Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

:iconkajm: More from Kajm




Details

Submitted on
March 19, 2013
Image Size
106 KB
Resolution
777×556
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
880
Favourites
11 (who?)
Comments
58
Downloads
8
×
As the Theory FAILS, AGW Scientists Jump Ship by Kajm As the Theory FAILS, AGW Scientists Jump Ship by Kajm
From Watts Up With That (run by Anthony Watts; article by Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation [link] )

For Myself, I fear I must always state this for the record:

I do not and never have denied that the climate changes, is changing.
I cannot, because I am a geologist. I know very well that climate plays a major role in geology.
Neither I, nor the vast majority of well-informed skeptics across the globe- many of them in the sciences- deny that the climate has changed since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Nor do I deny that the MWP was warmer than we are now.
Or that the Dark Ages before that, were a product of global cooling.
Nor do I deny that the Roman Warm Period was even a bit warmer than the MWP.
And so on, back to the last Ice Age.

I should not have to add that to each and every piece. However, so long as there are slow, closed minds, who refuse to deviate from the tenets / dogma of the AGW religion, it must needs be restated.


-------

British Government Abandons Climate Change Education For Young Children

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. –David Rose, [link]

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century. But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’. –David Rose, [link]

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2. Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’ –David Rose, [link]

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’ Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’ –David Rose, [link]

The implications of the inconvenient truth we publish today are profound. Since the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, Britain has been impoverishing itself in a lonely quest to cut its CO2 emissions – even though the world’s powerhouse economies, such as China and America, have refused to set any limits. It is clear that the science, supposedly ‘settled’, is deeply uncertain, while growing numbers of experts now say that the effects of greenhouse gases are much less bad than they feared: any warming is going to happen much more slowly than they thought a few years ago. –Editorial, [link]

The Met Office figures come as a report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation ( link [link] ) claims there been no “statistically significant increase” in global temperatures in 16 years. Dr Benny Peiser, director of the foundation, said: “The biggest surprise for climate scientists is the discrepancy between the predictions and the reality of ongoing warming standing still. It suggests that the climate models on which these predictions are based are flawed. Scientists are beginning to reconsider whether their previous, more doom-laden predictions, were overegged. We should reconsider all policies that may turn out to be hugely wasteful and potentially economically disastrous.” [link]

Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming – hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical. But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated. –-Editorial, [link]

De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a “national treasure” and our “greatest living naturalist”, it really is time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has allowed himself to be made the front-man for one particular propaganda campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head. Last week yet another report picked up on the part Sir David has played in promoting what the facts show to have been no more than a colossal scare story. . –Christopher Booker, [link]

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. –Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails 1956

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations”. The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the “efficacy of recycling”, again as a chemistry subject. The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. –Juliette Jowit, [link]

-------

Original here [link]

Additional materials:

From C3: Failed AGW predictions [link]

From No Fracking Consensus: [link]

Climate FAILS from Climate Depot: [link]

The Greening of the Desert (CO2 IS GREAT FOR PLANTS!) [link]

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change? [link]

Peer-reviewed and published research on Climate Sensitivity [link]

-------

And, that's just for starters. In one of my upcoming articles, I shall be listing as many scientists that I can recall / find, who have jumped ship over the past ten years.

They Know the theory is failing in Reality.

Comment, for the Win, at the original article: 'If you turn slowly enough people won’t realize you’re changing direction.'

Note: Because I needed to set up the text in Author's comments, I was forced to choose 'Community Awareness.' If anyone knows a way around this....

Thanks goes to :iconbullmoose1912: for encouraging me to continue my efforts [link]


All I have time for this morning, have fun!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconhgfggg:
hgfggg Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2013
PAHAHAHA
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer

btw, you missed quite a few articles. Here's several that should help you out:

 

fav.me/d6kz21j

 

fav.me/d6mei4e

 

fav.me/d6pwtsc

 

Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, the IPCC has become a joke.
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You do realise that the GWPF is most likely a front group for people with ties to fossil fuel industry, right?
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
You do realize that the MET CRU gets the vast majority of its grants from the fossil fuel industry, right?
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Let me put it this way: what is more likely, that the multibillion dollar fossil fuel industries that rely on carbon pollution to make a buck are paying the tiny but vocal minority of climate skeptics to give mainstream climate science a bad name, or that these fossil fuel giants are paying the VAST MAJORITY of climatologists to produce (eerily conform) results that go directly against the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry....


Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense, try again.
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense, try again.

In other words, BULLSHIT.

Look up Lysenko, then tell me that a government won't make an effort to use bad science which causes harm to Millions, just to serve an ideology.
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm not saying conspiracies don't exist, I'm saying that a conspiracy needs one or more parties to profit, or at least to think that they are going to profit by conspiring.

Why would the fossil fuel industry pump millions of dollars into research that proves to the world how horrible fossil fuels are?
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Why do they also support cap and trade? And what is the proof that fossil fuels are horrible? CO2? Did you notice the chart at the top of this article? Temperatures are climbing at .05 C per decade. That's 1/200 of a degree per year. 1/6 of the IPCCs' Lowest estimate. And it is going to continue.
Reply
:iconali-radicali:
Ali-Radicali Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually, half a degree in half a century comes out at 0.1 degrees per decade. Did YOU notice the chart at the top of this article?

The IPCC's most ocnservative estimate, which keeps the 2000 emission rate, gives a slope of curve which is similar to the mean temperature increase during the first half of the 20th century. The current temperature increase rate is higher, thus even if the temperature would continue to increase at "merely" 1 degree per century, that'd be conform one of the more more conservative models.
Reply
Add a Comment: