Desperate times in climate alarmism

Computer models, scare stories and ad hominem rants underscore the alarmists’ desperation

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Al Gore is in full attack model, employing his ridiculous “Climate Reality Project” to “Draw the Line on Denial,” even as he laid off 90% of the staff at his “Alliance for Climate Protection.” Greenpeace has joined the fray, launching a “Dealing in Doubt” campaign that blames ExxonMobil for funding the “global warming denial machine.”

ClimateProgress.org blogger Joe Romm faithfully echoes “Goreacle” and Greenpeace hysterics and blame-casting. To serve his partisan propaganda, he completely ignores the reality that the climate cataclysm cabal outspends the “deniers” by at least $1,000 to $1; ExxonMobil hasn’t supported skeptic groups for years; and the real Big Oil money has gone to extreme green groups.

Chesapeake Energy alone gave $25 million to the Sierra Club, to advance the radical organization’s anti-coal campaign. That one grant is ten times more money than the Heartland Institute received from all fossil fuel energy companies in its entire 29-year history, notes Heartland president Joseph Bast.

Meanwhile, President Obama continues to blame CO2-driven climate warming for tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and droughts that are at the same level as, or lower than, they have been for many decades. His State Department is orchestrating climate treaties with island nations that contribute perhaps 0.1% of global carbon dioxide emissions – knowing the treaties could obligate the United States to severe and costly CO2 emission reductions that will drive up energy costs and strangle job creation and economic growth.

His Environmental Protection Agency is already killing jobs and growth. And newly proposed rules would require that all new coal-fired power plants slash carbon dioxide emissions to 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour, some 700 pounds below what advanced modern units do today. The only way to do that is with expensive experimental technology that captures CO2 – and then figure out where to bury it.

Not to be outdone, some in Congress still want “carbon taxes” that the Energy Information Administration says will slash the average American family’s income by some $1,500 per year, on top of the $2,200 per year that the Washington Post says they’ve lost in buying power since 2008.

To help promote this agenda, a Canadian producer has recruited arch-environmentalist David Suzuki, “coal trains of death” climate catastrophist James Hansen, and former Haida Nation Council President Miles Richardson, to present “the wisdom of our elders” on “the global climate crisis.” Her film’s title, “Wakan Tanka,” means “great spirit” or “great mystery” in Lakota, the language of Dakota (Sioux) Indians. Further fanning the flames, a ClimateWire story absurdly claims that “a warming climate has allowed blood-borne tropical diseases to flourish where once they were unheard of” – in European countries where malaria was endemic for centuries and was not wiped out until the early 1970s.

A more accurate description of all this Climate Armageddon storm and fury would be another Lakota phrase, tatonka chesli, meaning “big bull excrement.” Indeed, Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, has said claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change are “complete crap.”

Mr. Abbot intends to scrap his country’s carbon dioxide cap-tax-and-trade law. EU industry leaders worry that Europe’s climate change and “green” energy policies are threatening “a systemic industrial massacre,” as soaring electricity and natural gas prices make companies less and less competitive in international markets. They want those policies changed and hydraulic fracturing to move forward. China, India and other major CO2 emitters absolutely refuse to set binding targets for reducing those emissions.

The real climate change deniers

We “skeptics” and “deniers” have never questioned the reality of climate change. We know global warming, global cooling and climate change are “real,” and have been throughout Earth’s history. What we deny are assertions that human CO2 emissions have replaced the complex solar, planetary and cosmic forces that caused previous changes, and that what we are experiencing now is unprecedented and likely to be catastrophic. What we insist on is solid evidence that alarmist claims have merit.

We believe in the scientific method. Hypotheses, assertions, models and scary scenarios must be supported by actual evidence, data and observations – before we acquiesce to demands that we hogtie our energy system, economy, jobs and living standards. Up to now they have presented no such evidence.

The Real Climate Change Deniers are the alarmists who deny that natural forces still dominate weather and climate events, and refuse to acknowledge that thousands of scientists do not agree with IPCC proclamations and prescriptions.

31,500 American scientists have signed the Oregon Petition dismissing fears of “catastrophic” global warming and climate disruption; over 1,000 international scientists dissent from manmade global warming claims. Claims of a “97% consensus” with the IPCC are pure baloney.

No wonder climate alarmists are so angry, desperate and vicious. Now they have two more reasons.

Two new scientific reports obliterate the supposed justification and urgency for economically devastating anti-fossil fuel policies. One is by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); the other, incredibly, was written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself.

The new NIPCC reportClimate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science – makes a compelling case that the IPCC hypotheses, models and scares have no basis in reality. The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically debunks IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change – and that its computer models can be relied on as a credible basis for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios.

The NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is illuminating and easy to understand; its 14 pages should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science.

The report makes it clear that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). Moreover, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or high temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.

The NIPCC also destroys the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and can forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and rely on simplistic configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignore them), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

This is GIGO at its worst: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out.

The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models “should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.” And yet, the deficient models are being used: to justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy, and people’s lives.

Countries are spending countless billions of dollars annually on faulty to fraudulent IPCC climate models and studies that purport to link every adverse event or problem to manmade climate change; subsidized renewable energy programs that displace food crops and kill wildlife; adaptation and mitigation measures against future disasters that exist only in “scenarios” generated by the IPCC’s GIGO computer models; and welfare, food stamp and energy assistance programs for the newly unemployed and impoverished. Equally bad, they are losing tens of billions in royalty, tax and other revenue that they would receive if they were not blocking oil, gas and coal development and use – and destroying manufacturing jobs that depend on cheap, reliable energy, so that companies can compete in international marketplaces.

The latest IPCC report will be released soon. However, Ross McKitrick and other analysts have already reviewed and debunked a leaked semi-final draft. That draft reveals that even the IPCC has had to acknowledge problems with its models, temperature forecasts and predictions of planetary disaster. As McKitrick observes in a hard-hitting Financial Post article, “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.”

The graph dramatically shows that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! This is hardly surprising, considering how defective the models are, and how heavily they depend on the notion that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming.

clip_image002

Notes McKitrick, chair of graduate studies at the University of Guelph (Ontario) Department of Economics: “What is commonly dismissed as the ‘skeptical’ or ‘denier’ view coincides with real-world observations.” That is the key point.

We IPCC skeptics want evidence and observations to back up the hypotheses and predictions. Instead, when the observations don’t conform to the predictions, the IPCC ignores the data and trumpets the models, assertions and scary disaster scenarios.

Indeed, says McKitrick, the IPCC is in “full denial mode.” Despite its own graph screaming the opposite, the IPCC continues to insist that it has “very high confidence” that its models correctly represent the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on global surface temperature trends; that it is “extremely likely” that “more than half” of the increase in global average surface temperatures between 1951 and 2010 were due to human influences; and that the planet will “continue” to warm catastrophically unless drastic actions are taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Put another way, considering the 17-year pause in global temperature increases, the abject failure of the models, and the lower confidence levels expressed about other findings in the full IPCC report, increasing the confidence levels attributed to the models and human influences is “incomprehensible,” says Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The UN IPCC claims are patently ridiculous. It is commonly acknowledged that fully half of planetary warming during the twentieth century came during the first half, 1900-1950, which includes the 1930s and Dust Bowl years, when so many high temperature records were set, and before atmospheric carbon dioxide levels really began to climb. The period 1951-2010 includes not just two warming periods, but also the period when average global temperatures were falling, and scientists were “almost unanimous” that the cooling trend would reduce agricultural output for the rest of the century.

Moreover, the planet can hardly “continue” to warm catastrophically if there has been no warming at all for 17 years, following a decade of cooling and a mere twenty years of mild warming.

It gets even worse. Confronted with all this truly disastrous news on the eve of their upcoming global warming summit, IPCC politicians, bureaucrats and eco-activists are trying to figure out how to cover up the bad news. Germany wants all references to the absence of warming deleted from the IPCC report. Whereas 20 years of mild warming were enough to demand immediate drastic action to avoid a climate cataclysm, now the Germans say 17 years of no warming is “too short” and thus “misleading.”

