Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

Here's the killer admission:

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

Would the Pope admit that there is no god?

and yet again... no ACC hysterics willing to comment.

No, they never like to be drawn out on anything unfavourable to their religious beliefs.

too busy manipulating raw data it seems, you know, got to make it fit the message scare

Rider wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

too busy manipulating raw data it seems, you know, got to make it fit the message scare

probably true. They do have a disturbing history of data manipulation.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

and yet again... no ACC hysterics willing to comment.

This is why I have been asking them for years now - how much carbon in percentage terms do humans contribute to the carbon cycle

If we contribute only 1% - then any cuts will be meaningless

If we contribute 50% then human cuts will have an impact

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 10:49am: and yet again... no ACC hysterics willing to comment. This is why I have been asking them for years now - how much carbon in percentage terms do humans contribute to the carbon cycle If we contribute only 1% - then any cuts will be meaningless If we contribute 50% then human cuts will have an impact

With that question though, you are still assuming CO2 has a great impact on temperature, when it doesn't. Co2 is still a trace gas regardless of what humans do and the feedbacks are not what the AGW religious types are saying. Water vapour has not changed, there is not a hot spot ect.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 11:41am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 10:49am: and yet again... no ACC hysterics willing to comment. This is why I have been asking them for years now - how much carbon in percentage terms do humans contribute to the carbon cycle If we contribute only 1% - then any cuts will be meaningless If we contribute 50% then human cuts will have an impact With that question though, you are still assuming CO2 has a great impact on temperature, when it doesn't.

I posted some time ago that CO2 makes up 0.00024% of the Earth's atmospher

It is also interesting that they are using "greenhouse gas" now instead of carbon emission

It's also interesting to note that greenhouse gases are mostly water vapours

Water is a very good vessel to carry heat - hence global warming

Lefties also notice I posted sometime back about Observational Science. It's about picking on something, collect data and try to make correlation

So if it's global warming then they simply look at the atmosphere, pick a component in the atmosphere relating to humans and attribute the change to humans

Carbon Dioxide is one of the least abundant component in the atmosphere yet they chose to pick on it because it relates to humans

hadrian_now wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 9:10am:

Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme. Would the Pope admit that there is no god?

Would Americans- not to mentian america  ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o- admit that its Nuclear Weapons are impotent???

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6223/161/1600/jumper11.jpg

?????  :o

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 11:50am: Maqqa wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 11:41am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 10:49am: and yet again... no ACC hysterics willing to comment. This is why I have been asking them for years now - how much carbon in percentage terms do humans contribute to the carbon cycle If we contribute only 1% - then any cuts will be meaningless If we contribute 50% then human cuts will have an impact With that question though, you are still assuming CO2 has a great impact on temperature, when it doesn't. I posted some time ago that CO2 makes up 0.00024% of the Earth's atmospher It is also interesting that they are using "greenhouse gas" now instead of carbon emission It's also interesting to note that greenhouse gases are mostly water vapours Water is a very good vessel to carry heat - hence global warming Lefties also notice I posted sometime back about Observational Science. It's about picking on something, collect data and try to make correlation So if it's global warming then they simply look at the atmosphere, pick a component in the atmosphere relating to humans and attribute the change to humans Carbon Dioxide is one of the least abundant component in the atmosphere yet they chose to pick on it because it relates to humans

:o :o :o :o :o

it's all systems dood!

go anti-intellectualism: this is what makes america gun crazy!!

you are such a drongo deaddog. you cant even post on topic.

What 300 ppm looks like ...


http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/07/what-does-800-ppm-co2-look-like-vs-300-ppm-this-is-what-panics-the-ecofascists.html

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

What 300 ppm looks like ... http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/07/what-does-800-ppm-co2-look-like-vs-300-ppm-this-is-what-panics-the-ecofascists.html

The interesting thing about that is the "ppm"

Parts per million

If we look at every components in the atmosphere as equalling 1,000,000 balls - then 300 of those balls are CO2

And they are saying these 300 balls are somehow keeping the heat inside the atmosphere to heat it up?

But lets ignore a much bigger heating source like......I don't know......THE SUN

and now the IPCC is pretty much saying ... 'oops! we were wrong!"

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 2:52pm: What 300 ppm looks like ... http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/07/what-does-800-ppm-co2-look-like-vs-300-ppm-this-is-what-panics-the-ecofascists.html The interesting thing about that is the "ppm" Parts per million If we look at every components in the atmosphere as equalling 1,000,000 balls - then 300 of those balls are CO2 And they are saying these 300 balls are somehow keeping the heat inside the atmosphere to heat it up? But lets ignore a much bigger heating source like......I don't know......THE SUN

Also some greenhouses are pumped full of co2 at the rate of 1200 ppm as co2 is plant food, does the plants no harm, nor the humans that work in there.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 3:56pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 3:11pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 2:52pm: What 300 ppm looks like ... http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/07/what-does-800-ppm-co2-look-like-vs-300-ppm-this-is-what-panics-the-ecofascists.html The interesting thing about that is the "ppm" Parts per million If we look at every components in the atmosphere as equalling 1,000,000 balls - then 300 of those balls are CO2 And they are saying these 300 balls are somehow keeping the heat inside the atmosphere to heat it up? But lets ignore a much bigger heating source like......I don't know......THE SUN Also some greenhouses are pumped full of co2 at the rate of 1200 ppm as co2 is plant food, does the plants no harm, nor the humans that work in there.

even then - it's still 1,200 out of the million so you'd think there are plenty of room for heat to escape

they are telling us that 300 carbon dioxide atoms in 1,000,000 parts is keeping the heat in

The alternative example is having a ball of hot air

You punch 1,000,000 holes in the ball then cover up 300 holes

Lefties are telling us that these 300 holes are what keeping the hot air from escaping

I think what they are trying to tell us is that anything above 300ppm will keep a lot of UN bludgers and layabouts in a job  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Lefties are telling us that these 300 holes are what keeping the hot air from escaping

Not "lefties", AGW alarmists.

Not all AGW disciples are "lefties", and not all "lefties" are AGW disciples.

I'm a "lefty" and I really don't like being associated with these AGW alarmists.    ;)

Quote:

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/12/14/deniers-reach-for-cherry-come-up-with-pits/ Professor Steve Sherwood, of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, is a lead author on Chapter 7. Commenting on the publicly-quoted paragraph about cosmic rays (the one cited by Delingpole as a “game changer) Professor Sherwood told me The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers (note the crucial word “seems”) purporting significant cosmic-ray influences on climate.  Its existence in the draft is proof that we considered all peer-reviewed literature, including potentially important papers that deviate from the herd.  The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect.  The absence of evidence for significant cosmic-ray effects is clearly stated in the executive summary. This guy’s spin is truly bizarre.  Anyone who would buy the idea that this is a “game changer” is obviously not really looking at what is there.

The IPCC has made no such admission has it???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 6:24pm:

Quote: http://climatecrocks.com/2012/12/14/deniers-reach-for-cherry-come-up-with-pits/ Professor Steve Sherwood, of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, is a lead author on Chapter 7. Commenting on the publicly-quoted paragraph about cosmic rays (the one cited by Delingpole as a “game changer) Professor Sherwood told me The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers (note the crucial word “seems”) purporting significant cosmic-ray influences on climate.  Its existence in the draft is proof that we considered all peer-reviewed literature, including potentially important papers that deviate from the herd.  The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect.  The absence of evidence for significant cosmic-ray effects is clearly stated in the executive summary. This guy’s spin is truly bizarre.  Anyone who would buy the idea that this is a “game changer” is obviously not really looking at what is there. The IPCC has made no such admission has it??? ::) ::) ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

Sherwood uses theory—his dissatisfaction with one theory of how solar amplification might work—to ignore the (admitted) evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. Putting theory over evidence is not science. It is the exact definitional opposite of science (see Feynman snippet above).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/

and from JoNova

Alec Rawls responds to Steven Sherwood: “The professor is inverting the scientific method”

Much to read.


References
Bond et al. 2001, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science.

Di Rita, 2011, “A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy,” Quaternary International.

Neff et al. 2001, “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago,” Nature.

Ogurtsov et al, 2010, “Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity,” JASTP.

Raspopov et al, 2011, “Variations in climate parameters at time intervals from hundreds to tens of millions of years in the past and its relation to solar activity,” JASTP.

Shaviv and Veizer, 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today.

Solheim et al. 2011, “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” submitted astro-ph.

Tan et al, 2011, “Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force,” Clim. Past.

Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/alec-rawls-responds-to-steven-sherwood-the-bad-professor-is-inverting-the-scientific-method/

I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is.
You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.
I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:

I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is. You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon.

As you can see Mozz, most of us refused to give the loonies recognition by validating their  stupidity with replies.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 8:40am:

Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. Here's the killer admission: Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties. As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer: The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself. Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

Watts Up With That

You are kidding, RIGHT?

skippy. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 9:40pm: I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is. You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon. As you can see Mozz, most of us refused to give the loonies recognition by validating their  stupidity with replies.

Yes, I get the drift of what you are saying skip, and I generally agree in principle, and if it was just Maqqa with one of his innumerable prayers to the god of ultra conservatism, I would not have bothered.
While it seems the right thing to do, to challenge the legitimacy of some of the more preposterous falsehoods trotted out to support the ultra conservative ideological line, it makes no difference to the die hards, who can witness a complete and impeccably presented refutation of their false beliefs, without accepting any of it.
They just ignore the evidence, and repeat the lie down the track, thereby making it a truism for them and like minded folk.
It seems that all they need to convert lies and misinformation into truisms is to keep repeating them, a la the style of folk like maqqa and matty, which is why I follow your advice in regard to those guys, skip, and rarely bother responding to them, or their drivel.

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 8:40am: Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. Here's the killer admission: Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties. As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer: The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself. Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme. Watts Up With That You are kidding, RIGHT?

Well you didnt think the IPCC reviewers would leak and comment about AR5 on that propaganda site skeptical science did you.

Shoot the messenger all you like, but this is not WUWT as a reviewer or leaker or the main commenter.

skippy. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 9:40pm: I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is. You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon. As you can see Mozz, most of us refused to give the loonies recognition by validating their  stupidity with replies.

Ohhhh. Now that sux. I am sure people are as upset with you not responding to them, as much as they are when you do with your abuse.

::) ::) ::)

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 10:08pm: mozzaok wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 9:40pm: I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is. You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon. As you can see Mozz, most of us refused to give the loonies recognition by validating their  stupidity with replies. Yes, I get the drift of what you are saying skip, and I generally agree in principle, and if it was just Maqqa with one of his innumerable prayers to the god of ultra conservatism, I would not have bothered. While it seems the right thing to do, to challenge the legitimacy of some of the more preposterous falsehoods trotted out to support the ultra conservative ideological line, it makes no difference to the die hards, who can witness a complete and impeccably presented refutation of their false beliefs, without accepting any of it. They just ignore the evidence, and repeat the lie down the track, thereby making it a truism for them and like minded folk. It seems that all they need to convert lies and misinformation into truisms is to keep repeating them, a la the style of folk like maqqa and matty, which is why I follow your advice in regard to those guys, skip, and rarely bother responding to them, or their drivel.

And those leftiest who seen the 1200 pages report on Thomo still won't accept it so why bother now?

;D





http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Cartoon-Climate-change_grants.jpg

Basic science = stop chopping down the trees. Is That part of any of the politics though?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 19^th, 2012 at 4:18am:

Basic science = stop chopping down the trees. Is That part of any of the politics though? SOB

More trees = good, now there's an argument you could easily win ... but trying to convince us all that a bunch of UN shysters and bullshit artists and a completely sucked in gillard government should rape us all via a carbon tax then give the money to African war lords to buy AK47's in the name of climate change and saving the planet is an argument you will never win  ;)

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:

I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is. You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon.

no, they are now saying that many of their previous predictions and statements on CC are simply wrong. its a big deal for a bady that struggles to alter its position.

skippy. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 9:40pm: I look forward to seeing the "ACTUAL" Report, to see just how false this argument is. You are saying that they are coming out and agreeing with all the nutjob denialists, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I do not believe that will be the thrust of their report, and I believe this hooha is just more of the blatant lying and spreading of false information that denialists thrive upon. As you can see Mozz, most of us refused to give the loonies recognition by validating their  stupidity with replies.

you lack the ability to respond on topic. you had to wait until someone with a brain (mozza) posted so you could jump in with your usual 'me too'.

you are a moron. and even those on your own side of politics agree.

God the denier/conservatives on this site are smacking gullible.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sun-climate-moving-opposite-directions.html

Upton Sinclair wrote on Dec 20^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

God the denier/conservatives on this site are smacking gullible. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sun-climate-moving-opposite-directions.html

plenty of evidence to support opposing opinions. the most disgraceful aspect of you climate change hysterics is your abuse of those with contrary opinions. And of course we expect that to get worse as the IPCCs predictions continue to fail and warming continues to not happen.

must be a bummer to ahve chosn the wrong side of the debate.

Quite a bit of activity going on on this subject and it is not looking good for the catastrophic climate change religion.

catastrophic climate change religion is beginning to be seen as another scientology.

Washington Times:  EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news

New leak shows predictions of planetary warming have been overstated.

Forbes: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly

Investors Business Daily: Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.’s Claims

PowerLine: Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?

Climate scientist Richard Betts thanks Nic Lewis for “constructive contribution” to climate sensitivity debate. http://t.co/TU02i5rf

http://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/281706335320555521

Media Matters: WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud (citing the duds dudes at “Skeptical Science”)

The Telegraph, Delingpole: Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell

Tom Nelson points out this fun exchange between Matt Ridley and William Connolley (with an e) via James Delingpole:

Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned …


Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall’s place http://timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-squib/ …

One of my favorite parts in Connolley’s string of angry, generally stupid comments is this one, where he trashes the IPCC


[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.

Is climate change really a damp squib?


[Matt Ridley's sane, measured response] …I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.

I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.

Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/20/climate-sensitivity-low-alarmist-sensitivity-high/#more-76034

Upton Sinclair wrote on Dec 20^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

God the denier/conservatives on this site are smacking gullible. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sun-climate-moving-opposite-directions.html

Here is one for the skeptical science propaganda site

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/20/wsjs-climate-dynamite-is-a-dud/191923

hadrian_now wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 9:10am:

Would the Pope admit that there is no god?

There is room for only one. I am he. I am Saladin. I am the Mahdi, the Right Guided One, the Expected One.

I am the Mahdi.

I don't see how anyone could believe in such lunacy as "global warming". Been smoking the funny stuff too long with Flannery.

matty wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 7:01pm:

I don't see how anyone could believe in such lunacy as "global warming". Been smoking the funny stuff too long with Flannery.

As per my example the other day matty

They said CO2 increased from 300 to 350 ppm - parts per million

If you take the example of a bag full of hot air

You punch 1,000,000 holes in it and covered up 350 holes

Lefties are saying the 350 covered up holes are keeping all the heat in

The only holes on Earth are the ar$eholes on the left

matty wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 7:01pm:

I don't see how anyone could believe in such lunacy as "global warming". Been smoking the funny stuff too long with Flannery.

It's called physics, Matty. You really are a dill if you let Watts digest the facts for you.

I would seem the IPCC dont just survey the already available scientific literature on climate change and figures out what it all means. IPCC are involved in made to order papers, not even written yet. (pal-reviewed no doubt)

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/20/this-is-called-cheating-part-1/

And yet an Abbott led govt has the same targets for CO2 reduction as the present Gillard govt.
It looks like the deniers have no where to turn except for nut bag shock jocks and fossil fuel industry lobbyists.

Get this


The names of those selected to write the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report were only announced in June 2010. But nine full months before that, in September 2009, the IPCC’s chairman already knew what this report was going to say.

Here’s what he told a live audience in New York:


Quote:

When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’

Long before the authors were selected, years before they’d slaved away at thousands of pages of text, well before they’d taken time from their normal work lives to board flights to meetings in San Francisco, Buenos Aires, Japan, South Africa, and New Zealand, the chairman not only knew what they were going to say, he knew that their conclusions would be so dramatic the public response would be OMG.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/22/this-is-called-cheating-part-2/

The scientific evidence is already out there..climate change is upon us already and is accelerating faster than previously predicted.
The denialists are a shrinking minority and by the end of the decade the only denialists left will be in rubber rooms mumbling to themselves and dribbling into sippy cups.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 26^th, 2012 at 8:54am:

The scientific evidence is already out there..climate change is upon us already and is accelerating faster than previously predicted. The denialists are a shrinking minority and by the end of the decade the only denialists left will be in rubber rooms mumbling to themselves and dribbling into sippy cups.

Just because AGW wack jobs are desperate, does not make it true just by repeating it. I know I can I know I can, only works sometimes. Saying we have moved on and the science is in, is in no means going to make a pseudo science into a real science.

Among the comments are a few by economist Richard Tol, who’s currently in charge of a chapter in the IPCC’s Working Group 2 section.

Here’s an edited version of what he says about the yet-to-be written papers due to be published in the upcoming special issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS):


The PNAS special issue is devious for the following reason. It reports on a model comparison exercise…The lowest common denominator – the comparitor – in these models is the impact climate change would have, without adaptation, on today’s world.

We know from the literature that adaptation greatly reduces the impact of climate change. We know that future vulnerability to climate change will be very different from today, and probably much lower – for instance, concerns about the impact of climate change on malaria vanish if and when a vaccine will be developed.

The PNAS special issue will therefore not compare our best estimates of the impacts of climate change, but rather our worst-case estimates. It is alarmist by default (some would say by construction).

…We discussed the PNAS Special Issue in [my chapter] and decided that we’re not going to fall for it. Will other chapters follow suit? Because the PNAS Special Issue will appear just before the cut-off date, [IPCC external reviewers] will have little to no chance to comment on inappropriate use of this material.

[read his full remarks here]
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=cdee124b11d6baacda6c3e29b12e23dc&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fnofrakkingconsensus.com%2F2012%2F12%2F22%2Fthis-is-called-cheating-part-2%2F&v=1&libid=1356475512013&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bishop-hill.net%2Fblog%2F2012%2F12%2F21%2Fcheating-at-the-ipcc.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnofrakkingconsensus.com%2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fthis-is-called-cheating-part-1%2F&title=This%20Is%20Called%20Cheating%20(Part%202)%20%C2%AB%20NoFrakkingConsensus&txt=read%20his%20full%20remarks%20here&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13564763463422

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 26^th, 2012 at 8:56am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 26th, 2012 at 8:54am: The scientific evidence is already out there..climate change is upon us already and is accelerating faster than previously predicted. The denialists are a shrinking minority and by the end of the decade the only denialists left will be in rubber rooms mumbling to themselves and dribbling into sippy cups. Just because AGW wack jobs are desperate, does not make it true just by repeating it. I know I can I know I can, only works sometimes. Saying we have moved on and the science is in, is in no means going to make a pseudo science into a real science.

These days denialists are as rare as hens teeth and as people realise that the fossil fuel (ex tobacco) lobbyists and crazy arsed Shock Jocks have been having a lend of them denialists are an endangered species.
There will always be a handful of people who are to ashamed to admit they were conned but the sooner they come over the sooner they can begin to mend their broken egos.
Denialists are as doomed as Beta Video players and the Easter Island natives

adelcrow wrote on Dec 26^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 26th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Dec 26th, 2012 at 8:54am: The scientific evidence is already out there..climate change is upon us already and is accelerating faster than previously predicted. The denialists are a shrinking minority and by the end of the decade the only denialists left will be in rubber rooms mumbling to themselves and dribbling into sippy cups. Just because AGW wack jobs are desperate, does not make it true just by repeating it. I know I can I know I can, only works sometimes. Saying we have moved on and the science is in, is in no means going to make a pseudo science into a real science. These days denialists are as rare as hens teeth and as people realise that the fossil fuel (ex tobacco) lobbyists and crazy arsed Shock Jocks have been having a lend of them denialists are an endangered species. There will always be a handful of people who are to ashamed to admit they were conned but the sooner they come over the sooner they can begin to mend their broken egos. Denialists are as doomed as Beta Video players and the Easter Island natives

You are free to believe whatever you like, you are free to be indoctrinated. Its just unfortunate you are wrong, indoctrinated and in the minority.

