New study in Nature shows pause is real

Micawber said:
Yes a signal can be weak to strong, but dominant can ONLY be dominant. You chose "signal" science's article with dozens of actual climate scientists said "dominant." Does all your lying weigh on your conscience?
Click to expand...

Does being a full time cunt lie heavily on your conscience?
 
Queen Snowflake said:
Are you confusing weather with climate?
Click to expand...

The answer to his question is yes, they do. Real observed data is computer modeled. The data is obtained in the field. You don't need to be the guy getting the ice core or geosyncing a weather sensored SAT to process the data.
Sailor's comment is probably just a segue into making a "real man" comment or something typically stupid.
 
Milagro said:
Does being a full time cunt lie heavily on your conscience?
Click to expand...

You seem obsessed with that word lately. Doesn't matter to me in the least. All that matters between you and I is that you lied, and I smacked your nose with it like a bad doggie that pooped on the rug.
 
Micawber said:
I'm sorry did you say something? Was it dismissive? That's OK, you aren't a climate scientist. You don't matter. Was it backed up with peer reviewed scholarship? No. Climate scientists have not dismissed the last two years, the warmest ever recorded.
Click to expand...

So why have the temperatures dropped so dramatically then? Answer that?

But now comes a reality check: The El Nino has ended and the global temperatures are falling. Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. For some the prospect of global cooling is a problem, especially for those who see the well-established change in the behaviour of global temperatures after around the turn of the century as an powerful “weapon” used by “sceptics” to cast doubt on climate science. But these sceptics were talking about real, emerging climate science in a way that was resisted by many of the more publicly visible scientists who had failed to adapt to the facts. Only time will place the El Nino’s influence of previous years into its proper context against variations in the background rate of global temperature change. Will the Pause resume? Some scientists fear global temperatures may drop back in years to come. They are preparing their colleagues for such a situation and are warning climate scientists “not be distracted by temporary fluctuations in the other direction which will eventually reverse.”
Click to expand...

David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 3 November 2016


  • Ph.D., Astrophysics, Victoria University of Manchester (1983). [1], [2], [3]
Background

David Robert Whitehouse is a scientist, writer, and broadcaster. He was BBC's Science correspondent from 1988 until 2006, and also served as the Science Editor for BBC News Online. [2] Whitehouse has since criticised the BBC's climate change reporting as “evangelical” and “inconsistent,” and claimed their reporting on scientific issues was “shallow and sparse.”[4]


Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Council for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). [5]






 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
The answer to his question is yes, they do. Real observed data is computer modeled. The data is obtained in the field. You don't need to be the guy getting the ice core or geosyncing a weather sensored SAT to process the data.
Sailor's comment is probably just a segue into making a "real man" comment or something typically stupid.
Click to expand...

Better that than a skinny latte drinking milquetoast ambulance chaser. So pray tell me how they obtain empirical data for positive feedbacks which only exist in climate models? I would rather listen to someone like Freeman Dyson than an obnoxious cunt like you.

Interview

The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II; working at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, New Jersey, as a contemporary of Einstein; and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues. He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience. He has also campaigned against nuclear weapons proliferation.

At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-founder Indur Goklany on CO[SUB]2[/SUB] – a report published [PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn't face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
We invited Dyson to talk about climate change and other matters, including a question from your correspondent's kids – how will we do interstellar travel?

You were being invited to help solve problems in an era when things looked pretty grim, and those problems looked insoluble, during the Cold War, and before Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution. Now we've conquered a lot of these, but there seems to be an unquenchable thirst for apocalypse.
[Laughs] Yes. I don't know why, it's a mood of the times. I don't understand that better than anyone else. It is true that there's a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don't think that's the full explanation. It's like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we'd gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it's in the air today.

The years before 1914 were a tremendously promising time. Russia was getting richer, [but then] the whole thing fell apart. It's comparable today – we've done a much better job with feeding the world and if you look at the number of desperately poor people, it has been decreasing quite steadily. The most important thing at the moment is China getting richer. What the rest of the world is doing doesn't really matter.

If you could give your own scientific recommendations for carbon dioxide policy at COP21 in Paris, what would they be?
Certainly land management would be one. Particularly building up topsoil, which you can do in lots of ways. Not just growing trees, there are many things you can do which are just as good. Inducing snowfall is something you can do which hasn't been discussed very much, to keep the oceans from rising. The rise of the oceans is a real problem and while they're not rising as fast as people say, they're still rising. That could be stopped if you could arrange that it snows a bit more in Antarctica. That's something that could be quite feasible, but it's not been looked at very much.

Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.
I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.

It seems almost medieval to suppose that nature is punishing us, rather than the Enlightenment view, that we can tame nature, and still be good stewards of it.
That's all true.

It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy.
That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints. It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.

Because the big growing countries need fossil fuels, the political goal of mitigation, by reducing or redirecting industrial activity and consumer behaviour, now seems quite futile in the West.
China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they'll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.
At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that's the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.

Have you heard of the phrase "virtue signalling"? The UK bureaucracy made climate change its foreign policy priority, and we heard a lot of the phrase "leading the world in the fight ..." and by doing so, it seemed to be making a public declaration of its goodness and virtue ...
No [laughs]. Well, India and China aren't buying that. When you go beyond 50 years, everything will change. As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they've going up in Europe, and that's because of shale gas. It's only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal. It seems complete madness to prohibit shale gas. You wondered if climate change is an Anglophone preoccupation. Well, France is even more dogmatic than Britain about shale gas!I
Click to expand...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
You seem obsessed with that word lately. Doesn't matter to me in the least. All that matters between you and I is that you lied, and I smacked your nose with it like a bad doggie that pooped on the rug.
Click to expand...

If you didn't behave like a cunt then you wouldn't be called one. I haven't lied about anything and it is extraordinarily amusing seeing someone who lies for a living choosing to call me one. That surely must take some serious brass neck.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Micawber said:
I'm sorry did you say something? Was it dismissive? That's OK, you aren't a climate scientist. You don't matter. Was it backed up with peer reviewed scholarship? No. Climate scientists have not dismissed the last two years, the warmest ever recorded.
Click to expand...
Some have and some haven't, you are the liar here. You say climate scientists as if they are 100% agreed when that is far from the case. Here is a bona fide climatologist who was subjected to the full McCarthyite witchhunt by supposed colleagues.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11...e-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
fe1b1af1322ec33c7caf9d7af2eb3537.jpg
 
Guille said:
Ah, you're a "consensus" guy, aren't you?

I despise consensus.
Click to expand...

Nope, sure not. Other than exposing Milagro's cherry-picking dishonesty, I really haven't weighed in on the issue. Nice try though, illiterate clod.

Whiney little bitch you are today, aren't you? Is it that time of month, bitch?
 
Milagro said:
So why have the temperatures dropped so dramatically then? Answer that?



David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 3 November 2016


  • Ph.D., Astrophysics, Victoria University of Manchester (1983). [1], [2], [3]
Background

David Robert Whitehouse is a scientist, writer, and broadcaster. He was BBC's Science correspondent from 1988 until 2006, and also served as the Science Editor for BBC News Online. [2] Whitehouse has since criticised the BBC's climate change reporting as “evangelical” and “inconsistent,” and claimed their reporting on scientific issues was “shallow and sparse.”[4]


Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Council for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). [5]
Click to expand...

Global warming policy foundation. We discredited that already.... Yawn
 
Micawber said:
Translation: "I want anecdotes, damnit! Fuck this imperceptible accretion of scientific evidence on a macro scale over time. Stories! give me some stories!"

Just turn in the tv to the weather channel. They provide plenty of that stuff.
Click to expand...

Ancedotes my ass. Like I said cubicle dweller, get your sorry ass out in the real world and weather and observe things yourself. Idiots like you keep the hype with no real substance going.
 
Micawber said:
I'm well aware of sailor's complete lack of climate science and admiralty knowledge. I am also aware that the last two years were the warming record, so paused or not, warning has unpaused.
Click to expand...

STFU you fake lawyer. Useless as tits on a nun and dumb as a rock. HRC campaign dream voter.
 
Milagro said:
The Pause stopped for a while whilst El Nino was in full flow, temps have now gone back down to post 1998 levels. Hence the Pause is back! Even Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann has admitted it but our resident ambulance chaser knows far more than him on the subject!!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Global-Warming-Is-Real&p=1558274#post1558274
Click to expand...

That fender head does not even rise to the dregs of being an ambulance chaser. He is nothing other than a para legal. A research and get my coffee bitch for real lawyers.
 
Sailor said:
That fender head does not even rise to the dregs of being an ambulance chaser. He is nothing other than a para legal. A research and get my coffee bitch for real lawyers.
Click to expand...
Is he always as obnoxious or does he have a day off?

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Sailor said:
Ancedotes my ass. Like I said cubicle dweller, get your sorry ass out in the real world and weather and observe things yourself. Idiots like you keep the hype with no real substance going.
Click to expand...

Sorry clown, it's very real. So real the laws of most states in the USA already mandate renewables to the tune of about 30 percent. That's real. Get on board or get out of the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top