The REAL global warming

[maiden22]

Craig Cavus, I have taken the liberty of correcting one or two mistakes in your latest post. You wrote:

Before accusing Phil Jones of lying to a parliamentary committee, Watts should get his facts straight - but that is typical of Watts.

This should have read:

Before accusing Watts of lying, Craig Cavus should get his facts straight - but that is typical of Craig Cavus.

Watts is owed an apology. When will it be forthcoming?

 

[maiden22]

Craig Cavus, could this be the source of both your sound science and masterful powers of argument?

 

[maiden22]

Craig Cavus, come quickly! The world is in peril!

Some evil persons, doubtless in the pay of BIGTOBACCOOILBLAHBLAHBLAH are attempting to deny the truth of the well-established Piltdown consensus!

Hurry to defeat them with your invented "facts" and risible "arguments"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

 

[Adamus]

What's a homeboy climate change skeptic's favourite major river?

De Nile!

 

[maiden22]

Speaking of the excellent Watts, here is a quick post (as if more were needed lol) that reports an increase in Antarctic sea ice.

It comes from the NSIDC - don't know who these assholes are, probably a front organisation for William Exxon Morris and Zionists. Anyway, I doubt that they've got any climate expertise.

Here is a little extract:

"Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/#more-17142

 

[maiden22]

We interrupt for...an anecdote! Possibly even a pleasantry, or two...

Opening my Old Farmer's Almanac this morning whilst athwart the can, I noticed its notation for Jan 25: "Hot drinks served on frozen Hudson River between NJ and NYC, 1821."
Hmm, thinks I. I wonder if that was a solar minimum?
Indeedy-doo: averaging the monthly data for sunspots, available here, we note that the 12 month average for Jan, 1821, was 15.81, well south of the average of 52.07 since 1750.
This year? January's average was, drum rolls puh-leeze, 4.06, or less than a third that Jan, 1821 average.
No hot drinks were served on the frozen Hudson bekawzzzze - it wasn't frozen. The Hudson, that is.
Hmmm....

Get yourself one of these and feel righteous!They're probably carbon dioxide neutral!

ROFLMFCO!

As an added bonus, you can stick a thermometer right up your, er ... I mean er, next to the vent and claim that the world is warming!

Sweet!

 

[maiden22]

Futete Craig Culus!

Where is Anthony's apology?

:cheesy:

 

[dcraig1]

Craig Cavus, could this be the source of both your sound science and masterful powers of argument?

You are a juvenile fool, whose clarity of argument is no better than a bunch of inane images and and emoticons. Did you get the IMG tag too in your box of christmas emoticons?

 

[maiden22]

You are a juvenile fool, whose clarity of argument is no better than a bunch of inane images and and emoticons. Did you get the IMG tag too in your box of christmas emoticons?

I may or may not be a juvenile fool, but this does not affect whether I am correct in what I write.

This statement makes no sense:

"whose clarity of argument is no better than a bunch of inane images and and emoticons."

Perhaps you mean that the clarity of my argument is no better than, for example, a muddy pond, or something that is equally opaque? If so, please say so.

Possibly you mean to belittle the content of my argument - that it is simply nonensensical images and so on? Again, if this is your meaning, please say so.

However, if either of these is your meaning, then I must disagree. You made a post claiming that Mr Jones did not say something, contrary to what was posted by Watts. You then all but accused him of lying. You helpfully posted the transcript to prove your point.

I demonstrated that Mr Jones did indeed make the incorrect statement, and I did so very clearly by using the transcript that you provided. Since you are so keen on apologies, I then invited you to extend one to Watts. He did have his his facts straight, unlike you.

Perhaps embarrassed by your gaffe (let us be charitable and assume it was nothing more) your response is to post abuse.

Once again, kindly give Watts the apology he deserves. You might also wish to offer one to me, since your last post was demonstrably false. Contrary to your micro-rant, my argument was both clear and correct.

:cheesy::clap:

 

[maiden22]

Did you get the IMG tag too in your box of christmas emoticons?

I keep telling you, never mind what I got for Christmas. Weren't you happy with what I got you? In that case, have some more:

I know it's difficult, but do try to respond to my actual arguments. You'll find it easier to defend your case if you don't post such utter rubbish in the first place.

For example, would you still like to assert that Mr Jones made no reference to Sweden? Of course not, because he did, as I have demonstrated. Just exercise a little more care. Perhaps it might help to print this off and keep it next to your computer:

REMEMBER: Hole in FACE for talking out of.

If not, I got a whole sackful of smackdown with your name on it.

 

[maiden22]

What about all those melting glaciers? This article suggests that the fear may be somewhat overdone:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm

It is not peer-reviewed - and of course pointing this out is enough to demonstrate that the content of the article is false and that the person who posted the link is paid by Exxon to promote holocaust denial. Nonetheless, it makes quite interesting reading.

In short, it rubbishes Al Gore's claims that glaciers are melting everywhere. Have a look but don't forget to ignore it.

 

[maiden22]

Build Your Own Hockey Stick!

Change the history of the world with 5 easy steps! Click the link below to learn how:

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/super-simple-hockey-stick-explanation/

:innocent:

 

[maiden22]

Quite a lot of interesting stuff about Mann's 2008 Hockey Stick on this site:

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/amazing-multiplying-hockey-stick-proxies/

WARNING

This has not been peer-reviewed by the author's pals, so feel free to ignore it and blather on about conspiracy theories instead of addressing the arguments. To my mind it raises some interesting questions, but that's probably just because I'm a juevnile lunatic in a tin-foil hat.

And just for Craig, some emoticons:

:clap:

And an amusing picture, possibly of Craig preparing to do some sceptical research:

 

[maiden22]

Moonbat is feeling a little let down by the fickle public apparently:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/g...rs-of-the-agw-cause-there-goes-my-lifes-work/

And for Craig, a picture that might or might not be you after a hard day on the "climate research":

And let's not forget, an emoticon:

 

[maiden22]

Environmental hero and tireless truth crusader Christopher Booker on Britain's headlong charge into self-inflicted oblivion - at some point politicians might realise that a modern economy needs power:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ow-will-David-Cameron-keep-the-lights-on.html

And for Craig - is this a snap of you limbering up for a good night's debating the science of climate change?

 

[maiden22]

Well crack, I mean Craig, I think we can call that settled.

Let me leave you with one final thought, which I hope will mend the rift between us and allow us to part as friends:

 

[dcraig1]

This is the exchange:

Q93 Chairman: We cannot understand why you would not wish to publish it, that is the point.

Professor Acton: I agree; the more it is published the better.

Q94 Chairman: Why did you hide it then?

Professor Acton: Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on, so there has just been an attempt to get these answers. Seven countries have said "No, you cannot", half the countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have said, "No you cannot publish it" and also Sweden. Russia is very hesitant. We are under a commercial promise, as it were, not to; we are longing to publish it because what science needs is the most openness.

As transcribed above, Mr Acton stated that "Seven countries have said "No, you cannot", half the countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have said, "No you cannot publish it" and also Sweden."

A little later, Mr Jones states "Yes. We have tried to go back to the countries and seven countries have said they would rather we did not release the copies of their data we have in our database."

This reads to me as though he is referring to the same seven countries. Of course, I may be mistaken. Of those seven, Canada, Poland and Sweden are actually named. Of course, I may be mistaken.

In my opinion, your statement that "The only statement about Sweden was made by Prof Acton." is mistaken. Mr Jones did not name Sweden, but that is not the same thing. He referred to the seven countries, several of which were named moments earlier by Mr Acton. He confirmed the statement made about them - that they " have said they would rather we did not release the copies of their data we have in our database."

It is a moot point if Jones was referring to Sweden or not. It is certainly a flimsy basis to level accusations of deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee. But flimsy accusations are the stock in trade for Watts and his fellow travelers - they are at it all the time. The reason is obvious - there is no scientific basis for their denialism. They are purely political animals and mud slinging and misrepresentation of the science is their only recourse.

Returning to the availability of the Swedish data, the stuff quoted by Watts and Co is from a letter dated Mar 4 from SMHI after the above exchange took place. But this has not always been the position of SMHI. In a reply to Jones on 21 Dec 2009, SMHI says:

"Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you
hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be
released on your web site."

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._data_from_the_hadcrut_dataset__dnr_smhi_.pdf

It seems pretty clear that UEA was not free to release the SMHI data, and the statement from Acton is truthful.

It is also clear that there has been no conspiracy to withhold data by the CRU. Furthermore the purpose of the deluge of FOI requests to UEA is also clear and that purpose was never scientific research. It was always intended to lead to a situation of confusion where mud slinging and wholly unfounded accusations of wrong doing could be thrown around with abandon. It is detestable behavior.

But Watts has no honour. Tamino calls him out here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/ after definitively showing (along with others) that Watts and D’Aleo's flawed nonsense about the so called station dropout problem is indeed nonsense. Watts and co nevertheless have had no qualms in accusing NOAA scientists of fraud, based on what could most generously be called their own incompetence. Shameful stuff.

 

[dcraig1]

Speaking of the excellent Watts, here is a quick post (as if more were needed lol) that reports an increase in Antarctic sea ice.

It comes from the NSIDC - don't know who these assholes are, probably a front organisation for William Exxon Morris and Zionists. Anyway, I doubt that they've got any climate expertise.

Here is a little extract:

"Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/#more-17142

More ignorant stuff from Watts and Co. Just because something sounds scientific doesn't mean it is.

"Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html

The antarctic sea ice has increased a little in extent and the reasons for that are complex, but the Antarctic ice sheet which is what we should be most concerned with is losing mass:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[maiden22]

More ignorant stuff from Watts and Co. Just because something sounds scientific doesn't mean it is.

What on earth are you talking about? This does not come from Watts - he is merely quoting the newsletter of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

If it is "ignorant stuff" then it is ignorant stuff from them, not Watts. Who are they? I confess that I have never heard of them, and in my original post suggested that they are probably a front for William Exxon Morris and Zionists. According to their website (probably all lies of course):

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. NSIDC supports research into our world's frozen realms: the snow, ice, glaciers, frozen ground, and climate interactions that make up Earth's cryosphere. Scientific data, whether taken in the field or relayed from satellites orbiting Earth, form the foundation for the scientific research that informs the world about our planet and our climate systems.

Etc etc.

They also make the following claim:

"NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA."

Who this so-called "NASA" is, I have no idea. Sounds a bit too much like Nazi for my liking - they're probably in league with the Zionists.

That aside, it is strange that your slavish adoration for authority evaporates the moment that said authority fails to deliver the alarmist claptrap you require.

Just to be clear - Watts is merely reporting a story from a source that seems reasonable. The purpse of this is, I would imagine, to counter all of the nonsense that we have heard about sea ice vanishing with the kind of rapidity normally shown only by your arguments.

 

[Armandoo]

I have never come across anyone who does not believe in climate change, although on the warmista side there are apparently those who believe that change can be halted, hence their campaign against it :

For most of us, however, we accept climate change as we accept gravity.

The impending doom scenario so beloved of the MSM, politicians and other cultural Marxists, on the other hand, has always been a rather transparent lie. Sea levels to rise by [insert big number of choice], polar bears frying on the ice, hurricanes, temperature to rise by [see above instruction], and so on ad infinitum. And all because a trace gas, vital to all life on earth, has increased slightly.