Humor: U.N. Climate delegates unaware of ‘the pause’ in global warming

Craig Rucker of CFACT writes:

You’d be surprised at what they don’t know at the UN climate conference in Bonn.

Then again, maybe you wouldn’t.

Although the evidence keeps mounting up, most of the delegates in Bonn are unaware that there had been no warming for 16 years.

Watch CFACT’s latest video update from Bonn and see for yourself.

CFACT’s Mission Bonn is your eyes, ears and voice at the UN climate talks and at the ICLEI forum.

  • ICLEI wants to bring UN Agenda 21 to your town. 
  • The UN wants a binding climate treaty signed in Paris by 2015. 
  • The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.

We have much more to report on these crucial developments and the threat they pose to the United States and the free world.

source: http://cfact.org

 

About these ads

156 thoughts on “Humor: U.N. Climate delegates unaware of ‘the pause’ in global warming

  1. The UN is very aware there’s been no increase in global temperatures for 16 years. What makes anyone think they care? Since when have those pesky facts gotten in the way of what they want to believe?

  2. So are many climate scientists. Who track temperatures for a living. Perhaps there is a clue in this.

  3. Among those flat-out denying the facts, a South African delegate said “We’re not convinced that that is significant in terms of dissuading us from our current global goal”.

    This is what we’re dealing with, folks. Facts won’t be allowed to get in the way of the Agenda. It doesn’t have anything to do with trying to control temperatures across the globe, if it ever did. They just want your money and your subservience.

  4. Never let the truth get in the way of ‘we who know what is best for everyone’ controlling Gaia which, by the way, will not include anyone not agreeing with our phantasised view of Paradise.

  5. “The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.”
    ================
    Whoa…. Nelly, no need for statements like this.
    We are already watching.
    Every move.

  6. They have an agenda which depends on global warming, facts are of no concern to them!

  7. “It doesn’t have anything to do with trying to control temperatures across the globe, if it ever did. They just want your money and your subservience.”

    Putting it another way, they want your soul.

  8. @Gamecock

    I’m sure the good lord is manoeuvring himself into such a position as we speak.

  9. Excellent videoclip!!! & not surprising at all!!!

    You’d likely get the same response if you asked the same question on the college campus or subway platform.

    You’re one up on Jay Leno!!! Well done!!!

  10. 1min 17 sec – 1 min 25 sec “We are not convinced that is significant in dissuading us from our current global goal”.

    That is because the “current global goal” has nothing to do with climate.

  11. Ryan says:
    June 6, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    So are many climate scientists. Who track temperatures for a living. Perhaps there is a clue in this.
    You mean they are deniers? Interesting.

  12. Ryan says:
    June 6, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    “So are many climate scientists. Who track temperatures for a living. Perhaps there is a clue in this”

    Climate scientists who are unaware of the pause in Global Warming should just ask Phil Jones or Rajendra K. Pachauri about it. Both of them have commented on said pause, confirming it thereby.

    Ryan, do you think you can convince anyone with freely invented unsourced statements or do you want to show everyone that you have no clue?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

    You have probably never heard of Mr. Pachauri. He is the current head of the IPCC.

  13. Margaret Hardman says:
    June 6, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    @Manfred

    There is but it is verboten on this site.
    =================================
    “Alarmist” is not verboten.

  14. Tom

    I assume you understand the phrase “swatting Belgium” or do you deny it?

  15. I know I’m getting older, but who the hell thought a bunch of college kids were qualified to meet and make any recommendations (much less decisions) involving trillions of dollars. In the commercial world, you would almost never see people this age involved in such decisions; these kinds of folks might be allowed to sit and observe decisions made be people old enough to have seen a variety of mistakes and thus proceed with caution – aware of what they might wreck with their decisions.

  16. Where is Rick Mercer when you need him, eh?

    (psst, this is an in-joke with my fellow Canuckies.)

  17. Actually, the global-warming community is well aware of and seems to be panicking about the 16-year pause.

    The tone is more shrill than ever, and the push for action “before too late” is building. “Before too late” here actually means before a couple of more years of stagnating temperatures put an end to the industry of global warming.

  18. It was supposed to be “wilful” above, but the spell checker worked its magic before I noticed.

    [Or rather, "willfail ignorance"? Mod]

  19. Patrick:Karl marx thought he was right when he was 24. I was a socialist at that age. We were both wrong. He would probably be rovolving in his grave when he saw what communism did. I think the salient point of the video is that they were all quite young as you say and inexperienced. The good news is that they will age and probably admit 100% guilt LOL

  20. In reply to:
    UN climate change committee representatives appear to be ignorant of the fact that the planet has not warmed for 16 years.

    William: Heaven help us if we did not have ‘skeptic’ climate change blogs to force a discussion of the facts and the issues concerning climate ‘change’. Climate change is an excuse for environmental fascism. It is time that we quantified what it would take and the impact on our standard life to reduce world CO2 emissions by 20% to solve a non problem.

    In reply to:
    “The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.”

    William: Fortunately the US is a democracy as opposed to dictatorship. If Obama tries to circumvent the checks and balances in the US constitution he will be impeached.

    Climate ‘change’ will be a very interesting issue for the 2016 presidential election for the following reasons:
    1) It appears there will be unequivocal significant cooling by 2016 due to the current solar magnetic cycle change. Cooling is a game changer. If there is cooling all bets are off. It is difficult to imagine what the public and media reaction would be cooling. Let’s assume there is still a lack of warming which means there is no warming climate crisis. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change by increasing or decreasing planetary cloud cover in the tropics.
    2) The reality of what it would take to actually cap world carbon emissions and then reduce world carbon emissions to say 30% is starting to be discussed seriously. There are recently published books from blue ribbon warmist academics that state soft green energy program is a scam (The food to biofuel scam is singled out. That scam will lead to a food shortage and a war for food if it is continued.) The newly published books and an award winning film by a Greenpeace activist, which will be released next week, asserts that Wind farms, photovoltaic, and biofuels cannot possibly replace ‘fossil’ fuel. (The energy required verses engineering issues that have not been discussed and economic (cost) reality of soft energy is not reconcilable.) If there truly is a climate crisis (see point 1 above) the only solution is a massive move to nuclear energy, population controls, and energy rationing.
    3) Developing world countries (China, India, Indonesia, and so on.) are requesting a massive yearly transfer of Western GDP as a condition for signing a binding agreement to cap CO2 emissions. Western countries do not have sufficient funds to support their current entitlement programs. The carbon caps would cause a worldwide depression and an astonishing reduction in standard of life in Western countries.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/videos/environmentalists-go-pro-nuclear-in-pandoras-promise-trailer-20130430

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/06/04/pandoras-promise-the-triumph-of-hope-over-fear-in-nuclear-power/

    http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/green-paradox

    The Green Paradox – A supply side approach to global warming by Hans Werner Simn, published 2012. (Translated from German)
    Hans-Werner Sinn is Professor of Economics and Public Finance at the University of Munich and President of the CESIfo Group. Author of Can Germany Be Saved? The Malaise of the World’s First Welfare State (MIT Press) and other books, he is former president of the International Institute of Public Finance, and former chairman of the German Economic Association.
    “… to a large extent, these people (William: population increase from 630 million industrial revolution to 7,000 million current) owe their very existence to the exploitation of fossil fuel since the Industrial Revolution, and they can’t be assumed to go away by wishful thinking simple because we now want to close the fossil fuel carbon channel.”
    “… The development path described above (William: consequences of the food to biofuel scam) described above is a horrific vision, and one hopes it is not a realistic … … This would pose a problem not only for those who would starve but also for those who would have to defend themselves against starving nations fighting for survival. If we decide to let this market mechanism work, and tolerate the replacement of fossil fuels with biofuel …. … hundreds of millions of people will be affected and they will not merely take to the streets in peaceful protest. They will wage war.”
    “…of course the problem of global warming is still there but that problem is secondary to the horrors of starvation in the developing world and the horror of a world war for food.”
    “Chapter 2 listed the technology options available to mankind in the form of “green” replacement technology. There are not many options alas. Wind power and photovoltaic devices, unfortunately aren’t serious alternative to fossil power. (William: Author provides facts and analysis to support that assertion. As noted above wind power and photovoltaic devices are viable if we reduce are standard life and reduce world population.) “
    “… nuclear fission will work someday, which would be a blessing for the poor and those who otherwise would have to suffer from global warming. At present, however, mankind has no other options to choose policies that would limit biofuel production, resource-intensive growth, and population growth.”

  21. There is dreadful ignornace of current and the past climate pauses. Even among those who are aware of the current pause of 16 years , some say that the models have included some pause of a decade or decade and a half. Yet i wonder if they are aware that in the period of about 140 years from 1870 -2010 there was no net warming for 90 of those years . There was no warming from 1870-1925 and again no warming 1945-1980. So if you are prjecting climate 100 years ahead you better recognize that these pauses could last much longer than what they have built into thei models

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3.pdf

  22. At times I entertain myself by listening to these clueless lemmings from NGO’s and environmental bureaucrats on Youtube recordings from various UN meetings and environmental meetings.
    And it’s fascinating. Recently I heard one green party activist wanted a “carbon free world” which is hilarious. And of course nobody in the audience reacted, which says something.
    These people must be stopped!

  23. A couple of people have referred to “lemmings” in context with those little rodents who allegedly commit mass suicide periodically. This is a myth created by Walt Disney Productions about 50 years ago. It just goes to show that everyone is subject to catering to the myth, as are the CAGWers.

  24. If models were horses, there would be a winner.
    Instead, we get, the woulda/coulda/shoulda excuse.
    That, is a game I understand.
    Insert politics, the game changes.
    The stakes go thru the roof.

  25. Bob says:

    June 6, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Sometimes it is hard to tell the embedded videos from the ads.
    ================
    That is Google reinforcing your latest searches, not minding that you might change your search criteria.
    Play time !!

  26. Apparently it doesn’t take much to become a U.N. Climate Delegate. You don’t even have to read an occasional newspaper to qualify.

    Let’s sign Kenji up!
    Woof!

  27. Margaret Hardman says:
    June 6, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    “There is but it is verboten on this site.”
    ————————————————–

    Sadly this is the case. But some sceptics actually love the use of terms such as –
    “D—-r”
    “Delayer”
    “Contrarian”
    “Big oil shill”
    “Part of a well funded d——-t machine”

    The fellow travellers in the AGW inanity have dragged a trail of “climate Science” behind them that would fertilise the Sinai desert. A few hundred thousand sceptics know the names and details, but soon billions with Internet access will want to know who was responsible.

    The prior use of the language of vilification makes those Web-O-Matic searches Oh-So-Easy!

    The “Climate Science” is about to impact the air circulation device. For the fellow travellers in the AGW hoax, the resulting shower is going to be neither short nor sharp. It is going to be heavy, sustained and remarkably adhesive.

  28. Last evening’s TV news had the UN’s Christiana Figueres waving her finger at us Kiwis that we were not being good boys and girls:

    The best response would be to wave a finger back at her.

  29. One of your posters reported that Bonn delegates were exhorting the meeting to “act now before its too late!” Reminds me of attending a rugby match where a vocal hawker was flogging baseball caps so spectators could avoid being blinded by the setting sun. Finally as the inevitable sunset approached he changed his pitch to “buy now before its too late!” Typical Aussie humour appreciated by the crowd. Cheers from Sydney.

  30. Look, folks, there are TRILLIONS of dollars out there on the trail to be wrested from producers, and beautiful control over just about anything humans want to do that consumes energy, and glorious bureaucracies to command and control and live the good life while working or running. These vermin will never stop trying to take from you to better their own interests. That’s the black and white picture.

  31. Manfred says: Is there a term for ignorant lemmings?
    Yes, it’s “ignorant lemmings.”

    @ Ryan: You have probably never heard of Mr. Pachauri. He is the current head of the IPCC.
    So he claims 20 to 30 years of no warming for it to be significant? Where do these guys get their degrees? I am incredulous!

    @William Astley: Fortunately the US is a democracy as opposed to dictatorship. If Obama tries to circumvent the checks and balances in the US constitution he will be impeached.
    Unfortunately he has already circumvented the constitution many times and everyone is afraid to even say “impeachment.” It’s a PC thing and we loose more freedoms everyday.

  32. Although the evidence keeps mounting up, most of the delegates in Bonn are unaware that there had been no warming for 16 years.

    With the May anomaly now in, RSS shows a slope of -0.000286453 per year for 16 years and 6 months since December 1996.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

    P.S. Does anyone know why HadCRUT3 for April is not up yet?

    At this point, HadCRUT3 shows 16 years and 1 month of no warming, but that only goes to March.

  33. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 6, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    16 years of no warming depends on starting the 16 year period with a century-class El Nino.

    True, the 16 years includes the El Nino, but the following La Nina cancels it out so we also have 13 years of no warming. So since the El Nino and La Nina over the 3 year period cancel out, why should it not be fair to include both?

    See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.08/to:2014/trend

  34. Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, or in the USA now it is Smart Growth.

    Just Google it as it is not a conspiracy theory, it has been in the works for decades.

    – ” ICLEI wants to bring UN Agenda 21 to your town” .

    -“The UN wants a binding climate treaty signed in Paris by 2015. ”

    Your answers are here >

    http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400&menu=35

    “The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.”

    here:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

    Never forget what the POTUS said, and has implemented to the fullest degree possible without congressional approval, through the EPA as just one example.

    We must remember that CO2 controls are the tool they need to make it happen.

    The low information voter has us where we are.

    Is anyone really happy about it?

  35. My first thought was that about the guy working at UEA on his masters – IMHO it was someone just like him 4 years ago who saw the bull going on in CRU and created what we know as Climategate.

    Whoever you are, thank you for changing the discourse!

    Steve Garcia

  36. It pains me to see that the only one in the video who actually stated that it ‘wasn’t true’, was from my own country, Australia. Most of the others just expressed plain surprise and ignorance. In other words, the Australian delegate is the most wrong of all of them, and perhaps reveals she likely receives the most spin doctored, local propaganda.

    This, perhaps reflects the current deep level of corruption and distortion within Australian science and the Australian intellectual community in general. For whatever reasons, a significant part of the Australian intellectual establishment has gone over to propaganda, plain lies, and can no longer tell what is true, from what isn’t. You also see this in the appalling state of the current government, in terms of finances, policy-particularly environmental policy, common sense, or just about anything else.

    I don’t know why this is the case, that Australia seems to be particularly out of touch with common sense and reality, but it shows that being a wealthy country doesn’t necessarily translate to having good environmental understanding and policy, and possibly not a good feel on science in general, due in large part perhaps to the many self-serving careerists who establish themselves within the scientific and intellectual community.

    Perhaps another reason is that technically, and in part culturally, Australia is still a British colony. If a mediocre calibre, public service-minded Brit wants to establish his/her career in Australia, there is amply opportunity to do so. In some ways, Australia tends to get the leftovers and lower quality intellectuals and bureaucrats that can’t get ahead in the UK. The same wealth that creates a lucky country also creates a bloated bureaucracy, compounded by the fact that this same bureaucracy is still technically an arm of the British empire. So one gets a lot of serf-serving public service officials and academics who want to be part of a lucrative, laid back lifestyle in a lucky country, spinning their own self delusions, and immersing themselves in a privileged, laid back, taxpayer funded lifestyle, where they can pat each other on the back on their moral righteousness and moral superiority.

    This public service mentality of course happens everywhere, but I suspect that it’s a bit more prevalent in Australia, because of the fact that we are still partly mired in British colonialism. And so the delegate at the conference says she has “heard” that the fact that temperatures haven’t warmed for 16 years “isn’t true”, is just likely just repeating some well-doctored local propaganda from another self-serving career bureaucrat, which unfortunately is all too common in Australia at the moment.

  37. Not sure why the word “Humor:” is in the title. I watched the clip and it really didn’t make me laugh.

  38. The posts of the last few days give me hope that reason will triumph.

    Richard P. Feynman had it right many years ago.

    Yes, ‘Climate’ is a theory.

    Yes, ‘Climate Change’ is a theory.

    Yes, ‘Global Warming’ is a theory.

    Yes, ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is a theory.

    Yes, ‘Carbon Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is a Theory.

    In the fall of 1978 I asked a Mathematician what is the easiest way to disprove a theorem (theory).

    He told me then; paraphrase, ‘find the ‘counter example.’

    In the course of a few hours we are now reading many of the ‘counter examples.’

    However, keep in mind that the IPCC as the UN are NOT a scientific organization !

    Never the less I posit.

    The IPCC is the ‘Bismarck’, the UN is the German High Command, and WE are the Hood, Prince of Wales followed by Manchester, Birmingham, and Arethusa then Rodney, Revenge, Ramillies, King George V and Victorious.

    Oh ! What a Grand Chase and sinking is at hand !

    :D

  39. William Astley says:
    June 6, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    In reply to:
    “The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.”

    William: Fortunately the US is a democracy as opposed to dictatorship. If Obama tries to circumvent the checks and balances in the US constitution he will be impeached.
    ++++++++
    William –I appreciate your positive notion regarding the US. However, Obama has already circumvented checks and balances many times… and I have yet to see him impeached. Our country is in a downward spiral due to non critical thinking sheeple.

    However, I do not want anyone to get the idea that I don’t love my country. I still get emotional when I hear and sing the national anthem… and it annoys me to no end when young people or some older one refuse to or do not know better to remove their hates, put their right hand over their heart and face the flag when it’s sung. To think what our previous generations fought for, and how it’s come to this is torture to me –and probably many others here on WUWT.

  40. “I know I’m getting older, but who the hell thought a bunch of college kids were qualified to meet and make any recommendations (much less decisions) involving trillions of dollars. In the commercial world, you would almost never see people this age involved in such decisions; these kinds of folks might be allowed to sit and observe decisions made be people old enough to have seen a variety of mistakes and thus proceed with caution – aware of what they might wreck with their decisions.”

    Think about the Russian revolution and Mao’s use of kids in his culture revolution, red brigade or something like that? Young men will gladly kill anybody if you program them correctly?

  41. Thingodonta says: “Perhaps another reason is that technically, and in part culturally, Australia is still a British colony.” I cannot deny that Australia is to a very large extent, culturally British, though of course that does not make us a cultural British Colony. Rather, both the UK and Australia derive our cultures from the past, and these have diverged from a common heritage. So we have ‘sister’ or ‘cousin’ British cultures. Very acceptable.

    “Technically?” No way. Australia has been an independent nation since Jan 1 1901, though there were some links to the UK which were finally removed in 1988, when Elizabeth II was proclaimed Queen of Australia. She is the only remaining link but this does not in any way, technically or otherwise, make us a “British colony”. We have both our own Head of State, the Governor-General, and a Queen, Elizabeth II, so we are doing pretty well, in spite of the current Government, which we are all hoping will disappear into the history books on September 14 as a prime example of what not to do, how not to run a government. And back on track, when Parliament meets after the electoral process is completed, the repeal of the various Carbon Tax Acts should begin.

  42. “To think what our previous generations fought for, and how it’s come to this is torture to me –and probably many others here on WUWT.” [Mario]

    Me, too.

  43. There are many aspects and one of them is to use climate and the environment to make a sort of culture revolution in the Western world?

  44. William Astley says:
    June 6, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    “…
    If Obama tries to circumvent the checks and balances in the US constitution he will be impeached.
    …”

    “…”tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d. ”
    [With apologies to Shakespeare.]

  45. “in spite of the current Government, which we are all hoping will disappear into the history books on September 14 as a prime example of what not to do, how not to run a government.”

    Though I have no doubt that the successor will provide an equally instructive, if somewhat different, example of the same thing.

  46. Jon: You raise an interesting dynamic

    It’s really sad that AGW convoluted the outcomes of so many conversations or ideas concerning real environment concerns. The AGW meme is used to get people to panic into allowing government to kill energy to save the environment, the climate and our children. All while delivering things that make all of the aforementioned problems worse! The EPA flat out lies about CO2 being pollution. There is so much duplicty that nothing good has come of the AGW movement.

    I have NO problem with reasonable controls to benefit the environment. However, try to have a cogent discussion with people in environmental arenas and you find dumb-ass mal informed minions. I lose any interest in dealing with ANYONE who starts a discussion about the environment when they bring in carbon emissions, global warming and climate change.

    On nuclear sites, when people want to promote nuclear because it reduces greenhouse gases I chime in and call foul! Nuclear can stand on its own merits without the AGW meme.

    The point is, that just like Obama has done with race relations in our country (and you know what I mean), AGW divides people –preventing any hope of real progress with good reasonable outcomes.

  47. @ Master_Of_Puppets
    “The IPCC is the ‘Bismarck’, the UN is the German High Command, and WE are the Hood, Prince of Wales followed by Manchester, Birmingham, and Arethusa then Rodney, Revenge, Ramillies, King George V and Victorious.”

    I’d rather not be the Hood, if you don’t mind.

  48. In New Zealand the left wing state broadcasting company (TVNZ) doesn’t hesitate to broadcast ‘Green Party’ and UN propaganda.
    They will (While having problems with spelling, grammar and the truth and lacking even the most basic research skills) broadcast any rubbish spouted by left wing organisations to advance their causes.

    Here Christiana Figueres of the UN tells New Zealand to sign up to sign up to a binding greenhouse gas emissions target.
    Climate change is set to cause more extreme weather events in future and the UN is warning New Zealand will not be immune.
    “If climate action is not accelerated you know that New Zealand faces threats from extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought that effects [sc] agriculture.”

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/un-presses-nz-set-emissions-reduction-target-5457587

    (Article and video)

  49. Charles Gerard Nelson (June 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm) says:
    This is a bit like walking round the General Synod of the Church of England asking the clerics if they’ve heard the news that God doesn’t actually exist!

    Except the 16 year pause in warming is actually provable using the alarmist’s own data. It is not just an opinion on a conjecture that is unprovable and outside the realm of Science.

  50. I hope the woman from Australia was put right when she said she had ‘heard that they were wrong’ Unless she is acknowledging that the Met Office are wrong ?

  51. If you ever needed proof that these people have been living in their own reality bubble then this is it!

  52. Not surprised at UEA since after all their best known and respected department is creative writing with a record of success in al areas.

  53. Ph.D. Guy says:
    June 6, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    “Useful idiots” – Lenin

    “Some people never know” – McCartney.

  54. David Cage says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:27 am

    sorry about the typo. Oh for an edit function.
    ——————————————————————————————————
    Edith funcktions arr oferratet.

  55. Quick question for commenters here: point out one global temperature dataset that has not shown warming over the past 16 years.

    While there arguably hasn’t been statistically significant warming over the last 16 years, depending on the data set and error model you use, thats not the same as saying there has been no warming over that period.

  56. The thing that stands out to me is that they are all kids, of the still wet behind the ears variety.

    Aren’t there any grown up supervising these jamborees?

  57. Thanks for the set-up line, Zeke. The globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
    ============

  58. And these are the guys who decide how 10% of your national budget is spent. And before you shrug and say that is of little concern – that is your tax money. You could have an extra 10% in your pocket, if it were not for these loons.

    .

  59. In reply again to:
    “UN climate change committee representatives appear to be ignorant of the fact that the planet has not warmed for 16 years.”
    “The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.”

    William:
    Climate change is an excuse for environmental fascism. Fascism is irrational, hateful, controlling. Fascism leads to war.

    A democracy will not accept draconian rationing of energy. The elites have been hiding the fact that there will be consequences to true world carbon dioxide limiting policies. There will be a massive loss of jobs and a significant reduction in standard of life. There will need to be world population control to avoid starvation. There will need to be a world military to force compliance. See my above comment for details concerning the implications of true world CO2 limiting policies.

    The Chinese have noted that the ‘war’ on climate change will lead to a physical war. The developing world will not accept energy limitations.

    The current mandated food to biofuel program will lead to food wars. To provide 100% of our fuel from biofuel would require a 100% (300% of EU agricultural land as EU farming practices are less efficient, EU calculation) of the current agricultural land be used to produce biofuel. The food to biofuel mandated policy is insanity. There is almost no net reduction in CO2 from the program if unbiased analysis is used that includes all energy inputs. As people still need to eat, the food to biofuel program is resulting in massive loss of virgin forests to grow food to convert to biofuel. Modern advance agriculture unavoidably emits NO2 as part of nitrogen fertilization. NO2 is 300 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. There is therefore almost no net reduction in AGW to convert food to biofuel. The food to biofuel program, will significantly increase the cost of food, will result in food shortages, and will result in increase malnutrition and starvation. If the food to biofuel program is not stopped there will be food wars.

    Ecofascism is irrational, hateful, controlling. The facts about climate change are being suppressed and the analysis manipulated to push ab anti development, anti people eco philosophy.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

    Fascism:
    1. a governmental system led by a dictator (William: or led by the UN, an elitist bureaucracy that wants to have the power to control all democratic countries through regulations or led by an elitist leader who circumvents the checks and balances of a democracy) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism (William: Ecofacism is anti people rather than anti one particular race. They hate people and capitalism.)
    2. the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism
    3. a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43 (William: Propaganda, suppression of discussion/science, aggressively pushing an agenda that is irrational, hateful, circumventing of the democratic process)

    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” – Professor Maurice King
    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

  60. kim says:
    June 7, 2013 at 1:14 am
    ———————————-
    Don’t panic. Sumner will be resumed as soon as possible citizens. 2040. At the latest.

    Warmists? 30 years in the iso cubes! Judge dread is the Law.

  61. Zeke Hausfather says:

    “Quick question for commenters here: point out one global temperature dataset that has not shown warming over the past 16 years.”

    =======================================================

    RSS satellite data [among other data sets] shows no warming trend.

  62. [snip . . why do you post in this forum? You know it won't get through moderation as it is abusive, rude, content free and embedded with words you know are specifically not allowed on this site. Why, if you have anything of value and substance to add, don't you do so within the parameters of this site? . . mod]

  63. You do all realise that the Met Office is Britishs and forecasts the weather for THE UK ONLY?
    [snip. — another mod.]

  64. Patrick B says:
    June 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    From an article in today’s ‘Advertiser’ newspaper (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/dan-spencer-lets-power-ahead-with-solar-options/story-e6freabc-1226658923174):

    “Among under-35s, 52 percent of people support carbon pricing and only 25 percent oppose it. This is a remarkably relilient majority support for a plicy that has been consistently denigrated since it was introduced.
    Sadly, the level of support is not reflected in people over 55, where only 39 precent support carbon pricing, with 56 percent opposed.”
    These results young people are looking further into the future on these issues.

    The writer is making some broad assumptions as to the knowledge and understanding of the issue by young people. From the video interviews we often see on this and other sites, young people are merely unthinking, non-analytical sheeple rather than deep-thinking futurists.

    As for older people being against CAGW, perhaps this is because we lived through all of the other disaster scenarios that have been touted and we are still here, working against the current ‘the sky is falling’ mass hysteria.

  65. With all due respect to Americans who probably should know better than I, you need to know this about impeachment:

    Nixon was not impeached. Nixon resigned in order to avoid being impeached.

    Clinton was impeached. And continued on, because it made no difference to him or his followers.

    0bama could be impeached until the cows come home. Democrats don’t leave when their welcome is worn out. It takes a sense of responsibility and desire to do the right thing to make someone vacate office when they are caught breaking the rules.

    It has been my experience that most people believe Nixon was impeached, and they are genuinely surprised when I show them that Clinton was impeached.

  66. RoHa says:
    June 6, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    “in spite of the current Government, which we are all hoping will disappear into the history books on September 14 as a prime example of what not to do, how not to run a government.”

    “Though I have no doubt that the successor will provide an equally instructive, if somewhat different, example of the same thing.”

    Exactly. He is a Rhodes Scholar after all, (we seem to have no shortage of them in Australia), which means he is equally well-versed in the Agenda 21 objectives. We cannot vote our way out of this dilemma.

  67. John Trigge: ‘… young people are merely unthinking, non-analytical sheeple rather than deep-thinking futurists’

    Really? But if they had supported your way of ‘thinking’ they’d be deep-thinking, analytical new young minds wouldn’t they.

    ‘… older people being against CAGW, perhaps this is because we lived through all of the other disaster scenarios that have been touted and we are still here, working against the current ‘the sky is falling’ mass hysteria.’

    What makes you think older people are against real science evidence? Don’t assume just because a few old, rich men deny it’s happening that we are all like this. I was aware of climate change before the scientists started investigating, and probably before any of you were out of nappies [diapers for the Amurkans here] and I haven’t changed my mind since everything serves to reinforce it. What other ‘disaster scenarios’ do you mean? If it’s the ‘coming ice age’ one which was a creation of the tabloid hacks you otherwise turn to for your ‘evidence’ this is a bit thick, but then you are. As for the equally preposterous ‘sky is falling mass hysteria’ you really do need a reality check, you seem to be wallowing in delusion. You may have lived through more years than those youngsters, but you failed to learn anything, still pig ignorant.

    [Reply: this is one of your less objectionable screeds. Your name-calling gets obnoxious when used incessantly. Stop it, or you will be snipped. Stick to scientific facts and evidence, and your comments will be posted. — mod.]

  68. I vote to have “oneworldnet” placed firmly and permanently in the troll bin for his consistently abusive language. We’ve seen it before. His type have such hatred for the truth, and for truth-tellers. Rational discussion of any sort is impossible with them.

  69. [snip . . why do you post in this form? [sic] You know it won’t get through moderation as it is abusive, rude, content free and embedded with words you know are specifically not allowed on this site [because others find them difficult to understand]. Why, if you have anything of value and substance to add, don’t you do so within the parameters of this site? . . mod]

    [snip. Morew vicious, gratuitous name-calling. Get help. — mod.]

  70. [Snip. I can do this all day. As stated above, post scientific facts and evidence — without scurrilous name-calling — and your comments will be approved. — mod.]

  71. [Snip. Read the site Policy: labeling others here as "deniers" violates Policy. An exception will not be made in your case. — mod.]

  72. Master_Of_Puppets says:
    ‘Richard P. Feynman had it right many years ago.’

    Got to be desperate quoting someone born in 1918 who died in 1988. And a theoretical physicist at that! What did he know about evidence, data gathering or ocean tempoeratures? Nothing. He spent his life ‘imagining’ the cosmos. Boy, you just can’t find any real live climate scientists who say the things you want to hear! Shame innit.

  73. oneworldnet says:
    “ I was aware of climate change before the scientists started investigating” and ”you really do need a reality check, you seem to be wallowing in delusion”

    Since the first calculations of human-induced climate change was circa 1896, that would make you either at least 117 years old (and then you’d have had to been aware as a newborn) or it is you that is wallowing in delusion and in serious need of a reality check, or perhaps it was in a former life that you became aware, or maybe you’re a time traveler.

    (Too many options to choose. /sarc)

  74. oneworldnet: the true face of “warmists”. Facts are meaningless. Attempting to insult people who really don’t care one way or another what he types.

    I say leave him… his hostility and loopy logic is a good example of what’s wrong with alarmists everywhere.

    Oh yeah, oneworldnet, there are rules on this site. They’re pretty simple. All you have to do is follow them and you can insult and correct us all day long.

  75. oneworldnet: “banned words and ‘parapeters’ for the site”

    “you just can’t hyandle it”

    “I have hatred only for liars who consistently refuse to learn from people more able and intelligent and educated than they.”

    Still mulling this one over ….

  76. oneworldnet: The British Met (Climate and Meteorology) Office confirmed that the data in The Daily Mail was from the Met and was correct.

    If you have a problem with that data, take it up with the Met.

  77. Oneworld, you are delusional, and possibly a danger to yourself and others. Get help.

  78. The question, sadly left unanswered by the interviewers, is whether the complete unawareness about climate data and/or the inability to read it is
    a) a requirement, or
    b) incidental
    to being a climate delegate in Bonn.

  79. Well, I did get a good laugh out of the comments of oneworldnet. The disconnect with reality is amazing. S/he complains about woodfortrees when all it does is graph official data accessible to anyone with half a brain. If s/he was so smart s/he would graph the data itself and prove to everyone that woodfortrees is wrong. Of course, that will never happen. Now back to the real world where measured temperatures continue to fall. The latest RSS for May just came in at .139.

    http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

  80. Keith nails it.
    (It doesn’t have anything to do with trying to control temperatures across the globe, if it ever did. They just want your money and your subservience.)

  81. Richard M says:
    June 7, 2013 at 5:51 am

    Well, I did get a good laugh out of the comments of oneworldnet. The disconnect with reality is amazing. S/he complains about woodfortrees when all it does is graph official data accessible to anyone with half a brain.

    I was going to point out that WTF was both a science site and a treasure, but concluded oneworldnet may have actually been praising WFT. Near as I can tell (I didn’t look very far), he’s so consumed with rage he will strike out at anything within reach.

  82. oneworldnet: “the Mail, a scurrilous right-wing rag”

    By showing the British people at large the correct Met data, David Rose managed in the course of a few months to:

    – have the UK policy on wind farms changed entirely
    – have the Climate Change government advisors reduced from 36 to 6, and pushed back to arm’s length

    – have the UK decarbonizing target dropped, two days ago.

    – have the fellow who wrote

    “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

    One of the early signs of madness is an indulgence in compulsive displacement activity, which could not be a better description of the whole COP process.”

    and on the Climate Change Report

    “Criminologists have observed that the victims of confidence tricksters are often willing—indeed, eager—to believe the story to which they fall victim

    The more absurd, fantastic or fabulous the story, the more willing they are to believe it.

    The report is an example of a confidence trick that has been willingly absorbed by the Government and members of the Committee.

    It contains .. a fairy tale in which one wants to believe:

    it has a faraway country, mysterious powers that we attribute to ourselves, and pots of gold—green gold—at the end of the rainbow.”

    fellow whose name is Peter Lilley, become the Prime Minister’s advisor on foreign policy.
    In particular setting the UK position in such climate meetings.
    Present at every cabinet meeting.

    There are few journalists who have achieved more in shorter time.

    Confess it, oneworldnet, you are simply envious of him…

    The only question is, who will be the David Rose of the US?

  83. These young delegates at this conference are just staffers hired to fill these departments for the govt. It is no big task to find young adults with whatever degree- biology or whatever to accept this type of position. I worked for an environmental group for a while after my college degree.

    The question is: why are the govts all lined up at these conferences? It is not that hard to poke a hole in the man-made global warming theory, and it will hurt big business.

    So the question is: what is in it for the govts?

    The answer is: steady inventment returns from green investing.

    http://www.unpri.org/signatories/signatories/

    All modern govts promise their civil service employees very generous retirement plans. The govts rarely fire ppl, so the job is secure until retirement. If someone retires at age 62, and lives to 82, the wage and health care covg is more costly in retirement than in the employed phase.

    This only works one of two ways. One: deficit spending. Two: take a portion of earnings and invest it as it is “earned,” hope the investment grows, then use those returns on invetment to fund these costly retirements.

    So, govts have billions and are looking for markets to yield the greatest return.

    Along comes the U.N. It tell govts: hey, sign on to this global warming idea, AND invest on the ground floor in green technologies, and your pension obligations will be covered – if and only if this happens: we get enough countries to sign on, then we are all in this together, and we institute a continuing private expense in which we govts can invest. In other words, we force private business to live a certain way, including making them incur expenses, and we invest in those expenses.

    Would you rather tax your companies, or develop “green” standards fo rthem to follow? Same diff, but which sounds better on the campaign trail? Do you see where I am going with this?”

    And so the countries have hurried to line up and commit to the AGW belief, and have been shepherded to green investments by Al Gore and other green investment fund managers (“Generation Investment Management, LLP” is Gore’s “large investor” investment mgmt firm).

    The rest is just follow-through. Such as forming some department of sustainability or whatever, hiring some true believers and some college kids, and attending these dog-and-pony shows.

  84. William Astley says:
    June 6, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    “If Obama tries to circumvent the checks and balances in the US constitution he will be impeached.”

    =================================================================

    As long as Obama is black, he won’t be impeached.

  85. This is the one behind all those Carbon Policies, wind turbine building, solar panel subsidies, tax collecting and public brain washing (unfortunately / fortunately not all succumb) on behalf of the EU & associated (cant get enough of your cash to waste) sub organisations

  86. Moderators, thank you for letting us see some of oneworldnet’s comments: his abusive stupidity condemns himself and reminds us all how hate-filled some of the alarmists really are.

    [Reply: there were far worse comments, but they have been deleted. Maybe they should have been left posted, for readers to judge. — mod.]

  87. If these fascists fail to stop on polite logic and science, what’s the next move? Last time people didn’t wake up to the danger of clowns like this until after Poland was half gone.

  88. ba says:
    June 7, 2013 at 7:59 am
    “If these fascists fail to stop on polite logic and science, what’s the next move? Last time people didn’t wake up to the danger of clowns like this until after Poland was half gone.”

    When your world leaders are FDR, Hitler and Stalin, where do you go for sanity?
    Socialism was simply en vogue.

  89. oneworldnet says:
    June 7, 2013 at 4:57 am
    “William Astley: ‘From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud’ – so another denier site that makes it all up. Checked any sources?? No thought not. You appear to be virulently anti-ecology, never forgiven the hippies and greens for being right all along?”

    You want a source? Comme plaisir.
    1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
    Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

    See, of course also The Club Of Rome
    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    – Club of Rome,

    CO2AGW was a made to measure pseudoscience for the CoR’s purposes; QED.

  90. This is not a matter of what is scientifically or empirically correct, or even of what they *beleive* is correct. This is a matter of what is the most effective way to keep the sheep afraid and compliant so the wolves may retain and increase their power.

  91. Anthony…..

    Would you please bind up all of oneworldnet’s posts into a thread and label it the Friday Funny.

    ROFLMAO

  92. When I do a linear regression on the NOAA Global record from 1997/03 through 2013/03, I get a small warming trend of +0.04 C per decade which is not significant. If I cherry pick a starting point of 1999/03 to include the La Nina without the preceding El Nino, that increases the trend to +0,07 C per decade. The problem with the no warming for 16 years claim is that to the average person looking at the chart, it appears to be false. And the other side will accuse us of cherry picking by showing that starting a year earlier or a year later increases the warming trend making it look like the 16 year claim is the result of cherry picking. It’s not but most folks won’t understand that. Try to explain statistical significance to most folks.

