NASA’s Jim Hansen calls for energy company execs to be put on trial
This troubling news from the Guardian, UK
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress – in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming – to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.”
I suspect he’ll be calling for the jailing of bloggers like myself next. I think Mr. Hansen has lost all sense of reason, and his last shred of credibility.
UPDATE: Apparently Mr. Hansen has made the claims above on live radio on the Dian Rehm show this morning.
AUDIO CLIPS NOW AVAILABLE:
A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly
The news today from the Pew Institute tells us that many Americans are backing away from the predictions of catastrophic climate change. This may be because many predictions simply haven’t come true.
Most, if not all, WUWT readers know Dr. James Hansen of GISS. He’s credited with jump starting the debate in 1988 with his now famous “sweaty” testimony before Congress in June 1988. See more about the stagecraft of that event here.
Readers might be tempted to think that I’m going to point out the discrepancies between the three different model scenarios that Dr. Hansen presented to Congress in 1988, as shown below. But these model projections are very well known. I’m talking about something else entirely.
In Dr. Hansen’s case, he’s been living the life of a scientist in the media spotlight since, giving thousands of interviews. He’s also taken on the role of activist during that time, getting himself arrested this year for obstructing a public highway.
He likely doesn’t remember this one interview he gave to a book author approximately 20 years ago, but fortunately that author recounted the interview on Salon.com. What is most interesting about this particular Hansen interview is that he dispenses with the usual models and graphs, and makes predictions about what will happen in 20 years to New York City, right in his own neighborhood. Sea level figures prominently.
Here’s the interview.
In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. Red emphasis mine.
Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.
Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”
Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”
When did he say this will happen?
Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.
Does he still believe these things?
Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.
I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, here, just in case it should be deleted. So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980’s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.
Listen to his interview - its hilarious!! Lie after lie. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject:
So, what was Hansen's prediction getting at back then?
Remember how the frauds at Watts/climateaudit/icecap etc. try to spin those advancing glaciers as "proof" that they're "growing" and therefore in good health?
Well, perhaps you need to see this with your own eyes.
Neither does the interview clarify which of three possible future scenarios Hansen was speaking about.
It'll be entertaining to see what trivia banjo7 dismisses this with.
An autumn frost in Minnesota or similar, I would expect.
But the most amusing thing of all is that banjos everywhere are addicted to their symbols.
If Al Gore and James Hansen would just go away so would the problem, as if the work and research of every
other climate scientist and National Academy worldwide didn't exist.
It takes a rare kind of idiocy, that's for sure. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Global warming is not our fault, say most voters in Times poll
From The Times, November 14, 2009
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Peter Riddell
Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.
The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.
Tory voters are more likely to doubt the scientific evidence that man is to blame. Only 38 per cent accept it, compared with 45 per cent of Labour supporters and 47 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters.
Related Links
The high level of scepticism underlines the difficulty the Government will have in persuading the public to accept higher green taxes to help to meet Britain’s legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
The recession appears to have made tackling climate change less of a priority for many people. Only just over a quarter (28 per cent) think that it is happening and is “far and away the most serious problem we face as a country and internationally”, while just over half (51 per cent) think it is “a serious problem, but other problems are more serious”.
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.
“Being confronted with the possibility of higher energy bills, wind farms down the road and new nuclear power stations encourages people to question everything about climate change,” she said. “There is a resistance to change and some people see the problem being used as an excuse to charge them more taxes.”
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: “The overwhelming body of scientific information is stacked up against the deniers and shows us that climate change is man-made and is happening now. We know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change and that is why we make no apologies about pushing forward with our new Act on CO2 campaign.”
"Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.
Because it could not possibly be that people are becoming aware that it is a pack of lies. It is OVER!!! The numbers will only grow when the FACTS are shown to people, something which will NEVER happen on mainstream media. The climate liars had better shut the Internet down if they want their global enslavement campaign to succeed. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject:
Banjoboy, seeing as for once you've actually quoted a reliable source, would you please use this brief interlude to explain to us all what exactly this "global enslavement campaign" you keep ranting on about actually means?
Sounds an awful lot like vague and unspecified fear-mongering to me.
... And that it mainly seems to appeal to those who couldn't administer a works tea club. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject:
Sorry to be such a pedant, but could you please define what you mean by “reliable”?
chek wrote:
Banjoboy, seeing as for once you've actually quoted a reliable source, would you please use this brief interlude to explain to us all what exactly this "global enslavement campaign" you keep ranting on about actually means?
Sounds an awful lot like vague and unspecified fear-mongering to me.
... And that it mainly seems to appeal to those who couldn't administer a works tea club.
Cargo ships navigate Northeast Passage for the first time
It is both a symbol of global warming and a potentially lucrative new trade route between Europe and Asia. Two German container ships have successfully navigated the Russian Northeast Passage across Arctic waters from the Pacific for the first time in a voyage considered impossible until a few years ago.
And the infamous marketing campaign:
"Climate change has allowed the Northeast Passage to be used as a commercial shipping route for the first time. To help you navigate the changing world we have more dedicated science and environment correspondents than the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail or Independent."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject:
More than half of the UK population doesn't accept climate change is man-made
By Daily Mail Reporter - 14th November 2009
* Comments (217)
More than half the population does not believe climate change has been caused by humans.
In a poll published just weeks before the global climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, it has been revealed only 41% of British people accept as a scientific fact that the situation is largely man-made.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:53 pm Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
More than half of the UK population doesn't accept climate change is man-made
By Daily Mail Reporter - 14th November 2009
* Comments (217)
More than half the population does not believe climate change has been caused by humans.
In a poll published just weeks before the global climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, it has been revealed only 41% of British people accept as a scientific fact that the situation is largely man-made.
It's a fact that we're up against the most stupendously rich and entrenched corporate powers on Earth, and they've been fighting this propaganda war tooth and nail using every PR resource available.
And they've been limbering up for this in the dozen years since Kyoto.
Luckily, that doesn't guarantee they'll win.
Not by a long shot
Just like they say about the devil, their greatest achievement is trying to convince the unwary no problem exists. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Its LOCAL - its caused by Global WARMING/Man-Made Climate Change
Quote:
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is Growing Thicker
These two photos, taken in the late 1980s, show that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker.
Construction Crane Buried in Ice Sheet
* In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.
* As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice.
* And the crane used to build the towers will soon be totally covered by ice. (By the way. If you know what kind of crane this is, or how tall it is, please let me know.)
* Not only are the power transmission towers being buried, so are the Antarctic research stations themselves.
* The old Byrd Station has been shut down because it is buried beneath 40 to 50 feet of ice and snow and is slowly being crushed.
* The old South Pole station is also buried beneath the ice.
* So is the old Siple station.
* The current South Pole station is also slowly being buried. A new station is now being built on top of the ice to replace it.
This info comes from Robert Holmes. Mr Holmes travels
to Antarctica yearly, where he builds and maintains research stations.
*
The Antarctic Ice Sheet covers five million square miles. The Greenland Ice Sheet covers another 700,000 square miles. Combined, they're twice as big as the contiguous United States. Combined, they're 100 times bigger than all the rest of the world's glaciers put together.
*
Glaciers are growing in other areas, too. Some glaciers on Canada's Baffin Island are as large or larger than at any time during the past 33,000 years; perhaps the past 60,000 years.
*
In fact, glaciers are growing around the world.
See list of expanding glaciers.
*
The next ice age has begun . . . and we don't even know it.
Its LOCAL!!! Its just local all over the Earth!! Global Warming is causing this and its YOUR fault!!!
Quote:
Last month the coldest October for 64 years
Northern News, Last updated 05:00 11/11/2009
Last month was the coldest October in 64 years, with all-time record low temperatures in many areas.
The month had exceptionally late snowfalls and record low October temperatures were recorded on October 4 and 5 in most North Island locations, and on October 9 at many South Island sites.
Rainfall was well above normal rainfall in the east of the North Island, as well as in Wellington, Marlborough and parts of Canterbury. It was very dry on the West Coast of the South Island.
The month was extremely sunny on the West Coast of the South Island.
Record or near-record low October temperatures were experienced in many locations, with temperatures more than 2.0 degrees Celsius below average throughout eastern and alpine areas of the South Island, as well as in the lower half of the North Island.
Temperatures were below average – between 0.5 degrees and 1.2 degrees below average – elsewhere.
Overall for New Zealand, it was the coldest October in the 64 years since 1945, with a national average temperature of 10.6 degrees – 1.4 degrees below the long-term October average.
Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years.
Well above normal October rainfall – above 150 percent of normal – was experienced across the east coast of the North Island, as well as Wellington, Marlborough and Canterbury, north of about Ashburton. Rainfall was near-record – and more than 200 percent of normal – in parts of Hawkes Bay, Gisborne and the Tararua district.
Unseasonable snowfalls characterised October 2009. An exceptionally heavy snow on October 4 and 5 in the Hawkes Bay and Central North Island was estimated to be the worst in October since 1967, stranding hundreds of travellers, closing roads, and resulting in heavy lambing losses.
Many locations in the North Island experienced record low October temperatures on October 5. Snowfall was also observed in Taranaki, Waikato and Rotorua on October 6. It was the first time it snowed in about 30 years around Rotorua.
IT IS LOCAL. Because we are heating the planet it is freezing in SOME locations. Its just that the locations are EVERYWHERE!!! You know it makes sense. Now pay Al Gore you carbon taxes and SHUT UP!!!
Quote:
7,000 buildings collapse in China under heaviest snow on record
13 Nov 09 – Unusually early snowstorms in northern China have stranded tens of thousands of vehicles and motorists, led to the deaths of 38 people, forced the evacuation of 158,000 people, and forced delays or cancellation of hundreds of flights in several cities, including China's capital city, Beijing.
The snow - heaviest in the area since records began - has caused more than half a billion dollars in damage, including the collapse of more than 7,000 buildings and damage to 297,000 acres (120,000 hectares) of crops, the Civil Affairs Ministry said Friday.
In Hebei province, three children died after the roof of their canteen collapsed under the weight of the snow. Another 28 were hospitalized.
Another child died in neighbouring Henan province and seven were injured, again when the roof the school canteen collapsed. Three of the students are in a critical condition.
This is the second year and a row that China has been hammered by massive snowstorms. About 20 months ago, the most severe snowstorm in five decades in southern China caused an estimated $22 billion in direct economic losses, destroying 29.4 million acres (11.9 million hectares) of cropland, and forcing the government to hand out 63.3 billion yuan of subsidies to farmers.
It is LOCAL. The locality just happens to be planet Earth. The science is settled. Shut up. It isn't snowing.
Quote:
OAA: U.S. Posts Third Coolest-Highest Precipitation for October on Record
November 10, 2009
The October 2009 average temperature for the contiguous United States was the third coolest on record for that month according to NOAA’s State of the Climate report issued today. Based on data going back to 1895, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services provided by NOAA.
The average October temperature of 50.8 degrees F was 4.0 degrees F below the 20th Century average. Preliminary data also reveals this was the wettest October on record with average precipitation across the contiguous United States reaching 4.15 inches, 2.04 inches above the 1901-2000 average.
U.S. Temperature Highlights
October 2009 statewide temperature ranks.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
* October 2009 was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in all regions with the exception of the Southeast which had near normal temperatures for the month.
* Oklahoma recorded its coldest October on record while the month ranked in the top five for Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
* Florida was the only state to record an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that Florida’s temperature was above normal.
Other Highlights
* Two major snow storms hit the Upper Midwest and the western Plains states. By month’s end, 13.6 percent of the nation was under snow cover, according to NOAA’s National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center.
* Cheyenne, Wyo., tallied 28 inches of snow in October, making this the city’s snowiest October on record. North Platte, Neb., recorded 30.3 inches of snow, making October 2009 the snowiest month ever for the city.
* October saw below-normal fire activity, with a total of 3,207 fires that burned about 158,000 acres, according to the National Interagency Coordination Center.
More lies from the supporters of the Man-made climate scam.
Quote:
Polar Bear Balderdash
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Alan Caruba
I received an email from the Sierra Club urging me to sign a petition to declare the polar bear an endangered species.
The Department of the Interior is considering this and it would cover much of the Arctic, including the sea ice of the Arctic Ocean. The Sierra Club is worried because Shell Oil wants to drill for oil in the Beaufort Sea, a part of the “critical habitat for the bear.”
So, for anyone who doesn’t think that thwarting all attempts to drill for oil in the Arctic isn’t the real reason to “save” the thriving polar bear population, the answer is that it has nothing to do with polar bears and everything to do with the primary goal of all environmental organization, denying energy sources to Americans and everyone else.
Indeed, the Sierra Club said declaring the polar bear endangered was “necessary to stop harmful activities such as oil drilling.” So I guess it doesn’t get any more plain than that.
The Sierra Club went on to blatantly lie about the status of polar bears, claiming that “survival rates for polar bear cubs are plunging.” It is common knowledge that male polar bears are known to kill cubs, but the survival rates have much more to do with the mother bear’s ability to catch ringed seals.
Ironically, polar bears’ favorite delicacy is the pups of ringed seals. Mother Nature doesn’t much care who wins the survival marathon and the Sierra Club is not calling for an endangered species declaration for ringed seals.
The Sierra Club is lying. The Natural Resources Defense Council is lying. The World Wildlife Fund is lying. They could not care less about polar bears. Their objective is shutting off access to anywhere that has oil or natural gas reserves.
In a July 2006 a report, “Polar Bear Politics: Underestimating the survival capacity of one popular bear” by Jennifer Marohasy, the Director of the Food and Environmental Unit at the Australian based Institute of Public Affairs was published. The estimate of the population is “about 25,000 polar bears existing in 19 relatively discrete populations across Norway, Denmark, Russia, Alaska, Greenland, and Canada.”
“Forty years ago, there were only about 5,000 bears, the worldwide population depressed by hunting.” In the 1970s, nations agreed to restrict hunting, resulting in the growth of the population.
The BIG LIE is that the Arctic is melting because of “global warming.” The Arctic has, in fact, “warmed” over the past two decades and there has been a reduction in sea ice, but there has been no “global warming”, only a natural cycle of warming that followed a Little Ice Age that ended around 1850 after three hundred years.
In fact, in October 2007, NASA announced the results of an in-depth study of Arctic sea ice and concluded what melting had occurred was due “a change in wind patterns” that had “compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic.” Wind patterns, not “global warming.”
The Earth is now into a new cooling cycle that began in 1998 and which meteorologists predict will last for several decades. What they won’t tell you is that they have their fingers crossed that it does not, in fact, signal a new Ice Age. The period between ice ages is about 11,500 years and the Earth is at the end of the interglacial period that has allowed for the rise of human civilization in the past five thousand years or so.
So, the fate of the polar bear is such that they are more likely to survive a new Ice Age than billions of humans in the northern hemisphere.
As should be obvious to everyone, the reduction of Arctic sea ice or the population of ringed seals has had no correlation whatever with the growth of the polar bear population. Indeed, if there hadn’t been a period of glaciation about 250,000 years ago and a bunch of formerly brown bears had not become isolated and had not adapted successfully, there would be no polar bears.
Further putting the lie to the Sierra Club and other environmental organization’s predictions is the fact that polar bears live in remote and inhospitable parts of the Arctic. In addition, they are not stationary, roaming over an area as large as two hundred square kilometers in search of tasty seals. Most of the time, humans can’t even visit or fly over the vast bulk of the Arctic to make any kind of count.
The Sierra Club has no idea how many polar bears actually exist in the Arctic and any claim that they are “endangered” is pure balderdash. I could use another word to describe such claims, but my Mother told me not to.
So, to sum up, the Sierra Club is LYING about polar bears and you would be well advised to take anything else they have to say with a grain of Arctic Sea salt.
Posted by Alan Caruba at 12:34 PM
Labels: Arctic, oil, polar bears, Sierra Club
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:21 pm Post subject:
I guessed right! (More or less)
banjo7 wrote:
Its LOCAL - its caused by Global WARMING/Man-Made Climate Change
Could be, although a 30 year period is required to differentiate weather, persistent weather and climate.
However, perturbations in established weather patterns are not inconsistent with AGW predictions.
banjo7 wrote:
Its LOCAL!!! Its just local all over the Earth!! Global Warming is causing this and its YOUR fault!!!
It isn't 'all over the Earth' and it's not my fault. So much fuss just because global corporations need global oversight so that they don't continue to avoid regulation by national governments.
banjo7 wrote:
IT IS LOCAL. Because we are heating the planet it is freezing in SOME locations. Its just that the locations are EVERYWHERE!!! You know it makes sense. Now pay Al Gore you carbon taxes and SHUT UP!!!
Enough with the stupid.
Just because you don't understand the concept of heat circulation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And neither I nor anyone else will ever pay a penny in tax to Al Gore.
banjo7 wrote:
It is LOCAL. The locality just happens to be planet Earth. The science is settled. Shut up. It isn't snowing.
You've been shown to be wrong on several previous occasions making these claims, yet you take no heed and continue to spam without checking the validity of the claims you're making.
Therefore, you are now deliberately lying.
It took me fifteen minutes to find evidence to the contrary of what you claim - evidence you could just as easily have found yourself, which is
lying by omission with the intent of deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Which summarises your entire post history on this thread neatly.
The last sentence of the last item quoted below made me laugh, and shows your banjo campaign up for what it is.
"Darwin (Northern Australia)
Maximum temperatures were unusually warm in Darwin this October, with Darwin recording it's warmest month on record. The average maximum temperature was 34.8°C at Darwin Airport, which is 1.6°C greater than the long-term mean, and the highest mean maximum temperature recorded in any month for Darwin. The daily maximum temperature during the month reached 35.0°C on 13 days, the highest on record for any month, and there were another 4 days with 34.9°C. The 38.0°C recorded on the 18th was the second highest daily maximum temperature on record at Darwin Airport, while the 37.8°C the previous day ranks equal third. www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nt/summary.shtml
Adelaide (Southern Australia)
"Two years, three record heat waves in southeastern Australia
Posted on 14 November 2009 by Barry Brook
Summer 2009 — 2010 hasn’t even begun in Australia, and yet we are already sweltering under another record heat wave — the third in two years. Temperature records for the month of November have been broken across the region, caused by a blocking high pressure system over the Tasman Sea. This follows an abnormally hot winter, including Australia’s hottest August on record.
Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is."
"Public Information Statement
National Weather Service
Barrow
Alaska
09.27 am Tue Nov 3 2009
October was the second month in a row in which well above average temperatures were recorded. This month was on track to be the warmest October in station history, but colder air aided by clearing skies allowed the minimum temperature on the 30th and 31st. to drop to 2 below and 3 below zero respectively. The later was also the lowest minimum temperature for the month.
October of 2009 concluded as the 3rd warmest October in station history.
Five of the top ten warmest Octobers have occurred within the last ten years.
The average monthly temperature was 24.9 degrees...which is 10.3 degrees above normal.
Three record breaking daily high temperatures were set during the month, each breaking the previous daily record high temperature set back in the warm October of 1998.
Beginning on Columbus day the high temperature reached 37 degrees, which broke the old record daily high temperature of 35 degrees.
The next record daily high temperature of 38 degrees occurred on the following day The 12th, which was also the highest temperature of the month and shattered the previous record of 35 degrees.
The final record daily high temperature of the month occurred on the 15th and reached 35 Degrees exceeding the old record of 34 degrees. The above four day Period beginning on Columbus day is the highest maximum temperature average for that period in station history."
"Hundreds of Swans that normally migrate from the cold Arctic to the warmer locations in England each year have decided that there is no necessity to go all the way across to UK on a 1,864 kilometer trip as the Siberian winter is still not as cold as it should be.
23,000 swans that visit different parts of Europe in the winter have not yet started their migratory flight back to places like Slimbridge Wildfowl and Wetlands Centre in UK because the winters this time around in Siberia are simply not cold enough to force them to take the long journey.
Scientists across the globe view this as another effect of the Global Warming phenomenon, which is the reason for warmer winters in Siberia.
The birds normally move out to various places in Europe seeking out shelter by following an in-built biological pattern that is apparently triggered by temperature changes. With global warming keeping Siberia warmer than usual, the birds do not feel a necessity to move out as yet.
Apart from disappointing bird lovers across Europe, this new development could mean that within the next few years, the swans would forget their intuitive migratory patterns that are passed on genetically. If a cold Siberian winter strikes them at that point, they might just not know what to do.
Temperatures have been rising dramatically in the Arctic during the last decade and while some dismiss it as an over-reaction, there surely can be no accusations made that the Swans are a part of the conspiracy theory as well!
And as for your follow up blog on polar bears it is so chock-full of ignorance and bereft of any evidence whatsoever, I can only think that it must meet your credulity threshhold, if nobody else's.
"I saw it in the newspaper, it must be true" has been a signature of a gullible moron for at least 40 years.
As for believing unconfirmed blog posts with no citations - well, I'd hate to guess whereabouts on the credibility scale that puts you, banjoboy.
However, these excerpts are classic:
banjo7 wrote:
Quote:
In fact, in October 2007, NASA announced the results of an in-depth study of Arctic sea ice and concluded what melting had occurred was due “a change in wind patterns” that had “compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic.” Wind patterns, not “global warming.”
Hmmm, I wonder what phenomenon might affect 'wind patterns'?
Climate, perhaps
banjo7 wrote:
Quote:
The Earth is now into a new cooling cycle that began in 1998 and which meteorologists predict will last for several decades. What they won’t tell you is that they have their fingers crossed that it does not, in fact, signal a new Ice Age. The period between ice ages is about 11,500 years and the Earth is at the end of the interglacial period that has allowed for the rise of human civilization in the past five thousand years or so.
Still, when you've got an agenda to advance, I suppose truth is the first casualty. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is Growing Thicker
The next ice age has begun . . . and we don't even know it.
This ties in with another post that I've had on the backburner, but it will require some further preparation to hopefully show how these propaganda astroturf blog sites work.
Of course you'd never know about it, except for their gaggle of gullible repeaters who don't have the slightest clue about even beginning to check on the veracity of what they're repeating.
As anyone who's been here a while knows, the disinfo campaigns always follow the same M.O.
The important thing to remember is that these denier blog sites aren't seeking to educate you, they're out to misinform you to further their corporate agenda. Pretty much like everything else banjo7 posts.
The short answer (just to do banjoboy's fragile head in) is that global warming is causing thicker ice in certain parts of Antarctica.
Did you get that bit banjo7?
Global warming can look like cooling!
How can that possibly be!?!
The how and why will follow... _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
BOCA RATON - Former Vice President Al Gore's global-warming speech Saturday night at Mizner Park drew about a thousand attendees, as well as more than 200 loud protesters.
Stationed outside the Mizner Park Amphitheater, the protesters jeered at Gore as he took the podium and at those walking into the open-air venue to listen to the speech.
"This is the most dangerous crisis we've ever faced," Gore said of climate change. He spoke over a chorus of boos from protesters, who were monitored by at least a dozen uniformed city police officers.
Many of the protesters were with the groups Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and South Florida Tea Party, the latter of which feels that Gore's views will eventually lead to increased taxes and flawed business legislation.
The protesters carried drums, bullhorns and posters. One read "Practice what you preach," accusing Gore of not living a green lifestyle. Another poster read "The masses follow the asses," depicting the protesters' opinion that Gore's message is not backed by scientific evidence.
