JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Pachauri quietly blows goalposts away, pretends to like skeptics. It’s all PR to keep the gravy train running.

Pachauri

There’s a PR war going on

Pachauri is chief PR officer for the Global-not-so-Warming-Gravy-Train. His job is to say things with a straight face that are the complete opposite of what he’s said before, and to pretend he has never said anything differently.

The IPCC are a government committee who’ve stamped the brand name “science” to their policy wish list. They got away with it by using ancient tribal rhetorical techniques. Call your opponent names, spit on their reputation, spread nasty rumors, and tell the useful idiots who follow you that they are smart, caring, and superior — even as you teach them to chant “denier” in response to the dog-whistle. The good thing about having Idiot followers is that can believe at the same time that “denier” is a scientific term and that they have a high IQ.

It is also handy if you give out plum government jobs and consultancies, to keep your supporters ardent. The power of patronage, what ho!

But the game is changing, skeptics have scored too many points.

Thus and verily skeptics have been hitting home runs by shining a light on the religious attitude of the IPCC which keeps declaring unscientifically that the science is settled.

Pachauri is hoping he can rewrite history and neutralize some of the damage. The Endless Junket must go on.

At this point in the PR-game Pachauri cannot admit the skeptics were right and the IPCC was wrong. His best option in the game is to pretend that the IPCC have always been saying the same points the skeptics are scoring runs with — thus making skeptics seem irrelevant and the points moot. The only drawback is the zombie truth comes back to bite.

Can’t we just pretend the IPCC predicted decades of global flatness?

In 1990 the IPCC told global policymakers that even if they stabilized emissions, the world would warm by at least 0.2C per decade for the next few decades.  That was their “low estimate”. Emissions didn’t remotely stabilize, so the warming trend “should” have been even more than that (they thought 0.3C per decade, maybe up to 0.5C per decade). Instead it warmed less.

The pause became noticeable. The goalposts started shifting as the pause got longer. Nothing disproves a climate model (that’s a tautology, by the way).

In 2008 NOAA said that pauses of 15 years or more didn’t fit with climate simulations (so if it went longer, the models would be wrong). Likewise James Hansen was caught in ClimateGate saying that ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ When the pause got a bit longer still, Ben Santer said in a paper it really was 17 years we needed to see. That was 2011.

By 2013, instead of admitting failure, changing the theory and thanking the skeptics, Pachauri now says we’ll need 30 -40 years of the IPCC being wrong before we can say they are wrong. Bold, very bold.

THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

They won’t make the mistake of making actual predictions again after they failed so badly in 1990. Now they predict warming, cooling, blizzards, droughts and unwarming. All roads lead to a crisis.

Can’t we just pretend the IPCC likes debate and skeptics are useful?

After years of making out that skeptics are “flat-earth-deniers who use voo-doo science“, Pachauri now reverses onto another track (did you know Pachauri is a railway engineer?) and says skeptics are useful and climate science is all up for discussion (apparently):

“..Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change. .. no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.”

Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

By 2010 Pachauri wished skeptics would “rub asbestos on their faces”. Not someone he wanted to invite to dinner then?

So what happened?

Skeptics really are winning. The IPCC realize they look like fools every time a skeptic points out that science is about asking questions and having a debate:

“People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said.

He said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena”.

But in 2008 all of man-made climate science was known. Doubters were as stupid as flat Earthers according to Pachauri:

” There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.”

Is this what he means when he talks of “thrashing” out the issue?

Pachauri’s tactic of rewriting history, without admitting any wrongs or acknowledging any errors, will work if lazy or ideologically-motivated journalists don’t point to his earlier statements and put him on the spot. But it fails if skeptics keep reminding the world of the inconvenient truth.

You know what to do :-) .

 

_____________________________________________________________

Thanks to Matt J and Ottaway for the tip, and Climate Depot for amassing so many links on Pachauri.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (102 votes cast)
Pachauri quietly blows goalposts away, pretends to like skeptics. It's all PR to keep the gravy train running., 9.8 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/a53kxba

176 comments to Pachauri quietly blows goalposts away, pretends to like skeptics. It’s all PR to keep the gravy train running.

  • #

    Pachauri is from India, hence the true story of him taking a private jet from NY to India just for cricket practice. (Another jet later on for the actual game.) Maybe he’s just being cautious.

    India experienced lethal cold this winter, like much of the Northern Hemisphere. Needless to say, we have had this cold explained to us as an effect of AGW, or a masking of AGW, a result of Arctic melt etc. Cold, when it does not fit the script, takes on all kinds of complex and ironic qualities. Snow becomes extreme precipitation, Gore’s “dirty weather”. (Hot, on the other hand, is just hot, or maybe dustbowl.)

    As the Keystone demonstrators learned, it’s getting hard to run a warming line during Northern Hemisphere winters since about 2009. I think we’ll see a lot of conciliatory talk from Pachauri and his mates during winter. It’s a good bet the aggression will lift in summer, since there’s bound to be some heat, drought or cyclones about.

    Even if there’s a move back to general cooling – who the hell knows? – the seventies were cool, but there was a heap of storm activity, climaxing with Tip in ’79. Imagine if they could score another Typhoon Tip!

    So I think the guys will still be able to find buttons to push. And there’ll still be a few over-educated dopes to say “golly” at the right moments.


    Report this

    341

    • #
      Ricardo K

      Robert, what do you consider “over-educated”? Someone with a science degree? A PhD? Multiple PhDs?

      Are you happier listening to people who went to the School of Hard Knocks, studied at the College of It Stands to Reason and carried out their post-graduate studies at the University of What Some Bloke Told Me?


      Report this

      211

      • #

        Ricardo, I meant conceited fellows who see fantastically complex and fluid things as mechanistic processes. By their “models” and “forcings” you will know them.

        They think that available knowledge must be adequate knowledge, and act upon it as if it were adequate. Publish or Perish is a godsend to these people.

        For these people, the past is to be referred to but not looked at with real curiosity. These people are characterised by an aversion to history, and tendency to dismiss the great events of the past as annoyances, “cherry-picked” and “dredged up”. They are that most dangerous of species: New Men at Year Zero.

        Ricardo, you need to be careful, because these fellows are often very bright, far brighter than me, for example. They’re just not good at thinking, and they think that reality can be manipulated by a whole bunch of simplistic levers and buttons like a kid’s spaceship console. Crazy, eh?

        Don’t worry. These people are definitely not scientists. Lysenkoists is one term for them. But most are nice folk – away from their reality consoles.


        Report this

        141

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Robert, there’s no such thing as perfect knowledge of complicated systems. But imperfect knowledge is better than none. If I’m good at counting cards, I can beat the casino in the long run even if I don’t know exactly from hand to hand what cards the croupier has in the hole. That, more or less, is where we stand on climate change. We don’t know exactly the rate at which the permafrost will melt, but it will melt as the temperature rises, and that will release a Tonka truck-load of methane and other nasties. We don’t know exactly how the climate will change at particular places and times across the globe, but it will and the more rapid the change, the less likely we’ll be able to cope. It seems to me, people who deny these and other basic facts are playing blackjack without a clue. The longer you stay at the table, the more likely you are to lose your shirt.


          Report this

          112

          • #

            Imperfect? “Inadequate” was my word, and it makes all the difference in the world. Refer to your own hubristic assumptions (also made in 1922) about the future of the permafrost. They are not based on imperfect knowledge. They are based on inadequate knowledge. That’s like when you only think you’re good at counting cards. Or when you’re like my academic former neighbours, who took up gambling because they figured if some ordinary folk could do it successfully, they could totally kill it. (Can you guess the rest?)

            As for “Tronka loads” and “trillions of tonnes” of nasties, you know you can frighten our friend Phil with all that. But hey, this is me you’re talking to, Ricardo.


            Report this

            150

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Yes Robert, inadequate is a good word for you.

            What would convince you? You’ve ruled out education, information and reasoning based on the scientific method.


            Report this

            014

          • #

            “You’ve ruled out education, information and reasoning based on the scientific method.”

            Don’t forget my Tonka truck-loads of misogyny, my corruption of Australian sport, and those forced relocations from Western Sydney.

            I’m worse than we thought!


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Ricardo K

            You’re not all bad Rob, you’ve got a sense of humour.


            Report this

            25

  • #
    Ronald

    If 15 years is good to proof warming then 15, 16 and 17 years of nothing is fine for me to proof they are wrong. How stupid can you be to be leaf that any more?
    CO2 makes for runaway AGW but there is no rise in temperature. So that means probably that there is no AGW or there are natural factors making up the temperature.
    Or even better both, no AGW let alone runaway AGW and pure natural temperature rice and decline.

    But saying oke the IPCC is totally wrong can’t be done because then he will shut the money flow and thats a bad thing to do.


    Report this

    192

    • #
      AndyG55

      “If 15 years is good to proof warming then 15, 16 and 17 years of nothing is fine for me”

      Any possible causal correlation from CO2 to temperature is thouroughly busted !!


      Report this

      130

    • #

      If 15 years is good to proof warming then 15, 16 and 17 years of nothing is fine for me to proof they are wrong.

      Temperatures began to rise in the late 1970s. Ten years later, in the late 1980s, Hansen was pitching a senate committee on the dangers of the impending global warming apocalypse.

      Why did it only take ten years of rising temperatures to get Stephen Schneider and a plethora of impending ice age alarmist scientists to acknowledge a trend and create the global warming scare but choo choo Pachauri says it takes 30 to 40 years of no warming to form a trend that would challenge the CAGW machine?

      What a scam!


      Report this

      230

  • #
    Mark D.

    One nice thing about being in my time zone is I sometimes get to read Jo’s new posts right at lunch time.

    Lunch will be very enjoyable today, I will be smiling quite a bit as I imagine our resident warmists try to explain….

    Thanks Jo!


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    A little editing?
    His job is to ignore [facts] is? [and] to say things with a straight face that are the complete opposite to what he’s said before

    ————–
    Graham, there was a gremlin in that first paragraph for a few minutes, I corrected it, but cached copies must’ve been delivering it up. You were quite right. Ta – Jo


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ace

    You know those who oppose the AGW zealots may be going about this the wrong way.

    Someone, Monckton wasnt it, was talking of rat-escape routes. This is it. In Ju Jitsu you borrow your opponents momentum and direction and add it to your own defence.

    Maybe its the point at which to take their posture shift and inject our own Ju Jitu move: “YES Environmntalists, you are RIGHT, there DOES need to be more, MUCH MORE (money for you) researching the climate and the DISPROOF of the AGW hypothesis PROVES we need YOU to be PAID MORE MOOLAH even to stop trying to plug the dead hypothesis and find something else.”

    They win, we win, its a win win proposition.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    He has to do something. Everybody, even the UN, is recognising that real life and what the IPCC predicted are different.

    If this goes on, he won’t get invited to international conferences anymore. There won’t be grants for the IPCC nor for his consultancy firm. No more lime light, he will be frozen out.


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Otter

    I would love to know where he got ‘at least 40 years’ from. He’s not a climate scientist after all- not even so much as an honorary degree in it! So who told him 40 years? Santer?


    Report this

    230

    • #
      Joe V.

      Isn’t the ‘at least’ bit just hedging his bets again , like ‘or however longs it takes
      for the travesty on not- warming to stop. After 30 years (another 14 or so) he’ll still be in his mid Eighties and living of the right royal pension AGW has earned, whereas after 40 years will possibly be beyond caring.


      Report this

      100

    • #

      I think he just picked a number that will keep everyone off his back for another fifteen years. If we wait around for that, he’ll change it again, or the next in line will.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      That’s easy; the years quoted are always just after the pseudo-scientit’s retirement date and / or after they think they might be dead. That keeps the gravy train running till a time of their choosing.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      katio1505

      More likely Santa


      Report this

      30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    This great blog site has enabled an exploration of the effects of CO2 on Atmopsheric Temerature to move through anumber of phases while always keeping our feet firmly on the ground.

    This is what I see as the progression in emphasis:

    1. The properties of CO2 in terms of it’s spectral absorption properties are debated ad nauseum.

    2. It is found , after clearing away all of the “Warmer Misinformation” that hid the issue , that no amount of CO2 can do what is claimed.

    3. More devious than a speeding train, able to leap tall UN buildings in a single bound, the warmer movement

    invents the new CO2 paradigm:

    ” Yes we admit that CO2 has a tiny tiny irrelevant effect on its own, But, the small amount of heat

    is absorbs does cause a little more water to vapourise

    and THAT is what absorbs the REAL DANGEROUS heat.’

    The effect was given some stupid name which I don’t want to repeat but it was something like Leverage.

    The process described had the definite overtones of having been based on a runaway nuclear explosion type mechanism.

    With unlimited water to involve in this process of atmospheric heating, that fact that we have not all been incinerated by this CO2 – Water Amplification is a strong indication of the stupidity of the idea.
    Of course, the reality is that if this process exists at all, it is obviously self limiting and extinguishes itself.

    4. So after this was also shown to be junk there is nowhere to go and it is all down hill bar the money: It keeps flowing.

    5. The money. It seems we must push for the closure of the UN and punishment of those who misused the goodwill of the people who fund it. We must take back our democracies from the scammers who have effectively turned us into their slaves. Brussels must be turned into a prison for those in the upper echelons of the EU.

    We must identify and punish thieves within Government and root out anything to do with AGENDA 21 type schemes.

    The basic message , and people can feel and sense it, is that they have been had.

    Government in all its’ forms is out of control.

    KK


    Report this

    310

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      “Government in all its’ forms is out of control.” Have to disagree with this statement. Democracy has been replaced by bureaucracy under which there is too much control. Control through ever increasing taxes which are doled out to those who are most likely to vote for the incumbent party thus helping ensure their ongoing reelection – think Obama and Gillard.

      The EU has controls on everything yet, yet the financial mandarins managed to miss the fact that Ireland, Greece, Spain etc. etc. we’re cheating on their figures. So did the average family benefit from all those EU controls- well blow me down they didn’t.

      From personal first hand knowledge … you would think that in Greece with its current unemployment citizens would be encouraged to say build a house. But no the bureaucratic red tape is such that all but the bloody minded will give up or resort to bribery.

      Under current western democracy we are being driven to bankruptcy and high unemployment because bureaucrats no longer see themselves as the facilitators whose role should be to speed up and aid the process.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Apox

        True and one thing I could have added was:

        ” Government in all its’ forms is out of control and one of it’s incarnations is to hire all and sundry who

        are owed favors for “getting them voted in”.

        KK


        Report this

        80

  • #
    Sean

    It’s going to take several highly paid people with PhD’s to come up with a rationalization for why the catastrophic greenhouse gas theory is not oversold. Fortunately governments have no shortage of these folks on the payroll or under contract. I wonder if they’ll have to make the older researchers sign confidentiality agreements when they retire to prevent them from undermining the credibility of those still beholded to the powers that be.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    ianl8888

    Jo Nova quote:


    … rewriting history, without admitting any wrongs, or acknowledging any errors, will work if lazy journalists don’t point to his earlier statements and put him on the spot

    On this issue, the MSM journalists are not lazy. They are deliberately, wilfully mendacious (Fairfax, ABC, Sky, News to a lesser extent), and a significant portion of the population believe them

    So, my point is that this is a lost PR war. The CAGW Achilles Heel is reliable supply of 24/7 power at an affordable price. TonyOz and to some extent my own posts constantly highlight this. No posts with any significance to them dispute this (hard numbers matter, not arm-waving rhetoric)

    Jo, approach some hard-headed, experienced engineers for guest posts here. It will be worth the effort


    Report this

    180

    • #
      john robertson

      Ian, you are right, however I prefer to describe the current media as, currently un-indited co-conspirators.
      That proportion of the public who still trust these media, will shrink once they get awoken by more taxes, less income and even less freedom.
      And these folk are never responsible for their own woes, so the media will be one of the scapegoats.
      As in we loved you, you betrayed us, die die..
      Freezing in the dark or having no cold beer tend to make those loafing through life, bitter and cranky.
      And when the welfare check bounces….
      This tool, the internet is a target for team UN, its hard to claim;”Thats what we said all along”, when anyone can post up their actual statements word for word
      Those empty cities in China, are proof of promise, the Chinese built them to prove to their useful idiots and 5th columnists that they had refuge when the scam collapsed.

      Now this being a posting on IPCC and Climatology, the last line is of that quality, as in I made it up.
      But I notice the Chinese can be relied on to protect their own interests, those empty cities make no sense and China is the beneficiary of the weird policies of the “Cause”.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      cohenite

      So, my point is that this is a lost PR war.

      I don’t think so; with a change in government and hopefully less funds for the Climate Commission and Department of Climate Change organisations like BOM and CSIRO may take on a more ‘sceptical’ approach; if that happens the fanatics like Karoly, Steffen, England, Pittman, Lewandowsky, Cook etc may be marginalised.

      The key in the PR war is the ABC; it will have to be bludgened into presenting the real science; once that happens then perhaps a few law suits may follow against the outrageous and patently false claims made by renewable energy spivs.


      Report this

      120

  • #
    pattoh

    Gee I hope there will be a photo op with Julia for the album like the ones with Obama.

    (perhaps with JG getting an autographed copy of his tilt at a literary legacy.)/sarc

    (It may come in handy for the campaign in Adam Bantd(?) seat soon).


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I think you should hurry with that photo op Pattoh.
      The Red Queen will be deposed 15 March and replaced with Shorten. A few days later the Victoria Police will arrest her and take her in for a strip search and book her, just like Thomson. That’s my prediction and I’m sticking to it. At least until the 17 March when I can do a Pachauri and claim that my prediction went afoul because I was practicing for St. Patrick’s Day!


      Report this

      100

    • #
      AndyG55

      “perhaps with JG getting an autographed copy of his tilt at a literary legacy”

      You mean Pachauri’s little ‘Mills and Boon’ type literary effort?

      Just about Gillard’s standard. !


      Report this

      50

  • #
    The Black Adder

    The IPCC and the Railway Engineer…

    Hmmmm….

    Sounds a lot like The boy who cried Wolf…

    We are not listening anymore mate!! We know the truth !!


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Joe V.

      All this reference to his first job is rather distracting and perhaps does some discredit to Railway Engineers. I don’t think it tells us very much about the person, and even if he were a PhD in Climate Science would he be thought any more or less of. As his chosen path has become to lead the politico-spin bureaucratism that hijacks science to serve an agenda he was perhaps never going to become much of a railway engineer.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I agree, Joe.

        It also causes transatlantic confusion. In the US, a “Railroad Engineer” is what the English would call a “Train Driver.” Whereas, in England, a “Railway Engineer” is somebody with a degree in engineering, who designs and builds railway infrastructure.

        Given that the Indian railway system was designed and built by the British, I suspect that the latter description is the correct one.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Mark D.

          Rereke, the real problem is the word “engineer” that has its etymology with “builders of engines of war”. Interesting that the Greek word for maker of engines was probably the root of “mechanic”. Operators of steam engines (not always on the rail) had to have all the skills necessary to keep the engine running (without exploding) at top performance. They weren’t just “drivers” but would be mechanics. Somewhere the design part of the description got mixed in. It really ought to have it’s own “ist” ending word like “engineerist” to account for the science involved today.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Mark,

            Calling the train driver an engineer may simply come from the fact that the cab of a steam locomotive looks so complicated you think about needing to be an engineer to understand it. If you’ve ever been in the cab you’ll understand. ;-)

            On the other hand, I don’t really know where that title, engineer, came from. I just know how much trains and steam engines have fascinated me since I was a little kid. :-)


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        True, it does tend to put all train drivers in disrepute. However, Pachauri’s real love is sexually explicit literature. His “Return to Amora”soft-porn novel is in some spots is full of narcissism. So perhaps this interest would be better exploited. Perhaps it is his penchant for porn that made him so attractive for the UN position. In any event, it brings to mind the fake documentary of one Anna Rose, in which the little moron refused to discuss the issues with Marc Morano “because he is not a ‘climate scientist’”. It begs the question then, would she have refused to discuss the topic with a railroad engineer? Or would she have preferred to discuss it with him from his perspective as a soft-porn author? He does hold a PhD in Economics from the North Carolina State University. In his typical exaggerating style he listed these as two PhD’s on his IPCC biography. I am sure you will find the information in the article cited above enlightening, especially if you have not read “The Delinquent Teenager”.

        BTW, I went to Lord Monckton’s lecture Thursday night. His Lordship has a cool Pachauri imitation in his repertoire!


        Report this

        60

        • #
          The Black Adder

          I really don’t have anything against Railway Engineers fella’s…

          I have a world of anger against boys who cry wolf !!

          That means Pachauri, Mann, Lewandosky, Flannery etc. etc…

          They all belong in the Dock!

          Facing 20 years hard labour for the deceit they have wrought upon this world.


          Report this

          80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The title “engineer” is still used to describe the train driver right here is the U.S. long after steam locomotives disappeared. I don’t know its etymology but it’s been used since the early days of railroading in this country. Today’s engineer sits in front of a couple of levers, a couple of buttons and a speedometer while a computer does all the work of managing the locomotive. It’s deceptively simple looking. It’s got little resemblance to the past. The complexity of the steam engine is gone. But there’s the title, engineer, still hanging on.

        I wonder, though, why it’s an issue concerning Pachauri. He’s a thoroughly despicable man at face value. What does it matter that he was trained in a certain branch of engineering or whether he drove the train?

        He needs to be booted out. Period!


        Report this

        10

  • #
    DougS

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

    Climastrologers like Pachauri have learned (for the most part) that making predictions that can be shown untrue within their lifetime is a bad idea. Hence his move to 30 – 40 years, to give him a chance to shuffle off this mortal coil before the sh1t hits the fan!

    Although the likes of Holdren and Ehrlich seem actually to have benefited from it, because anyone who employs them knows that they can rely on scary scenarios being offered up to help relieve the population of their hard-earned cash in the form of eco loon ‘green’ taxes.

    They are completely without shame!


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Ross

    Donna Laframboise has done interesting thread on her blog recently giving a “backgrounder” on Pachauri

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/02/20/the-rajendra-pachauri-puzzle/


    Report this

    60

  • #

    People are not as stupid as the CAGW crowd would like to believe. People remember what they were told and this turn-around will be seen as exactly that. People are waking up, with or without the MSM. The CAGW protest marches or pipeline marches aren’t drawing the crowds anymore – it might even be rent-a-crowd is all they have. Trolls and others are frequently one person pretending to be many, etc., etc.

    They are desperate to win over more followers so they can look good in front of the cameras (and have large numbers to hide in). They are feeling the fear. Their numbers are beginning to look appallingly low, which is why they have to fudge them. Says it all really.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      john robertson

      Sir you are correct we no longer need the mainstream media, but it occurred to me we overlook an aspect of human nature, rats will do anything to escape being caught.
      The scam is collapsing, this desperation,” extreme weather”, is a sign of their complete surrender.
      And by years end the rat outs will be spectacular.
      Looking back at how fast the cause has degenerated thanks to climate gate and the weather,desperate times call for desperate measures, the MSM blitz of the last 3 months is pitiful, what happened to our masters of propaganda?
      Its not the science, its a communication problem??
      Lots of silence from the media, lots of la la la, I ca’t hear you and 97% says, they do I tell you.

      My prediction is by end of this year team members will be ratting each other out, politicians will be accusing their science advisors of misleading them and the press will be competing to blame anyone but themselves.
      Buy popcorn now cause your dollar ain’t gonna cut it soon.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Pachauri is only being pragmatic. He wants to be seen as being the whistle blower on the global warming scam.

    Once the global warming industry implodes, leaving perhaps 10-15% of its current beneficiaries in employment, Pachauri wants to be part of that 10-15%.

    Concepts like ‘rats leaving the sinking ship’ and ‘looking after Number One’ come to mind.

    Remember, Pachauri has never produced any ‘climate research’ of his own, so he is quite willing and able to throw charlatans like Mann and Lewandowdsky to the wolves, and he will!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bewitch

    The fundamental problem I have with the rhetoric that surrounds the so called scientific analysis referred to as climate change (nee global warming) is that it is just that… rhetoric. When I look at the science behind the arguments it just makes no sense at all. Why invent new terms such as ‘forcings’ to explain a non existent phenomena. I still think in terms of the basics ie conservation of energy, (acceleration due to) gravity, entropy and inertia as the mechanisms that fundamentally describe observable (Newtonian) physics ie the things we see and are subject to on an everyday basis. One unexplained issue (amongst very, very many) is why the atmospheric temperature record would be anything but flat. The earth and the region it occupies does not gain or lose energy. Entropy creates disorder over universe scale time, but energy is not lost or gained. Matter is not lost or gained. They can be rearranged (exchanged) according the Einstein (e=mc^2), but that is all.

    Preceding the satellite and other technologically advanced systems that are now deployed to observe and measure atmospheric and ocean temperature, there existed localised, fragmented, poorly understood and chaotic records of temperatures that were collated and reprocessed by a range of agencies that were very interested in supporting an hypothesis. The fact that these newly published records have rough agreement is more a recognition that they used substantially similar approaches to manipulate the raw data they had access to or that they indeed used the same flawed data set (either original or pre-processed) to arrive at a conclusion that the earth’s atmosphere had warmed.

    To give weight to this assertion it was further claimed that the preceding ‘Ice Age’ was a consequence of an average global temperature drop of some 4 degrees Celsius and evidenced by lower sea levels and larger ice sheets and possibly more sea ice.

    The natural conclusion therefore is that higher average global temperatures will result is higher sea levels and smaller ice sheets and less sea ice.

    This in general outlines the nature of the search for the smoking gun behind these hypotheses. Camp A pins their hopes on mostly carbon dioxide and that (wo)mankind is behind its proliferation in the atmosphere. Camp B opines that it is due to a range of other causes of which carbon dioxide is at best a small contributor.

    Whereas the simplest conclusion is that energy has indeed been conserved and that the energy (and for this read temperature in general) has not changed at all. What we have is simply a case of measurement noise ie we can’t measure the energy (heat) of every molecule on the surface of the planet, in the oceans or the atmosphere. So we measure a small number and observe a temperature variation (here we think of how entropy in a gas or liquid operates).

    So if we can’t rely on the historical record of temperature which is a synthetic re-construct, and we can’t rely on climate modelling which seems to have forgotten some basic theories of thermodynamics replacing these with a new language based on ‘forcings’, what can we rely on?

    Basically we have to re-set the clock and go back two decades or there about and pick up the threads from there. For this I commend (amongst others) James Gleick which points out that non linear systems such as weather and climate cannot be modelled (although they can be in a sense be mimicked) but the ‘butterfly effect’ will confound their best efforts. In the 1990s there was a lot of promising research into ocean currents and the global ‘conveyor belt’ operating as a heat engine driven by mixed convection. The role of the thermohaline circulation and the effect of damming and controlling the large rivers feeding into the Mediterranean (a very salty sea that feeds salty water into the northbound conveyor belt current) and the Arctic (supplying fresh water from Russia for making Arctic ice) is simply ignored.

    If all this is indeed true, then why have there been numerous changes in observed ice sheet cover on Earth in the geological, tree ring, pollen and ice core records? An excellent question to which I have a number of thoughts that are touched on above. But why not ask our publicly funded scientists to find out and stop strutting the politically correct stage and puffing like popinjays?


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      “One unexplained issue (amongst very, very many) is why the atmospheric temperature record would be anything but flat.”
      It occurred to me the other night at Lord Monckton’s lecture when His Lordship was discussing “0.74 degrees since 1850 etc.” that this is all complete BS.

