“Since the invisible wall of deceit was built to save the world from destruction by “nuclear fires” in 1945-46″
If you claim global warming stopped in 1998 how do you explain the UAH satellite warming trend from 1979-present being *greater* than the warming trend from 1979-1998?
If the rate of warming since 1979 has increased in the last 14 years it cannot be true that warming stopped in 1998.
mike,
if you have nothing to say, at least indulge us with some brevity.
Alexander Biggs @ 26/05 7.51pm :
The IPCC ‘didn’t come up with a single scientific principle to justify their cause.’ … That’s about it.
Today’s ‘Thought for today.’ ( I have the franchise for this.):
“Let’s defund the IPCC.”
Thank you for yr paper, ‘An Alternative Theory of Climate Change.’
How can the folks who project future cyclones know how many there were before satellites? Is that why they use “likely” a lot? No one really knows how many hurricanes have been formed if they didn’t strike land, correct? Even then how big they were? How can you say with confidence that AGW is causing an increase when you can’t tell how many nor how strong storms have been in the past. This century could be a lull for all we really know.
Michael,
Some while ago, I threw out a little zinger that I’d liked to recyle since it is a perfect reply to your last.
Michael, you are a de-oxy oxy-moron.
Brevity enough, Michael?
I keep coming across Max minus Ok’s disturbing comment,27/05 2.09 am, ‘You will have to take care of your twins yourself.’ Is someone taking care of them?
Dearest mike,
Don’t listen to Michael. Your comments are one of the main reasons why I keep reading. Besides, it might inspire magnus, who sounds too much like an HB Gary agent:
I hope you forgive me for having shown my exasperation toward Brandon,
Please keep the dashes flowing,
w
Tlolwot | May 29, 2012 at 8:08 am asked: ”What about where the ice meets the ocean?here are 3 explanations why is no ice on some beaches on Antarctic:
THERE ARE 3 EXPLANATIONS:
My explanation: there are strong winds most of the time there – picks salty seawater and is spraying it in the wind direction inland (salt is anti-freeze). Similar as on some tropic’s / subtropics’ beaches and deep inland; only salt tolerant bushes trees and grass would grow. B] both camps are ignoring the geothermal heat released in the air that the ‘’earth’s cooling system’’ has to get read off, not just the heat from the sun. On Antarctic that heat is constantly released on the bottom of the ice – crated lots of lakes / creeks. Most of the water at 2-3-4C ABOVE zero is leaching trough the soil to the beaches – and that temp above zero melts completely the ice, on places close to the beaches. C] geothermal heat travels sideway under the ice; because ice full of air is perfect insulator and is preventing it to go vertical = melts on the end – end of the ice is close to the beaches. If anybody interested, I can suggest a backyard experiment
FAKE Skeptic’s explanation: sunspots and galactic dust is melting the ice on Antarctic’s beaches! 300y ago, melted ice on Antarctic was up to over there – 1000y ago the psycho’s phony GLOBAL warming melted the Antarctic ice right up to behind that rock… during the LIA, ice on Antarctic was definitely more over there; they have seen/ they know. {the Fake Skeptics are prevented by the concert on the bottom of the septic tank, of sinking any lower. They are safe and comfortable where they are – on the bottom of the septic tank}
WARMIST explanation: for the first time in 674 000,5 years, some ice on Antarctic beaches ALREADY started melting, look, look; eyes don’t tell lies! 30000 scientist agree that some ice on Antarctic’s beaches is already melted – start to panic; what are you waiting for?! (Urban Sheep has ‘’fear fatigue and confusion’) Warmist need to ‘’calibrate fear’’ = how much people’s knees to shake/ rattle of fear – from 1-10, some similar calibration as the Richter Scale. So that every time when the Swindlers announce a new fear via the politically bias / corrupt media; to be ‘’scientifically precise‘’: the fear is only 3 on the Fear Scale… or is 7,3 on the Fear Scale- panic, panic, boo, BOO!!
If you, just joined the circus; be our referee
Bad trendology doesn’t interest me.
Still, absurd claims interest me less:
Below 4 year linear trends, it’s all noise. Below 17 years, it’s so much noise we can’t reach even 95% confidence. But as people seem obsessed on short, invalid trend lines, note not a current single UAH tropospheric trend line (ie one ending with the most recent data) starting since 1998 but rising above the level of pure noise (less than 4 years) is actually negative.
Some of the other links I’ve heard discussed, and so far as I know not yet falsified:
1. Starting point of hurricanes will become more varied over time as the ocean warms. The “creche of storms” will expand from its original small range in each tropical basin to cover larger and larger territory.
2. Time of hurricanes will become more varied over time as the ocean warms. The “hurricane season” will expand from June-November to start earlier and end later.
3. Predictability will fall, as seasonal patterns break down due increasing complexity of hurricane climate systems.
4. Path eccentricity will increase, as hurricanes seek course of least resistance in an increasingly complex climate neighborhood.
5. Mean path length will increase.
Anyone know if there’s anything to any of these?
Passed?
I was head of the class. ; )
If Bryan doesn’t get back to you in a week or two, we’ll take it for granted he agrees with your proposal, and I’ll waste my time looking at it them.
Fair?
We shouldn’t overlook that BS got one thing right.
I am an unreliable source.
I don’t want to be relied on as any sort of authority.
I want people to be skeptical and check things, consider things for themselves, verify things, challenge and question and provide alternate explanations. Because that’s what skeptics _want_ to see.
And then, once they’ve satisfied reason and sense, and come to a conclusion, they should go where the facts and evidence and logic lead them.
In my case, I’ve come down on the opposite side of the question to some others. It doesn’t mean I’m right and they’re wrong. Well, likeliest, it does. Perhaps even very likeliest. 
Another update:
Who would have predicted that people wouldn’t have taken the warnings of scientists seriously, with so much obvious evidence of the risk?
David,
your very strong views, divorced from reality, makes one wonder about the degree of objectivity you’ll bring to any ‘educational’ material.
I suspect that the image of a hobby-horse-riding axe-grinder will leap from the pages.
OT folks, but I need some help (after an hour of fruitless searching). Someone here posted a very interesting psych paper a few months back, a methodological paper showing how easy it is to fool yourself when you can make a few basic decisions about data analysis (e.g. what covariates to include, how to control for pre- and post-treatment measurement, and a couple of other things). I want to include it on my fall semester syllabus for experimental design and stats. But now I cannot find it. Anyone remember this, and which thread it appeared in?
because you’d never let the fact get in the way of your prejudices.
Let’s do a Climate Etc poll…
How correct do you think your feeling that the brilliantly subtle “highly confident but not certain” message of Climate Science has been conveyed to and understood correctly by the public?
A. Metaphysically Positive
B. Very
C. Somewhat
D. Not at all
E.. Uncertain
Andrew
Albert Einstein is credited on the web with saying that, “Scientists investigate that which already is; engineers create that which has never been.” If so then it must be true that scientists are dedicated to seeking the will of God in all things whereas engineers are Gods.
Still looking for a believer convinced enough to take a wager. 3 year time span. I’ll take it gets cooler. You can take it gets warmer. Any amount you like up to 2K. If you’d rather, the spoils will go the charity of the winner’s choice. Just say the word.
