Climate experts invented the term “warming hiatus.” A few months later they decided that wasn’t a good idea politically, so now they pretend it doesn’t exist.
Any “good news” like normal Arctic sea ice or the warming hiatus is considered bad news, because it threatens their funding and agenda.
Complete scum bags.
Not complete scum bags. Steve, Dangerous Destroyers that hate the productive class that supports them.
I think Jo Nova’s IPCC cartoon sez it best: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ipcc+cartoon&qpvt=ipcc+cartoon&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=068414F4A42A7314586AA2B1922F79266ED738BE&selectedIndex=6
They are the “Nimbys” of wealth. As soon as they get theirs, they want to shut the door to keep out the riff-raff.
That is a really great description of the Elite.
Yeah, they go on the internet with their electricity in their heated houses and eat food grown with tractors and shipped to them by trucks, and want everybody else to freeze and starve.
The sycophants do. The true “NIMBYs of Wealth” are too busy being rich snobs to worry about lecturing on blogs. The Sycophants are funny in that they do the bidding of the nimbys but have no hope of ever being one.
I’ll go with dangerous destroyers and complete scum bags, Gail. It’s not mutually exclusive.
Here is what they said over the years from 2005 to October 2014.
Yes, they literally are sad that the world is not burning up.
Suppose that the doctors misdiagnosed someone you loved, and they were told that they only had a short time to live. You would be happy to learn that the diagnosis was wrong, that your loved one was, in fact, going to be fine.
CAGW proponents don’t think that way…
Jason you summed it all up beautifully via this post:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/arctic-sea-ice-continues-its-move-back-to-the-35-year-mean/
Jason Calley on December 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm
“This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.”
That in itself is evidence that the CAGW so-called “scientists” are part of the scam. Consider this: suppose you sincerely believed that you were suffering from a likely-to-be terminal illness. Wouldn’t you greet any good news about your condition with enthusiasm? “Yahoo! I still have a chance!”
Suppose, on the other hand, that you were pretending to be ill so that you could get a big disability check. In that case, any good reports get ignored, and when anyone asks, “I am doing worse than I thought!”
Nice.
Hey Climatism! Thanks for the kind words! 🙂
I hope to see the day when climate fraudsters get relegated to the same page of science history where Lysenko has been consigned. It is a sorrow that so many people have fallen for their CAGW myth.
Do the CAGW proponents love anyone or anything? I doubt it.
And threatens the egos of some of the modellers. They stake their reputations on the accuracy of model predictions.
Incorrect predictions=broken grandeous self image.
I really don’t understand that. I routinely do mathematical simulations of the systems I design using both idealized formula and ideal parameters combined with field and physical test data that I use to create what I call “brute force” formula.) I run all that together and I’m thrilled when they get close to the final system’s performance. They are TOOLS that help me make design decisions and are not the product itself. I understand the methods and tolerances, some things are off by fractions and some by large margins and I allow for that in my interpretations. If they were as far off as the data I’ve seen out of CMIP I would not be doing them as my clients would have a cow if they found out I was spending their money wasting billable time on it.
What do you have against scumbags? What else am I supposed to use to bag and haul scum? Scumbags are actually useful, unlike the purely evil progressives we see backing the AGW suicide pact.
At the NY Times, Andy Revkin wrote:
“There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process [global warming]— including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/?_r=0
Admitting that the hiatus/pause/plateau exists may have cost him his Christmas bonus.
WOW!!! amazing. Given that Al Gore has already exited Green Energy stage left perhaps the climb down has finally started.
Warren Buffett on the other hand is still holding onto wind and solar… in California. For example the Antelope Valley project (solar) supposed to power 400,000 California homes and is under a 20-year power purchase agreement with Edison International for “well-above-market prices.” He got that project at bargain basement prices as it bankrupted. I imagine Buffet expects the Greenies in California to be the last hold outs as the scam fades.
Of course Buffet also has 16,400 miles of natural gas pipelines and R/R to haul natural gas and other energy companies.
Warren Buffet has also commented, much to the chagrin of true believers, on the fact that has been no increase increase in weather related insurance claims. Warren Buffet owns one of the largest insurance companies (Gen Re) in the world.
Warren Buffet is also a scumbag who probably admires George Soros’s tactics.
You do not get to be super wealthy by being a nice guy. My brother became a multimillionaire and I am so scared of the guy I never told anyone my married name or where I live except for a couple trusted relatives. Ruthless does not begin to describe him.
Gail Combs
Your former president Harry S. Truman was fond of saying “The only things you don’t know about people is the history you haven’t read”.
One take of which is that the “f***ers don’t waste much time thinking of the f***ees”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY
Seems to fit about here
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/is-it-now-considered-okay-for-science-to-be-corrupt/
I am having trouble posting. Is the trouble on your end, my side, or have I been snubbed. There is no substitute for victory. a.k.a. [email protected] From: Real Science To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:46 AM Subject: [New post] They Are So Sad #yiv6190779246 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv6190779246 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:link, #yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv6190779246 a.yiv6190779246primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv6190779246 WordPress.com | stevengoddard posted: “Climate experts invented the term “warming hiatus.” A few months later they decided that wasn’t a good idea politically, so now they pretend it doesn’t exist.Any “good news” like normal Arctic sea ice or the warming hiatus is considered bad news, beca” | |
Kenneth, I have had trouble posting yesterday and today so it is not you and it is not being snubbed. Steven very rarely censors and only after he has given ample warning.
I’ve also noticed that they’re increasingly using the term “extreme weather” due to CO2. They can’t claim “global warming” anymore, since it’s not warming anywhere other than in Gavin’s crime in progress. They can’t point to increased hurricanes, floods, droughts, ice loss, etc. since the statistics show that’s not happening. But everyday, somewhere there is an “extreme” weather event which they can point to and say, “human CO2 is making these events more likely”.
The moronic irony could not be more apparent: after all, for years they’ve been telling us that “weather isn’t climate”, but now, apparently, it is.
complete scumbags the world over are insulted by this comparison.
Interesting exchange of opinions on Twitter :-
> Richard Windsor ?@SpaceWeather101
Consensus does not make something “true”. At one time there was scientific consensus of Spontaneous Generation.
> Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
@SpaceWeather101 But it does represent the best view of the truth at any time. And that’s the most reasonable thing to base actions on.
> Peter:AVRescue ?@avrnz
@andrewwr235 @SpaceWeather101 What if “best view” shows average temps don’t increase at same times as global CO2 levels? eg. last 15+ years.
I’ll keep you posted if there are any responses.
Richard Windsor ??? As in the former EPA director?
Sorry, I don’t know … but, he describes himself as: “Retired Scientist & Engineer – I didn’t play one on TV.”
He has 16,600 followers on Twitter, here: .. https://twitter.com/SpaceWeather101
Joined Twitter in January 2012.
By the way, his large profile picture is a graphic that shows alternating warm & cold periods from 2400BC to ~2020. Whoever did the graphic obviously thinks we will soon have a short colder period with 2019 being the coldest year and then a recovery.
ok .. two tweets in response
> Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
@avrnz @SpaceWeather101 I was talking about role of consensus in scientific method.
> Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
@avrnz @SpaceWeather101 I don’t see that an observation from one particular science has any special bearing on how science is conducted.
Maybe Andrew didn’t understand what I was trying to say .. in 140 characters (including spaces and punctuation). That’s a problem with a site mainly intended for social messages.
The vast majority of Richard Windsor’s tweets are concerned with climate ‘alarmism’. (His Twitter address: @SpaceWeather101 has to be a pretty good clue!) .. So I assumed that Andrew was talking about the “consensus” argument used by mainstream climate enthusiasts.
Anyway, like Jason Calley says in a comment below: “Andrew needs to realize that consensus does NOT represent the “best view”; it only represents the most common [view].” .. The history of science shows that a new hypothesis and new papers are not necessarily incorrect if they don’t follow the “mainstream” theories. This is especially relevant if the mainstream theories seemed to largely ignore the empirical evidence and real-life observations for at least a decade and a half. .. However, there are now signs that some previously mainstream scientists are starting to investigate the pause / hiatus / plateau.
Hey Peter Yates! You quote: “> Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
@SpaceWeather101 But it does represent the best view of the truth at any time. And that’s the most reasonable thing to base actions on.”
Andrew needs to realize that consensus does NOT represent the “best view”; it only represents the most common. If “majority” was the same as “best”, then every single election would result in the best candidate winning. 🙂 If Andrew Richards is an honorable, intelligent person (and I would suspect that he really is), then he will find that using his own research and his own judgement will give him better results at discerning the truth than will following the madness of crowds.
Hurricane Sandy was the best news they had all decade, because it caused massive destruction and displaced millions of people, even though it was not a hurricane and had nothing to do with global warming, had little to do with the 9 inches of sea level rise last century.
Andrew Richards ?@andrewwr235
@SpaceWeather101 But it does represent the best view of the truth at any time. And that’s the most reasonable thing to base actions on.”
This kind of thinking is similar to ancient medical practices. The ancient “doctor” of the 1400s thinks a patient is suffering from “bad air,” which is the consensus of 97% of his contemporary “physicians”. So they agree they must take action! They agree that the patient must breathe mercury vapor to be cured.
So it is with modern climate science. They are so sure their theories are sound and conclude that “the Earth has a fever” that they will advocate everything ranging from total destruction of our energy production infrastructure to dictatorships and wacky “geo-engineering” schemes.