Gore, meanwhile, in his presentation laid out data that he said was compiled by the world's leading scientists and supports the theory of global warming. The speech carried much of the same content and rhythm as Gore's Oscar-winning 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which turned him into a leading international voice on the issue of climate change.
Gore's latest book on the subject, titled Our Choice, was published earlier this month.
"The masses follow the asses,"
VERY well said. It starts with heckling then turns to tarring and feathering. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
It just takes a little more time and with a LOT more cooling all over the Earth (locally of course), the liars are exposed. The majority of people have twigged the scam and no amount of specious drivel about "climate" being cooled by warming is going to save the fraud. It is all a pack of lies by "Greens too yellow to admit they are Reds".
Quote:
Copenhagen climate change agreement is impossible
Sunday, November 15, 2009
World leaders have finally accepted that it will be impossible to come to a deal on climate change this year and have moved their attention to setting new deadlines for a global agreement.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December has been billed as the world's last chance to stop global warming. But negotiations to forge a binding agreement have been hampered by a US refusal to sign up to targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The deadlock forced world leaders at a summit in Singapore at the weekend to admit that any deal this year will be little more than a "political agreement".
However they insisted that a legally-binding treaty would be thrashed out by the end of 2010 and even suggested a timetable and deadline to ensure negotiations stay on track.
The new "two-step" plan, put forward by the Danes, increases pressure on Barack Obama, US president, to attend the talks in Copenhagen and to reassure the world that the US is serious about tackling climate change.
It also gives world leaders the chance to rescue the Copenhagen summit from certain failure by giving lawyers more time to work on a hugely complex international deal.
The Danes are already drawing up a "politically binding" agreement and environment ministers will meet in Copenhagen this week to discuss the details.
But environmental groups are concerned that the "rescue package" is a delaying tactic by rich nations to wriggle out of cutting carbon.
The new plan was put forward by Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, over breakfast at an Asia-Pacific summit.
He suggested that world leaders agree a "political accord" to keep a rise in global temperatures to below 2C. However it will not be until further UN meetings in Germany in June and Mexico in December that the details of how this will be achieved will be decided.
"Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let ourselves be distracted by what is not possible," he said. "The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion."
During the last round of negotiations in Barcelona, developing nations walked out over the America's refusal to commit to cuts in carbon emissions.
However the new plan gives Mr Obama time to push through the necessary legislation that will allow America to sign up to emission targets.
It also gives time for agreement on how much money should be given to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
Ed Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said it was essential that Mr Obama attend the talks to ensure that any political agreement is a success.
"I think as many leaders as possible – including President Obama – do need to come there because that will make a difference in the end to the kind of deal we want," he said.
However Diane McFadzien of WWF, the environmental group, said that only a legally-binding treaty would force nations to take the necessary action to stop global warming. "Legally binding is the only thing that will do if we want to see real action to save the planet."
Posted by pooja at 3:30 PM
Its not about a one world government - these people want to save you! Durrr...
Quote:
THE COMING CLIMATE DICTATORSHIP
by Investor's Business Daily | November 12, 2009
Control: The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a "climate emergency." As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peek at the "trigger" placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee.
As Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation points out, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires the declaration of a "climate emergency" if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds 450 parts per million (ppm). It was at about 286 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and now sits at around 368 ppm.
That figure was picked out of a hat because the warm-mongers believe that's the level at which the polar ice caps will disappear, boats can be moored on the Statue of Liberty's torch and dead polar bears will wash up on the beaches of Malibu.
The Senate version includes a section that gives the president authority, under this declared "climate emergency," to "direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions ... to address shortfalls" in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
What the "appropriate actions" might be are not defined and presumably left up to the discretion of the White House. Could the burning of coal be suspended or recreational driving be banned? Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked the EPA for a definition and received no response.
Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner says "this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It's about what the provision would bring: almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts" packed by liberal Democrat appointees.
Writing in the Financial Times recently, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, author of the book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles," said: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism."
Klaus, who has challenged Al Gore to a debate and has rejected Europe's embrace of Kyoto, told the Cato Institute recently that "environmentalism is a religion" that accepts global warming on faith and seeks to exploit it to reshape the world and economic order.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
It just takes a little more time and with a LOT more cooling all over the Earth (locally of course), the liars are exposed.
Your corporate funded lies about "global cooling" amongst others have been exposed plenty of times already.
Interesting that you fling around accusations at others when you're the one regularly caught lying.
Repeatedly.
It must be some psychological flaw peculiar to liars, what with lies being a power mechanism and you being unable to acknowledge them even as "mistakes" in case your fragile little reality shatters into pieces.
item7 wrote:
The majority of people have twigged the scam and no amount of specious drivel about "climate" being cooled by warming is going to save the fraud.
The majority of people don't believe in your knobend ideas about slavery - but they do see where the money trail funding the lies and deceptive claims you've tried to get away with spreading here comes from.
item7 wrote:
It is all a pack of lies by "Greens too yellow to admit they are Reds".
The thing is banjoboy, you can claim it's all a pack of lies till you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make what you say true.
What you have to do is demonstrate why they are lies, which you have been singularly unable to do.
Ironically, it's all of your claims that turn out to be lies. Even your blindest followers sooner or later will need to ask themselves how that can be, before coming to the obvious conclusion.
And you could at least have the decency to attribute one of Biscuit Munchkin's more irrelevant, dated, red-baiting turns of phrase to him.
To most of the banjos even as well informed as you, they're probably still wondering what a communist is. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Climate Change: Who Are The Deniers Now?
Written by Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press
Monday, November 16 2009 09:44
“When you point your finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.” Anonymous
Finger pointing rarely includes facts, especially in the climate debate. The first finger said we were global warming skeptics, but was turned back when it was explained all scientists are skeptics.
The second finger claimed we were climate change deniers. It was turned back because the opposite is true; we’re telling the public about the extent and speed of natural climate change. As Copenhagen nears, it’s evident no agreement is possible so rhetoric, and alarmism abound. Finger pointing has a new form, being a denier is now a disease. They never consider the failure is due to facts proving the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis wrong. With the left it is always someone else’s fault.
Just the Facts
Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
The sphere is expanding for several reasons.
* All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
* Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
* Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
* Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
* Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
* Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.
If you shoot the messenger it changes the question to, “Who is the denier now?”
Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.” It’s a variation on “the science is settled” theme, but personalized to say you deny the facts that prove it’s settled. I experienced it this week and learned there’s no rational response. A person presented herself as a journalist writing an article on climate change. I don’t refuse interviews and assume the person is seeking balance. The article was about “denialism”, which the journalist claimed was a serious threat and I was a prime example. It evolved there was no balance, the journalist believed the science is settled and I was refusing to concede.
I explained how I am the antithesis of a denier. I explained how the scientific method was thwarted and the AGW hypothesis became fact before the research began. I was told this was clear evidence of my denial. As the chosen representative of denialism I wanted the facts and science I was supposedly denying. I asked what percentage CO2 was of greenhouse gases. The answer; “I ask the questions.” I ended the interview, an action that will probably appear as clear evidence of denial.
Leftist politicians are pointing the same fingers. Australian Prime Minister Rudd said in a recent speech, “climate-change skeptics, the climate-change deniers, the opponents of climate-change action are active in every country.”
He wrapped the charges in the standard environmentalist argument of the precautionary principle. Of the Australian opposition he said, “You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.”
It is the finger of guilt. What he denies is those impacts will occur if you implement his proposed climate-change action.
But who has the political prejudice?
Logic says it’s those who want to stifle debate, to silence individuals and groups. All I’ve ever sought is a full and open debate. It was what 59 fellow skeptics and I sought in a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister.
A new book with another twist accuses those trying to uncover the facts of a cover-up. I hesitate to give the book attention but as an example of the illogic, lies and nastiness in the climate change debate it must be exposed.
James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore’s form of the denialism charge is in their book titled, “Climate Cover-Up” subtitled, “The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.” They’ve likely achieved a new low with two major errors in the title. Nobody denies warming; the issue is the cause. The word “crusade” implies a religious quest, but the real crusade is to force acceptance of the hypothesis by personal attacks. Scientists as skeptics were subjected to an inquisition as befalls non-believers.
Disclosure; I’m a victim of their attacks and accusations. The false information about me leaves little doubt the rest is equally questionable. I was a threat from the beginning because I identified the hoax early in a peer-reviewed article, “An Iconoclast’s View of Climatic Change” in the 1992 Canadian Water Resources Journal. The editor published but with the bizarre condition he provide the title. When I saw his choice I agreed because, unknown to him I already realized I was challenging a religion. Hoggan and Littlemore falsely linked me to the oil and energy industry. They said my failure to follow through on a lawsuit to stop their false information was proof of guilt. Truth is I could not afford to continue the action. Besides, Hoggan was supporting the person who made the false accusations. The book smears by suggestion, implies guilt by association, and uses various forms of ad hominem attacks. They don’t discuss the scientific facts.
Hoggan and Littlemore are major players in the attacks and real cover-up. It is their expertise. Hoggan is a master of spin who owns a large Public Relations company. Littlemore is a political journalist. Hoggan set up a web page called Desmogblog and hired Littlemore and Kevin Grandia, to produce material replete with personal attacks, while ignoring the science.
Hoggan is Chair of the Board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a political environmental group that receives funding from oil and energy companies. With the twisted logic of true believers somehow this is not tainting and neither is money from government or any other agency. Hoggan’s clients include alternative energy companies, like Ballard Engineering, who benefit from showing CO2 is causing global warming or climate change, but somehow that is not a conflict. But none of that is important; the issue is the science and the facts, which they consistently ignore.
Knocked Out by the Facts
The final finger of denialism pointed so directly by Monbiot is, ironically, an eloquent description of his own position. The reason he writes, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing” is because the fingers have curled into a fist and it is aimed right back at him and the other real deniers. As James Howell (1594 – 1666) said, “Burn not thy fingers to snuff another man’s candle.”
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:39 am Post subject:
Cor luvaduck, it's Mr ''avin'alarf' Bridger back again
And gawblessus if he ain't repeating banjo7's points all over again!
'E's a cheeky one, eh?
I say - 'e's cheeky eh?
'E does like to 'ave alarf, 'e does.
But wait - Mr B's a bit cleverer than banjoboy (not hard, I know) and gone to the source.
Ladies'n'gents via Mr B, via a grandly titled bedsit blog in a Canadian backstreet ... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Dr. Tim Ball.
And look!
He's saying exactly the same things as banjoboy that have been ripped apart and exposed for 9 months now!!
Whhhhy... that Mr, Bridger!
But ... how do they do that?
Well folks, they do it like this....
While we're not actually at the throne, make no mistake that with this Tim Ball character, we're in The Hall of The Mountain King of Bullsheit.
Just so we know where we stand, let's take a look at Dr. Ball and see where he's coming from.
At times this may appear as an ad hominem "attack", but if that should seem to be the case, it's purely down to Tim's choices in life. And there is a reason for every word...
"Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project .
(While fairly grand and official sounding, NRSP are an energy industry lobby group set up to oppose the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol of 1997).
Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).
Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.
Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations".
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
So far I think we can agree that we have here a Canadian scientist, with tangible ties to both industry anti-climate change legislation propaganda (PR) organisations, and a directly industry backed lobby group, and another separate "free market think tank".
As Rolf would say, 'can ya tell what it is yet?'
But let's hold back from connecting any dots for a while yet .
Where were we? Oh yes...
We have a Canadian academic with a successful right wing pro-business career.
I wonder how he got access to that cashcow?
I'm pretty sure that political lobbyists and think tank members are very comfortably off, and you're generally unlikely to see one paying in down the local Credit Union.
He must have a great CV!
Let's see some of it - and remember, there's only one person that writes a CV.
"During the period from at least July 25, 2004 to October 3, 2006, the Envirotruth Webpage curriculum vitae for the plaintiff stated among other things:
"Dr. Timothy Ball - Environmental consultant and 28 years Professor of Climatology. University of Winnipeg"
"Dr. Ball has B.A. (Honours). M.A. (University of Manitoba) and
Ph.D. (Doctor of Science). University of London. England (the first Canadian climatology Ph.D.)"
"And an extensive science background in climatology."
"In advertisements for various speaking engagements published on the Friends of Science website, and in his listing as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Friends of Science in May, 2005, the plaintiff was described as "Emeritus Professor".
Wow! Impressive!
As some of the more astute may have noticed, from a tiny giveaway legal word or two in there, these are part of a sworn statement from the papers of a court case.
The court case was after Dr. Ball sued Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge after Johnson questioned Ball's competence and credentials in a letter to the Calgary Herald.
"The plaintiff was not "28 years Professor of Climatology", University of Winnipeg nor was he "32 years Professor of Climatology", University of Winnipeg.
According to the "Faculty" names and positions listed in the annual University of Winnipeg Calendar, the plaintiff was
a "Professor of Geography" at the University of Winnipeg for 8 years during the period from 1988 to 1996;
an "Associate Professor of Geography" at the University of Winnipeg for 5 years during the period from 1984 to 1988;
an "Assistant Professor of Geography" in 1983-84;
a "Lecturer in Geography" for 5 years from 1978 to 1982 and for one year in 1976-77; and
a "Sessional Lecturer" in Geography for three years during the period from 1973 to 1976.
The plaintiff obtained his B.A. from the University of Winnipeg in 1970. Throughout his studies for his B.A. degree, the plaintiff was not a member of the faculty at the University of Winnipeg or at any other university.
At all material times, the plaintiff knew the aforesaid claims concerning the plaintiff on the Envirotruth Webpage were false.
The plaintiff approved and authorized the publication of the same statement on the website of The Friends of Science .
"The plaintiff is not and never has been an "Emeritus Professor."
He was aware that he was not entitled to allege that he was an "Emeritus Professor" but continued to do so and took no steps to correct mistaken impressions of his qualifications left with readers of the Friends of Science website.
"The defendant specifically denies that the Ph.D. was defined by Queen Mary College as a Doctor of Philosophy "in Climatology."
"When the plaintiff obtained the Ph.D. from Queen Mary College (University of London, United Kingdom), Canada already had numerous individuals with Ph.D.'s in climatology, a science generally then embraced within university departments such geography, physics, earth sciences, oceanography, hydrology and others".
"Those individuals include but are not limited to:
Dr. F. Kenneth Hare, who earned his Ph.D. in 1950 studying arctic climatology in the department of Geography of the University of Montreal; Dr. Andre Robert, who earned his PhD in 1965 from McGill University;
Dr. Timothy R. Oke, who earned his PhD in 1967 from McMaster University.
There were many others".
Uh - not so impressive. We now seem to have a mediocre hack geography lecturer who has seen a way to tell lies about his career and get into the bigtime.
But hold on - that might be just his day job.
He might be a climate genius, proving the consensus wrong and fighting back the communist hordes in doing so.
Uh - no.
"a In the field of science, an individual demonstrates academic expertise in a particular field by publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and by presenting his or her scientific findings at scientific conferences.
b. The plaintiff has published relatively few articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, none of which relate to whether global warming caused by greenhouse gases is occurring. His scientific articles mainly concent the findings of his Ph.D. thesis. His previous and current rates of publication are negligible, as a result of which the plaintiff has little or no reputation for academic expertise and qualifications regarding the study of global wanning and greenhouse gases.
c. The plaintiff has not published anything in the peer-reviewed literature to demonstrate his expertise in matters relating to the physics of the global climate system and the modeling of the effects of the observed and projected increases in greenhouse gases".
I could go on - there's 18 pages of this stuff, of similar claims to competence elsewhere and similarly exposed in the Johnson document alone, and I do love seeing these pompous puffballs of pus being shown up to be vain and frightened little men, being paid corporate pinmoney for making stuff up for repetition by the army of half-wits plying the blog-science sites and all the while being exposed to fascist conditioning.
Munchkin is in the same mould - a self aggrandising, ugly pompous idiot maker of false claims who quotes Latin at proles.
Both worth a read whether you just enjoy seeing frauds exposed, or are interested in the (shallow) psychology of the denier culture.
Corblimey!
No wonder Dr. Ball doesn't have a good word for desmogblog, eh?
You're right Mr. Bridger - this really is 'avin a larf.!
Source watch continue the story:
In September 2006, Ball filed a lawsuit against The Calgary Herald, a division of CanWest MediaWorks, specifically naming four of its staff, as well as Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the Department of Geography at the University of Lethbridge and the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge.
Ball's suit is over the publication of a letter to the editor published in April 2006 by Johnson responding to an opinion column by Ball.
In his statement of claim, Ball objects to Johnson's letter in which statements about his academic record were disputed. Ball's claim seeks $250,000 in damages, special damages for loss of future income and punitive damages of $75,000.
Johnson has filed an 18-page statement of defence denying "each and every allegation of fact and law" made by Ball.
In the face of this and an even-more strident Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald
“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
So now we have a thoroughly discredited paid shill of a proven liar ex-geography teacher who comes along to overturn Climate Science As We Know It by stating:
* All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
* Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
* Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
* Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
* Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
* Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging."
With no expertise or experience in the field whatsoever,
no evidence in support of his contentions,
no published papers on the subject and therefore,
no peer review.
And he's repeating banjo7's false claims over the past nine months ... or could it be the other way round?
Yup, after due consideration, you'd have to be a banjo to really want to believe in what the likes of Ball stand for. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:48 am Post subject:
item7 wrote:
The dam is bursting all around the increasingly desperate liars.
It certainly is - so when are you going to start explaining your repeated lies?
Or are you just going to continue with the autism defence? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
450 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS SUPPORTING SKEPTICISM OF
AGW-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING
by Anthony Watts | November 15, 2009
Andrew at Popular Technology has taken the time (quite a bit of it) to compile a list of papers that have skeptical views. It is reproduced in full here. My thanks to him for doing this.
– Anthony
It would damage the server if I posted the whole thing so if anyone cares to visit the above site there is a pdf file with links to the whole FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY!!!!! PEER-REVIEWED!!! papers which argue against the Al Gore lie.
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Office of Climatology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1508
Copyright Environmental Geosciences
ABSTRACT
According to numerical models of climate, the continued buildup of greenhouse gases will lead to a substantial rise in planetary temperature and many related changes to the climate system. Empiricists have noted that thermometer-based planetary temperatures have increased over the past century, thereby providing support for the theoretical predictions of the models. Many nations have called for action to combat the threat of global warming, and the Kyoto Protocol represents a major first step in the policy arena.
However, many of the most fundamental global warming issues remain in a state of considerable debate in the scientific community. For example, in the most recent half decade, the atmospheric concentration of many greenhouse gases has slowed or even stabilized. The numerical models of the climate continue to have serious weaknesses including their representation of cloud processes and the coupling of the atmosphere and ocean. Thermometer records may show warming, but serious concerns remain about the true representativeness of their readings. In addition, increased output of the sun, lack of recent volcanism, and trends in El Niño/Southern Oscillation have certainly contributed to any observed warming. The entire issue is further complicated by the fact that satellite-based and balloon-based measurements of lower atmospheric temperatures show no warming whatsoever over the past few decades. Also, there appears to be no increase in tropical cyclone activity, severe weather events, or variability of climate. Finally, the evidence is overwhelming that the climate impact of a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol will be trivial over the next 50 years.
He claims to have a Doctorate and says he is working at the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University but I suspect he may be a "Local Weatherman" who is also a Holocaust Denier. Probably eats babies too! In fact the other four hundred and forty nine are likely to be in the pay of big oil and have the "wrong" politics too. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:21 am Post subject:
Report From Iron Mountain, The Hudson Institute, 1966.
Suprised that by doing a site search it appears nobody has mentioned Ian Wishart who has written one of the most popular books debunking the man made global warming idea yet. And it's not the only book either.
The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? by Christopher Booker
Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming by Ian Wishart
Report From Iron Mountain, The Hudson Institute, 1966.
Suprised that by doing a site search it appears nobody has mentioned Ian Wishart who has written one of the most popular books debunking the man made global warming idea yet. And it's not the only book either.
The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? by Christopher Booker
Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming by Ian Wishart
Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science by Ian Plimer
There are dozens of books exposing the scam Tony, quite a few of which I have posted here.
I like the expression "scientific blunder" as if it is an accident! Go listen to Lord Monckton to hear the "blunder" described as it really is, and Saint Gore given the treatment.
Link _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Good old David Bellamy. "I have been banned from television. They sacked Julian Pettifer and Robin Page and they are just conservationists. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
Report From Iron Mountain, The Hudson Institute, 1966.
The book (whose existence is as disputed as the Protocols of Zion) is reputedly the same libertarian government-is-bad meme that has been popularised by Ayn Rand and other corporate friendly nutters. The Corporates are very keen on the notion that no organisation (such as government) should be big enough to challenge their power.
It's all very familiar.
You may remember the Reagan era right wing pledge (by Norquist amongst others) to shrink government until it was "small enough to drown in the bathtub" sponsored and propagated by, of course, corporate think tanks and foundations. Although the self-serving, hypocritical scum quickly forgot about all that when government bail-outs were needed.
Imperfect as government is, it is still the only political expression of the concept of the "common good".
If anything, it has been the foisting of the corporate commercial mindset onto public services that has hobbled and perverted western democracies for the past two decades.
TonyGosling wrote:
Suprised that by doing a site search it appears nobody has mentioned Ian Wishart who has written one of the most popular books debunking the man made global warming idea yet. And it's not the only book either.
And yes, there is lots of anti-AGW material out there.
There's a multi-billion dollar campaign to derail any global regulation of the global energy companies going on.
TonyGosling wrote:
The Real Global Warming Disaster:[/url] Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? by Christopher Booker
If you've been following this thread at all, you'd know that banjo7 has religiously spammed us with Booker's nonsense, which has been responded to. Just because he's collected it all together into a book does not suddenly give it any added authority.
TonyGosling wrote:
Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science by Ian Plimer
Plimer is the latest darling of the denialati, but still pushing the same old debunked material.
A comprehensive (as in 46 page) detailed rebuttal of his book by Prof Ian Enting of the University of Melbourne can be read at:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
Reading books is good; reading them critically is better.
For instance, if you can read the past six pages of this thread and still believe in "global cooling" (a common denier theme that appears in those books), then take it from me, you're beyond reason and good luck with wherever that takes you. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Personally, I'm pretty agnostic on the issue of climate change/global warming.
I remember the dire warnings of an imminent ice age when I was much younger and now they say we are going to sink under melted icebergs.
Sometimes, it looks like we are passengers in a juggernaut with an alarmist driver who panics whenever the vehicle veers from the middle of the lane.
But of one thing I am certain - if there is an environmental problem which is causing a change in the climate, the solution will not be financial.
Industrial pollution is a by-product of the creation of wealth (not the exchange of it). If industrial pollution causes climate change, the solution cannot exist within a system which creates more wealth.
As it appears that entrepreneurs (including Al Gore) are set to make megabucks from carbon trading schemes, it is doubtful that even if carbon emissions are the cause, carbon trading is the answer.
I'm still agnostic but it would be a fool who trusted those proponents who have their sights targeted on huge profits.
And it bewilders me to see the anarchists and radicals cozying up to the globalists. _________________ flamesong.com • newsviewscomment.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Lie after lie.
Go listen to Lord Monckton to hear the "blunder" described as it really is, and Saint Gore given the treatment.