The UK Great GW Swindle didn’t do it… Now I love the story of the rainmaker who was called in, didn’t seem to do anything at all special, he was just present… and after a week, the rains started. I believe this is a true story – certainly it is true that aboriginal cultures have had respected rainmakers. All it needed for the rains to start was that integrity of presence.

IMHO, things like this blog are just like that rainmaker’s presence.

Couldn’t agree more. And the same could also be said for Anthony.

Thanks to everyone and a happy new year.

Spot on sir!!!
Tom.

The lie that has to be refuted is that man has control over the ways and means of Nature.

The IPCC propagandists began the hoax with an unproven thesis: That man-made CO2 is causing global warming, their only “proof” being a slyly crafted computer model. The only link the alarmists can provide, as “proof” of their thesis, is anecdotal and devoid of a physical link between man-made GHG and any influence on global warming/climate change.

Algore should show the physical evidence that links man-made GHG to any untoward changes in Nature.

~ charles the moderator
This issue has become more political and less scientific. It is difficult not to discuss the debate in political terms, especially in light of the “green” appointments to key environmental positions in the incoming administration.

~ ed the denier

Reply: Certainly some comments are relevant. If you examine the post on which I commented I think you would agree it likely went a bridge too far ~ charles the moderator.

Seven years and four years qualifies as weather. This is climate.

[ http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts6.jpg ]

I see how the yellow line shows the effect of the late positive PDO, it’s much like the 1910s-1930s positive PDO; but I don’t understand the other lines, especially the local minima at their starting points. The red line in particular, since that predates the period of anthropogenic global warming. Is that line supposed to show the continuing recovery since the Little Ice Age? I wonder why they ended that at a local maximum.

Okay, okay, I understand the hidden meaning behind the graph, but if you aren’t going to mention the flaws, I will.

Trying to count spots since the 1998 peak, the graph seems to end at 2006, so it’s missing the decline in 2007 and what will be a decline in 2008. While you will call that weather, let me remind you (and readers) once again that the last PDO flip (and all the rest in the IPCC graph) had measurable impact in just a few years.

“Seven years and four years”? Hmm, it’s tempting to use “four score and seven years” as a climatic interval. (Non-US readers – that’s from President Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address.) (See http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ for an infamous modernization.)

“Seven years and four years qualifies as weather. This is climate”

Implying that Roger A. Pielke Sr. does not understand the definitions of climate and weather demonstrates a great deal about John Philip’s lack of due diligence. For starters, please read Dr. Pielke’s recent overview referenced above.

(here it is again: http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf)

Some excerpts of that paper’s conclusion: “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of CO2. … The result of the more complex interference of humans in the climate system is that attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose. … ”

After perusing this as an introduction into a differentiated and scientific approach to climate science, you may want to study Pielke’s numerous cautious, well-balanced and extensively peer-reviewed contributions in http://www.climatesci.org.

My point is, if Roger Pielke concludes that the upper oceans’ average heat storage change conflicts with IPCC statements, he has carefully analyzed available data.

John Philip – once you’ve done some homework, let’s talk about climate and weather.

Happy New Year!

I keep wondering when this is going to occur to one of our faltering “MSM” news networks. The first one to grasp this is going to get ratings and notoriety and industry buzz and tons of viewers. All it will take is one prime-time expose’ of the AGW industry. Something like “60 minutes” cameras showing up at Hansen’s door or in Generation Investment Management offices, but it could be any of the networks.

That kind of news would be news itself. It would be greeted with howls of protest from all those who have been feeding at that trough, and would generate a huge spike in viewership as everyone tuned in to see what was going on.

I suspect that AGW will end with a whimper. But should some enterprising news director actively confront it, rightfully claiming that they had been duped all this time by massaged numbers and manipulated data, it could really change the fortunes of the first major news outlet to grab the story and run with it.

During this year he has taken up the cause of climate change, and he has brilliantly exposed the dangerous, wasteful and ridiculous scam that is AGW. On this last day of the year I would like to express my thanks to Christopher Booker for his work. I think the fact that a major UK national newspaper regularly publishes his analysis of this scam is a cause for hope.

Happy new year to you all!
Chris

By Jon Swaine. (He who reported 2009 will be hotter than 2005)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4044147/Global-warming-climate-deal-possible-under-Obama-presidency-says-Lord-Stern.html

Here’s the explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarvis_Cocker

“Lord Stern, who was being interviewed by the musician Jarvis Cocker, said that in recent months, governments had proved that when urgently called for, huge sums of public money could be devoted to tackling a crisis.”

Jarvis Cocker credits his upbringing almost exclusively in female company for his interest in how women think and what they have to say.

Extract.
Once onstage, Jarvis realised he didn’t really have a clue what he wanted to do. His form of protest appears to have been to lift the front of his shirt, and to follow this by displaying his betrousered bottom in Michael’s direction. A stageperson dressed as a monk and believed by many to be there in a security capacity attempted unsuccessfully to catch him. Video footage suggests that it was this individual who came into contact with others in the stage entourage. Marc Marot, the managing director of Island observes: “Jarvis does a little swerve, and the bouncer’s arm goes up and accidentally thumps a child in the face.” Jarvis returned to his seat. Michael didn’t notice any of this going on.
http://www.mlp.cz/space/opatrilp/Pulp/the_Brits_96.html

NOTHING CHANGED EH JARVIS?

Good grief. Both those sites are ridiculous. However, a study of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand explains, in part, why AGW has such a grasp on the minds of officials.

NZ, since becoming a Dominion in 1907, has always had socialist leanings. In 1935, the first Labour Government was elected and control of the population has been the predominant wish of succeeding governments. The Green party relishes its power and the population is complicit in its subjugation. It’s the NZ mindset.

BTW, I have lived there and I’ve since met hundreds of Kiwis here in the UK. Most are socialist greens with whom I have nothing in common. A pity really, as some were quite good looking women. But that’s another story.