Another Week in the Planetary Crisis, April 21, 2013

(featured image is the effect of Australia's summer heatwave on Melbourne's historical record, source)

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years

This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup

skip to bottom

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years

April 21, 2013


co2now gfx skeptisci app gfx


No matter how dark things seem, there are always bad jokes:

Low Key Plug


My first novel Water was published in Canada May, 2007. The American release was in October. An Introductionto the novel is available, along with the Unpublished Forewordand the Launch Talk(which includes some quotations), An overview of my writing is available here.

A Simple Plea

Webmasters, web coders and content providers have mercy on your low bandwidth brethren. Because I am on dial-up, I am a text surfer -- no images, no javascript and no flash. When you post a graphic, will you please use the alt text field ... and when you embed a youtube/vimeo/flash video, please add some minimal description. Thank you.



P.S. Recent postings can be found in the week archive and the ancient postings can be accessed here, which should open to this.

I notice moyhu has set up a monster index to old AWoGWN on AFTIC.

"The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change." -Dennis Meadows


More like this

fellow kooks,
Commemorate, with me,
- Predictions From the Original Earth Day -

(you can't make this stuff up)
(and, as I've said before, 100 yrs from now CO2 and global warming will be a distant memory, if not forgotten completely)

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”


Really? You think that, in 100 years from now, CO2 will be a distant memory? I sincerely doubt it.

Coby / HET

I hope you have checked all these links to make sure the information they link to is 100% accurate. We don't want to have someone reading a blog post somewhere and suggesting that you are making a fool of yourself now, do we?

I think yes.
Try as they might, the central planners will probably not be able to keep us mired in a current world "lite". (ie, all the same technology with forced conservation reducing consumption by half).

The millions, no, billions acting to improve their lot will see to that.

I am pretty confident we will still remember CO2. Everyone will still be breathing it out, and plants will still require it for photosynthesis, so it will be pretty hard to forget about it.

Fair enough. As it applies to global warming then.

Yeah, well I'm going to suggest that you would be wrong on that one as well.

You can continue to deny it all you like and scoff at things like Earth Day, but in order to do so you have to ignore all the evidence. And that is simply not a sustainable position.

100 years from now we will be suffering the consequences of our inaction, and rather than being a distant or faded memory, climate change will be a reality. Our descendants will be writing scathing criticisms of us - and deservedly so.

Reducing consumption by half? Not nearly enough.

@PaulinMI, mandas and folks like him are obsessed by CO2. They refer every imaginable harm to CO2. Their whole life is full of anxiety and anger because of nothing, as there is NO single measurement in nature that 600ppm CO2 terribly warms the world. They are afraid of criticisms from their grand children, but their grand children will laugh about their idiotic ancestors with limited knowledge and strange brains. Mainstream people are not given more.

mandas: "Reducing consumption by half? Not nearly enough"

What an incredible bullshit. You should be ashamed by such offending nonsense which contradicts EVERY serious scientific evidence ( not your primitive computer games GCMS )

"mandas: “Reducing consumption by half? Not nearly enough”

What an incredible bullshit"

Mandy's point seems to have you crapping in your pants, kaitroll. Frightened of the capitalist system having to be tweaked to realise we have a finite earth?


No mandas, 100 yrs from now will be different because of action. And gross world product will go up, not down.

And that will happen under any possible action taken to mitigate and reverse AGW. It'll cost about 1% of GDP to change or cost AT LEAST 3% of GDP over the same time if we don't. And the cost will continue to go up.

For example, how much has USA's GDP gone down because of the crappy corn harvest already?


Simple Physics will ensure that CO2, and Global Warming will be an issue, probable the only issue in 100 years time - that's if civilization has the free time to even think of issues beyond getting food to eat.


We know that you have libertarian leanings, and think that the market solves everything. But let's just run through a couple of obvious things that you need to think about.

Earth - the planet that we live on - is a small ball of rock spining in space. It is a little under 13,000 km across, and has a thin envelope of gas surrounding it that we all rely on for survival. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that means the world and its resources are finite. And when you have finite resources you cannot keep growing forever. That is such a statement of the obvious that it should not need repeating.

Consequently - and try to follow here - 'gross world product' cannot keep 'going up' forever. Eventually we will hit the limits of growth, and then we will either go backwards, or, if we are lucky and are still at the carrying capacity of the planet, we may be able to maintain that level of development as long as we use our resources sustainably. Once again, that is such a statement of the obvious that it should not need to be repeated.

And that's the problem for you libertarians isn't it? You think concepts like sustainable development (yes, I know, Agenda 21!!) are an anathema, and that the market should be allowed to determine what we do. But unfortunately, the market never has and never will adapt to the concept of sustainable development. Think - 'the tragedy of the commons'.

And that is why regulation - yes, government intervention in the market - is absolutely essential. I don't care whether or not you accept the overwhelming evidence for climate change. You can deny it all you like - stupid as that makes you appear.

But it takes a special kind of stupid to think that there are no limits to growth.

mandas: "libertarians", "limits of growth", "sustainabe development" (back to stone age), "climate change", "finite resources": EVERYTHING IS SHIT YOU SAY, the expression of backwardly oriented pseudomoralists, full of anger and anxiety, devoid of joy, creativity, inspiration. YOU and your fellow mean thinkers are a big shame for mankind and its progress, which is an incredible success story.

I accuse you and your asshole green leftist ideology of intended brutal mass murder without comparison in history as terribly many lifes will be shortened by your deliberstels intended reductions in civility (life expectancy, quality of medical care, increase in children mortality, etc. etc.). But you don't care about human lifes, the only thing that matters for you is your rotten green fascitic ideology of hatred against any progress of humanity. YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF QUALITY OF HUMAN LIFE and your insane green concepts for modern society must be buried. The intellgence of you and your fellow green socialists is so terribly low that you are not even able to understand what you are told to increase your level of knowledge and comprehension.

coby, everything you were listing on top: you want to be pessimistic, that's your nature. however, please calm down, it's not getting warmer (unfortunately), sea level is stable, more CO2 is phanstastic for plants and our food (bravo, bravo), oil prices going down is good for the economy. There is a segment of people in our society who WANT to be pessimistic without any realistic basis. You and yours are suffering from a severe mental disease, which can hardly be cured. You do harm to your life with your totally negative opinions about everything you are seeing and hearing.

#2 mandas. Since you asked, references to moms across america and the supposed study on GMO vs non-GMO corn...not exactly filtered through scientific glasses!

No information is 100% accurate unless you've observed it yourself, and then only maybe.

Please Freddy, "CO2 is fantastic for plants"? That shows a complete absence of any kind of critical, scientific thinking.

Check out Liebig's Law sometime.

wow, nonsense, do better or shut up

freddy, yes, nonsense, so shut up.

Gross world product does not necessarily consist of "hard" goods. Obviously, any physical constraint is self limiting and growth will be in other directions.
When you think of finite, think about buggy whips for a moment.
Or maybe, peak oil or peak gas?

Another blinding flash of the obvious.

But are you going to spend a billion on nothing but ephemera?

If it's obvious, can you see it?

What do you think "obvious" means?

wow, you don't even know the difference between theory and hypthesis, as you are totally unfamiliar with scientific thinking and methodology.

well, you've managed to pack a huge amount of wrong there in one short near-sentence.

