Comments on: Cold is the new warm

By: George Carty

George Carty — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:06:39 +0000

Doesn’t the fact that many AGW alarmists also oppose nuclear power suggest they view climate change not as a problem to be solved, but as a tool in service of another agenda?

I suggest people look at my designs for pro-nuclear posters here – anyone got any more suggestions?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:21:24 +0000

The climate clowns who infest our local authority have been doing their best to ram a gigantic wind farm down our throats, claiming among other things that we all have to do our bit to “save the planet.”
Take a look at http://www.palmerston-north.info to see what global warming means for our wretched community. Of course global warming is now morhing into climate change, which in turn will morph into ” sustainability ” – all in a day’s work for those determined to control our lives.
Earlier this year I made a lengthy submission to the New Zealand Environment Court where I comprehensively rubbished catastrophic global warming. I was told to expect a grilling in court. Plenty of others in this particular case did, but not me, they didn’t dare !

By: Tom G

Tom G — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:54:28 +0000

Nothing makes me more angry than hearing some so called scientist or politician say “the debate is over. Global warming is real and its caused by human produced CO2.” Its rediculous and people eat it up like bangersnmash. I suppose there is chance it could be real, but there’s one thing that is 100% false and that is that the debate is over; the debate is NOT over. Its as if a group of scientists said that String Theory is real and the debate is over.

These alarmists must see themselves as crusaders or revolutionaries. They are leading the charge to save the planet. I mean, is there anything more important than saving the planet? I mean what’s more important than “The Whole Wide World”? Its bigger than curing cancer or feeding the hungry. Why spend money on saving people from starving if there won’t be a planet for people to starv on, right? Give me a break.

By: John Blake

John Blake — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:33:50 +0000

Partisan-political agitators posing as objective researchers fail to realize that Nature cares nothing for their dishonestly skewed forecasts. Twenty years ago, when Hansen of GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Science) first resorted to duckspeak (”warm is cold,” etc.), Michael Crighton noted: “Freeze or fry, the enemy is always free-market entrepreneurial capitalism, the solution is always bureaucratic State socialism”– that is, wastrel Luddite modes consciously aiming to blast individualist bourgeois consumer culture at its very roots.

By 2012 at latest, we expect that “global warming” in the doofus Al Gore sense will have become a laughing-stock akin to J.B. Rhine’s psychism and Immanuel Velikhovsky’s risible takeoff on Joshua at Jericho “when the Sun stood still.” Were it not for the so-called Younger Dryas, a 1,500-year cooling due to cometary or meteorite impact ten thousand years ago, our current 12,500-year Holocene Interglacial epoch would have ended c. 500 AD, coincident with the final Fall of Rome.

As Earth descends into an 80-year, sun-spotless Dalton or Maunder Minimum reinforced by a confluence of deep-ocean magmatism with long-term cyclical reversals, climate-change alarmists will have much to answer for. Their waste of resources, their purposeful sabotage of public awareness, ensure that when Nature definitively refutes their phony models it will be too late. The catastrophic 14th Century, rife with famine, plague, and internecine warfare “when God slept,” was but a foretaste of what our overweening 21st Century is headed for.

By: John Blake

John Blake — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:28:36 +0000

As Earth descends into an 80-year, sun-spotless Dalton or Maunder Minimum reinforced by a confluence of deep-ocean magmatism with long-term cyclical reversals, climate-change alarmists will have much to answer for. Their waste of resources, their purposeful sabotage of public awareness, ensure that when Nature definitively refutes their phony models it will be too late. The catastrophic 14th Century, rife with famine, plague, and internecine wars “when God slept,” was but a foretaste of what our overweening 21st Century is headed for.

By: HMS

HMS — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:25:38 +0000

Once the global warming cultists realize that the higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere the faster marijuana will grow they will reverse their position.

By: Natural_philosopher

Natural_philosopher — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:20:14 +0000

For all too long the theorists have depended on GHG theories based on a model of stellar atmospheres with an infinite depth. The model is patently wrong. No matter how you look you can’t find the parcel of outer space between the top of your toes and the soles of your feet that the theorists REQUIRE be there, for their theory to be possibly valid.

Even the mathematics using the models turns out to be in mathematical error; that was not noticed for almost 80 years!

Modern 21st century theory, developed on empirical data from heretofor unavailble satellite data, is much more convincing for an atmosphere that is patently not infinite and bounded on both ends. Its calculations are coreespondingly much more accurate too. All hail the improvements NASA scientists developed, including Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi. It took a fair amount of time to accept Relativity as an improvement on Newton, and the same is being applied to “Saturated GHG” theory based on overall atmospheric energy balance. But it will come.

By: tadchem

tadchem — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:54:34 +0000

The continuing accumulation of the ever-growing body of raw data can only work to the advantage of the empiricists in this debate. By my reckoning, the vast majority of the empiricists are classed as “deniers.” It is the ‘theorists’ and the modellers whom will eventually be held to account.

By: Alex Cull

Alex Cull — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:11:35 +0000

The Hadley Centre’s attitude reminds me of being in a car driven by someone who is stubbornly refusing to admit that they are lost, someone who cannot even contemplate the idea that they might be horribly wrong…

Kids: Are we nearly there yet?

Dad: Yes, we are – we should be arriving at Global Warming any minute now. We’ll be reaching the first tipping points in a moment, you’ll see.

Mum: Honey, I think we passed the turning to Global Warming some time back in 1998. I don’t think we -

Dad: We are definitely on the road to Global Warming. Just let me drive without your constant -

Mum: Well, I don’t think we’re heading towards Global Warming. We missed the turn! And look, you’re holding the map upside d-

Kids: Daddy’s lost, Daddy’s lost, nyah nyah ni nyah naa!

Dad: Shut up, everybody just shut up!! Who’s driving this car? I am! And if I say we’re on the road to Global Warming, that’s exactly where we are! It’s settled! I don’t want another word from anyone else, you hear? The debate’s over!

By: St Swithin

St Swithin — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:49:54 +0000

As well as changing their mind about 1998 the alarmists are also changing their mind about sunspots. Their position can be summed up as “Sunspots have no effect on climate but the recent cooler weather is only temporary as there are no sunspots at the moment.”