Recommended Posts

"The absence of warming over the past 15 to 20 years amidst rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels poses a fundamental challenge to mainstream climate modeling. In an interview last year with the newspaper Der Spiegel, the well-known German climatologist Hans von Storch said 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. Climatologist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech recently observed If the 20-year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large.

Hahah ya think?

"Smirks"

Instead of Bush saying "It's the economy stupid."

AGW advocates are going to have to console themselves into admitting "It's the sun stupid!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When I was a boy I worried about Global Thermonuclear War. That was a righteous worry. Now we are distracted by AGW while there's still more than slight danger from nukes on the loose in the hands of kooks on the loose.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it now, Iran gets nukes and uses them of course. Then who ever is left will ponder why didn't we deal with them ages ago.

Just sayin...

The number of nuclear weapons Iran can produce is no danger to human survival. Even if the turn out 100 - 200 tactical nukes they cannot wipe out the human race with that arsenal. They could do a number on Israel though. In my less cogent moments I sometimes think God saved His people by scattering them world wide.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a scoundrel, Scherk.

Perhaps I am, but I found the scandalous 'scoop' in the Telegraph -- and the continuing playout of the Goddard claims -- to be interesting, telling, worthy of attention. I was interested enough in the topic to read discussion involving Goddard and his critics on the 'other side' and to understand where Goddard had made his mistakes. I posted some of what I researched above in this thread. (more discussion has continued to play out at Watts' blog, at Goddard's, and elsewhere**). It looks like Goddard was wrong, and not for the first time.

If attempts to understand and explicate a contentious issue makes one a scoundrel, then scoundrel I am, and scoundrel I will continue to be, my dear Wolf -- along with the scoundrels Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre (whom you might have noticed, disassemble Goddard's methodology).

Slightly off-topic, some scandalous numbers from the Wall Street Journal

Widespread support for the carbon rule, unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, is a rare bright spot for Mr. Obama, who otherwise received mostly low marks by poll respondents on topics ranging from his overall competence to his administration’s decision to trade five imprisoned Taliban officials in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

The poll finds that 67% of respondents either strongly or somewhat support EPA’s new rule, while only 29% oppose it. Americans are also increasingly willing to stomach higher electricity costs in order to cut carbon emissions. More than half of poll respondents—57%—said they would support a proposal requiring companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming even if it means higher utility bills. That figure is up 9 percentage points since October 2009.BN-DH361_pollEP_G_20140617171851.jpg

__________________

** From Goddard's blog (emphasis added)

NikFromNYC says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:47 am
Goddard willfully sponsors a hostile and utterly reason averse and pure tribal culture on his very high traffic skeptical blog where about a dozen political fanatics are cheered on by a half dozen tag along crackpots who all pile on anybody who offers constructive criticism. His blog alone is responsible for the continuing and very successful negative stereotyping of mainstream skepticism by a highly funded alarmist PR machine. His overpoliticization of climate model skepticism results in a great inertia by harshly alienating mostly liberal academic scientists and big city professionals who also lean left but who might otherwise be open to reason. I live two blocks from NASA GISS above Tom’s Diner, just above the extremely liberal Upper West Side and my main hassle in stating facts and showing official data plots is online extremism being pointed out by Al Gore’s activist crowd along with John Cook’s more sophisticated obfuscation crowd. Goddard’s regular conspiracy theory about CIA drug use to brainwash school kids into shooting incidents in order to disarm conservatives in preparation for concentration camps for conservatives is something skeptics should stop ignoring and start actively shunning. His blog is the crack house of skepticism.
Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you want to understand why Wolf called you "a scoundrel." Or admit it, since you are way beyond "bright." Did you simply repeat yourself thinking he might not bother repeating himself? I might know more than Wolf, however, having likely a longer history with you. It doesn't mean, though, that his evaluation is mine for "scoundrel" could be deeper than you deserve. You certainly remember when you were once called a "schism junky" on SLOP by the chief slopper.

--Brant

not calling you that either; I don't know what I'd call you if I cared to call you anything other than your name: I've not extended the necessary effort--nope, not quite true; I'd call you "Erudite"--it's why you use your erudtion for whatever that I'm not on about

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AGW debate is over. That is, it has evaporated from general public consciousness and is soon to be gone from media bother. The only question is how much damage will continue to be done through politicians revelling in alternate ("renewable") sources of energy and all the blather about "carbon footprint" doing "green" things. It's the antecedent foundation that is dissolving, the so-called "settled science" replaced by contrived "polls."

--Brant

what do you want--AGW or AGC (cooling)?--if it were possible for today's humans to move the needle one way or the other (either might trigger the next ice age [driving up the value of my Tucson real estate])

I admit I love CO2 (more vegetation and more animals)

Link to post
Share on other sites

20140626_biglie.jpg"As temperatures rise, toward the end of the century, less than an hour of activity outdoors in the shade could cause a moderately fit individual to suffer heat stroke," said climatologist Robert Kopp of Rutgers University, lead scientific author of the report... "It will be functionally impossible to be outside, including for things like construction work and farming, as well as recreation," said climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. [Reuters]



Kopp.jpgPrior to joining the Rutgers faculty, Bob Kopp was a GS-9 schlub in the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Climate Change Policy & Technology. Major focuses of his work at DOE included developing Politically Correct conjectures about climate change impacts that justified shutting down U.S. energy production and increasing the cost of electricity.


Oppenheimer-favorite-225-x338.jpgOppenheimer joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades as a paid propagandist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a non-governmental, environmental organization, where he served as Politically Correct manager of the Climate and Air Program. He continues to serve as a science advisor to EDF. Oppenheimer is a participant in the IPCC, serving as a lead author of the IPCC’s discredited Fourth Assessment Report and as a coordinating lead author of SREX, a hockey stick fantasy on imaginary future extreme climate disasters.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember The Club of Rome? None of their 1970 gloom and doom predictions were right. Not one.

See http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/on-why-the-club-of-rome-was-wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot even predict the weather accurately for one week never mind climate.

Chaotic dynamical systems cannot be predicted far out. In the best of circumstances weather can be predicted maybe 10 days out. Climate is weather averaged, so it is not as chaotic as weather. Warming and cooling trends over decades can be deliniated but not predicted. There is a cyclic rhythm in climate as can be seen over very long periods.

Please see

https://www.google.com/search?q=graphs+showing+climatic+cycles&newwindow=1&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1sasU7-BGIaGyATcj4LoAQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=715

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oppenheimer prediction in 1990: "[by] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... [by 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

20130916_090936_Colorado-flooding-South-

2013 flooding of South Platte River

Oppenheimer also served as an advisor to former Vice President Al Gore on his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” and he has consistently defended the accuracy’s of Gore’s film. “On balance, he did quite well, a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Oppenheimer said in 2007. “For that, he (Gore) deserves a lot of credit,” Oppenheimer added.

Oppenheimer’s political activities easily overwhelm his “scientific” advocacy. Oppenheimer actively campaigned against President George Bush in 2004 and, like NASA’s James Hansen, publicly endorsed Senator John Kerry for president. Oppenheimer was affiliated with the partisan group “Scientists and Engineers for Change” and the radical green group “Environment 2004” bankrolled in part by the Heinz Foundation where Teresa Heinz-Kerry serves as chairwoman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Wolf they are the laughing stock of the world. Having to plug numbers into a faulty computer program in an attempt to make the model match their "theory" is such an assault on science that they should all be removed from the field of science permanently. It is a bloody insult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks more like stock market charts!

We "predict" the climate -after- it has happened. The cyclic component is quite obvious, showing the climatic data, based on averaging is not chaotic. Weather data, alas, is. Sometime in the future our descendants will be freezing there asses off.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur on the increased likelyhood of global cooling. The weak solar cycle peak is an indicator.

This chart is revealing:

BN-DH361_pollEP_G_20140617171851.jpg

It is evidence of the popular acceptance of the feminised liberal secular political religion of catastrophic human caused global warming.

WorshippingCover1-620x356.jpg

"Only the god of government can save us through taxation regulation and litigation."

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.” (Anthony Watts)

dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?
- UN computer predictions subject of ridicule: not got it right for 18 years
- Across the globe, there are about 1m sq km more sea ice than 35 years ago
- Authorities are now guessing global temperatures based on nearby weather stations

By Andrew Mountford, Climate Change Author
5 July 2014
Mail Online

From the article:


We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.

But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.

As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…


Clearly this guy Mountford doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean if the UN reports say that man-made changes to the climate are melting the polar icecaps and they go in the opposite direction, it's merely because the public didn't understand the data.

:smile:

Don't believe me?

Listen to the wise words of our fearless leader:

We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.


There.

Does anyone need more proof than that?

Obama said it, so it must be true.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.” (Anthony Watts)

dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

If you're really gone, Wolf, I'm going to miss your ability to slap up a lot of data.

--Brant

sin loi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf:

Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty.

http://www.quotes.net/quote/49331

In balance, do you not believe that your voice is better served interacting here as elsewhere?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now