Skip to content

GWPF Report–Complaint and Response

January 9, 2021

By Paul Homewood



GWPF had a complaint about my report on UK climate trends last year, which claimed it was misleading and inaccurate.

They have now published it along with my response:


  1. Mike Jackson permalink
    January 9, 2021 11:06 am

    I see Mr Hoar’s point. Certainly the graphs show the late 20th/early 21st century to be warmer than the beginning of the 20th century but they also show what in “geological” timescales would be a fairly instant ‘step change’ in the 30-year period from 1970-2000 (approx).

    The important question is, as he says, the long-term trend. Perhaps if he started with the Holocene Optimum …. That should be long enough for him, no?

  2. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 9, 2021 11:13 am

    Yet, Mr Hoar, in his complaint and rebuttal, in reaching a conclusion that it is warmer now than in the 1880s, doesn’t come to any conclusion as to whether this a good or bad thing – ‘though I take it he, like many warmists, believes the latter. Neither does he come to any conclusion as to the cause of the warming – although I’m guessing in his case it’s big, bad CO2 – sorry, Carbon – again.
    Perhaps Mr Hoar can tell us and the GWPF what he wants the climate to be like, if not ever so slightly warmer.

    • Ian Magness permalink
      January 9, 2021 11:36 am

      Further, Harry, this “science consensus” lapdog has completely missed (or avoided) the context of one of the main underlying reasons for the existence of GWPF and its article writers such as Paul – i.e. the CO2-is-death meme. To elucidate, by claiming that only long-term trends matter, he has missed the point that if CO2 was the devil reincarnate, we simply would not be seeing this sort of one-way temperature trend occurring over 150 years or so. OK so UHI will have had an effect in many of the weather station readings and population increases will have resulted in more CO2 produced overall but, equally, as a society we have been becoming far more energy and CO2 efficient for decades. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the temperature changes being at least predominantly natural.

    • January 9, 2021 12:53 pm

      also “which” climate is he referring to, climate is dictated by many thing of which only ONE is tropospheric temperature. Average global temperature is a meaningless term but I understand why it is being used. Also you are quite correct that he does not even pass go as a scientist because if he did he would begin with reference to the (or a) empirical data based proof of the cause of the welcome 350 year and counting warming which we are enjoying. He begins with an assumption.

      Oh dear oh dear Mr Hoar, your analysis does not conform to the usual analytical standards accepted by the scientific community and indeed it is “very” contrarian and at odds with normal scientific standards of analysis……….

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        January 9, 2021 1:41 pm

        Even Hansen is on record as saying that global average temperature is “not a useful metric”.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 9, 2021 7:40 pm

        Tried to post this earlier, Mike…As I have said many times, GAT is like averaging the National Lottery numbers and hoping to win. (Note: Back in 1994 when the NL started I wrote computer programs to analyse the numbers and came up with random number sequencers to – haha- predict the numbers based on averages. It goes without saying, averaging does not work – which I was trying to prove).

  3. Dr Ken Pollock permalink
    January 9, 2021 11:15 am

    This would be an interesting discussion between conflicting observers except for the fact that the “scientific community” is using the apparently speculative “predictions” to claim we are facing a “climate emergency”.
    Our response to this emergency, we are told, must be to overthrow the capitalist system, based on fossil fuels, that has brought health and prosperity to virtually the whole world, proposed as it is by the extreme left like XR.
    Some may think that is too flimsy a basis for making such drastic change.

  4. Joe Public permalink
    January 9, 2021 11:17 am

    The UK population in 1890 was approx 37.5m, by 2019 it had risen to approx 66.6m

    To accommodate that 77% increase there has been a massive increase in the built-environment with a consequent increase UHI effect.

    It’s inevitable that temperatures will rise.

    • January 9, 2021 7:07 pm

      The UHI is a very interesting subject because if anything this is where the alarmist focus sits which is neither scientifically sound nor is it logical.

      There is NO scientific reason today if the desire is to get an authentic measure of surface temperature to include airport and urban sources. None whatso ever. If the intention however is to have a manipulatable source then I see a justification scientifically bankrupt as it is.