Hungary doesn’t want the IPCC to give “deniers” more ammunition. Belgium wants the “world’s most authoritative climate body” to manipulate the data and graphs, by using a different starting year that cleverly creates a more noticeable upward temperature trend. The Obama Administration wants the IPCC to explain away the absence of warming, by saying the mysteriously missing atmospheric heat was somehow absorbed by the upper 1.2 miles of oceans waters, which have not actually warmed, according to ARGO project data, or perhaps somehow in the really deep ocean, where we have no data.

In other words, if the models and evidence disagree, the evidence must be wrong. The IPCC is infallible.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

About these ads

126 thoughts on “Desperate times in climate alarmism

  1. Don’t forget how close Al Gore got to becoming president of the US. It is a scary thought, but now I have to live through Obama and his war on jobs via defective energy policy. The major cause of climate change is all the hot air coming out of Washington and the UN. I know these guys are very concerned which is why they fly all over the world in jets to attend conferences about how to reduce CO2.

  2. “Slimate scientists?” (It was a typo on Facebook which I liked…) “It’s your future. I see.. a cab ride…

  3. Climate models and weather models can not predict future weather past one week. After one week small errors multiply into to big ones.
    They Call me a denier or skeptic buy I am a realist.

  4. If Gore & his Romm didn’t act like that then it would be so abnormal that the moon might spin out of orbit to crash in the sun; thus destroying the lunar calendar and reduce some major tidal effects and wipe out honeymooning and drive werewolves to extinction etc etc

    John

  5. For me, Americans need to get over the defensive posture that when we talk about “man” driving global warming, it’s not necessarily them we are taking about. The developing world is choosing the cheapest energy source, coal, while removing their primary carbon sponge, trees, via massive deforestation practices. America’s carbon footprint is now at 1994 levels. Can more be done? Absolutely, but increasing our tree growing regions carbon sucking prowess, via the big carbon sucking trees that will now grow in western Oregon , Washington and part of British Columbia: Coastal Redwood and Giant Sequoia. Oh, this isn’t technology… who cares, it’s cheap, it’s trendy, there, and it works. Oregon, Washington and Alaskan trees consume more carbon, annually, then is produced by the entire US economy. It’s in our interest to do more. Or we will die point our fingers at others.

  6. Anthony – I hit the Donate button and it looks like Paypal have blocked it.
    Now… I’m not a conspiracy theorist…

  7. “Greenpeace has joined the fray, launching a ‘Dealing in Doubt” campaign that blames ExxonMobil for funding the ‘global warming denial machine.'”

    Dear ExxonMobil: I’m an unpaid member of the “global warming denial machine”. Please fling megabucks.

    Thanks you.

    Sincerely,

    Bob Tisdale

  8. We up in Canada realized what he is. Ask questions thay goes against what stands for and he gets very upset.

  9. Unfortunately, the end of climate alarmism is not yet on the cards. It is getting closer, but we should always remember the real science of sceptics is being outspent by at least 1,000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment.

    It took the equally failed philosophy of communism many years to die. Like climate science, it was designed to impoverish the people for the sake of the creature comforts of its leaders.

  10. Good to see the alarmists are so desperate. Typos, however: “Al Gore is in full attack mode” not Model (though his models are off, too) and Tony’s last name has to T’s as in “Abbott.” Thanks.

  11. An important facet of this is the so-called Arab Spring:
    The AGW hypesters have blamed the instability of the Middle East in part (at least) on their claims of climate change. The reality, sadly and tragically is different. The policies of the AGW hypesters and profiteers in diverting significant amounts of grain crops into fuel production has created a tighter, mosre expensive market in important food grains. This means that areas subject to droughts, like the Middle East,have to spend more money than they should in dealing with the droughts that naturally occur in the region. This yields higher food prices that pressure the poor.
    So in a way climate change has contributed to the middle east crisis. Only it is the failed, badly thought out, expensive policies of the climate obsessed that have caused this, not some drought indistinguishable from the other droughts that have ocurred throughout the history of the region.

  12. Al Gore got how many millions when he sold his cartoon network to “Big Oil”?
    Anything for “The Cause”.

  13. I, for one, would not be surprised, in the least, were, at the end of the day, when all was said and done, that Exxon-Mobil was found to donating to “the Green Cause”…

  14. The climate models are nothing more than models, or simulations, of the CAGW hypothesis. It is impossible to use a model of a hypothesis, to validate a hypothesis. Anyone claiming otherwise is not acting in the name of science. They are engaging in politics, or religion or selling snake oil.

    The only way to scientifically validate a hypothesis, is through comparing what the hypothesis predicts, with experimental or observational data gathered empirically. In fact the discipline of the scientific method demands it.

    I care not how many Phds academic papers, awards or seats on prestigious science panels one may have, if they are no abiding faithfully with the scientific method, they are NOT conducting science. It is as simple and as boolean as that!

    Given that ALL the climate models can do is tell us what the hypothesis predicts, then the only way to validate any of them is to compare the output from the hypothetical models, with empirically gathered data collected from measuring the real world and determine if there is a strong correlation. This does not prove the hypothesis, merely ensures that it remains valid, until disproved by empirical data. If the real world empirical data does not correlate with the hypothesis generated data, then the hypothesis MUST be rejected or amended accordingly.

    The empirical data gathered by the global climate temperature data sets, (UAH, RSS, HADCrut et al…) actually does not correlate strongly with the data generated by models of the hypothesis, and in some ways, is the opposite to what the hypothesis predicts. For example, the CAGW hypothesis predicts that if we do not stop emitting CO2, that warming will accelerate. and it is impossible for the temperature to pause. It further posits that if we were to stop all anthropological emissions at once, that warming due to the already emitted CO2 would still continue for between 50 and 3000 years (depending on the model)…

    In reality the opposite has happened over the last 20 years. CO2 has been rising fast worldwide and yet, the earth has stopped warming for almost 2 decades and global sea level rise has slowed significanly. That is a direct contradiction of the CAGW hypothesis.

    The additional fact that all but 2 of the UN IPCC models predicted that the currently measured global temperatures are physically impossible shows how far away from correlation the empirical data and hypothesis data are. Clearly those models (and the underlying hypothesis) is flat out wrong!!!

    This real world empirical data clearly falsifies the CAGW hypothesis. Only people who are committing scientific fraud would attempt to push the lie that CAGW is in anyway valid..

  15. Extremely well written article. Thank you.
    The IPCC is proving that there is such a thing as a Religion of Science; the assertion of ‘faith’ over fact, certainty in the face of uncertainty, stridency over true debate and the accusation of heresy to any that question their ‘faith’.
    Saint Augustine said: “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” Isn’t that exactly what’s going on?
    I suppose it’s understandable when one’s academic standing and life’s work is tied to a view of the world that has turned out to be ‘not exactly’. But it is, in truth the imposition of ego over the scientific method. There’s nothing scientific about it.

  16. “Greenpeace … campaign that blames ExxonMobil for funding the ‘global warming denial machine’.”
    Hey, they haven’t paid for being an AGW denier! Did I miss the memo?

    • Lastly, until those who believe our climate is changing, significantly, stop spending all their time debunking deniers, uncovering conspiracies… GET OFF THE BLAME GAME AND GET IN THE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT GAME. The Blame game needs to end. Let’s just get to work

  17. Well I predicted on this site about 7 months ago that NH ice would stay within 2SD wasn’t exactly right but pretty close. I also predicted a massive RECOVERY of NH ice this year and that NH ice will remain within normal 1SD ABOVE or BELOW for a few decades from this year

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    The only problem is that the AGW IPCC will try to change the baseline again so that we cannot see this be on guard! LOL

  18. As I have said elsewhere, the IPCC, and now it seems policy makers in a number of governments: are acting exactly as the old USSR politicos. They not only lie, but they know, we know they lie. Yet it makes no difference: probably because they think we are all stupid.

  19. John Haddock says:
    September 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Saint Augustine said: “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” Isn’t that exactly what’s going on?
    ========================================================================
    Not quite. They’re panicked because they are not seeing what they believed…and others are beginning to notice.

    • Disappearing arctic ice caps, glaciers thawing world wide; Greenland is now actually green, not white, I see all of this. Ice water in the oceans changes ocean temperatures which affects winds which… well, we all see it; except those who don’t want to see, and that’s for them to deal with; not i.

  20. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:

    To all Alarmists who refer to CO2 as a pollutant and use fear, not truth, to sell their doom and gloom end of the world B.S.

    CO2 = Life http://youtu.be/S-nsU_DaIZE
    Fuel Poverty = Death http://wp.me/p7y4l-lnm
    Climate Models WRONG http://shar.es/KfSR4
    Ocean Data being altered to show no cooling

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

    It was warmer in the past than today. Ergo Nature not humans is the primary driver of Climate Change.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

  21. funding for proponents vs sceptics more like 1,000,000 to 1.

    21 Sept: Bloomberg: Robert Bryce: Four Numbers Say Wind and Solar Can’t Save Climate
    As the discussion unfolds, I would urge everyone to keep four numbers in mind: 32, 1, 30 and 1/2. These are the numbers that explain why any transition away from our existing energy systems will be protracted and costly…
    First, 32: That’s the percentage growth in carbon dioxide emissions that has occurred globally since 2002. In the past decade, these emissions have increased by about 8.4 billion tons. And nearly all of that has happened in the developing world. In Asia, emissions rose 86 percent; in the Middle East, 61 percent; and in Africa, 35 percent…
    Developing countries — in particular, fast-growing economies such as Vietnam, China and India — simply cannot continue to grow if they limit the use of hydrocarbons. Those countries’ refusal to enact carbon taxes or other restrictions illustrates what Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, calls the “iron law of climate policy”: Whenever policies “focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reduction, it is economic growth that will win out every time.”
    Over the past 10 years, despite great public concern, carbon dioxide emissions have soared because some 2.6 billion people still live in dire energy poverty. More than 1.3 billion have no access to electricity at all…
    Last year, global coal use surged by 2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day — three times as much as nonhydro renewables grew…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/four-numbers-say-wind-and-solar-can-t-save-climate.html

  22. Steve Sherburne says:
    September 26, 2013 at 2:26 pm
    “Oh, this isn’t technology… who cares, it’s cheap, it’s trendy, there, and it works. Oregon, Washington and Alaskan trees consume more carbon, annually, then is produced by the entire US economy. It’s in our interest to do more. Or we will die point our fingers at others.”

    So you still believe that CO2 does a darn thing to the climate? 16 years of temperature stillstand and rapidly rising CO2 concentrations at the same time did nothing to change your superstitious beliefs?

    Some people really stick to their political religion.

    • Co2 is what the United Nations climate analysis test to see how much carbon is in our atmosphere as it is what hold heat in. Get it? We are at 4.0 this year. The first time in 32 million years, since th earth has had that high of a carbon rating. Also, it is unanimously recognized that 1/3 of the 4.0 would have been consumed by trees on earth, which are no longer alive on earth: deforestation.

      Climate change is allowing us to grow flourishing Coastal Redwoods in areas of Oregon which have not seen them in thousands of years. Same is becoming true for areas of England. These trees are the second highest carbon sucking trees in the world, just ahead of Douglas Fir and Sitka Spruce, now indigenous to the western Pacific Northwest, and right behind Giant Sequoia as the biggest carbon consuming tree on earth. It too will grow in areas of Oregon, now. Both, by the way, are fire resistant species.

      Our tree-growing region could be a solid foot for a natural response to global warming; and make cap and trade actually work; with some adjustments current models.

  23. We should just all come out and say the the Denialists fixed global warming as a prank. We’re all just messin’ with ya’ dudes!

  24. All this talk about CO2 really misses the point. The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based on CO2 causing slight atmospheric warming that leads to higher evaporation rates and higher humidity; and claims that as water vapor is a more powerful ‘green house gas’ (sic) therefore with more water vapor there would be higher atmospheric temperatures still and so on in a vicious circle until the oceans boil away.

    The only problem is that there is no increase in water vapor – none – no tropical tropospheric hotspot. Indeed measures are now showing that humidity is dropping. So the major part of the hypothesis is already falsified. Just the fact that the humidity has not increased and no tropical tropospheric hotspot shows that mechanism for the CAGW hypothesis does not exist. This is regardless of atmospheric temperatures and hiatus.

    Why is nobody asking Trenberth and Schmidt where is the increase in water vapor – a fundamental requirement for their CAGW hypothesis?

    • Let’s see, WATER VAPOR? Higher humidity in areas of western Oregon, enough from Eugene south for Coastal Redwoods to shoot up, in piple back yards, which were trodging along. These trees need to know atmospheric hydro is reliantly in the air before they will shoot up to their natural fast growing rate, since they need 45%, on average, of their water needs supplied via the air.

      I’m not playing this blame game. That gets us nowhere. All we do know is if our average worldwide temprature creeps ups two more degrees… denials won’t work, as we’d be on the verge of ecosystem collapse… That would be something new, eh?

  25. Germany wants all references to the absence of warming deleted from the IPCC report.
    Hungary doesn’t want the IPCC to give “deniers” more ammunition.
    Belgium wants… to manipulate the data and graphs, by using a different starting year…
    The Obama Administration wants the IPCC to explain away the absence of warming…

    Will the IPCC be true to science? Or will it cave to political pressures and prove once and for all that climate change is all about politics? The suspense is killing me.

  26. Germany wants all references to the absence of warming deleted from the IPCC report. Whereas 20 years of mild warming were enough to demand immediate drastic action to avoid a climate cataclysm, now the Germans say 17 years of no warming is “too short” and thus “misleading.”

    Hungary doesn’t want the IPCC to give “deniers” more ammunition. Belgium wants the “world’s most authoritative climate body” to manipulate the data and graphs, by using a different starting year that cleverly creates a more noticeable upward temperature trend. The Obama Administration wants the IPCC to explain away the absence of warming, by saying the mysteriously missing atmospheric heat was somehow absorbed by the upper 1.2 miles of oceans waters, which have not actually warmed, according to ARGO project data, or perhaps somehow in the really deep ocean, where we have no data.

    Nations openly conspiring to lie is an exceedingly dangerous sign, it points to a dark future.

    • Just a, remember that: Hungary is a dictatorship, shucking it’s democratic institutions and independent judicial review. I wouldn’t put stock in what they do, which ever way the go on global warming… and I don’t think anyone disputes our air is getting warming, so is our land and water. It ain’t getting better so long as the developing world burns all that coal for power while deforesting. We can say it ain’t happening… that we should get toasted by natural processes as the earth has gone through, and I still can’t believe anyone wants that, so how about supporting our efforts to green up by planting even more trees in the Pacific Northwest, and it is sooooo cheap… oh, but some how, that is like, well, dropping a denial status: Weyerhaueser is past demonstration projects and is currently growing their own Coastal Redwood seedlings… to plant we can assume… so the climate has changed here.

  27. I’m beginning to think that the progressive “Mankind MUST cause global warming” mantras with their neo-religious fervor are like the medieval (and modern) religious groups who go around flogging themselves with chains and blades or crawling for miles to exorcise their own perceived demons. (there are plenty of videos on YouTube but I wont link to them) They JUST KNOW they can cure the world with their own displays of faith.

  28. “The Real Climate Change Deniers are the alarmists who deny that natural forces still dominate weather and climate events, and refuse to acknowledge that thousands of scientists do not agree with IPCC proclamations and prescriptions.”

    Strangely this does not include the IPCC who part-blame reduced solar activity and other natural forces for the “pause” and thus confirm that natural variability is dominant over any effects of CO2.

    OK this doesn’t get as far as the press releases, report summary etc. where they confirm their 95% certainty that CO2 is dominant so there seems to be some kind of disconnect between the truth and what they say. I’m sure there is a name for this effect somewhere…

  29. It is unsurprising that today’s hysterical establishment came about to overthrow the previous hysterical establishment. And yet, who would have thought three decades ago that the “left” would acquire all the ugly characteristics of the “right”?

  30. @Steve Sherburne,
    The problem with your “vision” is those Alarmo-goggles you obviously are wearing. The climate isn’t doing anything unprecedented or in any way alarming, except for folks who like scaring themselves and others.
    And yes trees are great, but not because of their “carbon-sucking” capability. Nor should there be any taxpayer-funded government grant-sucking tree-growing foundations, or whatever you have in mind.

  31. Steve Sherburne:

    In your post at September 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm you say

    I’m not playing this blame game. That gets us nowhere. All we do know is if our average worldwide temprature creeps ups two more degrees… denials won’t work, as we’d be on the verge of ecosystem collapse… That would be something new, eh?

    Say what!?
    You “know” that? How? And why would we ” be on the verge of ecosystem collapse”?

    And that from a mere 2°C rise in global temperature? Incredible! Global temperature varies up and down by nearly double that (i.e. by 3.8°C) during each year.

    Richard

  32. John Whitman said- “feral chihuahuas.”

    And I
    Cannot
    Stop
    LAUGHING!!! LOLOLOL

    Just the image in my head will have me chuckling in my sleep. :) Thanks for the smile John!

  33. I’m fine with my local oil refiner throwing all the money they want to the extortionists on the anti-carbon train, which can’t get out of the station. However, buying ad time for Common Core is something else entirely.

  34. Mr. Driessen,

    new coal-fired power plants slash carbon dioxide emissions to 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour, some 700 pounds below what advanced modern units do today.

    Obama’s target is an easy target to reach. It was on joannenova.com.au’s site.

    China has been doing it for the past three years and it’s the reason why Germany dumped their nuclear plants after Fukushima for China’s Ultra Super Critical (USC) Coal-fired technology. Cheaper. Cleaner. Safer.

    China’s Ultra Super Critical (USC) Coal-fired Plants are producing units driving 1000MW generators, the first to do so. They are further working towards generators with capacities of 1200MW and even 1350MW, levels previously thought unattainable even with large scale nuclear power. Germany is bringing them online as fast as it can.

    These new USC Coal-fired Plants produce 15% lower emissions than the proposed Kyoto CO2 emission level for 2020, right now! Their “emissions are down to 282 grams per KWH delivered.”

    Obama wants a target of 1,100 pounds CO2 emissions per megawatt.

    The USC plants emit 282 grams of CO2 per kilowatt (KWH) delivered

    Here’s my math, unless I’m off the wall.
    1 megawatt = 1,000 kilowatts
    1000 kilowatts @ 282 gm/KWH = 282,000 grams
    282,000 grams = 621.7 pounds

    That’s 478.3 pounds LESS CO2 than the Obama target.

    You can read about it here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/upgrade-coal-power-and-cut-15-of-emissions-will-the-greens-consider-coal/

  35. Desperate times for desperate liars.

    Democracy is being played out on the internet, not at the ballot box. People are finding their voice on places like WUWT, away from the political shpere.

    Green Cleric Gore is one of the more desperate evangelists, spewing evil to defend his green gotten gains. Next he will be promising 20 masseuses in the after life for all global warming converts. There is only one person more rotten than a person selling their own mother and that is Despicable Al.

  36. AW I think unfortunately you will have to do much much more to terminate AGW. These guys will not give up. In hindsight its a bit like communism… many young persons really believed it would work it will take years not months even if temperatures drop 4C they will not give up you are now fighting against instituonlized fraud like the Hitler regime. I hope Abbott in Australia even makes a dent. This site is irrelevant to the issue much more powerful forces need to be applied like very big money. Sorry to be so blunt.

  37. “… Greenpeace has joined the fray, launching a ‘Dealing in Doubt’ campaign …”

    Minor correction, our good friend Rick Piltz points out in his blog (6th paragraph http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/12/new-greenpeace-report-on-climate-denial-machine/ ) how the Greenpeace report is an ̶u̶p̶d̶a̶t̶e̶ rehash of a 2010 report. Go over to the actual report ( http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt—the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/ ) and you’ll see how it is getting a dead cat bounce of a bit over 530 Facebook ‘Likes’.

  38. “The report makes it clear that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%).”

    And where would this CO2 come from? From human-sourced emissions? There is not enough coal, natural gas and petroleum, even if current finds are doubled, to reach 540 ppm. This stark reality is never considered. People speak blithely about CO2 doubling and re-doubling because of AG emissions. Emissions from what? Once the fossil fuels are gone, the only way more is coming is the hope that oil is abiotic and that natural gas is too, formed deep in the crust. Even then the rate of production would be limited to what rises naturally.

    Dr Willem Nel’s brilliant thesis on the matter (Geography and Environment Dept, University of Johannesburg) is being kept from publication. I heard recently he had a website documenting the travails he has faced trying to get it published. Once in the literature it will establish a new conversation on where this future ‘800 ppm’ is supposed to come from.

    Alarmists can say ‘this or that could happen and the would arise from blah-blah-blah.’ But that is supposition and prophecy. Just where is the fuel that will, in real time on a planet with real oceans, lift the atmospheric concentration above 500 ppm? Sounds simple but, not so fast. There are huge sinks out there are we can’t burn everything at once.

    The upper limit for AGW is the fraction of the forcing of warming that can be achieved by raising the ppm towards that doubling.

    (540-400)/(800-400) = 140/400

    Pick a number
    140/400 x 2 deg per doubling = 0.7 deg max
    140/400 x 1 deg per doubling = 0.35 deg max

    You can’t talk about a doubling if it can’t be doubled.

  39. it sure is getting ugly:

    26 Sept: Bloomberg: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Climate Deniers Misinterpret Data, UN’s Figueres Says
    Critics of efforts to address climate change are misinterpreting a slowdown in the pace of global warming, the United Nations’ top climate official said.
    Those who deny mankind’s contribution to warming have a “primitive understanding” of the science behind the Earth’s climate, Christiana Figueres, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said today in an interview…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-26/climate-deniers-misinterpret-data-un-s-figueres-says.html

  40. Elizabeth,

    I have been involved with the AGW issue since the mid-90’s. For a time I even believed that global temperatures were rising due to CO2. But then, Planet Earth set me straight.

    If you could see the enormous change in attitude since the Climategate emails came out, you would not be so pessimistic. The screeching of the alarmist crowd is ratcheting up for only one reason: they are losing power and influence, and they know it. Science does not support what they are trying to sell to the public.

    Maybe it will take years to really turn things around. But so what? When someone declares war on you, you don’t get to say, “I’m not interested.” You fight back. And you know what? We are winning!

    The alarmist crowd is in reality just a small clique of unethical scientists, bureaucrats, and .edu institutions riding the grant gravy train, and their unthinking acolytes — who need a religious experience to fill a hole in their meaningless lives. CAGW is a scam on honest taxpayers. It may take some time, but when people become aware that they are the chumps, they tend to switch sides, and stay switched.

    So cheer up. We are winning. You can find the evidence everywhere.

  41. Steve Sherburne says:
    September 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Thanks for the laugh about redwoods in Eugene enjoying growth spurts in anticipation of climate change. Do you have any evidence that humidity has increased in the upper Willamette Valley? Are you aware that redwoods take in water from the air through their crowns in their native coastal fog zone, thanks to local conditions there which they have evolved to exploit? Are you suggesting that these suddenly lively redwoods expect foggier conditions or that Eugene currently has become foggier than previously?

    Are you aware that non-native redwood trees have been growing happily in the Willamette Valley at least since 1872? There’s a big one in downtown Salem planted that year, bought by the Waldos from a traveling seedling salesman. (Hard to believe he had much business in the 19th century Willamette Valley, where big trees were not in short supply.)

    Please state what redwood “demonstration projects” by Weyerhaeuser you have in mind.

    Here’s Weyerhaeuser’s 2012-13 seedling site:

    http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Businesses/WesternSeedlingSales/Wholesale

    Clicking on the Oregon reforestation & Xmas tree link shows that they had Giant Sequoia seedlings (presumably as ornamentals) available, but no Coast Redwood.

    Maybe they now do offer Coast Redwood seedlings, but if so most likely for reforestation in the coastal redwood zone, ie the fog belt of northern CA & southern OR. If you have evidence that the fog belt is expanding thanks to “climate change”, so that redwoods can now be grown commercially in the Willamette Valley, about 200 miles from the zone, please by all means trot it out. If not, kindly quit spewing meaningless verbiage. Thanks.

    So far CO2 increases have been nothing but beneficial for trees, which are C3 plants heavily reliant on high carbon dioxide levels.

    BTW, you’re off by an order of magnitude (factor of ten) on the last time the atmosphere contained 400 ppmv of CO2 in dry air. That was during the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 & 5.3 million years ago, not 32 Ma in the early Oligocene, as you so hilariously & erroneously asserted.

    IMO it has been that high during interglacials of the Pleistocene Epoch, but I could be wrong about that. We’re currently in another of those warm phases, even though it’s called the Holocene Epoch. Present warmth is not in the least bit unusual for the Holocene or any other interglacial, most of which have been warmer than even the hottest part of the Holocene, which was over 5000 years ago.

    Thanks again for the mirth.

  42. To summarize – the climate reality deniers who have been lying about climate change since it was called global cooling are still lying to us and show no effort or inclination to move toward science-based reporting and the truth. And they think that is going to reverse the tide of skepticism? They’re in denial and unreformable.

  43. “Steve Sherburne says:

    September 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Co2 is what the United Nations climate analysis test to see how much carbon is in our atmosphere as it is what hold heat in. Get it?”

    Holds heat in? Clearly you don’t “get it”! Classic alarmist fail!

  44. milodonharlani says:
    September 26, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Alan Robertson says:
    September 26, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Sounds like a cartoon superhero movie theme.
    ____________________
    It won’t be long until we see that “Alliance…” as a graphic wrapped around a huge tour bus as All Gore travels around to grade schools giving lectures to his only remaining, albeit captive audience, collecting speaker fees, of course.

    We’ve all read about the big money All Gore made as a front- man puppet for the trading schemes. Just imagine how much money the puppeteers made.

  45. Alan Robertson says:
    September 26, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    I fear even worse. A Saturday cartoon show, or live action movie with climate warriors, each with his or her own special power to combat the forces of evil, ie the poison devil carbon dioxide & its human lackeys of Big Oil & misshapen denialist minion imps.

  46. Patrick says:
    September 26, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    “Steve Sherburne says:

    September 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Co2 is what the United Nations climate analysis test to see how much carbon is in our atmosphere as it is what hold heat in. Get it?”

    Holds heat in? Clearly you don’t “get it”! Classic alarmist fail!
    —————-

    So many errors. So little time.

  47. Vice magazine is at it again this week, selling out to the spawn of Enron, feeding pseudoscience to trust fund hipster kids:

    http://www.vice.com/motherboard/al-gore-explains-why-civilization-might-not-survive-the-next-100-years

    “Al Gore is worried about the future. We’ve reached a point, he says, where the very survival of our civilization is at risk. But he’s optimistic that we can turn things around, too. Motherboard sat down with the United States’ most famous—and surely busiest—former vice president at this year’s Social Good Summit, where we talked about two possible futures Gore sees confronting humanity.

    I asked him to describe the best and worst case scenarios for what civilization might look like 100 years from now. In one, Americans undertake an “Occupy democracy movement” to restore our political system, which Gore says has been “hacked” by money and special interests, and come together to fight climate change. In the other, the whole of human civilization lies in ruin.

    We’re going to need serious political reform, a web-driven social movement, and the best available telecommunication and clean energy technologies in the days ahead, he says. And Gore’s been thinking a lot about the future—it’s the name of his latest book, after all. His Climate Reality Project just launched a new initiative that artfully reveals the myriad things we stand to lose down the line as global warming advances.

    As such, speaking with Gore was a sobering event—he can sound every bit as apocalyptic today as he did when An Inconvenient Truth came out seven years ago. Can you blame him? 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists agree, after all, that the dangers he describes are a result of human activity. And we’re not slowing down.

    So which will it be, the way Gore sees it?

    “The answer is in our hands,” he says.”

  48. JohnD says:
    September 26, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    Perp. Walks.
    —————–

    IMO the worst offenders should be charged with fraud & misappropriation of funds, to include Mann, Hansen & Schmidt. Their co-conspirators in Britain could additionally be hauled up on manslaughter raps for the energy-starvation deaths there.

    The only reason I can see for not bringing these actions under a new administration is the chilling effect it might have on real science. IIRC this is McIntyre’s opinion in opposing Cuccinelli’s investigation of Mann’s emails. I could recall wrongly. But the statute of limitations may have expired by 2017 on fraud. “Hide the decline” & “these temps I am a-changin'” fraud would be easy to show a jury.

  49. Elizabeth makes a point that that gets lost in the battles fought here every day. The alarmists assertions can be decimated one after another, and we all pat ourselves on the back for being true to science. Did anyone see the MSM coverage of the pending IPCC update this evening ?
    The War against the AGW machine is clearly not won,
    Some of our intellectual horsepower should be harnessed in the pursuit of countering alarmist propaganda in our schools, media and public policy.

  50. …and the high traffic BoingBoing.com blog is icing the cake too this week. Between Vice and BoingBoing, the younger generation is kept on the farm:

    http://boingboing.net/2013/09/26/an-interesting-way-of-explaini.html

    “Maggie Koerth-Baker at 11:27 am Thu, Sep 26, 2013
    There’s a new IPCC report coming out and that, inevitably, leads to confusion about what scientists mean when they say things like “we are 95% certain that climate change is being caused by human behavior.” The AP’s Seth Borenstein used this as a jumping off platform to talk about certainty, and other (less popularly/politically controversial) ideas that also have 95% certainty attached to them. Are scientists 100% sure that climate change is caused by people? No. But they’re at least as certain of that fact as they are of the fact that smoking is hazardous to your health.”

    Maggie was a journalism/anthropology major.

  51. Stephen Abbott says:
    September 26, 2013 at 2:53 pm
    Good to see the alarmists are so desperate. Typos, however: “Al Gore is in full attack mode” not Model (though his models are off, too) and Tony’s last name has to T’s as in “Abbott.” Thanks.
    +++++++++
    Stephen:
    and Tony’s last name has to T’s as in “Abbott.”

    Typo – your correction needs correcting. I should have read “…Tony’s last name has “two” T’s as in “Abbott.”

  52. Ian W says:
    September 26, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    “and claims that as water vapor is a more powerful ‘green house gas’ (sic) therefore with more water vapor there would be higher atmospheric temperatures still and so on in a vicious circle until the oceans boil away.”

    My problem with the “mainstream” ghg Climate Science has always been, if water and water vapor didn’t do it before, why would they do it now? Or maybe to put it another way, why can’t CO2 be considered to be merely a much less powerful version of water vapor?

    — American Indians would probably call them, Big Water Vapor and Little Water Vapor.

  53. Nice summary. AR5 has been previewed, read and debunked before it was released. Tisdale’s book documents problems with entire sham. Compare this to the liberals signing Obamacare into law without reading it even after it was published!

    What’s true and right continues to be put under covers by the left. But eventually, the tables will be turned.

  54. maybe Leiserowitz only understands English!

    25 Sept: MinutemanNews: Meg Learson Grosso: Yale expert: Public has 6 views on climate change
    Doubt and/or debate over whether there is climate change is limited to only four countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the United States. “We don’t find it anywhere else,” said Leiserowitz (Anthony Leiserowitz, Director of Yale Center for Climate Change Communication), who attributes it possibly to the fact that three of those countries were frontier countries with a cultural myth of being independent. “The more individualistic (a person’s) view, the more they’re against climate change action.”…

    http://www.minutemannewscenter.com/articles/2013/09/25/fairfield/news/doc52430636e1803914299252.txt?viewmode=fullstory

  55. Steve Sherburne says: September 26, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    Lastly, until those who believe our climate is changing, significantly, stop spending all their time debunking deniers, uncovering conspiracies… GET OFF THE BLAME GAME AND GET IN THE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT GAME. The Blame game needs to end. Let’s just get to work

    Steve, while I think planting trees is a wonderful thing, I think harvesting them is too.

    Otherwise there is not much I do like about the “Do something! Do anything! But do it NOW!” concept.

  56. “Al Gore is worried about the future. We’ve reached a point, he says, where the very survival of our civilization is at risk. […] I asked him to describe the best and worst case scenarios for what civilization might look like 100 years from now. In one, Americans undertake an “Occupy democracy movement” to restore our political system, which Gore says has been “hacked” by money and special interests, and come together to fight climate change. In the other, the whole of human civilization lies in ruin.

    What we should be worried about is what Mr. Gore did to the economy when he was Vice-President. Bill Black, white-collar criminologist and former bank regulator who put 1,000 S&L perps behind bars, including the Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright, explains it. (Long, but skim it.)
    Reinventing Government: the 1995 Speeches announcing the Road to Ruin

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/02/reinventing-government-the-1995-speeches-announcing-the-road-to-ruin.html

    Gore’s document was called Reinventing Government. Don’t have a link to the original. On other computer.

    The Clinton Library story on it

    http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/storage/Research%20-%20Digital%20Library/ClintonAdminHistoryProject/61-70/Box%2061/1509117-ovp-npr-history.pdf

  57. The alarmists are not going to give up easily. They want and need revenue out of thin air, literally as well as figuratively.

    When the CO2 issue is finally put to rest, they will find another cause or meme on which to hang their taxes. For them, it’s an imperative.

    They had a good run with the polar bears, global temperature, and ice extent. But these issues are running out of steam now. Next came the extreme/dirty weather meme but that has failed to gain traction based on the simple fact that real observational data demolishes the theory.

    Don’t think for a second that the alarmists are going to pack up and go home anytime soon. They believe in the money and a new world order. Climate and weather are simply instruments within that plan. Those instruments are clearly failing but rest assured they will be replaced. It is desirable that the new tools be based on science and rational thinking. But that is absolutely not required. All that is necessary is a lever which will get the job done. These people will embrace anything that supports the cause no matter how absurd it might be.

    I am reasonably confident that their latest attempt (extreme/dirty weather) to revive the agenda will fail. But I’m even more sure that new stories are already under development and being tested in focus groups.

    The war isn’t over!

  58. Jimmy Haigh. says:
    September 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    I, for one, would not be surprised, in the least, were, at the end of the day, when all was said and done, that Exxon-Mobil was found to donating to “the Green Cause”…

    Perhaps.

  59. Re milodonharlani says: September 26, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    Steve Sherburne says: September 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    I am aware of another limit to the northern range of the coast redwood. In several locations on the central Oregon coast, in the coastal fog belt that would be considered ideal for this tree (and Sitka spruce, for example), there were many specimens planted as ornamentals. One winter, about 35 or 40 years ago, freezing conditions were followed by early spring conditions when sap started to flow and the trees started to bud. Then there was a hard freeze. All the coast redwoods died. It would appear that a freeze-thaw-freeze cycle is a limiting condition, even in otherwise good growing conditions.

  60. Nice summary by Driessen.
    Most people have the gut instinct that the AGW fraud has always been a political/media freak show.
    Firstly, because it has the face of AL GORE
    Good science, just like the free market, will always prevail, and good science does NOT look like AL GORE.

    Secondly, As McKitrick states:
    “The UN IPCC claims are patently ridiculous.”

    Most people have no clue what the UN IPCC means, so you just remind them that it means:
    “United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”
    (AKA 3rd world paper shufflers who want to be as rich as AL GORE)

    Now the statement translates to
    “The politician/bureaucrat claims are patently ridiculous.”
    Well, duh.

  61. Sorry to be stating this without a reference but some years ago the idea of planting trees was the latest and greatest idea since sliced bread. Then someone suggested that at higher latitudes (Central Oregon +) a tree intercepts sunlight and warms. Snow will melt near the base of the tree even though the air temperature is below freezing. A few articles were published indicating that at higher latitudes trees caused warming and the crowd moved on to something else. Sliced bread is still a good idea.

  62. Saint Augustine said: “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
    ———–
    That can be interpreted as “the reward for this faith is to gain understanding to where the need for faith melts away”.

  63. John F. Hultquist says:
    September 26, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    True. Low latitude trees lower CO2. Mid-latitude, not so much.

  64. I live in Bellevue, Washington and in my backyard I have a 70′ redwood tree. The house to my south has two 80′ redwood trees (taller because of no competition from our native Doug firs mine has). When I move here in 1984 they were about 25′ tall. They’re doing fine and are drop dead beautiful trees. The trunks, if they were hollow, are large enough to live in. The only downside is they throw huge shadows and in the Pacific Northwet that equates to moss and we got lots of that. 20 or so years ago my new at that time neighbor cut down one of the redwoods and I cussed him no end. He intended to cut them all down. Glad he didn’t. I also have three German alpine conifers planted by the immigrant builder of both homes in the 1960’s and at 350′ elevation those alpine trees, far from the nearest flugelhorn, are doing very well standing at 65′ and the ripe old age of 47 years. They are beautiful stout trees that are impervious to the deadly bark beetle that has destroyed so many forest acres in the northern latitudes including several in my own yard.

  65. In the mean time German media have entered the “shouting mode” again on climate alarmism.
    Global Warming is accelerating, extreme weather events on the rise.

    Give Germany an Agenda and they execute it according the book.

    They haven’t learned a darn thing from history.

    Neither have all the others

  66. What the warmers dilemna really shows is the amount of money spent bears no correlation with the truth. All the expenditure on bad science and lousy computers doesn’t compare with what comes basically free, facts.

  67. One of the most interesting things is how co-ordinated the ‘bloggers comments’ become in MSM.

    You see this in columns about EPL football too nowadays: what gets published is what the new party line is. The ‘recommendations’ are indications too.

    Of course, how hard is it to get people to agree to recommend each other’s comments to ensure that the party line is ‘favoured’??

    Any sane judge would have no interest whatever in what bloggers say and limit their sources to those involving studies with only one question (the one you want an answer to) not wrapped up in any fancy web whatsoever.

    Unfortunately, to reach the top in politics, your judgement must be freed of sanity in most advanced economies……

  68. Amusing stuff, especially the barely literate machinations of Mr. Sherburne. I love how he makes all these bold assertions in Comic Book English.

  69. Of course the politicos want to keep the alarmist message alive and kicking – the thought of not being able to justify all those eco-tax pounds ripped from the pockets of poor taxpayers must give Cameron and Osborne nightmares.
    The BBC has renewed its membership of Alarmists Inc and, on the Today programme this morning, let all sorts of nonsense through without question. For example “sea levels are up”. Either the interviewer was so lacking knowledge that he did not question this or the BBC are complicit in the climate deception. Sea levels are, of course, up but have been rising for thousands of years and the rate of rise is no faster than it has been since records began. So, what was said was not a lie but a deception none-the-less.

  70. As the philosopher Ken Wilber said, if you tie your moral views to a science theory, what do you do when the science theory changes, as all science progresses? (words to that effect).

    I can totally sympathise with the concerned people who want a more just world, and a healthier ecosystem, and their concern is specifically with how our social values affect that.

    But social change is a very slow process, it has to happen organically. You can’t just scare everyone into a new moral outlook by threatening doom. Social change takes something like 100 years. The world is full of pre-modern societies living next to modern ones. Yet with all this globalisation the values just won’t mix. It is a very slow process.

    Somewhere, someone invented a strategy that they’d publicise a scientific “fact” and use it as the basis to impose social change. It didn’t work. What a surprise.

    Most of the argument is, it would seem, between those advocating a set of moral values, and those simply focussing on the scientific method.

    It is odd because it suggest the people championing a new set of moral values, couldn’t think of a good way to justify those values on their own terms. They had to rely on a science theory to provide the justification.

  71. Steve Sherburne:-

    Your lack of understanding of the rules of spelling and grammar neatly mirrors your lack of understanding of science. Epic fail (on all counts).

    Mind you, I agree that trees are good things to have around, for themselves if for no other reason.

  72. the lying has got beyond a joke.i am now sitting watching the bbc in the uk. the broadcast is similar to something i would have expected from the ussr in the 70,s.
    to steve sherburne.up until now i was willing to debate the issues with people like your self, but as it is now plain that hard facts and observations will not sway you from your cult i am now just going to punch such people for supporting a scam that is bringing the populations of the western world great financial pain.
    this is not a left or right issue.there are as many from the right with their snouts in the trough and supporting this madness as from the left.voters in many countries have no where to go. i believe it may well be time for a revolution.

    ps,i am now watching another IPCC idiot showing a graphic of an incorrect model as evidence to support the scam,arghhh !
    pps,if anything in my post above is not in keeping with site decorum please accept my apologies and feel free to delete the post.
    yours ,extremely frustrated.

  73. “It is odd because it suggest the people championing a new set of moral values, couldn’t think of a good way to justify those values on their own terms. They had to rely on a science theory to provide the justification.”

    How can some few people save the World from all the people?

  74. How to spot a scam.

    One only.
    Buy now.
    Last chance.
    Hurry, time running out.
    Sign now.

    The whole climate scam is based on the old high pressure ( no pun) sales technique and hype.

    If theres a room full of people who you want to get outside, just shout “FIRE!”

    Its exactly the same thing with the climate change/global warming/disruption/chaos/weirding nonsense.
    Shout fire! to get people scared and then sell them a vacuum cleaner they dont want, or in this case a solution to a problem that does not exist.

    Since theres no man made global warming happening, even the warmist lot even say theres been no statistically significant warming, how can we humans be to blame for something that by their own admission is statistically not significant?

    Time to close this settled pseudoscience scam down, its dragged on for far too long.

  75. ‘ExxonMobil hasn’t supported skeptic groups for years; and the real Big Oil money has gone to extreme green groups.’

    Back in the 80’s I received some wine glasses when I filled up with petrol, does that count?

  76. Steve Sherburne says:
    September 26, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Disappearing arctic ice caps, glaciers thawing world wide; Greenland is now actually green, not white,
    Greenland is green??? WTF. Show us something. Don’t just spout UTTER NONSENSE.
    You Sir, are one of the more useful idiots. You’re position in the New Party is secure.

  77. Steve Sherburne says:

    September 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Co2 is what the United Nations climate analysis test to see how much carbon is in our atmosphere as it is what hold heat in. Get it?
    ====================

    Actually Steve I do not “get it”. Nitrogen does not hold heat? Oxygen does not hold heat?
    Water vapor does not hold heat? Please explain yourself.

  78. Steve Sherburne says:
    September 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    All we do know is if our average worldwide temprature creeps ups two more degrees… denials won’t work, as we’d be on the verge of ecosystem collapse… That would be something new, eh?

    Indeed, it would. And what if all airborne carbon would suddenly react with nitrogen and water, forming HCN? It will not, you say? Yup, but what if it would anyway? That would certainly be something new.

  79. Meanwhile…back in the REAL world (aka the actual world not seen by the manic, misinfomed, scared CAGW alarmists):

    * “Heading into October — 2013 global hurricane activity remains historically low”

    http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

    * 2013 tornado counts YTD are down

    http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html

    * Arctic sea ice extent is increasing at a rapid pace, Antarctic sea ice extent is at near record levels

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    * Satellite-based global temperatures are trending flat for well over the past decade

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    * And, contrary to the 2008 report below, this year’s Fall colors in New Hampshire are quite beautiful!

    http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-25.pdf

  80. The ARx reports can’t be saved! They’re getting worse than anyone thought, with each new release! I recommend mass apoptosis.

  81. IPCC politicians, bureaucrats and eco-activists are trying to figure out how to cover up the bad news.

    There’s only one solution for them, Paul. Mass scientific and political apoptosis.

  82. Steve Sherburne says:
    September 26, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    …it works. Oregon, Washington and Alaskan trees consume more carbon, annually, then is produced by the entire US economy. It’s in our interest to do more. Or we will die point our fingers at others.

    Big trees are nice. Reducing CO2 is useless, except in perhaps stunting those trees’ growth. We will die trying to live on zero CO2 output. You’re suffering from excess brain cell apoptosis already.

  83. If the facts were on the warmists’ side, they would be talking about facts and evidence. Instead they’re screaming about consensus, appealing to authority and demonizing anyone who disagrees.

    If the public were on the warmists’ side, they wouldn’t be screaming so loudly.

  84. What? I was denying for free while you all were getting paid? We need denier unions to sort out the compensation packages.

  85. Her film’s title, “Wakan Tanka,” means “great spirit” or “great mystery” in Lakota, the language of Dakota (Sioux) Indians.

    A more accurate description of all this Climate Armageddon storm and fury would be another Lakota phrase, tatonka chesli, meaning “big bull excrement.

    ROTFL

  86. I’m SO tired of this Global Warming hoax. I’m sorry…”Climate Change.” No matter how many times they tweak the name…it’s just as fake. The changes they threaten are OBVIOUSLY not happening. There’s more polar ice now than in the last 60 years! Just a big joke. What I’d like to know is how our government can legally flush so much $ down the toilet on a “theory” that’s not remotely proven to be true? In fact, any ACTUAL proof points to the fact this is a total hoax. I just wish Gore would find another source of income and let it rest.

  87. If you think some 7+ billion (soon to be 8 billion) humans all belching, farting, burning wood, coal, driving some 5 billion cars, etc – that this has no effect on the environment – you are stupid.

  88. Abinico Warez:

    re your post at September 28, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    If you think the environment cares about some 7+ billion (soon to be 8 billion) humans existing you are stupid. And if you think there are too many people then there is a reduction of one you can arrange without harming anybody else.

    Richard

  89. Abinico Warez says:
    September 28, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Of course humans have an effect on our environment, just as do all other living things. Our total biomass is less than that of the Antarctic krill species Euphausia superba, for instance. So our biomass is a small fraction of all multi-cellular animals’, which group has only a small fraction of the biomass of fungi, plants & microbes.

    It’s anthropocentric to imagine that we control climate, & misanthropic to want to kill us all off. We’re every bit as much a part of nature as any other animal, fungus, plant or microbe. If you want to talk about the affect of living things on Earth’s environment, consider the effect of the first oxygen-producing microbes!

    Outside of urban heat islands & maybe some local vegetation cover changes, the human affect on WX & climate is negligible to non-existent.

  90. Peter Miller 9/26 2:52 pm:

    Unfortunately, the end of climate alarmism is not yet on the cards.[...]
    It took the equally failed philosophy of communism many years to die. Like climate science, it was designed to impoverish the people for the sake of the creature comforts of its leaders

    Yes, but unfortunately, communism didn’t die. Far from being a failed philosophy, it seems to be doing quite well, having perfected a trick the leopard couldn’t master, but the chamelion has.

    Peter Stroud 9/26 3:31 pm:

    As I have said elsewhere, the IPCC, and …policy makers in a number of governments: are acting exactly as the old USSR politicos. They not only lie, but they know, we know they lie. Yet it makes no difference: probably because they think we are all stupid.

    Yes, but not so much stupid probably, as powerless, an attitude that reflects the arrogance of power. As the recent IPCC pronouncements clearly reveal, their action plan is:

    Damn the data, full speed ahead!

    phlogiston 9/26 4:17 pm:

    Nations openly conspiring to lie is an exceedingly dangerous sign, it points to a dark future.

    Yes, and even worse, it points to a dark present.

  91. Spurious predictions about sea level rises , which cannot be evidenced , increased numbers of hurricanes / typhoons / cyclones , which cannot be evidenced , the total disappearance of summer arctic sea ice by 2013 ( actually increased 60% in 2013 with respect to 2012 ), atmospheric warming ( none in the last 15 years ) tells me that the science isn’t robust.

    Googgle for vostok ice core data.
    Have a look at the graphs of CO2 and temperature correlations stretching back several millennia – CO2 increases occur several hundred years AFTER warming – CO2 has nothing to do with increases in global temperature.

    there is still not a shred of proof that increasing man made CO2 is causing global warming or that global warming will cause any changes in climate change which has, does and always will happen regardless of CO2. There is also not a shred of evidence that any heat is being transferred ninto the deep oceans now that didn’t before. What the IPCCis somehow supporting is that some credence must be given to that which is not supported by a shred of evidence. It is a slight on the modern world that the denier tag could be applied to people who base their opinion on observed evidence and yet policy can be driven based on those who believe the output of models more than what they can see with their eyes.

    Increases in carbon dioxide follow a log rule not a linear one in their effects on temperature, so after the first 100 ppm have raised the temperature (already done many million years ago) further increases are hardly measurable. You could double the present level of about 400 ppm to 800 ppm and get about 0.3 degree C increase in temperature. The real determinants of atmospheric temperature are solar, affecting cloud cover and cosmic ray bombardments, sea currents, jet streams and Pacific ocean temperatures in periodic El Nino events. Example. I would estimate the British contribution to changes in global temperatures due to their carbon emissions as about 0.0000000001 degree C.

  92. John Haddock says:
    September 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    “The IPCC is proving that there is such a thing as a Religion of Science; the assertion of ‘faith’ over fact, certainty in the face of uncertainty, stridency over true debate and the accusation of heresy to any that question their ‘faith’.”

    How right you are. This whole schemozzle arose out of a real religious argument. Freud (a Jewish apostate) wrote a book called “Moses and Monotheism” which attempted to prove that Moses got his religious faith from the Pharaoh Akhnaton and then went on to found Judaism based on Egyptian religion. Dr Velikovsky (a devout Jew) was upset by this and determined to check Freud’s sources, in particular the chronology of Egyptian and Hebrew history. He found the only way he could satisfactorily align them was to suppose that Egyptian history had been greatly stretched, and worked out a revised chronology for Egypt (“Ages in Chaos” and several later books). While doing so, he concluded that the ‘Plagues’ before the Exodus were due to a close passage of the planet Venus, and surmised that Venus would probably have been ejected from Jupiter some period before the Exodus. As a result, he concluded that Venus would be very hot – based on historical records stating that Venus was so bright as to be seen clearly in daylight. At that time, current opinion was that Venus would be a bit warmer than earth, and probably covered by water – see “Perelandra” (sf, but reflecting then current scientific opinion). Many astronomers were greatly upset and attempted to ban his book “Worlds in Collision”. Various scientists attempted to prove Dr Velikovsly wrong. Amongst them was Mr Sagan, who invented the Runaway Greenhouse Effect to account for Venus’s high temperature. NB, Rupert Wildt had argued in a 1940 paper that the surface temperature of Venus would be almost 400K, just above the boiling point of water, but Sagan took credit for it. The surface temperature of Venus is about 750K – far above the greenhouse effect temperature calculated by Rupert Wildt. For these details, see “Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky” Charles Ginenthal, New Falcon Publications, Tempe, Arizone, 1995, pp 86 – 90.

    So Sagan invented the Runaway Greenhouse Effect, and gave us Catastrophic Global Warming, not bothering to distinguish between the amounts of carbon dioxide in the two planets’ atmospheres.

    To our moutons: “Robert H. Essenhigh developed a comprehensive thermodynamic model of the lapse rate based on the Schuster-Schwarzschild integral (S-S) Equations of Transfer that govern radiation through the atmosphere including absorption and radiation by greenhouse gases.,.[11][12] “The solution predicts, in agreement with the Standard Atmosphere experimental data, a linear decline of the fourth power of the temperature, T^4, with pressure, P, and, at a first approximation, a linear decline of T with altitude, h, up to the tropopause at about 10 km (the lower atmosphere).” “. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate.

    Assume that on Venus there is an altitude where the air pressure is approximately one atmosphere, and that the temperature of that air is 0 Celsius = 273K, From the above equations (assuming the relationship holds true in the Venusian atmosphere) one finds that the temperature change from one altitude to another is the fourth root of the difference in pressures. Applying that formula, as the pressure climbs from 1 atmosphere to 90 atmospheres (approx pressure at surface level) the temperature is to be multiplied by 3.08. So the air temperature would rise from 273K to about 840K. As this is not too far from the actual surface temperature, one may conclude that if the assumptions I have made are anywhere near correct, the observed surface temperature of Venus would be almost completely the result of the dry adiabatic lapse rate, with little greenhouse effect, hence no CAGW.

    If anyone knows the temperature and pressure at any given level above the surface of Venus, they can correct my very rough estimation with better figures. And it may be noted that Dr Velikovsky was given far worse treatment by the astronomical establishment than any so called “Climate Deniers” get at present.

  93. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

    more accurately: Paul Driessen is a bought and paid for WHORE of big money interests, charged with promoting the views his masters deem most appopriate.

  94. Jimmy Haigh. says:
    September 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    I, for one, would not be surprised, in the least, were, at the end of the day, when all was said and done, that Exxon-Mobil was found to donating to “the Green Cause”…

    Does this count?

    Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
    Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”
    Source: New York Times – 21 November 2002

    Maybe environmentalists were always after the oil money. Just look at CRU taking BP and Shell Big Oil Money since the 1970s. Pot, kettle, black and all that.

  95. Jimmy Haigh. says:
    September 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    I, for one, would not be surprised, in the least, were, at the end of the day, when all was said and done, that Exxon-Mobil was found to donating to “the Green Cause”…

    Here are some more examples of Exxon Mobil donating to “the Green Cause”. It’s worse than we thought! Plenty of green causes taking dirty oil money.

    Exxon Mobil Corporation
    2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
    Environment

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/gcr_contributions_environment12.pdf

  96. Why the heck does bloody Exxon Mobile have a Carbon Disclosure Project? These people need to get a pair. Why are they being so apologetic and frightened? Exxon exists because people want their stuff (which is perfectly legal). Period. I also see rubbish about “managing long-term climate risks – Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.'” Boy oh boy, these guys have capitulated.

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx

    Exxon has been using Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery for years. Why don’t Warmists cheer this? For over 30 years oil companies have been doing what Warmists want, though not because of carbon dioxide but to get as much oil out as possible. Pachauri started the formerly name Glorioil to try and achieve the same thing – residual oil extraction support solutions.

    http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EP/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf

  97. The one thing that i remember the most clearly over the past 40 years of my school days at Brandeis University in 1970’s are my student adviser’s words that when he was growing up that his grand parents and parents used the term “‘goyishe kup,’” meaning that the “Non-Jews are Stupid”
    Later in life I learned that the exact translation of “GOYISHE KUP” means that the “Cattle are STUPID”..
    I remember him recalling whatt his father told him when he was growing up in Eastern Europe. One of them being that when his father was in high school he and a group of friends would skip school early on Fridays and go over to his friend’s father’s butcher shop. That they would buy at cost any cows , that had not been butchered by the end of the day on Friday before the start of shabat . They would take the cow home and wash it and then the boys would procede to “beat the udders of the cows so that they would swell up and turn pink” so as to sell them to the “GOYISHE KUP” as milk producing cows.
    The part that I remember him asking me if the East Europeans are so naive, so gullible and so stupid to buy old “non milk producing cows” from a bunch of young Jewish Boys.
    So thinking of it now I agree with the Jewish saying that the “GOYISHE KUP” are indeed” Stupid” as they believe that a Bunch of Arab Moslem Kids who were not able to Fly a Cessna Airplane took it upon themselves to FLY a Jumbo 747 and outwitted the US Militaryand Civilian authorities. The “Jewish Lightning Insurance Scam” of the 1960’s is still alive and well has been put to good use by Larry Silverstein in putting 15 million down and comming out with 7 billion dollars for buidings that no one wanted to buy because it would have cost a billion dollars to remove the asbestos from. Then on top of that the people in America actually believe that they actually decide who is elected President or for that that actual VOTE is really counted and makes a difference in deciding who represents them in the White House and congress.

    http://www.911missinglinks.com/

    bollyn.com , rense.com

    http://www.dailypaul.com/253111/new-9-11-truth-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-this-week


    whatreallyhappened.com

    http://www.brasschecktv.com

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth

    Yeh I agree that the AmericanNon-Jews are indeed American “GOYISHE KUP” or “STUPID CATTLE”!

Comments are closed.