Is god in his heaven laughing at the IPCC - Congelado! hehe!

English as a Second Language What do you want to talk about?
21

Newsletter: NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 244 by Vincent Gray
Wednesday, April 21st 2010, 5:42 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
THE FLAT EARTH

All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth’s energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.

The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities.

It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant.

All the quantities on the graph are given as correct to the nearer Watt per square meter, but the figures in the paper are shown to possess very high inaccuracy which can never be measured, but always has to be “qualitatively estimated”.On this occasion it was possible to stretch these inaccuracies to the level needed to provide a “balanced” energy budget. The total energy entering is made equal to the energy leaving. In this way it is now possible to calculate the effect of additional greenhouse gases. If it was not “balanced” and the “balance” varied it would be impossible to calculate.what are the effects of additional greenhouse gases.

There has now been a change of heart, in the following paper

Trenberth, K E, J T Fassulo, and J T Kiehl. 2009 Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull Am. Met. Soc. 90 311-323.

This paper does a complete reassessment of the figures in the first paper. Its amended version as a mean between March 2000 and May 2004 is attached.

The earth is now thoroiughly flattened, as if it had been run over by a cosmic steamroller. Most of the figures have changed. Those for input and output of radiation are now apparently correct to one place of decimals. The rest of them are in trouble. The paper is full of discussions on how they could increase the “qualitative estimates” of uncertainty that might be attached to them, but this time they have found it impossible to extend their estimating ability sufficiently. So this time it is “unbalanced” to the extent of a warming of 0.9 Watts per square meter a year for the period 2000 to 2004.

Unfortunately there is no doubt that the earth’s temperature cooled over this period. This paper is therefore firm proof that the original concepts behind the models are wrong.

It ought to be obvious. The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. The temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output.

There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth’s surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. Only when this is done and repeated over a long period will it be possible to find the influence of increases in greenhouse gases.

The data do not exist for such an exercise and probably never will.

Until then we will have to settle for the methods that have been developed by meteorologists over the past two centuries and hope that these can be extended over time to provide us with a means for assessing the effects of additional greenhouse gases on the climate.

The currently promoted greenhouse theory is dead and its consequences have to be removed at once.

Cheers

Vincent Gray

Wellington

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”

Charles Darwin

climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5583

22

youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR3 … re=related
youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7A … re=related

23

Hi,
If we study carefully the history of our planet, we’ll find out that the global warming may lead to the global freezing. See the hypothesis “Snowball Earth” and the Earth’s albedo. ( Apart from that you can find some information about the issue in the documentaries: “The Earth. The Power of The Planet.” The Ice, Vulcano, The Oceans, The Rare Earth, The Atmosphere by BBC)
So, the possibility is not a secret for our scientists. But they don’t take it seriously. And most people don’t want to think about it.

24

Well - since Im on a mission. - I just gotta keep driving this tent peg right in. :slight_smile:

Climategate Investigations are Arrogant Insults

Dr. Tim Ball – Canada Free Press July 9, 2010

There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

Lord Oxburgh, a member of the House of Lords, chaired the first investigation. His bias and self-interest is barefaced and makes his appointment shameless in its temerity. He is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which believes carbon capture is potentially a trillion dollar industry. As James Delingpole reports “Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.” It’s as if they said who stands to gain the most by whitewashing what happened. The Club of Rome connection is most telling, because I have documented their role in initiating, identifying, and pursuing CO2 as the basis of capitalist destruction of the planet.

Oxburgh was appointed by UEA whose Pro-Vice Chancellor Professor Trevor Davies said he believed he would lead the investigation “in an utterly objective way.” We now know this means the objectivity was to ensure the false science claiming CO2 was causing global warming would be objectively maintained.

UEA consulted the Royal Society in selecting Oxburgh. They blithely ignored the fact he is a Fellow of the Society and that it had a track record heavily biased to supporting the false science of the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . (IPCC). The Society also ‘recommended’ the eleven academic papers to be considered. When Steve McIntyre, who was instrumental in exposing some of the major scientific falsehoods and deceptions exposed by the emails, asked Oxburgh, “a few simple questions about the terms of reference and documentation of this “inquiry”” he received remarkable answers that he summarized as follows; “The net result, as you will see, is that Oxburgh says that they have no documents evidencing the terms of reference of the inquiry or the selection of the eleven papers, no notes, transcripts or other documentation of the interviews with CRU employees and Oxburgh refused consent for panelists to directly provide me with any notes that they might have taken.”

Brazenness of the entire exercise

Oxburgh brushes off the entire set of problems and in doing so exposes the brazenness of the entire exercise. “Given the seriousness of the allegations they wanted our inquiry to be completed as quickly as possible both for the benefit of the individuals concerned and for the University’s internal concerns as well as for their wider concerns about the science. The intention was to supplement the wider and more formal Muir Russell review that was already underway and which I believe will report later this year.” His report was simply to stanch the bleeding while the larger whitewash was underway. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics, expressed the concern about the projected spring 2010 publication date. “This is probably necessary to allow a thorough investigation, but it does mean that those who are using ‘climategate’ as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making.”

Yes, they might start asking questions and putting doubt in the public’s mind. It might jeopardize the entire global climate scam that is designed to undermine capitalism and replace it with one-world government and total control over everyone in the world.

Sir Muir Russell was chosen chief investigator of the second committee because as a career bureaucrat he had established a reputation of finding what was required. True, he had no connection to the university or the climate science community, but all that meant was he was easily manipulated and controlled. Evidence of his naiveté appeared quickly with the first people chosen to help the investigation? One was the editor of the journal Nature with disturbing connections to CRU and Climategate who sensibly withdrew. The other was Geoffrey Boulton who failed to disclose connections to the UEA. Despite this, Russell kept him on the committee. As Bishop Hill reports, Boulton said, in effect, that he had tricked poor Muir Russell. While Russell may have intended to “select” Team members on “the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science”, Boulton had a different idea.

It is no surprise the final report is a complete whitewash. As McIntyre notes, “They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.” There’s that Royal Society connection again. The report exploits lack of knowledge or understanding of climate science just like the CRU and IPCC. They couldn’t allow involvement of experts who knew the science and how it was manipulated.

But the omissions are more basic and ones everyone can understand. For example, why didn’t they trace the source of the leaks? Why were only some of the emails leaked? Russell’s report chastises CRU for failing to provide data on request and for being secretive or refusing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. What drove them to do this with information obtained and produced by public funding? It doesn’t matter how much climate science you understand, the level and extent of avoidance goes beyond laziness, time consumption as they tried to claim or any other excuse. Ironically, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, provides the answer in his email response to Warwick Hughes request for information on how he produced the claim that global temperatures had risen 0.6°C since the end of the 19th century. This claim, with the falsified hockey stick, was central to the 2001 IPCC Report used as the scientific basis for global warming. Jones replied on 21st February 2005, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Jones never disclosed the information and then said it was lost. These actions were symptomatic of the entire activities at the CRU and then the IPCC. Those using human induced global warming for political and economic ends could not allow anyone to find there was something wrong with the data or the method. Instead they laugh in our faces with the most transparent, manipulated brazen cover up possible.
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25124

25

youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw&feature=fvw

26

“Global warming is the greatest… pseudoscientific fraud”

Via Telegraph.co.uk – October 9, 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

  1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

  2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

  3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

  4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

  5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

  6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II.

Source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … long-life/
Last updated 10/10/2010

27

This really is worth Watching

Al Gore really is a real Turkey

youtube.com/watch?v=HU6MIeqv … =recentlik

28

[b]How Germany’s weather team views the “hottest year ever”
Posted on December 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Translation via the GWPF

Speculation Alert: “New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out”
Wednesday, 15 December 2010 09:16 Rickmer Flor, wetter.info

deviations from the climate mean for December, until 17.12.2010, Source: Bernd-Hussing.de -click
[/b]
Everybody is talking about global warming – but in Germany and also in many other countries around the world people are currently fighting with the adversities of extreme cold. And indeed: “The year 2010 will be the coldest for ten years in Germany,” said Thomas Globig from the weather service Meteo Media talking to wetter.info . And it might even get worse: “It is quite possible that we are at the beginning of a Little Ice Age,” the meteorologist said. Even the Arctic ice could spread further to the south.

It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. “I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year”, said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.

Coldest December in 100 years

In Berlin, there was an absolute cold record in early December, “For 100 years it had not been as cold as in the first decade of December,” said Globig. This also applied to other regions. But why is it so cold just now? Might it have anything to do with climate change? “I’m very sceptical”, replied Globig. A few years ago when we had a period of mild winters many climate scientists warned that winter sport in Germany’s low mountain ranges would soon no longer be possible anymore because of global warming. “Now they are saying: the cold winters are a consequence of global warming – a questionable implication,” according to Globig.

“Unbelievable amounts of snow” in Berlin (AW note: 800 flights grounded in EU)

Globig appeals to our long-term memory – and recalls a prolonged period of extremely cold and snowy winter in the 1960s and 1970s. Half a meter of snow fell in Berlin in early March 1970, in Potsdam even 70 centimetres. “From today’s perspective, these amounts were unbelievable.”

Then followed a period of milder years, and, probably the impression spread that there will be no more real winters in Germany”, said Globig. “That was a misjudgment.” People became careless, and as a result the authorities run out of grit in a very short time last winter and this year the airport operators lacked de-icing fluid for airplanes. In the Berlin the S-Bahn traffic came to a halt because of the cold and the high-speed trains did not run either. “Our modern, high-tech world was completely overwhelmed with the winter situation” said Globig.

Even the last winter was extremely hard

Many had succumbed to the delusion that the usually mild winters of the past ten years would continue. But already the winter 2009/2010 – with its long periods of frost and snow well into spring – was an eye-opening event for many. “This eye-opening experience could be even bigger this year,” predicts Globig.

Globig sees two main causes for the significant cooling: First, the cyclical changes in the big air currents over the Atlantic, and second, the variations in solar activity.

“Everyone has heard about the high over the Azores and the low over Iceland,” said Globig. The most important question for weather forecasts for many years was: “What are the air pressure differences between the two regions, how stormy will it be – and how much mild air is being shovelled sequentially from the Atlantic to Europe?”

“Both pressure areas do not exist right now,” explains Globig. On the contrary, over the Azores there is lower air pressure and a high over Iceland. “The weather over the Atlantic is upside down,” said Globig. Now cold air from the polar region has lots of space to flow to Europe – and that is what is happening.

“Normal” fluctuations with large currents

“These changes in the so-called ‘Atlantic Oscillation’ are totally normal – just hard to predict in detail,” explains Globig. The storm “Kyrill” in 2007 was the peak of the flow activity from the Atlantic to Europe. “Since then it has grown quiet over the sea,” the meteorologist said. The lows over the Atlantic have become weaker and weaker.

This effect has taken place in previous years, but at irregular intervals. Science does not yet know much about it, says Globig, „but here lies the key to a better understanding of the seasons”.

The low temperatures could very well go on a few years, maybe decades. Even more icy cold could be possible. „It has happened before, and can be explained with natural climate variability,” said Globig. We could even be at the beginning of a Little Ice Age, “the probability is at least given.”

This is also supported by the current development of solar activity. Solar activity has passed the zenith of a nearly 200 years continuing phase of high activity and will decline in coming decades. Around the years 2040/2050, scientists expect a new so-called solar minimum, with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Spread of the Arctic ice?

“I think it is even conceivable that the Arctic ice spreads significantly in the years to come,” said Globig. The impact of solar activity on climate has been criminally underestimated for a long time.

The last two weeks have been the coldest in England since the second-to-last solar minimum, many hundreds of years ago. “What actually will happen depends on the next five to ten years,” believes Globig. But one thing now appears to be very likely for the weather expert, “We will have to abandon some climate forecasts. “

Wetter T-Online, 14 December 2010 (translation by Philipp Mueller)
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/18/h … year-ever/

29


The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent
By PETER SISSONS
Last updated at 10:35 PM on 24th January 2011
Institutionally biased to the Left, politically correct and with a rudderless leadership. This is Peter Sissons’ highly critical view of the BBC in his new memoirs, in which he describes his fascinating career over four decades as a television journalist. Here, in the latest part of our serialisation, he reveals how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change . . .

My time as a news and current affairs anchor at the BBC was characterised by weak leadership and poor direction from the top, but hand in hand with this went the steady growth of political correctness.

Indeed, it was almost certainly the Corporation’s unchallengeable PC culture that made strong leadership impossible.

Leadership — one person being in charge, trusting his or her own judgment, taking a decision and telling others what to do— was shied away from in favour of endless meetings of a dozen or more ­people trying to arrive at some sort of consensus.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z1C0Ir6KvF

30

OMG - Its lurker dressed as a chicken
youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&

31

Forecasting Expert Calls for End to Government-Funded Research on Global Warming

Read more: digitaljournal.com/pr/266474#ixzz1J8tMRJgU

Washington, DC (Vocus/PRWEB) April 01, 2011

In testimony yesterday before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania called on Congress to cease funding global warming research, programs, and advocacy organizations.

Referring to an analysis he conducted with Kesten C. Green of the University of South Australia and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Armstrong told the subcommittee, “We approach the issue of alarm over dangerous manmade global warming as a problem of forecasting temperatures over the long term. The global warming alarm is not based on what has happened, but on what will happen. In other words, it is a forecasting problem. And it is a very complex problem.”

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose “procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles,” Armstrong noted.

Armstrong and his colleagues recommend Congress end government funding for climate change research as well as other research, government programs, and regulations that assume the planet is warming. They also recommend Congress cease funding organizations that lobby or campaign for global warming.

“Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure,” Armstrong told members of Congress, “we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.”

Armstrong can be reached for further comment at 610-622-6480 or armstrong(at)wharton(dot)upenn(dot)edu. A copy of the report he submitted to the committee is available online at environmentandclimate-news.org/article/29687.

The Heartland Institute is a 27-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site at heartland.org or call 312/377-4000.

Read the full story at prweb.com/releases/2011/4/prweb8264870.htm

Read more: digitaljournal.com/pr/266474#ixzz1J8sqgh9y

32

youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVf … grec_index

33

Nearly Three Quarters Believe Global Warming Data Falsified
By Bob Ellis on August 4th, 2011

I’ve been watching the number of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fall for several years now.

At first, many if not most people were willing to give scientists the benefit of the doubt. After all, scientists and other “professionals” have a reputation of being concerned with facts, not opinions and agendas. Right or wrong, the general public has a historical perception of scientists as being objective and above personal biases.

But as people began to learn more about this apocalyptic prediction, their confidence in the scientific community in general and this hypothesis in particular began to drop. People began to realize how little actual solid evidence there is for AGW, and how much of the hypothesis is based on computer models.

The public started to see that while most of the predictions concerning AGW are so far out into the future as to be unverifiable, some were short term…and have been woefully missed by these computer models. As public belief in this idea began to drop, the so-called scientific community began to overplay its hand, and soon we were hearing scientists tell us that anything and everything was a sign, was proof of global warming: if it’s hot, that proves global warming; if it’s cold, that proves global warming; if it rains, that proves global warming; if it snows, that proves global warming; if there’s a drought, that proves global warming. Uh huh. Yes, too many people are preoccupied with Survivor and Lady Gaga, but only a few of us are that stupid and disengaged intellectually.

Then came ClimateGate, where we found out about “scientists” who had destroyed their raw data, were trying to “hide the decline” in temperatures, and were relying on “fudged” computer models. Even the United Nation’s IPCC environmentalist group ended up with egg on their face. In other words, we were dealing with junk science being peddled by Marxists as an excuse to exercise greater control and extort more tax money from the people.

And we learned of the blatant hypocrisy of the environmentalists pushing this hoax. It’s not hard to figure out that if the people hysterically telling us we need to stop using electricity and ride bicycles don’t take their own mantra seriously, neither should we.

Meanwhile, the data just keeps rolling in from various sources which shows us that climate change is a natural and cyclic phenomenon that has been occurring in extremes even greater than today, going back hundreds and thousands of years.

It’s no wonder that one of the last polls I saw on belief in AGW showed only about 1/3 of Americans believed in this silly idea anymore.

Now Rasmussen Reports releases a poll showing nearly 3/4 of Americans believe that it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have faked their research data to get us to believe this scam.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided.

Wow. Only 22% don’t think it’s likely “scientists” (I’m sorry, but if you’re agenda-driven and trying to deceive people about the facts, you don’t deserve to be called a scientist without some quotes around the word to qualify it) are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

It’ll only be a few more years before this hoax ends up on the ash heap of history with a flat earth, bleeding, and geocentrism. Oh, there remain some politicians who dangerously believe this nonsense, and the Marxists won’t go gently into the night, but the tipping point has been reached and it won’t be long before AGW will be a cheap throw-away joke on late-night TV.
dakotavoice.com/2011/08/near … falsified/

34

It’s a ‘stinker’: coolest summer for half a century

IT’S been wet, windy and cloudy – so it’s not surprising to discover that Ireland is having its coolest summer in nearly half a century.

And unfortunately, as we edge closer to the end of the month, weather experts say there is virtually no chance of a late reprieve – the final two weeks of August are predicted to be equally disappointing.

Official data shows that the summer’s top temperatures haven’t been so chilly for 46 years – with forecasters branding the summer “a stinker”.

This summer the highest temperature of 25.5C was at Oak Park, Co Carlow, on June 3.

But that high has not been reached since – making summer 2011 the coolest since 1965 when a paltry high of 25.2C was recorded at Ballybrittas, Co Laois.

“This has been a disappointing summer for Ireland and with the remainder of the month looking somewhat gloomy, this summer really has been a bit of a stinker,” said Jonathan Powell of online international forecasters Positive Weather Solutions (PWS).

“It showed promise but delivered only sporadic bursts of good weather.”

Recent weak temperatures are making this month the coolest August in nearly two decades. Temperatures recorded at Cork Airport of 13.9C represent the lowest in August since 1992.

Shannon Airport recorded a similarly disappointing 14.8C average for the month, the coolest since 1993.

And according to Met Eireann, temperatures for August have been below average at six of the 10 weather stations around Ireland.

While the majority of stations recorded average or below average rainfalls in July, the month did prove to be colder than usual.

Tantalising

“Most temperatures across the country were between 0.5C and 1C below average,” Met Eireann noted.

“Dublin Airport reported its coolest July in 46 years with the mean air temperature of 13.8C while some stations in the south and south-west recorded their coolest July since 1988.”

And the coming week will be as wet as we have become accustomed to – with every day expected to offer a tantalising glimpse of sunshine before being undercut by rainy spells and showers, with temperatures never breaking the 20C mark.

With autumn just weeks away, it’s clear that Ireland can say an early goodbye to summer – and just keep its fingers crossed for a sunnier September.

  • Mark Hilliard

Irish Independent
independent.ie/national-news … 48284.html

35

youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI

36

Sorry folks but I still find this stuff interesting.
I only wish some one would pay me millions to tell lies.

youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o

Agnotology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The neologism was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek word ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, “not knowing” (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος “unknown”[4]), and -λογία, -logia.[5] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology