decrease of 13°C.

    • GMST averaged about 22–23°C over the last 500 Ma – i.e. about 7–8°C warmer than now.

    • Life thrived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous ‘greenhouse’ and ‘hothouse’ temperatures (16–28°C) – i.e. 2–13°C warmer than now; centred on about 7–8°C warmer than now.

    • Tropical sea temperatures have cooled by around 20°C over the last 444 Ma (see p.6 in above link).

    • Deep see temperatures have decreased by around 15°C over the last 50 Ma (p.6).

    Reality checks:

    1. Given that deep sea temperatures have cooled by around 15°C over the last 50 Ma, and given that the heat content of the atmosphere is the same as in the top 2 m of the oceans, it strains credulity to believe that the climate can warm dangerously in less than millions of years. High human CO2 emissions cannot and will not continue for more than perhaps a century, so these will not lift Earth out of the present icehouse period (i.e. with ice at the poles and cycles of glacials and interglacials).

    2. Given that GMST has been up to 22°C warmer than now and life survived (although this was a catastrophic extinction event), it suggests that GMST increase of a few degrees from the current icehouse conditions is not dangerous.

    3. Given that GMST averaged around 7–8°C (range 2–16°C) warmer than now during the Jurassic and Cretaceous, and life thrived during these periods, it strains credulity to suggest that GMST increase of a few degrees is dangerous.

    4. The fact that the Cambrian explosion occurred when GMST was around 26–29°C, i.e. 11–14°C warmer than now, is indicates life thrives better at higher than present temperatures.

    5. The planet has been greening over the past century. A recent CE post says the planet has been becoming much greener over the period 1999-2015:

    6. IPCC AR4 WG1 Section 6.3.2 says the planet is less arid when warmer, and Section says global terrestrial carbon stocks were reduced by about 300 to 1,000 GtC at the LGM compared to pre-industrial time (mostly due to reduced CO2 concentration).

    Since the Cambrian Explosion, when GMST was around 26–28.6°C (12–14 C warmer than now) GMST has ranged from around 10.7°C to 36.3°C (i.e. 3.5°C below to 22°C above present GMST). Life thrived when GMST was in the mid ranges, but struggled during coldhouse and extreme hothouse conditions.

    Further, life thrived during warming periods and struggled during cooling periods when temperatures were below the mid ranges (Greenhouse and Hothouse). Taken together, the evidence indicates that warming from the present icehouse conditions to ‘Greenhouse’ conditions, and higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, would be beneficial for life, not detrimental.

    We have ample evidence that cooling would be damaging. We have the evidence mentioned above indicating that warming from current icehouse conditions would be beneficial.

    Given that we know cooling is damaging, arguing that global warming would also be damaging is akin to arguing that the current GMST is the optimum so that both warming and cooling would be detrimental, but without valid evidence.

    It’s akin to arguing that Earth is the centre of the universe because we are here.

  • Peter Lang says:

    I’ll try breaking the link into two parts. Readers will have to join them and paste them into their browser:

  • JMO says:

    Thank you Don and Peter Lang. As a prior alarmist, and seen many and every climate doom mongering predictions fail. It does not bother the global warming doomsayers, they just remove them from their websites and plaster up another. After listening to these catastrophists for 30 odd years, I now just laugh at them. They are just chicken littles. Of course the millenials who have absolute no sense of history at all just LAP it up. They relieve believe the red rays from the sky ( as depicted in global warming diagrams) are going to fry them.
    To all the global warming doomsayers who read this blog, take a bed and have a good lie down. Want some settled science? Here it is. John Tyndall FRS who experimentally discovered the infrared absorption properties of numerous gases said at chapter 14 in his lecture on May 16 1865 that CO2 was “One of the feeblest of absorbers to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate”. By far, the strongest was water vapour. At chapter 13 he said ” Now at the her foot of the lists of liquids stands water, signalling itself above all others by its enormous power of absorption….We should be entitled to rank that vapour as the most absorber of radiant hitherto discovered..”

    So to all those global warming doomsayers. I say the car might be broken down on the railway crossing but the train ain’t coming. The service had long been decommissioned, just push your jalopy of the track,and call for the NRMA.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    … and for the nth time, the Pacific Islands islands aren’t sinking.

    • Neville says:

      Yes Bryan, but why doesn’t their clueless ABC understand this fact? Very simple data to find, but with all their journos and other layabouts it seems they’ll need to add to their billion+ $ piggy bank to further their research?
      Of course a very young Charles Darwin understood this and reported on it during his voyage of discovery. And he was the son of a priest, but also a very good scientist as well.

  • Neville says:

    So can Stu , Chris or anyone tell us how to fix their so called CAGW? So far we’ve had no luck and please no more trains or other loopy nonsense, just tell us using data and evidence.
    Surely this can’t be too difficult ? Start with your energy source and explain how this will mitigate real change by 2040 or 2100 and beyond?
    I’ll be waiting, but I think you’ll find it very difficult? Reminder that even Hansen knows that S&W is BS/fra-d and he is now a firm believer in Nuclear power.

  • Neville says:

    This religious extremist thinks we’re going to drown or melt , but their ABC would certainly appreciate her support.
    But coming from a silly Uniting church minister I can’t say I’m surprised. Just imagine sitting in the pews listening to her nonsense every Sunday?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Pollyanna is back ….

    ” There is a life to live. Temperatures seem to go up and down. If the long-term trend is a little on the warming side, …”. I find basing arguments on a Phd thesis rather weak, as it is not really subject to cross examination in the open as would an article published in Nature or Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). In short, temperatures should go up and down but they are going up far more than they are going down.

    Should McLean’s argument surface at this level, or be corroborated by other researchers, then it may gain more attention.

    You will find in academic life plenty of papers, refereed and examined, that contradict each other.

    The lower atmosphere temperature rise shown in the satellite data – matched with the temperature fall in the upper atmosphere, plus warming oceans in the ARGOS data, NASA’s “vital signs” and plenty of other trends, such as ice melt, all point in one direction.

    It is clear that if CO2 concentrations continue to increase that the global temperature must and will increase up to levels and temperature heights long before the human species and current plants and animals evolved.

    Nitpicking HADCrut or BEST data or borehole data or whatever, outside the professional scientific literature (not Phd theses), is a boring, vain glorious exercise best left to the likes of Nova and Watts and their ever faithful mouthpieces scattered throughout the blogosphere.

    PETM – here we come …

  • Neville says:

    The Royal Society and the US NAS report tells us that it would take thousands of years to reduce co2 emissions, even if we stopped ALL human co2 emissions today. Geeeezzzz why would we want to return to LIA conditions? Just unbelievable nonsense, yet this is what they believe.

    Here’s their answer to question 20 and the link. Anyone not see a little problem here?
    20.” If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago”?
    Climate change: evidence and causes

    “No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.

    fig9-smallFigure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013” (larger version)

    “If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.”

    • Chris Warren says:

      Yes Neville, there really is global warming.

      • Neville says:

        Yes Chris it has warmed slightly since the end of the LIA. Thankfully for us the warming has also been a time of doubling life expectancy and much higher wealth and health for any period of human history.
        We are very lucky to live in these very easy times and why anyone would like to return to LIA conditions defies simple logic and reason.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Neville, none of the denialist bed-wetters like our blith are smart enough to understand that at the end of the LIA, the coldest prolonged period in the Holocene, which was immediately followed by the IR, that GMT was only going to head in one direction in order to balance Nat Var and as yet it has only achieved some of the Nat Var warming that should be expected under the circumstances.

          When it exceeds Nat Var, then, and only then, do our blithering bed-wetters have any excuse to blither and bed-wet as is their endless desire.

        • Chris Warren says:


          CO2 levels at 300 ppm or thereabouts (even lower) deal with ice-age canards.

          You have to deal with CO2 levels increasing forever.

          Look, listen and learn.

      • spangled drongo says:

        It’s just that it is mostly Nat Var, not unfalsifiable blither, hey blith?

  • Chris Warren says:


    This looks like a bit of propaganda…

    “People have stopped listening.”

    Who? How do you assess this?

    • spangled drongo says:

      When did you ever LISTEN, blith?

      You only ever BELIEVED.

    • JimboR says:

      Wishful thinking I suspect. Only our Don could take an article that says “Today’s _frontpages_ of most UK newspapers ignore the new IPCC report” and turn it into “Most British newspapers didn’t refer to it at all, apparently. ” Dishonest, or sloppy? You decide. Here’s a spot check past the front page of many of those papers listed in that article:

      The Mirror Laura Forsyth Oct 8
      World has only 11 years to stop catastrophic climate change, experts warn

      The Sun Felix Allen Oct 8
      ON THIN ICE What is global warming, what causes it and what effect is it having on earth?

      Metro Rob Waugh Oct 8
      ‘Act now, idiots’: There’s just 12 years left to stop climate change, UN report warns

      Telegraph – Press Association Oct 7
      Gas boilers must be scrapped within decades to combat climate change, urges major report

      Daily Mail – Phoebe Weston Oct 9
      Eat less meat and give up your car: ‘Unprecedented’ changes humanity must make by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change

      Daily Express By SORCHA BRADLEY Oct 9, 2018
      Anti-scientific nonsense! Piers Corbyn and scientist CLASH over UN climate change report

      • Nga says:

        Nah, it is just an old man raging against the world as his body fails him and his mind turns to dust. But alas, the world progresses one funeral at a time. It’s an entertaining yet pathetic spectacle; black comedy at its finest.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Meanwhile, here’s some rationality:

    U.N. Ignores Economics Of Climate

    New Nobel laureate William Nordhaus says the costs of proposed CO2 cuts aren’t worth it

    By Bjorn Lomborg

    The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy—and why economics matters more than ever.

    Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges, is economically and practically impossible—as Mr. Nordhaus’s work shows. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap, efficient power, whereas green energy remains mostly uncompetitive. Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty. In rich ones it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.

    The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

    The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU’s climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach €2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

    Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel’s latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That’s simply not the end of the world.

    The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus’s most recent estimate, published in August, is that the “optimal” outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.

    It’s past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over. Instead the world must focus on resolving the technology deficit that makes switching away from fossil fuels so expensive. Genuine breakthroughs are required to drive down the future price of green energy.

    Copenhagen Consensus analysis shows a ramped-up green-energy research-and-development budget of around $100 billion a year would be the most effective global-warming policy. It would be much cheaper than the approach pushed by the IPCC, and would not require global consensus. Most important, it would have a much better chance of ameliorating temperature rises. Under the IPPC’s approach, by contrast, the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits. Instead, the over-the-top reception to the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue down a pathway where the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Check out the IPCC prize bunch who are the world’s top bed-wetters:

    And then tell us if the world’s climate policy doesn’t need a complete audit.

  • dlb says:

    Good to see the climate sceptics are finally calling their critics with some academic runs on the board. I’ve yet to read Mclean’s thesis, but I’m sure it would have to be better than the abominations we’ve seen from Cook and Lewandowski.

    When I saw Mclean received it from JCU I wondered whether Peter Ridd was his supervisor, and so he was, as well as the Late Bob Carter as initial supervisor. I hope I won’t be disappointed by it.

    In Brisbane it looks like a lovely wet weekend coming up, an ideal opportunity to browse through his research.

  • Neville says:

    I’ve checked the HAD Crut 4 temp trends before, but it seems to have changed a lot since Phil Jones’s Q&A with the BBC in 2010, after the Climategate scandal.

    In 2010 he listed 4 warming trends since 1850 and there wasn’t much difference in the trends. The 4 trends were—-

    1860 to 1880- 0.163c dec

    1910 to 1940- 0.150 dec

    1975 to 1998- 0.166 dec

    1975 to 2009- 0.161 dec.

    Today the York Uni tool has the SAME 4 trends for Had 4 Crut at—–

    1860 to 1880- 0.156c dec lower

    1910 to 1940- 0.137 dec lower

    1975 to 1998- 0.191 dec much higher

    1975 to 2009- 0.193 dec. much higher

    So just 8 years after Jones’s BBC Q&A we see both earlier warming trends have been adjusted down and the two later trends have been adjusted up. And people wonder why we don’t trust these temp data-sets?

    And this is the temp data-set that the IPCC uses to try and convince us to waste endless billions $ for zero gain. Who are they trying to fool? And why hasn’t one of their top scientists noticed this and blown the whistle?

    Here’s Dr Jones’s 2010 BBC Q&A. See question A.

    Here’s the YORK UNI tool using HAD 4 Crut krig global.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Amazing, Neville, how the true believers are simply born to believe.

      And if the facts are not with them well, what the heck!

      Just re-arrange the facts!

      Those of similar persuasion here will be relieved [or disappointed?] to learn that during the last interglacial, with just a little more warming, Nat Var was much wider:

      “Assessing natural climate variability under relatively warm conditions is crucial to inform projections under future carbon emission scenarios. Professor Chronis Tzedakis (UCL Geography), study lead author, said: “The Last Interglacial is particularly relevant because it provides insights into climate processes during a period of excess warmth.”

      “The Last Interglacial period contained an interval of intense Arctic warming, with surface air temperatures estimated at 3-11°C above pre-industrial, comparable to high-latitude warming scenarios for the end of this century.

      “Global sea-level during the Last Interglacial is estimated to have been ~ 6-9 m above present, with 0.6-3.5 m derived from melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.”

      • Neville says:

        Yes SD , that study of the Eemian Inter- Glacial is similar to a number of older studies that I’ve read over at Co2 Science.
        It was a lot warmer than today and even warmer than the Holocene climate optimum and SLs were much higher.
        I’ve heard that the OZ may have a coverage of John McLean’s study in today’s paper, is that correct?
        But even their ABC admitted that SLs on our east coast were 1.5 m higher just 4,000 years ago. See Narrabeen Man Catalyst I’ve linked to before.
        BTW that WSJ article from Lomborg certainly blew apart the con and fra-d of Paris? He states that if the EU were silly enough to try and follow the idiocy of Paris they would be 24% poorer by 2050, but I’m sure that’s what some of the fascist left are trying to achieve.
        Did you join the WSJ online to get that Lomborg article?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Neville, here’s the Aus article on John Maclean’s paper a few days ago:

          An audit of the key temperature dataset used by climate models claims to have identified more than 70 problems which the Australian author said made it “unfit for global studies”.

          Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship based recordings taken 100km inland.

          “The primary conclusion of the audit is the dataset shows exaggerated warming and that global averages are far less certain than have been claimed,” the audit paper says.

          “One implication of the audit is that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.

          “Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as ‘indicative’ of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed.”

          The new paper argues even the most simple quality checks had not been done on the HadCRUT4 data which is managed by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

          The Met Office says the data is based on an archive of monthly mean temperatures provided by more than 5500 weather stations distributed around the world.

          It said estimates were made of the uncertainties arising from thermometer accuracy, homogenisation, sampling grid boxes with a finite number of measurements available, large-scale biases such as urbanisation and estimation of regional averages with non-complete global measurement coverage.

          The audit is an extension of the PhD thesis by Dr John McLean awarded by James Cook University.

          Dr McLean has previously identified anomalies in the data set which were acknowledged by the Met Office and corrected.

          Dr McLean said he had not sent a copy of the audit to the Met Office.

          The new paper will be controversial because it has been released on the eve of the IPCC report on the aspirations target of limiting future warming to 1.5C below the start of the industrial revolution.

          The audit has been effectively self published with blogger Jo Nova at newly formed publishing house, Robert Boyle Publishing.

          The publisher says “We do not regard it as our job to be “gatekeepers” of thought. We leave it to the wider community to make any decision about the merit of the materials we publish.”

          Anomalies identified in the McLean paper include at St Kitts in the Caribbean, the average temperature for December 1981 was zero degrees, normally it’s 26C.

          For three months in 1978 one place in Colombia reported an 82 degrees Celsius average – hotter than the hottest day on Earth.

          In Romania one September the average temperature was reported as minus 46°C.

          Sometimes ships would report ocean temperatures from places up to 100km inland.

          Mclean says one of the most serious flaws identified was the shortage of data.

          For the first two years, from 1850 onwards, the only land-based reporting station in the Southern Hemisphere was in Indonesia.

          Dr McLean said there were some ship observations at the time but Australian records had not started until 1855 in Melbourne, behind Auckland which started in 1853.

          According to the HadCRUT4 calculation of coverage it was almost 1950 before there was data from even half of the Southern Hemisphere.

          Dr McLean points out how influential this data is: “The draft agenda for this year’s UN COP24 proposes that the HadCRUT4 average from 1850 to 1899 be used as an ‘indicative’ temperature.

          “This is just nonsense; the average global coverage of the dataset from 1850 to 1899 was just 30 per cent. In May 1861, the global coverage was just 12 per cent”, he said.

          He said the timing of the release of the audit at he same time as the IPCC report into 1.5C warming had been “partly coincidence”.

          I picked up that WSJ article on Borg from another link somewhere although I can access the WSJ with my Aus subs.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Neville, here is a great article by Lomborg in today’s Aus on that subject.

    Spend trillions on a no-result policy waffle but don’t do anything about the real problems:

    “Global leaders recently swept into New York for the UN General Assembly, trailed by thousands of media, activists and protesters. During the high-level get-together, two very different meetings held at exactly the same time revealed much about their priorities — and their flawed approach to the planet’s biggest problems.

    At a glittering gala event, the heads of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Google and the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, joined leaders from Denmark, France, New Zealand and beyond to pledge support for the acceleration of the implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

    This is a very poor answer to climate change: even Al Gore’s climate adviser, Jim Hansen, now says it is “wishful thinking” that will increase emissions.

    The big problem with the Paris treaty is that countries are expensively trying to cut relatively small amounts of carbon dioxide by subsidising today’s inefficient alternative energy. This doesn’t tackle the underlying problem that green energy sources are far from ready to replace fossil fuels: wind and solar energy meet only 0.8 per cent of our energy needs yet require $US150 billion ($212bn) in subsidies.

    The best individual and collectively peer-reviewed economic models show implementing the agreement will cost $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion every year from 2030 by increasing energy costs and thereby slightly slowing GDP growth. Yet this will do almost nothing to solve climate change. It is widely accepted by climate scientists that keeping temperature rises below 2C requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to almost 6000 gigatonnes of CO2. The UN organiser of the Paris Agreement estimates that if every country makes every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030, emissions will be cut by the equivalent of 56Gt of CO2 by 2030. Paris leaves 99 per cent of the problem in place.

    A far more effective answer to global warming would be to ramp up research and development investments into green energy to outcompete fossil fuels, so all countries can switch without abandoning poverty-eradicating growth.

    Across town from the climate event, the first UN leaders’ meeting on tuberculosis made a far smaller splash. Only 16 heads of government showed up, with none from Europe or North America, and no leaders from Silicon Valley or Wall Street.

    Public health campaigners were requesting an increase of $US5.4bn a year for the fight against TB, the globe’s biggest infectious disease killer. The disease receives only 4.6 per cent of health development spending from rich countries.

    For more than a decade, hundreds of top economists and seven Nobel laureates have undertaken cost-benefit analysis for the Copenhagen Consensus Centre to evaluate solutions to the world’s biggest challenges. Globally and at a national level, this consistently shows testing for and treating TB creates phenomenal returns to society.

    TB is especially insidious because it hits mostly young adults, just as they establish families and careers. Recent CCC research looking at several states in India, which has the highest level of TB, found that improving detection and treatment generated huge benefits for society. In monetary terms, every dollar spent can generate a return to society worth more than $US100.

    The difference is stark. The World Health Organisation estimates that since the 1970s climate change has claimed about 140,000 lives each year, rising to about 250,000 towards the middle of the century. The Paris response will cost the planet more than $US1 trillion annually, avoiding almost none of these deaths. At an annual cost of one-half of one-hundredth of the cost of Paris, we could avoid the deaths of more than a million people each year from TB.

    The two meetings show how global priorities are askew. It shouldn’t be a struggle to get donor attention for challenges such as TB (or the many other health, societal and environmental problems that weren’t highlighted by the UN). This is especially disturbing when money and political capital are being poured into a flawed response to climate change by world leaders who — unlike Gore’s climate adviser — refuse to admit the obvious.

    The blinkered focus is affecting development spending for the world’s poorest. The OECD estimates that more than $30bn of country-to-country aid — more than one-fifth — is climate related. That is more than three times what would be needed to eradicate the world’s worst infectious disease. Yet international organisations spend another $US19bn on climate-related aid.

    This is not what the world’s poor want. Nearly 10 million people were asked their policy priorities. Education and better healthcare were the clear answers, both globally and from the world’s most destitute. At the bottom of the list came climate policies. We should tackle climate change effectively through green energy R&D. That would leave more attention and money for other important issues, from stopping air pollution and reducing malnutrition to ending child marriage — and for finally eradicating the world’s biggest infectious disease killer.”

    What message comes through the loudest about our UN?

    The hypocrisy or the stupidity?

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for that info SD, but why don’t people understand this very simple message?
    Bjorn is certainly Mr consistency and is supported by some of the best, informed people in the world,
    And yet the other donkeys prefer their idiotic so called CAGW and even Hansen knows that Paris is just BS and fra-d. I honestly don’t know the answer.

    • Chris Warren says:


      It is not clear what you are referring to here:, but as earlier you fall into traps using anything from a drongo.

      Surely the word “simple” should give you pause for thought.

  • spangled drongo says:

    More evidence of the selective outrage and hypocrisy that our SJWs use to justify their philosophy-support-action on Climate Change:

    “Thus, administrators could fine industries they disliked up to $15,000 per bird – but look away when wind generators chopped up eagles, or solar panels in the Mohave Desert fried birds in mid-air.”

  • Mike Burston says:

    The ABC has come out swinging tonight with Media Watch bagging Dr McLean. Even digging up Bob Carter to scorn him. Following up with QandA stacked with warmists. Somethings up

  • Neville says:

    Here is Jo Nova’s post because this admission by HAD Crut should be shown here in full. But what do these thousands of employees do all day ?
    Why does it take just one man to expose their nonsense and why do they make such substantial recent adjustments to their temp data-set? ( 1860 to 2010)
    And this is the IPCC’s major data source that ultimately will cause the world to waste endless trillions of $ for zero change to temp by 2100.
    Just check the non OECD’s soaring emissions now and emissions to come or Dr Finkel’s testimony to the senate, or the RS & NAS report that tells us that it would takes thousands of years to reduce present co2 levels. Note- RS/NAS claims, not mine. Here’s Jo Nova’s full post.

    #DataGate: Hadley reply to first audit with foggy excuses about problems 2,000 staff didn’t find

    “Last week we exposed absurd errors, brutal adjustments and an almost complete lack of quality control (was there any at all?) in the key HadCRUT4 data. The IPCC’s favorite set is maintained (I’m feeling generous) by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Uni of East Anglia’s CRU in the UK.

    Finally the Hadley Met Centre team have replied to Graham Lloyd regarding John McLean’s audit. They don’t confirm or discount any of his new claims specifically. But they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “any errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not.

    They don’t mention the killer issue of the adjustments for site-moves at all — that’s the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.

    Otherwise this is the usual PR fog — a few outliers don’t change the trend, the world is warming, and other datasets show “similar trends“. The elephant in the kitchen is the site move adjustments which do change the trend which they didn’t mention.

    And while the absurd outliers may not change the trend (we don’t know yet) the message from frozen tropical islands is terrible. These bizarre mistakes are like glowing hazard signs that the dataset is neglected, decaying, essentially junk. What else might be wrong? How do we reconcile the experts urgent insistence that climate change is the greatest threat to life on Earth but it’s not important enough to bother checking the data? We must pay trillions, turn vegetarian, and live in cold rooms, but the actual historic measurements are irrelevant. Were some numbers left in Fahrenheit for 40 years? Nevermind.

    They claim that automated quality control checks are done, as are manual checks, but we are still wondering what that means when they haven’t even done a spelling check and nor bothered to filter out the freak outliers which are hotter than the hottest day on Earth. These kinds of checks are something that a 12 year old geek could write the code for.

    The Met Office protests that the database includes “7 million points”, but then, they do have a supercomputer that can do 16,000 trillion calculations every second. The ten-nanosecond-test for the new World Record Temperature would have fished out the silliest mistakes, some of which have been there for decades.

    They claim they are backed up by other datasets. but all the worlds temperature sets are juggling the same pool of measurements. If the shonky site-move adjustments start with national met bureaus, then get sent out around the world, all the global datasets combine the same mistakes and make similar overestimations.

    Britain’s Met Office welcomes audit by Australian researcher about HadCRUT errors

    “Graham Lloyd, The Australian

    Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean that claims to have identified serious errors in its HadCRUT global temperature record.

    “Any actual errors identified will be dealt with in the next major update.’’

    The Met Office said automated quality checks were performed on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data were subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.

    “The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,” the Met Office spokesman said.

    “We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files.

    “We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Neville, when these same predictions of doom were made by the great polar explorer Sir Douglas Mawson all those years ago and still nothing has happened you would think scientists might bear it in mind when they go sounding off officially.

      Instead of confirming that science really is the belief in the ignorance of experts:

      • spangled drongo says:

        At least, in those days they were a little more realistic and only “suggested” it may happen.

        And while nothing has happened in the meantime, today they are certain.

        And they don’t even get how stupid this shows them to be.

        But then weather cooking and doomsaying has always been with us.

        Dr Baliunas explains:

  • spangled drongo says:

    At least one politician gets it right on “climate change”:

    Trump on 60 Minutes: Lesley Stahl tells Trump: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.” – President Trump responds: “And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Just as in Australia, there is nothing happening:

    Climatologist: Florida’s Major Hurricane Hits – No Change In 118 Years.

    ALL U.S. landfalling major hurricanes, again from NHC data. The marked downward trend since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s is quite evident:

    Roy Spencer

    • Stu says:

      Another example of dodgy statistics. The chart purports to be up till 2018 yet only shows 3 events when it should be six, and we still have two years to run by those year groupings. Make the number six, and more likely at least 8 (being conservative) by 2020 and you get quite a different trend line. Gotta love that Spencer guy!

  • Stu says:

    Have you ever stopped to consider one of the fundamental differences between those who accept the published and overwhelmingly agreed science of climate change and those relying on belief in some alternative, the deniers?

    I have, and it makes one wonder why people are so predisposed.

    The difference I refer to is the fact that almost certainly all those accepting the science advice would be deleriously happy if it turned out in fifty years that they were wrong, while on the other side the deniers maybe would just be regretting that they held up change that might have made improved the outcome for mankind.

    Which side sounds more rational. In similar vein I wonder how it is that all the well known publishing climate scientists dismiss the work of the few, the Soon’s, Lindzens, Balls, Carters etc. Perhaps it is not quality science.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Perhaps it is not quality science.”

      Which science is that, stu?

      You be the judge.

      “Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted.”

      Following all the recent IPCC noise The Daily Warming blurb has been issuing dire warnings as a result of another “prestigious” peer reviewed paper from Nature.

      But Nic Lewis and Roger Pielke Jr have found a maths error that make it little more than a load of old shoes. Nic said, “a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

      No Answer, was the stern reply:

    • spangled drongo says:

      Another “scientific consensus” that can be used as an example of “quality science” is the ever increasing groupthink about gender fluidity.

      Chromosomes and genitalia only allow for two sexes but the “science” is not about anatomical evidence these days.

      Just as climate science isn’t about climate evidence.

      It’s more about human rights, social justice, how you happen to feel today and precisely what you choose to believe!

      Is that the “quality science” you’re talking about, stu?

    • spangled drongo says:

      The XX and XY chromosomes are what we can unequivocally refer to as your “published and overwhelmingly agreed science” yet the scientific body is going backwards by suggesting everything in life is relative. For this reason, it’s not inappropriate at all to ask the question: Why shouldn’t we question the prevailing narrative on climate change?

Leave a Reply