Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:


You have been reading too much Bolt BS - not surprising from your posts in here

The greatest RATE of global thermal retention since the dinosaurs vanished in a mass extinction event 65 million years ago, is the past 35 years.

Very impressive little statistical fact don't you think? Care to explain this rate of global warming using natural mechanisms?

This should be good viewing ladies and gentlemen

THe Denialist Priests will attempt their EXXON BS spin in public - BUT fear to have their comments undergo rigorous scientific peer review and the ultimate standards of theoretical consistency and observational repeatability

I wonder why these denialist crap pots don't publish their concerns and theoretical supremeness in the scientific community? Why do they choose the internet? Why do they choose the corporately run mass media? Why do they choose the speakers circuit funded by vested corporate interests?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:


You have nothing but your innate devotion to your AGW denialist cult religion and temples of propaganda.

To refer yourself as a sceptic is an insult to the word sceptic.

Don't you remember the tobacco corporate CEOs and presidents that swore in a US congressional hearing that "as far as we know, there is no causal link between the smoking of their tobacco products and lung cancer and other health illnesses"

Do you care to explain why the major global fossil fuel corporations released a joint statement in 2003 to the effect "....anthropogenic global warming is a serious global matter and international efforts must focus on mitigating the release of Carbon into the atmosphere and the environment in order to avert catastrophic effects caused by Climate Change"

Now why would EXXON, BHP, RIO-TINTO, BP, SHELL, VALE...etc..etc, disagree with your religion and crack pot  priesthood?

You have a lot of explaining to do in here to support your Temple of Crap and lies

Now begone from henceforth freak clown of deception and pathetic self delusional puppet of arrogance and ignorance.

Talking about the UK Met Office....if you can't get the weather right how can you be trusted with public policy decision making and spending billions of tax payers hard earnts?? is too polite by far.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/09/foia-obtained-met-office-document-shows-them-to-be-clueless-about-what-affects-our-climate-and-in-particular-what-caused-the-unusual-weather-last-year/

FOIA obtained Met Office document shows them to be clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year

Posted on April 9, 2013by Paul Homewood


Maybe all they need is a bigger computer

Guest post by by Paul Homewood


sorry monkey - no daft childish pictures, just reality

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:


I am still waiting for you to respond to the small task I set you earlier on....

obviously the sceptic has suddenly abandoned his supreme delusional devotion to scepticism and has been reborn into the mute of Hades.

HOW DARE YOU GALLOP IN HERE AND PARADE YOURSELF AS A HOLY WARRIOR OF SCEPTICISM WITHOUT EVEN THE JUVERNILE WEAPONRY TO DEFEND YOUR STENCHED CARCASS FROM EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF BLOWS.

YOU HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN PUBLIC AS THE SUPREME CLOWN PUPPET PRIEST THAT YOU ARE

NOW RECEDE YOUR VACUUM OF FOUL FILTH STENCH AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM FROM THIS HOLY PLACE OF WORSHIP MORAL COWARD OF JACOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

In the end.... it boils down to continuing to respond. Believe me I have done the experiments.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:



And once again, they fall into the same trap.

When did I say anything about "what we do now"?

Let me guess, you think I'm against the carbon tax.  Yes?  Is that what you think?

Why would you think that?  Because I'm open minded?  Because I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis?

Fools like you make the same assumption all the time.

You should have researched my previous posts on this subject before you made such an utter fool of yourself.

I've lost count of the amount of times I've said this, but I'll say it one more time for you:

I have absolutely no objections to taking precautionary action in regards to AGW.  Have as many carbon taxes as you like, I couldn't care less.

My argument, as I explained to you before, is quite simple: AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 6:36am:


My point (which was pretty uncomplicated) muso included the whole of this -

As per - http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Fact: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


So obviously we no evidence of catastrophic warming occuring in the past, but, ohhh scare me with all your dud predictions from heavily disputed climate models and try to smother empirical recorded, demonstrable science with the cult of AGW's own 'special' science.

(AGW 'special' science is the science of when the modelled predictions don't match the evidence the solution is to change the evidence)

muso - look it up at www.dictionary.com - and see the last line of this little gem   

Gasp Horror Panic Run Screaming Thru Streets - climate models are firmly based in the land of Fantasia - alternatively - if the evidence contradict the models, change the evidence 

http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/11/climate-models-got-the-nao-all-wrong-climate-science-now-plagued-by-contradictory-explanations/

Climate Models Got The NAO All Wrong – Climate Science Now Plagued By Contradictory Explanations

By P Gosselin on 11. April 2013

Northern hemisphere winters in the big picture
by Juraj Vanovcan (Slovakia)

..............

Again, observations are in stark opposition to climate models. Claims, that warming basically causes negative AO period is nowhere to be found in “peer-reviewed” literature from those times when winters were mild and spring came in March as usual.

Be sure, that in case of mild winter, it should be exactly as scientists predicted because in today’s world of climate, everything is exactly “as models predicted”, even if it contradicts itself and none of the models had actually predicted it.

To sum it up:

1) It is obvious that winters, at least in NW Europe, are dominated by AO/NAO.
2) During the the last century, AO cycles bear no relation to CO2 level or “human influence”.
3) Since a 1990 positive AO spike, its trend has been negative, which is in agreement with the increasingly colder observed winters.
4) None of the models predicted negative phase of AO.
5) AGW theory is just riding on the warm period of the NAO (and AMO), which has already ended.

As Albert Einstein once said, a good theory predicts things in advance and a bad theory needs additional adjustments after each new discovery. The problem with the anthropogenic warming theory is: it cannot sustain anything new. For every new and unexpected climate or weather trend a special sub-theory must be developed, and it doesn’t matter if they often completely contradict each other.

“There are 3 roads to ruin yourself: women, gambling and scientists. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is following the advice of scientists.”