Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Global warmistas are in full retreat

  1. #1
    Pirate shaman Annie Dieu-Le-Veut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Virgin Islands
    Thanked 8,688 Times in 3,398 Posts

    Default Global warmistas are in full retreat

    From Jo Nova's Blog


    This is another big tipping point on the slide out of the Great Global Scam. IPCC scientists — facing the travesty of predictions-gone-wrong — are trying to salvage some face, and plant some escape-clause seeds for later. But people are not stupid. A conveniently leaked IPCC draft is testing the ground. What excuses can they get away with? Hidden underneath some pat lines about how anthropogenic global warming is “likely” to influence… ah cold days and warm days, is the get-out-of-jail clause that’s really a bombshell:

    “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

    Translated: The natural climate forces are stronger than we thought, and we give up, we can’t say whether it will get warmer or colder in the next twenty years. This multipurpose prediction means that in the future, if it’s colder, they’re right; if it’s warmer, they’re right; and they have it covered for more or less storms, floods, droughts, blizzards and frost too. And then there’s the perpetual-motion aspect of the threat. Greenhouse gases might not be dominant now (like they’ve been saying for the last 20 years) but they will be, they tell us. They will be! Look out! The storms are coming, we’re all doomed. (Well we definitely absolutely might be.) Got that?

    If the century progresses without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts will come to dominate, it forecasts:
    • “It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas…
    • “It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st Century over many areas of the globe…
    • “Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase…
    • “There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st Century in some seasons and areas…
    • “Low-probability high-impact changes associated with the crossing of poorly understood thresholds cannot be excluded, given the transient and complex nature of the climate system.”
    Then look for the segue where the scientists and activist-journalists, quietly shift the goal-posts;

    It’s impossible to read the draft without coming away with the impression that with or without anthropogenic climate change, extreme weather impacts are going to be felt more and more, simply because there are more and more people on planet Earth – particularly in the swelling “megacities” of the developing world that overwhelmingly lie on the coast or on big rivers close to the coast.

    That’s an EXIT clause and it reads like this: We might have been wrong about CO2 causing the disasters, but disasters are still coming. More people are going to die from climate catastrophes because there are lots more people! See, “we were right all along to be concerned about the climate”. (Just not quite right about the cause). This is a handy excuse. Al Gore tried a segue like this out a couple of years ago — pretending that he was just fine tuning his altruistic saintly concern by saying quietly that CO2 wasn’t as bad as he’d thought but Black

    Carbon (!) was awful pollution. In other words, he’ll never admit he made a bad call, or has been caught pushing a scam, he’ll just say he was right all along, “carbon is still the issue, it’s just a slightly different form”. These IPCC scientists are using the same technique: Climate Disasters are still the issue — it’s just a slightly different reason. Repeat after me: AGW is still bad, skeptics are still wrong, and look over here at this slightly new twist on the predictions of disaster. (See below for the update) We all know there won’t be a slew of headlines trumpeting:

    New IPCC leaked report; Weather could get warmer or colder!
    “Storms might be not quite as bad, but could be much worse!”
    “IPCC underestimate natural climate forces! Skeptics correct!”

    Obviously this is an all-encompassing all-occasion document. For journalists fishing for disaster, there are ways to find it in the prophesies, and for scientists who want to be able to say “My predictions were right” in five years time, they can find just about any prediction under the sun somewhere in there and point to it to say “I told you so”. Even Hulme is acknowledging that things are changing and the “climate” meme is receding.

    As UK academic Mike Hulme and others have argued, such events will occur whether exacerbated by climate change or not; and vulnerable societies need protection irrespective of climate change. He’s argued for a divorce, therefore, between the issues of adaptation, which he says could usefully be added into the overall process of overseas development assistance, and mitigation of emissions.

    In other words, the money will still flow, it’s just being rebadged. But the developing nations don’t like that. They prefer the current arrangement when developed nations atone for carbon sins and “pay” the third world. The alternative is the same cash, but it’s called “aid” and that comes with more strings. Everyone wants to be paid their rightful due, and no one wants to be “indebted” in any sense.
    It’s not proved to be a popular notion with developing world governments, which remain determined to tie the two together in the UN climate process. Governments of vulnerable countries argue that as developed nations caused the climate change problem, they must compensate those that suffer its impacts with money above and beyond aid. Developing countries like the fact that under the UN climate process, the rich are committed to funding adaptation for the poor.

    That this is all a naked clamor for pork-barreling money and payments to patrons (and not about the poor or the environment) is not even hidden. Black points out that the aid is not getting out as fast as it should:

    Yet as the brief prepared for the Dhaka meeting by the humanitarian charity Dara shows, it isn’t happening anywhere near as fast as it ought to be. Only 8% of the “fast-start finance” pledged in Copenhagen, it says, has actually found its way to recipients.

    Where is the outrage? Doesn’t this type of inefficiency or corruption completely undermine any pretense that there is a point in fighting to “solve” the climate problem (assuming there was one). The entire Copenhagen boondoggle was never about helping the world’s poor, because 92% of the money pledged went to “looking good” or funding bureaucrats or was a mythical promise, and hardly anyone cares. Then, Wait! No. Seriously? You mean the IPCC is not about rigorous scientific analysis free of government influence?
    It’s possible – no, it’s “very likely” – that the IPCC draft will be amended as the week progresses, and presumably the governments represented at the Climate Vulnerable Forum will be asking their delegates to inject a greater sense of urgency.

    “Asking delegates to inject “urgency”? Wasn’t this supposed to be based on overwhelming evidence, all uncertainties acknowledged, no exaggeration, and the scientific integrity of thousands of the world’s top experts was a given? All along it’s just been a tool for Big-Government to use to suck the money from honest citizens. Even Black knows it. Does Black realize that he needs an Exit Door too? “The skeptics were always wrong. I was just reporting the scientists who underestimated natural variability”.

    No Richard, No. You switched off your brain, stopped investigating, and turned yourself willingly into a mouthpiece for government funded scientists against the unfunded independent scientists who turned out to have been right all along.

    The shape-shifting here is entirely predictable. It means the machine adapts to reality, but hardly anyone one gets punished. A bit like the bailouts and fraud on Wall St — no one went to jail. (Occupy Climate anyone?) They just change the letterheads on the parasitic agencies that pretend to help the poor and care about lemurs, and all of them get away with the sloppy reasoning, wasteful practices, bullying, deceit, and corruption. Unless of course, the internet foils that plan. May we always be free from the forces of censorship.
    Last edited by Annie Dieu-Le-Veut; April 9th, 2012 at 10:20 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Annie Dieu-Le-Veut For This Useful Post:

    Cognito (April 9th, 2012)

  3. #2
    Administrator Cognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Rancho Cucamonga, California
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 466 Posts


    This makes me wonder where the silliness will stop since the raw data shows nothing but a gentle warming since the mid to late 1800s as the world was emerging from the Little Ice Age. Reminds me of when I was a child and the joke was, "At some point the government will want to tax the air we breathe!" Well folks, the joke is over. We didn't know at the time that the culprit would be what we as humans exhale - CO2 - plant food.

    A new paper is out by Shakun et al entitled "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation" and supposedly shows that CO2 rose by 100 parts per million first, and then the Last Glacial Maximum ended as the earth warmed 7C second. Of course, Shakun cannot explain how the increase in CO2 occurred, nor does he adequately address the extreme and rapid variations of the Younger Dryas vis a vis CO2. For a decent rebuttal to the papers, see Willis Eschenbach's article at:

    A point to be explained:

    About 10,900bce, after post-glacial warming for about five thousand years, the world slipped back into severe LGM conditions for a period of 1,300 years, known as the Younger Dryas. This change didn't take centuries or decades, but occurred within a few years. Then, at 9703bce, the world warmed again by about 7C within three years and the Holocene optimum followed - yes, with the world at one point being warmer than today. The 1,300 years of extreme ice age conditions were over in the geological blink of an eye. Pardon me, Buckwheat, but CO2 can't do that. None of this is explained in Shakun's paper nor is the fact that CO2 is generated from outgassing - the planet warms, and then more CO2 gasses are emitted from the oceans.

    Another point that global warmistas fail to mention. At the last LGM the planet's CO2 levels dropped just below 180ppm. Think about that while considering that lab experiments show a severe slowing of plant growth at 170ppm to the point where there is virtually no growth at 140ppm. Yes, we came within a few points of becoming a snowball earth once more. So, what warmed the earth and allowed outgassing of CO2? It's the sun ... a little common sense is needed here. We all experience 'climate change' daily as the planet cools and then warms again. It's called night and day, and can see extremes of up to 20-30C in some places. And what causes the difference? It ain't CO2 folks, it's the sun.

    Let's get real. When the temperature outside my home changes by 20C daily, do you really believe I am concerned about a half degree change over a century? When tides change by up to 12 feet daily in certain areas do you believe anyone cares about a change of 10 inches over 100 years? That's where the Greens got it all wrong ... they should be focusing on environmental pollution, not a mythical global warming a la CO2 that isn't backed up by raw data.

    There is no doubt that the industrial contribution of CO2 has slightly warmed the planet over the last 150 years, but most of the warming was a result of the earth's emergence from the Little Ice Age as the sun's activity increased. However, that increase of just over 100ppm during the last 150 years failed to result in an increase of 7C (instead, the total increase was about 0.5C with CO2's contribution being a small portion of that number), but I am to believe a similar increase in CO2 did just that nearly 20,000 years ago? Please.

    The earth as well as the sun cycle and no matter what humans decide to do with the planet, Gaia and Sol will continue their dance as if we weren't here. To believe that we are in control of the atmosphere through a relatively weak greenhouse gas that comprises 0.039% (yes, that's 0.00039 of the total) is the height of hubris. We just aren't that important in the cosmological scheme of things - it took a long time for the Catholic church to admit that, and the Global Warmista's religion is no different.

    The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Cognito For This Useful Post:

    Annie Dieu-Le-Veut (April 10th, 2012)

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts