Warmist predictions washed out February 19, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 19 February, 2010
Here Bolt references Tim Blair
From Tim Blair, who has the links and more:
The Guardian, February, 2009:
The world’s pre-eminent climate scientists produced a blunt assessment of the impact of global warming on the US yesterday, warning of droughts that could reduce the American south-west to a wasteland and heatwaves that could make life impossible even in northern cities.
In an update on the latest science on climate change, the US Congress was told that melting snow pack could lead to severe drought from California to Oklahoma. In the midwest, diminishing rains and shrinking rivers were lowering water levels in the Great Lakes, even to the extent where it could affect shipping.
“With severe drought from California to Oklahoma, a broad swath of the south-west is basically robbed of having a sustainable lifestyle,” said Christopher Field, of the Carnegie Institution for Science…
ABC News (US), February, 2010:
In the span of just a couple years, the U.S. has gone from very high drought conditions to the lowest amount of drought in the last 10 years, [Doug LeCompte of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] says. “It’s only a few times, really, in the last century that we’ve had this little of the country in drought. That is unusual.”
What is it you notice about the first quotes from the Guardian in 2009? The quotes extracted from the Guardian do not contain a timeframe and neither Bolt nor Blair talk about the timeframe?
This is a really cheap and completely deceptive “trick” by the Dynamic Denier Duo and shows complete lack of understanding or willingness to misrepresent the science:
- Take long-term predictions and pretend that they are immediately relevant;
- Cherry pick a short-term change in a particular area and claim it as evidence against the long-term prediction
Hence the use of the 2010 article.
Bolt has used this “trick” against Flannery and others. Which is not to say that Flannery has not at times been loose with his interpretations and predictions – he has.
Let’s explain it slowly so that Bolt and Blair can grapple with their apparent lack of understanding of a very basic aspect of climate change:
- Predictions and modelling related to climate change put forward by the IPCC are about changes that will be most evident and possibly come to fruition over the coming century;
- We currently have seen global warming of the order of less than 1C, which is likely well less than half what can be expected over the IPCC prediction time frame.
Thus, taking current events and short-term cherry-picked evidence does not disprove or contradict AGW climate science.