As of 1990, the IPCC was unaware that the planet had been heating out of control for ninety years – and that we were all going to die a fiery death.
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
This science is at least 22 years old. Who are you trying to fool by presenting old data as if it were today’s?
The Science behind “Climate” has not changed for the last 22 years.
The propaganda being produced by the Chicken Little Brigade and claimed to be science changes every day, depending on which way the wind blows.
Of course, David, you are aware of this phenomena as you are a Master Illusionator!
We try to deal with “Real World” events and shine light on the fantasy you and yours produce.
Are you crazy? Have you noticed the new satellites put up, the bigger computers now being used, the great increase in scientists, publications, funding?
Is the computer in front of you the same computer as in 1990?
Do you realize that science advances, often quickly? Can you find for me a reference to “dark energy” from 1990??
I’m curious, miked: why exactly do you think you know better than the world’s scientific community?
In what other areas of science is your opinion more worthwhile than the experts? Medicine? Engineering? Mathematics? Tell us….
I guess your reading comprehension skills are still what they were years ago also.
You should have noticed I specifically stated the SCIENCE BEHIND CLIMATE has not improved in the last 22 years.
There have been many advancements in the realm of real science and technology. The propaganda that you pull out of your posterior only gets more stagnant with age.
I was bored tonight and had to say howdy to a card carrying member of the Chicken Little Brigade.
HOWDY David!
Satellite data, far faster computers, many more people working in the field — none of that has advanced the field in any way in the last 22 years?
And, again, what makes you such a damn expert on this?
David:
It is how they process the information and use the upgraded devices that has actually deteriorated in the last 22 years as related to “Climate Science”. And the so called “Consensus”.
And what is wrong with how the process information? Are you capable of being more specific??
I must say! David: you left your “Potty Mouth” at home today!
“This science is at least 22 years old.”
Many of Hansen’s papers are older than 22 years yet are still cited ex cathedra by the IPCC. So I suspect there is a bit more to do it, than just the age of the work.
Are they cited because they exist or because they are still relevant? Are they cited even if later work gave better results?
Do you have statistics on this?
Don’t read much IPCC output then I see?
I studied geology in the 1970s. Remarkably, the past never changes. What did change is that some key players in the climate community began engaging in overt fraud about ten years ago.
You refusal to see what is right in front of your eyes speaks worlds about your character.
It is the only time the IPCC used credible charts that were based on several decades of verifiable peer reviewed science research that established the fact that there were significant climatic changes in a cyclic pattern covering several centuries at a time.
That “22 year old” data is better than that fraud “hockey Stick” that is only 14 years old and invalidated convincingly a few years ago.Who could be that stupid to allow a paper that was so far off the mark and against decades of superior research that showed the unmistakable cyclic patter of warming and cooling that were marked by The Roman warming the dark ages the Medievel warming then the LIA and now the modern warming that will end soon to be published by the IPCC that was clearly losing its credibility by year 2001 to accept a paper that was clearly wrong and only covered the … he he… NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.
You are pathetic David!
So you’re an expert on climate data? You know what 22-year old charts are credible, and which are not? And you think science hasn’t advanced in 22 years?
How, exactly, are you sharing all your vast wisdom with the world??
What sunsettommy said thar Toshinmack!
David:
Do the terms Cargo Cult Science and Pathological Science sound familiar to you?
They should as you are practicing both and you spend a lot of wasted time promoting both in the realm of CAGW alarmism.
There is NO real world science behind the BS you and yours are promoting.
Really? And why do you think your little opinion matters about the big issues of science?
(Honestly, I’d like to know. In what other areas of science are you an expert who knows better than all the professionals? Medicine? Engineering? Mathematics?
I was the systems analyst they called on when their theories went haywire.
I had to know the difference between reality and the fantasy world you live in!
Really!? That’s impressive, Mike-d!!
Who called on you, exactly? In what context? What is your name? Where is your work available for public inspection?
I am retired and it no longer matters! I do have a problem with frauds like your group of Chicken Littles.
Toshinmack, is on the rag again I see. 😆
>> I am retired and it no longer matters! <<
Clearly, though, you are afraid to be known for the fool that you are.
Bravo.
Apparently Toshinmack, you aren’t afraid to be known for the fool that you are.
Bravo Zolo back @ ya! 😆
David:
In the 80s and 90s it was known that it would take at least 150 years to even start getting an idea of long term climate conditions, due to the complexity of known long term weather patterns. Today they think 30 years of partial weather patterns represent something other than natural weather conditions.
