IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

Guest essay by Marlo Lewis

Okay, they don’t do so in as many words. But in addition to being more confident than ever (despite a 16-year pause in warming and the growing mismatch between model projections and observations) that man-made climate change is real, they are also more confident nothing really bad is going to happen during the 21st Century.

The scariest parts of the “planetary emergency” narrative popularized by Al Gore and other pundits are Atlantic Ocean circulation shutdown (implausibly plunging Europe into a mini-ice age), ice sheet disintegration raising sea levels 20 feet, and runaway warming from melting frozen methane deposits.

As BishopHill and Judith Curry report on their separate blogs, IPCC now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.” You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.

But these doomsday scenarios have always been way more fiction than science. For some time now, extreme weather has been the only card left in the climate alarm deck. Climate activists repeatedly assert that severe droughts, floods, and storms (Hurricane Sandy is their current poster child) are now the “new normal,” and they blame fossil fuels.

On their respective blogs Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke, Jr. provide excerpts about extreme weather from Chapter 2 of the IPCC report. Among the findings:

  • “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
  • “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
  • “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
  • “Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
  • “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

Pielke Jr. concludes:

“There is really not much more to be said here — the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.”

For further discussion, see my post “Global Warming: Planet’s Most Hyped Problem” on this week’s National Journal Energy Insiders blog.

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

See also: Global warming is ‘no longer a planetary emergency’

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

  1. Malcolm Miller says:

    The IPCC is dead but it won’t lie down for years, it will simply fade into obscurity, which is what it deserves.

  2. Gunga Din says:

    But the rules and regulations it leaves behind and the bureaucracies to enforce them may not.

  3. RC Saumarez says:

    This is true, but will the EPA take any notice?

  4. clivebest says:

    This is so true.

    Just like the AIDS epidemic, nuclear winter, bird flu pandemics, BSE in cattle, Acid rain, Ozone holes, Y2K bugs, meteor impact, supernovae, the next ice age etc – There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life on earth and this can all be logically addressed within the next 50 – 80 years as required.

  5. In David Whitehouse’s interview with Jennifer Francis, she maintains that there are more “stronger hurricanes” now than in the 70′s because of global warming.

    Yet NOAA tell us

    During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry.

    And

    As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/jennifer-francis-increased-hurricane-activity/

    So, is she lying, or simply incompetent?

  6. Tom J says:

    clivebest
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    says:
    ‘There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life…’

    Respectfully; why do you think there is a real problem with CO2?

  7. CRS, DrPH says:

    But these doomsday scenarios have always been way more fiction than science. For some time now, extreme weather has been the only card left in the climate alarm deck.

    Not quite, they still have the “ocean acidification” card to play. Watch for it.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels

  8. Mike McMillan says:

    So now the IPCC doesn’t care about drowning polar bears?

    How shallow.

  9. clivebest
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    says:
    “There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life…”

    Why is there a real problem with CO2? My plants are loving the extra nourishment, The trees around here are growing faster. The weather is much the same as ever.

  10. BarryW says:

    @nicholas

    But that’s the problem. Better plant growth will have more people that don’t die from hunger that will breed more and be happier. The catastrophist’s worse nightmare.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    clivebest
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    says:
    ‘There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life…’
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are correct there is a real problem with CO2. There is not enough in the atmosphere. When the earth slips back into a glacial and the CO2 levels plummet again C3 plants may become extinct.
    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.

  12. Latitude says:

    At the one point in time when CO2 levels should have had the most effect….380-400 ppm
    ….temps stopped and went down

    and they come up with the stupidest lamest excuse….it’s hiding

  13. BBould says:

    RC Saumarez says:

    This is true, but will the EPA take any notice?

    Only when we get a new administration will we even have a chance at changing the EPA.

  14. Bob Greene says:

    What, no tipping point? No total disaster if we don’t act by next week, next month, next year or immediately some time in the future? I haven’t heard that rhetoric in a while, but we still are getting the skeer on a regular basis but it seems to be a bit muted.

  15. u.k.(us) says:

    clivebest says:

    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    “– There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life on earth and this can all be logically addressed within the next 50 – 80 years as required.”
    =============
    Really, you go back about 100 years, and we’ve seen two world wars.
    Logic wasn’t the desired outcome, quite the opposite.
    They both took way less than “50-80 Years” to their conclusion.

    Plant food just doesn’t seem like it will ……convert entire economies into a force to defeat the threat.
    I mean there are “real problems” aren’t there ?

  16. Tom J says:

    RC Saumarez
    October 4, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    says:
    ‘This is true, but will the EPA take any notice?’

    They will notice it, but they will notice it as a catastrophe. If there’s no ‘real’ climate catastrophe they will recognize that, in and of itself, as a catastrophe. A catastrophe for their jobs, security, and the delicious authority they’ve grown to acquire. It will also be a catastrophe to the validity of their meaning, the importance of what they’ve done. Nobody wants to be told, not just that they were wrong, but that they did the wrong thing. So they will fight it. Perhaps they’ll save a few barbs for the university professors who helped lead them into this, and who themselves will slink away unscathed. (Although I am aware that it was mutual.) Then they’ll get creative and try to spin the needle, claim that the measures already taken at their insistence, though unnecessary, provided unforeseen benefits and were good policy in any case, and they designed them to be that way, yada, yada. Just wait. Government institutions, unlike those in the private sector, cannot only fail, they can fail spectacularly and still get increases in funding and respect. This is why we should have as few of them as possible.

  17. DirkH says:

    They will say “boo!”; the MSM will for months repeat, Harry Reid said Boo! when I stood really close to him, and you will be shot if you don’t pay the tax, and that’s that.
    F*** science.

  18. Txomin says:

    One can only imagine how desperately weak the “consensus” is within the very IPCC when they are forced to report things like these. btw, I just glanced over a copy of “New Scientist” and, nope, the planetary emergency is more urgent than ever.

  19. William McClenney says:

    Er…. Uh….. If this isn’t an “Oops!” moment then one wonders what is?

  20. William McClenney says:

  21. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Paul Homewood -
    In re Jennifer Francis – both a liar and a charlatan.
    @Tom J -
    The EPA and der Fuehrer’s climate change agenda are central to his objectives of crashing the economy and consolidating his Soviet-style one-party dictatorship. Therefore, as long as he is able to exert any influence, the EPA will not back off, no matter how obvious it becomes that the AGW meme is false and dead. The other elements of der Fuehrer’s planned infrastructure are Obamacare, with its extension of the IRS’s reach into our personal business, and the NSA – all of these are intended to be combined to enable the dictation of every detail of our lives. This is, or course, the worst aspect of AGW, that it is being used to justify the imposition of a tyranny. Everybody here at WUWT has been warning of this, and now it is happening right in front of us here in the US. Even the EU and Australia backing away from the AGW meme will not stop Obama’s EPA.

  22. Latitude says:

    clivebest says:
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    – There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life on earth and this can all be logically addressed within the next 50 – 80 years as required.
    ========
    clive…if we had the exact same technology we have today…only 1000 years ago
    What would the prediction be?

    …do you see how silly this is?

  23. Bruce Cobb says:

    Tom J says:
    October 4, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    clivebest
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    says:
    ‘There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life…’

    Respectfully; why do you think there is a real problem with CO2?

    I think he means that CO2 levels are dangerously low. Ideally, they should be more like 800 ppm, or higher.

  24. Margaret says:

    In the end, they’ll say, “see, we told you there was nothing to greenhouse gases.”.

  25. Brian H says:

    BarryW says:
    October 4, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    @nicholas

    But that’s the problem. Better plant growth will have more people that don’t die from hunger that will breed more and be happier. The catastrophist’s worse nightmare.

    Get the UN Population Survey spreadsheet, and select the Low Band page. It’s the only one that’s ever close to accurate. Peak around 8bn in 30 yrs, declining thereafter. Depop will be the real crisis, just as cooling is the real danger instead of warming.

    Green assessments and fears and warnings are 180° wrong. Let that be your guideline, it’s virtually infallible.

  26. The United Nations Environment program (UNEP) published the alarming detail in 2005 predicting climate change would create 50 million refugees by 2010. By 2011 UNEP were quietly taking down the documents in attempt to hide the mistake. Or was it a mistake?.

    The well-known and reliable blog site wattsupwiththat mirrored the tables, graphs, other factual documents and information on the prediction, which had been taken down in 2011 by UNEP.

    ‘And there you have it folks, another bogus climate claim rubbished by reality, followed by an inept cover up attempt,’ wrote Anthony Watts.

    The UNEP gave a detailed ‘handy map’ on areas most likely to be affected: Bahamas, St Lucia, Seychelles and Solomon Islands.

    A recent census on the islands showed ample population increases: Bahamas 50,047, Solomon Islands exceeds half a million and St Lucia recorded an overall increase of 5 percent.

    Further investigation showed other news reports with identical alarming figures by 2020.

    ‘Coming in 2020: 50 million Environmental refugees,’ a headline read. A UN projection by Professor Cristine Tirado at the American Association for the advancement of sciences meeting.

    In Australia, Chairman of the Climate Commission, Tim Flannery’s predictions have come under similar question.

    Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun said: ‘Tim Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard government to scare us stupid,’ Heraldsun.com.

    In 2011 Bolt returns to Flannery’s 2005 prediction that Australia will face ‘extreme difficulties with water,’ and reveals: Sydney’s dam levels have climbed to 73 percent, Brisbane 100 percent full, Adelaide 70 full and The Murray Darling is flooding.

  27. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    AL GORE — AMERICAN BLOVIATOR

    Forever, forever, its all Al Gore
    Now, in the future and always before
    Spinning himself with the words he can whirl
    The earth is his oyster, he is its pearl

    Whatever he says he truly believes
    First before others himself he deceives
    Then sure of the “TRUTH” his dictums are hurled
    Like God, by the Word, creating the world

  28. bw says:

    Sandy was not a hurricane.
    Sustained wind speeds were well below the 33 meters per second threshold at landfall.
    Post storm damage assessment is consistent with tropical storm winds, around 20 meters per second.
    Water damage from tidal surge was due to non-existent planning and land use policy.
    Had Sandy hit Florida no one would have noticed.

  29. JimF says:

    The IPCC is like the myrdraal in the Robert Jordan epic science fantasy story, The Wheel of Time. To kill them you must cut off their heads. They will still flop about like the proverbial chicken, but eventually they die, and all the trollocs (great hairy beasts) linked to them also die. The US needs to quit funding the IPCC, and to demand an audit and recompense from the charlatans involved in this scam.

  30. If you can’t yet fire in a crowded theatre why can you yell warming on a crowed planet? Al Gore deserves a new home, in the Big House, not a big house.

  31. Janice Moore says:

    Where are they now?

    (WARNING: mildly disturbing — do not watch while using Bunsen burner)

    Al Gore — making B grade music videos

    Jim Hansen — Involuntarily Made Member of “Royal Society”

    Mikey Mann and Heidi Cullen –
    starring in a B grade movie about Yasser Arafat

    ********************

    Yes. Their AGW nonsense is THAT BAD.

    After a disgusted snort, the logical response is: … laugh at it.
    .
    .
    .

    (and, of course, politicians and/or entrepreneurs who used it to promote energy poverty should be put into prison)

  32. Grant says:

    California’s CARB agency introduced MTBE into gasoline where it stayed poisoning ground water for 15 years because it is water soluble. It’s the most grevious environmental disaster in Ca history but they continue on, well funded, ready to drive truckers and business in California into bankruptcy or fleeing to other states.
    I’d love to be optimistic but in my state, at least, people have learned nothing and continue to support the party that supports CARB.

  33. RoHa says:

    [Sigh] Doom just isn’t what it used to be. When I was a lad we were really doomed. It was total destruction of civilization. But now, maybe a slight inconvenience. Young people today don’t know what proper doom is. They think it’s just a computer game.

  34. R Taylor says:

    clivebest says:
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    ——————————————-
    Perhaps Clive is concerned that CO2 will make the ocean ever-so-slightly less alkaline (i.e. closer to the pH typical of the rest of the Cenozoic era).

  35. Matthew R Marler says:

    clivebest: There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life on earth and this can all be logically addressed within the next 50 – 80 years as required.

    What is the real problem with CO2?

  36. Allan MacRae says:

    Gail Combs says: October 4, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    You are correct there is a real problem with CO2. There is not enough in the atmosphere. When the earth slips back into a glacial and the CO2 levels plummet again C3 plants may become extinct.“
    Ref. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.

    ___________

    I generally agree Gail. CO2 levels are much too low to sustain life over the longer term. Here are some thoughts from 2009:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79426

    (Plant) Food for Thought (apologies – written too late at night)

    Background:

    http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html
    1. “As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
    2. “The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present). During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials…
    … On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 myr BP of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 myr BP of over 6,000 ppm.”

    Questions and meanderings:

    According to para.1 above:

    During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not?

    Does this (possible) loss of plant life have anything to do with rebounding of atmospheric CO2 levels as the world exits the Ice Age (in combination with other factors such as ocean exsolution)? Could this contribute to the observed asymmetry?

    When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?

    Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that CO2 causes dangerous global warming?

    Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
    “This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.”

    Regards, Allan :-)

    P.S.
    A possible explanation is that ice core CO2 is directionally correct but low in absolute terms due to CO2 diffusion.
    Leaf stomata data shows much higher CO2 values – up to 60ppm higher for peaks and 30-40 ppm on average.
    See Fig. 2 at http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf

  37. TRM says:

    Clive, last ice age CO2 got down to 170 ppm and if had dropped another 12% we wouldn’t be having this discussion. At 150 ppm plant life above the oceans stops. Followed shortly thereafter by animals. Before we enter the next ice age I for one would like a nice buffer margin of CO2 that is much larger than 20 ppm.

    “RoHa says: October 4, 2013 at 6:23 pm – Kids think Doom is a game”. Ha, made me laugh. Good one. Growing up we had “thermonuclear warfare” and trigger happy generals (I’m a talking to you Curtis Lemay).

  38. M Simon says:

    TRM,

    My worry was General Buck Turgidson.

  39. AndyG55 says:

    Gail, we should greatly thanks China, India, Brazil, Germany for their continued efforts in replenishing atmospheric CO2.

    But much more work is needed. We play our part down here by supplying China and others with our coal (we can’t use it all ourselves), but you guys in the USA must get rid of the stupid people trying to stop the use of coal fired energy.
    They are doing the whole world a great dis-service.

    And the UK, well, good luck if it starts to get colder !!

  40. En Passant says:

    The IPCC/Agenda-21 juggernaut rolls on untroubled by facts or reality. In today’s weekend newspaper in Melbourne, Australia (on Page 37 – now that is a good sign!) was the headline “Oceans in Dire Straits” (I read the story because I thought it was about a pop band). I swear it began “Once upon a time ….”, no sorry, wrong article. It actually began “Scientists say that ‘it’s worse than we thought, the oceans are in dire straits because of mankind pumping in pollutants, nutrients and heat, which combined with acidification and overfishing mean the oceans are at risk of dying …’” Amazing what you can learn from Page 37: the oceans are a living thing that can die. I moved to the Comics Section for a dose of reality and factual information …

  41. TRM says:

    “M Simon says: October 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    TRM, My worry was General Buck Turgidson. ”

    Who do you think that character was modelled after? I’m sure the Soviets had some fellows exactly like Curtis. During the Cuban missile crisis Lemay wanted to go nuclear and get it over with. I’m real glad calmer heads prevailed. Some real quotes from Lemay

    - There are no innocent civilians.
    - I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.

    Yea our generation has some real doom to worry about but we made it and now the best they can do is “CO2 alarms” over weather? They need better marketing.

  42. RoHa says:

    @TRM
    Yes, total thermonuclear war was what I was thinking of.
    There probably were some “Why wait? Nuke the USA now!” types in the Soviet Union, though we never saw them. (I recall Joseph Luns asked the US to keep its Mid-West Senators at home for the sake of NATO. He said they terrified the Europeans far more than the Soviets did.)

    Fortunately, the Soviets also had Stanislav Petrov.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/the-man-who-saved-the-world-by-doing-absolutely-nothing/280050/

  43. John Whitman says:

    IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

    Guest essayist by Marlo Lewis wtote,

    “Okay, they don’t do so in as many words. But in addition to being more confident than ever (despite a 16-year pause in warming and the growing mismatch between model projections and observations) that man-made climate change is real, they are also more confident nothing really bad is going to happen during the 21st Century.”

    – - – - – - – -

    Well, what Mario Lewis wrote will be seen by the following folks as confirming their conspiracy claims: Naomi Oreskes, Michael Mann, John Cook, Jim Hansen.

    They claimed the fossil fuel industry was conspiring to disrupt the public from seeing to truth of a ‘consensus’ science finding of CAGW.

    Now, with Nick’s points in mind they will say the IPCC was finally bought off by the fossil fuel industry.

    Can we expect them to condemn the the IPCC and its AR5 in outrage?

    Stay tuned.

    John

  44. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Ro Ha (re: 9:53pm),

    That the Europeans were afraid is not to be ignored, but, (ahem), those U.S. Senators were focused on terrifying the highly motivated, fiercely determined, “we will bury you,” Soviets. Being “diplomatic” with that bunch would NOT have worked. M. A. D. worked. Thankfully, there were some sane people in the U.S.S.R..

    Of course, now, when (uh, oh, the Thought Police are peeking over my shoulder…. meh, what DO I CARE) the I-zzl–m ick gee-hawd — guys are in the game, the self-restraint of the sane hasn’t a chance. All those little creeps understand is BRUTE FORCE. So, that’s what we must display — strength = peace.

    Why did Cold War Europeans transfer their fears and anger at the U.S.S.R. to the U.S.? For the same reason a child who had a run in with the school bully comes home and snarls at his mom. She is safe.

    I tell you, Ro Ha, please forgive my venting here, but, I’m really tired of Europeans complaining about the U.S. after all we have done for them. In 1944 and 1945, the Dutch transferred their genuine anger at the Nazis to the Americans — “Where are the Americans?! What’s their problem? They should have gotten here a long time ago.”

    Now, we have a token president who for twenty years sat in the pews of a church where a pastor yelled, “God — da–mn America!”

    Well, to end on a pleasant note, I hope you are enjoying a lovely “spring” day, down there. Thanks for all your many fine posts on WUWT using your linguistic education and your great natural facility with words.

    An ally for truth in science (really!),

    Janice
    U.S.A.

  45. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, fiddle! Sorry, mods. I forgot to write it “Nah–z-e–e-z”. Sorry for your having to read all that. Thanks. (red faced)

  46. u.k.(us) says:

    RoHa says:

    October 4, 2013 at 9:53 pm
    “There probably were some “Why wait? Nuke the USA now!” types in the Soviet Union, though we never saw them.”
    ===========
    Submarines took that card right out of the pack.
    Not saying we will “win”, but aint gonna lose.

  47. Policy Guy says:

    Excuse the rant…

    from the post…

    “The scariest parts of the “planetary emergency” narrative popularized by Al Gore and other pundits are Atlantic Ocean circulation shutdown (implausibly plunging Europe into a mini-ice age”).

    So Gore thinks that we may be implausably falling into a mini-global warming ice age in Europe that will last a few years. What an apparently stupid statement to make. Al and the IPCC should all know better.

    A Glaciation period lasts 100,000 years, our current warming interglacial period lasts about 15-20,000 years. Its been repeated over and over about twenty times during the current ice age of about 2 million years. Is he smoking??? We are nearing the end of this interglacial period. Or is he just acknowledging the middle evil ice age?

    If he is forecasting ice formations, he should do so with some knowledge of our history with ice sheets. This information is well documented through scores of peer-reviewed papers regarding Palio-Climatology published over the years in his current favorite “captive” climate entity, the AGE “Geophysical Union”, unless he he wants to purge those papers, or disparage them.

    Maybe instead he should read them and struggle to understand them. Maybe all “Climate Scientists” should read them. They are all based upon historical observational science – not glib models based upon carefully chosen factors that conclude their desire results. All were written before the current climate religion based upon mocked-up models took hold and funded a whole new generation of “Climate Scientists”. Poor things…

    What an apparently intentionally ignorant and misleading person. Just fold away Al, and let applied scientific observations lead our thinking instead of your apparent politically and personally financially motivated religious mandates.

  48. Patrick says:

    “Chad Wozniak says:

    October 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm”

    Most countries in the EU (Some have not signed up to the EU ETS), are certainly not backing away from CO2 driven alarmism. It’s true some eyebrows have been raised and some questions asked, but that IMO is diversionary. Most EU countries now fully rely on any revenues raised through the EU ETS and various taxes.

    Although we have a new Govn’t here in Australia and Tim “Our dams will be empty” Flannery (Apparently Australia’s climate change expert – I guess all you need is a degree in English literature for that these days) sacked from the taxpayer funded Climate Change Commission, the price on carbon, which increased this year, is still in place and the new Govn’t still has a “Direct Action” plan to reduce emissions. Tim Flannery’s new Climate Council was recently setup and privately funded to the tune of AU$1.6m (I guess that’s his income secured for now). So, sadly, there are still some seriously fooled people here in Australia. Personally, I don’t care what other people do with their time and money but I do care if it directly costs or affects me.

  49. Jimbo says:

    clivebest says:
    October 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    …………There is a real problem with CO2 but there is no imminent threat to life on earth and this can all be logically addressed within the next 50 – 80 years as required.

    What is the problem? Is it planetary greening in recent decades? Was it a problem when co2 in the atmosphere was 10x, 5x, 3x, 2x today’s values?

  50. Admad says:

    Slightly o/t but a little light relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdS3u22FkXc

  51. Blade says:

    Mark Besse (@MarkB1205) [October 4, 2013 at 6:05 pm] says:

    If you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre why can you yell warming on a crowded planet? Al Gore deserves a new home, in the Big House, not a big house.

    Well said!

  52. RACookPE1978 says:

    OK.

    So let me see if I’ve got this precautionary principle right here.

    You have a guaranteed, 100% chance of killing 1,000,000 people per year (worldwide) by starvation, illness, bad water, genetic harm, and cold/heat deaths – and adding harm, disease, poor health, poor food, poor comfort, tension, stress, bad jobs, and forced labor and stress because of deliberately bad economic conditions to 4 billion other innocents BECAUSE of your demand for raising energy prices and restricting commerce and better food, clothing,a nd shelter and economies, right?

    And this, guaranteed, 100% assured harm and deaths is going to be maintained for the next 87 years, right? You do, after all, fear what “might” happen in 2100, right?

    So, we are after all, only “buying and insurance policy” against future harm, right?

    So, if there is a 50% chance that today’s increased warmth and increased health are due to “natural causes” … what exactly are you afraid of? YOU (and YOUR deaths and injury) can’t do anything about that natural change, can you? Hmmmmn.

    So, if today’s 17 year cooling trend continues, all of that 100% chance of death and injury are due to you, right?

    What if it gets warmer? Regardless of reason: Man-caused (after all, isn’t that a 50% chance according to the IPCC?) or natural causes? Good health, better lives, and better economies and more food, clothing and shelter for all, more food, fodder, feedstock, fuel and feasting! Sounds good, doesn’t it? (Unless you want to kill people and harm others, that is.) CO2 WILL IMPROVE (and fertilize) ALL PLANTS, all life on this planet.

    So, what are the probabilities for a 2 degree C rise? 2%? 5%? (It might happen, after all.) What happens if temperature rises 2 degrees? No harm, and only good.

    OK. Not bad. I can live with that.

    What are probabilities of a 3 degree C rise by 2100? 1/2 of 1 percent? 1/10 of 1 percent? Come on – They are YOUR models, YOU tell us! And, further, if temperatures do rise 3 degrees, will there actually be any harm at all?

    If there is harm – yet to be established, will that minor harm outweigh the death and misery YOU have committed every year to 7 billion individuals and innocents between
    2007 and 2100?

  53. thingadonta says:

    Note the disconnect between the planetary emergency being called off, and the IPCC still telling us how we still desperately need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Another example of ‘hilarious incoherence’?

  54. Roy says:

    Janice Moore says:

    I tell you, Ro Ha, please forgive my venting here, but, I’m really tired of Europeans complaining about the U.S. after all we have done for them. In 1944 and 1945, the Dutch transferred their genuine anger at the Nazis to the Americans — “Where are the Americans?! What’s their problem? They should have gotten here a long time ago.”

    The Dutch did no such thing. The vast majority of the Allied troops in Holland were British and Canadian. It is hardly surprising that the Dutch were impatient for the war to be over. Thousands of them died of starvation in the bitter winter of 1944. The Dutch were very grateful to be liberated and they were not angry with the liberators.

  55. Amatør1 says:

    thingadonta says:
    October 5, 2013 at 1:42 am

    Note the disconnect between the planetary emergency being called off, and the IPCC still telling us how we still desperately need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Another example of ‘hilarious incoherence’?

    No, it is not incoherent. The IPCC knows that there is no emergency, and that CO2 has no effect on the climate in either direction. They also know that most people in reality understand this. Therefore, they say the opposite of the truth. It is a power demonstration, a way of intimidating the public. It has been done before.

  56. hunter says:

    Another way of looking at this is that the AGW movement sees itself in power. No media is seriously investigating it. Funding is secure. Political power is weakening in small areas, like Canada and Australia, but elsewhere is strong. If the reason they got into power- a planetary climate catastrophe is no longer needed, why bother with it? Lying about a non-existent planetary emergency is harder than simply rewriting the past and pretending it was never predicted. The Malthusian types always do this: Paul Ehrlich has gotten away with this, the ice age promoters got away with it, Malthus got away with it. Why not the AGW kooks?

  57. DirkH says:

    Janice Moore says:
    October 4, 2013 at 10:26 pm
    “I tell you, Ro Ha, please forgive my venting here, but, I’m really tired of Europeans complaining about the U.S. after all we have done for them. ”

    Wall street interests and Woodrow Wilson created the Soviet Union; Henry Ford, GE and the likes financed Hitler’s winning campaign.

    WW II’s two most diabolical regimes, one of them an ally of the USA, were US creations.

    Thanks a lot from Germany.

  58. Eliza says:

    The signs of a coming ice age are getting clearer every day:
    -Antarctica ice extent and thickness above anomaly constant above now for 2 years.
    -Arctic returning to normal SD values and likely to go above anomaly this NH winter and stay there.
    Early arrival of winter in NH (snow etc)
    Late arrival of Summer in SH (due to massive increase in antarctica)
    -Predict a dramatic drop in global mean land temps this and next few years >0.5C reaching -2C in years. Due only to solar activity the ONLY variable that has in fact changed in the whole AGW debate. Lets see…..

  59. JimS says:

    @Eliza

    You may be right.
    Given clear evidence as to what has happened 10 times in the last million years, glaciation will come again. It is not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when.” The only cycle holding back glaciation now is obliquity, as the other two cycles are gauged for another 85,000 years of glaciation to fall. The CO2 warming alarmists have been barking up not only the wrong tree, but rather, a tree that never existed in the first place.

  60. Randy says:

    This couldnt be funnier to me. I laughed to myself for hours after I first read this. Ive had a loooong going debate on this with a couple folks on a gardening forum, and these are among the points Ive long made and tried to prove to them. Didnt matter what data I would show them, they would respond with some supposed authority on the matter claiming the opposite is true, (rarely any data)

    Am I to understand the medieval warm period exists again? can it be true? (a friend told me this part)

    So after 5 years of the warming trend ending we were told to wait to 10 years if I believe. At 10 years we were told 15. At 15 we were told 17plus. Medieval warm period was adjusted away, but is back. now the IPCC admits several obvious things the skeptics have long pointed out. BUT they are more sure then ever humans are the cause! Admittedly we only understand small parts of the climate system as a whole, and we cant find the missing heat, because some natural factor drove down temps. which one? who knows none of them changed in any significant way, as weighted by the IPCC to cause said changes, but surely it was one of them because we are VERY sure human released co2 has caused drastic warming the last few years we just cannot find out where it is hiding.

    This is just getting silly. I studied this topic literally to be better equipped to prove its validity to people. It been a long and strange road, and by the look we are far from the end, and only now getting into the strange….

  61. I wish someone would explain to me why the recent ‘pause’ is actually significant, when previous periods of pause have been observed, but when the record is observed at longer time scales the pauses are seen to be…well, part of a grander picture that shows temperatures increasing in fits and starts but, yes, increasing?

    I’m serious. Yes, I’m in the AGW camp. But in the interest of civility, and knowledge, I simply do not understand the argument on the other ‘side’ of this issue, and hope someone here can lay it out for me?

  62. Coach Springer says:

    Centuries. What was our globe and civilization like in 1913? And what were they worried about? What to do with all those horses in NYC? I suppose if they were worried about global warming (as the IPCC would say they should have been), they’d have spent billions on livestock methane sequestration studies and a methane tax. Plug a hose into the horse’s rear and power an electric motor – the Tesla M.

  63. beng says:

    None of the warmists ever mention that @ 180 ppm, CO2 was the lowest during the recent glacial maximums than at any time during the earth’s 4.5 billion yr history.

  64. hunter says:

    Michael,
    The ‘pause’ pulls temperatures out of the range of accuracy that the models projected. It shows that the models used to justify the claims of the IPCC are worthless. That is why it is important. That is why the climate obsessed are now changing the standards of the debate. Again.
    Temperatures are not increasing dramatically, quickly or dangerously. They are only now more or less on par with the MWP.

  65. Bruce Cobb says:

    Michael Spencer says:
    October 5, 2013 at 5:45 am

    I wish someone would explain to me why the recent ‘pause’ is actually significant, when previous periods of pause have been observed, but when the record is observed at longer time scales the pauses are seen to be…well, part of a grander picture that shows temperatures increasing in fits and starts but, yes, increasing?
    First of all, it isn’t a pause. The warming has stopped for roughly 17 years, and counting despite CO2 continuing to increase. This shows the GCMs to be junk, which we already knew. Manmade warming is simply a myth.

  66. geran says:

    Michael Spencer says:
    October 5, 2013 at 5:45 am

    …I’m serious….
    >>>>>

    Uh, Michael, if you’re STILL in the AGW camp, you can’t be taken seriously.

  67. TRBixler says:

    Well just in case no one has realized the true danger of CO2 here it is
    Dinosaurs!
    As the CO2 goes up plants get larger and birds return to their previous forms!

  68. davidsimm says:

    What I want to know is – since Tony abbott unceremoniously booted out Tim Flannery, Australian Climate Commissioner, has the climate of Australia deteriorated..?

  69. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    The British Police have bought the IPCC’s old computer. They believe they can produce a model that will be able to predict crimes before they happen.

  70. Latitude says:

    Michael Spencer says:
    October 5, 2013 at 5:45 am

    I wish someone would explain to me why the recent ‘pause’ is actually significant, when previous periods of pause have been observed, but when the record is observed at longer time scales the pauses are seen to be…well, part of a grander picture that shows temperatures increasing in fits and starts but, yes, increasing?
    ===============
    Michael, you are exactly right….
    Our recent pause of decreasing temperatures is a perfectly normal hic-cup…
    …when the overall trend is still decreasing temperatures

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

  71. Latitude says:

    hunter says:
    October 5, 2013 at 6:23 am

    Michael,
    The ‘pause’ pulls temperatures out of the range of accuracy that the models projected.
    =====
    at the exact moment when CO2 levels should have had the most effect….

  72. Sunsettommy says:

    Michael Spencer writes,

    “I wish someone would explain to me why the recent ‘pause’ is actually significant, when previous periods of pause have been observed, but when the record is observed at longer time scales the pauses are seen to be…well, part of a grander picture that shows temperatures increasing in fits and starts but, yes, increasing?”

    It is significant because the IPCC had predicted a .20C warming in EACH of the first two decades of this century and we have instead a slight cooling trend.

  73. Patrick says:

    Michael is touting for business. Nothing more, nothing less. And what blog gets the most traffic?

  74. davidmhoffer says:

    Michael Spencer;

    There are many reasons, but the biggest one is that the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 increases was claimed to be so great that it would overcome natural variation no matter what. Those of [us] who understood the physics were fairly certain that this was an exaggeration at worst, a gross misunderstanding of feed backs at best. The halt in warming is a vindication of that viewpoint. Over the course of the debate, the top climate scientists in the world at first said that sensitivity was so high that it could not be overcome by natural variation for time periods longer than 10 years. As we approached the 10 year mark, they decided that perhaps sensitivity was lower than thought and/or natural variation was higher, but that 15 years was the maximum time that natural variation could overwhelm CO2′s effects. As we approached the 15 year mark, those same scientists once again rejigged their estimation of sensitivity versus natural variation to claim a maximum of 17 years. Now that we are approaching that mark, those self same scientists are suggesting that 30 years may be an appropriate timeline.

    So in the final analysis, it is significant not just because is shows that the scientists were wrong and are now simply making excuses for their mistakes rather than own up to them, but also because their own data is showing that regardless of what CO2′s effects are, they are small compared to natural variability. If we are going to invest gigantic chunks of our economy into surviving climate change, it is natural variability that we need to fear, not CO2. That makes policies such as turning food into fuel while people in the world are starving, criminal. That makes the erection of wind mills and solar farms to produce electricity at quadruple the rates of conventional production an insane drag on the economy that puts people on welfare instead of generating jobs. That makes the World Bank’s policy of not funding affordable power plant technologies in third world countries a crime against the poor of the world.

    But most of all, it means that we’re putting band aids on paper cuts while ignoring the potential for real harm due to natural variability and preparing for that by adaptation (which is our only option since we can’t mitigate natural variation, and which btw protects us from both warming and cooling and costs a fraction of what mitigation costs).

  75. JimS says:

    @Michael Spencer

    Yes, temperatures are increasing overall since the Maunder Minimum, which reached is cold peak roughly 300 years ago. But temperatures had also steadily decreased from around AD 1350 in order to arrive at the Maunder Minimum. There are larger warming and cooling cycles that occur, and have occurred for the last 11,500 years of this present interglacial period. To suggest that man, and only man with his CO2 is solely responsible for the recent warming trend is to ignore the basics of Climate Science. Behold this graph below:
    http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/holocene.jpg

  76. Fernando (in Brazil) says:

    Janice Moore says:
    October 4, 2013 at 6:15 pm
    Where are they now?
    Jim Hansen — Involuntarily Made Member of “Royal Society”

    very funny,

    IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

    Pirates of the Caribbean.

    attack in the Arctic.

    Of course all too exaggerated …. so as usual

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/03/greenpeace-activists-arctic-sunrise

  77. HenryP says:

    i am sure I commented here as well. But now, where is it (my comment?)

  78. RobRoy says:

    DirkH says:
    October 5, 2013 at 4:21 am

    “”Janice Moore says:
    October 4, 2013 at 10:26 pm
    “I tell you, Ro Ha, please forgive my venting here, but, I’m really tired of Europeans complaining about the U.S. after all we have done for them. ”

    Wall street interests and Woodrow Wilson created the Soviet Union; Henry Ford, GE and the likes financed Hitler’s winning campaign.

    WW II’s two most diabolical regimes, one of them an ally of the USA, were US creations.””

    DirkH makes Janice Moore’s case.

    Oh what evil hath America wrought unto the poor innocent waifs of Europe, victims all.
    My Uncle lies dead in France, Sir. He was killed by Germans (maybe the Vichy) in WWII.
    He was there to finish it, not to start it. You Euros did that.
    His name is Sgt. Roy Phillips. He was 20.
    You should honor all those like him.
    They liberated you, whether you like it or not.

  79. John Whitman says:

    Eliza on October 5, 2013 at 4:31 am

    The signs of a coming ice age are getting clearer every day:
    -Antarctica ice extent and thickness above anomaly constant above now for 2 years.
    -Arctic returning to normal SD values and likely to go above anomaly this NH winter and stay there.
    Early arrival of winter in NH (snow etc)
    Late arrival of Summer in SH (due to massive increase in antarctica)
    -Predict a dramatic drop in global mean land temps this and next few years >0.5C reaching -2C in years. Due only to solar activity the ONLY variable that has in fact changed in the whole AGW debate. Lets see…..

    - – - – - – - -

    Eliza,

    It is a reasonable position to say there will be yet anther glacial period like the past 4 or 5 and that this interglacial period is already at the length of some past ones. Yet the transition period from an interglacial phase like we are in to the glacial phase is slow over millennial (1000s of yrs) scales. And in past such transitions there have been large variations (swings) of cooling and warming periods on the century scale.

    So, I suggest we actually do not know if we are in a transition or just cruising along within the current interglacial.

    I would be nice to know, but . . .

    John

  80. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Here’s a question. What would happen if atmospheric CO2 fell to 0%?

  81. Amatør1 says:

    Jimmy Haigh. says:
    October 5, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Here’s a question. What would happen if atmospheric CO2 fell to 0%?

    No photosynthesis. No plants would survive, No animal food. The end.

  82. Here’s a question. What would happen if atmospheric CO2 fell to 0%?
    No photosynthesis. No plants would survive, No animal food. The end.

    Something the next Ice Age (big one) will effectively bring about.

  83. RobRoy says:
    October 5, 2013 at 8:16 am

    My Uncle lies dead in France… You should honor all those like him.
    They liberated you, whether you like it or not.

    The rulers, of all countries, create the mess; the common people, of all countries, have to sort it out. Nothing new there.

  84. Allan MacRae says:

    davidmhoffer says: October 5, 2013 at 7:45 am

    Well said Sir!

    Of all the good answers to Michael Spencer, yours was the best, imo.

  85. Alan Robertson says:

    DirkH says:
    October 5, 2013 at 4:21 am

    WW II’s two most diabolical regimes, one of them an ally of the USA, were US creations.

    Thanks a lot from Germany.
    ______________________
    I’ve seen some twisted logic before, but hey pal, you should be a pretzel maker.

  86. Allan MacRae says:

    DirkH says: October 5, 2013 at 4:21 am

    How about some credible sources for your allegations Dirk? Like global warming mania, much of the radical left’s propaganda is fabricated in coffee shops and bars and has little or no basis in fact. However, it is effectively used by scoundrels and fervently believed by imbeciles.

    I have a great-uncle buried in France in WW1 – no doubt that war was caused by Teddy Roosevelt – Bully bully!!! Shoot that duke!

    My uncle survived Dieppe in 1942 – the only officer in his regiment to get back to England – he swam the first few miles, pushing a rowboat he filled with the only ten survivors from his group. We don’t blame the Germans for Dieppe; rightly or wrongly, we blame Lord Louis Mountbatten. It appears that global warming fanatic Prince Charles inherited his intellect.

    I suggest that the USA’s Marshall Plan saved many millions of lives and entire societies across Europe, including West Germany. It was and remain the most enlightened and benevolent act in human history.

    I travelled into Soviet East Germany through Checkpoint Charlie in July 1989, just before the Berlin Wall fell. It was an economic and environmental disaster! Nothing worked, and that included most of the people. There were no human rights, and human dignity had been crushed. And East Germany was by far the best place in the Former Soviet Union!

    I have been back to Germany many times since then, both East and West. I like Germany and Germans, notwithstanding our past differences. But if you get into another war I hope you are on your own. We have lost too many fine young men saving Europe from tyranny, but frankly, it was not worth it.

    Europe is falling into the tyranny of a bureaucratic dictatorship through a failure of collective intellect, and it is probable that nothing will save you from yourselves.

    I am Canadian, and have lived in the USA and have done business on six continents. There are many worse countries in the world than the USA – more than 200 of them. In fact, Canada is blessed to have the USA as our closest neighbour.

    When I encounter Pavlovian anti-Americanism here in Canada, typically among our lobotomized lefties, I ask them one question: Which large country would you rather have as your next-door neighbour? Russia? China? Who? ……… ……… Their stunned silence tells the answer.

  87. stan gore says:

    Owl Gore turned off global warming to show you he could do it. If you don’t pay him carbon tax he’s gonna turn it back on.

  88. Gary Pearse says:

    ““Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century ”

    There are significant trends but they are down. Interesting that when things that were supposed to go up actually go down, they don’t mention it – they just say “no significant trends” “lack of robust trends” “lack of evidence” and we starved skeptics rejoice! Whoa!! Maybe I’ve become to skeptical and cynical.

  89. Robert says:

    To be honest what the report says, have a look yourself in the summary for policy makers page 23 instead of reading the interpretation from someone else that you don’t know how well it represents the report.

    Copying page 23 on some of the extremes:
    Warm spells, frequency and/or intensity increases
    - 1950 to today: medium confidence globally, likely for large parts of Europe, Asia, Australia
    - by 2100 projection: Very Likely

    Heavy precipitation events, increase in amount and/or frequency and/or intensity
    - 1950 to today: Likely more land areas with increases than decreases
    - by 2100 projection: Very likely over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions

    Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity
    - 1950 to today: Low confidence in long term (centennial) changes Virtually certain in North Atlantic since 1970
    - by 2100 projection: More likely than not in the Western North Pacific and North Atlantic

    I urge all of you who are interested to actually read the report and see what it says. Then it is of course up to each one how to interpret it, but don’t just buy someone else’s interpretation as it is likely biased in one way or the other

  90. Janice Moore says:

    Hey, Roy, rightly proud nephew of Uncle Roy, Allan, and Alan, thanks, so much, for your support. I kind of needed it. Wow. I thought Ro Ha might defend his position (in his usual affable manner), but those other guys. (head shake) Talk about a guilt complex — that one is, indeed, a pretzel. Even so, because, until today, I’ve nearly always admired Dirk’s cogent comments, I felt kind of kicked in the gut on that one.
    Okay. I’ll be more careful not to talk about such a sensitive (had no idea HOW) topic again.

    *****************
    Mr. Spencer,

    1. In nutshell: HUMAN CO2 UP — GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED,.

    2. There are, in addition to David Hoffer’s and others’ fine responses to your question, numerous posts on W-U-W-T (finally remembered to do that so as not to go into m-oder-ation) by which you can educate yourself regarding the complete lack of any evidence that human CO2 can do anything to change the climate of the earth.

    *********************
    Fernando (in Brazil),

    THANK YOU! Thanks for telling me. It’s hard, sometimes, being a zany type amongst many serious types, here. Glad you thought at least one out of three was funny.

    Re: your link to that disgusting Guardian (oxymoron, I know #(:)) article, so Greenpeace is “Mother Theresa.” Who knew?

    Enjoy your spring, down there!

    Janice

  91. Ox AO says:

    The Oceans are about to boil over and the IPCC says there is no emergency.
    Isn’t anyone able to save us from ourselves!?

    We need a guy in a cap to come to our rescue

  92. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Ox AO,

    Sure wish THIS guy in a cap (I know, I know :)) was still around:

    But, you were thinking more along the lines of this hero, perhaps? #(:))

    And
    behind those glasses,
    beneath the quiet reserved countenance,
    all you Clark (and Clara) Kent Science Giants of WUWT
    are heroes,
    too.
    .
    .

    (and some of us are in on the secret)

    With admiration and gratitude,

    Janice

  93. Janice Moore says:

    That’s why pseudo-scientists like Mandia doff Superman costumes — a feeble attempt to identify himself with you REAL heroes.

  94. Ox AO says:

    Janice Moore:

    Yeah kinda, I as thinking along the lines of James Hanson or Scott Mandia (OH, I see you found him in your next post)

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/caped_climate_crusader1.jpg

    I thought I seen a James Hanson in a super hero suit here a while back but couldn’t find it.

    Thank you :)

  95. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Amatør1 says:
    October 5, 2013 at 8:24 am

    That’s my take on it too. At 390ppm it’s pretty close to 0% as it is…

  96. rogerknights says:

    DirkH says:
    October 5, 2013 at 4:21 am

    WW II’s two most diabolical regimes, one of them an ally of the USA, were US creations.

    Who enabled Lenin to get to Russia?

  97. rogerknights says:

    Janice Moore says:
    October 5, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    That’s why pseudo-scientists like Mandia doff Superman costumes . . . .

    Please no!
    (“Don” is bad enough!)

  98. Janice Moore says:

    Thanks, Roger Knights, for coming to the rescue of the English language, once again. LOL, that’s pretty bad. I hope it wasn’t Freudian (it CERTAINLY was not intentional!). “Don we now our gay apparel, … fa, la, la, laaaaaaaaaaaaaa!” You’d think I’d remember, having such a clue as that in my memory. Meh, closer to December and I’d have nailed that one. Glad you piped up.

    Janice

  99. Allan MacRae says:

    DirkH says:October 5, 2013 at 4:21 am
    WW II’s two most diabolical regimes, one of them an ally of the USA, were US creations.

    rogerknights says: October 5, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    Who enabled Lenin to get to Russia?

    “The Germans took a somber decision. Upon the western front they had from the beginning used the most terrible means of offense at their disposal. They had employed poison gas on the largest scale and had invented the ‘Flammenwerfer.’ Nevertheless, it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon Russia the most grisly of weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed train like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia.”
    -Winston Churchill- The World Crisis, Volume 5

  100. I am seeing more of this stuff about 15, 16, or 17 years of lack of warming. The 1997-1998 El Nino was a spike, not the beginning of the hiatus. Global temperature smoothed by a few years continued to warm into 2001.

  101. RoHa says:

    @ Janice

    Therein lies the difference between the European view and the American view. The Europeans knew that it was the Soviets who destroyed the German Army, and they knew they had paid a terrible price for that. So they didn’t think the Soviets would be keen to start another war. They didn’t think the Soviets needed any terrifying. The Americans, on the other hand, seemed far less reluctant, and the Europeans noted that the Mid-West senators were religious. Europeans feared that they meant what they said, and that would mean another war in Europe.

    The Marshall Plan was undeniably both a wise and generous move on the part of the United States.

    However, the US squandered a lot of the moral credit by adopting a policy of supporting any dictator, however murderous, who proclaimed that he was “anti -Communist”. And the Zippo lighter, once the symbol of American liberators (even outside those parts of the world which were actually liberated by the US), became the implement used to burn down Vietnamese houses.

  102. rogerknights says:

    Donald L. Klipstein says:
    October 6, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    I am seeing more of this stuff about 15, 16, or 17 years of lack of warming. The 1997-1998 El Nino was a spike, not the beginning of the hiatus. Global temperature smoothed by a few years continued to warm into 2001.

    True, but the rate of warming before 2001 slowed down.

  103. So basically the IPCC, the UN panel that all the global warming poeple pointed to as their honest broker, now admits that every one of the doomsday scenarios that Al Gore told us about in An Inconvenient Truth is now complete crap.

Comments are closed.