What would it take for warmists to admit they are wrong?

The headline from Drudge today:

AVG TEMP IN USA 21.8°F

That’s -5.7°C for those who don’t do Fahrenheit. And then the list of subheadings reads:

CHICAGO SMASHES RECORDS…
CHILL MAP…
HISTORIC FREEZE: WINDCHILLS 70 BELOW ZERO…
LOWEST IN 20 YEARS…
'LIFE-THREATENING'…
South Pole warmer than O'Hare…
Tulsa Hits Record Low…
Arctic birds seen in Florida…
Canada Startled by 'Frost Quakes'…
'Exposed skin may freeze in less than five minutes'…
Oil output threatened from Texas to N. Dakota…
Power Demand Soars…
Texas grid pushed to edge…
Indianapolis Mayor Bans Driving…
JETBLUE To Halt All Flights To, From Boston, NY, NJ…
AMERICAN AIRLINES Cancels Flights Over Frozen Fuel Supply, Cold Employees…

There may really be a crisis in the weather but it’s not because it’s heating up. Not only to these warmests pay no attention to the evidence, they are costing us billions, and in wasting all this money they may well be fighting the wrong enemy.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to What would it take for warmists to admit they are wrong?

  1. entropy

    But, but, cooperpedi got to 48 degrees! In January! More than offset any pissant north american temperatures. Case closed.

  2. Alfonso

    Yea of little faith.
    Perth is gonna be a ghost city, it’s Agenda 21 or your lying eyes yet again.

  3. Andrew of Randwick

    By using uncommon weather to attack global warming believers, you undermine your position. Just as they do when they quote low probability heatwaves and bushfires.
    Stay with climate and global temperatures, there is more than enough anomalous data there for a rebuttal of the believers’ case.

  4. Gab

    Hell would have to freeze over before the warmerists would admit to being wrong.

  5. Gab

    “Literally”, as Joe Biden would say. :)

  6. Alfonso

    Get up to speed Andy, Kate’s is mocking the CAGW hysterics use of every hot day as a harbinger of apocalypse.

  7. jack

    the breathtaking thing about the lefties is their ability to do 180 degree changes of direction without giving themselves whiplash. the abc went from ‘gillard to the last gasp’ one day,went to sleep and woke up the next day good little foot soldiers for the ‘rudd for p.m.’ movement.

    now,the abc can go from ‘angry summer’ and tories causing heat and drought,to tories causing floods,to tories causing freezing weather. it isn’t the weather,it is just giving vent to their enraged hysteria. can’t debate hysterics–they just claim that deniers use the ‘hysteria’ word to belittle victims

  8. cynical1

    Further proof that the climate is changing.

    Dear God, I will use SARC.

    But I would hope it’s not needed.

    Surely in the history of science, there has never been an hypothesis which has
    survived as much counter evidence as to it’s correctness.

    Call me a conspiracy nut, but it does seem to attract people from the Left who
    see the evil in wealth, consumerism and Capitalism in general.

    Most deniers ( I’m out and proud) come from the right, and as somebody once said.

    “The Left see the World as it should be, the Right as it is”.

    Hence the difference of opinion on everything from marriage to
    Islamic terrorism.

    Don’t expect opinion changes on either side….

  9. boy on a bike

    Question: where any companies or municipalities surprised by this sudden chill, blindsided by their belief in global warming?

    eg – did airlines stock sufficient de-icing fluid?
    did municipalities stockpile sufficient salt and roster sufficient drivers?
    etc etc

  10. Andrew of Randwick

    Alfonso, mocking does not help, it just lowers Kate the their level. Stay above the hysterical nonsense.
    .
    The Problem: The impact of increased CO2 does not seem to change the climate as much as the models predict. Fix the models, and let’s re-evaluate the cost/benefit tradeoffs.
    .
    The Solution: So long as our lifestyle and life expectancy requires 12 tonnes of coal equivalent energy per capita per year, and that the developing world is currently running at 2 to 3 tonnes and have a sovereign right to progress up the GDP and energy curve as we have done, then the solution (if required) will be found in helping those countries to use different fuels. For example, the whole of NSW could be stopped for eternity, and it would only equal about a months growth of coal-fired power generation in China.

  11. Robert Blair

    I asked David Karoly, after a debate at Hawthorn Town Hall, how many years of non-rising temperatures would make him reconsider the AGW hypothesis.

    “At least 30 years” said Mr. Karoly.

    Which is why I have no respect for his views on the subject.

  12. Baldrick

    Not that you’d hear about it on ‘their’ ABC but 2013 was one of the coldest for the USA.

    Of course, that doesn’t fit in too well with the global warming meme, so it’s just weather, but 2013 for Australia was one of the warmest, so that’s climate change/global warming, according to ‘their’ ABC.

  13. Brett_McS

    Hey, the mantra now is Climate Change. How can that be wrong?

  14. cynical1

    Surely in the history of science, there has never been an hypothesis which has
    survived as much counter evidence as to ITS correctness.

    My bad….

  15. .

    “The climate has lied to me, everyone has deceived me, non[sic] one has told me the truth. The academic journals have lied to me and now the climate models have left me in the lurch. The climate has not fought heroically, it deserves to perish. It is not I who have lost the war, but the weather”.

    Sound familiar?

  16. Tom

    in wasting all this money they may well be fighting the wrong enemy.

    No, no. People who pay tax, as opposed to the moochers who have been authorised by Gaia to spend it, are the enemy and therefore must be targeted relentlessly. A billion wasted providing entitlements for Gaia’s tax-eating guardians is an investment in the inevitable socialist future. And rich white men so shut up.

  17. Cold-Hands

    Nice workaround of Godwin’s Law, dot.

  18. cohenite

    Good question. I would suggest such an admission is impossible. The people advocating AGW are so vain and have such a superior attitude that it is impossible for them to make such an admission.

    Take Lewandowsky, who amongst other joys wrote a peer reviewed paper comparing AGW sceptics to those conspiracists who believed the Moon landings were faked and ignored or was ignorant of the fact that most of the astronauts who landed on the Moon were sceptics of AGW.

    Now Lewandowsky is defending Turney’s ice-bound non-expedition to the Antarctic in an article at The Conversation [oxymoron].

    The plan seems to be to argue that the sea ice which trapped Turney was caused by AGW and that Turney expected to see more sea ice. The plan is straight out of Orwell, wrong is right etc.

    Both air and Sea surface temperature in the Antarctic have been dropping for decades. The sheet or land ice on the Antarctic has been increasing as Zwully et al [2012] found. The argument that Turney was trapped by glacier ice which had melted from the Antarctic land is also wrong with the iceberg in question having calved in 1989 in an area nowhere near where Turney and his idiots were iced. In fact the Australian government’s own advice clearly shows there was no iceberg activity in Turney’s area.-

    So clearly the ice Turney was trapped in was due to a colder ocean and air temperature which facilitated the expansion of sea ice. Nothing to do with AGW.

    Now do you think people like Turney and Lewandowsky are going to admit that?

  19. Bruce

    Brazil yesterday.

    Brazil in August. The snow on the palm trees is fun.

    I’m waiting for the warmies to get excited about the first one, but strangely the only ones in Western MSM who said anything about the second were crickets shivering.

  20. H B Bear

    Tony Eastley, surely one of the ALPBC’s bunchiest panty bunchers and his fellow travellers on the Green-Left Weekly Radio Hour (Early edition) formerly known as AM resort to a “man bites dog” story, Temperatures forecast to soar in WA, reporting it is hot in the Pilbara. Well, der.

    The BOM is forecasting a quite unremarkable two days in the 40s for Perth. And this is both news and proof of what? Don’t laugh. You are paying for this.

  21. sabrina

    There are “extremists” on either side, adept at selective reporting and cherry-picking.

  22. H B Bear

    Having a raving loon like Lewandowsky defend your reputation is like getting a character reference from Hannibal Lecter.

  23. cohenite

    There are “extremists” on either side, adept at selective reporting and cherry-picking.

    Examples please Sabrina; or fuck off.

  24. Ant

    But they’re not fighting their wrong enemy. Their enemy is capitalism and the free market system all of which has a heavy reliance on energy in one form or another.

    Manipulate, regulate and stifle that – in the name of environmentalism – and you control the system.

    The people pushing the Great Global Warming Racket the hardest constitute the ‘Deceivers’ pillar in my 3 pillars of Global Warming stupidity. The other two being the ‘Dreamers’ and the ‘Dummies’.

  25. jupes

    By using uncommon weather to attack global warming believers, you undermine your position. Just as they do when they quote low probability heatwaves and bushfires.

    Bullshit. Warmist use warm weather events to ‘prove’ their predictions are correct. Every weather event that counters this stupidity should be thrown back in their faces.

    If nothing else it’s fun watching the clowns tap-dance.

  26. .

    Sabrina I’ve accused you of being a concern troll before and now I feel justified in doing so.

    Examples or get lost.

  27. handjive

    How stupid does this get? If the same media were pushing a theory of “global speeding” and claiming the Earth’s spin was accelerating and we would all die from being flung into outer space, they would also proclaim that a slowing of the Earth’s spin was yet more evidence of “global speeding.” Slowing is speeding, you see. Just like cooling is warming

    Historic deep freeze across North America conclusively proves global warming is getting worse, right?

  28. Rabz

    Catastrophic human induced climate change is nothing more than an attempt by socialists and other ‘progressive’ idiots to delegitimise human economic activity.

    It is an obscenity, just one example being the logical endpoint of their beliefs – that peoples in the third world must consequently be denied to the right to economic development and it’s subsequent many benefits for those third world peoples.

    These catastrophists are vile, dishonest, anti scientific fact and evidence free grubs hell bent on achieving the destruction of our way of life. For that reason alone I’m utterly over even attempting to be civil with them about this topic.

    They must be mercilessly mocked and pilloried for their insane beliefs.

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    The usual suspects are blaming the cold on global warming affecting the jet stream.

    Here is an alternative explanation, which is supported by similar observations about the very cold UK winter of 2010, when there were similar Rossby wave events and the Sun was in a funk at the end of the last solar cycle.

    The Ap Progression index is back down to a low level this month of 5, like it was then, despite us now being at ‘solar max’.

    We don’t have enough data yet to nail this down, but the confluence of papers on solar magnetic modulation of cloud cover and of jet stream variations, plus the historic records of the cold in the previous solar minima (Dalton and Maunder) suggests it is all coming together. Its the Sun who did the butler in the pantry.

  30. cynical1

    Having a raving loon like Lewandowsky defend your reputation is like getting a character reference from Hannibal Lecter.

    He almost seems sane compared to some of the commentators on the Con.

  31. hammy

    Unfortunately while the denialists are constantly distracting our leaders and the media with their inane skepticism the world is accelerating towards the edge of the AGW cliff.

    Denialism MUST be made a criminal offence. It’s destroying our children’s and grand-children’s futures.

  32. Alfonso

    “Denialism MUST be made a criminal offence”.
    Indeed, an excellent idea and perfect strategy. It would bring the neo marxist Statists to their destruction by public ridicule as Mordy look alikes did their thing.

  33. James of the Glen

    HBB’s renaming of Eastley’s AM show is spot on.

    Anyone coming here from a far country and bothering to listen/monitor would guess the Greens have 40-50% seats in the House. I’m sure I’ve heard Tubby snoring as Eastley regularly flicks over to her ABC bed-mike in the early morning and confuses the noise with one of her highly intelligent utterances.

    Unfortunately, Andrew’s suggestion about not mentioning the weather (yes, yes, he’ll say he only meant to not use it as climate) is one which would be greatly appreciated by the censors at the ABC and other media outlets.
    Cold hard dramatic weather events are the only ones which most of the population hear; slowly though they are working out the continuing trend and calling BS on AGW.

  34. boy on a bike

    Hammy is just polishing his credentials – he wants to be appointed as the Free Speech Commissioner when Labor finally get back into power.

  35. Rabz

    It’s destroying our children’s and grand-children’s futures.

    No, abortion is destroying kiddies’ futures, you inveterate imbecile.

    FFS.

  36. James of the Glen

    The Hamster’s (clearly still suffering from FAS this morning) avatar/logo thing seems to have morphed into a Rorschach pattern; no doubt he sees something frightfully significant in it.

  37. cuckoo

    Anyone coming here from a far country and bothering to listen/monitor would guess the Greens have 40-50% seats in the House.

    Indeed. On last night’s 7pm ABC tv news bulletin, they covered the start of the Japanese whaling season. A statement from Greg Hunt was then ‘balanced’ by a critical response each from 1. Bob Brown, now of Sea Shepherd fame, 2. Whish-Wilson of the Tas Greens, and 3. Anthony Albanese.

  38. .

    Denialism MUST be made a criminal offence.

    Hammy…do you reject the existence of the Holodomor and Lenin’s Hanging Order?

    If Hammy is not a pisstake he is mentally ill. Poor fellow.

  39. harrys on the boat

    It was past midnight last night, but on the open thread I suggested Bruce produce a guest post, or series of guest posts addressing the main points of the AGW scam.

  40. Bruce

    It’s destroying our children’s and grand-children’s futures.

    Mr Holthaus is getting quite exercised about this topic. He says:

    In fact, despite the trolling of Donald Trump and other climate change deniers, global warming is probably contributing to the record cold, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

    Hammy, you will recall that Eric Holthaus is the guy who resolves never to fly again, wept over the latest IPCC report and says he is getting a vasectomy to lower his carbon footprint.

    So, Hammy, your hypothesis is disproved. We climate sceptics cannot hurt Greenie progeny because they aren’t going to have any.

  41. What would it take? Probably the USS Nimitz or one of her class, drenched in napalm, set alight and rammed up their arses sideways?

    These idiots will never back down. They are professional shifters of goalposts – the ultimate self-serving dogmatists. Filth, the lot of them – call them out for the fucking liars that they are and dismantle their works while they scream in impotent fury.

  42. Leo G

    “Denialism MUST be made a criminal offence. It’s destroying our children’s and grand-children’s futures.”

    Hammy, how long have you been suppressing the embarrassing feeling that people who suppress embarrassing feelings are degenerating the future?

  43. rugbyskier

    I was just watching a Chicago TV station on cable and the Governor of Illinois was saying that people need to consider ‘climate change’ and conserve energy and consider solar energy – on the day that the the maximum temperature in Chicago was -20C. He has more front than David Jones!

