So, without further ado here’s a taste and a link:

“Many papers indeed have claimed to find a human “fingerprint”, but upon close examination the evidence is simply consistent with human caused warming — while conveniently neglecting to point out that the evidence would also be consistent with naturally caused warming. This disingenuous sleight-of-hand is just one more example of why the public is increasingly distrustful of the climate scientists they support with their tax dollars.”

Let the hair-raising begin!

Related posts:

1. Tornado Outbreaks, God, and Global Warming “Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.” Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Anyone who claims tornadoes are...
2. So Much Here To Like.. Unequivocal Equivocation… as noted on Anthony Watt’s WUWT is must reading, and I assume some of you who float in here have done this. But...
3. Global Warming is a ‘Phony Mess’ Texas governor Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican expected nomination has cheered climate sceptics who share his view that global warming is a ‘phony mess’...

Perry calls global warming “all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Unlike many of the other GOP presidential candidates, he hasn’t expressed concern about climate change in the past, so he won’t have to do any back-pedaling. Notorious climate denier Marc Morano is a big fan: “Based on climate views alone, anyone who is holding their nose voting for Mitt Romney because there’s no other viable candidate will now rejoice to have an option with Rick Perry.”

Read Rick Perry to delight climate sceptics by running for president

Related posts:

1. Tornado Outbreaks, God, and Global Warming “Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.” Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Anyone who claims tornadoes are...
2. Hey, Hey, Heyyy … It’s Fat Albert! FA is, well, getting fatter. FA has made a fortune off of the Global Warming scam due in no small measure from...
3. Who Are the Real Terrorist Bill Anderson took the words out of my mouth this morning. The government deems you a domestic threat if you coin money that can hold...

FA is, well, getting fatter. FA has made a fortune off of the Global Warming scam due in no small measure from government hacks (and others with very small brains) who have been able to institute public policy to get taxpayer money. Al Gore is nothing more than a common thief running a very effective money scam.

Related posts:

1. Hey,Hey Goodbye First of all I would like to apologize to the stressed out, nearly retired on my money teacher from the last post. Admin felt my...
2. Hey! Look! My Neighbor Is Ready to be Robbed! Only people that serve no purpose in life can continue to come up with stupid ideas. The Illinois AG did just that. Her latest stupid...
3. Hey Science Magazine, It’s Getting Colder … I just find thsi stuff utterly fascinating… Roy Spencer writes: “Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has...

Anyone who claims tornadoes are caused by God (whatever that means) is simply delusional, pandering, or still suffering from the religious indoctrination and brain slanting suffered in childhood..

Slim P.

Related posts:

1. Abuse of a 7 year-old by PBXVI This is simply obscene and, in my view, intellectual child abuse! When will people learn… He (Pope Benedict XVI) also answered a question from a...
2. Is God a Socialist? As you prepare for church on Sunday morning, what type of message will the pulpit deliver? Does your minister believe the word of God to...

‘Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere. . . . If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem… bla, bla, bla.” ~ Charles Manson (from prison)

One wonders if Al will quote him soon. Full story here..

No related posts.

Roy Spencer writes:

“Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has recently told me Science has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months. Science has demonstrated an editorial bias against ’skeptical’ climate papers in recent years, something I hope they will correct.”

Me too.. I desire a well-rounded, unbiased, debate..

http://bit.ly/hA1FLF

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Spencer also reports “The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month.”

Related posts:

1. Spencer Waxes Spot On! Dr. Roy Spencer: . . . Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science...
2. Hey,Hey Goodbye First of all I would like to apologize to the stressed out, nearly retired on my money teacher from the last post. Admin felt my...
3. Hey! Look! My Neighbor Is Ready to be Robbed! Only people that serve no purpose in life can continue to come up with stupid ideas. The Illinois AG did just that. Her latest stupid...

So, here’s a sampling of both the pithy and not so pithy comments that made my day:

wayne Job says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:30 am
Nicely and roundly roasted. Well done.

TinyCO2 says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:31 am
Yeah, what Willis said. All of it.

And one more thing. If CAGW is correct, future generations will put the blame for inaction onto climate scientists who don’t take Willis’s words to heart. They won’t be blinded by tribalism into blaming the sceptics who asked reasonable questions or demanded decent standards in the science. They’ll condemn those people who should have met those challenges.

David Jones says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:08 am
Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Yes, and I pretty much understood every word of it. What’s up Robb? To heavy and complex for you?

David L says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:24 am
Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

Pretty much everyone with an attention span longer than a gnat’s

Smokey says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:54 am
Robb876 says:

“Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

I thoroughly enjoyed it. But if someone who has bought into the notion that a harmless and beneficial trace gas is going to cause thermogeddon, then, as they say, “the truth hurts,” and turning one’s eyes away is a relief.

CO2 has risen about 40%. That is significant. If increased CO2 caused global harm, we would surely have seen evidence of it by now. But there is no verifiable evidence that anything unusual is occurring, except for the substantial increase in agricultural production.

In a world where a billion people subsist on less than $1 a day, more CO2 means life for many of them. But I think Dr Trenberth cares more about keeping the grant gravy train rolling than he cares about starvation.

Rick says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:09 am
Robb876 asks “could anybody actually make it through that entire post”
I know that Robb 876 has already moved on to “boobs aplenty com.” but his retort highlights one of the problems we face today. The public will not or can not engage for more than 183 seconds without becoming bored and changing the channel. I think that Robb876 should read the whole post. My neighbor should read the whole post. After I told my neighbor that AGW was overblown he told me I should get out more.

Alexander K says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:30 am
I like to re-visit posts I have enjoyed to catch up on the comments, but Buzz Belleville, your contribution left me with my jaw dropped for a while. Your ‘sustainable energy law class’ sounds like something that would have been taught during the 1960s in a commune not far from Haight-Ashbury.

Jack Simmons says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:25 am
Great summary. Well written.

Another side point:
I am really getting tired of certain words and phrases such as:

robust
unequivocal
“Back in the day…” – a reference to a time when things were better, people did their job right, etc. Why not say something like: “back in the mid-sixties…”
“At the end of the day…” – People used to say “In the final analysis…”. That was wrong too, because there is no final analysis on anything. Why not say something like “My conclusion is…” or “The evidence suggests…”
awesome – used when someone accomplishes anything such as remembering to pull up their zipper.
perfect – used as awesome.

These latter two words are sprinkled liberally in the speech and writings of people under thirty. My theory is we are seeing the results of a generation taught to have high self esteem. Teachers encouraged their students not by challenging them to do better, but by telling them spelling the word CAT correctly was ‘awesome’. Not punching Sally out at lunch time was ‘perfect’. My teachers encouraged me by refraining from drawing red check marks all over my papers. This happened when I got the correct answers. No one was awesome or perfect; language of that nature was reserved for truly awesome things like landing on the moon or a politician telling the truth.

Of course robust and unequivocal are terms used by people trying to add credence to their theories; as regular readers of this blog site can attest.

Its too bad. All of these are nice words, overused by a generation losing its ability to talk and write with precision and accuracy. When a people loses its language, they lose the verbal symbols of ideas and their world is diminished.

Flashy’s reply to Jack Simmons: NICE!

alan says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:08 am
“…serially unsuccessful doomcaster” Wonderful! The history of AGW in a nutshell.

Ben Palmer says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:08 am
Truly brilliant post, kept me breathless down to the last line.

Theo Goodwin says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:19 am
Superior work, Willis. Everyone should print a copy of your essay in large print and attach it to the wall just behind the monitor. Trenberth’s essay and your essay provide a perfect snapshot of the state of the debate about climate science at this time. In brief, Trenberth and his crowd avoid debate at all costs and push the “science is settled” meme. As you show so very well, Trenberth does it by moving the pea. By contrast, your analysis says exactly what must be shown, what has not been shown, and how to show it. We owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Snotrocket says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:35 am
Robb876 said:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
“Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

I sure could! And I’d do it again. There is something about reading such elegant prose, especially when constructed in such well-delivered argument. I shall probably read it again before the day is out.

As for you Robb876 (My! You really are way down the scale of Robbs, aren’t you? Couldn’t think of something a little lower in the order of names? – Just gentle joshing ), I can only urge you to really take the trouble to read all the way to the bottom – comments an’ all. It will open your mind, and maybe blow in the fresh winds of truth with which to fumigate it. Who knows, your lethargic comprehension might improve with use.

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:07 am
robert says:
January 17, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Willis Eschenbach at January 15, 2011
You are wrong to insinuate that there has been 0 warming over the past decade. It is very difficult for short term trends to be statistically significant at the 95% even when they do show warming. Using your example I could say that the confidence intervals indicate either it has warmed (which all datasets suggest with their mean values) that it has cooled (if we go to the absolute bottom of the confidence intervals) or that it has warmed rapidly (if we go to the absolute top of the confidence intervals). It is interesting that you would choose to indicate there has been 0 warming over the past decade with statistical significance as what you are hiding behind. As I’ve said before, it is very difficult to find statistically significant trends over short time period at the 95% level.

Robert, I’m not “insinuating” that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past decade. I’m flat-out stating there has been no warming in the last 15 years, and I have given excellent mathematical authority for the statement.

You say “the confidence intervals indicate either it has warmed (which all datasets suggest with their mean values) that it has cooled (if we go to the absolute bottom of the confidence intervals)”. That’s exactly the point. We don’t know, it could be either warming or cooling. That’s what “no statistically significant trend” means.

And no, it is not difficult to establish a trend in a 15-year monthly dataset, that’s nonsense. It has happened many times in the 150 temperature record.

Finally, I’m not “hiding behind” statistics. I’m using these statistics for their intended purpose, which is determining whether a trend is statistically significant. I see that you don’t like the fact that the warming trend has ceased for over a decade, but that’s just ugly reality, so there’s no use in your continuing to hide from it …

w.

No related posts.

Seems everyone is talking about the massive United States federal deficit and how it has now reached an unfathomable $14 trillion. Is there any way to comprehend such a bloated number? Try this: the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. At that speed a photon of light starts at the surface of the Sun and reaches the Earth in 8 minutes. On Star Trek, the speed of light is warp one — at that speed the Enterprise would travel about 6 trillion miles in one year. If each dollar of the deficit is represented by one mile, it would take the Enterprise more than two years traveling the speed of light to go 14 trillion miles.

So what can we cut out of the federal budget to make any kind of dent in this enormous pile of borrowed money? We could start with the vast sums of cash being wasted on climate change research.

See How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day

No related posts.

No related posts.

India has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.

India forms new climate change body

No related posts.

Any way you look at it, the evidence for internally-forced climate change is pretty clear. Based upon this satellite evidence alone, I do not see how the IPCC can continue to ignore internally-forced variations in the climate system. The evidence for its existence is there for all to see, and in my opinion, the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice.

Full article here (plainly written, another smack-down of the AGW crowd)

No related posts.

More Media BS

No related posts.

Or here.. http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-does-15-c-above-pre-industrial.html

No related posts.

There is no scientific basis whatsoever for saying there is a 90% probability (IPCC’s position) that most of the warming over the last 50 years was caused by human-kind. None whatsoever.

Monckton speaks with stunning common sense.. Play this for your family, your friends and your neighbors – especially your greener family members, friends, and neighbors..

In this interview, Lord Monckton does his best to inoculate the common man from the elitist thug. Moreover, he is going to speak to the remaining democracies of the world in attendance at the Hoaxenhagen Climate Summate:

I am going to be talking to the delegations of the democracies. I am going to be saying to them, one by one, first of all here is the science; it no longer adds up. And everybody knows it no longer adds up, and your voters now know that it no longer adds up. We’re moving away from that now, and moving towards a world in which once again skepticism, which is the proper approach of the scientist, is becoming instinct in the ordinary voters mind.

No related posts.

No related posts.