A nice anti-AGW synopsis

[Liability]

Actually, the article is more of a recapitulation of recent exposures of the improper behavior of the proponents of AGW, like the IPCC and East Anglia College.

I will not copy and past the entire piece, but here is a nice excerpt and the link:

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

* * * *

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.

* * * *

Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.

* * * *

The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail

Yes. That's right. There's trouble in AGW Faither-ville.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You do not understand the basis of religious faith. It is doubt that makes them believe. The more impossible the assertion, the deeper the belief.

The postings of such as OldRocks and TruthMatters are like folks doing a rosary. Just repeat the assertions, and each assertion is a proof.

 

[Oddball]

None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

File under: "Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are....."

 

[Old Rocks]

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 01 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 02 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 03 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 04 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 05 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 06 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 07 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 08 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 09 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.497 +0.422 +0.572 +0.495
2009 12 +0.288 +0.329 +0.246 +0.510
2010 01 +0.724 +0.841 +0.607 +0.757

January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The last 13 months of temperature data according to that famous global warming advocate Dr. Spencer.

Note the number of minus signs on the global temperature.

All them minuses really do indicate a cooling, right?

 

[Liability]

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 01 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 02 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 03 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 04 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 05 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 06 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 07 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 08 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 09 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.497 +0.422 +0.572 +0.495
2009 12 +0.288 +0.329 +0.246 +0.510
2010 01 +0.724 +0.841 +0.607 +0.757

January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The last 13 months of temperature data according to that famous global warming advocate Dr. Spencer.

Note the number of minus signs on the global temperature.

All them minuses really do indicate a cooling, right?

Yet again, Moldy Crock, you try to engage in fraud.

Listen Moldy Socks. Those of us who doubt AGW are not all denying that there IS some evidence that average global temperature has gone up somewhat in modern times. What AGW doubters DOUBT is the "A" part of AGW.

Dr. Spencer has made note of some increase in temperature using satellite technology. Noting a temperature anomoly is NOT the same thing as an assertion that it is caused by human activity.

HERE is what Dr. Spencer's web-site itself SAYS:

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

 

[Old Rocks]

http://na.unep.net/publications/Himalayas.pdf

The IPCC cites the World Wildlife Fund (WWF 2005) as its
source. The WWF report states that “glaciers in the Himalayas
are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if
the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing
by the year 2035 is very high”. The report makes no mention
of the 500 000 and 100 000 km2 areas that appear in the
IPPC statement. The WWF credits the 2035 prediction to a
1999 report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology
(WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and
Ice (ICSI).
The ICSI stated that “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding
faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate
continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
is very high” (Down to Earth 1999). In the following paragraph,
the same article went on to say “The glacier will be decaying
at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the
present 500 0001 to 100 000 km2 by the year 2035.” There was
no reference to the Himalaya Mountains in this particular
paragraph although, as shown above, they were mentioned
in the previous one. The ICSI credits a United Nations
Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
report edited by V.M. Kotlyakov (1996) as its source.
In that 1996 report, Kotlyakov wrote “The degradation of
the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising
ocean levels already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic
rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived
runoff . This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar
glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic
rates—its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2
by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of
inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian
ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in
some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the
temperature latitudes”. In his statement, both the 500 000 and
100 000 km2 areas applied to mountain glaciers world-wide,
not just the Himalayas, and the prediction was for the year
2350, not 2035.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmm..... LOL. You don't doubt that temperatures have gone up somewhat in modern times? My, my, seems that only yesterday all of you were yelling "it is cooling". Change your mind today?

Well now, what would the increase be caused by. Sun? Nope, a decrease in TSI for the last few years. A very minor one, but still a decrease. Sunspots? Damned few of them, either in the last few years. Yet the last decade has been the hottest on record.

Now what is left to cause the increase in the warming? How about the increase in the GHGs? And where did those GHGs come from? Hmmm...... could not have been from the giga-tons of coal and oil we have been burning, could it?

Of course not, we have the two greatest minds of this century telling us it isn't the "Way Things Ought to Be". Ol Limpballs and Liability. Yesireeee Bob, great minds think alike.

 

[Liability]

Hmm..... LOL. You don't doubt that temperatures have gone up somewhat in modern times? My, my, seems that only yesterday all of you were yelling "it is cooling". Change your mind today?

Well now, what would the increase be caused by. Sun? Nope, a decrease in TSI for the last few years. A very minor one, but still a decrease. Sunspots? Damned few of them, either in the last few years. Yet the last decade has been the hottest on record.

Now what is left to cause the increase in the warming? How about the increase in the GHGs? And where did those GHGs come from? Hmmm...... could not have been from the giga-tons of coal and oil we have been burning, could it?

Of course not, we have the two greatest minds of this century telling us it isn't the "Way Things Ought to Be". Ol Limpballs and Liability. Yesireeee Bob, great minds think alike.

You probably don't realize that you're babbling incoherently, but I'll be pleased to highlight it for you.

Temperatures go up and down. Climate is not stagnant. There were ice ages and periods of warming BEFORE humankind ever had anything approximating any actual "industry."

SOME people might derive from those facts something instructive. But not you AGW Faithers.

YOU, by the way, chose to cite to Dr. Spencer. His noting that there is evidence of a recent temperature anomaly is HARDLY indicative that humankind is responsible for it, since his contention is that we (us mere humans, that is) don't have much of any climatological impact.

The fact is that we have only a very sketchy knowledge of ALL the multitude of factors (and their various inter-relationships and cross-effects) to claim to know that so-called "greenhouse" gasses are responsible for any of these temperature anomolies, despite your most strident bleatings.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have very solid knowledge that GHGs in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Not only from physics, but from the geological record.


A23A

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmm..... LOL. You don't doubt that temperatures have gone up somewhat in modern times? My, my, seems that only yesterday all of you were yelling "it is cooling". Change your mind today?

Well now, what would the increase be caused by. Sun? Nope, a decrease in TSI for the last few years. A very minor one, but still a decrease. Sunspots? Damned few of them, either in the last few years. Yet the last decade has been the hottest on record.

Now what is left to cause the increase in the warming? How about the increase in the GHGs? And where did those GHGs come from? Hmmm...... could not have been from the giga-tons of coal and oil we have been burning, could it?

Of course not, we have the two greatest minds of this century telling us it isn't the "Way Things Ought to Be". Ol Limpballs and Liability. Yesireeee Bob, great minds think alike.

You probably don't realize that you're babbling incoherently, but I'll be pleased to highlight it for you.

Temperatures go up and down. Climate is not stagnant. There were ice ages and periods of warming BEFORE humankind ever had anything approximating any actual "industry."

SOME people might derive from those facts something instructive. But not you AGW Faithers.

YOU, by the way, chose to cite to Dr. Spencer. His noting that there is evidence of a recent temperature anomaly is HARDLY indicative that humankind is responsible for it, since his contention is that we (us mere humans, that is) don't have much of any climatological impact.

The fact is that we have only a very sketchy knowledge of ALL the multitude of factors (and their various inter-relationships and cross-effects) to claim to know that so-called "greenhouse" gasses are responsible for any of these temperature anomolies, despite your most strident bleatings.

Why yes, that is Dr. Spencer's contention. That is why it is so much fun citing him providing confirmaton of the effects of AGW.

 

[Big Fitz]

It can warm.
It can cool.
It can rain.
It can snow.
The sun may scorch.
The seas may boil.

...It is STILL not man's doing.
No sir! It's still not man's doing.
It's all a lie... all a lie lie lie.

Put that to music and I think you'll have a big big hit.

 

[Liability]

Hmm..... LOL. You don't doubt that temperatures have gone up somewhat in modern times? My, my, seems that only yesterday all of you were yelling "it is cooling". Change your mind today?

Well now, what would the increase be caused by. Sun? Nope, a decrease in TSI for the last few years. A very minor one, but still a decrease. Sunspots? Damned few of them, either in the last few years. Yet the last decade has been the hottest on record.

Now what is left to cause the increase in the warming? How about the increase in the GHGs? And where did those GHGs come from? Hmmm...... could not have been from the giga-tons of coal and oil we have been burning, could it?

Of course not, we have the two greatest minds of this century telling us it isn't the "Way Things Ought to Be". Ol Limpballs and Liability. Yesireeee Bob, great minds think alike.

You probably don't realize that you're babbling incoherently, but I'll be pleased to highlight it for you.

Temperatures go up and down. Climate is not stagnant. There were ice ages and periods of warming BEFORE humankind ever had anything approximating any actual "industry."

SOME people might derive from those facts something instructive. But not you AGW Faithers.

YOU, by the way, chose to cite to Dr. Spencer. His noting that there is evidence of a recent temperature anomaly is HARDLY indicative that humankind is responsible for it, since his contention is that we (us mere humans, that is) don't have much of any climatological impact.

The fact is that we have only a very sketchy knowledge of ALL the multitude of factors (and their various inter-relationships and cross-effects) to claim to know that so-called "greenhouse" gasses are responsible for any of these temperature anomolies, despite your most strident bleatings.

Why yes, that is Dr. Spencer's contention. That is why it is so much fun citing him providing confirmaton of the effects of AGW.

I know his contention is that there is no actual compelling evidence that mankind has any effect on global climate. So, how that makes it "fun" to cite him when pointing out some temperature increases is hardly amusing. It is, however, rather illogical and irrational of you.

One can (here in the real world which you really must visit someday) simultaneously hold BOTH the view that some evidence DOES suggest that there IS some global warming going on AND the view that mankind has really nothing to do with that fact.

At the time of the onset of the last great ice-age, tell us: how did mankind cause it?

At the time of the END of the last great ice-age, tell us: how did mankind cause that?