Thursday, 20 February 2014

Tales from the dark side: Global Cooling according to the enemy

The dark side? Sites like Skeptical Science, herein after referred to as (UN)-Skeptical Science.

(UN)-Skeptical Science is a site set up to smear people who are sceptical about the falsified man made global warming hoax.

As Joanne Nova, herself a convert from the dark side, wrote: is a parody of skepticism. It is “skeptical of the skeptics”, which is all very well, but it accepts everything offered up by Authorities as if it is the Word of God.  “NOAA can do no wrong” (and was that NOAA or Noah?) 
All of the points held up by Cook are weak “whatever” issues: things that are hardly a flaw. He’s noticed that the disorganized mass of real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other, golly gee, which proves we think for ourselves and don’t answer to a higher bureaucracy. John Cook — who so wants to be seen as skeptical –  instead is anything but...
(UN)-Skeptical Science says that the current hiatus in the warming as shown in the graph above is not happening. A guest post by Kevin Trenberth:

Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it

Posted on 30 May 2013 by Kevin Trenberth

The answer depends a lot on what one means by “global warming”.  
Why should it go up? Well, because the planet is warming as a result of human activities. With increasing carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the top of the atmosphere: the greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming. “Warming” really means heating, and this can exhibit itself in many ways.
This is the same Kevin Trenberth who, in the ClimateGate emails, was quoted
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. 
Is Trenberth here trying to counter that notorious quote?

Ben Santer who; in the same ClimateGate emails, tried to spike a "skeptics’ paper critical of Santer/Wigley that was published in Climate Research"; lead-authored a peer-reviewed paper:

Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale 

in which he wrote:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
 So using the graph above, Ben and Kevin, does 17 years and 5 months negate the "human effects" on temperature?

Or Kevin, if you are dubious of the graph above, how about your chosen site to post your opinion, (UN)-Skeptical Science:

IS the planet warming or cooling?

Using the (UN)-Skeptical (UN)Science trend calculator, we find that the planet has been cooling, for somewhere between 9 years and 17 years.

Sks Trend Calculator

  9 years: GISS Since 2005                     Trend -0.022±0.269ºC/decade;
13 years: NOAA Since 2001                  Trend -0.003±0.145ºC/decade;
13 years: HadCRUT4 Since 2001          Trend -0.011±0.143ºC/decade;
17 years: RSS Since 1997                       Trend -0.012±0.199ºC/decade;

Is that it, Mr Santer? Will you now accept that the falsified AGW hypothesis has finally been put to bed?

Science has shown that temperature rises BEFORE atmospheric CO2. Why would it suddenly change in the 21st century?

The history shows that CO2 doesn't cause warming:

The current century data show no correlation between Carbon dioxide and temperature:

In fact, the 21st Century, so far has delivered cooling:

Come on Alarmists, hand back your grants, stop disgracing the name of science and admit that you had a political, not a scientific agenda.