Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Today on the website notrickszone.com is an article entitled Crumbling concensus. it lists 500 plus scientific articles published in scientific journals this year all peer reviewed bye deniers of global warming. The article breaks down the papers bye types for ex 132 are on solar influence and 3 on recent cooling in the north atlantic.

These HairyMinnow are all scientific articles with links given, peer reviewed and published in scientific journals. All done in the face of the Khmergreen/left relentless attacks on the truth and open harassment of these scientists.

Now go ahead and deny because its all you do, but the light is shining, TRiUMPh is on his way.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

This is what I was saying about bsnub reading someone else's comments, and parroting them as though they were his own

You spastic I never claimed they were my comments.

No, you just presented the thoughts expressed in them as though it was what you were saying all along, you dumb streak of mongoose rape shit.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by longway

well its getting well beyond my ability to follow, but what you have posted has nothing to do with the link.

It is in the comments below. My point was that he uses a flawed methodology.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The artful dodger was skillful too.

A fitting title for yourself and the many falsehoods you try to post up in this thread. remember when you claimed that the arctic was frozen solid and I pointed out to you that a massive luxury liner was in the process of circumnavigating it?

You right wing lemmings have your heads so buried in tin foil conspiracy theories that your fail to pay attention to the most obvious reality's.

Love that spelling, you secret trump-muncher you.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Today on the website notrickszone.com is an article entitled Crumbling concensus. it lists 500 plus scientific articles published in scientific journals this year all peer reviewed bye deniers of global warming. The article breaks down the papers bye types for ex 132 are on solar influence and 3 on recent cooling in the north atlantic.

These HairyMinnow are all scientific articles with links given, peer reviewed and published in scientific journals. All done in the face of the Khmergreen/left relentless attacks on the truth and open harassment of these scientists.

Now go ahead and deny because its all you do, but the light is shining, TRiUMPh is on his way.

Oh give it a rest, you're making bsnub look intelligent.

The MetOffice one and the one beneath it seem to be adjusted, otherwise 1998 looks like a particularly interesting spike - an extra strong El Nino with lots of drought and flooding in '98: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/dat...803/TR9803.PDF

It seems the ocean temperature has been rising since then - unless it's more to do with there being more data being collected than before?
https://www.newscientist.com/article...opped-in-1998/

Yes its just an el nino and adjusted to enhance it once again bye the greens, but the scary part is the crashing temperature the graph reveals, still no sign of a bottom.......

Originally Posted by pulvarien

still no sign of a bottom.......

Always happy to oblige

2016 was the hottest year on record for the troposphere

For the troposphere, 2016 was the hottest year on record!

The troposphere temperatures for December 2016 have been released. The lower troposphere is recorded in UAH v6 beta 5 and RSS TLT v3.3. This report also covers RSS TTT for the troposphere (without the "lower") and follows pretty much the same format as previous monthly updates.

For RSS TTT (troposphere), 2016 was the hottest year in the record. Last month was the second hottest December on record.

The lower troposphere (UAH beta v6.05) also showed 2016 as the hottest year in the record. However, December was only the sixth hottest December on record, with 2015 the hottest.

____________

New study confirms NOAA finding of faster global warming

A new study has shown that a 2015 NOAA paper finding that the Earth is warming more rapidly than previously thought was correct.

Finally, and for those who read my posts regularly, I am sounding like a broken record. Global warming is happening, it never stopped, it never paused, and the models have gotten it right.

It reminds me of a debate between creationists and scientists. One scientist whose name I cannot remember stated, “we have the fossil record, we win.” Well, a similar quote works here. “We have the data, we win.” Now let’s move on to solving the problem.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Originally Posted by pulvarien

still no sign of a bottom.......

Always happy to oblige

Dispels the theory of you being a hairless alien captain Nemo.

James Delingpole

DELINGPOLE: Green Energy is a Charter For Crooks And Liars. The Scam Must End Now


When is the rest of the Western world going to catch up with Donald Trump and point out that the green emperor is wearing no clothes?

I ask as a concerned UK taxpayer absolutely sick to death of the vast sums of money that continue to be funnelled into the pockets of crooks, liars, spivs, chancers, con-artists and fantasists in the name of solving the non-existent problem of “climate change.”
Let me give you some examples of what I mean.
Wales’s £18 million tidal energy flop
If there’s one thing everyone who thinks of themselves as reasonable and well-informed knows, tidal power is the thing. How do they know this? Well, because they’re aware that wind and solar power have their flaws but their hearts tell them that renewable energy must be a good thing because it’s clean and it’s free so therefore they’ve decided to pin their hopes on the technology whose crapness hasn’t been tested yet – and that means tidal.
Also they’ll have read thinly-disguised press releases like this article First full-scale tidal generator in Wales unveiled: Deltastream array to power 10,000 homes using ebb and flow of the ocean and gone: “Well they wouldn’t print stuff like that unless it were true, would they?”
But now, surprise surprise, this tidal project – subsidised to the tune of £8 million by the European Union, with another £500,000 from the Welsh government – is lying in ruins on the Pembrokeshire sea bed because the company that ran it – Tidal Energy Ltd – has gone into administration. It failed after just three months of operation.
This is a problem all too familiar with so many projects in the renewable energy sector: see also Solyndra and Abengoa, for example. Because the unreliable, expensive power they produce is not commercially viable, they fold as soon as the government subsidies dry up. But we’re not supposed to mind about public money being squandered in this way because, hey, it’s green and the intentions were good.
Northern Ireland’s £1 billion Renewable Heat Incentive disaster
In 2012, in order to boost renewable energy usage the Northern Irish government hit on the brilliant scheme of subsidising businesses to the tune of a £160 rebate for every £100 they spent on fuels, such as wood pellets, burnt in biomass boilers. Naturally, every business with any sense piled in to grab a piece of this free money.
As the Times(£) reports, this had unintended consequences:

Flaws in the scheme were exposed by a whistleblower who said businesses were buying biomass boilers solely to collect the subsidy. The whistleblower alleged that one farmer expected to make £1 million over 20 years for using a biomass boiler to heat an empty shed, while heating a number of empty factories would net their owner £1.5 million.
Northern Ireland’s auditor-general, Kieran Donnelly, says the RHI had “serious systemic weaknesses from the start” because it did not have the built-in spending controls imposed on a similar scheme in Great Britain. He added that the scheme was vulnerable to abuse and possible fraud.

Now taxpayers face a bill of over £1 billion, £490 million payable by Northern Ireland, the rest by taxpayers in England, Scotland and Wales.
The great £216 million anaerobic digester scam

Anaerobic digesters are machines that turn crops into fuel, by converting agricultural waste into methane which is fed into the national gas grid. This is a very expensive way of producing energy – and just the sort of thing Jonathan Swift was satirising three centuries ago when his Academy of Laputa in Gulliver’s Travels devised schemes to extract sunbeams from cucumbers.
But in the anaerobic digester case, a gullible British government – the useless Cameron/Clegg Coalition to be specific – actually decided that sunbeams from cucumbers was such a good idea that they’d massively subsidise it through the Renewable Heat Incentive. Naturally, like cockroaches to a rotting carcass, the usual rent-seekers – among them wind turbine developer Dale “Dog On A Rope” Vince have piled in to take advantage of all that free money.
But as David Rose has reported, the Anaerobic Digester business is yet another dodgy eco scam. First there’s not enough agricultural waste to fuel these machines, so instead crops – such as eco-unfriendly maize – are being grown specifically to provide fuel them. A government report has described this as “not a cost-effective means of biomethane production.” No, indeed. Methane gas produced in this way costs three-and-half times as much as that from fossil fuel sources.
On top of this, these AD industrial plants can be highly polluting – both in the form of increased traffic (just one project by Dale Vince’s Ecotricity will involve 12,792 extra “vehicle movements” per year in a hitherto tranquil rural area) and in the form of leaks, like the one that contaminated 70 acres of this farmer’s land. Oh, and it can also cause explosions like the one that blew up a containment tank at Harper Adams agricultural college two years ago.
Wind turbine sickness
Seven families from Banteer, N. Cork in Ireland are set to win a multi-million Euro landmark court ruling in an out-of-court settlement in a long-running case against a German wind turbine manufacturer. They sued because of the damage done to their health by the infrasound and low frequency noise produced by the wind turbines sited near their homes.
This scandal has been simmering for years. I have been reporting since 2012 on the damage to human and animal health caused by wind turbines. But the renewables industry – worth an annual $300 billion – has many powerful vested interests and has persistently sought to cover its tracks with threatening legal letters, gagging clauses, and lavishly funded propaganda by industry trade bodies.
What’s significant about this Irish case is that it now sets a global precedent for further legal action around the world. If I were an investor, I seriously wouldn’t want to be exposed to the wind industry right now: it could face class actions as heavy as the one against Big Tobacco. Although I have no control over the investment strategy of my hedge fund CoolFutures, one of the things I hope it will be doing is shorting wind turbine shares.
I once got into trouble with Australia’s incredibly politically correct press complaints commission for quoting a sheep farmer who described wind farm developers being as bad as paedophiles. I would hereby like to apologise to paedophiles for any offence that may have been caused by this disgusting analogy.
The ruination of mid-Wales
I urge you to sign this petition. All right – so it’s the normally ghastly 38 degrees but this is a cause worth supporting: the preservation of some of the matchlessly beautiful rural Welsh landscape which is threatened with destruction by a massive wind turbine development being foisted on it by the eco-loons in Wales’s Mickey Mouse pretend parliament the Welsh Assembly.

The area involved is at least 600 square miles of the Radnor Hills from the Brecon Beacons all the way to the Shropshire Border. This is planning on a massive scale.
The previous round of wind generations proposals was widely debated and resulted in the so called TAN 8 allocations in areas deemed to be of minimum environmental impact. These new proposals are for an area fifteen times larger, with no Environmental Impact Assessment.
What is being proposed is the expansion of the alternative energy target for our area from 50 megawatts to 600 megawatts. This is an eye-watering hike. The deployment of wind-power on this scale in to the national grid will necessitate the construction of huge windmills (the size of the London Eye) and the installation of ranks of pylons to take their output in to the grid system.
This Grid presently goes from Gloucester to Shrewsbury and then in to Newtown, and from Gloucester to Cardiff. Pylons would have to march up our valleys into all our hills in the designated areas. Access Roads spurring off trunk systems would have to be built up to each windmill, and the depth of concrete footings under each mill (more than 50 feet) would have long term effects on water tables. So the visual effect of the windmills themselves are the least of our worries!

I could, of course, provide many, many further examples of the waste, corruption and environmental damage caused by politicians in cahoots with Big Green. But I think these are more than enough to be going on with.
In the decade or so that I have been covering the Great Green Climate Scam I have often been ridiculed and marginalised by colleagues in the mainstream media as a tin-hat conspiracy theorist. Speaking out against the excesses of the environmental movement has damaged my career, it has damaged my health, it has caused massive upset to my family and it has taken me down an alley where the story has begun to seem so boring and repetitive that every day feels like groundhog day.
But I don’t have the slightest regret about any of this because – like all the dedicated souls, journalists, bloggers, scientists and think tankers who have suffered similarly in this cause – I have done my small bit in a war worth fighting. Pretty soon, now, we are all going to be totally vindicated when Donald Trump assumes office and starts the chain of events which will make it almost impossible for the green boondoggle to continue.
Here is what strikes me as bizarre: we are now at the point where the evidence against the man-made global warming scare has reached critical mass – yet hardly any of our institutions appears to have caught up with the fact.
In the mainstream media, for example, there remain still only a handful of publications prepared to express scepticism about the global warming scare. Our schools and universities are almost completely ideologically warmist.
So too are many institutions – corporations, law firms, trade bodies. So too are the vast majority of churches, of all denominations. So too is almost all local government. So too are significant number of politicians, not just left-wing and green ones, but ones who profess to be conservatives and really ought to know better.
To all these people, I have some questions:
In the light of the examples I have given above – and remember these are just the tip of the iceberg – how comfortable do you feel with your ongoing support for green policy?
Does the warm, gooey feeling you get from championing green causes still offset the damage you now know – demonstrably and incontovertibly – is being done in the name of saving the planet from global warming?
Do you think it’s right, fair or just that inefficient, expensive industries with no environmental benefit should continue to be favoured by government fiat, to the benefit of rent-seeking troughers and to the detriment of ordinary taxpayers, the working poor most especially?
When are you going to apologise to those of us who have been pointing this stuff out for years?
What actual value have professional subsidy-troughers like Dale Vince ever actually created in order to justify their multi-million pound fortunes?
And – one for Theresa May, here: you’re supposed to be a Conservative, a fount of commonsense and a champion of the poor, advised by a man, Nick Timothy, who supposedly totally gets what an enormous scam environmentalism is. So when, exactly, are we going to see some hard evidence of this in the form of actual policy?

JMA’s number for December 2016

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in December 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.33°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.71°C above the 20th century average), and was the 2nd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.75°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2015 (+0.66°C), 2nd. 2016 (+0.33°C), 3rd. 2014 (+0.31°C), 4th. 2006,1997 (+0.28°C)

Conservative media can't stop denying there was no global warming 'pause'

Scientists have proven time and time again that global warming continues unabated. Most recently, a study published last week showed that over the past two decades, the oceans have warmed faster than prior estimates. This study affirmed the findings of a 2015 NOAA paper – not surprisingly attacked by deniers – that removed a cool bias in the data, finding there never was a global warming “pause.”

This particular myth has been a favorite of deniers over the past decade for one simple reason – if people can be convinced that global warming stopped, they won’t consider it a threat that we need to urgently address by cutting fossil fuel consumption. It’s thus become one of the most common myths peddled by carbon polluters and their allies.

The Escalator graphic (below): global surface temperature data since 1970 broken into seven “pauses”, with the long-term human-caused global warming trend shown at the end.

A list from Major Global Scientific Academies, Societies, and Associations - Statements on Climate Change

The number and scope of these statements is truly impressive. Not a single major scientific organization or national academy of science on earth denies that the climate is changing, that humans are responsible, and that some form of action should be taken to address the risks to people and the planet.

No one denies climate change, what people dispute is how much if any of it is to do with man. Cause you all spout the same bollox as in hot = climate, cold = weather.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

No one denies climate change, what people dispute is how much if any of it is to do with man. Cause you all spout the same bollox as in hot = climate, cold = weather.

You still haven't quite grasped the fundamental, and really simple difference between weather and climate, have you?

It's little wonder that the only people that dispute man's contribution to climate change are ones that haven't got a fucking clue about the science.

Libtards are getting desperate .
In addition to brushing people with the loaded and misleading:
climate change denier
they have now added:
climate science denier

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by buriramboy

No one denies climate change, what people dispute is how much if any of it is to do with man. Cause you all spout the same bollox as in hot = climate, cold = weather.

You still haven't quite grasped the fundamental, and really simple difference between weather and climate, have you?

It's little wonder that the only people that dispute man's contribution to climate change are ones that haven't got a fucking clue about the science.

I'm fully aware of the difference hence I laugh at climate alarmists everytime they use some hot weather or drought to point towards evidence of climate change, yet when it's cold or there is a big freeze it's just dismissed as weather. No wonder no one not on the payroll takes you muppets seriously.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by buriramboy

No one denies climate change, what people dispute is how much if any of it is to do with man. Cause you all spout the same bollox as in hot = climate, cold = weather.

You still haven't quite grasped the fundamental, and really simple difference between weather and climate, have you?

It's little wonder that the only people that dispute man's contribution to climate change are ones that haven't got a fucking clue about the science.

I'm fully aware of the difference hence I laugh at climate alarmists everytime they use some hot weather or drought to point towards evidence of climate change, yet when it's cold or there is a big freeze it's just dismissed as weather. No wonder no one not on the payroll takes you muppets seriously.

Do you actually read what you write?

It makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Straight talking common sense does tend to confuse climate alarmists.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Straight talking common sense does tend to confuse climate alarmists.

If you can give me an example of a climate scientist who confuses climate with weather, you win the cigar.

But the truth is you're spouting bollocks and you're too stupid to even know it.

The (so called) scientists are always relating man made climate change to weather events, under the guise of extreme weather.

Originally Posted by blue

The (so called) scientists are always relating man made climate change to weather events, under the guise of extreme weather.

Exactly but only hot weather, cold weather is ignored. What's going to happen when global cooling becomes a reality and exposes the scam once and for all.

Oh FFS stop waffling to yourself and give me one example.

And the only "so called" scientists are the snake oil salesmen idiots like you believe.

While the GW alarmists rag away away about one degree here and half a degree there...

Precious little is being said about the really big emitters of greenhouses gases; the meat industry!

And almost never any mention of the US government annual 38 billion dollar subsidy of the meat and dairy industry.

And almost never any mention of the cutting of the amazon rainforest, to clear land to grow soybeans for animal feed.

Corporate sponsored government and media are very much complicit in this destruction of the environment.

Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...use-hamburger/

Another nail in the science deniers coffin soon - NASA, NOAA to Announce 2016 Global Temperatures, Climate Conditions

From Berkeley Earth:

^simply more alarmism giberish, which utter fails to address the very real environmental emergecy facing the planet and humanity as a whole.

Landy all this alarmism serves, is to fragment and distract from the current and very real global emergency.

All the while crooks like Al Gore get richer and richer...and nothing is really accomplished!.....