Climatism: That Climate Change Chameleon

Guest post by Steve Goreham

Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate, is a remarkably flexible ideology. Calling it “global warming” for many years, advocates then renamed the crisis “climate change” after the unexpected cooling of global surface temperatures from 2002-2009. Last month, John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term “global climate disruption.” What’s next — “catastrophic climate calamity”?

Cape Dwarf Chameleon -- Photo by Sharp

Decreasing snowfall was once claimed as an indication of man-made climate change. After years of declining snowfall in England, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia, predicted that winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event.” Others predicted that snow cover in the United Kingdom would disappear by 2020. But last winter, at the same time that much of the eastern U.S. received record snowfalls, the U.K. was entirely blanketed by snow, as shown in the following NASA satellite photograph — a rare occurrence.

The heavy snow in England was very embarrassing for the U.K. Meteorological Office, which had predicted a mild winter.

So what have the alarmists done? Attend almost any lecture today by an advocate of man-made global warming and you’ll find that “heavy snowfall” is now included on the list of impacts from climate change. Now both heavy snow and lack of snow are evidence of man-made warming.

To anyone who studies geologic history, the 1.3oF rise in global surface temperatures over the last century is unremarkable. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations calls this rise “unprecedented” and labels it evidence of man-made climate change. This recent temperature rise is well within the +/-2.5oF range of Earth’s average surface temperature over the last ten thousand years. It’s a remarkably small change, given the titanic forces exerted on our world by the sun, the planets, and Earth’s own terrestrial forces of weather and ocean cycles. Even though the average surface temperature of Earth has stayed in a narrow range, local temperatures vary widely. In Chicago, for example, the average annual range is from about -5oF to +95oF. Such wide local variation means that a “hundred-year weather event” is occurring somewhere on our planet at any given time.

Climatism uses these local weather variations, and increasingly the term “climate volatility,” to raise alarm. A recent example is the August report from the World Bank warning that “climate volatility” is expected to “worsen poverty vulnerability in developing countries.” This year, we’ve had drought in Russia and record floods in Pakistan. Both occurrences were seized upon by climate alarmists as evidence of increasing man-made climate volatility. Record cold temperatures in July in Bolivia, which killed millions of fish in South American rivers, were ignored. Natural local weather events, selectively amplified, provide an endless source of fodder for promoting the coercive governmental policies of Climatism.

Yet, scientific evidence shows that weather would be less extreme in a warmer world. Peer-reviewed studies on droughts, floods, hurricanes and storms show that 20th Century occurrences have been of equal or lesser severity than similar events in past centuries, when Earth’s climate was in the cooler period of the Little Ice Age. The bulk of science shows that today’s climate is not more volatile as alarmists claim.

The latest initiative from the climate change chameleon is to frame global warming as detrimental to the health of U.S. citizens. On September 28, a joint letter from 120 of America’s health organizations was delivered to President Obama, supporting efforts by the Environmental Regulatory Agency to regulate greenhouse gases. The letter claims that man-made global warming is now a U.S. public health issue especially for “older adults.” Yet senior citizens continue to retire to Florida, Texas, and Arizona rather than North Dakota and Minnesota. Don’t they know that warmer temperatures are a serious health risk?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.

Advertisements

110 thoughts on “Climatism: That Climate Change Chameleon

  1. This post need serious formatting.
    Wall of text syndrome mate.
    However, that picture of the UK is stunning. I was knee deep in that snow at the time, was an…. interesting winter and i’d put good money on it being the same/worse this year- which of course will be global warmings, sorry change, sorry disruptions fault.

  2. I was in Tehran at the time that picture was taken, but returned home to the heavy falls in December and January. Interestingly the weather in Tehran was exceptionally mild, though it did snow several times. The big fear there was drought, but I haven’t seen anyone comment on that all through the summer. The whole shift was, of course, caused by the NAO shifting westward, which meant we have had an exceptionally wet summer here in Germany after a six week period of hot weather – immediately seized on by the warmistas as “proof” of warming.
    What the Climatist Faithful cannot admit is that their new “religion” is pure shamanism. No science, no facts, lots of spin and a horde of desperately under employed youff who have been taught enough to think they understand something far to complex to be explained as simplistically as the politicians would like. Add to that that most people no longer think or enquire when they are told something and you have a method of population control by fear …
    Who was it said “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?”

  3. Great picture of the UK under snow, luck i was on a beach in Thailand for the 3 weeks of snow.
    And the main problem i have is who will be held accountable for the AGW shame to the world, as its now goen political i’m guess one lamb to the slaughter, then back to ripping billions of dollars from the poorest in the world.

  4. When the picture of the UK was taken last winter we were sitting under an area of high pressure for several days = no wind = very little power generated by the wind turbines ………………… ho hum.
    PS We have just had the first snow of this winter in the north of Scotland.

  5. ‘Last month, John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term “global climate disruption.” What’s next — “catastrophic climate calamity”?’
    Well ask a straight question of these climatists and naturally you’ll get another typical silly answer. Welcome to your new “heroes of the moment”-
    http://www.ipbes.net/3rd-meeting-on-ipbes.html
    The more these people get disrupted the more they stay the same with a new name.

  6. When the Ancients perceived that their leader was not a God who had special predictive powers, they lost thier faith and thier leader lost his head. In that leadership vacuum, thier enemies prevailed.
    Best not to let Big Heads who claim to have special predictive powers get control of your society.
    The consequences when they fail are the real disasters.

  7. Another great posting… thank you.

    The Gray Monk says:
    October 22, 2010 at 3:43 am
    What the Climatist Faithful cannot admit is that their new “religion” is pure shamanism….. and you have a method of population control by fear.
    Who was it said “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?”

    Leaders need fear, especially an external fear, to cow the masses… just like generals need troops to do their dirty work… and when fear is not enough then they rule by force (the law) to enforce their will… just like the conscription and the denial laws… so watch this space for cap-and-trade, surcharges, taxes, subsidies and prohibitions (DING! A light bulb, literally, just lit up in my mind’s eye)

  8. Experiencing first-hand what it was like ‘on the ground’ when that photo of Ice-Britain was taken, I can tell you – it was not much fun, especially for the elderly.
    Also, let’s not forget that this experience was made worse than it should have been because the Met Office, using their global warming/climate change/climate disruption/whatever next computer models had predicted a mild winter. Therefore, the Local Councils, who are responsible for clearing the roads, had not sufficient stock of road salt …
    And before you ask, why didn’t we clear roads and pavements ourselves: the then Labour Government, gone mad on Health&Safety, told us repeatedly that if we did so, anybody who then fell on those roads cleared by us would be liable to pay for ensuing claims … so we didn’t …
    Unprecedented madness ensues when politicians and ‘climate’ scientists get into bed with each other.

  9. And the UK has already had its first snow fall of the winter. Oh it’s still autumn!
    If you cherry pick weather events you can prove anything in the way of climate changing, catastrophe whatever you want.
    Governments want to control what we do, where we go. It is their ultimate ego trip and fosters the new communist state.
    Long Live Freedom!

  10. Here in Ottawa, Canada (which is 500 miles SOUTH of London, England) the temperature varies between -30C to +30C every 6 months.