How do you manage that?

Mandas (#6)
Denying what exactly?

The need for government intervention to take drastic action to address climate change - and in the process to fix the problems that the markets have caused.

I think my difference with that is which specific drastic actions and what they would accomplish.

"Markets" is also rather vague.

So you're clueless about industry and commerce too, PMI?

This isn't a surprise.

Well wow,
(PiM, btw.)
If you'd like to enlighten, I'm all ears.

OK, you admit you're clueless about industry and commerce.

I would suggest a visit to the library since there's so much ground to cover and you've never shown any willingness to learn what's given to you before, so hardly worth the effort if it's going to be all this end, isn't it?


"....I think my difference with that is which specific drastic actions and what they would accomplish...."

That's a fair enough comment, so let's try to address it.

There are essentially two parts to your question/statement, but in order to answer it we should look at the second part first - what would they accomplish? Because really, that is the crux of the issue. It is only when we know what we are trying to achieve that we can work out how to achieve it.

You - or anyone - can argue all you like about whether or not climate change is real, but that argument is well over and every government around the world has accepted the scientific evidence. They have also agreed to limit climate change to less than 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century. So therefore, given that is the agreed position, that gives us our goal - " limit climate change to less than 2 degrees C..."

So now that we have our goal, we have to look at how to achieve it. Now we also know that in order to achieve that goal, we cannot put more than a certain amount more of CO2 into the atmosphere. That figure is around 550 gigtons.

So in order to achieve our goal, we have now determined what broad measures we must undertake in order to achieve it. From this, we can now investigate the specific actions that we need to undertake.

Limiting the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere to 550 gigatons is a big problem, because on our current trajectory we will do that within 15 years or so, and not the 87 years left before the end of the century. That means we must significanly reduce our fossil fuel usage - in the order of 80% or so on average over the rest of this century. And the longer we leave it, the more difficult it will be. That much is obvious - because if we wait 15 years before starting we will have already have burned all the carbon we can and we will have to reduce to zero.

There is zero will-power in the fossil fuel industry to reduce the rate at which they dig up and burn carbon. The coal, gas and oil industries are expanding into new ways of extracting fuels (CSG, fracking, oil sands, Arctic drilling), so they cannot be relied upon to address this problem. Indeed, they ARE the problem.

The only way to solve this is for significant government intervention to take place. We could try a price on carbon to encourage the development of renewables. We could simply not approve any more fossil fuel development. We could eliminate all subsidies to fossil fuel organisations. We could provide substantial government subsidies to renewables and in R&D.

But none of these things will work in isolation - we need an all of the above (and everything else you can think of) approach. Because sure as shit, if we don't start spending money on this problem right now, we are all screwed, and the money we could have spent to 'fix' the problem will be small change compared to the cost of adapting to the changed world.

Hey, great straight forward answer.
Two clarifications, please.
2C from which starting year?
What is the document for this official agreement by all governments?

Yeah, PMI, you're going to be able to get that info from here:

However, you will not.


Please dfon't be obtuse. I made an effort to engage you and answer your questions with a considered response, and I get tthat crap in return.

You're sitting in front of a compluter - google it.

Sorry for the miscue. Your integrity seen here rises above most.
And not my intention to waste your time.

I requested that info from you so that if I took exception it would accurately reflect your position and not one I selected to intentionally demean your position. (I think you call that a straw man, which I do not desire to set up.)


You may take exception to my position on the 2 degree rise all you like - but it would waste your time and effort to do so. As you would know - given your obvious interest in this issue and the fact that you would therefore have read the science of it extensively - that the 2 degree number comes from the UNFCC, or the "Copenhagen Accord". A copy is here:

So that's very clear and well established. Not a lot of room for argument there.

The next 'issue' is the amount of CO2 we can put into the atmosphere and still stay below that agreed target. That is right here:

Once again, not much room for argument there.

So what do we have left? Well, you can argue that the approach I have suggested is wrong etc, but really, that's the only place we can have a sensible discussion on this which does not involve a denial of facts - and that wouldn't be a sensible discussion now would it?

So over to you. How do you think we can achieve the agreed international objective of limiting warming to 2 C or less, given the facts?

mandas, you are as always very poorly informed: the 2 degree reduction target is an arbitrary invention of German climate hysteric Hans Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber is the stupid who lied to the public that himalayan glaciers will have disappeared by 2035.

2 degrees is an "arbitrary" number, but it has a reason.

This, of course, is an anathema to you: reason has no part in your life, does it fredski.

PS since when did a typo which the scientific, not denier, community corrected become "lying"???

What must you think of Spencer, Watts, McIntyre, et al for their vastly more prevalent and obvious lies!

wow, do you really want to support the Himalayan glacier melting lier Schellnhuber? Be ashamed if so.

No, I'll support Schellnhuber. There's no shame in supporting someone who does good research. If you want to claim he lied, you need to show that he lied.

However, I'm puzzled, why are you so against supporting *some* liars but you wholly support a good score or two unrepentant and obvious liars?

And the proof of any one of them being liars is easily found and abundant.

Hey mandas,
Thanks for the response, very thorough. You mentioned a few things I need to review further in order to respond.
Spring finally broke around here and it looks like the last of the snow storms are breaking up so we're backed up a bit on seasonal chores. I will respond asap.

wow, can you reference a few papers from Schellnhuber considered "good" by you?

WTF? Nowhere did you give any proof of him lying.

Now you want proof he's written papers???

wow, are you unable to read? I have not asked you just for papers of Schellnhuber, but for papers of Schellnhuber which you consider "good research" (your phrasing). So please cite one or two of the Schellnhuber articles which exhibit "good research" according to your judgement.

By answering your question this answers your question, doesn't it, fredski.

And you still haven't shown he's a liar.

I guess this is a problem for you, since you're M.O. (if it can be graced with such a term) is claim and never back it up.

It's pretty simple, Freddy, provide a reference to Schellnhuber's "lie" about Himalayan glaciers.

Then we can discuss it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 09 May 2013 #permalink

Craig, you do not know, don't you, that Schellnhuber lied in a German tv report in the ZDF channel which was for years available on youtube and is unavailable now. Everybody knows this except you?

Bad news for Australia? The article referenced by Taylor (…) indicates that in Australia there live the most fanatic climate idiots, even more fanatic than the climate fools in Germany, and that they are disappointed now in down under that Europe's carbon taxes are in the cellar, which is good news for the economy and more food for the climate fool industry.

Still batting for zero, fredski?


"I had proof, then my dog ate it!".


No planetary climate crisis: arctic sea ice extent now within the pack of normal years.

No flooding expected: the ice swims within the water!!

Yeah, and we know you're telling the truth this time, HOW?

PS Tell the geographers that Greenland and the Antarctic are oceans not islands...

@special education for wow: Antarctica is a continent

Ah, proof your comprehension of the written word is abysmal, fredski.

wow, average yearly temperatures on the south pole approx. -45degC, therefore never any ice melting there, never, never: hence no floodings in the next 5000 years. understood?

any alarmisms re sea floodings from climate hypocrites and green-leftist activists like you don't have any basis. stay calm and lead a decent life without climate fraud.

"therefore never any ice melting there"

Well, you're wrong there.

The sun shines, you know.

And that melts ice even if it's a lot colder than freezing.

As with everything else you say, you're just shitting on your own reputation and any clams you make have to be backed up with EXTRA SOLID evidence because you've proven yourself incapable of getting anything right.

wow, minus 40 deg C is below the water freezing point of 0 deg C. it's very sad to have such an idiot on the web.

your primary belief that any warming believer is more intelligent than the climate realist is totally unfounded, you cheat yourself continuously about your standing in life and the hierarchy in society, were are you very low on the ladder.

Yes, that's the definition of "below Zero".

Sunlight will melt ice because visible photons require something above a temperature of 3000C to produce.

That, being above zero, can melt ice.

hahahaha, wow the "physicist" and esoteric specialist: ICE MELTING AT MINUS 40DEG CELSIUS. He is the only anthropoid with such a strange belief. wow, you are a shame even for climate hysterics.

Sunlight will melt ice even if the air temperature is 40C, idiot-boy.

Or do you think that they take the temperature by sticking thermometers in the ice rather than in the air?

Truly you're an endless well of cluelessness.

wow, to add further to your poor knowledge hoping it might slowly increase look at this

at the bottom you will see that NOAA reports on precipitation over land but has no data over sea. what a poor party you are an uncritical believer. no data from 71% of earths surface and you are an unintelligent follower of such low class

Fredski, you've been consistently and inerrantly wrong on every single thing you've claimed.

What the hell makes you think that anyone will believe you, by some miracle of chance, happen to have understood or even just relayed the content of that link correctly here?

Freddy, let's just say you manage to dig out some info on precipitation over the ocean,

- Please explain to us what it is precisely that precipitation over ocean tells you?

And *do* try to address the question properly this time - I notice you failed to provide any evidence when repeating your stupid libel of Schellnhuber following my last question to you.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 May 2013 #permalink

Thomas Craig, in case you wanted to demonstrate a certain amount of intelligence and knowledge you failed completely: one of your links is an old outdated ipcc review without any current data and showing how little the warming fanatics have in their hands, and the other link on the NOAA site is just is funny output of a computer game.

you have convincingly demonstrated your total incompetence, typical for meanstream warming hysterics

And you're wrong again, freddy.


So you can't explain what you need to know about precipitation over the ocean?

I didn't think you could.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 May 2013 #permalink

craig "So you can’t explain what you need to know about precipitation over the ocean?"

your comprehension of what I tried to teach you is inferior

He thinks if he pretends he's done something, that he'll be believed.

Silly little boy.

It's funny how kaitroll here thinks that if he's not saying anything that can be understood, somehow it's everyone else's fault, isn't it.

wow, believe it or not: I am much more intelligent than you.

Nobody believes that, fredski.

Not even you.

I don't believe it either.

Fred's evidence for libelling Schellnhuber? "Something I saw on You-Tube once".

Fred's explanation for mentioning precipitation over the oceans? "Your comprehension is inferior" and "I am much more intelligent than you".

Let's just say my "comprehension is inferior" then Freddy - your challenge is to successfully explain to me, using your vast intelligence, the implications of your observation. Do you think you can manage that?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 May 2013 #permalink


I hesitate to interfere in your discussion, but freddy is a troll and is best ignored.

craig "your challenge is to successfully explain to me"

arrogant idiot

in the hierarchy of society by all measures i am far above you, hence i have nothing "to successfully explain to" you, you bastard

mandastroll, you as an insanely fanatic warming hysteric are on the wrong track in your life and your grandchildren will detest you fo this

fredski: arrogant idiot

Yes, you are.

I mean, how DARE someone demand that you explain yourself! The CHEEK of it!!!! It's as if they wanted PROOF of your claims!!!!!! ARROGANCE!!!!

wow, no! proof of your and your climate church hallucinations is at stake, you arrogant idiot, NOTHING ELSE

Nothing is at stake, here, fredkaitroll. Quite why you had to bring up that here is anyone's guess: you certainly have no idea why you must obey the inscrutable exhortations of your soul.

arrogant idiot

in the hierarchy of society by all measures i am far above you, hence i have nothing “to successfully explain to” you, you bastard

No, I'm sorry "freddy[sic]" - somebody who can't even capitalise correctly is, in the hierarchy of society, lying in the intellectual gutter a very long taxi-ride away from the front doors of Reason and Logic.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 May 2013 #permalink

wow "you certainly have no idea why you must obey the inscrutable exhortations of your soul"

I have never seen such an abnormal idiot like you in my whole life

craig: "who can’t even capitalise correctly"

what a small-minded mental dwarf you are. you mainstream climate activists hope to win your climate ideology battle by arrogance of being stupid will lose, 15 years of no temperature increase.

the problem with you guys is: the only thing you think to have in your hands is some truth in climate matters and being on the right moral side in political matters as ecos and lefties. but you are just mean low liberals with considerable hatred against everybody in society who is better, has more money and is more successful in life than you.

Mandas, I have to disagree with you: a troll is traditionally a clever person who uses wit and a deft grasp of the language to manufacture a factitious argument.

Our "freddy" on the other hand is nothing more than a severely under-educated holder of the kind of uninformed but firmly-held convictions typical of the run-of-the-mill intellectual pygmies the denial movement relies on to spread its mischief.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 May 2013 #permalink


".....In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion....."

I think that is a pretty good definition of freddy.

Well, he's not very good at it, if that's really what he's trying to do.

My money is still on the, "he's just a slack-jawed half-wit".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 May 2013 #permalink

How about we compromise.

You say he is a slack jawed half-wit. I say he is a troll.

How about we go for "a slack-jawed, half-witted troll who is not very good at it"?

craig "Our “freddy” on the other hand is nothing more than a severely under-educated holder of the kind of uninformed but firmly-held convictions typical of the run-of-the-mill intellectual pygmies the denial movement relies on to spread its mischief"

unspeakable bullshit of a person with serious derealization symptoms. the "troll" is he himself. you cannot belief how deeply i detest your utter primitive behavior of mean arrogance of people without any substantial talent: you are small people dissatisfied by life and your miserable role in it.

craig: "he cannot capitalize", hahahahahaha, hahaha, riduculous irrelevant benchmarks of ridiculous irrelevant idiots

Craig, you're being a meanie! Asking for explanations to a statement when that isn't what freedy does, he just accepts the claims of others without thought or skepticism if they agree with his prejudices, so you should do as he does, accept his claims without thinking.

You'll upset him by showing him how to think!

wow, prejudices, suspicions, superstitions, dreams, esoteric nirrwana are the specialties of you agw ill guys. intelligent people laugh about folks like you, craig, mandas and all the other underperformers in the climate church

freddy, find a clue or shut up.

arctic sea ice extent :

The latest value : 12,108,438 km2 (May 15, 2013)

the trend towards colder years also in the arctis is clear! look at the data and learn your lesson of non-existing agw

Arctic sea ice extent on May 15, 2013 was lower than the level on the same day in 2012. Does Freddy remember how that year's lowest extent ended?

Of course not, you need a brain for that. But Lord Monkfish says he has a cure for that. All he needs are ruby slippers.

I was just about to agree to Mandas' compromise, "freddy is a slack-jawed, half-witted troll who is not very good at it" on the proviso he agrees to add "and lacks the intellect to properly capitalise", however, upon reading "freddy"'s recent contribution, wherein he appears to have concluded that the sea-ice extent as at 15 May 2013, well under the long-term average and below the 2012 extent for this date, shows "a trend towards colder years".

I therefore cannot in all conscience agree to anything less than, "freddy is a halfwit who lacks the intellect to properly capitalise".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 May 2013 #permalink

marco, your argument is ALWAYS partizan in favour of your agw church belief and you therefore intentionally and impertinently neglect the fact that the record minimum in september 2012 was only due to a heavy unusual storm (you plain idiots will immediately maintain due to agw) which drove all the ice in one direction. it was ad easy ss that, but that's too complicated for you climate hysterics to understand and admit. your world view is offendingly primitive for a more intelligent person: co2 warms the world, everything else is second, and bad western world consciousness due to air to devil co2 poisoning must be repented and fully paid as a punishment for our sins to the poorer nations. you guys are scoundrels

craig, mandas, if i am half wit bla bla bla bla .... bla, YOU ARE insects

wow, you should not speak about the brain, as you have no knowledge of it. proof: you are not able to explain from memory without looking into anything what the gyrus cinguli is. you low intellgence shouter lack any significant knowledge everywhere

You've hurt his feelings, now, Craig.

Only HE is allowed to call people idiots and uneducated fools, don'tchaknow?

wow "hurt his feelings", hahaha, hahaha, hahaha, hahaha

Freddy, that storm came at a point that the sea ice extent was already at a record low for the date, AND it was a whole 6 weeks before the final minimum was reached.

You just can't handle the truth, and the more the effects of AGW become visible, the more you will start to scream it isn't so.

"Just a flesh wound":

freddy doesn't do truth.

Look at how he changed his name from kai to freddy for example.

Sad little muppet that he is.

wow, apart from primitive, aggressive grumbling the output of your miserable brain is zero.

you don't even know who the gyrus cinguli is, but your mouth is always open to talk bullshit

NOAA: poor information technology level!!

in the monthly report March 2013 on "global temperarures" NOAA admitted:

"Note: GHCN-M Data Notice

An omission in processing a correction algorithm led to some small errors on the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly dataset (GHCN-M v3.2.0). This led to small errors in the reported land surface temperatures in the October, November, December and Annual U.S. and global climate reports. On February 14, 2013, NCDC fixed this error in its software, included an additional improvement (described below), and implemented both changes as GHCN-M version 3.2.1. With this update to GHCN-M, the Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature dataset also is subsequently revised as MLOST version 3.5.3."

who of you warming hysteric guys dares to bet one hundred thousand dollars that this last correction of shit computer computer programming capabilities of simple beginner programs (like similar and countless corrections before of NOAA programs to calculate "global temperatures") AGAIN HAS LED TO HIGHER TEMPERATUR VALUES THAN IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION, just for the sake to "warm up" artificially the world when the world does not obey in reality to the wishes of idiotic warming fanatics.

next agw scandal:

sea level data from jason were successfully manipulated through wishful calibrations towards accelerating sea level rises. jason levels are dramatically and suddeny higher compared with topex/poseidon values only a few years before the launch of jason.

this again is intentional data betrayal of the public by agw warming hysterics


How's your failing case against GISS going? You've become horribly quiet about that since I showed you how easy it was to show you wrong...

Oh, he never does anything, Marco. He's all claim and no trouser. Make a complaint then move on before anyone noticed he's said nothing.

marco, you always mistake yourself, as usual for climate hysterics with a rotten relationship to truth and reality: you have nothing shown were i am wrong, that's one of your many illusions. giss has changed temperature data without communicating this to the public. you should courageous enough to accept and criticize that.

att. climate warming illusionists (wow, macro, mandas):

as you have not understood (knowledge and comprehension deficieny) what i tought you about fraudulent sea level rises, jason is a satellite whose calibration with topex/poseidon (also an altimetry satellite; altimetry is the method to measure sea level) was manipulated (see nerem et al, 1997) to show faked sea level rises. the size of fraudulent manipulation is a faked sea level rise of more than 2mm per year. these fraudulent 2mm are automatically added to the mean calcuated sea level values per year to increase purposefully and intentionally the mean sea level with false data to further increase the state of anxiety of the general public. science is sustainably compromized by the climate deceivers, who dream to be important in a hopeless life.

Freddykaitroll, you are lying again. I showed you where GISS indicated the source of the data had changed. GISS did not change temperature data itself.

But I guess I just hit a sore spot again: your attempts to malign GISS fell on deaf ears here, because there are people who know infinitely more than you do. Must be difficult for someone usually surrounded by yea-sayers.

marco, suspicions, suspicions, that's were you are strong, the only field.

the data fraud by giss will not be negotiated here, you arrogant agw troll.

"... bla bla bla ... people who know infinitely more .. ..bla bla bla ...": again only low dirt of a systematic loser with any knowledge and fine education. you eco-socialists will never be peope of class and grace, but only of jealosy, envy and hatred.

Of course he's lying.

He's doing so because facts are against him, and he's got no time for thinking, it never helps his case.

wow, for once i agree with your judgement of marco:

"Of course he’s lying. He’s doing so because facts are against him, and he’s got no time for thinking, it never helps his case"

well said. applies as well to you and mandas, you trolls

scandal, scandal: sea level calculations by agw alarmistic institutions add 2.1mm per year arbitrarily and deceive so the citizens!!!

incredible data manipulation: sea level calculations by agw alarmistic institutions add 2.1mm per year intentionally and purposefully and deceive so the citizens!!!

Nerem, G.T. et al, admitted in 1997 the following;

"The TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter mission has measured sea level on a global basis over the last 4 years at 10 day intervals. After correcting for a recently discovered error in the measurements, the estimated rate of global mean sea level change over this time period is −0.2 mm/year. Comparisons to tide gauge sea levels measured in spatial and temporal proximity to the satellite measurements suggest there is a residual drift in the satellite measurement system of −2.3±1.2 mm/year, the origin of which is presently unknown. Application of this rate correction yields a “calibrated” estimate of +2.1±1.3 mm/year for the rate of sea level rise, which agrees statistically with tide gauge observations of sea level change over the last 50 years. Since the contribution of interannual and decadal mean sea level variations cannot presently be isolated, a longer time series is required before long-term climate change signals can be detected. In addition, an improved understanding of the T/P measurement system performance with time is needed"

Nerem et al. added more than 2mm to the Topex/Poseidon data because their expectational fury was stronger than new satellite data. consequently satellite data were yearly up-regulated by more than 2mm. This 2mm factor should be called the Nerem Factor. Maybe he was in 1997 already under pressure from Al Gore to "show convincing evidence" of sea level rise, as there was NO sea sevel rise from satellite data.

As most reality-blind CAGW hysterics like wow, marco, mandas etc. exhibit severe information deficits, it appears necessary to provide further basic infirmation to enable more appropriate judgement of global sea level data from the literature.

pj watson (2011):

"The full range of lunar influences on tides at a given location occurs over a nodal cycle of approximately 18.6 years, during which time the Moon's declination varies between approximately 18.3° and 28.6°. Throughout this cycle the moon is known to induce a small amplitude harmonic influence on the position of mean sea level at a fixed location. The nodal cycle influence is a maximum around the poles with zero influence on the equilibrium nodal tide occurring at latitudes of around 35°N and 35°S (Pugh, 1987)"

i am not sure but i thoroughly hope that CAGW hysterics understand, at least to a certain extent, what watson tried to explain.

