Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

In which fantasy world do you live in again?

Wow! That is incredibly damning! I like the term "mann"ipulated data

What a crock of poop. So much money and time wasted. Makes me want to vomit.

Edit: I'm sorry, but Mann, etc, are just incredibly unscientific. How can they publish a paper without showing their raw data, and then the transformations (mann-ipulations!) they made on the data? Whenever I'm ever presenting anything to anyone, I always show everything in a step-by-step manner. This is just incredibly unscientific disgusting garbage.

 

True - possible. And yet since 2000 levels of methane have fallen FAR BELOW IPCC projections.

 

Great article about the comments from Nature:

If I had a subscription to Nature, I’d cancel it Watts Up With That?

And more fun:

“You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate Watts Up With That?

Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch Watts Up With That?

Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book Watts Up With That?

The video is fantastic.

 

Pat - I answered some of your questions and did so quite politely, I thought. However, I never heard a response back from you in regard to my answer - so I think I know who has their fingers in their ears.

 

This is rich, mate, coming from somtone who has only one contribution to this thread that has NOT been a snide comment belittling others - and that ONE, a reposting of a graph with a few irrelevant arrows superimposed.

It is YOU, mate, who is humming 'Waltzing Matilda' with your fingers in your ears. By the way, I really like 'Waltzing Matilda'.

By your estimate these countrymen of yours are equally as ignorant as those here who are skeptical of your religion:

When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.†- Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

“AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction.†- William Kininmonth, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?s National Climate Centre (1986-1998), Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-1998).

"There is] an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science†- David Packham, former CSIRO principle research scientist, senior research fellow in a climate group at Monash University, and an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

“It is my strong belief that CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation that I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. As an example, consider the Garnaut Report [on global warming], possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO’s modelling programs.†- Dr. Art Raiche, former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion. I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself.†- Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.†- Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

“Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific.†- Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.

“What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading - they’re going to lose their money!†- Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, former dean of engineering and pro-vice chancellor at Monash University.

All these quotes are made BEFORE the recent (and still unfolding) scandal at CRU and elsewhere. Of course, I do not imagine a closed mind will react to any evidence or opinion contrary to the dogma it cannot question.

Cheers!

 

How a True Believer was able to de-program:

Skeptical Real Climate Science

I know without someone to grab you by the lapels and shake some sense into you, it is difficult to escape one of these cults. It is my sincere wish that you find this helpful, Alric and Icarus and Pat and whoeverelse so in need.

 

Another thread taken over by denialist trolls...time to add malorn to the troll/ignore list. Malorn, where is that $20 oil you promised back in February?

 

Nice of you to admit it. Thanks.

 

It has been hijacked by the sagging dollar and speculation.

Global Oil Glut Roils an English Tourist Village


Read this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125971361419772003.html

 

Do you not like hearing different opinions? I don't think I have been rude to anyone.

 

The problem is the dilution of actual information with the misinformation of whatsupwiththat and climateaudit and other denialist blogs. People in general do not understand how important is the source of information. It just doesn't sink that a blog is not the same as nature.com.

For example, look at this thread, a reader that is not scientifically savvy will see two opposite points of view, think they are equally valid and "make up his mind". Unfortunately, there is no "making up your mind" in science because most concepts are beyond everyday experience and in some cases downright counterintuitive. When real life decisions need to be made you consult the experts, it is no different than going to the MD when you feel ill.

This is part of the denialists strategy, dilute the content to the point where the legitimate content seems on equal footing or a minority opinion. This is why I feel that if I have the ability I should try to correct misinformation as much as possible.

Cheers!

 

And yet you, a delusionist, can't refute anything. Really sad Shawn Clark!

 

Shawn Clark hasn't contributed anything in a very long time. He periodically drops in to call us all "trolls" when in fact he is acting the part. I think it makes him feel better. Shawn, give us all a "courtesy flush" and come up with something original and useful. The Al Gore Warmers have to have at least one educated person besides Alric huh?

 

Yet you cannot refute facts

re: nature, a blog post from WUWT:

 

Unlike Shawn.

 

The "warmers" strategy is conflate minor facts into an "indisputable global warming catastrophe".

Seriously - you've got Algore jetting around the world telling people to expect 20 foot sea level rise; you have Hollywood producing fictional catastrophe movies about AGW that the general public takes for scientific fact; you have the IPCC scientists themselves hiding data, punishing dissenters, inflating current warming and diminishing past warming periods; and you have the mainstream media lapping it all up and amplifying it 24/7 without an ounce of investigation or critical analysis.

And you are worried about supposed "dilution of facts" by a few bloggers like Watts?

Give me a break.

 

Sorry Tim, you were not ignored, I just got fed up with put downs from another member on here so stopped posting regarding the discussion. I find it impossible to post when one or two people just respond with belittling remarks. I can use my time more productively elsewhere.

 

Read: You are too stupid to understand the complexities of this.

Read: Once again, you are stupid. Because you are stupid, you must rely on "experts" to help guide you to the "truth". We are the experts. We have no agenda. Trust us.

Read: Anyone who derivates from the established template is, by definition, a denier of truth. Truth is established through consensus. We will determine what data is utilized, how it is collected, how it is manipulated and how the findings are interpreted.

 

Moving on - which questions did you feel went unanswered?

 

Well, it happens from both sides of this. In any case, you are right - we could all use our time more productively elsewhere. There is just a lot of whistling past each other going on (again, on both sides).

However, I do feel the title of this thread, just like so many media stories, simply perpetuates mythology in contradiction with the facts that in this case, show there is no current warming and hasn't been for nearly a decade. So from that perspective, I think the OP at least needed a response - though not argument pro/con ad nauseum.