      We are told that rather than providing a valid reason for their inclusion we are told that a fudge factor is applied which compensates. Why on earth would you do that when there is no reason to include those data in the first place? It gets worse because certainly in the US, a trend has developed where perfectly reasonable countryside locations are being removed from the grid and replaced by urban data gridded out over the countryside location. A synthetic station is created at the countryside location using the urban data and guess what, the temperature increases!.
      To say this is totally the reverse of what is scientifically acceptable is an understatement. The reason to include that data can only be to introduce error and of course that is an error which increases the averaged measurement.

      If your search is to find the real temperature with all the remote communication technology available today then deliberately including contaminated data and then applying a fudge factor is for another purpose other than acquiring a true and authentic measure of surface temperature.

      Onto the subject of increasing atmospheric CO2. There has been a shocking 27% increase in the global human population in only the last 20 years. Given that each person exhales 40,000ppm of CO2 with every breath I have seen no calculation anywhere regarding the removal of this increase from the total calculation for the total claimed amount of locked away CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle( where it belongs) by man.

      The deafening silence regarding this totally unsustainable exponential increase in population is as staggering as is the illogical volume of noise about global warming and its tenuously linked problem child climate change where the only hard empirical data based evidence STILL says we are experiencing what is a purely natural and very welcome increase in surface temperature of the Earth.

      • Paul Ramsden permalink
        January 9, 2021 7:53 pm

        Population growth is indeed the elephant in the room. It is worth noting the following – In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Since that definition the world population has grown by 50% – so was the reference to “future generations” thinking of such growth or did “sustainability” imply meeting the needs of a 1987-sized “generation”. Is a 3rd child “sustainable” and a 4th ?

  5. January 9, 2021 11:22 am

    “Mr Homewood’s report contains some very contrarian conclusions in it, ”
    How dare you be a contrarian.

    • Micky R permalink
      January 10, 2021 2:35 pm

      The contrarian (!) comment = usual believer’s technique of attempting to discredit the messenger rather than dismantle the message.

  6. January 9, 2021 11:31 am

    It seems to me that the nub of Alfie Hoar’s criticism is nicely summed up by himself in his last paragraph:
    “I feel if the GWPF wishes to represent his report and my criticism fairly then it must put these into the context of the wider scientific literature.”

  7. Douglas Brodie permalink
    January 9, 2021 11:34 am

    Alfie Hoar describes himself as a university student, he doesn’t say in what subject, but it is probably safe to assume that as a youngster he has been immersed in state-sponsored climate propaganda all his life and probably has very limited real life experience.

    He is clearly a propagandist, referring to the GWPF as “right-wing” and using the derogatory term “climate denial” and other smears to assert his views. Paul has done an excellent job of rebutting his assertions, but as is typical with such fanatics, he can’t hold back from having the last word.

  8. January 9, 2021 12:08 pm

    “I would further ask you to consider all of this within the context of my original concern – the nature of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Council are not representative of the scientific community on this topic, and nor is Mr Homewood’s report. Mr Homewood’s report contains some very contrarian conclusions in it, and I feel if the GWPF wishes to represent his report and my criticism fairly then it must put these into the context of the wider scientific literature”.

    Did Mr Hoar really write that with a straight face? “Not representative of the scientific community on this topic” and Mr Homewood’s report contains some “Contrarian conclusions”.

    1. Does the GWPF claim to be representative of the scientific “community whoever or whatever that is?
    2. Which scientific community?” The Scientific Community is rather large. Does he mean all scientists or just 97% of them or 97% of a sub sample?
    3. “Mr Homewood’s report contains some “very” contrarian conclusions”. Firstly why does ne need to use the word “very”? Contrarian conveys meaning. It is an absolute term requiring no embellishment. You are either contrarian or you are not contrarian. Same as being dead. You cannot be “very” dead, just you either are or you are not. I raise this point because it is important in understanding his approach to analysis. Certainly he has difficulty avoiding “bigging things up with emotion,
    Secondly, contrary to what? The opinion of Al Gore…if he has one? Is Mr Hoar not aware of the fact data is rarely 100% clear and unequivocal and offers room for interpretation which is a significant part of the scientific process? Not agreeing with others is a fundamental part of doing Science. Agreeing with others is politics. ANY interpretation is valid. What is important is how well a particular interpretation of data stands up to scrutiny and no, personal attacks intimidation and bullying tactics are NOT and never have been part of the process of scientific endeavour which I will remind Mr Hoar is the process of achieving enlightenment and knowledge…the truth, not wining an argument at all costs by any means.

    I see his postings on the Ecologist contain the “reasonable” language of someone being scientific and certainly unemotional throwing intelligent comments around like “Climate Deniers and sleights ” when referring to the GWPF. Clearly someone who understands how to critique in a scientific way and not sink to the sad bully boy tactics of the stunted prat feeling he is on the side of righteousness trying to prove himself to the rest of the gang of miscreants.
    My question is simple. Is he representative of what is now acceptable behaviour in “science”, where defamatory attacks on groups or individuals are considered par for the course and carry as much weight as unemotional scientific analysis?

    Why is anyone angry when an analysis suggests it could not as bad as claimed? Surely any rational and sane human being will welcome information which suggests that it is not as bad as claimed
    …..unless of course they are part of an agenda which NEEDS things to be as bad as claimed and indeed to be found to be progressively worse threatening any dissent to the line with ad hominem attacks.

    Who every you are and whatever you represent, Mr Hoar, your interpersonal skills require some development otherwise I can see occasion to develop a notion that your surname is just a statement of your level of commitment to the cause manipulating climate hysteria to another end.

    • Peter Young permalink
      January 9, 2021 1:09 pm

      Nice one.

  9. January 9, 2021 12:15 pm

    I am surprised the GWPF has given such prominence to this criticism from a student. I cannot imagine a climate alarmist website, such as real climate, allowing an objector to have a similar opportunity. It shows the GWPF to be a very kind and fair organisation. While we argue over this very trivial warming, we find the alarmists are predicting Armageddon, simply based on computer models, and on the back of that they seek to ban fossil fuels and spend trillions of pounds/dollars of our money to prevent it.

    • January 9, 2021 12:58 pm

      All challenges and interpretations are valid regardless of the source if they present a cogent argument in a decent and respectful way. Whether those challenges are correct and take a more valid standpoint than the opinion they challenge is another matter.

  10. martinbrumby permalink
    January 9, 2021 12:20 pm

    These hoary complaints are just tedious.

    I seem to remember it was either Trenberth or Santer who initially stated that he would be (in effect) somewhat discombobulated if the well documented early C.21st ‘hiatus’ in global temperatures continued for 14 years. A figure speedily increased when the hiatus did just that.

    Perhaps Alfie might share with us the evidence (computerised prognostications based on blatant fiddling of past temperature records not producing evidence of anything other than the malicious venality of the fiddlers) that we are experiencing a Climate Crisis and must pour more Trillions into ruinable energy that hasn’t, doesn’t and never will work?

    His credibility would be somewhat enhanced by copies of the huge number of angry letters he has surely written to the BBC, the MET Office etc. objecting to their frequent agit-prop claims of ‘highest recorded temperature’, worst flood, dryest summer, fastest wind speed and so forth, based on very dodgy data and very brief periods of time (down to an hour or two) and used to justify their ’emergency’ claims.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 9, 2021 1:17 pm

      I think it was Phil Jones who admitted that the lengthening pause in the evah upwards global temperature was going to be a problem as it approached 20 years. They were saved by a strong El Nino – that unpredictable weather event – wafting the temperature up again.

  11. dennisambler permalink
    January 9, 2021 12:21 pm

    “The Council are not representative of the scientific community on this topic”

    The sheer arrogance and insult to intellectual and scientific giants such as for example, Richard Lindzen, is appalling. Define the “scientific community”. It seems to mean if you don’t agree with us, you can’t be in our gang. Scientific indeed.

    Has it warmed since 1880? I sincerely hope so. It was pretty disastrous for much of the Little Ice Age. Oh, I forgot, it didn’t happen, Michael Mann cancelled it. A press release in 1698 for example, could have said “eight of the coldest years in the CET have occurred in the last 15 years”. Annual average temperatures below 9 degrees are really quite cold and it begs the question of why they should be regarded as more normal than today.

    Warmer average temperatures have definitely been due to less extremely cold winters and warmer autumns. Why does CO2 only work in the autumn in the UK?

    Hadley still use 1961-90 as the base for their anomaly chart, so beloved of the media and politicians. My own MP gave me a link to it.However, if a period like 1961-90 is used, with a lot of cold winters and indifferent summers, then it is logical that as the weather returns to a more acceptable pattern it will be “above average” compared to the earlier period.

    In a publication dated January 2005, just before the Blair-commissioned Exeter “Conference on Dangerous Climate Change”, Richard Betts co-authored a publication under the following title: “Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change — a summary of relevant research at the Hadley Centre” 5th January 2005. These summary points were noted:

    “What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.

    Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change.

    These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases. (This was 2005, when the science had already been settled for many years).

    The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations. This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system.”

    I presume they now know the answer to all the imponderables they were facing then.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 9, 2021 1:09 pm

      There speaks a man (Betts) with what seems like a Messiah complex. It seems he’d be content to adjust the Global CO2 level (as if he could!) without knowing fully what the ramifications of that meddling would be – or, indeed, of how to reverse the process if the smelly stuff hits the fan.

    • Douglas Brodie permalink
      January 9, 2021 2:12 pm

      Richard Betts gave an answer to that question last year during discussions on the effect of reduced global emissions due to Coronavirus lockdowns:

      “To halt the CO2 rise and prevent further global warming, global CO2 emissions would initially need to halve, and reduce by even more in the long term”, see

      In other words his hairshirt “cure” would require an initial 50% cut in global fossil fuel usage followed by even more into a dystopian future.

      Is this dire prospect really what Boris Johnson wants to showcase at the COP26 climate summit in full view of the world’s general public, most of whom don’t give two hoots about “climate change”?

  12. Malcolm Swinbanks permalink
    January 9, 2021 12:22 pm

    Alfie Hoar refers to shorter timescale temperatures as “noise”. It is inappropriate simply to dismiss such features in this way. A more reasoned approach is to seek to identify the underlying dynamic processes responsible, if proper understanding of climate science is to be achieved. Historically, alarmist predictions of long term temperature rates of increase have been exaggerated by counting short term changes as being due to CO2. It should be noted that with subsequent evolution of time, it has proven to be necessary to reduce the predicted rates of warming – e.g. the Paris Conference extended the original 2050 end date for a predicted 2 degree C temperature rise, replacing it with 2100, thus effectively halving the expected rate of increase. But rather than the logical “it’s not warming as fast as we had thought”, this has been presented as “Its worse than we thought, we must avoid more than 1.5C warming by 2050 – it’s a Climate Emergency”.

  13. LeedsChris permalink
    January 9, 2021 12:44 pm

    I don’t really understand why the GWPF got involved in this ‘dispute’? Would have thought there were bigger issues …. like the whole of the BBC output

  14. Gerry, England permalink
    January 9, 2021 1:21 pm

    I see the GWPF are linking to a Forbes piece on NETPower’s zero emission gas plant where the CO2 is captured and recycled back to the first stage of the cycle. Claims to be economic with the benefit that excess CO2 can be sold on. Hmmm……

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      January 9, 2021 4:40 pm

      Yes, it would be interesting to see the whole process/costs/efficiency etc.

      If the CO2 is passed on for fizzy drink etc. – it still ends up back in the atmosphere!

  15. January 9, 2021 1:26 pm

    An interesting debate. Thank you. Perhaps the issue here is Internal Climate Variability.

  16. arfurbryant permalink
    January 9, 2021 1:41 pm

    Trying to take an objective line here…
    Neither side has mentioned that the graphs themselves are not homogenous in that the data are from different sources since c1980. Pre 1980 UK temperatures were taken manually – every hour – with a margin of error of between 2°C and 10°C! I kid you not, that is what the UKMO observing guide states. Since 1980 all measurements have gradually been replaced by fully automatic electric platinum thermometers with recordings taken every minute to an accuracy of 0.1°C (the precision of the two types of measurement is similar but not the reading accuracy). Is it a coincidence that pre-c1990 there was a rise in trend temp if around 0.75°C with a large margin and since c1990 a trend rise of around 0.7°C with a small margin? If the two parts of the graphs are separated, the Mr Hoar’s reference to ‘noise’ becomes more important. The flattening for the last 20 years in a mere 40 year dataset should not be considered noise. Just a thought.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      January 9, 2021 5:22 pm

      I have wondered for a long time, and never found an answer, how the replacement process works. I worked in electronics test for a long time, and when upgrading anything be it software or hardware there was always a process of correlating the new with the old. Any inconsistency was investigated and explained. Software and hardware were never ungraded at the same time unless they came as a package from a third party when even more verification took place.
      It seems to me that when equipment in the climate and weather forecasting industries is replaced little or no verification and correlation takes place. Any adjustments seem seem to be from necessity because history is incorrect.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      January 9, 2021 6:46 pm

      As a young schoolboy, I was regularly on the roster for taking readings from the school’s weather station, housed in a proper Stevenson enclosure, and surrounded by the grass of a croquet lawn. We read and reset the min/max thermometer and the instantaneous reading, and the wet and dry bulb thermometer, and checked the rain guage and measured any fall in a measuring cylinder. The results were recorded and plotted on charts in the waiting room for the headmaster’s study, which also housed a barograph that was changed weekly. Temperatures were recorded to the nearest half degree Fahrenheit. The idea of being out by as much as 2 Centigrade – let alone 10C – in making the readings would have horrified us.

      • arfurbryant permalink
        January 9, 2021 11:37 pm


        And you’d assume the UKMO would feel the same sense of embarrassment!
        But here it is:

        Click to access MIDAS_User_Guide_for_UK_Land_Observations.pdf

        (See para 3,4,6)
        The strange thing is they have published an amended version very recently which deleted the margin of error in numbers (1,5,10degC). However it is possible to get the link I’ve just pasted. I used 2 deg C as a rough estimate between 1 and 5. I agree 10 would be a very unusual occurrence. But even 1 deg C is a large margin when we are talking about 0.75 deg C trend rise in several decades.

  17. TonyN permalink
    January 9, 2021 1:48 pm

    Hoar is attempting to deligimise the objective nature of scientific investigation by his description of Homewood’s arguments as “very contrarian”, and ought to be treated as literature and compared on a relative basis.

    And with respect to iterature, I commend he reads Bacon, the father of the Scientific Method itself. If he won’t do that, then I suggest he looks up the motto of the Royal Society.

  18. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    January 9, 2021 2:00 pm

    What a silly little Hoar. He displays his own ignorance and petulance.

  19. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 9, 2021 2:19 pm

    Echoing some of the above, one deplores his ad hominem remarks about the GWPF Academic Advisory Council. Please parade an equally experienced and multi-qualified group in the ‘warmist’ camp. Oh, there isn’t one? Michael Mann?

  20. Tonyb permalink
    January 9, 2021 3:43 pm


    Why don’t you invite Mr hoar to write an article on one aspect of his climate beliefs for publication in these very pages, then we can see what he believes and what sort of evidence and arguments he uses.

  21. January 9, 2021 3:47 pm

    I can’t quite fathom why the prestigious GWPF picked out this poor critique by Master Alfie Hoar in the first place? Was it the only one? I would have expected that all of their excellent output would have attracted hundreds of shrill condemnatory complaints from warmists.

    Master Hoar appears to be ignorant of the Little Ice Age (~1300 – ~1850) after which temperatures have, and probably still are, recovering to more normal levels. Maybe he should do a little more studying before even thinking about questioning someone in another realm of understanding’s work?

  22. Tonyb permalink
    January 9, 2021 4:01 pm

    Mr hoar is apparently the Lgbtq rep on the students union of Pembroke college Oxford but as I am not Facebook I could not see his area of study, so do not know his scientific credentials, as his union representation is immaterial.

    He seems to be a bit of an Eco warrior as can be seen by his poorly supported petition
    To the UN linked under.

    If anyone can follow the link to see his area of scientific expertise it would be interesting as it does not appear to lie in climate history.

    It would be most interesting, as I write above, to host an article from Mr hoar here which perhaps might usefully be regarding climate fluctuation through the ages.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      January 9, 2021 4:49 pm

      Perhaps Paul painted a target on his own back.

      Like the point I tried to make at the time before shutting up to avoid a row – the networks own web pages make their position abundantly clear – even if they might allow skeptics to join, people are wasting their time expecting to change any minds or make any difference, however welcoming/tolerant they appear to be to your face.

  23. Vernon E permalink
    January 9, 2021 4:15 pm

    I find it very significant that Mr Hoar did not challenge the GWPF claim that sea levels are NOT rising significantly. Out of all the debate and argument about possible imponderables sea level is the only variable that is measurable, verifiable and can’t be contested.

  24. MrGrimNasty permalink
    January 9, 2021 4:53 pm


    “Northern Ireland also recorded its coldest night [this winter], with a temperature of -10.2C in Katesbridge, Co Down.”

    Katesbridge strikes again! I’ve remarked on the cold prominence of this station before. All the surrounding places only seemed to manage about -4C.

  25. January 9, 2021 5:15 pm

    Mr Hoar belongs to a lot of climate related societies as is of course his right.

    He seems very credulous and I wonder where he believes our future energy will come from whilst maintaining his privileged life style?

    He is very keen for the University to divest itself of all fossil fuel investment . i wonder what powers the heating in his accommodation and in the University generally?

    So an article from him on our ever changing climate would be interesting, as would where he believes our energy is to come from in line with the demands for net zero of the various organisations he is part of.

    He seems a nice committed guy who perhaps has not as yet had the time to look too deeply into our ever changing climate through the holocene and the practical problems associated with net zero.

    • January 9, 2021 6:30 pm

      I think you might be on to something here.

      The internet is full of blogs/sites in direct opposition to each other. Each side attacks the other from its own position and it seems that never the twain will meet.

      Yet we know there are people on all sides who can be open to dialogue.

      This will never happen with outfits like the BBC of course. So we are reduced to “complaining” about each other in a third party manner.

      These “complaints” of course are just the same old attacks dressed up as outrage. But If sincere (even if deluded) “ordinary people” were invited in good faith to really discuss these issues on a site like this it might help to sideline the Harrabins and other eco loons who have so much influence on them at the moment.

      People on this site are forever asking how we get across to the public. It might be an idea to invite them to speak directly to people like us (without fear of ridicule of course).

      And only by invitation of course.

  26. ThinkingScientist permalink
    January 9, 2021 5:27 pm

    I think Hoar clearly lost complaint (2) and makes an unsubstantiated claim regarding point (1):

    “the context of trends matters massively with data like this, and it is clear when looking at the data available that long-terms have more predicting power about how our weather is going change over many decades than short-term trends do”

    This claim is totally dependent on your assumption about stationarity, not about the data. Data are what you observe. The trend is a model fitted to the data and is based on assumptions. In Hoar’s case he assumes that there is a linear trend and therefore fits this model and makes a future prediction based on it. Doug Keenan pointed this out for years.

    However, if you consider 1850 or so was the end of the LIA, the data preceding that data would not inform at all as to the future warming trend. Hoar likes to “see” a linear trend post 1880 because this is the model in his head.

    There are plenty of alternative statistical models that could be chosen with equally good fit that would give entirely different future predictions. A sine wave for example, or assume a stationary model with the mean of the 20th Century and a random walk around it.

    Hoar doesn’t understand the difference between data and assumption/model. Not unusual these days. People see trends and correlations in everything.

    There is a further issue with Hoar’s argument. PH specifically talks about warming post-1950s and with good reason – because this is the period the IPCC attributes to AGW. Hoar (and many others including the BBC) doesn’t realise that invoking a linear trend since 1880 actually undermines the AGW argument. People often use this argument, not realising they are then conflating two possible and different reasons for warming – AGW post-1950s gives rise to the same warming as 1910 – 1945. But CMIP model forcings are a factor of 3x different for the two periods. This is why climate models fit post-1950s but not pre-1950s. Everyone believing in AGW just ignores (or is ignorant of) this point. Demonstration with Hadcrut4:

    The CMIP6 model forcings are 3x larger in the second period than the first period, yet purport to explain all factors influencing temps and result in the same temp change over 35 years. Huh?

