I’ve been scarce of late, with a lot of recent travel, then this past week crashing on a book the cite-check, dashing out for a magazine interview you won’t believe so I’ll see if it goes to print before mentioning it, and guest-hosting for G. Gordon Liddy. Instead of staying for the G-Man’s Tuesday show I had to bail and head back out to the country, as I would have been trapped in D.C. as opposed to at home by that latest installment of winter deluge that is, apparently, precisely what scientists have been predicting as a result of global warming. Even though severe winters returned a few years ago once we began cooling. More on that momentarily.
But before heading out after Monday’s show I sat in a cube at Radio America and worked on a chapter, while someone for some reason had MSNBC on a cube over. Really loud.

That was an experience, my first with the new, openly loony MSNBC (I’ve far too little time to waste watching revved up versions of broadcast media I abandoned years ago, as I had been informed was the case and which proved to be an understatement). It had a certain comical quality to it, if heavy-handed and fevered amid the collapsing of their hopeychangey candidate and his signature issues, Scott Brown, Sarah Palin having just looked out to see her shadow and another six years of tormenting them, and now severe winter weather.
Listening to the late-afternoon news shows I felt a bit like I was looking through a one-way mirror on an SNL skit practice. OK, guys, we just know that Fox is a hit-job operation — I mean, everyone we know knows that — so let’s parody a bunch of really angry teenagers trying their hand at a right back atchoo!
Anyway, one host went off on a rant about how the severe winter weather we are experiencing on the Eastern seaboard, again, and nationally the severe winter we are experiencing, again, was precisely what scientists have predicting for years we should expect. That’s very close if not an exact quote, which I know because I heard it replayed again on a radio show the next day and then on a television talk show last night. At first, none of the new weasel-wording of “consistent with” — you know, how whatever happens is “consistent with what we should expect,” as trotted out upon publication of the unfortunate Steig, et al. which claimed to replace the “consistent” cooling of the Antarctic with a “consistent” warming of said Antarctic, titter.
Or as tried last winter. But nope. This was precisely what scientists have been predicting (the weasel-wording of “consistent with” came after what I assume was a moment of reflection). Then Keith Olbermann treated us to a remarkable new definition of climate change which, particularly when reconciled with the decade-plus long “global warming” campaign is all the more amusing by his attitude as he slowly sinks into it. This oh-you-people-are-so-stupid pose when flaunting one’s own ignorance really adds a certain spice.
I’m not sure but I believe that Olby is telling us that of course the Eastern seaboard was supposed to get colder and snowier and that’s why it is, duh. And, er, and why the Midwest is, too. All of those places that were supposed to get warmer which is why they were were really supposed to get colder and that’s why they are. Science! Watch the clip, it’s short. And disregard people who, unlike Olberman and his peers, didn’t just jump to this issue to try and save the agenda and/or insulate a particularly strange and rather primitive worldview which, for many, drives it.
Yet, oddly, I actually had not heard that, but instead the opposite, and quite regularly (see “D’Aleao”, below). So I asked around. Because, really, you would think that these guys at MSNBC and others would trot these scientists out to point to their precise predictions of this. I mean, if they could.
Apparently, this insistence was the result of a blog post on Team Soros’ site, as one fellow who has his own highly trafficked website responded that “Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground via Romm [that's Team Soros' Joe "the Assassin" Romm] is what got this elevated.”
Masters is a meteorologist and meteorologists are relevant to the debate but only when they agree. And otherwise they are utterly irrelevant, including according to Romm who here calls Masters an “uber-meteorologist”. Which means he agrees with Romm (I wrote about this specific practice in Red Hot Lies.)
This Masters fellow is also the only guy that the New York Times mustered to support the statement that:
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
Re-read that. Then overlook the “most climate scientists” thing — wow, he’s been a busy journalist! And who knew scientists were suddenly so loath to go on the record!? — so as to soak this one up:
It is perhaps not coincidental that the snowstorm scuffle is playing out against a background of recent climate controversies: In recent months, global-warming critics have assailed a 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have claimed that e-mail messages and documents plucked from a server at a climate research center in Britain raise doubts about the academic integrity of some climate scientists. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators made light of the fact that the announcement of the creation of a new federal climate service on Monday had to be conducted by conference call, rather than news conference, because the federal government was shuttered by the storm.
Coffee-spitting hilarious. And, er, what isn’t coincidental about these storms and another wicked winter coming on the heels of those global warming’s scandals? Did, ah, the Republicans arrange for it? Do tell. I smell a mighty big conspiracy coming. Or one soon-to-be-unhappy editor heaeded back from a coffee break right about… nnnnnow.
So, anyway, it seems that GE has some marching orders out to the kids over at MSNBC. They’ve got all of those old Enron Wind contraptions lying around that aren’t going to mandate themselves, people! And the Gray Lady is coming unglued. Alarmists are scrambling. NASA as we already know is freaking out.
For more, detailed and very enjoyable expose, head over to read Joe D’Aleo, a meteorologist and publisher of ICECAP, whose digging has produced observational data and other gems reflecting quite poorly on the unfolding, panicked claims.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
356 Comments
In Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, there were lots of computer generated scenes depicting massive flooding & scorching heat waves (same for all the other global warming movies that subsequently were released). I don't recall any snow storms. If this was about climate change all along (& not global warming), it makes sense the movie would have depicted massive snow storms.
Regardless of the topic du jour…be it 'climate change' or Iraq or the unemployment rate or the trial of KSM…one thing is consistent: The Leftist media is getting boiling angry. And, to me, this is great to see! Remember, this was their 'government from Heaven' coming true. There wasn't supposed to be any anger from Maddow, Olbermann, Krugman, Matthews, 'Laurence' O'Donnell. These folks were supposed to be swigging champagne. That they aren't is music to my ears. They know, as we all do, that everyone has discovered that unfettered Liberalism is today's 'Epic FAIL.' That's the 'back-story' here.
What some leading scientists, like Roger Grey and Roger Pielke Sr. have been saying for some time is that AGW will DECREASE storm activity PERIOD. The clash between colder and warmer air masses would just be a regular lukewarm even with little conflict and thus LESS STORM ACTIVITY.
I've been following this whole thing, first as a believer, then discovered credible resistance. When I found out that Pielke had resigned the IPCC because the study group that he was lead author for was only allowed to study papers dictated by the politicians rather than as the science revealed and led them.
It is wonderful to see all of the arguments of the skeptics and papers that were discarded by the GloWarmers are finally coming to light in the blogosphere and the MSM after several years of being known to those who really wanted the truth.
Isn't there a mechanism, within the human consciousness, that sounds the alarm when you get beyond ridiculous and for all intents and purposes, have just gone insane?
Yeah, keefey….didn't think so…..
It is fun to watch the media implosion… they will hold out to the bitter end, the end being when the "carbon credit" market crashes like the housing market. I wonder if Al Gore would like to buy some "bundled carbon backed securities" from GE? I'm quite sure they are scrambling in back rooms to make all that funny money disappear. Good luck asking for a "bail out"
I guess Mr Horner is a credible voice on this issue. After all , he is a lawyer.
What some leading scientists, like Roger Grey and Roger Pielke Sr. have been saying for some time is that AGW will DECREASE storm activity PERIOD. The clash between colder and warmer air masses would just be a regular lukewarm even with little conflict and thus LESS STORM ACTIVITY.
Global Warming Kool Aid addict, Bill Nye (the science guy) told Rachel Maddow’s audience last week that Global Warming skeptics are unpatriotic.
Interesting, coming from a person whose own bio starts with “Bill Nye, scientist, engineer, comedian, author, and inventor, is a man with a mission: to help foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work.”
A “scientifically literate society” doesn’t generally ignore scientific debate of the facts or, more importantly, toss aside challenges to the dubious methods unfolding around the “data” that supposedly supports the “facts”.
I’ve been a Global Warming skeptic since day one. For two reasons; first, the same liberals who are bringing you Global Warming, brought you Global Cooling in the ’70’s. Second, I hold the same degree as Bill (B.S. Mechanical Engineering) and I’ve studied the science myself, concluding that a) the earth is inexplicably cooling since 1998, b) the earth is dynamic and ebbs and flows, and c) the basic science behind the “facts” can be scientifically argued with a very basic understanding of science.
I hope Al Gore lives long enough to see his fifedom implode and that he be reduced to middle class proletariate.
Paying taxes – fishing off the bank sitting on an ice chest – memories of his Gulstream, limos and caviar lost in the mist.
I guess your opinion matters, because, well, after all, you're a troll.
I want to see him on food stamps.
Boy I hope conservatives are right about this issue. That would be a big relief. It does give me pause though to see how easily you accept shills for business interests giving you "scientific" opinion. There were scientists who argued against cigarettes causing lung cancer too you know. Or maybe you don't believe in that either?
THe obsession with Al Gore is really over the top. If he dropped dead tomorrow nothing about this issue would change. I've seen conservatives accuse liberals of being "emotional" and "not rational" about this issue, but to me conservatives are the emotional ones, making a scientific question into a personal beef with a politician they hate.
palmtree: "I guess Mr Horner is a credible voice on this issue. After all , he is a lawyer. "
What is Al Gore?
I'm a hobbyist that grows veggies and flowers in my hothouse. Controlled conditions. Humidity at 100%,co2 at 2.5%,best soil mixtures around, and Miracle-gro as the main fertilizer. I grow fist size tomatos that are the juiciest that i've ever tasted. The plants grow like trees. I let the co2 levels drop at night, and ease up on the watering and humidifier levels. Always experimenting with veggies and conditions. 70 to 80 degree temps that vary accordingly. Tons of fun. Remember that normal co2 level is .038%. Co2 levels during precambrian times were 40 times higher than today. Gorebull Worming is a hoax.
Al Gore is a politician , and I don't base my opinion on climate change on what Al Gore says. I am not as obsessed with Al Gore as conservatives are.
take or leave it , it's just my opinion.
"Al Gore is a politician , and I don't base my opinion on climate change on what Al Gore says.
Apparently, you don't base it on evidence, either.
Pop Quiz (circa 2011):
Orson Welles radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds" in 1938 caused widespread panic and even some deaths as many people believed attacking aliens had invaded Earth. This event was considered the greatest mass hysteria-inducing hoax in history for 70 years.
What event overtook Welles broadcast as being the greatest hysteria-inducing hoax in history ?
Extra Credit Question: Where is Al Gore currently serving his sentence for Fraud.
How much $$$ is invested in Global "Warming/Climate" Change (or Hope) consensus? Has anyone ever tallied the total investments/income/research/film-making/book-writing/gains — and itemized each by corporations/individuals?
Is there a running total? Who stands to lose/gain the most? I understand that the cost of Cap and Trade will stymie the U.S. economy and cost more jobs than it create –another factor– so what is the (real) total cost of the hypothesis to date?
Are there legit organizations that have comprised this information already, if so, I 'd like to know where I can find it? Does Big Journalism have it, if not, would you consider it?
Not being a scientist myself,I base my opinion on the majority scientific opinion, and scientific groups and publications that I consider credible. Conservatives base their opinion largely on non-scientific pundits and shills for oil and gas companies. I trust NASA more than the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I trust Scientific American more than Rush Limbaugh. I don't believe people such as Mr Horner are honestly looking to find the truth in this matter, but are paid to hold a particular position.
arbon boy, you are clearly unaware of the most important facts, allow me to enlighten you. Through the taking of ice core samples going back many thousands of years. Real scientists have been able to get an accurate history of planetary climate change. The undertaking has revealed some facts. It was considerably warmer in the medieval period than it is now, also the dreaded CO2 levels were higher during that time. Don’t lister to those XBoxers at the CRU. The reason for this is that higher CO2 levels follow higher atmospheric temperatures, this was also seen in the ice core samples. Did you know that? I didn’t think so… Palm
Perhaps, if his credibility was at issue. It's not. Unlike the overripe AG-school Olbersturbanfuhermann, et al, who consider themselves the ultimate, eye-rolling authority on everything and somehow evolvedbeyond the point of reproach.
When three people tell you you're drunk, it's time to lay down.
…eatin carp and bein' glad to have it.
It's "science" huh? Sounds more like a rambling compendium of half understood "facts". I read in Scientific American recently that over 90% of all scientists working in the field of climatology supported the basic premise behind climate change. That means a lot more to be than your unsourced list of talking points.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=...
Ha Ha, I tried Peachtree but somehow I knew the post would go right over your head, hmmmm, let;s try this if you are up for the challenge I have a little quiz for you, or have a nice life in La La land whatever…
Lets if you are as smart as you think you are…
http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=...
Well I certainly think his credibility is at issue. He is simply doing a job for corporate interests. I'm fascinated by the willingness to be skeptical about what NASA or Scientific American says, but not what a lobbyist like Christopher Horner says.
Sounds like an environment for some really nice 'flowers' man…
LOL
And you can trust the scientists because they don't have any kind of agenda, Right??? RRIIGGHHTT!!!
Uh huh, and why is it that you believe the scientists who wrote that quiz and not the vast majority of scientists who disagree with their overall conclusions?
Well how about one of the main pro global warming scientist saying there has been no decernable warming over he past 15 years? and admiting he changed the data to fit the result he wanted. It in an interview he did with the Daily Mail in England
We lawyers are well-trained in how to spot liars and frauds, which makes Mr Horner a reliable expert with regard to the Warm-mongers.
Hey palmtree get your head out of the branches so you can try and see the forest. If he dropped dead tomorrow it's true nothing would change because his CORPORATIONS would keep on tickin….just one of the many ironies underlying the LEFT's absurd hypocrisy about the Citizens United decision which upheld the First Amendment, thank goodness. The folks at MSNBC are so emotional and IRRational, they look like they're going to have heart or brain failure with practically every broadcast. The LEFT and Gore and all the hopey changers have been predicting global warming doomsday for years and years, ascribing events such as NO SNOW and the AIr France plane crash off of Brazil's coast to be caused/influenced by global warming. Try to be rational. Follow the money and you'll figure out how easily duped you've been by the promiscuity of scientists in bed with government and industry.
"Corporate interests?" LOL!!
Jesus, kid, if you're going to troll, at least try to be a plausible troll. Or hadn't you noticed that NBC parent GE is the world's largest maker of wind turbines?
IF you had been paying attention (which rather obviously you haven't) you would know that NASA/GISS and Scientific American have about as much remaining credibility as Bernie Madoff.
Actually what he said was:
"But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
Your summary is exaggerated and inaccurate.
"shills for business interests"
You lefty trolls need to find some new material. Perhaps you'd like to tell that say, to Dr Lindzen's face?
The vast majority? Huh?
LOL
You lose son it's over get a life.
Barrack Husein Obama Hmn Hmm Hm, Barrack Husein Obama Hmn Hmm Hm, Equal pay for equal work Hmm Hmm Hm Barrack Husein Obama Hmn Hmm
So please enlighten me, is the theory that NASA and S.A. are socialist tools? Bought off by Soros? Hippie treehuggers? All of the above?
"Conservatives base their opinion largely on non-scientific pundits and shills for oil and gas companies"
Then you have put your trust in con-men and charlatans. You refuse to use your own brain, but allow yourself to be told what to believe by self-appointed "experts." If you are a remotely scientifically-literate layman, it wouldn't take long to see that the wheels have come off the Rube Goldberg AGW jalopy.
You really trust James Hansen? Really? No kidding?
While i consider global warming a hoax i must point out one crappy movie that showed snow due to climate change and that was "The day after tommorrow" total crap movie but i figure if you make movies linking global warming to everything from snow to smelly garbage then you will be able to point out how it causes these effects.
I'm saying it to Christopher Horner, are you denying it in his case or not?
Then what about Phil Jones admiting in a newspaper interview that "no ‘statistically significant’ warming in the past 15 years".
Some of us have been duped, but I'm not too sure it's me in this case.
"working in the field of climatology"- a qualification awarded by the Priesthood to its own members. Do you know who publishes Scientific American? Do you? I'll give you a minute to check.
There used to be a scientific "consensus" behind eugenics, too. Your Appeal to Authority is a fallacy, and it won't work here. In case you hadn't noticed, science is not determined by vote. But if numbers-o-scientists are important to you, then try this on for size: in the last 20 years alone there have been over 800 papers published in, yes, peer-reviewed journals confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm period.
Against it, you have only Mann and Briffa, period. Both of them proven frauds.
Sixty is a vast majority?
Do catch up. The IPCC's AR4 has been exposed, Pachauri's profiteering is under scrutiny and Dr Jones is confessing he's been peddling smoke and mirrors. Give it up, the party's over. Just admit you were a sucker and get on with your life.
Right , the vast majority. That's a fact. I know Rush is not telling you that but it's true anyway. Also the way you guys repeat that hmn hmn hmn thing is kind of pathetic.
Climate Scientists are not "self appointed" experts , they are real experts who have studied their field and become accredited. Maybe we should have some "laymen" build the next space shuttle?
Bohemond, I've reached the conclusion he is a lost cause, just another little brown shirt for Barrack Husein Obama Hmm Hmm Hm…
Good post Boh
"But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted… What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead."
—Scientific American
No what is pathetic is the fact that even goes on in America's schools, make look like a some Fascist, communist third world country, .
"working in the field of climatology"- a qualification awarded by the Priesthood to its own members"
So now you are dismissing this entire field of science as bogus because you disagree with climate change. I couldn't make up a better example of your dishonest politically driven logic if I tried.
Another blizzard? Maybe I should start pimping the HI vacation rental.
I learned to stop drinking coffee until I fully understand what direction the columns go. After the second and third cleanup Ivan Pavlov comes to the rescue.
Getting cubed into hearing MSNBC double speak the snowstorm is as bad as only getting CNN in the airport while they were debating in late 2007 how soon the S&P 500 would break 2000. If the choice is watching that crap and watching grass grow I'd be face down in St. Augustine.
"the kids at NBC" – I like it!
Always right on Christopher. Brilliantly pointing out the absurdity that is the global warming religion. Your interview in the Limbaugh Letter, defining these corporate and political whores as “rent seekers,” perfect! Cronyism at the highest levels, conniving, bilking the world…criminal!
Translated, Even if they were busted for lying about the 'hockey stick' I believe them anyway…Even if they were busted about sea levels, I believe them anyway. Even if they were busted for lying about the glaciers, I believe Them anyway.
Doing the same wrong thing over and over again is the true definition of insanity…
Translation: even if your summary were correct (which it's not) and specific scientists were wrong or misleading , I wouldn't dismiss the entire field. You guys accuse the left of being reds, but you are way more Stalinist about science.
Ok. So now here's Phil Jones walking back even more of his b.s.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/C...
But hey – the problem is not, according to Jones's colleagues, that Jones is dishonest. Oh no.
The problem is that Jones is – heh heh – just one of those absent-minded genius professors we hear so much about. Yeah – dat's da ticket!
"Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’."
Oh – and:
"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon."
"SUGGESTING GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE A MAN-MADE PHENOMENON"
Got that, Keefy.
Can't wait to hear how you'll spin this one.
Chicocano, please, please, may I come over for dinner? I'll bring you a present.
"SUGGESTING GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE A MAN-MADE PHENOMENON" — you do understand that's not a quote from Jones right? That's the reporters spin on what he said, exaggerated exactly for this purpose: to be misquoted on blogs from now til the end of time.
This article is consistent with the MSM becoming obsolete.
Here is something from one of your IPCC 'heros'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/C...
[...] [...]
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/C...
Of course I realize that.
But considering that 90% of Olby's schtick – including his devestatingly clever nicknames for FOXNews, Bill O'Reilly, and anyone else on the right – originates from DK, DU, and HuffPo, I feel righteously entitled to engage in a little of the same from my own little corner of the world.
So how you like me now, biotch?
How my ass taste?
He's not my hero, it's not a battle with 2 sides, it's a scientific question. If it turns out there's no climate change I would be very happy. But I'm not going to take the word of a lobbyist for it any more than I would trust a lawyer for Marlboro to tell me that cigarettes are harmless.
I don't give a s*** about Olbermann , I don't even watch tv.
I agree with most that it makes no difference to the AGW crowd any weather
phenomenon validates their science…..or religion.
I disagree that the AGW crowd wants "to reduce the use of fossil fuels"……..from all
accounts the AGW crowd wants to confiscate wealth and redistribute it after they skim their
cut off the top.
BTW……….WHERE'S ALBERT?
Palmtree, there is a great deal to sceptical of from a "scienitific" basis and with regard to all of the fraud that has been exposed in the last 3 months including: the CRU emails of suppression and manipulated data, the recently released reports of futher data manipulation in Russia, Austrailia, China, the US and New Zealand, the fraudulent reports exposed in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment (Himalyan Glaciers gone by 2035-fraud, Amazon rain forest reduced 40% by AGW-fraud, Alpine Glaciers receeding-fraud), the recluctance of NASA to honor a FOIA request by CEI, and just today, an article from the Times UK:
"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/C...
The new Eco-Fascist mantra:
Global Warming=Climate Change
Hot=Cold
CO2=dangerous gas
Its all a fraud: the IPCC, the CRU, Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Phil Jones, Dr. Michael Mann, the EPA, NOAA, Cap and Trade, and the biggest fraud of all, OBAMA!
FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD and FRAUD!!!!
LOL what what the head of the IPCC major field of study?
Don't forget:
"And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
It's all going to hell for the eco-Fascists. Now, lets see if the MSM bothers to mention the Phil Jones admission!
I'll make it 10 to 1, ABC gets a little unpredictable lately, 100 to 1 for MSNBS…
" Besides the leaked emails that showed the IPCC was ignoring the data that would have helped to disprove the notion of man-made global warming, and besides the fact that the IPCC made false claims about the Himalayan glaciers melting, and besides the fact that the IPCC made false claims about the rising seal levels in the Netherlands, and besides the fact that the IPCC used faulty data from China to prove the global warming hoax, we now have Phil Jones making even more startling revelations.
Just when the global warming alarmists thought the news couldn’t get any worse for their cause, the news comes out that Phil Jones is now admitting that not only has the earth not warmed since 1995, but that the earth was probably warmer in medieval times than it is right now. He has also admitted that the earth has gone through natural heating periods."
well i changed the comment to state what he exactly said about the last 15 years but it posted the old unedited version of what i said instead so that was my fault somehow, but to me statistically significant and deceranable kinda mean the same thing, If he could have shown concrete proof pf a temp rise he would have shown it.
And if you read the article he says something along the lines of he cannot show the data because he has a messy office and cannot file everything properly? Not a scientist i want to trust with my money. That is not an exact quote but it is close enough. Actually here is the exact quote "Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted." "his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
What scientist does not keep the raw data to defend his position on something?
That's a great quiz…Seemed very scientific..
.I'm sure palmtree scored in the high 20percentile…Looked over algore's sholder for all the answers he wished were true…
That would be bad bad…
…I'm thuper theeereal!
I do have a question for you and it is an honest question, I want ot know what you honestly believe because it is one of the sticking points with global warming science.
Pro global warming scientists say they have computer models that show what the worlds weather is going to be like in 20 to 50 or even a 100 years from now, but they cannot tell me if it is going to rain 4 days from now with certainly. So how can one part of the science be so dead on but other parts is a guess?
Climate and Weather are 2 different things. I m not pretending to be any kind of expert on this stuff, but my understanding is that they are predicting gradual overall changes in climate, not specific weather events.
You liberal watermelons are pathetic, are you waiting for some new information from your leadeship? Why do you persist with your beliefs in global warming? Now you are WARMERS, understand where that puts you on the "Stuff people take seriously scale?" You are lower on that totem pole than Truthers and Birthers, you suck hind tit to them. Pathetic.
Perhaps though you can start a weird religion and make some money like L. Ron Hubbard did?
Sorry i did not mean the exact science of climate and weather. i said it wrong, i meant the use of computer models. Its all just a guess, but they do not say that, they say the temp will be X degrees in 75 years based on this. but the temp in 5 days will be around this
"hopeychangey"
Love it.
I love watching the libturd fanatics come unhinged. It's delicious.
The "scientic" case for "AGW/Climate Change" is falling a part like a paper mache sail boat in a wicked November Nor'easter. Bashing corpration and businesses that are the engine of theis country in an atempt to push "pop science" isn't working.
