The science is “robust”.
Credit to: Nate Beeler from the Washington Examiner
See his webpage here
h/t to WUWT reader “pops”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The science is “robust”.
Credit to: Nate Beeler from the Washington Examiner
See his webpage here
h/t to WUWT reader “pops”
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I like it! Funny!!!
Sorry, it is Monday, but it’s not funny. I wake up for a new week at work and read the BBC website telling me the Copenhagen conference has started (no sh*t!). Oh, and that 62% of Britons believe climate change is a really serious problem and we need to do something . Now!
Then, I get in my car and drive to my job and listen to Radio Scotland telling me two thirds of Scots believe the same (after reading the rasmussen poll over the weekend – amongst others -which suggested otherwise.).
I am aware that thousands of people came out on the streets – in the UK – and ‘protested’ about the effects of climate change and apparently demanded that our governments do some thing to ‘sort it out’.
My mate succinctly pointed out that two thirds of Scots are too busy watching The Xfactor to know what – I paraphrase here – on earth is going on.
When I say it’s not funny, I mean there is no real chink in their armour.
Anthony
I thought you might be interested in this
http://dust.ess.uci.edu/ppr/ppr_ZGD08.pdf
I came across this after looking at trends in the NordKlim dataset
http://www.george-barwood.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GlobalWarming/NordklimTrends.html
There is consistent warming in March, north of about 60 degrees.
Then I started thinking about it as described here:
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11771055&sort=whole
This is pretty cool I think.
Sorry, should have given a snippet from the paper
Industrial and biomass burning emissions of black carbon (BC) from low- and mid-latitudes
dominate the radiative forcing by absorbing impurities trapped in snow and ice at mid- and
high- northern latitudes. Correctmodel representation of albedo reduction by BC-contaminated
snow is crucial because our GCM simulations show that dirty snow can explain about 30% of
the observed 20th century Arctic warming.
The truth about the ‘SwiftHack’ smear campaign: http://swifthack.com
OT – WUWT should run a story on the Revkin e-mail. It is at the heart of the problems.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/michael-schlesinger-threatens-andy-revkin/#comment-3912
Just received the latest email from the Zaadz social green network.
They’re calling it “sabotage”.
I suppose at least they’re implicitly admitting it has been damaged.
Who knew a science hypothesis could be “sabotaged” ?
An instant classic. Best I’ve seen in a long while.
I made a little comic today too. It’s funny without trying to be so, I hope!
http://i46.tinypic.com/t63qxe.jpg
It doesn’t matter:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=abw3JjvjwOmo
They’re going to move ahead without the science…
Their wallets are in danger, their status too, their so called “jobs” also, so they will give battle with all the means and media until something happens and takes them by surprise. Who knows…perhaps some negative “feedback”☺
Is it possible that CNN here reports on how CRUminal Mann and Liss tries to make Phil Jones the only scapegoat of this story? Are we watching a tragedy where the Emperor without clothes — Mann made global warming — inevitably must die?
Sorry for these way too easy rhetorical questions.
I guess Phil Jones has been told to hide and be quiet to not disturb Copenhagen. 😉
Transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/ltm.03.html
WUWT on BBC. In a long article designed to brainwash sheepple that evidence for anthropogenic global warming is “unequivocal” and that skeptics arguments are weak, they actually provide a link to WUWT:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm
Of course, the article is stuffed with hyperbole and nonsense gems like the fact that it gets warmer 1000 years before CO2 rises is apparently “irrelevant”. Ehm, yer right, well try explaining to a crying six year old who falls of their bike that the reason they fell off and hurt themselves is because they are now crying and tears make it harder to see so, you see, that caused the fall off the bike in the first place – so stop crying and you won’t fall again. I don’t think there are too many six year old’s that would buy that argument.
This is OT, but in another thread someone asked about setting up an open source model so all the data and models can be verified, and the code behind them could be set up for version control, and easily verified. I hope some of you read it, and I hope sincerely that it happens. Regards, DB.
This is not harmless anymore. World government is about to begin.
WUWT on BBC. In a long article designed to brainwash sheepple that evidence for anthropogenic global warming is “unequivocal” and that skeptics arguments are weak, they actually provide a link to WUWT:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm
Of course, the article is stuffed with hyperbole and nonsense gems like:
the fact that it gets warmer 1000 years before CO2 rises is apparently “irrelevant”.
Ehm, yer right, well try explaining to a six year old who is crying because they fell off their bike that the reason they fell off and hurt themselves is because they are now crying and tears make it harder to see so, you see, that caused the fall – so stop crying and you won’t fall again. I don’t think there are too many six year old’s that would buy that argument.
…and, most probably, they will closed this agora too.
surely you joust!!!
“Now the pirating of thousands of e-mail messages from within its walls has revealed a dangerous bunker mentality among the scientists who guarded those records and a data-fudging scandal that has created a crisis of confidence in global-warming science that is threatening to destroy the political consensus around next week’s carbon-policy summit in Copenhagen.
Said one scientist working at the institute: “It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that this has set the climate-change debate back 20 years.” ”
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/breach-in-global-warming-bunker-rattles-climate-science-at-worst-time/article1389842/
Robert Wood (13:02:09) :
I wonder how it will regulate volcanoes.
That’s easy; everybody must share the burden of natural disasters. Just like any hurricane or tsunami, it will require a massive government clean up operation using government funding.
I’m sure that Phil Jones will tell you that with or without the PhD, a statistician is not a “climate scientist.”
Re: Allan Nadel (13:04:34) :
That’s hilarious – well done.
JonesII (13:35:11)
“negative feedback”
Yes i think that’s what it needs – negative feedback would be a positive thing. That may sound like a contradiction, but I think that is exactly what is needed.
We need to say:
Look, we’ve listened to what you have to say, but quite honestly, we think it is all wrong. In fact, WE KNOW you are taking the [insert word of choice]
Negative feedback is all they will listen to.
Monday not so funny
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_planet_dont_breath_out/
In other news ….. Last night ABC News (US) had a story on America’s first “climate refugees” . They live on an island somewhere on the coast of Lousiana , I think in the vicinity of Atchafalaya Bay . While I don’t know much about that part of the Gulf coast , I think that factors other than sea rise per se may have something to the problem there . Do any of you out there have a handle on coastal Lousiana ? I suspect that the confinement of the Mississippi coupled with tropical storms may have led to some erosion . It is also might be that the local population sees this as a chance to get some better , higher land from the state . Barrier isalnds have a way of coming and going .