Another valuable convert - the consensus is becoming unstoppable 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...sists-al-gores-new-soul-mate-osama-bin-laden/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...sists-al-gores-new-soul-mate-osama-bin-laden/
Today's ice/snow cover for North America:
Note that the mouth of the St Lawrence is pretty much open, and none of the Great Lakes have iced over completely yet. This is the end of Jan already, so it's getting a bit late.
Last year:
Mouth of the St Lawrence is iced over, as is Lake Erie, and the other Great Lakes have a lot more ice than they do this year.
So much for the silliness about this year being SO much colder. Snow on a particular random day in winter in London means - precisely nothing.
Like I said, bs artists. Whiny bs artists, at that.
What is the point of posts like the one above?
Here you go - more ice than they've seen in decades:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...-anything-experienced-in-30-years/#more-15836
Does either of these posts prove anything? No. Turn the air-con down, it's freezing your brain. Granted, air-con is good for the environment, but you have to consider your health.
For anyone who's interested, here's the full paper questioning the validity of the temperature record.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Doen't mean anything of course, science is sound, world is warming at unprecedented rate etc. Not peer-reviewed and so on.
Not to mention the fact that you are too thick to understand any of this anyway. Plus, someone or other has said this report is nonsense. So see what you think if you want, but remember: the experts have assured you that the emperor's new outfit is marvelous. Your own judgement counts for NOTHING.
Who ya gonna believe? Jim Hansen or your lyin' eyes?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Doen't mean anything of course, science is sound, world is warming at unprecedented rate etc. Not peer-reviewed and so on.
Not to mention the fact that you are too thick to understand any of this anyway. Plus, someone or other has said this report is nonsense. So see what you think if you want, but remember: the experts have assured you that the emperor's new outfit is marvelous. Your own judgement counts for NOTHING.
Who ya gonna believe? Jim Hansen or your lyin' eyes?
More pointlessness - Britain has had the coldest January for 20 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247443/Britain-braced-snow-temperature-plummets-7c.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247443/Britain-braced-snow-temperature-plummets-7c.html
Yes, changes in the weather do happen. An amazing observation. Which doesn't change the fact that 2009 was globally the second warmest year on record.
It is rather silly to cite some observations of snow and ice in winter as evidence that climate change is not happening.
NASA is thoroughly compromised, and it's sadly necessary to look very carefuly at anything it puts out.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.
Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.
"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
The register is a not a credible source - for just about anything let alone climate science. Who cares what this bloke, who is well past his sell by date, says? Let see his peer reviewed research into the subject.
Spot on - pointless if one is discussing climate change and not the weather. Some winters are colder than others - what a revelation.
Another amazing fact - Britain and Europe are not the sum total of the entire planet, where on average temperature in 2009 was the second warmest ever recorded.
Benton D Struckcheon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 251
- Likes
- 15
As I recall, you were the one who brought up the snow in London, and then montmorencyt2w cried a river over folks who were, I believe, "dying from global cooling", or some such nonsense.
The above is meant as visual refutation of these purely anecdotal posts.
As for ice in China, well, it looks like they stole some from Canada, doesn't it? Which means: if it's colder than normal somewhere, it's more than likely only because it's warmer than normal somewhere else.
Once again: it's an anecdote, and nothing else.
Cherry picking temperature records: an anecdote.
Using a meteorologist's rantings on where the thermometers are as if it meant anything at all: proves nothing, to borrow a phrase.
You got something right! It is not peer reviewed and published. Furthermore Watt's claims about the poor siting of weather stations compromising the temperature record have been examined in a peer reviewed and published paper On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record (Menne 2010) and found to have no basis.
There is extensive peer reviewed literature on the compilation of the temperature record going back for many years dealing with such issues including the urban heat island effect.
Hansen 2001
Peterson 2003
Parker 2006
If Watts manages to get something published please do let us know.
Why do people comment on things that they have clearly not read? My point was made in response to another's post - the point being that weather is weather, not climate. Something that the AGW crowd have had little regard for, as they drag out any weather event they can as "proof" of global warming.
And no-one knows what the second warmest year on record is, as the record is completely broken. Not that the warmest year in the miniscule record would make any difference even if we could identify what it is.
Ingot54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 403
- Likes
- 62
So, BS, you DO have a gun!
And you are pointing it right at your feet.
Be careful son, like most gun owners in the USA, you are NOT trained in the use of the standard firearm.
And it goes the same for arm-chair climatologists like Craigie - who got his Climatology Degree from the side of a Corn Flakes box, after Googling for forty days and forty nights.
Your post is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the stable climate denier's ability to sensibly debate the issue. Hence my resorting to pushing your buttons and calling you the idiots you so obviously are. I can rely on you to continue your BS assertions, because neither of you are rationally in touch with reality.
When your detractors mention something, it is "anecdote" but of course anything you bring to the table is "science".
Here's a gem from our gun-totin' yankee mate: "if it's colder than normal somewhere, it's more than likely only because it's warmer than normal somewhere else."
How's THAT for a scientific "fact"?
But BS doesn't stop with one clean shot to the foot, he desperately takes aim at his other foot with this gem: "Cherry picking temperature records: an anecdote."
Umm. If Mick Mann's famous "hockey stick" is not cherry picking temperature records, then please explain to me what is. I'd like to see Craigie handle that one, BS, if you don't mind. He seems to be the "brains" of your committee on AGW, and as yet we haven't heard him respond to the "hockey stick science". (I apologise in advance if I am assuming Craigie actually does have a response to the hockey stick fraud.)
Finally, in closing this wonderful segment in the annals of "The excellent adventures of BS and Craigie", the grand-daddy of them all, this marvellous intellectual piece issuing forth from the hot-lips of BS:
"Using a meteorologist's rantings on where the thermometers are as if it meant anything at all: proves nothing, to borrow a phrase."
Here we have the two lovers, BS and Craigie, presenting a "united assault" on the "non-warmistras" with a statement that it does not matter where the thermometers are placed.
Umm, my year 3 grand-child tells me it does matter where you place a thermometer.
If you put it under your tongue, you will get one reading.
If you put it under your arm you get a different reading.
If you put in up your @i$e, as we do in intensive care units, you will get another reading.
As a Registered nurse of 26 years experience, I can tell you that the "rantings on where the thermometers are ..." is actually important BS.
But keep on believing what frauds like Gore, Hansen, Mann, Jones and their ilk are attempting to foist on us, and you may yet get your awards.
The amazing thing to me is that you have the balls to actually put your name on the guest list, when the "truth" is clearly not what these people are telling us.
And get some help with those feet, BS - infection to the wounds can be really painful.
Ingot54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 403
- Likes
- 62
Crikey! Almost forgot.
The Aussie ABC ran with this headline tonight:
Climate body 'embarrassed' over forest claim
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/01/2807122.htm
"The credibility of the world's climate change authority has taken another hit, with accusations that it based a claim about disappearing forests on a report by environmental activists.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cited a report by the environment group WWF to back the claim that large tracts of Amazonian forests will disappear because of diminishing rainfall.
Previously, an article in the Sunday Telegraph reported the IPCC admitted it was a mistake to claim that Himalayan glaciers will melt by the year 2035.
Now an article in London's Sunday Times carries the headline "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim".
The article questions the IPCC's decision to cite a WWF report to support its claim that 40 per cent of Amazonian forests could disappear as a response to declining rainfall and even be replaced by tropical savannah.
WWF Australia chief executive Greg Bourne says that is not what the WWF report said and he wants to know where the IPCC conclusion came from.
"My understanding is that in the fourth session report, whilst they were looking at all the detail, they then cited one of our reports," he said.
He says the report from 2000 was misinterpreted and then quoted by the IPCC."
"The IPCC has clearly made a mistake here. They have cited something that is not a primary reference and obviously it has weakened the IPCC's assertion," he said.
"[It] sounds like certain journalists are picking on that... and that creates, obviously, the potential for doubting the IPCC's overall conclusions."
Mr Bourne agrees that the IPCC risks damaging its own credibility.
"It is embarrassing for the IPCC, but the climate sceptics are attacking the detail because the big picture in unequivocal and they cannot attack that," he said.
No, the "sceptics" don't have to attack anything.
The "big picture" is far from "unequivocal", and despite Mr Bourne's attempt to cover it all with a very large blanket, "they" can see that the truth has been tampered with a little bit here and there.
In fact the longer the alarmists weave their web of lies and fraud, the more of it bubbles to the top of the pit.
Well done ABC for pointing out the truth.
The register is not a credible source? Your arguments are pitiful beyond belief.
I have quoted directly from a letter written by Theon to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee of the US Senate. The letter is dated January 15, 2009. As you presumably well know, there are many sources to which one can link. It matters little which one, as they all show the same letter, which is completely unequivocal.
"This bloke" who is "well past his sell-by date"?
"This bloke" is the former chief of the Climate Process Research Programme and the former chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics and Radiation Branch at NASA.
As for your "well past it" nonsense, I really don't think that it needs much additional comment. Elderly people are clearly doddering fools. Euthanasia is probably the best option - it will at least prevent them from embarassing themselves.
Ridiculous, deliberately misleading and grotesquely prejudiced - you are a fine example of an AGW zealot. I would like to know whether you are merely a useful idiot or actually one of the con men - I suspect the former, although it doesn't really matter as your powers of debate and your grasp of logic would shame a chimpanzee.
Astonishing that Craig has the b4lls to go on about "credible sources" given the recent torrent of revelations about where the IPCC gets its information from.
Last edited:
Holocaust deniers, fools, people who want the kittens of Tuvalu to drown and BIG (OILTOBACCOBUSINESSWHATEVER) creatures may like the following blog. Just discovered it today - has an interesting piece on the recent triumph of evil and conspiracy theory over righteous consensus.
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamou...rming:_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamou...rming:_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
Having nothing of substance to say, you resort to unsubstantiated and gratuitous mud slinging at what you cannot understand. Hansen et al research papers are still published in high quality journals. Obviously your twaddle is not taken seriously by those with expertise.
There was a mistake in the IPCC report. It should not have gotten through review but it did. It has been acknowledged and will be corrected. Mistakes happen.
While the time scale for the melting of the Himalayan glaciers was wrongly forecast it doesn't alter the fact that glaciers are retreating worldwide at quite a rate. That is a physical reality.
That particular error has no bearing on the rest of the IPCC reports. Having nothing useful to say about the enormous body of evidence for AGW, denialists can do nothing other than nit pick at the occasional error that is bound to occur from time to time. Intellectually feeble stuff.
Occasional error?!
Do you really want to go into this?
Let's start with the hockey stick and go from there.
The other thing that strikes me is that nothing has any bearing on anything else in your world.
That restaurant was lovely. The starter was terrible, but that has no bearing on the main course.
The main course was inedible but that does not affect the dessert.
The dessert gave me food poisoning but you can't fault the service because of it.
The service was execrable but I wouldn't complain about the bill.
The bill was shocking but this has nothing to do with the starter.
Last edited:
Here is the response to Menne et al:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/#more-15729
By the by, when will you stop waving "peer-reviewed" around like it's some kind of magic talisman? Nobody cares - the peer-review process is as thoroughly compromised as the rest of the AGW con. The hockey stick was peer-reviewed for God's sake.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/#more-15729
By the by, when will you stop waving "peer-reviewed" around like it's some kind of magic talisman? Nobody cares - the peer-review process is as thoroughly compromised as the rest of the AGW con. The hockey stick was peer-reviewed for God's sake.
