The Great Global Warming Swindle

[otoc]

I see. You are correct that the IPCC was named before Global Warmers overwhelmed it and it's mission is to assess scientific information relevant to:

1.Human-induced climate change,
2.The impacts of human-induced climate change,
3.Options for adaptation and mitigation.

You may be in denial of the possibility that agenda bent scientists would consider discounting global warming, but their charge is prove and draw attention to humans being GUILTY of brainlessly modifying climate. So let me ask you a few questions:

- Have you ever been to China?
- Do you think that people should be taxed, fined and punished for CO2 emissions?

Yes or no, please.

And actually, the clock is ticking on Al Gore's prophesy, but other global warmers have predicted as early as 2011. My point is that time is running out on this ••••••••.

hmm, Al Gore, a politician who is not a climate scientist is now the topic in spite of what I posted regarding the arctic cap?

News for al gore predictions






Uproxx



Al Sharpton standing in for Al Gore on convenient global warming lies

Canada Free Press ‎- 2 days ago

With multi-millionaire Al Gore in state-secret, Polar Vortex hiding, ... of the “gloom and doom” predictions made by the global warming theorists ...





Nature proves Al Gore wrong again | Watts Up With That?



wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/‎





Dec 16, 2013 - Gore's "ice free Arctic" prediction from five years ago, falsified by nature itself The great bloviator has been pwned again, by the actions of ...


FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY… Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will ...



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../...ed-t...‎




Dec 13, 2013 - Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008.


Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In ...



cnsnews.com › News‎




Sep 13, 2013 - (CNSNews.com) – A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore ...


Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%



www.thenewamerican.com › Sci/Tech › Environment‎




Dec 18, 2013 - Although "global warming” guru Al Gore warned the North Pole would ... Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by ...


Another Al Gore prediction bites the dust



http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/another-a...e-dust/‎





Rating: 5 - ‎10 votesDec 13, 2013 - (GatewayPundit) Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German ...


Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013" - Truthout



http://www.truth-out.org/.../18941-a...on-2013‎




Oct 4, 2013 - While climate change deniers misrepresent what Al Gore said about arctic ice, reality in the arctic outpaces the most pessimistic predictions.


Five years ago - Al Gore predicted the North Pole could be ice-free ...



iceagenow.info/2013/.../years-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-ice-free-5-ye...‎




Dec 16, 2013 - Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap could lose virtually all of its ice within just a ...


EDITORIAL: Al Gore, soothsayer - Washington Times






http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...hsayer/‎





by Andrew P. Napolitano - in 4,012 Google+ circlesDec 16, 2013 - Five years ago, Al Gore predicted the North Pole's ice cap would become a fond memory, a casualty of the raging inferno of global warming.



NARRATIVEFAIL: Five Years Ago Today: Al Gore Predicted the ...



pjmedia.com/instapundit/180930/‎




Dec 14, 2013 - #NARRATIVEFAIL: Five Years Ago Today: Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years. “Today Cairo had its first snowfall in ...


EXACTLY FIVE YEARS AGO: Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will ...



clashdaily.com/.../exactly-five-years-ago-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-w...‎




Dec 16, 2013 - FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY— Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to ...

Amazing. But I don't pay much attention to Gore any more than I pay attention to the Heartland sponsored talking heads on the other side of the equation. I read the stuff, but I read more and pay more attention to the myriad of papers that point to the issue of climate change. At least we can move away from the conspiracy of what it is called in various OpEds.

Not that I expect any movement on your part regarding the blanket one-sided question of motivation by scientists in spite of published Exxon memos or Heartland funding sources. Fine. The conspiracy is all with the scientists who fall into one group and apparently not with those having an opinion like yours.

There's the science, the one that addresses each and every point kbohip made earlier. And there's the fact that even though there is a true consensus that CO2 has contributed to the well documented global temp increases, there is currently a range of conclusion sets based on that data. That's the trouble with an acknowledged new science that attempts to take into account things like methane, clouds, sun, solar, wobble, oceans and forests.

I purposely ignored your position that I "may be in denial of the possibility that agenda bent scientists would consider discounting global warming" because agenda bent "scientists" do discount climate change. Not with the probability matrixes of "highly possible, possible, probable", but with charlatan labels of "hoax, lies, and sham". lol, I guess I didn't ignore it after all.

So to answer a question you didn't ask, I don't hold anything Gore states as anything to do with science.

The questions you ask: no, cap and trade is one example, and it's one of many things needed in a capitalistic society where energy companies are doing little in R&D to replace carbon based fuels in their models. I'd personally like to see the tax credits given to energy companies ended and funneled into an alternative energy fund. We all know about their record profits during recent years.

Time for another vid...
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...global-warming

I don't expect to sway your continual conspiracies on any topic. I simply don't accept them.

[tucker]

[Skennar]

hmm, Al Gore, a politician who is not a climate scientist is now the topic in spite of what I posted regarding the arctic cap?
....
Amazing. But I don't pay much attention to Gore any more....

Yeah, I got it. You you don’t care for the man but still buy his jive.

Not that I expect any movement on your part regarding the blanket one-sided question of motivation by scientists in spite of published Exxon memos or Heartland funding sources. Fine. The conspiracy is all with the scientists who fall into one group and apparently not with those having an opinion like yours.

Hmmm. You believe this is about something besides science and its funding? You'd be right.

But it DOES amaze me what the temptation of "funding" does- to almost anybody.

The IPCC is also funded largely by revenue starving governments with staggering debts while trying to further expand policies. Then there are also more punk-run countries in the UN looking at the "aid" they might receive. Memos? There're everywhere, baby. Like this e-mail thing. Sorry, I'm seeing a lot of different faces and names in the same suits- but no glows holier-than-Exxon here.

Did you know that interest on the US national debt in one year can buy Exxon? And interest is bank profit.
You can kick in Shell and more with what they had to borrow from banks this year.
The principle on that debt will buy you the entire fukking industry and then some.
Exxons’ profits? Are you kidding me? It buys something, but it’s chump change and not the last word in American policy.
My "continual conspiracy" is about the Debt-of-the-Borg [-oops-] Banks. Your "continual conspiracy" is like a teenager smoking in the bathroom compared to an armed robbery with murder.
But of course, this isn’t a plausible suspicion. Especially because it's you that don’t accept any of it.

Even more amazing to me is what funding loss can do- to just about anybody. Including governments.

I purposely ignored your position that I "may be in denial of the possibility that agenda bent scientists would consider discounting global warming" because agenda bent "scientists" do discount climate change. Not with the probability matrixes of "highly possible, possible, probable", but with charlatan labels of "hoax, lies, and sham". lol, I guess I didn't ignore it after all.

I also purposely ignored your issues with others. At least you added the "may". lol

The questions you ask: no, cap and trade is one example, and it's one of many things needed in a capitalistic society where energy companies are doing little in R&D to replace carbon based fuels in their models. I'd personally like to see the tax credits given to energy companies ended and funneled into an alternative energy fund. We all know about their record profits during recent years.

This is another one of those guilt-trip Obama-isms that sounds so Jesus-awesome that people don't see the fraud behind it. That's because the media doesn’t cover the truth of what tax credits are or the government controls that go with them. It is simply the same thing Boxer wants (see below) done differently- and the people wind up paying for it one way or another anyhow- be it more taxes or debt to pay for the tax credits or a consumption tax passed back to them in the company product. A tax credit only proves that they either didn't need to try and steal it in the first place or they have to make up the difference somewhere- aka more borrowing or taxes. Like Obama, your use of the "C" word only proves that you are trying to redefine it to help make this sort of fascism sound good.

I don't expect to sway your continual conspiracies on any topic. I simply don't accept them.

There were two questions and you only answered one. Hmmmm, but I'll call all of this one for what it is anyhow, baby: ••••••••.

For those wondering- my particular “continuing conspiracy” concerning this is:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/09/se...ng-task-force/

Senate Democrats are planning on setting up a global warming task force to revive the issue in Congress and help President Obama achieve the goals set out in his climate agenda.
Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse told reporters on Thursday that they would launch the task force with more than a dozen members. They say they have the full support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“The purpose is to use the bully pulpit of our Senate offices to achieve that wakeup call,” Boxer told reporters who gathered in her office. “We believe that climate change is a catastrophe that’s unfolding before our eyes and we want Congress to take off the blindfolds.”

“We are defending against legislative riders that would roll back environmental laws, including the president’s climate initiative,” Boxer said.

Boxer chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works committee where she has made several attempts to highlight the effects of global warming. One hearing the committee held with climate experts backfired when none of the witnesses on the panel could counter evidence presented by scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, who argued that global warming is not causing extreme weather.

The California Democrat also introduced a bill with Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders to tax carbon dioxide emissions and use the funds to support renewable energy development. That effort failed in the face of stiff resistance from Republicans and some Democrats.

“The goals of carbon pricing include curbing our fossil fuel use, encouraging lower carbon emissions, creating jobs and spurring innovation,” Boxer and Sanders wrote in a recent oped.

“Cutting carbon pollution will help keep our air and water clean and protect our children from respiratory illnesses such as asthma. It also will help families and businesses across America save money,” the Senators said. “There is a growing consensus that putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective way to fight global warming.”

BTW here is more on that testimony:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/sc...treme-weather/

While you ridicule from afar yahoos and ignoramuses who put food on your table and a roof over your head for challenging in any manner WHY they should be taxed MORE for their CO2 emissions, those elected-by-someone to the government ARE "continuing" forward with my "continual conspiracy" to make them pay for it regardless of what you or I think of what you “simply don't accept”.

Or is this really what you want to happen one way or another anyhow? Because THEN you can say it isn’t a conspiracy at all but a necessity that poor working fools have to pay more interest[-oops-]taxes for- one way or another anyhow.

Personally, I don't care if you can prove farts warm the planet another degree and melt the caps. "They" HAVE been feeding me the •••••••• Boxer IS talking about for more than a decade and I have yet to see anything more to be concerned about from “Global Warmingclimate change” than getting laid on the beach. I don’t worry when I fly over the cap or when the weather has to be considered to get American assets to all-points-elsewhere. This is just more exploitation of yet another manufactured, hysteria generating crisis that hasn't showed to achieve an agenda you "simply don't accept" because it’s part of my "continual conspiracy". Funny, isn’t it, how those taxes just can’t ever prevent more debt, pay ANY debt, but pay more interest.

So, I'm not going to waste my time in your "scientific" discussions that are about you and require a head with more snot than brains in it. If you think I'm going argue that people can't affect climate, then you are a fool. And I think people are fools to be taken in by the pagan "all catastrophic storms are now their fault" crowd and that they need to be punished, fined and taxed for it. Because bottom line, baby, that IS how Boxer and her crew are forcing it to go down.

Ah but I DO love seeing false prophet opportunists like Al Gore and Boxer taken to the woodshed for their storms of catastrophe. I’m sure if the arctic cap continues to grow I will love it more, but I’m also not blessed or stupid enough to prophesy like they do either way. Just know I am not going to buy Goldman Sachs (A BANK OMG!) financial products because of prophets, scientists and politicians who make astonishing predictions they don’t have to be around long enough to be drug out and “stoned” for if they're wrong.

OMG. I also think if Boxer fails there may still be Too-Important-for-Legislation-Constitution-and-Public-Buy-In Holy Decrees from He Who Knows All Morality and Wholesomeness. But we needn't consider that thought. It is mine after all.


Well, sincerely hoping for a warmer planet anyhow,

Your Friendly TEA Party Terrorist.

[THOMAS LYNN]

Boxer is almost as ignorant as our resident warmista

[kbohip]

Damn. I was really pulling for team Global Warming. Strange how the kind of weather they said we wouldn't get anymore is still happening isn't it? On a side note, I don't know if I would be able to keep my sanity in a 16 hour traffic jam! My wife has a friend that lives in Atlanta. Luckily she decided to stay home from work yesterday but a friend of her's did not. She left work at 1pm yesterday and STILL has not made it home!!!!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=2622

[Pehu]

Damn. I was really pulling for team Global Warming. Strange how the kind of weather they said we wouldn't get anymore is still happening isn't it? [/url]

Who said and what? Maybe it is time for back to basics for you...

[kbohip]

Who said and what? Maybe it is time for back to basics for you...

By all means, insert your head back inside your ass.

[thewanderer]

By all means, insert your head back inside your ass.

Be nice! He isn't used to the sunlight and is confused. Being nice about his condition.

[SteveW]

Rofl

[tucker]

Fire Season begins in the Kern River Valley

The result of a 1000 years of weather patterns, not global warming.

Same thing different year...

[Skennar]

Fire Season begins in the Kern River Valley

The result of a 1000 years of weather patterns, not global warming.

Same thing different year...

Should join me in Alaska- if you believe in global warming bring only your shorts and a t-shirt.

[tucker]

Should join me in Alaska- if you believe in global warming bring only your shorts and a t-shirt.

Should I bring my suntan lotion?

[Skennar]

Should I bring my suntan lotion?

Depends on how high up you want to go.

Service is just a little spotty too.

[AMDScooter]

17 years, 10 months.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/0...ars-10-months/

Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

Posted on August 2, 2014 by Anthony Watts
El Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.


Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.



Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.


The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.


Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.


The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:


“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”


That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).


The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.


Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).


In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.


On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.


Why RSS? Well, it’s the first of the five datasets to report each month, so it’s topical. Also, it correctly shows how much bigger the el Niño of 1998 was than any of its successors. It was the only event of its kind in 150 years that caused widespread coral bleaching. Other temperature records do not distinguish so clearly between the 1998 el Niño and the rest. It is carefully calibrated to correct for orbital degradation in the old NOAA satellite on which it relies. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.


Updated key facts about global temperature
Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record.
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Ø Since 1 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.
Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.


. . .

[Skennar]

17 years, 10 months.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/0...ars-10-months/

Crap- another hockey stick in the making: