Reader Cookster expressed amazement asked if the tide was turning and linked to Tom Switzers piece in the SMH today “Game Finally Up for Carboncrats”. It’s a no-holds barred description of the current state of the climate scare. I’m not a regular reader of the SMH (the left leaning major daily in Sydney), so I might be wrong, but I’m tempted to agree with Cookster. What I can’t tell from the other side of the country is whether this was put out in print in the main Op-Ed section (please let me know).
Switzer is well respected in Australian newsprint (he’s the editor of The Spectator Australia) which no doubt made it hard for the SMH to say no. But look how confident, and well informed he is. The bland truth is that Kyoto is over, and as Tom says:
“Prospects for a replacement are virtually zero. Rich nations are rejecting climate compensation for the developing world. Europe is in a coal frenzy. Germany, a former green trend-setter, is slashing unaffordable subsidies to the renewables industry. The European Parliament is losing confidence in the EU emissions trading scheme. No Asian nation has an emission trading scheme in operation. China’s and India’s net emissions are growing dramatically and governments, most recently Japan’s, are abandoning earlier pledges to reduce their nations’ carbon footprints. Even US Democrats, notwithstanding President Obama’s direct action-style energy plan, won’t pass modest carbon-pricing bills in the Congress. Add to this those debunked predictions (remember the vanishing Himalayan glaciers, disappearing North Polar ice cap?), and it is clear that Tim Flannery’s moment has come and gone.
It really would be remarkable if reality was nibbling away at Fairfax editors. Apparently the circle of believer-territory is shrinking. (First The Australian, then Fairfax, lastly the ABC…?)
Al Gore and Tim Flannery would not be too happy about this.
Tom Switzer:
“… Of course, the environmental doomsayers remain apocalyptic. You try going on the ABC’s Q&A and raise doubts about global-warming alarmism. You will still see the inner-city studio audience treating you not merely with hostility but with open-mouthed incredulity.
The climate-change Cassandras are increasingly marginalised here and abroad.
When they abuse, intimidate and victimise anyone with the temerity to criticise the fanaticism of their movement, the inclination of ordinary Australians is either to shrug their shoulders with a profound lack of interest or to grimace at this moral grandstanding.
Historians will probably look back at the years 2006-09 as the time when the climate hysteria reached its peak in Australia, when rational debate was at its most restricted and politicians at their most gullible.
This debate has never been about denial or belief, it has been a question about the scale of the warming. It’s good to see it described that way.
Contrary to media stereotypes, many so-called sceptics – such as Abbott, John Howard, Maurice Newman and this writer – recognised that the rise in carbon dioxide as a result of the burning of fossil fuels led to moderate warming.
But because we questioned the doomsday scenarios and radical, costly government-directed plans to decarbonise the economy, we were denounced as “deniers”.
Those days are over.”
The tide is indeed turning, time for the smart eco tards to jump ship the dumb ones will go down with it
404
The “dumb one’s” still have government grants and positions of teaching.
Even President Obama is sticking to his guns along with the US media.
451
President Obama’s Plan to Fight Climate Change
It’s working!
All 57 states are freezing!
Or was that 50- including Hawaii?
361
Probably 52 if you include Canada and Mexico…after all, they are “free-trade” partners…
131
And Costa Rica, Washington & Kenya!
50
The 57 number is funny because there’s a video clip of Obama saying he’s visited 57 US states and only have a couple to go to get them all.
150
I wonder though, when will the remaining rats start chewing on their colleagues?
130
Yeah very obvious you also forgot to read the article about Peter Gwynne ( 2 days before this ) The last myth busted from the skeptic side .. No cooling ever , Oops i got it wrong but at least he like Hansen can admit it and have put credit be hid the REAL SCIENCE … The so called cooling faux science is a fraud like anyone who promotes the rubbish it as their was never going to be and never was a cooling period…
But don’t tell both sides of the story now he has gone to the other team ..
292
So, scientists used bad proxies like tree rings…NEVER considering that the same results could be achieved if you gave or took away water from the tree.
502
retard,
Did the AGW theory ever predict record cold temps?……………..No
575
It is not wise to tar another with the “retard brush”, especially when you do not understand the science behind the Polar Vortex and how it VALIDATES (look it up in a dictionary) the science and facts.
18
What is “the science”? Is there only one of them? Or do you mean all Science?
Or perhaps you just mean Climatology? Or Meteorology? Or Atmospheric Physics? Or perhaps Oceanography? Which?
Or could it be Astrology? Or Epidemiology? Or Motivational Psychology? Or even Contextual Linguistics? Now there is a thought?
Or is it that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so you are forced into using a generic term that might sound good to your classmates, but actually means nothing except, “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish”.
110
Richard,
Care to debate me on the science of the polar vortex? Obviously you are not as you simply produced a snide remark. Please feel free to debate me however the answer to my question is still NO.
20
No? So what about the drop from 1945 to 1975 that helped to fuel the “oncoming ice age” scare (that, perhaps coincidentally, folks like Holdren, Schneider and other present-day “warmists” championed)?
600
if we dropped then why is the overall trend still going upwards .. 30 yr segment is nothing compared to records
178
True. But then the trend has only been upwards for about 200 years. Over the past 10,000 years, or so, the trend is actually downwards; how do you reconcile your fears with that? “[200] yr segment is nothing compared to records.”
541
Let’s take it a step further… geologically speaking we are overdue for the next glacial period. I, for one, am glad we are pre-empting the catastrophic cooling and consequent deaths with a healthy buffer of extra CO2.
161
VP – Its persistently sinusoidal, as Mike Mann found over a period of 1,400 years in his 2005 paper. After it goes up for about 30 years it comes back down 30 years, subject to other forcings. At present the solar forcing has also switched to down too. So we’re seeing a fall. It will continue for another couple decades at least.
CO2 does contribute, but only about a sixth of what the IPCC assumed in AR4.
180
We are in AR5 now not 4
019
In AR5 the IPCC admits (for the second time) that the Medieval Warm Period actually occurred.
Even if you claim that the temperatures then were no higher than they are now, how do you explain that they occurred at 280ppm?
I repeat the same or higher temperatures at 280 ppm CO2 and 400 ppm CO2.
151
because if you read AR5 properly it explains its was only in isolated areas not globally .. co2 is causing the global temps to rise ..
122
Can you please refer us to the paper, peer reviewed and published of course, which empirically proves the link between rising CO2 and CAGW? Try to avoid the papers that rely on broken models please.
You keep mentioning NASA, BOM, NOAA etc. It must be on one of their websites surely??
181
Hey, he hasn’t provided any links to any of his so-called facts yet….. not one that I can see anyway.
All we have had is pre-pubescent blathering and bleating, a sort of NBS squawking.
Anyway, we all know that no such paper exists,
because NOT ONE of the warmist trolls who occasionally pokes their snotty little noses in here has EVER been able to produce one.
141
VirusP53, the reason the AR5 admitted that it was in isolated areas was because the studies they considered only took place in isolated areas, there being no single global measurements available or feasible. Other research has been done, indicating that the MWP was pretty much a global event, though the IPCC has not considered these studies.
60
VP – I quoted AR4 because I am familiar with it. I am not yet familiar with AR5.
The temperature rise during the period 1906-2005 in AR4 was 0.74 C. I do not expect it will be much different in AR5.
Of that 0.74 C the breakdown is:
0.33 C due to the Sun
0.28 C due to the ~60 year cycle
0.13 C due to everything else…lets assume that is CO2
The ~60 year cycle has no net effect on global temperature since it is cyclical. But it was at bottom in 1906. And topped out in 2005 one and a half cycles later. The trough to peak of the cycle is close to 0.28 C. Which means more than a third of the 0.74 C “rise” in the IPCC’s AR4 report was actually just from the choice of endpoints of their ‘century’.
The graph linked is from Fig 10 of Scafetta 2010 (in JASTP2). It is just HadCRUT 3v detrended by a quadratic of best fit.
There are many peer reviewed papers which indicate that the Sun caused about half of the warming last century, which finished in a multimillenial peak in solar activity. That has now dropped away to the weakest solar cycle since the Dalton Minimum.
That is why we’re cooling.
30
How come trolls often demonstrate a severe lack of spelling, English & grammar skills?
I note VirusP53 that you still have not grasped the correct use of “there, their or they’re. Does this provide an indication of your age and/or your IQ level?
Could you also do us a favour and translate this “anyone who promotes the rubbish it as” into English for us. Many thanks.
I often wonder whether this lack of spelling, English & grammar skills also translates into a lack of ability to comprehend the AGW/global warming/climate change MYTH? I question whether it is this lack of skills in these and other areas that may be the reason that anyone with half a brain could ever be/or continue to be a “WARMIST” denier!
Cheers,
763
The rubbish on cooling .. e.g…Those who promote the lie it has been cooling since 1997 which has been shown again and again to be myth as over all temps still rising ..
179
Which global temperature dataset are you referring to for your statement “over all temps still rising..”? Would it be GISS, HadCRUT (the IPCC gold standard), RSS, UAH? None of these show a warming trend over the last fifteen years.
Or perhaps you are just making stuff up..
640
Probably need to say “statistically significant warming trend” as some of the data sets do allow a regression line with an ever so slightly upward trend. Also note that this is relative to today and trending backward to the point the data becomes statistically significant.
110
Please don’t ask for facts as it will embarrass the poor soul or point out that even the IPCC agree there / their / they’re has been no warming for ~ 17 years. Bet that there / their / they’re use of good English is beyond there / their / they’re ability, he or she can spell “blind non-scientific faith”.
110
Hey lazlo i just finished saying short period don’t count 15 yrs is s short period , Try 100 years or even 800,000 years .. Many data sets show the same thing …
127
@VirusP53
The longest warming period corresponding to rising CO2 was 19 years between 1979 & 1998. There was some warming after 1700 coming out of the little ice age, but that was before significant human CO2 emissions. So, what is this 100 year correlation of which you speak? Don’t tell me you’re (your?) making stuff up again?!
191
Very simple go check ice core data from 400,000 years and 800,000 years ago up tip current time all on record at NASA , NOAA .. 19 years is not long enough time period also try again using real science
126
Ok. I’ll try some ‘real science’ and consult a real climate scientist for his opinion. I’ll ask Dr. Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and former researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.
Heywood: Hi Ben, a troll on Jo Nova has claimed that 19 years is not long enough time period to determine an anthropogenic signal in the temperature signal. Your thoughts?
Ben: Hi Heywood. Actually your friend is misinformed. It is my professional opinion, as a REAL climate scientist, that temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Heywood. Ok, so 19 years IS a long enough time period, in fact, longer than really necessary. Thanks Ben.
151
@Heywood so this person denies AGW .. no wonder he is former researcher… 19 yrs will show nothing as a trend ..As been said before we need to be looking at 100 year and out … But you mob are only fixed on the short timeline because you can cherry pick what you want to suit .. If you actually looked at overall timeline your LIES become too obvious
017
So ‘this person’ Santer denies AGW??
Boy, you really are out of the loop aren’t you…
120
In Heywoods absence i will respond
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
HAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA
You have absolutely no idea who Dr Ben Santer is do you Malware? You are a complete and utter fool and begone with you
160
Oh.. Feel free to point out where I have LIED.
40
Damn you were still here……..sorry
40
ROFLMAO
Well done Heywood, the amoeba has just PROVEN that it has ABSOLUTELY ZERO KNOWLEDGE about the climate change mantra.
110
VirusP53
January 15, 2014 at 7:47 am · Reply
Hey lazlo i just finished saying short period don’t count 15 yrs is s short period , Try 100 years or even 800,000 years .. Many data sets show the same thing …
=================
Even as an American, I can recognize a failure of 5th grade English and critical thought processes. Poor showing.
90
As a American you can only recognise $$$
115
touche, well argued!
22
Trojan,
Its “as aN American” not “as a American”
80
I hope that’s sarcasm Gee, otherwise one would think you are supporting a baseless insult to all Americans.
21
Heywood, the excited exclamation might have given it away. And also that i didn’t bother pointing out the “a American”.
30
Granted it may have been a little pedantic but it is all part of its education.
10
Thank you Crakar24.
20
lol. What is the difference between an ‘excited’ exclamation and a regular one?
00
context.
01
I have read some amazing comments on this site, that one would have to be one of the most ironic utterances to ever see the light of day.
Someone pushing CAGW/Climate Change not knowing the name of one of the high priest of his side of the issue, dissing on his own team. Best own goal this season. “FAIL”.
80
All the data sets except UHA show a slight cooling since 2002.
141
VP53:
‘The rubbish on cooling .. e.g…Those who promote the lie it has been cooling since 1997 which has been shown again and again to be myth as over all temps still rising ..’
–
For the complete effulgence of rubbish, why not pop over to SkepticalScience?
100
Lets see the latest IPCC report AR5 clearly say no cooling
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.
So please explain how if each decade has been warmer then the previous decade from 1850 exactly where does the faux 15 yr cooling take place .. Hint you would need a temp chart showing entire temp history form 1850 .. Not this faux one that cherry pick data to suit what they say..
131
@VirusP53
Here’s how it works Virus: Warmest is different to warmer. Warmest is consistent with both an upward and a flat trend, the latter being the trend that is actually found.
The temps rise (a very paltry 0.6C) up to middle of previous decade and stop, then flatline. Thus no warming for 15 years, yet it is the “warmest” on record.
Bottom line is: the word “warmest” is a rhetorical trick designed to deceive the low information types that it’s still getting “warmer”, when it’s not.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850
210
Let’s keep it really, really simple for him.
When you climb up a small mound, you are on top of that small mound.
Then you walk down the other side.
200
Nope wrong again they say successively warmer EACH decade .. As a decade is only 10 years and each period was warmer then the other their is no cooling , never was .. that was a myth perpetuated by vested interests / skeptics to distract from the real science ..
Even you link to same rubbish sites as others and cant give a link to the real science on genuine scientific sites lie NASA , NOAA , CSRIO etc.. on this just the faux reporting , propaganda
129
@AndyG55
Heh heh!
30
Virus is a clever boy; so each decade is warmer than the previous; here we go, argue with the data.
71
The DUMB is very strong in this one.
They must have reached through the bottom of the barrel this time.!
111
VirusP53
January 15, 2014 at 9:40 am
“….genuine scientific sites lie NASA , NOAA , CSRIO etc.. on this just the faux reporting , propaganda”
–
Most unfortunate syntax there, VP53.
–
Or not?
40
In AR5 the IPCC admits (for the second time) that the Medieval Warm Period actually occurred.
Even if you claim that the temperatures then were no higher than they are now, how do you explain that they occurred at 280ppm?
I repeat the same or higher temperatures at 280 ppm CO2 and 400 ppm CO2.
Awaiting your explanation.
60
@Graeme No.3
No it doesn’t and you are blatantly lying / misrepresenting what they have said why is that … i will also take a screenshot of your lies on what you say IPCC said
Fact is they really said this …..
during the medieval era,
, or potentially even warmer, than the late-20th-century average. These regional anomalies result from changes in atmospheric wind patterns associated with phenomena such as El Niño and the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation.
Most were cooler so not so global at all that furfy is ruled out and only SOME were and that was due to a totally different factor … So which is it no idea or you are blatantly lying
012
VirusP53
January 15, 2014 at 8:38 am · Reply
‘Lets see the latest IPCC report AR5 clearly say no cooling ‘
–
SHOW PROOF!!
30
Until you realize the IPCC reports are not science, you will always be clueless.
Their mission (which they do violate) states they COMPILE information from scientific papers. It does not state they will DO any science. So using them as a reference is the same as using hearsay. If you cannot find the primary documentation that supports your assertions, you have no clue what you are talking about.
20
Seriously? I have tried. Truly, I have tried, ever fearful of my own confirmation bias and merely agreeing with those who agree with me, but… Have you tried reading that site?
10
Yes, and I had to buy an eyeball scrubber – wanna borrow it?
00
eyeball scrubber ?
SkS is a mind scrubber, as is obvious from those who are DUMB and BRAIN-WASHED enough to actually post links to it.
00
And while you may want to cherry pick a start point of the mid 1960’s, or other low point so you can show a positive trend,
in a semi-chaotic, semi-cyclic system, medium length trends are meaningless. You could just happen to choose the upward reach of a cycle (as from 1960-2000, which the catastrophists like to use)
Of much more importance is what is happening NOW.
And in the last 5 years, all 4 major datasets are heading DOWNWARDS
181
Andy who is picking that you can get TEMPS, CO2 levels from 800,000 years showing the same thing … What you skeptic do is twist data sets to suit your argument , only look at data you think supports it .. Yet every top scientific agency using every testing method available show the trend is up …
And as proven in you own post you rigged the data only chose to loo at 5 or 15 yr period and then lie because if cooling was occurring as a overall trend why has past 13 yrs of 15 been warmest years on record .. Hence you using faux data
130
Your total LACK OF UNDERSTANDING is abysmal !!
Go back and do junior high again, putz.
141
No Andy because you have no real data to back up any of your views , But get upset when busted cherry picking to TRY and prove something .. FACT is 800,000 years is a lot longer timescale to see any trend emerge on then your abysmal 15 year myth period …
Only lack of understanding is from you who thinks making data set from 2009 means something but even using same site change start dates to 1850 and look at the UPWARD trend .. OMG why is that so because no cherry picking of a period of data like SKEPTICS constantly do
025
lol.. Did you even finish high school ?
101
Look, you petulant little child..
Here is a paper for you to reach.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
Because there is zero chance of you getting past even the first paragraph…
he last bit of the conclusion reads….
“The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand maximum.”
Now what effect do you think a 60 year GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM might have on global temperatures.?
And what would happen when the sun decides to go to sleep again, like it did in the Maunder Minimum.?
If you REALLY hate warming that much, and really think that the LIA was “just right”.. then go and live in Siberia or somewhere like that !!
Otherwise be VERY thankful that a small amount of warming has occurred.
131
I smell a Warmist troll here. The thinking and facts are nicely fuzzy. The temperature and CO2 record of the last 800,000 years show that CO2 was much higher at times in the past, along with much warmer temperatures during warm phases. The only problem is they don’t correlate togethe anymore than they correlate together right now. At least for now 400 parts per million seems to be greening up the planet really nicely so we should be celebrating the rise.
Unfortunately, the warming may be stymied for the rest of the lifetimes of people who visit here. In the U.S. the media in general has been ignoring the fact that it has been growing colder with more snow each winter for the last six or so in the NH. We finally got our wakeup call in early November along with some other countries across the NH not normally connected with heavy snow and sub-freezing temperatures. A new circumpolar vortex event is being predicted to occur during the Superbowl, which is scheduled at an outdoor stadium. Ticket holders may have to struggle with single digit temperatures. It could be more exciting than was intended.
Meanwhile, P53, spend more time reading about the details buried in the IPCC report and in observing about what really has been going on weather and climate wise planet wide. Nothing much going on out there that doesn’t fit within natural variability of various climate cycles. Not a single Warmist prediction from the 1970s until now has matched good old observation. I would call that an unsupportable track record.
220
Absolute BS on your co2 level claims .. over past 800,000 years co2 varied between 180ppm to 280ppm .. Yet today we are over 400ppm so co2 was never higher like you blatantly lie about .. But feel free to go tell NASA , NOAA that ..but i suspect they will want real science proof . have you got any or is it just total BS …
022
P53 Is your “.” key stuck?
100
Assume you are erudite and educated enough to understand that the Polar Vortex validates the science and the facts?
02
There you go again, referring to “the science”, as if the phrase actually meant something (see comment 2.2.1.1).
But you also mention, “the facts”, which is much more like it. What “facts” might they be? Are they empirical evidence? Is so, where is it referenced. Is it a set of observations? If so, where are they catalogued? From where can they be downloaded?
We assume that you are erudite and educated enough to recognise the redundancy of using the words, “erudite” and “educated”, in the same sentence?
“erudite adj. having or showing extensive scholarship; learned”.
World English Dictionary
61
“Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and ‘we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,’ the Hadley Centre group writes…. Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.” –
That’s Richard A. Kerr, the longtime, award-winning climate-change scribe for Science magazine, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The article, “What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit,” was published October 1, 2009.
Today’s explanation for the “pause” (a term used in Kerr’s 2009 article) is not mentioned back then—ocean delay.
The extremely ignorant Mr VirusP53 might want to contact Kevin Trenberth (assuming VirusP53 has heard of him) and inform him there is no pause and there is no need to find the missing heat in the oceans.
VirusP53- what a global warming putz.
531
No i said the overall trend hasn’t changed but those who like to use FAUX science use small timelines , cherry pick data sets.. Whether you look at temps from 1800’s or from 800,000 years ago and where they are now both show we have warmed and in direct relation to co2 levels from 1800’s
169
VirusP53,
Please understand we have warmists of every kind commenting here with varying degrees of knowledge and persuasive ability. You may think you are saying things we have never heard before but trust me, you are simply spouting the same propagandist psuedo scientific crap we have heard for 5 plus years. If you want to be taken seriously here you’ll need to step up your game. Luckily for you there are thousands of articles here with hundreds I thousands of comments. To increase your effectiveness as an hysterical alarmist troll I suggest you do some reading. Or you can keep embarrassing yourself . Up to you.
650
“propagandist psuedo scientific crap” … see you are mincing your words again Sonny. Why don’t you tell us what you really think?
51
The only
comes from you and your side as i listen to REAL SCIENTIST , Real scientific agencies and their data .. Oh hang on your side like to get their data from the likes of Monkcton has he found a cure for aids yet ..
Even by your post , anyone can tell you have no idea propagandist psuedo scientific crap means .. NASA , NOAA , CSIRO , BOM are not pseudo science because they do use correct methods , are tested , re-tested , are peer reviewed and published..
To increase your effectiveness i suggest you look up the meaning of big words before trying to use them otherwise you like like a twat..
129
Virus, if you are unhappy that people here pick on you for your lack of knowledge, perhaps you should go over to the SMH and comment in the echo chamber. I read through the comments after Peter Sweitzer’s opinion piece. Wow!!
181
Lets see,
Obligatory mention of Monckton and aids – tick
Obligatory appeal to government authority – tick
Obligatory argument by “peer review” – tick
Congratulations, you just passed grade 1 of useful idiot school.
280
Well that is faux science from Monkcton much like every link anyone here has posted on their questionable evidence … I am yet to see any valid data posted here from any of the top scientific agencies around the world , yet to see any peer reviewed paper published data …
That is exactly how it works .. but seems those wanting to keep the lie going about nothing happening also want to change that because they have no reputable data to link to… they have nothing to back up the stories they tell
117
You are now just repeating yourself.
I’m bored. Is there an aspect of the science you wish to discuss or are you simply here to make brash unsubstantiated and non specific statements?
It is very difficult to have a conversation in an intellectual vacuum.
140
Here’s a bit about the nature of pseudo science on Mark Steyn’s blog where he points to Hockey Stick Mann as the real denier:
“One of the famous characteristics of pseudo-science is that it is “unfalsifiable.” That is, the theory is constructed in such a way that there is no evidence that could possibly refute it. The classic example is Freudian psychoanalysis, which tells you that you have an Oedipus Complex, and if you deny it, that’s just proof that you’re repressing it…
“Climate-change” theory is similarly irrefutable:
So sea water is freezing because it is melting.
Note that there is never any pause to acknowledge that maybe scientists should investigate the hypothesis that warming isn’t as big or inevitable as they have predicted. No, it’s on to the next ad hoc rationalization. That’s the basic pattern: an unproven theory reinforces itself in the face of contradictory evidence by generating additional unproven theories…”
http://www.steynonline.com/6014/the-real-denier
70
We are currently in an era called the Holocene.
Here is a scientifically recognised temperature graph for this era.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
It finishes at date 1850ish, but as can be seen from……
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
…..there has been maybe around 0.5C warming since then, putting us about at the -31 mark, still well below the MWP peak and way below the RWP peak.
As you can easily see, we are not that far above the lowest point in the last 10,000 or so years, and certainly nowhere near the Holocene Optimum around 5800BC
Sorry, little amoeba, but the world is definitely cooling over the current Holocene era.
281
Whoops, second link is wrong… should be
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/35/haw6.jpg
41
What kid drew that chart .. no links , no data to back it up not even a name mentioned on the chart as per REAL Science data collection .. Just posting a random chart that means SFA without what science says needs to accompany it
124
As opposed to your incoherent waffle, with ZERO evidence, at all !!
Try again, amoeba.
101
As said mine comes from NASA , NOAA , CSIRO , BOM and many other feel free to visit them to get real facts
016
In AR5 the IPCC admits (for the second time) that the Medieval Warm Period actually occurred.
Even if you claim that the temperatures then were no higher than they are now, how do you explain that they occurred at 280ppm?
I repeat the same or higher temperatures at 280 ppm CO2 and 400 ppm CO2.
Are you going to say the IPCC are wrong? Or that they cherry picked data to disprove their theory?
An interesting choice awaits you.
110
Ask Mikey Mann – looks like his nature trick.
20
“FAUX science use small timelines , cherry pick data sets.. Whether you look at temps from 1800′s or from 800,000 years ago and where they are now both show we have warmed and in direct relation to co2 levels from 1800′s”
You don’t even realize how silly this statement is, do you?
First, “cherry picked data sets” – would that be a problem is a group of people were to select only specific periods of time, like say, circa 1920-1935 & 1985-1997; the only two periods with actual temperature spikes? Because those two small (12-15 year) time periods are the entire backbone of “Global Warming” – remove them and you have a really steady temperature that is neither rising nor declining outside of normal variability over the last 100 years.
Second, you might want to actually look at reality a little bit
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
That huge temperature spike circa 1000 is the reason Vikings were able to not only settle, but also farm, Greenland. Can’t do that today, in this, the age of “certain doom” because of unnatural “Global Warming” – odd, huh?
In that hard data, which comes straight from NASA records of the expedition, we also see a roughly 10,000 year Cooling taking place overall (the green trend line) – how can we be in the midst of certain doom “Global Warming” because of the years between 1920-1935 & 1985-1997 (the only periods of actual warming) if overall temperatures are lowering on a 10,000 year scale?
Third, you seem to have a drastically inaccurate understanding of CO2, it’s past and when in occurs relative to temperatures.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
That is CO2 v. Temperatures since 1998. You will notice there is absolutely zero relation between the rising co2 and the temperatures over that period. (one is spiking, one is showing no rise)
It goes back further then even that though
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FULLRECORDCO2TEMPS.jpg
In that one, notice that cooling period from about 1935 to 1980? How did that happen during a spiking CO2 period? No matter, point is the longer trend of spiking CO2 and not-so-spiking temperature. How can that be if we have “warmed and in direct relation to co2 levels”? There doesn’t seem to be absolutely any relation at all that I can pick up. So where exactly do you see it?
…but my stance only makes sense considering CO2 rise follows temperature rises, not the other way around. That is what every single peer-reviewed historical finding has always shown.
see
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Vostok-CO2.png
or
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SctiMxS7bHI/AAAAAAAAAG4/LMSUOpuLpvA/s400/weatherCO2lagstemperatureforchris.jpg
or even the full period we can record
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif
…even in that where the data is so condensed in the image, you can still clearly see the red line follows the blue line, not the other way around
Lastly, how did the temperatures change so often and so much more dramatically over those more then 400 million years in the last graph – those periods were without “man made global warming” around to do it! Yet still this unbelievably small spike we have been experiencing from 1920-1935 & 1985-1997 are somehow the ‘sign that the world is doooooooooommmmmmmmmmeeeeeddddd!!!!!1!’ or whatever? How? I mean, they barley even cause a blip on the historical record!
Besides, even if you do somehow feel we are somehow changing the temperatures – wouldn’t that be a good thing considering the alternative is one of those massive drops in temperature towards the planets more normal climate? (which would be roughly 6-10 degrees lower then the current climate we are experiencing.) I’m not so sure Man could survive one of those temperature falls back to it’s real normal climate (not whatever fantasy number Warmists give as some kind of “normal” – a “normal” which has only been reached in a fraction of a percentage amount of time over history) …back on point, a 6-10 degree drop would be catastrophic to nearly all life. So if we are somehow responsible – good on us! Life can survive a rise in temperature (as evident by the higher temperatures in the past we made thru just fine) but there is probably very little chance for much of life (at least as we know it) if we drop 6-10 degrees back to the planets real “normal” line.
180
You need to update your faux science charts HADcrut 4 is out why using 3 and why using dodgy short periods again …
Ice core data from 800,000 yrs soon to be longer show a direct correlation with co2 and temps rise .. NASA , NOAA , Ice Core Labs Denver and many other use this data …
So you saying all top scientific agencies across the world are wrong every one of them are all wrong .. Versus those who used fudged data , use cherry picked data sets like al of your above
023
…oh no, have they changed our past again? *sigh*
Anyway, yeah, I know the graph I quickly grabbed used 3 instead of 4. So? They didn’t change our past temperatures that much between 3 & 4, and neither 3 nor 4 even come close to showing a correlation between spiking CO2 and pretty stagnant temperatures, so really not sure what your point is… Do you have one?
You mean a “direct correlation” like CO2 rising after Temperatures rise? Yeah, we all know that. Even Warmists know that (well at least most of them do – you apparently are the exception) I even showed 450,000 years worth of it doing just that. So where is all your evidence that show a different reality then the one we exist in? Otherwise, much like the quote above, it seems you are talking loud without saying a damn thing.
I showed 450,000 years – you point to what, 1920-1935 & 1985-1997 (a split, 27 years total) of warming… but I am the one using “dodgy short periods”? Seriously? You can’t be that dumb, can you?
So you saying all top scientific agencies across the world are wrong every one of them are all wrong ..
There are thousands of peer reviewed papers that show “man made global warming” is largely nonsense. So no, not all scientists are wrong. Such a statement is silly. In fact, that would be almost as silly as saying something moronic like “the science is settled”
Versus those who used fudged data , use cherry picked data sets like al of your above
You really don’t realize you are arguing on behalf of those using “fudged” & “cherry-picked data”? Scandal after scandal after scandal, all to force a completely illogical explanation of 2 separate time periods that together only represent 27 years… yet you haven’t caught on yet? Come on man…
I mean, just think about how stupid the entire theory is for a second though
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif
…I see the huge red jump at the end, but I don’t see the corresponding blue line jump – do you? Why is that when CO2 supposedly correlates so well?
If you and the so-called ‘scientists’ pushing this theory were correct, we should be experiencing temperatures at least 6-10 degrees warmer then we currently are. And since we are not 6-10 degrees hotter today, there is obviously something drastically wrong with their “temperatures are rising in a direct correlation to rising CO2” theory.
Even you should be able to figure that one out
120
No that is BS you grabbed Hadcrut 3 because you use a segment that has been corrected in 4 to try and put up your faux argument .. In other words you are blatantly distorting the truth ..
Yes short period like you posted 1920-1935 & 1985-1997 .. No one cares about that they care about the overall trend .. Going form 1800’s to now shows it has warmed … Going from 800,000 yr to now shows it has warmed at same rate
015
Such nonsense merely shows you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend:1998
HadCRUT3 or 4, take your pick – neither shows anything close to a spiking temperature despite CO2 spiking at a rate alarmists claim is unbelievable. Either one you choose, it adds up to zero correlation …which we already know anyway considering
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif
…red line (CO2) spikes at year 0, blue line (temperatures) isn’t really discernible from the blue lines around it. That is impossible if CO2 & Temperatures correlate (as you can see happen in the other 440,000 years on the graph, with CO2 lagging Temperature rises)
BTW – why would real, actually observed data indicating temperatures ever need to be “corrected”? And especially at the rate in which the so-called ‘scientists’ are “correcting” data; some of which has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, but gets changed nearly daily now. Wouldn’t one only constantly change data in an effort to “blatantly distort the truth”, as you put it?
No, no, no, no, no… you seem to be confused again.
1920-1935 & 1985-1997 are the absolutely only periods of “Global Warming” – 1920-1935 & 1985-1997 are your argument, not mine. My argument is all of the years, not those cherry picked couple
Here, see
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1850/to:1919/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1919/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1935/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1935/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1984/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1984/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/trend
In that you can clearly see
1850-1919 = no movement outside margin of error
1920-1935 = warming spike
1936-1984 = no movement, period
1985-1997 = warming spike
1998-2013 = no movement outside margin of error
Going further… if you add up the trends of 1850-1919 + 1836-1984 + 1998-2013, you get an absolute perfect 0 rise/fall over those 136 years. All of the rise happened 1920-1935 & 1985-1997 – those 27 (separated) years represent 100% of the so-called “Global Warming” the planet has seen Your entire stance is based off a pair of cherry-picked periods that add up to 27 years over warming overall
So somehow you and all the so-called scientists need to figure out a way of showing how CO2 caused rising only over 2 short time periods adding up to merely 27 of the last 136 years overall.
LOL!
90
Actually Darkstar, the last warming phase finished at the end of the 1998=1999 ElNino energy release and rebound.
So this link is probably more correct.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1850/to:1919/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1919/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1935/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1935/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1984/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1984/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend
30
Bwahhh Ha HA yes righto, let me whisper something to you: ice age(s)..
dumbass.
70
Also, all other data from before “the great data adjustment” shows that the previous warming period peaked in 1939-1940, not 1935. (and about the same as 1998)
here’s an example with some old GISS, and new RSS strapped on
If you make that changes to 1940, you will see the actual pattern more correctly.
Each warming event is followed by a gradual decrease, as is happening now.
The main issue we are currently facing is the very sleepy sun.
It is quite probably that the current slight cooling trend may get steeper and steeper as the energy seeps out of the system.
I hope not, because the very last thing the world needs at the moment is another mini ice age !!!
50
Whoops forgot link
20
Are your claimed to be facts what you have taken from the various Labor Green funded faux facts distributors who gained their franchises and funding by agreeing to agree?
60
Virus
Is this what you call ‘fudging data’?
De Bilt (Holland) – raw data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1
De Bilt – adjusted data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600000&dt=1&ds=14
There: right from the GISS website. No wonder we’re warming.
50
The level which Warmists stoop to try to force their nonsensical theory down our throats in the form of “settled science” so they can raise peoples taxes is beyond disgusting.
…but the funny part is that no matter how many drastic changes of their data they do (one of which you showed), they still cant make it fit in a logical way.
I just hope one day we can recover and uniformly recognize all the real science and data these buffoons have tampered with and distorted. Otherwise Science will be set back hundreds, if not thousands, of years just so these scam artists can continue to get rich and famous off their Government grants
60
“Going from 800,000 yr to now shows it has warmed at same rate ”
OK, so, absolutely nothing to do with human released CO2..
That’s exactly what we have been saying all along.. THANKS !!
You really are not very good at this stuff are you , amoeba. 🙂
50
Warming for the last 800,000 years? I thought there were a few, not insignificant, dips in between called “ice-ages”. 20,000 years ago where I am now (North of England) there was a kilometre or more of ice. Yet 80,000 years ago (or so the BBC says – so it must be true)there were lions roaming in the broad valley that is now London.
Warming has not risen in close relation to CO2 levels since 1890. About three years ago I tried fit the log rise in CO2 levels with a temperature series for the period 1890-2010. The results are here.
If you look at the graph at a distance, then the temperature series has a similar rise to the CO2 levels. That is because I adjusted the two series as closely as I could. Look closer and observe that temperature rose by a similar amounts in the period 1910-1940 and 1975-1998. The log rise should be the same, but is a number of times greater for the later period. In late 1940s there is a distinct uptick in the rate of CO2 growth (due to the Post-war boom) whilst temperatures failed to rise. Since 1998 there has been a similar phenomena. That suggests to me that if CO2 has influenced warming, it is a minor part of that warming. The closeness is but an artifact of my manipulation. Further, temperatures should be rising at over 0.2 degrees per decade, so by now we are at least 0.3 degrees behind, not the zero I show for 2010.
Finally, an oddity I noticed. In the early 1940s, at the end of the early C20th warming phase, estimated CO2 levels went down.
170
Shame on you, Manic. That’s just “noise”. Modern warming (0.7 deg C in 130 odd years- the horror!) is much more significant because, you know, it’s like modern and stuff.
140
North of England is not global regardless of what you want to think .. Single isolated periods in isolated regions of the world is also not global .. Just because parts of US is in a freeze does not rule out global warming ..
Also manic you doing a chart does not make it valid science in fact it would be treated as the opposite because data being fudged by third party
019
Well then, there we have it – there is no such thing as Global Warming.
Afterall
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1985/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1985/trend:1985/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1985/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1985/trend:1985
the so called “warming” has been only isolated regions as well, therefore it is not “global” and therefore there is no such thing as “global warming”
110
No it hasn’t currently every area has seen a rise in land and ocean temps .. the data they gather is from all over the world and using satellites as well go see NOAA’s Land & Oceans temperature percentiles chart it is global and measured monthly and overall report yearly .. So basically Dark you are just making stuff up or have no idea what you are on about ..
[Unless you provide supporting information these comments will be snipped] ED
115
100% by satellite huh? Really?? Are you sure that’s how it’s done? Back to the books for you methinks.
70
Yeah, except for you are 100% completely (and hysterically) wrong according to your preferred data
Based off your preferred data:
Northern Hemisphere = 0.2 degree rise per decade (small warming pattern)
Southern Hemisphere = 0.075 degree rise per decade (nothing – margin of error is larger then this)
as seen here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1985/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1985/trend:1985/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1985/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1985/trend:1985
that is nearly a 300% rise difference between the two halves of the planet, with one half seeing a slight warming and the other seeing just short of nothing
And what do you have when only 1/2 of the planet is warming? Oh yeah, “isolated regions” – which by your definition means “weather”, not “climate”
So there you have it, no “Global Warming” – just weather changes (according to you and your data, at least)
80
Interesting debate but now i am confused, if it is global warming then the globe must be warming if significant parts of the globe are not warming then it cannot be global warming so which is it?
81
Crakar,
Your confusion is understandable, but by definition:
“Global warming” is the warming you have when your not having a warming.
And just because its neither global nor warming doesn’t mean that 97% of entymologists aren’t right you know.
70
Thanks for the clarification Winston now i am even more confused 🙂
20
I think Winston was being sarcastic. “Entymologists” is a play on entomology – the study of insects, or perhaps etymology – the study of the origin and development of words.
I think he really meant “descriptive epidemiology”*, which is the real basis of climate science.
* The first stage in an epidemiological study, in which a disease (or phenomenon) that has occurred is examined. Data necessary in this phase include time and place of occurrence and the characteristics of the persons (or locations) affected. Tentative theories regarding the cause of the disease (or phenomenon) are advanced and a hypothesis is formulated. [Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition.]
I hope you are now totally confused, rather than being merely more confused.
00
this reminds me of brave Boris as discussed in this thread http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/tipping-point-boris-johnson-writes-bravely-maybe-its-the-sun/#comment-1226974
11
Funnily enough the IPCC now blame the sun as well.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session36/p36_doc3_approved_spm.pdf
Of course we need to translate spin back into english for example what does “reduced trend in radiative forcing” mean? Are they saying Co2 forcing has reduced? If so how?
The other and equally important reason for the lack of warming is the sun and volcano’s. Unfortunately for the IPCC volcanic effects and the sun cant account for the lack of warming as per ceres data.
Its a shame the malware virus has fallen silent i would dearly love to hear their thoughts on this matter.
Cheers
30
I love the nonsense “cooling contribution from internal variability” ascribing a cause to a purportedly random process. That’s like rolling a dice a bunch of times and getting an average close to 1 and claiming its due to the variability of the sides of the dice when you claimed the dice should be averaging 5 or 6!
Also love how thy make hypothesis with “low confidence”, ie they haven’t got a clue what they are talking about but ashtray can loosely quantify their levels of confidence they are “doing science”.
20
Dear Virus,
From a variety of proxy records and historical accounts we know that the Roman Warming and Medieval Warming Periods were slightly warmer than to-day and that they were more than localised European events. Likewise we have solid references to the Maunder & Dalton Minima (LIA) being slightly colder than to-day so what is the big deal. If it warms or cools by 1ºC over the next century I’m certain we will adapt without wetting ourselves.
80
So, just so I understand this, the seas of this planet are neither warming or rising?
Are they acidifying, by any chance?
20
No.
The seas of this planet are alkaline.
You cannot convert an alkaline into an acid.
40
Let use NOAA sea data
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/585/fvhx.jpg
And pre-maladjustment NH data
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/837/t4tx.jpg
BOTH show a distinct cooling from 1940, with NOAA’s sea data showing 1940 to be higher than any other sea temperature since.
Also note that there is NO COINCIDENCE between sea temps and CO2 except during a very short period from1976-2000.
This is the VERY SHORT PERIOD which the whole CO2/AGW mantra is built on….
Now if we then stitch in the NH data with RSS post 1979,
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/35/haw6.jpg
We see that recent hot year, 1998, had basically the same NH temperature as 1938.
Between then, there was cooling then warming to bring up to the peak in 1998.
All indications are that we are now about to start cooling again.
241
And what has happened to that 1940’s peak.
Well, one of the Climategate emails has Phil Jones saying something like “We have to get rid of that 1940’s peak”
And lo and behold, within a year, the methodology for adjusting past temperatures down had been invented, (not sure if it went through pal-review) and both HadCrut and GISS adopted this methodology, and temperature history was thus changed.
The past suddenly became much colder
That 1940’speak is now reduced to just a tiny bump, much more in line with the CO2/AGW fairytale.
And the catastrophists can now point to a much longer period of created coincidence between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
In the mean time, one of Jones’ students came to work at BOM bringing the methodology with him, and now all BOM past temperature records have been adjusted down retrospectively, basically creating the situation we have now, where the past is so much cooler that even a mild summer can be passed off as “hottest evvva”
231
No once agin ANDY a random chart not linked to data .. If as you claim it is NOAA’a data link direct to their site but as i suspect it is all lies and faux science likes of Watts
022
Sorry you don’t have the intelligence to understand even such basic stuff.
Not my problem.. 🙂
130
‘….site but as i SUSPECT it is all lies and faux science likes of Watts’
–
Conspiracy ideation: use more Lew paper !
100
VP53:
Your either a morn or dumbass shit disturber! You really haven’t a clue! You just jabber on with your idiotic comments and then you probably laugh with your idiotic friends who are there with you thinking all along, “boy I showed them, I’m a really smart person” and I bet your friends standing there must look up to you as some type of hero. I’ve seen many dumbass idiots in my life and I must say I have had many good laughs at their expense because they either said something stupid or did something stupid. Makes a person wonder what your IQ level is…care to share it?
110
Yet with all your crying and abuse of others not a single one of you have linked to any genuine data to support your argument or not posted any links to legitimate scientific website ..
Why is that ? Scared of the FACTS ..
014
VP53:
Did I hurt your feelings…poor baby! The only one I see crying here is you. Many of the posts on this blog have provided you with valid and compelling data and yet you claim that it is not legitimate. The question is then “does your IQ level preclude your ability to comprehend?”
Are your friends that are there with you still laughing at how smart you thought you were…or has their laughter stopped and you feel you are no longer the centre of attention (dumbass)!!!
110
VP53:
– “Why is that ? Scared of the FACTS ..”
–
cAGW is scary enough WITHOUT the facts.
Pop over to SkepticalScience and find out for yourself!!
30
I have given you nothing but Facts – and tons of them
You have not given even one single fact. No graph, no set of data, no paper… no noting, at all. You just spout nonsensical lines with absolutely nothing behind them what so ever.
But again, answer my questions from above
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1985/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1985/trend:1985/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1985/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1985/trend:1985
…how is it “Global Warming” if only 1/2 of the planet has shown something resembling warming the last 40 years?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif
…how is there a direct correlation between CO2 and a subsequent temperature rise if CO2 has gone off the chart (the red line at the 0 mark), but Temperature is no warmer then it was circa 1000AD, circa 1AD, circa 1000BC, etc? (the last blue line, which is no larger then the blue lines before it and is no where near the highest blue line present)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1850/to:1919/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1919/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1935/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1935/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1984/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1984/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/trend
…why is it that absolutely all of the warming took place from 1920-1935 & 1985-1997, with all of the other years adding up to a net 0 rise. That is 109 years of 0 warming, and 27 years of actual warming. So again, how does a constantly rising CO2 level result in only two very small periods of rising?
Answer those three questions, that’s all I ask
60
He is not abusing others. Why do you lie?
10
VirusP53: Why not give some FACTS for the numpties to chew on?
Go on, do it. Do it. I know you want to.
That’ll learn ’em.
30
You do realise that you are making an ADJECT FOOL of yourself, don’t you, amoeda ?
Wish I had a link to that John Cleese youtube about STUPID people often being too STUPID to realise just how STUPID they are.
It would fit you to a tee !!
91
Is this the one you are after?
80
ta muchly.. now bookmarked 🙂
00
AndyG55 – Pal-Review, excellent! It is such a better name for the process.
40
Jo,
The tide is definitely turning.
My own little local paper had an opinion piece on “Global Warming”.
It was the same garbage about our “human imprint” and what scientists say.
I wrote a rebuttal about assumptions just to see if the paper was totally biased and to my very surprise, they published it in the opinion column. This was on December 19, 2013.
451
Thank you for sharing your fearless mind Joanne.
That it comes with a calm intelligence of integrity in inquiry is a signature of a rare intellect of the high order.
You have aided me incredibly in this political battle that should never have existed.
343
It is very hard battling a system that is totally biased due to the many factions that have a vested interest in keeping the hype of “Global Warming” alive.
From “Green” products to subsidizing inefficient power technology to “published” articles by scientists in a biased setting of “peer-review”. Carbon taxes and the carbon market are government and corporate tax grabs that have come out of this mess.
281
One small criticism: in Greek mythology, Cassandra was never believed but always correct; the AGWists are always believed but never correct. Perhaps ardnassaCs would be a better term.
340
The problem is…they are correct ONLY for a small portion of the science.
The planet has warmed and dried over 4.5 billion years. It is the land exposure that absorbs and releases heat while the atmosphere and water reflects the vast majority.
There are many aspects that are involved in generating temperature.
Scientists measuring temperature ONLY for a small fraction of time and generating a model from this is the crap that was generated.
172
Surprising this is the same Tom Switzer with links to Heartland , What else would you expect him to write and seeing as he is best buddies with our new non science PM
270
Ah – yes – you don’t disappoint.
Capital letter AFTER a comma.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Cheers,
402
All you have is spelling / grammar nazi .. sadly much more important things in life to worry about then spelling on a forum … Maybe if the faux science being spread on here was corrected first ..
061
But you AREbeing corrected, and on a forum, correct spelling and grammar is vital in making sure you are not misunderstood. BTW, have you not picked up that as the IPCC has had to downgrade so many of it’s projections, the faux science is coming from warmist activists who cannot reconcile facts with their religion? Read, “The Fanaticsm of the Apocalyse”, by the left-wing philosopher Pascal Bruckner and see where you’ve been misled.
410
Says who .. seems you have no idea what a forum is for .. checking of spelling , grammar not one ..
Now now don’t cry little Grammar Nazi there , their , they’re the world hasn’t ended ..
So you are saying NASA , NOAA , CSIRO are all faux science now .. nice to know
021
No, it’s a disgrace actually.
120
yet you have no proof .. because if anyone did it would be news story of the century
014
Do you have any proof to back up your assertions?? Or just consistent argument from authority by constantly mentioning NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM etc…
70
Hi Virus, sadly the standard of your education is directly related to your ability to think independently – unlike the links between global warming and carbon dioxide or the continued practice of fettered thinkers to claim carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
190
So true. It amazes me how those who claim CO2 is a pollutant simply because too much of it can harm to kill. Too much water can harm and kill but no one is stupid enough to claim it’s a pollutant. Of course intelligent people know CO2 is essential for life so calling it a pollutant is doubly stupid. Global warming alarmists surely have a problem with their logic (ie, they have no logic; even a rodent has more logic than they do).
120
Ironically, H2O is both the most dominant and damaging Greenhouse Gas
20
Shhhhhhh. Don’t pollute the argument with facts. 😉
30
Please be aware, spelling is clearly of absolutely no importance to Warmists – including even the “scientists” pushing it, apparently
For instance, see this hysterical paper
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/new-study-claims-low-solar-activity-caused-the-pause-in-global-temperature-but-agw-will-return/
All those “peers” reviewing the paper, and we are still left with “La Ninja’s” running around
110
There still are some people that no matter what, the government and scientists are 100% should be backed no matter what.
This usually are the “sheep” being led to slaughter.
Mass psychology…propaganda by another name.
312
VP53:
“Surprising this is the same Tom Switzer with links to Heartland , What else would you expect him to write and seeing as he is best buddies with our new non science PM”
Bewdy VP53! – Real sciency!
(Psssssst … ya f’got ta menshun Beeeeeeeeeg oYL )
200
Ad hom attacks – the last resort of the ignorant warmist..
240
No real fact Tom Switzer is funded by Heartland who in turn are backed by the fossil fuel industry .. Koch , Exxon etc.. They are the one distorting / degrading the science like Skeptics do
014
You really are one, big, high school, teenage dumb-ass Virus.
Lookit – Britain’s Big Oil funds anti Green’s Anti-coal campaign because Greens support gas-fired power stations for peak energy production. Britain’s Big Oil owns gas reserves.
Germany’s Big Coal funds Green’s Anti-nuclear campaign because Greens are anti-nuclear. Germany is bringing its coal-fired power stations on line.
90
Got any actual evidence of Heartland specifically paying Switzer to spread misinformation other than speculation from a Greenpeace sponsored conspiracy site??
60
VP53:
“No real fact Tom Switzer is funded by Heartland….”
–
Freudian slip?
–
10
Heartland, big oil, denialosphere, right wing think tank, conspiracy theorists, think of the children, precautionary principal, defer to the consensus, 99.99 % of scientists say x…
These are some other terms/ phrases you might include an expand upon in your troll vocabulary.
We are waiting eagerly!
350
The Labor/Green mantra that Australia must go it alone and lead some international process to bring the rest of the world on board to accept mandated energy-use austerity to achieve “global warming” mitigation has been shown to be completely vapid.
The economic damage that the Gillard-Greens government has done to our country relative to economically-surging second world economies is seriously palpable.
We’ve been taken there and done that – to our national economic detriment!
A sensible energy-efficient future will be achieved once we inject counterbalance into our public policy system that has been captured in recent years by green-leftist mindsets that are non-negotiable around a flawed “science is settled about global warming” bulltish position.
360
Here is what is happened to the UK when lobbyists corrupt the government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRwBSUo7p5s
100
Press TV is Iranian TV….. take anything it says as propaganda. Small grains of truth, big chunks of bulltish.
Treat Press TV as you would the ABC or BBC.
70
Gillard-greens. sounds like a strong-tasting Australian brassica. 🙂
110
Brassica? Wot sort of word is that? One of them out door caffs in’it? We don want none of youse interlectual stuff ere mate. Round ere in JoLand wees call a cabbage a big sprout.
82
I may be a little cynical but I would not take my eye off the ball just yet.Pat posted a news article a couple of weeks ago that I cant find,from the U.K.The warmers have moved on from the climate crap to whatever is next.Climate change only seems to matter to those who don’t know the endgame
191
I agree. This is far from over. One of the main problems with the whole debate is the acceptance (especially by those who are sceptical of the human-caused global warming “theory”) of the term “climate change”.
No one is sceptical of “climate change”. It has been changing since the Earth was formed. The manipulation of the semantics, morphing “global warming” into “climate change”, has made the discussion that much more difficult.
The only reason that the proponents of the need for man to reduce carbon dioxide emissions put forward is because CO2 is meant to warm the Earth. A consequence of that warming is then meant to be some rather ill-defined changes to the climate (or the weather): hotter, colder, wetter, drier, etc. Except in the fantasy world of the climate models, the fact that the Earth has not warmed (agreed by the IPCC) whilst CO2 continues to rise inexorably removes the driver for “climate change” being linked to human activity.
Every time we comment on a post and accept the term “climate change” rather than using “human-caused global warming” we make things just that little bit more difficult for ourselves.
450
Anyone who uses the term Climate Change as a serious scientific terminology is a charlatan. No ifs or buts.
It is the badge of dishonour worn by those intent on deceiving and manipulating for political or ideological purposes, with no interest whatsoever in the underlying reality it purports to represent.
362
Indeed, the PR has moved on further than “climate change”
Now we see climate denier, extreme weather, polar vortex and so on
These terms are coined by people knowledgeable in mass marketing techniques. The assumption (accurate enough) is that the mass of the populace cannot discern the slyness in the language
101
@DrJohnGalan
Yet no where in the IPCC AR5 report says that wonder why .. Basically because you are speaking total BS and falsely representing facts from the IPCC report …
That is okay because and so i don’t misquote you i have taken the screenshot of your posted text to let them know exactly what you have said and where it was posted …
018
Who is they dumb-ass? And why would you even bother to post that comment except as some form of juvenile threat or gutless attempt at intimidation meant to quiet the masses. Guess what – it means you know your arguments have no substance.
81
@James
Simply means people will not tolerate the FACTS being distorted & misreprsented .. And actually many of the top organisations who are blatantly misrepresented by others like the above post of Dr John Galan have asked for this evidence now… Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own FACTS..
One can only assume that these organisations who have been misrepresented for past decade or more are asking for the evidence in order to prosecute those people or sites making these faux reports ..
012
So you are gathering evidence for them? What a hero you are. A tough keyboard warrior, hiding behind a (very appropriate) screen name. Perhaps I should screen print your comments about Switzer and Heartland funding him to deliberately spread misinformation so he can pursue you for libel? I hope your evidence is rock solid.
40
Sorry to disillusion you Virus, but the first resort of the charlatan is always to go guns with threats of prosecution for any number of unspecified wrongs done. Only adds to the already mounting evidence of the lack of fact and faith they have in their own arguments – threat and intimidation is all there is, the same type of tactic you are using. If you want to win a gunfight bring a bigger gun. If you want to win your case of global warming bring real facts.
40
yeah like Lord whatshisname does.
03
Then take a screenshot of this DIPSTICK and put it where the sun don’t shine.
All of it will most certainly go over your head (that means you won’t understand it) but at least I’ve tried.
Oh & BTW since we won’t probably be hearing back from you after school holidays are finished – remember – try to learn something new EVERY day.
Seems like you’ve forgotten this EVERY day up till now.
Probably useless advice – you haven’t listened or even responded to ANYBODY here up till now with ANYTHING meaningful.
One more thing – it is up to warmists to provide onus of PROOF of AGW – which up till now NOT ONE of your 97% (ROTFLMAO) has been able to do!!
🙂 🙂 🙂
Cheers,
41
Actually this is solely about science not legal the onus argument does not exist only those who have no argument use that .. Seems you failed yet again .. The evidence does exist and being science it is about the fact people have to prove or disprove something .. Yet to date no one has disprove AGW , they have not published this and had it tested , retested just how science actually works ..
If some one has then they would have the story of the year / century yet nothing has happened
08
You do realise that you have not provided ONE TINY LITTLE BIT OF EVIDENCE for any of the absolute twaddle you have been posting…
Don’t you ?
Maybe not !
Stupid is as stupid does.
50
AndyG & Sonny,
This TWIT is an absolute waste of time & space.
He’ll be like Paul Hother who bombarded Jo’s blog for a couple of days late last year then disappeared into his nether regions never to be seen again. (I’m sure you both remember the jerk).
Just another FN young, indolent, clueless, ignorant, uneducated piece of cocky’s C..P!!
Been fun – though it would have been nice if he’d have provided JUST ONE LINK to supposedly support his stance.
Cheers guys,
30
“Simply means people will not tolerate the FACTS being distorted & misrepresented”
Yes, that is exactly why the AGW/CO2 meme is dying a natural death.
The AGW bretheren have lied, distorted, tortured, misrepresented, manipulate, etc , etc the data, until it is unrecognisable when compared to reality.
And ‘the people’ are waking up to this FACT and they are not amused.
And the AGW bretheren and their followers and trogs (that’s you , little amoeba) are getting more and more desperate !!
80
LOL i seriously doubt that … Maybe in your dreams that is occurring but reality is very different .. I constantly see a Jo Nova follower or the like posting rubbish on twitter only to be slapped down by hundreds of others for posting the lies ..
I think many more people have woken up to the vested interests trying to distort the views and degrade the science ..
010
VirusP53,
My bet is like all the other young disillusioned tree hugging eco tards, you won’t be sticking around this blog for long. That’s because warmists soon learn that attempting to debate on a side which has been so thoroughly and consistently decimated by empirical evidence (untampered by government appointed scientists) is not only futile but deeply unsettling for a brainwashed individual such as yourself. They never stick around for long, they never engage in proper debate because they are cowards afraid that the world that they have constructed for the themself (filled with such noble intentions and surrounded by such sensitive intelligent and well meaning individuals is really just a poorly constructed house of card
60
Ahh twitter.. the home of the scientific elite… not. !! roflmao.
twitter is home to the far-left brainless hordes.
Occasionally someone intelligent makes the mistake of thinking rational discussion is possible.
You are obviously a product of the twitterverse. !!
Brainless, clueless, ignorant, know-it-all but knows nothing, petulant and sulky.
40
IPCC AR5 uses a good deal of fancy phrases to backpedal from things it can no longer support with poo reviewed science.Its all in there if you bother to read it.Over the last 60 years,which is a short time span,weather has been hot,cold,bloody hot and damn cold and that’s from my memory,no science.If you can not see that weather is a product of an active earth system then you,virus are living proof that anti biotics are losing their effectiveness.Are you really going to report Dr John to the ipcc,he must be so worried you will spell his name wrong!
70
“… exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade) …”
This a direct quotation from AR5 Final Draft (7 June 2013).
To interpret: from 1998, within the bounds of the measurement uncertainty, there has been no warming. Despite the sleight of hand in the way some of the data was displayed in the report, the basic message is as set out above.
The word “hiatus” is another example of how semantics are used to influence the debate (“pause” is also used). That word only applies on the assumption that “theory” (based on fantasy-world climate models) is correct and temperatures are inexorably on the rise. The evidence from observational data does not support this “theory”, so why use the word “hiatus” rather than the more neutral “standstill”?
50
I have seen so many screenshots being produced, in evidence, over the last few years, that it is laughable.
None of them ever stand up in court, because they are so easy to forge. It seems a good idea to the prepubescent, who have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence (or scientific fact, for that matter), so by making the threat, you blow any credibility you might have had remaining.
10
Steve Price interviewed him this mornng on 2gb
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/28171#.
90
Yes, Germany is go back to coal fired power stations but not just because of the Japanese nuclear disaster. We are in serious economic troubles so countries all over are rethinking their stance with the reduction of CO2 emission agenda. I bet Germany was just looking for an excuse to go back to cheap energy and the Japanese disaster was it. Meanwhile China and others are building more and more coal fired power stations. So, anyone who is now arguing against us doing the same is either a moron and an economic terrorist (or both). If we don’t provide cheaper power while others are doing so then our economy will sink down to a depression for sure. So Abbott get on with it. Call a double dissolution if necessary to get rid of the carbon tax, and start putting in place plans to reduce our power costs ASAP. Our economic survival depends on it.
100
Jo asks …
Jo, I am pleased to confirm the Switzer article was splashed across two pages of it’s Comments section – complete with a wonderful supporting cartoon sending up all those Australian politicians who have been burnt flogging a (nearly) dead horse – couldn’t be missed !
Suffice to say every time I went to the kitchen for a break I discretely left that page wide open for everyone to see 🙂
You are unfortunately correct about the flavour of the comments though. Switzer’s story did not have comments enabled until around lunch time here. By 6pm the usuals were frothing at the mouth that such an article could be approved by Fairfax editors. But there is not much facts or substance and instead an abundance of the usual name calling. Still thoroughly enjoyable from my perspective to note their obvious displeasure.
420
It must be a new year resolution over at fairfax .
On January 3 the smh published an article from John Maclean.
It caused its own share of mouth frothing to.
That’s two frothys in eleven days.
A man could get drunk taking in all these frothys.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-politics-clouds-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html
50
The piece is great. But disturbing for a careful reader. He starts listing the rollbacks of failed green practices around the world, and then comes to the US, where:
The best he can offer is a halt to NEW failed practices, not a roll back. He is correct, I am not arguing with his lists. But at the same time I mourn for my own country destined to betray faithful allies once more, and to waste money to enrich the most corrupt regime in history.
We are in the dark ages of our nation – because we have a an administration that does not care for its people, nor the rule of law.
190
CAGW increasingly resembles one of those millenarian sects which predict that the faithful will be carried up to Heaven at 11:18pm on December 21st, and the rest of humanity fried, flooded, oiled and boiled.
When December 22nd dawns fresh and clear, the sect is briefly taken aback, but then comes back with a vague explanation of the failure, citing God’s mercy and, of course, offering another definite date for the apocalypse.
Their failures strengthen the belief rather than weakening or destroying it; that is the nature of a cult.
150
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/game-finally-up-for-carboncrats-20140113-30qqo.html
Perhaps the clue is in this earlier piece from Alex White in the Guardian, where he bemoans the fact that Gina Rinehart has increased her holding in Fairfax to 19%.
He obviously sees a connection.
40
[…] allows a skeptic to say the games up for climate hysteria! […]
20
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
Here’s the link to Alex White’s piece asking if sceptics should be allowed their say.
20
skeptic should get no say until they use real science .. actually even by them calling themselves skeptics is wrong .. the is no real skeptic left on the climate change / global warming argument and their is no debate on whether humans are doing it .. 98 % consensus or higher … 9135 from 9136 climate scientist believe in the data .. The odd Russian guy just wanted coal because it was cheaper…
So in reality their are on skeptics just those who seek to delay any action due to vested interests ..
011
Did you just pluck that figure out of your nether region??
Link or reference or it didn’t happen.
If you are referring to the Doran 2009 paper or the Cook 2012 paper then you better re-read them before you post more bull$hit.
60
i am talking about 2014
9,135 out of 9,136 scientists believe climate change is happening
“Contrary to what conservatives might suggest, there really isn’t a debate in the scientific community over whether climate change is real. The commonly cited statistic is that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is happening, and that it’s caused by human activity. Another way of looking at that consensus comes courtesy of James Lawrence Powell, who examined a year’s worth of climate-related scientific studies and found that virtually all accept man-made global warming.
Powell’s analysis covers 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors. He found but one holdout: S. V. Avakyan who, writing for the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, concluded that “contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.”
[This is getting pathetic. 9 out of 10 housewives believe that Krappo washes whiter. Your first statement is advertising BS. Then we get the word “believe” which is a religious concept, but not a scientific one. What about replacing “believe”, with “have verifiably proven”, and then publish the evidence? That would make the skeptics sit up and take notice. What do climate scientists do, apart from play with computer models? We are sorry to have to break it to you, but computer games are not reality, and you can’t describe the science of the physical world in a computer game, at least, not in sufficient detail to be meaningful with today’s technology. Some of us are, or have been, modellers, and are just as qualified in the physical sciences as your so-called “climate scientists”, and we know BS when we see it. BS like Powell’s analysis: 9,136 Bankers agree that you should give them all your money. Do you have any real evidence that you can share? -Fly]
11
Climate change is happening! The climate has changed for 4.5 billion years? When did ANYONE claim it has never changed until now?
Silly bug.
10
Scared of the truth, he is.
SCARED and COWARDLY.
40
This vested interests delays tactic clearly evident by current Govt .. No Science minister , No Climate Change Depts .. Our own environmental minister owns shares in Rio Tinto , Fortescue Metals , BHP , Tiger Resources .. Yet he has killed of clean energy to favour his share portfolio
015
You english speak good.
Care to prove your assertion or should I be taking a screen print of it?
50
He has never once offered ANY PROOF of any of his claptrap.
What makes you think he is going to start now ??
40
Anyone can visit the pecuniary interest of all politicians
01
So tell us how many shares they hold, and the comparative share value now and, say, six months ago. My understanding is that the share prices in the Australian energy sector has only moved by a few cents during that term, because of the political uncertainty. So any politician would need to own a very large number of shares, to be deemed to have a vested interest.
00
US Democrats, notwithstanding President Obama’s direct action-style energy plan, won’t pass modest carbon-pricing bills in the Congress
They can’t. They don’t control the congress, only the Senate.
70
The bit quoted from Tom Switzer shouldn’t cause apoplexy unless you don’t believe facts.
“Yesterday, Germany’s number 1 daily by circulation, BILD here, launched a campaign to get the government to take real action – to do something, and quickly!”
“The feed-in surcharge is the main driver behind electricity costs. Currently it represents 14 percent of the price. At the beginning of this year the surcharge jumped again by 1 cent to 6.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. A sad record!”
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.G15efb95.dpuf
The action the paper wants is a dismantling of the scheme subsidising “renewable” electricity. The paper claims that it is expensive, disruptive, and discriminates against the less well off sections of society. Claims that readers of this blog have all heard before, but not often seem in the mainstream media in Germany until the last six months.
6.2 cents per kilowatt hour is 150% of the cost of coal fired electricity (perhaps more). German electricity costs about 3 times that in the USA (excluding California). I don’t think that plans to double the amount of “green” energy are going to be popular.
70
Looked at the comments in the SMH.
Again, fascinating that the supporters of alarmist warming can say things like the frequency of extreme events (whatever they mean by that) is increasing, while the skeptics show graphs that show extreme events (measurable ones are NOT increasing.
I understand the differences in Certainty now (Mathematical, Ideological, Emotional etc.), and in Reality (Representational, Mathematical) but there still seems to be other ways in which alarmists and skeptics differ while using the same words.
I suspect (as I think) that the words “extreme”, “climate”, “significant trend” and “significant period of time” have different meaning for both sides. So that a post-1998 “pause” is seen as no pause BECAUSE THE TIME PERIOD IS TOO SHORT for a meaningful trend to be seen …. by an alarmist. And “extreme” means not just F4+ tornadoes or >3 hurricanes, but some blend of things, some new way of looking at hot and cold around the world.
It is like “shifting the goalposts”. The ones doing the shifting probably don’t think they are changing the way success or failure is measured as much as improving the view of what is going on. Same object, different identities.
130
Careful lads, P35 is not a virus but a gene on the 17th chromosome. Its prime function is DNA repair, hence a role in suppressing cancer. Its appearance on this blog is an expression of opinion on the contributors. However “high levels of P35 accelerates the ageing process by excessive apoptosis” (that is – cell death). When it mutates you are done for – 50% of tumours contain mutant P35. If this one thinks it’s a virus then its probably already gone!
140
actually P53 – I forgot you are down under.
50
” P35 is not a virus”
More like a single celled amoeba.
Obviously with no brains required.
111
It aint over till the fat lady sings is a saying. So as long as no one of the fat ladys have sing sorry where wrong it will always go on.
The AGWer is to stupid to get it on there own. They need to herr from there leaders that ist wrong.
20
Go read Maurice Newman’s “Mother Nature Suggests The Pary’s Over for IPCC” in todays (Wed 15 Jan) AUSTRALIAN page 12. You’ll love it !
90
Here’s the link:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/mother-nature-suggests-the-partys-over-for-ipcc/story-e6frgd0x-1226801761168#
Excellent follow-up/companion piece to last week’s. Just Google the title and follow the link to pierce the pay-wall.
50
It’s good for everyone if these skeptical AGW pieces get published more often, good job Tom.
I would like to note the “inner city studio audience” line stands out for me coming from a regional area, don’t get me wrong we have plenty of rabid warmists here that will always spout the AGW mantra’s forever but from personal experience I’d say inner city Melbourne has descended into a Green state mentality.
I worked on a construction site along the Yarrra river at Southbank where sometimes the riverside bike path was closed for safety reasons concerning work undertaken, I couldn’t count the times we had to stop and argue with cyclists and pedestrians to prevent them from passing the barricades and entering a very busy worksite.
What got me was the language used was mostly anti development Agenda 21 phrased green crap directed at anyone who dared to prevent them from getting hurt one fool managed to get past on his bike and was tackled just before he got under a crane doing a heavy lift, the people were from all demographics but all had the same warmist mentality it seemed and were the ones that ignored the first detour barricade.
I was ashamed to call them Australian and wondered how they’d cope if a real problem was to occur in their lives.
120
That reminds me of all the ridiculous petulant whinging from people at airports when there were very justified delays caused by bad weather (this was in the UK). You’d see all these pathetic people being interviewed for tv news programmes and whining because they couldn’t fly. OK, they had to wait until it was safe and the backlog of flights cleared but they seemed to have no comprehension that it was for their safety. Pathetic prats. I used to want to attack the tv with an axe!
40
Good idea. You’ll become better educated thru’ books and the ‘net.
30
Once again, Aus leading the way by allowing the publication in the MSM of dissenting views. What an amazing turn around year.
Pointman
130
Naaa. Russia were way ahead of us. They stated many years ago that it was all Bolshevik (and didn’t follow the trend setters).
60
Veering OT, but humble Keith, a place I know well in south east SA recorded the hottest maximum in the country yesterday, at 47.2C, or 116.96F when converted exactly.
Still more heat to come. Will Adelaide set a new record, possibly tomorrow when 46C is forecast? The old record was set in January 1939.
Last year’s “angry summer” and this current heatwave are occurring while the “carbon tax” is still in place. I’d like Christine Milne to explain that one.
110
Yep, the two so-called “hottest evvvah” years have been since the carbon tax was introduced.
A very salient point you have raise there, Ian. !!
A very strong correlation, to use climate worrier parlance.
120
Yep that planet saving “Carbon Tax” really brought on the “Gore Effect” big time. 🙂
30
The problem Ian doesn’t understand is the co2 / ghg pollution has been in much longer then the fix .. That doesn’t mean the fix wasn’t working because we actually saw a 8.6% drop in energy emissions and a 30% uptake in renewables since CTAX alone .. Continue CTAX and increase renewables
025
Oh dear!
Another one who hasn’t bothered to do his homework.
VirusP53, umm, perhaps you might like to enlighten us on your vast knowledge of how renewable power might be used to replace traditional methods of power generation.
Careful now, you might learn some inconvenient truths!
Tony.
130
No Tony, he will not learn anything.
It is not within his/her capabilities
70
Who said it needs to FULLY replace it .. We need to replace it where and when we can e.g.. reduce emissions .. If some business need the old of power then fine .. but they need to move on as well and those who can now need to do so asap ..
Scotland is even looking to go 100% renewable by 2020 so it is not impossible to do … The only problem liars and vested interests distorting the debate for their benefit
013
VirusP53,
I want you to seriously think of the how many Billions have been spent on Renewable power here in Australia, on Wind Power, Commercial Solar Plants and rooftop solar power. Rooftop solar is subsidised by the taxpayer, with subsidies at the front end and subsidies for the FIT, again, also paid for by all electricity consumers. With all Commercial wind and solar plants, they also receive subsidies from Governments, both at the federal and State level.
All of that has cost the taxpayer quite literally Billions of dollars, on top of what those Companies who have also sunk their money into these plants.
Look at this chart of Australian power generation. The yellow part at the bottom of the graph indicates all wind power, and that comes in at around 2%. All solar is around 1%, both commercial and rooftop, which includes what the residence is actually consuming from the panels on the roof and what is being fed back to the grids around Australia.
That’s BILLIONS of dollars for barely 3% of power being generated.
Now, carefully read this comment at an earlier Post here at this site, detailing in part the power generation for the day before yesterday.
Wind power crashed and burned, supplying barely 0.5% of power for hours on end, and during the time it was most needed.
So, both solar and wind combined provided barely 1.5% of power, and for a cost of Billions of dollars.
Now, I can see you scoffing right now, saying how I have cherry picked one day. Go back to the coloured chart.
2.5% and that’s spread across the whole year.
The great green hope is that Australia can reach 20% of power from renewable sources by 2020.
That will never happen.
As to Scotland going 100% renewable, that also will never happen, let alone by 2020.
The ONLY reason renewable power does have such high percentages in some Countries is only because of Hydro power, and any new dams are a great green no no.
So, hydro will never change, so all you have is wind and solar, and it will never be achieved with Wind and solar.
There will be people who will point at some data which might indicate Renewable power has a higher percentage, but that is where you have all been conned because you know nothing about it. The figures they will point at will be Nameplate Capacity.
However, when it comes to power actually being generated, the story is entirely different altogether, with percentages considerably lower. No amount of massaging data will ever make wind and solar reach that hoped for 20% here in Australia, let alone by 2020.
But then, all this is just going right over your head, at about the altitude of the ISS.
People like you think you have all the answers, but Judas Priest, you don’t even know the questions, let alone the answers.
Tony.
150
Tony well done. In other recent “contributions” the poster you have responded to did not seem to know when to quit when confronted with facts that did not conform to his world view. However, he seems to have walked away from the fight with you very quickly thanks to your knowledgeable reply on the folly of renewable energy 🙂
10
Careful Virus, Tony has some serious expertise on the matter of the folly that is renewable energy! I’m betting you don’t come into much contact with practising engineers with years of experience working in the real world as opposed to institutionalised university undergraduates and PhDs (who know surprisingly little about the broader energy scenario)
In the modified words of Walter White, “If you don’t know who we are, perhaps you ought to tread carefully”.
90
Sorry Tony,
As predicted the VIRUS will not respond to your detailed reply because he is a know nothing know it all.
30
In other words, the propaganda pamphlet you are reading doesn’t explain it in enough detail to answer Tony’s question.
A bit of research for you. Go and Google terms such as Base Load, Generator Capacity, Nameplate Capacity, Capacity Factor, and subsidies and learn something…
90
Heywood i suspect those terms are banned from Get-Up literature – way to old school engineering!
50
Bait taken. Christine Milne virtually blamed the October NSW bushfires on the election result, ie they occurred because the coalition is going to remove the carbon tax.
100
VirusP53
Go tell that to the Germans.
60
Bad form to mention the war dumb-ass.
05
Hey, I don’t see any mention of war ?
Germany just happens to be MASSIVELY INCREASING ITS COAL FIRED ENERGY OUTPUT, while cutting down on all renewable subsidies.
They have seen the economic light !!
90
It is currently 42.2 with cloud so i dont expect a record today
10
no 42.8 now
10
strangely adelaide airport less than ten k’s away is only 37.5.with all that tarmac?
30
Is that before or after the BOM rounded temperatures down?
Just asking.
20
Twitter will overheat and explode.
80
Although the tide may be turning, last night on ABC news there was an item about the possible extinction of a reef snail which couldn’t jump out of the way of predators due to climate change. The night before it was the Eucalypts. It’s relentless in the tradition of Herr Goebells.
120
Maurice Newman.. Australian. January 15th. 2014
GIVEN the low-grade attacks on me following my piece “Crowds go cold on climate cost” (The Australian, Dec 31) readers of Fairfax publications and The Guardian may be shocked to hear I believe in climate change. I also accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The trouble is, I cannot reconcile the claims of dangerous human CO2 emissions with the observed record. I admit it. I am not a climate scientist. That said, I have closely followed this debate for more than two decades, having been seasoned originally by the global cooling certainty of the 1970s.
Continues from ACM. http://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/01/15/the-partys-over-for-ipcc/
What we now see is the unravelling of years of shoddy science and sloppy journalism. If it wasn’t for independent Murdoch newspapers around the world, the mainstream media would be almost completely captured by the IPCC establishment. That is certainly true in Australia. For six or seven years we were bullied into accepting that the IPCC’s assessment reports were the climate science bible. Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told us the IPCC relied solely on peer-reviewed literature. Then Murdoch papers alerted us to scientific scandals and Donna Laframboise, in her book The Delinquent Teenager, astonished us with her extraordinary revelation that of 18,000 references in the IPCC’s AR4 report, one-third were not peer reviewed. Some were Greenpeace press releases, others student papers and working papers from a conference. In some chapters, the majority of references were not peer reviewed. Many lead authors were inexperienced, or linked to advocate groups like WWF and Greenpeace. Why are we not surprised?
The IPCC was bound to be captured by the green movement. After all, it is a political body. It is not a panel of scientists but a panel of governments driven by the UN. Its sole purpose is to assess the risks of human-induced climate change. It has spawned industries. One is scientists determined to find an anthropogenic cause. Another is climate remediation. And, naturally, an industry to redistribute taxes to sustain it all. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, this cartel will deny all contrary evidence. Its very survival depends on it. But the tide is turning and Mother Nature has signalled her intention not to co-operate.
In the meantime, childish personal attacks on those who point out flaws in IPCC reasoning and advice only increase scepticism. They are no substitute for empirical evidence and are well into diminishing returns. The party’s over.
131
Nevertheless, under our fearless — and clueless — leader, King Obama, we’re going ahead full speed with CO2 mitigation. California is out front leading the pack with our own suicide mission to eliminate CO2 in the atmosphere (and humans on the ground too). 🙁
110
Roy browsing a few motor performance forums in the USA shows an unnerving insight into Californian draconian eco laws imposed on it’s citizens, quite a few have actually moved out of the state to escape increasing restrictions on motor enthusiasts and their lives in general.
It’s very sad to see America turning like this but I guess as California was used as an Agenda 21 testing ground and launch pad it’s no surprise.
50
a bbc saga – a new meme developing – scare people with crazy geoengineering stories & they’ll beg for carbon dioxide emissions reductions:
Andrew Luck-Baker still stuck in Antarctica, so his Discovery Programme yesterday was hosted by GAIA VINCE! the much-published Gaia:
Wandering Gaia: About Me (Gaia Vince)
This is a uniquely critical time in our planet’s history, in which climate change, globalisation, communications technology and increasing human population are changing our world as never before. The developing world is experiencing these impacts more obviously and sooner than the rich West – they are already feeling the effects of biodiversity loss, erratic weather patterns, glacial melt and forced migrations, for example – and I am documenting these impacts, talking to ordinary people, scientists and heads of state as I travel in the Anthropocene…
I am the opinion, analysis and features editor for the journal Nature Climate Change, which publishes the latest research in the field. I also write for a variety of different outlets, including the BBC, The Guardian, New Scientist, Australian Geographic, Science, Seed, and I do pieces for radio. Before I set off on this journey, I was the news editor of the science journal Nature. And before that, I was an editor at New Scientist magazine. You can see some of my recent work that’s relevant to this trip on the sidebar under ‘Me Elsewhere‘…
http://wanderinggaia.com/about-me/
listen from 12 min in, for Naomi Vaughan of UEA:
26:30: BBC Discovery: Geoengineering
Gaia Vince explores the process of putting chemicals in the stratosphere to stop solar energy reaching the earth…
Another idea is to spray seawater to whiten clouds that would reflect more energy away from the earth.
Gaia Vince talks to the researchers who are considering solar radiation management. She also hears from social scientists who are finding out what the public think about the idea and who are asking who should make decisions about implementing this way of cooling the planet…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01p2pf4
(PARAPHRASING NAOMI VAUGHAN: SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO LEARN ABOUT GEOENGINEERING PLANS VIA NAOMI’S WORKSHOPS ON “PERCEPTIONS”, HAVE A PERCEPTION THAT, IF THIS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS ARE LOOKING AT, THINKING ABOUT, THEN THIS CLIMATE CHANGE MUST BE A REAL PROBLEM & I MUST DO MORE.
GAIA VINCE: SO IRONICALLY, TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT GEOENGINEERING MAY MAKE THEM MORE LIKELY TO USE LESS FOSSIL FUELS.)
60
Pat if you didn’t give links I wouldn’t have believed it, this is nucking futs!
50
Science Direct: October 2013: Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK – (Elsevier’s) Global Environmental Change Vol 23, Issue 5
Authors: Adam Corner , Karen Parkhill, Nick Pidgeon, Naomi E. Vaughan
Participants raised serious concerns about the safety of SRM technologies, and a strong preference for more conventional, mitigation options over geoengineering techniques tended to be expressed…
3. Methodology
Following a pilot study in Cardiff, four one day deliberative workshops were conducted in four different cities in the UK: Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow and Norwich…
Each workshop was attended by 11 participants. Participants were recruited through a professional recruitment agency…
The workshops were facilitated by the authors and took place over the course of one day. There were several stages to the day including: (1) an overview of climate change involving a presentation by facilitators and a whole group discussion by participants; (2) World Café style small group discussion of responses (i.e. mitigation followed by adaptation followed by geoengineering) to climate change…
One unexpected aspect of the debates about geoengineering and nature was the particular salience of concerns about the increasing materialism of modern society. Perhaps, they represent a deeper expression of concern about the continuation of an industrial project that is now known to have had a significantly negative impact on many aspects of the ‘natural’ environment…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001015
Matt McGrath building the meme a week ago:
8 Jan: BBC: Matt McGrath: Geoengineering plan could have ‘unintended’ side effect
However some researchers have questioned the experiment and the findings.
“I know of no serious scientist who would advocate introducing 100 megatonnes of sulphur dioxide in a four degree warmer world,” said Dr Matt Watson, from the University of Bristol, who was previously involved in a British project to test this concept.
( Prof Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds)”At present, these injection technologies do not exist, even on paper, and this precludes an evaluation of realistic effectiveness or side effects.
“If we want to suppress global warming the only game in town at present is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25639343
30
Another UN head dill thinks that totaltarian, undemocratic , one party states like China are better at fighting CAGW than democracies like the USA. DUH??????
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/unfcc-boss-democracy-is-very.html?m=1 Just another stupid numbskull that hasn’t even graduated up to simple kindy level maths. Can’t this nong even read or understand simple graphs, the USA are flatlining to 2035 while China’s co2 emissions are soaring.
70
There’s an old saying “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know’. Never was it truer than with with the witch-burning climate alarmists and their taxpayer funded “climate scientists” who in truth have given the words science and scientist an almost permanently bad name. It will take a generation before these grabbers of public monies the world over who have based all their claims on “modelling” are called to account. The elephant in the room is will some government somewhere soon start to demand repayment of these fraudulently obtained funds. The pendulum swings a long way back when it’s has swung to far to the left.
120
Yes the tide has definitely turned!I follow the “Climate Realist”tweet column and many[inc.Wash.Post]respected publications are declaring an end of tolerating the shrill and desperate rantings of the “warmers”.At last!
70
Fine print in the Oz newspaper weather column two days ago, Melbourne’s historical high (44 ish) for that date occurred in 1868 and it’s historical low for that date (7 ish) occurred in 1861
60
OT – As I sit here reading VirusP53’s arguments for the warming side of the argument, I find myself pondering the following question..
Whatever happened to the warmist ‘Rapid Reaction Squad” or whatever the melodramatic name was? Those guys who were supposed to arrive at a blog like this en-mass, whenever a ‘denialist'(TM) started questioning the orthodoxy, and flood the place with the pro-warming ‘correct way of thinking’..
Was it SKS who had the plans for that? I can’t remember now..?
90
They had problems recruiting anyone literate. Even lowering the standard only resulted in VirusP53.
80
I guess if they did show up, the turn in the media’s attitude over the last 12 months would be like putting one’s finger in the proverbial dyke…
60
Virus read this
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603
and this
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
And so endith the debate
101
I have many books Virus P53 could be interested to read and all agree there has been recent warming. However, attempting to correlate this warming mainly to CO2 emissions hide the fact that the whole climate system is just so complicated (with all sorts of amplifications at play), is poor understanding of any of the science. I suggest Virus P53 read “The Neglected Sun” by Vahrenholt and Luning. This book is written with no preconceived conclusions, is easy to read, and shows how very complicated things are.
110
I read this at Watts and i am going to post it in its entirety here as i think it could not be written better.
richardscourtney says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Sorry about the format error. This is a repost.
Scute:
Your post at January 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm asks
“In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
David Rose at the Daily Mail said in a recent article that the IPCC had predicted the 0.2 C increase but that AR5 was ignoring this and using sleight of hand by referring to the 1951-2013 rise of circa 0.12/decade being little different from AR4. (Long time frame gobbles up the effect of the pause). After the article, alarmist blogs rounded on Rose saying the IPCC had never said there would be a 2.0 C rise from 1999. So who’s telling the truth? I’m sure I heard the 0.2 C claim being bandied about till they saw the temps stalling.
The IPCC AR4 did make such a prediction, but it was for “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century.
The failure of this warming to occur falsifies the models and amendments to the models to “emulate” the pause do not alter this because half of the warming was said to be “committed” from the past.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.
In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 6 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
And amendments to the models to “emulate” the pause do not alter this because half of the warming was said to be “committed” from the past.
Richard
Now surely the debate is over Virus
121
You cannot debate with a Norwegian Blue, even if it is firmly nailed to its perch.
81
I read this at watts babababahahhhah …That is like saying oh i read this method to cure cancer in a comic book .. Watts is not a credible source full stop , He is well known to misrepresent facts , blatantly distort the truth ..
Why not use a real science site
119
And you are? Why don’t head out of mummy’s basement and play with kids your own age now.
121
He’s probably grounded for being a lying little b******d.
That’s why he is so upset, and desperate.
101
The basement? try the Womb.
50
VirusP53. Instead of bad mouthing Watt’s, could you please point out where the article is incorrect?
111
The sound of cicadas is almost deafening. You will get no answer, because he/she is not sufficiently scientifically literate to give you one.
He/she is a lobbyist wonk (probably from the Greenpeace stable), who is attacking Watts for the same reason he/she attacks Jo. Both Jo and Anthony are effective at telling the truth in ways that the general public can accept and understand. Once people realise that they have been conned over the past few decades, and realise that their cost of living has gone up as a result, and that they are therefore less well off, they will, and do, get very angry. There is then no way they will go back to believing in the alarmist message.
The lobbyists hate that thought. Hence all of the ad hom attacks, and the faux reliance on qualifications and multiple references to the same drivel, published in “reputable journals”.
Ignore the messenger. He/she is not even particularly good at their job.
10
Seems you don’t even know what the correct method is but jabber on with conspiracy theories , like to Greenpeace etc..
It has gone from being ignorant of the issues , process to being dishonest … Those like NOVA & WATTS are trying to degrade the science , scientist and debate on this yet they are not qualified in this specific field , have not and do not let others scrutinise / test their theories to see if they are indeed correct …
Ad hom is about irrelevant facts rejecting the claim.. But someones qualifications , data , testing of theories is not irrelevant to this debate , so you are not even using the ad hom argument line correctly ..
If they and you are so confident NASA , NOAA and al other agencies have got it wrong .. just prove it
02
Conspiracy theories? I didn’t mention conspiracy theories. I didn’t even say you were part of Greenpeace, I only inferred that you used similar lobbying methods. Methinks you protest too much.
I don’t think anybody here is ignorant of the issues. We might not entirely agree on what those issues are, because there are lots to choose from, and my list is probably a lot longer than yours.
But it is wrong to say that Jo Nova and Anthony Watts are trying “to degrade the science”.
What they are doing, is challenging the very simplistic notion of climate change, that finds its way into the main stream media. The climate is an extremely complex and dynamic system that has an unknown number of causal influences, some of which will be caused by mankind’s activities, but most will be natural cyclic or random activities. As such, none of us can definitively say, “if x, then y”, when it comes to climate, because we don’t know how much influence other factors will have at the time.
Simplistic claims mislead the public, and can even frighten the population, when those simplistic claims imply catastrophic outcomes. Is that a responsible thing for a “climate scientist” to do?
I put “climate scientist” in quotation marks, because it is a very narrow field of focus, requiring a very wide area of expertise: Atmospheric Physics, Chemistry, Climatology, Computer Science, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Meteorology, and Oceanography. I have never heard of anybody having doctorate level knowledge in all of these fields, so I was wondering what qualification you were referring to when you say that some people, “are not qualified in this specific field”.
Dr David Evans has worked as a climate modeller, and has knowledge of computer science and mathematics. I, myself, have written models that simulate atmospheric distortions on microwave towers, a problem that has a lot to do with weather patterns, and therefore climate.
So you are not correct when you claim that people here are not qualified to have an opinion, at least within their specialised areas. Whether or not they publish, is normally only important within academia, where it is measure of relative status. Publishing papers, outside of academia, is usually a vanity thing, and many employers actively discourage it, because of the time and effort it takes.
And finally, a correction: Ad hominem (ad hom, for short) means “against the man”. It refers to a personal attack. You are incorrect when you say it is about “irrelevant facts rejecting a claim”. I suggest you look the phrase up in a reputable dictionary – the World Dictionary of English is on the web, and has good explanatory text.
20
Rereke, your patience and good humour while dealing with this seriously misled person is admirable. Crakar 24 too for that matter.
10
Thank you Kevin.
Crakar and I have quite a bit of experience in common, I suspect, although we haven’t exchanged notes.
I enjoy reading your comments, also. The plaid shirt, not so much. 😉
00
Virus,
I am going to take your comment as a genuine misunderstanding rather than a childish attempt to avoid an uncomfortable situation………..but i will only do this once.
I copied the comment from Watts in its entirety because i thought it explained the situation perfectly and also wanted to attribute this information to its original author rather than accept credit myself.
The important point to note here is found in the IPCC link, the IPCC state in 2007 (AR4) that if we halted all emissions in the year 2000, thats all emissions planet wide we would still see 0.4C of additional warming due to our emissions pre 2000.
Obviously we have not halted our emissions since 2000, in fact we have produced an additional 3rd (33%) of all emissions since 1750 since 2000, therefore by the year 2020 we should see an additional 0.4C sourced from pre 2000 emissions and then a further increase in temps from the additional 33% of emissions.
As there has been no rise in temps in the past 14 years for us to reach the predicted temp rise by the IPCC come 2020 would require a temp rise over the 6 years to be of equal to or in fact even greater than we have seen over the past 114 years.
Do you think it to be possible that we will see at least a 0.8C rise in temps over the next 6 years?
101
Here is a little list of the history of the pause/hiatus/standstill or dare i even say the word……….Peak
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________________
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
__________________
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
__________________
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
__________________
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
__________________
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
__________________
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
__________________
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
__________________
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
__________________
Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?”
__________________
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
“Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
__________________
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
141
G’day Crakar,
Based on
DiseasesVirus’ previous form, he’ll just say that those listed above all are deniers of AGW. He had no idea who Ben Santer was so I doubt he knows half of the scientists in your list.90
Thats an interesting approach, virus as a disease i automatically assumed it was akin to a computer virus, you know pre programmed by some else to do just one task.
Yes i now realise my dilemma regarding the list, still its nice to reflect on the past from time to time.
You still on holidays? I came back to work on Monday, bored as all ready hence my participation rates on this site.
cheers
70
Back after Australia day 🙂 Nice long break this time.
40
@Heywood
No there must be some who don’t agree because the consensus is 98% .. that means 2% might not agree .. But the clear majority do … When going to the Dr’s and 98% of them said you’d need this operation to survive you would listen to them… Yet the loons and crackpots think the 2% are correct …
The main thing that discredits them and Crakar24 is we have no idea what many of their qualifications actually are … No one cares about other non climate scientist opinions as they don’t practice in the field or publish and be peer reviewed . He has Hansen listed and Hansen is on record for agreeing with the science on Climate Change / Global Warming ..
You are not a publishing , current climate scientist then really you don’t get a say .. Is as plausible as the Oregon letter that turned out to be a load a rubbish
115
And with mention of the “98% consensus” you just lost the last skeric of credibility you had left.
We could explain to you how a consensus is manufactured, how deferring to consensus is the antithesis of the scientific method but I don’t suspect you have come here to learn.
You are simply acting like petulant minion of political powers you cannot comprehend spouting peurile sound bites from the AGE con artists .
I feel sorry for you mate
91
So Virus,
You really have no idea who Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth in particular are?
You think they are in your ‘2%’?
If so, you really should quit now. Really.
71
Wait, did you just use the dr analogy? Do you have any idea how overused and inneffetive this analogy is?
Ill tell you what the difference between climate scientists and doctors are you little snipwit.
Doctors help individuals based on conditions or symptoms they are presently experiencing. The effectiveness of their treatment is then easily seen days, weeks or months later. They are held accountable for their mistakes. If they use computers to predict one thing then prescribe a drug which kills a patient they are held responsible. They operate in a free market in which patients elect to seek their services. Their success in their career is determined by how effective they are at helping people. And they actually may ave your life one day.
Climate Scientists on the other hand largely ignore current empirical evidence (because of how inconvenient it is for their cause) preferring to use computer models to predict a future climate based on assumptions which are guesses. Thy have such a profound disrespect for reality that they actively manipulate and change past data to fit their trends. They manipulate and adjust their assumptions to project the worst case scenario using positive feedbacks involving water that have never been observed, only hypothesised. Because their predictions are set so far in the future they escape all accountability if they are wrong. Furthermore they are protected by complex legal arrangements that will exonerate them even if they are found grossly negligent in their practise of science.
Every single publishing climate scientist owes their living and funding either directly or indirectly to government agencies. They are not employed or employable outside of universities of government agencies like your beloved BOM, NASA etc.
Just like doctors are rewarded for their skills in looking after the interest of their patients (members I the public), so to are “climate scientists” rewarded for their skills in looking after the interests of the government. Under the labour green fiasco and more broadly under the control of the neo-communist, one world government activists this meant that they were awarded grants and funding based on how much pro CAGW alarmist media stories they could conjure up. What you fail to realise VIRUS is how easy it is to corrupt people when their job security is threatened. The scientists are largely victims of their own selfish interests (just a we all are).
But the biggest difference between doctors and “climate scientists” is that doctors are about improving health and saving lives, whereas “climate scientists” are all about “saving the planet” even if that’s at the expense of people’s health and livelihoods. The same types of people promoting the CAGW scam are the same people that view population, industrialisation and general human progress as a disease. They don’t care if electricity is made so expensive that old people freeze to death because they can’t afford to heat their homes, they don’t care if farmers livelihoods are destroyed (because their cows fart CO2!), thy dont care if millions in the third world have land stripped from them for planting sugar crops to convert I electricity. They don’t care what environmental damage their ridiculous wind farms cause to wildlife or the health of occupants in surrounding areas.
In fact, doctors and climate scientists are polar opposites as far as trustworthiness, usefulness and moral standing is concerned.
91
Oh no! VIRUS has lost his tongue but found his red thumb!
41
Yep. A red thumb is easier than having to construct a valid argument.
40
VirusHPV, I typed this in reply to Michael the Realist in another thread but he never responded. Maybe you can explain it: By 98% you must be referring to the paper based on a survey by Doran etal.Pay attention
MichaelHPV, we’ve all discussed the Doran paper and to a skeptic it is garbage.I asked you: IF AGW was absolutely proven, why isn’t it 100% of climate scientists? This is SUPER CRITICAL HPV! Why didn’t they ALL see what you are saying is SO CLEAR! Also, why did 2 Climate Experts mysteriously not answer question 2 IF IT IS SO IMPORTANT WHY HPV WHY?
Then explain the wisdom of placing the whole global economy in the hands of 75 respondents to a poorly executed poll? OUT OF 10,257 polled, almost 70% didn’t respond and only 30% thought it was important enough to respond AT ALL! WHY HPV WHY?
OUT OF 3146 that bothered to respond, 3071 the largest group of experts less than 90% were confident that humans were the cause but you keep saying 97%. HPV, you have some explaining to do! What about the fact that more than 371 out of 3071 must have answered NO? That is more than four times as many experts that SAID NO as said yes WHY HPV WHY?.
So HPV, go ahead and tell us why so many qualified scientists DID NOT agree with question number 2 of the Doran survey?
20
VirusP53:
Good point. And you are a publishing, current climate scientist?
If not, it might be a good idea to shut up. The light at the top of the shaft you are frantically digging yourself into must be getting down to a point, now.
21
VirusP53
January 15, 2014 at 11:52 am
–
“Watts is not a credible source full stop , He is well known to misrepresent facts , blatantly distort the truth ..
Why not use a real science site”
–
….www. virusp53.gov.au
40
Read my comment to you (and the link) at 8.1.3.1.3 – and don’t come back fool.
Cheers,
41
Popeye, way too harsh.
As trolls go this one is entertaining in its utter ignorance.
Craker24’s list was wonderful bait, baby virus bit right away.
Poor wee thing doesn’t even recognize the members of “The Team” IPCC TM.
And you have too admit, its doing wonders for the comment count.
I do confess I am undecided wether its a bot or a moron as yet.
I’m leaning human as bots do learn.
40
What a complete smack down. I wonder if her has run off to dob on us for saying nasty things about his daddy.
20
Careful, he might take a screen print of your comment.
Sooooooooo scared.
20
I’m guessing he or she is part of the militant Get Up youth or perhaps a youn recruit of the Fabian society – cutting his teeth on the big bad denier forums!
30
I have come to the conclusion that VirusP53 is a bot.
00
VirusP53:
crakar24 copied a post I made on WUWT to here. The copy is in this thread at
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/sydney-morning-herald-allows-a-skeptic-to-say-the-games-up-for-climate-hysteria/#comment-1371682
My copied post was a quote from the IPCC AR4, a link to the part of the AR4 which provides it, and an explanation of what it means.
I am answering your reply to that in this thread which is at
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/sydney-morning-herald-allows-a-skeptic-to-say-the-games-up-for-climate-hysteria/#comment-1371710
and it says in total
Clearly, you have no dispute with what I said because you provide none and, instead, you talk about where I made the comment and not what I said. Indeed, if you had a dispute with it then you should take the matter up with the IPCC.
If that caused you a problem, then what I am about to write will really upset you.
I provide it because
(a) You have repeatedly appealed to “science” but demonstrated you don’t know what science is.
And
(b) The above article states that the global warming debate is about the magnitude of any putative warming from human activities.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
91
Yet another furfy line trotted out but not understood by so called skeptics – Null Hypothesis line but you fail to understand even the correct usage in AGW debate .. Maybe next time instead of copying and pasting from a handbook to answer questions , go research facts as that BS line has already been de-bunked time and time again…
But to even further de-bunk your faux null hypothesis use, we are indeed well outside the realm of natural global variability.. How do we know this ..
You can go back several hundreds of thousands of years eg.. 400,000 years & 800,000 years in ice core data from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles were far slower than the warming rate we are now experiencing. They also show the co2 data in direct correlation with it and it was never as high as it is today.
That puts it outside the range of of catastrophic geological events and means there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. Only leaves one conclusion
[REPLY: This is juvenile. As if the warming rate of the last 30 years is unprecedented. The max rate of the 1980’s was the same as the max rate of the 1870s. Ask Phil Jones. In any case, the resolution in old ice cores is not good enough to look at decadal trends, and on century long trends there are many periods of faster warming. – Jo
13
Wrong. The proxies used are not finite enough to determine such short periods of time. period.
Anyone claiming otherwise is ignorant of the proxy records. In other words, temperature swings like we have had in the past 30 years may be common. We just do not know.
But then since you think the null hypothesis is bunk, then I guess your ignorance of science is complete.
40
PhilJourdan:
Yes, you are right about resolution of ice core data in your reply to the anonymous troll posting as VirusP53.
The ice core data support assertions of stable and low pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration but the stomata data refute such low and stable atmospheric CO2.
There are good reasons to dispute both the ice core and the stomata data. Sadly, they are each championed by people who ignore one and reject the other. In reality, both provide useful information but each is a faulty proxy indication so neither can be used to make stark assertions as the troll does.
For example, the troll asserts
The ice core data cannot indicate such swings.
The ice takes time to solidify: the IPCC says this time is 83 years. During that time the unsolidified ice forms a porous layer on top of the solidified ice. Atmospheric pressure changes (i.e. weather) pump air in and out of the layer so the air is mixed until the layer solidifies.
The effect of this mixing on CO2 measurements is similar to conducting an 83-year running mean on measurements of CO2 collected annually. But nobody can conduct an 83-year running mean on the Mauna Loa data (i.e. the longest series of atmospheric CO2 measurements)because the measurements only began 56 years ago (i.e. in 1958). The best one can do is to obtain a mean over the 56 years and that would provide one datum (i.e. no indication of any change).
What can be said, and as you say, the ice core data lack sufficient temporal resolution to be able to indicate whether or not the low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration existed as the troll claims. And the stomata data indicates the concentration was both higher (often higher than the ~400 ppmv of now) and more variable (as it is now) than now.
The troll also says of ice core data
Yes, but the coherence shows this was because temperature changes induced the CO2 changes. Typically the CO2 followed the temperature by ~800 years: a cause cannot follow its effect.
So, it is an error to build an edifice of theory from assumptions of low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration which may or may not have existed.
But it is not reasonable to expect VirusP53 to be able to understand any of this because it is science.
Richard
20
VirusP53:
I did NOT ‘copy and paste’.
Those are entirely my own words.
Merely because you are an ignorant troll does NOT mean everyone is.
Withdraw your offensive remark and apologise for providing such a disgraceful method of avoiding an answer to clear information which you are incapable of addressing in an adult manner.
Richard
30
Watts is indeed a credible stop. If you want facts, not fiction.
51
In case you missed the story, the Russian ice breaker is back in port, the Fools will not be for another couple of weeks.
50
what be not?
03
In back port?
30
Sloof eht ro em?
21
In case you missed the story, the Russian ice breaker is back in port, the Fools will not be for another couple of weeks.
50
not be what?
21
Back in port?
20
me or the fools?
21
Just the fools
20
One and the same?
20
Grammatically, since the fools are referred to as “THE fools”, these are a particular set of fools. I am not Russian so I am not one of them. It does not preclude me from being a fool, just that I am not one of the fools being discussed in this very interesting side thread.
14
Yes
00
whilst appreciating the daily temp is irrelevant, for the record:
having heard “what the papers say” on local abc last nite, with journo laughing about how Darwin’s high yesterday of 25.7 was the lowest january temp SINCE RECORDS BEGAN, i thought that will be easy to find today. how wrong i was, tho i guess the following at least mentions the temp. i missed the name of the paper the journo was at, but thought it was NT Times, tho i found no mention there:
15 Jan: Yahoo: Tropical cool as Top End cyclone danger passes
In an unusual twist, Darwin was the coolest capital city in the nation yesterday.
While the south-east of Australia sweltered, the Northern Territory capital recorded a top temperature of 25.7 degrees Celsius…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20758866/tropical-cool-as-top-end-cyclone-danger-passes/
15 Jan: Yahoo: Fire crews on alert as south-east Australia sizzles in heatwave
In an unusual twist, Darwin was the coolest capital city in the nation yesterday.
While the south-east of Australia sweltered, the Northern Territory capital recorded a top temperature of 25.7C.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20753877/fire-crews-on-alert-as-south-east-australia-sizzles-in-heatwave/
is this 28.0 for 14 Jan a forecast by BOM? i can’t follow these BOM figures at all:
BOM: Darwin, January 2014
Tuesday 14 Jan: Max 28.0???
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201401/html/IDCJDW8014.201401.shtml
40
I use Weatherzone, which iirc, takes it data straight from BOM.
I prefer the layout. easy to read for local forecast.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/hunter/newcastle
Unfortunately the Darwin data doesn’t seem to be displayed the same way. Rather annoying.
30
should add i’m not sure whether the journo said coldest january temp or coldest 14 january temp SINCE RECORDS BEGAN.
20
VP53:
Many of the posts on this blog have provided you with valid and compelling data with some added troll bait sent your way. I love it how you take the bait hook, line and sinker. Then you come back with what you think are stronger rebuttals and comments (thus thinking how smart you think you really are)…but sadly I must inform you that every time you post you just get dumbass dumber by the minute. Nothing that anyone posts appears to penetrate the low level IQ receiving facility that you think you have (which is located above and behind your eyes)…(dumbass)!!!
90
I’m guessing he left school after yr 10 (junior high) … seems to be about his English, maths, science level.
and has lived with his mummy ever since, unemployed and unemployable.
62
There is a trend evident here. McLean yesterday. Switzer today. Both in both SMH & Age. Yesterdays very atypical Fairfax editorial in the FinReview. I’m wondering if it has dawned on them that unless they instill some balance they are gone coons as it dawns on an increasing percentage of the population that global warming is the great moral scam.
50
And Maurice Newman had another good go in the Australian this morning 🙂
50
AndyG55 –
Weatherzone also has 28.0 max for Tuesday 14 Jan, yet i heard the 25.7 figure on abc & it’s in the links i posted earlier:
7 letters published here in response to Switzer’s piece:
15 Jan: SMH: Letters to the Editor:
Philip Radburn Gladesville:
Seeking proof of biased views is no basis for a serious debate
The problem for opinion writers such as Switzer and business “leaders” such as Maurice Newman is that they appear to know nothing about complex systems. This is not surprising for a journalist – although you’d expect them to ask experts – but is for someone who runs large corporations.
A short pause (in the climate age context) in the trend line of a set of indicators does not disprove a trend… ETC ETC
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/seeking-http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/seeking-proof-of-biased-views-is-no-basis-for-a-serious-debate-20140114-30t0s.html
20
Sorry, I should have looked that up before, but was doing other things at the time.
Plus you seem to really like doing the searching stuff 🙂
20
@VirusP53
January 15, 2014 at 9:40 am
Quote: “Even you link to same rubbish sites as others and cant give a link to the real science on genuine scientific sites lie NASA , NOAA , CSRIO etc.. on this just the faux reporting , propaganda”
. . . .
If VirusP53 can’t find & link the information at the ‘quality websites’ VirusP53 notes, how can it expect anyone else to find the information?
If VirusP53 knows where this
‘peer‘ pal reviewed information is on the ‘preferred’ websites, VirusP53 should provide the link. A matter of courtesy.VirusP53 fails this simple task, not to mention substantiates and strengthens the ‘facts’ of the ‘debate’ presented by VirusP53.
After the drive by spray of crap from VirusP53, the internet bridge troll will not be back.
The CSIRO scientific?
Hitler’s dick!
50
Was listening to Features Forum on 2RPH yesterday and they announced an artical on climate change in the S.M.H. I usually turn over to some nice music on that cue but thought it’s time I listened to a bit of B.S. for a change.That Tom Switzers peice was “Music to my ears”.
Congrats Jo. You and the other Few are gradually making them face reality.
50
I think that I must be going into some form of shock, or perhaps I have become dyslexic!?
40
Sadly, I probably missed all the fun with VirusP53, when will you guys remember when I’m not around to ask the useful idiots “The Questions”. You know, you’re quite happy that food is burnt for fuel, birds are being slashed, grannies die in cold snaps etc.
There is absolutely no point in arguing science with a scientifically illiterate “useful idiot”, the only real argument for them is the moral one.
Maybe, I need to appoint a deputy…
40
Question their morals?
Surely you jest.
I take it as an assumed truth of their crusade, than the deaths of poor brown people by starvation, inadequate food storage,lack of sanitation and all the other miseries reliable electricity/energy helps alleviate …is considered a good thing.
As under their bluster, they all seem to feel human population is too many.
By their actions we shall know them.
Burning food,displacing people for plantations, deliberately preventing cheap/reliable coal fired electrical plants…
Is the true message, save the planet, kill the poor?
50
Yes, it does seem that way, but I have deprogrammed many warmists these ways. Only the most evil of them are actually misanthropists, like Michael the showpony. Most are just misinformed, and most of the useful idiots just think, well less “pollution” surely couldn’t hurt, the end must justify the means. When they are shown that it actually does hurt people and that the end does not justify the means, the moral justification for the crusade breaks down.
You will notice in fact that very few warmists tackle my questions at all, avoidance is the first tactic in the deprogramming. You can’t however unlearn the truth, when faced with the fact that you may be at fisk of being a misanthropist.
JB for example has a problem, he wont answer my questions, but he knows I’m right and that morally I stand for mankind, and he stands against, must be very dissonant for him.
Margot – avoided
B@4 – avoided
Avoidance = dissonance, there is hope for these ones
Attack – misanthropist or sociopath ( dont care if people are dying or are put at risk)
70
@Virusp53
I note that after your rather odd comment:
“Yet no where in the IPCC AR5 report says that wonder why .. Basically because you are speaking total BS and falsely representing facts from the IPCC report …
That is okay because and so i don’t misquote you i have taken the screenshot of your posted text to let them know exactly what you have said and where it was posted …”
My reply:
“ ‘… exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade) …’
This a direct quotation from AR5 Final Draft (7 June 2013).
To interpret: from 1998, within the bounds of the measurement uncertainty, there has been no warming. Despite the sleight of hand in the way some of the data was displayed in the report, the basic message is as set out above…”
has received no response. Perhaps the fact that the IPCC report said this is a little too difficult for you to cope with?
00