posted September 24, 2013 11:49 AM            

Proponents believe that the recent rash of hurricanes, floods, other disasters, rising CO2 levels and melting polar ice caps are caused by humans.

To not believe that we are the cause is to be a "denier" -- and to be a denier means not only are you naive, but you're also at odds with science and "overwhelming" evidence.

Well, I am a denier, and based on recent polls, our ranks are growing. I've been to this rodeo before -- when science makes bold predictions that don't come to fruition.

In the early 1970s, as an elementary school student, I was frightened into believing that the world would run out of oil within 30 years. That's what science was telling us at the time; and living through a couple of gas crises reinforced the message. Of course, it was not true. Technology got better, more oil was discovered, and we are now experiencing an energy boom right here at home.

In the early 1970s, we were also warned of a coming ice age. Some proponents pushed the notion that all of the fossil fuels we were burning would block out the sunlight, causing temperature to drop.

A 1975 Newsweek article entitled "The Cooling World" chided political leaders for not taking any action; one of the more radical suggestions was to melt the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot.

We've come a long way since then. First to "global warming," and when that term was no longer deemed appropriate -- primarily because the data did not conclusively support the notion that temperatures are rising -- it became "climate change."

Do weather patterns change, and can they change over time? Certainly. However, I'm skeptical that temperatures are rising in the long term. And if they are, there is simply not enough conclusive evidence that we are the cause.

As humans, we certainly can be destructive. We can pollute rivers, streams and our own water supplies, and wreak havoc on the environment, but can we drastically alter our own climate?

When we "deniers" were warned by the BBC in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, and now see that not only did that not happen, but that the ice sheets have grown over the past year, our own skepticism grows.

For me at least, my skepticism is accompanied by irritation with the politicians who are using "global warming" as a scare tactic in order to influence our behavior. Some have turned it into a de facto religion, and it has backfired on them. The chicken little routine has simply not been effective.

posted September 26, 2013 11:06 PM            

On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

posted September 29, 2013 11:22 AM            

UN “scientists”: never mind the data, global warming is real
By: John Hayward
9/27/2013 02:53 PM

What’s a fanatic to do when his own data proves the “problem” he’s been using to scam billions of dollars out of terrified people isn’t real? Well, if you’re the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, you hold some sweaty closed-door meetings – “transparency” is not a concern for these people – and doctor the report until it’s something you can spin politically.

Then you lunge for the cameras and spin away, giving us the astounding spectacle of so-called “scientists” acting like primitive tribal witch doctors. The Angry Sky Gods have shown you mercy for fifteen years and counting, carbon sinners! But soon the death-fire will rain from the sky, unless you pay tribute! (Apologies to actual witch doctors, who have much smaller expense accounts than global warming con artists, and put on a much better show.)

Remember as you read this NBC News report: there is no “global warming,” and these people proved it. Their own data says the actual climate of the Earth has done absolutely none of the things they predicted. There are no “rising temperatures around the world” – that’s right in the very UN report under discussion here. They have no idea how that could be true, if their loopy but highly profitable theories were accurate… so they’re going to ignore reality and push the theory harder.

Top climate scientists say in a new report that industrial carbon emissions need to be kept below a cumulative total of 1 trillion tons to avoid dangerous climate change — and they note that humanity has already used up more than half that allotment.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report that it is “extremely likely” human beings are the main drivers for the rise in temperatures recorded around the world over the last 50 years — the strongest words the panel has used to describe the effect humans are having on the planet.

Oho, so now we’re down to “extremely likely” human fault, instead of “the science is settled” and “global-warming deniers are just like Holocaust deniers!” Too bad nothing in the actual UN data backs up any of these claims. On the contrary, a real scientist would note that rising carbon emissions from industry, coupled with a pronounced lack of global climate consequences, makes it extremely unlikely that human activity is the primary driver of climate change. Those who still value rational thought and the scientific method over big-bucks political chicanery can only roll our eyes skyward and wonder what the “primary driver” of global climate might be… at which point we’ll be temporarily blinded from staring at the answer...(the Sun).

Even at that, NBC’s excerpt of the report is incorrect. This is what the IPCC document actually says: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

Extremely likely that more than half… clearly somebody at NBC gulped, realized how lame and desperate that sounded, and decided to drop the “more than half” part, just as the U.N. panel doesn’t want to dwell on way all that “warming data” abruptly went flat in 1997. Keeping the window of time pushed back to the Fonzie Era is the only way they can still pretend there’s much in the way of climate change to discuss, never mind how much of it might be due to human activity. Actually, there might be a bit of global cooling to consider, which is obviously not useful to the carbon crusaders, since a) it’s the opposite of what they spent over 30 years predicting, b) it’s not the result of human activity, c) there might not be anything the human race could do about it, and d) it might not be a bad thing anyway.

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further global warming and changes in all components of the climate system,” the IPCC report said. “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

More rain could pour down over tropical areas, and monsoon seasons could expand to include larger areas, striking earlier and lasting longer, according to the report. It is “virtually certain” that sea levels will continue to rise through the end of this century and beyond, and they said it is likely that the heat waves have become more frequent across swaths of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

Wow, that’s an awful lot of nasty business that “could” happen. How does what actually did happen stack up against your models and predictions from 20 years ago, kids?

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,” the researchers wrote in the report. “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”

The concentrations of greenhouse gas have increased during the industrial era – which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the pre-industrial era – but the rest of these conclusions are highly tendentious, their connections to human activity are largely mystical, and the people pumping out this bilge know it. The old benchmarks of climate change they used to swear by, like polar ice coverage, didn’t behave according to their predictions, so it all goes out the window, never to be discussed again.

There was absolutely zero chance the global-warming racket was ever going to emerge from a “scientific consensus” exercise and declare they’ve been wrong all along, nothing they predicted is actually happening, sorry about the billions you all spent, might as well start dismantling all those madcap environmental agencies and parasitic “carbon credit” markets. There’s too much money and power tied up in “climate change” for it to ever go away.

posted September 29, 2013 11:30 AM            

Cute

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted September 29, 2013 08:26 PM            

Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed
1:27 PM 09/29/2013
Michael Bastasch

Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”

Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.

The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.

“Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,” the AP report said. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”

Global warming skeptics have exploited such data to show that the science behind manmade global warming is faulty and politically driven.

“[I]n attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about,” Lindzen said. “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”

However, believers in catastrophic global warming have said the UN report should serve as a wake-up call to those who would deny the issue’s urgency.

“Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. “Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate.”

posted October 02, 2013 01:05 PM            

In the same interview, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science." He further explained: "If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."[60] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change

posted October 02, 2013 01:28 PM            

Too bad they don't employ scientific procedures as Lindzen does.

posted October 02, 2013 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Yeah, that's why his theory, for which he admits embarrassing mistakes, is widely discredited by those scientists he mocks. Stupid.

---

Do you always run with the herd

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 02, 2013 04:03 PM            

And goes on to claim that HIS hypotheses as to the results of this FACT he does not dispute are superior to those of the other scientists.

Despite admitting that his last paper on the subject was full of errors.

Hmmm...how he is debunking anything is beyond me. He is basically speculating that future cloud patterns will reverse the warming he admits is happening AND LARGELY CONTRIBUTED TO BY HUMAN PRODUCTION OF CARBON in the atmosphere.

Apparently his models have yet to prove his HYPOTHESIS.

The fact that warming has not proceeded uniformly proves nothing either.

posted October 02, 2013 05:41 PM            

Ami, the only one running with the herd here is you...as usual. Your attempt at projecting your traits onto others will get you nowhere, the same place Jwhop got when trying to project his. You're both caught in the echochamber of Republican/Conservative commentators, and frankly have always been proud to note that fact.

Randall, I'll stop believing when all of the major scientific entities in the world stop having so much certainty about it. I think that's fair. Your belief that it's stopped hasn't changed the fact that the last three decades are the warmest on record.

posted October 03, 2013 12:02 PM            

I do think logically, Randall. Far more than most people here.

CO2 does cause an increase in temps. That, too, is a scientifically known fact not in dispute. This fact has been under scrutiny for hundreds of years. Look up Tyndall's studies on CO2. All the way back to 1856 we've known of CO2's insulating power.

And you're being dramatic in saying that the Earth should be baked. That's not necessarily the case, and that's not obviously the case.

There hasn't been a "nonexistent" rise in temps. There's been a measured rise in temps that isn't disputed.

posted October 03, 2013 01:38 PM            

You live in a dream world of non-reality where the sun is not the heat source of the solar system but where the LEAST of earth's greenhouse gases..carbon dioxide drives earth's climate and the 2% contribution of carbon dioxide humans contribute is going to turn earth into a burned out cinder.

Your position is irrational, illogical and unreasonable. Not even the high priests of your Man Made Global Warming Religion, who email each other to "hide the decline in temperatures", falsify computer input data and lie through their teeth to keep their scam going...believe that bullshiiit.

posted October 03, 2013 02:02 PM            

"Saying a lot in order to say nothing is rather moot...and silly."...acoustic