Fireworks in the EU Parliament over “the pause” in global warming

It seems the debate is getting a bit testy in the land of watercress sandwiches and doilies*.

“Man-made global-warming hypothesis is dead in the water” says Godfrey Bloom MEP, but it gets better, he points a finger at the chairman and shouts “denier”.

Watch.

h/t to Tom Nelson

* Some people thought I was referring to Belgium. No, I was referring to the EU Parliament in Brussels. I had lunch service there in a roomful of skeptics while Climategate raged in my mind, and I couldn’t say anything until it was verified. I recall the lunch service because it seemed to heighten the surreal situation I found myself in. – Anthony

251 thoughts on “Fireworks in the EU Parliament over “the pause” in global warming

  1. The Poloticians in Denial…

    Global Warming is Dead…

    And the truth being thrown back in the fools faces… Pricless..

  2. Well, he is a UKIP MEP, and they tend to have realistic policies on a lot of things.
    I will me more impressed we we see the same from either a Labour or Conservative MEP.

  3. It’s always fun to throw a label back at someone. It looks like he pitched it a couple times. Cool.

  4. I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists; we should not stoop to their level.

  5. davidxn says:
    April 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    “I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists; we should not stoop to their level.”

    The problem is they only understand when something they believe in is being smashed into they’re collective faces. It never would have reached this point it they could have been reasoned with in the first place.

  6. Now that was honest speech. Loved it! He could have boiled it down to this: Stupid is as stupid does.

  7. How did that word; “D—-R” get though the new automated moderation system ?

    Oh wait, it was Anthony’s original post, OK then, Carry On….

    Cheers, Kevin

  8. Too bad the hall was nearly empty. However Geoffrey Bloom likely chose a quiet time to avoid being shouted down by the large numbers delegates who cannot bear hearing the truth.

    The result is a very lovely one minute 23 seconds of video, which can be emailed all over the globe to people who cannot bear hearing the truth. A video is more effective on such people because such people are a bit slower, when watching a video, to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “la-la-la-la I can’t hear you! la-la-la-la.”

    Also the video is effective because some will recognize the setting as the EU parliament, and in some cases these are people who feel the EU parliament is a “better government.” Such people tend to equate patriotism with bigotry, however “internationalism” is a sort of holy golden cow they bow down to lick the hoofs of. To have this brief statement made in such a setting gives it a power it would not have, if it was made by ordinary people on the street, (as they have no respect for ordinary people.)

    Lastly, the video, by being only one minute and 23 seconds long, is so short it qualifies as a sound byte. The people who cannot bear hearing the truth have notoriously short attention spans, and cannot attend for anything that takes longer than one minute and thirty seconds to explain.

    In other words, Geoffrey Bloom’s ploy seems likely to be highly effective.

  9. Greg House says:
    April 15, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    “Stop at 0:07. The House is almost empty.”

    Which is typical for this type of meeting… after all the debate is settle they just have these things to put them “on the record” and as an excuse to get paid.

  10. davidxn says:
    April 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists;
    ===========
    Communication works best when you speak the language of the listener.

  11. This is the sort of intensity we need on the skeptics side of the debate (even though I really don’t like that he used the “d” word)
    Enough coddling of the CAGWers & their alarmist cause.

  12. The Times They Are A-changin’ ……and The Economist, NYT, BBC (a little bit, but still…). I think we are beginning to see evidence of general depression and a propensity for skulking about amongst the once feted and acclaimed CAGW proponents. The Guardian’s recent article on the melting of Arctic ice being the reason for the 5 cold winters in a row in the UK (and elsewhere – see global temp flatlining) is the kind of thing said unthinkingly in red-faced embarrassment when you know everyone knows you are dissembling:

    “Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss” (because of global warming!!!!)
    Look at the picture!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

  13. Connie and the carbon lobby are trying to artificially inflate the price of carbon in the UE in order to save the bacon of many invested “friends” and keep justifying European programs among them carbon capture. Just like in Canada, Oxford educated economist Diana Fox, wife of Mark Carney, present director of the Bank of Canada and futur director of the Bank of England is trying to “sell carbon pricing to Canadians”.

  14. Bravo Mr. Bloom!

    On another note, have a look at the sea ice page, Antartic sea ice is poised to smash previous records. You heard it here first, but will be reading about it in the next couple of months.

  15. In the real world you base decisions on fact not fiction! Truth will always win in the end.

  16. Never heard of the man, but he’ll do. :)
    So good I watched it twice.
    I believe Christopher Monckton is chief policy adviser to UKIP, so they’ve got some decent brains at the top.

  17. If you go to the youtube page you will see that UKIP members attract a huge number of viewers. Bloom does not get as many as Farage but Farage probably gets more than the rest of the EU parliament together. Farage and UKIP are exploiting youtube just about to the limit. Watch.

  18. Facts are indeed facts! Godfrey sums it up nicely.

    On a sad note, thoughts and prayers to those impacted in Boston today!

    Pay attention folks.

  19. You don’t need a weatherman, to know which way the wind blows….you don’t need a PhD to read the writing on the wall. Thankfully, the two-party puppet shows are nearing the end.

    Roger Helmer is another UKIP, MEP who knows the wind direction and the wall writings. He has an excellent monthly e-newsletter, and responds to Truth.

  20. We’ve just had a spring T-storm rumble through the Seattle area and it dumped quite a bit of hail. Days like this I wish Joe Romm was right because I’m tired of wearing wool 18 months out of the year. The vid was cheering, though. Nice to see old Blighty is waking up to the reality that they are really not EU material and willing to dance to Brussel’s polkas.

  21. LOL!! Global Warming is “face down!!!”

    This reminds me of the old Monte Python’s Dead Parrot skit:

  22. On another note, have a look at the sea ice page…

    Arctic ice extent isn’t looking to shabby either. It had made the most dramatic summer to winter recovery in the satellite record. It is within a whisker of matching norms of a decade ago.

  23. Another man not afraid to call a spade, a spade ! Bravo to you, Sir ! That makes a welcome change from the usual gutless and chinless UK ‘politicians’.

  24. Brilliant presentation! A hero is born. I love this guy!

    davidxn [April 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm] says:

    “I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists; we should not stoop to their level.”

    The really funny thing is that the above quoted comment could have been written by any one of three types of commenter …

    (1) An anti-AGW-hoax pro-Science commenter who simply forgot the /SARC tag

    (2) A pro-AGW eco-nut trying to use our “class” and “dignity” against us. This one has direct relationship to the recent Godwin’s Law discussion, clearly illustrating the slippery greased lightning slope you will find yourself on when you compromise on language. The old adage “if you give an inch they will take a mile” applies.

    (3) The spineless wishy-washy Bill O’Reily “independent” middle who have no will to win and if they had their way, the “debate” would go on forever, which is a kind of job security for many of them.

    One way to win this so-called debate is to make their corrupt religious belief system that man-is-bad warm-is-wrong energy-must-be-expensive, extremely uncomfortable. That means ridicule them into oblivion so that they are unwilling to even open their mouthes.

  25. Just bloody awesome! This is the man who would get my vote, if that was possible for the EU parliament. And believe me, this is not the end of it.

  26. The European Parliament is a facade. Real power is held by unelected bureaucrats behind the scenes in Brussels, influenced only by a few national leaders. This video will still be useful, however, if it is shared around.

  27. Blade says:
    April 15, 2013 at 9:18 pm
    “That means ridicule them into oblivion so that they are unwilling to even open their mouthes.”

    I wouldn’t say ridicule them so much as turn every argument they have used in the past and ram it down their throats. The 15 year mem is a prefect picture of that because they were the ones saying that its been warming for 12 years so it must warm “forever” and never stop warming from this point forward now give us all your money.

  28. Proud to have been born in, and brought up in Yorkshire.

    So, let’s see, from the US angle – from the two High Priests of climate CAGW quackery; the coal trains of death are making the deep oceans rise in temperature by 100ths of degrees (and that would be if that’s not two lies in the same sentence, which is doubtful). Oooooh scare-eeeee.

    One been retired, one to go.

    In the Medieval warm period, these guys would have been beheaded by now. At least, they now have to look back on their stupid-ass, meaningless careers. Punishment enough ?? Some would say not.

  29. I emailed him with a congratulatory message, hope he manages to promote common sense into a few politicians’ minds. I doubt it though, the green, bureaucratic carbon tax ticket is worth a lot in Europe. How else can they increase taxes in today’s economic climate?

  30. Gary Pearse @ 8.06
    When the alarmists were trumpetting the ice loss in 2007 there was no corresponding cold weather in the UK was there. The connection has only just been established in more recent years and has nothing to do with the temperature flatlining of the past 15 or so years or the quieter sun or clouds or anything else. We know CO2 caused the Artic to melt this time but what caused it to melt in 1958 or the times before that?? Just asking.

  31. I heard the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, speak at a public meeting to rally support before the forthcoming UK local elections on May 2nd. The results of the elections will be very interesting as UKIP will do very well and will give a bloody nose to the three AGW alarmist parties in the UK.

    UKIP is the only party in the UK with sensible policies on the EU (get out of it), energy (scrap wind turbines etc and build real power stations), big Government (slash it and give power to local people) etc etc.

  32. He’s not saying “D—ER”, he’s saying you’re in denial, denial, denial.

    Anyway, his point was well articulated.

  33. davidxn says:
    “I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists; we should not stoop to their level.”

    I would have preferred it if he had stuck to “in denial” because that what is happening. Having accused those where rightly sceptical that CO2 was main cause of the strong warming in the 80 and 90s of being in denial of what was happening to the planet, the alarmists are now in denial about the fact that that alarming trend had stopped and their predictions are now irrefutably proven to be exaggerated.

    He was clearly playing to the camera and his “denia, denia” [D-word filter] crescendo falls horribly flat.

    However, he has to be congratulated for ‘speaking truth to power’ and getting this said so clearly of the floor of the powerless european pseudo-parliament.

    This makes a good follow up to Monckton’s coup at Doha last year.

  34. Phillip Bratby says:
    April 15, 2013 at 11:18 pm
    “I heard the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, speak at a public meeting to rally support before the forthcoming UK local elections on May 2nd. ”

    As a fellow Brit I am not persuaded to vote UKIP in local council elections round here. But I am persuaded to vote.
    And I would like to remind all my fellow Brits who read WUWT to make sure you get your vote in for somebody on Thursday week.
    If we don’t engage we will become as irrelevant as the EU parliament.

  35. “For those people in this Chamber who havn’t had the benifit of a formal education….”

    Oh dear. That set the scene for another characteristiclly embarrassing performance. Was he drunk and on very heavy prescription painkillers again? We should be grateful for small mercies – at least he didn’t call the Germans Nazis, or wallow in the loss of life through bombings.

    Full list of gaffs here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_Bloom

  36. I think the fellow should have said surface temperature increase appears to have stalled (although statistically it is too early to tell yet).

    Sea temperatures (as measures in the first 700 meters) continues to increase.

  37. Sadly, it is we who are in denial if we think that it will help reverse this oppressive and bankrupting legislation that exists in EU statute. The only way to free member states, and we in Britain in particular, from its clutches is to leave the EU and for our own national legislatures to come to their senses.

  38. Loved his line about those who have not received a formal education, makes them look like sheep who will just follow the rest of the flock. Beautifully done. Why can’t we have leaders like this?
    Oh we did in Maggie.

    James Bull

  39. davidxn says:
    “I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists; we should not stoop to their level.”

    There’s no point in holding the moral high-ground if it just becomes your final resting place. Fix bayonets. CHARGE!

  40. “For those who haven’t had a formal education – Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are different things”
    LOL I bet they didn’t even realise it was sarcasm!

  41. I wonder if he actually understands the science or if he simply believes… as does nearly everyone else, pro or against or else.

  42. Txomin says: April 16, 2013 at 12:39 am | “I wonder if he actually understands the science or if he simply believes… as does nearly everyone else, pro or against or else.”
    —————-

    It doesn’t matter, science was a casualty a long time ago … we can dick around arguing the semantics of science or we can “Fix bayonets. CHARGE!”

    Don’t you see what the Administration is doing to you in the ‘States ? Do you think they give a fig about the science ? No, they make it up as they go along … I give you your EPA as an example. The ‘science’ is just to keep you distracted. The sad thing is that the rest of the world government goons look to the USA for leadership and mimic the buffoonery … in Australia we have the climate clown, Flannery; we have the US reject Lewandowsky; and our socialist feral government adapts Obummer campaign tactics to our longest ever election campaign … we have more foreigners running the feral government campaign than we do Australians. Heavens, we have enough of our own clowns to need imports !

  43. @Village Idiot

    Your nom de plume befits your post.

    “Attack the messenger and not the message” is a typical lefty/commie tactic, which unfortunately for the likes of you, simply won’t work any more.

    Please return to your village, as you are depriving them of their idiot.

  44. You really don’t want this chap on your side.
    In December 2008, Bloom had to be carried out by an intern after making a European Parliament speech while drunk. During the speech, Bloom denied that the MEPs from Poland, the Czech Republic or Latvia have the ability to understand economic relations. In February 2012, Bloom interrupted a debate with the question whether the Cambridge University Women’s Rugby team should wear their logo on the front or back of their shirts.

  45. Kevin Cave says:
    April 16, 2013 at 1:53 am
    @Village Idiot

    Your nom de plume befits your post.

    Quite so. And a pity his education didn’t extend to spelling “benefit”.

  46. Moe and Txomin:

    I am replying to your posts at April 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm and April 16, 2013 at 12:39 am, respectively.

    Moe, you display your prejudice when you write

    I think the fellow should have said surface temperature increase appears to have stalled (although statistically it is too early to tell yet).

    Sea temperatures (as measures in the first 700 meters) continues to increase.

    Surface temperature rise has stopped; n.b. NOT “stalled”. Whether surface temperature will rise or fall in future is not known.

    As you say, one inaccurate measure of upper layer sea temperature suggests that water layer is warming slightly. But, so what? Clearly, that warming is not directly coupled to surface temperature because surface temperature has stopped warming.

    Txomin, you imply and suggest

    I wonder if he actually understands the science or if he simply believes… as does nearly everyone else, pro or against or else.

    Godfrey Bloom MEP (whose politics I deplore) clearly does understand at least some of the science because in the video he points out errors of understanding of the science; i.e.
    1. he rightly said carbon is not carbon dioxide
    and
    2. he rightly said global warming does not exist because it stopped more than 15 years ago.

    Indeed, anybody who understands the science knows – n.b. knows and does not “believe” – there is no rational justification for policy responses to AGW. However, as Bloom says in the video, and as Moe demonstrates with his post, the faith of AGW-believers blinds them to reality.

    Richard

  47. Gareth Phillips says: April 16, 2013 at 1:56 am

    I agree. Bloom is, on balance, a liability. Although I enjoyed this particular bit of knock-about.

    Roger Helmer is in an entirely different league.

    Although the pitiful figleaf of ‘democracy’ represented by the European Parliament is an embarrassing and eye-wateringly expensive irrelevance.

  48. Thank God for Ukip, it seems to be the only party in the EU that knows the EU is corrupt to the core and is saying it out loud. The Unelected Commissars are raking it in by pushing policies which raise extra cash for pet projects they have shares or family interests in. Now we have global warming creating damn cold winters, absolute c**p. Truth is the daughter of time.

  49. “It seems the debate is getting a bit testy in the land of watercress sandwiches and doilies.

    Maybe a bit too testy. I could see the video earlier tonight but get a blank screen there now

  50. Re the Bloom detractors. Yes, he’s a bit of a loose canon but so what? Give me an eccentric individual politician (drunk or sober) any day than a toe-the-line, anodyne yes man whose only role is to do the bidding of his masters.

  51. Friends:

    There have been several comments concerning allegations that Godfrey Bloom MEP has attended the European Parliament while inebriated.

    Some people – especially Americans – often fail to understand the robust and sometimes casual nature of British Parliamentarians. The following anecdote may assist.

    Prime Minister Winston Churchill often attended Parliament when inebriated. One evening he addressed the Commons while even less sober than usual. As he left the chamber he was accosted by the redoubtable Bessie Braddock MP who – in offended tone – said to him

    Mr Churchill, you are drunk!

    Sir Winston looked at Mrs Braddock and replied

    Yes, Madam. And you are ugly, but I will be sober in the morning.

    Then he continued his exit from the chamber.

    Richard

  52. Mr Bloom’s choice of “D-word” tactic detracts from his otherwise correct assessment and portrayal of the facts.

    This sort of thing is never covered by the tax-funded BBC, which has a duty to be impartial. I note that their current leading environment & energy activist/analyst, Roger Harrabin, @RHarrabin , has come over a little quiet of late. Looking at his twitter feed, there is some evidence of Operation BACKPEDAL, at least in respect of the nonsense of biofuels.

    Another hairline crack in the dam …

  53. The alarmists are Deniers:- they deny that climate actually changes. They wish to ”stabilise” climate by reducing our miniscule output of CO2. They even deny science with such rubbish.

  54. I don’t really understand the point of all this crowing over the wiggles (largely unforced natural variability) in the global warming trend. It will only come back to bite you.

  55. The big irony is that the Hockey Stick is almost pure climate change denial for the full length until the blade.

    I would have been a lifelong Conservative voter, but no longer. I’m a UKIP voter now. I will never vote for a party whose policies are designed to push up the cost of energy. Of the main parties in the UK, UKIP is the only one with sensible policies on Europe and energy and, judging by this video, on climate change.

    I’ll probably never vote Conservative while Cameron is leader. He lost my vote when he broke his ‘cast-iron’ promise on the referendum. I simply don’t believe his new promise on a referendum in the distant future. And he is completely deluded on climate change.
    Chris

  56. Be careful what we wish for.

    UKIP’s popularity amongst the right will just split the right vote and allow a left victory in the local and national elections.

  57. By using the term ‘denier’, he obviously meant Natural Climate Change Denier.

    There are one helluva lot of them gorging themselves in the European parliament trough.

  58. He represents a UK political party that is currently viewed as somewhat “fringe” in the MSM. However, I like many other fed up ordinary voters believe they will pick up a large number of seats in the UK local elections due in early May… it will be interesting to see both how the MSM respond to that and also how much further the other parties will go to adopt UKIP copy-cat policies.
    Love the way he told the truth to those blinkered by the Meme.

  59. Icarus62:

    I write to refute your disingenuous post at April 16, 2013 at 3:21 am. It says

    I don’t really understand the point of all this crowing over the wiggles (largely unforced natural variability) in the global warming trend. It will only come back to bite you.

    Oh, I am certain you do “understand”. It is the scientific practice of comparing prediction to reality.

    The important fact of the recent halt to global warming needs to be stated and explained at every opportunity because we were told by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the recent halt is not possible.

    This is stated in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words,
    The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  60. If the temperature standstill continues then expect the political debate to heat up. No pun intended. The hiatus is increasingly being reported in the media and the dam cannot hold the truth back for much longer.

  61. Thanks for the kind thoughts Kev and Marty :) Ouch, so pedantic, Marty!

    No, Kev, this is the Village where I belong. An isolated community living in the dark ages. The Renaissance has long passed us by – the ancient catechism still enforced by the iron fist of our Masters.

    But the Village Idiot can (usually) say what he wants and get away with it ;) – not unlike the lad in the crowd watching the Emperor.

  62. @richardscourtney:

    The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

    The actual warming rate is very close to that –

    GISTEMP warming rate, °C per decade:

    1973 – 2003: 0.16
    1974 – 2004: 0.18
    1975 – 2005: 0.17
    1976 – 2006: 0.18
    1977 – 2007: 0.17
    1978 – 2008: 0.17
    1979 – 2009: 0.16
    1980 – 2010: 0.16
    1981 – 2011: 0.17
    1982 – 2012: 0.17

    Obviously with numerous studies finding that the planetary energy imbalance is around 0.6W/m², and our emissions continuing unabated, it would be unrealistic to expect global warming to slow down any time soon.

  63. @ Philip Peake
    You could always vote for realism? We have an opportunity real soon #;-)

  64. “I will me more impressed we we see the same from either a Labour or Conservative MEP.”

    You will never see the same from either Labour or Conservative. (oxymoron’s, both) What you *will* see eventually is far more UKIP MEP’s than either of those. Just keep things going on their current trends, and keep sacrificing ordinary people to the great green monster.

  65. Great news from the EU.

    BBC 16 April 2013 Last updated at 11:06 GMT
    The European Parliament has rejected a plan to rescue the EU’s ailing carbon trading scheme.

    Members narrowly voted against a so-called “backloading” proposal that would have cut the huge surplus of allowances currently being traded.

    Because of this excess, the price of carbon on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has plunged to less than 5 euros a tonne.

    But opponents won the day by arguing the plan would push up energy costs……
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22167675

  66. temp says:
    April 15, 2013 at 7:17 pm
    davidxn says:
    April 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    “I think it’s ironic, but rather inappropriate to use the “D” word against alarmists; we should not stoop to their level.”

    Let’s not be ridiculous. Denier is not a swear word and does not need to be abbreviated in comments. The article was quoting an important speech supporting our viewpoint and cause and in which the word was used. It is only objectionable when used to equate with haulocost denial. The speaker was merely asking the chairman to deny the facts that he had presented so clearly. There is nothing wrong whatsoever in using the word in the correct context, so let’s stop being so touchy on the subject even though I support the view that we should not tolerate the word being used when related to haulocast. A very good speech for which we should all be very grateful.

  67. icarus62:

    Even by your standards, your post at April 16, 2013 at 4:35 am is daft.

    It quotes my having said

    “The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.“

    Please note I reported with citation, link and quotation the IPCC expectation
    ”over the first two decades of this century”.

    But you say

    The actual warming rate is very close to that –

    GISTEMP warming rate, °C per decade:
    1973 – 2003: 0.16
    1974 – 2004: 0.18
    1975 – 2005: 0.17
    1976 – 2006: 0.18
    1977 – 2007: 0.17
    1978 – 2008: 0.17
    1979 – 2009: 0.16
    1980 – 2010: 0.16
    1981 – 2011: 0.17
    1982 – 2012: 0.17

    You cite GISTEMP which is extremely corrupted; see e.g.

    But that is trivial when you have cherry picked time periods only one of which pertains to data for the period 2000 to present.

    If one wants to know how long it has been since there was any discernible global warming at 95% confidence then one has to start from now – any other date is ‘cherry picking’ – and consider back in time. Then one has to determine if global temperature trend differs from zero at the low confidence level of 95% which is used by ‘climate science’.

    It turns out that – depending on which time series is analysed – the time of no recent discernible global warming at 95% confidence is between 16 and 23 years. In other words, discernible global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    Werner Brozek went further and – like you – ignored significance but he considered whether the global temperature trend was negative (i.e. suggested cooling) over periods of the past from now.

    And people wanting more information on when global warming stopped can read the recent update on the matter by justthefactswuwt at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/14/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-the-pause-update/

    He introduces his detailed review of all available data sets saying

    From Werner Brozek’s recent article:

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)
    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to February)
    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)
    5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to March 31, 2013, or 16 years, 1 month.

    From those data points it appears that The Pause is at least 12 years old, but let us dig deeper into the observational data to see “The Pause” in “Earth’s Temperature”.

    Of course, icarus62, that is factual reporting and so is of no interest to you.

    “The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.“

    There has been NO global warming so far this century according to each and all of the available data sets.

    Richard

  68. @richardscourtney: That is what I meant about the ‘wiggles’ in the global warming trend. You’re focusing on the natural unforced variability, and neglecting the undiminished global warming trend. The planetary energy imbalance is, by definition, continuing global warming (the planet is absorbing more heat than it is emitting to space). If you ignore the fact that warming continues unabated then, as I said, it’s going to come back and bite you.

  69. Oh for…

    Come on, icarus… do you not understand the concept of “skeptic”? You just pulled a random number out of your backside and you’re panicking over it.

    Do you actually believe that your imaginary “energy imbalance” is so precisely quantified? Do you really worry about this? I can’t even begin to tell you how amusing that is.

    Nothing is going to come back and “bite me”. Well, maybe you.

  70. icarus62:

    Your excuse at April 16, 2013 at 5:25 am does not wash.

    The IPCC predicted warming.
    The IpCC said the warming was certain because of GHGs already in the system.
    The warming has NOT happened.

    The IPCC prediction was based on AGW and it is clearly wrong.
    Importantly, this was a prediction and not a projection.

    Your excuses do not and cannot change that.

    But you ignore reality and assert there is

    an undiminished global warming trend

    there is not because discernible global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    And you falsely claim

    the planetary energy imbalance is, by definition, continuing global warming

    It is not: warming of the planet is by definition global warming.
    You are trying to move the goal posts to somewhere beyond the orbit of Jupiter.

    And you enter into pure fantasy when you assert

    If you ignore the fact that warming continues unabated then, as I said, it’s going to come back and bite you.

    The warming has stopped. Accept it. And rejoice that warming which does not exist cannot “bite you”.

    The “committed warming” and “Trenberth’s missing heat” have vanished (probably been radiated to space) and your imaginings do not make them appear except in your mind. I suggest you stop smoking whatever is giving you these imaginings.

    Richard

  71. EU Parliamentary sessions never are debates, just pre-scripted ideological asseverations shouted out for PR purposes. Nonetheless, as Klimat Kultists’ bleats-and-squeaks begin to fade for want of audience, public forums loom larger by default. By c. 2020, ’twill be a brave Green Gangster indeed who expects to mouth his Warmist inanities unchallenged.

  72. @CodeTech: When multiple peer-reviewed studies find very much the same value for planetary energy imbalance, and that is consistent with sea level rise and cryosphere meltdown and the surface and lower troposphere temperature series then yes, I’m inclined to believe that they’re right. It’s good to be sceptical but you should also take full account of the weight of evidence.

  73. I am jumping for joy after hearing what this man said. It is about time someone had the guts to tell it as it really is. Farage and Bloom make a great pair and UKIP will go from strength to strength. Cameron and his barmy army better sit up and take notice.

  74. Gareth Phillips says:
    April 16, 2013 at 1:56 am
    “You really don’t want this chap on your side.
    In December 2008, Bloom had to be carried out by an intern after making a European Parliament speech while drunk. During the speech, Bloom denied that the MEPs from Poland, the Czech Republic or Latvia have the ability to understand economic relations. In February 2012, Bloom interrupted a debate with the question whether the Cambridge University Women’s Rugby team should wear their logo on the front or back of their shirts.”

    Ah yeah, slinging a little mud from the left. You can’t attack the argument so you attack the man. Alinsky tactics from the Fabians.

  75. Icarus62:

    I am pleased that in your post at April 16, 2013 at 5:47 am you have said something I agree.

    You say

    It’s good to be sceptical but you should also take full account of the weight of evidence.

    YES!
    So take full account of the weight of evidence. Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. The scare is over. Rejoice at this good news.

    Richard

  76. Icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 5:47 am
    “@CodeTech: When multiple peer-reviewed studies find very much the same value for planetary energy imbalance,”

    …we would expect the planet TO WARM.

    Which it doesn’t.

    So your multiple uncited studies must be junk. No warming. It HAS to warm if there’s an imbalance. You can’t define your way out of this total failure of the CO2AGW theory.

  77. Almost empty chamber, as posters above identify..
    I thought we were spending God-knows-how-much shipping the whole EU machine from Brussels to Strasbourg every month to appease the French.. Dare I suggest that, in fact, there are huge numbers of EU officials and MEPs PRETENDING to travel to Strasbourg and back every month, when in reality they don’t leave their cosy offices in Brussels..?
    Questions need to be asked – and soon…!

  78. @richardscourtney:

    “The IPCC predicted warming.
    The IpCC said the warming was certain because of GHGs already in the system.
    The warming has NOT happened.”

    The fact that global warming continues unabated strongly suggests that the IPCC were right. Indeed, it would be remarkable if the laws of physics governing the radiative balance of the planet had suddenly changed in the last few years, and the evidence indicates that they have not. The climate is following the known physics and continuing to heat up, under the influence of our huge emissions of greenhouse gases –

    Lyman et al 2010
    von Schuckmann & Le Traon 2011
    Levitus et al 2012
    Nuccitelli et al 2012
    Balmaseda et al 2013

  79. icarus62:

    At April 16, 2013 at 4:35 am
    you claimed global warming is happening at the rates of temperature change predicted by the IPCC.

    At April 16, 2013 at 5:14 am
    I explained that you were plain wrong and global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    At April 16, 2013 at 5:25 am
    you conceded that global temperature has not risen and tried to claim global warming is not warming of the globe but is accumulation of heat.

    At April 16, 2013 at 5:43 am
    I explained that your attempt to redefine global warming was silly.

    At April 16, 2013 at 5:55 am
    you have repeated your silly assertions and added a ridiculous assertion concerning “huge emissions of greenhouse gases”.

    The laughter is too much! It hurts! I can’t take much more! Please stop!

    Richard

  80. If you were a national leader and new climate information was brought to your attention that showed that the energy and environmental policies being pursued by your environmental and energy departments were putting your citizens at risk, what would you do? Yet this is what is happening in several western countries. Global temperatures were supposed to rise in an unprecedented way until 2100 and winters were supposed to get warmer. Exactly the opposite is happening. Global surface and ocean surface temperatures have been flat for some 16 years now since 1997 and have actually started to cool the last 10 years.

    The winter temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere as measured by Hadcrut3gl shows a negative linear trend for 18 years since 1995.
    The year 2012 was the 4th snowiest since 1967, the start of hemispheric snow extent records.

    Take the case of UK:
    1] Their winters have been cooling for the last 6 years starting in 2008. despite the predictions that they would warm up

    2] During the last two decades 1990-2010 there were 6 winters or 30% of the winters below the 1981-2010 average winter temperature of 3.8 C for all of UK

    . 3] During the 100 year period of 1910-2013 there were 58 winters. or 58 % of the winters below the 1981-2010 average

    4] During the last UK extended cold spell period of 1962-1987, a period of 26 years, there were 19 winters or 73% of the winter were below the 1981-2010 average

    5] There have been 41 winters since 1910 colder than the 3.31 C which was the average temperature this past winter of 2012/2013

    6] The winter temperatures for Central England (CET) have been slowly declining since 1988 or 26 years

    Despite this clear record of regular cold winters as part of the long term trend, the UK government was advised that winter temperatures were going to warm and coal fired power plants should be shut down. This, in my opinion, is like implementing national suicide. During the past winter there was barely enough heating fuel and/or electrical energy to cope but perhaps not enough to prevent thousands of premature deaths due to freezing temperatures. Installing wind and solar energy replacements will be of little help during some of the future winter storms or during periods significant snow or clouds or little wind unless there is some form of stable back up like fossil fuel energy plants. No power plant should be shut down unless it is unsafe to operate or its life cycle has ended.

    What is happening in UK is being played out at other nations as well to different degrees.

    I think it is time to re-examine the flawed science and assumptions that were used to establish the national energy and environmental policies on the grounds of avoiding further damage and reducing the serious national risk if they were to remain unchanged. We need to rethink the flawed energy and environmental policies even if international agreements need to be modified.

    The globe may be headed for 2-3 decades of cooler winters due to declining solar cycles, declining global SST, AO being mostly negative and possibly fewer strong climate altering El Ninos. These climate factors could be further supplemented by volcanic eruptions, sudden stratospheric warming, Rossby wave changes causing the jet stream to dip further south allowing cold Arctic air to come further south and more blocking situations, all of which can lower the winter temperatures further regionally.

  81. @richardscourtney: All the evidence as cited above shows that global warming continues unabated, in accordance with the known physics – primarily the radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic long-lived greenhouse gases. So, the IPCC are still correct (well, predicted 0.2°C per decade vs observed ~0.17°C per decade – I’m sure we’re not going to quibble about 3 hundredths of a degree warming over a decade).

    Do you have any physically valid reason to believe that global warming is going to slow down any time soon?

  82. icarus62:

    At April 16, 2013 at 6:25 am you ask me

    Do you have any physically valid reason to believe that global warming is going to slow down any time soon?

    Your question is surreal.

    Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. Something which does not exist cannot “slow down”.

    Get real. Move with the times. Global warming is so last century. It has not existed this century.

    However, you may be asking about future global cooling when you suggest the global warming which does not exist may “slow down”. Of course, over the long term future global cooling would be likely because return to an ice age seems probable in centuries to come. However, nobody knows if and when that will happen.

    What we do know is that global temperature rises and falls but rarely remains unchanged for long. Hence, it can be anticipated that global temperature will rise or fall at some time in the next few years or lustrums. It will then probably continue to stagger up towards the temperature it had in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), or stagger down towards the temperature it had in the Little Ice Age (LIA). It may, but we can hope will not, fall to a glacial state.

    The best we can hope for is that global warming will resume to raise global temperature to the temperature it had in the MWP.

    Sadly, there are no shamans armed with chicken entrails or computer models who can predict or affect these future possibilities in any way.

    Richard

  83. I enjoyed the video so much that I copied it onto my Facebook page. UKIP are gradually getting more credibility, so it will be interesting to see how they fare in the May local elections.
    BTW the changes in moderating this site seem to be pleasing most people, ‘Well Done’ for that.
    John

  84. @richardscourtney: As I said, all the evidence shows that global warming continues unabated, in accordance with the known physics, primarily the radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic long-lived greenhouse gases –

    Lyman et al 2010
    von Schuckmann & Le Traon 2011
    Levitus et al 2012
    Nuccitelli et al 2012
    Balmaseda et al 2013

    So, you are mistaken, and I take it that you do not have any physically valid reason to believe that global warming is going to slow down any time soon. Pity. The fact that global warming is continuing unabated means that we are getting into more and more trouble with every passing year, requiring ever larger efforts to address the problem when / if there is the political will / desperation to deal with it.

    Forget about greenhouse gas emission controls – the planet is warming so fast, it’s too late for that now. The planetary energy imbalance shows that we would have to reduce atmospheric CO₂ from the current 390ppm to 345ppm, merely to halt global warming where it is now.  This proves that Dr. James Hansen was absolutely right when he advocated that the world should aim to reduce CO₂ to 350ppm as a first step to stabilising the climate and averting climate chaos.

    Forget about ‘renewables’ too – they will never come close to powering modern global civilisation as we know it now, so they’re mostly a waste of resources. What we need now is a project on an enormous scale to sequester carbon dioxide from the free atmosphere to the tune of around 60 billion tons per year or more, every year for decades to come, to eliminate the planetary energy imbalance and offset continuing emissions. We need to be working on the science and engineering for this right now, so that when the public are literally screaming at their governments to do something about global warming, it will be ready to be put in place and all the engineering problems will already have been solved. What worries me is that a project like that is going to take a lot of energy, and obviously it can’t come from fossil fuels – where’s it going to come from?  Who is going to pay for it? Any ideas?

  85. Larry Kirk says:
    April 15, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    “Danke!” I like it.

    What was more amusing was the perceived need of the translator to then say “Thank you”. I suspect that most non-German speakers know what Danke Means. ;-)

  86. I LOVED the totally flat, monotone response of the German chairperson, obviously a career bureaucrat, “Danke”. I almost fell off my chair.

  87. icarus62:

    I have had enough of your trolling.

    Warming is an increase in temperature.
    For example, when heated a mixture of ice and water does not warm until all the ice has melted although it accumulates heat.

    Global warming is warming of the globe.
    That is what it is BY DEFINITION.
    In this thread you accepted that, and you debated whether the warming had stopped until I showed you that ALL the pertinent data sets show global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    Having been showed that global warming has stopped you then dreamed up a definition of what you want to call global warming.

    Global warming is warming of the globe. It stopped at least 16 years ago.
    Global warming is NOT accumulated heat, the birth rate of rabbits, the likelihood of alien invasion from space, or anything else you want to pretend it to be.
    Global warming is warming of the globe. It stopped at least 16 years ago.

    Try to face reality. And stop bothering me. I shall ignore any further delusional nonsense from you.

    Richard

  88. George Lawson:

    Let’s not be ridiculous. Denier is not a swear word and does not need to be abbreviated in comments. The article was quoting an important speech supporting our viewpoint and cause and in which the word was used. It is only objectionable when used to equate with holocaust denial.

    Head of nail, meet hammer. Except I think there’s more to it than that.

    Denier and its cognates in the mouths of alarmists definitely and deliberately connotes a similarity to holocaust denier. Denier in the mouth of Godfrey Bloom deliberately brings back to mind that horrific smear of every single one of us. As such it is very powerful rhetoric and entirely justified. It isn’t comparing the chairman with a holocaust denier – there’s been no suggestion to that anywhere in the skeptic world – but it is reminding them and every other alarmist of the need to disavow that disgraceful tactic utterly and for ever.

  89. Andor:

    I would appreciate an explanation of your brief post at April 16, 2013 at 7:35 am. It says

    maybe there is a secret code here…? warming means cooling same as gore means idiot?

    I failto understand what you are trying to say. Can you please explain?

    Richard

  90. richardscourtney says:

    April 16, 2013 at 5:14 am
    /////////////////////////////////////

    My reading of what the IPCC are saying is that they expect that by the year 2020 it will be 0.4degC hotter than it was in the year 2000. In otherwords, whatever temperature data set one takes (excluding ocean temp sets because the oceans dampen response), one would expect to see the temperature anomaly in the chosen set increase by 0.4degC.

    Their statement infers that even if all manmade emissions were to halt completely in the year 2000 (ie., there was not one single ton of manmade CO2 emitted as from the end of 1999 onwards), there would still be a rise in the temperature anomaly of 0.2 degC by the year 2020. This rise resulting from the residency of CO2 in the atmosphere as at 2000.

    As you correctly say, there has not this century been any warming. hence for their prophecy to come true one needs to see an increase in anomaly of some 0.4 degC within the next 7 years, ie., before the year end of 2019. This is not looking very likely. The UK Met Office predicts no warming before 2017 so if that is so, the heat will really need to be on between 2017 and 2019 for the IPCC prediction to comne to pass.

    Presently, it is looking very much like a fail. I wonder what AR5 will have to say about this prediction and its prospects of being correct.

  91. @richard verney: Remember that the IPCC are talking about the rate of warming averaged over decades, which is currently around 0.17°C per decade – very slightly less than the quoted 0.2°C per decade but not enough to quibble about, I wouldn’t think.

  92. herkimer says:

    April 16, 2013 at 6:14 am
    ////////////////////////////
    I have long argued that averaging is distorting the truth. There is no such thing as global warming, only regional variations. Some regions are warming, some are static, and some are cooling. Likewise, the effects of ‘global’ warming is felt on a regional not a global basis.

    I have frequently pointed out the position in the UK. Global warming may as some theoretical average have paused these past 16 or so years for the globe as a whole, but as far as the UK is concerned, since the year 2000, CET shows that the temperature in the CET region has fallen by 0.5 degC. More worryingly, since 2000, CET shows that the 3 month winter period temperatures in the CET region have fallen by some 1.5degC

    At the time when the Climate Change Act was passed, politicians should have been aware of what was actually hppening to the UK since they have access to the CET record and since the Met Office should be advising them on the CET data. The politicians should have been aware of what energy demands might reasonably be expected in the light of what was actually happening in the UK based upon CET data.

  93. @ icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 7:01 am

    A genuine question.

    Do you have friends, or know people, who respond to matters of fact in the way you do?

    I mean, have you come to your position by discussion with others, who agree what you show here is a real, legitimate, workably practical way of thinking? Or do you mix with people for whom what you’ve shown makes sense?

    I ask, because although the point made by richardscourtney above, quoting the IPCC statement, is about warming in the first two decades of this century, and your response covers different periods both in duration and relationship to the time frame mentioned. And your assertion that warming continues unabated is not what would ordinarily – to me – be described as being seen to be confirmed by reality.

    So I wonder if in fact there is, or can be, any relationship between you, and any who share your responses, and others whose foundations in looking at reality are clearly different? And how extensive in number are those who make sense to you?

  94. richard verney:

    Thankyou for your post at April 16, 2013 at 7:45 am.

    I write to confirm that your understanding of the IPCC statement is identical to my own. Indeed, I fail to see how it could be understood to say other than you and I understand it does say.

    Richard

  95. I just wanted to add something to this from a human perspective . I am sure there are some people who are predisposed to anxiety disorders and who are, like me, living in a state of acute and ever escalating fear after reading almost daily alarmists’ predictions. I have been living in a hell where I’m afraid of the weather on a daily basis, Once where I loved the sea it has now taken on a sinister appearance and I have nightmares where my very young family are faced with food shortages, flooded by the sea or dying from drought and disease. I am pleased to have found your site and even more so after reading this article because it has calmed me down a little and so hopefully I can get back to the business of making a living. I am not prepared to say that there is no longer an issue with warming but that I now have some much needed perspective and can now sleep at night. .

  96. @jc: Yes, anyone who has a reasonable physical understanding of Earth’s climate system thinks the same way as I do. The best evidence we have (cited above) shows global warming continuing unabated, as the laws of physics tell us to expect from the increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and several more minor forcings such as black carbon on snow. To focus on natural unforced variability in the surface and lower troposphere temperature series and ignore the continuing global warming trend would be self-delusion, would it not?

  97. .
    Unfortunately, the EU Parliament will ignore this, and go their own merry way.

    Some background on UKIP (the party he represents). They are on the right of the spectrum and are regularly denounced by the BBC as being crackpot loonies. But with this coming from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, that is perhaps a compliment.

    However, I like UKIP as they represent the only opposition to the EU monolith. If you want to see some stirring EU speeches, Youtube for Nigel Farage Great Speaches EU Parliament. Marvelous stuff – he really holds those Commies to account (the top three in the EU parliament are all ex Marxists, including Barosso).

    This is the trouble with the EU parliament – it has no opposition party (except for UKIP). When Vaclav Klaus the Czech president came to the parliament and asked for more democracy in the EU and a viable opposition party – the EU parliamentarians booed him and walked out. That is also worth watching on Youtube. Klaus was saying “please do not be like Stalin, who ruled us”, and the EU parliamentarians booed him and walked out. This tells you all you need to know about the EU.

    .

  98. jc:

    I write to offer some friendly advice.

    Please ignore the ridiculous answer to your question from icarus62.

    Either he is delusional or he is pretending to be delusional.
    I think he is pretending to be delusional by posting his irrational and ludicrous statements. His purpose in this being pure trolling; i.e. he attempts to inhibit rational discussion by encouraging discussion of complete nonsense.

    Richard

  99. May I suggest that all comments in reply to Icarus62 cease forthwith and that nobody continues to reply to his quite stupid and inconsistent views on this serious subject. It is only by replying to his unreal posts that he responds with even more stupid logic. I have stopped reading him and I invite everyone to simply ignore future posts from him. Otherwise It will simply lead to more extended posts that I, and I’m sure others, just do not want to read.

  100. Finally got the electricity restored to my house four days after a major (and should I say unprecedented) April ice storm that knocked severaltrees down (along with our power line). So I logon to my favorite web-site and see this gem. Thanks for making my day.

  101. @DirkH says:
    April 16, 2013 at 5:52 am
    Gareth Phillips says:
    April 16, 2013 at 1:56 am
    “You really don’t want this chap on your side.
    In December 2008, Bloom had to be carried out by an intern after making a European Parliament speech while drunk. During the speech, Bloom denied that the MEPs from Poland, the Czech Republic or Latvia have the ability to understand economic relations. In February 2012, Bloom interrupted a debate with the question whether the Cambridge University Women’s Rugby team should wear their logo on the front or back of their shirts.”

    Ah yeah, slinging a little mud from the left. You can’t attack the argument so you attack the man. Alinsky tactics from the Fabians.

    ——————————————————-

    Dirk, are you saying these records are wrong? If they are correct, that is not mudslinging or an ad hominem attack, it is merely quoting the records. I accept you may choose to disregard this behaviour, but if it is correct, I don’t see the problem. If you think his behaviour was acceptable we just have to agree to disagree. This is not a case of left and right mudslinging any more than reporting climate records.

  102. This debate about whether warming has stopped or not is a bit silly. It’s like trying to decide which way up a pattern should be. The climate has warmed since the 70s, so theoretically if it has not gone down again, it has still warmed ( Note past tense) However if the temp has stopped going up, it has paused in it’s increase, but it does not mean the temp has gone back down. If water is heated to 50c and stays there without getting warmer, it has warmed. If it does not get any warmer, it has ceased it’s increase. There is a pause in the temp increase, it may start going up again, or it may reduce, I don’t think anyone really knows for sure. But debating whether it has warmed or is still warming or stopped warming is pointless, they are all true, it just depends how you want to see things and from which year you measure your data. Simples.

  103. For those complaining about the use of the “D” word please review again the audio. At no point does he use the “D” word. There is no equivalence between observing a person is in denial of a reality and claiming a person is a “denier” which is a pejorative association to a phrase whose usage has an uniquely historic context and purpose. I apologize in advance for triggering the moderator alarm.

  104. @ icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Thanks for responding but you didn’t really directly answer my questions. I suppose I can infer something but that leaves things pretty vague.

    You say:

    “Yes, anyone who has a reasonable physical understanding of Earth’s climate system thinks the same way as I do.”

    For me, that is a fairly astonishing statement. Is there no-one who has “a reasonable understanding” whose opinions differ from yours at all? Even a bit? What about people who actually are employed to research in this area – who are committed to AGW – who have recently said things along the lines that it hasn’t warmed this century, its stalled etc? Are they just wrong? Don’t they know whats going on?

    Can I ask – how is it that you know better? But mainly, how is it that you KNOW that everyone who has “a reasonable understanding” thinks exactly like you. You must understand, its difficult to know where this comes from: it is very very unusual for intelligent people to have EXACTLY the same thoughts about anything. Actually, I think it is probably unheard of.

    So, I repeat, are such people with a “reasonable understanding” those who are part of your social circle? Are they ALL like you, who think exactly as you do? Or are you a bit of a loner – or maybe a leader in this?

    Please answer these questions directly, and I would add, do you have employment, or do you perform actions, in a role where the results pf those actions can be seen? Where your abilities in a practical way can be judged? And also, you refer to self-delusion, do you have reason to be aware of this condition?

  105. Apologies to those above who think icarus62 should not be responded to. I can certainly see your point. He seems so very certain however, and I would like to see just why. I realize that may not be possible and if all he is capable of doing or being is repeating the same things there is no point.

  106. icarus62 says:

    “The fact that global warming continues unabated strongly suggests that the IPCC were right.”

    icarus62 is completely deluded.

  107. icarus62 is neither deluded nor irrational, he/she/it is deflecting the conversation. The subject of this thread was the speech in the UK chambers – icarus deflected it to him/her/itself.

  108. Saw a few allusions to inebriation. Personally, I think a law should be made that requires congressmen to have a BAC of 0.04 to 0.08 to be allowed entry to the chamber for any debate. Imagine the arguments that can be made with people unconstrained by inhibition and decorum, where the congress-critters finally actually say the words they are really thinking, and in the passion of the arguments may say words that they would never say in a public forum exposing their true agendas. It would make CSPAN the most popular TV channel in history, and the public at large will definitely become interested in the political process, and may learn what their leaders truly want and why. I’m not talking allowing real slobbering falling down drunkenness, but just enough BAC to allow the inhibition walls to tumble a wee bit. Remember, the seeds of our revolution began in pubs.

  109. Gareth Phillips:

    Your post at April 16, 2013 at 10:34 am is either deliberately disingenuous or very mistaken.

    The fact that global warming stopped at least 16 years ago is extremely important.
    Please read my above post at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1276907

    As I said there, the fact needs to be stated and explained at every opportunity. Clearly, Godfrey Bloom MEP understands the importance of this fact which you say you do not.

    I repeat, please read my post which explains the matter which you say you do not understand.

    Richard

  110. richardscourtney is mistaken, as shown above. There is no evidence for any significant slowdown in the global warming trend which has been measured since around 1980.

  111. Well, I’ve had a really crappy day…. but THAT was a thing of beauty to behold!
    Godfrey was giving Connie the Bloom’in facts, in no uncertain terms.
    Yes! Made my day, right there!!!
    MtK

  112. icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 7:55 am
    ”@richard verney: Remember that the IPCC are talking about the rate of warming averaged over decades, which is currently around 0.17°C per decade – very slightly less than the quoted 0.2°C per decade but not enough to quibble about, I wouldn’t think.”

    I have no need to be so pleasant (despite the fact that I am normally reticent to ‘call others out’) – so my response to your crass stupidity is simple…..
    please show the data that confirms the 0.17degC warming for the last decade….
    I suggest you will not be able to produce such information – hence, you would indeed be seen as a complete dickwad!
    (sorry mods, but it has to be said!)

  113. icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    sir/madam/bot – whatever! – sorry, but that statement shows you are completely unaware of the current situation! (even using the fudged data produced by NOAA, UEA, etc, etc!)
    Get a frigging life will ya? – and preferably some eyes and a brain to go with it!! FFS if you want be a troll, at least be a factually correct troll! Gawd above – what do we have to do to deal with such moronic stupidity when folk cant even accept real facts/data????

  114. RichardCourtney, I only mention the sea because only looking at surface temperature would give the impression that the earth’s may not be continued to warm. By taking into account the increase in heat being stored in the oceans we can conclude that the earth is continuing to heat up.

    Your ‘so what’ statement is a little strange and I cannot understand how you can divorce the relationship between surface temperature from ocean temperature so blithely. Common sense alone would tell you there would have to be some interaction.

  115. Moe says:
    April 16, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    Oh FFS! and how exactly are YOU going to prove that ocean heat storage is being increased? FFS Trenberth can’t account for it – so do YOU have a feasible account?
    and to take your later point further – perhaps you should think of the earth as a ‘complete’ system – so if surface temps are lower, OHC might be higher to ‘compensate’ and vice versa……but the NET change is the equivalent of the square root of bugger all! Get it?

  116. Icarus62, I see that you are starting to make people think on this blog. There is no better evidence of this than other posters ‘advising’ other people to ignore you. Obviously they are scared that another point of view would pollute the debate.

    It will be interesting to see if they will enter the next steps in silencing you.

  117. Gareth Phillips says:
    April 16, 2013 at 10:34 am

    Ok – let’s just say that your ‘observation’ is correct – how the flip do you explain the past periods of warming AND cooling as demonstrated by inumerous palaeo records? (and indeed the instrumental record, e.g cooling of the 70’s?)
    Hint – let’s add the term ‘natural variability’ !!!!!!

  118. Moe says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    crass in the extreme!! Neither you or icarus has presented any scientific argument or information!!

  119. Moe says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    and another thing – if you cannot provide proper argument – you are clearly also a troll !
    with respect (because believe it or not, I do have respect for all views!) I suggest you present REAL argument and facts or risk further ridicule! – your choice!

  120. Friends:

    Moe has made the false accusation that people have tried to silence the ridiculous troll posting as icarus 62.

    Nobody has tried to silence that troll. But several – including me – have suggested that the troll’s posts should be ignored because the troll’s posts only consist of attempts to disrupt the thread with blatant nonsense.

    It seems that the troll posting as Moe is now attempting a similar ploy to deflect the thread.

    I commend that Moe also be ignored and for the same reason. The posts of both these two trolls are so daft that they require no rebuttal because no onlookers could be misled by them.

    Richard

  121. Moe says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    (yaddayaddayadda….)

    Moe,
    Only the moderators have ‘silencing’ privileges. Another false canard of Moe/Icarus62 disposed of.

    However, you and Icarus62 have been challenged to show fact based proofs of continued warming (planetary or ocean), rather than continuing on with your empty yaddayaddayadda assertions. You haven’t done that. You and Ick-r-us are making people think ……that neither of you have data to support your empty assertions… It is looking more and more certain that you can’t.
    Please show your data for either atmospheric warming or ocean warming, over the 15 year period ending at the present day. I really think you will fail.

    I’ll ‘check in’ on your no data/yaddayadda response tomorrow.
    Until then, I’m awaiting your next red herring with baited breath,
    MtK

  122. richardscourtney says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    Of course! But that is the disruptive intention! ”Look at me I’m being ignored !” a very common ploy amongst those with no substance to their ‘argument’. Sorry, but to me it’s the same as those who play the race/colour/gay/fiscally challenged/etc ‘card’ as and when it suits! Neither have produced the info required – end of…….

  123. M Courtney says:

    April 15, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    —–
    Absolutely right, you must – that is, simply m u s t vote if you are eligible.
    Write your own name in, if needs be – if the offered selection is too exotic or too compromised for you.
    But d o vote.

    Hey – applies to all readers, everywhere. democracy is a sensitive, even fragile, flower.
    Go vote; even if it’s for the new dog-catcher. Even if you write your dog’s name in . . . . .

    If you can – please V O T E
    Smiles.

    Auto

  124. Godfrey Bloom has the lowest attendance record, balanced by one of the highest expenses troughing records out of the English MEP’s in the European Parliament. As can be seen in this Parliamentary session, Bloom and UKIP are taken to task Vicky Ford MEP, where she calls UKIP’s bluff on the Financial Transactions Tax.

    Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, invited to the recent UKIP conference as a keynote speaker, a deeply unsavoury character, Bulgarian MEP Slavi Binev, about whom former US Ambassador in Bulgaria James Pardew, who is also a former military intelligence officer, wrote in a cable available via Wikileaks…

    “I. (C) MIG GROUP (also known as COOL PASS[3]) The MIG GROUP,
    headed by SLAVCHO PENCHEV BINEV (Bulgarian citizen born 10 December
    1965, also known as “SLAVY”), owns more than 30 nightclubs, bars, and
    restaurants in Sofia, including the popular nightclubs BIAD, DALI, and
    BIBLIOTEKA. GEORGI STOYANOV (Bulgarian citizen) and MIHAIL STEFANOV
    (Bulgarian citizen) are “Slavy” Binev’s two deputies. The group’s
    business interests also include construction and tourism; it operates a
    travel agency as part of its COOL PLACE entertainment complex. The
    group’s criminal activities include prostitution, narcotics, and
    trafficking stolen automobiles.”

    The fight against the CAGW scam should avoid tying itself to corrupt politicians from fringe political parties…

  125. I gather he congratulated the French on sneaking into my country with explosives, blowing up a boat and killing people. Having a raving loony support you position is a good thing?

  126. @ Kev-in-Uk says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    Gareth Phillips says:
    April 16, 2013 at 10:34 am

    Ok – let’s just say that your ‘observation’ is correct – how the flip do you explain the past periods of warming AND cooling as demonstrated by inumerous palaeo records? (and indeed the instrumental record, e.g cooling of the 70′s?)
    Hint – let’s add the term ‘natural variability’ !!!!!!

    ——————————————————————————-

    You miss my point Kev. I am not arguing for any particular cause and I believe one of the factors is variability. I am just saying that either argument can be demonstrated by how the facts are presented. If you are saying that the climate has cooled or warmed or not changed at all I could point you to lots of information which shows all opinions are potentially wrong. What we see very little of in this debate is the influence of subjective interpretation of grounded observations. I’ve got other examples if you are interested in a qualitative approach to climate science.

  127. @ richardscourtney says:
    April 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    Gareth Phillips:

    Your post at April 16, 2013 at 10:34 am is either deliberately disingenuous or very mistaken.

    The fact that global warming stopped at least 16 years ago is extremely important.
    Please read my above post at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1276907

    As I said there, the fact needs to be stated and explained at every opportunity. Clearly, Godfrey Bloom MEP understands the importance of this fact which you say you do not.

    I repeat, please read my post which explains the matter which you say you do not understand.

    Richard

    ———————————————————————————-

    Richard, read the post again. I am not contradicting you ( unless you are claiming that temps are now falling to levels last seen 30 years ago) I am trying to point out that subjectivity is a critical element and pretty well any stance can be ‘proved’ by using the right time frame or even the right research.

    Here is another example.

    In 1980 unemployment rocketed to 3.5 million in the UK
    In the late 80s it fell to 2 million
    In the late 90s it fell to a million.
    As a result of the recession it has gone up to more like 2 million over the last few years.

    So the question is, is unemployment rising or falling? It’s lower now than in the 1980s, but higher than 5 years ago. It’s subjective on what political party wants to use the data. Same with climate, shift the timeline and you can shift your results.

    so,
    Warming has slowed dramatically over the last 16 years. (so must have stopped)
    But it has not cooled ( So must be still with us)
    But the trend is for stabilisation( so warming has stopped)
    buts thats only 16 years ( so warming is still with us)
    but we know about climate variability ( so this is nothing critical it’s happened before)
    but its happening faster than previously experienced ( so it must be a problem) etc etc etc

    The critical thing is not to close your mind to any new or useful info, and beware of sites like Skep Science who shout down anyone who seeks to promote that idea.

  128. Hi kev and Richard Courtney. Typical attempt to intimidate, but Richard you would know that I won’t be intimidated as you have suffered my persistence in pointing out your errors in the past.

    But as I said before, the sea has continued to increase in temperature. There have been several studies that have shown that the majority of the heat energy trapped on the earth by greenhouse gases has landed up warming the seas.

    Some people, without foundation you caste doubt on these studies by spuriously claiming the measurements are incorrect.

    Well, we don’t need instruments to measure this change there are many instances where warm water fish species are moving to areas where they have never been seen before as it was too cold for them. These fish don’t rely on thermometers so it can’t be due to inadequate measurements.

    I know this is contrary to many who visit and post on this site think, but the evidence (not special cherry picked evidence) is showing you how wrong you have been. I imagine it will just be a matter of time before the skeptic in you makes you see how you conclusions are wrong.

  129. Gareth Phillips:

    I replied to your first post saying you were either very mistaken or being deliberately disingenuous. I pointed you (with a link for your convenience) to my post which explains the matter.

    Your post at April 17, 2013 at 12:41 am
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1277781
    indicates you were being deliberately disingenuous. It ignores my post I cited, and it provides pure obfuscation fashioned from illogical twaddle.

    The reality is
    1.
    The IPCC made a prediction
    2.
    The prediction was for “committed warming”
    3.
    The “committed warming” has not happened and discernible global warming has stopped.
    4.
    This demonstrates beyond any possibility of doubt that climate model predictions of global warming are wrong.

    I understand how painful it can be to have your beliefs shown to be plain wrong. And I understand that you have a superstitious belief in AGW. So, you have my sympathy for your pain, especially when – as in this thread – you are reacting to refutation of your superstition by a politician in a Parliament.

    But reality has refuted your superstition. Your superstitious belief is your business. Reality affects everybody. Politicians need to consider reality.

    Richard

  130. Moe:

    re your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:54 am

    Noted, and laughed at with gusto.

    Richard

    PS I am eagerly awaiting the return of Mac the Knife to enjoy his response to what he calls your yadayadayada.

  131. So Richard you don’t accept that the seas are warming? It is the position you would have to take if you think global warming has paused.

    Still you have been shown to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your narrow view before. So you are working to your standard MO.

  132. @ icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    You have ignored my comment and questions. Why?

    This comment to richardscourtney shows you have been here. You have shown in this particular comment a unwillingness to do more than simply repeat your assertion. That’s all.

    That is evidence of rote learning, nothing more. Is that all there is to you? Reading from a prepared sheet?

    Please have the consideration to answer the questions posed.

  133. Moe:

    Your lie that I ignore evidence and your refusal to accept the fact that global warmning stopped at least 16 years ago are noted and laughed at.

    Your clowning is becoming tiresome.

    Richard

  134. Hey Moe, and you too curley (or icarus… whatever)

    The heat is no more “going into the ocean” than there was a fifth gunman on the grassy knoll. Why, they figured it all out with an instrumentation package left on the moon by Apollo 22 in 1981. There is no “consensus” that the radiative imbalance is exactly 0.6 gizzlogs, or any other measurement.

    I don’t know exactly what planet you two live on, but it’s unlikely to be this one. Welcome! We call our world “Earth”. What color is the sky on your world?

  135. @ Moe says:
    April 17, 2013 at 3:12 am

    I have no great interest in discussing details of this or that paper or study, as plainly you don’t either, since referring to something is not equivalent to evaluating it. I am confident from your manner of presentation that your have limited capacity for that, and that such a process is not your role.

