Friday, October 19, 2012


A while back we had us this sometimes annoying, sometimes funny lefty commenter here, who posted under the genial moniker anon.

anon dismissed the islamic threat to the civilized world, but pooped in his pants over the GW issue, excuse me, the MAN-MADE GW issue.

anon went south sometime in 2007 or so.

We're 2012 now, and us nasty rightwingers, forever warning of the muzzies and downplaying the birds falling fried from the air, well...

Well, in the meantime we've evolved to a point where Brussels is 25% muslim and Somalis are starting to make a nuisance of themselves in Maine, yes MAINE; half of the world is on fire wherever muslim countries border non-muslim ones, a US ambassador's corpse was dragged to the streets of a Libyan shithole, half a USMC squadron was destroyed in AF by Taliban, and yet another Mohammad wanted to blow up the NY Federal Reserve with a 453-kg bomb. That's one side of the picture.

And here's the other one. You wouldn't have noticed it if you get your news from MSNBC, Le Monde or De Volkskrant, but.... the UK's Met Office has concluded that the world stopped getting warmer in... 1996.


From Mail Online:

FLAWED SCIENCE COSTS US DEARLY "Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill? You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher. Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock. It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy. This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert. ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Uh, anon?


No comments: