Saturday, 15 February 2014

Pigs Pulling Santa more real than Alarmists' AGW hoax.

A query addressed to the OnLineOpinion Facebook group:
Hi! I asked this question on my wall, and a friend directed me to OnlineOpinion:
Prhaps you can give me an answer....."To climate sceptics out there: for my own interest, I want to know: what would have to happen to persuade you that you were mistaken and the climate is in fact changing in unnatural ways? Would another record hot decade be enough? The disappearence of the north polar ice sheet? Unprecedented drought/hurricane/flooding somewhere? Global temperature increases to accelerate again? Unprecedented drought/hurricane/flooding somewhere? What exactly would need to happen.
First, although we call ourselves climate sceptics, to say "climate sceptic" is confusing and is virtually an oxymoron. How could anyone be sceptical about climate?

To say "climate change sceptic" is just as ridiculous because how could anyone doubt that climate changes. Climate has always changed since the beginning of time.
And so, although Climate changes naturally, my scepticism relates to the man-made climate change hoax.
Another record hot decade

Prof Bob Carter, in his book Taxing Air addresses the many "hottest decade type" statements by the alarmists:
Variations on this statement are rampant in the media and give weight to the assertion that dangerous global warming is being caused by human greenhouse emissions.Yet persons who repeat this claim thereby highlight only their innocence of knowledge of the science of climate change. 
The key word, the misappropriation of which confers an element of truth on the statement, is ‘ever’. To dangerous AGW proponents, this word means ‘since accurate instrumental temperature records began’, i.e. over about the last 150 years (e.g. Fig. 1). 
But as we have already discussed several times, 150 years is a trivially short and inadequate period over which to make judgements about climate change. 
There has been no significant warming for more than 17 years and the RSS satellite data show a cooling trend since 2002 of ~ -0.08ºC/decade.

The disappearence of the north polar ice sheet?

The alarmists predicted ice free summers by 2013 but instead the arctic ice sheet grew 920,000 square miles in the twelve months from August 2012 to 
August 2013.


Unprecedented drought/hurricane/flooding somewhere?

The IPCC has admitted that extreme weather events are not caused by anthropogenic global warming.

What exactly would need to happen?

It is well established by science that temperature rises BEFORE the rise in atmospheric CO2.
(see image below) There is NO peer-reviewed science to prove the falsified hypothesis that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing runaway global warming.

Now, if some-one could make a miraculous turnaround; explain away the many falsifications of the CAGW hypothesis and show that carbon dioxide does indeed cause the warming……..mind you, before that happens, I think that we will learn that there are indeed fairies at the bottom of the garden, Santa does indeed live at the North Pole and pigs have developed flight powers and have replaced Santa's reindeer. (see image above.)

Undercover Environmentalists Invade Science Conference

Isaac Orr, writing for the Heartland Institute's Somewhat Reasonable blog reveals how many of the people who make proclamations in the name of science are not scientists but instead are just activist groups continually engaging in smear tactics against real scientists.

He describes the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) as " environmental activist group masquerading as a legitimate....scientific organization." 

They have been exposed before:

Mr Orr says that the presence of the UCS at the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is "no laughing matter."
A natural reaction upon seeing this group is a sponsor for the event may be “so what?”—but there are serious, negative implications to having a group at the conference whose agenda is more focused on soundbites than sound science. 
Attending the conference lends them credibility by being seen at an event where real science is occurring. The phrase “guilt by association” can be turned on its head, and having this organization present at a legitimate scientific conference is akin to reputation-laundering.
After discussing Frakking, Mr Orr  discusses UCS' global warming utterances:
Even though most of the country is in the clutches of the second “Arctic Vortex” of this winter season and there has not been any significant warming of the Earth for the past 16 years, the UCS continues to claim there is a “scientific consensus” a manmade global warming catastrophe is happening. The claim of a scientific consensus is blatantly untrue. A new report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Reconsidered 2- Physical Science (published by The Heartland Institute, where I work), shows current temperatures are well within the range of natural variation. Unlike reports by the global warming alarmists, CCR-2 bases its findings on observed evidence, not flawed computer models.
He concludes:
A closer look at the UCS shows its claims of dedication to “rigorous and independent” science are false boasts. UCS is seemingly willing to put funds before facts whenever it’s convenient. The American Association for the Advancement of Science should disassociate itself from UCS lest it undermine its own credibility.
Read more at Somewhat Reasonable.