Nice work, "freddy", you've managed to exhibit a few examples of correct capitalisation.

Now, if you could just extend that effort to cover all your paragraphs, we can move you on to the next topic in our sequence of 2nd-Grade remedial English lessons.

I must caution you, however, not to get too far ahead of yourself by attempting to read any adult-level texts, as they are bound to confuse you.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 20 May 2013 #permalink

craig, NO objective reader here (i hope there are a few) will take your arrogant and snobbyish text pieces serious, for sure, you are just childish and your arrogance hits only you but nobody else. the problem with you warming guys is that your warming stance is so poor and it's so easy to counter you. this makes you mad, angry and full of hatred.

ps: capitalisation? hahaha, huhuhuhu, hahaha, you don't have other problems? you don't like to face the repeated data fraud with sea level determinations? really not? is a ridiculous web site:

when you read information ( on one of the authors, stefan rahmstorf the furious warming hysteric from germany, and click on the link on the bottom "PORTRAIT IN VANITY FAIR" you will see only NAKED GIRLS AS PORTRAIT OF STEFAN RAHMSTORF, a typical example of a serious "CLIMATE SCIENTIST"

climate science and naked girls fit well together, nice fitting work

michael mann's conspiration theory:

"In The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Michael Mann presents his conviction that climate change is real and potentially deadly, and defends his now famous "Hockey Stick Graph." A truly readable book on a topic that will remain evergreen."
(James Lovelock, author of A New Look at Life on Earth and The Revenge of Gaia )

"The ongoing assault on climate science in the United States has never been more aggressive, more blatant, or more widely publicized than in the case of the Hockey Stick graph -- a clear and compelling visual presentation of scientific data, put together by MichaelE. Mann and his colleagues, demonstrating that global temperatures have risen in conjunction with the increase in industrialization and the use of fossil fuels. Here was an easy-to-understand graph that, in a glance, posed a threat to major corporate energy interests and those who do their political bidding. The stakes were simply too high to ignore the Hockey Stick -- and so began a relentless attack on a body of science and on the investigators whose work formed its scientific basis......"

i formally declare here in front of the public that i never have taken one or more dollars from the oil industry to blame the cagw hysterics of misleading faked warming climate delusions to deceive the decent citizen.

"I must caution you, however, not to get too far ahead of yourself by attempting to read any adult-level texts, as they are bound to confuse you."

Hell, that caution confused him. It had words, sentence structure and a point. Things he's had absolutely no personal experience with...

wow, you hopefully feel better now after you deposited your typical nasty bullshit without any connection to the posts. but that's perfectly clear as you have zero knowledge about sea level measuring, temperature measurements etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

@climate hysterics: the basis of your pagan climate warming faith erodes dramatically as a new study down-estimates climate sensitivity of co2.

the study:

Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens & Myles R. Allen

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836
Published online 19 May 2013

The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…"


wow, craig, mandas, marco etc. etc. etc. will certainly shut up for some time to digest this and recover from hard-felt disappointment!

Yes, Otto et al agree with all previous sensitivity studies:
CO2 is increasing as a result of human activity and that increase is driving warming.

Not only that, but Otto et al also agree that climate sensitivity is roughly what the IPCC has been telling us it is.

So, not a whole lot to digest really.

I'm going to take a couple of wild stabs here:
- "freddy" didn't actually read Otto et al,
- "freddy" has little or no idea what it contains,

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 May 2013 #permalink

Notice "freddy"'s use of religious-style language, though.

Like the rest of his ill-educated and science-fearing ilk, "freddy" is obsessed with religion.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 May 2013 #permalink

Oh fredski is a proper redneck religious fundamentalist, as nuts as any suicide bombing fatwa-loving idiot he pretends he is nothing like.

And far more dangerous because he's trying with the rest of the religious maniacs to make a theocracy out of a nuclear power.

Armageddon out of here.

craig and wow, you always miss the topic and are far out of any reality, re the future of the climate or anything else

there is now temperature increase in many years despite rising co2 levels and you are so nauseatingly desperate: hahaha, hahaha, hahaha

wrong craigtroll: YOU ARE WRONG

"Otto et al agree with all previous sensitivity studies": WRONG

"CO2 is increasing as a result of human activity and that increase is driving warming": TOTALLY WRONG, VODOO "SCIENCE"

"...climate sensitivity is roughly what the IPCC has been telling us it is.": WRONG

"So, not a whole lot to digest really.": WRONG

In essence: the IPCC warming climate illusion world breaks away and the rats start to leave the ship

Glaciers melting world-wide: in freddy-world this is an illusion.

Arctic ice melting: in freddy-world this is an illusion.

Antarctic peninsula sea ice virtually disappeared: in freddy-world this is an illusion.

Here in the real world, Otto et al and all sensitivity studies that preceded it all agree that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 and that a doubling CO2 will cause between 1 and 4 degrees of warming.
All the science agrees that this is the case.
Internet troll and certified halfwit, "freddy" (who can't even capitalise correctly) disagrees.

Whose opinion shall we be sceptical of?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 May 2013 #permalink

craig troll, your outbursts on ice melting are meaningless and useless, IT'S TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, STUPID, not your private phantasies and ideologies about small glacier melting of a little bit of ice on some mountains: that's not science, that's anecdotal entertainment, nothing serious, something for babies and extremely old grand parents like you.

Well, Craig, reality doesn't conform to fredski's demands, so he resides in his own imagination because there he's always right and everything happens as he wants them.

If he has had any contact with the facts (eg, the fact that the vast majority of the world's glaciers are now in a recent and unprecedented retreat) he's either too stupid to take them on-board, or he has a mental illness that prevents him from learning.

I'm plumping for the learning disability idea, myself, judging by his inability to display the basic literacy skills you would expect of an 8-year-old.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 May 2013 #permalink

wow, craig, and you two are really convinced that your latest "contribution" showd a tiny bit of your very small intelligence?

read your junk again and try better next time

Nah, facts never done nothing for fredski, Craig.

So he ignores them every chance he gets.

wow, no again wrong: facts are never relevant for you wowtroll

I've been engaging with some idiots like "freddy" on a different blog - they are truly stupid individuals who have enormous trouble grasping the basics of rational analysis. Their inability to understand science and the scientific process appears to be down to,
a. A lack of education
but, more fundamentally,
b. A huge handicap on their imaginative powers.

They look around them and they do not even begin to comprehend that,
a. They can't see *everything*
b. Things change, have changed, and will change.

So, they reject science because it is mysterious to them - they can't envisage the explanation for the things around us being deeper and more complex that their puny minds can integrate, so they stick with simple, facile answers for everything.

Reminds me of my favourite T-Shirt ever:…

I still haven't got one. I've wanted one for years.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 27 May 2013 #permalink

freddie doesn't even manage answers, only replies. Replies don't need to make sense, whereas an answer could be right or wrong, and that's not a good place for him, the poor child.

craigtroll, i have never read greater bullshit and idiocy than your last post. be ashamed you idiotic warming troll without ANY knowledge regarding science. you warming guys struggle with everything

Incredibly high arctic sea ice extent:

The latest value : 11,785,156 km2 (May 27, 2013)

Much more than last year or preceding years: who of you poor warmist cowards dares to bet 100'000 US$ on a new record low arctic sea ice extent this summer? wow the blatherskite or craig the ignorant, or mandas the wildlife park employee without money? what a low ranking powerless adversary class

***** breaking news ****** breaking news ******** breaking news


***** breaking news ****** breaking news ******** breaking news


well, finally a breather here, thanks for your patience.

regarding Copenhagen and -
"every government around the world has accepted the scientific evidence. They have also agreed to limit climate change to less than 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century."

well, ok, although the US had someone sign it, it hasn't been ratified here. (A quick look suggests the same is occurring elsewhere. Didn't Canada drop out?)

The remainder of your #38 post is IPCC conjecture.
At this point, the empirical evidence can't support a definable warming due to CO2.

The point is one can't limit the rise to 2C or less, because one doesn't know how much of the observed response is caused by CO2.

With the warming since 1860, how much is CO2 driven?
With approaching 20 years of CO2 climbing and no warming, what is there to reduce?
Most understand that CO2 warming is logarithmic, but scary models suggest otherwise. These current predictions require positive feedback of fairly large magnitude to become true.

Being told time and time again that the "end is near" and "it's worse than we thought" only to see it fail to come to pass certainly limits the credibility of the IPCC.

Every advocate who gets airtime can't seem to hold back on the "warming world" when most know there hasn't been any warming in almost two decades. Frankly, they look like imbeciles by ignoring the stagnation.

One could continue here, but, bottom line, the story just isn't holding up under test. In the real world, this is called failure.

You blame the problem on the fossil fuel industry, but frankly the public see's no problem and continues to source energy as they would anything else, price, quality and delivery.

As for "drastic government action", at least in the US, the government governs by the consent of the governed, and the demand for action hasn't been high on the priority list.

Like I said, in a hundred years, CO2 will be a distant memory. (This is a complex issue, maybe by then we'll know how it really happens?)

PaulinMI once again shows his true colours:

With approaching 20 years of CO2 climbing and no warming

Only a dishonest and uneducated denier would post such nonsense. Where do you get that rubbish? Certainly not from the peer reviewed scientific literature or from scientists working in the filed.

Here is how temperatures have actually responded during the past 20 years:

Rates of temperature increase vary from 0.14 C per decade (HadCrut 3) to 0.17 C per decade (GISS).

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 29 May 2013 #permalink

Being told time and time again that the “end is near” and “it’s worse than we thought” only to see it fail to come to pass certainly limits the credibility of the IPCC.

...except the IPCC has never said any such thing. So, you buttress your argument with made-up rubbish. Like all the other idiot deniers.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 29 May 2013 #permalink

ian and craig, you don't look good with your outbursts of shit: "rubbish, deniers, idiot, bla bla bla

you warmist hysterics are really true idiots : you are even unable to read a thermometer and don't know what 'warm' or 'cold' means, what every normal citizen can, but you not. your mouth is always wide open but your knowledge a big shame.

read the noaa global temperature reports as a start for your education program that the global temperature did not increase since nearly two decades, you idiots

you should obey your church superiors ( hansen, schellnhuber etc ) which concede to the public that warming pauses at the moment

"…except the IPCC has never said any such thing."

Of course not. Like I said, all deniers don't bother with reality or truth since neither have ever helped their case. They both obviously have a liberal bias.

Nope, 20 years without warming (even if it happens) is not saying that the IPCC predictions are wrong.

You have to show that the current trend precludes the IPCC stated trend, and even then you're going to be able to say that "to 95% probability" therefore have to admit there's a chance that you've just been fooled by the data.

wow and ipcc: " ... bla bla bls ... maybe ... could be ... there is a chance .... 95% probability .... bla bla bla ... bla bla bla ...." THAT IPCC AND YOU WARMING CHURCH ADHERENTS ARE WRONG, the probability for this is indeed high, AND YOU WILL NEVER SURRENDER TO THE TRUTH BECAUSE YOU ARE A STUBBORN IDIOT WITHOUT ANY LEARNING CAPABILITIES, BECAUSE YOUR IS FROZEN IN INSANE ECO-COMMUNIST IDIEOLOGIES

wow, craig, mandas and all other warming hysterics: why are you unable to understand that the global temperature has not increaseed in the last 15 years?

answer and excuse required!

Next learning unit for marco, mandas, craig, wowtroll and other warming obsessionsists:

arctic sea ice extent on may, 28:

2003: 11745000
2004: 11406875
2005: 11510156
2006: 11199844
2007: 11450469
2008: 11539844
2009: 11628438
2010: 11211719
2011: 11245156
2012: 11609219
2013: 11797031

explanation for warming hysterics: 2013 is THE record year of maximum arctic sea ice extent since the start of the current satellite observation period.

i know you hate this truth but you deserve your bad feeling

"freddy" is full of shit. "Quelle surprise", I hear you say.

Arctic sea ice extent right now is well below the average extent for the period of satellite observation.

Unlike "freddy", I do not need to present little snippets of cherry-picked information to make my point.

Additionally, as we all know, sea ice *volume* is even more interesting than extent:

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 30 May 2013 #permalink

How would you stop the death spiral?

What does a logarithm look like in a linear world view?

PaulinMI, are you taking anything for that bad case of verbal diarrhea you seem to be suffering from? Please be more careful and don't spread it onto your computer since it may infect others.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 30 May 2013 #permalink

craigtroll always relies on cherry picking, as he adores data from primitive old satellites which fit his dreams: smmr and ssm/i, whereas true scientific characters only rely only on really comparable data from modern satellite sensors of amsr-e and windsat, what i do.

warming hysterics like craigtroll always try to deceive the public with tailored data from the past which are presented as if they were comparable to data with current equipment. this is rudiculous data fraud committed by conspirational warming obsessionsists.

craigtroll, if you were an honest person, you would publicly admit here that you are eco-leftist activists ( i.e. you like green peace, wwf, you prefer obama to bush, you want to punish western economies for past co2 sins and force repentful money transfers to poor nations as excuse for work done and hated general wellfare in western countries, you would vote democratic and not honest republican in the us, or labour and not tory ih the uk)

you are a plain socialist and are full of anger and envy others their better position in life than yours

It's amusing to see a deluded halfwit accusing others of the faults he himself suffers from.

It is evident that "freddy" is full of anger and envy towards those who are cleverer and better educated than he is.

Presumably his mother still turfs him out of their caravan most evenings in order to entertain one of "freddy"'s many "uncles", as she has done ever since he was a small boy, these living conditions being the direct cause of his inability to acquire an education and his ensuing joblessness barring the brief stint he spent working behind the counter at McDonald's for $2.50/hour. In a way reminiscent of the Stockholm Syndrome, his pent-up frustration and resentment at being an irredeemable loser causes him to rally to the standard of similarly ignorant right-wing politicians who know too little to say anything that makes sense but blame every one of their problems with reality on some sort of bogeymen they like to call "socialists", even thought they can't even define their political opponents' ideologies, let alone successfully explain what a "socialist" is.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 30 May 2013 #permalink

craigtroll, thank you for your testmony of you being a boring rat socialist. the rest of your text fragments is pure asshole bullshit of a chronic loser

"It’s amusing to see a deluded halfwit accusing others of the faults he himself suffers from."

freddy was doing that all the way back he was calling himself kai.

It's the only way the moron can feel good about himself.

Craig, freddy thinks that if he can spread butter around his bread further, he's created yet more butter.

It's his only "magic" trick.

wow: " ... spread butter ... bread further ... more butter ..."

did your psychotherapist really consider you mentally accountable today and allow you access to the internet?

***** BREAKING NEWS ******* BREAKING NEWS **********

New 10-year record of arctic sea ice extent for May 29:

2003: 11710000
2004: 11398125
2005: 11454688
2006: 11163438
2007: 11427500
2008: 11544219
2009: 11598750
2010: 11190156
2011: 11212344
2012: 11595625
2013: 11801094

What a disappointment for agw hysterics and for me. I had hoped the ice would soon disappear! and now this! quelle horreur

maybe you could define your version of "approach", eh?

PaulinMI, stop being so arrogant and stupid. You are the one who used "approaching". If you don't know what it means, don't use such big words. Stick with "a", "is", "the" etc.

I just get irritated and annoyed with such dishonest people like you and your fellow deniers.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 30 May 2013 #permalink

No, Ian, Paul is saying he REALLY IS too stupid to know what you mean. Conversation is one huge opaque mist to him. Which is why he latches on to a conclusion and NEVER lets go, no matter how much he's talked to or shown stuff. He's scared of losing himself in the morass of "conversation" that completely confuses him.

Notice how Paul.T.Retard has come up with a "complaint" whose genesis is completely missing from this entire thread.

PTR asks a meaningless question "What does a logarithmic spiral look like", you tell him to stop being an arsehole, he responds with a meaningless query "What do you call an approach?".

The questions have no connection to the thread because he's just too damn thick to understand, doesn't WANT to understand but DOES want to waste everyone's time trying to counter all the thousands of questions that they *might* be asking because the one they've ACTUALLY asked is complete nonsense and you don't expect someone to spout such deliberate and utter nonsensical crap and are searching for some possibility of sanity for him.

Problem is: there's no sanity in his posts whatsoever.

ahh, Ian,
what is being denied?
and, then, who is denying?

(perhaps,even Wow may figure it out?)

PaulinMI can you please use proper English syntax so we can understand what you are saying? Babbling like a baby only reconfirms our viewson dishonest AGW deniers like you.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 31 May 2013 #permalink

What is your first language and main cultural association?

Review your #170
Tell us what is wrong with your statement.
And, clue - it's related to your wft reference at #128.

craigtroll, you are a simple and look only at data that please you, regardless how corrupt and totally meaningless they are. you were given information of how to avoid traps in which you regularly fall to deceive youself with corrupt data which confirm your rotten warming bias.

i give you a next chance to show improvement: look at this graph

that's the only relevant, as it shows comparable data by a trustworthy site, not just your primitively lobbyingsick skeptical-science shit from hysterically driven pseudo-scientists who pretend to suffer from divine inspirations by asking badly-programmed computer oracles about future weather phenomena, thereby completely ignoring what the ipcc mercifully admtted: the climate cannot be predicted, we don't understand clouds, etc. etc.

craigtroll, you are a low-level follower of a political doctrine which is a terrible danger to your mental health. you already exhibit some serious symptoms of certain disintegrations.

PaulinMI insults and brings up racism:

What is your first language and main cultural association?

WTF does my fist language and cultural association have to do with me showing how ignorant and arrogant and dishonest you are in your AGW denier tactics? You are a real piece of flotsam if that is all you can respond with.

Good grief you are a complete idiot:

And, clue – it’s related to your wft reference at #128.

I did not make any comment at #128. No wonder you can't understand climate science when you have so many problems with understanding simple English syntax and cannot even read properly.

Your use of the term "approaching" is so that you can move the goal posts even before anyone has criticized you for cherry picking. As a scientist I do not use the term "approaching 20 years", I would say "19 years and 9 months" (or 19.75 years). In case you haven't noticed science is a very precise discipline. Your language is just sloppy, but intentionally so. You are a pathetic and despicable AGW denier, have you no shame?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 31 May 2013 #permalink

iantroll, why are you so angry that you speak only english, nothing else, and that your english is by no standards brilliant or impressive?

"freddy", on the same site as the one you linked to, here is a link to a graph that includes additional data showing that this year's current ice extent remains anomalously low, just like the rest of the recent decade:

And this link shows the same thing, revealing that this year's current ice extent is far, far lower than the average for this time of year:

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 May 2013 #permalink

"As a scientist I do not use the term “approaching 20 years”"

It also says NOTHING.

It was warmer in 2010 than any year on record. Yet that doesn't count as warming to deniers, because they deny simple mathematics.

And the trend over the last 19 years or whatever doesn't preclude the IPCC reported trend, therefore any claim on what the trend is over that period has no bearing on whether the IPCC report is verified or falsified.

But, like I said, Craig, deniers deny even mathematics when it doesn't suit their political masters.

"what is being denied?"

The evidence for AGW.

"and, then, who is denying?"

You denier idiots.

See, I could figure it out. The questions were so simple, only a simpleton would be unable to answer them themselves, and Craig had higher hopes for you than "complete thundering moron".

But I know that you're no smarter than that.

#148, my apologies.

Ahh, race card, the last refuge of the defeated.
It wouldn't be something as simple as making sure our backgrounds are compatible to understand context would it?
And how do you know I am not of one of the protected classes who can not be racists?

Perhaps you may try again? What is being denied?

Uhh, wow.
No one is denying evidence of AGW.

Or denying 2010 was a hot or hottest year depending on the data set one uses.


Just asking, what is your perspective on the difference between race and culture?

"No one is denying evidence of AGW."


You and freedie are.

agw does indeed exist, but it's reasons are (in order of importance and magnitude)

1) deforestation since thousands of years

2) urban construction (metropolitan areas becoming larger and larger

3) urban heat island effects (house warming, airports, etc)

that's it essentially. carbon dioxide however plays a non-significant role regarding air temperatures, whereas clouds and water vapor are extremely more important than carbon dioxide.

everybody knows this except warming hysterics who suffer from information deficits and strange ideological brain barriers.

"1) deforestation since thousands of years"

How does that happen, then?

"2) urban construction (metropolitan areas becoming larger and larger"

How does that happen, then?

"3) urban heat island effects (house warming, airports, etc)"

How does that happen? (Given you haven't double-counted the same thing twice, hmm>?(

Everybody knows you're talking gobshite, freedy.

And by "how does that happen", I mean "how does that make AGW as you "recognise" it?"

if you are making accusations of denial, please be specific.
You may want to refresh at #147 to make sure you are referring to something actually stated as denying, vs, uhh, imagined.

Be specific?

Well your opening comment would be one.

Denial of the evidence that the past X years doesn't prove AGW is not happening or that CO2 has little to no effect on the climate.

please define where I stated "little to no effect" or "AGW is not happening".

please define where I stated you steadet "little to no effect" or "AGW is not happening".

********** BREAKING NEWS ************ BREAKING NEWS ************

New 12-year record of arctic sea ice extent (may 2013):

2002: -9999
2003: 11688906
2004: 11383438
2005: 11417500
2006: 11123125
2007: 11367969
2008: 11509219
2009: 11549844
2010: 11160781
2011: 11177813
2012: 11553281
2013: 11769844

explanation: in 2013 arctic sea ice extent reached a new maximum on the day may 30. this tendency for new huge arctic sea ice extent is in strong agreement with similar records for the preceding days and further suggests the onset of a new cooling trend in the arctic region.

Oooohhh, _freeedyyyy_ you made all those claims and don't know why they are supposed to be causing warming!

Looks like you failed again!

at #195, by Wow

Denial of the evidence that the past X years doesn’t prove -
"AGW is not happening"
or that
"CO2 has little to no effect"
on the climate.

cagw illusionists like wowtroll, mandastroll, marcotroll, iantroll and all the other warming trolls here should carefully digest the following intelligent text from forbes:

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and... none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January

you guys warming hysterics without basement knwo what the met office is, hein? it's a superior authority of your warming delusion church and you must obey to the statements of your superiors.

if you continue to neglect the truth which met office has conceded now, i will report your disobedience to your bosses that you get your orders to comply with the encyclicals of your church

paul, it's extremely easy to counter any warmist arguments with simple reference to the temperature records, since their are no temperature records from far over 99.99% of the earths surface, hence there is NO "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE".

all the moron bollocks about a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" has no reference to a scientifically acceptable methodology.


incredible: you will not even find an article in wikinastia with a title "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE", and there is NO DEFINITION of a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in wikinastia, and even much worse in NO IPCC REPORT.


the warming deficients of the agw church are completely unable what their holy "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is, this clearly shows what a rotten "scientific community" the cagw fraudulents are. their only intention is to gain political power, by all means, and to transform the society according to their climate and other green-socialist ideologies of a poor world for all

Yes, Paul, that's what I said.

Your point? Just beyond your grasp, it appears.

Show where I said you stated “little to no effect” or “AGW is not happening”.

Well wow,
Then it appears we agree.
My apologies for misunderstanding.

Obviously the climate is much more complex than the "scientists" are willing to admit. Which makes it quite difficult to to determine what needs to be solved or to formulate real solutions.

There is a world to convince, and so far, no one is buying.

What are we agreeing on?

That your asinine demand #194 was complete moaning-minnie bullshit?

When was that ever in contention?

But it does appear that we DO agree that you are denying the basic evidence for AGW in your posts 147, 44, 37, 5 and 1.

Obviously Pauline doesn't know what the scientists know, but presumes to do so because he doesn't like the conclusions.

Typical moron.

Freedy, if there's no such thing as global temperature. then why have you been claiming that it's cooling?

How can pauline claim that there's been no change in global temperature for the past X years if there's no such thing?

Incoherent ravings of the lunatic fringe's lunatics is the only explanation for yours and pauline's "efforts" here.

I still ask, what basic evidence is being denied?


your answer was as always complete bullshit, pure nonsense.

your task is to quote a source with a generally accepted definiton of the "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"

if you don't know one or can't find one, than just admit this or shut up, you idiot

Already answered, Pauline.

freedy, if you know of no such definition, why are you making claims about it?

It is not obvious to me why you . . .

wowtroll, because IT IS a scandal that "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is nowhere reliably defined.

are you intelligent enough to understand why this is a scientific scandal?'ve found a science paper that uses a term that has an assumed meaning, or is not defined?

I assume that's what you're on about, "freddy", so why don't you write to the journal's editor and get your comment published?

Alternatively, if you are simply full of shit, keep bleating your inanities here.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Jun 2013 #permalink

craigtroll, wowtroll: so you hear from me for the first time in your life about "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" and ask me were i have found such a strange term? hahaha

can it really be that idiotic climate church pupils like you have never heard talking somebody about "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"???

It is not obvious to me why you

Yes, you deny you deny. You deny evidence, deny maths, deny stats and deny anything that gets in the way of your ideology, pauline.

VERY simple example: you deny the evidence of the last 150+ years of global temperature trends.

so you hear from me for the first time in your life about “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”

Nope, freedy, I've heard about it long ago.

I know how it's calculated and I know the meaning of global temperature.

However, YOU do not. Neither does Pauline.

Yet this has not stopped you or them from claiming that it's cooling or flat.

You've yet to explain how you manage to make claims about GLOBAL TEMPERATURE when you don't know what it means.

For the record, I am in agreement with the last 150 years temperature record and the relevance of 1860.

wow: "I know how it’s calculated and I know the meaning of global temperature"

would you mind to graciously inform the public of

a) what the "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is

b) how the "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is calculated

c) from where you have your secrect wisdom (references please)

thank you!

a quick search by a non-expert found this,

. . . there are several different techniques for coming up with a global average, depending on how one accounts for temperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions.

Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

NOAA National Climatic Data Center

UK Met Office Hadley Centre…

Freedy, only AFTER you've answered mine. I asked the question first, after all.

Since YOU claim there is no such thing, how have you managed to make several claims about global temperature?

So, Pauline, you reject your comment #147.

odd conclusion,
which part pertains to or conflicts with
"I am in agreement with the last 150 years temperature record and the relevance of 1860."

The statement you made in #147 conflicts with that newer statement.

You can pop back up and read it if you can't remember.

I did re re-read.
i assumed you felt there was a conflict (which I don't see).

If you don't care to continue, just advise.


Yes, well if you're going to say "I don't see" when you're nose is pointed right at it, then that itself is evidence of what you're in denial of.

Well done.

hahahaha, the "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE", the basis of all warming arguments since 30 years, is not reliably defined, haha haha haha haha haha haha haha

this is the final proof that all warming scoundrels (wow, etc.) are plain idiots intentionally cheating decent citizens

Yep, idiots with PhDs who've published thousands of papers that explain exactly how and why global warming is occurring are no match for "freddy", who can't even figure out how to punctuate his sentences correctly.

Intellect envy.
They *know* they are stupid, and they resent us for it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 04 Jun 2013 #permalink

So despite believing there is no such thing as GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, freedy has claimed many things about the global temperature.

Yet doesn't know how he can justify it.

Hell, even Pauline found several definitions of it, but freedy doesn't read too good if it doesn't support his broken ideology.

wow is not able to confirm that there is no generally accepted definition if "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"

freedy, how come you've made so many claims about something you've had absolutely no idea how it was defined?

it's interesting to watch how climate hysterics resist to admit that they don't know what "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" is!

is really nobody out there in the climate alarmism church who dares to try a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"???

I don't refuse to say.

I refuse to let you derail the conversation.

How come you’ve made so many claims about something you’ve had absolutely no idea how it was defined?

You flail around and refuse to answer this question.

If you want to know what GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is, answer that question first.

As I've pointed out in the other thread, "freddy", the IPCC knows what a "global temperature" is, as do myself and Wow, and anybody else with enough brains to actually do a bit of research into topics we may choose to discuss with others.

You, on the other hand, with your woefully inadequate intellect and severely limited access to knowledge, have made all sorts of assertions about "global temperature", AND have admitted you don't even know what it is.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Jun 2013 #permalink