The warmists are getting desperate. As their edifice of "global warming" crumbles like ice sheets calving in the summer, they have gathered their forces and summoned up the remaining tatters of their credibility, assaulting what they feel an insult to their creed – the obstinate refusal of the Antarctic to warm up.

As recorded by Booker today, they have secreted a "paper" into their propaganda sheet, the Nature magazine, claiming that, contrary to all previous evidence, Antarctica is indeed warming up,

View full article here

Geesh... it amazes me that people who are presently freezing their bums off are still listening to these clowns...

The more I read about the theory of man made climate change, and the science and data behind it, the more irked I get.

When I were a lad we weren't just taught something we were also taught that science changes and science keeps changing. Reasonable scientists can say 'we don't know everything' those with the ear of Presidents and Prime Ministers cannot. They'd be out of a job if they did. The problems with the data are substantial. Patchy surface station records which have been buggered about. Not long for the less fiddled (but not fiddle free) satellite data which largely shows little is happening. Historic data which does not fit the theory is ignored.

I saw one of the simplest illustration of this problem on wattsupwiththat.com. Some group had produced a chart of the planet that was mostly oranges and red, and the data was temperature from surface stations. What wattsupwiththat.com then did was show the true extent of the data. It was mostly confined to North America and Europe with some data for Africa, Asia and the poles, surprisingly little from Canada and with no data for the oceans. Quite a telling graphic really. One which shows the notion of a global temperature measured from the surface to be a bit of a joke, and for the 'measured' changes in temperature largely reflecting a 'measured' change in the Northern Hemisphere alone.

Like with the banks I think we're spending too much time and putting too much stock on virtual representations of the planet. Time and again scienctists change their mind as they delve deeper into the workings of our planet but for a decade or more we've been subjected to a rigid and zealous perversion of science. Yet there is no one committing relatively paltry sums to improving the data or replicating the theory in anything other than a computer.

Bjorn Lomberg's pragmatic approach is one I can readily side with. Yes it might be a problem but it isn't likely to be one in the near future and the effects are best mitigated through increased wealth and technology. I was going to say 'it can't be just about control, can it?' but then I read this: EU to propose $200 billion climate tax on rich nations.

Still, if the economic problems continue it'll not affect us...

I only read the Telegraph on the PC these days, as Mr Booker is the only thing that would make it worth buying, however I see that the article, subject of this note, is not yet on the on-line version. I hope that it will appear and there's not someone at the ST who is a warmist.

The NASA itself seems to have published contradicting ( read: based on a revised analysis) data:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502

and

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

I would hazard a guess that many in the Ruling Class have not been duped at all.

In my opinion the Ruling Class use Global Warming as simply another opportunity to grab power and to be seen to be doing something whilst ignoring the disastrous reality of an earlier power grab, Diversity.

btw:



while the measured value lies between -0.1 and +0.2 ?

My physics teacher would have called that not measureable.

State of Antarctica: red or blue?
by Eric (Steig?)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-or-blue/

McIntyre is absolutely devastating in his critique of Steig/Mann on Antarctica:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945

The gist is that they had previously predicted that AGW would COOL Antaractica. Now, they claim the reverse. Given the complete fabrications we are now seeing, one would not have thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of passing crippling legislation. Oh, wait, there are snowballs in hell, or at least in Abu Dhabi:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/25/64949.html

A warming that spares Antarctica is not that global

Meanwhile, as an avid reader of (http://solarcycle24.com/), I am fully aware that the sun is as quiet as it's been in at least a century (and perhaps nearly 2 centuries), by virtually any measure. If, as I suspect, this is inducing dramatic cooling, how long before the warmists can no longer hide that reality?

Public opinion polls have shown sharp decreases in support for the Hanson/Gore/Mann view of climate change. Fact is, the emperor has got no clothes on, and Al Gore's bottom is not a pretty sight. How frickin' cold does it have to get before these guys admit defeat?

I know you've posted on the economic farce of carbon credits, so I thought you would appreciate this.

China dams reveal flaws in climate-change weapon

XIAOXI, China – The hydroelectric dam, a low wall of concrete slicing across an old farming valley, is supposed to help a power company in distant Germany contribute to saving the climate — while putting lucrative "carbon credits" into the pockets of Chinese developers.

But in the end the new Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.

"Nobody asked if we wanted to move," said a 38-year-old man whose family lost a small brick house. "The government just posted a notice that said, 'Your home will be demolished.'"

The dam will shortchange German consumers, Chinese villagers and the climate itself, if critics are right. And Xiaoxi is not alone.

Similar stories are repeated across China and elsewhere around the world, as hundreds of hydro projects line up for carbon credits, at a potential cost of billions to Europeans, Japanese and soon perhaps Americans, in a trading system a new U.S. government review concludes has "uncertain effects" on greenhouse-gas emissions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_ ... olden_dams

There's more at the link. Yep, the EU's purchase of climate credits leads to the dispossession of thousands of Chinese peasants.

Nice.

I searched for papers written by Eric Steig on Science Direct. He’s quite the little warmist. He’s written or co-authored at least 13 papers (all on Climatology – mostly on Climate Change).One of his papers is called “The Goldilocks dilemma: big ice, little ice, or “just-right” ice in the Eastern Canadian Arctic” – now that’s a scientific paper title. Perhaps he could have given it a sub-title – “a bedtime story for the green loon”. I suppose he needs to present the “consensus” in an easily digestible form for the prats that lap up this bulltosh. I had a skim through some of the papers and none of them (at least the ones I looked at) seem to have a Method Section. Do these climate creeps not need to submit a method section with a for publication paper? If not, I’m sure they make the best use possible of this little concession.

AnIrishMan,

Steve McIntyre wryly comments on his ClimateAudit blog on the Steig/Mann paper:



As a scientist (physiology) I get absolutely furious. These people are getting published in the most prestigious journals - and it is just total b**l s**t. Not even the most basic rules of scientific writing is adhered to. But then again if this is the motto of the guru of the AGW crowd, what can one expect:



Apparently they've mastered that skill pretty well now......

You make a good point, namely that once AGW is shown to be a charade, the public will lose great confidence in science. I always wonder why scientists, especially at the university, don't take a harder look at what's going on in the name of science. If only Richard Feynman were alive today, he'd crack this fraudulent scheme like a frozen O-ring.