Israel did not exist on the 21st of June, 1942.

The first concerns that over hyped and misrepresented warming pause, there are three papers to this namely,

Paper 1: Observing changes in the climate system

Paper 2: Recent pause in global warming

Paper 3: Implications for projections

with links to be found here:

The recent pause in warming

The other study explains the mechanisms behind the terrific battering that the western coasts of the UK sustained during the winter of 2013-2014.

The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK.

A prominent cabinet minister at the time came adrift by being literally out of his depth at that time but that does not stop him acting in a dishonest fashion through the agency of the dreadful GWPF which will be amongst the forces in that propaganda campaign highlighted by BBD above.

Now JS do not make the mistake of thinking that the above could not possibly have any relevance to your existence, a parochial attitude is not the way forward if humanity and all the other unfortunate species we will doom if we do not reverse the trends. Read learn and mostly understand.

Someone too muppetty to know what ENSO is might struggle with the concept of a dog watch

I have worked a few. Now betwixt Johnson and Trump which is ‘the lesser of the two weevils?’

Yes I have picked up on that desmog story on the denier fuelled push-back against climate change action.

I wonder how many of those agents of lies and death will not be found listed here?

The problem is that we just don’t have the time to procrastinate much longer. The climate change denial lobby is gambling with the future of humanity. History will not judge them kindly.

Speaking of which, have you seen this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-science-deniers-boris-johnson-environment-leak-a9094631.html

Not a surprise but vile, all the same. God this Brexit thing is a disaster.

Desmog link:

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/09/06/climate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal

Excellent demolition jobs Lionel and BBD on the scientifically illiterate muppet.

How much science does he not understand? Virtually everything. He has absolutely no conception of scale when arguing trying to downplay the slight decrease in temperature since 2016. As BBD said, each El Nino cranks the temperature up around 2 or 3 tenths of a degree. When the planet enters a La Nina phase, the temperature drops marginally until the next El Nino cranks it up to record levels again. Moreover, three years is far too short a time frame to elucidate temperature trends. A minimum of several decades are required at the very least. Scientists know the difference between deterministic processes and stochastic processes. At smaller temporal or spatial scales processes are stochastic, but they become more predictable as the scales increase in size or duration. This is not only true in climate but in ecology. Brian Maurer, a theoretical ecologist, wrote elegantly about scale as a major factor in ecology in his book, “Untangling Ecological Complexity” (1999). For several decades scientists have been studying the relationship between biodiversity (e.g. species and genetic richness) and ecosystem functioning. Ecology is an exceedingly complex science because cause-and-effect relationships are non-linear. Change one small component in a system – for example by adding or eliminating a keystone species or an ecosystem engineer – and the effects may rippe through the system, changing the dynamics completely. Furthermore, scientists recognize that ‘rules’ governing ecosystem assembly and functioning generally occur over quite large scales of space and time. Consequently, whereas small-scale experiments (e.g. studying a predator-prey-foodplant interaction) can provide wonderful insight into mechanisms and explain co-evolutionary processes, it is imperative to scale up to the level of multiple communities or ecosystems if we are to understand functioning of the system.

Climate is no different. Climate change deniers like Swallow constantly conflate weather and climate. Note how Swallow is a master of picking single data points out of long-term data sets (as he does by cherry-picking temperature records in various countries). He then greatly exaggerates the significance of these cherry-picked data points. If a scientist did this with a long-term data set (containing many hundreds or thousands of data points) and then tried to use it to make a point, he/she would be roasted for it. Trends in record temperatures being set in countries around the world are totally clear. Heat records are being set more rapidly than cold records by a ratio of 4:1 and the gap between the two is increasing. The duration, frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events is increasing. And, as I said above, we have the biological and ecological evidence gathered over many decades to PROVE that it is warming.

There are four main chapters in the last IPCC document. The first asks if ut is warming and then looks at the evidence. The second asks what is causing the warming and looks at the evidence. Beyond any reasonable doubt it was concluded that the biosphere is warming rapidly and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause. Chapter three posited what we can do about and Chapter four asked what we should do about it.

By 2014 the scientific debate had acknowledged the warming and was focused on Chapter 4 and has been ever since. The public debate, however, certainly in part due to a well-organized and well-funded campaign by powerful, vested interests is still stuck largely in Chapter 1. There are many previous examples where public opinion lagged behind scientific opinion by up to several decades before finally coming around. No doubt as the evidence keeps coming in the voices of denial will fade away (as they already are). The problem is that we just don’t have the time to procrastinate much longer. The climate change denial lobby is gambling with the future of humanity. History will not judge them kindly.

Now Jeffh (who needs little further introduction to those of us who have been following this issue for more than a dog-watch

Someone too muppetty to know what ENSO is might struggle with the concept of a dog watch (it’s cur-tailed 🙂 – with apologies to Mr O’Brian).

It’s interesting too, how out-of-date JS is, with all this talk of Lindzen and Giaever etc. Has the man never heard of Nic Lewis? :-0

It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on.

The radiative properties of CO2 are very well understood (see Tyndall etc. – did you read the paper I linked for you? No? Lazy, aren’t you?).

The role of CO2 as a major climate forcing is well understood and despite exhaustive investigation, has not been falsified. In fact the scientific evidence has become more and more robust over the decades.

Denialism on the other hand, has emerged as an increasingly intellectually and socially disreputable activity with a sharply declining demographic. Most people are sane enough to see what’s going on around them and in the world at large, and accept the scientific evidence. Apart from the nutters and the rightwing fools too mired in ideology to face the facts.

Bernard J. or any of the other alarmist on here needs to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate.

It’s not ‘the main driver of Earth’s climate’ it is an effective climate forcing. To see how effective, one only has to look at past climate states and most mass extinction events, which were caused by perturbations in the carbon cycle. But you actually need to have a clue to understand this. You’d need to read a textbook or two and a few papers or at the very least some popular science treatments. And you haven’t so you remain a muppet, spouting crap on the internet.

Sad.

What the poor brainwashed individual cannot come to grips with is that the one graph shows the Observed warming over the Mauna Loa C02 measurement period (315 410 ppmv) & that shows 0.90C in 60 years (GISS) & HadCRUT [1958-1989]) 0.40C in 60 years (IJAH6 [1979-2018] +. I would never expect, what’s its name, BBD, to ever wonder at why there is a 0.05?C difference for the same period of time for these two reporting agencies, (GISS) & HadCRUT.

GISTEMP handles Arctic interpolation differently to HadCRUT. GISTEMP is considered to be the more accurate measure of GMST as a result. UAH6 is deeply problematic and RSS4 is regarded as the more reliable satellite TLT product. I know all this stuff – and a great deal more besides. The ignorance is entirely on your part and you are projecting mightily.

if you could do so while launching another of your infantile ad hominem attacks against me, then please explain why the Earth’s temperatures declined from a peak in around 2016 while the CO2 levels increased in that same period of time.

That was El Nino, you fucking muppet. A cycle riding up the trend. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

And… you don’t even understand what an ad hominem is. You are a muppet who knows nothing. Pointing this fact out is not an ad hom. It’s a statement of fact.

There are thousands of climate scientist that do not believe in your flimsy hypothesis about CO2 driving the earth’s climate.

No there aren’t. Pants on fire.

Lovelock doesn’t know what he’s talking about, now or in 2012. He’s not a climate scientist, just an increasingly confused old man. You want climate science, talk to climate scientists or read climate science textbooks. Not random shite on the internet.

I tend to listen to Dr. Christy, Dr Spencer,
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and Dr. Lindzen before paying much attention to your badly tarnished heroes…

That is bleeding obvious JS, obvious from the badly broken ideas you have about climate studies, state of the consensus and the poor reputation of those you have above cited.

Now Jeffh (who needs little further introduction to those of us who have been following this issue for more than a dog-watch for we know who he is, what he does and what he achieves – he has more knowledge of this field in his little toe-nail than yOu have in your whole sorry edifice) has put your ‘heroes’ in their boxes but if further amplification is needed, which appears to be the case, then simply consult each of your contrarian scientist mini-bio’s in this Research Database

However I will land one more punch against Christy (the pair of Christy & Spencer confused and mislead the public and policy makers from flawed temperature data for decades).

Christy set himself up for a fall at a subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing entitled “Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments” in 2006, the Barton- Wegman/ McIntyre farrago.

Read down from this line (highlighted) “In his testimony at the hearing, Christy lectured the audience about scientific openness, presenting himself as a paragon of virtue when it came to sharing source…” at

Christy’s self immolation

Wegman and Barton provided a fascinating window onto the realms of the obfuscaters and denialists for hire which exposed their shenanigans to layman’s view, although some laymen remained ideologically blind, as clearly they still do.