COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Nobel Prize (for propaganda)



http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=422539&c=1


Adequate public debate has been smothered by the likes of the BBC taking a very biased position, and discouraged by the previous Labour government's astonishing support for seriously errored materials such as 'An Inconvenient Truth'. They even sent that awful piece of agitprop to schools throughout England & Wales. Their Climate Change Act was based on an act of faith in some of the participants who have come to the fore in the somewhat immature field of climate dynamics, and it received such negligible opposition in Parliament.

These events alone in the UK would easily be enough for the casual observer to conclude that indeed the 'science was settled'. But that, fortunately, is not at all true. The interactions of CO2 molecules with infra-red radiation is pretty settled, but that is as far from settling its contribution to climate dynamics as establishing the freezing point of water is to settling water's role there.

The lack of predictive skill from assuming CO2 is a key driver of climate is perhaps helping more people realise there is something not quite right. A key example of this the the lack of a clear global mean temperature rise for the past 16 years while CO2 levels continue to rise, but there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of others. What our 'casual observer' needs now is more clarification of the fact that there are serious and substantial differences of opinion about the size of the contribution due to rising levels of CO2. The evidence, in my humble view, is strongly favouring those who say the influence is likely to be modest, and very far from alarming. I wish Mr Holland every success in helping remove a little bit of the scales from people's eyes in this area.
-John Shade​
Click to expand...
 
Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE
Posted in Science, 25th January 2013 18:02 GMT


New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades.

“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).

“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”

Berntsen and his colleagues' results derive in large part from taking account of the way that global temperatures have remained flat for the last fourteen years or thereabouts, instead of climbing as they ought to have done with increased carbon levels.

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity," explains the prof.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming."

At the moment levels of CO2 stand at around 395 parts per million (ppm), climbing at around 2 ppm each year and accelerating. In pre-industrial times the levels is reckoned to have been 280 ppm. Depending on various factors, the amount of atmospheric CO2 might have doubled to 560-odd ppm around the year 2050.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that would be disastrous as it would probably mean 3°C warming or more: and the IPCC considers that anything above 2°C means terrible consequences for humanity. Thus the organisation has long sought to limit atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, though this is regarded as a lost cause by many.

But Berntsen and his crew say that analysis is much too pessimistic. They consider that the likeliest result from doubled carbon (which would actually occur some decades after the doubled level was reached) would be just 1.9°C - within the IPCC target. According to the Research Council of Norway, the government arm which funded the new research:

When [the] researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.

This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

Other recent research has suggested warming of this sort with doubled CO2, but so far the IPCC and the warmist-alarmist community generally has been reluctant to accept the new findings. However the state of the accepted science is beginning to change, with Britain's Met Office lately revising its forecasts of warming sharply downwards.

Renowned Swedish climate boffin Caroline Leck, who was not involved in the research, commented:

“These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”

The Research Council's announcement of the new results can be read here.
Comment

The argument will still be made that carbon emissions should be reined in sooner or later, as eventually even in professor Berntsen's forecast possibly-dangerous warming might result should emissions carry on unchecked for the long term.

However, even the previous IPCC imminent doom scenario completely failed to produce any serious action (apart from some dishonest machinations which artifically force up electricity bills to pay for pointless windmills). With the recent gradual scientific acceptance - even among scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the subject - that global warming is simply much less significant than had been thought, the chance of anyone caring enough to take action is now even lower.
 


Humanity (whether it realizes it or not) is enormously indebted to whoever was responsible for the Climategate I & II leaks. What seemed to be a nearly irreversible juggernaut of mass hysteria was knocked back on its heels by the revelations contained in the emails.

The importance of the event cannot be underestimated. The pause allowed cooler heads to investigate, reflect and reconsider.




billboard16yrsgraph-1024x377.png



 
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/





"Mr. FOIA" has released the 3rd batch of Climategate emails. The first release was crucially important in stopping the momentum of the BAD SCIENCE that was about cause the world to adopt costly and ill-advised policies.

Judging from the message accompanying this 3rd release, it appears very likely that "Mr. FOIA" is an inside whistleblower and not a hacker.

If anybody involved in “climate science” deserves a Nobel Prize, it’s Mr. FOIA, Steve McIntyre, Ross, McKitrick, Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen, Judy Curry, Will Happer, Freeman Dyson, Tim Ball, Hal Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Joanna Nova, Burt Rutan, Andrew Montford (“Bishop Hill”) and the rest of the skeptics who, at considerable personal expense, reputational and professional risk, took on the ginormous climate racket.

They are living proof that “Truth Will Out.”



Mr. FOIA:
...That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn't plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words...

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science -- on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might". The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try. I couldn't morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations -- trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far...



http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html
Click to expand...







 
Last edited:


Methinks climatology doesn't understand the climate system. Methinks the historic temperature record is highly suspect. Methinks a lot of people have been duped by lousy science and, in some cases, outright scientific fraud. Methinks Michael Mann and the Hockey Team are cornered and desperate because they understand they got caught.


Methinks John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky are quacks:
( http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/21/lewandowsky-and-cook-in-spectacular-carcrash.html )


Methinks folks in Germany and the U.K. are beginning to comprehend that policy choices based on blind acceptance of unsettled science has potentially deadly consequences:



...Freezing Britain's unusually harsh winter could have cost thousands of pensioners their lives.

This month is on track to be the coldest March for 50 years – and as the bitter Arctic conditions caused blackouts and traffic chaos yesterday, experts warned of an 'horrendous' death toll among the elderly.

About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ected--experts-say-final-toll-horrendous.html
Click to expand...


by Christopher Booker

...The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14 billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year.

Within seven years this new tax will rise to £30 a ton, and by 2030 to £70 a ton, making it wholly uneconomical to generate any more electricity from the coal and gas-fired power stations that last week were still supplying two thirds of our electricity. Put all this together and we see more starkly than ever the game the Government is playing. It knows that no company would build wind farms unless it is given subsidies that, in effect, nearly double or treble the price of its electricity. The Government will only get CO2-free nuclear power if it promises it an equal subsidy. And now the Coalition is also hell-bent on driving our much cheaper and more reliable coal and gas-fired plants out of business, by imposing a carbon tax that will not only eventually double the cost of their electricity, but also make it impossible for them to survive. So mad is this policy of “double-up all round” that it is driving even the largest and most efficient power station in the country, Drax, capable of supplying seven per cent of all the power we use, to switch from burning coal to wood chips, imported 3,000 miles across the Atlantic from the US. And how has the Government forced Drax to do this? By giving it a subsidy on wood chips that doubles the value of its electricity, while putting an increasingly prohibitive tax on coal.

This is all insane in so many ways that one scarcely knows where to begin, except to point out that, even if our rulers somehow managed to subsidise firms into spending £100 billion on all those wind farms they dream of, they will still need enough new gas-fired power stations to provide back-up for all the times when the wind isn’t blowing, at the very time when the carbon tax will soon make it uneconomical for anyone to build them.


So we are doomed to see Britain’s lights going out, all because the feather-headed lunatics in charge of our energy policy still believe that they’ve got to do something to save the planet from that CO2-induced global warming which this weekend has been covering much of the country up to a foot deep in snow. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning to build 455 new coal-fired power stations which will add more CO2 to the atmosphere of the planet every week than Britain emits in a year.

Thank you, David Cameron, leader of “the greenest government ever”. Thank you, Ed Miliband, father of the Climate Change Act, the most expensive suicide note in history.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ayback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

ht tp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/22/how-global-warming-research-is-like-pot-research/


By: Robert G. Brown, Ph.D.
Physics Department
Duke University


...Confirmation bias is, after all, the bete noir of science.

This situation almost perfectly matches the evolution of “climate science”. Nobody cared about it for decades, but suddenly a group of individuals emerged that all benefited from the demonization of carbon [dioxide]. This included environmental groups, that hated civilization itself and the burning of anything (as long, of course, as their own lifestyle was preserved), energy producers that saw in this the opportunity to triple or quadruple their profits by creating artificial scarcity of a plentiful resource, politicians that saw in this the opportunity to raise taxes, get elected on a world-saving “issue”, and perhaps line their own pockets along the way, and a United Nations that saw an opportunity to transform it into a way to tax the rich nations and transfer money to developing nations (while again lining various pockets along the way). The role of Anslinger was admirably met by one James Hansen, a True Believer who never stinted and does not stint today in exaggerating the data and claims of disaster (five meter sea level rise! temperatures like that on Venus!). And suddenly, quite literally all funded research was on how burning carbon was bad for the climate.

Even completely ethical scientists have to eat, and if the only way they can eat is to get funded, and the only way they can get funded is to submit proposals that seek to prove that CO_2 is bad, guess what they will propose to study? And if they want to get funded AGAIN, guess what they will find? Climate science has been effectively corrupted beyond any hope of objectivity.

On the good side of things, scientists are actually usually pretty ethical. Also, in the end data talks, bullshit walks. The hypothesis of CAGW or CACC could, in fact, be true (across a wide spectrum of the meaning of “true”, in fact). However, recent data is not in good correspondence with the theories that have predicted it, and many good scientists are in the process of reassessing their conclusions. As is the almost simultaneous case with regard to marijuana, the confounding evidence is starting to overwhelm to narrowly funded and directed arguments to date...



ht tp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/22/how-global-warming-research-is-like-pot-research/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/22/how-global-warming-research-is-like-pot-research/
Click to expand...



 


With falling estimates of climate sensitivity, the last 17 year's obvious lack of warming and the failure of the stratosphere to behave as predicted, the entire case for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ("CAGW") conjecture is rapidly falling apart.


The forthcoming politically-driven IPCC will provide an opportunity for the zealots and zanies to stage a media circus but the writing is on the wall: the scare is over.



We should reconsider the entire field of climate science. The logical conclusion is that vast amounts of money are being wasted on a non-issue. that computer models cannot predict the last 17 years of non-warming and that the stratosphere has not cooled either since 1995 give full support to the idea that climate science has led us all the wrong way, presumably because we paid them to find a problem so they found it. If we had paid for a natural explanation for this miniscule rise of 0.6 degrees/century they would likely have found that instead. The previous solar theory was of course the dominant "consensus" throughout human history including through previous CO2 scares by Arhennius and Callendar both of whom saw a rising trend and thought they knew the cause - yet both were confounded by a fall in temperatures.



 


Meanwhile, the IPCC plans to release its AR5 at the end of September and the EPA is working very hard to raise the price of energy.


Sixteen plus (16+) years of no significant atmospheric warming. None. Zero. Nil. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.




As the model-versus-reality discrepancy plays out, the last place you will learn about it will be in IPCC reports.

So who’s denying science? It doesn’t seem to be the ‘consensus deniers.’​
-Judith Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union​




 


On The Horns Of A Dilemma​




Climatology's Great Dilemma


...the IPCC’s dilemma is this. How can it expect the public to believe that recent warming is mostly manmade when the models on which it has based this claim have been shown to be fatally flawed?

In the latest draft of the report, scientists seem to have been admirably honest about the hiatus in temperature rises, explaining that its causes are a mystery. For their pains, they have apparently had the text flung back at them by government reviewers along with a demand that they explain what is happening. Governments, you see, need to be able to fend off sceptic arguments.

It will not be an easy task. However the IPCC chooses to deal with the problem the repercussions are unpleasant. They might try to explain away the warming hiatus in some way: the in-vogue explanation is that the heat that should have been in the atmosphere has escaped, undetected, to the deep oceans. Evidence to support this idea is, however, scant at best, and going down this route is going to involve the IPCC admitting that there is much about the climate system that is not yet understood. This will be a hard act to carry off while simultaneously claiming that they are certain that mankind caused most of the recent warming.

An alternative explanation has even more unpleasant consequences for the climate ‘machine’. If the globe hasn’t warmed because the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate is less than previously thought (a suggestion for which there is, incidentally, abundant supporting evidence) then the need for dramatic policy responses, and all the grants and subsidies and wind farm feed-in tariffs that result, dissolves away.

The word from within the IPCC is that a new generation of climate scientists is trying to tell the climate story, warts and all. But it is also said that they have been brought to the point of despair by the old guard, who want at all costs to avoid giving ammunition to sceptics...


-Andrew W. Montford
"Bishop Hill"

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/climatologys-great-dilemma/
​




 



The game is over. The jig is up. They tried to induce panic. They failed.​



When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex.




​
 
1. I do wish that the screen width would stay stable.
I don't have a screen on my PC that cheerfully handles the width of a football field.
Re-sizing the screen reduces the size of the text to 'I really need new glasses' dimensions.


Seen this? LINKY.
 
Handley_Page said:
1. I do wish that the screen width would stay stable.
I don't have a screen on my PC that cheerfully handles the width of a football field.
Re-sizing the screen reduces the size of the text to 'I really need new glasses' dimensions.


Seen this? LINKY.
Click to expand...

What? No more hockey stick graphs? Will wonders never cease.
 


Now that there's been essentially no warming for the last seventeen (17) years, the zealots are scrambling to come up with explanations. So far, in addition to "the dog ate my homework," we've seen the lack of warming blamed on heat hiding in the deep ocean (undetected below the 700 meter range of the Argo diving buoys), we've seen the lack of warming blamed on an increase in ocean wind and we've seen the lack of warming blamed on aerosol pollution.

All the scary charts that were used to market the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ("CAGW") conjecture were for surface temperatures. The entire global instrumental temperature record only dates to the mid-19th century.

Well, if they want to attribute the lack of warming to heat mysteriously transferred to the deep ocean, the zealots need to wait 150 years, when there is sufficient OHC (ocean heat content) data to begin attribution studies.

...Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all...

...Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Click to expand...


Beyond that, the fact of the matter is that there is no reliable temperature record. Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable? Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable? Do you really believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-2012 are accurate?

“Global Warming refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.

Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity is easy to abuse in a variety of ways.”

-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Click to expand...


On top of every thing else, there have been some very bad actors who have done serious damage to the field:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/






The author of the comment below is Dr. Jonathan Jones, professor of physics at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Richard, I can't answer for our host, but you have to remember why some of us got involved in the climate wars in the first place.

For me this has never really been about climate itself. I don't find climate partcularly interesting; it's one of those worthy but tedious branches of science which under normal circumstances I would happily leave to other people who like that sort of thing. My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science.

Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. I was looking up some minor detail about the Medieval Warm Period and discovered this weird parallel universe of people who apparently didn't believe it had happened, and even more bizarrely appeared to believe that essentially nothing had happened in the world before the twentieth century. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. I'd always had an interest in pathological science, and it looked like I might have stumbled across a really good modern example.

You can't spend long digging around the Hockey Stick without stumbling across other areas of climate science pathology. The next one that really struck me was the famous Phil Jones quote: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it". To any practising scientist that's a huge red flag. Sure we all feel a bit like that on occasion, but to actually say something like that in an email is practically equivalent to getting up on a public platform and saying "I'm a pathological scientist, and I'm proud."

Rather naively I initially believed that Phil Jones was just having a bad day and had said something really stupid. Surely he couldn't really think that was acceptable? And surely his colleagues would deal with him? But no, it turned out that this apalling quote was only the most quotable of several other remarks, and he really was trying to hide his data from people who might (horror of horrors) want to check his conclusions.

That's when I got involved in my FOI request. And consequently got exposed to the full horror of "big climate", as clear an example of politicised and pathological science as I have ever seen. And then came Climategate 2009, and "hide the decline". All downhill from there.

When will I be done with climate? Quite simply when it stops being a pathological science and starts acting according to the normal rules and conventions of scientific discourse. At that point I will, I'm afraid, simply lose interest in the whole business, and leave it to the experts to get on with their stuff, just as I leave most of the rest of science to the appropriate experts.

To put it another way, I will be done with climate once I can trust that Richard Betts can be left to do good work on his own. I absolutely trust you to get on with doing good stuff under normal circumstances. But I'm afraid I don't trust you to do good work under current pathological conditions, because you don't stand up against the all too obvious stench emanating from some of your colleagues.

For me the Hockey Stick was where it began, and probably where it will end (and I will daringly suggest that the same thing might be true for our host). The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that's what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science, and it is especially the job of scientists in closely related fields. You should not be leaving this to random passing NMR spectroscopists who have better things to do. But I'm afraid I no longer expect you to do so. The opportune moment has, I think, passed. And that is why, even though we are all delighted to have you here, and all enjoy what you have to say, some of us get a trifle tetchy from time to time.

You ask us to judge you by AR5, and in many ways that is a reasonable request. Many of us will judge it by the handling of paleoclimate, not because this is all that important an aspect of the science, but rather because it is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst. So, Richard, can I look forward to returning back to my proper work on the application of composite rotations to the performance of error-tolerant unitary transformations? Or will we all be let down again?

Dec 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM | Jonathan Jones

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html
Click to expand...



​
 
We've used ours and theirs for many decades. Can you seriously tell China they can't have their ow industrial revolution? Not only that, but China already leads the world in percentage of solar power and is currently building the largest solar array on earth, using advanced technology from an American company that can barely sell its product here.
 


Climate Scientist: We can't find any solid evidence of CAGW.


Government man: Well, if that's the case, there's not much sense in spending so much on climate research. Oh— by the way— you're fired.



​
 
trysail said:


Climate Scientist: We can't find any solid evidence of CAGW.


Government man: Well, if that's the case, there's not much sense in spending so much on climate research. Oh— by the way— you're fired.



​
Click to expand...

Climate Scientist: Wait, we just discovered this...

Government man: Grant approved.
 
I do wish these extracts could be better formatted. I only have a certain width of screen, ya know!
 
Handley_Page said:
I do wish these extracts could be better formatted. I only have a certain width of screen, ya know!
Click to expand...

Right click on the image and select open in a new tab or window and then you get just the image without the lit stuff to the left of it.
 


...it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gasses is solely the computer models. The relation of this sensitivity to catastrophe, moreover, does not even emerge from the models, but rather from the fervid imagination of climate activists...


–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences​



​
 
"The World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology has called for governments to refresh their “climate normals” more often.

Climate normals are thirty-year chunks of weather observations that are used as baselines for comparison with more recent events. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the data most commonly used today covers 1961 to 1990."


And here's the full piece.
See here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
125
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
V
There's a Little Black Spot on the Sun Today [remix]
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
964
phrodeau
phrodeau
SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
Sean Renaud
Is there anything truly crazy most of the Left at least pretends to believe?
2
Replies
37
Views
318
Sean Renaud
Sean Renaud
Rightguide
Alleged Climate Change
3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
1K
Sean Renaud
Sean Renaud
Back
Top