Jim Hansen, IPCC, MET Face False “Global Warming” Predictions,” Try to "Hide the Decline"

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
If you listened to and believed the hype of the MSM and paid-for “climate scientists,” 2012 was the proof everyone has been waiting for to convince the rest of us that “man-made climate change” was not only real, but was killing us at ever-increasing rates.

Unfortunately for the AGW faithful, and those who profit from blind acceptance, the facts and science of late 2012 and early 2013 have revealed the AGW hoax for what it is: a global “fund-raising” effort for those whose professional and political careers depend upon an ill- or un-informed public to react to stories of catastrophe (with no basis in fact) and keep the spigots flowing with pother people’s money:

The IPCC AR5 SOD leak;
The UK MET’s revelation of a cooling trend, and media battle in attempts to cover it up; and,
Jim Hansen’s admission that no warming has occurred for 2 decades despite ever-increasing CO2 levels.

When the draft report of the IPCC working group first came to light, the MSM yawned and the IPCC decried the revelation as not within the bounds of the type of “transparency” they define for “climate science.”

Why?

Well when you consider that some of the findings revealed a significant role for solar and cosmic rays on climate, and that this is the OPPOSITE of the lies the IPCC has told for 20 years, it can make a difference.

In December, a draft of the IPCC’s fifth assessment, due for final publication in September 2013, was leaked to the press by climate sceptic Alec Rawls.

The IPCC confirmed the draft was genuine while lamenting the leak. The media furor that followed, however, focused on a section of the report that suggests what some key climate scientists, including Dr Henrik Svensmark in the excellent The Chilling Stars, have said all along: that the influence of cosmic rays (the Sun) could have a greater warming influence than mankind’s emissions.

www.guardian.co.uk...

As the IPCC’s “Expert Reviewer” noted,

Rawls describes the relevant section as “an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and main conclusion of the full report, revealing the dishonesty of the whole”.
www.energytribune.com...

IPCC AR5 Panel Drafts Leaked to Public! Join the Comments

As part of the science and measurement underlying the IPCC’s reports, upon which the US, and many major economies base significant parts of their policies and economies, the UK MET data sets are fundamental to their findings.

Yet, when the MET released a revision on Christmas Eve to their temperature projections showing a DECREASE over the coming years, not only was it ignored by the MSM, but they assisted the MET in trying to cover it up.


Just last year, the UK Met Office Hadley Center confidently predicted the average global temperature must rise incrementally by around 0.2oC decade by decade driven by CO2 rises.

Then on Christmas Eve, something curious happened. The UK Met Office posted a note on its website announcing it was downgrading its assessment.

The BBC’s pro-alarmist David Shukman interpreted the downgrade as meaning “there won’t have been much global warming for the past 20 years”.

www.energytribune.com...


Thankfully, a few of the formerly-gullible press outlets tired of the game and began calling the fraud for what it was; a money-grubbing hoax on science and the world.


But other parts of the UK media have clearly had enough. The Daily Mail pulled no punches citing the Met Office’s clumsy attempt to cover up the scale of its gross error as “a crime against science and the public.” The Sunday Telegraph editorial described it as a “betrayal of proper science”. And David Rose of the Mail on Sunday, in the wake of various attempts to exonerate this latest screw up, wanted to know “Who are the deniers now?” Labour MP Graham Stringer further noted how the field of UK energy and environmental policy was “dominated by individuals with commercial interests in renewables”, singling out Tim Yeo, chairman of the relevant Select Committee as “a director of several renewable firms.”

www.thegwpf.org...

Finally, after all of this, NASA’s Jim Hansen reviews that available data and, while still trying to ring alarm bells for his own favorite agenda, ADMITS that there has been no significant warming for the last 10 years.

In a paper published Tuesday, no less an authority than NASA scientist James E. Hansen wrote, “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

www.washingtontimes.com...


The GWPF has been right all along. In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade.

This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives.

The bottom line is that the recent global temperature standstill is a real event. It is explained in a hand-waving way as due to natural climatic variations masking the long-term trend, even if we do not understand those natural variations. Some believe the standstill might be pointing the way to a deeper revision of our understanding of climate. One thing is clear the stuff you heard until very recently about mankind’s signal of warming being the strongest (and getting stronger) is wrong. The standstill has already taught us that.
www.thegwpf.org...#

Given that, and the fact that the usual climate “models” have been affirmatively established to be worthless, why do we still let politicians and grant-hungry AGW advocates continue to bleed us dry to serve their false agendas?
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released

When will we make these charlatans get back to basic tenets of science; reproducible results, “models” that work, and objective analysis, before we give them any more money, time or influence over our lives?
edit on 17-1-2013 by jdub297 because: url




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
If you need to sell gun control, or billions for government employed teachers, use a lot of cute little kids as the emotional backdrop. If you're trying to sell government control of energy, or funding therefrom, use guys in lab coats (who have been awarded grants to say what you want) as an emotional backdrop to say the world is ending soon.

The use of emotion and crisis is necessary if you don't have the power to ram it through yourself and need to get at least some public support.

But all of this isn't very new, just a little more obvious now.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as "completely ridiculous" by one of the report's lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

The leaked draft "summary for policymakers" contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics' interpretation.

It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.


From the OP source.

It should be very telling that 'climate denial' doesn't conduct it's own research. The so called experts are not climate scientists and very rarely even have a degree in any kind of environmental science at all. They are paid (often more than any grant or university pays actual climate scientists) by the worst polluters on the planet, Koch Brothers, Exxon, BP, Phillip-Morris etc...

They don't do any research at all, they have no instrumentation, no one out in the field... they simply take the data that others have labored for and cherry pick it to an extreme degree.

It should also be very telling that these deniers flip flop between denying there's any climate change at all and acknowledging it by claiming the sun is responsible, these positions change every few months or so. The last bit of noise from deniers was claiming that the arctic melt was being over dramatized and that sea ice formation in the antarctic more than made up for the loss leading to the claim that sea levels weren't rising... except they are undeniably rising so now we're back to blaming the sun.

Of course the sun has bearing on climate however the rate of warming and climate change cannot be attributed to cosmic rays. No one need possess a PHD in climate science to apply a little common sense here. How can the sun be responsible for the rapid increase in change when the sun has been at an extended solar MINIMUM? That means weaker cosmic rays by the way.

If there's been any religious zealotry going on it seems to be being done at the alter of Big Industry.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
They need to tweak the info because without global warming as an excuse they cannot use the weather to their advantage in a war. As long as they say they're needing geoengineering to protect us and the planet, they can covertly use technology to manufacture the weather to cause mudslides and other "natural" events to harm other countries.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Given that, and the fact that the usual climate “models” have been affirmatively established to be worthless, why do we still let politicians and grant-hungry AGW advocates continue to bleed us dry to serve their false agendas?


Oh and this... good lord. Politicians and grant-hungry AGW advocates bleed us dry? When is the last time climate change was discussed or acted upon politically in the US? Discussed in our media with humanity as the catalyst? Research funded to any significant degree by our tax dollars? I think you could learn much by comparing AGW grant dollars vs tax rebates and exemptions for Big Industry as well as the enormous amount of lobby dollars flooding into our lawmakers/policy makers pockets to ignore or deny AGW.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I am convinced that man made global warming is nonsense.

Never the less, we should strive for building the infrastructure for clean renewable energy. Fossil fuels are so "yesterday"...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Geoengineering is done at the EU level. It has already been determined that countries cannot act alone on the issue of climate change. Most of the geoengineering being conducted today is happening in Africa. Africa is a good testing ground because nobody rarely looks in that direction.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 




without global warming as an excuse they cannot use the weather to their advantage in a war.


If that were the case there wouldn't be any AGW denial to speak of.



they can covertly use technology to manufacture the weather to cause mudslides and other "natural" events to harm other countries.


What technology would this be? Are you on about chemtrail nonsense?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Kali74
 


Geoengineering is done at the EU level. It has already been determined that countries cannot act alone on the issue of climate change. Most of the geoengineering being conducted today is happening in Africa. Africa is a good testing ground because nobody rarely looks in that direction.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)


well from my own experience, it's because nobody cares about poor black africans dying....it's been going on every since i was a boy, and i'm 60 now.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Everyone needs to educate themselves about weather modification and how long they've been experimenting with this technology.
www.scribd.com...

This here is a bit easier to read.
www.fas.org...

Wake up, folks. Simply because you can't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


GMO crops? I would agree 100%. Chemtrails? Sorry that seems like science fiction to me. Anyway we've gone off topic. Apologies to the OP.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I'm not talking about chemtrails. I'm talking about cloud seeding, which is NOT off topic.
Allow me to reiterate.
I stated that global warming is being pushed as a problem so they can utilize weather modification technology for warfare purposes. Do you really think they're going to go public with this?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


It should be very telling that 'climate denial' doesn't conduct it's own research.


Of course, you ignore the fact this is not based upon "spin," but on the AGW priests' OWN FINDINGS!

The MET cannot deny it has revised its "warming" projections DOWN. It cannot deny its own data show a stagnation or stall of "warming" despited an undeniable and unprecedented INCREASE in CO2 levels!

Jim Hansen's own "study" acknowledges that there is NO significant warmoing over at least the past 10 years.
The MET would go as far as TWO DECADES.

Yet, CO2 continues to go up, unabated!

The IPCC report, UNDENIABLY acknowledges the effect of solar and cosmic radiation (even though their "models" cannot account for it).

The only ones spinning today are the AGW "faithful" who have seen their idols exposed as nothing more than greedy, grant-sucking and publicly-funded pigs at the public trough.

No?

Look at the newest climate report for which we paid more than $300 million, based upon no more than hyperbole.
Loook at the Australian report, paid for with public tax dollars, "Withdrawn" from publication because "deniers" pointed out that it was fundamentally flawed (after "review" by dozens of supposed "climate scientists").

Face it, the hoax has run its course, and now it's time to get our money back for the needless sacrifices and the unwarranted subsidies to frauds and hoaxsters.
edit on 18-1-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I don't like oil billionaires casino owners
and giant Corporate talking heads telling me it's not warm.
Or that the weather isn't extreme. I'm going with scientists on that one.

Whether man made or a Sun temper tantrum we have to clean up
our energy. The Oil tycoons have all that infrastructure in place to bring you
more fossil fuels at ridiculous profits. They dont want to retool.
And are much more guilty of being the profiteers of disinformation.

*Also the beloved FOX news is still the biggest news outlet of all,
and should be rightfully given their title as head of the MSM.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I don't get it. Nobody in their right mind would ever say that the sun's rays aren't the main source of climate change on earth. If the sun goes ballistic, so does this ball spinning around it.

This is just another weak attempt to cherry-pick quotes out of context, and without understanding of what it's true meaning is.

Then the whole, "it's not warming", when we've clearly had more record highs in the last 10-20 years than in the previous 40-50.

If you can't figure this out when you keep seeing record highs, or in the top ten highs nearly every passing year, something is off with the noggin.

People might want to check out what's going on in Australia right now. They had insane floods last year, and now crazy heat waves rolling through.

Wherever you look, you see the climate intensifying and fluctuating at a higher frequency. At the same time, solar output has declined overall in the last 20-30 years.

This isn't rocket science. Just because a few bits of the data can be precisely matched to make it seem the trend isn't true, doesn't mean it's legit. When you have more than 99 pieces going one direction to every one going in the other, you start to be certain. We're certain.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

They don't do any research at all, they have no instrumentation, no one out in the field... they simply take the data that others have labored for and cherry pick it to an extreme degree.


Reminds me of CSICOP.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




Of course, you ignore the fact this is not based upon "spin," but on the AGW priests' OWN FINDINGS!


No. You misunderstood me as well as continued the 'misunderstanding' of Alec Rawls. I stated that he took one sentence from the entire draft of the report to mean something it absolutely does not, that cosmic rays play a significant factor in climate change, that is not what the report implies at all.


Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

OP source

As far as MET goes... again we have this problem of someone cherry picking papers or reports and turning them into admissions of 'climate fraud' when they are not.


Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”


MET



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


I don't like oil billionaires casino owners and giant Corporate talking heads telling me it's not warm.
Or that the weather isn't extreme.


You've missed the point entirely!

None of those you cite are saying that the climate hasn't changed, or that it doesn't get warmer as we leave an ice age.

The problem you and other AGW extremists ignore is that the "models" predict something tht isn't borne-out by observation. What do you want to believe, catastrophe predictions or data-based observation?

The MET and NASA have acknowledged that global temperatures have been at a relative standstill for at least 15 years. All measurements show that CO2 has grown unabatedly during the same period. The "models predict" that there should be a co-incident increase in temperature with the rising CO2; but, IT HASN'T HAPPENED!

The IPCC "experts" agree that there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude that warming leads to weather extremes. A "consensus" of scientists agree that local and regional "extremes" are part of the ever-changing climate.

The AGW fallacy is that mankind is the driving force for warming of the Earth; yet, the best scientists could say (until they acknowledged solar effects) was that, "we don't know what is causing it, so it must be us."

That is hubris. Hubris is almost always misplaced.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Talk about "cherry-picking!"

Forget the MET and its BBC lackeys trying to spin the facts. Let's just see what the actual MET and NASA data show for themselves:

About 0.36C warming over 34 years.


IPCC models compared with observed data


Jim Hansen's predictions v. observed

The "models" have failed; the "predictions" were false.

What are you going to believe, your AGW priests, or the facts?





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join