The IPCC release a summary for p[olicy makers and they actually require authors to chamge the chapters in accordance with this perviously released document.

The IPPC methods are beyond discredited. They are a joke.

IPCC = Marketing Department.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 2:27pm:

you are such a drongo deaddog. you cant even post on topic.

lol, are you telling me how to use public infrastucture??

GO TRYHARD FASCISTS, YEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

SO YA PUSHED ANY KIDS AROUND LATELY MATE??  ;) ;)

HOW 'BOUT THE WIFE???  :-[ :-[  :-*  :'(

adelcrow wrote on Dec 26^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 26th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Dec 26th, 2012 at 8:54am: The scientific evidence is already out there..climate change is upon us already and is accelerating faster than previously predicted. The denialists are a shrinking minority and by the end of the decade the only denialists left will be in rubber rooms mumbling to themselves and dribbling into sippy cups. Just because AGW wack jobs are desperate, does not make it true just by repeating it. I know I can I know I can, only works sometimes. Saying we have moved on and the science is in, is in no means going to make a pseudo science into a real science. These days denialists are as rare as hens teeth and as people realise that the fossil fuel (ex tobacco) lobbyists and crazy arsed Shock Jocks have been having a lend of them denialists are an endangered species. There will always be a handful of people who are to ashamed to admit they were conned but the sooner they come over the sooner they can begin to mend their broken egos. Denialists are as doomed as Beta Video players and the Easter Island natives

lOL, HOW ABOUT MALCOLM TURNBULL TODAY??

CAN'T WAIT FOR A RESPONSE FROM MAQQA AND LONGY!
  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maybe we can have a conference like doha, less full of ideologues and more full of scientists and named that support this BS.

As with the NASA scientist telling us that the USA heat wave is evidence of global waming, the we can be assured that the evidence of USA cold wave has the same implications but for global cooling and there is more cold than there was heat in terms of area.

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/screenhunter_364-dec-28-10-11.jpg

I hope people are reading the time frame for this graph. It tells you much about how progs and the denier blogosphere cherry pick data to construct a very rickety argument.

So what happened over a 12 month period in the US.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201112-201211.gif

You're clutching at straw, progs. Of course there will continue to be cold snaps, heat will be pushed around the system and at times it will get cold. No one is claiming the end of cold weather. However, the frequency, intensity and length of these cold periods experienced by one location will slowly decline over time.

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 5:05am:

I hope people are reading the time frame for this graph. It tells you much about how progs and the denier blogosphere cherry pick data to construct a very rickety argument. So what happened over a 12 month period in the US. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201112-201211.gif You're clutching at straw, progs. Of course there will continue to be cold snaps, heat will be pushed around the system and at times it will get cold. No one is claiming the end of cold weather. However, the frequency, intensity and length of these cold periods experienced by one location will slowly decline over time.

gotta laugh at your post MOTR.  if a sceptic posts a grpah showing record cold you mock and say it is weather, not climate. then to repudiate it you use a map of... WEATHER.

seriously, where is this much vaunted and self-assessed 'critical thinking'?

and I guess youa re also at odds with Phil Jones, head of CRU and leading climate hysteric who currently admits that there has been 'no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years'.

and you talk about CHERRY-PICKING???

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pkHmqbeE7kk/TgFaGFwd3nI/AAAAAAAAAfA/EU4MW3_QKYg/s1600/climate_fraud_cartoon.png

;D

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pkHmqbeE7kk/TgFaGFwd3nI/AAAAAAAAAfA/EU4MW3_QKYg/s1600/climate_fraud_cartoon.png ;D

so now your intellectual contribution is down to COMICS? well its a step up from your numerical misrepresentation I guess.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:52am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 7:40am: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pkHmqbeE7kk/TgFaGFwd3nI/AAAAAAAAAfA/EU4MW3_QKYg/s1600/climate_fraud_cartoon.png ;D so now your intellectual contribution is down to COMICS? well its a step up from your numerical misrepresentation I guess.

Na..I just see no reason to keep running around in circles anymore so Im going for the "a picture paints a thousands words" angle.

Come on Longy..fill me in about what the problem is with cleaning up pollution and making it easier for every country to be energy independent.
The denialists are only panicking because they cant imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels for energy.
Its like someone addicted to cigarettes dreading the day he cant smoke anymore.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

Come on Longy..fill me in about what the problem is with cleaning up pollution and making it easier for every country to be energy independent. The denialists are only panicking because they cant imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels for energy. Its like someone addicted to cigarettes dreading the day he cant smoke anymore.

Gaia earth god gave us liquid batteries to use, not to keep in the ground to just sit there.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:54am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 8:18am: Come on Longy..fill me in about what the problem is with cleaning up pollution and making it easier for every country to be energy independent. The denialists are only panicking because they cant imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels for energy. Its like someone addicted to cigarettes dreading the day he cant smoke anymore. Gaia earth god gave us liquid batteries to use, not to keep in the ground to just sit there.

Millions of years to produce and we are digging it up and burning it in only a few hundred years..that may give you a bit of a hint as to why its creating a few issues.
You dont need a science degree to figure that out.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:30am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 8:54am: adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 8:18am: Come on Longy..fill me in about what the problem is with cleaning up pollution and making it easier for every country to be energy independent. The denialists are only panicking because they cant imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels for energy. Its like someone addicted to cigarettes dreading the day he cant smoke anymore. Gaia earth god gave us liquid batteries to use, not to keep in the ground to just sit there. Millions of years to produce and we are digging it up and burning it in only a few hundred years..that may give you a bit of a hint as to why its creating a few issues. You dont need a science degree to figure that out.

There was always going to be an uptick in knowledge gained via the use of cheap energy. There will be plenty in order to get us to another power supply. Not through scaremongering doomsday cults, but through a gradual need for it and innovation.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:45am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:30am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 8:54am: adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 8:18am: Come on Longy..fill me in about what the problem is with cleaning up pollution and making it easier for every country to be energy independent. The denialists are only panicking because they cant imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels for energy. Its like someone addicted to cigarettes dreading the day he cant smoke anymore. Gaia earth god gave us liquid batteries to use, not to keep in the ground to just sit there. Millions of years to produce and we are digging it up and burning it in only a few hundred years..that may give you a bit of a hint as to why its creating a few issues. You dont need a science degree to figure that out. There was always going to be an uptick in knowledge gained via the use of cheap energy. There will be plenty in order to get us to another power supply. Not through scaremongering doomsday cults, but through a gradual need for it and innovation.

Well...that has nothing to do with what I wrote  :D

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

I posted some time ago that CO2 makes up 0.00024% of the Earth's atmospher It is also interesting that they are using "greenhouse gas" now instead of carbon emission It's also interesting to note that greenhouse gases are mostly water vapours Water is a very good vessel to carry heat - hence global warming Carbon Dioxide is one of the least abundant component in the atmosphere yet they chose to pick on it because it relates to humans

LOL Maqqa, you either have absolutely no idea about science (in which case you should really stop making a fool of yourself in a global warming debate) or you are being deliberately misleading (Probably both).

The earths atmosphere is a natural greenhouse. If we didn't have the natural levels of water vapor, CO2, CH4 etc to keep us warm our planet would be at least 30 degrees colder.

The problem is that by burning fossil fuels and large scale deforestation there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere. If you increase the levels of these greenhouse gasses you will increase the temperature.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 11:56am: I posted some time ago that CO2 makes up 0.00024% of the Earth's atmospher It is also interesting that they are using "greenhouse gas" now instead of carbon emission It's also interesting to note that greenhouse gases are mostly water vapours Water is a very good vessel to carry heat - hence global warming Carbon Dioxide is one of the least abundant component in the atmosphere yet they chose to pick on it because it relates to humans LOL Maqqa, you either have absolutely no idea about science (in which case you should really stop making a fool of yourself in a global warming debate) or you are being deliberately misleading (Probably both). The earths atmosphere is a natural greenhouse. If we didn't have the natural levels of water vapor, CO2, CH4 etc to keep us warm our planet would be at least 30 degrees colder. The problem is that by burning fossil fuels and large scale deforestation there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere. If you increase the levels of these greenhouse gasses you will increase the temperature.

A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 8:40am:

Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. Here's the killer admission: Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties. As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer: The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself. Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

Hmmm, more Longy -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change

A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.

Rawls highlights a paragraph on page 43 of chapter 7, which he calls "a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole".

Cosmic influence
The paragraph discusses the purported effects of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) on Earth's climate. We know that the sun's activity, or solar irradiance, varies on an 11-year cycle, and at its peak it can slightly raise global temperatures. GCRs could, in theory, amplify the effects of the solar cycle and lead to even more warming.

Rawls highlights this sentence from the IPCC draft report: "The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

Essentially, this says that observed changes in the sun's brightness over the last century have been small, and that their apparent effects on Earth's climate have been larger than might be expected. Therefore, you might think that some other mechanism was amplifying the sun's effects – such as the aforementioned cosmic rays.

Rawls claims this means that the sun's effects on Earth's climate have been much larger than climate scientists have been prepared to admit, and that the sun could therefore be the reason for the warming Earth has experienced in the last century. He writes: "Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing."

Wishful sceptics
Climate scientists are lining up to debunk this claim, and to explain that the bloggers have simply got it wrong. "They're misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say," says solar expert Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London.

Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. "They conclude there's very little evidence that it has any effect," she says.

In fact, the report summary reaffirms that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are the main reason for rising temperatures. It goes on to detail the many harmful effects, from more frequent heatwaves to rising sea levels.

What the sun does
Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. "If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985." The last three decades have seen continuing warming, with the last decade the warmest on record.

"If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."

Link -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does.

But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature.

H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain.

Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant.

Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases.

Quote:

Wishful sceptics Climate scientists are lining up to debunk this claim, and to explain that the bloggers have simply got it wrong. "They're misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say," says solar expert Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London.

Granted, some are just plain dumb, lets face it a few posters here don't know the difference between climate change and the weather, cods consistently asks for it to be explained. But on the other hand you have what could be considered reasonably intelligent people, they are the dangerous ones to our worlds future, for they are intentionally ignoring facts for fiction, you can only assume they intend to gain from their despicable lies.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

Quote: Wishful sceptics Climate scientists are lining up to debunk this claim, and to explain that the bloggers have simply got it wrong. "They're misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say," says solar expert Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Granted, some are just plain dumb, lets face it a few posters here don't know the difference between climate change and the weather, cods consistently asks for it to be explained. But on the other hand you have what could be considered reasonably intelligent people, they are the dangerous ones to our worlds future, for they are intentionally ignoring facts for fiction, you can only assume they intend to gain from their despicable lies.

I would suggest, at some point in the chain of information, it is certain that there are those who will make substantial profits, from ensuring that information on this issue is at the very least "muddied" and then there are a great deal more who simply follow, because they don't want to believe that their "status quo world" is changing!

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does.

;D This one statement shows that you are clueless about the science behind global warming.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

Come on Longy..fill me in about what the problem is with cleaning up pollution and making it easier for every country to be energy independent.The denialists are only panicking because they cant imagine a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels for energy. Its like someone addicted to cigarettes dreading the day he cant smoke anymore.

nothing like a bit of predictable tangential nonense from you. NO ONE is opposing cleaning up and using clear energy. what we are saying is that ACC is a scam and that CO2 is not heating the environment. We are also saying that the ACC movement is fraudulent and has sucked in a great number of people. But a lot are now stepping up to say it is crap. and that is Nobel Laureates in phsyics. Meterologists, geologists, ice-core experts and climate scietists.

in fact, the only people hanging on to the fantasy are the desperate, the stupid, the ill-informed and the liars.  which one are you?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 11:56am: I posted some time ago that CO2 makes up 0.00024% of the Earth's atmospher It is also interesting that they are using "greenhouse gas" now instead of carbon emission It's also interesting to note that greenhouse gases are mostly water vapours Water is a very good vessel to carry heat - hence global warming Carbon Dioxide is one of the least abundant component in the atmosphere yet they chose to pick on it because it relates to humans LOL Maqqa, you either have absolutely no idea about science (in which case you should really stop making a fool of yourself in a global warming debate) or you are being deliberately misleading (Probably both). The earths atmosphere is a natural greenhouse. If we didn't have the natural levels of water vapor, CO2, CH4 etc to keep us warm our planet would be at least 30 degrees colder. The problem is that by burning fossil fuels and large scale deforestation there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere. If you increase the levels of these greenhouse gasses you will increase the temperature.

the problem is that the science doesnt support that.

Ivar Giaver, Nobel Lureate says "I am a skeptic... Global warming has become the new religion."

