The reason the significant majority of average people reject the notion that climate is out of control and we are all going to die is the complete and total failure of any of these prophecies to be fulfilled even in small measure. While NASA and NOAA might trumpet loudly (and some would say hysterically) their claims that 2014 was the ‘hottest year ever’, they are talking about hundredths of a degree alongside error margins of tenths of a degree. People are not stupid or at least not that stupid. It is a bit like predicting a St Kilda premiership each and every year. After 20, 30, 40 years of disappointment, you quickly learn to treat such predictions as the wishful thinking they are.

The Pro-climate-change groups have orchestrated some truly appalling actions in pursuit of publicising their venture. While the Al Gore movie could be dismissed as just an embarrassment, the Climategate scandal cannot. Professional scientists colluding to ‘hide the decline’ and hiding data that did not support their central hypothesis. The Hockey Stick fiasco and the continued support for a graph that had literally been proven wrong showed up some people and groups’ motivations to be extremely suspect. But the absolute killer statement was…

‘The science is settled’

Perhaps the silliest thing said of a scientific discipline since the infamous statement by late 1800s physicists that ‘we know pretty much all there is to know about the atom’. No science is ever settled and certainly not climate science which is a relatively young discipline. At least when Rutherford discovered the subatomic structure, physics moved on. The same cannot be said for the loudest voices in Climate Change groups.

For a while we were subjected to the screams that 97% of Climate Scientists agree with Catastrophic Climate Change only to find out later that it wasn’t even remotely true and that now, a detailed and substantial survey concludes that the majority have no such opinion at all. Instead, most claim they have no idea of how much humans are involved in warming or how much more warming there will be – if indeed any. And that is before we even ask the question as to why consensus even has a place in scientific endeavour. The majority of significant scientific advances are actually achieved while debunking the current consensus opinion.

But all jokes aside, it has now started to get serious. Sea level increases have been predicted to be anything from 6 metres to 100 metres by 2020 while the actual rise is mere centimetres. NOAA has decided to ‘rework’ the sea level data and surprise, surprise, when they had done so, the results 100% mirrored IPCC predictions. Yes, 100%. Not just close but perfect. This is a very serious development. Historical revisionism like this is the stuff of totalitarian governments, not scientific bodies. If a scientist is afraid of making mistakes or being wrong then he is definitely in the wrong game. And now, NASA and NOAA reworking together to rework the temperature data and early reports indicate that they have managed to eliminate the near 18 year long pause in temperature change.

The indisputable 18 year pause in warming has been a major thorn in the side of the pro-climate change activists. It is a major deviation from predictions. It took years to even get major bodies to admit the truth of this, even after ClimateGate where this fact (no warming) was what they were trying to hide. And watch them eat their own!

University of WA was planning to bring in an overseas academic with impeccable credentials to manage a Climate Centre, but the academic and activist pushback was so severe they pulled out of it. The furore was so intense that you would think they were inviting Lord Monkton to run the place. Instead, it was an academic who thoroughly subscribes to the Catastrophic Climate Change theory.

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

'indisputable pause'

Yep, this belongs in the 'extremist exposed' section.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:



'The Long Weekend'

DRAH, yet again, proves he is off his meds. 

Greens_Win, you can't have read my post yesterday on how the IPCC (all Hail), view the 'pause', 'hiatus'.

[quote author=leeforward link=1437468949/17#17 date=1437534607]'Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c).'

It means the change in the trend, which is now completely different from the trend 1979-98.

You mean the 'extremist' is the IPCC?

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:


Book titles, Headlines and abstracts dont usually declare the content of what follows. in the case of titles in particular, their point is to attract and lead, not to inform.

So now that we know you dont like the title, go ahead and criticise the rest.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm:

Well informed opinion writers don't try to spread misinformation after being shown it to be so.  Hence it must be you who wrote this junk

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:06pm:


Not sure about a critique, I posted what I think the actual issues are, what the real potential "catastrophe" is - if you like...

As to the OP, I think a genuine opportunity was wasted on the piece simply being yet another "denialist" piece, falsely presented as being a genuine exploration with a couple of brief and forgettable nods to "both sides" having their issues with spin, falsification and beat up...

However, the main bulk of the piece was in essence support of the "denialist" position.

Interestingly, your comments regarding the application of the denialist label are appropriate in respect of any and all labels intended to be, as you assert, a put down. It lends great insight into the authors perspective that ONLY this label is presented as inappropriate and derogatory. That kind of stands out to me, which I acknowledge may also say a bit about me...

I don't think you presented both sides of the argument, as your title suggested rigorously or with any degree of connection to that middle ground position, as indicated by the title. To my mind, this completely undermined what could potentially have been a thought provoking piece.

You presented not argument for Catastrophe at all.

I think there is an argument that the debate is very much potentially both Catastrophic and a Con...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:42pm:




Wouldn't that simply have been a more honest approach.

You see, I am not even going to bother the "science" debate... It won't matter if I provide figures for either team - apparently all data has been debunked, which obviously puts us in a curious position.

I would suggest that it is exactly that dishonest approach to the debate that has undermined the entire debate.

Further, Climate is only part of the equation that effects our survival on this planet. As such, the vast majority of the real debate is also, dishonestly in my opinion, left out.

You have simply joined the chorus with this post.

As to my use of the term "denialist" one would think the quotation marks were a hint. That was the label of you choice to use. To suggest it undermines my critique is absolutely your choice, but for my part, I think it absurd.

I made the point after all that any and all labels that are meant to be demeaning or abusive are inappropriate, at best.  In fact, your use of terms like "denialist, denier" etc must surely have undermined you whole piece as well mustn't they?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:


Undetectable, despite being there on page 1?

Don't tell me I need to start making entire posts really big. I think someone else already uses that Schtick...

I think I have consistently made my position quite clear, I have done so one again on page 1 of this very thread.

Hence my comment, I think the issue at debate is both a Catastrophe and a Con... Said it before, will no doubt say it again.

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:03pm:


Let me engage my overt, unambiguous and subtlety-free style so I don't have to burden you with the struggle of interpretation.

By refusing to engage in the science issues related to an essentially scientific debate, you disengage from it entirely thus making your position on the question, undetectable and frankly, irrelevant. In short, I am trying to get you to engage the substance rather than spending your time nitpicking on headlines and other irrelevancies. is that so onerous?

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:59pm:


From page 1.

As to the "science"....

Are you a scientist? I am not. I do understand a bit about research - I also have some understanding about presenting research and, because of this, I have little to no faith in any of the science being presented as a part of said debate.

I think we have some significant environmental threats to address - that opinion though is not scientific, just basic common sense to be honest. After all, you can only fit so much crap into a closed environment before something goes pop...Global dutch ovens anyone?

There ya go, my position in one paragraph!

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:16pm:


yeah... but to be fair, you did take a massive u-turn away from climate change and address your own pet causes. So we are still not really clear on what you think about the science of climate change other than distrust which is a pretty easy non-committal question.

You should perhaps start a thread on your afore-mentioned environmental issues as it is a worthwhile topic, just not THIS topic.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

Possible. Lots of waffle with not one citation anywhere for the "facts". Provision of citations is not something that wrongy's known to do, ever.

Bam wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:28pm:



and no refutations from you either.  What citations do you need?  the 18year pause that is accepted by everyone and documented in a million places?  Or is it the consensus claim that has been well publicised globally.  Or perhaps you need proof the Al Gore move as even made.

Do you read articles in newspapers with citations? do you need to have proved to you that the earth is round or do you stipulate to it?  then how about engaging that big brain you claim to have, dig thru some memories and accept the facts that are globally NOT INDISPUTE and move on.

no refutations proves my point.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Why do you keep repeating this moronic assertion?

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change physical science draft report, released in late September, said it is a near certainty that rates of sea-level rise -- pushed up largely because warmer water expands -- have accelerated over the last two centuries.

The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled, from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate for the 20th century to a 0.125-inch-per-year average rate.

To Willis and other scientists, this is a clear signal that global warming continues.

"Sea levels are still rising; the ice sheets are still melting; the oceans are still getting more acidic," Willis said. "All of that stuff is still going on just as it has, unabated."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:



Wow, way before global warming, merely a recovery from the LIA.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:07pm:


You don't think it is a bit of a hint that climate and environment might be linked?