  11. Very good post! As in keynesian economics, their theory never fails: If keynesian “stimulus” blattantly fails in Japan in the 1990s then, according to keynesian Paul Krugman (2008 Nobel Prize in Economics and NYT columnist) what happened is that more “stimulus” was needed, their pseudo science can never fail!.
    They allege that the “housing bubble” should have brought the USA to a Great Depression but thanks to Obama “stimulus” the USA was saved from another Great Depression, but they overlook the fact that in Japan in the early 1990s they had a huge Real Estate Bubble -of the same magnitude of the recent USA bubble- plus a Stock Market Bubble that the USA never had in this crisis, and things got really bad for Japan only in the second part of the 1990s when they started their massive government spending “stimulus” that left Japan drowned in debt. They conveniently ignore the raises in taxes in late 1980s and early 1990s and they conveniently ignore that it was until they lowered capital gains taxes in 2003 that Japan had some “recovery”. As in climate “science”, they ignore most of those INCONVENIENT TRUTHS that show their theory is pseudoscience!
    In climatism their pseudoscience theory can never be proven wrong, everything that happens proves their theory true: Snow or the exact opposite -lack of snow- “proves” that their pseudoscience theory is true. Hot or Cold, Rain or Drought, cloudiness or lack of it, ice or lack of it, ANYTHING that happens proves their theory true!
    In economics it is much worse since clearly politicians and bureaucrats, pursuing their insatiable lust for more opressive power over people and more $trillions in tax and spend, caused almost every major crisis and severely damaged the industrial world growth with high taxes and government spending: They trigger the crisis with “tight” money which is a massive process of intervention in prices in which they take away huge amounts of money, bringing short term interest rates to crazy high levels -look how in 1928 the ultra short term interest rate -the Discount rate- was higher than the 30 year (very long term) AAA bond interest rate and how in 2007 the fed fuds rate -ultra short term interest rate- was higher than the 30 year AAA bond rate; once the crisis is triggered, they turn it into a GREAT DEPRESSION with massive taxes, government spending and regulations to “solve” the crisis, i.e., they turn the crisis into a depression with MORE massive oppressive power, control, taxing and spending by politicians and bureaucrats.
    Just read John Maynard Keynes “General Theory” and you will barely see a statistic! Keynes theory an incredibly big building of falsehood based on false, totally implausible assertions that are not proved at all. Keynes demonizes savings and divinizes spending but you could equally demonize spending and divinize savings with EXACTLY the same argumets that Keynes uses by giving to investment the magical properties that Keynes gives to consumption, those magical properties are given without any proof, just because Keynes said so.
    Keynes makes assertions equivalent to this: There is a “definite ratio” between my income and what I spend on burgers, since I spend 2% of my income in burgers THEN if I multiply my spending in burgers by 1000 my income will too be multiplied by 1000 since such a 2% “definite ratio exists!!! Based on similar nonsense they come up with a government spending “multiplier” that can even be near infinity!!
    Of course divinizing consumption and demonizing savings is the dream of many bureaucrats and politicians since an orgy of spending and enormous control and power and empoverishment of people is “justified” by such pseudoscience: If spending is divinized then an orgy of tax and spend by the public sector “saves” the private sector from their “errors”!! ; by demonizing savings they can take away, through social security taxes, peoples savings for old age and make them poor and dependent on politicians and bureucrtas by establishing pay-as-you-go social security schemes where taxes on the young pay for the sustainment of old people; old people cannot sustain themselves because taxes impeded them to build a capital to sustain themselves in old age.
    They have even absurd “keynesian” Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures that show tax hell Norway has a TWICE the GDP per head of the USA and 90 times (!!) The GDP per head of Vietnam! Anyone that takes a virtual tour with google earth will see that it is pure nonsense alleging that Norway has twice the USA production per person or 90 (!!) times Vietnam production per person. Even Ultra tax hell Sweden has a highest production per head than the USA according to their absurd GDP figures! Just look in google earth how many people in Stockholm Sweden live in old ugly apartment buildings from the 1960s and 1970s or in ugly houses built with cheap materials!
    But the truth is showing up: Ultra poor Singapore in the 1960s, for instance, rejected the “advice” by the Nobel Prize in economics geniuses, mainstream media & academia and today the 1960s ultra poor Singapore is clearly much richer than tax hell Sweden; Sweden in the 1960s, before it was a tax hell, was one of the RICHEST places on earth! Now you can see through google earth that Singapore is richer than Sweden and has lots of nice new buildings! (and the GDP figures adjusted for purchasing power, the figures that make some sense, show a much higher production per head in Singapore than in Sweden) And besides, in tax hells they are running out of youths to tax to sustain the old! Their social security scheme is unsustainable! Look what is happening in France or Greece!
    I could go for years talking about this but this is already too much. I am not surprised that Jeffrey Sachs, one of those keynesians alleging for false theories and more destructive insane opressive power to United Nations, made one of the “slimiest” attacks on WattsUpWithThat (WUWT): They know WUWT has been DEMOLISHING mainstream academia & media pseudoscience, WUWT is a HUGE threat for pseudoscience, WUWT should , as savings, BE DEMONIZED!!!
    In climate science you actually have many people that has scientific rigor, macroeconomics was perverted by politics to such deep levels that they have little people with scientific rigor. As I have said several times, WUWT and skeptics victory over IPCC pseudoscience will be TOTAL, because the lack of warming will be UNDENIABLE and noticed by EVERYBODY. I doubt that keynsianism, the equivalent of co2 alarmism in macroeconomics, will suffer such a powerful defeat.
    That is why I tell again to Mr Watts and all you, KEEP ON FIGHTING! KEEP ON FIGHTING!! Your victory probably will be TOTAL!! You will show the modern world, as has never been shown before in modern times, how politics corrupt science!
    KEEP ON FIGHTING! YOU ARE MAKING HISTORY! Your future TOTAL victory will help in bringing lots of other victories against pseudoscience! “Rarely so few people did so much good” as Churchill once said. Keep the fight, it is so moving to see your honest truthful fight against pseudoscience and against enslavement of people by politicians and bureaucrats
    You may say I am some crazy nut that always posts similar stuff but what you do is too damn important for mankind wellness, nothing is more important than reducing the power of politicians and bureaucrats, when they had TOTAL power they killed more than 200 million people and stole the means of production to hundreds millions ! (under COMMUNISM and national SOCIALISM, search the net for R.J. Rummel and see for yourselves)

  12. This is no issue. Just call it (e.g. the globally by far warmest decennium in all records was 2001-2010) what it is: anthropogenic global warming.

  13. “Yet senior citizens continue to retire to Florida, Texas, and Arizona rather than North Dakota and Minnesota. Don’t they know that warmer temperatures are a serious health risk?”
    I be one of those, except that I am not yet a “senior citizen” and have not yet retired. I came to Florida 20 years ago from New England to escape cold weather. As I sit looking out my open slider door onto the green grass and colorful tropical foliage with a clear blue sky background, I continue to pray to the gods of global warming that Florida will get even warmer in the winter.

  14. A great article, thanks for the link.
    Viv Evans – that’s exactly what I was going to say – both local and national government in the UK were so committed to this idea of global warming and consequent mild winters that we ended up with a totally disastrous situation. Fortunately, this year local government are stockpiling more salt and grit regardless, so it may be a little better. (Though not in the south east of course, which will be paralysed the instant the first snowflake touches the BBC’s roof in London.)

  15. Let’s use the term “Climatautologist” for someone whose claims cover the entire range of possible outcomes.
    It’s like Dwight Eisenhower saying “Things are more like they are today than they have ever been.”

  16. It was in AR4 as well………….. (ie 2007 vs tar 2001)
    “12.5.9 Tourism and recreation A variety of adaptation measures are available to the tourism industry (WTO, 2003, Hanson et al., 2006). Regarding winter tourism, compensating for reduced snowfall by artificial snowmaking is already common practice for coping with year-to-year snow pack variability. However, this adaptation strategy is likely to be economic only in the short term, or in the case of very high elevation resorts in mountain regions, and may be ecologically undesirable. New leisure industries, such as grass-skiing or hiking could compensate for any income decrease experienced by the ski industry due to snow deterioration (Fukushima et al., 2002). Regarding coastal tourism, the protection of resorts from sea-level rise may be feasible by constructing barriers or by moving tourism infrastructure further back from the coast (Pinnegar et al., 2006). In the Mediterranean region, the likely reduction of tourism during the hotter summer months may be compensated for by promoting changes in the temporal pattern of seaside tourism, for example by encouraging visitors during the cooler months (Amelung and Viner, 2006). The increasing, new climate-related risks to health, availability of water, energy demand and infrastructure are likely to be dealt with through efficient co-operation with local governments. Another adaptive measure for European tourism, in general, is promoting new forms of tourism such as eco-tourism or cultural tourism and placing greater emphasis on man-made rather than natural attractions, which are less sensitive to weather conditions (Hanson et al., 2006). It is also likely that people will adapt autonomously and reactively by changing their recreation and travel behaviour in response to the new climatic conditions (Sievanen et al., 2005). ”
    Do they not think people will not notice, and say oh well, extrat snow is global warming, as is less snow?

  17. How about renaming it “catastrophic climate calamity prognostication”, CCCP for short. I hear that acronym is for sale. LOL

  18. Let’s call it Marxism-Climatism. On the Chris B: For those who are too young to know, CCCP is the Cyrillic abbreviation for USSR.

  19. Chris B said:
    “How about renaming it “catastrophic climate calamity prognostication”, CCCP for short. I hear that acronym is for sale. LOL”..
    CCCP!!! Very good one!!!! Excellent!!!
    I change it a little, eventough plagiarism is obvious: Catastrophic Climate Calamity PSEUDOSCIENCE!!! CCCP!
    I hope someone can show up words for acronyms like USSR or STALIN, it seems some alarmists are fond of those institutions and persons.

  20. Viv Evans says: October 22, 2010 at 4:29 am
    “Unprecedented madness ensues when politicians and ‘climate’ scientists get into bed with each other.”

    I would update that as “Unprecedented madness ensues when politicians and climate scientists and the media get into bed with each other. ”
    I would also add that this is just as true of the “climatists” as it is of the “denialists”.
    * For every Al Gore, there is a Jim Imhofe
    * For every MSNBC, there is a FOX
    * For every Mann, there is a McIntyre
    * For every Skeptical Science, there is a WUWT
    For the most part, scientists are unassuming people who love to hide away in their labs and offices, and to try to understand the universe. They didn’t get into science for the fame or the money (since there are easier ways for bright people to achieve either of those).
    But unfortunately some scientists do crave the spotlight. And reporters need big stories. And politicians need campaign themes. And blogs need readers and advertisers. And entrepreneurs need the next big money-making scheme.
    The confluence of these forces produces Viv Evans’ “ensuing madness”. The science has been hijacked by other powerful forces, each with their own agenda. And to the detriment of climate science, some scientist went along with that madness. And now that the genii is out of the bottle, I fear it will never go back.
    On there own, I have no doubt that most scientist studying the climate would be (at least very close to) impartial — letting the numbers speak for themselves. But when faced with the forces of international media, international politics, and international corporations, scientists are out of their league. (Heck, anyone would be out of their league trying to face those combined forces!)
    Perhaps what is needed is LESS attention, and let the scientists do their job. (Yes, skeptical review from people like Watt and McIntyre is invaluable, but that sort of skeptical review should be – and usually is – part of the scientific process.)

  21. This blog, with all of its moonbat posters and commenters, is always good for a chuckle and this posting is no exception. It would take all morning to address all of the logical fallacies, so I’ll just talk about a favorite one I see here often – the canard that the term “Climate Change” was adopted a few years ago.
    Y’all do understand, don’t you, that the IPCC, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and, since it was establilshed in 1988, that means that the term “Climate Change” has been a preferred term for 22 years? So Steve Goreham’s assertion that it was adopted in 2009 is comical and without any basis in reality.
    And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious. The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours.

  22. Dear old “Moonbat” (aka George Monbiot) was on the “Countryfile” TV programme in the UK last week.
    The discussion was about the new coal-fired power stations that are to be built with a view to using “Carbon Capture” systems.
    Mr M was against this, as he foresaw that the capture bit wouldn’t get built due to the practicalities, so leaving the coal burning to cause “Future Climate Disruption”.
    Yep, another bogeyman to add to the list!

  23. Every self-important powerful entity of any color or creed must drum up catastrophe or else go begging for a reason for its existence. Wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air for a candidate to run on the idea that if they get elected, he or she will sit and do nothing, cept maybe file the garbage cans with catastrophe related government? They would enact no new law. No new tax. No new program. And would spend a whole lot of time getting rid of the ones still in place. In other words, whatever catastrophe that was drummed up as the reason for the new law, new tax, and new program is simply put in the round file along with its appendages. Then, after the office they ran for is no longer needed, the file cabinets empty, the lights turned off, and the doors locked, they would go back to their regular job.
    I can just see the banner: “Elect me and I will work myself out of the position, close the doors, and then go back home.” Would that this could happen because I am getting so sick and tired of catastrophic anything.

  24. Over 40 years ago I was taught in college that when a theory explains everything and anything, it actually proves nothing. It seems that climatism is moving in that direction very rapidly.

  25. @JohnH says:
    October 22, 2010 at 3:50 am
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
    —————————————————————————————
    They deleted the comment string, I think it got to embarrassing, but here’s a real beauty from my backup:
    Calling Charles Onians
    alexjc38 wrote:
    Sunday, 27 December 2009 at 09:53 pm (UTC)
    Hello? Charles Onians in 2000? Don’t ask me to explain but I’m posting this back to you via a time warp from December 2009. Yes, the future! You probably won’t believe me and will think I’m mad or joking, but get this. Britain is suffering its second extremely cold winter in a row – we have enough snow, ice, frost and freezing fog to cobble dogs with (whatever that means.) Far from being “a very rare and exciting event”, snowfall has become a major hazard in this country twice this past year – and we haven’t even got to February 2010 yet. Also (again you will probably think I’m joking) but the CRU has just become a liability to climate science – leaked e-mails and files have revealed a web of deceit and manipulation that threatens to undermine the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming itself. I urge you to pull this article immediately, as it will become a laughing stock in years to come. Charles? Hello? Hello? … Rats, I’m probably too late.

  26. Phillip says:
    “… the term “Climate Change” has been a preferred term for 22 years…”
    Phillip, you need to get up to speed on this. Michael Mann’s totally debunked Hokey Stick chart [MBH98-99] reached a preposterous conclusion: that the planet’s temperature was steady and unchanging for centuries; no MWP, no LIA, nothing but minimal climate change [the shaft of the hockey stick].
    The IPCC endorsed Mann’s ridiculous conclusion by repeatedly publishing his falsified chart. It was the IPCC that spread Mann’s false conclusion that “climate change” did not happen until the industrial revolution.
    Scientific skeptics have always known that natural climate variability is the only unchanging reality. But the IPCC and its poster boy Michael Mann deliberately spread the misinformation of an unchanging climate before human emissions caused the climate to start changing.
    The alarmist crowd owns the “unchanging climate” lie, and they twist and turn now, trying to project it onto skeptics. But skeptics know the truth of the matter, and you won’t be allowed to re-frame the argument by using psychological projection.

  27. Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    “Climate Change” has been a preferred term for 22 years.
    Yes Phillip it did start off as “Climate Change” but that wasn’t scary enough so in the MSM and in general usage it became known as “Global Warming” and catastrophic consequences were ‘projected’ by treating a cyclical phenomenon as though it were linear.
    However the world stubbornly refused to keep warming so it was back to ‘Climate Change’ before everyone started laughing but as before that wasn’t scary enough hence the switch to ‘Climate Disruption’.
    Anyway, you mentioned logical fallacies, like what ?

  28. Yet another rational mind on WUWT. Hmmmm.
    More and more rational minds speaks out against Planet Disruption. No, wait, Global Warming.
    Where were all these rational minds a year ago? We had concensus, didnt we?
    Aha, now I remember. Climategate. The gate that opened up for rational minds.
    I think we need to send a “Thank you” to the person that informed us all about this file an a server in Russia.
    After the coming winther I think he/she can step forward and take credit. A Nobel Prize will come his/her way 50 years from now. We need a new type of prize.
    The Isaac Newton prize.

  29. Many years ago I worked with a Romanian gentleman who had escaped from Eastern Europe about 10 years after WWII and eventually fetched up in New Zealand. He used to lecture me about the evils that politicians wrought and claimed that he had escaped ‘red’ communism, where everybody knew they had no choices, to ‘white’ communism in the West where we had the illusion of choice. I was a young man then, a bit wet behind the ears perhaps, and thought my Romanian colleague was a bit strange. Fifty years later, I understand what he was trying to tell me.

  30. How about Criminal Changing Climate Perceptions?
    Our father, who art Al Gore,
    Hail to the almost chief.
    The weather change
    different or the same,
    Thy will be done,
    without no shame.
    Give us this Mann,
    with hockey stick,
    and rings of trees
    forgiven his trick.
    For thine is the power,
    from wind and solar,
    no carbon in site,
    and save the bears polar.
    and the MSM
    Forever and ever.

  31. Pamela Gray, Looks like our annual “Climatic Disruption” is about hit NE Oregon.
    Snow by Tuesday according to the NWS-even here in what passes for the “lowlands”
    -Grande Ronde Valley.
    I told my wife we are going have a very old-fashioned winter-’50’s style….

  32. the U.K. was entirely blanketed by snow, as shown in the following NASA satellite photograph — a rare occurrence.
    It may have been a relatively rare occurrence in recent years but having lived in southern England for 70 years it was not all that rare an occurrence a few years back. I can recall the Christmas snow of 1963? (Boxing Day) which did not disappear from our garden until April 1964; I can recall a 14 inch overnight snowfall (I measured it with a ruler) on our front drive around 1975; our village was cut off by snow drifts for about 4 days. I can even remember the winter of 1947, now that really was a winter! I realise these are not extreme for readers from other parts of UK (let alone more northerly parts of USA and Canada) but it seems to me that the reduced snowfall over the past 30 years or so is the anomaly, not the standard.

  33. Golf Charley says:
    October 22, 2010 at 3:34 am
    Just heard it on UK Radio 2 news that snow in winter is due to global warming
    I take my hat off to these people! How on this Earth can they keep a straight face when they say these things I will never, ever, know! Never before have they claimed this double-standard until the last few years, simply because the Earth’s climate won’t play ball.
    Anyway, as I say to all & sundry, you only have to answer two simple questions needing basic knowledge with a little political history, & those are a) What is the ultimate ideological objective of Marxist Socialism? & b) What is the ultimate solution to Anthropogenic Global Warming? There is only one answer to both these questions, “Global Government!” Simples.

  34. How about a new philosophy to explain the application of 21st century “climate theory”. Mmmm, let’s see now…….I got it. Let’s call it “Climarxic Indeterminism”.
    This permanently revolutionary philosophy can explain pretty much anything that happens climatically, offering reasons and solutions that can only be addressed by oppressing the economically advantaged, culminating in a historically inevitable classless society of starving, dirt-poor peasants. Let’s start with CAGW climatologists, who have already demonstrated their classlessness.
    Sarc/off
    Acolytes apply within.

  35. Tom in Florida says:
    October 22, 2010 at 5:15 am
    I continue to pray to the gods of global warming that Florida will get even warmer in the winter.
    Particularly than last winter (esp. January & February!)

  36. Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious. The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours.
    Hi Philip, I am an environmentalist who acts locally but thinks globally and am proud of it. I don’t anyone has suggested the climate is not changing, personally I also think it has warmed of late, and will no doubt cool again.. I think the question you are missing is this site is more about whether we as humans are effecting that change, and how our activities affect our environment. Are there no natural variations which can effect such changes? My personal concern is that too many people don’t appear to be to concerned when it is stated that the science is ended, all is decided, and anyone who poses questions against the dogma has a tightly closed mind belonging to a a group of cyber jerks. I don’t believe science is ever ended with all things known about a particular subject. There have always been brave people who will be seen as heretics for questioning the status quo, or asking awkward questions. Do you think that labelling them as having closed minds is somewhat paradoxical? Tell me honestly, do you believe every last word of the climate change predictions and evidence? If not, what bits do you have concerns with, and should you be allowed to express those concerns without being harassed and insulted? Be brave, you can do it.
    ps First snows in Wales this week.

  37. Phillip:
    It is great that you are bored with the very irregular Real Climate blog and that you amuse yourself with the WUWT. You are obviously a logical man and obviously can conclude from the frequency of posting at the Real Climate, as compared to the WUWT, that actually AGW supporters are the fringe. Also, even if you are a layman, and especially if you are a scientist, it must occur to you how dishonest and corrupt are the Mann’s, Schmidt ’s, Hansen’s et all and how twisted are their supporters. Corrupt and twisted are the minority. So the reality is opposite to what you say. What bothers us, the growing majority, is not what these twisted people say, since we free to express opinions. What bothers us is that we pay their salaries from our taxes. And it’s not ok with us that their unproven CCCP science is used by the politicians to further increase our taxes.


  38. Smokey says:
    …..
    The alarmist crowd owns the “unchanging climate” lie, and they twist and turn now, trying to project it onto skeptics. But skeptics know the truth of the matter, and you won’t be allowed to re-frame the argument by using psychological projection.

    We should be sensitive to his feelings about what is happening to his world. Like we shouldn’t remind him that most of us perscribe a rapid increase in usage of nuclear (clean) energy along with hydro-electric. Problem with utility emissions…solved. Put money into not subsidies but research and development for better electrical/battery systems for cars. 20 years from now, cars are clean and reliable….In fact, we don’t have to take any money in the US anyway from anything important. All we have to do is gut the NSF and use that money for what I proposed above. We would have enough left over to increase NASA funding and change its course to get us to Mars at the same time. Only people that get bad stuff from this are the leacher/professors who study pseudo-science. I have a job at McDonalds they can have scrubbing toilets. Since Dr. Hansen likes jail-cells, he would find this to his liking as well.
    But just by saying this, I have given him a glimpse of reality, I hope I don’t rupture his view on existance.

  39. Alan the Brit says:
    October 22, 2010 at 7:47 am
    Anyway, as I say to all & sundry, you only have to answer two simple questions needing basic knowledge with a little political history, & those are a) What is the ultimate ideological objective of Marxist Socialism? & b) What is the ultimate solution to Anthropogenic Global Warming? There is only one answer to both these questions, “Global Government!” Simples.
    Hi Alan,
    Answers.
    a) Power. The same as all political regimes, fascist, communist, democracy or theocracy.
    b) Keep plugging away with the evidence. Things are slowly changing, it take a long time to turn a large ship around, but eventually we will reach a tipping point where discredited science is seen for what it is, and we can really start to look after our environment.
    Simples, ( Apologies to the Meercat!)

  40. Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious.
    You, of course, KNOW this to be true. Please share your incontrovertible evidence with us all.

  41. Alexander K>
    “Many years ago I worked with a Romanian gentleman who had escaped from Eastern Europe about 10 years after WWII and eventually fetched up in New Zealand. He used to lecture me about the evils that politicians wrought and claimed that he had escaped ‘red’ communism, where everybody knew they had no choices, to ‘white’ communism in the West where we had the illusion of choice.”
    Funnily enough, I know quite a few Romanians of a very different generation, who grew up under Communism and remember it well. They say something not too different. I, and I think they, would agree with your colleague that many of the choices we have are illusionary, but the one thing we have that totalitarian regimes do not is the ability to put forwards and elect our own political candidates.
    I come around more and more to the idea that we here on WUWT need to start from the ground up and build a movement that can get candidates elected – first at the local, then the national level.

  42. Our president says: “is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared”
    =======================================================
    Global warmers seem to be very scared…..
    ………that explains it

  43. “What’s next — “catastrophic climate calamity”?
    My guess is that the next disaster du jour will be the unrelenting and crushing boredom of climate sameness.

  44. Sorry, but the English letter imitation of the Cyrillic Russian initialism СССР (kyrillian) is SSSR and the “translated” equivalent would be USSR, so that “joke” falls on it’s face.

  45. Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    “[…]fallacies, so I’ll just talk about a favorite one I see here often – the canard that the term “Climate Change” was adopted a few years ago.
    Y’all do understand, don’t you, that the IPCC, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and, since it was establilshed in 1988, that means that the term “Climate Change” has been a preferred term for 22 years?”
    You are right when it comes to the naming of the IPCC; but in the media, there was a clear trend visible that since 2007, you would find less and less “Global Warming” headlines and more and more “Climate Change” headlines. It looked like an orchestrated campaign. Green PR agencies like futerra might be behind it.

  46. Good post.
    As I drive past the local airport I note the temperature reading as displayed by that really handy auto thermometer. 12 miles down the road in rural countryside, the temperature consistantly drops by 6 to 12 degrees F. The only place it is heating up is….. ???? let me guess…. big city airports???

  47. Phillip says,
    “And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious. The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours.”
    No Phillip, the reality is that the religion of AGW has skewed the scientific research to “prove” catastrophic warming. The real reality is that every day instead of focusing on giving my customers more energy efficient solutions, my hands are tied by the USBGC, LEED salesman and the MSM to bow to “green” and “sustainable” solutions based on carbon. The movement is costing millions just in paperwork and billions in construction and energy services at a time when the real issue is saving the economy, not just of the US but the world. People think they can build truly zero carbon buildings power free and the scientists and engineers are just hiding the magic solutions because the big corporations control them; funny how it’s actually the big coroporations are behing cap and steal. True environmentalists (who have my respect) look at the whole picture; the Greens Gaia movement focuses on carbon is just way to help pay back GE and others and concentrate money and power. Greens just can’t stand thinking that maybe mankind doesn’t harm the earth with every action they take, and they censor any dissenting point of view. Your religion may be settled but the science isn’t. Prove the science by the scientific method or stick with drinking the kool-aid with the rest of Goretown. The choice is yours.

  48. If you read to the bottom of that article Dr Viner says
    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
    So I guess the jury is still out. The swans from Siberia arrived in SW England early this year which is supposed to mean a cold winter. My criteria are “one hot summer does not a climate change make, nor one cold winter”

  49. SouthAmericanGirls says:
    October 22, 2010 at 5:09 am

    No argument from me regarding Climate Science and Keynesian Economics… there are so many big lies woven into the fabric of our society that it is becoming harder and harder to differentiate between fact and fiction… so always look at an issue from various angles, look for the smoking guns, remember to follow the money and always do a reality check.

    SouthAmericanGirls says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:12 am

    USSR – Usually S**t Statistical Records
    STALIN – Standard Techniques: Alarm, Lie, Intimidate, Negate

  50. “What’s next — “catastrophic climate calamity”?”
    How about reducing it down to the level it deserves.
    Worrisome Weather Watching

  51. Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    . . . And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious. The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours.

    And your evidence for this ‘reality’ is . . . ?
    The usual knee-jerk response, perhaps? “Ninety percent of scientists say so”?
    And (assuming that made-up number meant anything) their evidence is . . .?
    We’ve all heard this before, of course:
    “. . . And speaking of reality, the reality is that [X is true], [Y is true], and [you’ll be sorry if you don’t believe it].”
    That’s the modus operandi of ideologues, True Believers (to use Eric Hoffer’s term). Substitute some values for X and Y, say “The reality is that Aryans are the master race and Jews are evil”; or “The reality is that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and unbelievers are sinners”; or “The reality is that class struggle is the future, and the capitalist bourgeoisie are the villains”; and you can fill in the rest.
    Climatism/Warmism/Environmentalism is a statist political-religious movement that has captured academia, government, and the media. It’s going to be hard to stop it, but stop it we must, before its adherents gain enough power to stifle industry, commerce, and ultimately the freedoms we still enjoy in the West.
    /Mr Lynn

  52. SouthAmericanGirls says:
    October 22, 2010 at 5:09 am

    The Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR… so I guess the Warm War will end when temperatures collapse and/or the money runs out… could go either way… but both options are looking good bets at the moment.

  53. * For every Al Gore, there is a Jim Imhofe
    * For every MSNBC, there is a FOX
    * For every Mann, there is a McIntyre
    * For every Skeptical Science, there is a WUWT
    ——————————————
    For every criminal there is a policeman.

  54. Malaga View says:
    October 22, 2010 at 9:43 am
    The Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR… so I guess the Warm War will end when temperatures collapse and/or the money runs out… could go either way… but both options are looking good bets at the moment.

    Call warmists “Warm Warriors”?

  55. Back to the UK and anecdotes: When we arrived here in London in 2001 as antipodeans not used to snow unless we went to the Alps or mountains, we were told “It never snows in London.” So far, snow has lain on the ground in London every winter we have been here. Admittedly it may not have been a lot of snow, or for long some winters but we have not missed a winter yet. The last one was the best for snow – unless you wanted to move around the city!

  56. Phillip says:
    “This blog, with all of its moonbat posters and commenters…”
    I’m surprised that this got by the mods. Direct personal attacks on the people who post here is a sure way to lose an argument. We are skeptics who want facts. Your insults don’t help anything.
    I used to believe in AGW 100%. One day, I decided to go look at the actual data so that I could write down same facts that would support my views. I’m a programmer. I deal with models and data analysis every day. The facts did not support AGW at all. In fact, the input data is complete garbage or on very thin ice (pardon the non-intended pun) to say the least. Now that I have seen with my own eyes the actual data, saying something like
    “And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious.”
    is just not backed up by facts. I’m actually on your side. I want to believe in AGW. But nothing stands up. I’ve been duped. And so have you. Don’t take my word for it. Go look up that data and don’t tell anyone what you find. Only keep an open mind for YOU and do the research in private. That way, you have nothing to prove either way.

  57. David S says:
    October 22, 2010 at 8:26 am

    What’s next — “catastrophic climate calamity”?

    My guess is that the next disaster du jour will be the unrelenting and crushing boredom of climate sameness.

    ————-
    David S,
    Nice. If I may extend that then maybe we could expect the next apocalyptic scream will be something like:

    “We are all going to die because the climate is supposed to really change with AGW-by-CO2 and it is not!!! We gotta do something to make it change. We’re all gonna die.”

    Cute.
    John

  58. Declaring all weather proof of global warming is like the coin toss where the rules are heads I win tails you lose. Rigging the toss is good, for Al Capone.

  59. AdderW says:
    October 22, 2010 at 8:32 am
    Sorry, but the English letter imitation of the Cyrillic Russian initialism СССР (kyrillian) is SSSR and the “translated” equivalent would be USSR, so that “joke” falls on it’s face.
    Thanks for exposing another good reason not to go along with the marxist climate ideology/religion………the soviets were in power for 70 years…..and couldn’t spell their name properly the whole time.
    Think of the cost of changing the letters on all those rockets, and hockey uniforms……and no capital to finance the correction.
    LOL

  60. David Jones is correct – 1947 was a bad winter in the UK, but 1941 was also a bad one, with heavy snow, food rationing, a shortage of coal for our open fires and a bit of unpleasantness going on across the Channel. We soon learned that an air-raid shelter in the back garden can be a chilly place at three in the morning.
    But it all turned out fine in the end, as the actress said to the bishop.

  61. In panhandling, in climatism, in global warming, in IPCCistics, and in the circus, there’s an very old saying that is as true today as ever it was, and no doubt will be true to the end of time: “There’s a sucker born every minute!”

  62. Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    “The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours.”
    Phillip, the problem is that, even if one were willing to stipulate to the worst case scenarios of those whose work you seem to find so convincing, none of the presently offered, make that demanded, “solutions” have any prospect of solving the problem.
    Given that there seems to be a growing body of evidence that even their best case scenarios may be overstated, and more particularly, that almost every one of the proposed future catastrophes that are meant to make us think that this nonsense demands “solutions”, has been shown to be mostly BS (bad science), a truly enquiring mind might be moved to ask “Why is all this happening?” Obviously you wouldn’t seem to fall in that category, but if you feel that is an unfair characterization of you and your cohorts, I suggest an experiment to test the proposition.
    1) Open a fresh email account
    2) Get yourself a different moniker
    3) Pretend for the moment that you are one of us ignorant knuckle draggers and compose a comment similar in tone to the one you posted here, but directed at the folks you agree with.
    4) Go to each of the sites posted on Anthony’s sidebar under Pro AGW Views and any other similar ones you may visit regularly and attempt to post that comment.
    5) Report back here with your results.
    And just to show that we are mostly friendly and helpful folks around here I’ll offer you some friendly and hopefully helpful personal advice. If you should ever find yourself in New York City and a stranger should approach you with an offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, turn and run away as fast as you can, because you obviously haven’t got what it takes to resist the pitch.

  63. Response to:
    John DeFayette says:
    October 22, 2010 at 4:35 am
    Perfectly logical in our Orwellian world:
    We all know “weather is not climate” (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html), but now we also know that “all weather IS climate change.”
    This is Hilarious! Reminds me of the Family Circle cartoon years and years ago showing Dad trudging through two feet of snow with his three foot tall son, explaining that when he was his son’s age, the snow came up to his chest (as it now does to his son). That’s the starting point for NASA’s discussion – and they missed the humor of their statement?
    Oh, well. I guess it’s better than revising historical temperatures so that current temperatures look high.

  64. I don’t get it. How come the photographer couldn’t focus on the whole animal?
    Hey, that’s like the professional climatologist of the IPCC religion who’s not able to focus on the whole picture of all the weather that makes up all the observable and measured weather (but can only focus on the simplified accumulated made up fantastically fantasy statistically weather that nobody’ve ever, IRL, observed nor measured and never ever will be able too.
    If you still donät get it the Chameleon is out of focus.

  65. The progression of alarmist nomeclature is from the general to the specific, that is, away from the global to the regional. The natural end result should be extremely specific. I suggest the endgame that will allow everything and anything to be a symptom, and stop all skeptical argument flat, will be TABW, or Today’s Anthropogenic Bad Weather.

  66. 1DandyTroll says:
    October 22, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    “If you still don’t get it the Chameleon is out of focus.”
    Ah yes, Weedhopper, but can you answer this question? What color is a Chameleon on a plate glass mirror?

  67. @ Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    And speaking of reality, the reality is that the global climate is warming, mankind is responsible for much of the warming, and the consequences will be serious. The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours.
    —-
    Thanks for calling everyone on this post a Moonbat, Phil! Very professional of you. I’d love to read your CV.
    I’ve worked in the field for 30 years (biomethane mitigation), so I know the arguments well. My opinion of climatology is presently colored by the Climategate emails and subsequent revelations, and I quite agree with Dr. Hal Lewis’s sentiments in his resignation letter from APS:
    “Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.”
    The benefits of updating our fossil fuel economy are many, and climatologists should drop the scary bedtime stories about drowning polar bears & practice some sound environmental science for a change. I consider most of them charlatans & not real scientists.
    Hal Lewis’s letter is here: http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

  68. R. de Haan says:
    October 22, 2010 at 5:00 am
    Biodiversity is just another attempt to exploit people’s fears and lack of knowledge
    Biodiversity: Replaces Climate Change As The Weapon For Political Control
    ===========
    Actually, it’s even worse than that. The new, improved scare (courtesy of the UNEP, dedicated to the creation and promulgation of increasingly scary stories since 1972, and proud parent of the IPCC) is “unprecedented loss of biodiversity seriously compounded by global warming”.
    You’ll be pleased to know that – thanks to this new, improved scare – we may no longer need to worry about our “carbon footprint” as this appears to have been subsumed under the new, improved “ecological footprint“.
    The new kid on the UNEP’s scaremongering block is the IPBES. This is not a “panel”, though, it’s a “platform”: IPBES = Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. It’s mandate is to produce (wait for it!) “gold standard scientific reports for governments”.
    This august body, which began life as a mere “concept note” a few years ago, came into full-bloom on June 11 of this year. Not only will IPBES “mirror” the IPCC, it comes with TEEB – a 2 years in the making “new testament” for the (IPCC’s) Climate Bible, ready for consumption by the gullible.
    TEEB=The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. They call it a “study” (“inspired” by the Stern Report) – and it comes with its very own “tipping points” and imperative to “put nature on the balance sheet”, and (surprise, surprise!) mechanisms such as “biodiversity offsets or other schemes to mitigate and/or compensate …”
    The mantra of TEEB’s Team leader, (on generous loan from Deutsche Bank) Pavan Sukhdev, is “What you do not measure, you cannot manage”.
    Further details available at:
    Move over IPCC … here comes IPBES
    and
    Biodiversity loss … TEEB on the march
    A side note: … As the Telegraph’s James Delingpole has astutely* observed: “Suddenly it becomes clear why they kept Pachauri on at the IPCC. Because the IPCC simply doesn’t matter any more.”
    *Full disclosure: I am the “Hilary Ostrov” to whose blog Delingpole refers his readers in his article:-)

  69. Pascvaks says:
    October 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    In panhandling, in climatism, in global warming, in IPCCistics, and in the circus, there’s an very old saying that is as true today as ever it was, and no doubt will be true to the end of time: “There’s a sucker born every minute!”
    ****
    How true. But with the declining birthrates in the West, I would think that our suckerness would also be on the decline. Must be the CO2.

  70. mrjohn says:
    October 22, 2010 at 9:13 am
    “….So I guess the jury is still out. The swans from Siberia arrived in SW England early this year which is supposed to mean a cold winter. My criteria are “one hot summer does not a climate change make, nor one cold winter”
    I agree that in the case of natural variation, ‘one hot summer, or one cold winter does not a climate change make.’ However, as far as the AGW theory goes, increase in CO2 emissions must always push the temperture up (the effect of increasing greenhouse gases is not that temperatures flat line or fall but rather than they must increase). Accordingly, cold events need to be fully explained because they are counter intuitive to the theory.
    As far as the UK is concerned 2008/9 was a cold winter. 2009/10 an even colder winter. If 2010/11 turns out to be cold, we will have had 3 cold winters in a row. This runs counter to the AGW theory and requires a full and proper explanation other than natural variation since if that is the only explanation then there is nothing to say that natural variation doesn’t account for the warming between 1970s and late 1990s.
    The way things are shaping up it looks likely that the winter will be cold (but hopefully not as bad as last year).

  71. mrjohn says:
    October 22, 2010 at 9:13 am
    If you read to the bottom of that article Dr Viner says
    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
    So I guess the jury is still out. The swans from Siberia arrived in SW England early this year which is supposed to mean a cold winter. My criteria are “one hot summer does not a climate change make, nor one cold winter”
    ———————————————————————————
    I was discussing this exact same quote on another thread.
    My response was –
    Well – it’s so rare … that we’ve had snow every single year since that forecast in 2000 .
    You see this is the difference between what the CRU scientists tell us will happen “within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” (THEORY) and what actually does happen (REALITY)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/new
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1232047.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/features/2002/12/white_chris
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1864973.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2711291.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/mid/sites/slideshows/pages/2004_s
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4468830.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southwest/sites/inpictures/pages/
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/2007/02/08/wha
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7167475.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ouch/2009/02/snow_snow_and_more_s
    ….or the difference between the ‘MODELS’ and the actual ‘OBSERVATIONS’ !!!
    And I came across a terrific quote in the first link –
    “Scientists have identified a general trend of climate change, although there is disagreement over what exactly is causing it. ” !!!!!!!!

  72. Sorry – repeat but with working links this time!!!
    mrjohn says:
    October 22, 2010 at 9:13 am
    If you read to the bottom of that article Dr Viner says
    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
    So I guess the jury is still out. The swans from Siberia arrived in SW England early this year which is supposed to mean a cold winter. My criteria are “one hot summer does not a climate change make, nor one cold winter”
    ———————————————————————————
    I was discussing this exact same quote on another thread.
    My response was –
    Well – it’s so rare … that we’ve had snow every single year since that forecast in 2000 .
    You see this is the difference between what the CRU scientists tell us will happen “within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” (THEORY) and what actually does happen (REALITY)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/newsid_4380000/4380415.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1232047.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/features/2002/12/white_christmas_odds.shtml
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1864973.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2711291.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/mid/sites/slideshows/pages/2004_snow_scenes.shtml
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4468830.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southwest/sites/inpictures/pages/snow_march06.shtml
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/2007/02/08/whats_off_snow_feb_07_feature.shtml
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7167475.stm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ouch/2009/02/snow_snow_and_more_snow.html
    ….or the difference between the ‘MODELS’ and the actual ‘OBSERVATIONS’ !!!
    And I came across a terrific quote in the first link –
    “Scientists have identified a general trend of climate change, although there is disagreement over what exactly is causing it. ” !!!!!!!!

  73. Nobody has bothered to mentioned this, so I’ll point out the simple fact that

    the canard that the term “Climate Change” was adopted a few years ago

    whether true or not is not a “logical fallacy”. (Cf. the earlier part of Phillip’s comment.)
    Come on! I can’t handle these overweening critics of WUWT that come on like the ill-fated swordsman in that Indiana Jones film. Surely you can do better than thiat!

  74. Global Warming
    Climate Change
    Anthropogenic Global Warming
    Global Climate Disruption.
    What’s next — “Catastrophic Climate Calamity”?
    Global Warming Srikes Back
    The Return of Global Warming
    The Revenge of Global Warming
    Son of Global Warming
    Global Warming Rides Again
    The Attack of Global Warming
    Global Warming Episode IV
    Global Warming Episode V
    Global Warming Episode VI
    Global Warming goes to Hollywood (sorry AL Gore has done that)

  75. @ Phillip says:
    October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am
    Phil, have you re-written that paper on UHI in China yet?

  76. The readers of this blog have the choice of accepting reality and joining the work on finding and implementing solutions to AGW . . . or of keeping their minds tightly closed and staying in the fringe in this cyber circle jerk. The choice is yours

    As opposed to staying in the mainstream in some other circle jerk (A.K.A. pro-AGW dogmatic circle-jerks)?
    And, speaking of accepting reality, are we supposed to accept the reality-by-imaginary-consensus, or the reality of the world as we see it with our own eyes?

  77. There are many reading this blog, like myself, who are not as yet, totally, utterly convinced of the 100% accuracy of every small detail of the AGW theory.
    Have I made myself plain?
    I do hope so.
    Now for a serious warning.
    Just because AGW is nonesense, does not immediately PROVE the opposite.
    We may or may not be headed for another ice age just yet.
    The climate is of that group of systems best described by chaotic maths.
    We have gone through an extended period of warming and drying.
    We may well be moving into the opposite part of the cycle for an extended period.
    Reading sunspot data and the history on the little ice age and so forth is very interesting.
    I spend a lot of time doing just that;
    and following the work of serious solar physics rearchers too.
    But let’s not get ahead of ourselves nor fall into an “anti-AGW cult” trap.
    It may take more years of waiting than you probably have time for on this earth,
    to be able to distinguish between normal fluctiations (was hot – so now cold)
    and a shift from one cycle (1850-20??) to a new one, which could really be much colder and wetter than we would welcome.
    So far we are just seeing the normal rebalancing that occurs after a rather long run in a given direction.
    Climate is part of a subgroup of chaos theory that has a strong recursion to the mean.

  78. Hey there, my namesake, thank you for provoking me into doing something I’ve never done in months of reading this blog and that’s posting on it, so I can be included as a ‘moonbat’. Gosh, I’m so proud. Me, a moonbat at 53! I must tell my dad, he’ll be proud too!
    Great post btw, Aussie Dan, you exhibit a level headedness & depth of scientific understanding that the foaming mouthed warmists must envy.

  79. SouthAmericanGirls [October 22, 2010 at 5:09 am] says:
    … Keynesian Economics …

    Excellent Information. And please continue redistributing this info everywhere (pardon the pun!).
    Keynesian Economics (which we used to call Credit Card Economics) is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual attempt to put the stamp of legitimacy to the profundly corrupt and immoral concepts of Marxism, Socialism and lately Globalism.
    It is a criminal act that (in the USA permutation) is nothing more than legislative theft of private property redistributed to ungrateful leeches.

  80. Tim Folkerts [October 22, 2010 at 6:24 am] says:
    “I would also add that this is just as true of the “climatists” as it is of the “denialists”.
    * For every Al Gore, there is a Jim Imhofe
    * For every MSNBC, there is a FOX
    * For every Mann, there is a McIntyre
    * For every Skeptical Science, there is a WUWT”

    I was all set to launch into a tirade over these equivalencies, particularly Gore/Inhofe (these are opposites, Gore is a coward because it takes no courage to jump on a consensus bandwagon, Inhofe is courageous because it took great courage to stand up to the AGW Insanity in the years PRIOR to Climategate), and MSNBC/FOX (for every Fox there is ACTUALLY 3 to 5 MSNBC’s, so please check your math 😉
    But then I saw what I hereby nominate to be Post of the Week

    Justa Joe [October 22, 2010 at 9:59 am] says:
    * For every Al Gore, there is a Jim Imhofe
    * For every MSNBC, there is a FOX
    * For every Mann, there is a McIntyre
    * For every Skeptical Science, there is a WUWT

    ——————————————
    For every criminal there is a policeman.

    Thanks go to Justa Joe! You sir, are sharp as a tack.

  81. Alexander K [October 22, 2010 at 7:39 am] says:
    “Many years ago I worked with a Romanian gentleman who had escaped from Eastern Europe about 10 years after WWII and eventually fetched up in New Zealand. He used to lecture me about the evils that politicians wrought and claimed that he had escaped ‘red’ communism, where everybody knew they had no choices, to ‘white’ communism in the West where we had the illusion of choice. I was a young man then, a bit wet behind the ears perhaps, and thought my Romanian colleague was a bit strange. Fifty years later, I understand what he was trying to tell me.”

    I for one really appreciate comments like this one. Too many of my fellow natural-born Americans are pathetic spoiled brats whose idea of hardship is when they get less bars on their cellphone reception.
    Having become great friends with many communist refugees I have learned just how much we take for granted and how laughable the things we complain about really are. AGW Cultism is only one of the latest examples of our petty narcissism (also see Ribbons around our arms convince others we care about some disease, Hands Across America, Marches for this and that, … ad nauseum).
    Many years back, watching the look on the face of a newly arrived Cambodian or Vietnamese or Cuban when they FIRST saw the inside of a fully stocked supermarket was like a hammer to the head. When these people finally feel safe and comfortable enough to speak as your Romanian friend, I listen very closely. And I want all my fellow spoiled brat countrymen to listen as well:

    “… he had escaped ‘red’ communism, where everybody knew they had no choices, to ‘white’ communism in the West where we had the illusion of choice.”

    This is exactly correct, if not understated, and I have heard this over and over. The message must get through to our children (instead of the AGW propaganda crap shoveled into their minds day in and day out). Socialism and all its mutations must be stopped while we still have the choice, or we will lose this place.

  82. James Barker says:
    October 22, 2010 at 2:48 pm
    …”But with the declining birthrates in the West, I would think that our suckerness would also be on the decline. Must be the CO2.”
    ________________
    Must be! Funny how CO2 can do so much to so many for so little; and it fast too.

  83. Dave Wendt askes of the caption image “What color is a Chameleon on a plate glass mirror?”
    This is an old question and has had a lot of answers. The one I favour is that the bevaviour will need to be modelled according to different assumed starting points and forcings. The likely result is a series of cyclic changes of increasing rate and amplitude that disintegrate into chaos, requiring supercomputers to delve into Navier Stokes equations of change.
    There will then be requests for a larger mirror and many chameleons so that an ensemble of chameleons can be studied. They would, of course, not be visible to each other so that charges of data collusion would be avoided. The animals that were not as equal as the others would be either eliminated or promoted, some for display at luxury resorts during symposia paid for by hidden benefactors.
    Finally a report would be produced in full multiplexed colour by the lengthy tapping of hordes of chameleons on keyboards, using tiny mirrors as mouse pads looped to webcams.

  84. Phillip says – October 22, 2010 at 6:45 am:
    “This blog, with all of its moonbat posters”
    Now that truly is a strange choice of phrase. Phillip thinks the posters here are rabidly left-wing? Is that an admission that to enforce his climate beliefs will require the most right-wing totalitarian infringement on liberty ever perpetrated by a democracy?

  85. Global Warming
    Climate Change
    Anthropogenic Global Warming
    Global Climate Disruption.
    What’s next — “Catastrophic Climate Calamity”?
    Global Warming Srikes Back
    The Return of Global Warming
    The Revenge of Global Warming
    Son of Global Warming
    Global Warming Rides Again
    The Attack of Global Warming
    Global Warming Episode IV
    Global Warming Episode V
    Global Warming Episode VI
    Global Warming goes to Hollywood (sorry AL Gore has done that)
    By old44 on October 22, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    ———
    old44,
    Great stuff.
    Do no forget the prequel to your first episode of ‘Global Warming’
    The prequel episode to that was GLOBAL COOLING.
    John

  86. For a business perspective of what adherence to the Kyoto Protocol by the end of this century would do the world economy, read this.
    Kyoto will force the planet into a death spiral from an economic standpoint–all based on the falacious supposition that global warming is a runaway process of catastrophic proportions driven by CO2.
    Such an approach, based on falacious assumptions, is a blatant lie by evil forces out to subjagate an uneducated populace.

  87. I have a strong suspicion that no matter what economic craziness our “betters” try to impose on us, most will demonstrate what the Marines put very well: Improvise, adapt, and overcome.

  88. hro001 says:
    October 22, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Thanks for the heads-up. I just sent the following to some friends and family:

    Coming Soon to Scare Your Children
    A new UN pseudo-scientific organization along the lines of the nefarious IPCC is being established to promote the foregone conclusion that mankind is destroying ‘biodiversity’. Here comes the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)!
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100060132/biodiversity-the-new-big-lie/
    If the hoax of ‘global warming/climate change’ is faltering as an excuse for ‘global governance’, you can be sure the malthusian ideologues will come up with another one.
    Of course, you know which government pays the bulk of the UN’s support. And you know where that government’s money comes from, right? Look in the mirror.

    To which I would add: Let’s get the United States out of the UN. Add that to the list of questions to ask your candidates before November 2nd.
    /Mr Lynn

  89. Mr Lynn says:
    October 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    hro001 says:
    October 22, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    Thanks for the heads-up. I just sent the following to some friends and family:
    Coming Soon to Scare Your Children
    ============
    You’re quite welcome … and good that you are spreading the word of the new, improved, impending doom!
    In the meantime, back at the UNEP ranch (currently encamped at Nagoya, Japan) … there are some indications that sibling (IPCC vs IPBES) rivalry may be breaking out – along the lines of “Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the greatest crisis of all?”:
    Of COPs, MOPs and a global battle of duelling doomsayers

  90. Blade says:
    October 23, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Justa Joe [October 22, 2010 at 9:59 am] says:

    * For every Al Gore, there is a Jim Imhofe
    * For every MSNBC, there is a FOX
    * For every Mann, there is a McIntyre
    * For every Skeptical Science, there is a WUWT
    ——————————————
    “For every criminal there is a policeman.“

    Except for the fact it’s
    * For every 10 Al Gores, there is a Jim Inhofe
    * For every 5 MSNBCs, there is a FOX
    * For every 20 Manns, there is a McIntyre
    * For every 10 Skeptical Sciences, there is a WUWT
    For every 1000 criminals there is a policeman. 🙁
    DaveE.

  91. Mr Lynn says:
    October 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    hro001 says:
    October 22, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    To which I would add: Let’s get the United States out of the UN. Add that to the list of questions to ask your candidates before November 2nd.

    I would also add: Get the UN out of New York! In fact, just plain old abolish it!
    DaveE.

  92. David A. Evans [October 23, 2010 at 7:38 pm] says:
    “Except for the fact it’s
    * For every 10 Al Gores, there is a Jim Inhofe
    * For every 5 MSNBCs, there is a FOX
    * For every 20 Manns, there is a McIntyre
    * For every 10 Skeptical Sciences, there is a WUWT
    For every 1000 criminals there is a policeman. :-(“

    Even better!

Comments are closed.