info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
So much for 'settled science' Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's IPCC, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so far in the 21st century
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Last Post
Nov 26, 2011, 10:54:39 AM11/26/11
to fis...@rogers.com, ssn...@gmail.com, ariad...@gmail.com, harry....@sympatico.ca, aaron....@mail.mcgill.ca, sie...@sympatico.ca
So much for 'settled science'
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
far in the 21st century.
Lorne Gunter, National Post · May 20, 2008 | Last Updated: May 26,
2008 10:00 AM ET
You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now
likely to take a break for a decade or more. There will be no more
warming until 2015, perhaps later.
Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's
Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of
Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean
circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and
the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming
for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global
warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020),
warming would resume with a vengeance.
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known
all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool
even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past
decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its
otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.
If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who
backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a
10 or 15-year hiatus.
Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-
degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or
even just temperature stability.
In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-
called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature
pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking
off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips
backwards were foreseen.
It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500
scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global
warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they
didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of
this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.
This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none
of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were
finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past
ocean current behaviour.
Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling
for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming
is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly
steady cooling.
Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that
eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if
that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend
of the past decade has been downward, not upward.
Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature
of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down
since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite
advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record,
made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government
climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least
1993.
According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average
temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the
20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.
Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its
greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere)
in the past 30 years.
Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's
oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere
have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to
Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st
Century.
Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all
go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt
into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."
lgu...@shaw.ca
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
far in the 21st century.
Lorne Gunter, National Post · May 20, 2008 | Last Updated: May 26,
2008 10:00 AM ET
You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now
likely to take a break for a decade or more. There will be no more
warming until 2015, perhaps later.
Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's
Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of
Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean
circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and
the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming
for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global
warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020),
warming would resume with a vengeance.
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known
all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool
even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past
decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its
otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.
If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who
backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a
10 or 15-year hiatus.
Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-
degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or
even just temperature stability.
In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-
called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature
pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking
off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips
backwards were foreseen.
It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500
scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global
warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they
didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of
this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.
This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none
of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were
finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past
ocean current behaviour.
Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling
for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming
is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly
steady cooling.
Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that
eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if
that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend
of the past decade has been downward, not upward.
Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature
of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down
since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite
advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record,
made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government
climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least
1993.
According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average
temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the
20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.
Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its
greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere)
in the past 30 years.
Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's
oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere
have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to
Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st
Century.
Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all
go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt
into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."
lgu...@shaw.ca
Viejo Vizcacha
Nov 26, 2011, 11:14:05 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 26, 10:54 am, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
> So much for 'settled science'
>
> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> far in the 21st century.
>
> Lorne Gunter, National Post · May 20, 2008 | Last Updated: May 26,
> 2008 10:00 AM ET
>
Lorne Gunter writing in the Nazionist Post. Do we need to read more?
> So much for 'settled science'
>
> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> far in the 21st century.
>
> Lorne Gunter, National Post · May 20, 2008 | Last Updated: May 26,
> 2008 10:00 AM ET
>
VV
Dawlish
Nov 26, 2011, 11:16:22 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
The perfect opportunity for some non-hypocritical climate denier to
bet me 10K that there will not be a year in the next 5 that breaks the
record set in 1998, 2005 and 2010. I say there will.
Will it be you, nutcase?
The perfect opportunity for some non-hypocritical climate denier to
bet me 10K that there will not be a year in the next 5 that breaks the
record set in 1998, 2005 and 2010. I say there will.
Will it be you, nutcase?
Sean Hannity
Nov 26, 2011, 12:23:03 PM11/26/11
to
town Calgary, in a cage match.
Two enter, one gets out alive.
But that would be an opener for the ultimate fight. David Suzuki
and Lord Chris Monckton.
Leading to British $billionaire Richard Branson and that stupid old
fuck Senaturd from Oklahoma, Jimmy Inhofe.
Jimmy won't have a diaper for this one, but his diarrhea will soil the
cage.
The Doctor
Nov 26, 2011, 4:18:57 PM11/26/11
to
In article <935feada-dc2e-47c4...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Viejo Vizcacha <nats_u...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Merry Christmas 2011 and Happy New Year 2012 !
Viejo Vizcacha <nats_u...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 10:54=A0am, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>> So much for 'settled science'
>>
>> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> far in the 21st century.
>>
>> Lorne Gunter, National Post =B7 May 20, 2008 | Last Updated: May 26,
>> So much for 'settled science'
>>
>> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> far in the 21st century.
>>
>> 2008 10:00 AM ET
>>
>
>
>Lorne Gunter writing in the Nazionist Post. Do we need to read more?
Gunter is a flake and why are you imitating Mr.SmartyPants ?
>>
>
>
>Lorne Gunter writing in the Nazionist Post. Do we need to read more?
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Merry Christmas 2011 and Happy New Year 2012 !
Dawlish
Nov 26, 2011, 4:50:04 PM11/26/11
to
wonderful opportunity to win easy money, should this nutter be
correct. *>))
1/3 of land cooling
Nov 26, 2011, 5:53:55 PM11/26/11
to
On Nov 27, 5:16 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
.> The perfect opportunity for some non-hypocritical climate denier to
> On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
.> bet me 10K that there will not be a year in the next 5 that breaks
the
.> record set in 1998, 2005 and 2010. I say there will.
It is difficult to tell whether Dawlish is:
1) an "unquestioning, unthinking, CO2 worshipping, fanatical,
alarmist",
or
2) a "devious, conniving, schemer", who wants to scam money from
innocent skeptics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate variability means that the odds for Dawlish's bet are heavily
in Dawlish's favour, whether we have global warming, climate
stability, or even global cooling.
Dawlish will happily take your money, no matter what the weather (I
mean climate).
Skeptics beware, Dawlish's bet is a scam, a part of the much larger
(and much more extensive and expensive) AGW scam.
You have been warned.
1/3 of land cooling
Nov 26, 2011, 6:15:18 PM11/26/11
to
On Nov 27, 5:16 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.> The perfect opportunity for some non-hypocritical climate denier to
.> bet me 10K that there will not be a year in the next 5 that breaks
the
.> record set in 1998, 2005 and 2010. I say there will.
The best analogy for Dawlish's bet, is flipping a coin 5 times.
If NO heads appear, Dawlish pays you $10,000 (if he actually does pay
up).
Probability = 1 / 32 (about 0.03)
If ANY heads appear, then YOU have to pay Dawlish $10,000.
Probability = 31 / 32 (about 0.97)
Expected outcome (the average) from the bet, is that YOU pay Dawlish
$9,375
(E = 10,000 * 31 / 32 - 10,000 * 1 / 32)
This does NOT look like a fair or good bet, it looks like a scam.
Bret Cahill
Nov 26, 2011, 10:06:19 PM11/26/11
to
> .> The perfect opportunity for some non-hypocritical climate denier to
> .> bet me 10K that there will not be a year in the next 5 that breaks
> the
> .> record set in 1998, 2005 and 2010. I say there will.
>
> It is difficult to tell whether Dawlish is:
But it is easy to tell you are dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
> .> bet me 10K that there will not be a year in the next 5 that breaks
> the
> .> record set in 1998, 2005 and 2010. I say there will.
>
> It is difficult to tell whether Dawlish is:
Are you going to put your money where your mouth is or not?
Bret Cahill
Dawlish
Nov 27, 2011, 6:24:40 AM11/27/11
to
On Nov 26, 11:15 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:
It doesn't look like a good bet to you, because it shows you and yours
up as hypocrites.
You say the world has stopped warming; you try to stupidly use BEST to
say it has (it doesn't show anything of the sort and you know that,
but that doesn't stop you trying; that's why you are a one-track-
pony), but you won't go anywhere near something which means you would
have to actuslly show you *believe* the crap you write.
10K says a new temperature record will be set in the next 5 years. I
say GW has not stopped. If it has, how could a *record* temperature
(not one that is above average, which you analogy shows, but a
*record* - the warmest in 121, or 161 years.
The odds against that are 121/1, or 161/1 and you think all the years
recently are just random and tehre is no underlying cause of the
warmth that you can demonstrate. Easy money, if you think the world
has stopped warming and CO2 cannot be the cause. Why are deniers like
you so shit scared of that bet, pony?
wrote:
up as hypocrites.
You say the world has stopped warming; you try to stupidly use BEST to
say it has (it doesn't show anything of the sort and you know that,
but that doesn't stop you trying; that's why you are a one-track-
pony), but you won't go anywhere near something which means you would
have to actuslly show you *believe* the crap you write.
10K says a new temperature record will be set in the next 5 years. I
say GW has not stopped. If it has, how could a *record* temperature
(not one that is above average, which you analogy shows, but a
*record* - the warmest in 121, or 161 years.
The odds against that are 121/1, or 161/1 and you think all the years
recently are just random and tehre is no underlying cause of the
warmth that you can demonstrate. Easy money, if you think the world
has stopped warming and CO2 cannot be the cause. Why are deniers like
you so shit scared of that bet, pony?
Catoni
Nov 27, 2011, 8:11:26 AM11/27/11
to
"Viejo Vizcacha" posted:
>"Lorne Gunter writing in the Nazionist Post. Do we need to read more? "
>VV
"Viejo Vizcacha" does a Godwin ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
What an idiot ! ! ! LOL :)
>"Lorne Gunter writing in the Nazionist Post. Do we need to read more? "
>VV
What an idiot ! ! ! LOL :)
AGWFacts
Nov 27, 2011, 12:14:14 PM11/27/11
to
if these hysterical paranoid alarmist nutters don't actually
believe what they claim to believe.
--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca
CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS
Nov 27, 2011, 6:31:58 PM11/27/11
to
§pamÐuster
Nov 27, 2011, 8:46:56 PM11/27/11
to
"Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_u...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:935feada-dc2e-47c4...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
§pamÐuster
Nov 27, 2011, 8:47:12 PM11/27/11
to
§pamÐuster
Nov 27, 2011, 8:54:29 PM11/27/11
to
"1/3 of land cooling" <skept...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9e06e31-19e7-4efb...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
§pamÐuster
Nov 27, 2011, 8:54:44 PM11/27/11
to
news:c87fc0cc-2eb8-432d...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
James
Nov 27, 2011, 10:31:27 PM11/27/11
to
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a48897fc-231d-4342...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com
You don't know the difference between weather and climate.
Weather bets are like you. Stupid.
news:a48897fc-231d-4342...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com
Weather bets are like you. Stupid.
1/3 of land cooling
Nov 28, 2011, 6:20:10 AM11/28/11
to
I have NEVER said that the world has stopped warming.
I have NEVER tried to use BEST to say that the world has stopped
warming.
A fair bet (one that gave us both the same expected return), would be
one where you bet $310,000 against my $10,000. Would you be prepared
to take that bet?
If that is too much for you, how about you bet $31,000 against my
$1,000?
If that is too much for you, how about you bet $3,100 against my $100?
But you don't really want a fair bet, do you?
You want to steal the money of anybody foolish enough to take your
bet.
Dawlish, your understanding of the climate, and simple statistics, is
sadly lacking. The temperatures in years which are close together, are
not statistically independent. Warm years tend to follow warm years,
and cool years tend to follow cool years.
So the temperatures over the next 5 years are very unlikely to be
cool. Each year has approximately a 50% chance of being higher (or
lower) than the one before. That is why your bet is like flipping a
coin 5 times.
Your odds of 121/1, or 161/1 are pure statistical bullshit.
I do NOT think that all the years recently are just random, that is
why your odds are bullshit, because YOUR odds are based on random,
statistically independent, temperatures each year.
Was 1998 a statistically significant year for GW.
Alarmists thought that it was, when it happened. But when temperatures
started dropping like a stone the next year, alarmists collectively
crapped themselves.
If there is a record high temperature in the next 5 years, it will be
as significant as 1998. That is to say, not significant at all.
I will repeat my earlier warning about Dawlish's bet:
Climate variability means that the odds for Dawlish's bet are heavily
in Dawlish's favour, whether we have global warming, climate
stability, or even global cooling.
Dawlish will happily take your money, no matter what the weather (I
mean climate).
probability of about 97%.
Taking Dawlish's bet shows ignorance about the climate, and refusing
to take Dawlish's bet shows climate intelligence.
That is why I am refusing to take Dawlish's bet.
Surfer
Nov 28, 2011, 9:35:42 AM11/28/11
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:31:58 +1100, "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS"
<CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS@CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS> wrote:
>
>Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to
>Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st
>Century.
>
Since about 2002, heat output from the sun has been decreasing as part
<CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS@CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS> wrote:
>
>Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to
>Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st
>Century.
>
of the 11 year solar cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
But in spite of that, Arctic sea ice extent has continued to decrease.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
That suggests that warming due to CO2 increased faster than the
temporary cooling due to reduced solar output.
That is not a good sign, because solar output will soon start to
increase again.
Trevor Wilson
Nov 28, 2011, 4:48:03 PM11/28/11
to
On 11/23/2011 11:44 AM, CROOKEDAGWJUNKSCIENCE wrote:
> Temperatures are dropping on every continent, as the sun has entered a
> reduced output phase................You should try to accept the truth.
>
**OK. Tell us: How long will this "reduced output phase" last?
1 year?
10 years?
100 years?
How long? Give us the science to back your claim.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
> Temperatures are dropping on every continent, as the sun has entered a
> reduced output phase................You should try to accept the truth.
>
**OK. Tell us: How long will this "reduced output phase" last?
1 year?
10 years?
100 years?
How long? Give us the science to back your claim.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
bringyagrogalong
Nov 28, 2011, 5:27:17 PM11/28/11
to
"CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" <CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS@CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS> wrote:
>
> So much for 'settled science'
>
> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> far in the 21st century.
cite!
>
> So much for 'settled science'
>
> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> far in the 21st century.
Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
You have to back your shit up.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Nov 28, 2011, 6:54:02 PM11/28/11
to
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can’t."
- Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the 2001 and
2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, serves on the
Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability
(CLIVAR) program, serves on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World
Climate Research Programme.
Way better qualified to speak on the subject than an Indian railway
engineer wallah! :-)
--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
Last Post
Nov 28, 2011, 7:19:33 PM11/28/11
to
Every news service in the world carried that blurb.
Nobody will cite anything for you.
Bill Snyder
Nov 28, 2011, 8:15:59 PM11/28/11
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:19:33 -0800 (PST), Last Post
<last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 5:27 pm, bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" <CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS@CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS> wrote:
>>
>> > So much for 'settled science'
>>
>> > Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> > Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> > far in the 21st century.
>>
>> cite!
>>
>> Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> You have to back your shit up.
>
>ų "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" has to back HIS shit
<last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 5:27 pm, bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" <CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS@CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS> wrote:
>>
>> > So much for 'settled science'
>>
>> > Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> > Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> > far in the 21st century.
>>
>> cite!
>>
>> Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> You have to back your shit up.
>
> Every news service in the world carried that blurb.
Strange, then, that I somehow missed it on both CNN and the BBC.
But if every other news service in the world carried it, it ought
to be easy to back up.
> Nobody will cite anything for you.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
§pamÐuster
Nov 28, 2011, 8:28:24 PM11/28/11
to
news:e656e494-aa5e-4c8b...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
ÇonsŽ<40%
Nov 28, 2011, 8:58:07 PM11/28/11
to
bringyagrogalong
Nov 28, 2011, 11:11:57 PM11/28/11
to
Oy rool <the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
> bringyagrogalong wrote:
> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
------
"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
"The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
global warming further.
"We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
- Stephen Hawking
> bringyagrogalong wrote:
> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
> >>
> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> >> far in the 21st century.
>
> > cite!
>
> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>
> > You have to back your shit up.
>
> Even better:
Not asking for better.
> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> >> far in the 21st century.
>
> > cite!
>
> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>
> > You have to back your shit up.
>
> Even better:
I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
------
"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
"The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
global warming further.
"We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
- Stephen Hawking
AGWSWINDLE
Nov 28, 2011, 11:38:24 PM11/28/11
to
"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:bab96c80-c2e0-42e7...@f30g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Oy rool <the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>> >>
>> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> >> far in the 21st century.
>>
>> > cite!
>>
>> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> > You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
>
> I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
>
Just Another Small Step In Concocting The Fake AGW Consensus
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>> >>
>> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> >> far in the 21st century.
>>
>> > cite!
>>
>> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> > You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
>
> I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
>
29 Nov 2011
In 2005, Roger Pielke Jr co-wrote a peer-reviewed paper warning against
linking man-made warming to hurricane impacts:
To summarize, claims of linkages between global warming and hurricane
impacts are premature for three reasons. First, no connection has been
established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of
hurricanes . . . Second, the peer-reviewed literature reflects that a
scientific consensus exists that any future changes in hurricane intensities
will likely be small in the context of observed variability . . . And third,
under the assumptions of the IPCC, expected future damages to society of its
projected changes in the behavior of hurricanes are dwarfed by the influence
of its own projections of growing wealth and population . . . While future
research or experience may yet overturn these conclusions, the state of the
peer-reviewed knowledge today is such that there are good reasons to expect
that any conclusive connection between global warming and hurricanes or
their impacts will not be made in the near term.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf
"The team" concluded this was heresy.
Pielke writes:
Kevin Trenberth, a "scientist" at NCAR here in Boulder and the person (along
with Phil Jones) in charge of the 2007 IPCC AR4 chapter that reviewed
extreme events including hurricanes, said this in the Boulder Daily Camera
about our article:
I think the role of the changing climate is greatly underestimated by Roger
Pielke Jr. I think he should withdraw this article. This is a shameful
article.
And Professor Phil Jones - yes, him again, demonstrating how few people it
takes to scare the world on warming - agreed that here was one more paper
that wouldn't even be referred to in the IPCC's 2007 report:
Jones to Trenberth on 22 June 2005:
Kevin,
I'll read the Pielke et al piece for BAMS that came over the skeptic email
today. Presumably we'll get forced to refer to it [in the 2007 IPCC report].
Trenberth replies:
Don't see why we should refer to the Pielke piece. It is [n]ot yet
published. It is very political and an opinion.
Jones soon comes around, despite noting its peer-reviewed status:
Kevin,
Read the article on the new patio at home with a glass of wine. I thoroughly
agree that we don't need to refer to it. Wrote that on it last night. It is
very political. Several sentences and references shouldn't be there. I don't
know who was supposed to have reviewed it - maybe Linda [Mearns] will know,
as she used to or still does have something to do with BAMS. The inference
in the email (from whence it came) is that it has been accepted !
Cheers
Phil
The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy
suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another
colleague is a bit unsettling as well.
This is how the "consensus" was manufactured by "peer review".
It is a scandal, and the consequences have been enormous and costly.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html
Warmest Regards
B0nnz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species
AGWSWINDLE
Nov 28, 2011, 11:38:48 PM11/28/11
to
"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:bab96c80-c2e0-42e7...@f30g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Oy rool <the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>> >>
>> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> >> far in the 21st century.
>>
>> > cite!
>>
>> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> > You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
>
> I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
>
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>> >>
>> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>> >> far in the 21st century.
>>
>> > cite!
>>
>> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> > You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
>
> I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
>
troppo
Nov 29, 2011, 12:13:26 AM11/29/11
to
bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in
news:bab96c80-c2e0-42e7...@f30g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> Oy rool <the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>> >>
>> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
>> >> Climate Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global
>> >> warming so far in the 21st century.
>>
>> > cite!
>>
>> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> > You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
>
> I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
Here's something to consider:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf
Free download, 25 pages.
> ------
>
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
> has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
> caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
> and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
> the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
> main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
>
> "The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
> quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
> Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
> global warming further.
>
> "We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
>
> - Stephen Hawking
I have great respect for Hawking, but his area is astro-physics and
astronomy. Maybe he's forgotten some of the basic physics.
news:bab96c80-c2e0-42e7...@f30g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> Oy rool <the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>> >>
>> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
>> >> Climate Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global
>> >> warming so far in the 21st century.
>>
>> > cite!
>>
>> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>> > You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
>
> I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf
Free download, 25 pages.
> ------
>
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
> has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
> caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
> and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
> the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
> main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
>
> "The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
> quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
> Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
> global warming further.
>
> "We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
>
> - Stephen Hawking
astronomy. Maybe he's forgotten some of the basic physics.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Nov 29, 2011, 2:23:31 AM11/29/11
to
On 29/11/2011 3:11 PM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
> Oy rool<the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>>> "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>>>>
>>>> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>>>> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>>>> far in the 21st century.
>>
>>> cite!
>>
>>> Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>>> You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
Lack of denial noted.
> Oy rool<the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>>> "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>>>>
>>>> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>>>> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
>>>> far in the 21st century.
>>
>>> cite!
>>
>>> Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>>
>>> You have to back your shit up.
>>
>> Even better:
>
> Not asking for better.
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can’t."
- Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the 2001 and
2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, serves on the
Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability
(CLIVAR) program, serves on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World
Climate Research Programme.
Way better qualified to speak on the subject than an Indian railway
engineer wallah!
bringyagrogalong
Nov 29, 2011, 5:34:11 AM11/29/11
to
"AGWSWINDLE" <SWINDLE@SWINDLE> squirmed:
So I guess the short answer to that is, you can't back your claim up.
No surprises there.
> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> > Oy rool <the.germans.won.the.battle@moscow> waffled:
> >> bringyagrogalong wrote:
> >> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>
> >> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> >> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> >> >> far in the 21st century.
>
> >> > cite!
>
> >> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>
> >> > You have to back your shit up.
>
> >> Even better:
>
> > Not asking for better.
>
> > I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> > If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> > resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
(snip Usenet's biggest squirm)
> >> bringyagrogalong wrote:
> >> > "CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS" lied:
>
> >> >> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> >> >> Change, reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming so
> >> >> far in the 21st century.
>
> >> > cite!
>
> >> > Simply saying something doesn't make it so.
>
> >> > You have to back your shit up.
>
> >> Even better:
>
> > Not asking for better.
>
> > I want that idiot CONCOCTEDCONSENSUS to back his claim up.
>
> > If he can't, it will be yet another example of the AGW-deniers
> > resorting to lies and distortions to back up their discredited claims.
So I guess the short answer to that is, you can't back your claim up.
No surprises there.
Trevor Wilson
Nov 29, 2011, 3:09:03 PM11/29/11
to
Surfer
Nov 30, 2011, 7:56:49 AM11/30/11
to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:38:24 +1100, "AGWSWINDLE" <SWINDLE@SWINDLE>
wrote:
>
>29 Nov 2011
>
>In 2005, Roger Pielke Jr co-wrote a peer-reviewed paper warning against
>linking man-made warming to hurricane impacts:
>
A very sensible suggestion.
And this is what the following government website says:
".....The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in
recent decades. The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in
this century....."
As you see, that statement doesn't link the intensity to CO2, just as
Roger Pielke recommends.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change
<Start extract>
* U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2°F over the past 50
years and is projected to rise more in the future; how much more
depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted
globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions.
* Precipitation has increased an average of about 5 percent over the
past 50 years. Projections of future precipitation generally indicate
that northern areas will become wetter, and southern areas,
particularly in the West, will become drier.
* The amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased
approximately 20 percent on average in the past century, and this
trend is very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the
wettest places.
* Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and
regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the
past 40 to 50 years.
* The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in
recent decades. The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in
this century.
* In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become
stronger since the 1980s, even while the total number of storms has
decreased.
* Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the past 50
years, and will rise more in the future.
* Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest
storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.
* Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this is very likely to
continue.
<End extract>
wrote:
>
>29 Nov 2011
>
>In 2005, Roger Pielke Jr co-wrote a peer-reviewed paper warning against
>linking man-made warming to hurricane impacts:
>
And this is what the following government website says:
".....The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in
recent decades. The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in
this century....."
As you see, that statement doesn't link the intensity to CO2, just as
Roger Pielke recommends.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change
<Start extract>
* U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2°F over the past 50
years and is projected to rise more in the future; how much more
depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted
globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions.
* Precipitation has increased an average of about 5 percent over the
past 50 years. Projections of future precipitation generally indicate
that northern areas will become wetter, and southern areas,
particularly in the West, will become drier.
* The amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased
approximately 20 percent on average in the past century, and this
trend is very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the
wettest places.
* Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and
regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the
past 40 to 50 years.
* The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased in
recent decades. The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in
this century.
* In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become
stronger since the 1980s, even while the total number of storms has
decreased.
* Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the past 50
years, and will rise more in the future.
* Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest
storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.
* Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this is very likely to
continue.
<End extract>
0 new messages