Hand-in-hand with the IPCC theory that we’re dangerously changing the climate go many inaccuracies, distortions and outright lies supporting its stupendously false diagnosis, ruinously expensive remedies and tyrannical administration.
The distortions have wormed their way into thousands of places, both public and private, open and secret, taking our taxes and governing us in ways we’re already forgetting, even if we knew when they began. Will we ever be rid of them?
For to destroy each of the distortions, you need time and patience to find references to, references against and develop a refutation. Then you wait for people to hear about it and agree with you. It’s slow work.
Here’s one of the lies: mankind is ruining a perfectly good climate which never changed before we came along.
There are variations on this according to circumstances, but they all claim we disturb the natural order to various degrees. I’ve just come across an outstanding example of the most extreme version.
Believe it or not, this group of highly-trained scientists claims there used to be only “one climate” and we’re creating a “new” one. But even more than that, this comes from the highest level in climate science, no less than NOAA. These are among the people who write the IPCC reports. Which of course explains everything.
The State of the Climate report published each year by the American Meteorological Society is a comprehensive treatment of the previous year’s weather around the world. If you want detailed information about, for example, the extreme weather in 2010, this is a great source. All in one place and with facts and figures.
New Zealand gets good coverage in contributions from four NIWA climate scientists: Georgina Griffiths, Andrew Lorrey, Brett Mullan and James Renwick. Good on them.
The 2009 report was announced by NOAA on their web site in July 2010.
In that announcement they make this astonishing statement about the global warming problem:
People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created – one that’s warmer and more extreme.
Oh, so we’re breaking the climate? What was the climate before? Did it fluctuate at all? Did it, for example, ever turn into an ice age? Was there ever an extreme weather event such as a drought, big storm, tornado or flood sweeping over the land and engulfing everything?
To people who don’t know how the climate naturally fluctuates this is a dangerous and disturbing idea. For every change, no matter how innocent, brings fear, where it ought to bring enjoyment and wonder.
Even to those who know something about climate, this is disturbing, for without studying it constantly, you don’t know whether this or that change is within natural limits or to be feared.
Wherever you encounter the idea that mankind is creating change in the climate where no change occurred before, challenge it at once and state clearly that it’s wrong. These scientists should be ashamed to have made this completely unscientific assertion.
I ask the NIWA contributors: have you remonstrated with your NOAA colleagues for presenting such a bald-faced inaccuracy to the public? If not, do you agree with the statement? If so, why?
Visits: 79
I wonder what sort of society the Europeans were building for during the Little Ice Age? Do you think viticulturalists, coming out of the high of the Medieval Warm Period, established a Grape Preservation Society? Considering the apparent inability of some who claim to be climatologists to see the writing on the wall I am forced to wonder if, generically, we suffer from a form of temporal myopia.
Let’s give NOAA (the PR guys anyway) a clue:-
Two recent examples: the move from the traditional “Queenslander” house to on-ground foundations and the subsequent flooding of the latter; the building of car factories on Thailand’s massive flood plain (how did that form?) and the subsequent flooding of them.
NIWA climate scientists may get “good coverage” but how useful has their Seasonal Outlook actually been?
I don’t think they’ll get any thanks from Nelson-Marlborough folks and Saturday’s Bay of Plenty Times is asking: “When will the rain end?”
O/T but Scafetta has posted an article on WUWT explaining his latest paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/
It will be interesting to see how Pachauri (and his able assistants) go about erasing Scafetta 2012 from the AR5 scientific record.
Kirkby et al 2011 (CERN CLOUD) may be a bit more tricky given the “et al” is some 64 others but I’m sure they’ll find a way.
I’ve read Scafetta’s paper and previous in their entirety but in the recent paper he pulls no punches and is particularly pointed. I like this from the article:-
Then this from the abstract:-
Oh well, at least we are keeping the mods in the Dom Post busy. Up to 155 comments now.
Bit concerned that my response to scooby doo #37 under Salinger’s article that I spent more time than I should on hasn’t seen the light of day but I’ll give it time (45 comments).
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6229217/Extreme-is-the-new-normal
Dom is a better forum than the NZ Herald when we get hotlinks and clear # IDs I have to say.
GR and Rob are discussing the Leyland proceedings (Prat Watch #2). In regard to me:-
Gareth January 9, 2012 at 10:25 pm
If it’s who I think it is, then he has managed to create an alternative universe out of crank climate “science”. The ocean heating thing is a favourite of his, and his take on it completely bogus. Reminds me of Wishart in many ways
I’m flattered. Have called Rob out at #154 with what I hope was both barrels so I ‘ll be interested to see what he comes up with given his HT discussion and vacuous response at #146 #147 (I think he’s bluffing).
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/6220264/Global-warming-a-modern-day-myth
Congratulations on creating an “alternative universe”. Richard.
Maybe us “cranks” can find a wormhole in space time and set up home there. It’s probably a win-win all round.
Although if Homer Simpson’s experience is anything to go by, I wont be the first to jump down the hole.
Stargate might be the way, there’s one at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station near Colorado Springs, Colorado. from what I can gather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Program
Just realized that Stargate just goes to different locations in the same universe so that’s no help.
Also fictional too, turns out.
The mouth-foamers on the Salinger article have started on the racist/sexist/ageist shtick against the “deniers”. (Paul #43)
it’s about time these chaps did some reading into the “Jewish science” that was so despised in the 1930s in Germany
Maybe we could get the Dom to publish the CG2 emails, you know the ones where Jimbo was trying to get Chris deF sacked from Auckland Uni?
Gosh the abuse is really heating up on the Salinger article. RW from HT has made an impromptu visit with his usual vitriol and scorn.
Naturally there is not a shred of evidence of any scientific knowledge, just his desire to see us all dead.
This is what passes as debate in NZ these days. God help us
It would be interesting to know how an intelligent, neutral and objective observer views the respective arguments. I suspect that the likes of Paul #43 do not do their side’s cause (“the cause”) any good and probably do more harm than anything.
I’m happy to settle with what we’ve got at the moment (these 2 forums), CG2 is not going away thanks to the likes of Tom Nelson’s links top right home page:-
* ClimateGate–see 250+ “outed” emails here
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.nz/p/climategate_05.html
Fantastic resource, random hotlink:-
Oh, fudge: ClimateGate email–“Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics”
The “CCG team” plus others have been having a bit of a home run on the Salinger article.
Yes, we’re doing fairly well. But it’s taken the focus right away from the main point that Salinger is imparting a lot of misleading inaccuracies. It would be useful to take the discussion back to that, don’t you think? It would either spark a healthy debate or finally drive the warmists away.
Yes, we’re doing fairly well. But it’s taken the focus right away from the main point that Salinger is imparting a lot of misleading inaccuracies
Richard – yes I agree, but it is really hard to have any kind of ‘debate” on any thread where warmists preside. They are not interested in debate. There are only interested in forcing their dogma at you.
At least the casual reader (if there are any still reading the comments) can make their own mind up about the nature of the warmist argument.
In fact, it was their abusive and patronising nature that really turned me off their arguments when I first started getting embroiled in the climate issue This is not how science is done.
Right. So perhaps that’s as far as we can go. I would like to pull Salinger’s arguments — or more correctly ad hoc assertions — apart in a post here. That might stir more discussion. I hope to get time in the next few days, but there’s activity on the legal front I’m helping with plus I have work to do, so don’t hold your breath.
I must say, it’s good to be working as part of a team.
“People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate”!! Dear NOAA, don’t make me laugh. Try explaining that to those who live in igloos and those who live in desert tents, or those who experience huge swings in weather conditions season-on-season, year-on-year.