American families are learning that Gore's scam is going to cost each and every family between $900 and $1800 a year, pausing breifly in the hands of government bureaucrats before speeding off to Gore and his wealthy cohorts then on to the U.N. theives – before winding up with Thrird world despots.
I thought bleeding heart "progressives" wanted to help WORKING FAMILIES not rain down burdensome TAXES on them.
That's what really rattles DemocratSS/progressives/socialists/communists – they're LOSING the populist mantle to CONSERVATIVES.
Al Gore is the middle of a crippling extortion attempt – in conjunction with current elected Democrat politicians – who passed the sham Cap & Trade bill through Congress – by a slim majority with many Democrat DEFECTIONS.
Gore dropped out of Divinity school at Vanderbuilt after skating through Harvard avoiding any real thinking.
See the other article or do some quick research.
ahhem…it's a hobby.
Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia U. just FLIPPED – he's backed off his "research" and is admitting that his record keeping – er – sucks.
Dr. Mann at Penn State hasn't broken yet but is under investigation by Penn State for his "book cooking".
Gore needs to mail back his sham Nobel Prize and get a real job.
If you "pay" me enough I'll claim that the Energizer Bunny is our best chance for "clean energy" into the 22nd century.
$500,000 a year ought to do it. Small bills please.
The climate is going to change – we can all agree with that. It changes. WHAT makes it change is the question. A group of determined people are ginning up "manufactured science" in attempt to enact a global TAX and make an industry where if the science were sound – private industry would be involved to a greater extent.
..amd they got caught. Scam over. Jones flipped – admits no change upward since 1995.
It seems that palmtree is either a true believer, in which case he is a usefull idiot for the perpetrators of this hoax, or he is invested personally in this scam. Which would make him a crook and a liar
bill, I solved this delemia the other day. The Vikings used old technology outboards that were very dirty – real polluters.
They ran 'em rich, old carbureator style.
Damn irresponsible Vikings.
Part of being a good liberal is "FEELING" things are so.
for instance "The leftist "felt" Obama was an excellent choice to be president.
or, "The Democrat "feels" global warming is true. They "feel" the science is sound."
See?
Yes Gail. Excatly. Follw the money triail on this and it quickly devolves into – who getting rich and who paying the freight.
Part (A) Gore & Co. – his "investors' (I'd love to see who is in and how much)
part (B) TaxPayers – we'd get clobbered by this scam.
I'm all for successful business and responsible industry – with a solid reasonable honest stewardship – i.e. not Gore.
The grape growing latitudes crept Northward into Englad making England a viable competitor to France during the period to mention. That's weird. Climate Changes and there were no EVIL smoke stacks contributing to the change.
Science Shmience during those days. All i want is honesty – there is none in this debate from the "warmer" side.
They smell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Our tax $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Why should they NEED to be 'bought off'? It appears that the only way they can even remain in existence is to go all in for AGW. Want more billions of taxpayer money? Take the lead on GW. Simple.
And yes, it's laughable on your part to bring up the tired old charge of 'corporate lackey' when trying to defend MSNBC/GE of all things. That's the mother-lode of unintentional irony.
Well, based on our experience so far, it MIGHT actually work better. Perhaps another analogy would have been more wise, especially since the fine folks who've brought us the space shuttle are also bringing us the possibly even more over-engineered and less air-worthy NASA/GISS climate data.
"I read in Scientific American recently that over 90% of all scientists working in the field of climatology supported the basic premise behind climate change."
? CC or AGW? There is a difference that an intelligent non-troll ought to know.
Ummmm, hello? And if CO2 levels follows temperature change? And what is the right level? The one we had 1000 years ago? 10000 years ago?? Maybe we should actually be making CO2 as fast as possible just to keep temps up where we need them to be.
'IF' the world were incontrovertibly warmer in the past? Are these guys even remotely clued in to the state of the science of 20 years ago, never mind today??
Certainly, the rapid rise in CO2 was not predominately man-caused. Where then AGW?
And how about the credibility of sun output vs a secondary green-house gas?
The above quote is why the SA has become an absolute rag. It certainly isn't peer-reviewed science as palmtree seems to believe.
I'm not gettin' the feeling…
Did you take the Quiz? We took it and got 80%…
You must be logged in to post a comment.