I notice that Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has been interviewed for the Express. This gives me an opportunity to add to my collection of posts titled helpful hints for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Previous editions included, A quick science lesson for Lord Lawson, Come on, Andrew, you can get this, and Matt Ridley, you seem a little too certain.
I’m going to try and keep this short, as I do have better things to do. The article says,
This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth’s temperature last rose – something that Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand.
Firstly, the only way one can claim that its been 18 years since the Earth’s temperature rose is to consider one dataset (RSS) and to ignore all the others that indicate that temperatures have risen (GISTEMP, NOAA, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 from Cowtan & Way, BEST, UAH). You can check the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator yourself. Of course, you could try to argue that because the 2σ confidence interval includes zero, that it means it hasn’t warmed, but then you’d be making the same kind of mistake that Ross McKitrick recently made. This no warming for 18 years also ignores that the Earth’s ice mass continues to decrease, and that the ocean heat content continues to rise. Also, scientists may be puzzled by the slowdown in surface warming, but there are plausible explanations and these kind of puzzles are what makes science interesting and challenging.
Benny Peiser then apparently comments that
He explains that we are now in the midst of a “crisis of credibility” because the global warming – and accompanied ‘Doomsday’ effects – that we were once warned about has not happened.
As explained above, global warming is still happening, but the Doomsday effect comment is a particularly bad strawman. Not only does noone credible use the term Doomsday, noone credible has suggested that anything particularly severe should have happened by now. In fact, noone credible suggests that severe/catastrophic outcomes are guaranteed to actually happen. The impact of climate change depends entirely on what we choose to do in the coming decades. There’s the possibility of severe outcomes if we choose to continue increasing our emissions, but the choice is ours as to whether we risk these outcomes or not.
So, it’s odd that someone with a PhD could make such elementary mistakes. You’d think that the Director of a Policy Foundation would want their preferred policy options to be based on a good understanding of the actual evidence, not on things that they’ve just made up. It’s almost as if he doesn’t even bother speaking with his Academic Advisors. Oh, wait……