Now alarmists claim that cold winters are caused by the greenhouse effect. The mark of a truly dishonest religion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
h/t to “Jimbo”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
I don’t think the public is remotely aware of the flawed science behind this scam. Everyone should be made to know that most of the additional CO2 is settling out and not increasing the greenhouse effect.
To be fair the article does state “….can expect winters that are both warmer and wetter, with increased rain and snow.” HOWEVER, they said
The winters in their stated NH areas are anything but warm. This is a problem. To compound the problem we have a paper in 2010.
What utter crock!
lol, f’n internets………its getting harder and harder to revise history!
It’s those dang upper atmosphere winds again……….
It is the GAV again!
We can expect this trend to continue for 2 to 3 more decades!!!!!
That is what they said in the 70s about cooling. It seems they cry the loudest when the trend has changed and they are trying their best to divert people’s attention from the change.
Once upon a time I went to his web site and read what they had to say. I made comments about such things as trees under glaciers and the response was that I should provide links. No matter how many links I provided none appeared on the site.
Surrealclimate earned that name and their Chicken Little Brigade are still telling every one the sky is falling contrary to real world evidence.
If you change what is expected to be the signature for AGW / ACD you can claim anything but reality shows you are practicing pathological science.
that means you have even more evidence of fraud
and it will all come tumbling down.
You have peer reviewed papers that show their work is fraudulent. any honest scientist can publish a review that points out the truth and the unscientific procedures that climate scientists have used to perpetuate fraud. It will be peer reviewed and then the fraudulent research will have to be retracted.
How much longer can the fraud be maintained?
What does it have to do with fraud?
Once upon a time I also went to his website. A Warmist aksed me to provide peer reviewed papers that run contrary to AGW. I provided JUST ONE LINK with multiple peer reveiwed papers. Gavin told me point blank that he deleted the link because it was “crap”.
Another time a warmist told me that they were not being alarmist. I gave the the link to the Warmlist and this was also deleted. Yet we are called deniers. ;>)
How could it be argued otherwise and give the benefit of the doubt when for example Santer 08 cut off their “analysis” in 1999? When extended through 2008 the models exaggerated warming 200-400%.
Sure there is confirmation bias, but is that really where we’re at now? To me it is obvious these charlatans are mining for the answers they want, and that goes well beyond just making simple mistakes.
LOL check the related stories on the sidebar…
How do you say CONTRADICTION!
I have always heard that opposites attract! 😉
Global Warming covers everything.
So Global Cooling cannot exist, because even when we enter the next ice age, this will be a caused by AGW…..what a pile…..
As a commenter elsewhere remarked, ” If it gets much hotter we’ll all freeze do death!”.
They really just make this crap up as they go along, which is why fewer and fewer people are buying it.
You forget the money. A lot of people make a lot of money on this, like Gavin. A lot of businesses have invested heavily in it like, like Eron, BP and GE. Political parties have staked there voting futures on it. Where do they go as it unravels? Do you expect them to roll over and forget it? Basically you are seeing the development of an alternate reality, divorced from the physical world. AGW will not die, however chilling that is (pun intended)
I blame all of the Inuits who opened up their fridges last month.
This is directly related to my oft held statement that once the jetstreams started to move back equatorward again (first noted by me in 2000) then AGW ceased to have any credibility.
The fact is that a world with poleward jets is a warming world for whatever reason and a world with more equatorward jets is a cooling world.
Since CO2 has been increasing throughout it cannot have a significant effect in the face of natural variability.
See my latest thinking here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
Very interesting theory. It’ll be interesting to see how the AO/NAO and jet shifts play out.
It should not be forgotten that AGW blamed anthropogenic causes for the domination of the positive NAO, with models suggesting this ‘mode’ would continue to dominate in the future.
As long as 80% of working scientists are liberal (recent study) and 90% of the media are also liberal (many studies), you can expect this sort of pseudo-science to be thrust upon us. These are “ends justify the means” people and cannot be reasoned with.