I know it is in the " Mail on Sunsay", but it is an interesting article, even if somewhat contraversial


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Steve J

On Sunday, 15 September 2013 11:45:28 UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote:
I know it is in the " Mail on Sunsay", but it is an interesting article, even if somewhat contraversial





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html



Steve J

Anthony Watts covers this very well over at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/1...nce-fluxed-up/


So half the warming now that is 50% wrong. . As for the credibility of the IPCC as the worlds most trusted source of climate information please see this interview Donna Lafromboise who actually took time to look into the IPCC and found all wasn't what we'd told it was.

This has nowt to do with denial but basic integrity and truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5weFQYBL5w

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 03:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Steve Jackson wrote:

I know it is in the " Mail on Sunsay", but it is an interesting
article, even if somewhat contraversial


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html


Here's a view from the Met Office:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...ail-on-sunday/

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
'In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is
bacteria.' - Benjamin Franklin

On Sunday, 15 September 2013 13:15:31 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 03:45:28 -0700 (PDT)

Steve Jackson wrote:



I know it is in the " Mail on Sunsay", but it is an interesting

article, even if somewhat contraversial







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html





Here's a view from the Met Office:



http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...n-the-mail-on-


Erm....... this is the same Met Office that so commandeered by AGW doctrine in the last twenty years used to give an annual summer and winter forecast issued with AGW in mind that failed so miserably that they stopped doing it.

I'd wager there are more political officers there than meteorologists

From July 2007


16/07/2011











"Why do you do it? Please tell me why, I know there's a good few Met
Office employees here using this NG, so please tell me what goes on at
UKMO and do you agree with it?
What am I going on about? Okay here it is: as I sit here rained off
on a Sydenham Saturday I graze on the climate web looking for tasty
and sometimes damn right sour and sickening tit bits of Climate news
and as I try to keep abreast of things I see this on UKMO website you
know the one called 'Met Office and Climate Change'. So I have a
gander at their climate change pages and click on 'Climate Change Hot
Topic' link http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/topics/
and there I/you will find a litany of tripe supplied primarily by the
Guardian and the BBC.
One particular piece of tripe however really stuck in my craw "Stand
by the Standpipes, the drought is back" It links to an article by the
Guardian environmentalist journalist Fiona Harvey.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rought-warning

Funnily enough I couldn't see one reference to Global Warming in
Fiona's article yet the Met Office are so keen to be seen thumping the
AGW tub that they immediately stick it in their AGW Hot Topics page,
this sort of tax payers funder propaganda is nauseating to say the
least but what really gets me is that the article is still linked
there on the UKMO AGW page and would read to a new visitor with no
knowledge of UK weather that we were going through some awful terrible
drought due to climate change. But the final straw that caused me to
retch was the fact we've had more than enough rain since that article
was written in June; even UKMO's summary for the month of June
contradicts and makes the article look inaccurate at beast and
downright misinformation and lies at worst . There should be a proviso
on that ridiculous hot topics page stating that 'rumours of an AGW
death threatening drought were greatly exaggerated and hysterically
premature.
So eager are the UKMO hierarchy to promote AGW they are now resorting
to being downright dishonest and deceitful.
Will anyone defend this embarrassing nonsense?
Here from the horses duplicitous mouth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/

" June 2011
The month began on a fine, warm note, but the weather gradually became
more unsettled, with showers and some longer spells of rain. These
eased the very dry conditions across parts of eastern England. A short-
lived warm spell in the last week gave the highest temperatures of the
year so far. Temperatures overall were close to the 1971-2000 average,
although somewhat above in East Anglia and other eastern counties of
England and somewhat below in Northern Ireland and western Scotland.
It was the coolest June across the UK since 2001. The monthly rainfall
pattern reflects the showery nature of the month. Parts of southern
England, south Wales, Northern Ireland and southern and eastern
Scotland were wetter than normal. In contrast, some parts of the north
Midlands had a relatively dry month. Sunshine totals overall were
close to normal, varying from a little below in Northern Ireland and
most of Scotland to above normal from west Wales across to eastern
England."
..

Let's face it, the AGW scam is well and truly over, bar the shouting. Many of us never believed it in the first place, but no doubt adherents will still be hanging on whilst the SS AGW sinks beneath the waves, deservedly so, and not before time.

How anyone ever fell for the scam in the first place, heaven only knows.

Hopefully a little more time, effort, and money will be spent in enabling us all to offer ourselves at least SOME protection from the coming cooling - we'll need to catch up, because it's all a bit late, thanks to those who dwell in the Age of Stupid.

On Sunday, 15 September 2013 15:16:28 UTC+1, Natsman wrote:
Let's face it, the AGW scam is well and truly over, bar the shouting. Many of us never believed it in the first place, but no doubt adherents will still be hanging on whilst the SS AGW sinks beneath the waves, deservedly so, and not before time.



How anyone ever fell for the scam in the first place, heaven only knows.



Hopefully a little more time, effort, and money will be spent in enabling us all to offer ourselves at least SOME protection from the coming cooling - we'll need to catch up, because it's all a bit late, thanks to those who dwell in the Age of Stupid.

Well its obvious that I'. an intellectual lightweight but I do remember in my final peripheral days with the workers revolutionary party just following the miners strike defeat and then the 'News International ' dispute in which I was involved that yes , the next big thing was the environment and AGW and that was in the late eighties. I felt the playground of the left was that massive shaggy dog the TUC which was the host for all sorts of parasites that had to find another host as the TUC was slowly being put down. I remember clearly at the time saying to my deluded comrades (mostly luvvies) that the environmental movement was a great way to get across the destructiveness of capitalism.

I doubt my words had any influence but I think I picked up precisely on where these fleas had to go to find a new host, whereas it had been years of getting meaningless resolutions through your union branch to hopefully become policy at national and then TUC level and countless hours spent at local authority trades council meetings. As the left found the TU movement dying it then did this, it moved into the world of AGW, minority group of race, sexuality, supporting the IRA and the Palestinian cause.

Now this isn't weather but you posed the question


"How anyone ever fell for the scam in the first place, heaven only knows."

Well I reluctantly started to take on the religion of AGW back then as did the whole left movement. The same left movement who would scream about the credibility of scientist behind GM, Oil, Pharmaceuticals in fact all science that appeared to work with capitalism but then without any hesitation trusted those mythical scientist of the IPCC and elsewhere that proclaimed that capitalism and the use of fossil fuel was destroying our planet via C02.

Yes I was in that crowd and what better way to utilise left wing values and hatred of capitalism than with the 'environment'. That is where I've always come from how bandwagons and pseudo 'anti god so its okay 'to have this religion' has come from.


So yes people who have good intentions of making the world a better place and this current world under western capitalism was hell, took to AGW like a duck to water. Trouble is the left assumes that 'other' political persuasion *don't want* a clean environment in which to live.

It was the internet that turned me into a sceptic when first getting access back in 1996 I looked for all I could on AGW and found sites like 'Still Waiting for the Greenhouse' John Daly', and 'world climate report' Pat Michaels . It was when I saw the bile thrown at people like this it brought out the rebel in me.

Anyway I'm talking gibberish again but yes we did buy it.

Will be interesting to see what IPCC actually say but this recent report
was interesting

New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12
extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012 - not UK wet 2012
summer though!

Summary dated Sept 5 2013:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ateevents.html

Full report: http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf

The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.

On Monday, 16 September 2013 17:16:48 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.

You are the bizarre one saying "the hack had lied". Judith Curry felt David Rose was totally accurate in the article so are you now saying a bona fide top respected climate scientist is lying as well?

Judith Curry says
"David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately)."

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/le...ed-in-the-msm/

In her blog piece at no time does she criticise the Rose article and in fact says the leaks are a good thing.

So yet once again the Dawlish Dabbler gets it wrong. You always chose what you feel is the 'winning ' side, for you its all or nothing. Pretty soon you are going to have to change your tune.

On 16/09/2013 19:03, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Monday, 16 September 2013 17:16:48 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
The hack clearly lied, but people who read the Daily Mail will believe him and say crazy things like 'the global warming scam is over'. It's bizarre.

You are the bizarre one saying "the hack had lied". Judith Curry felt David Rose was totally accurate in the article so are you now saying a bona fide top respected climate scientist is lying as well?

Judith Curry says
"David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately)."

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/le...ed-in-the-msm/

In her blog piece at no time does she criticise the Rose article and in fact says the leaks are a good thing.

So yet once again the Dawlish Dabbler gets it wrong. You always chose what you feel is the 'winning ' side, for you its all or nothing. Pretty soon you are going to have to change your tune.


My view remains that : even if the world *is* warming, that still
doesn't prove that man is responsible - it's warmed before without our
'help'...

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham