Global Warming Cancelled

Global Warming Cancelled

From NBC News:

Frigid temperatures generated by what one meteorologist labeled a “polar vortex” took hold across a wide swath of the Midwest and Northeast on Saturday, as the regions dug out from a deadly snow storm and braced for another blast of dangerous winter weather.

The frigid air is coming from the North Pole and — due to a jet stream — will be intense and mobile, Ryan Maue, a meteorologist for Weather Bell, told the Associated Press. Forecasters said record lows could be eclipsed.

“All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak,” Maue said “If you’re under 40, you’ve not seen this stuff before.”

In other news, global warming has been cancelled due to record cold temperatures, record snowfalls, record ice in summertime Antarctica, etc.

Boeing machinists cave to reality
Guess who’s funding the Republican civil war?
  • EricSteel

    Cheese and crackers, get it right. It is Global Climate Change in the winter and Global Warming in the summer.

  • jim_m

    Whatever happened to Steve Crickmore and his unflagging attempts to shore up the collapsing narrative of AGW? Funny how now that the evidence and all the predictions are being shown to be a bunch of BS that he goes missing.

    • Retired military

      “Whatever happened to Steve Crickmore ..”

      Shhh Don’t jinx us.

      • stan25

        Maybe the management here borrowed JT’s troll hammer and whomped on him.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Not that I’m aware of…

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    …but there is still bound to be plenty of Al Gore’s Global Smarming

    • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

      Gore is a non blooming idiot. Al Gore’s home in Nashville, TN is one of the least energy efficient homes in the country. GRRRRRRRRRR or should I say: BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  • Paul Hooson

    Even in Portland it’s very cold. Just 28 degrees outside. It seems like the only warm fronts are in my strip club….

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Were there any warm behinds?

      • Paul Hooson

        Only when I gave my girlfriend a playful spanking a little later…

    • fustian24

      So, you own a strip club, AND a grocery store, AND a used car lot?

      And he still has time to write 4 or 5 hundred caption contest posts every week AND make 10 or 20 vaguely smutty Whizbang Pop entries. Amazing.

      I’m assuming this is the club on Killingsworth?

      • Paul Hooson

        Hello Fustian. I’m probably the most outrageous businessman here at Kevin’s Wizbang sites. I’m part of the local biker community and also a major businessman in my community. The property I own on Killingsworth is so big I have a car lot on one end, then a 70 parking lot for the strip club, which is a 12,600 square building. The whole thing sits on a 35,000 square foot property. I sold the grocery store to concentrate on the two businesses here. Last night was great at the club, so hot action that nearly had me blowing a cork! And that cork wasn’t on a wine bottle either! – Some nights I have music events here at the club instead of the dancers, if a big promoter brings in a show.

  • GarandFan

    Hey! “Global WARMING!” ain’t nothing it can’t do! Besides, it’s not science, it’s a religion.

    • Jonny Kingham

      Lol I live how people just repeat the old “it’s a religion” nonsense and think they’re being smart. Weather events do not disprove global warming.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I love how people deny the weather in order to prove global warming

        • Jonny Kingham

          Do you know the difference between weather and climate? I’m not denying it can be cold in certain places at a particular time.

          • jim_m

            Dude, it is cold in North America, it is cold in Europe and it is cold in Antarctica.

            WTF? How much more of the freaking globe do you need before t is no longer weather to you?

            And how many fraudulent claims must we have debunked before you admit this is bullshit?

            I see that we can still walk on Tuvalu. I thought it was supposed to be under water due to all the water that was released by the arctic being free of ice.

            Just face it. Only an imbecile will believe someone who has been constantly lying to them. I suppose you think that Healthcare.gov is working perfectly now don’t you.

          • Jonny Kingham

            Im not american so keep me out of your stupid political stuff. I will respond fully to your nonsense in the morning.

          • LiberalNightmare

            hopefully the world wont melt before then.
            kiss your mommy goodnite for me.

          • jim_m

            I don’t care. It isn’t an American issue. Go look at the Met office in the UK, look at the Univ of East Anglia and their participation in these same frauds.

            It isn’t a national issue, it is an academic one.

            I also will note that you failed to respond to a single question above demonstrating that you have no response and no claims that can refute my position.

          • Jonny Kingham

            “look at the Univ of East Anglia”??? You mean the hacked emails? There were 8 independent investigations onto the emails and the university scientists were cleared of any scientific malpractice.

            And I mentioned America because of the Healthcare shite like I give a damn. It just shows me that your politically motivated now.

            Also which questions have I not responded to? I was using my phone to respond which is difficult.

          • jim_m

            Hey, in the morning it will be -50 here, the coldest in nearly half a century. Thanks for the warming, dumbass.

          • Jonny Kingham

            “Dude, it is cold in North America, it is cold in Europe and it is cold in Antarctica.”

            Yes well 2013 was the hottest year on record for Australia? So What? You get cold and hot weather. It doesn’t mean anything unless you look at the global average trends. Btw there was a paper published this year that found we may be underestimating the warming due to lack of data in fast warming areas (i.e. the arctic)-
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113092217.htm

            “WTF? How much more of the freaking globe do you need before t is no longer weather to you?”

            Weather is Weather (i.e. atmospheric conditions at a certain location at a certain time) and Climate is Climate (i.e. atmospheric conditions over a larger area over a period of time). Therefore as long as the global temp continues to increase then there is global warming.

            “I see that we can still walk on Tuvalu. I thought it was supposed to be under water due to all the water that was released by the arctic being free of ice.”

            Firstly, who said that Tuvalu were meant to be under water by now? Btw sea levels are rising- http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising-intermediate.htm

            Secondly the arctic ice melt does nothing to sea levels because it is SEA ICE. What has been increasing sea levels is the melting of antarctic land ice/Greenland/glaciers and expansion of the oceans due to warming.

            It seems that you are politically biased and so you only research climate change from a denier perspective. Therefore you clearly have the wrong idea about what is happening.

          • jim_m

            Sigh, yes and the global trend for the last 16 years has been for no warming. This no warming was not predicted by any model. Failoure of the models mean failure of the theory. The models are based on the theory. The theory needs to be modified so new models can be created that will accurately describe the facts.

            You come here and claim that AGW is real and then serially dismiss the fact that it hasn’t warmed for 1/6 of a century, the models are wrong, multiple acts of fraud by warmists, false predictions by warmists.

            And we haven’t even gotten to the admission that even if the entire world production of CO2 were halted immediately, the expected impact on global temperature would be so low that it could not be measured by the technology wee have today. In other words even if we stopped CO2 increase we would not be able to tell if it had any impact.

            So what is AGW but an effort to control people’s lives based on unproven assumptions with the promise that if we allow you fascists to do so we will get no measurable benefit?

          • jim_m

            It seems that you are politically biased and look at AGW only from a warmist perspective. It seems that you want to impoverish billions of people for your own personal satisfaction.

            It seems that you want to destroy people’s lives on an unsubstantiated theory that has made no successful predictions, that has been shown to be upheld by fraudulent science, whose scientific backers are now running away from it and has been shown to be supported by charlatans like Al Gore, whose movie was banned in UK classrooms as non-factual and who has made millions off of bogus carbon credits that have no impact on the environment and never will,.

          • Jonny Kingham

            How am I politically biased? Warmist perspective? I am looking at this from all perspectives and the fact that 97% of peer reviewed literature (cook et al, 2013), which states the cause of warming, state that human activity is the significant cause. I don’t think it’s possible to find a peer-reviewed paper that say’s we are not warming. Every academy of science is in agreement about this. 17 years of a perceived slow down in surface trend does not mean warming has stopped.

            And stop with all that nonsense about wanting to destroy lives. It makes you sound crazy.

          • jim_m

            You need to look at JLawson’s link which debunks completely the fraudulent assertion that 97% of scientists support AGW. It is a lie and a fraud and your repeated making the assertion that it is fact is an example of how you are either utterly ignorant or completely dishonest in your argumentation.

            And the extreme demands of warmists like yourself to reduce the production of CO2 would actually destroy lives because you are essentially calling for the dismantling of the modern industrial world.

          • Jonny Kingham

            These are peer-reviewed studies which show the 97% figure. Find me a peer-reviewed paper which debunks them and we’ll talk.

          • jim_m

            No his assertion is based on a biased evaluation of peer reviewed studies. Calling out that bias does not necessitate another peer reviewed study to be valid. Read the information for once before you dismiss it. What you are demonstrating is that you are nothing but a dishonest ideologue.

          • Hawk_TX

            No the 97% figure is not from a peer reviewed study, it is from a very small survey. The survey was administered by Margaret Zimmerman in 2008. 3146 earth scientist world wide responded to the survey. However to calculate the 97% consensus all but 77 of the respondents were excluded. That means that the 97% claim is based on only 75 respondents.

