“Interestingly, the IPCC models, there is a great deal of uncertainty, because the rate of warming has not increased to the extent that the IPCC models suggested it would in the 1990s — there has been some tapering off. To the extent that that is true that does lead one to believe that there is more uncertainty.
Switzer provides more detail in this column in the Spectator:
I can name no better book to read over the summer vacation than Mark Lawson’s A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy. A senior journalist at the Australian Financial Review, Lawson has provided a valuable antidote to what passes for climate science. …
Mark Lawson highlights the perils of the forecasting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We learn that its first report, in 1990, was dead wrong. It forecast a minimum temperature increase of 0.4 degrees centigrade over 20 years, and a maximum of 0.8 degrees. Lawson shows that the most favourable estimate is for an increase of only 0.25 degrees.
Well that’s easy to check, since the First Assessment Report is on line. Here’s the relevant passage (my emphasis):
under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0.3Â°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0.2Â°C to 0.5Â°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1Â°C above the present value by 2025 and 3Â°C before
the end of the next century The rise will not be
steady because of the influence of other factors
Lawson came up with his “minimum temperature increase of 0.4 degrees centigrade over 20 years” by assuming that the IPCC had predicted a steady rise even though they specifically said that the rise would not be steady. What did they project for the next twenty years? You can read the numbers off their graph below, and they are a minimum increase of about 0.2Â°C and a best estimate of about 0.4Â°C.
And how much did temperatures rise from 1990 to 2010? Look at the graph below — it’s about 0.3Â°C.
So it was Mark Lawson who was dead wrong, not the IPCC. And he wasn’t wrong about a prediction of the future but what was clearly stated in easily obtainable public documents. Switzer will no doubt now declare his confidence in the IPCC and his lack of confidence in Mark Lawson.
Second, Switzer continued with another extraordinary claim:
“In this country, especially during the time of 07 and 08 and 09 it was conducted in a heretic hunting and anti-intellectual environment where sceptics were hunted and hardly heard and indeed it was not only impermissible to question the science, it was impermissible to question the response.
During that time, Switzer was the opinion editor of The Australian, one of its generals in its war on science. Far from not being heard, Switzer would publish everything and anything they produced, for example this, or this and even a front page headline declaring that global warming was a “FRAUD”. That last one was based on the discredited Wegman report. Has Switzer completely forgotten everything he published at The Australian?