Wow...I better go buy sum ugg boots and a beanie if theres an ice sheet heading for Australia 

"A cruise ship was also forced to turn back around."

Does Abbott's "turn them around when safe to do so" apply up there as well?  The wonders of the man! 

Here's a new one

Right on cue !

US Congress Tells Al Gore He's Dreaming   

Al Gore Slammed by Congress   

Video

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/us-congress-tells-al-gore-hes-dreaming.html

[quote]Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.

So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt

. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/

Quote:


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/10/leaked-un-report-shows-earth-is-cooling-83034

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:20am:




We might not agree with or like what he says

but we have to care

because the video reveals it was Gore, Ken Lay and other Enron & crony snakes who DEVISED 'global warming' knowing full well it would make them and their buddies zillions richer at our expense

Now zillions of dollar is aphrodisiac to Zionist mini-dicks -- it's what keeps them breathing

and Obama has been bribed/threatened into reviving the climate scam

We in Australia are under their control, no matter who we get as government.  Which is why Labor was bribed/threatened into brainwashing Aussies climate change is 'reel folks, it's reel'

30,000 scientist have publicly stated climate change is crap -- and that's just those who've stuck their heads above the parapets

So while we may loathe Gore and disagree with his crap, we nevertheless have to 'care' and fight the army of Paid to Posts who sit in their one-room dumps pumping out climate change 'evidence' in order to pay for their 2 minute noodles and cheap plonk

That's why it's vital this garbage-science is debunked continually

unless you feel inclined to make Gore and his buddies and their descendants rich and powerful unto the 20th generation (by which time your descendants will have died of hunger resulting from continually increased carbon taxes)

[quote]

So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend

, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more.

According to experts, the most recent revelations continue to make a mockery of alarmist claims — debunking United Nations theories about human-caused global warming and the wildly inaccurate supposed “climate models” used to forecast doom and gloom by forces seeking carbon taxes and more centralized government.

Earlier this month, meanwhile, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “State of the Climate in 2012” showing that last year was among the coldest so far this century

.

According to analysts,

despite the government agency’s wildly misleading attempts to spin the findings and drum up unwarranted hysteria, the data actually confirm that the globe has stopped warming for the last 15 years

.

The report also exposes the bogus “climate models” that predicted major warming based on increasing CO2 levels as wrong, which credible scientists have been arguing all along.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling

Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda

Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities

The AGW consensus

scam is one of the most astounding frauds in all of history, not only because it is patently false, but also because it is being used to propel the most sweeping and authoritarian scheme for global economic, social, and political regimentation the world has ever seen

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

PZ547

If no one listens to his rubbish then he has no power, seems the US political machinery is going down that path like the rest of the world.

Everyone stopped listening to Rudd and look what happened.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

'
'
A large number of noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and

vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies.

Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside

the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

'
'
The politicization and corruption of climate science is, perhaps, most clearly evident from the continuing cavalcade of shocking scandals: Climategate, Climate­gate 2.0, Himalayan Glaciergate, Alaskan Glaciergate, Amazongate, Sea Levelgate, Fakegate, Satellitegate, Antarctic Sea Icegate, Hockey Stickgate, Hurricanegate, Surface Weather Stationgate, Russiagate, etc.


The Germany-based engineer P. Gosselin has catalogued 129 climate scandals at his website, NoTrickZone.com.

Fortunately, each of these transgressions against the integrity of science has caused new circles of scientists to become aware of, and outraged by, the chicanery being employed by the political operatives masquerading as scientists. And the genuine scientists are stepping into the gap in increasing numbers to fight for truth and to expose the climate-change flim-flam artists who are perverting science.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

No. You're showing two photographs of a small part of the world and attempting to assert that it is representative of the whole. It's not. That is cherry picking and is a fallacious line of argument.

Quote:

Extrapolating a trend from two data points is not reliable. If you had a clue you would know this.

Quote:

No. It' not. It's just a pair of cherry picked data points. One cool winter in a part of the world does not prove a cooling trend for the whole world.

Quote:

Predictions are not always accurate. Your point?

I've seen plenty of predictions from deniers that were also inaccurate.

Quote:

Again, so what? It's just a data point. A general trend does not rule out the possibility of significant fluctuations around the mean. You have no idea about statistics.

Melbourne has just had it's warmest July on record. That is not particularly significant if taken in isolation. Yet we seem to have a large number of such warmest-on-record reports from all over the world and a relative lack of coolest-on-record reports. The overall aggregate of all the data also points to persistent warmer conditions than the long-term averages.

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

Rubbish.

"Everyone's aware" - Who is this "everyone"?

"natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why?

Edit: correct quoted text for accuracy

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:23am:




One of two things is at fault here, Bam

Either it's your dismal lack of education and/or abysmal ignorance

Or

It's your complete inability to comprehend


The information is being presented to you here in this thread

Would pay you to read and to try to absorb some of it

That way, you won't embarrass yourself as greatly in the future

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

try this then, instead of just taking notice of high peaks in temps, take a look at the low peeks in temps, better yet, take a look at the average, temps are cooling.

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:12am:


you have this tendency to use blinkers.  But that's okay as it is a pre-requisite to being a climate hysteric.  HIGH temperatures prove ACC but low temperatures are meaningless. 

the ACC hypothesis has comprehensively failed to get a single major prediction right.  And you want to claim that 'the science is settled'???

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

Only one of us here is ignorant in science. It's you. Not me. I'm discussing global warming using the actual data. You're resorting to personal attacks against me, climate scientists and any other fallacious and desperate line of discussion that avoids the actual data at any price.

Quote:

What? That I refuse to accept the hit parade of denier fallacies? That's not information, that's junk.

Quote:

No thank you, I prefer to engage in reasonable lines of discussion.

Quote:

You're the one that's an embarrassment. Why won't you discuss the data? Why do you do anything to avoid discussing the actual, raw, unadorned and complete global data?

The CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is well correlated to the global temperature. Why is this?

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:51am:


You mean like the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years?  Or the fact that in those hysterical climate models of some time ago they identified 17 years of no change as the time frame that would invalidate their own findings?  The silly embarrassing statement that their 20 year model of temperature was spot-on... as long as you ignore all the things we got wrong or didn't expect or didn't know about.  Its like saying you got 100% in an exam by removing all the questions you got wrong.

whose academic credentials and practical experience are hardly substantial enough to justify the ends to which their writings would be employed by the United Nations.








http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/7003-grad-students-wrote-un-climate-studies

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:59am:




You're wrong again

and you insist on advertising your utter lack of knowledge


'Cooling deniers'  is a term that gained traction more than three years ago, world-wide

It refers to those who cling stubbornly to a belief and hope in the fiction that is 'global warming' and 'bad carbon', etc


Basically, it means 'morons' 

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:59am:


get used to it.  the new 'deniers' are going to be people like you who deny the cooling of the earth.

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:06am:



love it... LOL

Humans are funny 

'

Cap and Trade by Stealth: U.S. States Partner With Foreign Governments

While Americans were battling cap-and-trade legislation at the national and international levels, global-warming alarmists were quietly building regional systems between state and local governments, private industry, and even foreign governments that basically achieve the same effect --

The first and most prominent of these U.S. cap-and-trade systems is known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It was created not by the people through their legislatures, but by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding between state governors.

.

There motto is:

' We drive bold climate action through our network of business, government and thought leaders.'

Govt. of NSW

Govt. of South Australia

City of Sydney

Govt. of Victoria

of West Oz

etc.

are 'partners'

The organization works with the United Nations Development Program, the World Economic Forum, the Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other high-profile institutions, agencies and governments to advance the global climate agenda. And it promotes the implementation of global-warming schemes through sub-national levels of government among other things.

The UN Development Program estimates that 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the emissions cuts needed to keep climate change below 2C will need to be delivered at state, regional and city levels, the co-chairs noted in their joint column for The Australian entitled Think globally, act locally? States already are. This is because regional governments often control regulation for many of the key areas for addressing climate change, such as power generation, the built environment, waste management, transport and land use planning

those same forces are building a powerful and expensive carbon regime

that could eventually encompass every state in the Union, and beyond


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3578-cap-and-trade-by-stealth-us-states-partner-with-foreign-governments

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

1998 data to be mentioned by CC deniers in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

I'd rather look at the facts, Global warming alarmist said there would be no ice in the artic by 2013 but there is 60% growth of ice coverage since this time last year. The fact is there is more ice. Global alarmist has used the ice sheets as their proof of Global warming since day 1, now there is more ice how can it be warmer, ice only forms when its colder

.
.

Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don’t Survive Scrutiny 

September 02, 2013


Proponents of man-made climate change are being challenged more and more by scientists who don’t buy into the climate catastrophe scare

.

* Nature is showing us that carbon dioxide concentrations are not ruling global temperature.

* Since 1998 twenty eight percent of all carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere since 1850 have occurred yet there has been no warming.

* World wide hurricanes are not increasing in number or strength. There has been no category 3 or higher hurricane strike in the United States since 2005. This year, in the United States, we are on our way to having the fewest number of tornadoes since modern record keeping began. Sea level is rising at the same rate is has for the last 100 years with no acceleration.

* Polar Bear populations are at record highs.

* Computer model temperature predictions are much too warm and the difference between them and measured temperature is increasing each year.

* Arctic sea ice loss at the end of the summer has leveled off.

*  Man made climate change arguments are failing because they are wrong.


See more at: http://www.energytribune.com/79020/man-made-climate-change-arguments-dont-survive-scrutiny#sthash.5hFY3dBp.dpuf

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:56am:


Because that's out of date and it isn't?

Why is Obama Lying on Climate Change?

August 01, 2013



President Obama frequently states, as he did on May 29 at a Chicago fundraiser: “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” His Climate Action Plan is based on this belief. But, is it correct?

During the Q & A time with the first panel—which included the Democrat’s star: Heidi Cullen of Weather Channel fame, Ranking Member Senator David Vitter (R-LA) asked: “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” After an awkward silence, Cullen tried to change the subject by saying that we need to be looking at longer time periods then ten years and then, ultimately, acknowledged that the warming has slowed, not accelerated.

A few minutes later, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made sure no one missed the point. He repeated Obama’s claim and then asked: “Do any of you support that quote?” Again, silence.

Even the witnesses brought in by the Democrats couldn’t support Obama’s false data.

In preparation for the hearing, the Minority produced an important report: “Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Questions to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies.”

The remaining 19 pages are filled with predictions and claims—including Obama’s—that are false or foolish,

such as Former Vice President Al Gore’s on December 13, 2008: “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.”

And a 1989 statement from the Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers conclude that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide by two degrees by 2010.” Each set of predictions and claims is countered by “The Latest Science.” Reading the report, one finds that the claims often contradict the data.

Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of Climate Fix, started with seven “take-home points” that totally eviscerated Boxer and Cullen’s “extreme weather” claims. Showing a series of charts and graphs Pielke convincingly proved: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” The facts are (From Pielke’s testimony):

* Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.

* There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or the overall number of cyclones.

* Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

* Drought has, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and has been covering a smaller portion of the US over the past century.

Last, but surely not least, was Roy Spencer who holds a Ph.D. in Meteorology and has spent his entire career in research—specifically satellite information retrieval techniques and global temperature monitoring. Spencer has served NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.

Spencer demonstrated the failure of the computer model predictions upon which the IPCC based their projections of global warming. He offered a chart demonstrating the 73 models used and their predictions vs. the actual temperature measurement from two satellite datasets and four weather balloon datasets.

“

The level of disagreement between models and observations is quite striking

.” Spencer pointed out: “

The magnitude of global-average atmospheric warming between 1997 and 2012 is only about 50% that predicted by the climate models. …The level of warming in the most recent 15-year period is not significantly different from zero, despite this being the period of greatest greenhouse gas concentration. This is in stark contrast to claims that warming is ‘accelerating.

’” He concludes: “

It is time for scientists to entertain the possibility that there is something wrong with the assumptions built into their climate models. …and so far their error rate should preclude their use for predicting future climate change.”

The hearing’s “take-home points:” Obama lied. Boxer and Cullen’s predictions are false. The models are inaccurate. So, for this we are going to ruin the economy and disproportionately hurt the poor?

http://www.energytribune.com/78544/why-is-obama-lying-on-climate-change#sthash.fgtNodpc.dpbs



Ahhh, but who cares about ruining the economy and hurting the poor --- when it will make the one-percent even more obscenely rich

.

From Wall Street Journal

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy

.




Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue?   


[color=#000[/color]


Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: . Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.



See more of this great article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

.

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real

It is estimated that we have spent around $106.7 billion of taxpayer money from 2003-2010 to try to understand and “fix” global warming. And the spending doesn’t stop there. The same research shows the government has proposed to spend around $1.4 billion in 2012 alone on climate change issues. The fact of the matter is we are spending egregious amounts of money on an issue that there is no scientific evidence to back.

Read full article here:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real

PZ your link uses the same lie about what the MET office said that longy was trying to pull.

What MET office actually says:


Quote:


When you lot perpetuate lies about what the MET office says, how on earth do you have a leg to stand on when you parrot on about "warmist lies"?

.

100 reasons why climate change is natural

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:


1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.


5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming


10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”


16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

Continued:

100 reasons why climate change is natural

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 

.

100 reasons why climate change is natural

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

continued


71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82)  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. 

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Funny - you told us the exact opposite a few weeks ago.

You told us that sea level rise was due to thermal expansion.

Why are the seas thermally expanding if the last 17 years has shown NO warming"?!?

You ran away the last 4 times you were asked this question.

Will you run away again now?

Plenty of the true faithful who prefer to cut and paste rather than think for themselves. 

Q) Is Climate Change a natural cycle?
A) Yes, it is, as demonstrated by the following chart, which shows Temperatures stretching back over a 300,000 year period!


Q) Does the chart also show a correlation between levels of CO2 & Temperatures?
A) Yes, it does!

Q) Is CO2 the only factor influencing Temperatures?
A) Probably not, but CO2 does appear to have a major influence on Temperatures, as is shown in the following -
http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

Q) Is CO2 simply a colorless, odorless, harmless gas?
A) Like many things, that depends, on many factors, But I would strongly recommend against trying to live on Venus! 

Q) Are we now in a Global Heating Phase OR a Global Cooling phase?
A) Well, as indicated by the above chart, we are about at the top of the usual heating cycle, so the outcomes for the upcoming period will depend on whether "mans influence" translates into further Global warming OR whether the natural cycle wins out?
So, IF mans influence continues, then it could become "uncomfortably hot", as we start to move towards a Venus Climate Trap?
But, IF the natural cycle wins out, then then it could become "uncomfortably cold",as the next Ice Age rolls in?

Whatever the outcome, Good luck, we will probably need it!

muso wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


I DONT THINK THAT it would be even half-reasonable to assert that ACC fans 'think for themselves'.  In fact,  most on here simply copy the orthodox position endlessly and dismiss all contrary evidence without a second thought.  This thread is a perfect example of that where a major increase in Arctic ice has been dismissed uncritically and seemingly without a moments thought.  it is in fact a major kick in the pants to the ACC hypothesis because it is a 180degree turn from the ACC expected outcome

So quite the opposite, the ACC-sceptic side does a great deal of critical thinking while the pro-ACC side mainly does cheer-leading and very little critical analysis whatsoever.

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 11:15am:


and there you have the fundamental bias and flaw in ACC hysteric 'thinking'.  If it is warming, it is global,  If it is cooling it is local.  If it is warmer, it is a trend,  if it is cooler it is not.  There is not scientific method involved as it starts with a desired outcome - warming - and reverse engineers all facts to fit that pre-determined outcome.

A very, very senior scientist says that all 73 climate models are so erro-strewn and fundamentally flawed as to be useless and what is yoru response?

well nothing of course because obviously he is a denier and fraud because....  he disagrees with the ACC religion.

dreadful science, pitiful logic and worse ethics.  ACC hysterics have it all!

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 11:38am:



you read about the gulf stream once and being a generally simple person, every climate question must somehow involve it.  for your information there is NO QUESTION of there being any notable non-cyclical change in the gulf stream.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:



Hi Longy,
thanks for letting me know that.
It's just that I've seen it mentioned in many docos on TV.
Would you have a link to prove that the Gulf stream is unchanged?

Would you agree that if the Gulf stream stopped - Europe would be plunged into a mini ice age?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Music to my ears.......well said......!!

Sorry champ but empirical data shows otherwise to what that global warming extremist blog skeptical science says.

John Cook can't even produce a paper on the consensus without fudging the figures, how on earth can you believe the sh!t he writes.....he has ties to Al Gore.

Now back to that empirical data its called the ARGO and consists of 3000 buoys all over the worlds oceans.

They dive down to 2000 metres and every two weeks they surface to relay the data which includes temperature.

Guess what..........???????

Oceans aren't warming or they would have detected it....!!

Ocean warming has been observed, and its been particularly pronounced in the deep oceans - at depths lower than 700m

This must be some of the "empirical evidence" Ajax is referring to:

Quote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

Ajax wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:



You're not still going on about Dave "Cant find the 0-700 metre bit" Evans?