    This is impossible to reconcile without invoking an additional variable (which appears to have a quasi-periodicity of about 70 years). A simple calculation of the warming in period 1 and period 2, taking account of the anthropogenic factors in the CMIP model forcings and adding a single unknown additional natural component suggests the maximum AGW contribution post-1950s must be about 38% of the warming and for the period 1910 – 1945 AGW could only contribute 16%.

    Without an additional factor the discrepancy in warming and model forcings over the two periods cannot be reconciled. And of course there may be many such factors. Unknown unknowns.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 9, 2021 7:48 pm

      Elegant! Or, as is the parlance: What he said!! Like it.

  27. EyeSee permalink
    January 9, 2021 5:31 pm

    Referring to the GWPF not representing the views of the scientific community is telling. It is not just that today the scientific community seems keener, perhaps than ever, to not consider innovation, let alone a different view, but also that it fits classic Confirmation Bias.

  28. January 9, 2021 5:41 pm

    If readers of this blog have not already done so they should go to “the” and read the “about us” section. All of it. Mr. Hoar seems to be quite involved with the organisation. I rest my case. Though I would like to see him offered a guest spot here.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      January 9, 2021 6:05 pm

      Definitely agree – read all of it. I note editor Brendan Montague founded

      Not even a whiff of a scientific credential amongst the team or trust, not that I could see anyway.

  29. David permalink
    January 9, 2021 6:12 pm

    The British Isles must have one of the most unstable climates in the world by virtue of its location. Surely no meaningful trend of climate change could be deduced in less than a few hundred years. Then perhaps any warming we observe is likely to be ongoing from coming out of the last ice age.

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      January 10, 2021 12:04 am

      ” … unstable …” ???

      Insofar as climate is concerned it is quite stable.
      One might move the British Isles within a triangle of the Azores, Lisbon, and Madeira.
      That would change the climate.

  30. Tonyb permalink
    January 9, 2021 6:12 pm

    Ah, the ecologist! Who can forget the editor of that magazine Mr goldsmith, who co authored a book ‘5000 days to save the planet’

    As it was published in 1990 perhaps they might lack credibility on their predictions.

    • January 9, 2021 7:14 pm

      Available in hardcover from £1.57 on Amazon. Buy now – before it’s too late!

      Never mind, there’ll be another one along any minute!

    • dennisambler permalink
      January 9, 2021 11:45 pm

      The same Mr Goldsmith, now ennobled by Boris, who was responsible with fellow Peer, Lord Deben, for Cameron’s excursion into greenery, the Conservative’s “Quality of Life” episode:

      They were pushing for a Great Reset in 2007, long before Boris met Carrie.

      “The Quality of Life Policy Group was set up by David Cameron to recommend policies to the Shadow Cabinet. The Quality of Life Policy Group, chaired by John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith, published its final report, “Blueprint for a Green Economy”, at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Thursday 13 September 2007.”

      It is increasingly clear that the global economy must be retooled in order to ensure that it operates sustainably, within environmental limits. In this urgent task, it will be the world’s developed countries which lead the way. Over nearly three centuries we have grown ever richer but we have done so at the expense of the environment upon which our lives depend.

      We have therefore both the means and the obligation to repair the damage. Here in Britain, in the last 18 months, one major political party has made the running in debating these
      issues and seeking to redefine progress, development, and wellbeing for a new era.

      That it has been the Conservative Party should not have come as a surprise. The notion of treating our natural environment with the same care that we treat our social and institutional structures is an inherently conservative one.”

      Deben now has the power of his Climate Change Committee chairmanship and Goldsmith is the “Minister for Pacific and the Environment” at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

  31. P. Dean permalink
    January 9, 2021 6:25 pm

    May I introduce a note of statistical caution in this discussion about the possible significance of differences in sections of graphs, or between seasonal graphs? If we are supposed to be dealing with trends, we cannot simply wave our hand at a graph and say that there is a trend in any particular region. The data produced by the Met office, or similar bodies, is a time series and has a particular way of assessing statistical significance.
    Lindzen and Christy in their December 2020 paper – ‘The global mean temperature anomaly record: how it works and why it is misleading’, have an illustration (Figure 4) of Global Average Temperature Anomalies for seasonal changes taken from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) data set for the last 120 years. The importance of this graph is that for each time point, from 3000 stations, over 120 years, it shows the range of temperatures experienced from the mean anomaly in each year.
    It would be good if the Met office, in its time-series data sets, could produce equivalent graphs for the U.K. This would enable us to assess any statistically different changes in the anomalies over time.

    • Vernon E permalink
      January 10, 2021 12:08 pm

      I’m not a statistician nor a meterorologist but it looks to me as though the anomolous rise in 1980/1990 is probably explained by increases in the number of measurements being added into the data from lower latitudes. As we all recognise, “global average tempoerature” like “green jobs” is a ficticious concept without meaning. Leaving aside the nonsense of trying to average between polar and equatorial temperatures, for any “average” to have meaning the input must be totally consistent – the same measurements from the same locations at the same time. I don’t believe that this is the case. That’s why a single reliable set of data from one location, like the CET, will give a more reliable clue to trends.

  32. NoviceJohn76 permalink
    January 9, 2021 6:57 pm

    As a maths graduate I fully understand the value of empirical evidence, but wonder how, where and when the “evidence” correlated by Mr Hoar was collected.
    Mr Hoar, the Met Office and BBC should publish details of the equipment used to collect and record their “facts” and where the equipment was sited.
    Was the same equipment used in 1890 thru’ to 2020?  Was the way that the records were recorded the same from 1890-2020?  Was the quality of the air compared?  ( N.B. there are some of us OAP’s who can still remember when the sun found it difficult to shine on the cities, because of air pollution.) Were Jet Streams  and Ocean Currents used by the Met Office to skew the temperatures in the 21st century?
    Now what about the places used to record these figures? Are they using the same places at exactly the same time?
    e.g. If say the same place in London was used in 1890 and 2020, has the Met Office allowed for the fact that, as cities have grown larger, they have formed their own micro “warmer climates”? Or the fact that there are many more micro climates, in the form of cities now, than there were in 1890. However the city areas still only constitute a small area in the land mass that is UK.
    If the places have changed, why and when? Is there a consistent spread of soil types under the weather stations? For instance a small village near me had, for many years, consistently higher temperatures than anywhere else in our county. The weatherman/recorder then died and our great weather ceased, over night! 
    Finally, has the Met Office checked the arithmetical capabilities of all their recorders from 1890 – 2020 and is it prepared to have an independent body audit its records?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 9, 2021 7:51 pm

      Chuckle. Like it.

    • arfurbryant permalink
      January 10, 2021 10:38 pm


      Correct. See my post above at:
      January 9, 2021 1:41 pm

      There are many differences in the observation and recording of temperatures post c1980.

      The dataset is not homogenous. Simple as that.


  33. AndyG55 permalink
    January 9, 2021 9:04 pm

    Temperatures seem to track sunshine quite well

    There were also changes in methodology starting around the mid 1970s

    And there is a zero trend in CET since 1997

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 9, 2021 9:29 pm

      more info on the changes in CET and an attempt to reconstruct without the MET changes to stations

      Paul…. the “preliminary” series is worth looking at

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      January 10, 2021 9:37 am

      I have noticed the sunshine data as well. Very noticeable apparent change over time.

  34. Colin King permalink
    January 10, 2021 3:20 am

    I thought you guys were on the same side?

  35. A C Osborn permalink
    January 10, 2021 10:45 am

    It is not just the sligtly warmer winters, it is the warmer nights that are the main reason for the increase in the daily average.
    Important information is lost by only providing averages.

  36. Paul Smith permalink
    January 10, 2021 6:04 pm

    Strikes me as 1 all -with the future as unknowable as ever, certainly there is no  out punch for all your hard work Paul, and no recognition that the long term trend he is so keen on long predates any serious concerns about CO2 output.

    And of course, he must be right because the consensus says he is.

    Paul Smith

    Long term reader and occasional contributor

    From: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Reply to: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Date: Saturday, 9 January 2021 at 10:43 To: Subject: [New post] GWPF Report–Complaint and Response

    Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood . GWPF had a complaint about my report on UK climate trends last year, which claimed it was misleading and inaccurate. They have now published it along with my response:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: