More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

May 4th here in New York and still dressing in layers everyday. Anywhere you go these days, people are like, "WTF?!!". The standard joke these days around here have a "global warming" reference, which, of course, is making me very pleased.......and so interesting to see how in the past 6 or 7 years, the whole dynamic has changed!! The AGW nutters never saw this coming.......a period of almost 7 months of way below normal temperatures and everybody freezing their balls off. Kinda changes the perceptions of people


Meanwhile.......more and more evidence is surfacing that climate alarmism is based ONLY on the computer models >>>

Climate Change Reconsidered


Of course, as we have all seen, these computer models are frequently incorrect. How many times have the AGW people made bold predictions that have fallen flat on their face, on hurricanes, snow, tornado's drought........you name it = fAiL.

 

[skookerasbil]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

 

[polarbear]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Eine heikle Personalie erschüttert die Umweltforschung: Einer der angesehensten Klimatologen, der emeritierte Max-Planck-Direktor Lennart Bengtsson, wechselt ins Lager der Skeptiker. Im Interview erläutert er seinen überraschenden Schritt.

Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.

Lennart Bengtsson speaks out


MK: Why did you join the GWPF Academic Council?
LB:I know some of the scientists in GWPF and they have made fine contributions to science. I also respect individuals that speak their mind as they consider scientific truth (to that extent we can determine it) more important than to be politically correct. I believe it is important to express different views in an area that is potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change.
My interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and are frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper. I also believe that most scientists are potentially worried because of the long residence time of many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, our worries must be put into a context as there are endless matters to worry about, practically all of them impossible to predict. Just move yourself backward in time exactly 100 years and try to foresee the evolution in the world for the following 100 years.
MC: Is this your way of telling the world that you have become a “climate sceptic”? (many people might interpret it that way) If not, how would you position yourself in the global warming debate?
LB: I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science. I have always been driven by curiosity but will of course always try to see that science is useful for society. This is the reason that I have devoted so much of my career to improve weather prediction.
MC: Is there according to you a “climate consensus” in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?
LB: I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.
MC: Mojib Latif once said at a conference of the WMO (in 2009) “we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves”. Do you think the climate community is doing that (enough)? or are others like the GWPF needed to ask these “nasty” questions? If so, what does this say about the state of Academia?
I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.
MC: I noticed that some climate scientists grow more sceptical about global warming after their retirement. Can you confirm this? Does it apply to yourself? Is there a lot of social pressure to follow the climate consensus among working climate scientists which can explain this?
LB: Wisdom perhaps comes with age. I also believe you are becoming more independent and less sensitive to political or group pressure. Such pressure is too high today and many good scientists I believe are suffering. I am presently a lot on my own. As I have replied to such questions before, if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable.

Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example. For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential. The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2. I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

 

[skookerasbil]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Eine heikle Personalie erschüttert die Umweltforschung: Einer der angesehensten Klimatologen, der emeritierte Max-Planck-Direktor Lennart Bengtsson, wechselt ins Lager der Skeptiker. Im Interview erläutert er seinen überraschenden Schritt.

Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.

Lennart Bengtsson speaks out


MK: Why did you join the GWPF Academic Council?
LB:I know some of the scientists in GWPF and they have made fine contributions to science. I also respect individuals that speak their mind as they consider scientific truth (to that extent we can determine it) more important than to be politically correct. I believe it is important to express different views in an area that is potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change.
My interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and are frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper. I also believe that most scientists are potentially worried because of the long residence time of many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, our worries must be put into a context as there are endless matters to worry about, practically all of them impossible to predict. Just move yourself backward in time exactly 100 years and try to foresee the evolution in the world for the following 100 years.
MC: Is this your way of telling the world that you have become a “climate sceptic”? (many people might interpret it that way) If not, how would you position yourself in the global warming debate?
LB: I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science. I have always been driven by curiosity but will of course always try to see that science is useful for society. This is the reason that I have devoted so much of my career to improve weather prediction.
MC: Is there according to you a “climate consensus” in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?
LB: I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.
MC: Mojib Latif once said at a conference of the WMO (in 2009) “we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves”. Do you think the climate community is doing that (enough)? or are others like the GWPF needed to ask these “nasty” questions? If so, what does this say about the state of Academia?
I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.
MC: I noticed that some climate scientists grow more sceptical about global warming after their retirement. Can you confirm this? Does it apply to yourself? Is there a lot of social pressure to follow the climate consensus among working climate scientists which can explain this?
LB: Wisdom perhaps comes with age. I also believe you are becoming more independent and less sensitive to political or group pressure. Such pressure is too high today and many good scientists I believe are suffering. I am presently a lot on my own. As I have replied to such questions before, if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable.

Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example. For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential. The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2. I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

How instructive is this passage? >>>

The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C


and this passage? >>>>

However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!



Lets face it.......what we have here in the AGW crowd is either one of two things.



1) Some people just automatically tend to the hysterical.

or

2) The alarmism is part of an overall agenda and the hysteria is an act.

 

[polarbear]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.
Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example. For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential. The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2. I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

How instructive is this passage? >>>

The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C


and this passage? >>>>

However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!



Lets face it.......what we have here in the AGW crowd is either one of two things.



1) Some people just automatically tend to the hysterical.

or

2) The alarmism is part of an overall agenda and the hysteria is an act.

Bengsston said in his (German) interview

Und ich habe mich nie als Alarmist, sondern als Wissenschaftler mit einem kritischen Blick gesehen. In diesem Sinne war ich immer ein Skeptiker. Ich habe die meiste Zeit meiner Karriere darauf verwendet, Modelle für die Vorhersage des Wetters zu entwickeln. Und dabei habe ich die Bedeutung der Prognose-Validierung kennengelernt, also der Überprüfung von Vorhersagen gegenüber dem, was dann wirklich passiert ist.

I never considered myself an alarmist, but a a scientist with a critical eye...(which is why he no longer fit in with the rest of the OPCC crowd)

Most of my time was spent developing climate models, but was always aware that these needed validation with real events
and then in the next sentence he said:
It is frustrating that this isn`t happening and that the IPCC spends more effort to force a consensus rather than validating climate models.

It`s a bit easier for AGW skeptics to speak their mind in Germany today as it is in other countries that haven`t yet experienced the real cost of the green craze.

But as it is the term (AGW) skeptic draws more attention than any of the usual terms alarmist like to use to get the public`s attention.
After so many unusually long & cold winters in Europe and North America the general public is fed up with it and reaches for the barf bag when they read crap like " blah blah blah..is warming at an alarming rate" etc etc.

I`m certain that the asshole with his "skepticalscience.com" blog is well aware of it and uses these words for that reason trying to suck in people who are looking for a second opinion just to get more hits on his blog.

Please don`t take this the wrong way, but I also think if your thread would not have the word "skeptics" in it, it would not have over 70 000 views today.
Matter of fact after observing you for ~ 2 years now I conclude that you were clever enough to realize that when you decided on the title of this thread

 

[skookerasbil]

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.
Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!
P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

How instructive is this passage? >>>

The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C


and this passage? >>>>

However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!



Lets face it.......what we have here in the AGW crowd is either one of two things.



1) Some people just automatically tend to the hysterical.

or

2) The alarmism is part of an overall agenda and the hysteria is an act.

Bengsston said in his (German) interview

Und ich habe mich nie als Alarmist, sondern als Wissenschaftler mit einem kritischen Blick gesehen. In diesem Sinne war ich immer ein Skeptiker. Ich habe die meiste Zeit meiner Karriere darauf verwendet, Modelle für die Vorhersage des Wetters zu entwickeln. Und dabei habe ich die Bedeutung der Prognose-Validierung kennengelernt, also der Überprüfung von Vorhersagen gegenüber dem, was dann wirklich passiert ist.

I never considered myself an alarmist, but a a scientist with a critical eye...(which is why he no longer fit in with the rest of the OPCC crowd)

Most of my time was spent developing climate models, but was always aware that these needed validation with real events
and then in the next sentence he said:
It is frustrating that this isn`t happening and that the IPCC spends more effort to force a consensus rather than validating climate models.

It`s a bit easier for AGW skeptics to speak their mind in Germany today as it is in other countries that haven`t yet experienced the real cost of the green craze.

But as it is the term (AGW) skeptic draws more attention than any of the usual terms alarmist like to use to get the public`s attention.
After so many unusually long & cold winters in Europe and North America the general public is fed up with it and reaches for the barf bag when they read crap like " blah blah blah..is warming at an alarming rate" etc etc.

I`m certain that the asshole with his "skepticalscience.com" blog is well aware of it and uses these words for that reason trying to suck in people who are looking for a second opinion just to get more hits on his blog.

Please don`t take this the wrong way, but I also think if your thread would not have the word "skeptics" in it, it would not have over 70 000 views today.
Matter of fact after observing you for ~ 2 years now I conclude that you were clever enough to realize that when you decided on the title of this thread

Didn't think that the thread would get so prolific.......but it has so many, many brilliant rebuttals of the AGW fascist nonsense as not to be believed. In fact, it every kid from 5th grade to 12 grade in America got to read this thread alone, the whole of America would know what we already know. One day soon IM going to go through and count the amount of links that display very clearly that despite the dogma associated with "consensus", the AGW clowns have made hardly a dent in energy policy in America and around the world.......in fact, any gains they made dating back to 2006 are now going in the opposite direction as governments see the foolishness of green energy = its real popular until people realize how incredibly expensive the shit is.


Gotta say Polar......your posts continue to crack my ass up because each one makes these cheesedicks look so foolish.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way......if you haven't noticed, the AGW OCD's have all gotten together to boycott this thread in the hopes it goes away......and how typical is that amongst those on the far left. When you are losing, take your bat and ball and go home.

Theyve all been doing that limpwrister thing their whole lives........such a disgrace, particularly in the males. Epic weenieness......the weak of the species.


Thread will continue to dominate

 

[flacaltenn]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Eine heikle Personalie erschüttert die Umweltforschung: Einer der angesehensten Klimatologen, der emeritierte Max-Planck-Direktor Lennart Bengtsson, wechselt ins Lager der Skeptiker. Im Interview erläutert er seinen überraschenden Schritt.

Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.

Lennart Bengtsson speaks out


MK: Why did you join the GWPF Academic Council?
LB:I know some of the scientists in GWPF and they have made fine contributions to science. I also respect individuals that speak their mind as they consider scientific truth (to that extent we can determine it) more important than to be politically correct. I believe it is important to express different views in an area that is potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change.
My interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and are frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper. I also believe that most scientists are potentially worried because of the long residence time of many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, our worries must be put into a context as there are endless matters to worry about, practically all of them impossible to predict. Just move yourself backward in time exactly 100 years and try to foresee the evolution in the world for the following 100 years.
MC: Is this your way of telling the world that you have become a “climate sceptic”? (many people might interpret it that way) If not, how would you position yourself in the global warming debate?
LB: I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science. I have always been driven by curiosity but will of course always try to see that science is useful for society. This is the reason that I have devoted so much of my career to improve weather prediction.
MC: Is there according to you a “climate consensus” in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?
LB: I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.
MC: Mojib Latif once said at a conference of the WMO (in 2009) “we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves”. Do you think the climate community is doing that (enough)? or are others like the GWPF needed to ask these “nasty” questions? If so, what does this say about the state of Academia?
I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.
MC: I noticed that some climate scientists grow more sceptical about global warming after their retirement. Can you confirm this? Does it apply to yourself? Is there a lot of social pressure to follow the climate consensus among working climate scientists which can explain this?
LB: Wisdom perhaps comes with age. I also believe you are becoming more independent and less sensitive to political or group pressure. Such pressure is too high today and many good scientists I believe are suffering. I am presently a lot on my own. As I have replied to such questions before, if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable.

Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example. For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential. The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2. I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

The sudden sanity at Max Planck actually brings joy to my heart and tears to my eyes. It's so damn refreshing.. Like opening the Calgary swimming pool in April...

 

[theliq]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.
Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example. For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential. The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2. I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

The sudden sanity at Max Planck actually brings joy to my heart and tears to my eyes. It's so damn refreshing.. Like opening the Calgary swimming pool in April...

!!!!!!!!??????

 

[skookerasbil]

Top story on DRUDGE right now......

Winter wonderland in Calgary.......in May!!!! >>>

Calgary a winter wonderland in May

Top story in Germany today:
Klimawandel: Meteorologe Lennart Bengtsson wird Klimaskeptiker - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Lennart Bengsston, director of the Max Planck Institute for climate change research joins Hans von Storch and Marcel Crok.
Here is a transcript of his interview in English:
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out | Climate Etc.
Here is another excerpt of the interview:
Bengtsson Joins GWPF?Alarmist Physicist Georg Hoffmann Reacts?Parallels GWPF To The Ku Klux Klan!

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example. For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential. The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2. I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

P.s.:
Your thread might be heading for 100 000 views soon...it will, as long as we keep it interesting for those who come here because of your title line.

The sudden sanity at Max Planck actually brings joy to my heart and tears to my eyes. It's so damn refreshing.. Like opening the Calgary swimming pool in April...

Fat chance on that FlaCal.......it was snowing in Calgary this past Monday. Damn global warming is killing us this spring!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate....disruption?????

What does that even mean????

They just don't care that we know they're lying.

Climate Hurtfulness

Climate Switcheroo

Climate Conversion

Climactic Gentrification

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate....disruption?????

What does that even mean????

They just don't care that we know they're lying.

Climate Hurtfulness

Climate Switcheroo

Climate Conversion

Climactic Gentrification

These people must be laughing their asses off when they come up with these new climate phrases. There is zero doubt that it is all predicated upon using a catch phrase to snare the imagination of the hopelessly duped of society!!

 

[skookerasbil]

From todays REALCLEARENERGY >>>

Obama is also faced with an apathetic public. Just 29 percent of Americans said in a Pew Research poll earlier this year that dealing with global warming is a top priority, ranking it second to last among 20 issues polled.

Read more here: WASHINGTON: Obama?s talking climate change, but is anyone listening? | National Politics | The Island Packet



Oooooooooooooooooops!!!





Nobody cares..........still

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Great Climactic Googly Moogly!

 

[jon_berzerk]

From todays REALCLEARENERGY >>>

Obama is also faced with an apathetic public. Just 29 percent of Americans said in a Pew Research poll earlier this year that dealing with global warming is a top priority, ranking it second to last among 20 issues polled.

Read more here: WASHINGTON: Obama?s talking climate change, but is anyone listening? | National Politics | The Island Packet



Oooooooooooooooooops!!!





Nobody cares..........still

actually he stopped talking about climate change

the propaganda has mutated once again

now it is climate disruption

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters have more sand for burying heads in Tejas.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_VuGZw3cY

 

[flacaltenn]

Nutters have more sand for burying heads in Tejas.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_VuGZw3cY

Not surprised the discussion is about EVERYTHING but the science. Talk religion, politics, Civil War, whatever you need to DISCREDIT your opposition.. Sad fact is -- it's because most Enviro-nuts know little about GW or the Environment..

 

[skookerasbil]

May freakout!!!!

And more huge levels of losing for the nutters >>>


Mid-May storm buries Colorado flower beds under 3 feet of snow

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters have more sand for burying heads in Tejas.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_VuGZw3cY

Not surprised the discussion is about EVERYTHING but the science. Talk religion, politics, Civil War, whatever you need to DISCREDIT your opposition.. Sad fact is -- it's because most Enviro-nuts know little about GW or the Environment..

I am going to say this one more time.

I am not an environmentalist. I am a dude with a family and a substantial carbon footprint.

However....I can grasp the science. I can understand and accept the facts.

We are shitting in our own nest. It takes an idiot of monumental proportions to deny that our unending thirst for fuel and other resources is fucking up the planet.

Being a regular guy.....with a regular family.....I am not excited about being inconvenienced or taxed in order to help solve the problem. But I can at least accept that the problem exists.

You fucking idiots.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nutters have more sand for burying heads in Tejas.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_VuGZw3cY

Not surprised the discussion is about EVERYTHING but the science. Talk religion, politics, Civil War, whatever you need to DISCREDIT your opposition.. Sad fact is -- it's because most Enviro-nuts know little about GW or the Environment..

I am going to say this one more time.

I am not an environmentalist. I am a dude with a family and a substantial carbon footprint.

However....I can grasp the science. I can understand and accept the facts.

We are shitting in our own nest. It takes an idiot of monumental proportions to deny that our unending thirst for fuel and other resources is fucking up the planet.

Being a regular guy.....with a regular family.....I am not excited about being inconvenienced or taxed in order to help solve the problem. But I can at least accept that the problem exists.

You fucking idiots.

As a regular family guy, you need to be more specific about shitting in your nest. Because if its really shit, you would use a different approach than if the nest fouling material was bird farts. Kinda silly actually to conflate every pollution with me or any other "idiots". Im sure that pawning the family piano so that Vanuatu can take that money and build a new airport is your right. Please help them out of crisis that is LARGELY not your fault....