The REAL global warming

[Ingot54]

Post removed by poster.

 

[Ingot54]

It looks like the alarmists are now in the minority - but don't blame me - I only report the news as it comes to hand ... a messenger of the REAL people.
**************************************************
UN panel admits new error in climate report

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...15/2819461.htm

UN panel admits new error in climate report

Posted 17 minutes ago

The UN climate change panel has admitted to having imprecisely stated in a key report that 55 per cent of The Netherlands is under sea level, saying that is only the area at risk of flooding.

The Dutch Government this month asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to explain the figure, used in a landmark 2007 report, saying its numbers were that only 26 per cent of the country is below sea level.

It was a new embarrassment for the panel. The same 938-page Fourth Assessment Report also contained an erroneous claim that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

The IPCC admitted in a note sent to press agency AFP that the 55 per cent figure was actually the portion of The Netherlands "at risk of being flooded". It insisted that the imprecision did not affect the conclusions of the report.

The figure had been used in various publications to mean "either the area below the highest sea-level reached during storms, or the total area of the country that is prone to flooding from the sea and rivers," the note said.

"Therefore, a preliminary analysis suggests that the sentence discussed should end with: 'because 55 per cent of The Netherlands is at risk of flooding'."

The panel said the figure had been supplied by a Dutch Government agency.

Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP on February 5 that the figure used by the IPCC included the area below sea level - 26 per cent - and the area threatened by river flooding - 29 per cent.

The error about Himalayan glaciers - which is being withdrawn - spurred fierce criticism of the IPCC with the controversy has giving fresh ammunition to climate sceptics.

**************************************************

Crikey folks, is anything they are telling us truthful???

Even the ABC (Australia) is printing the stable climate side of the story now.

Finally.

A breath of fresh air as the truth comes out.

Craigie's lover, flower-boy BS, is still flogging that old dead horse, but it doesn't seem to give even a twitch any more.Sounds like AGW is a dying argument - and thus it seems the science was not really settled at all - we told you so!

Al Gore must be both wetting himself and defaecating in his pin-stripes, as he feels his fortune-to-be slipping further from his grasp.

Gore is in with the likes of Goldman Sachs, as are all who seek to profit if their version of AGW gets up. These guys are loaded to the hilt with tradeable positions in Carbon Credits. That's their REAL agenda - to get Carbon into the markets where it can be traded for a fortune.

These people do not give a toss about the pollution in the world, or the fact that a darned good cleanup would improve the quality of life on the planet vastly more than any amount of Carbon-Trading-Pass-the-Parcel, where not ONE molecule of CO2 gets reduced - it just gets traded off to someone else.

What a disaster for them if it does not fly!

But pigs do??

**************************************************

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html

...now scientists from NOAA have published research in Science that challenges the core assumptions of the global warming camp...

...the fundamental assumption in global warming dogma, that carbon dioxide is the most important factor in global warming, is simply not true...the research does allude to human emissions having a much smaller role in climate change than previously thought... _Ntl.Post

Darn it folks, there goes another prop for the AGW balancing act.

How could all of this have been hidden, you may ask yourself.
Could it be that they "conveniently" disregarded the negative feedback mechanisms???

In fact, wherever you look in the atmosphere, the biosphere, or the oceans, you find negative feedbacks are predominant in climate. Otherwise by now the Earth would have experienced runaway climate change in various directions, and never have come back. Instead, when one looks at the history of Earth's climate, one sees fractal cycles that repeat over several overlapping time scales.

Only the political takeover of climate science since the 1990s has allowed the unscientific ideas of James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Tom Karl, and the rest of the on-the-take scamsters to crowd out a true scientific investigation of climate. Until recently, studies such as the one above from Science could not have been published -- they would have been censored by the established powers-that-be in climate science.

With the downfall of the University of East Anglia's CRU, and the increased scrutiny on Michael Mann's and James Hansen's "research" by various levels of auditors, the iron grip that controls what can be published and discussed has been loosened slightly.

If you still go to www.realclimate.org to get your daily dose of "climate science", you should start to understand that you have only been drinking heavily drugged mother's milk. If you remain in the creche of realclimate or wikipedia's climate coverage, you will never be weaned into the larger world beyond the pseudoscience to which you are addicted. No problem, psychological neotenates and academic lobotomates. That may be the limit of your capacity.

For the rest, it looks as if some actual scientific observations may finally be allowed -- instead of restricting climate studies to fudged computer models and cherry-picked proxies.

But hey! Don't blame me ... I just report the news ... a messenger of hope for the people who were fooled by the "on-the-take scamsters" mentioned in the above article.

Pity Craigie and Bullwinkle didn't present an equally unbiased account of the science, instead of the curve-fitted bunch of moth-sh1te they have been feeding this thread since day one.

Shame Craigie - get a grip, huh!
'fess-up son!

Now we will see how honest they are.
Now we will see if they can handle the truth.
Now we will see if their true interest is in the truth about AGW, or in some hidden agenda.

After all, Craigie has a ton of wet egg dripping down his sunday shirt from his face if he is proved wrong, because his whole web-page-project will be closed down unless he can save face, and disprove the truth.

Of course he will never do it.
He has too much vested in perpetuating the lie about AGW.

But as I said - I am just a lowly messenger - I come in peace to proclaim the truth.
Can I help it if the truth steps on some bunions??

Hear that low rumble to the north west?
That's the sound of "scientists" abandoning the AGW camps, and returning to reason.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

You do realize that you quoted me at the beginning of your usual display of picking at nits? And that that quote had nothing to do with the usual tripe you put on display (do you ever think for yourself?), but with the Maiden's oddball, completely inappropriate (we have an entire movement dedicated to this in the US, the Tea Party) attempt to bring the Nazis into this?

 

[Ingot54]

You do realize that you quoted me at the beginning of your usual display of picking at nits? And that that quote had nothing to do with the usual tripe you put on display (do you ever think for yourself?), but with the Maiden's oddball, completely inappropriate (we have an entire movement dedicated to this in the US, the Tea Party) attempt to bring the Nazis into this?

What are you talking about BS?

What quote?

I don't see any quote.

I am simply reporting on a story on the respected ABC.net.au/news site.

You have a problem with the truth??

What are you babbling on about Nazis, tea parties - you are more of a girly woos than I thought. This is a thread that is discussing the malicious untruth of AGW ... not tea parties. Come on, man, get a grip.

Don't take it up with me - take it up with the ABC - it's their story.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Ah.
Good editing job.
Carry on.

 

[maiden22]

Godwin's Law:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I stated that this was a singularly idiotic post, a remark that seemed to surprise you. First we should turn to "Godwin's Law" - I confess that I have never come across this "law", and sadly I cannot say that this is a cause for regret. The law "asserts that the likelihood of such a [Nazi or Hitler] reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses". The source you quote makes it clear that this refers specifically to online discussions.

Forgive me if I am less than overwhelmed by this "law", which seems to me to add very little to the sum of human understanding. What has Mr Godwin identified? That the likelihood of a Hitler or National Socialist reference increases the longer a debate lasts. Indeed it does, although I would suggest that this is not confined to online discussions on subjects of great import. It would apply equally to a chat in the pub about a football game, or to a natter over the garden fence between Mrs Smith and Mrs Jones, the chief subject of which is the fact that her at Number 33 is no better than she ought to be.

In what way are National Socialist references special in this regard? Does not the law apply equally to discussions about Torres Vedres, investigations of the religious rituals of the South Sea islanders, and the statement "Afghanistan Banana-Stand"?

One could go further. The longer a debate lasts, the likelihood of baboon attacks, spontaneous combustion and alien abduction also increases. What then does this law tell us? That things are more likely to occur the longer the time given them to occur.

This does not strike me as a profound observation.

 

[maiden22]

Godwin's Law:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Maiden's oddball, completely inappropriate attempt to bring the Nazis into this?

Leaving aside the admittedly interesting question of why an adult would wish to quote something as vacuous as "Godwin's Law", there is an element of greater idiocy in your post - namely that the point that you attempt to make is demonstrably and obviously wrong.

Your initial post did not state, but nonetheless made a clear implication, that I was attempting to smear the AGW case by comparing it to National Socialism. If one were drunk or heavily sedated and so missed the implication, your subsequent post where you describe my "oddball, completely inappropriate attempt to bring the Nazis into this" should be sufficient to remove any doubt.

As you point out, the childish not infrequently attempt to silence debate by resorting to some variation of "That's what Hitler would have said". Strange that one rarely hears this with reference to vegetarianism or opposition to hunting with dogs, but still.

I made no attempt to do this. The National Socialists were masters of the black art of propoganda. There is a passage in Mein Kampf that deals succinctly with the puzzling question of how large, thoroughly outrageous lies come to be believed. This is certainly not the first instance of this technique being discussed or used, although Hitler is commonly credited with coining the "Big Lie" term.

It was simply therefore a convenient way of approaching this now fairly tedious debate from another angle. The science being settled, so to speak lol, we move on to other questions surrounding the central issue. AGW is entering the autopsy phase in the wider world - it may as well do the same here. We begin to wonder how such an enormous lie ever took hold, and look for answers.

To reference National Socialist propoganda techniques is not to compare someone with the National Socialists, certainly not in the way that you implied. I could have explained the concept of the big lie myself, but saw no reason to do so since it was already perfectly expressed in readily accessible form.

Far from attempting to drag National Socialism into this, as you accuse me of doing, I did not once mention it. Unlike you, who did. In fact I made every effort not to mention National Socialism, as I knew that there was a high likelihood of the kind of idiotic response that you gave.

I also gave specific instructions against cutting, pasting and googling, instructions which you clearly ignored. Had you heeded them, you would never have discovered the origin of the piece I quoted, and would thereby have saved yourself much embarrassment.

 

[maiden22]

To conclude, I stated that your post was singularly idiotic. This judgement, on examination of the facts, would seem to stand. You quote a meaningless "law" as a means of accusing me of doing something which I clearly did not. In doing so, you explicitly bring National Socialism into the debate - the very charge that you levelled at me.

I recall now that you believe that we should, as a matter of urgency, reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide. You also advocate the manufacture, distribution, installation and operation of millions of unnecessary air-conditioning units, largely because your mother-in-law found Paris a little hot in the summer.

I believe that the content of your posts stems more from terrible misfortune than deliberate malice, and I will therefore continue to attempt to assist you. However, you must make some effort of your own, and at least read my posts before replying to them.

 

[maiden22]

This quote illustrates a similar point:

"But it is necessary to know well how to ... be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple and so obedient to present necessities that he who deceives will always find someone who will let himself be deceived. "

I doubt that you will recognise it.

This also may shed some light on how the lie endures, despite all of the evidence against it:

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

One does of course see this with the victims of boiler room scams.

This also has relevance:

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we sere as willing or unwitting instruments."

There are a great many potentially useful quotes that I could have used. I thought it better to start at the beginning - how the lie took hold, and this involves a perfectly appropriate use of a quote from Mein Kampf.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Whatever. You're obviously enamored of yourself.
The point stands.

 

[maiden22]

Whatever. You're obviously enamored of yourself.
The point stands.

A truly crushing reply. Your powers of reasoning and debate are extraordinary.

The opening salvo of "whatever", the finality and irresistible logic of "the point stands".

Masterful, absolutely masterful. You are a fine advocate for your cause.

 

[maiden22]

Back on planet earth, Phil Jones gives an interview to the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

A few notable extracts:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

R - Why did you ask a colleague to delete all e-mails relating to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC?

This was an e-mail sent out of frustration at one FOI request that was asking for the e-mail correspondence between the lead authors on chapter six of the Working Group One Report of the IPCC. This is one of the issues which the Independent Review will look at.

Perhaps things are not quite as certain as we were led to believe . Mr Jones for one apparently does not consider the debate over or the science settled.

 

[maiden22]

The Guardian reports the Phil Jones Nature interview.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html

A couple of extracts relating to recently-discussed things:

But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.

Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. "I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services," says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that "the stations probably did move", and that the subsequent loss of the data was sloppy. "It's not acceptable," says Jones. "[It's] not best practice."




Some argue that if the tree-ring data are unreliable for the recent past, including them in older temperature reconstructions is highly questionable, and could understate historic warming — including the MWP — relative to the present day. "It potentially does," admits Jones, but says that analyses using other methods — proxy temperature markers from ice core samples, for example — still show much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years, backing up Mann's hockey stick.

 

[maiden22]

As usual, The Daily Mash is the most sensible on the subject, as this headline demonstrates:

'Sorry, did you say 'warming'? In that case, no,' admit climate scientists

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

 

[Ingot54]

As usual, The Daily Mash is the most sensible on the subject, as this headline demonstrates:

'Sorry, did you say 'warming'? In that case, no,' admit climate scientists

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

LOL!

If you can tolerate her high-pitched babble, here is another contemporary (video) summary:

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5555

The one I am really waiting for is Al Gore.

At some point he HAS to admit he's a scammer ... but we may have to wait until Judgement Day for that! I mean, he's probably spent the http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/amounts.html proceeds on his http://negative99.com/politics/inconvenient-truth-al-gore-is-a-hypocrite/

The cows are coming home, the chickens are coming home to roost and the brown stuff has hit the spinning thing!

OOPS!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...eginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

 

[maiden22]

LOL!

If you can tolerate her high-pitched babble, here is another contemporary (video) summary:

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5555

The one I am really waiting for is Al Gore.

At some point he HAS to admit he's a scammer ... but we may have to wait until Judgement Day for that! I mean, he's probably spent the http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/amounts.html proceeds on his http://negative99.com/politics/inconvenient-truth-al-gore-is-a-hypocrite/

The cows are coming home, the chickens are coming home to roost and the brown stuff has hit the spinning thing!

OOPS!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...eginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

I don't know what the case is in Australia, but in the UK the press are fighting like rats to secure a toe-hold in the lifeboats. The MSM over here is largely useless - little more than a pack of hounds who've picked up the scent of blood. Pity they all closed their ears for so long, but at least now the tide is turning.

The dam is very close to bursting when even the BBC starts to ask questions.

 

[Ingot54]

I don't know what the case is in Australia, but in the UK the press are fighting like rats to secure a toe-hold in the lifeboats. The MSM over here is largely useless - little more than a pack of hounds who've picked up the scent of blood. Pity they all closed their ears for so long, but at least now the tide is turning.

The dam is very close to bursting when even the BBC starts to ask questions.

Nothing like the mainstream press waking up to themselves to silence the silly alarmists.

Sadly what they have really missed is an opportunity to notice the earth is going through natural cycles, about which my last link only touches the tip of the iceberg. Long range weather forecasters have known about sun cycles and sun-spot correlation to weather patterns for ages, but I guess it will not be a prominent "science" until Phil Jones "discovers" it.

If he does, run the other way!!

The Australian media are led by the nose by their minders of course, and this is why we are now getting some balanced coverage of the situation. Almost daily the media are covering the "myth" side of AGW and distancing themselves from it as if they never said anything in favour of it ... ever!

I feel sorry for those who put their names in print over it though - that omelet beret will be looking very much in place on their pates right now!

DCraig will be looking for another topic for his web-site, and his mate BS will be unemployed.

What will be interesting will be the "I never said that ..." coming from the warmistra's like Al Guffore when the earth is actually shown to be its cooling phase.

Wonder what they will say to that?

It will be something like AGC - Anthropological Global Cooling - and we will be rushing out to buy CO2 generators to reverse the cooling

Shows the mentality of the alarmists though, as if puny mankind could influence anything that happens on this huge planet - particularly with a 0.004% increase in ANY trace molecule.

But when the price of oil is $200/bbl in 3 years time, the rush for nuclear gen electricity should calm the waters a bit - reduce their precious CO2 tar-baby (with thanks to Uncle Remus' ( http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/tar-baby.html ) famous story characters.

Time will tell!

 

[maiden22]

The consensus side has gone very quiet recently. What's wrong chaps? No tinfoil hat insults to hurl today?

Or is it all just getting a little too much for you? It is rather difficult to keep up with all of the IPCC scandals, Phil Jones saying that the science isn't settled and so on.

Not having second thoughts are we?

 

[maiden22]

Craig, I would also like to point out that you can't touch this:

 

[maiden22]

I told you homeboy

You can't touch this.