Y2Kyoto: The Hockey Schtick

yet CBCpravda kept playing the Brian Mason (NDP)soundbite. "the science is settled"

dippers supported by dip$hits.

What is this nonsense about debate? "The science is settled", AGW is BS.

At some point we can get back to normal scientific activity, i.e. accumulating data, crosschecking the reliability of data, testing of hypotheses, formulation of models, testing of models, etc.

I will venture a prediction: after a century or two of this it will be taken as acceptable that our ability to predict climate in the future is very very limited;
as is our ability to predict the weather a week from now.

If you don't like what the scientologists say they may burn down your house.

"Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes"

http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/

Have a look at what they say.

Forgive me for saying so sir, but that's an awful lot of BULL, isn't it?

A decade is a very short time when discussing climate change. Get back to me after another 20-30 years.

Turned briefly to the Global (Saskatoon) supper newscast this evening.

Major story had some pointy headed 'expert' (still) decrying global warming as a catastrophe in the making- soil and groundwater depletion, lakes and wetlands in jeopardy...

WTF? Only a year ago, massive destruction from the spring melt- flooded farmland, roads, towns and lake cottages destroyed.

More Federal cuts...Now!

Lev:

I noticed that link as well, and what struck me was the excellent label posted on these fools: 'climate alarmists'.

I'm going to use it all the time now.

Sort of on topic, Electric cars are not as clean (or cost effective) as their makers like to claim:

- the battery alone adds $14,000 to the price of the vehicle
- even with a $7,500 handout from the federal government. They would have to keep their hybrids or plug-in electrics for seven to ten years to recoup the reward of better fuel economy
- when it comes to replacing hybrids like the Toyota Prius, two out of three owners revert back to petrol power.
Sort of on topic, Electric cars are not as clean (or cost effective) as their makers like to claim:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/04/electric-cars?fsrc=nlw|newe|4-20-2012|1447248|37373273|

KevinB,

as you know,they are trying to pin that nonsense on D.Smith, though the terminology she should have used was AWG rather than climate change, since the first is mythology and the second is a constant.

These people hope that if they keep lying it will work out as Churchill said " the lie goes around the world twice over before the truth gets it's pants on." ... But THAT was before the Internet, ya'll.
Even at that it is a hard job dispelling this BS because these idiots are everywhere and seem to have the ear of every politician on the planet, even some of our conservatives.

God Bless Senator Nancy Greene-Raine

And God Bless Lord Monckton. That wonderful parachuting denier! :-)

That is a great site.

Hockey Schtick is right.

Snowbunnie, Senator Nancy Green-Raine also replies to emails of support.

Consensus lemmings need to be shown the cliff...

Snowbunny - Don't forget God Bless Kate and SDA; Kate and her posters were on top of this hoax right from it's very regurgitation, foul though it was, out of the mouths of the World Gument slugs; Georgie Porgie Sorass, Johnnie Crouton, Jack!, Blockistas, Algore, 'present' President south of the border.. and their ilk. Those insecure bot flys made millions on the backs of "We the People" because 'they said' the earth was getting scorching hot and that the reason for the earth's distress was us filthy people and our wish to be warm in the winter and to eat all year round. The 'science was settled'

The ominous night before the hammer was to fall on us and our post Ice Age civilization many here were in doubt but not ron in kelowna - he called it what it was - a hoax - right here at SDA! The gasp was heard on every computer! Shortly (hours) after ron's assessment, some brave soul in the Climatology (so called 'scientific') world sprung the leak that changed everything AND Lord Moncton told 'the rest of the story'. Kate had the Mann hockey stick tree video up right away; hot off the press. The laughter @ SDA was more than comic relief, it was genuine glee.

Good job all hoax deniers. I am now waiting for payback during hoaxgate.

PMSH never drank the kool aid - he may have lifted the cup to his lips but he didn't swallow. He derailed the Hopinhagagain deal by refusing to sign unless everyone signed...he was not willing to penalize Canadians while China, India, Russia and other 3rd worlders got off scott free. The delay allowed the fecal to hit the fan from the leak and Lord Moncton. The rest is history and it is settled. Liars in science don't get to do 'do overs' anymore.

Tim Ball, our magnificent Canadian real Climate Scientist, Kate's Magnificent Bastard Mr. Vaclav Klaus (Czech Republic) WUWT blog site... a huge thank-you to them all from me, a grateful taxpayer and a defender of freedom.

I forgot the link to 'Hide the decline' - it is still gut wrenching funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

Zwick: "They broke the climate".

No worry, I'm sure there are parts for that at Wal-Mart.

A longish but excellent summary of how science was overwhelmed by political expediency.

http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/madrid-1995-was-this-the-tipping-point-in-the-corruption-of-climate-science/#more-616

http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/

Another hole in the “the-science-is-settled” mantra.

Lord Monckton described the belief system of the warmistas as a "superstition" giving rise to a faith based belief in the disproven. He falls short of calling it a religion because; "religions have some positive benefit to those who have blind faith in the supernatural"

I think Monckton nailed it - AGW carbon cultists are the true deniers who are really in some self-destructive faith based superstitious view of natural science - essentially rejecting proper scientific inquiry and adopting a disproven hypothesis on faith as a crutch to placate their Luddite misanthropy - sad really - if it wasn't so dangerous to have a segment of western culture this mesmerized by complete superstition masquerading as science.

Jema54 - Don't forget Paul Ehrich. He's very reliable - his butt is always facing the direction one should go (or bet).

Kate a heads up.

Your link on the top going to the emails unredacted has a 404 error message.

Looks like someones website got nuked maybe for being nonPC?

Jema54, that was a great summary. There are many heroes involved in the exposure of this massive fraud attempt.

"A decade is a very short time when discussing climate change. Get back to me after another 20-30 years."

Jan 2012 was colder than Jan 1942 and Jan 1944.

Jan 2011 was colder than Jan 142 and Jan 1944.

Is 70 years long enough?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

This is clearly a fraud the hockey stick is backwards.

If we aren't going to be able to notice the effect for twenty or thirty years, and the effect is logarithmic (here is some remedial high school math, if you don't understand that comment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2zm5eDswFM

but basically it means each ton of CO2 has less effect than the last.

I am not going to worry about a warming that slight.

BTW, the link isn't all that relevant to the comment, but I love her accent.

@ Shawn in AB at April 21, 2012 3:29 PM
Actually that hockey stick has been shredded so badly that only a tiny piece of the handle remains.

@peterj

you mean the knob?

Despite the rather obvious lack of warming in that graph, 52% of Canadians believe in human-caused global warming (according to Sun TV) while another 24% think there has been a warming due to natural causes. The rest of those surveyed were split between don't know and no warming.

Surveys like this will be somewhat imprecise because one person's frame of reference might be different from another's when considering the question. Has there been warming since 1960? Yes but much of it came in the 1980s before this graph period we are looking at here. Was that warming human-caused or natural variability? In my opinion, it was at least two-thirds natural if not entirely so.

Anyway, I think it is probably time for the international community to put this issue out of its misery and convene a Climate Realism summit, invite the leading climate realists, and get this over with. There is no huge warming underway from human causes. There may be evidence that we're near some natural peak of warmth in the long term. And quite honestly, that should perhaps scare us more than human warming because there would be no way to stop that from continuing, although if it flat-lines and backs off a bit, we're probably fine with just minimal sea level rises and a mixture of good and bad climate shifts.

I'm not only against AGW because it's socialist, I'm against it because it's wrong. Bad science produced by shoddy, second-rate scientists who want to see a certain outcome and won't take no for an answer no matter how many years fail to show the runaway warming they predicted.

I'm glad to see some politicians gaining a bit of courage to stand up to the Suzuki-Gore lobby. We should not expect them to be too literate in climate science although that would help. Let's leave the full explanations to climate realists who are out there ready to roll and all the politicians really need to know is this -- nobody needs carbon taxes, quotas or massive global engineering fantasies, we are safe to go ahead and concentrate on cleaning up pollution which was always the real challenge (and something that has seen progress, I think the atmosphere was notably dirtier in 1970 than it is today).

In other words, relax, vote Wild Rose and dream of a prosperous future with bad people in the lake of fire (by the way, forget about gays, that's no doubt reserved for climate scientists).

Peter, well said.

I might point out, "Curmudgeon", that AGW has been predicted since about 1977, if not a little earlier. I remember clearly because I moved to St. John's NL in 1977, and thought that it was a good place to live but some added warmth would be a very nice idea. In fact, according to prediction it seemed that thirty or so years later St. John's might be downright tropical. So without moving, I could retire to a comfortable spot.

I was a true believer in those days.

Well, "Curmudgeon", it is not one d***ned bit warmer here than it was in 1977, thirty-five years later. So there is your 30-year time span which you wanted.

I might add that in the mid-80s a colleague and I approached NSERC for funding to study the Arctic outlet glaciers for evidence of global warming.
There was no interest in AGW then and we were more or less given the bum's rush. Now, of course, it is a different story, but alas I am no longer involved with glaciers.

The effect of adding more CO2 is thermodynamically similar to the additive effect of adding more thermal insulation.
This graph illustrates it better than any math formula.
http://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/sites/default/files/images/Thermal_Heating_Insulation_Rvalue%2BThickness.jpg

"The effect of adding more CO2 ... "

... like China tripling the amount of coal burned since 1998 has resulted in cooling.

@ North_of_60 at April 22, 2012 12:44 AM
Good one. When talking CO2 I always remind the brainwashed we are actually talking about a .038% trace gas. Amazing how few know that. Also amazing how many don't know how small that number is. Maybe they should be teaching the old math rather than the new improved math.

peterj

Yeah ...math is hard....

A while back I had a fella tell me, unsolicited or incited, that the increased CO2 was making it had for him to breath.....

I recommended he pull his head outa his butt....

I have seen some rebuttals from such as Dr. Mann that the lack of an ever-increasing rate of warming is because of "known" and "temporary" causes such as ocean currents and solar [in]activity - odd that 1990-2010 we were told quite forcefully that the Sun and other natural causes could not have any effect and certainly not as large as what we were experiencing.

Also that we should not attach any significance to just over a decade of evidence of high quality, when "the Earth is going to boil" started about a decade after the the (less accurate, admittedly{ global-cooling predictions coming from, yes, scientists.

I am not a denier, I believe that at the least the Northern Hemisphere has warmed over the last two centuries. But I am sceptical of the storyline that this has never happened before and must be entirely due to human activity.

@ john A
"I believe that at the least the Northern Hemisphere has warmed over the last two centuries."

Damn but I hope you're right. Can you point out a single downside to that?