      I learned very early in my Engineering career that one can easily be mislead by assuming accuracy in measurement that is non-existent. The accuracy of the best platinum wire instruments in use today is 1/10 of a degree, and the reading accuracy of a mercury thermometer is less than that. Since 70% of the surface is ocean, and the vast majority of temperature measurement is in the continental US global surface temperatures are computed from a sample of perhaps 10% of the surface. Couple that with the knowledge that Anthony Watts and his volunteers discovered that a significant portion of these measurement sites are bogus, and that many “sites” in the Arctic are simply guesstimated by real data from 1500 km away, I seriously doubt that the accuracy of any of the information in these data sets is any better than +/- 3 degrees. The only believable data comes from the RSS dataset, which has been flat for 23 years, which, I think is the entire term of its existence.
      So like an idiot measuring tight tolerance dimensions to one hundredth of a millimeter with a tape measure, nearly all of the data on which this rhetorical “science” is based is pure and simple hogwash!


      Report this

      180

      • #
        Bewitch

        Hi Rod
        I suffer from being and Engineer as well. My view is that the 23 year so called pause in the rise in atmospheric temperature will turn out to be the new normal and remain flat for a very long time ie for ever. I agree with your comments regarding temperature measurement and recording uncertainty. Cheers.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Rod, as of last month, RSS v3.3 finds a trend of +0.131 °C/decade.


        Report this

        06

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          That’s rich! Pachauri want 40 years, but to you a month is significant?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Heywood

          So, about 1.3°C/century…..

          A far cry from the 3-6°C some are saying and it still remains to be seen whether or not it would be net positive…


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Heywood, there is a lot of disagreement in the range of temperature change which might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 560-odd ppm. However, they all agree on the direction, and an ‘average of averages’ is around 3 degrees C. Given our current emissions trajectory, we’ve only got a few years to act before we trigger a rather unfortunate permafrost melt.


            Report this

            111

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Ricardo, I doubt that you have ever seen permafrost. Maybe not even frost.
            It is called PERMAfrost because it is permanent.
            And in that Fascist propaganda rag called New Scientist, the photo is of ice.
            Permafrost is not on the surface.
            Notwithstanding that, carbon dioxide and methane have buggar all to do with temperature.
            You might not have heard, but CO2 LAGS temperature by 80 to 2800 years.
            By the way, you seem to be amazed that CO2 concentration has increased in the last twenty years. You seem to have adopted the delusional idea that somehow that is related to fossil fuels.
            Can you guess what happened 800 to 1000 years ago? Surely you can work that out.


            Report this

            101

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Rod, I think you need to do some research. Here’s a real basic introduction. How permanent was this permafrost?


            Report this

            16

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            You can stick your propaganda where there is no moonshine Ricardo.
            I lived in the bloody stuff long enough to know what it’s like.


            Report this

            61

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Here you go Ricardo. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


          Report this

          32

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I think we have another true believer on our hands. Lots of fun ahead.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Hey Ricardo, what has any of this got to do with CO2?

          You have lots of good argument that there’s something going on that you don’t understand.

          You have yet to show how it’s being caused by carbon dioxide.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Roy, I thought Jo Nova and Monckton accepted CO2 led to warming – at least Andy seems to think so.

            You may have missed this post of mine from a couple of days ago.

            Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

            Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

            Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

            Observation 4. Satellite observations show decreasing emission to space of this long-wave energy, at EXACTLY THE SAME WAVELENGTHS as CO2 absorbs long-wave energy.

            Observation 5. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorped in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

            Observation 6. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

            Observation 7. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

            Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth’s temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth’s temperature.

            Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5, 6 and 7). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

            Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Ricardo,

            What’s in dispute is how much warming. No credible theory about CO2 leads to the kind of warming you’re claiming is possible. It’s doubtful that the effect of CO2 is even measurable, much less significant when considered alongside the natural variations we know have happened in the past and have every good reason to believe are happening now. Daily temperature swings almost anywhere on Earth will swamp your 3 degrees, much less the smaller more realistic number.

            You have nothing that shows warming actually linked to CO2. And after all has been said and done I don’t see any way to believe we’re even sure that CO2 in the atmosphere actually behaves as theory predicts. Maybe and maybe not!

            Until I can see some empirical link that says CO2 is responsible for climate or weather changes I’m going to keep on challenging you and anyone else who comes around.

            You’re just reiterating a lot of observations that you can’t actually link to carbon dioxide. Inference, inference, inference — do all the inferring you want but it’s not science. Inference is just guesswork.

            Your evidence is all circumstantial and there is a very credible alternative explanation for that evidence. No court would convict on such a basis.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    I have just posted the following comment on WUWT ( I went there first, sorry)

    A Crooks says:

    February 22, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    If one looks at what the Dr said literally without bias – I actually think he is quite correct. It may well take 30 years to rule out global warming as a long term trend.
    Note he talks about an upward trend without talking about CO2, and indeed there has been an upward trend since 1850. Where one might take issue with him is – It is only 0.06 degrees per decade, not the IPCC’s 0.2 degrees per decade. And clearly, the link with rising CO2 is broken. The current pause is the result of a cyclic down trend, part of a 60 year oscillation, which was predicted (by others, Search WUWT for Orssengo or Akasufo) and which has an amplitude large enough to drown out the upward trend. The current pause is arguably the result of the flattening and “rolling over” of that 60 year cycle. Im guessing it will be another half cycle before we will see the up-swing of that 60 year cycle, and the global warming alarmism will begin again. Trying to see if the long term 0.06 degree warming trend is there during this cooling half of the cycle is difficult. It is probably still there.
    The current trend of assuming that we are heading into an Ice Age just because the short term (60 year) cycle has turned down is just a little alarming. Can I remind everyone of the 60 year cycle of climate alarmism explicit in the old media reports. Ice Age, Warming, Ice Age, Warming – An Ice Age scare is actually overdue.
    My point is that we may be heading into an Ice Age but it may well be years before there is any REAL evidence outside of the already established swings. In the meantime the past evidence established over 130 years points to a 0.06 degree rise per decade.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Jaymez

      You have hit the nail on the head! Now he’s just talking global warming trend. Not human caused global warming trend. We have NEVER denied a long term global warming trend since the LIA! So he wins!


      Report this

      71

    • #
      Ricardo K

      I guess you’ve never heard of Milankovitch cycles and orbital inclination? If CO2 had been stable over the past couple of centuries, we’d be slowing heading for an ice age. That’s a bit of a hand-brake on the current warming trend.


      Report this

      18

      • #
        Backslider

        If CO2 had been stable over the past couple of centuries, we’d be slowing heading for an ice age.

        Please clarify this with some peer reviewed science.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        You would probably find it rather odd then that in 1979 the National Academy of Sciences report to the US congress didn’t even mention “greenhouse gas”.
        ““In order to obtain the complete picture, it is also necessary to consider the effect of convection.” (p 251). They then go on to state, “The larger the mixing ratio of carbon dioxide, the colder is the equilibrium temperature of the stratosphere.”(p 251).[emphasis added]“.


        Report this

        50

  • #
    pat

    pachauri’s admission is not the headline showing up on google australia news page. rather it is this headline from taxpayer-funded ABC which says nothing about the Met Office revelations:

    21 Feb: ABC World Today: Head of IPCC says most vulnerable countries have already reached ‘tipping point’
    SIMON LAUDER: You’ve said before that carbon dioxide needs to be no higher than 350 parts per million to avoid the climate tipping point. Do you think action is happening fast enough to avoid that still?
    RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I did preface that remark by saying this is a personal view and I’m not saying that as chairman of the IPCC because the IPCC is not supposed to be politically prescriptive. I mean it is for the world to decide whether they want 350 parts per million or 450 or whatever but as a human being, as an individual I would say that I would feel comfortable with that level and of course, we know that is going to be quite a challenge…
    RAJENDRA PACHAURI: You know, it’s really a question of defining what the tipping point is for whom. Parts of the world where if you were to drop people over there, they would tell you that they are probably at the tipping point already or they might even have crossed it…
    (re IPCC Fifth Assessment):
    RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I expect it will be an advancement in terms of knowledge based on published material that has been produced since 2007, since we brought out the last report. There will be a few new features. We’re looking at a whole range of topics in much greater depth this time and hopefully we’ll be able to fill some of the gaps.
    Most importantly there’ll be, in my view, much greater regional detail this time so people would know what the impacts of climate change would be in specific locations throughout the world and I think this would help create understanding on what needs to be done…
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3695289.htm


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Apoxonbothyourhouses

    Off topic but can someone help? I sit here with the rain puring down and the water tanks overflowing (hello Flannery, hello …) and bloody cold. So cold last night that in February – that’s summer right? – we thought of putting on the gas heater.

    Last summer based on feelings and the poor crops on our fruit trees, was cold. This year despite one very hot day seems to be about the same.

    The question is: where can I access a site that compares say monthly average temperatures in Oz from year to year so I can check feelings vs. fact?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    J Martin

    but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

    So what’s he going to say once it becomes clear we are in a long term cooling trend ?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep, Its certainly going to be popcorn time watch the climate bletheren squirm and weasel their way around the natural cooling period we are most likely heading into.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Andy mate, if we weren’t pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the environment, the world would be cooling. Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton showed this in “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages”, in Science in 1976.


        Report this

        07

        • #
          AndyG55

          We will be cooling..

          Get used to it .. FOOL !


          Report this

          51

        • #
          AndyG55

          Oh, and nice of you to FINALLY UNDERSTAND and ACKNOWLEDGE that natural atmospheric activity will ALWAYS TOTALLY COUNTERACT any fake-warming by CO2.

          Good little troll.. you are finally learning.

          Give it another 17 years, you may actually understand. (or not)

          Primary school for you first, though. Pass that, we can consider the next stage.


          Report this

          61

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Ricki

          forgot what I was going to say.

          But then, since it involved your post, it couldn’t have had much relevance anyhow.

          All you are doing is creating space between the real and useful comments. although:

          You do realise the value you have here.

          One of the Tristan spent some time here getting a set of stock standard responses to sketic (stupid word) comment. He then went on to work for a blog site that PAYS. Well done Tristan.

          You are here and useful to us. We can see how the worst of the “programmed green slime” operate and can work out ways of dealing with that in a politically useful manner that can help at the next election.

          As an example: you always try to focus on”the science” when it is actually the money that is important to y’all.

          So we will make sure that the voting-taxpaying public are made aware of the flow and direction or misdirection of their tax dollars by this government.

          eg. Kevin’s special UN grant, a top up. of $500 Million AUD that would have been better spent in Australia rather than being sent to a bank sitting on the bank of the Hudson river.

          Of course Bob Carrs recent $15 million for Kiribati was just small change but would have paid salary for a few extra doctors in emergency departments around the country.

          money gets people thinking, and when they have been taxed to breaking point; Guess what.

          They Get Angry!!

          Ha Ha

          KK :)


          Report this

          60

  • #
    Matty

    At least he did one thing, he admitted out loud that there IS a temperature stasis. Something that the media have not embraced in Australia for fear of rocking the boat. I suspect old Patchy didn’t know that we were a bit different to Europe where it’s been covered a fair bit. The elephant in the room is stamping it’s feet.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Matt J

    Excellent article Jo. Well Done.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    handjive

    3.30-
    How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?

    Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptic’s view?

    Air temperatures:

    One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented at the U.S. congress in 1988 by Dr. James Hansen, the “father of global warming.”

    Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises. In particular his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back ‘drastically’


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Otter

    WHERE’S ALL THE SPIN DOCTORS TONIGHT!?!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    wes george

    Look, this is the way swarmy bureaucrats admit total and utter failure.

    You didn’t expect Pachauri to come out and say sorry, offer his resignation or suggest winding down the IPPC, did you?

    The whole climate tower of lies began to collapse with the Climategate email release in late 2009 when fraud at the highest level in the climate science community was revealed to be systematic and culturally endemic. Unfortunately, by that late date, those of the Left, the Greens and thousands of parasitic causes, NGO’s, the MSM, academic grant chasers and corrupt pollies and banks had already latched on to the potentially trillion dollar global gravy train of “climate change.”

    With such massive momentum a brilliantly crafted mythology that even a small child can instantly grasp is a hard fiction to talk people down from, especially once the language of the dogma has been integrated into politically correct groupthink.

    But the seeds of the Climate Change movements destruction were truly in place from the very beginning. After all, ultimately all prophecy of apocalypse have a use-by date set by the fateful date prophesied. Pachauri is simply doing what every prophet of doom since the Middle Ages has done when the deadline for annihilation has past and his faithful flock is still in the pews waiting for the spaceship to land. He’s claimed some minor climate alchemical thaumaturge needs a bit of adjusting, pushing the date of doom back by a few decades.

    We can look to the Club of Rome and Paul Ehrlich for how Pachauri and the UN IPPC will dissimulate for the next decade or two. Even as their credibility descends to that of a UFO cult, they’ll simply keep moving the goal posts off into the future, perhaps finding new phantoms to fear. In the end they’ll take their last whinging prophecy of doom to the grave as totally unrepentant useless old codgers. Such is life.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Wes,

      A new phantom is on the horizion – vines.

      Apparently, research in the Amazon basin has found that vines and creepers, that grow on the trees in the Rain Forest, are growing at a faster rate than their host trees. This increase in growth is put down to the fact that vines are more responsive to the increased CO2 than the trees, so eventually the vines will grow so large that they will kill their hosts, and the rain forest will start to die back.

      Of course, vines also occur in many parts of the world, so we can also envision cities being covered by vines, and destroying civilisation.

      Ho Hum.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    I am working on a new theory that the obvious charlatans are not driven at all by ideology (a view that a number of posters here support). It is simple corruption.
    With a mafia like chain of payments, the gravy train has many carriages.
    The corruption has infected academic individuals and institutions who are prepared to subvert the truth for their financial gain.
    Simple human greed drives the narrative.

    The thing that amazes me most, is that we have western education systems that produce masses of people who cannot detect the logical inconsistencies that a lie produces.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      john robertson

      Those masses are about to get the education the state denied them.
      It is called poverty.
      The bill is due and the scam artists are scampering, leaving the useful idiots to face the mob.
      Real bad time to be a government funded scientist.
      The media mouthpieces get all the sympathy I can muster, can you hear the worlds smallest violin?
      This scam has bankrupted countries, denied current workers their opportunity to build a future and possibly mortgaged the unborn enough to do the same to them.
      The politicians, bureaucrats and press who have created, promoted and protect the scam still, are traitors.
      Conspiring to destroy civilization through malice or due to incompetence, remains treason.
      If there is any retributive justice, I’m for relocating the believers to Axel Heiberg Island, where observed from drones and stripped of all carbon based products, we can watch them await the coming Global Warming.
      For those geographically challenged, thats Canadian Arctic approx 80th parallel, cold, barren and travelled by those cute cuddly ravenous carnivores that the climatists so love.
      The damage done by our trust in the old media organizations will serve to marginalize them for good.
      With few exceptions, the journalists are as credible as climatology.
      Astrologists have more respect and rightly so.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    pat

    The Australian already has Clive Hamilton & “deniers” behind a paywall:

    23 Feb: Australian: Graham Lloyd: Science to ‘win’ on climate
    A PAUSE in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office and NASA climate scientist James Hanson, was temporary and science would win out over climate change denial, public ethics professor Clive Hamilton said yesterday.
    Professor Hamilton’s comments follow acknowledgement by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri of the British Met Office’s downward revision of its forecast global temperature average to 2017…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/science-to-win-on-climate/story-fn59niix-1226583866039


    Report this

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    “The Australian already has Clive Hamilton & “deniers” behind a paywall”

    Probably better for them if people DON’T get to read it.. circulation would drop even further. !

    Seriously, do they expect people to actually PAY to read this sort of tripe ???


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    It is really very sad for the Alarmists that Mother Nature herself has proved to be a “denier”.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Backslider

    Mattb, Ricardo, John Brookes, Philip Shehan….. whererererere arerererere yoooooooooooouuuuuuuuuu?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Skitz

      Perhaps they have used up their bullshit supply ?


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Heywood

        Nah.

        Their employer doesn’t pay overtime for weekends.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Hey, wood, you’re either think as a plank or not paying attention. All my posts are weekends and evenings.
          Apologies if you’re offended buddy. It was a cheap shot.
          Dickie


          Report this

          17

          • #
            Heywood

            Obviously I need to actually put a /sarc tag on my posts. It is a long running joke that some people are paid to be antagonists here.

            Out of curiosity, what is your motivation? If the ‘science is settled’ and you are completely comfortable with that fact, why worry about a rag-tag group of skeptics discussing alternatives on some blog? Why feel the need to even come here?

            It’s a bit like going onto a Christian blog and trying to convince everyone that God doesn’t exist, just because you don’t believe He does.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Ricardo K

            That’s a very good analogy, Heywood. I do actually debate with Jehovah’s Witnesses when they come to my door. I give them a fossil to hold, for starters.

            I would hope there are denizens of this site who are willing to consider facts and evidence, rather than cling to theology. Even if not, I can learn.

            I find I learn more from debate than from rabid agreement. I’m happy to check facts/theories that are posted on this site. I’ve even started on the “1100 anti-AGW science papers”. However, of the extracts I’ve read so far: they have been proved wrong by recent events, they don’t actually disagree with the mainstream science, or they start from an incorrect premise and then keep going the wrong way.

            Even if I can’t change your mind, I’m willing to have mine changed. I’d love to be able to drive a 1975 Corvette Stingray without guilt. I’d be thrilled if the Great Barrier Reef was going to look as good in 50 years’ time as it did 50 years ago – despite the evidence of my eyes and many many scientific studies. I’d be extrememly happy if the 400mm of rain I got overnight last May was a freak event, rather than a foretaste of things to come.


            Report this

            17

          • #
            Heywood

            ‘Actually my mind isn’t made up at all. I agree that the world is warming. I also agree that man has influenced the climate. I just remain unconvinced that it will be catastrophic and/or whether it will happen fast enough that adaptation is impossible. Instead of CAGW, I think it is more like cAGW (yes, with a little ‘c’).

            “Even if I can’t change your mind,”

            Hence my point.

            Why are you trying to change our minds? If you are confident of consensus, surely a small number of skeptics who disagree is irrelevant. You spend a lot of time here trying to “educate” skeptics, and spend a fair amount of your “evenings and weekends” doing so.

            To align with the analogy above, I don’t believe in God, but I don’t really care if someone else thinks that he does, because I am confident in what I believe.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Heywood

            Apologies…

            “I think it is more like cAGW (yes, with a little ‘c’)”

            My mistake, I meant to say “I think it is more like aGW (yes, with a little ‘a’)” ie. Not catastrophic, a little anthropogenic….


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I would hope there are denizens of this site who are willing to consider facts and evidence, rather than cling to theology. [at 3.1.1.1.2]

            Firstly, just let me address that little bit of propaganda.

            Facts and evidence, and theology, are not two extremes on a continuum. They are not an either/or proposition. Your statement is far too simplistic, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that you were being deliberately devious in your statement, rather than being too stupid to understand the complex relationships between facts, how we perceive those facts, and how we interpret those perceptions, how we compare that interpretation with our existing knowledge, and how we finally reach conclusions, all of which result in our current system of personal understanding, and therefore “belief”.

            Having got that little bit of Psychology 101 out of the way, let me ask you a question:

            Can you please explain to me, what and where the empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature can be found?

            And, to save confusion, I do not mean computer models, which are simply an automation of opinion, but real physical evidence.

            I look forward to receiving your erudite response.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I may eventually quit laughing at this statement,

            Even if I can’t change your mind, I’m willing to have mine changed. I’d love to be able to drive a 1975 Corvette Stingray without guilt.

            and be able to tell Ricardo a little secret (guilt is such an ugly word).

            Ricardo, you aren’t a criminal for being here. For Gods sake go do it. Life is far too short to feel guilty for wanting to enjoy it. You have a responsibility to yourself, believe it or not. So get your head out of your ass and try inhaling the CO2. It won’t hurt you. Quit being your own enemy.

            If you’re willing to have your mind changed then sit down and put yourself in the other camp for a while. See if you can argue for the skeptical position. Nothing will get you to the truth faster than actually standing in the other guy’s shoes for a while. You may not ever agree with me but you’ll at least have the confidence that you made an honest journey to your conclusions.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      AndyG55

      Sorry?? Why would you want those *******’s here.

      Are you having withdrawal from slapstick entertainment or something ??


      Report this

      21

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo, please note following correction:

    The good thing about having idiot followers is that [they] can believe at the same time that “denier” is a scientific term and that they have a high IQ.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Chad

    The ABC publicises any weather event as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change related, how many months until a 17 year pause is acknowledged.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    BruceC at WUWT has posted:

    The full article in pat’s link above:

    A PAUSE in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office and NASA climate scientist James Hanson, was temporary and science would win out over climate change denial, public ethics professor Clive Hamilton said yesterday.

    Professor Hamilton’s comments follow acknowledgement by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri of the British Met Office’s downward revision of its forecast global temperature average to 2017. The downward revision has been widely reported internationally as meaning the global average temperature would have remained steady, at a record high level, for two decades.

    Dr Hansen, from the NASA Institute for Space Studies, has also acknowledged the pause in global temperature rises over the past decade.

    In a paper published last month he said the five-year mean global temperature had been flat for a decade, “which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing”.

    There has been little reporting of the Met Office or Hansen statements in Australia.

    Professor Hamilton said: “Of course I accept the Met Office’s analysis, but I reject the spin put on it by some news organisations, including The Australian, that it is some kind of admission that global warming is not as serious as previously believed. The Met Office itself has attempted to correct that distortion.

    “The factors responsible for the levelling out of warming, albeit at record highs, are expected to pass in a few years. Then we are in real trouble.”

    In an interview with The Australian, Dr Pachauri said a warming pause would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend. He said it was important people were able to openly discuss all issues surrounding the challenge of climate change.

    Professor Hamilton said: “Of course everyone has the right to question the science of climate change, in the same way that everyone has the right to deny that smoking causes lung cancer.

    “And in the same way that The Australian has the right to its continuing campaign to discredit climate science. But that does not make distortion of the facts any less irresponsible.

    “For all of the hindrance to action caused by the campaign of climate science denial, in the end the science will win out.”

    The Met Office said over the past 140 years global surface temperatures had risen by about 0.8C. However, within this record there had been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures had risen very slowly or cooled, it said.

    “The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15-year-long periods are not unusual,” it said.

    Dr Pachauri said the Met Office was “looking at longer time frames and there the picture is quite unmistakable”.

    “If you have five or 10 years when you don’t have the same trend that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are deviating from the trend, you are still around the trend,” Dr Pachauri said.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/


    Report this

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “public ethics professor Clive Hamilton”

      How can a person be a “public ethics professor”, when they have no ethics of their own ???

      Or is that how you become a “public ethics professor” ?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    As mentioned above I find the journalistic warmist bias in the MSM to be almost cult like, where there is a genuine fear factor in following the mantra or risk your job,reputation etc..maybe it has something to do with the balance of ideals that come from a university education nowadays where once you would be exposed to a variety of views,left right anything,and learn to understand their impacts when put into practice in the real world. This also applies to the engineering debate where I have personally found the best engineers have either trade experience or a good aptitude for their profession,the best engineer I ever met explained aptitude could be natural and taught, as it was part of his studies many years ago,this he said gave him a good grounding and place to start when embarking on any endeavor. It’s a shame current journalists don’t apply this and have the courage of their convictions.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Ricardo K

      You want journalists to have “courage of their convictions”? Well, Andrew Bolt does: he was convicted of being wrong and racist.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        “Apologies if you’re offended buddy. It was a cheap shot.
        Dickie”

        Pot calls the kettle black. THAT was a cheap shot. BTW I thought they called you “Dickhead”?


        Report this

        71

      • #
        Mark

        he was convicted of being wrong and racist.

        Yeah, right!

        By a select and dedicated bunch of Marxists. Anything else to say as brainless as that?


        Report this

        71

        • #
          Ricardo K

          No Mark, I can’t think of anything as brainless as your comment.

          In 2002, Magistrate Jelena Popovic was awarded $246,000 damages for defamation after suing Bolt and the publishers of the Herald Sun over a 13 December 2000 column in which he claimed she had “hugged two drug traffickers she let walk free”. Popovic asserted she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program. The jury found that the article was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record of judicial proceedings and that it was not a fair comment on a matter of public interest. So he was wrong.

          He also made errors in the more recent racial vilification columns, errors which he grudgingly admitted. “They didn’t seem serious to me,” or words to that effect. And then whinged about his right to free speech.


          Report this

          18

          • #
            Mark

            Again, you show yourself as the brainless one with fascist characteristics. You need to realise that the sort of legislation you favour can be turned back on you at the turn of a hat. The way this country is going, nobody will be game enough to take on a crooked and corrupt politician or public official soon.

            By the way, I think that Bolt is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself. Plenty of journos get sued successfully. Under stupid Australian law, it’s not even necessary to show financial loss.

            There are a number of points on which I would disagree with Bolt, his slavish and obsequious devotion to Johnny Howard for one.

            I take it you are upset that the worst of Roxon’s swansong censorship efforts were ditched? Typical leftard.


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            In what universe is this relevant?
            Your assertion was “Well, Andrew Bolt does: he was convicted of being wrong and racist”.
            Are you now trying to convince us that “drug traffickers” is a race?


            Report this

            61

      • #
        Heywood

        “Well, Andrew Bolt does: he was convicted of being wrong and racist.”

        Um… No..

        He was convicted of breaching section 18C of the racial discrimination act in that what he said was “reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people”

        The judge made it clear that he was found guilty of “offending” someone of another ethnic group. Merely causing offence, by stating the bleeding obvious.

        If you actually listened to Andrew Bolt on occasion, instead of just listening to the screeching of offendees-by-proxy, you will find that he is far from rascist, and wants to move away from identification of races entirely, and suggests that we all belong to one race, the human race.


        Report this

        101

        • #
          Sugarplumfairy

          If you actually listened to Andrew Bolt on occasion, instead of just listening to the screeching of offendees-by-proxy, you will find that he is far from rascist, and wants to move away from identification of races entirely, and suggests that we all belong to one race, the human race.

          Complete and utter bullshit.


          Report this

          38

          • #
            Heywood

            Examples…

            “I have problems with the notion of race in that I don’t know that there’s much beyond a human race.” Andrew Bolt.

            “I believe, fundamentally, that there is a human race, and beyond that it’s more culture.” Andrew Bolt.

            Apologise or withdraw, dipshit.


            Report this

            50

      • #
        Dennis

        And as a direct result the government plans to amend the Act to even more ridiculous extremes has now come under wide attack and will not be proceeded with. Indeed the Coalition has a plan to amend the Act to remove the lefty foolishness and attack on freedom of speech and common sense.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    Thank you Jo and friends for a few minutes of sanity and serenity.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Rajendra Pachauri is used to saying sorry:

    1. The Himilayan glaciers will all be melted by 2035! Opps – Sorry we were wrong.

    2. The Artic ice is melting. Opps – Sorry we were wrong.

    3. The Globe is heating rapidly. Opps – Sorry there’s been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises

    But it’s all due to human error in the IPCC reports – but the Globe is still warming, the ice is still melting and the Glaciers will all melt? Please give me more money.

    What a dill, must be his new hairdo in The Australian – it’s growing again (cold weather)


    Report this

    20

    • #
      • #
        Mark

        No!

        You need to either wake up or stop reading the assorted porno works of one Rajendra Pachauri.

        What a yawn you are, frantically and relentlessly searching for signs of your ‘end times’.

        The arctic has repeatedly melted/almost melted in the past, but you know this don’t you.

        Disingenuous, tiresome little troll.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Mark, you’d better tell Rod Stuart about the Arctic. He’s convinced that permafrost is permanent. If the Arctic had melted repeatedly in the past, how do you explain the ice cores dating back 800,000 years, which correspond so closely with CO2 concentrations?


          Report this

          08

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Mark, I think Dickie thinks that if the air temperature goes above 32F the permafrost melts.
            He doesn’t appear to have ever been there to know that the permafrost has an overburden.
            That’s why it’s PERMANENT. And it is called PERMAfrost.


            Report this

            71

          • #
            Mark

            Not to mention, is he going to tell Mr. Pachauri that he’s wrong about the 16-17 year temperature stasis? I mean, we’ve been relentlessly warned that we’re burning up at the rate of .2 deg./decade (or more).

            Another scam in the bin. N-e-x-t!


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Mark, it is incredible when you think about it.
            Closing in on a quarter century of no significant “global warming”.
            At least five years of excruciatingly cold winters in the northern hemisphere; colder than it has been for over thirty years. Record low temperatures in the southern hemisphere winter. A Southern Hemisphere summer that is unremarkable, apart from bushfires caused by green tape.
            And these trolls insist that global warming, the gospel that lives on and on, is real.
            Is there no justice? Is there no end to this nonsense?


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Mark

            how do you explain the ice cores dating back 800,000 years, which correspond so closely with CO2 concentrations?

            Sweet Jesus! Ricky’s trying the Al Gore stunt.

            Ricky, repeat after me. CO2 follows temperature. NOT the other way around. Now we all know you’re a joker. Also,didn’t you ever read about the US submarine surfacing at the North Pole in the ’50s?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Mark

            G’day Rod. It only continues as long as the plebs let it continue. When they finally get sick of freezing their whatsits off in winter and seeing there hard-earned p*ssed up against the wall to no good end, it will end.

            It won’t be ‘the science’ that ends this rort. It will be ‘the politics’.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Mark 37.1.1.4 I’ll keep it simple. Past temperature has followed orbital wobbles. CO2 once released forces additional warming.


            Report this

            08

          • #
            Mark

            CO2 once released forces additional warming.

            Yeah, sure Rickybaby. Now explain why no temperature rise for 16 years in the face of steadily rising CO2. Not to mention that this is expected to continue for at least a few more years. Do we detect the sound of moving goalposts…again!

            You support a hypothesis that predicts all possible outcomes. That is clearly ridiculous and should set some alarm bells ringing in your skull.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Backslider

            the ice cores dating back 800,000 years, which correspond so closely with CO2 concentrations?

            Oh yes! Those ice cores that show that warming precedes the rise in atmospheric CO2 by around 800 years? What does that tell you? Did you know that most of the current warming happened before 1945? Why is that? Why did we have cooling between 1945 and 1975 when CO2 emissions were escalating? Oh, I know, Al Gore says that the ice cores show that C02 causes global warming. That’s good enough for you I guess….

            CO2 once released forces additional warming.

            Explain :-)


            Report this

            30

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            I don’t normally read Ricki’s posts but on this one noted a ref to the ice cores.

            Since the Northern hemisphere had recently beeen effectively shut down by Ice and snow I was keen to follow this up.

            So imagine my surprise to find that Ricki, the scientific illiterate suffering from Narcosis, has managed to score an own goal.

            Nearly as dumb as diving on a tank with pure Oxygen only.

            Imagine my surprise to see a graph that showed that the Earth had been 3 C degrees Hotter at the end of the previous Ice Age that ended about 130,000 years ago.

            To rub salt into the wound his “Denier Denying Graph” not only shows a smoothed red curve that has been fitted to the data but in his stupidly gives us the full data in Blue.

            This blue temperature data shows just how easy it is to lie by producing only the smoothed curve.

            The red “average” only shows the last ice age exit at plus 1 C deg whereas the actual data shows plus 3 C deg.

            A difference of 2 C deg or 66% reduction in apparent severity of the “warming” is typical of the Warmer slight of hand when it comes to science take a look:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

            To him what does it matter if there are a couple of thousand years at plus 3C deg? 130,000 years back. For us that disproves the CAGW faery story because the entire world population back the may have only been 50,000 or so.

            KK.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hey guys.

        Ricki’s got $48 in the bank now.

        Well done Ricki.

        KK

        Brush with fame.

        Drove past the Minister for Climate change the other day as he was about to cross the road to his office.

        Those heavy rimmed glasses are a standout and probably where Julia got the idea from.


        Report this

        41

        • #
          Dennis

          With television lights on her the glasses highlight her nose which looks plastic, all that is needed to complete the picture is the Groucho Marx moustache. Is her spin doctor a mischief maker


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Dave

      .
      So Riccardo K

      Are you saying that the world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri and head of IPCC is wrong?

      P.S. Your link doesn’t work. But it’s just the Green Blog at NY Times? Who cares?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Dave, I think you might be confused. As is Graham Lloyd, who got summer and winter muddled throughout his article.

        “Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer – following a record melt last winter – was consistent with the current understanding of climate change.

        He said the IPCC had “clearly specified there are going to be extreme precipitation events”.

        “If in the Arctic, for example, we get a huge amount of snowfall this year, you will get ice formation,” Dr Pachauri said.

        “That again is something that doesn’t deviate from the trend, which time and again has shown that ice cover in the Arctic is shrinking.”

        Summer Arctic sea ice last year was 20% of the volume it was in 1979.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Mark

          Who says 1979 is normal Ricky baby? Oh, I forgot, SkS of course. Have a look at some proxy temperatures going back to the Holocene Optimum for heaven’s sake. The vast majority of the time since then has been warmer than today.

          Only just left school, Ricky? Don’t worry, the brainwashing should wear off once you’ve gained a worthwhile job.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Ricardo K

            1979 is the start date for Arctic satellite records. Going back another century relies on ground-level observations. And they record a greater ice extent in 1880 than in 1979 – by about 20%.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            Mark

            What’s all that got to do with whether 1979 is the “normal” ice level just because the satellite record starts then.

            You are conflating two different methods of measurement. Meaningless.

            You are still trying to ignore the reality that there are written accounts and photographic evidence of ice-free or near ice-free Arctic conditions in the 1950s and earlier times.

            You are a classic troll in that you obstinately refuse to acknowledge ANY evidence (even peer reviewed) that casts doubt on your belief system.


            Report this

            20

          • #

            HH Lamb: ‘Kukla & Kukla (1974) report that the area of snow and ice, integrated over the year across the N. Hemisphere, was 12% more in 1973 than in 1967, when the first satellite surveys were made’

            Two other things need mention: increase after 1960 and a much bigger increase after 1973 till the peak around ’79.

            There had been “shrinking Arctic” alarms before that in the 20th century, most notably 1922.

            Before all that ice in 1880 (there was quite a bunch around then) there had been major melts. Here’s just one account of how the ice was increasing again after well known fluctuations in the earlier 19th century:

            “We lived for the greater portion of a whole summer at Jakohshavn, a little Danish post, 69° 13′ n., close to which is the great Jakohshavn ice-fjord, which annually pours an immense quantity of icebergs into Disco Bay. In early times this inlet was quite open for boats ; and Nunatak (a word meaning a ” land surrounded by ice “) was once an Eskimo settlement. There is (or was in 1867) an old man (Manyus)
            living at Jakohshavn whose grandfather was born there. The Tessi-usak, an inlet of Jakohshavn ice-fjord, could then be entered by boats. Now-a-days Jakohshavn ice-fjord is so choked up by bergs that it is impossible to go up in boats, and such a thing is never thought of. The Tessiusak must be reached by a laborious journey over land ; and Nunatak is now only an island surrounded by the in-land ice, at a distance — a place where no man lives, or has, in the memory of any one now living, reached.

            “Both along its shore and that of the main fjord are numerous remains of dwellings long uninhabitable, owing to it being now impossible to gain access to them by sea. The inland ice is now encroaching on the land. At one time it seems to have covered many portions of the country now bare. In a few places glaciers have disappeared. I believe that this has been mainly owing to the inlet having got shoaled by the deposit of glacier-clay through the rivers already described.” (British Greenland expedition, 1868)


            Report this

            30

          • #

            Different story just after the Napoleonic Wars:

            “From an examination of the Greenland captains, it has been found that owing to some convulsions of nature, the sea was more open and moiré free from compact ice than in any former voyage they ever made: that several ships actually reached the eighty-fourth degree of latitude, in which no ice whatever was found; that for the first time for 400 years, vessels penetrated to the west coast of Greenland, and that they apprehended no obstacle to their even reaching the pole, if it had consisted with their duty to their employers to make the attempt. This curious and important information has, we learn, induced the Royal Society to apply to ministers to renew the attempt of exploring a north-west passage…”

            So the Royal Society’s President didn’t muck about:

            “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

            (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

            It should be pointed out that Arctic ice didn’t just slowly recover to a peak many decades later. It advanced shortly after this North West Passage kerfuffle…then retreated…then advanced…

            And who knows what ice on the Bering side was like at these times? Like I said, it’s up and down like Berlusconi’s trousers.