    The weather in the interior of British Columbia has been sunny and cold. It was -15C for two days and has warmed up to -5C. There was a cool story on Global TV where a reporter in Regina, Saskatchewan threw a cup of boiling water into the air and it turned into snow.

  44. Robert Blair

    You know that Sinc fellow has got a fairly unique sense of humour.

    He’s a very clever chap, but it’s hard to always strike the right note. I think his “Hammy” post today was just that tad OTT. We can see a shadow behind the curtain …

  45. Jannie

    My Greenie mate explains it like this: When it gets warm the ice melts, when the ice melts it gets cold (latent heat or something). Therefore, so so long as there are ice caps, cold weather is proof of global warming. I am usually in a fog of alcohol, and um fog at this point, and sometimes find it hard to point out the flaw in this neat argument. But like, if thats the case, wouldn’t the cold make it too warm for the ice to melt in the first place?

  46. Ant

    Hammy, in the good old days that you seem to yearn for, “denialism” was another word for “counter-revolutionary activities”.

  47. cohenite

    Pure gold from hammy:

    Denialism MUST be made a criminal offence. It’s destroying our children’s and grand-children’s futures.

    If it had been up to Gillard and finkelstein it would have been.

    Actually there are moves afoot to introduce a crime of Ecocide which is coming from the usual loons and academics.

    What we have with AGW alarmists is a motley crew of fringe ratbags who have been brought out from under their rocks by a fucked in the head MSM and the usual political characteristic of gutlessness and soft cockery.

    In a real and reasonable world these bastards would be standing on street corners declaring the end is nigh.

  48. Jannie

    Denialism MUST be made a criminal offence

    I know a lot of “progressives” believe this, but mostly they are too tactically astute to admit to it. Maybe Hammy is not real, just an apocraphyl provocateur. But it does remind one that we are only one standard deviation to the right of civil conflict, or war.

  49. Rabz

    In a real and reasonable world these bastards would be standing on street corners declaring the end is nigh.

    Clad in a fetching sandwich board.

  50. Indigo

    It is about time we have an enquiry into the BOM’s fiddling with temperature records here in Australia.

    The NZ BOM were caught doing this in NZ. The BOM here seems to be riddled with warmists. Here is a response to their recent assertion that 2013 was the warmest here on record.

    Worth a look: http://samuelgordonstewart.com/

  51. Andrew

    Hammy is not real. And he’s boring.

    did municipalities stockpile sufficient salt and roster sufficient drivers?
    etc etc

    No. Many munis fell for warm ism and said “we won’t be needing that shit any more.” Salt was expensive to warehouse with all the equipment and the bankrupt munis with their DB pensions underfunded found an excuse to cut it.

    Rule of thumb: when Greens are consulted, people die.

  52. Leo G

    In fact, despite the trolling of Donald Trump and other climate change deniers, global warming is probably contributing to the record cold, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

    So the counter-intuitive truth is that heating can lead to de-homogenising of temperature- a falsification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    What should we call this original theory? The entropy-denial theory perhaps?
    And the cooling effect of heating? Warm-hole cooling?

  53. So the counter-intuitive truth is that heating can lead to de-homogenising of temperature- a falsification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    I see you climate change deniers have upgraded from failing at statistics to failing at physics.

  54. gnome

    No Bruce (10.17) they aren’t palms, they look like araucarias.

    (I looked at some images of monkey puzzle [Araucaria araucana] and it doesn’t look like those, perhaps they are imported Bunya pines [A. bidwillii], which do get snow in their home range and do well as imports in much colder areas in Australia if they get enough water.)

  55. Bruce

    Good to see you back Desipis. You might read a few of the links we’ve posted in this and the previous thread before you get too excited.

    Since CAGW is not happening and cannot happen at an empirical ECS well below 1 C/doubling it would be immoral to impoverish and starve people to save a world which doesn’t need to be saved. Don’t you agree?

  56. Bruce

    Gnome – second picture of this link.

  57. cohenite

    I see you climate change deniers have upgraded from failing at statistics to failing at physics.

    Let’s start with the statistics; a real statistician has just shown the unit root characteristic of temperature means it can have a negative correlation with CO2. Yes folks, CO2 cools!

    Feel free to comment dipshitis.

  58. Bruce, I’m not excited. I’m (depressingly) bemused by the ignorance and self-delusion. Neither short-term localised climate events, nor outcomes of particular policies are evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades).

  59. JC

    Neither short-term localised climate events, nor outcomes of particular policies are evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades).

    And what eggsactly would you do about it?

  60. Jannie

    Indigo, thats a good article on the BoM’s recent announcment of 2013 being “the hottest year on record”. I just wish it was easier to explain to half educated uni grads, like in 20 words or so.

  61. james

    Just watched another loooooooooooooooong tongue bath of an interview on ABC24 featuring SHY.

    Pretty sure at this stage they have her on speed dial.

    Apparently Tony Abbott is mean and doesn’t care about asylum seekers.

    Watching ABC24 or listening to one of the multitude of ABC radio stations you really would think that the Greens have double the voter support they actually received.

  62. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Hammy that’s outstanding trolling. Highly entertaining.

    You’re back to your best.

    More please.

  63. incoherent rambler

    Admit they are wrong? Well they refuse to produce a veriable hypothesis, they refuse to acknowledge the metrics (observations), and they “adjust” raw data. Wrong? Nahhhhh!

  64. cynical1

    So if it is getting hotter, we adapt or die.

    Survival of the fittest, evolution and all that.

    What they teach at school these days.

    “desipis”

    Fuck me, talks shit and even sounds like a disgusting illness..

  65. James of the Glen

    Sorry, Hamster, you’re right, your avatar is not a Rorschach pattern after all.
    But really, must you save on lavatory paper in that manner?

  66. .

    desipis #1139222, posted on January 7, 2014 at 12:42 pm
    Bruce, I’m not excited. I’m (depressingly) bemused by the ignorance and self-delusion. Neither short-term localised climate events, nor outcomes of particular policies are evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades).

    …and 17 years of cooling means? No recorded long term deviation over 100+ years in stations without the urban heat island effect means?

  67. Leo G

    Oh, we have a visiting clown, a Gobbo who calls himself insane, believes that it is better to fail at physics than at statistics, admits that he is bewildered with ignorance and self- delusion, and thinks we should be impressed that he can tell differences between the local and the global, and between the time passed over a few days and a few decades.
    Hammy’s relief?

  68. stackja

    Gab
    #1138883, posted on January 7, 2014 at 9:24 am
    Hell would have to freeze over before the warmerists would admit to being wrong.
    Gab
    #1138884, posted on January 7, 2014 at 9:24 am
    “Literally”, as Joe Biden would say.

    The Eagles, one of the 1970′s most famed rock groups, who broke up over disputes and promised not to reunite until Hell Froze Over, have come back together for their reunion concert and it’s amazing.

    “This could be Heaven or this could be Hell”

  69. Empire Strikes Back

    Denialism Alarmism MUST be made a criminal offence. It’s destroying our my children’s and grand-children’s futures.

  70. A Lurker

    I’m not sure if anyone is aware of this article – it came up as a link on my Facebook newsfeed from one of my tragically global warming believing friends.

    Now I know we have a couple of actual proper scientists on the Cat, so I present to you, not the jaded old hockey-stick, but instead the new and improved avalanche

    How anyone could take this graph seriously in the face of actual observation and experience, is beyond me.

    p.s. Have fun with it guys.

  71. Cold-Hands

    Neither short-term localised climate events, nor outcomes of particular policies are evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades).

    No one is disputing that the world is warming (and thank goodness, too). We’d all be much worse off if we were still in the Little Ice Age. What is in dispute is whether human activities are responsible for the warming and whether human activity will lead to catastrophic warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect on global warming but nowhere near as much as CAGW proponents have stated. Consequently threats of CAGW thermogeddon can be dismissed as the unscientific scare campaigns that they are.

  72. I wish Steve Kates would stick to his areas of expertise – such as how “damaged women” were foolishly responsible for the re-election of Obama.

  73. Bruce

    evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades)

    Desipis – Who said any such thing? Not me. Not the majority of climate sceptics. A 2XCO2 of 0.7 C/doubling, which I maintain is about what it is, is ‘warming at a global level over the long term’. Even caused by humans, at least I say so.

    If you can do logarithms and arithmetic you will understand that any 2XCO2 value below 1 C/doubling is harmless.

    But biofuels and wind turbines are not harmless. They cause countless deaths through malnutrition and trauma right now. It should stop.

    The left has been burning the village down to save it, and starving and purging the inhabitants for the Revolution since Soviet times. It would be nice if one day they would dispense with hypocrisy and actually help people and the environment once in a while.

  74. A Lurker

    Looks like cohenite got in ahead of me at 10.14am :)

    Still cannot believe how anyone in their right mind could believe that graph….oh, their right mind…never mind, all is understood.

  75. But biofuels and wind turbines are not harmless. They cause countless deaths through malnutrition and trauma right now. It should stop.

    You know you’ve hit the total loonies when they start to attack wind farms.

  76. Aristogeiton

    Hammy, le mot juste! One of your best.

  77. Andrew of Randwick

    A Lurker at 1:48 pm
    Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology at University of Bristol.
    .

    Stephan was awarded a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council in 2011. He has contributed opinion pieces to the national media on issues related to war and terrorism, and climate change. He is particularly interested in the difference between skepticism and denial when it comes to climate change.

    He still believes in the validity of the 97% of scientists argument.
    ‘Nuff said.

  78. Cold-Hands

    The Conversation now seems to have a heavy-handed moderator. The number of posts removed for whatever reason seems extraordinary in a forum supposedly committed to open debate, particularly when the subjective term “snark” is given as justification.

  79. .

    Steve – Kates has statistical skills you don’t hold, nor do some climatologists and apologists.

    You should meditate on why he is qualified to comment and you are not.

  80. cohenite

    A Lurker, I am a connoisseur of bullshit and alarmists are a never-ending supply of quality bullshit. Lewandowsky is a particularly effluent turd. It is entirely appropriate that he should regurgitate his rubbish at The Conversation because both it and he are firmly on the teat of the public purse.

    As I note above the main gist of Lew’s article is that:

    1 It was the intention of Turney’s expedition from the beginning to study expanded sea ice

    And

    2 That expanded sea ice is consistent with AGW; and to prove this Lew links to Skeptical Science:

    I think it is important to rebut this since Turney has been desperately trying to assert the ice is a product of glacier calving.

    There are several things wrong with this:

    1 Firstly Turney apparently was not near where the iceberg in question was nor was the iceberg as recent as Turney says; nor did the Australian government note there was any iceberg activity where Turney was.

    2 Sheet ice on the East where Turney was and the Antarctic generally is increasing:

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

    3 Air and SSTs have been increasing for some time in the Antarctic so there is no localised AGW:

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/no-antarctic-warming-since-1979/

    But like I say alarmists like Lew don’t let facts get in the way of a good froth.

    Now where is dipshit with his evidence that we all lack stats and physics?

  81. Cold-Hands

    You know you’ve hit the total loonies when they start to attack wind farms.

    You know you’ve encountered a Green ecotard when wind farms are treated axiomatically as a “good thing”. Read this from the open thread and reconsider.

  82. Bruce

    Desipis – Wind farms here in Australia cost CO2 they do not save it. On a life cycle basis.

    The short term saving net of back up is about 4% of theoretical because of the inefficiency imposed on the backup coal fired and open cycle gas turbine generators. Once you factor the energy intensity of their construction compared with modern coal fired power stations they are worse than coal. Then on top of that they kill untold thousands of birds and bats.

    You would do better for the environment if you turned the wretched things off.

    Also they are bloody expensive and hurt poor people who can’t afford the resulting expensive power. We pay three times what the US does for electricity. How many poor pensioners are shivering in the dark because of Green policies. Hypocrites!

  83. .

    Cold-Hands

    I suspect the “report abuse” function is routinely abused.

  84. A Lurker

    The Conversation now seems to have a heavy-handed moderator. The number of posts removed for whatever reason seems extraordinary in a forum supposedly committed to open debate, particularly when the subjective term “snark” is given as justification.

    Yeah, I noticed the number of removed posts. Evidently the Conversation prefers to hear the sound of its own voice – which makes it not so much a Conversation, but rather a soliloquy?

    Ah the Left, ever the defenders of Freedom of Speech…

  85. Andrew of Randwick

    Lurker – he may be lost his intelligence as his expertise increased (on climate change deniers) but he is not dumb.
    ARC DP120103888 Lewandowsky, Prof Stephan; Little, Dr Daniel R; Griffiths, A/Prof Thomas; Sanborn, Asst Prof Adam
    From fluid intelligence to crystallised expertise: an integrative Bayesian approach
    2012 $300,000.00
    2013 $240,000.00
    2014 $225,000.00
    Total $765,000.00
    Primary FoR 1701 PSYCHOLOGY
    Project Summary
    Intelligence is correlated with learning but uncorrelated with most aspects of expertise. Why is this so? Why does the role of intelligence diminish as one becomes more expert at a task? This project examines a broad range of cognitive tasks to provide a concise mathematical description of how intelligence relates to expertise.

  86. .

    That seems pretty interesting. Personally I wish he did more work on this than push a busted theory supported by radical deep greens.

  87. cohenite

    Intelligence is correlated with learning but uncorrelated with most aspects of expertise. Why is this so? Why does the role of intelligence diminish as one becomes more expert at a task?

    There you go. The experts of AGW are no longer learning because the science is settled; ergo they are getting dumber.

  88. struth

    What would it take for warmists to admit they are wrong?
    Posted on 9:12 am, January 7, 2014 by Steve Kates

    Taking the funding away would stop a lot of the rot.

  89. And Another Thing

    Was just over at Quadrant online. Overseas, real scientists, you know, the ones who study meteorology and astronomy, and not the effects of the harmless gas carbon dioxide, reckon it’s getting colder, probably heading towards a mini-ice age. This is caused by solar activity and the earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, and has bugger-all to do with man’s activities, according to three studies.

  90. Jannie

    Cold Hands, are you saying that you are being censored? Its not really evident from what I can see.

    I agree on the idiot’s simple view of windmills. In some circumstances, such as small island economies, they can be used to efficiently complement a baseload generator. But in most circumstances they are a gross waste of money, which is OK for your average socialist government of course.

  91. Leo G

    Lewandowski’s concluding comment is worth considering for its irony:

    Pictures and graphs can inform when they present scientific data. But equally, pictures can mislead when evoke irrelevant anecdotes instead of the reality that is described by scientific data.

    The graph he gives as an example charts the satellite data reconstruction of mean global sea level rise. Lew does not point out that the graph’s MSL points are regularly recalibrated to maintain a constant time series trend of 3.2 mm/yr. The justification for that slope is the straight-line interpolation of a subset of tide gauge adjusted relative MSL time series.
    So graphs can misinform when they only purport to to represent the reality described by scientific data. But I am sure Lew well knows this- after all, his research specialisation is the psychology of propaganda.

  92. A Lurker

    There you go. The experts of AGW are no longer learning because the science is settled; ergo they are getting dumber.

    Crystallised expertise? My diagnosis – Leftists might be suffering from a form of brain calcification. Certainly fluid intelligence does not seem to be happening in their brains.

    p.s. Give me a wise old bushie any day, over a ‘book-learned’ academic

  93. A Lurker

    It was past midnight last night, but on the open thread I suggested Bruce produce a guest post, or series of guest posts addressing the main points of the AGW scam.

    Yes please.

  94. cynical1

    There’s only one word for Lewanksy. it’s banned here, but the face pubes are apt.

    The bloke is a raving ratbag, now based in Bristol (UK), having been a laughing
    stock in Australia with his “Deniers are conspiracy theorists” paper.

    The whole crowd of ratbags including John Cook are dangerous ideologues
    who should be laughed at by polite company.

    Instead Lew and Co rake in the dollars (Cook at a Uni also).

    Laughable.

  95. Carpe Jugulum

    What would it take for warmists to admit they are wrong?

    They can’t admit they are wrong, it has become e religious dogma.

  96. hammy

    Open your eyes and take this in, your denialist fools.

  97. cynical1

    Hammy,
    Dana and Johnny boy do satire so much better than you….

  98. Oh come on

    They’ll never admit they’re wrong. They’ll just do what they’ve always done – move the goalposts and start over. “We have always been at war with Eastasia”

  99. BoyOnaBike

    @Hammy

    The natural variability of the Earth’s climate rarely causes more than 0.2°C global surface warming over the span of a few decades to a century,

    Bogus – right there!

  100. Bruce

    Hammy – Would that be from this Dana…?

    Our friend Dana used to come out of his walled garden of SkS little lefties and debate on sceptical blog several years ago. I tangled with him a couple times at NTZ when Pierre was just starting up. Dana was pwned so bad he flounced off and didn’t come back. Now he never comes out, and furiously censors anything remotely unlefty which appears under one of his eructations at the Guardian or SkS. Anyone would think he learned his trade from the DPRK propaganda service. He is very funny, our Dana.

  101. Nothing will. Even another snowball earth would be presented as proof of AGW. They would claim it tipped Earth over the other edge as some sort of overcompensation by Gaia.

  102. cohenite

    Hammy strikes again! His link to sceptical crap clearly shows AGW is now political with the article being a diatribe against the GOP and conservatism in general mingled with a few utterly disingenuous graphs purporting to show Hansen was correct when he made his predictions about temp in 1988; Hansen was spectacularly wrong as this analysis shows. Bear in mind global temperatures have not risen since 2011 when the analysis was done so the gap between Hansen’s predictions and reality has widened.

    Hansen’s 3 predictions for temp were based on 3 CO2 scenarios:

    A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per year
    B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
    C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000

    Even scenario 3, where CO2 would have least effect on temp is well above actual temps. To say otherwise is to be completely political. So well done hammy!

  103. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Hammy. Superlative.

    Whatever they’re paying you, it’s not enough.

  104. Oh come on

    Neither short-term localised climate events, nor outcomes of particular policies are evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades).

    The opposite would also be true, no? In particular…

    short-term localised climate events are not evidence that the world is warming at a global level over the long term

    Remind me again what you and your ilk were spouting after Katrina and every climate-related disaster (and also many that had very little to do with climate)? From what I can see, you lot are now getting all het up because the skeptics have overrun your armory and are using your guns against you. What’s sauce for the goose, you disingenuous little goose.

  105. egg_

    evidence that the world is not warming at a global level over the long term (i.e. decades).

    What’s your ‘evidence’ to the contrary?

  106. Oh come on

    Oh, egg, you’re so naive. It’s our job to prove their claims wrong. That’s Science.

  107. egg_

    You know you’ve hit the total loonies when they start to attack support wind farms.

    The (UK) report on the toxic pollution from the world’s largest rare earth mine in China?
    Of which wind turbines are the major customer?
    All OK because it’s ‘over there’?

  108. jupes

    Listened to the BBC reporter’s summary or his time on the SS Stupid.

    He interviewed some of the scientists and tourists on board. One of the tourists (or perhaps it was a climate scientist) stated that the reason there was a blizzard was because “well it’s winter down here”.

    The reporter only mentioned ‘climate change’ the once when he interviewed a scientist whose expertise was on West Antarctica. Apparantly West Antarctica’s sea ice is shrinking and the fact that ice is increasing in East Antarctica is because the ‘system’ is out of whack. Yep, the old global warming causes cold weather shtick.

    Obviously no follow up questions about total Antarctic sea ice increasing or asking her to quantify the ice melt in the West. Standard MSM warmist bullshit.

  109. gnome

    Thanx Bruce (12.34) That’s a nice picture of snow on palms in the second picture there.

    Those warmists carry on a lot about ice disappearing, but I’ve yet to hear what’s so good about ice.

  110. Andrew

    Apparantly West Antarctica’s sea ice is shrinking and the fact that ice is increasing in East Antarctica is because the ‘system’ is out of whack.

    Makes sense. Everyone knows the sun is in the east, so West Antarctica doesn’t get any of it and has to be warmed by all the CO2s. So its ice is shrinking because of AGW. Which causes it to get lighter, which tips Antarctica over to the east, and therefore all the ice on that side runs off into the ocean under gravity, spilling 70 Gt of ice into the ocean each year.

    Can I get my grant to write this up now for my PhD thesis?

  111. Carpe Jugulum

    stated that the reason there was a blizzard was because “well it’s winter down here”.

    He did realise it is actually Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. or. not.

  112. cohenite

    Everyone knows the sun is in the east, so West Antarctica doesn’t get any of it and has to be warmed by all the CO2s. So its ice is shrinking because of AGW. Which causes it to get lighter, which tips Antarctica over to the east, and therefore all the ice on that side runs off into the ocean under gravity, spilling 70 Gt of ice into the ocean each year.

    Works for me.

    stated that the reason there was a blizzard was because “well it’s winter down here”.

    Unbelievable.

  113. Oh come on

    Listen, climate denier. Ice + Snow + sub-zero temps + blizzards = winter, doncha know? Sheesh, you skeptics are so much dumber than those brainy scientists.

  114. What would it take for warmists to admit they are wrong?

    Umm, a cattle prod and a red hot poker? Obviously facts won’t work…..

  115. Oh come on

    No, there’s a Consensus. And we all know that when you combine Science with Consensus, the output is always infallible. If you say they are wrong, then you are wrong by default, because they have Science.

  116. If you say they are wrong, then you are wrong by default, because they have Science consensus. FIFY.

  117. Louis Hissink

    Steve,

    The warmists will never admit it – just finished reading American Betrayal the second time and the answer lies in Diana West’s excellent analysis. Warmism is a product of that system, and hence immune to objective refutation. (I’m not letting on what West wrote either :-) )

    Actually the rot started during the 19th century following Lyell’s political tome Principles of Geology, further developed by Charles Darwin in the biological sense and Marx/Engels in the political science arena.

    Hayek was too late – we have literally slid down into serfdom and are ‘in’ it , not on our way to it.

  118. hammy

    we have literally slid down into serfdom and are ‘in’ it , not on our way to it.

    This is just pointless hysteria. The sooner we adopt traditional socialism the better off we’ll all be.

    First of all get rid of Abbott, Bishop, Pyne and Morrison.

  119. jupes

    The sooner we adopt traditional socialism the better off we’ll all be.

    LOL you really are a card Hammy.

    Define traditional socialism. The Lenin / Stalin model or maybe the Mao or Pol Pot models?

  120. Bruce

    The sooner we adopt traditional socialism the better off we’ll all be.

    Where were you thinking of siting the gulag, Hammy? Macquarie or Heard Island?

  121. Oh come on

    If you say they are wrong, then you are wrong by default, because they have Science consensus. FIFY.

    No, science + Consensus = Science

    It’s a proper noun, see. Makes all the difference. You aren’t anti-Science, are you?

  122. Mr Rusty

    What would it take for warmists to admit they are wrong?

    Shift all funding into proving CAGW theory is false and climate is influenced by other factors outside of human influence (i.e. that big orange ball in the sky.)

  123. Louis Hissink

    The point is that the war mists don’t recognise anything being right or wrong – it’s the absence of this objectivity in their world view that stops them recognising it. It’s the ascendancy of the Platonic mindset again that is the problem.

    And traditional socialism – that’s subsistence living as hunter gatherers…

  124. The Consigliere

    Come back when you learn the difference between climate and weather.

  125. Louis Hissink

    Weather is the physical behaviour of the atmosphere.

    Climate is an artefact.

  126. .

    The Consigliere
    #1140419, posted on January 8, 2014 at 8:11 am

    Come back when you learn the difference between climate and weather.

    What’s the difference then?

    How does this explain 17 years of cooling despite rapidly rising CO2?

Comments are closed.