The only way to warm things up, is to cool the planet down.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
Recent Comments
- Joe on “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- Conrad Ziefle on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Ivan G Wainwright on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Conrad Ziefle on “Climate change is a myth”
- Mike on Too Hot To Live
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on “New computer modeling”
- John on “Climate change is a myth”
- John B on Australia Permanent Drought Update
I can’t take it anymore
If they (the media) are feeding us a crock with this, what other crocks are they feeding us about other things?
it’s all lies
what other crocks are they feeding us about other things?
margarine is better for you than butter, for one
Green jobs. My favourite is green jobs. Look a all the green jobs. President Obama created them. It’s a green economy.
So if they knew the 05-06 winter was due to global warming, why didn’t they alert the UK transport Minister so that he could procure more infrastructure as he is proposing now, 5 years and many lives plus billions of pounds later.
“The culprit, according to a new study, is the Arctic’s receding surface ice, which at current rates of decline could to disappear entirely during summer months by century’s end.”
Huh? Really? Is this study more than 3 years old? Arctic ice reached its low in 2007, the article mentions the winter of 2005-2006 and last year. So…….. are they postulating its cold 2 out of the last 5 winters is because of low Arctic ice? What about 06-07, 07-08, and 08-09? Or were they aberrations? Or did the models predict this, too?
Here’s a prediction, regardless of what occurs next year, we’ll see studies and quote “scientists” that show how its part of the CAGW scheme. Do these people not realize they are the very reason why they’re not believable? I’d make fun of them, but this one is too easy.
Where’s all the dweebs and apologists that come to this site and explain this stuff for us?
Come on dweebs, we’re waiting.
suyts says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm
“Here’s a prediction, regardless of what occurs next year, we’ll see studies and quote “scientists” that show how its part of the CAGW scheme. Do these people not realize they are the very reason why they’re not believable? I’d make fun of them, but this one is too easy.”
They honestly think people are stupid. They really cannot understand how ridiculous these statements appear to the public at large.
There have even been claims, Moonbat springs to mind, desperately trying to say the cold is a local phenomena, when the average person can look up tumbling records from around the world.
The Climate “science” community has spent all of their credibility credits this winter with more than two months of cold to go. By March 2011 their pronouncements will not illicit the sniggers that the cold = warm BS above does, it will either cause anger or an embarrassed silence.
It’ll be interesting to see. If weather conditions take a sudden turn to the warm, what will they say then?
They are intellectually bankrupt.
The most credible forecaster currently is Joe Bastardi, of Accuweather, at least imo. While his career has been somewhat damaged by his obstinate refusal to kowtow to the AGW orthodoxy, his forecasts have been more accurate than most, even though he does not get the recognition others such as Piers Corbyn have received lately.
Joe’s latest musings are found here:
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
Joe is looking for a much more temperate winter in Europe after the Christmas season.
It would be as foolish for the AGW skeptics to declare victory based on an early cold snap as it was for the AGW proponents to claim that the summer heat around Moscow was proof of global warming.
Piers Corbyn says it will be harsh all winter the UK and Europe with just a few respites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHPooN0DZ5Y
How counter intuitive would the find losing their funding? Or even having to pay to make stupid claims?
Did’t the Britsh Transport Minister ask the UK’s Chief Scientist to advise on whether he should plan for severe winters into the future. I can hardly wait for the Chief Scientists response. Is he/she going to endorse the view that heavy snow will become a “rare and exciting event” because of global warming, or will he/she endorse the view that severe winters are a direct consequence of global warming?
Yes he did and the MET advised that there was a 1 in 20 chance of this winter being colder than average because it is unusual for cold winters to run back to back and even rarer 3 times in a row.
The past Cief Scientist also said Global warming was the main cause of the current cold spell!
This is getting silly now. This has all the hallmarks of a cult in its final death throes. A sad end indeed.
Yes it is.
If CO2 causes hot and cold, then the only logical conclusion is that CO2 has no effect at all.
BINGO!!!!!
This conclusion was reached in the successive years, 1902, 1914, 1923, 1935, 1946, 1952
by none other than the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh.
We can’t keep revisiting this. For civilisation to progress, this simply cannot be revisited.
Just a reminder, here are the two opposing positions of AGW speculation:
————–
June 4, 1999
“Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model” [Gavin Schmidt et. al.]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html
————–
Nov. 17, 2010
“Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568
————–
how do they do it? whatever is happening in weather make a paper about it, get your circle of ‘peers’ (rather, ‘pals’) to review and publish it, then say what your paper says is true because it’s published “in the literature”, and keep the funding rolling
They have published 2 or more papers connecting possible outcome with increased GHGs and the have produced model results that are in agreement with any possible outcome. The ones that fit current observations are promoted as we told you so because models show this.
It is only necessary to have 2 papers to use the plural and it is only necessary to have 3 to use the term many.
If 2 people agree it can be a consensus of peers and 2 out of 3 is a strong majority of all interviewed!
Any paper or model run that is not in agreement is set aside until needed so it can later be provided as evidence they were right all along.
If you make 200 predictions about a single event one of them will be close to accurate.
So, the cold weather hits in December, and on through the winter – and that’s when the arctic ice is VERY SIMILAR from year to year. Are they then saying the ‘low’ ice in September sets up something magical in the weather to result in the cold and snow three months later . . ? Yeah, . . right . . .
It is no longer global warming it is climate disruption we are experiencing.
The co2 is causing an excess of energy to be introduced to the climate system increasing the frequency & intensity of weather events.
Unless we act immediately there will be unprecedented global disruption and carnage.
This will be the new line I will bet on it.
In some circles that is the current line!
Well, the proof of the pudding over the next few years will be the level of the minimum annual Arctic ice extent. If it increases, it would be difficult for the AGW proponents to argue a case for it (though the media will unquestioningly put forward any explanation they come forward with), if it continues to decline… we shall see
Decline or growth it is consistent with model output and is evidence of forcing due to increased GHG concentrations. A minor shift in the ocean atmosphere weather pattern that would occur naturally is evidence of increased concentrations of GHGs due to human activity.
Weather is variable and has been for millions of years and historic records show there were more extreme weather events in the past associated with natural weather patterns that any we experienced during the 20th century.
Since the snow and ice hasn’t declined as they consistently claimed it would for the past 20 years, they just amended the party line to say more snow is now consistent with both the theory & the models.
I very much doubt they’d bother overmuch with any increase in Arctic ice being a problem. Probably just get George Monbiot to write an article claiming the extra ice was falling through the centre of the Earth from global warming sinkholes in Antartica or something similar that the true believers would instantly accept as a long held prediction of the Theory of Everything.
Giant sink holes caused by global warming moving the ice from the south pole to the north pole! I like that! Maybe Joey boy will pick it up and run with it!