            Report this

            30

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Had an interesting experience on the Pachauri story run in ‘The Australian’ yesterday. I subscribe for the e-mail copy of that august newspaper. When I read the story and noticed the paper offered room for comments I shot in my sceptical take on his sugar offering. I was a little surprised when I recieved a confirming e-mail that my comment was published. Had a look to see if I was way out / or in line with others. No listing of the comments and yet they still asked for comments. After a time they removed the ‘comments box’, still no listing of previous comments. [Checked my machine was showing comment lists of other stories offering comment space, it was].
    I e-mailed the editor wondering why they would fiddle around (words to that effect) asking, accepting then ignoring comments??? No answer was the quiet reply.
    Anyone else have similar experience yesterday and could enlighten me as to what happened?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      The newspapers have not left themselves a line of retreat. They have (including the Australian) disgracefully cheersquaded the AGW cause for a decade or more.
      What do you expect? “Sorry we have been barracking for a scam and publishing habitual liars (presented as truth) for over a decade and we were wrong. Apologies to our readers.”


      Report this

      40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I think I’ll stop buying that from now on.

      I don’t want to support anyone who promotes CAGW.

      kk


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Amazing titles these fruitloops give themselves:

    1. Rajendra Pachauri “The world’s most influential climate scientist” – wrong – train driver.

    2. Tim Flannery “One of the world’s leading writers on climate change” – wrong – science fiction writer.

    Both are lunatics and have their greedy little snouts in the trough of the GREEN parasites.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Streetcred

    An interesting piece from Donna LaFambroise concerning Pachauri:

    The Rajendra Pachauri Puzzle


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ricardo K

    Hey, The Conversation has published an article on this topic. Dunno why Rod didn’t let you know, he’s already had a crack.


    Report this

    08

    • #
      Tristan

      Dive instructors should stick to what their good at. Diving in what’s left of the Barrier Reef.

      Awesome job by the way, do you ever get the chance to chat with oceanographers or hydologists?


      Report this

      14

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Oh Ricardo Klos – The BIG Dive Instructor on The Conversation.

      You joined today – and have two comments already linking to Skeptical Science Garbage.

      Oh well done diver. Good pick up Tristan.

      Do you chat with oceanographers or hydologists? What about Climate Scientists Big Diver?

      Big Diver? You’ve only joined National Geographic this year also – on a roll for the gravy train Mr. Big Ricardo Diver Klos.

      Diver? Diving Instructor? Come on Ricardo K get real.

      James Dave says goodbye.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        So “Santa” Klos is going to lecture us on Global Werming.

        Maybe it’s the Narcosis lecturing us; maybe he needs a little more “CO2″ in the mix to get back to normal.

        Remember when you are diving folks; too little CO2 in your bloodstream can be fatal.

        KK


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Ricardo K

        I’ve talked to quite a few scientists over the past few decades, yes. How about you?

        The NatGeo reference is plain wrong. Maybe there’s someone else in the world with that name?

        Since you want to know, I’m studying science at the moment. Biology, chemistry, physics and ecology are all part of the course. This is my fourth tertiary qualification. I’m not working as a scuba-diver at the moment, I’m in the private sector.


        Report this

        03

        • #
          Dave

          Wow

          You’re doing Biology & Ecology? (not concurrently I hope)
          You’re doing your 4th tertiary qualification.
          You were in Cyclone Tracey, Yasi etc.
          You’re a Dive Instructor.

          Wow, you should go for Rajendra Pachauri job at IPCC – cause you’re also good at:

          Bullshltting.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Backslider

          I’ve talked to quite a few scientists over the past few decades

          Name them.
          What did they say?


          Report this

          20

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          You know the old saying:

          “jack of all trades ….. ”

          Now Ricky, please. for heavens sake: “ecology”.

          That is NOT a recognised science subject.

          I didn’t know you could do Philosophy electives in science courses or is the whole thing an Ecology course?

          Good to know you have talked to some other people about science; I’m sure you learnt a lot.

          Excuse me while I take a big snort of CO2.

          Wow , that was good.

          KK


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Tristan

    Short on fact, long on rhetoric.

    The post seems confused with regards to the contents of the 1990 report. Who’s surprised?


    Report this

    08

  • #
    Ricardo K

    Gee Rod, I don’t know where you get your information from, but I got this from NOAA: “The globally-averaged temperature for January 2013 tied with 1995 as the ninth warmest January since record keeping began in 1880. January 2013 also marks the 37th consecutive January and 335th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.”


    Report this

    19

    • #
      Nathan

      mmmm….. so Ricardo, this just gone January is only the 9th warmist, only just as warm as 18 years ago??? So there have been 8 years where January has been warmer than this just past month. Seeing that we having been coming out of an ice age that sounds fine to me. Whew for a minute there I thought you might say it was the hottest way ever! But equal ninth! not even a ribbon. In fact they would be cut from the final.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Nathan, you misrepresent me. The decade beginning in 2000 was hotter than the 1990s; which was hotter than the 1980s which was …. You get the idea. The recent Met Office forecast which science rejectionists jumped on like Richard Parker all over a flying fish projects the next five years will be as hot as the hottest year ever. The Skeptical Science graph titled Going Down the Up Escalator is a good tool to describe the actual state of the globe’s temperature.


        Report this

        04

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The globally-averaged temperature for January 2013 tied with 1995 as the ninth warmest January since record keeping began in 1880. January 2013 also marks the 37th consecutive January and 335th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

      And…???

      All these are observations of changes happening. They tell us nothing about the cause of the change. And I’m not hotter. It’s been colder here for the last 3 or 4 years than I can remember. And I’ve been around here 45 years now. And neither that statement nor what you got from NOAA tells us anything about what’s causing temperature changes.

      Ricardo, I don’t know how long you’ve been studying climate change hysteria. But I’ve been doing it for years now. I sit here in the position of a juror, evaluating the case presented by the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution case falls apart for many reasons. The defense wins by default. Give some consideration to the fact that you’re about the 9,874,213th prosecutor to try to convict the human race on this same shoddy charge. Forgive the exaggeration but we’ve seen you before. You fell down then and you fall down now.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Bill Irvine

    Some quotes from Charles Lutwidge Dodgson apply here.

    What I tell you three times is true.
    The Hunting of the Snark.

    The different branches of Arithmetic — Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.
    Alice in Wonderland.

    “Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
    Alice in Wonderland.

    “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.
    “I do, ” Alice hastily replied; “at least I mean what I say, that’s the same thing, you know.”
    “Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “Why, you might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see!”
    Alice in Wonderland.

    “It’s very good jam,” said the Queen.
    “Well, I don’t want any to-day, at any rate.”
    “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the Queen said. “The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam to-day.”
    “It must come sometimes to “jam to-day,”"Alice objected.
    “No it can’t,” said the Queen. “It’s jam every other day; to-day isn’t any other day, you know.”
    “I don’t understand you,” said Alice. “It’s dreadfully confusing.”
    Through the Looking Glass.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
    Through the Looking Glass.

    A very clever man.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    Pachauri has always been what I would call a “man of many hats” who has a reputation for having fingers in far too many pies. Considering his past performances, his latest and greatest reinvention of himself – and his posturing position comes as no surprise.

    Here are some of my favourite Pachauri-isms™

    His metamorphosis of “all peer-reviewed”:

    Nov. 9, 2009 [following Dr. V.K. Raina, retired deputy director-general of the Geological Survey of India, and published by the Indian environment ministry. Raina had indicated that (contra the findings of the IPCC) “None of [India's] glaciers under monitoring are recording abnormal retreat]:

    “Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”

    Apr. 20, 2010 (the day after FoxNews.com reported on our Citizen Audit Findings which were released on April 14):

    AR4 cited approximately 18,000 peer-reviewed publications. It also included a limited amount of gray (or non-peer-reviewed) literature

    May 14, 2010:

    He said the media and other sections of society had misunderstood the role of such information, labelling it grey literature, “as if it was some form of grey muddied water flowing down the drains”.

    His Oct. 2011 metamorphosis of IPCC contributors from “best experts” to

    objective, transparent inclusive talent

    And let us not forget Pachauri’s July 2009 “vision” for AR5 which included:

    T]he IPCC AR5 is being taken in hand at a time when awareness on climate change issues has reached a level unanticipated in the past. Much of this change can be attributed to the findings of the AR4 which have been disseminated actively through a conscious effort by the IPCC, its partners and most importantly the media. Expectations are, therefore, at an all time high as far as the AR5 is concerned


    Report this

    30

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    It’s SO nice of Patchy to finally accept us deniers into his big tent, but I am not so sure that I would want him in my little one.
    I value people who discourse evenly, politely, fairly and openly. I value people who are consistant, rational and are interested in advancing knowledge.

    HE might have finally accepted me into his tent, but I would love to hear his reasons why on earth I should let him into mine


    Report this

    20

  • #
    John

    Hey guys – Here is one for ricki.

    Check out the article from the Milwaukee Post Dec 1975.

    From the less ice means more cold weather (actually an Ice Age) department. It seems these nuts were just as stupid in 1975 as they are today. They really need to start researching what they have said in the past. This is geeting silly.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/1975-theory-ice-free-arctic-leads-to-an-ice-age/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Ronald

    Is there anyone whit hard evidence of Rajendra Pachauri saying there is no warming for 17 years? It seems that the paper had edited out the line’s witch are important to proof Rajendra Pachauri told this.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Are these Pachauri’s first forays into the sceptical world?
    Could it be that he is secretly worried about the whole scam falling apart and wants to start painting a picture showing that he, all along, was prepared to see the other side of the argument?
    Is he preparing to save face, save himself from charges of fraud, emerge from the cesspit smelling of roses?
    Can Pachauri at last see the writing on the wall?
    Mmm possibly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] his recent acknowledgement that the holy of holy global average temperature (and/or its “anomaly”) has barely [...]


    Report this

    00