Another week of GW News, July 10, 2011

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years


This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week’s Global Warming news roundup


skip to bottom

Another week of Climate Disruption News

Sipping from the Internet Firehose…

July 10, 2011


co2now gfxskeptisci app gfx


Low Key Plug

My first novel Water was published in Canada May, 2007. The American release was in October. An Introductionto the novel is available, along with the Unpublished Forewordand the Launch Talk(which includes some quotations), An overview of my writing is available here.

<regards>
-het

P.S. Recent postings can be found in the week archive and the ancient postings can be accessed here, which should open to this.

I notice moyhu has set up a monster index to old AWoGWN on AFTIC.

“It might surprise, and hopefully disturb you, to hear that in my short time at AGU, I discovered four scientists who are already creating some form of survival retreat for their family, and they told me there are many more. But they are all too scared of being ostracized in the scientific community if they speak of it.” –Greg Craven

29 thoughts on “Another week of GW News, July 10, 2011

  1. I like the one about the recent failure of the predicted warming, which so embarrasses so may on “scienceblogs” that they deny the facts, being becaise the Chinese have been ignoring the warnings, keeping growing their economy and thus unitentionally geoengineering warming away.

    You couldn’t make it up. Well OK you could.

    Meanwhile the Austyralian PM who was elected on a promise not to introduce a carbon levy is intriducing a carbon levy. Ecofascism trumps democracy again.

    Like

  2. 2011/07/04: Guardian(UK): Sulphur from Chinese power stations ‘masking’ climate change
    Research reveals decade of global warming from China’s coal power stations has partly been offset by ‘cooling’ effect of sulphur pollution

    That failure of predicted warming Wow.You are a whooly dishonest piece of filth and well represent the standard of honesty throughout the eco-Nazi community. That ids why every single alarmist on “scineceblogs” with any remote trace of honesty has dissociated themselves from you.

    Like

  3. “2011/07/04: Guardian(UK): Sulphur from Chinese power stations ‘masking’ climate change”

    So you mean something like this:

    “”in the next 50 years” – or by 2021 – fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.””

    Are you proposing a global cooling scare, whiney?

    Like

  4. “That failure of predicted warming Wow.”

    What failure of predicted warming, you vomitous mass?

    It’s warming. 0.4C over 3 years!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2011/trend

    Over a more effective period for determining the trend:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1981/to:2011/trend

    0.5C over 30 years. That would make it, lets see, 0.17C per decade.

    How different from the predicted 0.15-0.18C per decade from the IPCC!

    Like

  5. AGW is not tinkerbell. It won’t disappear just because people don’t believe in it.

    Beliefs have not, do not, nor will they ever, change facts. And I’m pretty confident a GIF posted on a public website possesses around about zero credibility in most scientific circles. Good job though there Nik. Keep up the good work.

    Mind you, I don’t ‘believe’ in AGW either. I just accept the science.

    Like

  6. “Beliefs have not, do not, nor will they ever, change facts”

    To true. The fact is that the predictyed catastrophic global warming isn’t happening. I assume, that being the case, that you accept that every “scientist” who makes money fromsupporting the scam and pretends it is true is not in fact a scinetist but a lying thieving parasitic fascirt whore.

    Speaking of which I thank Wow for reprinting a remark from the eco-fascists when they, including the corrupt Hansen, were pushing a fraud exactly opposite to the one they are pushing now. I note Wow that you have missed trolling on ALL the threads I am on.

    Like

  7. Neil:

    Your shallowness of thought is the perfect partner to your childish spelling.

    The fact is that the predictyed [sic] catastrophic global warming isn’t happening.

    First off, scientists are *warning* of *potentially* catastrophic warming in the *future*. No responsible scientist has guaranteed a timeline without the caveat that we must always be open to new data/understanding.

    Can you cite one credentialed and published scientist who guaranteed “catastrophic global warming” would happen by now?

    This is one direct question you will not answer.

    you accept that every “scientist” who makes money fromsupporting the scam and pretends it is true is not in fact a scinetist [sic] but a lying thieving parasitic fascirt [sic] whore

    How many peer reviewed articles have you written?

    How many have you even read?

    Two more questions you will not answer–and in fact which you have ignored multiple times previously.

    the eco-fascists . . . including the corrupt Hansen, were pushing a fraud exactly opposite to the one they are pushing now.

    Your evidence to this was already debunked by Marco et al.

    When will you directly respond to Marco regarding this alleged 1970s “cooling scare”?

    This is yet another question you will not answer.

    You have also ignored a number of other questions by Chris:

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/06/open_thread_2.php#comment-4426644

    These are yet more questions you will not answer.

    And this from the guy who said with great bravado:

    I note nobody here has been able to answer any of these questions.

    Posted by: Neil Craig | June 26, 2011 11:10 AM

    Neil: Here are the embarrassing facts which would be revealed by honest answers to the above questions:

    1. You do not participate as a member of a scholarly community of any sort. (Christ, you cannot even *spell*.)
    2. You do not even *read* scientific material.
    3. You jump on secondhand and ancient talking points like “no significant warming”, “hide the decline” and “70s cooling scare” with mindless abandon, not even realizing that they are as stupid as they are unoriginal. (At least Richard Wakefield was a *creative* troll.)
    4. You have absolutely no ethical grounding, which is why you are constantly projecting the fault on others.
    5. You have absolutely no life worth mentioning.

    Your stupidity blinds you to the fact that you are arguing with people who are trained, ethical, and have a firm grasp of the scientific process and how knowledge is acquired through it.

    Neil, the only thing on which you have a firm grasp is your small appendage, which is no doubt at the moment firmly pinched between the tips of well-trained thumb and equally practiced forefinger, with the predictable effects of one-handed typing manifesting itself in the quality of your diction.

    That is your life. Why not spend it surfing for legal pornography? I suspect you will find that at least as pleasurable as making an idiot of yourself on the web.

    Like

  8. “The fact is that the predictyed catastrophic global warming isn’t happening.”

    Really? So you have predicted that the changes undergone so far are not going to end in catastrophe if we continue as we are doing?

    You’re falling down past the second floor going “So far, no worries!”. After all, all those people with their THEORY of gravity (look at the birds!!!) proclaimed catastrophe if you jumped off the tower block, and look! You’re not dead yet!

    Like

  9. SDkip and Wow I must ask youn to provide evidence that anything you say in the above posts is at least 1,000 times closer to honest than the previously demonstrated very highest standard of honesty to which you eco-Nazis ever aspire.

    Like

  10. First provide evidence that you have a true question.

    What evidence do you have that the palm of my hand is more prone to anger than the rest of me? If none you owe it an apology you obscene, lying, thieving, murdering Nazi parasite for your unproviked lies.

    Like

  11. What evidence do you have that the palm of my hand is more prone to anger than the rest of me? If none you owe it an apology you obscene, lying, thieving, murdering Nazi parasite for your unproviked lies.

    That is so going into the quotebox! Speaking of things going in and out, when will you be coming out of the Poe closet? There have been quite a few hints, but “first provide evidence that you have a true question” really takes the cake. Denial of a question based on refusal to admit that it is “true”? Brilliant!

    Like

  12. LOL.

    Neil, I utterly apologize for using language suggesting you have an enraged hand. No doubt other parts of your anatomy fully know and appreciate its tender, understanding nature.

    Like

  13. What an impressive graph Wow. The ability to use a ruler to draw an unvaryingly straight line surely proves the author to be at the very pinnacle of “climate science”

    Like

  14. Yup, 0.4C over 3 years (an increasing trend) is rather impressive.

    It also blows your “it’s cooling” or “it’s stable” statements (depending on what you feel is convenient to say at the time).

    Do you deny that graph shows a positive trend in the last three years? Or are you going to refuse to admit it?

    Like

  15. I did not deny that it is possible to draw a straight line, indeed I amde a point of i. I do deny it haviong that ability proves anything. However I do accept it, as you imply, as representinmg the very best evidence there is for catastrophic global warming.

    Like

  16. “I did not deny that it is possible to draw a straight line, indeed I amde a point of i. I do deny it haviong that ability proves anything.”

    So your claim:

    “That failure of predicted warming Wow.”

    Is false, since it consists of a straight line that is over 92% likely to be wrong.

    The fact is that the temperatures have been increasing for the last three years. It’s warming.

    Like

  17. (A) The fact is that there is no reliable evidence they haven’t and a lot of very obvious evidence that they haven’t

    (B) alarmists have repeatedly said that the lack of warming over 15 years doesn’t count because you can never take such a short timeframe as evidence, unless you are an ecofascist like Hansen starting the fraud rolling in which case it is perfectly ok. Thus your attempt to use 3 years faked figures is itself fraudulent, and just as honest as anything in the alarmist camp.

    Like

  18. Neil:

    I must ask you to provide evidence that anything you say in the above posts is at least 1,000 times closer to honest than the previously demonstrated very highest standard of honesty to which you anti-science deniers ever aspire.

    Like

  19. skip

    Your mate can’t even work out what point he is trying to make. Check out point A:

    “…The fact is that there is no reliable evidence they haven’t and a lot of very obvious evidence that they haven’t…”

    So… there is NO evidence, and there is a lot of OBVIOUS EVIDENCE. Talk about a typical denier who keeps contradicting himself.

    He can’t even type his own name correctly. I am trying to work out if he is called ‘Neil Craig’, ‘Beil Craig’, or the offering at #23, “Neil raiog”.

    It was one of the first things I learned to do in school – spell my own name. Some people obviously failed kindergarten and finger painting – and he thinks he is capable of discrediting scientists (oops – I mean alarmist, fraudulant obscene, filthy, insane, eco-fascist, eco-nazi, child-murdering, thieving, lying, socialist, parasites).

    Like

  20. So no evidence and no apology.

    I will consider it worth checking spelling when I know I am not goi8ng to be censored again.

    Like

  21. “alarmists have repeatedly said that the lack of warming over 15 years doesn’t count because you can never take such a short timeframe as evidence”

    And alarmist denialists like you insist that you DON’T have to take 30 years.

    So I gave you a trend that DIDN’T use 30 years.

    So why is the last three years the wrong length, Whiney McWhiner? Either we go with 30 year trends that climate scientists state required (for reasons of including a few of the known decadal cycles that do not change the trends) or we take whatever length trend we want like you and your denier pals do.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s