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases.

this simplistic statement above is only true if you can be sure there are no other factors involved and no other feedback systems in operation. Trouble is, Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. Therefore your statement is not only wrong but arrogantly wrong - especially as history and current events are proving you wrong.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 18th, 2012 at 11:56am: I posted some time ago that CO2 makes up 0.00024% of the Earth's atmospher It is also interesting that they are using "greenhouse gas" now instead of carbon emission It's also interesting to note that greenhouse gases are mostly water vapours Water is a very good vessel to carry heat - hence global warming Carbon Dioxide is one of the least abundant component in the atmosphere yet they chose to pick on it because it relates to humans LOL Maqqa, you either have absolutely no idea about science (in which case you should really stop making a fool of yourself in a global warming debate) or you are being deliberately misleading (Probably both). The earths atmosphere is a natural greenhouse. If we didn't have the natural levels of water vapor, CO2, CH4 etc to keep us warm our planet would be at least 30 degrees colder. The problem is that by burning fossil fuels and large scale deforestation there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere. If you increase the levels of these greenhouse gasses you will increase the temperature.

yes i heard carbon acts like a plug and it went from 300ppm to 350ppm

ppm stands for parts per million ie out of the million holes allowing the heat out somehow 350 plugs is keeping all the heat in

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:38pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases. Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. .

:P
Morons with opinions like this would prefer our children died than to admit they're wrong.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:43pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:38pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases. Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. . :P Morons with opinions like this would prefer our children died than to admit they're wrong.

700 illegals died since 2007 compared to about 100 in the same period 2002-07

Bob Brown is a murderer for forcing onshore processing on us

So lets not talk about children dying or molested by Labor MPs until you fix your own backyard

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:43pm: gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:38pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases. Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. . :P Morons with opinions like this would prefer our children died than to admit they're wrong. 700 illegals died since 2007 compared to about 100 in the same period 2002-07 Bob Brown is a murderer for forcing onshore processing on us So lets not talk about children dying or molested by Labor MPs until you fix your own backyard

There's one of the intellectually challenged murderers on cue.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:43pm: gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:38pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases. Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. . :P Morons with opinions like this would prefer our children died than to admit they're wrong. 700 illegals died since 2007 compared to about 100 in the same period 2002-07 Bob Brown is a murderer for forcing onshore processing on us So lets not talk about children dying or molested by Labor MPs until you fix your own backyard

So by that logic its Tony Abbotts fault every time someone dies or gets raped or physically assaulted waiting in a refugee camp.
I think you'll find that across the globe that figure is in the hundreds of thousands..maybe millions.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:47pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:43pm: gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:38pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases. Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. . :P Morons with opinions like this would prefer our children died than to admit they're wrong. 700 illegals died since 2007 compared to about 100 in the same period 2002-07 Bob Brown is a murderer for forcing onshore processing on us So lets not talk about children dying or molested by Labor MPs until you fix your own backyard So by that logic its Tony Abbotts fault every time someone dies or gets raped or physically assaulted waiting in a refugee camp. I think you'll find that across the globe that figure is in the hundreds of thousands..maybe millions.

the more AGW gets debunked, the dumber your posting becomes. And to think that once you actually made a coherent argument!!! its been a long time since then...

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:47pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:43pm: gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:38pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. But we arn't talking about keeping the temperature the same. We are talking about increasing the temperature. H2O keeps the temperature as it is. If more is put into the system then it simply falls out as rain. Global warming is about increasing temperature therefore H2O is irrelevant. Put more CO2 into the system and it has no where to go, so the concentration increases and the temperature increases. Climate Science is in its infancy and has very very little understanding of these things. . :P Morons with opinions like this would prefer our children died than to admit they're wrong. 700 illegals died since 2007 compared to about 100 in the same period 2002-07 Bob Brown is a murderer for forcing onshore processing on us So lets not talk about children dying or molested by Labor MPs until you fix your own backyard So by that logic its Tony Abbotts fault every time someone dies or gets raped or physically assaulted waiting in a refugee camp. I think you'll find that across the globe that figure is in the hundreds of thousands..maybe millions.

if we go by your assertions - your's only a guess.

We know the 31,000+ queue jumpers under this Labor/Green disaster definitely condemned those next in line not to be assessed

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:28am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 5:05am: I hope people are reading the time frame for this graph. It tells you much about how progs and the denier blogosphere cherry pick data to construct a very rickety argument. So what happened over a 12 month period in the US. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201112-201211.gif You're clutching at straw, progs. Of course there will continue to be cold snaps, heat will be pushed around the system and at times it will get cold. No one is claiming the end of cold weather. However, the frequency, intensity and length of these cold periods experienced by one location will slowly decline over time. gotta laugh at your post MOTR.  if a sceptic posts a grpah showing record cold you mock and say it is weather, not climate. then to repudiate it you use a map of... WEATHER. seriously, where is this much vaunted and self-assessed 'critical thinking'? and I guess youa re also at odds with Phil Jones, head of CRU and leading climate hysteric who currently admits that there has been 'no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years'. and you talk about CHERRY-PICKING???

It's a map showing how hot it was in the US. It's just another example of the record highs that have been experienced across the globe in recent times. Scientists are rightfully suggesting that the recent heat wave in the US is more than likely a manifestation of our current climate shift. There is no equivalency with a cold snap over a few weeks, as progs is insinuating.

If you'd like a longer time frame over a larger area, you'll find the same pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE&sns=em

If you watch the shifting distribution of summer temperature anomalies you will see that the chances of record highs are significantly higher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKlaZDw6YI&sns=em

Mock as much as you like goldie, it won't stop me pointing out the the reality you are subconsciously too scared to face.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 10:47am: A trace gas does not have the power to do what h2o in its different forms, already does. ;D This one statement shows that you are clueless about the science behind global warming.

I would quite simply have to say the same for you.

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 7:28am: MOTR wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 5:05am: I hope people are reading the time frame for this graph. It tells you much about how progs and the denier blogosphere cherry pick data to construct a very rickety argument. So what happened over a 12 month period in the US. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201112-201211.gif You're clutching at straw, progs. Of course there will continue to be cold snaps, heat will be pushed around the system and at times it will get cold. No one is claiming the end of cold weather. However, the frequency, intensity and length of these cold periods experienced by one location will slowly decline over time. gotta laugh at your post MOTR.  if a sceptic posts a grpah showing record cold you mock and say it is weather, not climate. then to repudiate it you use a map of... WEATHER. seriously, where is this much vaunted and self-assessed 'critical thinking'? and I guess youa re also at odds with Phil Jones, head of CRU and leading climate hysteric who currently admits that there has been 'no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years'. and you talk about CHERRY-PICKING??? It's a map showing how hot it was in the US. It's just another example of the record highs that have been experienced across the globe in recent times. Scientists are rightfully suggesting that the recent heat wave in the US is more than likely a manifestation of our current climate shift. There is no equivalency with a cold snap over a few weeks, as progs is insinuating. If you'd like a longer time frame over a larger area, you'll find the same pattern. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE&sns=em If you watch the shifting distribution of summer temperature anomalies you will see that the chances of record highs are significantly higher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKlaZDw6YI&sns=em Mock as much as you like goldie, it won't stop me pointing out the the reality you are subconsciously too scared to face.

lol Evidence of global cooling because Russia has a cold wave. USA has record snow at the moment, yet more evidence.

Oh noes, Hansen the temperature changer to fit the model guy. Yeh I would rely on him too if I were in the doomsday cult.

Stop it, progs! You're just embarassing yourself.

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

Stop it, progs! You're just embarassing yourself.

Im ok with that. You. You must be.

Hansen, cooling the past, warming the present
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/hansen-caught-cheating-again/

How about this for the doomsday cult. Lap it up
Hansen 1986 : Two Degrees Warming By 2006 – Hottest In 100,000 Years!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/hansen-1986-two-degrees-warming-by-2006-hottest-in-100000-years/

Go through all the posts and older posts about the doomsday cult leader
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/1/?s=hansen

The OP has been shown to be total crap and the deniers are still on there own when it comes to any meaningful support......Both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard accept AGW is real and are proposing to spend billions of dollars to achieve agreed upon targets.....The only issue is which policy is the best for Australia and that is where Tony Abbott stands alone.....No one apart from Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt believe the Coalition's Direct Action policy has any chance of success.....Ask yourself why the deniers will not debate this fact!!!


::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

The OP has been shown to be total crap and the deniers are still on there own when it comes to any meaningful support......Both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard accept AGW is real and are proposing to spend billions of dollars to achieve agreed upon targets.....The only issue is which policy is the best for Australia and that is where Tony Abbott stands alone.....No one apart from Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt believe the Coalition's Direct Action policy has any chance of success.....Ask yourself why the deniers will not debate this fact!!! ::) ::) ::)

What will happen is that when Abbott gets rid of the carbon price and takes back the billions in compensation energy prices will continue to rise.
Anyone that thinks power prices will fall along with the withdrawal of the compensation package have rocks in their heads.
And then of course we have the billions in cuts to health and education to pay for Abbott unfunded Direct Action plan.
I reckon Australia will fall into recession within 6 mths of Abbott becoming PM

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 7:28am: MOTR wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 5:05am: I hope people are reading the time frame for this graph. It tells you much about how progs and the denier blogosphere cherry pick data to construct a very rickety argument. So what happened over a 12 month period in the US. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201112-201211.gif You're clutching at straw, progs. Of course there will continue to be cold snaps, heat will be pushed around the system and at times it will get cold. No one is claiming the end of cold weather. However, the frequency, intensity and length of these cold periods experienced by one location will slowly decline over time. gotta laugh at your post MOTR.  if a sceptic posts a grpah showing record cold you mock and say it is weather, not climate. then to repudiate it you use a map of... WEATHER. seriously, where is this much vaunted and self-assessed 'critical thinking'? and I guess youa re also at odds with Phil Jones, head of CRU and leading climate hysteric who currently admits that there has been 'no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years'. and you talk about CHERRY-PICKING??? It's a map showing how hot it was in the US. It's just another example of the record highs that have been experienced across the globe in recent times. Scientists are rightfully suggesting that the recent heat wave in the US is more than likely a manifestation of our current climate shift. There is no equivalency with a cold snap over a few weeks, as progs is insinuating. If you'd like a longer time frame over a larger area, you'll find the same pattern. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE&sns=em If you watch the shifting distribution of summer temperature anomalies you will see that the chances of record highs are significantly higher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKlaZDw6YI&sns=em Mock as much as you like goldie, it won't stop me pointing out the the reality you are subconsciously too scared to face.

tell me again about your 'critical reasoning' skill and why you chose to disagree with THE WORLD WIDE expert on global temperatures - someone your lot embraces wholeheartedly.  the more you talk about critical reasoning the less I see of it. all i see is cherry-picking of data and reports (something your side is famous for and even admits to).

Hansen the doomsday dummy, but MOTR laps it up

What about NASA’s James Hansen putting out a report predicting global warming would decrease Antarctic ice by 40 percent?

Scambos said the new ice data is “a contradiction” to Hansen’s prediction, but he said Hansen’s assessment was done in the early 1980s.

“We would not be doing our job very well if we had not learned something in 30 years,” he said.

Hansen couldnt predict when he was going to fart, 5 milliseconds before the event, but doomsday culters lap it up.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/shock-news-nsidc-admits-that-hansen-was-wrong/

Doomsday cult dummy at it again
Hansen Creates Impossible Temperature Anomalies In The High Arctic (Again)

Hansen shows 2-4C anomalies near the North Pole, which are impossible in summer due to the latent heat of melting ice.

DMI shows that the whole month of July was normal or below, north of 80N

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_174-aug-17-08-57.jpg?w=640&h=424

Hansen accomplished this stupidity by fabricating data where he doesn’t have any thermometers (grey area below.)

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_175-aug-17-13-46.jpg?w=640&h=378

All this cheating, and still below scenario C.


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/hansen-creates-impossible-temperature-anomalies-in-the-high-arctic-again/

Doomsday cult leader predicts the end of world scenarios and misses on every scenario. Go figure

Maybe we can change our doomsday predictions after the failures, like other cults in history.


http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_171-aug-15-20-29.jpg

has anyone wondered just why people are still listening to these bozos? every prediction misses by a mile and yet they are regarded highly. Hansen are Mann et al are guilty of such misrepresentation that in some industries they woudl do jail time for it.

but people just have to beleive in doom and gloom.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

has anyone wondered just why people are still listening to these bozos? every prediction misses by a mile and yet they are regarded highly. Hansen are Mann et al are guilty of such misrepresentation that in some industries they woudl do jail time for it. but people just have to beleive in doom and gloom.

Have you noticed it is the same few bozzo's that go around as if they talk for the whole climate scientist community.

A few. There was also a few in climategate and the rest saying 'no you cant do that, that would be wrong and unethical'.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

Have you noticed it is the same few bozzo's that go around as if they talk for the whole climate scientist community.

Aided and abetted by the dickheaded media too.

Back in 1988 this was pioneering work. Hansen did not have the benefit of modern climate models or modern supercomputers and it was before we had decades of verifying observations, and before we knew just how fast greenhouse gas emissions would rise.

So how well did Hansen go.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen09.jpg

Superficially, not very well at all. We can ignore scenarios A and C because A was based on the assumption CO2 emissions would grow exponentially, and C was based on the unfounded hope of cuts to emissions. If you want to honestly evaluate Hansen's predictions it makes sense to focus on Scenario B, which is based on an assumption very close to the actual growth in emissions.

Hansen was able to predict a growth in temperature because the physics is sound. Where his model fell short is in overestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. Hansen's climate model had a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Our best estimates today are 3°C. Had Hansen used this lower sensitivity sensitivity he would have got very close to the actual temperature rise.

MOTR, have you not thought mate you are a tad obsessed with this one subject!

You're starting to resemble Lastnail and electric cars.

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:04pm:

Back in 1988 this was pioneering work. Hansen did not have the benefit of modern climate models or modern supercomputers and it was before we had decades of verifying observations, and before we knew just how fast greenhouse gas emissions would rise. So how well did Hansen go. http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen09.jpg Superficially, not very well at all. We can ignore scenarios A and C because A was based on the assumption CO2 emissions would grow exponentially, and C was based on the unfounded hope of cuts to emissions. If you want to honestly evaluate Hansen's predictions it makes sense to focus on Scenario B, which is based on an assumption very close to the actual growth in emissions. Hansen was able to predict a growth in temperature because the physics is sound. Where his model fell short is in overestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. Hansen's climate model had a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Our best estimates today are 3°C. Had Hansen used this lower sensitivity sensitivity he would have got very close to the actual temperature rise.

lol. The round about. Stop it, MOTR! You're just embarassing yourself.
Sounds familiar.

BTW, is that 0.5 Hansens new temperature or the raw. Surely he wouldn't cool the past and warm the present to get as close as possible to his failed scenario's.

A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark.

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:21am:

A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark.

fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong.

so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:59am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 12:21am: A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark. fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong. so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst.

Could you imagine anyone predicting any different really. We are in a warming phase, so anyone could have given A Warmest, B a bit less warmer than A, C less warmer than B, D flat, E cooler (right) F cold.

The point though that Hansen was trying to make and is world away from being right, is that he knew how the temp would be with varying degrees of CO2 use. Wrong in every count. He has no clue of what CO2 does to the temp.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:04am:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 12:21am: A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark. fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong. so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst. Could you imagine anyone predicting any different really. We are in a warming phase, so anyone could have given A Warmest, B a bit less warmer than A, C less warmer than B, D flat, E cooler (right) F cold. The point though that Hansen was trying to make and is world away from being right, is that he knew how the temp would be with varying degrees of CO2 use. Wrong in every count. He has no clue of what CO2 does to the temp.

Hansen was the subject of the Open Letter from NASA employees asking someone to shut him up because he is disgracing the name of science.

so of course he is one of the hysterics leading luminaries!!!

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:11am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:04am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 12:21am: A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark. fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong. so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst. Could you imagine anyone predicting any different really. We are in a warming phase, so anyone could have given A Warmest, B a bit less warmer than A, C less warmer than B, D flat, E cooler (right) F cold. The point though that Hansen was trying to make and is world away from being right, is that he knew how the temp would be with varying degrees of CO2 use. Wrong in every count. He has no clue of what CO2 does to the temp. Hansen was the subject of the Open Letter from NASA employees asking someone to shut him up because he is disgracing the name of science. so of course he is one of the hysterics leading luminaries!!!

It is unfeasable to think of how many doomsday predictions the guy has had and failed.

The modernday doomsday cult is perpetual.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:20am:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:11am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:04am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 12:21am: A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark. fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong. so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst. Could you imagine anyone predicting any different really. We are in a warming phase, so anyone could have given A Warmest, B a bit less warmer than A, C less warmer than B, D flat, E cooler (right) F cold. The point though that Hansen was trying to make and is world away from being right, is that he knew how the temp would be with varying degrees of CO2 use. Wrong in every count. He has no clue of what CO2 does to the temp. Hansen was the subject of the Open Letter from NASA employees asking someone to shut him up because he is disgracing the name of science. so of course he is one of the hysterics leading luminaries!!! It is unfeasable to think of how many doomsday predictions the guy has had and failed. The modernday doomsday cult is perpetual.

Hansen & the bulk of the scientific community, are much more likely to get it correct, than some on here, who will still refuse to see the truth, even when all the ice at the poles have melted!

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:27am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:20am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:11am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:04am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 12:21am: A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark. fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong. so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst. Could you imagine anyone predicting any different really. We are in a warming phase, so anyone could have given A Warmest, B a bit less warmer than A, C less warmer than B, D flat, E cooler (right) F cold. The point though that Hansen was trying to make and is world away from being right, is that he knew how the temp would be with varying degrees of CO2 use. Wrong in every count. He has no clue of what CO2 does to the temp. Hansen was the subject of the Open Letter from NASA employees asking someone to shut him up because he is disgracing the name of science. so of course he is one of the hysterics leading luminaries!!! It is unfeasable to think of how many doomsday predictions the guy has had and failed. The modernday doomsday cult is perpetual. Hansen & the bulk of the scientific community, are much more likely to get it correct, than some on here, who will still refuse to see the truth, even when all the ice at the poles have melted!

Yeh we are still waiting, but with any cult, it doesn't take faith, it takes absolute and utter belief.

I am sure you may be right one day, oh and they.  ::)

AR5 Chapter 11; Hiding the Decline (Part II)

Its all about hiding the decline and safe guarding their position, whichever way the temps go.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:27am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:20am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:11am: progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 8:04am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 12:21am: A lot has happened in every field since 1988. Hansen was working with a lot less data. He was fundamentally right because the physics is sound. Today our knowledge is more complete and our models are much more sophisticated. At the end of the day Hansen was in the right ballpark. fundamentally right???? by any reckoning he was out by a factor of between 5 and 10!!!  that is not 'right'. that is not even close. IN fact his predictions were totally alarmist and missed the mark by so far as to be an embarrassment. Much of his predictions are the same - alarmist and grossly wrong. so why are you quoting him? even in the world of always-wrong climatologists he is close to the worst. Could you imagine anyone predicting any different really. We are in a warming phase, so anyone could have given A Warmest, B a bit less warmer than A, C less warmer than B, D flat, E cooler (right) F cold. The point though that Hansen was trying to make and is world away from being right, is that he knew how the temp would be with varying degrees of CO2 use. Wrong in every count. He has no clue of what CO2 does to the temp. Hansen was the subject of the Open Letter from NASA employees asking someone to shut him up because he is disgracing the name of science. so of course he is one of the hysterics leading luminaries!!! It is unfeasable to think of how many doomsday predictions the guy has had and failed. The modernday doomsday cult is perpetual. Hansen & the bulk of the scientific community, are much more likely to get it correct, than some on here, who will still refuse to see the truth, even when all the ice at the poles have melted!

way to go for ignoring the actual evidence - which you do so well. Hansen is getting a reputation for being an extreme alarmist. Even NASA employees are demanding that he be shut up.