    If we start the regression in 2001/01, we see a negative trend. In fact, any starting point from 2001/01 thru 2006/12 yields a negative trend. After that the trend bounces between positive and negative because it is such a short span.

    Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.

  93. oneworldnet says:
    June 7, 2013 at 4:48 am

    “Woodforthetrees.org, now that’s a science site isn’t it?”

    ==================================

    As a matter of fact, it is. WFT is a science site that is accepted and used by both sides of the debate. Sorry you don’t like the facts it produces.

  94. cbrtxus says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:16 am
    Try to explain statistical significance to most folks. …..
    Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.

    If you do not want to explain statistical significance and if you want to prove the models wrong, then you have to go with the 16+ years and not 12.

    NOAA says:
    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

  95. Jim says:
    June 6, 2013 at 4:15 pm
    Where is Rick Mercer when you need him, eh?
    ——————————————————————————————–
    I think Rick Mercer is very funny. However, he blieves in CAGW. He even did a commercial for a former Government on their “Green Plan” and on signing Kyoto. If he were to actually attacj CAGW it would be hilarious.

  96. THE JUICY BITS
    from the agenda of the previous CLIMATE CONFERENCE
    AKA the session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 18)
    To be solved in Bonn. Or not.

    This is stuff which one wishes one could make up.
    But frankly one cannot.

    ABSTRACT: The crucial part moves from COP4 to COP18

    QUOTE:
    Parties may recall that at COP 4, it “proved impossible to reach any agreed conclusions or decisions” on this matter The item was therefore included in the provisional agenda for the fifth session of the COP in accordance with rules 10(c) and 16 of the draft rules of procedure being applied. The COP, at its fifth session, could not reach a conclusion on this matter and following rules 10(c) and 16, the item was included in the provisional agenda for the sixth up to, and including, the twelfth sessions of the COP with a footnote reflecting a proposal made by the Group of 77 and China to amend the item to read “Review of the adequacy of implementation of Article 4 of the Convention”. On a proposal by the President, and on the basis of the recommendation made by the SBI, it was decided at COP 14 to defer consideration of this item to COP 16. The COP, at its sixteenth session, based on a proposal by the President, deferred its consideration of this item, pursuant to rule 13 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, to COP 17. This item was held in abeyance at COP 17 and in accordance with rule 16 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, it will be considered at COP 18.

  97. To cbrtxus:

    You wrote: “Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.”

    No. You may not know of the fact that the U.S.A.’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) in 2008 writing that:

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    Thus, ANY 16-year (or over 15-year) period of no warming in a recognized global
    data set falsifies the current crop of climate models (see also Dr. Spencer’s post
    in both its incarnations). That’s what the 16-year admission by the Met re: HADCRUT4
    is very significant.

  98. The warmist goals including payoffs to developing countries and a reduction in the political and economic power of the developed world. They were never really focused on climate change. Climate change is only a front for their real agenda.

  99. I’m going to guess that @oneworldnet is also known as ‘ZedsDeadBed’, this person posts on climate articles on the dailymail website with much the same tone. Also tends to call people names etc much the same @oneworldnet, he is as much as a joke on there as well.

  100. HarveyS,

    The complete lack of global warming is obviously driving the climate alarmist crowd nuts, as ‘oneworldnet’ makes clear in his comments.

    Alarmists are nothing if not anti-science. As a skeptic, I am ready and willing to change my mind — if the real world demonstrates a verifiable connection between rising CO2 and rising global temperature.

    But so far, there is no such connection. Changes in CO2 appear to have nothing to do with changes in global temperature. There appears to be no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature, except for the fact that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. However, there is no evidence for the reversed situation.

    I invite ‘oneworldnet’ to produce any evidence that he believes might supports his case. This is the place to do it. But I suspect that ‘oneworldnet’ will instead tuck tail and run, emitting a cloud of pixel-ink invective in his wake like a squid evading a dangerous predator.

  101. Apropos Ignorant Lemmings…

    C.S. Lewis on the worst kind of tyranny:
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

  102. That video is alarming. How do you get to be studying climate at Masters level, but not have the faintest idea as to whether temperatures are rising or not. Do they only study climate models and never compare those models with reality ?

  103. @Day by Day –
    I am with you as to the difficulty of getting rid of der Fuehrer by electoral processes. I am coming to believe that armed force will be needed to stop his assault on liberty and prosperity. Look for him to declare himself president for life, a la Hugo Chavez, and then hand the economy over to his crony capitalist buddies, in classic socialist kleptocrat fashion. He and his thug enemy sympathizer satraps will never concede the point on climate change regardless of the evidence, and I don’t think Congress, with a few lone-wolf exceptions like James Inhofe or Darrell Issa, fully recorgnizes the scam that AGW is, nor does Congress have the cojones to stop him.

  104. Adrian O says:
    June 7, 2013 at 10:36 am
    “This is stuff which one wishes one could make up.
    But frankly one cannot.

    ABSTRACT: The crucial part moves from COP4 to COP18

    QUOTE:
    Parties may recall that at COP 4,”

    ROTFLMAO. Sounds like an Icelandic saga.

  105. cbrtxus says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:16 am
    “Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.”

    Doesn’t matter.The American Liberal and the European ecopax reject logic and reason anyway. their reasoning is that thousands of years of logic and reason have not brought about world peace and total equality, so logic and reason must be to blame.

    From time to time some of them start using their brains, violating their core belief, and instantly turn into conservatives or libertarians, or kill themselves as they can’t stand the blinding light of reason.

  106. If you are still stuck on things like “science” and “reason” and “logic” then you don’t understand. It was NEVER about them; it was ALWAYS about money and power at any cost (to you).

    Endeavor to persevere!

    http://wn.com/chief_dan_george_the_outlaw_josey_wales

    (By the way, it was President Andy Jackson, Democrat, who ordered the Trail of Tears. The Cherokee sued and the US Supreme Court said Jackson’s order was unconstitutional. Jackson did it anyway. It was different at the beginning of WWII. President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all the Japanese rounded and put into concentration camps. This time, the Supreme Court, having learned their lesson, said it was cool. There is only a little sarcasm in the forgoing, but the facts are true.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

    Endeavor to persevere!

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  107. Since when did CAGW have anything to do with temperature? Climate is the smoke that is the smokescreen for the larger agenda. The people hiding behind the smokescreen don’t care what the smoke is , just that it exists..

  108. Mario Lento said: “However, try to have a cogent discussion with people in environmental arenas and you find d@&$^#^@ mal informed minions.”

    Whoa, whoa, I thought that term was verboten. I think the preferred way to say it is “ignorant lemmings”.

  109. I would not expect to see people at a homeopath conference, say ‘its just water you shake’
    So why should these UN delegates, who are living off fat of the tax payer, want to say or hear ideas that undermine their professional careers and for some their deeply held ideological beliefs.

  110. Our former prime minister Kevin Rudd said “we have to do something now before it’s to late”. Translation:- we have to get the carbon tax in before global temperatures begin to decrease.

  111. The question which I want ‘warmists’ to answer is this:
    If a ‘warmer’ world is to be avoided at all costs (literally) – when was it that the climate was perfect..?

  112. Downdraft says: June 7, 2013 at 11:32 am: “The warmist goals including payoffs to developing countries and a reduction in the political and economic power of the developed world. They were never really focused on climate change. Climate change is only a front for their real agenda.”

    Yes. This is a major, telling part of the story. If climate science is such an advanced field, how is it that, on cue, we all of a sudden have confident climate disaster statements coming out of Tuvalu, The Maldives, and other such remote, modest locales?

    Hundreds of nations happen to, on cue, have climate science experts?

    Maybe. Let’s see their degrees and publication records.
    There is an alternative explanation: These international socialists have gone to each and every country, small and large, and have carried out a campaign to get eveyone on board. They have gone to the small countries, as Downdraft says, and have unfolded their story of environmental collapse. At the same time, they invite these countries to the global conferences, which I am sure make quite an impression.

    The prospect for making money is offered. By various schemes, your small country will receive supplements from the large industrial countries . Development loans, and so on.

    And there will need to be boards and agencies and departments and so on for following all of this, and administering all of this, and into diplomacy, and scholarships, etc.

    Who staffs all of those endeavors? The Board of Nepotism is in charge of finding cousins and neighbors to staff this foreign govt-funded endeavor.

    Somewhere in all of the mix, I would bet, the govt officials somehow find a fair chunk of change in their own pocket. Accounting-wise, this is not hard to do.

    What would be cool would be to have someone who has seen this develop in the recent 15 years for some small country tell the story of how the intl community showed up in whatever small country, did their sales pitch, got some bureaucracy jobs set up, and so bought yet another “signatory.”

  113. Not only UN delegates, but most people.

    I happened to catch the last 15 minutes of the BBC radio program “Any questions” this morning. One of the panelists was James Delingpole, and the question put to him was his own statement previously published – Are global warming supporters engaging in anti-science eco nonsense.

    When Delingpole explained that there had been no warming for 16 years he was met with a chorus of derision from the audience – you know, the sort of derision a politician would get if they were to conjure up statistics spuriously showing how marvelous their polices were working.

    Even more sinister, at the end of the program, when the moderator invited him to make a final summary, he was shouted down by a few vociferous hecklers in the audience. This is the unacceptable face of the green movement – those who try and beat down any opinions contrary to their own – No better than thugs and fascists.

  114. John West says June 7, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Malinformed minions vs. “ignorant lemmings”.

    Malinformed minions is better as someone being referred to as a lemming could point out that belief in legendary lemming suicidal herding activities is rather malinformed.

    Love it; getting into the Snopes cite (literally: the cited reference) it actually says:

    … Cyclical explosions in population do occasionally induce lemmings to attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density.

    When such a migration occurs, some lemmings die by falling over cliffs or drowning in lakes or rivers.

    These deaths are not deliberate “suicide” attempts, however, but accidental deaths resulting from the lemmings’ venturing into unfamiliar territories and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges.

    In fact, when the competition for food, space, or mates becomes too intense, lemmings are much more likely to kill each other than to kill themselves.

    Well … okay then. They didn’t actually mean to ‘harm’ anybody (or themselves) by running ‘heels over head’ in hordes with some eventually running (being ‘pushed’?) over cliffs and/or into rivers (and presumably drowning) … but they did nonetheless, and that is the ‘take away’ I got from that referenced Snopes piece … not to mention that last part looks even a little more da mn ing, until they starting running ‘in their madness’ in those ‘large groups’ near and over cliffs and into rivers that is …

    As to using the quote ‘ignorant Lemmings': “WIn-win” and as applicable as ever I say. Reminds me of Charles Mackay’s work “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. Perhaps those crowds are more than just ignorant? Deluded and willfully misled in most cases it would seem (and not speaking of Lemmings, per se, now).

    .

  115. If there’s been no warming over the last 16 years, why were global average surface temperatures higher in the last decade than in the decade before? Why has ocean heat content continued to increase over the last 16 years?

  116. Rob Nicholls says June 8, 2013 at 3:04 pm:

    If there’s been no warming over the last 16 years, why were global average surface temperatures higher in the last decade than in the decade before? Why has ocean heat content continued to increase over the last 16 years?

    Hmmm … why were global average surface temperatures higher in the last decade is a good question. It does assume, however, they were higher. Is that actually correct, or a result of adjustments and the like? What is your basis for making this claim?

    BTW, how was “ocean heat content” measured to have increased?

    .

  117. Jim;
    You mean the guy who gathered congratulations from Americans on Canada’s completion of the Parliamentary Igloo? That Rick Mercer?

  118. cbrtxus says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:16 am
    “Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.”

    The way I put it is that there temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years and there’s been no statistically significant warming for 16 (which is what Phil Jones said).

  119. Rob Nicholls says:
    June 8, 2013 at 3:04 pm

    If there’s been no warming over the last 16 years, why were global average surface temperatures higher in the last decade than in the decade before?

    Because the decade before goes back 20 years, when there WAS warming.

    Why has ocean heat content continued to increase over the last 16 years?

    Here’s the answer, from another thread:

    JFD says:
    June 8, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    jai Mitchell – Go to the Reference Pages, click and scroll down to Ocean, click and scroll down to Ocean Page. Study the very first chart which demonstrates that the surface temperature has flattened and declined since about 2002. Please explain how heat entered the ocean without raising the surface temperature. Also please explain how the surface temperature decreased if heat was entering. Also please explain what physical mechanism happened in 1997 to allow heat to start entering the ocean without warming the atmosphere and continue to current day.

  120. The only mechanism that bypasses the atmosphere and warms the ocean is shortwave radiation from the sun.

Comments are closed.