Friday 6 March 2009
US GW PROTEST AFFECTED BY SNOW STORM
It is a little ironic that a major protest against CO2 emissions from power stations is being affected by unseasonally cold weather according to this report. The report goes on to list a number of other similar events where the cold weather has been in attendance. Of course we know that weather can change, but after a decade without warming the irony still seems to be lost on the alarmists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if the irony is lost on the people who recently died in heat waves and bush fires in Australia as well.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, weather can change and we should not attribute single events, hot or cold, to point to a trend. The point though is that despite no global warming for a decade some alarmists still express no doubt at all that the planet is warming. That is denial.
ReplyDeleteSo you have "no doubt" that there has been no global warming or change in climate? What's that about denial?
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before, climate is always changing. The measurements are clear - there has been no net warming of the planet for a decade. Even the alarmists are not denying it. They have now turned to making feeble excuses for the failure of their computer models, whose predictions have been found to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteAye, the climate changes, and not just by way of temperature. Energy can be transferred into different forms. You've made a straw man argument as climate scientists don't claim that temperatures will rise consistently. You seem willing to simplify the complex behaviour of the atmosphere to any degree required to discredit climate scientists. Your conclusions are not based on science, but emotion.
ReplyDeleteExplain to me why a decade is sufficient period of time to make a conclusion.
Well, if a decade is not long enough, then why is the recent warming from 1976 to 1998? The truth is that climate can change over hundreds, or even thousands of years.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of the current theory is that they claim that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases we should expect global warming to increase. Now that it hasn't happened for a decade they are trying to change the story.
If they are now saying that the warming is so weak that it is "masked" by natural changes then clearly it is not "catastrophic" - more of an old moggy than a big cat eh?
That's clearly what you're hoping, but you really don't know. Time will tell. Since we don't have a control in this giant experiment we ought not to take a gamble, especially when alternative arrangements present so many other benefits.
ReplyDeleteHe who dares wins! We are gamblers by nature. Besides, the evidence is so weak it is hardly a gamble at all. It is the alarmists who are gambling - gambling that politicians will give in to their propaganda served up as science.
ReplyDeleteYou have clearly made up your mind, your blog contains no original scientific analysis, and the "science" you disseminate is rarely peer reviewed and of low quality. Who are you to decide what is propaganda and what is science?
ReplyDeleteWhat value does calling a scientist an 'alarmist' add to the debate? That seems to be propaganda to me.