Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Won't change a thing...They'll still argue interminably one way or the other...And back again...

Looks like yet more paid-for, Koch funded, climate denialism to me.

My assumption is, whether the article says so or not, that the implied conclusion is that humans are not responsible for global warming.

I hope that doesn't sound too stupid or I'll ask Betty to goat the thread.

(no, not really. Anyway, that's a sheep)

Originally Posted by wjblaney

My assumption is,

Careful editing really does change the message, doesn't it? For instance, they quote Fyfe but bury his comment:

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

And:

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence.

JMA’s number for February 2016 just released

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in February 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.62°C above the 1981-2010 average (+1.04°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.78°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016 (+0.62°C), 2nd. 1998 (+0.43°C), 3rd. 2002 (+0.28°C), 4th. 2015 (+0.26°C), 5th. 2004 (+0.21°C)

Originally Posted by wjblaney

My assumption is that anything that billionaire oilmen tell me must be true... just like those friendly tobacco execs who got the cato institute to tell me that secondary smoking is perfectly safe. Now I save a fortune by loytering in smoking rooms getting that safe secondary smoke... even had George Michael join me once... said it was much better than a toilet and then put his hand on my bum

humm, I wonder if gullibility is hereditary.

Originally Posted by wjblaney

No, just wanted a controversial thread.

Yeah well why didn't you post it in the Climate Change thread instead of opening yet another pointless fucker then?

Ahhhh the alarmists as pleasant as always..

I guess it's still too painful to admit you were wrong for 20 years, much easier to take it out on those pointing out to you that the Emperor indeed has no clothes on .


Fact
there was a pause , which cannot be fabricated away with data fixing.

Did Co2 finally cause the end to the pause ?
(or more probably a pause to the pause)
no here's a clue what did:

Originally Posted by wjblaney

skepticism seems to have won the day

Yeah ok Cato

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch

Originally Posted by blue

Ahhhh the alarmists as pleasant as always..

I guess it's still too painful to admit you were wrong for 20 years, much easier to take it out on those pointing out to you that the Emperor indeed has no clothes on .


Fact
there was a pause , which cannot be fabricated away with data fixing.

Did Co2 finally cause the end to the pause ?
(or more probably a pause to the pause)
no here's a clue what did:

Fucking hell blue, a six year old could understand that video I posted, and you still can't understand it you retard.

be gental... the poor chaps IQ is somewhere between that of a rock and a vegetable

interesting article about how alarmists cannot explain past warm periods
but are suckers for a linear graph





C3: NOAA Research Confirms The Dominance of Natural Climate Change: 1935 vs 2016



The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer/industrial fossil fuel emissions.
Indeed, the fringe greens claim that modern global warming is solely caused by CO2 from coal, oil and gas combustion. Plus, they claim that natural climate change has had almost zero influence on temperature changes over the past 30 years.
Yet, the empirical evidence from NOAA does not support those claims. In fact, one could surmise that the greens' claims are refuted in many instances.
Using the U.S. temperature dataset from NOAA, which represents evidence from the most comprehensive climate reporting system in the world, a reality-based version of past and present temperature change emerges.
[Ed: The US dataset is considered by experts to be the best instrumental northern hemisphere proxy of climate change available. The longest instrumental northern hemisphere proxy is the CET dataset from the UK, which represents a much narrower band of geography.]
Most recently, we know that the super El Nino produced a 3-month winter period (Dec-Feb) that reached its highest winter average ever by the end of Feb. 2016. And amazingly, using a larger subset of the same dataset, the 5-year temperature trend ending Feb. 2015 is actually negative, cooling at -3.5°F/century rate for 12-month periods.
Now, the 3-month warming event and 5-year trends are absolutely worthless as predictive tools, but for comparison purposes they can be instructive. For example, the 5-year trend ending in February 1935 was an extreme +28.6°F/century versus that recent -3.5°F/century trend.
Those 5-year periods are the first instructive clue that the early 20th century climate change was extremely powerful, without any influence from large CO2 emissions. The significantly higher early climate warming rates versus modern warming are not only unexplained by experts, but also by the computer climate models that have become known for being utter flops.
This has resulted in a lot of embarrassing hand-waving distractions and "don't look behind that curtain" responses.
Expanding on the comparison of natural versus modern warming rates, the chart on the left plots various per-century trends for US temperatures ending February 1935 (red curve) versus those periods ending February 2016 (aqua curve).
Note that in all cases (5yr, 10yr, 15yr, 20yr, 25yr and 30yr) the warming trends of the early 20th century natural climate change ending on Feb. 1935 exceed (sometimes by a lot) the modern warming trends ending Feb. 2016.
How can this be one might ask?
Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate-doomsday scenarios, cannot explain the powerful warming of the past. The AGW hypothesis essentially ignores the relevance, the strength and the significance of all natural climate change resulting from internal and external forces.
Thus, as previously mentioned, "experts" and computer simulated predictions have egregiously failed.
The AGW hypothesis is driven by the assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels produce the rapid accelerating warming trends that are so feared. However, if CO2 was the sole cause of global warming, then the chart on the right would be the supporting evidence, except it isn't.
The chart on the right plots changes in CO2 atmospheric levels for the the two comparison periods. Visually, the periods ending on Feb. 1935 and Feb. 2016, reveal the huge disconnect between the AGW hypothesis of CO2 climate warming and the actual evidence.
Over the last 30 years, the modern change in CO2 ppm levels is over 5 times greater than that experienced spanning the 30 years ending in Feb. 1935. Yet, as noted before, major period warming rates for the early 20th century easily exceed those of the modern CO2 "doomsday" era.
This past U.S. climate experience of extreme warming provides unequivocal evidence that natural climate change is variable and strong enough to easily explain the milder modern warming trends over the last 30 years.
In addition, this NOAA dataset also makes it perfectly clear that global climate change is not some simple linear function of human greenhouse gases, as proposed by low-information elites and media. On top of that, it is apparent that the greens' global warming is not really "global" for huge chunks of geography and populace at given times. (related: recent NOAA global dataset analysis)
As an aside, the press is constantly spreading the meme of the 'warmest', be it warmest day, month, quarter, year, decade and etc. Many times what they report is true in one sense but they forget to mention that it has been warming since the Little Ice Age. And today's reporters conveniently fail to mention that reporters of the 1930s' were saying the same for their period of extreme climate change.
Finally, NOAA reports that there exists a minor U.S. cooling trend of -0.7°F per century since 1999 - based on the past eighteen 12-month periods (18 non-calendar years) ending February.
Additional regional and global temperature charts.
Note: Source of U.S. NOAA temperature dataset (12-month periods ending February: choose 12-month time scale); modern CO2 dataset and pre-1958 CO2 dataset. Excel used to plot charts and to calculate temp trends and CO2 changes.
March 13, 2016 at 02:39 PM | Permalink

OK, so I researched the Libertarian Republic. I apologize for not doing my homework first. (from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican)

Principles

Libertarian Republicans represent a political faction within the Republican Party. They are strong believers in the traditional Republican principle of economic libertarianism that was advocated by past and present presidential candidates such as former Senator Robert A. Taft, former Senator Barry Goldwater and former Representative Ron Paul and his son, current Senator Rand Paul. Individuals who self-identify as libertarian Republicans do not necessarily share the same political beliefs across the spectrum, though there do seem to be several issues that bind them together, including beliefs in fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, and personal liberty.

The most common belief libertarian Republicans share is fiscal conservatism – specifically, advocating for lower taxes at every level of government, a reduction in the level of spending in the federal budget, easing the burden of federal regulations on business interests, the reform of the entitlement system, and ending or making significant cuts to the welfare state. Additionally, they oppose budget deficits and deficit spending and work to minimize it as much as possible. Libertarian Republicans tend to support more fiscal conservatism than their mainstream counterparts in the party, and are less willing to abandon these principles for political expediency.[citation needed]

Libertarian Republicans often differ from traditional Republicans in their emphasis on protection of civil liberties.[1] It is distinct from the Republican Party because it sees state-enforced conservative social policies as encroachments on personal privacy and individual liberties.[1] Libertarian Republicans disagree with the activities of mainstream Republicans with regard to civil liberties since the September 11 attacks in 2001, opposing the PATRIOT Act, its reform the USA Freedom Act, REAL ID, and President George W. Bush's domestic intelligence program.[2]

Opposition to the use of the term libertarian Republican comes from the libertarian adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, its core philosophy of voluntaryism and lack of force against individuals, to which the Republican Party platform or philosophy does not adhere to.

The personal liberty component is attractive to me as well as the Non-Aggression Principle.

Which of you flamethrowers want to argue about paragraph 4 which I quote again:

Opposition to the use of the term libertarian Republican comes from the libertarian adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, its core philosophy of voluntaryism and lack of force against individuals, to which the Republican Party platform or philosophy does not adhere to.

I personally disagree with their beliefs as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 but before you flame out, re-read paragraph 3:

Libertarian Republicans often differ from traditional Republicans in their emphasis on protection of civil liberties.[1] It is distinct from the Republican Party because it sees state-enforced conservative social policies as encroachments on personal privacy and individual liberties.[1] Libertarian Republicans disagree with the activities of mainstream Republicans with regard to civil liberties since the September 11 attacks in 2001, opposing the PATRIOT Act, its reform the USA Freedom Act, REAL ID, and President George W. Bush's domestic intelligence program.

Public figures

(this is a partial list, which I thought would include the most interesting followers)

U.S. Senators

• U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas[29]
• U.S. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona[30]
• U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah[31][32]
• U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky[33][34]
• U.S. Senator Steve Daines of Montana[35]
• U.S. Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado[36]
• U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska[37]
• U.S. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania[38][39]
• Former U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona[40]
• Former U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio[41]
• Former U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts

U.S. State Governors

• Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas[45]
• Governor Gary Herbert of Utah[46]
• Governor Paul LePage of Maine[47]
• Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina[48]
• Governor Butch Otter of Idaho[49][50]
• Governor Mike Pence of Indiana[51][52]
• Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada[53][54]
• Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan[55][56]
• Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin[57][58]
• Former Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana[59]
• Former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico[60][61][disputed – discuss]
• Former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts

But why is it in the Climate Change thread?

Originally Posted by wjblaney

OK, so I researched the Libertarian Republic. I apologize for not doing my homework first. (from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican)

You've confused Libertarian Republic (the political movement) with The Libertarian Republic (essentially another wank-fest, right-wing echo chamber, blog re-reporting 'news' with their own spin and agenda).

Originally Posted by MrG

But why is it in the Climate Change thread?

It was meant as a follow-up to this post:
https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ml#post3228328 (Any doubts about Climate Change?)

But now that Ant has given me an F for my homework, the post to which you are referring prolly belongs on the https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...andidates.html (2016 Republican US Presidential Candidates) thread, since that's the most recent thread having to do with the Repubtards. But, I would bounce the https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...-meltdown.html thread (last post 2012) as to relevancy also.

Likesay, I don't want to refer to https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ml#post3228328 (Any doubts about Climate Change?) anymore.

Give me some thoughts where to move the Republican Libertarian post, as I think that's interesting, from an election point of view, as it gives an insight into what they might capture, in terms of the electorate.

No way I'm going to do any more homework, Ant.

MODS: Please move posts #3492, #3493, #3494 and #3495 to https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...andidates.html (2016 Republican US Presidential Candidates)

NOAA’s February number is out.

Warmest February ever recorded.

If this pace continues, 2016 could set another record, for the warmest year ever recorded.

From Michael Mann,….

Global temperatures smashed records for the 10th straight month in February, which was a whopping 2.18 degrees above average, according to data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The spike is "unprecedented," said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann. Records are typically broken by hundredths or tenths of degrees. No month has ever registered a mark that high above normal.

Mann attributed the record to a mix of global warming (roughly 50%), climate pattern El Niño (25%) and month-to-month temperature fluctuations (25%). The fingerprint of human-caused climate change isn’t just evident, it’s dominant, Mann said.

From Time on February’s record.

February Had the Most Above-Average Temperatures on Record

Global temperatures in February were the most above average since weather record keeping began nearly 150 years ago, bringing the world the closest it has ever been to what scientists consider dangerous levels of warming, a federal government agency confirmed Thursday.

The average temperature across the globe in February reached 13.3°C (56°F), according to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That’s 1.2°C (2.2°F) higher than the average global temperature in February during the 20th century. NOAA’s findings confirm those released earlier this month by NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency that both show February as the most unusually hot month on record.

“If you look back in the historical temperature curve, it’s hard to find a monthly spike that was as large as this one,” says Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. “That’s how we will see the effects of climate change: the extremes will become more extreme and bring the world the closest it’s ever been to dangerous warming.”

Most scientists identify a rise of 2°C (3.6°F) above the level global temperatures were at before humans began putting large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the point at which the effects of global warming become essentially irreversible, causing lasting damage. Arctic ice will melt away at an unsustainable rate and some island countries will begin disappearing into the ocean.

The 2°C marker has also been enshrined into public policy and international climate deals—including the Paris Agreement—as a target that should not be exceeded. The February temperature record suggests that it may be harder to meet those targets without a dramatic acceleration in efforts to reduce global carbon emissions

“If we continue to burn fossil fuels and increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we will assume that this level of warmth will be perpetual,” says Mann. “This is a reminder that we need to need to decarbonize.”

Snip

And while the year has only just begun, climate scientists have already predicted that 2016 will trump last year as the warmest on record. The warmest months of El Niño tend to fall in the spring following the pattern’s high period and the coming months would need to be abnormally cool to make up for the hot winter. They almost certainly won’t be.

“There’s a good chance that 2016 will be even warmer that 2015,” says Mann. “We would have to see a pretty rapid cool down not to beat the 2015 record.”

With or without El Nino, the trend continues.

Real scientists should be reminding their colleagues that an El Nino is not man-made !!


You just have to feel the alarmists pain
not only is hard science constantly snapping at their fabricating heels.
but now the man made global warming skeptics have taken the crown for pretty graphs too ...

The cooler Indo-Pacific


P Gosselin at NotricksZone has got some very interesting graphs about the ocean around the vast Western Pacific. Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt noticed that ARGO buoys are recording a very unusual cooling in the Indo-Pacific Western Pacific.
Is something fishy and odd going on there? Hard to say, but while the globe set a record last month, it is interesting to know that over the last couple of years temperatures have declined in the Western Pacific by a whole degree. The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) covers 20N to 20S across a full quarter of the circumference of the Earth. According to Bosse and Vahrenholt it’s around “16 million cubic kilometers“.
The blue blob in 2016 in the graph below looks smallish (right hand side), but it represents a large section of the Earth. And the temperature of the IPWP has dropped 1°C since early 2013. Smaller hints of blue blobs occur briefly in 2006-7 and 2009-10, both during small El-Ninos. Is the current cool pool just a big “El Nino” phenomenon? I wish we had data from 1997-98 to compare.
So there is a very large pool of subsurface water that’s cooler than usual across this large slab of water. Bill Kininmonth gave the best description I’ve yet seen on how the world changes during an El Nino. Our oceans are mostly deep and cold — they average 4km deep and most of that is near freezing. Even under the topics the water is only 4C. Above that rests a thin warm top layer which is pushed around by the winds. In an El Nino the trade winds across the Pacific slow down and that keeps the warmer water near the surface of the central Pacific instead of pushing that warm water right across to the Western Indo-Pacific. In a La Nina the extra winds push the warm water far westward, and there is an upwelling of the vast cold pool on the Eastern side of the Pacific. Fingers of cold water reach the surface and draw down the heat from the air above. Think of that massive abyssal cold volume that can reach up and suck the heat out of the sky. That’s why temperatures swing globally.
See the blue cold water in the Indo-Pacific? The scientists who tell us that the February heat records are due to man-made climate change are effectively saying that the cold pool in the IPWP is due to CO2 10,000m above. Follow the chain… cry for cause and effect. (dbar = decibar, and I calculate 100 dbar as about 100 meters, 200 dbar as about 200 meters, and 500 dbar as about 500 meters at the equator.)

.........etc etc

Cold water in vast Western Pacific, record water vapor, clouds, rain ? super big El Nino things going on « JoNova



brrrrrrrrrr its getting cold colder

I don't know why you bother, you're as thick as fuck. All you have to do is a little checking....

Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming.

She gave a presentation entitled, “The Great Global Fawning: How Science Journalists Pay Homage to Non-Science and Un-Reason.”

DeSmogBlog found that the sponsors of the 2009 conference had collectively received over $47 million from major oil companies and right-wing foundations.

The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland's operations is underscored by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. "We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with," the document said.

After graduation, Nova joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a Shell-sponsored program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children. Currently, Nova works as a professional speaker, the Director of Science Speak, and the writer and creator of the blog, JoNova.

Get it?

She's paid by the oil industry to spread misinformation so they can keep polluting, you idiot.


And evidence of her bias towards climate polluters:

Here is a list of the inaccuracies in the Climate Skeptic's Hanbook [PDF] authored by “professional speaker” Joanne Nova.

The Climate Skeptic's Handbook itself is hilariously illogical. It coaches “skeptics” to avoid talking about the evidence of changing climate (for obvious reasons presumably). According to them, something may be heating things up, it's just not carbon dioxide. Independent thinkers are instead counseled to follow these four points:

The greenhouse signature is missing
Ice Cores do not support carbon as a driver of climate change
Temperatures are not rising
Carbon dioxide is doing almost all the warming it can do.
All of these points are either entirely wrong or grossly misleading.

1. The greenhouse signature is missing

Flat out wrong.

There is a clear signature that greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere and has been for years. If you thought that the scientific community had picked over this issue pretty carefully for about 100 years, you would be right. Hundreds of studies have looked at this question using mathematical analysis, laboratory studies and atmospheric observation. Modeling based on this data agrees very well with what we are seeing.

There are several drivers of temperature change on Earth, including atmospheric sulfatesclimate model, volcanic ash, fluctuations in the ozone layer, changes in the Sun and greenhouse gases. Here’s what the modeling and direct observations shows:

The “missing hotspot” argument is also a favourite red herring that pops up perennially from deniers like a game of whack-a-mole.

First of all, the hotspot is not missing. Secondly, is not even a signature of the greenhouse effect, it is the signature of warming from any source.

As a matter of fact, the warming profile of the atmosphere is exactly what you would expect from the greenhouse effect due to carbon emissions – namely a hotter lower atmosphere and a colder stratosphere. Sorry deniers – that one is tossed in the tank yet again.

2. Ice Cores do not support carbon as a driver

Grossly misleading.

Ice core data shows a very strong link between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures. What the deniers are harping on is that it appears that carbon does not start the warming, it only amplifies it.

atmospheric carbon signatureBelieve me, this is nothing to take comfort from.

Ice core data dating back hundreds of thousands of years clearly shows that once warming is started due to regular fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit or solar output, it leads to massive increases in atmospheric CO2 from melting permafrost and release from the oceans. This in turn leads to positive feedbacks that amplify warming by up to five times.

The difference now is that we are jump-starting the warming by dumping huge amounts of ancient carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This is already leading to positive feedbacks like melting permafrost, and increased forest fires. The other scary difference is that scientists believe that this time we may push past tipping points like melting the Greenland ice sheet that the planet has not seen in a long, long time. Sound like a good idea? Maybe we shouldn’t give it a try.

It is also amussing that deniers say that atmospheric carbon dioxide has nothing to do with warming, while also maintaining that it does, but it dosn't matter. You try and figure out what they are saying - I can't.

3. Temperatures are not rising

Again, completely incorrect. The clear trend is upwards and has been since about 1900 with a large increase since 1980. global temperaturesHere is the latest world land temperature graph from NASA – decide for yourself whether things are getting chillier.

What climate deniers love to do is cherry pick the data by starting counting in 1998 – the warmest year in the history of meteorology and one of the strongest El Nino years on record.

Another hoary old myth is the urban heat island effect – that weather stations that used to be far off in the country are now in the city surrounded by pavement and air conditioners. Believe it or not, scientists actually thought of that.

Still don’t believe the entire scientific community? Have a look at the latest graph of global temperatures for both land and oceans. Not many air conditioners floating around sea.

land ocean temperatures4. Carbon dioxide is doing almost all the warming it can do

Absolutely false. Saying increased atmospheric carbon is not going to make a difference is like suggesting that throwing more wood on a fire will not make it bigger.

It is true that high school physics shows that CO2 warming in the atmosphere follows a logarithmic relationship – meaning that heating from increasing CO2 does not follow a straight line. That is precisely why scientists instead talk about an atmospheric doubling of CO2 (yes, they’ve thought of that tooprehistoric atmospheric CO2).

Climate models predict that every additional doubling will lead to global warming of about 3°C – but some estimates put it as high as 6°C. I guess we’ll find out…

In the last 150 years, we have increased atmospheric carbon from 280 ppm to 385 ppm, and the pace is picking up speed. We are on track to hit 530 ppm by 2050. To see what all these numbers mean, have a look at this animation from the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway.

Of course any real scientist making such ridiculous arguments among their peers would be laughed out of the room. That is why you will never ever see climate deniers make such absurd claims in the scientific literature – only in the mainstream media. Meanwhile the voting public remains dangerously confused by this garbage. As they say, tick tock goes the clock.

The Denier’s Handbook was written not by a practicing researcher of course, but by a woman named Jo Nova whose past vocations included hosting of children’s program in Australia and touring Australia with a “science circus” sponsored by Shell Oil.

Interesting, her former funder (the oil company) is no longer denying the link between carbon emissions and climate change in their communications with kids. Maybe she didn't get the memo.

She has at least one science-related publication to her credit: Serious Science Party Tricks ($14.95 AUD plus $2.50 postage). It does not directly relate to atmospheric chemistry however. It instead documents how to:

“Do the funniest, silliest, and most surprising tricks with things like paper, balloons, straws and flour. Simple, quick, easy and stunning. An activity book to keep you engrossed for hours!”

Hardly peer-reviewed stuff. I do not mean to disparage children’s literature, but these patently false claims are going to be distributed to 16,000 decision-makers and politicians and frankly she is asking for it.

It is also interesting that almost all of these augments seem to originate from our “rocket scientist” friend David Evans. Real climate scientists in Australia were tearing their hair out when he kept popping up in the media Down-Under claiming to have an expertise in climate science. FYI – he has not published one single peer-reviewed paper in the field.

For some excellent critiques of these old and erroneous talking points see the blog of Dr. Barry Brook, an actual climate scientist from the University of Adelaide, and Dr. David Karoly at the University of Melbourne. There are good eviscerations of Nova's “arguments” here.

The old field of climate scince misinformation blooms anew – well fertilized by ““anonymous donors” and of course the fossil fuel industry.

Climate Skeptics Handbook - errors and inaccuracies | DeSmogBlog


Just to save you some time, if you get an urge to post anything by the following, you're wasting your time, as they're all on the Big Oil/Polluters payroll.

Ron Arnold
Timothy Ball
Joseph “Joe” Bast
Joe Bastardi
Michael Bastasch
William Briggs
Russell Cook
Judith Curry
Joe D'Aleo
James Delingpole
David Paul Driessen
James Enstrom
Steve Goddard
Pierre Gosselin
Greenie Watch
William Happer
Jim Lakely
Patrick J. Michaels
Steven J. Milloy
Christopher Monckton
Marc Morano
Joanne Nova
Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. - Unclear in Email)
Thomas P. Sheahen
S. Fred Singer
Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
Roy Spencer
James Taylor
Anthony Watts

Thanks harry
just checked your list
Paul Homewood isn't on it so i'll post his article :

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...id-not-happen/

Explaining The Extreme Weather Events That Did Not Happen

March 17, 2016 By Paul Homewood

Unable to persuade the public that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing, the climate establishment has turned to peddling the myth that global warming is leading to more extreme weather.

There have been a number of studies which have attempted to connect the two. Even then, as I showed with the above AMS attempt a few months ago, most extreme events cannot be linked, and those that are claimed to be are extremely tenuous.

Of course, weather is an impossibly complex affair, and it is inevitable that some weather events may be made more likely or more intense in a warmer world. But, equally, the opposite is also true – that some events are less likely. Naturally, we never hear the absence of extreme weather analysed in this way by the likes of the AMS or Met Office.

So, I invite them to have a go at these examples:

Hurricanes

US land falling hurricanes have been at record low levels in recent years, and it is now more than ten years since a major hurricane hit.

HURDAT Re-analysis

Tornadoes
There has been a long term decline in both the number of tornadoes, and particularly, the frequency of stronger ones.





Droughts
Droughts were much more commonplace, prolonged and severe prior to the 1970s.


Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Summer Heatwaves
There has been a marked absence of extreme heatwaves in recent years, and nothing approaches the run of intensely hot summers in the 1930s.


Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Bitter Winters
According to NOAA’s albeit highly adjusted data, extremely cold winters are a thing of the past in the US.


Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


Precipitation

As with drought indicators, US rainfall has tended to be greater since the pre 1970 period.
There is no indication, however, of precipitation becoming more extreme since then. The wettest year was 1973.


Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


Regional Precipitation Extremes
National totals can, of course, cover up regional imbalances.The NOAA chart below shows the balance of extremely wet and dry areas. As with PDSI, very dry areas are much less common, while the area of very wet weather is stable.
(NOAA’s graph is not well presented; although it says “December”, it is in fact for all months since 1895. Each bar represents a single month)


U.S. Percentage Areas (Very Warm/Cold, Very Wet/Dry) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)