Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

The Stoat nips back

 It is though important to realise that Breitbart and NTZ are lying about everything; not just the important bits.
NTZ achieves it’s trick by the not-very-subtle method of redefining the meaning of “global cooling scare”. Instead of being a worry about the future, it comes to include papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s). And some other things. Naturally, if you do that you’ll get a very different answer (note also that estimate is no longer valid, but it looked like that then; the temperature records have got better).
I didn’t bother to look through their full list of papers (did you? Did you find any new and interesting ones in the list? Do tell). They will, inevitably, be wrong. One obvious wrong one is them citing the 1975 NAS report in their favour, which it isn’t.

My commentary:

Sep 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, why should anyone trust you or William M Connolley? Austerity in Climate Science beckons, and it would be sensible to buy a warm coat, given the cost of heating a home due to failed policies driven by failed climate science, based on lies, fraud and bollox.

Sep 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Indeed, nullius in verbia.

All of Stoaty's and my claims are easily verified.

How many of the 285 papers did you look at before you linked to the NTZ piece?

I'm guessing a very round number.

Sep 16, 2016 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, how would anyone verify your lies fraud and bollox? Use Wikipedia?

You have lied about lying on ths thread and still think you have a right to be taken seriously?

Why are you and William M Connolley going into Panic Mode when the science is settled? Is it because the lies of Climate Science might now feature in the US Presidential election debate? Could prove worse than a cough and sniffle for climate science funding.

Sep 16, 2016 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

In the Bloomsbury Publishing website for Storms of My Grandchildren, there is this:

Hansen speaks out for the first time with the full truth about global warming: The planet is hurtling even more rapidly than previously acknowledged to a climatic point of no return. In explaining the science of climate change, Hansen paints a devastating but all-too-realistic picture of what will happen in our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes if we follow the course we're on.
No scaremongering there, then. It gets worse when you listen to the embedded, brief interview.

However, here we still are, still unable to predict the future, though observing that the many dire predictions already made by “scientists” (which is the best one can label them with, as they claim to have this predictive ability to be able to see into their grandchildren’s future…. Wow! How scientific! … Not!) having been shown to be total and utter bunkum. The Arctic ice sheet is still there, and might even be increasing; the West Side Highway / Hudson River Greenway of Manhattan is still several feet above being underwater; the glass in Manhattan’s buildings are not taped up to counter the extreme winds. The birds will have changed, as few birds live that long, and the trees might also be different, and it might be interesting to know what the preponderance of crime has become in the area, and whether the numbers of police cars has increased. Okay, these predictions, made 23 years ago, have been amended (or should that be homogenised?) as, in 1988, he was really not talking about the next 20 years, but the next 40. Oh. So, that’s alright, then. It only requires the sea-level to rise a mere 10 feet in the next 17 years, or about 200mm per year. What is it now? 1.5mm per year. Oh, so close!

Of course, the alleged quotations are from an interview of Mr Hansen by another author, Bob Reiss, as he was publicising his own book on “climageddon”™, Stormy Weather, and using Mr Hansen’s words to verify and support his own claims. You could hear it straight from the horse’s mouth (sadly, not dated).

Climate science does have Professors Lindzen and Judith Curry. One should never forget that Newton had rather a lot of detractors in the “settled science” department in his day, too. Who can remember the names of any of those who denounced him as an equivalent of a “denier”?

Sep 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ravishing Rattie, sorry about this, but Gottfried Leibnitz.
Agree with the rest.

Sep 16, 2016 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Well quite, as was noted in an earlier thread these were predictions made when Hansen was asked in an interview to describe what he would see outside his window assuming CO2 had doubled, which is still some decades away. And it was the journalist who got the timeframe wrong. (footnote 1)

Hansen has published widely in the literature, including several milestone papers in the discovery of AGW. It is telling that you ignore that body of work, and the predictions therein and settle instead on a conditional prediction from an old media interview whose conditions have not yet been met.

GC made the same error, I wonder why these zombie myths keep coming up. Faute de mieux?

Sep 16, 2016 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

The essence of my testimony, in both trials, was that the evidence for human – caused climate change is clear.
I know that you will consider me rather cheeky, if not presumptuous, if I were to ask: where is this evidence?

The piece then continues in a downward spiral of scare-mongering. Oh, well, such is climate “science” – aka climastrology.

As for footnote 1:

…probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true…
hahaha! Mr Reiss knows how to tell them, doesn’t he?

Sep 16, 2016 at 2:05 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke, still spouting lies and bollox. Fraud -obtaining money by deception.

Politicised climate science fails without sympathetic politicians directing the money. Sympathetic politicians are suffering a mass extinction event.

Proper funding of 3% of climate scientists will create 100% improvement in quality.

Sep 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Minty: after doing a bit of research on that oh-so-reliable site, Wikipedia, you seem to have missed my point. Gottfried Leibniz might well have been at odds with Newton, but he does not appear to have called Newton the equivalent of “denier”; having differing ideas and theories does NOT make one side or the other “deniers”. It makes them scientists; scientists who are prepared to debate the observations and explanations (even if human failings may take the argument into rather unscientific rancour). Both contributed greatly to scientific advancement, something that none of the present climastrologists seem capable of doing – indeed, many may argue that they are regressing it!

Sep 16, 2016 at 2:55 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

golfCharlie. We will need much, much more than a 100% improvement. A 100% improvement of rubbish is still...(add scatological reference of choice here).

Sep 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

RR. Leibniz claimed he invented calculus and DENIED Newton had done it first.
I did write "sorry" (for quibbling) but it was the first thing that sprung to my mind when I read your post, namely "but I do know someone with whom Newton had a life long dispute, each denying each other's claims for priority".
Sorry again.

Sep 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK


You want me to admit you are right, don't you?

......that's a tough one...... give me time...

Sep 16, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

ACK 2:57, I was just trying to maintain a sense of proportion. Something that 97% of Climate Scientists will understand better when it hits them in the wallets.

Last nights weather forecasts were very accurate about heavy rain and thunder and lightning as I was driving through it. If only they could use the good bits of climate science to increase that forecast accuracy to 5 days or even 10. Taxpayers would be more sympathetic about keeping 3% of the funding, and politicians could sell that to the electorate.

Those writing the history of rewriting history to match the failures of climate science changing what it said, are going to find it difficult to find any truth amongst the lies and denial.

Ironic that it is no longer "cool" to believe in global warming, and it could be getting too hot to handle for those that did.

Sep 16, 2016 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ravishing Rattie, No one is asking you to do any such thing. Like most of us, keep stum and change the subject.
If it's any solace to you, I'm not aware that Newton and Leibniz denied each other's science, although I seem to recall that Newton used his position to stifle some of Liebniz's work (so there are some similarities with the Climategate farce).

Sep 16, 2016 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Dream on golfCharlie, there are still more climate fanatics out there than you can count. PC and EM are just the civilized ones. Just think of Zedbed-whatsit and magnify several orders of magnitude.

Sep 16, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Radical Rodent /ACK
Newton seems to have had disagreements with quite a few people as well as Leibniz he had quite differences with Robert Hooke, and pushed John Flamsteed's nose out of joint. Didn't Newton actually draft anonymously draft a Royal Society report crediting Newton with inventing calculus? Dirty work at the scientific crossroads is nothing new.

Sep 16, 2016 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Forgot to add wasn't Newton extremely rude about Cassegrain's reflecting telescope? A bit like the steam engine it took someone else, Hadley, to develop a working manufacturable design. In this case, unlike Watt and Edison, he doesn't get the any credit despite making his developments public to aid development.

Sep 16, 2016 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Radical Rodent and ACK, I am sure that Wikipedia can be modified to show that Newton was wrong about gravity during the time that Climate Scientists plotted their bankable data and drew pretty scary pictures upside down. It is a simple matter of physics to reverse the polarity of the flux converter, create a wormhole through the space/time continuum, and then lie about not having done it, because it was a Leap Year with a twin-waning Gemini Blue moon before tea-leaf reading time on Easter monday.

This is how Denial of science works in climate science, and very lucrative it is too.

Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The bollox flux is strong today.

Sep 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Just catching up on this thread and I cannot let EM get away without a Nobel prize for his incisive scientific exposition:

AGW can be summarised in three words, cause, effect and consequences.

CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the cause.

The increasing measured temperatures and heat content iare the effects

Sea level rise, ice melt etc are the consequences.

Except, I don't think the Nobel is in the post. And that's because, according to you, AGW is caused by AGW.

Where is the proof positive that CO2 (and CO2 alone) causes warming over and above its position in the GHE theory?
Where is the proof positive, that in any case, it is not the normal 0.04% of the trace gas that causes AGW but the tiny, tiny fraction of that 0.04% that is 'man-made' (and that alone) that causes AGW?
Where is the counter-theory that has ousted the long-accepted theory that T leads CO2 by around 800 years?

And many, many more that I just can't be arsed to put to you and your daft theory (technically, it is not even a theory, it is merely an hypothesis).

Sep 16, 2016 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Rather than idly allow Phil to provide all the links, I just stumbled on the following, of interest to me as a resident of the often flood-blighted Cockermouth. A useful counter-balance to those who seek to deny/re-write history. Plus ca change...:

Sep 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Curiously, something is going on at Cumbria's Times & Star - more editing/re-writing of history? Earlier today (or perhaps late yesterday) an article appeared on its website (under the heading "Unseen footing of Cockermouth floods - 78 years ago"), containing newly-discovered footage of the Cokermouth floods in 1938. But now the article has disappeared, only to be replaced with the words:

"We have been asked to remove this story.

Last modified Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:35PM"

Very strange...They don't say who asked them to remove it, nor why they (apparently unquestioningly) agreed to do so.

Sep 16, 2016 at 8:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson, the problem with calling something "Unprecedented" is when it is clear to anyone who knows a bit of history, that it has happened before, and regularly.

If you have a bit of time, the Guardian have this:

and no reference is made to 100 or so years of recorded historical data, confirming why so many people are living in the wrong places.

The Marshall Islands do represent a problem that grows worse, and it will end in disaster. By blaming it on Global Warming, someone else is supposed to pay. I appreciate that outside financial help is required, because the best farmland and safest land to live, is all owned by a very small minority, who do not feel inclined to help.

Sep 16, 2016 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I note that William M Connolley is still editing wiki, note some of the pages he keeps an eye on:

20:23, 11 June 2016 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) automatically marked revision 724833393 of page May Bumps 2016 patrolled

19:24, 4 June 2016 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) automatically marked revision 723714901 of page Climatic Research Unit email controversy patrolled

22:14, 25 January 2016 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) moved page ExxonMobil climate change related activites to ExxonMobil climate change controversy over redirect (Undiscussed move)

20:11, 25 January 2016 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) automatically marked revision 701655497 of page Greenhouse gas patrolled

I note he 'watches' many climate related pages......

Sep 16, 2016 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards