Dr. David Deming in the Washington Times: “With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”
via Quote of the Week: the industry of denial | Watts Up With That?.
Visits: 1050
That about sums it up. As I mentioned in another post, some people think that insults or lame excuses count as empirical evidence. The only important thing is what the true empirical evidence says, and it doesn’t agree with the wild predictions of the AGW hypothesis. A maximum of 17yrs of AGW warming followed by 16 to 23 yrs of no warming, and no tropospheric hotspot as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour – how does it work when there’s been less warming than actual warming, and the centrepiece (water vapour) of the theory has failed to eventuate?
Beware the big lie! (from The Big Lie, a 1951 anti-communist propaganda film produced by the US Army). It begins with the quote by Adolf Hitler:
The antithesis being (while we’re quote mining):-
Hence we find ourselves in this situation:-
Not all of the ideological defenders are fierce mind you. Born to be mild ‘Scooter’ Nuccitelli comes to mind.
Hi Magoo, as you say only true empirical evidence matters. As reported previously on this blog:
Test of a decadal climate forecast, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, published online by Nature Geoscience on 27 March
Shows that climate predictions from 1996 incorporating AGW have been remarkable accurate.
Truncate the data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2008, ignore the diverging trajectories of which the simulation is consistent with the modelers own falsification, pick the widest uncertainty bounds you can find, overlook the cyclicity of the observation data that the simulations don’t mimic, refer to a superseded model’s results.
But otherwise – apart from all of that scientific trivia – remarkably accurate in ideological terms.
Do you have a link to the full paper so I can read it?
The climate models were accurate from approx. 1980-1997 (17yrs), but haven’t been since.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/fig.jpeg
IPCC AR5 Temperature Anomaly pg TS79:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf
All the models predicted continuing temp. rises beyond 1997 and the empirical evidence shows it’s not there. The temperature has flatlined for between 16-23 yrs according to the multiple sources given by skeptical science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Hard to see any correlation between the models and the empirical evidence there. Perhaps I’m missing something.
>”Do you have a link to the full paper so I can read it?”
The original “paper” is a Letter dated 5 October 2000:-
Myles R. Allen, Peter A. Stott, John F. B. Mitchell, Reiner Schnur, and Thomas L. Delworth. (2000). Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature. doi:10.1038/35036559
http://www.uvm.edu/~bbeckage/Teaching/HCOL_185_2012/AssignedPapers/Allen.warmingUncertainty.Nature.2000.pdf
The topic of RT’s post is also a Letter “updating” the original Letter:-
Test of a decadal climate forecast, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, published online by Nature Geoscience on 27 March.
The “update” is paywalled – which has been noticed:-
Myles Allen Was Wrong Before He Was Right!!! LOL, Yeh I’d Hide That Behind A Paywall, Too!!!
“Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.”
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/myles-allen-was-wrong-before-he-was-right-lol-yeh-id-hide-that-behind-a-paywall-too/
In the same vein as suyts space (disappearing the data), and in addition to my reply to Nick up-thread, my dissection in comments of what Richard T provided in the post above this thread-header:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/#comment-189927
DEMING: The real deniers of climate change
Foolish doom-criers stand fast despite a chill
The Northern Hemisphere is experiencing unusually cold weather. Snow cover last December was the greatest since satellite monitoring began in 1966. The United Kingdom had the coldest March weather in 50 years, and there were more than a thousand record low temperatures in the United States. The Irish meteorological office reported that March “temperatures were the lowest on record nearly everywhere.” Spring snowfall in Europe was also high. In Moscow, the snow depth was the highest in 134 years of observation. In Kiev, authorities had to bring in military vehicles to clear snow from the streets.
Cold-weather extremes are a natural climatic variation, and this is exactly the point. If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world. The Associated Press has assured us, though, that this cold spell is not only consistent with a warming globe, it is actually caused by global warming. The proffered explanation is that cold weather in Europe is a result of melting sea ice in the Arctic. If this special pleading strikes you as unusually tendentious, it is all in the best tradition of explaining away ex post facto any weather event that appears to contradict the ruling paradigm.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/#ixzz2RLJmuNx2
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Slingo’s Credibility Lies In Tatters
By Paul Homewood
Only a couple of weeks ago, Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s Chief Scientist, was in the news claiming that “Climate change was loading the dice towards freezing, drier weather in the UK”, adding “Our climate is being disrupted by the warming of the Arctic that we have observed very dramatically since 2007. “
Her comments were widely reported in newspapers and she was interviewed on ITN news.
I made several critical comments at the time, not the least being that the recent cold winters, which she was referring to, were in fact no colder than winters in the 1960’s and 1980’s.
Given that she seemed so adamant about the current situation, I was astonished to read the Met Office report, which was issued last week and written by Slingo, herself. Entitled “Why was the start to spring 2013 so cold?”
[…] “Whilst the cold March weather is certainly unusual, it is not unprecedented or outside the expected natural variability of our climate.” […]
1) Although this report is on the Met’s website, I am not aware that it has been disseminated to the MSM. It certainly does not appear in the Met’s News Release Archive.
So, I ask why? Is it because it runs counter to the usual propaganda?
2) Why was Slingo so adamant a week earlier, that declining Arctic ice was responsible for the recent freeze, when she knew full well that there was no evidence at all to back up her claims?
These concerns pose serious questions about Slingo’s competence, honesty and objectivity, both on a personal level, and in her role as Chief Scientist. Her position is surely becoming increasingly untenable.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/julia-ties-herself-in-knots/
I think some of you need to watch the Thin Ice documentary http://thiniceclimate.org/
Do you really think that the scientists shown working in basic and often trying conditions are lying and committing fraud? Pay particular attention on the section about the role of oceans in the carbon cycle before spouting off about short-run trends in surface temperature measures.
I think you really need to look at the fact that there is no tropospheric hot spot and as a result no empirical evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. As this is essential to triple (approx.) the tiny warming effect of CO2, I’m wondering if you can explain how the temperature can rise beyond 1.2C max. per doubling of total (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2 without it?
Here’s the line of reasoning that disqualifies AGW:
1/ Where is the tropospheric hot spot (hint: it doesn’t exist)?
2/ If it doesn’t exist then what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?
3/ If there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour then how can it warm beyond 1.2C max per doubling of total atmospheric CO2?
4/ If it can’t warm beyond a max of 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2, what evidence is there for anthropogenic global warming?
5/ Why does the empirical evidence presented in the form of the various temperature records reinforce the expected results of no positive feedback from water vapour?
>”Pay particular attention on the section about the role of oceans in the carbon cycle before spouting off about short-run trends in surface temperature measures”
Well yes, and the thermal cycle too. The “short-run trends in surface temperature measures” are entirely consistent with the role of the oceans as the planet’s greatest heat sink and accumulator of energy, the energy output of which lags the input by over a decade in general terms. The atmospheric temperature has stabilized (the “standstill”) but so too now has OHC because there is simply no longer elevated levels of energy input to the ocean to be released after the lag from maximum input.
BTW Simon, does ‘Thin Ice’ explain the standstill? I hear climate scientists are “puzzled” by it.
Let’s be clear Simon, anyone making a prediction for the globally averaged temperature of the planet in 2100 is not doing so in the capacity of a scientist. WAG (wild arse guesser) yes, scientist no.
Even those acting in their best scientific capacity are in complete disarray as to the last 400+ yrs, e.g. from AR5 SOD Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing citation – Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) 4. Discussion and Conclusions (page 11):-
[25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is
still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces
a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the
Maunder Minimum of 6 W m2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over
twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while
another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is
characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum
[Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in
K07 and L09.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/#comment-192840
In view of that gaping uncertainty, I suggest you take a long hard look at JL&S12 (linked above) Figure 2. “Forcing factors and their estimated tropospheric radiative forcings as diagnosed and estimated from the HadCM3 simulations”. First the historical forcings, then the 2013 – 2100 forcings, the entire anthro forcing of which (about 3 W.2) is about half the Grand Min-Max solar output change 1600s – late 1900s found by Shapiro et al., (2011) and Abdussamatov (2012) at least. Not an apples-to-apples comparison after application of RF methodology but I think demonstrates the absurdity of any notion that a WAG prediction is scientific.
Simon, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility if scientists were (and are) fooling themselves – all sorts of extreme bias, such as the confirmation variety, can get in the way of empirical evidence. Holding scientists to a higher standard of veracity is fair when those same scientists are determining policy and wreaking havoc upon national economies.
An alternative hypothesis is that the vocal minority that think they know better than the scientific community do not know what they are talking about.
Scientists are are taught how to remove bias from their analysis. Scientists don’t set policy either, politicians do that. Recent havoc within national economies have nothing to do with greenhouse gas mitigation policy.
I think this graphic is particularly relevant:
[img]http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/balance.gif?w=400[/img]
“Scientists are are taught how to remove bias from their analysis”
Some do, some don’t. Scientists are human and as such are subject to bias. Sometimes Scientists are just plain wrong. But nice try with the appeal to authority.
“Appeal to authority”, David?
Let’s see, when your car won’t start, who ya gonna call? The AA, or your wife’s hairdresser?
If you find yourself out of breath and suffering chest pains whilst driving across town, are you going to stop at a Beaurepaires and ask them for an opinion on the health of your heart?
It’s certainly true that some scientists have been consistently proved wrong regarding their opinion re global warming. Let’s name a few: Lindzen, Soon, Carter, Michaels and Singer.
Guess what they all have in common? They are paid by the fossil fuel industry for their spurious “research”…
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
>”It’s certainly true that some scientists have been consistently proved wrong regarding their opinion re global warming. Let’s name a few: Lindzen, Soon, Carter, Michaels and Singer”
Proved wrong RRO?
‘Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales’
* Willie Soon a,
* David R. Legates b,
* a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
* b College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 93, February 2013,
Abstract
Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation. Physical bases for the TSI-EPTG relationship are discussed with respect to their connections with large-scale climate dynamics, especially a critical relationship with the total meridional poleward energy transport. Overall, evidence suggests that a net increase in the TSI, or in the projected solar insolation gradient which reflects any net increase in solar radiation, has caused an increase in both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic in the warm period since the 1970s, resulting in a reduced temperature gradient between the Equator and the Arctic. We suggest that this new interpretative framework, which involves the extrinsic modulation of the total meridional energy flux beyond the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes Compensation rule, may lead to a better understanding of how global and regional climate has varied through the Holocene and even the Quaternary (the most recent 2.6 million years of Earth’s history). Similarly, a reassessment is now required of the underlying mechanisms that may have governed the equable climate dynamics of the Eocene (35–55 million years ago) and late Cretaceous (65–100 million years ago), both of which were warm geological epochs. This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the “missing link” that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.
Highlights
► The Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient is linked to total solar irradiance. ► View presented of how poleward energy transport operates beyond the Bjerknes rule. ► Most convincing evidence for a Sun–climate connection during the Holocene.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S136468261200288X-gr1.jpg
Fig. 1. Annual-mean EPTG over the entire Northern Hemisphere (°C/degree latitude; dotted blue line) and smoothed 10-year running mean (dashed blue line) versus the estimated total solar irradiance TSI (W m−2; solid red line) of Hoyt and Schatten (1993; with updates by N. Scafetta) from 1850 to 2010. We emphasize the relationship especially on multi-decadal timescales and report the TSI correlations only with the smoothed EPTG series with 10-year running means (since 1880) in Table 1. Increased TSI is related to decreased temperature gradients between the Equator and the Arctic (i.e., more positive EPTG values) and vice versa.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136468261200288X
Changing sun, changing climate
by Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs
March 8, 2013
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5000 years.Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records, and noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, celebrated astronomer William Herschel, the first to observe Uranus, noted that when there were fewer spots the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less “light and heat” from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
It is therefore perhaps surprising that Professor Richard Muller (University of California, Berkeley) recently claimed that “no component that matches solar activity” could be identified in his newly reconstructed BEST global land temperature record. Instead, Professor Muller said, carbon dioxide controls our changing temperature.
Can it really be true that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our weather and climate – and which, when it varied in the past, is known to have caused major climate shifts – is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the charts that accompany this article. In locations as widely separated as US, the Arctic and China, they show a strong and direct relationship between temperature and incoming solar radiation — the data for the US coming directly from Professor Muller’s own BEST data! That such a tight relationship between temperature and solar radiation holds for many disparate geographical areas indicates that the US result cannot be dismissed as just a local aberration.
A strong sun-climate relationship requires mechanisms to exist whereby our sun can both cool and warm the Earth. One such mechanism is fluctuations in the total amount of incoming solar energy, but measurements suggest that this is not a dominant effect. Another cause, and probably a more substantial one, is modulation of the amount of solar radiation that reaches earth’s surface by changes in total cloud cover.
Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl has also emphasized a physical relationship between incoming solar radiation and temperature. These scientists argue indirectly that, in testing for this relationship, daytime maximum temperature is the most appropriate criterion to use to characterize the temperature. This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set, and has therefore been used in plotting the accompanying graph below. [Contigious USA]
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate
The reason why many previous studies have failed to identify a strong sun-temperature link may be that they have used the daily average temperature to represent the temperature component of the relationship. This can easily introduce erroneous complications related to the part of each day when the sun shines on the other hemisphere and darkness prevails at any particular site being studied.
Nevertheless, recent analyses indicate that even small changes in incoming solar radiation can have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, research by one of us (Soon) demonstrated the existence of a strong correlation between solar radiation and the anomalies in average temperature for the Arctic over the past 130 years (below).
http://www.quadrant.org.au/carter-%20arctic.JPG
Since then, we have demonstrated that similar correlations exist for all of the regions that surround the Arctic, including the US mainland and China (below).
http://www.quadrant.org.au/carter%20-%20china.JPG
The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and similar changes in temperature that we have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic region. This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale.
Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration. In particular, there is no coincidence between the measured steady rise in global atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic multi-decadal (and shorter) ups and downs of surface temperature that occur all around the world.
Ongoing research in collaboration with Professor David R. Legates of the University of Delaware, provides a self-consistent explanation for these apparent sun-climate correlations. Our hypothesis involves exchanges of heat and moisture between the equator and the Arctic region. [Soon & Legates (2013), linked above]
Direct evidence now exists that changes in solar activity have influenced what is called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. Interestingly, it transpires that solar-driven changes in temperature, and consequential changes in the volume of freshwater released from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later. That this time lag was not taken into account in earlier sun-climate relationship studies is another reason for their comparative lack of success.
The new peer-reviewed scientific results about sun-climate relationships summarized above are of disparate nature and are obtained with independent datasets stem from several different research groups. Considered together, this new research renders implausible the prevailing assumption that changes in solar activity play no (or only an insignificant) role in climate change.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of plausible hypotheses that are then supported or rejected by evidence gathered from either observation or experiment. The evidence from BEST’s newly analysed data, and from our own and other published studies, is strongly consistent with the hypothesis that solar factors are the major cause of multidecadal climate change, especially in the northern hemisphere circum-Arctic regions.
Incidentally, but importantly, BEST’s own data also clearly invalidate the alternative hypothesis that CO2 is the most important cause of observed temperature changes across the USA.
>>>>>>>>
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate
I wonder which scientists were proven wrong with this:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
Everything else is wrong as a result. But that’s ok, look the other way and accuse those who expose the screw up as ‘deniers’ in the pay of the ‘fossil fuel industry’. Anything but admit the mistake and it’s implications, even when it hasn’t warmed for more than a decade and a half.
Hey realityrulesok, here’s some reality for ya:-
Global Lower Atmospheric Temperatures: 44 of the Latest Climate Models vs Reality,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
Total precipitative H2O (running 30 day average) compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data in red.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png
OK?
Who are you going to go to for your opinion of atmospheric physicists?
Oh I see, a propaganda site bankrolled by a convicted money launderer.
So RROK puts quotes around Lindzen’s research, because he may have at some stage received som money from the oil industry. In fact, many climate scientists have received money from the oil industry, including the UEA
Lindzen’s “research” includes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
But hey, why bother with all that “science” stuff when you can smear him by quoting DeSmogBlog
So for all that “science” stuff, Lindzen received $100,000,000 (approximately) from Big Bad Evil Oil.
This achieved exactly what for who?
realityrule what on Mars are you spouting off about? You warmists get increasingly wild in your statements and predictions as the empirical evidence proves you wrong, wrong, wrong. That is the reality that rules!
Specious argument RROK.
Mike Hulme, UEA Climatologist and IPCC lead author
“‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.
Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world…
The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
H/t itchybeard
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100213490/how-your-typical-middle-of-the-road-columnist-is-greeting-the-death-of-global-warming/#comment-873878162
[Followed by ozboy]
How about Jerome Ravetz:
“…climate change models are a form of “seduction”…advocates of the models…recruit possible supporters, and then keep them on board when the inadequacy of the models becomes apparent. This is what is understood as “seduction”; but it should be observed that the process may well be directed even more to the modelers themselves, to maintain their own sense of worth in the face of disillusioning experience.”
ravetz is of course the Marxist philosopher who, along with Funkowitz, invented Post Normal Science.
He had a bit of a recantation on WUWT after Climategate.
Well, it is still snowing in France, 2 weeks after my ski touring trip. Late Spring snow killed a group of Snowboarders in Colorado. The weather in the south of England where I am now has been unseasonably cold. NZ has received early snow and I have pictures of snowmobiles up at Mt Hutt
I guess I am just cherry picking, weather is not climate etc etc. I am sure a sneering Gen Y type will explain all this to me in due course.
Hey Clint, am I right?
On the bright side (for us in the SH because shorter becomes longer):-
Just think, in less then 2 months the days start getting shorter. https://twitter.com/m4gw/status/326748778499547137/photo/1
https://twitter.com/m4gw/status/326748778499547137
Well, here is some more dishonest cherry picking from me
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/cold-and-snow-wave-grips-the-usa-nearly-10000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-last-month/
By the way, I met an old school friend in London at the weekend. Hadn’t seen him for a couple of decades, he told me that winters were getting warmer
He has worked at the BBC for 35 years, nuff said
Some more dishonest cherry picking from me.
Snowing in Reykjavík
http://www.mbl.is/frettir/innlent/2013/04/24/mikil_halka_a_hofudborgarsvaedinu/
“Global Warming Has Stopped”? How to Fool People Using “Cherry-Picked” Climate Data”
Peter Gleick, Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
So presumably we can add to the list of people that are responsible for these “scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods”
– James Hansen
– Rajendra Pachauri
and scores of climate scientists who acknowledge that there has been no warming for a decade or more.
>”So presumably we can add to the list of people………” – the Umweltbundesamt – UBA – (German Federal Department of the Environment)
‘Baffled German Government Concedes! “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Unexpected” ‘
By P Gosselin on 5. Mai 2013
Green Radio of the Umweltbundesamt – UBA – (German Federal Department of the Environment) recently had a radio interview with Henrik Kirchhof, some climate expert for the UBA I guess. Topic: Why has there been no warming in 15 years?
The German government finally concedes.
>>>>>>>
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/05/baffled-german-government-concedes-global-warming-has-stopped-warming-pause-is-remarkable-unexpected/
Peter Gleick’s got a long way to go in the grief cycle if he’s stuck in the denial phase.
You would think he might get the hint by the number of negative comments he’s getting on the Forbes article
‘German Ministry Of Environment Identifies, Targets American And German Enemy Skeptics In 123-Page Pamphlet’
Written by P Gosselin, NoTricksZone.
“You’ll recall that the UBA are the ones who recently admitted being baffled by the 15-year global temperature stagnation that has taken hold.” [See previous related comment above]
Only alarmists are cited as honest sources
Just a look at the references cited at the back of the pamphlet on page 116 already tells the story. Sources cited include radical environmental groups Germanwatch, Greenpeace and klimaretter.de, ultra-alarmist institutes like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and dogmatic outlier scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, and Naomi Oreskes, just to name a few.
UBA has black list of American skeptics
According to the UBA, all the climate doubt stems mainly from the USA. Beginning on page 100, the UBA lists the Americans responsible for “spreading doubt and false information“, among them: ExxonMobil, Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, Frederick Seitz, Joe Barton, and the Heartland Institute. The UBA cites the Union of Concerned Scientists and a one-sided Die Zeit smear from November 2012 as its reliable sources for this information.
The name “Rahmstorf” appears throughout the pamphlet. One quickly gets the impression that the pamphlet stems from the German Ministry of Rahmstorf. Little wonder that when taken as a whole, the pamphlet is a huge public deception. Then again, misleading the public is nothing new for Professor Rahmstorf.
>>>>>>>
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11247-german-ministry-of-environment-identifies-targets-american-and-german-enemy-skeptics-in-123-page-pamphlet.html