            Here is an article that goes more in depth.
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/

          • LiberalNightmare

            I understand, that weather is part of the climate, these days it seems to be part of the climate that is bent on vexing the global scamming crowd.

          • jim_m

            Speaking of climate… why do warmists state that they have to do something about the medieval warm period? Why is real data and fact so antithetical to their theories? Why do they seek to exclude the warm period from nearly every study and model they make?

            If it was really science they would be including ALL the data and coming up with a theory that fits the FACTS. But it isn’t which is why they need to hide the data.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            In the current debate as used by the Warmists weather are those data which do not support AGW while climate are those data which do.

            QED

      • jim_m

        I love how warmists deny the fact that their own “scientific” models have failed to predict the climate over the last 15+ years and that such a failure proves that their theories are flawed. Yet they insist that those theories are correct.

        But you are correct Jonny, a religion would be belief where evidence does not exist, what you have is insanity, where you have direct evidence refuting your claim and yet you persist in believing it.

    • SirWilhelm

      Science is a religion. Einstein and Darwin are it’s gods, and those that defend them, are their dogmatic priests. Those that advocate man made global warming, are their inquisitors, trying to impale scientific heretics on the polls of consensus science, so they can help their political allies, redistribute the wealth, globally.

  • fustian24

    You know what they call a scientific theory that doesn’t fit the data?

    Wrong.

    • Jonny Kingham

      How exactly does it not fit the data?

      • jim_m

        Because there has been no warming for the last 15+ years and all the models predict that there should have been. That means that the data collected does not fit the prediction of your theory. If it were science then the theory would have been deemed disproven, but it isn’t science, it is a mix of religion and thinly cloaked political demagoguery with the aim to control people’s lives and impoverish the world.

        • Jonny Kingham

          No, there appears to have been a slow down in global surface temp, but these periods are expected. Elsewhere ocean heat content has been increasing, Arctic sea ice melting, glacier retreating, sea levels increasing etc. The second half of your comment sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense.

          • LiberalNightmare

            I dont think I would go with the arctic sea ice argument these days.

          • Jonny Kingham

            Why? Because sea ice didn’t melt as much as the record melt of 2012? Look at the trend. Its declining.

          • jim_m

            Look at the recent data. (see chart posted above) It is expanding.

            The so called trend. Here are the years from lowest minimum to the highest minimum:

            2012
            2011
            2008
            2010
            2009

            So it expanded from 2008 to 2009, remained above the 2008 level in 2010 declined for 2011 and 2012 years and is now increasing again. Statistically, a trend would be at least 7 data points moving in the same direction. You have 3 data points moving in the same direction. You have no trend.

          • Jonny Kingham

            One year of data. Look at the trend? It looked like it was expanding b4 before declining to the record low.

          • LiberalNightmare

            seriously?

            one year of data isnt enough to change your mind, but 100 yrs of data for a planet millions/billions of years old is enough to convince you?

          • Jonny Kingham

            Have you ever heard of something called the greenhouse effect?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Have you ever heard about negative feedback loops?

          • jim_m

            Ummm, 1 year that runs counter to the rest would mean that there is no trend. Go take a basic statistics course and you will find this out to be true.

          • Jonny Kingham

            Um no it doesn’t mean that. Over a longer time period than one year you can derive a trend estimate and the trend for arctic sea ice is downwards.

          • LiberalNightmare

            And now it’s global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

            Speaking of trends, didnt another ship get stuck in the ice measuring arctic ice last year/

          • Jonny Kingham

            Haha seriously? Citing an article by David Rose of the Daily Mail? A well known liar? 2012 was the lowest amount of arctic sea ice on record. The trend is downwards.

          • jim_m

            It rose in 2013 meaning that your trend is not a trend. See my other comments on this trend.

            Further: Please explain why Antarctic sea ice has been expanding while Arctic sea has contracts. How is this a sign of global warming when the net effect is nearly the same amount of ice?

          • fustian24

            I hope you’re not going to cite liars like Michael Mann or the whole outfit in the UK that have been faking the data for years.

          • jim_m

            Sea level have not increased. Arctic ice has not decreased, in fact it has been increasing at a record pace. Idiot warmists got themselves trapped in expanding antarctic sea ice in the middle of antarctic summer for crying out loud.

            Polar bear populations are increasing not decreasing. The Himalayan glaciers are not receding and the author of the original study has admitted to academic fraud.

            I could go on. What you have is a mass of academic fraud aimed at getting vast amounts of grant money and an ideological agenda that has driven research with predetermined conclusions.

            Not only that but much of the research is based on bogus data. A field survey has determined that one of the best data sets is founded on inappropriate data collection sites that over estimate the temperature by as much as 5 degrees on average. http://www.surfacestations.org/

          • Jonny Kingham

            Sea levels have increased, look it up. Also look at a graph of Arctic sea ice minimum extent. It is decking rapidly and reached a record low in 2012, volume is also declining.

            Most sub population s of polar bears are decreasing and there has been a long term retreat of the Himalayan glaciers along with almost every other glacier. Where do you get your info from?

          • LiberalNightmare

            Reminder: Making global warming jokes during the -50 temps is anti-science, but a tornado in Kansas in May is proof of climate change.

          • jim_m

            Well yeah, because leftists love to stand on dead bodies while declaring their wisdom.

          • jim_m

            Wrong on the polar bears. The decline was shown because they only looked at a subset of all the populations.

            As for sea ice:http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/09/Figure26.png

            It is hard to declare that sea ice is shrinking when it is within 2 SD of the average and is not showing a trend.

            But go ahead and believe a lie. Just don’t expect to not get called on that lie around here. Wieslaw Maslowski predicted that the arctic would be free of ice in 2013 and said that 201 was a conservative estimate.

            Science demands that you should be able to predict something based on your hypothesis. AGW has failed to successfully predct anything and most importantly, has failed to predict the trend in global average temperature.

            Given its failure to be predictive should we be considering it science? I think not.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
          • jim_m

            That’s where I sourced the one above. :)

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            (Bows in Jim’s Direction.)

            I live but to serve… ;)

          • Jonny Kingham

            All these graphs show is that Antarctic sea ice is increasing (I never said it was) and that 2013 minimum extent had more ice than the record low of 2012. There were no graphs showing trends. How about these graphs showing longer term decline:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming-intermediate.htm

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Ah, lovely. You point me to a site that’s completely invested in the AGW scam, and I’m supposed to believe it’s impartial?

            Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you not have any internal filters that, when full, send a “Hey, this might be bullshit…” signal?

            If you do, what the hell does it take to trigger them? Nigerian email scams?

            The inconvenient fact that the people who ARE profiting from AGW aren’t acting like there’s a problem? (Al Gore tells you that you’ve got to freeze in the dark to avoid warming the planet and causing oceans to rise within five years – and he buys beachfront property and takes private jets wherever he goes. Yeah, he’s acting like there’s a problem, isn’t he?)

            And before you start talking about how academics aren’t profiting from this – consider that academics are always looking to get grants. You get grants to study problems – and the bigger the problem, the bigger the grant. What’s the biggest problem around now?

            AGW.

            What will you get grant money for?

            Research on AGW confirmation/mitigation.

            What won’t you get grant money for?

            Research into data that says “AGW might not be as bad as we thought”, “The Earth’s ecosystem is much more complex and self-regulating than thought”, “Current temperatures are steady”, or “Current temperatures are lower than during the MWP or RWP.”

            (And never underestimate what an academic who’s low on the totem pole and realizes he’s got no chance of advancement unless he finds a good, grant-producing project will sink to. Do the project, report the results, and have the dog eat your records so you can’t produce your data. You get grant, gullible fools point at your crappy work and praise you. Win, win!)

            Are there ever any questions that keep you up at night? Such as…

            How much has the UK spent already on AGW – and to what effect? Is freezing your pensioners worth reduction of CO2 by… pretty much nothing?

            How much has Spain spent on their windfarms, and what has that done to their economy?

            How much has Germany spent – and why are they building more coal and natural gas fired plants if CO2′s a planet killer? http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46202

            Why isn’t there a big push toward nuclear power, if CO2 is so bad?

            Look at the people loudly telling you there’s a problem. Are they acting like it?

            If you’ve already answered those questions to your satisfaction – well, more power to ya. If you’re not asking those questions… well, you should be.

          • fustian24

            In my spare time away from Wizbang, I am an Earth Scientist. One of the many disciplines found within Earth Science is climatology. And an important thing most people do not realize is that a climatologist is just an Earth Scientist that decided to take the global warming money.

            Thus finding a climatologist that does not believe it global warming is no more surprising than finding out that the Pope is Catholic.

            Those polls of climatologists are essentially worthless for that reason.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I can’t count the number of times that I’ve put up information, only to have it dismissed with “Well, (insert name here) isn’t a Climatologist.”

            That seems to me like saying someone stating that ice melts at 32f should be disregarded because they’re not a chemist or precision measurement technician.

            Good science is good science, it doesn’t matter whether the person doing it is a ‘Climatologist’, or someone with a bent for statistics and math.

            If they show their work, I’ll give them a lot more credence than someone who is going “Hey, I’m a climatologist, and I say this is going to happen, but I’m not going to let you examine my data or modeling software because it’s proprietary…”

          • fustian24

            To really look at the problem thoroughly you need to combine the efforts of physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, astrophysicists, and even a few climatologists.

            And when you look at all those other disciplines, the vaunted consensus disappears.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            But they’re not ‘climatologists’, so their input doesn’t count!

            /sarc, as I hope you’re aware.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            But they’re not ‘climatologists’, so their input doesn’t count!

            /sarc, as I hope you’re aware.

          • jim_m

            these periods are expected

            If they are expected then why are they not accounted for or predicted by a single model? One assumes that if such events are expected then they should be accounted for and anticipated.

            The fact that not a single model anticipated nearly 1/6th of a century of cooling would indicate that your claim that this was expected is nothing but a bullshit lie. In fact the reality is that many warmists refused to admit that this cooling was even happening. Only recently has anyone of your religion had the guts to admit that it is happening.

          • Brett Buck

            Huh? You put out a series of predictions, with error bands, and the actual global temperature falls out of the 3-sigma band low. That called – back to the drawing board, you are not modeling it correctly. And going back ex post facto, modifying the model, and the retro-predicting it doesn’t count.

            The models were all wrong, in the mathematical sense of wrong. And before you start trying lord your superior scientific knowledge to bluster your way out of it, be advised that I *am* trained as a scientist and have worked on various simulations for things a lot more critical than global warming professionally for 30+ years. If someone ran a simulation like this, and missed this badly, I would send them back to their desks and tell them to start over.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            When reality doesn’t match the simulation, doesn’t that mean it’s reality that’s wrong?

            So it seems to the AGW crowd. The possibility that the theories are wrong simply doesn’t seem to register.

            And as someone working in IT who’s taken a few programming courses in my time, one truism in any calculation is “Garbage in, garbage out”. If the data you’ve got isn’t accurate, your output isn’t going to be accurate. If you start ‘adjusting’ your input data off the raw temperature records, your output will rapidly degenerate from science to science fiction.

            And if you won’t show your work (as in release for open scrutiny the programs you’ve faked up to produce those nice results with the altered/adjusted data sets) (as has been a tradition with the AGW theorists since the very start of this scam) why should there be any confidence at all in the results you’re pushing, and the recommendations you’re making?

            Garbage in, garbage out. It’s as true now as it ever was.

      • fustian24

        We’re supposed to be in hockey stick territory. CO2 is going through the roof. Which means that since it is the primary driver of climate (according to your co-religionists), the temperature must be increasing ever more rapidly.

        But.

        Even the warmists in their quiet moments have admitted that there has not been warming in between 10 and 15 years.

        Nobody predicted it, but they now have various half-baked theories.

    • Guest

      We’re supposed to be in hockey stick territory.

      Even the warmists in their quiet moments have admitted that there has not been warming in between 10 and 15 years.

      Nobody predicted it but they now have various half-baked theories.

  • fustian24

    I always say that Climatology is kind of like Astrology but without the scientific rigor.

    • fustian24

      One of the things that so few people know about the climate is that there is no guarantee that our temperature is supposed to be the same all the time. Long before man came on the scene, our climate varied wildly. Ice covered much of North America more than once just for example.

      So all of the global warming theory is based on modeled predictions of the effect of CO2 on climate. They build very complicated mathematical models to try to determine this.

      What’s so complicated you ask? Isn’t it true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Just look at how much is in the atmosphere, and calculate the effect.

      So simple.

      If nothing else was happening.

      What effect does CO2 have on cloud formation? On ocean evaporation? On increased foliage and shade?

