Wednesday, 11 September 2013

The 1970s called. They want their global cooling scam back.

Ahead of the UN’s climate jobsworths writing up the summary of their fifth report on the state of the climate’s planet, and desperate to find some plausible climate disasters on the horizon they can make quotable enough to go around the world’s media, the planet itself is resolutely refusing to cooperate.

London’s Daily Telegraph reports the Arctic is refusing to give up its ice, as predicted. Instead of decreasing,

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. In a rebound from 2012′s record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

And the planet’s temperatures still infuriatingly refuse to rise, despite models predicting them to rise disastrously. Instead,

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.  If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming…
    Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "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.”

… “leaked report” … “a period of cooling” … “contradicts computer forecasts” ... “no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped” … crisis anyone?

The changing predictions have led to the UN’s climate change’s body holding a crisis meeting, and the the IPCC is due to report on the situation in October. A pre-summit meeting will be held later this month.

The jobsworths will need to employ weapons grade spin if they’re to keep this warming scam going.

34 comments:

  1. Libertarian cherry picks the studies that support his ideological certainty that AGW is NOT allowed to exist. Three year old puts fingers in ears and goes lalalalalalalala!. Anyone spot a difference?

    ReplyDelete
  2. the drunken watchman11 Sep 2013, 22:20:00

    Judge Holden

    Can you please just save me the trouble of cherry-picking, and instead just link me to a temperature graph showing global warming since 1998? I presume this will be a simple thing for you to do? or if not, then can you please explain why not?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You cherry picked 1998 just to prove my point didn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 07:46:00

    Judge Holden

    well, if I am trying to establish whether the denier claims that warming stopped in 1998 are correct or not, then 1998 would be the starting point that I am interested in. I would have thought. If the deniers claimed that warming stopped in 1988, then I would want to see graphs starting from 1988. I supose you can use the word cherry picking to describe any starting date.

    The graphs I have seen seen to show a levelling off of global temps around that time, so I wondered if you had a graph which shows that this is not the case. You said that 'Libertarian' cherry picks studies - so I thought instead of me looking around (cherry picking, as you call it), you could link me to a study (a graph preferably) which shows the deniers' claims that warming stopped in 1998 are false?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. Completely understandable how stinker has such a great knowledge of what three year olds think and do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 09:16:00

    Judge Holden

    perhaps this is a better idea -

    can you please link me to a temperature graph which shows that global warming is happening?

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here go chief.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    Plenty more where that came from. This is where twr does a swear and threatens to beat people up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 18:33:00

    Judge Holden

    thanks, I am interested in these. Yes, on the face of this, there seems to be a clear trend. I will do some looking into how they are prepared, and get back to you.

    Also, I tried to find atmospheric temperature graph on the website, but couldn't.

    Are you familiar with how to find these? If you can link me without too much inconvenience, I would be very grateful.

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  9. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 19:26:00

    Judge Holden

    really interested in these graphs you have linked me to

    i can see the warming trend, but (on the face of it)can you see any acceleration in the warming trend since mid last century?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yawn. You're right, obviously the whole thing's a wild communist hoax perpetuated by the UN, commie scientists and the laws of physics because you can't see an obvious acceleration in the clear warming trend. I'm completely on board now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 20:01:00

    Judge Holden

    Sorry, I didnt mean to bore you.

    It's just that I cannot (although I am obviously far from an expert) see (on the face of it) any acceleration in the warming trend to correlate with the increase in CO2, and I wondered if you could (you didnt say whether you could or not)

    For example, you could have said "Sure, I can see it, I am surprised you cannot"

    I didn't mean to offend you, and I certainly did not want to trigger a sarcastic outburst.

    ReplyDelete
  12. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 20:09:00

    Judge Holden

    would you mind answering my question?

    can you see the acceleration in the warming trend?

    Simple Yes or No would suffice.

    No more attacks, if you dont mind. too much of that stuff on this blog already.If you cannot answer in a civil manner, then dont bother.

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's irrelevant. You asked for a graph showing a warming trend. Several were provided for you. You then shifted the goalposts and are now intimating (without stating it outright) that an obvious and relentless acceleration of the trend is a precondition for accepting AGW and the basic laws of physics as realities. It's not. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  14. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 21:07:00

    No. I accepted the (apparent) warmning trend. I didn't mean to "shift any goal posts", and I am sorry if I gave you that impression.

    I am trying to be as open as I can, and I am not intimating anything. My understanding was that AGW theory purports a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.

    In view of this, I was simply trying to progress the discussion (after having accepted the warming trend)by wondering if any acceleration in warming could be seen to correlate with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Having asked if you could also see it, it then ceases to be irrelevant (I would have though).

    However, if you cannot see any increase in teh rate of warming, or if you just do not want to answer that question (if you can see any acceleration in warming), then of course you do not have to. You do not owe it to me.

    Thanks for linking me to the original graphs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 21:14:00

    Judge Holden

    oh, by the way, I notice you didnt answer my question about a link to atmospheric temperatures, rather than surface temperatures.

    No sweat if you have lost interest, but if you could , it would be really appreciated.

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  16. the drunken watchman12 Sep 2013, 22:57:00

    Judge Holden

    just looking back on your comments...

    do you mean it is irrelevant whether or not there is any acceleration in global warming (in correlation with an acceleration in CO2 concentration), or what do you mean exactly?

    Maybe I got this all wrong, but I thought this acceleration was central to the AGW argument, rather than irrelevenat?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  17. You got that all wrong. Look, I know that you need to walk away from reality because it's incompatible with your philosophy, and you're doing your best here, by cherry-picking, misrepresenting and evading. However, you're really just sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalala.

    ReplyDelete
  18. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 07:43:00

    Judge Holden

    was your reply above to the same post?

    I was asking you whether you could see an acceleration in the warming trend in the graphs you linked me to ...

    you seem to be talking about something else? I didn't say lalalalalaa? did you get your posts mixed up?

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stinker prefers to lie and shout abuse rather than engage in a rational discussion. Don't bother, he's not interested.

    ReplyDelete
  20. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 09:03:00

    twr

    No, I am happy to give him a chance. I think he got my post mixed up with something else.

    I have asked him a coiuple of simple questions, I will give him a fair chance to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 09:11:00

    Judge Holden

    when you say I got it all wrong, do you mean that an accelerating warming trend in global warming in tandem with increased CO2 is NOT central to the AGM argument?

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  22. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 09:39:00

    or give HER a chance, sorry :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Judge Holdem balls,

    The GISS has been found to have manipulated that data.

    "In 2007 Steve McIntyre had discovered that GISS had been ‘adjusting’ its temperature record to suit the global warming case. The satellite data tended to show significantly less global warming than weather stations.
    See McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit, 16 September 2008, http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/16/bbc-climate-wars/

    Found in "The BBC and climate Change:A Triple Betrayal by Christopher Booker

    ReplyDelete
  24. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 11:01:00

    gregster

    can you see any trend of acceleration in warming in the GISS graphs (manipulated or otherwise)?

    although Judge Holden says it is irrelevant, i am interested if anyone else can see it

    ReplyDelete
  25. Take any reference point you like what it means the global warming computer models are all wrong. Much like Chairman Mao's crop yield predictions.


    ReplyDelete
  26. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 14:10:00

    but seriously....

    why manipulate data if, while you are about it, you don't pop in an acceleration in the warming trend to coincide with the acceleration in CO2

    Doesn't make sense.

    (unless sosmeone can point out such an acceleration to me? Judge Holden, help me out here)

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are four main questions to address for the AGW issue:
    - Is it warming?
    - If yes, is it man made?
    - If yes, is it a problem?
    - If yes, is the problem worse than any of the proposed solutions

    The AGW crowd say yes to all of these, but there are serious doubts about the proof they provide for each one, and if any of the answers is no then they are dead in the water. That's why they are so aggressive about it - because they just need one no to any of four questions to lose their argument completely.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Watchman

    Not much of a trend, let alone an accelerating one - it varies within 1 degree in over one hundred years.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Once more into lala land.

    "why manipulate data if, while you are about it, you don't pop in an acceleration in the warming trend to coincide with the acceleration in CO2..."

    Must be because the corrupt commie scientists are also retarded.

    Good to see you all in lock step though. Do you guys ever ask yourselves why all obectivists are global warming deniers and the rest of the population are either stupid, dupes or con-artists? Do you think it's because you're the only rational an principled people on earth? Isn't it more likely that it's necessary to ignore reality in order to maintain the faith? I mean the standard of evidence you require to supposedly demonstrate the virtues of extreme free market capitalism is remarkably thin in comparison. This is why normal people think you're all weird.

    ReplyDelete
  30. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 20:28:00

    Judge Holden

    You have got it the wrong way around. Somone else claimed the data was manipulated. I was suggesting that the data was not manipulated. My hypothesis was, that if NASA is going to manipulate data, they would surely be more successful at it

    meantime, did you get around to finding me a link to the atmospheric temperature data? I cannot find one. At least, I cannot find one that supports the AGW theory.

    ReplyDelete
  31. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 20:35:00

    Judge Holden

    I hadnt really read your whole post, because it seems it is not addressed to me (I am not an 'objectivist', whatever that is.)

    But on reading it, I see you refer to "evidence". You and I are on teh same side here - we both like evidence, it seems. So can you link me to the atmospheric temp data please?

    Also, the graphs you already linked me to do not appear to provide evidence that supports the AGW theory of runaway temperatures. Can you please link me to some evidence?

    Also, I am not sure what is going on with you, but do you mind if we just keep the discussion on the evidence? As I say, I am not an 'objectivist', so I don't think I am entitled to be a target in some sort of feud?

    Thanks

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  32. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 20:38:00

    PC

    I don't suppose Judge Holden is a shill, is he?

    Is he you? drumming up some comments for your blog?

    he is saying some very weird things

    ReplyDelete
  33. You asked for a temperature graph which showed GW (you subsequently made up the bit about runaway temperatures). You were provided with several. Then, you first shifted the goalposts, demanding a graph showing an accelerating trend, and then started asking for completely different sets of data which you clearly and erroneously think demonstrate that said global warming isn't happening. So go and find them. I'm not your research assistant.

    And you practically live here, so why are you being so dishonest as to claim you don't know what an Objectivist is? Makes me question your integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  34. the drunken watchman13 Sep 2013, 21:35:00

    Judge Holden

    no, i do not know what an 'objectivist' is. Seeing as I do not know what it is, I cannot say whether I am one or not. But I do not think you should say I am dishonest. Nor do I think you should say I 'made stuff up', unless you can give me an example (evidence :)

    yes, I asked for a graph showing global warming. This you provided, and I agreed that a warmig trend could be seen.

    However I did not realise that the subject was then closed. If it is indeed closed, that is your choice. But for me, the matter is far from closed - I am looking for evidence that accelerating AGW is happening, and I just cannot find any.

    I am sorry if you felt I was trying to take advantage of you - it is just that as I said, i cannot find the graphs for myself, although I am sure they must exist somewhere, given your assurance that they do.

    Anyway, thanks for you help in pointing me to the NASA graphs, at least that is a start.

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.