    Along with icarus62 above, you seem to have a formulaic element to your expectations and what you can actually deliver. Naturally, styles differ. There is an element of the vainglorious to you which has the character of someone never actually having been exposed to any meaningful test.

    The proceedural nature of both you and icarus62 indicates that what you retain at any one time is the result not of independently arrived at conclusions, but of talking points that have been worn smooth and absorbed by repetition and confirmation in a “work-shopped” manner. Is this how you have come by what you would be inclined to call your understanding?

    Is this an expression of a collective position not an individual one?

    Are you an example of someone whose interest in this issue is reflected in an involvement with a particular group? Or by having undertaken a course of instruction relating to “communication” around this issue? Do you make money from this issue in any way?

    To not address these questions might be called evasive. Given your contributions here, they are relevant and at least to me, obligatory. Part of understanding this issue is understanding the nature of those who make claims.

    To address these questions but not to answer them accurately, is of course dishonest. A dishonest person might be inclined to do just that in such a forum, thinking this could not be seen, but could in fact reveal themselves.

    In any case, they must have the undeniable personal knowledge that they are an intrinsically dishonest person.

  136. The world has experienced over 330 consecutive months (28years!) of higher than average (pre-oil) temperatures. That’s like flipping heads 330 times in a row. The odds this is just chance is equal to one divided by the total number of stars in the universe.

    In a stable climate, there would be about the same number of warmer and cooler than average months.

    Just as in a climbing stock market there are short term “downs” , but the trend is upwards. You can always find a small period of down temperature fluctuations, but the trend is upwards. It HAS to be, given the nature of CO2 and the increasing CO2 emissions, close to a trillion tons into our fragile atmosphere; the trapped energy must go somewhere.

  137. Richard, I don’t know if you ignore evidence that doesn’t suit your mindset, but you just don’t accept it.

    I’ve asked you if you accept the oceans are warming. Simple question which requires asimple answer.

    I notice that you would rather try some ‘put downs’ than answer. Which I take to mean you know the consequences of this information to the idea that global warming has paused.

    Jc what is your point? Is it because people ignore the fact that the oceans are warming means people are dishonest to say global warming has paused based on surface temperature?

    Or are you saying that people are dishonest when they pretend to be scientists, but can’t even interpret the simplest of graphs correctly?

  138. @jfreed27 says:
    April 17, 2013 at 4:42 am

    This is starting to get REALLY interesting.

    First the entity icarus62. Seemingly having exhausted any meager offerings, POOF! GONE!

    Then Moe, apparently, or possibly, still watching. What next from this one?

    Now you, with this.

    Is this evidence of a “strategy”? Passing the baton? Tag-team? The Collective Brain of AGW?

    Are you the third string? The last available? The pool exhausted?

    Its hard to imagine there can be a fourth, your contribution is skirting the truly imbecile. It gives the sense you only have one shot in your armory. And they gave you the absolute junk to work with.

    More please! I want to see the fourth! How is it possible to physically dribble in the written word?

  139. jfreed27:

    At April 17, 2013 at 4:42 am you say

    In a stable climate, there would be about the same number of warmer and cooler than average months.

    True, but there never has been a “stable climate” and there are good reasons to think there never can be a “stable climate” here on Earth.

    Global temperature rises by 3.8°C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8°C during the other 6 months of each year. If you do not understand why then one recent and simple explanation is available at
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
    Of course, this puts into perspective the “higher than average (pre-oil) temperatures” which you say concern you.

    The rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution is trivial: it is about 0.8°C which is about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months each and every year.

    Importantly, an oscillating system varying by +/-3.8°C each year could be expected to provide harmonics over much longer times than individual years. Such harmonics alone could be expected to provide such trivially small variations as 0.8°C.

    It seems that you live on a planet which has had “a stable climate” at some time. What colour is the sky on your planet; it is sometimes blue here on Earth?

    Richard

  140. Moe:

    re your post addressed to me at April 17, 2013 at 5:03 am.

    I have noted your post and laughed at it.

    I consider ALL evidence but I reject unsubstantiated bollocks.
    as several people have pointed out, you have only provided unsubstantiated bollocks.

    The ability to discern accumulated ocean heat is discussed in the current thread at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/a-different-perspective-on-trenberths-missing-heat-the-warming-of-the-global-oceans-0-to-2000-meters-in-deg-c/
    Read it if you really do want to consider the evidence concerning the gremlins you proclaim are hiding under the bed.

    Richard

  141. Moe says:

    April 17, 2013 at 3:12 am

    So Richard you don’t accept that the seas are warming? It is the position you would have to take if you think global warming has paused.
    /////////////////////////////

    If one was being honest, one would have to admit that we have no idea whether the seas are warming or not.

    Even if we were to increase ARGO coverage a million fold, we would still have no idea whether the seas were warming or not.

    Then we would have to wait at least 70 to 100 years before we would be in a position to extrapolate any useful conclusions regarding trends.

    Lets face it, the data is simply not fit for purpose, and the defficencies in the ocaen data set cannot be rectified quickly. There are no quick fixes.

  142. There is no doubt though that the weather has changed around the world though. If it’s not warming then what is causing it? Can anybody enlighten this pathetic, frightened man?!

  143. @ Moe says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:03 am

    Thankyou for confirming that you are evasive.

    Since no person, or word-machine, can fail to register what a “question” is, and the appearance of them in my response directed to you, whatever your intellectual capacity is, these cannot have passed unnoticed.

    Your apparent failure to grasp the meaning of any point at all in my comment is disconcerting.

    Is this – no polite way of putting this – a “brain problem”? You seem capable of constructing sentences, which while not actually carrying meaning relevant to any point they claim to seek to deal with, are more or less intelligible.

    An interesting point. Is this a sign of what can be described as autonomous intelligence? Or does it have the nature of a reflexive condition? Is form without substance anything more than a pattern? Which may well have simply been imposed by imprinting?

    The NATURE of your responses certainly indicates imprinting. Sufficient form to carry a limited expression. But no more!

    Is this why you were evasive of absolutely everything in my comment? Because the form could not carry such a variation in requirements? Is it even fair to call it evasion? If the form is incapable of carrying a response, does that also imply it is incapable of registering things it is not fit to incorporate? Is that the basis of what – for a normally functional human – can only be called a “brain problem”?

    Or is it instead, a fundamental dishonesty? So ingrained, so absolute, that to ignore the unignorable, is a compulsion that cannot be resisted, even though it is blindingly obvious to all who see it? But this in itself a “brain problem” of an almost unfathomable profundity!

    So is it possible you incorporate BOTH? A “brain problem” at a level to invoke gasps from a functional human AND a basic, organic, dishonesty at a level which when perceived by a human, requires your ejection from society?

    If you are able, I would greatly appreciate a further response to allow a comprehensive judgement. Please do not be concerned with attempting to explain your condition. This cannot be expected regardless of the reason, and can only be the cause of stress.

    Just say whatever you feel you are able to. No need to try, or pretend, to be relevant. Any sequence of words at all will do, and will allow a definitive decision on your condition.

  144. Mark:

    Your post at April 17, 2013 at 5:47 am shows a basic misunderstanding. It says in total

    There is no doubt though that the weather has changed around the world though. If it’s not warming then what is causing it? Can anybody enlighten this pathetic, frightened man?!

    Weather changes everywhere. It always has and it always will.

    Study a course in meteorology if you want to know why weather changes. A blog is not a place where such a course can be provided.

    It is not true that “weather has changed around the world”. Weather is changing, has changed, and will change everywhere. There is nothing unusual happening “around the world”. There is only usual change in weather happening at each location on Earth.

    There has been no global warming for at least 16 years. Therefore, any weather changes over the last decade cannot be a result of global warming because there has been no global warming.

    Your fear may be the reason you say you are pathetic. There is no reason to be “frightened” about global warming because it stopped at least 16 years ago.

    Richard

    • Thanks Richard you have answered my question and I’m sorry that you may feel that my question is inappropriate. I am an educated person to masters degree level in linguistics and my desire to learn has brought me to this blog. You all obviously have more specialist knowledge than me in this field and I respect that. But I represent the guy in the street who has been at the mercy of alarmist media for some years. The guy in the street who wonders why the rain is harder and the snow is deeper here in the UK. If it’s natural variability then that’s good news. The more of me that you can communicate with (yes, on my level) to change the perceptions that you argue so strongly for will surely help the anti agw cause. Thanks.

  145. @ Mark says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:47 am

    It’s Number 4!!! Unbelievable!!! TRULY unbelievable!!!

    I passed by this at first, thinking it was some sort of confused parody!!

    Invoking fear of the weather!!!!

    There can BE no Number 5. There is no-where to go from this. Although, as part of a very clever strategy, there could – and OF COURSE should – be re-cycling. And maybe this progression is part of the collective structure, where everyone gets to participate regardless of how detrimental or simply embarrassing that is.

    Mark, if you can steady your nerves, and get out from under the table for a minute, who gave you the word to go? Moe, icarus62, someone else, your Controller? Or was is by collective understanding achieved through back-rubbing affirmation and a few glasses of your favorite?

    • @Jc
      Invoking? No.

      Simplyasking a question of those who have more knowledge on the subject than myself so that I might learn something? Yes.

      Your conspiracy theory is completely misplaced. I say it again. If you want to communicate to people around the world that they need not fear GW then such questions need to answered even though you might find them tiresome. For the main part, we are at the mercy of the mainstream media.

      So for example. I read here in the UK (and I stress read, as opposed to believe) that melting Arctic ice may be responsible for the winter that we have just had. To an ordinary person. melting ice can easily be linked with the concept of GW. People don’t fear the weather itself but the consequences when it comes to food security etc.

      Ok so if you want me to stop asking questions because you feel they are inappropriate or tiresome or stupid then fine – I will. But please don’t accuse me of some kind of conspiracy.

      Ordinary people have the exactly the same questions.

  146. Mark:

    Thankyou for your reply to me at April 17, 2013 at 6:27 am.

    No question is ever “inappropriate” and yours certainly was not. However, some answers may be “inappropriate”.

    I tried to give a proper answer and I addressed each point in your post. I apologise if I was abrupt: I intended no offence.

    I enjoy debate and discussion especially with those who disagree with me because I learn most from those with whom I disagree: if I wanted to talk to myself then I would use a mirror and not a blog.

    But I abhor disruptive trolls whose intention is to prevent serious discussion. As you can see if you peruse this thread, the thread has has a severe infestation of disruptive trolls.

    I admit that I did have a suspicion that you may have been part of the infestation, and if that suspicion showed in my answer to you then I sincerely apologise.

    Richard

  147. @ Mark says:
    April 17, 2013 at 6:27 am

    Do I owe you an apology? Very difficult to believe your initial comment was sincere. If so, then apology offered.

    If the reason proffered by you is true, I would honestly like to hear more. That there has been endless propaganda around this issue, and that it has known no bounds in what it will attempt to co-opt, is clear. For the average person, not looking into this themselves, it is understandable that the basic premise of AGW is accepted.

    I am curious about how you see this having had the ability to effect your perceptions of the weather and what it is that has made you seek further information. Did the claims just become too implausible? Did you inadvertently pick up snippets of contradictory information?

  148. No apology required. You don’t know how glad I am to have found the blog.

    In answer to your question I have gone through a quite terrible process to get where I am with AGW – literally paralysed by fear invoked by the media, particularly after recently becoming a father. It seemed to be something that was unquestionable in the media but yes I did start to notice inconsistent information here and there regarding sea level rise for example. So I started spending hours reading the huge amount of information out there – some of it made me even more terrified and some was more measured.

    And now I’m here and it’s the best place I’ve found so far. An alarmist would say that this is because I have found an antidote to the terror that I’ve been experiencing but I see it more as a counter measure. Make no mistake – there are a lot of very frightened people out here and that is really not a good thing.

  149. @Mark says:
    April 17, 2013 at 7:38 am

    It does not come naturally to me to be able to empathise with a concern with the weather on that level, simply because, I suppose, through my life since I was a kid I have always had exposure to it, and do not find any of it’s extremes in themselves “foreign”. I quite like them actually.

    Although the cause in this case (weather) is not something I am disposed to worry about, I do understand that people can and do get – even what they might see as to unjustifieable degree – caught up in anxiety about things beyond their control and about which any information accessible to them is couched in portentous terms.

    Which is why no doubt why much, or basically all, CAGW propaganda has been presented in that way. Scare people into acquiescence. With a moral imperative as well.

    I believe you when you say there are a lot of frightened people. And having created that is an evil in itself.

  150. @ Mark

    Oh, and by the way, the weather really hasn’t changed, or not more than is just run-of-the-mill changes that will occur over any time period. Here in Australia, we recently went through severe drought. A 100 year drought. As predicted by numerous people before it started. Not “climate scientists”, farmers and the like. Of course it was not similar in all respects. No-one sane would expect that. Its just weather and will go on, with numerous memorable events, but no Armageddon, until we are all dead. And even after!

  151. @The reality is
    1.
    The IPCC made a prediction
    2.
    The prediction was for “committed warming”
    3.
    The “committed warming” has not happened and discernible global warming has stopped.
    4.
    This demonstrates beyond any possibility of doubt that climate model predictions of global warming are wrong.

    ————————————————————————————

    Richard, you seem to be getting very upset at a lot of posts, I’m not entirely sure why. With reference to your 4 points, I have not disputed any of them, I am more than happy to accept these things, however my post does not deal with predictions, models, forecasts or any other prophecy, it is related to grounded observation of past temperatures. Just because someone got a prediction based on a theory wrong, does not mean that the retrospective observation were wrong. I would understand it you claimed that there has been no rise in temperature over the last 50 or so years, though I disagree, but your point appears to be related to dysfunctional models which is irrelevant to my point.
    My post is related to whether there has been a slowdown or not, something which Anthony agrees with. I don’t care why temperatures have risen or why the climate has varied, I try and steer well clear of any hypothesis not based on grounded theory. Many people say the increase has stopped when looking at the last 16 years. Others look at the last 25 years and point out that if it has not cooled, well the warming has not stopped. They are both perspectives, I am not sure I can make it any clearer, though I can use the old train analogy if it helps.
    It’s about using phenomenology or qualitative methodologies instead of reductionist black and white conclusions. Again, predictions made by the IPCC or anyone else are completely irrelevant, I am not discussing such issues any more than I am discussing economic growth forecasts, and observations may be subjective to a degree, but are never idle suspicion.or ideological twaddle.

  152. Gareth Phillips:

    I am replying to your egregious and offensive post addressed to me at April 17, 2013 at 8:30 am.

    It begins saying

    Richard, you seem to be getting very upset at a lot of posts, I’m not entirely sure why.

    Please don’t pretend to be thick. It makes you look dishonest.

    I have been objecting to trolls making false statements, ignoring all points pertaining to their falsehoods, and then repeating the falsehoods.

    Your post I am answering does that again.
    It says

    With reference to your 4 points, I have not disputed any of them, I am more than happy to accept these things

    That is a falsehood. Point 3 of my repeat of my explanation to you is

    3.
    The “committed warming” has not happened and discernible global warming has stopped.

    But you say to me

    I would understand it you claimed that there has been no rise in temperature over the last 50 or so years

    I DID NOT SAY, SUGGEST, OR IMPLY THAT.
    I said and explained that there has been no discernible global warming prior to now for at least 16 years.

    And you go on to say

    My post is related to whether there has been a slowdown or not, something which Anthony agrees with.

    Clearly, I have answered that repeatedly both to you and to others.

    Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. I first explained this in my post at April 16, 2013 at 5:14 am
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1276959
    If global warming stopped more than 16 years ago then it must have “slowed down” to have stopped.

    And, contrary to your egregious assertion, there is NO ‘on the one hand and on the other hand’ about this. ALL the pertinent data sets show that global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    Stop trolling.

    Richard

  153. @Gareth Phillips says:
    April 17, 2013 at 8:30 am

    Frankly your position is idiotic.

    Some people might say that it is warmer than 150 years ago and so it is still warming. So what.

    The claim is that it should have warmed over the past 15 years. It hasn’t.

    It has not got warmer for 15 years. Fact.

    So warming has stopped. Fact.

    Models require warming through that period. Fact.

    Models reflect claimed understanding of climate. Fact.

    Claimed understanding is incorrect. Fact.

    Those claiming understanding do not know what they are talking about. Fact.

    There is nothing more to it.

  154. Gareth Phillips says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:27 am

    First thing, I argue for no particular cause either directly – but as a scientist – I argue for the science to be demonstrable and repeatable (as per good scientific practise) and NOT to be twisted and turned as per the presenters ‘beliefs’ – so we are at least in agreement that the current information can be and is presented in different ways.
    Now – why is that? – the easy and obvious answer is because the science is flawed, the methodology is flawed, the measurements are flawed and finally, the darned assumptions (that we know how it all works) are almost certainly flawed. This is the basic scientific method – test your assumption (hypothesis, if you prefer) but if it don’t work – it is WRONG – and you should start again. This has never been done in the CAGW ‘science’ – instead, stuff is fudged and fecked with until it meets the (already shown to be) flawed hypothesis.
    As for the qualitative approach to Climate science – to be honest – most ordinary folk (who are not alarmists) will do that automatically!! e.g. ‘bloomin cold for this time or year, eh?’ or ‘gee, we are having a hot summer this year’, etc, etc. Then, when these same folk talk to granny, she reminds them of the hot/cold/wet/windy/whatever weather from donkeys years back. Joe Ordinary then gets the qualitative deduction along the lines of ‘hey, this climate and local weather is heckish variable!’
    as for the current quantitative science – as per the temp data, etc – it is clearly flawed and cannot be considered remotely reliable. Add to that the concept of a warming world to the tune of 0.7 degrees over several decades and I am sorry, but we are now entering the world of measuring accuracy ‘fantasy’. When folk try and push a global temperature based on the extremely limited number of data points (relative to the size of the thing being measured!), the unreliability of said data (e.g. UHI, etc) and then harp on about how a grid cell can be adjusted according to data from an adjacent cell, averaged, readjusted, etc, etc – I just laugh – it is essentially all statistical fabrication AND the most important thing of all, is that their models cannot replicate it – because they have it all wrong!!
    On the skeptical front (US spelling) – the skeptics HAVE to use the same data as the climate scientists and alarmists – so, ultimately, they are working with the same flawed data – but in general the skeptical side is to ‘check’ the alarmists workings and in nearly all cases, we see exaggeration and manipulation – mostly to ensure the AGW gravy train keeps filling their feeding trough! NONE of this is science!!

  155. Richard, you are patently someone who cannot debate without using insults so I will leave it at that.

    Kev in the UK, your point about qualitative understanding from an individual point is well made, my point is that interpretation or understanding is not limited to Grannies, Dads and Mums on personal experience, but we all do it, even those engaged in research on a professional basis. Where I may see a pattern of data as indicating one thing, someone else may interpret the data as meaning something else. It’s interesting to look at the angry responses to my post suggesting this idea. I personally have not argued that the climate is warming or cooling or anything else, I’ve tried to stay clear of any conclusion, commenting only on the idea that different people can come to different conclusions using the same data due to their subjectivity and personal goals. I tend to be opposed to hypothesis which are then researched to to support or nullify. I vastly prefer concepts based on observation, which as you can guess makes me wary of models which are not generated from observation. Some of my past students pointed out that I seemed to be very suspicious of any research which came to exactly the same conclusions as the previous one. I must confess such results always made me wonder whether someone was just copying data or giving interpretation they thought were the ones we wanted to hear. You cannot cross the same river twice.
    But look at he reaction to this idea, it is one of fury from some that I have reserved judgement or that I have suggested different people see different things. It’s the sort of thing that is commonly seen on Skeptical Science when someone deviates from the accepted truth, but I must admit I’m surprised to see such venom on these pages which are generally seen as being pretty tolerant.
    Personally I’d like to see less models and more observation without pre-conditions, but then again phenomenology is not exactly flavour of the month with those who want to know exactly what is going on down to the last iota, and when they believe that has been confirmed they will brook no dispute. It’s the bane of climate science as well demonstrated by Mann and co, and many sceptics. I agree with your other point though, some of the studies are so dodgy they would not pass a first year research dissertation.
    cheers, Gareth in the UK

  156. @ Kev-in-Uk says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Re: your points about temp. measurements.

    When I first starting coming to WUWT and found Anthony demonstrating that no one had even checked the integrity of the instruments, I was staggered. That fact, in itself, told me that this whole business was entirely bogus.

    Who can pretend that they are are a real scientist who does not even make sure the test-tubes are clean?

  157. Gareth Phillips says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Yes, I too prefer observational methods – as a Geotechnical Engineer, the ‘observational method’ is quite often preferred. As for academic research – I agree, stuff that seems to simply re-hash old work is indeed suspicious. I’m lucky – I left academia behind after my Masters over 25 years ago and have no desire to revisit based on the impression I have of modern academics (largely bad – because of those working in climate science!). I have to laugh at the science sometimes though, and some of the crazy rules when applying said science, even for example, in my own field. We must use a piece of equipment calibrated to NPL standards, with a high degree of accuracy and repeatability, etc. Thats fine, but when the piece of equipment produces a range of values (naturally, and correctly!) in the order of +/- say 10 or 20% of the average value it seems crass to demand that it’s accuracy be down to 0.1% or less! When you then add the fact that said AVERAGE value is used in an EMPIRICAL equation, with a factor of safety of about 3 also ADDED in – we are getting into the realms of stupidity to demand super accurate equipment!! But, there you go……
    as you may have guessed, I am not a fan of models either – (waits for Mosh to pipe up with how eveything today is based on models!) – but in the climate science sense, they are a complete joke. That wouldn’t be a problem if they then threw them out – but they insist on fudging them further – and still, after all this time, they cannot produce sensible output!

  158. Gareth Phillips:

    Your ridiculous post at April 17, 2013 at 10:30 am begins saying

    Richard, you are patently someone who cannot debate without using insults so I will leave it at that.

    NO! you are patently someone who has no desire to debate and only posts to disrupt debate.

    You have repeatedly posted falsehoods.
    I have refuted your falsehoods.
    And you have continued to repeat the falsehoods without addressing my refutations.

    I will ‘bite my tongue’ at that.

    Richard

  159. It would have been interesting to see the smug look on the face of the Eurocrat that he was speaking too. I’m sure that it would be very similar the the look on the face of Von Rompuy when Nigel is raking him over the coals. Kind of a childish, giggling, la-la land expression.

    UKIP is such a slap in the face for these entitled Eurocrats. Love it.

  160. jc says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:50 am

    I agree. What I find absolutely astounding in all the station data type ‘issues’ – is that no-one thought to check them earlier? I mean, if you have a rising temp, you would first look locally, perhaps install a second thermometer, and also perhaps a more remote one for a control/comparison. Then you might look at local conditions (UHI, sun shadows, ground surface, etc). Then you would install further controls to get an idea of these potential ‘disturbances’,etc, etc. What does the fact that individual stations and their supervising meteorologists did not do this, tell us? It tells us that NO rigorous scientific method was applied!! (Of course hindsight is perfect, I accept that!)
    Instead, they just ‘assumed’ it was normal and have left us with a sh*tload of data that means very little without an awful lot of MANUAL checking. But no-one does this, oh no – it’s easier to write a computer program to ‘check’ and adjust the data based on ASSUMPTIONS. They then use that data to make MORE assumptions and extrapolate to GLOBAL data – come on! – now really, when you sit at look at it like this – in a qualitative manner – who in their right mind is gonna say we know what the feck is going on??
    Later, they decided to look for something to explain the rising temps BEFORE looking into the data properly. By some chance, some d*ckhead spotted that temps were rising ‘inline’ with CO2 and hey presto – THE answer was born! Even now, I don’t trust the data OR the corrections/adjustments. As far as I am concerned, our instrument record is nothing much more accurate than a ‘proxy’ equivalent – and so they mould and use it to whatever alarmist advantage they want…..

  161. @ Kev-in-Uk says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    I think you are being far too generous to make any provision for this failure to be “understandable” with or without hindsight. What may have been considered adequate as a system to measure temps. – in a lazy way – for use in practical forecasting etc. was obviously not to be assumed sound without confirmation. The Future of the Planet depended on this for God’s sake. There was unlimited funding available.

    As you say this whole thing is dodgyness built on dodgyness. I too have absolutely no confidence in any of these claimed data sets. I think only a fool would.

  162. @ Mark says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    You should refer to the various links provided on this site.

    I am somewhat surprised that someone who has spent hours looking into this is not aware of the reference points used.

    • And I’m somewhat surprised at the hostile tone that exists here which is really unecessary so you will be pleased to know that I won’t be back with my lack of understanding and stupid questions/observations. Don’t you forget to recycle now.

      All the best

      Mark.

  163. “Mark says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm
    It was my impression that satellite data is used to measure temperature.”

    There are also several land based surface temperature measurements. Google Hadley, Gisstemp.

  164. @ richardscourtney says:
    April 17, 2013 at 11:23 am
    Gareth Phillips:

    Your ridiculous post at April 17, 2013 at 10:30 am begins saying

    Richard, you are patently someone who cannot debate without using insults so I will leave it at that.

    NO! you are patently someone who has no desire to debate and only posts to disrupt debate.

    You have repeatedly posted falsehoods.
    I have refuted your falsehoods.
    And you have continued to repeat the falsehoods without addressing my refutations.

    I will ‘bite my tongue’ at that.

    Richard

    ————————————————————————–

    Richard, all I have said is that while you accept with good reason that warming has stopped over the last 16 years, a supporter of the other side would say, ah yes, but over the last 30 years it has warmed on an overall basis compared to say 1983. I know this is not what the projections models or anything else would say. But the records and observations confirm that both observations are correct, but never shall the twain meet it appears.
    What on earth is so dreadful and upsetting about saying that? I am genuinely puzzled by your anger at myself and others. Where is my falsehood?Why is it disruptive? Does this post in itself make you angry? And if so, why?
    I’m happy to provide references if that helps. These may be useful to start with. http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

  165. Gareth Phillips:

    I see you are continuing your disingenuous trolling in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm where you – presumably to mislead others – say and ask me

    I am genuinely puzzled by your anger at myself and others. Where is my falsehood?Why is it disruptive? Does this post in itself make you angry? And if so, why?

    No, you are not “puzzled” and you have answers to each and every of those questions because I stated the answers in my post addressed to you in this thread at April 17, 2013 at 9:16 am
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1278101

    I enjoy debate with those who disagree with me because I learn from it. And I disdain trolls whose clear intention is to inhibit such debate.

    I can only repeat, stop trolling.

    Richard

  166. For those interested (and I doubt it, as many of theosters here only wish to hear one side of the argument, rather than discuss all aspects of this very important issue).

    The global warming pausing meme is nonsense. The period of time to establish a pause or not statistically has not passed to make that statement.

  167. Gareth, put your faith in science. It has built in BS filters and the truth will eventually surface. Also look at the entirety of evidence (which I see you have alluded to in reference to cherry picking data).

    The many fields of science are pointing to a changing climate. Fish migrating to areas they have never been seen before as it was previously to cool, glaciers are retreating, forests being destroyed by bark beetles whose population are exploding as winters are no longer cold enough to cull the population. To unusual and severe weather patterns where ‘warm weather records broken’ exceed ‘cold weather records broken’ by a factor of almost 3.

    These changes would be no more than something of interest to unaffected observers to see what happens, but unfortunately we are not unaffected. My suggestion to you is to ask a farmer you know, how the changes have affected the way they grow food. Can they continue to provide food with certainty and good quality. Talk to a insurance company to see how these changes are affecting premiums and whether they have stopped covering certain events such as floods and fire. Or whether they are demanding premium holders reduce risk by taking some remedial action to minimise loss.

    You are being affected, it is subtle, and hardly noticeable, but it is incremental. You will continue to affected as the globe continues to accumulate heat because of the increase in greenhouse gases.

  168. Moe:

    I suspect you are displaying your ignorance on this occasion, and this time you are not providing a deliberate falsehood in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:47 pm which says.

    The global warming pausing meme is nonsense. The period of time to establish a pause or not statistically has not passed to make that statement.

    Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. This is NOT a “meme”. It is an empirical fact. And the statistical significance of a trend is defined by the variance of the data set and not the length of a time series.

    For those who like graphs, this is the global temperature for the last 16 years as determined by RSS (satellite) and HadCRUT (thermometers).
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

    And I provided a simple explanation of confidence limits and what they do and don’t indicate at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/03/proxy-spikes-the-missed-message-in-marcott-et-al/#comment-1267380

    Richard

  169. Mark says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    You shouldn’t take offence! The site is generally not like that at all. To be honest, various folk have been here before pleading ‘ignorance’ and asking what seem rather inane or mundane questions but doing it deliberately to derail threads or simply annoy those who do know some of the stuff !
    This blog has millions of visitors and many many posters – the vast majority of whom are intelligent and knowledgeable. A prime reason for this blog being better than others is that it allows both sides of the argument to be heard – despite essentially being a skeptical blog. Try being a ‘skeptic’ and asking questions as Skeptical Science (an alarmist blog!) – your posts would be unlikely to be even listed!
    Here, you do have a voice – and you will receive help and advice on where to go and what to read to educate yourself and then ask yourself the questions – but as I said, many posters are a little tired of bots trolls and bot-like responses/posts!
    I came here 4 years ago with the same questions – although I had already done much reading and was indeed an ‘accepter’ of the media consensus because of the alleged scientific ‘proof’. I can honestly say, that as a scientist, after a few days of my own research and reading – I became increasingly skeptical of the ‘story’ we are being told/sold!
    regards
    Kev

  170. Richard, how droll. It is interesting that deniers have been bagging the climate models since they first came out. Now the surface temperature is getting close to the bottom range of these predictions, the models are acceptable. Come on you can’t have it both ways.

    It is interesting that you are linking global warming with the surface temperature only. The surface (land and a small amount of atmosphere) only holds a little amount of heat compared to the oceans. The oceans have been gaining considerable heat, but in your blinkered views, this is ignored. Still it suits your purposes to limit your definition of global warming and can’t stand it when your error is pointed out.

    As for statistical significance, we have been through this before and I am surprised that you would expose your statistical ignorance again for all to see. Still, it has been a while and there is probably a new audience that needs to see your lack of credibility so go ahead.

  171. An interesting question is why, according to the data cited above, global warming has accelerated in the last few years whilst at the same time the net climate forcing has apparently not risen. Are we seeing increasing natural feedbacks? Is the acceleration seen in the ocean heat content data spurious? Has the negative aerosol forcing not increased as much as estimated? This is the kind of genuinely interesting and unresolved issue which ought to be discussed here.

  172. Icarus, I want to make comment on two of your points.

    1. Heat being absorbed into the oceans is not a negative feedback. Heat is accumulating there and there is no mechanism in warming the water will reduce the heat accumulating. A negative feedback would somehow slow or reverse the heat retention of the earth and that is not happening.

    2. I suspect that your point about increased aerosols has been putting a dampened on surface temperatures. A similar slow down in the rate of temperature rise during 40s to 70s corresponded to a huge increase in coal utilisation and therefore aerosol production. Unfortunately the aerosols are not as long lived in the atmosphere as co2, so they only give temporary relief before the onward march of cooking the planet continues.

  173. richardscourtney says:
    April 17, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Gareth Phillips:

    I see you are continuing your disingenuous trolling in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm where you – presumably to mislead others – say and ask me

    I am genuinely puzzled by your anger at myself and others. Where is my falsehood?Why is it disruptive? Does this post in itself make you angry? And if so, why?

    No, you are not “puzzled” and you have answers to each and every of those questions because I stated the answers in my post addressed to you in this thread at April 17, 2013 at 9:16 am
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1278101

    I enjoy debate with those who disagree with me because I learn from it. And I disdain trolls whose clear intention is to inhibit such debate.

    I can only repeat, stop trolling.

    Richard

    Thank you Richard for demonstrating how a Troll behaves. They insult and will not answer any question however specific. They take exception at any imagined slight and pour bile and anger into inappropriate directions despite the best efforts of other posters.Their only goal is to insult and hurt. You are a wonderful example of that dysfunctional behaviour. In common with others I have explained myself clearly, all you seem to be able to do is hurl abuse. You do not enjoy debate, you enjoy abusing others as you have so clearly demonstrated. NHS direct may be helpful.

    If you want to start looking at how to respond in an appropriate way look at the other responses to my posts. In the meantime keep your hate filled bile to yourself.

  174. Moe says:
    April 18, 2013 at 12:06 am

    re your post:
    Point 1:
    Heat going into and out of the oceans is all part of the natual variability. If you consider what happens if the earth is cooling – e.g. as per the 70’s – OHC will likely be dropping as it transfers heat into the atmosphere. Hence, the OHC will be a negative feedback if the surface is ‘net’ warming, and a positive feedback if it is ‘net’ cooling. It would be reasonable to argue that OHC is simply rising since its last ‘cooling’ if you see what I mean. The OHC is just one big reserve of stored energy and must lag behind any external change due to the slow rate at which it warms/cools. Indeed, it could be so slow that the fluctations we see in OHC are actual from climate happenings from many decades or even centuries ago! (I don’t necessarily agree with this – just that the size of the oceanic mass and its temperature is extremely unlikely to be ‘measurable’ – and the current OHC measurements are almost as much of a fabrication as the surface temp data!)

  175. @Moe, thanks Moe, interesting post.

    As a smallholder I’ve noticed climate changes over the last few years which mean I can no longer grow crops which would thrive a few years ago. I’ve noticed changes in wildlife and in the wellbeing of our bees. It’s complex I know, but most of the changes are the result of wetter summers and colder winters. For me climate change is real and obvious, however it has manifested in a cooling rather than a warming. CET data this year seems to confirm this. No doubt many people will say with a degree of reliability that this is normal climate variability, possibly, but each year that produces more extreme weather makes this less and less likely in my view. So subjectively, climate change is obvious regardless of the fact that atmospheric temps have more or less stabilised for some time now.
    I wonder if warming Atlantic water is taken into deep levels by the thermohaline circulation which melts arctic ice prior to it’s descent into deeper waters. Whatever is happening, personally I cannot see how the melting of Arctic ice cannot but affect our weather in Eurasia, but that subjective!

  176. Trolls posting as Gareth Phillips and Moe:

    Gareth Phillips, I wrote

    I see you are continuing your disingenuous trolling in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm where you – presumably to mislead others – say and ask me

    I am genuinely puzzled by your anger at myself and others. Where is my falsehood?Why is it disruptive? Does this post in itself make you angry? And if so, why?

    No, you are not “puzzled” and you have answers to each and every of those questions because I stated the answers in my post addressed to you in this thread at April 17, 2013 at 9:16 am
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1278101

    I cited the clear and specific answers I had already provided and supplied a link so they could be accessed with one click of a mouse.

    You have replied to that with another blatant falsehood, saying

    Thank you Richard for demonstrating how a Troll behaves. They insult and will not answer any question however specific.

    It seems that lies are your only stock in trade.

    Moe, the idea that you do or could understand scientific principles is laughable. Your only ability – which you constantly display – is to copy ‘soundbites’ from warmunist ‘echo chamber’ blogs.

    Richard

  177. Thanks Moe. I probably didn’t explain it very well. What I meant is this:

    The ocean heat content studies cited above find that global warming has accelerated in recent years – for example, Levitus 2012 finds a rise in OHC of around 10^23 Joules over the last decade, twice that of the previous decade.

    At the same time, the growth rate of CO₂ forcing has declined slightly – i.e. we are putting more CO₂ into the atmosphere, but the airborne fraction has declined, so the CO₂ forcing hasn’t been rising quite as steeply since about 1990. This means that the net climate forcing, according to GISS, hasn’t risen since about 2000 –

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    We know that the existing planetary energy imbalance will cause continuing warming for many decades due to ocean thermal inertia, but we wouldn’t expect warming to be *accelerating* if the climate forcing hasn’t increased for 13 years. That’s the puzzle.

    One explanation could be that the acceleration in OHC accumulation isn’t real. Another could be that it’s real, and that additional natural positive feedbacks have been kicking in to accelerate global warming despite the known forcings being level for 13 years (Arctic ice albedo perhaps?). A third explanation might be that we have overestimated the negative forcing from atmospheric aerosols – since this is largely assumed or estimated rather than measured, perhaps it’s not been offsetting the greenhouse gas forcing as much as expected in recent years, meaning that GISS are underestimating the net climate forcing.

    I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems like an interesting question, and one I haven’t seen addressed anywhere.

    Hope this makes more sense…

  178. Richard, I see that others have pointed out that you do get nasty when people disagree with you. Normally this would be a pity as we only learn by engaging others with different opinions. In your case it doesn’t really matter as your opinions are not worth considering and your condescending rages only re-inforces the fact that you accept what we have presented to you but you cannot respond in any other manner as it would make you look foolish.

    As for me copying soundbits, I have no idea what you are talking about. I read widely and and observe the natural environment. I have observed changes in nature all over the world and know something is going on. I also have a background in agriculture and have many relatives still ‘on the land’ and know how easily food security can be lost through only minor changes in growing conditions. (See Gareth’s comments above).

    Climate change is a serious issue with dire consequences.

    You intolerance to a contrary opinion says more about your own background and obligations than you willingness to find the truth.

  179. Moe:

    At April 18, 2013 at 2:28 am you assert

    Richard, I see that others have pointed out that you do get nasty when people disagree with you.

    NO!
    I get nasty and am intolerant when people deliberately and repeatedly tell lies.

    Clearly I am both intolerant and nasty concerning your post I am answering. And I am outraged by the lies promulgated by your nasty little tag-team of trolls on this thread.

    For example, your tag-team has come on this thread claiming that global warming is continuing.
    THAT CLAIM IS A LIE
    All data sets show global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    The cessation of global warming
    is not dismissible as not significant (it IS statistically significant),
    it is not a “meme” (it is an empirical fact), and
    it is not ignorable because the missing heat may be hiding (e.g. under the bed or at the bottom of the oceans).

    And I am angry that your team has deflected this thread from its subject because it can only encourage trolls to deflect other threads.

    Richard

  180. Useful posts Moe, I find your posts thought provoking and of interest. Don’t be discouraged! Also well done Kev and Icarus, I wish I had your patience and tolerance.

  181. Moe says:
    April 18, 2013 at 2:28 am


    As for me copying soundbits, I have no idea what you are talking about. I read widely and and observe the natural environment. I have observed changes in nature all over the world and know something is going on. I also have a background in agriculture and have many relatives still ‘on the land’ and know how easily food security can be lost through only minor changes in growing conditions. (See Gareth’s comments above).

    Climate change is a serious issue with dire consequences.

    Now, physically and in the real world – NOT that of extrapolated 7 or 10 degree of “future” climate change, but in the real world that we live in, “climate change” is (at most) 0.2 degrees C from the mid-70’s. Doesn’t matter what you may “think” it has changed, the measured changed globally since the mid-1970’s is no more than 0.2 degrees. Further, none of that 0.2 degrees change has occurred since 1998-1997.

    So, despite your “feelings” about what you think you have observed, the effect of CAGW is zero in your measurable life. Now, in your fears and your emotional life? THOSE have been propagandized and politicized.

    Since that time, however, thanks 100% to the increase in CO2 in the world’s atmosphere, EVERY green plant on earth is growing 12% to 27% faster, stronger, more drought-resistant, larger, heavier and more productively.

    Name ONE qualitative specific, exact, measurable, disadvantage your so-called “climate change” has to a farmer, rancher, forester, or gardener.

  182. richardscourtney says:
    April 16, 2013 at 5:14 am
    From Werner Brozek’s recent article:

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)
    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to February)
    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)
    5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to March 31, 2013, or 16 years, 1 month.

    From those data points it appears that The Pause is at least 12 years old, but let us dig deeper into the observational data to see “The Pause” in “Earth’s Temperature”.

    You revealed your misunderstanding/misuse of statistics in that thread and follow it up here.
    Taking for example the UAH trend data quoted by Werner: 0.146±0.085 (1sd) since 1994,
    that indicates ~3% probability that the slope is ‘flat’ over that time (i.e. zero slope) and ~40% probability that the trend exceeds 0.170. No more bait and switch about uniform distributions please.

  183. Moe says:
    April 17, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    It is interesting that deniers have been bagging the climate models since they first came out.

    I see the new format allows violations of the TOU.

  184. @RACook

    Name ONE qualitative specific, exact, measurable, disadvantage your so-called “climate change” has to a farmer, rancher, forester, or gardener.

    ———————————————————————————-

    It may be a minor issue in the scheme of things, but due to the deterioration in the optimum climate in the UK, wetter in summer, colder in winter I can no longer grow certain crops that once did ok outside a greenhouse. They include Sweetcorn, Tomatoes, French beans and Courgettes. Most of my smallholder friends report similar problems. Some more traditional root crops do ok, Parsnips, Turnips as well as cabbages and broad beans. Our bees have more difficulty surviving the winter and honey production is getting more and more marginal. It may be natural variation in climate, but it’s been going on a bit long and according to our village elders, very odd and having significant negative impacts. It may be nothing to with climate change, arctic ice, Co2 solar variation or clouds, but something is happening, and it’s not good where we live.

  185. RACookPE1978, fair challenge, let us leave alone the obvious ones of long periods of drought and frequent one in hundred year floods and pick something a little less well known. I am torn between the ruination of the cherry industry in southern New South Wales in Australia, where the winters are not cold enough for the cherries to set or the broad acre wheat farmers of north western Victoria where the change in rainfall patterns have made reaping the crops very difficult.

    This is a subtle process but the net effect worldwide is that food stocks are very low and haven’t been this bad since before the green revolution some 40 years ago.

    http://www.infowars.com/global-food-reserves-have-reached-their-lowest-level-in-almost-40-years/

  186. @ Moe

    Your capacities are limited. I understand that.

    You have shown above that you have the ability to return to this site and this thread and cause text to appear here in reaction to other comments being made. That you fail to deal with the substance of them, and provide only an imitation of forms that are designed to carry intelligence is of course expected.

    This is, being further example at least, not unhelpful.

    You were however asked to respond directly to me in the manner described below. As said, the words used do not in and of themselves matter. That they are used in the specific situation is what is required. The reality of your fundamental constitution has been narrowed to a few possibilities.

    To not respond, as you clearly have avoided doing, is in human terms described as cowardice: you will understand it as hiding, or perhaps returning or defaulting to occupancy of your natural place of existence.

    And certainly this says a lot in itself.

    But more is required, so respond.

    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    jc says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:50 am

    @ Moe says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:03 am

    Thankyou for confirming that you are evasive.

    Since no person, or word-machine, can fail to register what a “question” is, and the appearance of them in my response directed to you, whatever your intellectual capacity is, these cannot have passed unnoticed.

    Your apparent failure to grasp the meaning of any point at all in my comment is disconcerting.

    Is this – no polite way of putting this – a “brain problem”? You seem capable of constructing sentences, which while not actually carrying meaning relevant to any point they claim to seek to deal with, are more or less intelligible.

    An interesting point. Is this a sign of what can be described as autonomous intelligence? Or does it have the nature of a reflexive condition? Is form without substance anything more than a pattern? Which may well have simply been imposed by imprinting?

    The NATURE of your responses certainly indicates imprinting. Sufficient form to carry a limited expression. But no more!

    Is this why you were evasive of absolutely everything in my comment? Because the form could not carry such a variation in requirements? Is it even fair to call it evasion? If the form is incapable of carrying a response, does that also imply it is incapable of registering things it is not fit to incorporate? Is that the basis of what – for a normally functional human – can only be called a “brain problem”?

    Or is it instead, a fundamental dishonesty? So ingrained, so absolute, that to ignore the unignorable, is a compulsion that cannot be resisted, even though it is blindingly obvious to all who see it? But this in itself a “brain problem” of an almost unfathomable profundity!

    So is it possible you incorporate BOTH? A “brain problem” at a level to invoke gasps from a functional human AND a basic, organic, dishonesty at a level which when perceived by a human, requires your ejection from society?

    If you are able, I would greatly appreciate a further response to allow a comprehensive judgement. Please do not be concerned with attempting to explain your condition. This cannot be expected regardless of the reason, and can only be the cause of stress.

    Just say whatever you feel you are able to. No need to try, or pretend, to be relevant. Any sequence of words at all will do, and will allow a definitive decision on your condition.

  187. icarus 62

    You failed to respond to my questions below. You should do so now. Refer to my just posted comment to Moe, your close associate in nature and function, above for details relating to a consideration of your non-responsiveness.

    There have been a paucity of comments from you subsequent to my comment below being posted. Now you have returned, giving the clear message of being in a support role.

    That you lack vigor is understood. You do have sufficient to address this however. Whilst your contributions up-thread are indicative, more is required.

    You should supply that now.

    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    jc says:
    April 16, 2013 at 11:31 am

    @ icarus62 says:
    April 16, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Thanks for responding but you didn’t really directly answer my questions. I suppose I can infer something but that leaves things pretty vague.

    You say:

    “Yes, anyone who has a reasonable physical understanding of Earth’s climate system thinks the same way as I do.”

    For me, that is a fairly astonishing statement. Is there no-one who has “a reasonable understanding” whose opinions differ from yours at all? Even a bit? What about people who actually are employed to research in this area – who are committed to AGW – who have recently said things along the lines that it hasn’t warmed this century, its stalled etc? Are they just wrong? Don’t they know whats going on?

    Can I ask – how is it that you know better? But mainly, how is it that you KNOW that everyone who has “a reasonable understanding” thinks exactly like you. You must understand, its difficult to know where this comes from: it is very very unusual for intelligent people to have EXACTLY the same thoughts about anything. Actually, I think it is probably unheard of.

    So, I repeat, are such people with a “reasonable understanding” those who are part of your social circle? Are they ALL like you, who think exactly as you do? Or are you a bit of a loner – or maybe a leader in this?

    Please answer these questions directly, and I would add, do you have employment, or do you perform actions, in a role where the results pf those actions can be seen? Where your abilities in a practical way can be judged? And also, you refer to self-delusion, do you have reason to be
    aware of this condition?

  188. @ Gareth Phillips

    A comment directed to you, reproduced below, was not responded to. No questions were posed, and so obligation to do so was implicit, however the point made was unambiguous and directly addressed the issue you had been pretending to deal with with sincerity.

    You continue to maintain this with other people who post. This is evasive. Observably and undeniably so, a technique not so readily apparent, or presented in such a way for this hopefully to be the result, in your – intentionally and required – verbosity elsewhere.

    So explain. Be aware that to try to rely on maintaining an illusion of sincere intent will fail.

    ———————————————————————————————————————
    jc says:
    April 17, 2013 at 9:19 am

    @Gareth Phillips says:
    April 17, 2013 at 8:30 am

    Frankly your position is idiotic.

    Some people might say that it is warmer than 150 years ago and so it is still warming. So what.

    The claim is that it should have warmed over the past 15 years. It hasn’t.

    It has not got warmer for 15 years. Fact.

    So warming has stopped. Fact.

    Models require warming through that period. Fact.

    Models reflect claimed understanding of climate. Fact.

    Claimed understanding is incorrect. Fact.

    Those claiming understanding do not know what they are talking about. Fact.

    There is nothing more to it.

  189. Moe says:
    April 18, 2013 at 5:32 am

    RACookPE1978, fair challenge, let us leave alone the obvious ones of long periods of drought and frequent one in hundred year floods and pick something a little less well known. I am torn between the ruination of the cherry industry in southern New South Wales in Australia, where the winters are not cold enough for the cherries to set or the broad acre wheat farmers of north western Victoria where the change in rainfall patterns have made reaping the crops very difficult.

    This is a subtle process but the net effect worldwide is that food stocks are very low and haven’t been this bad since before the green revolution some 40 years ago.

    No.

    Droughts are NOT more severe now than ever before. Drought indexes are the same now (worldwide, US-wide, and Australian-wide) and are as stable as they have been since the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Mayans, and US southwestern Indians were felled by regional drought in the past 6000+ years.

    The envri-terrorists, in the religious-level crusades against energy and human life, HAVE createdd that food shortage you “claim and blame” on CAGW – Yet the CAGW has NOT YET HAPPENED! How can any so-called “climate change” of 0.2 degrees 20 twenty years ago (1975 – 1995 was time frame when temperatures actually changed!) but stable for 16 years be “affecting” crops now? Further, the change was WARMER -> thus, more growing season and more time to grow and plant crops in more areas of the world.

    Also, the increase in CO2 INCREASED crop productin for food, fodder, foliage and forest products! That ANY decrease in produciton happened BECAUSE your enivro-theists deliberately
    INCREASED crop and land areas devoted to ethanol,
    INCREASED fuel prices that hurt farmers and producers and shippers,
    DEMANDED an end to genetically more productive crops and animals,
    DEMANDED a loss of fertilizers and higer prices for manufacturing fertilizers,
    DEMANDED reduced farmlands because of encvironmental restrictions,
    DEMANDED higher risk forest management practices that increased burn rates and damage,
    DEMANDED dams and irrigation projects be stopped or destroyed,
    DEMANDED that millions of acres of productive farmland in California be destroyed by drought (because of the “potential” harm to fish in the Sacramento delta that had been living for years unencumbered),
    DEMANDED the higher energy prices that destroyed nations’ economies such as Australia,
    DEMANDED the destruction dam management policies that flooded YOUR cities …

    Yes. Go ahead. Blame your enviro policies and your socialist government policies for EVERY change that has hurt farmers and farm productivity worldwide since the CAGW religion was promoted ….

  190. @jc: Do you have any view on the apparent contradiction between accelerating global warming according to OHC studies and the levelling off of the net climate forcing according to GISS?

  191. @ Icarus62 says:
    April 18, 2013 at 7:07 am

    Simple reflexive responses will not work.

    Answer the questions. As directly as you are able. The simplicity or clarity, or absence of them, will in itself be telling.

  192. @ icarus62 says:
    April 18, 2013 at 7:18 am

    Your techniques do not work.

    It is obvious that by instinct, habit, and training this what you are.

    The interest now is in how comprehensively these form your being, the precise balance between instinct and training, and whether any reference points within your nature exist as a counterbalance. This is what is being documented.

    Absence of response and nature of response are salient. Evasion in such a crude fashion most certainly does not help you.

  193. Icarus62
    “Do you have any view on the apparent contradiction between accelerating global warming according to OHC studies and the levelling off of the net climate forcing according to GISS?”

    When you say global warming is accelerating you must be more precise. Global warming is clearly not like a car, which can have an instantaneous acceleration – d2s/dt2.

    Suppose we take the slope of the global temperature anomalies at various points to compare them. Obviously, since monthly or annual global temperatures go up and down from one year to the next, you have to trend them. You can take a smoothing curve, averaged over so many years, or make a linear fit. If you do the latter, then there can be no accelaration because a straight line, by definition, has a constant slope.

    To compare accelerations in straight lines – ie to compare their slopes – you would need 2 sets of start and end points. In the case of smoothing, then yes, you can measure the slopes at different points along the same curve, but to be meaningful, you need to give the number of years of averaging. This may be 20 year moving average, 30 year or more.

    My point is, I have no idea from your statement whether it is true to assert that global warming is accelerating. To help, could you please say whether you are basing this on comparing 2 linear fits and give their start and end points, or whether you are using a moving average, in which case could you please give the number of years of averaging. Otherwise, I’m sure you will agree, the statement is meaningless.

  194. @Vince Causey:

    I mentioned the basis above –

    “The ocean heat content studies cited above find that global warming has accelerated in recent years – for example, Levitus 2012 finds a rise in OHC of around 10^23 Joules over the last decade, twice that of the previous decade.”

    Also Balmaseda et al 2013 finds that:

    “In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend.”

    So I would say that the acceleration is based on a comparison of the last decade with previous decades.

  195. @ Icarus62 says:
    April 18, 2013 at 8:15 am

    You are here. It is on record.

    Staying silent is not appropriate. That is not the nature of this forum. The right to silence applicable in many countries where no inference can theoretically be drawn from exercising that right does not apply here. This is not yet a Court of Law. Inferences can and will be drawn, and will be based on other available evidence, of which this forms part.

    At issue is intent. Whilst when having reached the point of adjudication in a Court, this is often problematic to establish, this issue and those involved in it, revealed and recorded as it is on the internet, has the huge advantage of potentially nullifying claims to innocence based on sincere intent, ie not being of dishonest intent.

    This is the position you are now in. Of course you will understand that this is not a theoretical exercise. Whilst you assume a security of positioning, in this you are wrong.

    This is your opportunity to either compound or ameliorate – possibly – your position.

  196. Icarus62,
    thanks for answering my query. Although your quotes sound convincing, I believe they are controversial. I have read numerous statements by Roger Pielke snr only a year or 2 ago, who is adamant that there has not been such a rise in ohc, and has said that ohc is now of the order of 10^23 joules below what would be expected according to Hansens description of radiative imbalance (around 0.8 w/m2).

    Although Levitus is comparing this decade with the last, I’m not sure if he is comparing Argo with ship based measurements. Before Argo, I don’t think we can have much confidence in the data.

    Sorry to be so picky, but I just don’t think we have any reliable data to describe ohc. Although adequate for gross changes such as Enso, for the purpose of AGW induced ohc anomalies, I just think the sampling is too sparse for the volumes involved and more importantly the signals of temperature anomolies are way too small – much smaller than land based measurements.

  197. @Vince Causey: I don’t think you’re being picky – it’s not impossible that the acceleration is an artefact rather than real. We’ll have to see what future studies conclude.

  198. JC, sorry for not responding, but I was exercising my right to silence without inference (see your statement above: ‘The right to silence applicable in many countries where no inference can theoretically be drawn from exercising that right does not apply here.’)

    However, let me assure you I am human. Funny how anytime someone points out uncomfortable ideas they are accused of being a bot. Well I’m not a bot.

    Icarus, in Australia we have been seeing agricultural practices move both in space and time. Hay harvesting when I was a child happened during December and January. Which was handy as it coincided with the school summer holidays when teenage labour was available to help. Now hay harvesting occurs a whole two months earlier. Luckily it is more mechanised (large round bayles handled by tractors) and the teenage labour is no longer required.

    Also, instead of growing potatoes, I am seeing cereal crops being planted. This has never been done before in this area. Previously they were planted further north where it was drier.

  199. RACookPE1978, I googled drought index and couldn’t confirm you statement that droughts have been the same for some time. Could you please provid a reference.

    I suppose it depends where the drought is. If it is in agricultural areas, then there is a problem.

    I love the way people parrot that co2 is a plant food. With the increase of co2 we should have an abundance of food as co2 is imcreasing all the time. I suggest you talk to a farmer and ask them how much their production has been effected by the increase in co2, then ask them how unseasonal weather has affected them. See the comments above over the cool wet summers in England and what effect the droughts in USA and Russia had on food production.

  200. Thankyou for finding the capacity to respond. Even if this is merely a compulsion you have little control over.

    OK. Your response is indeed rich in information. Your first two paragraphs are exemplary.

    In the first, your stated defense of previous reticence quotes as its foundation a statement from me – not to you, but to another, which is understandable even as it communicates a grasping for any justification from any source – that you exercised a “right to silence” even as the very words you quote incorporate the phrase “do not apply here”. Very remarkable.

    To be able to absorb and retain for sufficient time to reproduce a part of a sentence as being suitable to your purpose, but not to be able to rise to the complexity needed to understand the implication of another part of the same sentence – even as you show a hapless servitude to the progression of words until liberated by a full stop, which compels you reproduce that too! – draws a sharp line as to your functional intelligence.

    Your second paragraph is interesting. For you, this is quite complex. It has an existential element that might in its revelation across three full (but very short) sentences demonstrate a confusion, or possibly even an incipient despair, so powerful it has created a continuity of attention that has not previously been evident as being possible given your established level of intelligence (probably better described as “brain function” since intelligence does, in common usage, carry an implication of a certain level of performance which, to be realistic, you do not have).

    Your conviction – or trepidation – that I might consider you an artifact of technology seems to have been triggered by one mention of how both humans and machines – at a certain level – can normally be expected to recognize a “question”. That this has triggered such a response – maintained over three actual sentences as I have said – is very suggestive and does pose something of a conundrum.

    I haven’t thought of you previously as being likely to be an artifact of this sort, and on balance I don’t now. Your responses lack the precision of discernible process, expressed in a barren way which differs to the emptiness of your production. But your concerns that you can be perceived to be such demand some consideration.

    As a product of coding you cannot be expected to be able to express such things: certainly this can be incorporated as part of programming, but not with you. This would require a capacity for function you indisputably do not have. So that can be discounted as a possibility.

    Rather, this concern is organic to a living entity. It seems based on a fear that you may in fact have the functionality of a smartphone. Or less. Perhaps a generic redundant mobile phone. This is, it has to be said, consistent with your actual performance. But I would like to express to you the confidence I have that you are a living being and that your concerns to the contrary are unfounded, if understandable.

    All the above amply demonstrates that you do have a “brain problem” A very severe one at that. Although not in general use, certain terms have specific demarcations in categorizing function as measured by IQ, as well as more vernacular application. These include “moron” and “imbecile”. It is not necessary to be precise for these purposes, in determining your level of culpability, it is sufficient to have established the fact that in normal human terms, you are intellectually deficient to the degree that makes you “unfit”.

    This does not preclude the possibility that you are also fundamentally dishonest. That your urges and desires are expressed through deceit. This is common in very low functioning organisms, that exist through presenting themselves to the world as something they are not.

    The middle sentence of your highly complex – for you – second paragraph will suffice to establish this. Along with, of course, the requisite poverty of intelligence in not understanding what an “idea” is, and not registering that I have not raised something you would like to allude to, is the “instinct” for doing so: seeking advantage by any means, which overrides any other consideration. This very feeble mechanism is definitively dishonest and so you confirm your nature in this way.

    Your last two paragraphs, reaching out for help from the entity icarus62, and further elaborated in your following post to RACookPE1978, show the scope of your perceptual (I’m afraid I can’t call it intellectual) landscape.

    I recall that further up-thread you claimed a background in agriculture. I take it that this background is fully shown by reference to your childhood. And that this experience is limited to manual assistance in lifting hay bales. Certainly any lack of subsequent involvement cannot have been by choice. You cannot possibly have maintained an existence in that sphere.

    To think that farmers are pondering the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions when discussing the nature of the season puts you so far outside the limits of reality it is hardly believable. You will find this difficult to believe but such interests even preceeded the knowledge of the existence of CO2!

    Your general focus on the weather as evidence and nostalgia for the sunny – but not too sunny – days of childhood suggests you may be in the last gasps of senility. But even there, some clarity and coherence in recall is often present, so perhaps not.

    It is important to establish exactly what the nature of the active Affirmers of AGW is. Obviously, those such as you, Icarus62 and Gareth Phillips are nothing in the scheme of things. But such things require support from those like you.

    Where there has been manipulation, deceit, and lies, there is culpability. There are no excuses.

    Many, many thousands are dead. They have been killed by the application of policies enacted on the basis of the position you hold, seek to advance, and to have further imposed. They have been slaughtered.

    Anyone who has engaged in this issue and has promoted such policies through lies, misrepresentations, and deceit has killed people as surely as creeping up to them in the night and cutting their throats.

    There are no excuses. No one can say “I didn’t know”. Those responsible are going to be held fully to account.

    You, and all those of similar inclination, should consider how far you might be implicated in this.
    And whether under the guise and abuse of sincere involvement in discussion you continue to compound that.

    Everyday, more die.

    Every deceit kills.

    How do you stand in this light?

  201. @ Icarus62

    You have plainly calculated what you consider to be the most effective response.

    You should refer to the later part of my comment to your comrade Moe at 7.30am to see the full weight of the implications of any dishonest behavior in promoting the AGW dogma or agenda.

    As should any of like mind who read this.

  202. @ Gareth Phillips

    Continued evasion does not render invisible. It highlights and confirms.

    If and when you are encountered at other times, repeating such techniques, expect the above to be shown.

    You, like Icarus62, should refer to the later part of my comment to Moe above.

Comments are closed.