      All of these effects and feedback loops need to be modeled. It is ridiculously complex and nobody pretends they have done even a part of it right, nor do they even remotely understand all of the possible consequences and connections. They just do the easier ones they think they have a handle on. And, maybe only those effects that push the model in the right direction (hide the decline anybody?).

      So, how to they propose to check that these models are getting it right?

      They compare those predictions with the changes we see to the measured temperature changes we see globally (and let’s assume the very unlikely possibility that they are actually getting this right).

      If the changes match, it should suggest the models are valid right?

      No.

      Not even close since there is a hole in their logic big enough to drive a Mac truck through.

      The problem is that they assume that if it wasn’t for one factor: CO2, the earth’s temperature would not change.

      Ridiculous.

      Prove it.

  • jim_m

    Climate skeptics make #6 on The American Interest’s list of winners for 2013. Also interesting to note is that 4 of the top 5 winners are America’s enemies, despite obama’s brilliant foreign policy leadership.

  • 914

    The science is settled. The warmist alarmist are all full of shit. Case closed!

    • Jonny Kingham

      Which is why every academy of science agrees with the “alarmists”? Or should we believe politically motivated journalists?

      • jim_m

        The fact is that increasingly, those organizations are backing away from their support of AGW. Plus, the only discipline that is relevant is climatology. Having a bunch of biologists or sociologists endorse global warming is like having a bunch of nursing faculty endorse your economic platform.

        • Jonny Kingham

          That’s just not true. Sir Paul Nurse (President of the UK Royal Society) and a group if scientists recently hosted a meeting with members of the GWPF to try and explain why the evidence is in for agw.

          And btw, various studies have shown that around 97% of climate scientists agree with agw.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Sounds like some disagreement here -

            James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

            http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

          • Jonny Kingham

            Look up his recent interview with the Guardian. He accepts he was alarmist, but he still says that gw is caused by CO2, that we should reduce emissions and that age deniers are like a religion. Don’t believe everything you read.

          • jim_m

            Don’t believe everything you read

            We don’t, which is why we understand that AGW is a fraud.

            Answer this: Why, if it is true, do pseudo-scientists like Michael Mann refuse to share their data? Why do they conspire to stop the publication of data that they deem contrary? Why do they oppose the tenure of scientists with whom they disagree?

            It isn’t science, it is ideology.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            More like theology, complete with the heretics who must either be forced to recant or shunned, or – if possible – sent to prison or killed.

            But that’s just quibbling over terminology. It’s extremism, disguised as ‘caring for the planet’.

            http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/

          • Jonny Kingham

            Lol Michael Mann is a pseudo scientist? How exactly? And how does he not share his data exactly? And how is he able to publish research in respected journals?

          • jim_m

            Seriously? When asked to share his data from which he derived the famous hockey stick he refused to share it. Scientists were forced to reconstruct his model from the data sets and only through that attempt at reconstruction was it able to be determined that he had fudged his data. It is now consensus that the hockey stick graph is a fraud and not real.

            Pseudo-scientist? Yes. Anyone who fraudulently asserts that he won a Nobel Prize is a pseudo-scientist. Mann did so in his defamation lawsuit and was forced to retract his claim. The Nobel committee has rejected his claims that they awarded him the prize for his work on AGW.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Sounds like shifting goal posts to me.

            Whatever you want to call it, it seems to me that its a clear sign that the science ISNT settled.

            As far as believing what I read, I believe very little when it comes to global warming, but at least I do read. Maybe you should try it.

          • jim_m

            That poll is old. 97% of scientists ( the 97% was for scientists and not climate scientists) do not support it any more.

            As for evidence. Evidence would be if you had a hypothesis, designed an experiment to prove that hypothesis and then generated data to support that hypothesis. You have none of that with AGW.

            What you do have is a story. A story that says it got warm and people were doing x and such and I think that the thing they were doing made it get warm. An explanation is not evidence. Any real scientist would understand that.

          • Jonny Kingham

            Bray and Von Storch (2008), Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al (2010), Cook el at (2013), Stenhouse (2013). read these studies, they all found that over 95% of climate scientists agree with the IPPC. These are the experts who actively publish research in climate change.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/

            “They examined “11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”

            Yeah. 97%. (Snicker…)

          • Jonny Kingham

            Of course 66% of abstracts would hold no position. Why would a paper say on the changes to glaciers over time have to add into the abstract that human activity has caused it.

            Did you realise that as part of the paper, Cook got authors to rate their own paper against their system and the self rating found the same 97% figure.

            And all of the data is available on line for you to check it out yourself or to try and replicate the study.

          • jim_m

            You are obviously not a scientist and have never produced an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper or presentation and as such needs to include both a brief backround to the problem as well as a summary of findings. It would be appropriate to declare if the study was supported by AGW or is supportive of AGW assuming that AGW was relevant to the issue at hand. If 66% of the papers do not reference AGW then it is because AGW is irrelevant to the work and Cook’s claims are fraudulent.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
          • jim_m

            The data is on line…

            Of course it may not be the real data.

            Of course the data may be adjusted later so it better reflects reality.

            Of course the data may have been manipulated with a non-peer review methodology that has not been described so we don’t really know what is going on.

            Otherwise there is no reason to believe that AGW claims are completely fabricated and that the methods to produce them are completely opaque.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Of course not.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

            “Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.”

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            97%? Dude, you’ve been scammed.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/

            Look, I know the tendency when you find out you’ve been scammed is to deny that you’ve been scammed. Nobody wants to look like a gullible fool – and I can’t really blame you for that.

            But this scam has cost billions worldwide, and jacked the price of energy up to ridiculous levels, while a whole lot of people got rich peddling ‘cures’ for AGW like solar and wind… and the people depended on them only to find out that when the government subsidies went away, so did the wind and solar farms?

            At what point do you go “Shit – yeah, I was scammed, but… well, shit. I won’t throw good money after bad.”?

          • Jonny Kingham

            Just because Jo Nova claims she has debunked the study it doesn’t make it so. Why has she not attempted to redo the study herself or publish a response in a journal rather than typing away on her blog?

            Here are many of these arguments against the Cook et al paper, debunked.
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics

            And why are you so so certain than you’re correct and that everyone else is getting scammed? Is every academy of science on earth wrong?

            Also how exactly has GW policy jacked up the price of energy? In the UK most of the recent increases to energy bills are a response to volatile gas prices rather than environmental policies.

            Also subsidies have been proven to work in bringing down the cost of technology. Just look at the cost of solar pv now compared to a few years back. And when technology prices come down and the subsidies are carefully withdrawn over time the tech will be able to compete with other energy forms.

            Just because you don’t like certain policies (possibly because they go against your political beliefs) it doesn’t mean that they don’t work. And Just because you don’t like these policies it doesn’t mean you deny the science which they’re a response to.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Re Jo Nova – if someone’s loudly proclaiming that 2+2=5, it doesn’t take much to discredit them. She’s done so with their own data – why replicate a study?
            “In the UK most of the recent increases to energy bills are a response to volatile gas prices rather than environmental policies.”

            Uh, huh. (Of course, this seems to be an opinion article… but it’s certainly as valid as your opinion.)

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10398635/Climate-change-alarmism-caused-our-high-energy-prices.html

            It is against this background that energy companies have announced price rises. The regulations imposed by the Government underlie them and additional green taxes exacerbate the situation. The expansion of relatively expensive nuclear power at £92.50 per megawatt, almost double the current market price, is justified by some because it is cheaper than the quite unnecessary wind schemes. But it is much more expensive than coal or gas and these high energy prices which punish the poor most particularly are a matter of choice not of necessity.

            The reason this has been done is, of course, because of climate change fears. But is it a reasonable or proportionate response? It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world.

            But keep on believing.

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    There is no proven data on Global Warming, never has been. This renamed Climate Change is just another way for the Regime to swindle the taxpayers.

    • Jonny Kingham

      Climate change is a concept which has been used in scientific literature since early 20th century. Gw is an example of climate change and both terms can be used. No one changed anything. There is also plenty if evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Just saying there isn’t doesn’t make it so.

      • jim_m

        No there actually isn’t evidence of man-made climate change and wishing it so does not make it so. There is evidence of the climate changing and there are theories that it has been influenced by human activity.

        However, those theories have been used to create models of the climate all of which have failed to predict the climate over the last 15 years. Based on the failure of the models to accurately predict climate, we can safely say that the theories are fatally flawed and should be scrapped.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Actually, there is evidence of humanity’s effect on the globe. You know I’m constantly (well, kind of) trying to get the AGW true believers to read Ruddiman’s paper on how the beginning of agriculture seems to have blocked a major swing down into an ice age.

          http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

          Frankly, I’m glad of it – because we’d be fighting polar bears for penguins at the equator if it hadn’t.

          • jim_m

            You know, maybe that depends. I mean, maybe penguins are tasty and we’re missing out.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Probably tastes like chicken… that’s been feeding on herring. ;)

      • LiberalNightmare

        Plenty of scientific literature out about UFO’s, Bigfoot and the Bermuda triangle also.

        • Jonny Kingham

          Really? In peer reviewed literature? Published in respected journals like science and nature?

          • jim_m

            Nature is actually very political. They have been known to refuse to publish letters or responses that run counter to their political viewpoint. The effect is that they allow one viewpoint to be published and silence dissent.

            The correct position would be to allow at least some discussion of science but Nature does not hold that position. Overall the quality of the publication is very high, but it is by no means without bias.

  • Sky__Captain

    It would appear that Jonny Kingham has not seen this graphic:
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/holocene-history-l.gif
    It does demonstrate the current “rise ” in global temperatures in quite insignificant.

    It is also quite apparent he needs to read this:
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hoskins-global-warming-climate-change.pdf
    Mr Kingham would find that he is worshipping a false god.

    • Jonny Kingham

      Lol actually yes I have seen it before. And it is fraudulent. Firstly there are no references to where the data comes from from this graph but upon inspection I found that it was from a blog written by Don Easterbrook. I then realised where I had seen this before. And since it is not peer-reviewed, he gets away with scientific fraud.

      He uses historical data from one location as a proxy and attempts to claim that global temperatures have been higher for the past 15,000 years. He also messed with the time scale so that it looks like we are cooler. However the graph only goes up to 1905 in reality. Therefore he missed the 100 years of rapid warming. But here is a full debunking of this graph and a reminder to why you should not trust blogs and instead trust peer-reviewed science.

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-the-100-years-of-warming-easterbrook-wants-you-to-ignore/

      • jim_m

        The warming over the last 100 years is not unprecedented and therefore there is nothing that clearly states it is man made.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/NH_temperature_2ka.png/800px-NH_temperature_2ka.png

        Perhaps you could address the fact that the climate is always changing and that the burden of proof is on those who would claim that a single cause is the reason for all change. Establish why there is a difference between the warming that occurred centuries ago and what is happening now. How are they different and how has it been established that there are none of the same factors impacting climate today?

        You have not established that the warming, which ceased 16 years ago, is man made.

        You have not established why, if it is man made, there has been a pause in warming as you claim when there has been no change in human behavior and in fact global output of CO2 has increased, not decreased. Given that fact we should not be seeing a pause but an acceleration.

        Why should we believe in AGW when increasing CO2 production results in the opposite of what you predict?

        • jim_m

          Oh, and before you go claiming that the medieval warm period was not global, here is a study from Science that demonstrates that the warming was also across the Pacific and throughout Antarctica. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

      • Sky__Captain

        I would bet that Mr Kingham did not read my linked article, and therefore still is a diehard member of the cult of “Man-made Climate Change”.

      • Sky__Captain

        I would also like Mr Kingham to explain the massive warming at the end of the younger Dryas.
        SUVs?
        Coal-burning power plants?
        Or maybe Mr Kingham would like to seea return of glaciation? Just to get rid of the eeeevil “global warming”.

        You see, I am of the views of:
        1) Climate changes naturally, and the warming at the end of the 20th century was NOT caused by man. The “AGW” alarmists have yet to prove that mankind has caused it to the 95-percentile level that is required to stand up in a court of law.
        2) I think the climate of the last ~10,000 years is a very good thing. Glaciation tends to lower property values.
        3) The entire “AGW/Climate Change” theory is a massive scam. This was proven at the last conference when the 3rd World countries demanded BILLIONS of dollars from the developed countries and walked out when they did not get their way.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    In 10 years the narrative will be “weather displacement,” or some other idiocy. They’ll never stop being dumb and detached from reality. It’s who they are. It’s how they roll.

  • TheMelancholicAlcoholic

    I love this! meanwhile the 10-15 degrees Celsius over in Europe are proof of ….? that’s right, global cooling!!!
    Climate is out of whack, weird weather, bigger storms, more hurricanes. But keep denying it.

  • http://www.naildesignsite.com/ John Locke

    Global warming theory is based on modeled predictions of the effect of
    CO2 on climate. They build very complicated mathematical models to try
    to determine this.
    ____________________
    Nail Designs

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Yeah, and those nail designs are vital to the models…
      Sheesh.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE