I can hardly wait to see 2010 – ‘Elections’ – we shall see.

In other words… when hell freezes over!

“C) I don’t understand the evidence for AGW”

What evidence is that, then? Real, empirical evidence, that is, not abstract computer models…

It isn’t about science. It’s now about profits and taxes.

This whole thing is based on dollars, not science or anything that resembles science. There is a word that fits this bunch: Parasite.

REPLY: Al Gore’s famous polar bear drowning report came from a US Minerals Service report that spotted one dead polar bear at sea after a major winter storm in Alaska. Not surprising nor unique. Again a case where one data point gets amplified to many.- A

A) all a lie or.
B) AGW is a lie.

You for got

C) I don’t understand the evidence for AGW.

Ok, could somebody please answer my question thus:

theory states that more CO2 = warmer climate, ergo, stop putting CO2 into atmosphere, temperature will stabilize, planet saved from destruction.

Reality: CO2 constantly increasing uncontrolled. Temperature rises from mid ’70′s to 1998, then stops rising, ocean temperatures measured by Argus(Argos?) experiment, shocks scientists leading experiment because ocean temps trending downward, surface temperatures also trending downward, and satellite temperature measurements trending downward, and very recently, arctic ice is expanding after recent melting. Antarctic and Greenland ice thickening, however some glaciers still receding in some areas and growing in others.

Conclusion and my real intended question:

If CO2 causes global warming, then the ‘reality’ section above is

A) all a lie or.
B) AGW is a lie.

Any person with a logical brain can see that global temperature measurements show a downward trend all across the spectrum. If CO2 causes global warming, then none of those downward trends could possibly be correct. Temperature continues to drop, CO2 increase continues unabated.

Somebody has some explaining to do. How can those to points be reconciled?
Either the CO2 theory is wrong or the thermometers are wrong.

This isn’t so much about different theories, for or against AGW, as it is about logic.

All the ‘sky is falling AGW rhetoric is based on computer models, yet measurable data says the opposite of what the computer models predicted. Could it be that the formulas used to construct the models are maybe missing something kinda important? Or maybe they are plain wrong?

Trillions of dollars being spent with no clear understanding of how the climate really works. Call it hubris or arrogance of man to assume they really understand our planet and it’s complex systems. But for sure we can see how the politicos aren’t going to miss an opportunity to use this ‘crisis’ to fleece us of our money and garner more power over us for their own hidden agenda.

CO2 is a perfect instrument to achieve this goal… Its invisible, it is colourless, and it is a by-product of everything mankind currently does, be it industry, agriculture or transportation. We can no more stop producing it than we could stop breathing. How perfect a hammer to beat us over the head with.

But how inconvenient that Mother Earth refuses to play along and exposes the gigantic [snip] being perpetrated upon us. The perfect litmus test is thus:

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Who wins and who loses in this CO2/carbon trading scam? I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but this one is so blatantly obvious to anybody that is simply paying attention. Greed has more to do with this than science at this point, and the greedy will not let this go without a fight. They will cling to it until they perish from the impending cold that is ‘apparently’ descending upon us. If this was truly a legitimate scientific theory/reality, then the emerging science refuting the ‘consensus’ of all those esteemed climatologists, there wouldn’t be so much reluctance to modify and/or re-evaluate the conclusions thought to be necessary to save us from ourselves.

CO2 is not toxic, it is what gives life to this planet. Lets spend these trillions of dollars cleaning up the real threat of our existence.. real pollution and real toxins in our air, water and soil.

Well there are temperature series and there are temperature series. Some don’t show Siberian warming at all. And did Briffa match his data with temperature? That is a no no, too.
==========================

In fact, you won’t find much of HS in Briffa’s paper. All the graphs shown here are calculated by Steve, not Briffa.

Thank you for putting into words what I was thinking! I’m British, too, and I wince regularly when the BBC and Met.Office bang their AGW drum, although I still broadly support them on other matters. I quite liked Al Gore before he sold his soul, too…

So what do the instruments tell us the temperature was, and what do Briffa’s cherry-picked Yamal trees tell us the temperature was?

Answer, Briffa’s series shows a hockey stick that the thermometers don’t. Big problem.
===========================================

“Jennifer has her UK climate centres mixes up. The post implies that Briffa and my namesake work for the Met Office. They do not.

The CRU at the University of East Anglia and The Met Office’s Hadley Centre are two separate institutions. Maybe they should all quit, but that’s another matter.”

Will this be corrected?

As Dr Jones points out the two are geographically separate institions- by several hundred miles. The CRU figures to 1850 are developed in conjunction with Hadley, as it states on their web site.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

So there are two separate publicly funded institutions producing much the same nonsense, but each are independent, have paticular areas of research/analysis strengths and weaknesses, but have close links.

tonyb

I believe Jennifer Maharosy hit it on the head when she likened this to the Piltdown man hoax. It fit a consensus view that was unshakable for years. Thank the Brits at CRU for giving us a 21st century version that may be a trillion dollars more costly.”
—————————————-

Don’t blame the culprits based on their nationality. Blame them based only on their dishonesty!

I am British and I never bought into the obvious BS of the hockey stick. There are many people, who are not Brits, throughout the world who took the hockey stick and gave it much more prominence than it deserved. OOH the AMERICAN AL GORE Springs to mind!

However I would never dream of associating all Americans with the stigma that so rightly should be attached to Al Gore. I would never write “thank the Americans who happily used the hockey stick to promote massive global alarmism” It is NOT the nationality of these people that created their dishonesty.

Let us not take this to be an excuse for nation bashing. Neither Britain, nor America, can be held responsible for this [snip] individual culprits can!

Let’s have a little discernment, please!

But you say “because they disagree”. No-one has shown a difference in the time where proxies are needed – pre-instrumental. In fact, Steve’s graph shows no change at all there. The disagreement is post 1950 (mostly post 1976), but in that time we don’t need proxies to tell us the temperature.