The weather we see today is actually milder than the weather that has been experienced during many periods in recorded history. Those extreme weather events will be experienced again in the future as the weather patterns repeat, as they do from time to time.
You and yours have managed to regress scientific understanding to that of the cave man era and the Mayans that sacrificed peasants to control the weather.
You would be as well off getting advise from this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYgOlqinH7A
>> In the 80s and 90s it was known that it would take at least 150 years to even start getting an idea of long term climate conditions, due to the complexity of known long term weather patterns..<<
Says who?
Really, says who? Tell us, Mike-d.
Because by 1980 a great many scientists had already warning about the potential for carbon dioxide emissions to change the climate:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
I thought any research prior to the 90’s was outdated?
Will:
It was , however there has been little real scientific research done in the field of Climate Science since then and there are only a few real climate scientists. 😉
Hey Toshinmack, same goes fer you thar, Who called on you? In what context? Why should we give a shit what you think?
David that hypothesis has been around for many years, but there is STILL NO testable Theory. No testable theory, No Science!
Really mike-d? Who do you work for again? Why are you afraid to put your real name behind your claims??
Are you familiar with studies like these, mikey?
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
:
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html
David:
FYI, Peer review don’t mean shit in the real world. Truth and actual results are what matters. If the experiment can be replicated by an independent researcher it will stand a chance as being recognized as real science. That has not happened in the fairy tale world of Climate Science. That field is still in the realm of Pathological Science!
Really?
And what does it mean if people make huge claims but don’t have the basic cojones to put their real name behind them?
Appell, recently in one of your typical blog posts you posted an anonymous graph purporting to show US corporate profits accelerating like a hockey stick, when a few minutes of googling on the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) site would have shown those numbers to be bogus?
Why do you make huge claims but don’t have the cojones to use credible sources for your information? Are you an economics crank in addition to your general crankisms?
Wah Wah Wah….. they wont use their real names! 😆
Will: while I’m glad you spend your time reading my blog, your should note that I said where the graph came from: the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.
Read better.
Wah Wah Wah……Federal Reserve Bank … Waaaah. 😆
Have you ever wondered why I immediately disregard you?
Have you ever wondered that I don’t care what you think! 😆
@David, the graph did come off the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. The image was hosted on a generic server. There was no identifying information on the graph itself, which is also unusual. So if this comes down to taking your word for it, then sorry I don’t.
@Will: You are a liar. The graph says “FRED” in its bottom left corner, and the first line of my post links to it:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/11/while-corporate-profits-soar.html
Are you a liar, or can you not read??.
Wah Wah Wah…… FRED Liar Waaaaaah! 😆
@David, maybe you’re just an idiot… Let me type slowly…
The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis is irrelevant because the graph is claimed to be from the BEA, but there is no way to check this. No citations. It could have been made by a school kid for all I know. Or just someone’s screw-up.
Now, if you visit a credible site, hint hint, the actual BEA website, the data there looks nothing like what is found on this graph. E.g.,
http://blog.bea.gov/category/corporate-profits/
I presume you did no fact checking because if you want something to be true, and you find something anonymous that meshes with what you already believe, it must be true, right?
(In the anonymous graph corporate profits spiral like a hockey stick from 2008-2012. In the actual correctly sourced BEA analysis, corporate profits are flat to declining over the same time period.)
Do you really mean you can’t tell the difference between a time series graph and a percentage-change graph?
Aren’t you supposed to be some kind of A-level engineer, whatever the hell that means, smarter than everyone else?
I understand one graph is a % change from the previous quarter. The other graph – who the fuck knows what it’s plotting. Presumably you do, right? So just point me to where on the BEA website this graph is found. Thanks.
Here is another clue for you, Mr Dope with a PhD. Go to the actual data of the link I gave you. Go to table 11. Take a look at line 3. That’s actual corporate profits correctly adjusted in dollars. Other than the recovery in 2009 from the financial crisis, do you see anything that vaguely resembles a hockey stick? Numbers are flat, aren’t they?
So, Will, not only have you outflanked all the world’s climate scientists, you also know more about US national income data, and have time to spot trivial errors from the professional economists at the Federal Reserve *AND* the Bureau of Economic Analysis?
And in your spare time you are some kind of world class engineer in — where? — the UK? Really?
Very, very impressive Will. How *DO* you do it?
No, I can just read a table of numbers from a verifiable source.
Something, apparently, you’re too stupid to do.
😆
Given your genius — your gift — you ability to see what everyone else cannot — have you thought of running for Prime Minister, or the head of the UN, or President of the Galaxy??
I am afraid your talents are being seriously wasted.
That is my real name. That has been my real name for 65 years. That was also my real name when we were arguing your pushing fairy tales over six years ago.
I always answer to Mike, although Michael is on my birth certificate, that was issued by Multnoma General Hospital
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
David the pile higher and deeper PHDer Appell is back once again to show the world his world class rotten communication skills and reasoning powers he ponderously spews out.
I see that an engineer Will goes in circles around the butterball Appell about a source he refuses to accept even thought it is the OFFICIAL BEA website he asking you where the graph you wet your pants over is located.
Here is it from Will himself:
“So just point me to where on the BEA website this graph is found. Thanks.”
Still no answer from the PHDer…..
Try using some original thinking and dredge up that graph Will has asked about will ya David?
So you think that professional economists don’t notice if there is a major data inconsistency between BEA and FRED?
That’s really your position??
ROFLMAO!
Read this again David:
“So just point me to where on the BEA website this graph is found. Thanks.”
We are waiting to be gobsmacked by you that you can answer a simple question that you seem reluctant to answer.
Could it be too much book learning getting in the way heck Will N. even felt sorry for you to give you the answer already but you are too busy eating those food pellets that comes out of the DVD slot of your pink computer to notice.
LMAO!
It doesn’t require much brains to make an idiot look stupid. The only thing that is vaguely interesting about Appell is that he has a PhD. Maybe he is an idiot savant? Although I’m inclined to think there is more idiot there, than savant.
Will, Pals have degrees. Toe the line and you get one. I have met more than one idiot with a PhD.
David shows his feeble sparring skills with this bullshit:
“So you’re an expert on climate data? You know what 22-year old charts are credible, and which are not? And you think science hasn’t advanced in 22 years?
How, exactly, are you sharing all your vast wisdom with the world??”
This is called defelection fella that shows you have nothing substantive to come back with.
Did it ever penetrate your feeble brain that the 22 year old charts are still valid and based on many peer reviewed science papers and even numerous historical evidence publised over many decades that the pathetic “hockey stick” failed to supplant?
Why did you waste your PHD degree anyway David?
:
It never even occurs to Appell that in a few seconds he can google up the IPCC AR4 reports, download them and click on the References link for each section. Where he will see papers going back to at least the ’60’s.
E.g.,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-references.html
There is a 28 year old reference to a Hansen paper in that particular list. There are numerous papers cited there going back to the beginning of the ’60’s. I don’t think there are any papers from the ’50’s, though. Nobody gave a rat’s arse about ecology back in the ’50’s. Scientists were still doing useful things back then, like trying to build nuclear powered rocket ships. 😉
David A. will say something like this since his renown PHD built brain keeps getting in the way of being rational and logical:
“Are they cited because they exist or because they are still relevant? Are they cited even if later work gave better results?
Do you have statistics on this?”
Go ask the IPCC since they think that papers published several decades ago can still be useful.I am sure you will ignore the fact that an engineer named Will N. is making a fool of you in the thread and you will not understand why we are laughing all around you because you are so gosh darn SMART!
Maybe he is busy running for Prime Minister, err the head of the UN, err President of the Galaxy, err stuffing his gob with something. 😆
David Appell first says this as comment #2::
“This science is at least 22 years old. Who are you trying to fool by presenting old data as if it were today’s?”
But much later now says this about James Hansens long discredited research that Will N. points out http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/what-if-the-world-was-heating-out-of-control-and-the-ipcc-didnt-notice/#comment-165492:
David says,
“Are they cited because they exist or because they are still relevant? Are they cited even if later work gave better results?
Do you have statistics on this?”
The continuing low level thinking from a PHD degree holder.
LOL
He has that warmcold something bad, Me thinks! 😆
Yeah his head is full of warmcold and that is why he can’t find the cure because he is so SMART!!!
I criticised Appell’s original generalisation that implied that any science that was a few decades old was obsolete.
Yep and and running on his bullshit premise would mean that Einsteins two papers are obsolete because it was published in 1905 and 1916 but he must be right because he has a PHD and is gosh darn amazingly SMART!
As an aside, when Appell blogged about his uncited anonymous graph proporting to show the US corporate profits hockey stick, the illustrious William Connolley jumped in as the first commenter. Of course, he didn’t question the origins of the graph, either. That would require being not stupid.
If memory still serves, I remember that Will and Dave got their PHDs when those were being given as prizes at Mc Donald’s with a Happy Meal!
It would be even more fun to have the Water Closet stop by and comment, because little Willy tends to get his panties even more bunched up than Davy. 😉
Bottom line –
CO2 up; Temperature down.
No PhD required.