Craig Rucker of CFACT writes:
You’d be surprised at what they don’t know at the UN climate conference in Bonn.
Then again, maybe you wouldn’t.
Although the evidence keeps mounting up, most of the delegates in Bonn are unaware that there had been no warming for 16 years.
Watch CFACT’s latest video update from Bonn and see for yourself.
CFACT’s Mission Bonn is your eyes, ears and voice at the UN climate talks and at the ICLEI forum.
- ICLEI wants to bring UN Agenda 21 to your town.
- The UN wants a binding climate treaty signed in Paris by 2015.
- The Obama administration has vowed to put the brakes on the U.S. economy in the name of climate with, or without, Congress.
We have much more to report on these crucial developments and the threat they pose to the United States and the free world.
source: http://cfact.org
Good grief!
cbrtxus says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:16 am
Try to explain statistical significance to most folks. …..
Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.
If you do not want to explain statistical significance and if you want to prove the models wrong, then you have to go with the 16+ years and not 12.
NOAA says:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Jim says:
June 6, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Where is Rick Mercer when you need him, eh?
——————————————————————————————–
I think Rick Mercer is very funny. However, he blieves in CAGW. He even did a commercial for a former Government on their “Green Plan” and on signing Kyoto. If he were to actually attacj CAGW it would be hilarious.
THE JUICY BITS
from the agenda of the previous CLIMATE CONFERENCE
AKA the session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 18)
To be solved in Bonn. Or not.
This is stuff which one wishes one could make up.
But frankly one cannot.
ABSTRACT: The crucial part moves from COP4 to COP18
QUOTE:
Parties may recall that at COP 4, it “proved impossible to reach any agreed conclusions or decisions” on this matter The item was therefore included in the provisional agenda for the fifth session of the COP in accordance with rules 10(c) and 16 of the draft rules of procedure being applied. The COP, at its fifth session, could not reach a conclusion on this matter and following rules 10(c) and 16, the item was included in the provisional agenda for the sixth up to, and including, the twelfth sessions of the COP with a footnote reflecting a proposal made by the Group of 77 and China to amend the item to read “Review of the adequacy of implementation of Article 4 of the Convention”. On a proposal by the President, and on the basis of the recommendation made by the SBI, it was decided at COP 14 to defer consideration of this item to COP 16. The COP, at its sixteenth session, based on a proposal by the President, deferred its consideration of this item, pursuant to rule 13 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, to COP 17. This item was held in abeyance at COP 17 and in accordance with rule 16 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, it will be considered at COP 18.
To cbrtxus:
You wrote: “Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.”
No. You may not know of the fact that the U.S.A.’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in 2008 writing that:
Thus, ANY 16-year (or over 15-year) period of no warming in a recognized global
data set falsifies the current crop of climate models (see also Dr. Spencer’s post
in both its incarnations). That’s what the 16-year admission by the Met re: HADCRUT4
is very significant.
The warmist goals including payoffs to developing countries and a reduction in the political and economic power of the developed world. They were never really focused on climate change. Climate change is only a front for their real agenda.
@oneworldnet “Boy, you just can’t find any real live climate scientists who say the things you want to hear! Shame innit.”
Perhaps if you were to read something other than the Guardian, you might learn something. So here’s a list of warmist scientists and their statements.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/04/list-of-warmist-scientists-say-global-warming-has-stopped-ed-davey-is-clueless-about-whats-going-on/
How about a comedy post, the best of “oneworldnet”?
I’m going to guess that @oneworldnet is also known as ‘ZedsDeadBed’, this person posts on climate articles on the dailymail website with much the same tone. Also tends to call people names etc much the same @oneworldnet, he is as much as a joke on there as well.
HarveyS,
The complete lack of global warming is obviously driving the climate alarmist crowd nuts, as ‘oneworldnet’ makes clear in his comments.
Alarmists are nothing if not anti-science. As a skeptic, I am ready and willing to change my mind — if the real world demonstrates a verifiable connection between rising CO2 and rising global temperature.
But so far, there is no such connection. Changes in CO2 appear to have nothing to do with changes in global temperature. There appears to be no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature, except for the fact that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. However, there is no evidence for the reversed situation.
I invite ‘oneworldnet’ to produce any evidence that he believes might supports his case. This is the place to do it. But I suspect that ‘oneworldnet’ will instead tuck tail and run, emitting a cloud of pixel-ink invective in his wake like a squid evading a dangerous predator.
Apropos Ignorant Lemmings…
C.S. Lewis on the worst kind of tyranny:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
That video is alarming. How do you get to be studying climate at Masters level, but not have the faintest idea as to whether temperatures are rising or not. Do they only study climate models and never compare those models with reality ?
@Day by Day –
I am with you as to the difficulty of getting rid of der Fuehrer by electoral processes. I am coming to believe that armed force will be needed to stop his assault on liberty and prosperity. Look for him to declare himself president for life, a la Hugo Chavez, and then hand the economy over to his crony capitalist buddies, in classic socialist kleptocrat fashion. He and his thug enemy sympathizer satraps will never concede the point on climate change regardless of the evidence, and I don’t think Congress, with a few lone-wolf exceptions like James Inhofe or Darrell Issa, fully recorgnizes the scam that AGW is, nor does Congress have the cojones to stop him.
Adrian O says:
June 7, 2013 at 10:36 am
“This is stuff which one wishes one could make up.
But frankly one cannot.
ABSTRACT: The crucial part moves from COP4 to COP18
QUOTE:
Parties may recall that at COP 4,”
ROTFLMAO. Sounds like an Icelandic saga.
cbrtxus says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:16 am
“Wouldn’t claiming only no warming for 12 years make the point just as well without looking wrong.”
Doesn’t matter.The American Liberal and the European ecopax reject logic and reason anyway. their reasoning is that thousands of years of logic and reason have not brought about world peace and total equality, so logic and reason must be to blame.
From time to time some of them start using their brains, violating their core belief, and instantly turn into conservatives or libertarians, or kill themselves as they can’t stand the blinding light of reason.
If you are still stuck on things like “science” and “reason” and “logic” then you don’t understand. It was NEVER about them; it was ALWAYS about money and power at any cost (to you).
Endeavor to persevere!
http://wn.com/chief_dan_george_the_outlaw_josey_wales
(By the way, it was President Andy Jackson, Democrat, who ordered the Trail of Tears. The Cherokee sued and the US Supreme Court said Jackson’s order was unconstitutional. Jackson did it anyway. It was different at the beginning of WWII. President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all the Japanese rounded and put into concentration camps. This time, the Supreme Court, having learned their lesson, said it was cool. There is only a little sarcasm in the forgoing, but the facts are true.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Endeavor to persevere!
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Since when did CAGW have anything to do with temperature? Climate is the smoke that is the smokescreen for the larger agenda. The people hiding behind the smokescreen don’t care what the smoke is , just that it exists..
Mario Lento said: “However, try to have a cogent discussion with people in environmental arenas and you find d@ur momisugly&$^#^@ur momisugly mal informed minions.”
Whoa, whoa, I thought that term was verboten. I think the preferred way to say it is “ignorant lemmings”.
Malinformed minions vs. “ignorant lemmings”.
Malinformed minions is better as someone being referred to as a lemming could point out that belief in legendary lemming suicidal herding activities is rather malinformed.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
I would not expect to see people at a homeopath conference, say ‘its just water you shake’
So why should these UN delegates, who are living off fat of the tax payer, want to say or hear ideas that undermine their professional careers and for some their deeply held ideological beliefs.
Our former prime minister Kevin Rudd said “we have to do something now before it’s to late”. Translation:- we have to get the carbon tax in before global temperatures begin to decrease.
The question which I want ‘warmists’ to answer is this:
If a ‘warmer’ world is to be avoided at all costs (literally) – when was it that the climate was perfect..?
Downdraft says: June 7, 2013 at 11:32 am: “The warmist goals including payoffs to developing countries and a reduction in the political and economic power of the developed world. They were never really focused on climate change. Climate change is only a front for their real agenda.”
Yes. This is a major, telling part of the story. If climate science is such an advanced field, how is it that, on cue, we all of a sudden have confident climate disaster statements coming out of Tuvalu, The Maldives, and other such remote, modest locales?
Hundreds of nations happen to, on cue, have climate science experts?
Maybe. Let’s see their degrees and publication records.
There is an alternative explanation: These international socialists have gone to each and every country, small and large, and have carried out a campaign to get eveyone on board. They have gone to the small countries, as Downdraft says, and have unfolded their story of environmental collapse. At the same time, they invite these countries to the global conferences, which I am sure make quite an impression.
The prospect for making money is offered. By various schemes, your small country will receive supplements from the large industrial countries . Development loans, and so on.
And there will need to be boards and agencies and departments and so on for following all of this, and administering all of this, and into diplomacy, and scholarships, etc.
Who staffs all of those endeavors? The Board of Nepotism is in charge of finding cousins and neighbors to staff this foreign govt-funded endeavor.
Somewhere in all of the mix, I would bet, the govt officials somehow find a fair chunk of change in their own pocket. Accounting-wise, this is not hard to do.
What would be cool would be to have someone who has seen this develop in the recent 15 years for some small country tell the story of how the intl community showed up in whatever small country, did their sales pitch, got some bureaucracy jobs set up, and so bought yet another “signatory.”
Not only UN delegates, but most people.
I happened to catch the last 15 minutes of the BBC radio program “Any questions” this morning. One of the panelists was James Delingpole, and the question put to him was his own statement previously published – Are global warming supporters engaging in anti-science eco nonsense.
When Delingpole explained that there had been no warming for 16 years he was met with a chorus of derision from the audience – you know, the sort of derision a politician would get if they were to conjure up statistics spuriously showing how marvelous their polices were working.
Even more sinister, at the end of the program, when the moderator invited him to make a final summary, he was shouted down by a few vociferous hecklers in the audience. This is the unacceptable face of the green movement – those who try and beat down any opinions contrary to their own – No better than thugs and fascists.
Love it; getting into the Snopes cite (literally: the cited reference) it actually says:
Well … okay then. They didn’t actually mean to ‘harm’ anybody (or themselves) by running ‘heels over head’ in hordes with some eventually running (being ‘pushed’?) over cliffs and/or into rivers (and presumably drowning) … but they did nonetheless, and that is the ‘take away’ I got from that referenced Snopes piece … not to mention that last part looks even a little more da mn ing, until they starting running ‘in their madness’ in those ‘large groups’ near and over cliffs and into rivers that is …
As to using the quote ‘ignorant Lemmings’: “WIn-win” and as applicable as ever I say. Reminds me of Charles Mackay’s work “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. Perhaps those crowds are more than just ignorant? Deluded and willfully misled in most cases it would seem (and not speaking of Lemmings, per se, now).
.